Elmer Towns on Ergun Caner

According to the News & Advance:

“The punishment was commensurate with the problem, so we’re ready to move on,” Towns said about Caner. “I really don’t want to talk about him. I want to look toward the future.”

(source)
Those who were previously touting the way Liberty handled the Caner situation as "exonerating" Caner - are they going to stick with that?

-TurretinFan

Was Mary Sinless?

My friend Fisher has provided a thoughtful explanation of the reasons why we answer the question, "Was Mary Sinless?" in the negative. (link to post)

Mitochondrial Eve

One of the problems for Evolutionism is the discovery of mitochondrial DNA. This DNA is passed down maternally. In an article published recently, "scientists" indicated that using various assumptions they have calculated mitochondrial Eve (the female ancestor of all living humans) as having lived about 200,000 years ago (link to article). That number is probably one or two orders of magnitude to high, but the result is problematic for evolutionary science that wants to push back common descent significantly beyond 200,000 years.

As a result, we see resort to the following example of speculation:

"There is always some other female that predated mitochondrial Eve, whose DNA didn't make it up to modernity," said Marek Kimmel, a professor of statistics at Rice University. "So the age of the mitochondrial Eve is always less than the age of the true, first female modern human."

How on earth could Professor Kimmel have access to that information? The only reason for making that kind of claim is the idea that naturalism does not accept the idea of a woman formed from the first man's rib.

-TurretinFan

Ursinus Catechisms on the Second Commandment

I've already provided some much more detailed commentary from Zacharias Ursinus on the second commandment (link to commentary). The following selections are taken from Ursinus' Large and Small Catechisms, respectively. A harmony of Ursinus' catechisms and the Heidelberg Catechism can be found here (link). It's worth noting that Ursinus was an author of the Heidelberg catechism (which we examined at this link) as well.

Ursinus' Large Catechism

163 Q What is the second commandment?

A “You shall not make for yourself a graven 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 or serve them; for I, the Lord your God, am strong and jealous visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children to the third and the fourth generation of those who hate me, but showing steadfast love to thousands of those who love me and keep my commandments.”

164 Q What is the meaning of this commandment?

A That we not try to worship God in any other way than he has commanded in his Word.

165 Q But are all sculptured or painted images forbidden by this law?

A No, only those which are made to portray or worship God.

166 Q Why doesn’t God want to be portrayed by a visible form?

A Since he is eternal and incomprehensible Spirit, every representation of him in a corruptible, lifeless, bodily form, is a lie against God and diminishes his majesty.

167 Q What does it mean to worship God through images?

A It means to turn, whether in soul or body, to images when worshiping God, as if God would listen to us better if he were worshiped through them; or to show honor to them by thought, gesture, mention of the divine name, or any external sign whatsoever as if they represented God; or to desire in any way to worship God by using them.

168 Q Why is it improper to worship God with images?

A Because it is not for any creature but for the divine authority alone to institute the form of divine worship and the signs of the divine presence. To represent God differently than he is, is a serious insult to him.

169 Q Why does God forbid not only worshiping but even making such images?

A So that we don’t appear to approve of idolaters by having these images which can be a form of, or the occasion for idolatry. And so that we don’t put God to the test by giving occasion for anyone else to sin.

170 Q Then this commandment isn’t just talking about images?

A No, not only about images but also all humanly devised worship of God.

171 Q Why does God add a threat and a promise to this commandment?

A So that he may all the more effectively frighten us away from idolatry, one of the worst of sins.

172 Q Why does he call himself “strong”?

A So that we fear his power for vengeance.

173 Q Why “jealous”?

A Because he never allows his honor to be given to another without punishment on account of the greatness of this sin.

174 Q Why does he threaten punishments even for the descendants of sinners?

A First, so that he may show the greatness of this sin which would bring down punishment, not only on those who commit it, but also on their descendants if God desired to act according to his strict justice. Second, so that people at least out of concern for their descendants, will keep themselves from sin.

175 Q But does the justice of God permit the descendants to be punished for the sins of their parents?

A Yes. For we have such a corrupt nature that we would all continue in the sins of our parents if God did not look on us with his matchless mercy.

176 Q Why does he promise to bless the descendants of the upright?

A First, so that he might express the greatness of his mercy to the upright by which he not only deals kindly with them but also with their descendants, and also so that he might move us more to thankfulness and zeal for his honor. Second, so that he might draw us to godliness through the happiness promised to our descendants.

177 Q Then do all the descendants of the upright receive mercy from God?

A By this promise God did not bind his grace to the physical descendants, but he did distribute both spiritual and physical blessing to the descendants of the upright as he saw fit to do from eternity in order to show forth his glory.

178 Q Why does he say that he will show kindness to thousands of generations and will punish four?

A To show that he rejoices not in the damnation but in the salvation of men, and that he punishes only as a demonstration of his justice.

Ursinus' Small Catechism

84 Q What does the second commandment require?

A That we earnestly desire to worship God, not by our own will, but only by the command of the divine Word – in spirit and in truth, so that we do not, by false and idolatrous worship, bring terrible punishments upon ourselves and our descendants.

85 Q Then does God forbid the making or keeping of all images?

A No, only those which are made to represent or worship God or which give an occasion for or the appearance of idolatry.

86 Q But shouldn’t images be permitted in Christian churches as teaching aids for the unlearned?

A No, God certainly does not want his church to be taught by images and statues but by his Word. Therefore, those who dare to add statues to this aspect of divine worship, sin against this commandment and do not escape the guilt of idolatry.

-TurretinFan

Guest Post: The Civil Law Keeps Kloosterman Safe at Night

The following is a guest post from an anonymous Reformed author. I've made some minor edits, so the author can receive all the credit for anything good you find in the article, while I ought to take the blame for the bad (at least in terms of style, formatting, and the like).

Then the LORD saw that the wickedness of man was great on the earth, and that every intent of the thoughts of his heart was only evil continually.
Genesis 6:5

In responding to Professor Kloosterman’s review of VanDrunen’s monograph, “A Biblical Case for Natural Law”, Dr. VanDrunen presents the following colorful scenario, intended to buttress his case for natural law at work in unbelieving mankind:

Presumably when Kloosterman pulls out of his driveway on the way to work every day, his non-Christian neighbors do not lean out their windows and try to shoot him and then, after he has made his narrow escape, rush to his home to assault his family and loot his goods. Most non-Christians, most of the time, pursue law-abiding lives.

There is something in addition to natural law significantly at work in this example. Moreover, even with this other “something” at work, the conclusion that “most non-Christians, most of the time, pursue law-abiding lives” is unwarranted in view of Scripture (as Kloosterman has shown), and the empirical evidence of common experience.

That which restrains lawlessness and (sometimes) prevents the neighbor-with-shotgun scenario in society is civil law. This restraint operates in two channels: teaching and deterrence. All law is didactic. Laws on the law books declare right and wrong, good and evil. When abortion is prohibited, this teaches citizens that abortion is wrong; when abortion is permitted, this teaches that abortion is right. As Kloosterman says, there is a “a certain regard for righteousness, justice, and love" at work among unbelievers.

A second element that restrains lawlessness is the law’s deterrent effect. Calvin noted that the civil use of the law of God is useful to restrain evil in society:

The second function of the law is this: at least by fear of punishment to restrain certain men who are untouched by any care for what is just and right unless compelled by hearing the dire threats in the law. But they are restrained, not because their inner mind is stirred or affected, but because, being bridled, so to speak, they keep their hands from outward activity, and hold inside the depravity that otherwise they would wantonly have indulged.

(Institutes 2.7.10)

One of the main reasons that Western societies have not devolved into chaotic, anarchistic societies like that at the time of Noah, is their foundation on biblical law. For all we know, our neighbors by nature may be inclined to injure us and our families and rob our homes, but may be restrained by

1. the witness (didactic teaching) of the civil law of the land that prohibits these things; and
2. the bridle laid upon them—the dread of punishment for these unjust, evil acts.

Law is not only didactic; it is also deterrent. To the extent that unbelievers appear to abide by the law of God, do they do so 1) because of natural law; or 2) because of the blessing of biblical law enshrined in civil statutes and the deterrent effect of known punishment? The latter (2) is the more likely explanation.

