Posted on 08/05/2013 10:31:02 AM PDT by Gamecock
Question:
Does the OPC use the crucifix in the church? If not, are they opposed to it?
Answer:
Thank you for your question. The answer is, so far as I know, the crucifix is not used in OPC churches, and here is why:
1.The Second Commandment (Ex. 20:4-6 and Deut. 5:8-10) forbids any picture or image of God, and that would include the Son of God, even as man. At any rate we do not know what Jesus looked like as there is no physical description of him.
2.The crucifix will always end up being an object of worship—regarded as holy. History teaches as much. The bronze serpent Moses made became an object of worship and was not destroyed till King Hezekiah did it (Numbers 21:9; 2 Kings 18:1-5). Roman Catholics have worshipped it, kissed it and held it to have mystical powers.
3.Christ did not remain on the Cross. In the Roman Church Christ is said to be resacrificed each time the Mass is celebrated. This is heresy; he died once for all—Hebrews 9:25-28.
We in the OPC have learned not to trust our idolatry prone hearts not to do the same as others have in the past. Hence, no crucifixes are used. So, yes, we are opposed to it.
You mean "poppycock" but you completely miss the entire meaning of the whole Jewish religion of God's first will/covenant, as conducted in the Temple. This shows that you need to be reminded that what I described is the ultimate execution of the Once-and-forever application of Blood to the True Heavenly Mercy Seat on The Day, the Only Unique Yom Kippur. On that Day, Jesus Christ arose from the dead as LORD, ascended to Heaven, and as our Eternal High Priest presented that Blood to propitiate (atone to) The Mighty God, for all sins.
This is what you call ... poppycock?
Without that moment of the transaction of cancelling man's sin debt to God, all His living, excruciating torture, dying. and resurrection means nothing.
Any thoughts?
It's an interesting thought, and I have wondered about it for some time. Too bad that it's not directly discussed in Scripture. In that vein, why did Mary need a Savior? (Lk. 1:47)
It's like there's a quicksand pit. I fell into it and needed a Savior to pull me out. She needed a Savior to prevent her inevitably falling into it. Both the person in the quicksand, and the person about to fall into the quicksand, need to be rescued --- because on their own they would be lost.
Well said as always.
Elsie: Izzat so?
(Scripture verses) Elsie: Why even LOOK at the BoL if ONLY 'saved persons' will be there?
It sounds to me that you are attempting to validate the assumption that Christ's judgment seat (= βεμα) is the same as the Great White Throne (=θρονον). Please consider that:
"All Scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness; ..." (2 Timothy 3:16)
What you neglected was to include Rev. 20:4-5, which would have solved your problem. Also taking into account:
"And as it is appointed unto men once to die, but after this the judgment: ..." (Heb. 9:27)
We see that these thrones, not primarily seats of appointed judges, but of administration of the kingdom affairs, were occupied by humans who were reigning by appointment of Christ:
"To him that overcometh will I grant to sit with me in my throne ..." (Rev. 3:21; see also 2:11 and 2:26)
These humans, who must have died, are sitting in their thrones, not only resurrected in the first resurrection, but will reign with Him for a thousand years, hence have already been judged. They will have been permitted to judge, but it is like our civil courts--they will not hear capital cases, only administrative ones, as well as executing other official decisions.
At the end of the thousand years, the Devil will have been finally dealt with, and the Great White Throne, which only hears capital cases, will not only judge humans that were not raised up in the first resurrection, but also ones saved by faith in Christ during the seven-year tribulation or during the thousand-year interregnum.
Some of those may have died, but are raised in the second resurrection. They also will be judged at the GWT moment of truth, but certainly the Book of Life will be consulted for the entries of their names. Nevertheless, their deeds will b e reviewed out of the other books concerning their rewards.
The remainder of souls will also be judged fairly and squarely on their works. But if any have a sin history not wiped out by the Shed Blood of Jesus The Anointed Lamb of The God, no matter how miniscule it is, they will be judged worthy of being consigned to the Lake of Fire forever; because The God cannot look on, nor entertain sin in his presence. Fair? Yes it would be.
The purpose of this is to find the answers to your questions in the Holy Scripture. My time is precious. Do not hlp me to misuse it.
