Dave Armstrong has written a further response to me regarding iconography, this time in rebuttal to my article answering the common arguments brought from Scripture for the practice of the veneration of icons.
First, I want to deal with the issue of the bronze serpent, particularly in the episode in 2 Kings 18 where it was destroyed by King Hezekiah. DA responded to this by saying:
"Exactly. Offering incense to it is idolatrous blasphemy, because it was not according to its proper use, as described by God to Moses. It was a corruption of the intended use. But a corruption of a thing is not the equivalent of the thing. Because some people fornicate, it doesn’t follow that all sexual intercourse is immoral. Within a valid marriage, it’s not only not wrong, but a great gift from God and the means of procreation: pour assistance in helping to create new human beings and eternal souls. King Hezekiah “broke in pieces the bronze serpent that Moses had made” because “the people of Israel had burned incense to it” (2 Ki 18:4). That no more makes the serpent (image) intrinsically bad than Moses smashing the original tablets with the Ten Commandments (Ex 31:19) made them bad. In both cases, it was because the Jews had not properly followed God’s instructions. As explained in the previous section, the serpent was never intended to be venerated, let alone worshiped: which is reserved only for God in the Bible, Judaism, Catholicism, and larger Christianity. So using the serpent as an argument against veneration of images or icons is a non sequitur, since that was never its purpose."
I never claimed that the "corruption of thing is the equivalent of a thing." Since DA already knows I would agree with his analogy of sexual activity in a valid marriage (one man and one woman), there is no need to pursue this analogy any further.
It is interesting that DA concedes that the bronze serpent was never meant to receive veneration. If this is the case (which it is, as demonstrated from the case of King Hezekiah), then it can only be used for the Lutheran view on icons at best, and won't prove the Roman Catholic view (which includes veneration, something DA admits is not present in the case of the bronze serpent).
DA then objects to my use of the term "Romanist", saying that is a pejorative. I did not use it in this sense. Rather, I use the term because the word "Catholic" is too broad (katholikos means "universal", as everyone knows) and I prefer to use either "Romanist" or "Roman Catholic".
Next, we move on to the issue of the cherubim. DA claims my response to the typical iconophile argument is "missing the point". However, it seems that DA was the one who misunderstood me, since he goes down a rabbit trail about how a bunch of other things "represent" God the Father. Here, DA contradicts himself. In this article, he claims that it is okay to depict God the Father. However, in his previous article that he wrote yesterday in response to me, he says (concerning Augustine's view of images) "This one is self-refuting, in terms of Matt’s purpose to establish St. Augustine as an iconoclast. His point is not to oppose veneration of all images whatsoever, but rather, images of God the Father in particular, other than Jesus, “the image of the invisible God” (Col 1:15, RSV)".
DA responds to my claim that "The issue is not with all images absolutely and whatsoever" by quoting a passage from Calvin's Institutes where he says "Moreover, all men of sound judgment acknowledge that the Cherubim in question belonged to the old tutelage of the law. It is absurd, therefore, to bring them forward as an example for our age. For that period of puerility, if I may so express it, to which such rudiments were adapted, has passed away" (1.11.3). However, Calvin clearly says that the cherubim had no relevance to "our age", i.e. the 16th century. We do not deny that the cherubim relevance to the NT period. They were a type of Christ's body in the grave before His glorious resurrection (John 20:12).
DA then cites a source describing the acts of some iconoclasts at the time of the Reformation, where they describe people doing all sorts of drastic measures, including throwing manure on certain Roman Catholic statues and images. I would note that Calvin himself did not agree with these actions. He believed it was the role of the magistrate to remove such images in a more orderly fashion (https://web.archive.org/web/20080829121943/http://www.clas.ufl.edu/users/louthan/images.html). This reflects the practice of the good kings of Israel/Judah during the OT period (cf. 2 Kings 23:24).
Next, we move on to the issue of the pillar of fire. My argument was that this the way God represented Himself (and since He is sovereign, He has the right to whatever He wants to do in terms of theophanies). This is different from humans coming up with their own representations of God. DA responds by saying "If God can do it Himself, certainly we can, too. Nothing He does can be wrong."
