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.
!!
This seems to be a good example of gph's evangelization strategy, which is valued mainly for its repellent powers.
Have a good day, y'all.
He doesn’t understand the meaning of “IS”. LOL! Wondering if that is Bill Clinton posting. LOL!
I apologize for being tardy in responding to this question.
In one response I explained the two kinds of literal interpretation, one being literal language and the other which is figurative-literal language. In this example you have equated the two. the logic here is not on the verb "to be"; rather, it is on the predicate. In the first case, The God is using literal language, of the Son of His Love, not a symbol of the Son. Jesus not only exists, but His relationship to The God exists, for He is the only Begotten-in-the-flesh-by-the-Holy-Ghost-placed-in-the-womb-of-Mary and having the title "Son." His relationship to the God is more than conceptual. It is also carnal, as was/is Adam's initially.
On the other hand, Jesus in talking of the bread-loaf is using figurative-literal language. The bread-loaf is a symbol, physical characteristics of which can figuratively illustrate the spiritual relationship of Jesus to those who have a spiritual identity, having been spiritually born through the action of the generative seed, which is Christ's Words--His regenerated believer-disciples.
Again, in speaking of the connection between Himself and the unleavened fluid pressed from a grape-cluster, He is using figurative-literal language, in which the wine has physical characteristics which can be used symbolically to point to the spiritual relationship existing between Jesus and His regenerated disciple-followers.
To confuse these two modes of language usage, as you apparently have done, is to introduce a logical flaw fatal to your doctrine, for which transubstantiation was devised to keep your construct alive.
Jesus, of course expected this child-like concreteness, and dealt with it summarily, on one occasion recorded in John 6:58-64, esp. v. 63.
Actually, in this passage Jesus reversed the semantics, making His flesh and his blood the physical symbols of spiritual realities.
First, Jesus asserts the claims:
Coming to him, a spiritual response, eases ones spiritual hunger, spiritually feeds. (From the temptation in the wilderness that the (hu)man lives physically by bread and spiritually by imbibing the words from The God.)
Persistently committing ones trust in Him, a continual spiritual process, assuages ones spiritual thirst. (From Jn. 4:14 we learn that Jesus gives spiritual water, and from Eph. 5:26 we learn that spiritual water is the Spoken Word, and it cleanses as well. So does His Blood, as in 1 Jn. 1:7) Thus, coming to Him is food, and believing on Him is drink.
But then in John 6:53 He makes His physical flesh a spiritual symbol for the very real spiritual food, the sayings of The God; and He makes His physical Blood a spiritual symbol for both satiating spiritual thirst, and cleansing one of sin and its inner stains.
Thus, in these sayings, He communicates to Old Testament believers of their need for an understanding of abstract ideas. This begins to accustom them, in their spiritual growth, of being able to accept His ordinance of the Remembrance Supper, where in the physical dimension, the leavened bread-loaf is a symbol of the spiritual reality of His heavenly-resident body, which is also to be a symbol of His spiritual Church; and His physical Blood, from which all life principle proceeds, is a symbol for the water of the sayings of The God that assuage spiritual thirst, cleanse of sin, and produce spiritual life.
Trouble is, that the natural (psuchikos) (hu)man cannot discern the deep things of the Spirit of The God, and has to make do with the artifice of transubstantiation to rationalize participation in a spiritual exercise from which one cannot benefit until The God's righteous demands of coming to His Anointed One (when drawn by The God and The Holy Ghost), and continuously persistently trusting in Him Son, Who is The Personification of His Written and Spoken Word, the Logos.
Is this too much? What part of the logic does a natural man not understand? Spiritual babes must also be taught of this, eh?
from the foundation of the world. (Rev. 13:8 KJV, also DRB, TR, Majority, not as such in NASB, WH)
A minor, but not insignificant, correction. The slaying of The Lamb was not needed until Adam erred (by foreknowledge He was ready and willing. The God is never surprised.).
There was no alcohol in any wine Jesus made, drank, or instituted for the Remembrance Supper. Leavened wine forbidden in the Temple.