While these two elements form the other “something” at work that prevents chaos and has preserved our society, nevertheless do most non-Christians, most of the time, pursue law-abiding lives? This is far from established. In fact we are surrounded by a cloud of witnesses to lawlessness, not obedience. Consider the following examples:

1. The need for deterrence and security: Because of theft and violence, security cameras are ubiquitous in our cities. Armored vehicles protect those who move cash around; armed guards protect jewelry stores in suburban malls. Retail stores and businesses of every kind invest thousands of dollars in anti-theft devices. Even library books carry security tags. Plagiarism thrives among students prompting the sale and use of anti-plagiarism computer programs. If the majority of folk are law-abiding citizens, wouldn’t these measures be vastly redundant and indeed a waste of resources?
   
   
2. The fact of abounding lawlessness: The internet is a danger zone for young and old, as unsuspecting people are ensnared into dangerous and sinful behavior, or become victims of deception and seduction. Unjust divorce, same-sex marriage, and unmarried sexual behavior are no longer rarities, but in fact are common. Headlines scream about heinous, unthinkable murders. Less publicized are suicides. And rarely acknowledged by our polite society are the 43 million abortions which have taken place since 1973 when the US enacted abortion legislation more permissive than that of the Soviet Union.
   
   
3. And what of evil on a global scale? Time would fail me to tell of dictators like Idi Amin, Pol Pot, Castro, Stalin, Mao and Hitler--who through lawlessness slaughtered Christians, enslaved their citizens, brainwashed their people, and starved millions mercilessly to empower themselves. Other, more “civilized” societies engaged in unjust warfare, killing civilians and bombing nonmilitary targets. These all live by lawlessness, natural law failing to restrain their evil tendencies.

Hannah Arendt has rightly pointed out the banality of evil: the absence of reflection and judgment about one’s actions can ultimately lead to horrendous crime. Much evil can be done by the non-thinking, uncritical functionary or the neighbor next door. One’s conscience can be seared, and just as dangerously, can be ignored. Man’s knowledge of right and wrong as well as his will to do right have been profoundly affected by the Fall.

Rome and Freedom of Religion

Rome's practices with respect to the freedom of religion have obviously changed. We don't hear stories about any modern-day inquisitors. However, it should be noted that Rome's view on coercion of apostates is actually set in a dogmatic definition.

Specifically, Canon 14 on Baptism from Trent's Seventh Session reads as follows:

CANON XIV.-If any one saith, that those who have been thus baptized when children, are, when they have grown up, to be asked whether they will ratify what their sponsors promised in their names when they were baptized; and that, in case they answer that they will not, they are to be left to their own will; and are not to be compelled [cogendos] meanwhile to a Christian life by any other penalty, save that they be excluded from the participation of the Eucharist, and of the other sacraments, until they repent; let him be anathema.

Notice that Trent is saying that the people who reject Christianity upon coming of age, but who were baptized as infants, are to be compelled beyond excommunication. I'm not aware of Roman Catholicism actually practicing this in modern times, but can any Roman Catholic reconcile a view of religious liberty and self-determination with Canon 14 above?

Compare this:

The freedom of the act of faith cannot justify a right to dissent. In fact this freedom does not indicate at all freedom with regard to the truth but signifies the free self-determination of the person in conformity with his moral obligation to accept the truth. The act of faith is a voluntary act because man, saved by Christ the Redeemer and called by Him to be an adopted son (cf. Rom 8:15; Gal 4:5; Eph 1:5; Jn 1:12), cannot adhere to God unless, "drawn by the Father" (Jn 6:44), he offer God the rational homage of his faith (cf. Rom 12:1). As the Declaration Dignitatis humanae recalls, no human authority may overstep the limits of its competence and claim the right to interfere with this choice by exerting pressure or constraint. Respect for religious liberty is the foundation of respect for all the rights of man.

One cannot then appeal to these rights of man in order to oppose the interventions of the Magisterium. Such behavior fails to recognize the nature and mission of the Church which has received from the Lord the task to proclaim the truth of salvation to all men. She fulfills this task by walking in Christ's footsteps, knowing that "truth can impose itself on the mind only by virtue of its own truth, which wins over the mind with both gentleness and power".

- Cardinal Ratzinger, then Prefect for the Congregation of the Doctrine of the Faith (formerly known as the Inquisition), Instruction on the Ecclesial Vocation of the Theologian, Section 36 (footnotes omitted)(24 May 1990)

How is the alleged freedom of self-determination consistent with compulsion beyond excommunication? That's the question for my Roman Catholic readers.

-TurretinFan

J.J. Lim on the Second Commandment

J.J. Lim, pastor of Pilgrim Covenant Church in Singapore, has a brief commentary on the Heidelberg Catechism (Section 35). Also, he provides some more detailed commentary on the individual questions of the Westminster Larger Catechism:

WLC 107

We noted in our commentary on WLC 103, that the 1^st commandment has to do with the proper object of worship; whereas the 2^nd has to do with the proper manner of worship. Therefore, it is an error to speak of idolatry proper (i.e. all worship involving idols and images) as being condemned only in the 2^nd commandment rather than the first. But this is a subtle error of modern evangelicalism and fundamentalism. The error of Rome is to combine the 1^st and 2^nd commandments into one so that there appears to be no explicit commandment on how God ought to be worship. So it is said that whatever is not forbidden is allowed in the worship of God. So images are allowed in the worship (or they say, ‘service’) of God because Exodus 20:4-6 is (according to them) part of the 1^st commandment and forbids the use of images to worship other gods only.

Modern evangelicalism and fundamentalism agrees that Exodus 20:4-6 is the 2^nd Commandment. But because it regards this commandment as forbidding idolatry proper only, it tends to fail to see that this commandment is not just about the use of images, but is, in fact, about how the Living and True God ought to be worship. That is to say: Though the 2^nd Commandment refers to the use of images, it refers to it only by way of a concrete example of how the worship of God is commonly violated. It is commonly, (indeed almost universally) assumed that God may be better worship if there is a visual representation of Him. God is saying that is wrong. He is saying that by the 2^nd Commandment that we may not worship Him according to the manner, which we imagine to be helpful or right. We must worship Him only according to His own appointment. Whatever mode of worship which is not sanctioned in His Word is idolatrous (in the wider sense of the word) and sinful.

(more at the link above)

WLC 108

The 2^nd Commandment has to do with the proper manner of worship. It is not only about the use of images, for all worship that is not in accordance to biblical prescription is idolatrous worship whether or not images are used. The duties required in the 2^nd Commandment, therefore, pertain to the practice and defence of biblical worship.

What is biblical worship as opposed to idolatrous worship? We may roughly define biblical worship as a formal activity of fellowship between God and His children in which,—other than attending circumstances (such as pertaining to physical arrangement, location and time),—all distinguishable elements (such as prayer, preaching, singing of psalms, and the administration of sacrament), are warranted by the Scriptures. Conversely, a worship event in which there are distinguishable elements which find no warrant in the Scripture (such as flag waving, clap-offering, candle light procession, puppet show, guitar rendition, piano introduction, etc) must be regarded as unbiblical and idolatrous worship.

(more at the link above)

WLC 109

The 2^nd Commandment, as we saw earlier, is not only about making of idols and images. Rather, it is about the acceptable manner of worship of the living and true God. Thus it does not only forbid crafting of idols of wood and stone, and bowing down to them in worship. It forbids the abuse of true worship and abominates all forms and elements of religious worship "not instituted by God Himself" in His Word.

Our answer summarises the deeds forbidden under nine categories.

First, it forbids "all devising, counseling, commanding, using, and any wise approving, any religious worship not instituted by God Himself." That is, it forbids any positive attitude and relationship towards worship not appointed by God Himself. When a minister, for example, introduces an unbiblical song into a worship service, he breaks the 2^nd Commandment by leading the congregation to use what God has not sanctioned for use in His worship, and the congregation break the same commandment by using the song.

Secondly, the 2^nd Commandment forbids "tolerating a false religion." Take careful note this does not mean at all that Christians should persecute those who hold or practice false religion. Neither does it mean that we should follow what Jenny Geddes did on 23 July 1637 when she flung her prayer stool at the preacher in St Giles’ Cathedral, Edinburgh, who was trying to read from an idolatrous prayer book introduced by Archbishop Laud. But it does mean that we should not sit idly and do nothing when false religion is being introduced into the church whether by the leaders or by members (cf. Deut 13:6-11).

Thirdly, the 2^nd Commandment explicitly forbids "the making any representation of God, of all or of any of the three persons, either inwardly in our mind, or outwardly in any kind of image or likeness of any creature whatsoever" (cf. Ex 20:4). This means that Michelangelo broke the 2^nd Commandment when he painted "The creation of Adam," in 1511. Believer ought not to use that picture, however famous it may be.…

And not only so, but the use of pictures of Christ is also forbidden in the 2^nd Commandment, and so is any attempt to imagine how He looks like or to picture him in the mind.

