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.
Scripture please. Was the doctor there at Calvary, the Bible doesn't mention his name.
At the feast, which was an ongoing multi-day event, the family was running out of wine, fermented Alcoholic wine.
That is a wholly unsubstantiated assumption you have no right to make if you want to debate the meaning of Scripture with me. I almost quit reading at this point, but did continue. What I did find is a construction that is completely opinion and not forensic.
We can see this from the circumstance and customs of the day.
Have you ever looked up the word "eisegesis"? Let me suggest that you do so.
It was a party, a celebration, and the wine was flowing freely.
Freely? Maybe there were too many party-crashers for the wine supply to last. I dunno. Nobody now does.
And so on. Your argument here is full of holes, and not worthy of one who wishes to look at the account with spiritual discernment. Your explanation is a crutch to justify addiction to a habit the Bible counsels against. Furthermore, you are managing the Savior's miracle to grant you an excuse for your preferences, and thus robbing Him of the Glory He deserves.
While the tale of Noah's incapacitation is interesting, and has it's own analysis (and I will guess that your interpretation will favor your acceptance of alcoholic beverages as an acceptable trait for a devoted follower of Christ), discussion of it here is irrelevant.
If you take this comment to be pejorative, it is not meant so. It is more that of an elder or teacher as a cautionary observation, not as condemning criticism.
Amen!
I understand that point of view and held that opinion until I started thinking about what really happens to our flesh and blood bodies when we die. It takes relatively little time for even a preserved body to deteriorate to dust and a non-preserved one even less time. Then when you consider all the people who have been obliterated in fires, bombs, buried at sea, drowned and lost in the sea and became shark/fish food, etc., it made me realize that the body that the Lord resurrects for His children is one that is changed - something happens that gives us a glorified, incorruptible, immortal body - reconstituted, if you will - from what only God, Himself, could do. Those that died hundreds or thousands of years ago, that will receive their resurrected bodies when we do, will STILL be every bit as changed as the one we may be alive and inhabiting, should the Lord Jesus return in our lifetime. It's not a belief in "reincarnation" - because that doctrine has with it the idea of karma and needing to go through countless lives to reach a state of perfection or god-consciousness and which remains in a corruptible life form of some type that always dies.
I think that we really do believe the same thing regarding Christian resurrection, but maybe we just lack the ability to put into words exactly what we think God will do so we take it on faith that:
But we will all be changed, in a moment, in the twinkling of an eye, at the last trumpet; for the trumpet will sound, and the dead will be raised imperishable, and we will be changed. For this perishable must put on the imperishable, and this mortal must put on immortality, But when this perishable will have put on the imperishable, and this mortal will have put on immortality, then will come about the saying that is written, "DEATH IS SWALLOWED UP in victory. O DEATH, WHERE IS YOUR VICTORY? O DEATH, WHERE IS YOUR STING?" (I Corinthians 15:52-55)
I don't disrespect anyone for wanting to testify to the hope of the resurrection by being buried instead of cremation, but neither do I for those who choose "other" forms of burial. It won't matter for God is able to do exceedingly abundantly above all that we can ask or think.
Sorry, I forgot. Jn. 19:34 -- no doctor needed, explains itself. Use Google on "pericardial edema" . IIRC a well-known response of athletes to extreme muscular effort, congestive heart failure w/ pulmonary edema
No, I actually find it entertaining. After having spent three years at Elim Bible Institute, learning from some pretty smart, well seasoned exegetes, I can only laugh at your own interpretations. I use Greek, Hebrew, and Latin texts to EXEGETE. Your post follows a legalistic point of view, which claims that I have my own personal interpretation here. You won't accept any analysis if it does not come from your church, your sect, or your own personal thought processes. That is why we argue apologetics in the face of churchy opinions. I can spend hours discussing this, but it will not change you, nor me.
... That is a wholly unsubstantiated assumption you have no right to make if you want to debate the meaning of Scripture with me. ...
I won't bother to debate the meaning, when you show that you didn't read the Word of God. But, for your EXEGESIS, I will post it again. I don't need a personal interpretation, when I am in agreement with those Words. I also live within the New Covenant!
John 2: “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.”- NIV ( or from the Anglicized New Revised Standard Version... "and said to him, ‘Everyone serves the good wine first, and then the inferior wine after the guests have become drunk...’")
Seems pretty clear to me that when people have HAD TOO MUCH TO DRINK, they must be drunk or well on the way! I seem to see my thoughts in print, in those versions.
As for Noah getting drunk, I think God knew Noah better than I. He used that man for His eternal purposes. I also think my omniscient, all-powerful God knew Noah's nature, and knew that the man liked a draft of good wine, just like me... but you will never see me in a drunken state! YMMV!