If God has no problem with us using means of worship that He has clearly sanctioned in Scripture, then why did he kill Nadab and Abihu in Leviticus 10? They offered up "strange fire" (one might see this as parallel to the pillar of fire itself) in an attempt to worship God, and yet they were struck dead. This proves the Reformed concept of the regulative principle of worship, namely that we cannot worship God in whatever we want (which is why I am opposed to many mega-churches, including many Evangelical ones, which have things like smoke machines and strobe lights everywhere, making it look more like an EDM concert rather than a service for the divine worship of God and the preaching of the Word, and administration of the sacraments), but only in the means which He has ordained for us.
Regarding the 2nd commandment, many EOs and RCs say that this is only in reference to pagan gods, and not images of the true God. I responded by noting situations in the OT where the Israelites did try and make images of the true God, and yet they were punished and condemned for doing so, thus showing that the 2nd commandment is slightly broader in its scope of prohibitions regarding idolatry.
DA defines idolatry as merely the worship of false Gods or attempting to make a graven image, and then viewing such an image as God Himself. However, Exodus 20:4 forbids the making of "any likeness [תְּמוּנָ֡֔ה] in heaven or earth", thus having a more general scope than DA would allow. This would obviously include the true God, since He is enthroned in heaven (cf. Psalm 2:4).
DA then has a couple paragraphs dedicated to demonstrating that the type of idolatry condemned by the 2nd commandment (and in the golden calf episode, Judges, etc.) is when a person makes an idol/image and claims that the image is literally God. This seems to imply that if someone made an image of a cow and said it merely represents God and is meant as an aid in worship, it would not be idolatry. I will let DA answer that question himself.
8 comments:
This is an exceedingly poor "response" which scarcely even interacts with my very in-depth scriptural reasoning. So it deserves no reply, save for one legitimate question you asked:
"If God has no problem with us using means of worship that He has clearly sanctioned in Scripture, then why did he kill Nadab and Abihu in Leviticus 10? They offered up "strange fire" (one might see this as parallel to the pillar of fire itself) in an attempt to worship God, and yet they were struck dead."
These two men were priests, and priests had to follow very explicit instructions given in the Mosaic law by God, as to how to go about their sacred duties.
Ellicott's Commentary for English Readers provides a very excellent and comprehensive description of what they disobeyed, thus bringing about their swift judgment:
https://biblehub.com/commentaries/ellicott/leviticus/10.htm
"This proves the Reformed concept of the regulative principle of worship, namely that we cannot worship God in whatever we want . . ."
It does no such thing because it was applicable to the elaborate, strictly guided duties of OT priests. Since we're not under the Law now, in the new covenant, this situation is not analogous to ours. We have far more freedom. The old Law included things like stoning children for being disobedient to their parents.
You also utterly ignored a series of questions I asked you in Facebook (after you showed up on my page). True debate is about point-by-point interaction, not picking and choosing whatever one feels they can answer and ignoring other portions where they feel they have no answer. Rather than admit that, the tactic is to ignore the difficult questions altogether.
That doesn't work with me. We could potentially have some good debates, but you are not remotely interacting in any comprehensive fashion. In a word, you aren't very good at debating. Very few people are. But we must call a spade a spade.
If you want to truly dialogue and debate with me, you'll have to do MUCH better than this. It will take a LOT to prove you can do better after THIS pitiful performance.
"True debate is about point-by-point interaction, not picking and choosing whatever one feels they can answer and ignoring other portions where they feel they have no answer"
Then how come in your other article, you ignored the other church fathers (besides Basil and Augustine) that I cited against iconography (Eusebius, Tertullian, Lactantius, and Clement of Alexandria)? So much for "point-by-point" interaction. Not only that, but you neglected to respond to my material in my counter-response altogether on Aug 3! Why is that? Thus, any accusation of me from you about "ignoring points" is simply hypocritical, with all due respect.
I addressed your main arguments. Several things I thought were not relevant to the main point in dispute, namely whether or not it is ok for US to make images representing God. I showed from the OT how the 2nd commandment applies to more than just pagan idols and things of that nature.
Regarding Facebook, I was unaware of any further comments you had made after my comment giving you the testimony of many church historians, including RC ones, who disagree with your position.
Also, there is no need for us to get personal, my friend. We can keep our discussions civil. So far, I have not made any personal attacks against you or anything like that. You are the one who has decided to call into question my debating skills and what not.
