# Should we cross ourselves in prayer?



## Hamalas (Mar 3, 2009)

I'm not sure if this is the right thread or not, Mods please feel free to move it. 

I have some friends who are very Eastern Orthodox. I've spent some time studying their theology and find some _huge_ areas where we as children of the Reformation must part ways with them. However, my conversations with them have been very fruitful in reexamining and relearning important aspects of the faith. One issue that I have been thinking about is making the sign of the cross with prayer. I know that this is not just an EO issue, I have some Lutheran professors here who do it to. Is there anything wrong with this practice? When and where did it originate? I'm sure there have been some threads on this topic in the past but I couldn't seem to find them! Any thoughts?


----------



## ww (Mar 3, 2009)

My first inclination is that based on the Regulative Principle of Worship which tells us that we are only to worship God in ways which he prescribes in His Word would rule out the "sign of the cross". Unless I'm missing something I don't see any examples in God's Word of such signs. I know for my staunch RC Uncle it is done when anything horrible is mentioned or seen almost as a superstitious action more than anything else.


----------



## Dearly Bought (Mar 3, 2009)

Definitely not. Such an action is certainly not to be found within the Scriptures and carries ritualistic superstitions with it.

Let a cruciform life identify you rather than a gesture.


----------



## historyb (Mar 3, 2009)

Hamalas said:


> I'm not sure if this is the right thread or not, Mods please feel free to move it.
> 
> I have some friends who are very Eastern Orthodox. I've spent some time studying their theology and find some _huge_ areas where we as children of the Reformation must part ways with them. However, my conversations with them have been very fruitful in reexamining and relearning important aspects of the faith. One issue that I have been thinking about is making the sign of the cross with prayer. I know that this is not just an EO issue, I have some Lutheran professors here who do it to. Is there anything wrong with this practice? When and where did it originate? I'm sure there have been some threads on this topic in the past but I couldn't seem to find them! Any thoughts?


There isn't any prohibition in Scripture of it so I'd say maybe it's okay to do.


----------



## Classical Presbyterian (Mar 4, 2009)

What's in your heart when you consider doing it?


----------



## Dearly Bought (Mar 4, 2009)

Here's a good starting point for past threads:

sign of the cross in baptism?

the cross and the RPW


----------



## ww (Mar 4, 2009)

historyb said:


> Hamalas said:
> 
> 
> > I'm not sure if this is the right thread or not, Mods please feel free to move it.
> ...



Either is tossing a football in Worship so where do we draw the line if we choose the Lutheran view of Worship over the RPW? or were you being sarcastic?


----------



## Rangerus (Mar 4, 2009)

My view goes along these lines:


> It is good neither to eat flesh, nor to drink wine, nor any thing whereby thy brother stumbleth, or is offended, or is made weak. (Romans 14:21 KJV)



The majority of people in America associate "crossing" with the Roman Catholic Church. Whether crossing is acceptable, my intentions genuine or not, I would never want to risk confusing my brother in my witness for the Kingdom.


----------



## historyb (Mar 4, 2009)

whitway said:


> historyb said:
> 
> 
> > Hamalas said:
> ...



No I wasn't being sarcastic. I reckon I don't follow the RPW


----------



## A.J. (Mar 4, 2009)

historyb said:


> There isn't any prohibition in Scripture of it so I'd say maybe it's okay to do.





historyb said:


> No I wasn't being sarcastic. I reckon I don't follow the RPW



Well, that is exactly what the Reformed commitment to the RPW is trying to *avoid*: do in worship that which Scripture does not expressly prohibit. On that issue, they have (rightly) parted ways with their Anglican and Lutheran friends. Doing the sign of the cross is neither commanded nor exemplified in Scripture. Nor can it be deduced by good and necessary consequence. So it shouldn't be done.


----------



## ww (Mar 4, 2009)

historyb said:


> whitway said:
> 
> 
> > historyb said:
> ...



True, you are more in line with the Lutheran view.


----------



## A.J. (Mar 4, 2009)

*A Roman Catholic assessment of the Protestant position*



> The sign of the cross reflects biblical reality. The cross of Christ is the crossroads of history and the central event of Scripture. Just as in the Church year Good Friday stands between Advent and Easter, so the Crucifixion stands between the Incarnation and the Resurrection.
> 
> Scripture teaches that the purpose of the birth of the Son of God was to die. He came to redeem, ransom, and restore a people--his church. We should place the cross on ourselves as a reminder of the reality of the Crucifixion.
> 
> ...