This is news to me- I have never heard of “leavened wine” and alchohol free wine.
Alcohol was a major preservative in those dayes. Wine without alcohol would be grape juice, that would spoil
Way, way incorrect. His Blood is the source of life, and incorruptible. On His first ascension to Heaven as The Eternal High Priest, He gathered up all his Blood, every incorruptible particle, and place it upon the true Mercy Seat in the Heavenly Holiest of All, to propitiate our sins and obtain reconcilition for us with The God and Father.
Parade around. Bow down too. Pray at.
Popycock!
The precocious blood is consumed by either the presiding priest or one of the extraordinary ministers, and the body is reserved in the tabernacle.
Yep. Unless you’ve got a museum piece, that’s how it has to be. And somewhere down in the basement I’ve got a zip-lok bag with a few old 3.5 inch floppies that at the time I just couldn’t get rid of, and yet I haven’t used them (other than the Logos disks) in decades. But I’ve got the external drive, just in case! Semper paratus!
In a word, NUTS!!! What, you have to wear the secret Catholic decoder ring or do a mind meld with each other to get it???
Who do you think you are trying to kid??? It certainly won't be anyone who reads and believes the scriptures...
Clement of Rome (80 A.D.) in Corinthians 36:1 refers to the Eucharist as the ``offering of the gift.’’ St. Clement, bishop of Rome, 80 A.D., to the Corinthians, 40: Since then these things are manifest to us, and we have looked into the depths of the divine knowledge, we ought to do in order all things which the Master commanded us to perform at appointed times. He commanded us to celebrate sacrifices and services, and that it should not be thoughtlessly or disorderly, but at fixed times and hours. He has Himself fixed by His supreme will the places and persons whom He desires for these celebrations, in order that all things may be done piously according to His good pleasure, and be acceptable to His will. So then those who offer their oblations at the appointed seasons are acceptable and blessed, but they follow the laws of the Master and do not sin. For to the high priest his proper ministrations are allotted, and to the priests the proper place has been appointed, and on Levites their proper services have been imposed. The layman is bound by the ordinances for the laity.
It is readily apparent that you don't have a clue what this piece supposedly put out by someone supposedly named Clement is referring to...
Those who believe and confess the Apostolic Faith know exactly what Clement is teaching
Bonkers...
It's only a mystery to those who accept what they are told, that it's a mystery...
Those who read and believe the bible, not so much...
As has been known for about a decade now, cells of the unborn baby's blood cross the placenta and migrate into the mother, where they set up a process known as "feto-maternal microchimerism". Fetal stem cells circulate around in the mother's bloodstream, or even settle and grow in certain sites in her body, where it is thought that they play a role in certain healing processes which benefit the mother.
Here's an article about it which was here in Free Republic: Childrens' Cells Living in Mother's Brain (Link).
And here's a little fuller research on the subject: More on Fetomaternal Microchimerism.
You emphasized, with great conviction, that every incorruptible particle of the Blood of the Lord Jesus would be gathered up to the Mercy Seat in Heaven.
His blood cells which passed through the placenta and micro-colonized parts of His mother's brain, bone, and blood? What would be the implications?
Any thoughts?
Yer links aren’t linking.
But, I believe you have come up with something profound here.
Sadly I don't believe that either of you has the intellectual acumen to understand it. If you are actually interested, I strongly recommend Frank Sheed's "Theology and Sanity" or maybe his "Theology for beginners" might be more your speed.
In other words, you don't have a clue...
I don’t know why those other links didn’t work. The ones I just posted, do: I gave them a test-drive :o)
Two lovely people shared in buying me Bibleworks! It’s very helpful.
I’m not going to be able to hold up my end of the conversation. My poor father-in-law is in extremis. I’m SO grateful for the friendly (comparatively) quality of this exchange.
After all, you can’t help being mistaken .....
:-)
please continue to pray for David and Carolyn.
I don’t think it’s entirely correct or fair to dismiss “high receptionism” as gnostic. At least not utterly off-hand. It has been characterized as “real presence in the believer “ and while I think it wrong, I think it’s a worthy attempt.
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.