the cross and the RPW

Preach · #1 (**permalink**) 09-27-2005, 11:07 AM

Within the context of the RPW, would placing a cross (on a table, or on the wall in the front of the sanctuary, etc.) violate the RPW? Any general comments would be appreciated. Thanks.
"In Christ",
Bobby

VirginiaHuguenot · #2 (**permalink**) 09-27-2005, 11:20 AM

I would consider the use of a cross in worship to violate the RPW.

The following comments from Kevin Reed may be helpful:

Quote:

The Sign of the Cross
It is appropriate for us to offer a few comments on the placement of crosses in edifices of worship. When we speak of the cross, or crosses, we are referring to the visible symbol called a cross, not the sufferings of the Saviour. When the apostle Paul exclaimed, "God forbid that I should glory, save in the cross of our Lord Jesus Christ" (Gal. 6:14), he uttered a precious truth. But the apostle's expression is obviously a synecdoche, by which he exalts the saving work of Christ. Paul's statement has no reference to visible symbols, known among us as crosses.

The direct adoration or worship of crosses is plainly forbidden by the scriptures, in the first and second commandments, which prohibit worshipping anyone or anything besides the Lord. Historically, Protestants condemned the adoration of crosses; for example, the Scottish Confession of 1580 specifically lists the "worshipping of images, relics and crosses," among the deplorable practices of "the Roman Antichrist." (This condemnation was extended to the superstitious gesture of "crossing," which is also employed within Romish rites and ceremonies.)

Most Protestants still acknowledge that the direct worship of crosses is sinful. But a dispute results when many professing Protestants defend the use of the cross as a symbol.

Now, what is a symbol? It is a visible representation of something. If they say that the cross is a symbol of deity, then they again violate the second commandment, which prohibits making or using representations of the Lord (Cf. Deut. 4:15-16; Acts 17:29). Of course, most Protestants would not claim that the cross is a representation of God. Therefore, cross-keepers must explain it as a symbol of something else; so they shift the argument to say that a cross is a symbol of redemption, or of the work of Christ.

In this situation, the cross now becomes a man-made rival to the sacraments. As we have noted, baptism and the Lord's Supper serve as visible signs and seals of Christ's redemptive work; the sacraments are a visible word to testify of redemption. "For as oft as ye eat this bread, and drink of this cup, ye do shew the Lord's death till he come" (1 Cor. 11:26).

Cross-keepers implicitly impugn the wisdom of Christ by supplementing the sacraments with the cross as an accessory sign. It is an inescapable implication, that the cross, employed as a symbol or as an aid to devotion, partakes of a sacramental characteristic as a sign.

Some will claim that the posting of a cross in a home, or on a church building, is an incidental thing, much as the arrangement of chairs, carpet, and wallpaper. But such incidental elements of decor do not possess the symbolic character of the cross. Cross-keepers must contend with the undeniable fact that the placement of a cross within an edifice of worship is not a merely indifferent aspect of architectural design. The only incidentals in a place of worship are those "circumstances concerning the worship of God, and the government of the Church, common to human actions and societies, which are to be ordered by the light of nature and Christian prudence, according to the general rules of the word, which are always to be observed. "[10]

One must also consider the evil associations of the cross. The cross, as a symbol or gesture, is not found in the scriptures. For centuries, the cross has been Â* and continues to be Â* a prominent implement of Popish worship and superstition. No sane man can deny these facts. Since the cross has no biblical warrant for its use, why should it have any place among those who worship "in spirit and in truth"? (John 4:23-24). The people of God have been commanded to purge from their midst the implements of corrupt worship used by false religions (Deut. 12:2-3, 30-31).

Moreover, even if the cross had possessed a noble origin, the superstition now linked with it would argue for its abolition. Consider the example of Hezekiah in reference to the brazen serpent. The brazen serpent was originally constructed at God's command, yet it was destroyed when it became a snare to the people of God (2 Kings 18:4). How much more quickly, then, should we discard a man-made symbol which continues to be an ensign of the Roman Antichrist?

