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.
Yes, where is it I once read, man is born unto trouble as the sparks fly upward. Sigh.
In any event, I wish you and yours the very best.
Peace,
SR
Got a chapter and verse for that?
Compare that to:
Acts 15
The Council at Jerusalem
1 Certain people came down from Judea to Antioch and were teaching the believers: “Unless you are circumcised, according to the custom taught by Moses, you cannot be saved.” 2 This brought Paul and Barnabas into sharp dispute and debate with them. So Paul and Barnabas were appointed, along with some other believers, to go up to Jerusalem to see the apostles and elders about this question. 3 The church sent them on their way, and as they traveled through Phoenicia and Samaria, they told how the Gentiles had been converted. This news made all the believers very glad. 4 When they came to Jerusalem, they were welcomed by the church and the apostles and elders, to whom they reported everything God had done through them.5 Then some of the believers who belonged to the party of the Pharisees stood up and said, “The Gentiles must be circumcised and required to keep the law of Moses.”
6 The apostles and elders met to consider this question. 7 After much discussion, Peter got up and addressed them: “Brothers, you know that some time ago God made a choice among you that the Gentiles might hear from my lips the message of the gospel and believe. 8 God, who knows the heart, showed that he accepted them by giving the Holy Spirit to them, just as he did to us. 9 He did not discriminate between us and them, for he purified their hearts by faith. 10 Now then, why do you try to test God by putting on the necks of Gentiles a yoke that neither we nor our ancestors have been able to bear? 11 No! We believe it is through the grace of our Lord Jesus that we are saved, just as they are.”
12 The whole assembly became silent as they listened to Barnabas and Paul telling about the signs and wonders God had done among the Gentiles through them. 13 When they finished, James spoke up. “Brothers,” he said, “listen to me. 14 Simon[a] has described to us how God first intervened to choose a people for his name from the Gentiles. 15 The words of the prophets are in agreement with this, as it is written:
16 “‘After this I will return
and rebuild David’s fallen tent.
Its ruins I will rebuild,
and I will restore it,
17 that the rest of mankind may seek the Lord,
even all the Gentiles who bear my name,
says the Lord, who does these things’[b]—
18 things known from long ago.[c]19 “It is my judgment, therefore, that we should not make it difficult for the Gentiles who are turning to God. 20 Instead we should write to them, telling them to abstain from food polluted by idols, from sexual immorality, from the meat of strangled animals and from blood. 21 For the law of Moses has been preached in every city from the earliest times and is read in the synagogues on every Sabbath.”
The Council’s Letter to Gentile Believers
22 Then the apostles and elders, with the whole church, decided to choose some of their own men and send them to Antioch with Paul and Barnabas. They chose Judas (called Barsabbas) and Silas, men who were leaders among the believers. 23 With them they sent the following letter:The apostles and elders, your brothers,
To the Gentile believers in Antioch, Syria and Cilicia:
Greetings.
24 We have heard that some went out from us without our authorization and disturbed you, troubling your minds by what they said. 25 So we all agreed to choose some men and send them to you with our dear friends Barnabas and Paul— 26 men who have risked their lives for the name of our Lord Jesus Christ. 27 Therefore we are sending Judas and Silas to confirm by word of mouth what we are writing. 28 It seemed good to the Holy Spirit and to us not to burden you with anything beyond the following requirements: 29 You are to abstain from food sacrificed to idols, from blood, from the meat of strangled animals and from sexual immorality. You will do well to avoid these things.
Farewell.
30 So the men were sent off and went down to Antioch, where they gathered the church together and delivered the letter. 31 The people read it and were glad for its encouraging message. 32 Judas and Silas, who themselves were prophets, said much to encourage and strengthen the believers. 33 After spending some time there, they were sent off by the believers with the blessing of peace to return to those who had sent them. [34] [d] 35 But Paul and Barnabas remained in Antioch, where they and many others taught and preached the word of the Lord.
And we KNOW this because the bible Doesn't say it.
HE just slipped up a bit at the marriage in Cana.
John 2:9-10
Then he called the bridegroom aside and said, “Everyone brings out the choice wine first and then the cheaper wine after the guests have had too much to drink; but you have saved the best till now.”
You are to abstain from food sacrificed to idols, from blood, from the meat of strangled animals and from sexual immorality. You will do well to avoid these things.
HMMMmmm...
I have LOTS of museum pieces!
I do not think I’ve EVER thrown one of my old ones out!
By MY count; there is room for at LEAST two more angels on the pinhead.
Fixed it for you. BTW I will take this as your confession to not having documentation about either Ignatius or Clement
But after that the kindness and love of God our Saviour toward man appeared,
Not by works of righteousness which we have done, but according to his mercy he saved us, by the washing of regeneration, and renewing of the Holy Ghost;
Which he shed on us abundantly through Jesus Christ our Saviour;
That being justified by his grace, we should be made heirs according to the hope of eternal life. (Titus 3:4-7)
General Protestant, greek Orthodox, or Baptist
1 -- v. 2-3
2 -- v. 4-6
3 -- v. 7
4 -- v. 9-11
5 -- v. 12
6 -- v. 13
7 -- v. 14
8 -- v. 15
9 -- v. 16
10 -- v. 17
Lutheran
1 -- v. 2-6
2 -- v. 7
3 -- v. 8-11
4 -- v. 12
5 -- v. 13
6 -- v. 14
7 -- v. 15
8 -- v. 16
9 -- v. 17.a "Thou shalt not covet thy neighbor's house (pulled out of thebeginning of verse 17)
10 -- v. 17.b-f Thou shalt not covet thy neighbor's wife, nor his manservant, nor his maidservant, nor his ox, nor his ass, nor anything that is thy neighbor's.
