Is it wrong to wear a crucifix

I think you know exactly what I mean or would if you thought about it.

There is no other faith other than faith in the true Gospel of Jesus Christ.

We who have such faith are not under the law.
I know you are not under the law.
We also know that there is no such thing as an idol in truth.

1 Corinthians 8.
4 As concerning therefore the eating of those things that are offered in sacrifice unto idols, we know that an idol is nothing in the world, and that there is none other God but one.
5 For though there be that are called gods, whether in heaven or in earth, (as there be gods many, and lords many,)
6 But to us there is but one God, the Father, of whom are all things, and we in him; and one Lord Jesus Christ, by whom are all things, and we by him.
7 Howbeit there is not in every man that knowledge: for some with conscience of the idol unto this hour eat it as a thing offered unto an idol; and their conscience being weak is defiled.
8 But meat commendeth us not to God: for neither, if we eat, are we the better; neither, if we eat not, are we the worse.
9 But take heed lest by any means this liberty of yours become a stumblingblock to them that are weak.

I was saved out of Catholicism and indeed was Catholic for the first 2 years of my salvation.
I wore a crucifix but stopped wearing it not so much because it broke the commandment but it seemed to be a useless thing to do as I was so enthralled with the word of God. What could it do for me? Nothing but identify me as having the Catholic label.

If a NC person does not wear a crucifix out of fear of breaking the commandment against idolatry (which was OK while under the Law) then that person is not perfected in love.

1 John 4:18 There is no fear in love; but perfect love casteth out fear: because fear hath torment. He that feareth is not made perfect in love.

True there may be fear of sinning because it demonstrates a lack of faith but that is the NC principle not fear of breaking the Law of Moses.

 

Hank, I know what that means from a Baptist point of view, not a Roman Catholic point of view. Since there are RC's participating in this thread they may take the phrase, "the only faith" to refer to their view of the one true church - the Roman Catholic Church. That is what I meant about defining terms. I have learned not to take anything for granted in these discussions.

 

Hank, I believe it is helpful to make a distinction between the moral law of God, the civil law of God, and the judicial law of God. Both the civil and judicial law is contained in what we commonly refer to as the Law -- the Mosaic Law. The books of Leviticus and Deuteronomy are the two books of the Old Testament that go into this in detail. The moral law of God is a bit different. It existed before the Mosaic Law. We see the first glimpse of the moral law of God in Genesis 2:

Genesis 2:16 16 The LORD God commanded the man, saying, “From any tree of the garden you may eat freely; 17 but from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil you shall not eat, for in the day that you eat from it you will surely die.”

God presented Adam with a choice between right and wrong. If he chose right he would have remained in the Garden and enjoyed unbroken fellowship with God. If choose wrong the consequence would be death. In essence that is what the moral law of God is -- the knowledge of right and wrong. Every human being is born with this knowledge (Romans 1:19).

The Decalogue (10 Commandments) is the codified moral law of God. It also existed before the civil and judicial law. Both the civil and judicial aspects of the Law are no longer in operation; the civil law because covenant Israel no longer exists and the ceremonial law because it has been fulfilled in the person of Jesus Christ. However, the moral law of God has always existed and still exists today. It is important to note that obeying the moral law of God does not impart righteousness. The knowledge of right and wrong is not sufficient for salvation. However, God still hates evil as much today as he did in the Old Testament. The first five commandments in the Decalogue are concerned with our vertical relationship with God and the last five commandments are concerned with our horizontal relationship with each other. Because I know how certain BB members like to hang on every word and pick them apart, let me state again that obeying the commandments in the Decalogue does not make one righteous. Every human being is a wretched sinner that can only be saved by grace alone through faith alone in Christ alone.

So, why this long explanation? God hates idolatry (2nd commandment violation) as much today as he did when the tablets of stone were given to Moses. I like the way the late Dr. R.C. Sproul explained this:

"Let me give you a personal example. Several years ago, I was speaking in Rye, N.Y., at a conference on the holiness of God. After one of the sessions, the sponsors of the conference invited me to someone’s house afterward for prayer and refreshments. When I arrived at the house, there were about twenty-five people in the parlor praying to their dead relatives. To say I was shocked would be an understatement. I said, “Wait a minute. What is this? We’re not allowed to do this. Don’t you know that God prohibits this, and that it’s an abomination in His sight and it pollutes the whole land and provokes His judgment?” And what was their immediate response? “That’s the Old Testament.” I said, “Yes, but what has changed to make a practice that God regarded as a capital offense during one economy of redemptive history now something He delights in?” And they didn’t have a whole lot to say because from the New Testament it is evident that God is as against idolatry now as He was then.

Of course, as we read Scripture, we see that there are some parts of the law that no longer apply to new covenant believers, at least not in the same way that they did to old covenant believers. We make a distinction between moral laws, civil laws, and ceremonial laws such as the dietary laws and physical circumcision. That’s helpful because there’s a certain sense in which practicing some of the laws from the Old Testament as Christians would actually be blasphemy. Paul stresses in Galatians, for example, that if we were to require circumcision, we would be sinning. Now, the distinction between moral, civil, and ceremonial laws is helpful, but for the old covenant Jew, it was somewhat artificial. That’s because it was a matter of the utmost moral consequences whether they kept the ceremonial laws. It was a moral issue for Daniel and his friends not to eat as the Babylonians did (Dan. 1). But the distinction between the moral, civil, and ceremonial laws means that there’s a bedrock body of righteous laws that God gives to His covenant people that have abiding significance and relevance before and after the coming of Christ.