In summary, there is no scriptural warrant to designate the cross as a symbol (or gesture) to adorn the assemblies of God's people. Until cross-keepers can produce such a warrant, the use of crosses stands condemned on this basis alone, since the regulative principle of worship forbids all human additions to God's appointed rites and symbols in worship. Further, the superstition fostered by crosses demands that they be purged from among the people of God.

NaphtaliPress · #3 (**permalink**) 09-27-2005, 11:28 AM

I have come across some folks who think the cross is outright a violation of the second commandment. I would say a bare cross in and of itself as a symbol designating a Christian grave marker or a church building is not necessarily idolatry or superstitious. But given that the symbol is much abused to superstition or even idolatry by many I would not personally advocate using it in church architecture if one has a choice, and I do not think crosses should be placed inside the place of worship; certainly not in a prominent place where everyone looks during worship.

Saiph · #4 (**permalink**) 09-27-2005, 01:10 PM

I think John Knox taught that the layout of the church should be in cruciform shape didn't he ? ?

VirginiaHuguenot · #5 (**permalink**) 02-27-2007, 06:25 PM

Charles Spurgeon, Sermons, No. 3451, "Grand Glorying":

Quote:

You need not to be told, my brethren, that Paul set no store by the material cross, or by the sign of the cross. You know that the making of the sign of the cross, and the paying of religious reverence to that, is as great a superstition as the belief in witches, and perhaps, as men come to be enlightened, they will wonder how it is that some men could have thought that there could be more sanctity about a gross than about a circle or the parallelogram, for really there is no holiness in the sign of the cross, and I sometimes wish that some Christian persons would not countenance that emblem, since it seems to imply a superstitious reverence to that kind of thing. Paul meant no such thing. He would have abandoned in contempt any superstitious use of the cross or the crucifix, and he would do so now if he were, and I hope the result would be that, as at Ephesus they burned their conjuring hosts, so now men would put their chasubles, and their albs, and all their fripperies and upholstery together, and burn them in one glorious pile as the result of the preaching of the true cross of Christ.

John Owen, The chamber of imagery in the church of Rome laid open, said of the sign of the cross:

Quote:

But this also is an idol, a teacher of lies, invented and set up for no other end but to satisfy the carnal minds of men with a presumptuous supposition, in the neglect of the spiritually laborious exercise of faith. An experience of the work of faith, in the derivation of all supplies of spiritual life, grace, and strength, with deliverance and supplies, from Jesus Christ, will secure believers from giving heed unto this trifling deceit.

etexas · #6 (**permalink**) 02-27-2007, 06:32 PM

Now this will shock everyone here (cough) but I firmly believe in a Cross behind the Altar, and upon entering the Church one should kneel and make the sign of the cross. But I am Anglican.............Church Of The Proper Fork.

armourbearer · #7 (**permalink**) 02-27-2007, 06:43 PM

The modern equivalent of the cross is the guillotine, noose, firing squad, electric chair, or lethal injection. I find that thought often helps folk to see the absurdity of employing the cross in religious devotions or as a sign of religious identification. Some interesting points are made by Dr. Kitto in his "Cyclopedia of Biblical Literature." He quotes one authority to the effect that crosses used in execution were formed by fastening a cross-beam on a perpendicular piece of wood so as to form a T, not a +. It appears that the cross was used as a religious symbol by ancient nations such as India, Egypt, and Babylon. Alexander Hislop provides some remarkable instances of this in his "Two Babylons."

Davidius · #8 (**permalink**) 02-27-2007, 06:51 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by I follow Jesus

Now this will shock everyone here (cough) but I firmly believe in a Cross behind the Altar, and upon entering the Church one should kneel and make the sign of the cross. But I am Anglican.............Church Of The Proper Fork.

Why on earth do you believe that people should do that?

etexas · #9 (**permalink**) 02-27-2007, 06:57 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by CarolinaCalvinist

Why on earth do you believe that people should do that?