Some may argue that the artistic or educational use of pictures of God is not forbidden in the 2^nd Commandment since they are not used for worship, but the fact remains that they are religious pictures and they tend to promote mental idolatry even if they are not intended originally for worship. Therefore all pictorial representations of God are rightly forbidden under the 2^nd Commandment.

But what about pictures of man and animals? What about photographs? Exodus 20:4 seem to forbid their use when it says: "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" (Ex 20:4). A proper understanding of the commandment however shows that this is not the case. Our catechism, as such, rightly points out that what is forbidden is not their use per se, but their use to represent God.

(more at the link above)

WLC 110

God spoke the Ten Commandments in the hearing of His people. There is an apparent order in the giving of the commandments, which becomes clear especially when we come to the second table, for we naturally understand that murder is worse than adultery, which is worse than stealing, which is worse than coveting. But it is also apparent that there is a different degree of emphasis in the giving of each of the commandments. In particular, it is quite obvious that God took much greater pains to explain and emphasise the 2^nd and the 4^th Commandments. It may not be immediately clear why God does not emphasise the 1^st Commandment more than these two commandments, but once we realise that the 1^st Commandment distinguishes God’s people from the rest of the world, and how God’s people is easily tempted to break the 2^nd and 4^th Commandments, we can easily deduce why God in His wisdom had chosen to emphasise and clarify them in such a way. For, is it not true that even today, the two commandments that is most neglected, if not opposed in visible Christendom are these two commandments? After all, how many churches today would still worship according to the biblical principle of worship that whatever is not sanctioned is forbidden; and how many churches today believe that Christians must still diligently keep Sabbath?

With this in mind, let us consider the annex to the 2^nd Commandment which not only give it emphasis, but serves ‘the more to enforce it.’

(more at the link above)

Also, there are more comments on other WLC questions at this link.

- TurretinFan

R. Scott Clark on the Second Commandment

R. Scott Clark has extensive notes on the Heidelberg catechism, including notes on the questions related to the second commandment (link to notes).

The following is just a portion of his notes on the second commandment, since I'm reluctant to do a bulk quotation from his outline:

2. Worshiping the Right God Rightly

1. God's Attributes

1. Communicable

2. Incommunicable

2. Representations v. Reality

1. Gregory I: "Books for the people"

2. Second Helvetic Confession (1561/66) Art. 4.3. The Scriptures of the Laity. Furthermore, wherever we turn our eyes, we see the living and true creatures of God which, if they be observed, as is proper, make a much more vivid impression on the beholders than all the images or vain, motionless, feeble and dead pictures made by men, of which the prophet truly said: "They have eyes, but do not see" (Ps. 115:5). Lactantius. Therefore we approved the judgment of Lactantius, an ancient writer, who says: "Undoubtedly no religion exists where there is an image."

3. Sec. Helv. 4.4 We also assert that the blessed bishop Epiphanius did right when, finding on the doors of a church a veil on which was painted a picture supposedly of Christ or some saint, he ripped it down and took it away, because to see a picture of a man hanging in the Church of Christ was contrary to the authority of Scripture....

4. The purposes of pictures

1. Worship/Inspiration (cult)

2. Instruction (culture)

5. Iconodules v. Iconoclasts (8th-9th centuries)

1. Icon worshipers (Nestorians)

2. Icons and the person of Christ

6. The Reformed Rejection of Images

1. The Creator/creature distinction

1. Creatures may be imaged, but not worshiped

2. The Creator may never be imaged.

3. Second Helvetic Confession (1561/66) Art. 4.2 Although Christ assumed human nature, yet he did not on that account assume it in order to provide a model for carvers and painters. He denied that he had come "to abolish the law and the prophets" (Matt. 5:17). But images are forbidden by the law and the prophets (Deut. 4:15; Isa. 44:9). He denied that his bodily presence would be profitable for the Church, and promised that he would be near us by his Spirit forever (John 16:7). Who, therefore, would believe that a shadow or likeness of his body would contribute any benefit to the pious? (2 Cor. 5:5). Since he abides in us by his Spirit, we are therefore the temple of God (2 Cor. 3:16). But "what agreement has the temple of God with idols?" (2 Cor. 6:16). Images of Saints. And since the blessed spirits and saints in heaven, while they lived here on earth, rejected all worship of themselves (Acts 3:12f.; 14:11ff.; Rev. 14:7; 22:9) and condemned images, shall anyone find it likely that the heavenly saints and angels are pleased with their own images before which men kneel, uncover their heads, and bestow other honors? But in fact in order to instruct men in religion and to remind them of divine things and of their salvation, the Lord commanded the preaching of the Gospel (Mark 16:15)--not to paint and to teach the laity by means of pictures. Moreover, he instituted sacraments, but nowhere did he set up images.

2. Pictures and the Doctrine of Christ

1. Two Natures

2. One Person

3. The incarnation

1. A cause for worship

2. Not a license for icons

3. Denial of pictures is no more denial of humanity

7. Word Signs v. Picture Signs

1. Picture signs necessarily distort in ways word signs do not

2. No picture of the 2nd person is ever accurate

3. Every image of the second person is necessarily the product of the human imagination

4. Jesus and the Apostles left us the Word not pictures

5. Pictures (and films) are theology of glory, word is theology of the cross (1 Cor 1-3; Romans 10; 1 Peter 1.8)

3. The Word at Sinai

1. The same Word who spoke at Sinai became incarnate

2. The Son prohibits images

3. The Word Incarnate

4. Word and Sacraments: God's Pictures for Us

-TurretinFan

Assumption or Guess?

In the following clip, we see a Roman Catholic priest interviewing some of his fellow New Yorkers, or so it appears, about the topic the Assumption of Mary. To some extent, it's a papist version of Jay Leno's "Jay Walking," in that the recurring theme is "You don't know Jack" - a play on words between the crude expression and the priest's given name, but the subject matter is Roman Catholic views - in this case the assumption.

The video doesn't really go into much depth about the Assumption, and it still manages to mess a few things up.

1) It poses the question: "Do you know what year the feast of the Assumption of the Blessed Virgin Mary was declared official Catholic teaching?"

What he's going for obviously is the 1950 definition of the dogma of the Assumption. What was defined was specifically a dogma, not the feast as such.

The feast of the assumption has been around a much longer time, in various places - and at various times, not just August 15. The feast came in during the early part of the middle ages, although celebrated in various ways. For example, the "Catholic Encyclopedia documents the following, under the entry for the feast of the assumption:

Some of the Bavarian dioceses and those of Brandenburg, Mainz, Frankfort, etc., on 23 Sept. kept the feast of the "Second Assumption", or the "Fortieth Day of the Assumption" (double) believing, according to the revelations of St. Elizabeth of Schönau (d. 1165) and of St. Bertrand, O.C. (d. 1170), that the B.V. Mary was taken up to heaven on the fortieth day after her death (Grotefend, Calendaria 2, 136). The Brigittines kept the feast of the "Glorification of Mary" (double) 30 Aug., since St. Brigitta of Sweden says (Revel., VI, l) that Mary was taken into heaven fifteen days after her departure (Colvenerius, Cal. Mar., 30 Aug.). In Central America a special feast of the Coronation of Mary in heaven (double major) is celebrated 18 August. The city of Gerace in Calabria keeps three successive days with the rite of a double first class, commemorating: 15th of August, the death of Mary; 16th of August, her Coronation.

2) Additionally, the clip asserts that there have been only two exercises of papal infallibility - this definition, and the definition of the Immaculate Conception. He goes so far as to say, "In the two thousand year history of the Catholic Church, infallibility has only been exercised twice."

I think that practically all Roman Catholic scholars would agree that those two are times when the pope attempted to speak infallibly, but there is a very open question about whether there have been other examples throughout history where a pope has used this alleged gift of infallibility.

The council, Vatican I, that defined the dogma of papal infallibility did not seem to suggest that it was granting the pope a new power that he had never had before. Consequently, one would assume that the pope would have exercised it at some point in the preceding centuries.

The moral of the story is this - a lot of Roman Catholics don't know a lot about their religion. Even the priest running the program claims he had to look up when the Assumption was defined. If you are going to evangelize Roman Catholics, you need to know their religion better than they do, rather than relying on them to explain to you what their religion teaches.

By the same token, the priest's final question and its answers should be taken to heart. His question is "what does the assumption mean for you?" This subjective approach is something that none of the folks he asks have any problem answering. They may not know when the feast is celebrated, or what pope defined the dogma (Pius XII), but they can apply it subjectively to themselves. And these subjective responses can actually help to reveal the flaws in the religion.

