While you have been polite and scholarly in your difference of opinion, others have condemned millions of people using words such as "apostasy", "heresy", and "idol worship". I must admit that I never thought I would run into the hateful, narrow minded, Pharisee's on this forum that populated the fundamental churches I left behind. May your example of respectful adult behavior be contagious here! Jeff
Depictions or the Crucifixion were used in worship early on in church history. Below is one carved in the 6th century in a basilica in Rome: This one, from the fourth century depicts the whole passion: As well developed as these are, I can't help but think that many more existed prior to this. Early Christians do not seem to have problems depicting Our Lord in his earthly ministry. My statement of context is merely to say that when one says that "crucifixes are wrong", or "non immersive baptism is wrong" they generally mean they are errors and innovations that have crept in which are not part of the catholic church. While I agree that most of the practices I find objectionable in church history popped up during the dark ages between 500-1000AD, such as purgatory, salvation through works, Marian devotion, praying to saints, but Non immersive baptism and depctions of Christ go back to well before 500. I can't see these things, which are so catholic, that is universally embraced by not only the Church today but also those in ages past, can seriously be thought of as erronious innovations. The word of God, declares that the Church preaches Christ, and him Crucified. Depictions or that person and that event are only shunned by the most fanatical of iconoclasts, which could never be called catholic anyway.
The classic over-reaction to Romish doctrine/dogma is a common problem. I recently attended a lecture by the widely known Quaker Pastor/Author, Phillip Gulley, and he all but admitted that his radical views stemmed from his childhood in the Catholic Church. So many people label themselves as a "recovering catholic" and can give a long list of things they find objectionable, sadly though, some valid practices/beliefs are discarded as well.
There is a witch hunt here against Anglo-Catholics, many have left because of it. They make us out to be the bad guys because we use Crucifixes, pray to the saints, etc.
Respecting the Second Commandment can be hardly construed as painting oneself into a theological corner. It's those who adopt an antinominian view that are getting themselves into trouble. Genuflecting (or bowing) to the altar table, to the eucharistic elements or kissing the Gospel books are liturgical actions that have nothing to do with the pictorial representation of God, which is the core issue here.
Also, those who are so uptight about crucifixes ought to remember that the temple and the tabernacle also had "graven images" in them. God instructed the craftsmen to design them. Moses' bronze snake was not seen as a violation of the Law either. Clearly, the idea is not to make images to be worshiped. The idea that crucifixes are idolatrous is laughable.
Moses' bronze snake was not a depiction of God, was it? That may be the central crux of the issue. We're not discussing, it seems to me, the 2nd Commandment at large, but as it applies to the depictions of God, e.g. in the crucifix.
I think the issue is has more to do with what constitutes worshipping images. Graven images are not to be made AND worshipped. Everyone here who supports the right use of crucifixes have said clearly and firmly that they do not worship them, and those on the other side seem to think we're either lying or mistaken in this conviction.
A major argument against your position, I think, lies in the history of the Reformation. Every single one of the Reformers was an ex-Roman Catholic; so when the Romans protested that it didn't happen, the Reformers knew firsthand that it did. Old Christendom I think said he too was an ex-Trad, so he too would know firsthand. So it is a simple fact that some did, and do worship it, even if you don't. It is not a question, then, of whether you yourself worship the crucifix, but whether the crucifix encourages that practice in people at large. While you may remain firm in your convictions not to worship it, you cannot promise the same for others, who will worship it, and have been known to worship it for the last 500 years while simultaneously (as a culture, not individuals) protesting that no such thing ever took place. We also have to look at the practice of the apostolic church, which forbade it. It comes down to the question of how much do you need it? What is it for, really, and how irreplaceable is that? Is it important to risk incurring violation of God's commandments, to trade for what you get out of it? if you don't worship it now, is it worth the risk to potentially fall into the trap of worshiping it like so many millions have before? These are the questions I think are worthy of asking.