Sorry: to qualify I DO NOT think everyone should do this, I do this as an act of personal piety and devotion.

fredtgreco · #10 (**permalink**) 02-27-2007, 07:21 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by NaphtaliPress

I have come across some folks who think the cross is outright a violation of the second commandment. I would say a bare cross in and of itself as a symbol designating a Christian grave marker or a church building is not necessarily idolatry or superstitious. But given that the symbol is much abused to superstition or even idolatry by many I would not personally advocate using it in church architecture if one has a choice, and I do not think crosses should be placed inside the place of worship; certainly not in a prominent place where everyone looks during worship.

I agree entirely.

NaphtaliPress · #11 (**permalink**) 02-27-2007, 07:48 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by fredtgreco

I agree entirely.

Quote:

Originally Posted by NaphtaliPress

I have come across some folks who think the cross is outright a violation of the second commandment. I would say a bare cross in and of itself as a symbol designating a Christian grave marker or a church building is not necessarily idolatry or superstitious. But given that the symbol is much abused to superstition or even idolatry by many I would not personally advocate using it in church architecture if one has a choice, and I do not think crosses should be placed inside the place of worship; certainly not in a prominent place where everyone looks during worship.

Of course the church I had in mind at the time I wrote that is now the church I attend.

But I don't look at it if I can help it and most of the time I forget it is there.

Puritan Sailor · #12 (**permalink**) 02-27-2007, 09:31 PM

Anyone know when the Cross began to be used decoratively in church architecture and worship?

etexas · #13 (**permalink**) 02-27-2007, 09:37 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Puritan Sailor

Anyone know when the Cross began to be used decoratively in church architecture and worship?

I know there are examples in Roman Christian worship places, they used the fish and a number of other symbols prior to this, you can see this in mosaics. The cross before around 250 AD you do not see often, many believe this is because the cross still hit a bit close to home. Grace and Peace.

etexas · #14 (**permalink**) 02-27-2007, 09:41 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by I follow Jesus

I know there are examples in Roman Christian worship places, they used the fish and a number of other symbols prior to this, you can see this in mosaics. The cross before around 250 AD you do not see often, many believe this is because the cross still hit a bit close to home. Grace and Peace.

Patrick, I gathered some of this from Oxford History of Christianity,some is from my faulty memory.

Puritan Sailor · #15 (**permalink**) 02-27-2007, 09:49 PM

I seem to remember some arguing that Constantine instituted the symbol, at least for his own imperial symbols. But if he were to steal a "Christian" symbol for political purposes, that seems to indicate the symbol was in use already in some way. I'm just looking for more details. I'll have to peruse the ECF and see what I find.

etexas · #16 (**permalink**) 02-27-2007, 09:53 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Puritan Sailor

I seem to remember some arguing that Constantine instituted the symbol, at least for his own imperial symbols. But if he were to steal a "Christian" symbol for political purposes, that seems to indicate the symbol was in use already in some way. I'm just looking for more details. I'll have to peruse the ECF and see what I find.

Good point brother, if Constantine wanted to take something for his own gain it WOULD have to have been used to a lesser or greater degree among believers prior to this.

Pilgrim · #17 (**permalink**) 02-27-2007, 10:31 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by armourbearer

The modern equivalent of the cross is the guillotine, noose, firing squad, electric chair, or lethal injection. I find that thought often helps folk to see the absurdity of employing the cross in religious devotions or as a sign of religious identification. Some interesting points are made by Dr. Kitto in his "Cyclopedia of Biblical Literature." He quotes one authority to the effect that crosses used in execution were formed by fastening a cross-beam on a perpendicular piece of wood so as to form a T, not a +. It appears that the cross was used as a religious symbol by ancient nations such as India, Egypt, and Babylon. Alexander Hislop provides some remarkable instances of this in his "Two Babylons."

especially WRT the modern equivalent of the cross being lethal injection, the electric chair, etc. I've also seen material on crosses being "T" shaped, but can't remember where.