For example, in this case, what it means to several of the people is - in essence - hope in the resurrection. But the Holy Scriptures teach us that our hope in the resurrection is not grounded in the assumption of Mary, but in the resurrection of Jesus Christ:

Acts 17:31 Because he hath appointed a day, in the which he will judge the world in righteousness by that man whom he hath ordained; whereof he hath given assurance unto all men, in that he hath raised him from the dead.

Another response was that it gives assurance that Mary is in heaven working and praying "for me and everyone." But again, this is Mary usurping the role Biblically given to Jesus:

Hebrews 7:23-25
And they truly were many priests, because they were not suffered to continue by reason of death: but this man, because he continueth ever, hath an unchangeable priesthood. Wherefore he is able also to save them to the uttermost that come unto God by him, seeing he ever liveth to make intercession for them.

So, when you are talking to your Roman Catholic friends and relatives, be sure to ask the important question about what their religious observances mean to them. Sometimes those answers can be more revealing both to them and to you, than an encyclopedic knowledge of Ott's Fundamental of Catholic Dogma. While it is important to be familiar with their religion, it is even more important to get to know them personally.

There will be some who will not know the difference between the feast of the ascension and the feast of the assumption, and there will be some who not only know the difference but observe them both as holy days. More importantly, don't be the one to tell a Roman Catholic that their doctrine of the Assumption puts Mary in the place of Jesus. Let them explain it to you, and then explain to them why their religion - even those parts only defined last century - is in conflict with Holy Scripture.

- TurretinFan

(Thanks to Francis Beckwith for bringing this clip to my attention.)

G.H. Kersten on the Second Commandment

The following sermon is taken from The Heidelberg Catechism in 52 Sermons, by Rev. G.H. Kersten, Late Minister of the Netherlands Reformed Congregation, Rotterdam, Holland. 1968. Translated from the Holland and printed by the Netherlands Reformed Congregations in America. (all the sermons may be obtained here) This sermon is can be cited with the following (Kersten, The Heidelberg Catechism in 52 Sermons, Vol.2, Part 9).

Of Divine Worship According to God's Word

Lord's Day 35

Psalter No. 268 st. 2, 4
Acts 17: 15-34
Psalter No. 423 st. 4 & 8
Psalter No. 33 st. 5
Psalter No. 290 st. 2, 6, 11

Beloved,

A plain man, a maker of tents passed through the city of Athens. His spirit was so stirred because of the idolatry committed in that place by the very superstitious people, that in holy zeal he was eager not only to speak in the synagogue of the Jews, but even in the market place, to debate with anyone that would listen. It was Paul. To everyone with whom he conversed he spoke of the only true service of God and of Him Who arose from the dead, to be the Author of eternal salvation for His people. Even the Epicurean and Stoic philosophers debated with Paul in the market place saying, "What will this babbler say?" Some said, "He seems to be a setter forth of strange gods," with the result, he had to defend himself on Mars' Hill. Paul appeared before that Court for the purpose of determining whether he could be accused of having introduced a new religion in Athens.

We have just read to you Paul's discourse on Mars' Hill, in which we can observe the light which God, the Holy Spirit gave him, and with how much wisdom and discretion he spoke to the Athenians, telling them that he had seen an altar upon which was written, "To The Unknown God." That God Whom you do not know, I shall declare to you. I do not bring you something new, but I declare to you the God Who created heaven and earth and made of one blood all nations of men. That unknown God has given His Son, Who is the resurrection and the life. One day He will raise all the dead to appear before His judgment seat."

Would not our hearts be stirred if we could see the idols in our Christian nation? Were we ever shown that the God who made heaven and earth does not dwell in temples made by hands, but that He has glorified Himself in the Son of His eternal good pleasure? Then we would forsake all that displeases Him and seek that only Mediator and receive through Him the preparation necessary for that great day of judgment that shall surely come, when we shall stand before the judgment seat of God.

The manner in which we bring our religion into practice is of utmost importance. The Lord demands that we shall serve Him according to His Word and that we shall set our hearts on His truth, as the means whereby He shall glorify Himself in us through the power of His Spirit.

How clearly has He Himself taught us in what manner He wants to be served when He forbade our making any image to serve or worship Him thereby. We are now to consider the commandment which forbids image worship, as it is explained in the thirty-fifth Lord's Day of our Heidelberg Catechism which reads as follows:

Q. 96. What does God require in the second commandment?

A. That we in no wise represent God by images, nor worship Him in any other way than He has commanded in His Word.

Q. 97. Are images then not at all to be made?

A. God neither can, nor may be represented by any means: but as to creatures; though they may be represented, yet God forbids to make, or have any resemblance of them, either in order to worship them or to serve God by them.

Q. 98. But may not images be tolerated in the churches, as books to the laity?

A. No; for we must not pretend to be wiser than God, who will have His people taught, not by dumb images, but by the lively preaching of His Word.

This Lord's Day deals with the prohibition against image worship and our attention is drawn to:

I. the sins forbidden in this commandment;

II. the spiritual keeping of this commandment.

The second commandment is not merely an appendix to the first. It differs from the first, although all God's commandments are so closely related to each other that whosoever offends in one commandment, is guilty of all. Yet there is a difference. The first commandment teaches us Whom we are to serve, namely, the Lord alone. The second tells us in what manner God wishes to be served; namely, according to His Word, and by not making an image.

The Roman Catholic Church combines the second commandment with the first, thereby allowing only three commandments in the first table. Why does Rome do this? To make room for images in the church. Does not this tampering with the Holy Law of God to cover its sin, bring the strongest indictments against Rome's image worship?

In this second commandment the Lord teaches us that He does not want to be served by means of images. "Thou shalt not make unto thyself any graven image, nor the likeness of anything"--no graven image, no painted image, no sculptured image. Here God forbids image worship. There is to be no image of anything that is in heaven above, which is the third heaven, the throne of God--the third heaven, created by God, where He reveals His glory more than anywhere else. Does not the Lord say that heaven is His throne and the earth His footstool? The Lord reveals His radiance and majesty in the third heaven more than on earth. There God Himself swells. Therefore it is forbidden in the first place to make an image of God, either of His Essence or of His Attributes. We may not make an image of His Essence, because the Essence of God can never be expressed by any image. God is a Spirit, and they who worship Him must worship Him in spirit and in truth. He is the Omnipresent One, and every effort to portray God violates His Omnipresence. Furthermore, His Attributes can never be expressed by an image. Remember for example, what Israel did when it attempted to express God's Omnipotence through the golden calf with these words, "These are thy gods, O Israel, which brought thee up out of the land of Egypt." To represent God in this way conflicts with the spiritual existence of God, because, in the first place God's Attributes are God Himself. Secondly, when we attempt to separate those attributes we strike at the Divine Essence. Our Catechism speaks correctly when it says that God neither can nor may be represented in any manner. The Lord pronounced a curse upon it in Deut. 27:15, "Cursed be the man that maketh any graven or molten image, an abomination unto the Lord, the work of the hands of the craftsman." Yet the children of Israel became guilty of this repeatedly. They did not intend to stop serving God, but wanted to serve Him by means of images. I have already mentioned the golden calf at Mt. Sinai. Later, when Israel revolted, Jeroboam introduced the golden calves at Dan and Bethel. Micah, too, of whom we read in Judges 17, gave two hundred pieces of silver to have an image made, the same sin which was forbidden here, and into which sin Israel fell time after time. God neither can nor may be represented in any manner.

In the second place this commandment refers to the creatures in heaven. In the third heaven are the angels and the souls of them who shall be heirs of salvation ... Of them no image may be made to worship God thereby. No doubt the intent here expressed is singled out and emphasized. The service of God is so spiritual that the making of any image whatever is entirely condemned by the Lord. Thou shalt not make any graven image of the starry sky or of the clouds. Neither shalt thou make any graven image of men, animals, plants, or anything else that may be found on earth, in order to serve or worship God thereby. Neither fishes, nor creeping things, nor any other creatures may ever be represented by images. God cannot be, but creatures can be so represented.

The making of images is not always forbidden. The Lord has even given talents to do so. Think of Aholiab and Bezaleel who were given wisdom by the Lord to make the tabernacle according to the pattern which the Lord had shown to Moses on the mount. God gave them the talents for it. Later in the temple there were cherubim and the brazen sea set upon twelve oxen. On the steps to Solomon's throne there were images of lions. When the Lord Jesus was on earth He was shown a penny bearing the image of Caesar. The Lord did not show His disapproval of this, but only said, "Render unto Caesar the things that are Caesar's, and unto God the things which are God's." Hence, to make images of creatures is not condemned as such. God does not condemn the art of sculpture and painting. This we must remember, that the work of art must be sober and modest. Nakedness in sculpture must not be publicly displayed, lest iniquity abound. Now, though images creatures are not forbidden, it is forbidden to make them a part the service of the Lord.