It's not like a quicksand pit. Even though someone might have fallen into a quicksand pit, it is not a sin to do so. Neither does it take a sinless savior to pull you out, nor to effectively warn you of the danger.
But what you haven't discussed here it the inescapable congenital predisposition to sin, which even as a babe, every human has and does, being a replication of the flesh and soul of fallen Adam and Eve.
(Some fallen thinkers have tried to dodge the issue by pushing this problem back one generation by claiming that Mary's mother somehow conceived a Scripturally unexplainable perfect seed out of imperfect gametes.)
Just an fyi...You have the ‘666’ position on the thread.
Mope/ I don't have it. It's just the number that the message was issued with.If you find someone with the username DCLXVI, worry about that! I figure it will be a Roman. (666 is Arabian)
Regarding the doctrine of the Immaculate Conception: the quicksand pit is a parable. (Remember, Our Lord often taught by parables. ) I did not imply that falling in quicksand was a sin, or even a congenital predisposition to sin.
I do not know how Our Lord saved Mary from this woeful predisposition, although via the Eastern Churches (Orthodox and Byzantines) I have read wonderful writings --- if I can find them on the internet, I'll send links --- associating Genesis 3:15 ("I will put enmity between you and the woman, between your seed and her seed...") with Hebrews 10:5 ("Wherefore when he cometh into the world, he saith,...a body thou hast prepared me.")
The conclusion was that God was working through all the generations between Adam/Eve, and Mary, preparing perfect seed so that Our Lord could be born of a perfect mother.
Being 21st century persons, we naturally think of this in terms of the DNA, and the various permutations and combinations which come about via meiosis, generation after generation. The OT Jews didn't know genetics per se, but their intense interest in genealogy in the OT suggests that with each generation, God was preparing the sacred Messianic line. The life being transmitted in that line was free of random genetic deterioration, indeed undergoing successive genetic improvements as different alleles were selected and rejected.
But why would one bump that back to the conception of Mary in her mother's womb? Why not simply say that Jesus Himself, upon His conception, must have received those "all-star" genes when the finally-flawless sequencing clicked into place?
The reason would be that be that, contrary to what was thought by perinatologists until very recently, there ARE interchanges between maternal and fetal blood involving stem cells and proteins which switch different genes on and off. A perfect Jesus carried in the womb of an imperfect mother for nine months, would have had His phenotype (despite his pure His genotype) rendered impure by microchimerism and related processes while still in her contaminated, and actively contaminating, womb.
Not only that, but the mother's egg cell (which, when fertilized, becomes the zygote) also contains mitchondria, which have their own independent genome, and are involved in other tasks such as signaling, cellular differentiation, the control of the cell cycle and cell growth and death. This is another event pathway by which an imperfect mother would pervasively degrade a perfect offspring.
There's also the til-now largely unexplored question of living cells transmitted to the suckling infant via breast milk. It is well known that the mother passes on 40 million maternal cells per ounce of breast milk: mammary epithelial cells, leukocytes (white blood cells) --- macrophages, neutrophils, and lymphocytes. With the exception of the epithelial cells, these are the same cells found in the mother's blood.
Bottom line, modern science can be seen as confirming what our fathers in the faith knew only by divine inspiration: that the "seed of the woman" (unheard of for a woman to be thought to have "seed"!) would be "prepared" (as it says in Hebrews) until a perfected genetic, somatic and mitochondrial line was present in a woman who would give birth to the Messiah.
I don't know how much of theology of Jesus' perfect humanity is dependent on the biology as I have just described it. Much of it must necessarily remain veiled in mystery. Nevertheless, the most advanced scienctific research provides converging lines of evidence that the genetic, gestational and lactational mother would have to be perfect in order to give birth to an offspring entirely free of defect, and nurture him perfectly through infancy.
As one the most ancient hymns in Christendom says, "[You] who without corruption gave birth to God the Word, the very Theotokos, we magnify you."
And all this, done for a lowly handmaid, by her Savior! It was a work of God alone. "My soul magnifies the Lord!"
Jesus isn’t dead and he isn’t on the cross. Why does anyone use a crucifix? The sight of the crucifix, as a symbol of my Lord in pain and death, is gruesome to me.
