A man has to believe in something. I believe that I'll have another drink.
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.
1) Mat 11:19 The Son of Man came eating and drinking, and they say, 'Look at him! A glutton and a drunkard, a friend of tax collectors and sinners!' Yet wisdom is justified by her deeds."
Luk 7:34 The Son of Man has come eating and drinking, and you say, 'Look at him! A glutton and a drunkard, a friend of tax collectors and sinners!'
How is someone that NEVER consumed alcohol considered a drunkard?
Because in the NT those who drank too much grape juice were considered drunkards. Why? They drunk too much. Had nothing to do with alcohol. < /sarc>
Virtual high Five, or fist bump if you prefer.
You aren't getting my goat here.
A man has to believe in something. I believe that I'll have another drink.
For one of the few topics that I think that you and I agree.
I’ll drink to that.
Constant demonic twisting of scripture, and the cultural forms that it represents.
When asked if it were really his flesh, Yeshua answered “flesh profiteth nothing” and “it is spirit.”
Now, I do not expect a blind catholic to accept the written word of Yeshua, because they seem to think his mommie was wiser.
i had a very good hamburger for lunch today!
seriously, we are conservatives, words mean things. let’s look at what Ignatius wrote:
Ignatius of Antioch, Epistle to the Smyrnaeans, Chapter 6, 110 A.D.:
Take note of those who hold heterodox opinions on the grace of Jesus Christ which has come to us, and see how contrary their opinions are to the mind of God ... They abstain from the Eucharist and from prayer because they do not confess that the Eucharist is the flesh of our Savior Jesus Christ, flesh which suffered for our sins and which that Father, in his goodness, raised up again. They who deny the gift of God are perishing in their disputes
He specifically mentions “they” referring to the Gnostics, ABSTAIN FROM THE EUCHARIST, but WHY do they not partake of the Eucharist? He goes on to tell us EXACTLY why..... BECAUSE THEY DO NOT CONFESS ( believe ) THAT THE EUCHARIST IS THE FLESH OF OUR SAVIOR JESUS CHRIST.
in other words, the Church taught the Eucharist was the Body of Christ ( “This is My Body”, “the bread we break, is it not a participation in the Body of Christ” ), but the Gnostics rejected the teaching. Ignatius could not have been clearer.
a problem many have who reject the historical orthodox Apostolic Faith is they don’t realize types and shadows were done away with when Jesus Christ began His ministry. The OT is full of types and shadows pointing to the Lord Jesus Christ and various aspects of His life and mission. the substance belongs to Christ.
so when Jesus gathered the Apostles together in the upper room, he was not dealing with Gnostics. they all very well knew Jesus had a real human body, they saw him eat and drink, they hugged, kissed and laughed with him, they saw him bathe,and they saw him cry. He did not need to use a type or shadow in breaking the bread to teach them an “object lesson”. no Jesus was giving to them a wonderful gift, Himself! The Eucharist is the fullfillment of His PROMISE to be with us always, even to the end of the world. He comes to believers with nourishment for the soul, to increase our faith and to bring glory to Himself as the Church remembers that we are not our own, that our salvation has been bought with a terrible price and all we can do is cry out thank you to the Lord Jesus Christ for loving us hell deserving sinners so much that He willingly suffered and died in order to reconcile us to God in His Body. that is the gift of the Eucharist, that the Church has celebrated for 2,000 years.
it is interesting that you mention the Last supper, as the beloved Apostle John was there to witness the first Eucharist and then 60 years later or so, this very same beloved Apostle, now an old man and soon to be reunited with his Master, taught the Faith to a very devout and faithful believer named Ignatius. we can be sure that John explained exactly that the Eucharist is the flesh of our Savior and Ignatius learned the Faith very well. so well in fact, that he was the made the bishop of Antioch and would later prove his love for the Lord by dying in the roman coliseum, torn apart by lions.
so yes, the Gnostics believed what the Christians were receiving was merely bread, not the living King of Kings and Lord of Lords. and yes, sadly there are many today, 1,900 years after Ignatius wrote this epistle that echo the Gnostic error by attacking the historical, orthodox, Apostolic Faith that says:
” THE BREAD WHICH WE BREAK, IS IT NOT A PARTICIPATION IN THE BODY OF CHRIST?”
HMMM, the written words of Yeshua are “ This is My Body”
who is the one that doesn’t accept that??
you may benefit by reading post #469.
The real written words of Yeshua were “this represents my body as you do this in REMEMBRANCE of me.”
Tertullian, in about 200 AD, wrote (Against Marcion IV. 40): "Taking bread and distributing it to his disciples he made it his own body by saying, 'This is my body,' that is a 'figure of my body.' On the other hand, there would not have been a figure unless there was a true body." Can you start to see how their arguments were not FOR a certain doctrine so much as against one that denied a physical, human-bodied Christ?
The Eucharist is the fullfillment of His PROMISE to be with us always, even to the end of the world.
No, the promise of Jesus to be with us always was the gift of the indwelling Holy Spirit - and He will never leave or forsake us. He is the earnest of our inheritance until we take possession of eternal life in heaven. That is why we can KNOW we HAVE everlasting life.
