A Question For Baptists, Reformed, Pentecostals, and the Like

[VDMA]

I'm curious, and was hoping that someone would answer me.

I'm a Confessional Lutheran, as you can no doubt tell by my profile and signature. We, alongside the Catholics, Anglicans (Episcopalians), and Eastern Orthodox utilize the crucifix, and understand it as not biblically prohibited.

A Lutheran church in Norway for point:

I certainly know that many of my Protestant brethren tend to lean more towards the iconoclastic side, especially those of Reformed, Congregationalist, Baptist, and Pentecostal leanings.

Now the question that is beginning to irk me is that many of these churches have a crèche (nativity scene) out front during the holidays, like so:

Upon talking to a few of my iconoclastic Christian friends, they tell me that the manger helps people remember the birth of Christ, and is not worshipped, and is thus not against the Second Commandment.

Now I do not mean to speak for my Catholic or Orthodox brethren, but among us Protestants who use the crucifix, we use the same reasoning.

As long as it is not worshipped, and helps memorialize the death of Christ, it can be a useful and helpful aide.

I already have heard the argument that the empty cross signifies the Resurrection, but am more concerned with the argument that it is against the Second Commandment, as I can easily refute the Resurrection argument.

Your thoughts?

Pax Christi,

VDMA

 

[BryanW92]

To be honest, I really don't care if you use a crucifix. I don't think you worship it.

I'm more concerned with my fellow Christians who worship a bag of metal sticks and balls or a sports team. They are the real idolators.

 

[VDMA]

I'm more concerned with my fellow Christians who worship a bag of metal sticks and balls or a sports team. They are the real idolators.

Amen, to that one, brother. Let's not forget the ones who worship money or women, either.

 

[SoldierOfTheKing]

Your iconoclast friends are inconsistent. The basis of the iconoclast position is that any image of Christ can only be a misrepresentation.

 

[Hentenza]

I don't buy the argument that those using a crucifix are violating the second commandment. That's a non-issue for me. If you like what the crucifix stands for and it reminds you (or helps you) of Christ's sacrifice then its fine. I prefer the plain cross because it reminds me of the power of the resurrection and Jesus' sitting at the right hand of the Father as our savior and king.

 

[Striver]

I've softened on this issue myself a large degree. It seems as though many others have as well, anecdotally speaking. I would say that iconoclasm is more of a fundamentalist point than it is characteristic of the wider conservative swath.

I concur that it is inconsistent to reject the use of the crucifix but then employ the use of a nativity.

 

[Albion]

I've softened on this issue myself a large degree. It seems as though many others have as well, anecdotally speaking. I would say that iconoclasm is more of a fundamentalist point than it is characteristic of the wider conservative swath.

Quite in line with what I was thinking, too. The question was OK but the audience to whom it was directed didn't seem just right.

 

[VDMA]

I assumed that this would be the case among Conservatives, as many of my friends who adamantly deny that they are Fundamentalist decry me as an idolater whenever I wear my crucifix (it's a 1 3/4 inch tungsten carbide replica of the common Norwegian budded crucifix). I may have been mistaken.

 

[classicalhero]

The problem I have with the crucifix i that Christ is no longer on the cross, so why are we keeping him up there? The whole point is we preach the Gospel which is that Christ was crucified and on the 3rd day he rose again, all you are showing with crucifix is the death of Christ, but much more important is that he rose again, because it shows his sacrifice as being acceptable to God. I serve a risen saviour, not one still on the cross.

 

[Albion]

The problem I have with the crucifix i that Christ is no longer on the cross, so why are we keeping him up there?

To commemorate the sacrifice that he made for us, the pain he endured, etc.

An empty cross may suggest a risen Christ, but only to the extent that you think about that when viewing it. It could just as easily represent an unused cross. But the crucifix brings home, visually, the fact of what Christ went through for us.

The whole point is we preach the Gospel which is that Christ was crucified and on the 3rd day he rose again, all you are showing with crucifix is the death of Christ

That WOULD seem to be important, wouldn't it?

but much more important is that he rose again, because it shows his sacrifice as being acceptable to God.

Yes, but an empty cross doesn't show us any of that. It only gives you a hint and then your mind adds the memory of the Resurrection. It's just a cross and rather abstract. It could be any victim's cross or a cross waiting to be used or an icon representing some fraternal organization, etc.

Of course, either one is fine to use, but since you questioned the use of the crucifix, this is an answer.

 

[VDMA]

The problem I have with the crucifix i that Christ is no longer on the cross, so why are we keeping him up there?