Alright. With further reflection, I think I was too harsh, and I apologize. But there are legitimate concerns and frustration that led to my harshness, which was an overreaction.
What we call people is important. I call you a Calvinist or Reformed Protestant because that is what those of your belief-system call themselves. It's common courtesy. No Catholic ever calls himself a "Romanist." Some of us call ourselves "Roman Catholic" although the overwhelming preference is simply "Catholic." You said you also use "Roman Catholic." I suggest that you use that term rather than "Romanist" in the future. It seems to be a reasonable compromise.
As to point-by-point interaction, debate on the Church fathers is a particular sort of debate. What's relevant from our perspective is what the fathers as a group taught on a given subject. It doesn't make a lot of sense to pick out just a few fathers on a topic like images and iconoclasm. So I concentrated on Augustine because he is probably the favorite of both Catholics and Reformed. And I dealt with St. Basil because he's a big saint for the Orthodox.
With biblical argumentation, we both agree on inspired Scripture (save for 7 books in the deuterocanon) and there we have objective material that can be debated.
You ignored a large part of my argument because of how Protestants approach such matters. It's very different from how we do. What I deem to be absolutely crucial and even central in the debate on images, you think isn't even on topic. From my perspective, I never write anything off-topic. Everything I write is there for a reason.
These arguments I used were analogical ones. I think that's a great, thought-provoking form of argument, but many Protestants don't seem to grasp it at all, and so they think it is off-topic to use them.
So we may be nice to each other till Kingdom Come, but if we fundamentally disagree as to what is "on-topic": then we won't be able to have a good debate, wherever that situation occurs. Both of us will be frustrated or perplexed or both.
It appears that on this topic of images, we can't constructively debate, if you ignore the very heart of my argument. It's a thoroughly scriptural argument. I gave tons more Scripture than you did.
But that's why I questioned your debating skills. I think you're a sharp guy, so this was very frustrating to me. But as stated, it flowed from your particular approach to debating the Bible, as Reformed Protestant. I have repeatedly run across this objection that my analogical arguments have nothing to do with the topic, and that's what is going on with you because you said it ("Several things I thought were not relevant to the main point in dispute").
Thanks for allowing me to clarify my position and outlook on these matters.
Here are my questions you didn't see: that had to do with our debate on your previous article on this topic:
+++++++++++
Let me ask you: if you had your way (wholly apart from legal considerations), would you decapitate a statue of our Lord Jesus Christ? Would you tear to pieces a crucifix depicting our Lord's sacrificial death for us? Would you smash any and all stained glass windows? Would you destroy a beautiful pipe organ, such as the ones that Bach played? Would you burn bare crosses? Would you cover a beautiful painting of a biblical event with white paint? Would you blow up Michelangelo's "Pieta" (the Blessed Virgin Mary holding the dead body of her Son)? Your Calvinist ancestors have done all these things (save for the latter, which many WOULD do if they could).
*
You say it's all idolatry and the equivalent of the Golden Calf. God said to destroy all such idols. So how could you not do so (again if you could without being tried, sentenced, and jailed), according to your iconoclasm?
*
There is a statue of John Calvin at the Geneva wall. That's okay, but statues of Jesus Christ aren't? That's not idolatry, but the ones with Jesus are?
I accept your apology. Everything is cool between us. In my interactions with you, I will try and use the term "Roman Catholic" rather than "Romanist" for the sake of debating in good faith.
Regarding violent iconoclasm, I briefly touched on what my position was in my article, which is this: such images and idols should be removed by the government in a Christian state. I would not advocate for random Protestants going into EO or RC parishes and destroying images. In particular, I would like to see Rome (and Constantinople) repent of its error and remove the images from their churches, similar to what St. Epiphanius of Salamis did in one particular church.
Matt,
I'm so sorry that your website has been stained by the presence of a well-known agitator named Dave Armstrong. He has been banned from several reputable websites and it is probably in your best interest that you do the same. He has even come under criticism by Catholic sources. Mr. Armstrong has a history of talking past and ignoring many simple statements made in response made to his assertions. I gets his tactics get annoying and old after awhile.
So says an anonymous coward . . .
Dave Armstrong's wise reply of the day was this: "I received a letter today in the mail. It says that it is an Eviction Order, but I never ordered anything."
Post a Comment