Have a nice day! (1 Corinthians 10:31ff)
Thanks for the link on Post 376
I have enough experience with your "questions" to know that whatever I say, no matter how much documentation I provide, nor any amount of Scripture nor basic logic will sway someone whose mind is already made up. I'll give the old college try anyway.
Ignatius as well as Athanasius and others (including the Apostle Paul) battled with the Greek Gnostic thinkers who denied that Christ had a PHYSICAL BODY. Not to mention, that that BODY could actually suffer and die. They denied that Jesus had a HUMAN nature. That's why we find writings from theologians from that time arguing against that idea of a nonphysical Jesus. So, when Jesus takes the unleavened bread at the supper and holds it up saying, "This is my body which is broken for you.", he was using a PHYSICAL, TANGIBLE object lesson (not to mention the symbolic rendering of the afikoman as representing the Lamb of God) to tell them that HE was the Lamb of God and HIS body was to be broken for them. Ignatius defends the very real human physical body that Jesus had. He is NOT, as those who like to read back into ancient writings dogmas that were not held at that time do, saying that this bread changes miraculously into his body so that those who eat it obtain a measure of grace to pay for their most current confessed sins so that they can avoid a longer purgatory stay (something Ignatius ALSO never heard of).
The Gnostics, contrary to your opinion, would NOT say the Eucharist was "just bread", they would say, "Why would we use bread at all, Jesus only came here spiritually!?". Holy Scripture contradicts the Gnostics as well as those who would pervert the purpose of the observance of the Lord's Supper. It is a REMEMBRANCE of Him, just like He said.
The pericardium of a normal person would not be so productive as was described when the side of Jesus was pierced. The medical analysis below suggests the musculature of the heart was being compressed by the fluids collecting in the pericardium and the chest cavity generally. And the heart was further stressed because dehydration was forcing it to pump a more viscous quality of blood:
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/1115727/posts
BTW, the nearest we have to a doctor on site was Luke, and of course he was not actually there. But God has provided to us, through Luke and others, a record of the physical traumas and visible symptoms Jesus experienced, such as Luke’s unique observation of the bloody sweat. Furthermore, there is substantial historical and direct experimental evidence to aid us in understanding how the biophysics of a crucifixion would proceed.
In court, a well qualified expert witness can and often does give useful testimony in their domain of expertise without necessarily having been present at the event in question. So the lack of a doctor at the foot of the cross is not an insurmountable hindrance to developing a good understanding of what Christ was experiencing physically as He died for us.
1 Samuel 1:9-15
However,
1Sa 1:14 And Eli said unto her, How long wilt thou be drunken? put away thy wine from thee.
1Sa 1:15 And Hannah answered and said, No, my lord, I am a woman of a sorrowful spirit: I have drunk neither wine nor strong drink, but have poured out my soul before the LORD.
1Sa 1:16 Count not thine handmaid for a daughter of Belial: for out of the abundance of my complaint and grief have I spoken hitherto.
Seems Hannah equated someone being drunk as a daughter of Belial...
Just sayin'
This is a dynamic process. When the juice is made, without further treatment and left out exposed to oxygen at room temperature, the natural adventitious yeast start working on the sugar content, and fermentation starts. I don't know if there is a threshold time, but if so it is not long. So new wine (Acts 2:13 γληυκος, gleukos) almost immediately has a molecule or two of C2H5OH alcohol in a few moments. And stepwise, as soon as a few ethyl alcohol molecules are present, some are oxidized to CH3C=O(OH)acetic acid molecule.
So, yes, new wine has ethyl alcohol pretty soon. New wine is grape juice. left for a couple of days, there will be enough C2H5OH to get a little tipsy if you drink a whole lot, and the stuf will be kind of fizzy because of CO2 being produced from the sugar breakdown also. However, much longer and the formation of acetic acid will consume the alcohol, and you will just have a scummy bad-tasting vinegar that will probably make you sick if you are still using it as a beverage. But you are not getting a useful wine. If I am wrong in this, you winemakers can correct me. I've made wine, but it was about 45 years ago, so I don't remember all of it. The same thing happens to apple cider. That and new wine are good for longer only if you refrigerate or pasteurize them. You might find it interesting to read of Louis Pasteur's discovery of the germ theory, the "pasteurization" process, and how he saved the wine industry of France.
If Jesus makes wine for people to celebrate, it is certainly a gift from God.
Sure! Grapes for eating and making grape juice from them for drinking is always a gift from God! So is vinegar! But introducing man-made anaererobic fermentation is not. It is a Satanic process for making a drink loaded with a central nerve system depressant toxin that addles human reason and emotion. Even a little imbibing affects ones judgment, in my experience. Its effect is insidious, as the serpent affected Eve, very subtly. Its addictiveness is not measured by counting alcoholics, it is measured by those who defend its use as a social beverage despite God's wise counsel, and refuse to give it up and encourage others to do likewise. BTW, this is also one measure of identifying an individual who lacks spiritual discernment.