To many American Christians, I admit, the crucifix is almost satanic: an attempt to keep Christ on the cross, when in fact he is resurrected. Any empty cross, they argue, is more indicative of the fact that Christ rose, which shows he triumphed over death.

The problem with that, is that the empty cross is not a symbol of the risen Christ. An empty tomb is. For where was Jesus when the cross was empty? I'll tell you . . . he was lying in the tomb.

I find it more Satanic to take Christ away from the cross. For what is the cross without Christ, but a hollow depiction of an ancient Roman method of execution? When I kneel every sunday to partake in the Eucharist, it comforts me to be able to look up at a crucifix, not as an object to be worshipped, but rather as a stark reminder. For when I consume the flesh and blood of the Savior (we Lutherans believe in the real presence), kneeling in front of his presence, and at his table, and look up to see him there, broken and bloodied on the cross with my sins laid upon his shoulders, I nearly break down in tears, and I'm male.

The whole point is we preach the Gospel which is that Christ was crucified and on the 3rd day he rose again, all you are showing with crucifix is the death of Christ, but much more important is that he rose again, because it shows his sacrifice as being acceptable to God. I serve a risen saviour, not one still on the cross.

Do you so easily toss aside the words of Paul?

"For the Jews require a sign, and the Greeks seek after wisdom: but we preach Christ crucified, unto the Jews a stumblingblock, and unto the Greeks foolishness" 1 Corinthians 1:23-24

"But God forbid that I should glory, save in the cross of our Lord Jesus Christ, by whom the world is crucified unto me, and I unto the world." - Galatians 6:14

If the important part was that Christ rose again, then our sins would not be forgiven us. Yes, it proved that the Son's sacrifice was acceptable by the Father, but it was the pain, the suffering, and the agony, that bought or sins. Not the Resurrection (though the Resurrection is still greatly important).

We are not saved by the Resurrection, but by the crucifixion. And the reason why I wear a crucifix around my neck, and hang one within my room is because it is a reminder that all of the problems and sufferings that I have as an individual are nothing compared to what we inflicted upon the Lord, Agnus Dei.

The crucifix reminds me that Jesus knows what pain and suffering feels like, and he endured more than I ever could.

It is to the Cross with Christ upon it that I point to my salvation, not a Cross without him on it.

 

[SoldierOfTheKing]

How do you know it's Christ that's depicted on the cross? We don't know what He looked like.

 

[Albion]

How do you know it's Christ that's depicted on the cross? We don't know what He looked like.

I kind of thought someone would say that, but we have to be serious. It is only a statue, but when we have any statue, we know whom it's supposed to represent, don't we?

And we have other indicators, such as the "INRI" sign above the corpus, so we know. But if someone were to insist upon an absolute answer to that question you asked, I might have to ask how we know that the bare cross is the one Jesus was crucified on. It could have been "T" shaped, a simple upright, or the upright have been shorter than we usually imagine.

 

[VDMA]

How do you know it's Christ that's depicted on the cross? We don't know what He looked like.

How do we know it's Jesus laying in our manger statue? We don't know what He looked like.

How do we know it's Jesus in a painting of him we see in our church office? We don't know what He looked like.

How do we know it's Jesus on "The Bible" miniseries? We don't know what He looked like.

How do we know it's Jesus in the "Passion of the Christ" film? We don't know what He looked like.

How do we know it's Jesus in the Bible play our church puts on? We don't know what He looked like.

How do we know it's Jesus when we close our eyes and remember Him and an image appears in our minds? We don't know what He looked like.

 

[Albion]

Actually, this cross vs crucifix stuff seems sillier the longer I think about it. In churches that use crucifixes, there are also a dozen other crosses minus a corpus (body) in use, too.

But of course, for those folks who think any image is idolatry, I guess it helps to imagine that only crucifixes are ever used in other people's churches.

 

[VDMA]

Actually, this cross vs crucifix stuff seems sillier the longer I think about it. In churches that use crucifixes, there are also a dozen other crosses minus a corpus (body) in use, too.

But of course, for those folks who think any image is idolatry, I guess it helps to imagine that only crucifixes are ever used in other people's churches.

Couldn't agree more. My church has three crucifixes and about twenty crosses.

