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 worshipregarded 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 allHebrews 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.
Golly!
I wonder WHY???
Where is the NEW Covenant found in Scripture?
Where is the EVERLASTING Covenant found in Scripture?
Go back to Post 596 and click in the word “chart” or the word “explanation” — put there just for you.
and both statements are true and have been believed by Christians for 2,000 years!
The real written words of Yeshua were this represents my body as you do this in REMEMBRANCE of me.
REALLY???? can you point to any manuscript that contains the greek word for “represents”. i know there must be such a word, but i have NEVER read ANY Bible ANYWHERE that renders the statement as you say what the “real written words” were. What Bible do you find this in?
LOL, some make the mistake of believing because they can’t find a word for a particular doctrine before a certain point in history, that that means the doctrine was not believed or known before that time. In reality, it means just the opposite! the best example of this is Jehovah Witnesses claiming that Jesus Christ was made God at the Council of Nicea and before this no one believed He was God. Totally FALSE! It is when a doctrine or belief is challenged that the Church feels the need to defend it or to explain it more fully. Same thing can be said for the doctrine of the Trinity in the 4th century, the doctrine of God as One BEING in three persons ( btw, the Holy Spirit is not the Lord Jesus Christ, you haven’t been reading Ellen G White have you?? )was attacked and the Church defined the Trinityn formally.
so anyone who believes that “transubstantiation” was first believed in the 13th century, must explain how the Coptic Church and the Chaldean Orthodox Church, both of which broke from the Catholic Church in the 5th century believe it? hmm, isn’t that interesting? let’s look at the Greek Orthodox Church which went into schism in the 11th century, they believe it. how can that be if the belief came in the 13th century?
you bring up Tertullian quote, but even that qote says “he made it his own body” did you read that? the bread was made into his own body. lest you doubt that, here are more Tertullian quotes:
Tertullian’s The Resurrection of the Dead [8,2] A.D. 208-212:
The flesh, then, is washed, so that the soul may be made clean. The flesh is anointed, so that the soul may be dedicated to holiness. The flesh is signed, so that the soul too may be fortified. The flesh is shaded with the imposition of hands, so that the soul too may be illuminated by the Spirit. The flesh feeds on the Body and Blood of Christ, so that the soul too may fatten on God. They cannot, then, be separated in their reward, when they are united in their works.
Tertullian [ca. 200/206 AD] in his treaties on Prayer [6,2], quotes John 6 in connection with a spiritual understanding of the Lord’s prayer “give us this day our daily bread.” In a spiritual sense Christ is our daily Bread, presumably because of the practice of the daily reception of the Eucharist.
Later in that same treatise [19,1] he writes;
Likewise, regard to days of fast, many do not think they should be present at the sacrificial prayers, because their fast would be broken if they were to receive the Body of the Lord. Does the Eucharist, then, obviate a work devoted to God, or does it bind it more to god? Will not your fast be more solemn if, in addition, you have stood at God’s altar? The body of the Lord having been received and reserved, each point is secured: both the participation in the sacrifice and the discharge of duty.
while i am at it, i will throw in a bonus quote from Justin Martyr written to the Roman Emperor explaining Christian belief in his Apology:
Communion in the Body and Blood of Christ
It is allowed to no one else to participate in that food which we call Eucharist except the one who believes that the things taught by us are true, who has been cleansed in the washing unto rebirth and the forgiveness of sins and who is living according to the way Christ handed on to us. For we do not take these things as ordinary bread or ordinary drink. Just as our Savior Jesus Christ was made flesh by the word of God and took on flesh and blood for our salvation, so also were we taught that the food, for which thanksgiving has been made through the word of prayer instituted by him, and from which our blood and flesh are nourished after the change, is the flesh of that Jesus who was made flesh. Indeed, the Apostles, in the records left by them which are called gospels, handed on that it was commanded to them in this manner: Jesus, having taken bread and given thanks said, ``Do this in memory of me, this is my body.’’ Likewise, having taken the cup and given thanks, he said, ``This is my blood’’, and he gave it to them alone
notice his statement that they were taught after the “change” is the “flesh of that Jesus who was made flesh”.
what i love about the writings of Ignatius, Justin and Tertullian is they show what the Catholic Faith was in the 2nd century, 1,300 years before the world even heard of a Protestant.
i am sorry if you feel i am repeating myself, but the doctrine of the Eucharist is a central doctrine of the Christian Faith, one that is so important that Jesus Christ Himself delivered it to Paul ( 1 Corinthians 11:23 )
i will leave you with a new thought to pray over. In 1 Corinthians 11:27 Paul says “whoever, therefore, eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord in an unworthy manner will be guilty of PROFANING THE BODY AND BLOOD OF THE LORD.
how can someone be guilty of profaning the body and blood of the Lord, if the body and blood of the Lord aren’t present??
Very good. I think, though, that a large part of the taste and consistency of the lamb is the searing of the outer layer of the leg before cooking. I might suggest a good 20-30 minute sear before smoking it. It seals in the juices. I mean - it REALLY seals in the juices.
Suggest that you try the oven version first, then supplement with smoker. In any case, do not bother with poisonous toxic green mint jelly. Yurgh. You don’t need it with this approach.
So I see.
No, Sasquatches do not come from Saskatchewan. They come from the creche that spawned such as Janet Reno and Janet Napolitano.
The name is similar but not the same. Silly person.
I did. It's full of assertions.
I want to know what YOU have found; and/or WHY you agree with the 'chart' or the 'explanation'; since I have posted Scripture that demands a trial.
you are correct; but the INTERPRETATIONs of them are quite different for one group of people.
WHY is that?
Elsie: I did. It's full of assertions.
I want to know what YOU have found; and/or WHY you agree with the 'chart' or the 'explanation'; since I have posted Scripture that demands a trial.
I have found the sites I gave you to summarize what I have found, having studied this phase of doctrine out about 40 years ago, I don't owe you anything else except to tell you to confute it on your own. You are not declaring yourself as someone else's disciple (which you ought to be), and since you have shown a jeering, scoffing, mocking attitude, I don't think I can help you.
Lurkers - he can't explain it.
...you have shown a jeering, scoffing, mocking attitude...
A nice counter-balance to your smug superiority; don't you think?
but realized that you are correct in your perspective, so I won't.
But you DID; so I wasn’t!!
(I will STILL not impug you for yer speling...)
You have avoided answering these challenges here and continued to assert the same ECF arguments read through the Roman Catholic-tinted glasses. This is the way you interact on just about all the religion forum threads and if it's not the Eucharist, it's baptism that you steer any and all threads to regardless of the topic or what others have already addressed. I get it, you reject any opinion but your own interpretation of your church's. Just as my words will not sink in, neither will yours to my heart. I KNOW whom I have believed and am CONFIDENT that my faith in Christ WILL deliver me into heaven and not the works of my hands. Only those whose eyes and hearts have been opened to the truth of the grace of the Gospel will be able to see and receive the gift of everlasting life through Christ. I'll not be answering anymore of your so-called challenges nor do I have to "pray" about what you presume I should.
I find that lamb, like a good steak, is so much better served medium rare. Smoking of lamb, I think, would allow it to cook too long and bring out a gamier taste than grilling or roasting would. JMHO.
Belief, trust in Yehova.
That was what got Abraham credit for righteousness. and the same for his seed.
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.