Although it is possible to make images of creatures, God forbids our making or having them for the purpose of honoring them or serving God by them. For that reason the punishments of the Lord were so dreadful upon the children of Israel that on one day three thousand died at Mount Sinai. For that reason also God pronounced a judgment upon the altars at Dan and at Bethel. He shows His displeasure with will-worship, which includes the use of images in the service of God. This is the practice of Rome which kneels before images and sponsors pilgrimages. Therefore the instructor says that we may not make them to bow down to them or to serve them. Rome honors its images decorated with gold and silver, and bestows incense and glory upon them, but it is God Who forbids such practice. We should be deeply moved that our land is filled with Romish idolatry, and that this great evil is progressing from North to South and from East to West. I ask you, is it mere hatred of popery to do so or is it the glory of God that makes us concerned about it? We have the Word of God and therefore it is disturbing to see that our people are fast asleep and indifferently close their eyes to the danger of Rome. All that Rome stands for is tolerated much too easily. Why? Because the honour of God does not weigh heavily enough upon our souls; because we are blind to the holy displeasure which God will manifest toward a people that is forsaking Him, a people on whose behalf the Lord performed His miracles in times past.

This will become more evident when we consider the reason why the Lord gave this commandment. He says, "I am the Lord thy God." He is the God of gods, Who dwells and is enthroned in the high and lofty place, surrounded by His holy angels who cover their faces with their wings, crying out, "Holy, holy, is the Lord of hosts: the whole earth is full of His glory." This God placed Israel in a covenant relationship with Himself, and the people of Israel bound themselves at Mt. Sinai with a solemn Amen, to keep the covenant of the Lord God and to observe His ordinances. Now the Lord says, "I am thy God Who forbids you." This word alone should sink so deeply in our hearts, that we would utterly abhor all that God forbids in His Law. In addition the Lord says also, "I am a jealous God." By jealous is meant, "zealous for My honour." As a man cannot tolerate his wife's attention to others, much less can the Lord tolerate our bowing to images. The Lord is jealous of His honour, and is zealous for it. Does He not in His Word speak of image worship as spiritual adultery? Did He not often remind His people with reproofs, that they were unfaithful to Him when they bowed to idols? Time and again the Lord uses the example of a man who is forsaken by his wife. Will he approve of such conduct? Will he not rather vindicate his honour? "I shall do likewise", says the Lord, "for I am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children, unto the third and fourth generation of them that hate Me."

God punishes sin in succeeding generations. God punishes the fathers by visiting the children in the third and fourth generation. Is this not contrary to what is told us in Ezekiel 18:20, namely that the son shall not bear the iniquity of the father? No, that text does not conflict with these words of the second commandment. Israel tried to hide behind the guilt of the fathers by using the sins of the fathers as an excuse. But the Lord says, "I am punishing you for your own sins." In these words of Ezekiel the Lord shows not only that Israel is indeed punished for its own sin, but also that God punishes sin with sin. This means that the succeeding generations follow in the footsteps of their parents, multiplying their iniquities and making themselves all the more deserving of the judgments of God. Sin is a steep incline and whoever sets his foot upon it will find that he with his posterity is running faster and faster toward destruction. This is the motive by which the Lord persuades us to fear sin - in this case image worship - so that our hearts may cleave to Him, fear Him, and serve Him, as He testifies in His Word.

On the other hand, the Lord proclaims the riches of His mercy and the greatness of His Divine grace: showing mercy unto thousands of them that love Me and keep My commandments. The Lord delights in mercy rather than judgment toward those who walk in His ways; who honour Him according to His testimonies, who direct their lives according to His commandments, and shun those things that are displeasing to the Lord. Yes, God shows His mercy. From what source does this mercy flow? Not from our keeping of His commandments. It flows from His sovereign and eternal good pleasure. God is indeed a rewarder, but the reward is of grace. Do not these considerations serve as motives for us to hate image worship and to testify against it? For this commandment says not only: "You may not have an image in church;" "We may not have an image or crucifix in our homes;" "You may not bow the knee to such an image and say, 'Holy Mary, Saint Peter, pray for me;'" in other words, the commandment not only makes a demand upon our personal life, but it also requires of the government to put away the images out of our country, and to destroy that idolatry which has become almost totally heathenish. See what the pious kings of Israel did and what our forefathers did: They demolished those images, and the Lord gave His approval. Read all the Scriptures and see how the Lord lays upon the government the duty of leading the people according to His commandment. In keeping with the Scriptures, our fathers confessed this duty in the unabridged Article 36 of the Belgic Confession. The duty of the government is to remove and prevent all idolatry and false worship. Notice how this commandment is set aside. They say, "We, the government, refuse to accept that responsibility." However, will not the Lord see it and execute vengeance? Is not this nation making itself ripe for divine judgment? This commandment calls upon the government and calls upon everyone in every walk of life to fulfill the holy duty of testifying against image worship. So we see that the second commandment differs from the first. God must be served, not by means of dumb images, but as He revealed Himself in His Word and glorified Himself in Christ Jesus.

Having briefly mentioned the forbidden sins, I come now to my second main thought:

II. The spiritual keeping of the law.

May not images be tolerated in the churches, as books to the laity? The answer is no.

Rome says they may. "We hang," says Rome, "an image before your eyes, that you may the better think about your saints, and we use those images as books to instruct you as we teach children. We teach the people to form a mental image to make them think more on Christ and on the saints." We do not need such books. We do not choose such visible instruction because it is contradictory to the positive Word of God. He will have His people taught, not by dumb images, but by the lively preaching of His Word. We must not pretend to be wiser than God. We are told emphatically that we must not worship Him in any other way than He has commanded in His Word.

We are now to consider the keeping of this commandment. Now has God revealed Himself in His Word, and how are we instructed out of His Word concerning the service of God? This brings us to the one and only foundation of the true worship of the Lord God. According to the second commandment God has revealed Himself in His Word as holy and just; as a God Who can have no fellowship either with sin or with the sinner. He is a devouring fire and everlasting burnings with whom the sinner cannot dwell. He has revealed Himself also in that Word as merciful and righteous, giving His only begotten Son in a way of sovereign compassion; that whosoever believeth in Him should not perish but have everlasting life. That is the manner God speaks of in His Word by which He will be served. It must be only in Him, in Whom all His attributes were glorified perfectly. He is worshiped spiritually by His people in communion with Christ by faith, and His people find their salvation in such glorifying of God. Since the Word of God instructs us in this matter so clearly that even a child among us knows and understands, we need no other instruction.

The message of the second commandment is this: Do you want to see the image of God? Behold it then in His Word; behold it in the glass of which the apostle speaks in 2 Cor. 3:18, "with open face beholding as in a glass the glory of the Lord." There you see the attributes of God; there you see the majesty of God; there you see God's demand that His justice must be satisfied; and there you see the redemption prepared for His people in Christ Jesus. Is this not plain enough?

How does God wish to be served by His people? Are you desirous of seeing the image of God? Behold it in the incarnate Word, Who is the express image of God's person. He upholds all things by the Word of His power and in Him the divine Essence has magnified itself perfectly.

What then is the message the Lord gives us here? That our formal religion does not please Him when we are cold, unmoved, and dead under the preaching of His Word, leaving the church with the same stony heart. Is it not worthy of consideration that the Lord says, "I have revealed Myself in My Word? Therefore you shall learn to know and seek Me, because in that knowledge of God lies eternal life." The least impression of the majesty, righteousness, and holiness of God humbles man so deeply before Him, that he cries unto God out of the dust. This is the fruit of the ministration of the Holy Spirit. Every concept we form of God, every work of ours presented to Him is contrary to God's revelation in His Word. They are basically nothing but idolatry in our hearts, a slighting of His righteousness, and a depending on God's mercy and grace without His justice. All are contrary to this commandment, for they find support in our self-righteousness and in our church attendance as though with them we could stand before God. They are in conflict with the revelation in His Word.