 

[eagle48]

I have struggled with this very issue. I entered into the pentecostal religion six years ago and the church I went to at that time is very against any images except I think I remember a picture with praying hands on the wall. I got rid of my Jesus statue, my gold cross necklace with Jesus on it and a few other things, because really after reading Deuteronomy 4:14 I had some fear for having them. I have since moved to another church in the same denomination that is not as strict about it. I have a manger scene now for christmas, I guess if I bowed to it and talked to it then I would be worshipping it. I do have a Jesus tapestry that I put back up and am glad I didn't get rid of. I have to admit in the past I so loved the Lord that I would touch my fingers to my lips then touch the face of Jesus. I no longer do that, I feel now that I could have been worshipping an image. I would like to get someone elses opinion on the Deuteronomy scripture concerning images.

 

[A New Dawn]

For me, I don't think it is satanic, or idolatry, when I see Christ on a cross, I often feel that more emphasis is placed on His death than on His resurrection. When I was growing up, I was told that Catholics "leave him on the cross". That was years ago, though, and I don't really even pay attention to it now. But I would never consider it idolatry or satanism. TBH, I consider the rote prayers to be more of a problem.

 

[SoldierOfTheKing]

I kind of thought someone would say that, but we have to be serious. It is only a statue, but when we have any statue, we know whom it's supposed to represent, don't we?

We know who its supposed to represent, but who does it represent? The second commandment, if it has any purpose at all, is a declaration that nothing man made can ever truthfully represent God. Any image of Christ, then, as I said, can only be a misrepresentation. Yes, even those beautiful paintings by Rembrandt.

How do we know it's Jesus laying in our manger statue? We don't know what He looked like.

How do we know it's Jesus in a painting of him we see in our church office? We don't know what He looked like.

How do we know it's Jesus on "The Bible" miniseries? We don't know what He looked like.

How do we know it's Jesus in the "Passion of the Christ" film? We don't know what He looked like.

How do we know it's Jesus in the Bible play our church puts on? We don't know what He looked like.

How do we know it's Jesus when we close our eyes and remember Him and an image appears in our minds? We don't know what He looked like.

We don't. That's precisely the point.

"Although Christ assumed human nature, yet he did not on that account assume it in order to provide a model for carvers and painters. He denied that he had come "to abolish the law and the prophets" (Matt. 5:17). But images are forbidden by the law and the prophets" (Deut. 4:15; Isa. 44:9). He denied that his bodily presence would be profitable for the Church, and promised that he would be near us by his Spirit forever (John 16:7). Who, therefore, would believe that a shadow or likeness of his body would contribute any benefit to the pious? (II Cor. 5:5). Since he abides in us by his Spirit, we are therefore the temple of God (I Cor. 3:16). But "what agreement has the temple of God with idols?" (II Cor. 6:16).

Second Helvetic Confession, Chapter 4

"Q & A 96
Q. What is God’s will for us
in the second commandment?
A. That we in no way make any image of God
nor worship him in any other way
than has been commanded in God’s Word.

Q & A 97
Q. May we then not make
any image at all?
A. God can not and may not
be visibly portrayed in any way.
Although creatures may be portrayed,
yet God forbids making or having such images
if one’s intention is to worship them
or to serve God through them.

Q & A 98
Q. But may not images be permitted in churches
in place of books for the unlearned?
A. No, we should not try to be wiser than God.
God wants the Christian community instructed
by the living preaching of his Word—
not by idols that cannot even talk."

Heidelberg Catechism

"Q. 109. What are the sins forbidden in the second commandment?

A. The sins forbidden in the second commandment are, all devising, counselling, commanding, using, and anywise approving, any religious worship not instituted by God himself; tolerating a false religion; the making any representation of God, of all or of any of the three persons, either inwardly in our mind, or outwardly in any kind of image or likeness of any creature whatsoever; all worshipping of it, or God in it or by it; the making of any representation of feigned deities, and all worship of them, or service belonging to them, all superstitious devices, corrupting the worship of God, adding to it, or taking from it, whether invented and taken up of ourselves, or received by tradition from others, though under the title of antiquity, custom, devotion, good intent, or any other pretence whatsoever; simony; sacrilege; all neglect, contempt, hindering, and opposing the worship and ordinances which God hath appointed."

Westminster Larger Catechism

 

[eagle48]

Soldier of the king, I see that you have taken a strong stand on this subject, so I want to ask you. Do you think I am going to hell because I have a manger scene in my yard ar Christmas. The church I use to go to probably would think so but yet they also believe having a beard is a sin and unholy. If we are to go back to the old testament for scripture then let's not forget Gods commandment I believe it is in Lev. for a man to have a beard. That commandment was never over turned, I have even had preachers tell me there is a scripture in the bible that says John saw Jesus and he was clean shaven, its not in the bible. So is a man going to hell because he has shaved and went against Gods commandment? Let's hope not.