[DarylB]

Here's an odd question, is it okay to call God, mother? Conversely why do we call him father?

[FreakShiny]

I would say that the reason we call Him Father is that, first of all, the Bible, being the inspired Word of God refers to Him in the masculine. Secondly, He tells us that He is our Father and that we are His children. Thirdly, there is nowhere in the Bible that God is referred to in the feminine. Not incredibly deep but I think that sums it up.

[niangelo]

And further, Daryl, is it ok to call God Alanis Morissette?

[Travis]

Since God is infinite and truly on different level than us, we are reliant upon His revealing Himself in order to know Him. He did so in The Scriptures. And in doing so, how did He reveal Himself—as father or mother? As He or she? The former in both cases. It is sinful for us to just decide that God should be referred to as a woman now, and call Him things that contradict the way He revealed Himself.

[DarylB]

Originally Posted by Travis

Since God is infinite and truly on different level than us, we are reliant upon His revealing Himself in order to know Him. He did so in The Scriptures. And in doing so, how did He reveal Himself—as father or mother? As He or she? The former in both cases. It is sinful for us to just decide that God should be referred to as a woman now, and call Him things that contradict the way He revealed Himself.

Okay sounds reasonable to me, for support's sake, where exactly does he reveal himself as masculine?

[2ManArmy]

Concerning why we call Him "father"; for one thing, Jesus did teach us the "Our Father".
That kind of stems from J-Fan's observation that the Bible refers to Him in the masculine

[FreakShiny]

Originally Posted by DarylB

Okay sounds reasonable to me, for support's sake, where exactly does he reveal himself as masculine?

How about Genesis 1:3-5 And God said, "Let there be light," and there was light. 4 God saw that the light was good, and He separated the light from the darkness. 5 God called the light "day," and the darkness He called "night." And there was evening, and there was morning-the first day.

[DarylB]

Oh, I realize that it uses "He" in English but was the Hebrew or Greek pronoun gender-specific? In English we only have "It" for a gender-neutral pronoun but i'm curious as to how it is in Greek or Hebrew.

[Lightknight]

Psa 68:5 A father of the fatherless, and a judge of the widows, [is] God in his holy habitation.

here, I found a verse calling Him a father of the fatherless. If you can find one saying he is the mother to the motherless then it is appropriate to call God that.

[Andrei]

Daryl,

I know you are Reformed, and I use it in the strongest sense of the word. I respect what you say and thank God that you are on these boards to dispense truth to the rest of us. I would urge you to remember the teachings that our spiritual forefathers taught, bled, and died to preserve. We must consult our Confessions and Catechisms and see how they interpreted Scripture on these matters.
----------------------------------------
Heidelberg Catechism (1563)

Q. 96. What does God require in the second commandment?
A. That we in no way make any image of God,1 nor worship Him in any other way than He has commanded in His Word.2

1 Deut 4:15-19; Isa 40:18-25; Acts 17:29; Rom 1:23; 2 Lev 10:1-7; Deut 12:30; 1 Sam 15:22-23; Mt 15:9; Jn 4:23-24

Q. 97. May we then not make any image at all?
A. God may not and cannot be visibly portrayed in any way; as for creatures, though they may indeed be visibly portrayed, yet God forbids the making or keeping any likeness of them, either to worship them, or by them to serve Himself.1

1 Ex 34:13-14, 17; Num 33:52; 2 Kgs 18:4-5; Isa 40:25

Q. 98. But may not images be tolerated in churches as “books for the laity?”
A. No, for we should not be wiser than God, who will not have His people taught by images which cannot speak,1 but by the lively preaching of His Word.2

1 Jer 10:8; Hab 2:18-20; 2 Rom 10:14-15, 17; 2 Tim 3:16-17; 2 Pt 1:19

Westminster Larger Catechism (1648)

Q. 109. What are the sins forbidden in the second commandment?
A. The sins forbidden in the second commandment are, all devising, counselling, commanding, using, and anywise approving, any religious worship not instituted by God himself; 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; all worshipping of it, or God in it or by it; the making of any representation of feigned deities, and all worship of them, or service belonging to them, all superstitious devices, corrupting the worship of God, adding to it, or taking from it, whether invented and taken up of ourselves, or received by tradition from others, though under the title of antiquity, custom, devotion, good intent, or any other pretence whatsoever; simony; sacrilege; all neglect, contempt, hindering, and opposing the worship and ordinances which God hath appointed.