There are people that convert into other heretical societies, as well. They are also prone to wear funny clothes, and many think they will become gods... but they are still not in line with God's Word, nor His plan. Salvation isn't found in any manmade religion, and the roman group is nothing if not manmade ...
Romans 8: 31 What, then, shall we say in response to these things? If God is for us, who can be against us? 32 He who did not spare his own Son, but gave him up for us all—how will he not also, along with him, graciously give us all things? 33 Who will bring any charge against those whom God has chosen? It is God who justifies. 34 Who then is the one who condemns? No one. Christ Jesus who died—more than that, who was raised to life—is at the right hand of God and is also interceding for us. 35 Who shall separate us from the love of Christ? Shall trouble or hardship or persecution or famine or nakedness or danger or sword? 36 As it is written:
“For your sake we face death all day long; we are considered as sheep to be slaughtered.”
37 No, in all these things we are more than conquerors through him who loved us. 38 For I am convinced that neither death nor life, neither angels nor demons, neither the present nor the future, nor any powers, 39 neither height nor depth, nor anything else in all creation, will be able to separate us from the love of God that is in Christ Jesus our Lord.
editor-surveyor: This is going to have to be a "Get Real”" moment.
Ah, I'm not sure you "really" want to get into this and become real. Do you?
e-s: I want to say first that I have no desire to impun your chosen chastity WRT alcohol.
You mean "impugn."
My relation to alcoholic beverages is now to follow the counsel of God for all. His Word is not silent about it, but doesn't make it the most important feature of a disciple's life in the NT. But it is one aspect of spiritual maturity, of dying to self, to Sin as a master, and to the world. Dying to booze as an example to family and the assembly is a part of that. All new-born spiritual babes come in not looking much different in their life as they did in their previous carnal one. Leaving those habits and occupations behind is a part of spiritual growth. Some argue against it, and can't, or won't, and leave little question except to relate to them as if they really had not been born again.
e-s: Have you ever read the second chapter of John carefully enough to determine what time of the year it was?
Well, one really needs to start with Jesus' baptism by John Baptizer, in mid-to-late AD 29 (of the 15th year of the reign of Tiberias Caesar, Lk. 3:1), where John was preaching repentance, and baptizing near the Dead Sea. It was a good time for that--Tishri, Trumpets, Atonement, Tabernacles--when so many would have come back to Jerusalem nearby, and he set up shop at the Jordan crossing, not far from Aenon, either. You know, preaching about repentance kind of went along with Yom Kippur at the Temple. (You must realize that it had not yet gotten so cold that nobody came out for baptisms?)
Immediately after that baptism, Jesus went into the desert for 40 days. The end of the testing was in Kislev (early Dec.) and He then went back to Beit Ha'arava, was seen of John, who pointed Him out to prist and Levites, as well as some of his own disciples.
After about three days, Jesus had inducted some of John's disciples, as well as Nathanael (of Cana) and they started out for Galilee, their homeland. It took about three days at a fast walk to Nazareth (Lk. 4:16), then a couple more hours to Cana. (Was it Nathanael who invited him?) Anyway, Jesus' mother was there, so one would suggest that her friends would be commoners, but pretty religious folks that she would affiliate with. For instance the home had stone pots to store water fit for ceremonial purposes.
e-s: The wedding was just over a week before Passover, which is always in the middle of the month of the Aviv. This was a traditional spring wedding.
Sorry, Scripture cannot support your hypothesis here. Back-calculating from Jesus' first Passover in his ministry by using the chronology of his time after Cana until Passover, this wedding could not possibly be when you claim it was. Who is it that does not read his Bible? (BTW, The month of the Feast of Dedication, Kislev 25, Hannukah,is about the most auspicious Jewish wedding time, and the days before Passover are not.)
e-s: Where would anyone find grape juice in that time of the year?
Well, when we lived in Western New York State, we could get as many Concord grapes as we wanted from the region. My Mom was a very prudent housewife, and canned much of our table food for use in the winter. One of the best things was her grape juice made from those grapes. I'm sure there must have been forty to fifty quarts each yar, because every Sunday, after Dad's sermons, one of our Sunday dinner treats was either a glass of her tomato juice, or a glass of her delicious grape juice. And that always came out whenever we had a dinner party.
Are you awake yet? This is my class, now.
Moreover, about ten years ago, I got some grape juice to test its longevity. Remembering my childhood days, when I made maple syrup from the trees in our yard, I gently boiled the juice down into a viscous syrup, put it in a glass jar, covered it, and put it on the top shelf of my cupboard. Every year or so, i take the jar down, remove a little syrup, reconstitute it with water, and have a glass of remade unfermented wine. Without refrigerating, at room temperature, summer and winter the syrup has demonstrated no change.
Frankly, the drink thus made is clearly not as good as fresh juice, but it is drinkable.
Have I got your attention yet? It's going to be a ten or zip exam --
Do you suppose that if the Lord had made our juice, it might have been just a little better, being so fresh? I'll tell you one thing -- if it had been alcoholic, my Methodist pastor Dad would have spit it out. Why? just in honor of his alcoholic brother and sister, that's why, and because the Methodist Discipline at that time justly rejected alcoholic consumption for a pastor.