Jewish
1 -- v. 2
2 -- v. 3-6
3 -- v. 7
4 -- v. 9-11
5 -- v. 12
6 -- v. 13
7 -- v. 14
8 -- v. 15
9 -- v. 16
10 -- v. 17
Roman (Deuteronomy 5; selection favors imagery, serious alteration to Exodus 20 to make it fit)
1 -- v. 6-10
2 -- v. 11
3 -- v. 12-15
4 -- v. 16
5 -- v. 17
6 -- v. 18
7 -- v. 19
8 -- v. 20
9 -- v. 21.a Neither shalt thou covet (desire(thy neighbor's wife (pulled out of the middle of verse 17)
10 -- v. 21.b-h neither shalt thou covet thy neighbor's house, or his field, or his manservant, nor his maidservant, his ox, or his ass, or anything that is thy neighbor's.
*******
I think I got most of this as presented by various bodies.
It’s not that everybody thinks the Ignatian Epistles are forgeries, but it certainly has been discussed with some vigor by able Biblical scholars for many, many years. Below is a link to one of many such analyses:
http://www.fullbooks.com/The-Ignatian-Epistles-Entirely-Spurious.html
BTW, I was unaware that there was even a controversy until Iscool brought it up, and a Google search (”Ignatius forgery”) very quickly turned up a plethora of conflicting opinions. In any discussion of divine truth, I would think it was essential to honest discourse to properly qualify a source. If you are convinced the epistles in question are genuine, fine. But if you are trying to woo non-Catholics to your view, it doesn’t help to obscure legitimate controversies over the materials you intend to use to support your views.
As an attorney, I am ethically obligated to be open about my legal sources in court, and can get in real trouble for willfully concealing contrary data points, even if I don’t think they hold water. I cannot imagine we would explore the truth of God according to a standard lower than that used by lawyers. Think about it. Just sayin ...
No, that is not literally what the words translated would be. The correct exact translation is: "This is continually the body of me."
We could say "This is always being my body" and not be wrong in interpretation.
In English, translating as "This is my body" is not quite full enough of what the Koine says to the first century Greek speaker's mind. The present tense in Koine necessarily implies that the "being" part is a persistent quality.
However, you yourself are quite missing the point that the context demands that this is a declaration in a figurative-literal vein. It is not and cannot be simple concrete literal language, as the Romanists would have it.
Why not? Prior to his cross-death and sending of the Holy Ghost, physical life was in the blood. But now, eternal life is in the Spirit.
"But if the Spirit of him that raised up Jesus from the dead dwell in you, he that raised up Crist from the dead shall also quicken your mortal bodies by his Spirit that dwelleth in you" (Romans 8:11)
"It is sown a natural body, it is raised a spiritual body. There is a natural body, and there is a spiritual body" (1 Cor 15:44)
"... when he shall appear, we shall be like him, for we shall see him as he is" (1 Jn. 3:2)
It might be good to review these and similar contexts regarding the body we and Christ shall have. Bloodless is quite likely, eh?
Lots of thoughts about the overwhelming sanctity of Jesus’s Mother, entirely because of His merits.
And given what my kids are like, this probably explains a bit about me, too. Maybe I really wasn’t bats before motherhood ... it’s all Tom’s and Pat’s fault.
I don't pretend to understand even the first 1% of the differences between the pre-Resurrection and post-Resurrection body. I do know two things, based on Jesus' Resurrection:
Having said that, I don't think it's at all obvious that you won't have blood. I'm not ruling it out, I'm just saying maybe yes, maybe no. The Scripture you quoted didn't deal with that question one way or the other, but I do know that the resurrected, transformed body will be perfect, without defect. Being bloodless would be an obvious a defect, like being eyeless, hairless, or skinless.
All I want to add is, Lord, grant us life. What a glorious future with our beloved Lord!
In this, you are both wrong. the word ειμι is Present tense, Active Voice, Indicative mood, and first person singular. verga is wrong in that voice is active, not passive; and you are confusing voice with mood.
Well, my response was less than perfectly structured, but I checked a conjugation chart before posting, and eimi is indicative, which as you say is a mood, but who cares, because the real question was active versus passive, so why would I put it that way, apples and oranges. Totally confusing. My bad.
BTW, please give me your opnion on the how the copulative nature of this verb affects voice. The article I referenced in the post to which you are responding suggests that at least some grammarians do not even make the active/passive distinction here, because as a copulative the verb describes a link between subject and predicate, and not an action per se. I am inclined to agree with this assessment, which is why posted it after noting that the voice was not passive.
And again, I was too hasty and hence unclear in how I structured my earlier post. Misunderstanding was inevitable. My apologies.
Peace,
SR
********************************
Fascinating subject. The implications would be breathtaking. I wonder what Popes Benedict and Francis might conclude? I wonder if this has ever been considered by them, or others at the Vatican?
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.