"See then that ye walk circumspectly, not as fools (ασοφος), but as wise (σοφος), Redeeming the time, because the days are evil. Wherefore be ye not unwise (αφρον), but understanding what the will of the Lord is" (Eph. 5:15-17).
I believe His Will is that we be in no way intoxicated with Satan's favorite poison, of which any amount is excess to offend the indwelling Holy Spirit, who wishes to fill us, to control the person who is born of The Spirit. Be filled with psalms and hymns and spiritual songs which indoctrinate, not earthly poisons which intoxicate, eh?
Regarding Deut. 14:28, these were people of another Covenant. They had recently made golden calves. From each Covenant God made stiffer requirements for pleasing Him, as He progressively revealed more of His Plan for the ages in instructions written. But now we have a different greater, holier standard outwardly the example of Christ, and inwardly the Holy Spirit, our conscience prompter, teacher, and confessor.
So please tell me how strong drink is really ice tea with a bit more caffeine
Iced Tea? I think the people just coming out of Egypt, and because of disobedience would never enter the Land of Promise (type of Heaven, eh?) were allowed in that time for a split of Genesee Cream Ale. But it's different now. The Holy Ghost does not seem to be partial to it.
ant any
Amen.
The very plain sense of the text is that for many good substantial reason that theGod-man would not reverse Himself on the doctrines proceeding out of His mouth, which (in the perfect tense of Mt. 4:4 and Lk. 4:4) It was written and stands forever that the (hu)man does not live by bread alone, but by every declaration out of The ZGod's mouth. (Which means Him in His Jehovah role). Examples:
"Wine is a mocker and strong drink is raging..."
"Look not on the wine when it is red in the cup."
"Who hath woe? who hath sorrow? who hath contentions? ... They that tarry long at the wine ..."
Would He give drunk people more alcoholic wine (perhaps a liter apiece) to make them drunker? Would that gain Him glory? Would that be a notable phase of the fickleness of His Divinity? Would He use ceremonial ritual vessels to contain a variety of wine not permitted in the Temple? Was not fresh, new, delicious as of being freshly-pressed not be good enough for the crowd? Must He create it with the appearance of ageing to further prove His miracle-working powers?
I don't know whether to laugh or cry at the obstinacy of the reasoning and scoffing.
What is wrong with righteousness?
God has a three-dimensional printer? < vbg >
I am laughing. I see your deductions as adverse to what the Scripture CLEARLY tells us. The people partied at those feasts. They obviously got drunk, as the master said. Are you emoting and not properly divining what the Scripture says?
Jesus changed water into wine. The FACT is clearly shown by the conversation in John 2, that they were accustomed to drinking fermented wines, not plain grape juice. As for your references to what you think God thinks, it seems a bit presumptuous.
My God did not sin. He also spent His time with sinners. He was revealed to be God, and our Redeemer. As for "doctrines out of His mouth", you quote Old testament statements by men, as justification for your ideas. BUT, your ideas seem to come from human, not Godly thought.
Galatians 2: 11 When Cephas came to Antioch, I opposed him to his face, because he stood condemned. 12 For before certain men came from James, he used to eat with the Gentiles. But when they arrived, he began to draw back and separate himself from the Gentiles because he was afraid of those who belonged to the circumcision group. 13 The other Jews joined him in his hypocrisy, so that by their hypocrisy even Barnabas was led astray.
14 When I saw that they were not acting in line with the truth of the gospel, I said to Cephas in front of them all, “You are a Jew, yet you live like a Gentile and not like a Jew. How is it, then, that you force Gentiles to follow Jewish customs?
15 “We who are Jews by birth and not sinful Gentiles 16 know that a person is not justified by the works of the law, but by faith in Jesus Christ. So we, too, have put our faith in Christ Jesus that we may be justified by faith i] Christ and not by the works of the law, because by the works of the law no one will be justified.
17 “But if, in seeking to be justified in Christ, we Jews find ourselves also among the sinners, doesn’t that mean that Christ promotes sin? Absolutely not! 18 If I rebuild what I destroyed, then I really would be a lawbreaker.
19 “For through the law I died to the law so that I might live for God. 20 I have been crucified with Christ and I no longer live, but Christ lives in me. The life I now live in the body, I live by faith in the Son of God, who loved me and gave himself for me. 21 I do not set aside the grace of God, for if righteousness could be gained through the law, Christ died for nothing!”
Arguing in the extreme does not prove your point.
Jesus made the finest wine for the guests. People don’t praise grape juice.
The Bible does not warn against consuming alcohol. It does warn about consuming it to excess. Not everyone that consumes alcohol has a problem with it, the same with gambling, or eating. It is only when those things control us that there is an issue.
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.