I will have more to say about the customs of the times regarding preservation of grape juice, but right now I do not have time. However, unfermented grape juice was always available, and in quantities.
e-s: And who would have praised the quality after having had wine earlier, and then served grape juice?
Come now, don't be an ass about this. Read the above
e-s: Put your bias aside, and read the chapter with more discernment of what is actually being said.
You mean, put aside a forensic approach, and a literal-grammatical historical hermeneutic And take your bias of applying only human reasoning and your opinion? No thanks.
e-s: Also note that Yeshua had done more than just make wine; he had defiled the ceremonial hand washing pots of the pharisees, a total rejection of their Takanot for "the washing of the hands."
You make a great error here. Jesus came to fulfill the Law, otherwise He fails. In this matter, He not only would not, but could not contravene the moral or ceremonial Scriptural ordinances, and hence would not have defiled these vessels by placing leavened/fermented material in them. Shame on you, if you claim to know anything about His earthly ministry. His diet was to do the determined Will of The Father sending Him.
e-s: (he had a later run-in with them recorded in Matthew on this same subject)
Yes, but not whether or not it was He that observed personal cleanliness as well as ritual cleansing. The carping was about his disciples not washing their hands. Do you leave the bathroom without washing your hands?
(about Jesus being a glutton and wine-bibber)
OK, first, you give me your explanation. Are you siding with the fake religionists? Are they telling the truth, or are they just ballooning propaganda. Is it your contention that Jesus was a guttersnipe? Come on, let's have your take on this.
(Your examination as to your answer may be at the Bema Seat of The Christ -- or, perhaps it may not.)
Your opinion is noted, but it was not asked for. But thanks, anyway —
WOW!
You have really stepped into it now. FAKE RELIGIONISTS? Really?
Your exposition is full of more holes than a sieve. Your ideas come from left field, not from the Scriptures. You have some problems handling the truths illustrated by the Word, not with us.
It appears that alcohol is a bad thing to you. You go out of your way to tell everyone how offensive it is. But, on a scale of one to ten, what do you think is the greatest sin? Define sin.
One of my teachers defined it easily. It is like an arrow shot at a target, missing the bullseye. ANYTHING that is not a direct hit on the bullseye is sin. To God, there is no "good sin", or "bad sin", just sin...
Alcohol use by Christ was not sinful, except in the eye of a drunkard. For Him to turn water into wine, IN A CEREMONIAL VESSEL, was right in line with turning over tables in the temple, or telling a woman seated at the wll to go and sin no more. He was the perfect illustration of a full humanity, while containing the Godhead in full.
His mom asked a favor. He told her (in essence) to get lost, but then proceeded to have the water drawn by the servants and given to the master. The story is clear, and your exposition is off the mark. The Book of John tells us why"! - John 2:11 What Jesus did here in Cana of Galilee was the first of the signs through which he revealed his glory; and his disciples believed in him.... 23 Now while he was in Jerusalem at the Passover Festival, many people saw the signs he was performing and believed in his name. 24 But Jesus would not entrust himself to them, for he knew all people. 25 He did not need any testimony about mankind, for he knew what was in each person.
Matthew 11:18-19: 18 For John came neither eating nor drinking, and they say, He hath a devil.
19 The Son of man came eating and drinking, and they say, Behold a man gluttonous, and a winebibber, a friend of publicans and sinners. But wisdom is justified of her children.
Luke 7:33-35 33 For John the Baptist came neither eating bread nor drinking wine; and ye say, He hath a devil.
34 The Son of man is come eating and drinking; and ye say, Behold a gluttonous man, and a winebibber, a friend of publicans and sinners!
35 But wisdom is justified of all her children.
When looking at these passages, Prohibitionists generally address this claim: We know that Jesus drank wine because the Pharisees called Him a winebibber. They argue correctly that the accusation does not prove that He drank wine. In fact, the point Jesus was making was that the Pharisees were falsely accusing Him of being a winebibber.
The problem is that no one has made the claim that the accusation of the Pharisees proved that Jesus drank wine. That is a straw man argument, invented because it is easy to refute and provide an appearance of victory over the real argument.
What is the real argument?
In the event described in the two passages above, Jesus is criticizing the Pharisees because of their sinful attitude towards two people who brought them spiritual truth, which they rejected. The point Jesus made was that the Pharisees accused John of evil because John did NOT drink wine, while at the same time accusing Jesus of evil because Jesus DID drink wine.
Jesus stated as fact that John The Baptist did not drink wine. Jesus also stated as fact that The Son of Man did drink wine. Jesus himself says that He did, in fact, drink wine. Jesus criticized the Pharisees for using the fact that He drank wine as an opportunity to make the false accusation that He was a drunkard (the meaning of “winebibber”).
The proof that Jesus drank wine is that He said Himself that He drank wine. -PedanticDan
The children of Satan said:
Mat 11:18 "For John came neither eating nor drinking, and they say, He hath a devil. "
Do you recognize that that's the game you are playing?
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.