PeaceLikeaRiver
Inactive
Who ever said it must resemble God? All it must do is put you in mind of God.
Icons and Prayer Ropes???
- Thread starter ABabeInChrist
- Start date
I don't know much about his subject, but some of my Protestant relatives think this verse is about mental not physical images.
I means that I should not call a whale a fish, or I should not say that real property is personal property. For example, in a house, if I rip out the stove, I could argue that it is personal property, when because the stove was attached to the house, it is really real property.
I searched on "biblical definition of idol" and found this website. http://www.bible-history.com/faussets/I/Idol/
It has a lot of info with scripture references. Here are a couple snippets.
" There are two degrees in idolatry. Against the worst, that of having other gods besides Jehovah the one only God, the first commandment is directed. Against the less flagrant degree, worshiping the true God under the form of an image or symbolic likeness, representing any of His attributes, the second is directed."
"So the Roman and Greek universals violate the second commandment in the adoration of the eucharistic mass, the bowing before images, etc., and go perilously near violating the first in the divine titles wherewith they invoke the Virgin Mary. "
"Polytheism ancient and modern is willing to grant Jehovah the first place among deities; but He will have none "in His presence" which is everywhere (Psalm 139:7). Again no outward form can image God, it only debases instead of helping the worshiper. The principle involved is stated by Paul on Mars' hill, surrounded by the choicest works of genius representing deity (Acts 17:29), "forasmuch as we are the offspring of God, we ought not to think that the Godhead is like unto gold, or silver, or stone, graven by art and man's device." Once that the first visible representation of God is made, or adopted, it entails another and another endlessly, no one or more idols or symbols ever adequately representing all the countless attributes of God. Hence a female deity was added to the male; an Apollo, Venus, Mercury, Diana, etc., etc., must be added to Jupiter; and, instead of one omnipresent God, deities whose power was restricted to localities were worshiped (1 Kings 20:23; 1 Kings 20:28; 2 Kings 17:26).
Like all deviations from truth, the first lie necessitates countless others. "The express image of the Father's person" is the incarnate God Jesus. He alone (not visible images and pictures of Him), as represented in the written word, is the appointed revealer of the unseen God (John 1:18)."
This is not anti-Catholic nor Catholic bashing. This is just part of the thought process which explains what those of us who interpret the Bible plainly get concerned about when icons and images are honored to a substantial degree.
It has a lot of info with scripture references. Here are a couple snippets.
" There are two degrees in idolatry. Against the worst, that of having other gods besides Jehovah the one only God, the first commandment is directed. Against the less flagrant degree, worshiping the true God under the form of an image or symbolic likeness, representing any of His attributes, the second is directed."
"So the Roman and Greek universals violate the second commandment in the adoration of the eucharistic mass, the bowing before images, etc., and go perilously near violating the first in the divine titles wherewith they invoke the Virgin Mary. "
"Polytheism ancient and modern is willing to grant Jehovah the first place among deities; but He will have none "in His presence" which is everywhere (Psalm 139:7). Again no outward form can image God, it only debases instead of helping the worshiper. The principle involved is stated by Paul on Mars' hill, surrounded by the choicest works of genius representing deity (Acts 17:29), "forasmuch as we are the offspring of God, we ought not to think that the Godhead is like unto gold, or silver, or stone, graven by art and man's device." Once that the first visible representation of God is made, or adopted, it entails another and another endlessly, no one or more idols or symbols ever adequately representing all the countless attributes of God. Hence a female deity was added to the male; an Apollo, Venus, Mercury, Diana, etc., etc., must be added to Jupiter; and, instead of one omnipresent God, deities whose power was restricted to localities were worshiped (1 Kings 20:23; 1 Kings 20:28; 2 Kings 17:26).
Like all deviations from truth, the first lie necessitates countless others. "The express image of the Father's person" is the incarnate God Jesus. He alone (not visible images and pictures of Him), as represented in the written word, is the appointed revealer of the unseen God (John 1:18)."
This is not anti-Catholic nor Catholic bashing. This is just part of the thought process which explains what those of us who interpret the Bible plainly get concerned about when icons and images are honored to a substantial degree.
This was certainly an interesting commentary, but one with which I disagree. Especially in regards to Eucharistic adoration, it could be that the commentator doesn't know what Eucharistic adoration is. Or perhaps he does but because he doesn't agree with what the Eucharist is, it would indeed be idolatry.
Actually, I'd say that if I am wrong about the Eucharist and it is really just a piece of bread, and I am a huge idolater and bound for hell.