God will not be served by our works and by our deeds, not even by the best we can produce, but God will be served in communion with Him Who gave Himself as a ransom for many and Who came, not to be ministered unto, but to minister. He was born for those who know themselves to be guilty before God, transgressors of all His commandments, lost in themselves; but who seek their salvation outside of themselves in Him, Who delivers their souls from death and saves them from eternal perdition. Not to make an image, means to resolve by regenerating grace, to reveal the image of God in us, according to which He created man in the beginning. By the renewing of the heart, God's children become partakers of the divine nature, and they are renewed according to the image of Him that created them. They obtain the true knowledge of God, of His attributes and perfections, which humbles them, but also enables their souls to find life in communion with God unto their eternal salvation. It is this keeping of the law of which the Lord speaks here. It is a spiritual endeavor that is well pleasing to God.

In every prohibition lies a commandment. The Lord not only forbids sin, but He also commands that spiritual obedience to and delight in His law which His people can never accomplish, but which He in the active obedience of Christ has accomplished for them, so that in Christ they shall also be perfect in obedience, shall receive their strength from Him, and shall persevere until they receive that perfect image which God's people shall one day have in heaven. They shall be perfect before the throne of God. There God's image will shine in glory, and they will behold God in His majesty and in His glory, as Moses did in the cleft of the rock, where the Lord covered him with His hand, because no man can endure the full manifestation of God's perfections. There, mortality shall have put on immortality, and they shall know Him perfectly. It is this that comforts and strengthens the church of God. This encourages their souls and enables them, even in tribulations, to lift up their heads on high. There, some day, they will serve the Lord perfectly. They will be satisfied, when they awake, with His likeness, as we now sing from Psalter No. 33 st. 5:

"Soon I in glorious righteousness
Shall see Thee as Thou art;
Thy likeness, Lord, when I awake
Shall satisfy my heart."

In this way the Lord would have us put away the images out of our land. Once Rome had dominion in this part of the world. In the Eighty Years' War our fore-fathers fought in God's strength and obtained their freedom, but not without the sacrifice of much goods, blood, and lives. They did not sacrifice merely for external liberty, nor to stage a revolution and an uproar against the king of Spain, but they sacrificed in the firm conviction that God must be served according to His Word. You have heard the history, especially in regard to the image worship, how our people were stirred by holy indignation when it destroyed the images. The same thing happened in Scotland when in a moment as it were, the people were aroused to destroy image worship. Let us notice how none less than Marnix of St. Aldegonde defended the action. No matter what the prevailing opinion may be, it would be desirable if the government would put an end to the God-provoking idolatry of Rome. Where are the protestants to whom the Lord has magnified His wonders and whom He so richly blessed, when they contended for His Name and His service? From the highest authorities to the common citizen, men bow the knee to Rome. You need not go far to find out. Inquire from members of the congregations and learn how they feel about it, how Rome sets up its idols in our land. How few there are that are filled with holy zeal to oppose it! How many shrug their shoulders when the peril of Catholicism is pointed out, and say it is all enmity against persons. When we speak of their idolatry, it is not because we hate the Roman Catholic people as if they are beneath us, but we do so in the first place because God demands it of us, and in the second place because our nation incurs God's wrath by these things. When you see the upheavals in the world since the latest world war, and observe what is going on in our nation, you will be filled with fears and ask, "How long will God still tolerate us?" On the other hand, God does not need to send war, but His judgments are so general and the burdens are so heavy upon us, we fear, will be still heavier upon future generations. We ask ourselves, "How shall we be able to bear the burden and survive?" For the support of our government, how ought our entire nation to return to the law of God, to the God of our fathers, and to His ordinances. I wish I could indoctrinate our boys and girls especially so that there would be a generation firmly rooted in God's Word, opposing the Romish idolatry with a holy conviction. Has not the Lord specifically described that image worship and said, "I will pour out My wrath upon the third and fourth generation"? Please do not say, "that is their responsibility", for this concerns God's holy law. May that conviction take deep root, so that our lives may be directed according to the commandment of Him, Who makes transgressors of His law to dwell in a dry land.

Has not David said, "Thy commandment is exceeding broad"? This commandment refers, not merely to the letter of the law. Think of Paul, for example, who in his former life as a Pharisee, lived a blameless and conscientious life according to the law, so conscientious that he himself said, "If any man think to glory in the flesh, I more." He even dared to challenge all the Pharisees. He had not ceased living as a Pharisee, because he no longer lived as strictly according to the law of God as formerly - by no means: "I did not know the law", says Paul, "for at that time I lived without the law." God's law has a spiritual meaning which the natural man does not perceive.

Now I return to my second main thought, the spiritual keeping of the law of God. Let us ask ourselves one by one, What is our relationship to the Word of God, that Word which instructed us from childhood? We have the privilege in our own schools where our children are instructed according to God's Word and not settled upon false grounds. Oh, that the seed of that Word might sprout early in their hearts. Do we appreciate enough the privilege of having our own schools? One thinks the distance too far, another thinks the dangers for the children are too great. I have seen Roman Catholic children go to church everyday in summer and winter, in the early and dark morning hours, to perform their religious duties. How lax we are by comparison and how little we see the necessity of good instruction for our children. May there be more zeal among us.

Instruction from God's Word is not strange to us. We have it in our homes and we read it morning, noon, and night, or have we also become lax in that? Is it too much trouble to separate ourselves for a little while to search the Word together? Are you too busy? Boys, do you still read the Word at work? Have you a Bible in your pocket so that you can read it after eating. When you are on a journey, or travel much, do not neglect to take God's Word with you. Do you still go eagerly to God's house on Sundays, or is it too cold one Sunday and something else another Sunday? God is a jealous God and demands a zealous keeping of His commandments. The Word of God is worth the effort of reading and meditation, but also of placing ourselves under it, because it serves as a means in the hand of the Spirit to learn to know Him who is the only true God and Jesus Christ Whom He has sent, which is life eternal. Through His Word the Lord wishes to instruct us in that great mystery that we can be saved by grace. It is with this, namely, the whole service of God, that the second commandment is concerned. Then it is evident that going to church twice on Sunday is not enough. Ask yourself whether you have ever kept God's Word in a spiritual sense so that you said, "Lord let Thy Word be conducive to my eternal salvation, for it shall be as a savor of death unto death, if it is not a savor of life unto life." We are traveling to eternity and some day that Word will be remembered by us. You and I, all of us will soon stand before God. Then He will inquire of ministers whether they have instructed you in the truth correctly. I may not, and cannot do otherwise than to direct you to that one thing needful, so that I may make myself free of you. Then I shall always tell you it is insufficient to be baptized, to go to church, to sit at the Lord's Supper, perhaps even with some impression in our conscience; but we must learn to know God as He reveals Himself in His Word.

God can have no communion with us, because we have separated ourselves from Him with no intention of returning, and that breach must be healed. Do we still have impressions? Do we sometimes bow our knees to say, "Oh, that I might be reconciled with God!" Or do we go on in our habitual course and our deadly security? What if the Lord would come suddenly, as a thief in the night? Then it would be forever too late. Boys, take it to heart; take the message with you, and be not so unconcerned. Reflect for a moment: This Sunday has passed, and I have only increased my guilt. What will become of me? You older people, consider how you are approaching the grave. Your best days are past, for God converts people mostly in their younger years. But you can still come to know that God. It is not yet too late. Be earnest in using the means, so that with supplication and weeping you may seek refuge in God. Awake thou that sleepest, and arise from the dead, and Christ shall give thee light. It is well to note that knowledge of God comes when by means of the Word, He begins to reveal Himself in the heart by the efficacious working of the Holy Spirit. It is these impressions of His perfect divine essence which He works in the soul that give the sinner to see something of God. For this he needs no image, but the knowledge of God in His eternal perfections brings the soul into such deep humility, that he falls at His feet to make supplication to His Judge. Such a person can never meet God, because an infinite breach has been made which cannot be healed. That breach cannot be healed not even with all our tears and prayers. Because God chooses to be glorified according to His Word, we can contribute nothing. On the contrary, even with our best works we rob God of His honour. God has given us His revelation in Christ, so that the sinner who has learned to know himself, shall go to God through Him.

