Does The Orthodox Presbyterian Church use the Crucifix?

The Orthodox Presbyterian Church ^

[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.

[boatbums]

The link states the FACT completely biased assertion that: Fixed it for you and this will be my last post on the topic.

LOL! You "fixed" nothing! You cannot change the facts just because they don't agree with the narrative you may want to be true. As the link states you can go find a copy of the German translation done by Martin Luther and those SAME books you declare he removed are STILL there! Even the first few centuries after the English King James Bible was completed those books were STILL in it. If you have valid and factual contradictory evidence of that, show it!

It's no skin off my nose if Catholics have a bipolar love/hate relationship with the guy. I just know that this argument is tossed out there anytime a Catholic wants to assert the Roman Catholic Church is the only, true church of Jesus Christ and presume that Luther - and by association ALL "Protestants" - are wrong about where ever they differ with the RCC. You have been proven wrong several times on this very same point. Admitting when one is wrong goes a long way towards establishing a character that is respected. Continue to claim "Luther removed books from the Bible" and you will be demonstrating a character of invincible ignorance. Sure you want that to be how others see you?

There is a certain stubbornness that the Bible says is "as the sin of iniquity and idolatry". (I Samuel 15:23) We should try to avoid that kind of arrogance. It isn't pleasing to the Lord and it isn't conducive to respectful dialog on a forum, either.

[Mad Dawg]

(BB: I don’t know about Luther, but I do know that the “Thirty-nine Articles,” of the Church of England said that the so-called “apocryphal books” are NOT to be used to establish doctrine but are otherwise edifying. So while they were included, they were also considered to of markedly lower status than Trent held them to be.)