Thank you for responding and please do not consider my tone to be impolite or harsh. You said, We must take other considerations into account in ethical discussions. We must not only consider commands and prohibitions (a normative perspective), but must consider heart motivations (an existential perspective) and goals or outcomes (a situational perspective).
        I have taken into consideration what you have said and lets apply it to other Commandments. Thou shall not commit adultery and thou shalt not lie -- seems clear enough. Yet lets consider ones heart motivation and potential outcomes. Here is a ridiculous sinful scenario:

Perhaps a man knows that the woman across the street is lonely and he has the ability to share physical love with that person. Wouldn't it be selfish, self-centered, a sin if he didn't share his physical love with that person? If his motivation is love and the end result is happiness and the ending of someone's physical loneliness then the Commandments may not necessarily apply. Furthermore because both are married it is only fitting, out of the love for their spouses, that they not tell them.

        Let me stop right here and say, God has absolutely forbidden such things, regardless of heart motivation and outcomes. The commands read, thou shalt not the Commandments do not read, thou might or might not it all depends. If your argument for the use of images of Jesus is based on situational ethics and the ends justify the means. I addressed both of those secular progressive presuppositions in the Q & A section of the book. I wrote,

{16. Q: What is wrong with Christians having images of Christ if their intentions are to honor Christ and not worship the image?
A: This question assumes that ones good intentions matter more than whether or not one violates Scripture. Therefore, good intentions rather than Scriptural Commandment could guide ones worship of God. Furthermore, if God accepted good intentions as keeping the Second Commandment, then God was wrong for getting upset at the Israelite people for making a golden calf. The Israelite peoples intentions were obviously good, for they chose a strong image to depict God. Finally, if one follows the thinking that good intentions are enough to keep God's Commandments, then as long as ones sins are not intentional, one would not be guilty of violating Gods Commandments. Ultimately, the argument of good intentions is the argument for situational ethics. Good intentions or situational ethics will never vindicate one who has violated Gods Commandments.} Finally, if one is going to argue for heart motivation and potential outcomes which is a well crafted way of saying situational ethics and the end justifies the means -- than one needs to ask As long as my heart motivations are good and the outcome was good, then what sin can one continue in and still enter the kingdom of heaven?
        Continuing I asked, 1. Using your argument because it does not mention God's name then that part of the Commandment does not refer to Him, then Mat 22:37 does not refer to God the Son or God the Holy Spirit since it does not have their names. This was in response to a previous post where you did not believe that the first clause of the Second Commandment applied specifically to God.
        You responded, I have not said the 2nd commandment does not "refer" to God (although I still do not know what you mean by "refer"). But the commandment refers to much more than God -- it specifically says "ANYTHING in heaven above, on the earth beneath, or in the water under the earth." I cannot see how it is possible to limit that to God, as you are doing.
        You didn't addresse the question concerning the specific use of God's name in the first clause of the Second Commandment. If you are retracting your position that because Exo 20:4 does not use Gods name then it does not refer to him specifically -- well then lets press on.
        I also asked, 2. Are you using part of the Roman Catholic argument? I would like to know how to address my responses to you since Protestants and Roman Catholics operate from to different presuppositions concerning God's Commandments about this issue.
        You responded, Honestly, I am not aware of what the "Roman Catholic" argument is. I know RCs end up using images in worship. But my argument is, I believe, simply trying to be faithful to what Scripture actually teaches. I would encourage you to go online and look up the Roman Catholic argument about this issue. Also let me quote the words of G.I. Williamson in his writing concerning the shorter catechism of the WCF. He writes: {The second commandment is broken when men attempt to make a graven image or a picture of the Lord Jesus Christ. The Bible teaches us that there is one God. It teaches us to worship the three persons, the father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit, as one God, the same in substance, equal in power and glory. But Paul tells us that we "ought not to think that the Godhead is like unto gold, or silver, or stone graven by art and man's device" (Acts 17:29)...
        There was a time when the Protestants recognized this evil. They saw the images in the Roman Catholic Church and they understood that this was a violation of the second commandment. They realized that this was wrong - this making of images and likenesses of Christ - even though the Roman Catholic Church was careful to say that it did not want people to worship these images, but only to worship the Lord through these images. But now, it seems, many Protestants have accepted the Roman Catholic position. They may not realize this. And they may still think, in their minds, that there is an important difference between a statue (image) and a picture (likeness). But the commandment recognizes no such difference. It forbids us to make any likeness, just as it forbids us to make any image, of the Lord.}
        Moving on to your next argument you said, We cannot make images of the Father, since no one has seen Him. Hmmm ok, we cannot make pictures of Jesus cents no known accurate depiction exists. This is something I handle in the historical section of the book. Images of Jesus did not appear until the 3rd century. Furthermore it is commonly understood buy Christian historians that the first and second century Christians viewed making an image of Jesus to be a pagan practice and something God forbid. Furthermore it is not accounted by credible sources that Jesus sat for a portrait, sketch or sculpture. So where did the sorce models for the pictures of Jesus come from? Pagan gods.
        You also said, The Holy Spirit has appeared in the form of a dove (Matt. 3:16). I would have no problem with a picture which depicts that. Saying something that one has never seen looks like something, is not the same as saying that it is the image of that thing. For example, if we take the book of Revelation literally, we see Jesus in Revelation 19:15 with a sword coming out of His mouth. Are we to believe that Jesus Christ is running around Heaven with a sword hanging out of His mouth? To create an image from the literal description of Jesus in the apocalyptic writings would make an image more like a monster than the Savior. If the Scriptures had said, the Holy Spirit is a dove and came down then you would have had a stronger argument.
        Finally you said, So this is where I am coming from. My point is that the 2nd commandment does not prohibit all pictures of Jesus; it only prohibits worship of those pictures, or worship by means of those pictures. And this is where I am coming from, that Exo 20:4 forbids images of God the Father, God the Son and God the Holy Spirit. You said, I think you and I are talking past one another. You are committed to your bifurcation of "Either God or people approved images of Jesus." I have tried to show that the position needs to be dealt with in a more nuanced fashion. My parallel argument regarding the sacrifices was meant to show the possibility that there are things which God approves in some situations, but which He disapproves in other situations.
        I would say that you and I are talking in opposition of one another. It also seems that we are holding to two different sets of Commandments. The 10 Commandments I read from begin with the Hebrew word lo which is, in this context, an absolute prohibition. Your Commandments seemed to begin with the word depends.

Justin Griffin