Are there any here who are not strangers to these things? May your hearts be turned from all your image worship to know Him as He has revealed Himself in His Word. What is it that so often causes your prayers to return into your own bosom? Why is it that so many prayers go no higher than our lips? Because our hearts are lukewarm and filled with the idol of self. How often do God's people condemn themselves, because there is so little zeal in their hearts to serve Him in the only way that is well-pleasing to Him. We would experience more of Christ by faith, if we were more dissatisfied with our condition. We do not come to the point of saying, "There is no hope." May God so deal with His people that they shall find peace for their souls. To that end God often uses deep ways. He deprives His people of everything they cherish. Sometimes they sink in discouragement, and sometimes they faint with grief. The Lord still deprives them of everything so that they shall come with supplication and weeping. The Lord uses means to teach His church to abhor their image-worship, for He is a jealous lover of His people. He wants the honor alone; He wants us to have no strength except in Him, and to strive for that spiritual knowledge of Him which is to know God and to follow on to know Him in the face of the Lord Jesus Christ. What is the result of putting away all false religion? That God's children need the Spirit because by themselves they can never attain to true prayer and cleaving to God. They are as wandering sheep, and now they need that Spirit to lead them. They become dependent persons who cleave unto the Lord as a girdle cleaves to the loins of a man. What is the fruit of beholding the image of God as it is in Christ? That God's children behold Him in the eternal splendor of His mercy and grace. Then they know of a seeking for fulfillment, for the Lord will soon bring them to perfection, and take them up in His glory. That causes their reins to be consumed within them. There they will see God perfectly, the one and only triune God of their salvation. There they will dwell eternally in blessed communion with Him, and there they will see the Lamb who purchased them with His blood, and Who as the Mediator, is the express image of God's Person.

The Lord grant us to feel our need of the leadings of His dear Spirit, to hate what He hates, and in the keeping of His commandments, to have those spiritual exercises by which we shall find more and more that our obedience is in Him, Who kept also this commandment perfectly. During His sojourn on earth He humbled Himself under the Law, not only to deliver His people from the curse of the law eternally, but also to cause them to walk in His commandments by His power, to the glory and praise of God's thrice holy Name. Amen.

Praising the Great Shepherd of the Sheep

Christ came to save lost sinners,
     of whom I am the chief;
Just not by my good works,
     but by the object of belief.

He for his sheep,
     laid down his life;
And took the church,
     to be his wife.

By his mighty saving grace,
     which we did not deserve;
Converted - now regenerate,
     we seek our Lord to serve.

His voice we hear,
     for we're his sheep,
His promises,
     we know he keeps.

Alexander Whyte on the Second Commandment

THE SECOND COMMANDMENT. II3

Q. 49. Which is the second commandment?

A. The second commandment is, 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: thou shalt not bow down thyself to them, nor serve them; for I the Lord thy God am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children unto the third and fourth generation of them that hate me: and showing mercy unto thousands of them that love me, and keep my commandments. [FN:G]

Q. 50. What is required in the second commandment?

A. The second commandment requireth the receiving, observing, and keeping pure and entire, all such religious worship and ordinances as God hath appointed in his word. [FN:H]

Q. 51. What is forbidden in the second commandment?

A. The second commandment forbiddeth the worshipping of God by images,[FN:I] or any other way not appointed in his word.[FN:J]

Q. 52. What are the reasons annexed to the second commandment?

A. The reasons annexed to the second commandment are, God's sovereignty over us,[FN:K] his propriety in us,[FN:L] and the zeal he hath to his own worship.[FN:M]

---

The unity and sole supremacy of Jehovah is the subject of the first commandment, and in the same manner the spirituality of the Divine Nature is taught and guarded in the second. Locality, limitation, shape, and all such-like creaturely conditions, are to be put out of our minds when we would think aright about God. These things are never in any way to be associated with God. The worship of God is to be purely spiritual, and lest its spirituality should be invaded or infringed, it is here fenced round with a most explicit and rigorous commandment against the worship of images, and even their manufacture. The unity and spirituality of God are accordingly the two corner-stones of the Decalogue, and indeed of all divine revelation, Mosaic and Christian. The law that came by Moses, and the grace and truth that came by Jesus Christ, all alike rest on those eternal and immutable truths of our holy faith.

Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image— In Cruden's article under image, he characterizes and illustrates nine scriptural senses of this word, and Aldis Wright in Smith's Bible Dictionary tells us that there are no fewer than twenty-one different Hebrew words that have been rendered in the Authorized Version either by idol or image. Nothing could be more instructive and significant than this multiplicity and variety of words designating the incentives, instruments, and objects of idolatry. At the same time, stringent and indispensable as this commandment was in such circumstances, it gives no countenance to the superstitious position that some have taken up against all works of art even for purposes of culture and pleasure. Referring to this misreading of the second commandment, Calvin says: "I am not so superstitious, however, as to think that all visible representations of every kind are unlawful. But as sculpture and painting are gifts of God, what I insist on is, that both shall be used purely and lawfully. We think it unlawful to give a visible shape to God, because God Himself has forbidden it, and because it cannot be done without in some degree tarnishing His glory."

"It may be admitted," says Kalisch in his commentary on Exodus, "that the prohibition expressed in our text has exercised a retarding influence upon the progress and development of the plastic arts among the Hebrews, as a similar interdiction in the Koran has produced a similar effect among the Arab tribes. . . . But it is an incomprehensible mistake, if it is believed that the plastic arts in general, sculpture and painting, are forbidden in our text. Josephus tells us that the Jews would not even suffer the image of the emperor which was represented on the eagles of the Roman soldiers, and a temple in Tiberias was, by decree of the Sanhedrin, burnt down, merely because it was ornamented with figures of animals (Josephus' Life, xii. ). Such a barbarous and irrational law could not possibly emanate from a legislator who erected a holy tent, furnished with all adornments of art and beauty, and who even ordered two cherubims to be placed in the Holy of Holies. In the first temple as well as the second, was an abundance of plastic works, which nobody has found to be at variance with the spirit of Mosaism." "The commandment which forbade the making of graven image or likeness was not observed in the sanctuary itself. By this exception it was made evident that the enactment was directed against accidental abuses of imitative art, and not against the art itself" (Westcott).

any likeness of anything that is in heaven above— "Left to themselves, to their own appetites, fears, caprices, imaginations, men made originally capable of discriminating truth from falsehood sought out many inventions. Sun, moon, and stars, from being accounted symbols, came to be rated as gods; rivers were deified; beasts, birds, fishes, reptiles, all were adored; trees waxed oracular, mountain-tops grew sacred, light and darkness engrossed each its representative deity; fire had its own formidable divinity, and the world of the dead its own. Mere attributes, mere operations, became embodiments capable of undergoing invocation and receiving worship; and destruction claimed its horrid ritual of human sacrifice, and fruitfulness was adored with such rites as it is a shame even to speak of" (Miss Rossetti's Letter and Spirit).

for I the Lord thy God am a jealous God— In the scientific language of theology, this is called an anthropopathic or economical manner of speech. God here speaks to man after the manner of men. He takes the human passion of jealousy to himself in a figure. But while making this explanation, it must be made in a reverent, guarded, believing manner. To say God is jealous is to say that while all human infirmity and evil are to be taken out of the expression, yet, at the same time, we are to receive it as the truest mode of conveying to us what, owing to the imperfections of the human mind and human language, cannot otherwise be impressed upon us. All Scripture, at least all Revelation, is and must be more or less anthropomorphic and anthropopathic. And the text is but an arresting and solemn example of this necessary and universal manner of divine communications. When Jehovah represents Himself as the husband of the Church in Israel, and as having loved her with an everlasting love, her infidelity and idolatry come then in awful impressiveness to be spoken of as kindling jealousy in the divine bosom. The thoughtful reader of the Old Testament will recall many passages where these figures of speech are powerfully employed. But let it here and in all such passages be remembered that the scriptural metaphors never exaggerate or in any way misrepresent the reality; the prophetic figures never overstate the facts. Nahum is within the truth when he utters his burdensome vision: "God is jealous, and the Lord revengeth; the Lord revengeth, and is furious; the Lord will take vengeance on His adversaries, and He reserveth wrath for His enemies."

visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children— Mozley in his able work, Ruling Ideas in Early Ages, exhibits the operation of this judicial principle in the old dispensation, and points out that while the second commandment and its sanctions of terror and of comfort remain entirely valid to this day, yet that it is to be read now in a providential and didactic sense rather than in a judicial and penal. Children are not now punished for their fathers' sins though they still suffer in many ways on account of them. (See Lecture v.) "That God doth [or did] so is certain, because He saith He doth [or did]; and that this is just in Him to do so, is also certain therefore, because He doth it. For as His laws are our measures, so His actions and His own will are His own measures. He that hath right over all things and all persons, cannot do wrong to any thing. He that is essentially just, it is impossible for him to be unjust" (Jeremy Taylor's Sermon on "The Entail of Curses cut off").

keeping pure and entire— Flavel's warning not to invent ceremonies to make God's institutions "more decent than Christ left them," should be laid to heart and pondered by those who have the charge of public worship.