Taken from The Sign of the Cross by Bryant Burroughs (a Roman Catholic)


----------



## Brian Withnell (Mar 4, 2009)

whitway said:


> historyb said:
> 
> 
> > whitway said:
> ...



There are some things many reformed folk "do" in prayer that I find no exemplar in scripture. Bowing the head, closing eyes, folding hands. These could be considered circumstances in prayer (the Bible does not instruct us in posture of prayer, but almost exclusively in content) rather than elements in prayer. Where is the line drawn? I don't "cross" myself ... which I would have to ask someone who does what is the significance of the action before I made any kind of determination of "sin" or "not sin" (which is ultimately the question!)


----------



## Confessor (Mar 4, 2009)

Bowing one's head, folding one's hands, and closing one's eyes are done usually to be humble and to focus. It can be difficult to get in the right mindset of prayer if one's head is leaned back or one is staring at something else. For some people it can be difficult to focus if they're grabbing onto something else, but this does not seem to be as prevalent as the other two.

Moreover, no one commands that anyone else do these three things; it is suggested.

Making a cross, on the other hand, does none of these and seems to do more than a circumstance would allow.


----------



## ww (Mar 4, 2009)

Brian Withnell said:


> whitway said:
> 
> 
> > historyb said:
> ...



Corporately, regardless of the person's intent, I could see it as distracting and therefore not edifying to the body. In that sense although I may want to kneel or lay prostrate in Corporate Worship when praying as it is my preferred method in my personal prayer life if I'm going to distract others around me I'd rather not sin in that regard.


----------



## historyb (Mar 4, 2009)

I have to apologize, I was thinking private worship not corporate.


----------



## wturri78 (Mar 4, 2009)

I think I'd have to flag the crux of this explanation as being very lacking in pursuasiveness...



> The answer lies in the Reformation principle of sola scriptura. Nothing not explicitly mentioned in Scripture is to be accepted. Protestants cling fiercely to this principle even though it isn't itself mentioned in Scripture. Catholics reject the principle and look to the Church to explain biblical truth. This same Church has taught the usefulness of the sign of the cross for centuries:
> 
> etc...



Eastern Orthodox also reject this principle and look to the Church to explain truth. The would likewise cite all of the fathers listed in this quote--yet they differ widely on many doctrines, reject the Pope's claim to being "vicar of Christ," reject the doctrine of purgatory, and interestingly enough, make the sign of the cross in the opposite direction from most Catholics. To which church do we look for interpretation of truth? In which direction should we make the sign of the cross? Should we make it when praying for souls in purgatory, or should we reject purgatory? This answer, while quite convenient, is hollow. If Scripture is not our ultimate authority, we're left with two or more collections of bishops with "apostolic succession" who can't agree as to which side has the infallible authority to properly interpret its own tradition. And this is supposed to free us from the "chaos" of Sola Scriptura!?!?!?



> The Christian who rejects the sign of the cross is rebelling against his own roots and is guilty of what C. S. Lewis called "chronological snobbery" about the superiority of modern thinking. Instead we should learn from our fathers, thereby heeding the wisdom of Bernard of Chartres, who recognized that the history of the Church Church enables us to be "dwarfs standing on the shoulders of giants."



Superiority of modern thinking? By returning to the authority of sacred writings from thousands of years ago, we're guilty of modern thinking? 

I'd have to say this particular writer understands neither Sola Scriptura nor the true Protestant view of history, tradition or the authority of the church. Given what's passed for Protestantism for centuries now, I can't exactly blame him.

Lastly--back to the actual question!--having wondered about this myself for some time, I can't see a reason to make this sign of the cross when praying unless it somehow helps to focus your attention, or whatever. Making it corporately could serve to identify Christians to each other as members of the church, but since we're all in church when we'd do this, it seems redundant  If we make it in private as a sign of consecration to God, it's likewise unnecessary because God looks on the heart, not on what's being done with the hands. I don't think I would say that it is _wrong_ to do this, but I just can't see its purpose.

As to the history of how it developed, I really don't think anybody knows for certain, but I've heard that it was used as a way for Christians to identify each other without attracting attention from their enemies, but I have no idea if that's true or not. Nor can I remember where I heard it! I'm glad I could be so helpful, though


----------



## A.J. (Mar 4, 2009)

Exactly, Bill. Thanks for the comments. I really find it odd that Roman Catholics and the Eastern Orthodox can accuse Protestants of misunderstanding or misinterpreting history when they themselves cannot agree on what the early church really taught on a particular subject. In fact, they do not even believe _everything_ the Church Fathers believed!