During the period of Reformed scholasticism in the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries, Reformed theologians said that God legislates to Israel and to the new covenant church on two distinct bases: on the basis of divine natural law and on the basis of divine purpose. In this case, the theologians did not mean the lex naturalis, the law that is revealed in nature and in the conscience. By “natural law,” they meant those laws that are rooted and grounded in God’s own character. For God to abrogate these laws would be to do violence to His own person. For example, if God in the old covenant said, “You shall have no other gods before Me,” but now He says, “It’s OK for you to have other gods and to be involved in idolatry,” God would be doing violence to His own holy character. Statutes legislated on the basis of this natural law will be enforced at all times.

On the other hand, there is legislation made on the basis of the divine purpose in redemption, such as the dietary laws, that when their purpose is fulfilled, God can abrogate without doing violence to His own character. I think that’s a helpful distinction. It doesn’t answer every question, but it helps us discern which laws continue so that we can know what is pleasing to God."

 

The Holy Spirit takes nothing for granted, He will reveal whatever is His good pleasure to those who will hear His voice.

 

The law is the law there is no such distinction in the scripture.

These distinctions (moral,civil,judicial) are man made.

Fail in one point of the law fail in all.

James 2:10 For whoever keeps the whole law and yet stumbles at just one point is guilty of breaking all of it.

 

I just want to make sure I understand you. If a Christian delves into idolatry, you have no problem with that?

 

Exactly how does the Holy Spirit do this?

 

Only if they are/were under my roof like my children or if they (these Christians of whom you refer) ask me about it then with the help of the Spirit (yes sometimes He uses people, even me) then I would counsel them.

 

It depends on the individual, only He knows each heart.

 

This is really the beginning of a fight. I wore a crucifix till the day I was not comfortable wearing one.... and then I gave it to my son. I don’t know if he still wears it, but when I wore it it was I showed devotion for Him and his sacrifice for me.

 

OK. You have answered my questions. @Salty , you can have your thread back. I apologize for the rabbit trail.

 

I'm reminded of an elderly Mexican woman I visited in the hospital for some physical therapy. She had broke her hip and needed to get moving again. She was very upset and obviously had some dementia/delusion and was cursing me and I asked her granddaughter what she was saying? She said she was calling me the devil, which can take you back a step , and she keep trying to reach for something on her tray. I recognized it was her rosary beads she was reaching for and I thought a second, put my beliefs aside - which is actually required of me by oath, and figured why not, and gave her the beads. She grabbed them and hugged them to her chest. Upon refection of what I did, I'd say regardless of that "images/idols are scripturally prohibited" I don't think God frowned on my gesture as sin to give her some comfort as per her belief.

 

I believe you are correct.

years ago I was an assistant Pastor of a Baptist church in the Boston metro area.

The pastor and I and/or other deacons or church members would go out door-to-door weekly (I went almost every week, I loved it), the Boston area is HEAVILY Catholic.

I learned early on that it doesn't work to hammer the law into people especially Catholics who use images galore in their worship (I am a former Catholic).

The best approach is/was to ask (for instance) - Why do you uses images and intercessory personages to come to God?
This would lead into something like a witness from the Book of Hebrews showing how that Christ has opened the way to DIRECT access to the father in His Holy place in heaven and then segway into a gospel witness. Those who were saved and became members eventually left their Catholic grave clothes behind as I had.

Although some folks were more difficult and required several visits (Many unfruitful) and as I told Reformed the prayerful help of the Spirit was needed besides the word and human witness although the Spirit I'm sure was always with us.

It was a joyful part of the ministry. I've tried door-to-door out here in WA State - not productive, the day grows darker and soon (if it hasn't already) the day of grace will end.

the night cometh, when no man can work.

 

Most Christians get totally upset when one reminds them that a picture of their parents, children are also images and forbidden by the law. The original Hebrew shekel had NO IMAGE on it to avoid breaking the commandments.

Also, the money in our pockets, purses and wallets are covered with enGRAVEN images of dead people and animals.

THE LAW
Numbers 33:52 Then ye shall drive out all the inhabitants of the land from before you, and destroy all their pictures, and destroy all their molten images, and quite pluck down all their high places:

Of course there were no cameras - pictures were hand drawn then and forbidden as well,

 

Whether they worship the crucifix or not, it still is an image of Jesus on the cross. Now, Baptists being who they are, they are all over the theological map. This Baptist believes that renderings of Jesus are 2nd commandment violations. Making an emotional appeal as to what the crucifix means to a person is like saying about a bank robber, "Yes. He robbed a bank. But he gave the money to the poor. He meant well." Regardless of what was done with the stolen money, the robber still committed a crime. The same thing with images of Christ. They may make the individual feel good but does that mean it is right? Trust me. I understand I am offering a distinct minority opinion. It goes with the territory of being more of a Puritan than a mainline Baptist.

 

What am I, chopped liver? (See my earlier post).

 

Now come on, you know that no one is worshipping the crucifix. We all worship Jesus Christ the son of God., the Savior, not the depiction of a human on a cross. A crucifix is not a graven image. How about just a gold cross with no image? Is that not a graven image also? If not, why not?

But come on, tell me, just where is the scripture that says one may not put an image of Christ on a cross? I want a specific paragraph, something along the lines: "Ye may not put an image of the Savior on a Cross".

How about His image on an Icon? A stained glass window? Is Da Vinci's "Last Supper" painting a graven image too?

 

Not that is the most understated set of words I have ever seen from you yet. You out-fundamental the average fundamentalist on a daily basis here.