For

"'Tis mad idolatry
To make the service greater than the god."

appointed in his word. "Particularly prayer and thanksgiving in the name of Christ; the reading, preaching, and hearing of the word; the administration and receiving of the sacraments; Church government and discipline; the ministry and maintenance thereof; religious fasting; swearing by the name of God, and vowing unto Him" (Larger Catechism).

forbiddeth the worshipping of God by images— The theological student will search in vain in the Catechism of the Council of Trent for the second commandment. He will find ten commandments in that authorized and imposed symbol of the Popish Church, but the Decalogue is made up by the division of the tenth commandment into two. "The natural and obvious meaning of the second commandment is, that God there, in regulating the mode in which He is to be worshipped, forbids the making of the likeness of any object with the view of introducing this likeness into religious worship, or paying unto it any of the external marks of religious honour and veneration. And so sensible are Romanists that this is the natural and obvious meaning of the second commandment, that they have been accustomed to exclude it wholly, while professing to quote the Decalogue, from the Catechisms commonly used in the instruction of their people" (Cunningham, i. 377). How far popular Romanism has declined not only from apostolic spirituality in public worship, but even from that of the Old Testament, any one who has seen a modern Popish cathedral or chapel, and will compare it with the following testimonies, will see. Milman tells us that the heathen world beheld with astonishment a whole race whose deity was represented under no visible form or likeness. The conqueror Pompey, when he entered the violated temple, was filled with wonder at finding the sanctuary without image or emblem of the deity: and Tacitus, "the philosophic historian, whose profound mind seems struggling with hostile prejudices, defines, with his own inimitable compression of language, the doctrine, to the sublimity of which he has closed his eyes. The worship of the Jews, he says, is purely mental; they acknowledge but one God, — and that God supreme and eternal, neither changeable nor perishable."

The reasons annexed— In his learned sermon Of the Nature of Pride, Hooker has an introductory passage which will be the best note on the annexing of reasons to a commandment: "The nature of man, being much more delighted to be led than drawn, doth many times stubbornly resist authority, when to persuasion it easily yieldeth. A law simply commanding or forbidding, is but dead in comparison of that which expresseth the reason wherefore it doth the one or the other. And, surely, even in the laws of God, although that He hath given commandment be in itself a reason sufficient to exact all obedience at the hands of men, yet a forcible inducement it is to obey with greater alacrity and cheerfulness of mind, when we see plainly that nothing is imposed upon us more than we must needs yield unto, except we will be unreasonable. In a word, whatsoever we be taught, be it precept for direction of our manners, or article for instruction of our faith, or document any way for information of our minds, it then taketh root and abideth, when we conceive not only what God doth speak, but why."

The reasons annexed to the second commandment as here drawn out are three — (1) God's sovereignty over us; He is our King, and we are His subjects, and therefore we are bound to obey His laws: (2) His propriety in us — an obsolete form; property has taken its place in modern English — His property in us; we belong to Him, He created us, and He hath redeemed us, and therefore we are not our own, least of all in our worship of our Maker and Redeemer: and (3) the zeal or jealousy He has to His own worship. The prophets and psalmists are full of that zeal and jealousy. For example, Isa. i. 10-15; Ezek. xiv. 1-11.

Uses. — 1. Though we do not build our places of worship with niches to hold images, yet this commandment is not on that account an obsolete precept, or the study of it the study of an antiquarian topic. The iconoclastic Puritanism of our fathers removed the temptation to idolatry from us. But they bequeathed to us a very spiritual law, — a law that does not so much search our sanctuaries for statues and images as it turns its scrutiny into our own hearts. "Know ye not that ye are the temple of God, and that the Spirit of God dwelleth in you? If any man defile the temple of God, him shall God destroy; for the temple of God is holy, which temple ye are."

2. But if the law against images in divine worship came by Moses, then the grace that obviates the supposed necessity for them, — the grace that meets and answers the craving in the human heart to see God, that grace came by Jesus Christ. For it is one of the noblest and most expressive of the scriptural titles of our Lord to call Him the Image of God. For just as a man's face is the image of his soul; just as we address ourselves to a man's face in addressing his mind and heart; so is it when we seek God in Christ. "No man hath seen God at any time; the only begotten Son who is in the bosom of the Father, He hath declared him."

3. "The sins of fathers descend very often to their children, both in the way of nature, that the children inherit strong temptations to their father's sins; and by way of example, that they greedily imitate, and often exaggerate them. Wouldest thou not have children whom thou wouldest wish unborn, reform thyself. . . . Parents who are careless as to themselves, and as to their own lives, still long that their children should not be as themselves" (Pusey).

4. "I am to consider what remedies there are for sons to cut off the entail of curses. . . . The heirs and sons of families are to remove from their house the curse descending from their father's loins — (i) by acts disavowing the sins of their ancestors; (2) by praying for pardon; (3) by being humbled for them; (4) by renouncing the example; (5) quitting the affection to the crimes; (6) by not imitating the actions in kind, semblance, or similitude; and lastly (7) by refusing to rejoice in the ungodly purchases, in which their 'fathers did amiss, and dealt wickedly'" (Jeremy Taylor).

QUESTIONS.

1. Note the nine Biblical senses of the word image as they are classified and illustrated by Cruden.

2. How would you meet the objection that the Jews in later times took against all painting and sculpture from their commandment?

3. Remark on Hausrath's statement, ii. 4: The Semite is a man without any sense for art, otherwise his laws would never have forbidden him to make images and symbols.

4. Derive and explain the theological terms anthropomorphism and anthropopathy, and point out how these terms apply to the contents of this commandment.

5. Derive iconoclast. To whom is the saying popularly attributed: Pull down the nests, and the rooks will fly away?

6. What may he inferred from hence? Hence we learn, that spiritual worship is most agreeable to God's nature and will; and the more spiritual it is, the more acceptable it will be to Him (John iv. 24). Externals in worship are of little regard with God; as places, habits, gestures, etc. Apply this: First, to superstitious men (Isa. lxvi. 1, 2, 3) ; Secondly, to children that say a prayer, but mind not to whom, nor what they say (Flavel).

7. Calvin warns against importing things into the worship of God that are full of display, but have no solidity. Apply this criticism, and give illustrations.

8. His propriety in us. Explain Dr. John Duncan's comment: God cannot be injured, but He may be wronged.

---

[FN:G] Ex. XX. 4, 5, 6.

[FN:H] Deut. xxxii. 46: And he said unto them, Set your hearts unto all the words which I testify among you this day, which ye shall command your children to observe to do, all the words of this law. Matt. xxviii. 20: Teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you: and, lo, I am with you alway, even unto the end of the world. Amen. Acts ii. 42: And they continued stedfastly in the apostles' doctrine and fellowship, and in breaking of bread, and in prayers.

[FN:I] Deut. iv. 15: Take ye therefore good heed unto yourselves, (for ye saw no manner of similitude on the day that the Lord spake unto you in Horeb out of the midst of the fire.) Ver. 16: Lest ye corrupt yourselves, and make you a graven image, the similitude of any figure, the likeness of male or female; Ver. 17: The likeness of any beast that is on the earth, the likeness of any winged fowl that flieth in the air; Ver. 18: The likeness of any thing that creepeth on the ground, the likeness of any fish that is in the waters beneath the earth: Ver. 19: And lest thou lift up thine eyes unto heaven, and when thou seest the sun, and the moon, and the stars, even all the host of heaven, shouldest be driven to worship them, and serve them, which the Lord thy God hath divided unto all nations under the whole heaven, Ex. xxxii. 8: They have turned aside quickly out of the way which I commanded them: they have made them a molten calf, and have worshipped it, and have sacrificed thereunto, and said. These be thy gods, O Israel, which have brought thee up out of the land of Egypt.

[FN:J] Deut. xii. 31: Thou shalt not do so unto the Lord thy God: for every abomination to the Lord which he hateth have they done unto their gods; for even their sons and their daughters they have burnt in the fire to their gods. Ver. 32: What thing soever I command you, observe to do it: thou shalt not add thereto, nor diminish from it.

[FN:K] Ps. xcv. 2: Let us come before his presence with thanksgiving, and make a joyful noise unto him with psalms. Ver. 3: For the Lord is a great God, and a great King above all gods. Ver. 6: O come, let us worship and bow down; let us kneel before the Lord our maker.

[FN:L] Ps. xlv. 11: . . . he is thy Lord, and worship thou him.

[FN:M] Ex. xxxiv, 13: But ye shall destroy their altars, break their images, and cut down their groves. Ver. 14: For thou shalt worship no other god: for the Lord, whose name is Jealous, is a jealous God.