Naw, you would not be bound for hell. Your belief in Jesus as your Savior is your foundation, as Paul describes it. What you build on it may be wood, hay and stubble, which will be burned up when each man's/woman's work is tested. 1 Corinthians 3
Indeed my belief is in Christ as my savior, and that is indeed my foundation, but when I adore the Eucharist, I not only bow to it, I am worshiping it. I literally view it as flesh of Christ. If it turns out that I am wrong and the Eucharist isn't really the flesh of Christ, then it means I am worshiping a mere piece of bread.
I think many religions consider it sacrilege to mistreat their icons, in ANY way; short of treating them as holy. Would that be understood as a form of worship?
I guess it could, depending on your definition of "worship". How we define "worship" would be an illustrative discussion.
One of my Baptist cousins who frowns on icons, crucifixes, statues, etc; told me that she had wanted to put a cross on top of her country church. Even she was surprised at the oppostion. I really enjoyed their Sunday school, but I'm sure that I will never mention crucifixes when I'm there trying to be the Bible tumping, devil hating, soul wining Catholic.
Agreed!
You are correct. We are talking about "Transubstantiation:...correct?
The Roman Catholic Church teaches that once an ordained priest blesses the bread of the Lord's Supper, it is transformed into the actual flesh of Christ (though it retains the appearance, odor, and taste of bread); and when he blesses the wine, it is transformed into the actual blood of Christ (though it retains the appearance, odor, and taste of wine). The question must be asked....Is it Biblical?
Thankfully, Jesus made it exceedingly obvious what He meant.
John 6:63 (ESV) declares........
“The Spirit gives life; the flesh counts for nothing. The words I have spoken to you are spirit and they are life.”
Jesus specifically stated that His words are “spirit.” Jesus was using physical concepts, eating and drinking, to teach spiritual truth. Just as consuming physical food and drink sustains our physical bodies, so are our spiritual lives saved and built up by spiritually receiving Him, by grace through faith. Eating Jesus’ flesh and drinking His blood are symbols of fully and completely receiving Him in our lives.
The Scriptures declare that the Lord's Supper is a memorial to the body and blood of Christ (Luke 22:19; 1 Corinthians 11:24-25), not the actual consumption of His physical body and blood.
Agreed!
I do agree that communion is a memorial of His sacrifice, but I respectfully disagree with your interpretation of the Eucharist as being symbolic. But we've talked about this many times.
We shall save that for another discussion.
Yes we have and yes we will. It is OK to disagree with me. I just stated the differences in our beliefs.
Very well put Major.
In fact Eucharist really has to do with thankfulness and thanksgiving. I often wonder why it is accompanied with such somberness.
I know that it is a memorial of the Lord's death till He returns, but He will not be returning from the dead, He is alive and we are made alive in Him. That is cause for celebration not a call to mourning, no?
I give thanks whenever I 'celebrate' the Lord's supper or communion, Sure I reflect on my own complicity in His death, but I celebrate my being set free from bondage to sin and death.
Last edited:
Absolutely my brother!
Not to get into the discussion of why the Eucharist is the holy flesh vs. why it's just a symbol, my point earlier was that to those who do believe it is a symbol, it would mean I am practicing idolatry. If the Eucharist is flesh, then I am right to bow to it and worship it as it is Christ. However, if you are right, that the Eucharist is nothing more than a piece of bread that symbolizes Christ's flesh, then I ought to go to hell for doing something so grievous.
Actually that is not what I said lysander.
I am referring to the Eucharist as a celebration, that is what the word means. If you want to apply a different interpretation of meaning to the word that is your choice. The elements, that is the bread and wine are another matter, one upon which my post did not touch.
Please; can you point to where 'bread', 'wine' or 'flesh' appear in my post #95?
My comment on somberness was directed at just about every Church I have ever attended, it was not directed at you or at the RCC. How could it be since I have never in my life attended an RCC service? (except a marriage service once)
1Jn 3:21. Beloved, if our heart does not condemn us, we have confidence before God;
I didn't mean to suggest you were saying that, but it is one thing that I think is true. If I were to be wrong (which I don't believe I am at all, but let's say I am), then I am doing something absolutely horrible by worshiping the Eucharist.
I do agree that the Eucharist is a celebration -- it is love for Christ and a celebration of what He is and what He does and has done for us.
But we've had many discussions on why the Eucharist is or isn't flesh, so we better same that for another time, Mr. Calvin. I'm only talking about the activity behind it and it's connection to worship and that some do perceive it as idolatry. If the Eucharist were to be nothing more than bread, than what I do and how I treat it is literally idolatry. I'm not saying that YOU are saying it, but I am saying it.
I don't believe for a moment that I am practicing idolatry, but if my beliefs were in fact wrong, then it follows that I am an idolater.