Martin Luther and his followers had no problem with crucifixes, they were reformers. Whether or not medieval Romanists worshipped crucifixes does not stain those who use crucifixes rightly, just as erroneous views of the sacraments by medieval Romanists do not stain our right use of sacraments. The apostolic church did not forbid the use of crucifixes or images of Christ as many, many depictions of Christ go back as far as the 1st century. The question imho comes down to why should those who use images and depictions as mnemonic devices give it up based on the arguments of a few (relatively speaking) fringe Calvinists with quotes taken out of context, when thousands of years and millions of Christians allowed it and even recommended it. When you start worshipping on the Sabbath instead of Sunday, I'll take your arguments more seriously.
But we're not Lutherans. They also rejected the tri-fold order of the episcopacy; and today there are very few Lutherans anywhere in the world. Clearly their faith failed, so why ought we follow them? Our church has been clear on the crucifix. My point was that there may be a problem with the crucifix use as such. It is not time-bound. Many post-Reformation have fallen into that error as well, and at no time in the Old Testament did God commission an image of himself. The Israelites did not worship the Golden Calf, did they? They just made it for a remembrance, and God punished them with utter severity. Not sure what you mean... Sabbath IS Sunday.
That many? Let us see this large amount... What makes you think those depictions are from orthodox Christians, or authorized by the bishops? See the prohibitions of the bishops I quoted above. Here are the heresies of the time which did make use of images of God: -Irenaeus, Against Heresies, 1.23.4 -Irenaeus, Against Heresies, 1.25.6 So what proof do you have that these are authentic images of Christ, and not Simon? Made by orthodox Christians and not Gnostics? Gnostics at this time were known for using images, while Christian bishops forbade their followers to make any. I would like to see more than a picture ripped out of context. Irenaeus, Against Heresies VI.15
You said Reformers, not Anglicans. Luther's faith is Sola Scriptura, Sola Gratia, Sola Fide and serves as the foundation of every truly Reformed faith out there. Further, there are nearly 80 million Lutherans worldwide with churches on every habitable continent on the planet. In my own city, Lutheran parishes outnumber Anglican ones ( TEC and others) almost 3 to 1. Clearly, you have some faulty information Friend. Our Church has not been clear on this issue, unless you mean that Crucifixes are allowed, since every Anglican or TEC parish I've ever been in (and I've been in many) had Crucifixes hung conspicuously behind the altars. Given that an Archbishop of Canterbury came to my home parish during a visit to the US and celebrated Communion, he had no problem with it. In fact, I remember him commenting on how beautiful our Crucifix was. Also, considering that the TEC is in full communion with the ELCA, they evidently see Lutherans as more than a failed faith. Respectfully, you do not represent the clear witness of the the Anglican faith that you think you do friend. The scripture clearly says that they did in fact worship the calf and did in fact call it their God, which only goes to show the difference between that practice and the practice of using Crucifixes in even starker contrast: Exodus 32 Well now that's news. 7=1?! Talk about eternal laws not being changed.
See below: See my other post above. For further reference, go into just about any Church in the world that is not under the iconoclastic errors of Calvinism and look around
None of your quotes say that Crucifixes are wrong. Your quotes say that Gnostics worshipped an image of Christ on the same level as philosophers, They worshipped Simon and other Gods. Crucifixes, on the other hand, memorialize the signular and atoning death of Jesus upon the cross, something Gnostics rejected. Crucifixes do not elevate pagan philosophers to the level of God. And, they are not worshipped when properly used. I fail to see what these quotes have to do with anything in this post, unless it's to show just how far you can stretch a very weak and tenuous argument ...kind of like saying Saturday is Sunday.
The issue is not the crucifix per se, but depictions of God as such. Let us not seek to avoid the issue at hand. What do you mean? Sabbath has always and ever meant Sunday. Are you now saying the Jewish teaching supervenes on the Christian?