Geez, you can't even admit to that - even in small incidental things?? What more....
I am so stealing this. thank for such a clear logical explanation.
"But we preach Christ crucified, unto the Jews a stumblingblock, and unto the Greeks foolishness
1 Corinthians 1:23
and
For I determined not to know any thing among you, save Jesus Christ, and him crucified.
1 Corinthians 2:2
The Incarnation and Passion of Christ are among the most important events that ever happened on this earth. They are so crucial to our salvation, and so perfectly show forth His incomprehensible love for us, that Christians will never stop portraying the events of both His birth and His death in the most visible way possible.
We Christians portray Him also risen from the dead, and seated at the right hand of the Father.
Look, see the power and the pathos of it all, and adore Him!
'they' did?
And just WHEN did this event occur?
It rained a thunderating heavy storm here with a cellphone flooding warning coming in. But the storm cleared up and now it is cook and sunny, and perhaps I cam get some work done outside.
On the biological/theological problem under discussion, there has been some creative writing going on about it, but little solid application of what we already have--The Holy Scriptures.
I do not know how Our Lord saved Mary from this woeful predisposition,
I do know. Basically, The Anointed Child born from her womb saved her just like He provided for every other human's salvation, from Adam and Eve on, by his purchase of us with His Blood, and by suffering at the Hands of The God the total penalty for sins, on the Cross.
... with each generation, God was preparing the sacred Messianic line.
Jesus' genealogy provided him with a connection to Seth, Shem and Jacob, a legitimate title of royalty from Judah to David to Joseph on the one side, and a validation of His physical sonship from David's Nathan to Mary on the other side (which Joseph was not to provide), as having been born from Mary's womb.
Why not simply say that Jesus Himself, upon His conception, must have received those "all-star" genes when the finally-flawless sequencing clicked into place?
It seems that He must have had a very durable genetic construction, but until the past few years we did not know how, even though our medical / technological knowledge was surpassing. That has now changed.
First, consider that Adam was created to live for ever. But he had no mother. God created his body out of the dust of the earth--the body which even we still have. Having been made perfectly, there was no hint of death, anywhere, until his irreversible moment of diaobedience. God breathed into that body, and it became a living soul.
From that living flesh body, God also made a woman. However, in doing so, He left something out of every cell of that body: the y chromosome. Therefore, without some miracle, a woman could not parthenogenetically produce a male.
Point two is that in the last forty or fifty years, another aspect of biology has given us skills to extract an embryo from one woman and plant it into another woman. Or (I think) it has become possible to place an in vitro fertilized egg into a woman's womb. Of these factors I have a speculation that it most certainly is possible for the All-Mighty, Omniscient, Omnipotent God to create just such an incipient body within the womb of a young virgin, unite with it as The Son of His Love, and come to fruition as The Sinless Son born into this world, with the task and ability to meet The God's righteous demands, and thus vanquish both the Devil and the Death introdued beacause of Adam's disobedience.
Never forget that such a Divine Birth could have taken place at any time, but The God waited until the fullness of time to integrate this phase of his purposes to install His Messiah and His Kingdom of Righteousness and peace.
The above speculation of Mary being granted the Blessed Mother; the trusting, willing, and obedient host of The Fully Human and Fully God Servant should not scandalize you.
As far as His leucocytes passing into her, that is oly another speculation. Andas far as His blood being left on the Shroud of Turin, I'm mighty suspicious of that claim.
Nice try; but Scripture says that ALL have sinned and come short of the glory of GOD.
If you've any PROOF that that statement is INCORRECT; We'd sure love to see it!
Nice try to turn it around.
I quite CLEARLY said: what proof have YOU that these two are NOT one and the same.
Nana; lookie who got it!
I don't need to prove anything. The scripture proves it. I took my time for you. Your clock has run out on this. Bag it.
the original KJV of the Bible did contain these books, just as every Bible for the previous 1,500 years ( including the Septuigant, the Bible used by St Paul ) subsequent editions of the KJV dropped these books altogether. the Bible used by Mormons does not contain these books, nor do the Jehovah Witnesses have them in their Bible.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.