Second Helvetic Confession (1566)
Of Idols or Images of God, Christ and the Saints

Since God as Spirit is in essence invisible and immense, he cannot really be expressed by any art or image. For this reason we have no fear pronouncing with Scripture that images of God are mere lies. Therefore we reject not only the idols of the Gentiles, but also the images of Christians.
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 (1 Cor. 3:16). But “what agreement has the temple of God with idols?” (2 Cor. 6:16).
And since the blessed spirits and saints in heaven, while they lived here on earth, rejected all worship of themselves (Acts 3:12 f.; 14:11 ff.; 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.
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 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).
Therefore we approved the judgment of Lactantius, an ancient writer, who says: “Undoubtedly no religion exists where there is an image.”
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. Wherefore he charged that from henceforth no such veils, which were contrary to our religion, should be hung in the Church of Christ, and that rather such questionable things, unworthy of the Church of Christ and the faithful people, should be removed. Moreover, we approve of this opinion of St. Augustine concerning true religion: “Let not the worship of the works of men be a religion for us. For the artists themselves who make such things are better; yet we ought not to worship them” (On True Religion, ch. 55).

[DarylB]

Well somebody asked me this question actually and I didn't have an adequate answer so I asked it here. I'm sort of playing devil's advocate.

EDIT: Andrei, I'm curious how you mean to apply excerpts from the excellent works you quoted.

[Andrei]

Originally Posted by DarylB

Andrei, I'm curious how you mean to apply excerpts from the excellent works you quoted.

I mean to say that our spiritual forefathers were much wiser than us. This I am discovering almost daily. As Reformed Christians, we need to consult what they thought on the matters first and foremost (Scripture vicariously through the various documents, for you people who don't understand that I am preaching Sola Scriptura). We live with entirely different worldviews than they did, and they were most certainly right.

That said, I posted these because they preach the point: We should not think of God outside of what He provided about Himself in His Word. He is too holy for us to disfigure Him as something He is not--like a mother...or Jim Caviezel. This is why Luke and I greatly defended the Reformed position that making any image of God at all, representing Him with art, or claiming He is something He is not, is breaking the Second Commandment. We are only to think and discuss God as He revealed Himself in Scripture.

We are to go only where Scripture leads us and no further.

[DarylB]

Originally Posted by Andrei

I mean to say that our spiritual forefathers were much wiser than us. This I am discovering almost daily. As Reformed Christians, we need to consult what they thought on the matters first and foremost (Scripture vicariously through the various documents, for you people who don't understand that I am preaching Sola Scriptura). We live with entirely different worldviews than they did, and they were most certainly right.

That said, I posted these because they preach the point: We should not think of God outside of what He provided about Himself in His Word. He is too holy for us to disfigure Him as something He is not--like a mother...or Jim Caviezel. This is why Luke and I greatly defended the Reformed position that making any image of God at all, representing Him with art, or claiming He is something He is not, is breaking the Second Commandment. We are only to think and discuss God as He revealed Himself in Scripture.

We are to go only where Scripture leads us and no further.

Wow, thanks, that does make a great deal of sense. I'm still curious though, does the Hebrew or Greek use gender definitive pronouns when it describes God?

[Travis]

I know the Greek uses masculine words only in reference to God. [greek]O qeov[/greek] is masculine; they could haved used [greek]h qea[/greek] if they had wanted to do so. And yes, the pronouns used are masculine, since they have to agree with the word to which they are in reference. I'm pretty darn sure the Hebrew does as well.

[DarylB]

Originally Posted by Travis

I know the Greek does. [greek]o qeov[/greek] is masculine. I'm pretty darn sure the Hebrew does as well.

Okay, thats pretty conclusive.

I didn't know there were Greek tags [greek]This is cool, i can type greek[/greek]