----------



## Wanderer (Mar 4, 2009)

Confessor said:


> Bowing one's head, folding one's hands, and closing one's eyes are done usually to be humble and to focus. It can be difficult to get in the right mindset of prayer if one's head is leaned back or one is staring at something else. For some people it can be difficult to focus if they're grabbing onto something else, but this does not seem to be as prevalent as the other two.
> 
> Moreover, no one commands that anyone else do these three things; it is suggested.
> 
> Making a cross, on the other hand, does none of these and seems to do more than a circumstance would allow.



Actually, I usually do pray with my eyes open. Which is good, since I have many conversations with God while I am driving to work everyday.

I also have prayer time when I am lying in bed staring at the ceiling.

Moreover, in times past when I used to do a lot of hiking, I would often start praising and praying to God when I see a majestic view.

As to those who make the sign of the cross, I often feel that they are making it more to show their own piety than to praise God.

My wife has made comments to me keeping my eyes open during prayer time, and questioned this practice of mine. But, I question the practice of others closing their eyes. I would rather look out on God's creation, and ponder His works while I am talking to Him rather than have my eyes shut to them. 

I see God's power at work in all things, at all times. Whether He is working in the lives of others, bringing them close to Him, or He is blessing the earth with rain and sunshine so that life might be maintained on the earth. 

I also think about how Moses came upon the burning bush and was speaking with God. I doubt he closed His eyes. 

I do not say these things to say that one should not close ones eyes, or should have them open. But I do think if you are just closing your eyes because everyone else is doing so, or to give a certain impression to others, then I think one should reexamine one's practices. After all, we are to worship God in truth and righteousness. Not in false piety.


----------



## Whitefield (Mar 4, 2009)

whitway said:


> Either is tossing a football in Worship so where do we draw the line if we choose the Lutheran view of Worship over the RPW? or were you being sarcastic?





whitway said:


> True, you are more in line with the Lutheran view.



Just because one does not hold to the RPW does not mean one is a Lutheran. There are many within the Reformed family who do not hold to RPW and are not Lutheran.


----------



## Quickened (Mar 4, 2009)

The topic makes me wonder. Why was i taught to do this? It is not in scripture. How did it develop? Why would one want to do this? Are prayers not valid if i do not do this?

I can not see any reason why i should aside from the fact that that is how i was raised when i was small to pray. In my eyes its not supported by scripture then i need not do it.


----------



## William Price (Mar 4, 2009)

I never have done the sign of the Cross, except when I performed a funeral one time and did so with the dirt on the casket. Otherwise, why would I want to? Nothing of this manner is found in scripture. I would rather stick with the Bible than some superstition.

Not knocking any brethren who do this. Just my thoughts on this.


----------



## louis_jp (Mar 4, 2009)

Gosh, we aren't Muslims are we? Does scripture regulate every movement of your hand or eye, in prayer or out? Some people cross themselves for the same reason they bow their head, go to their knees, or simply take a moment of silence before they begin their prayers -- it helps them focus on the solemnity of the moment and on their consciousness before Christ. There is absolutely no harm in it whatsoever.


----------



## jwithnell (Mar 4, 2009)

Eastern orthodoxy has garnered much interest at PHC -- my guess is that with college-aged students you have people at a time in their lives when they are coming into their own in faith rather than just going along with what their families have always done. Our overall evangelical expression in this country (whether you grew up with it or not) is extremely trite, so I could see why Easternism might have an appeal with its solemnity and deeply expressive symbolism. I'd encourage you to consider Neil Postman's observation in _Amusing Ourselves To Death_ that the second commandment results in our wrestling with concepts not seen -- and that cannot be replicated without idolatry. Who is the Christ to whom you are praying? Have you been faithful in the covenant he has established? Are you worshipping and adoring him alone and no other? There is plenty to do in prayer without adding an extra motion.


----------



## ADKing (Mar 4, 2009)

Brian Withnell said:


> There are some things many reformed folk "do" in prayer that I find no exemplar in scripture. Bowing the head, closing eyes, folding hands. These could be considered circumstances in prayer (the Bible does not instruct us in posture of prayer, but almost exclusively in content) rather than elements in prayer. Where is the line drawn? I don't "cross" myself ... which I would have to ask someone who does what is the significance of the action before I made any kind of determination of "sin" or "not sin" (which is ultimately the question!)



The historic Protestant position was that the Bible does instruct us on the posture of prayer. "The posture of prayer is not a matter of indifference. Kneeling or standing (or prostration--my addition) are Scriptural and are expressive of the spirit of reverence ad devotion" (from the RPCNA Directory of Worship).


----------



## Whitefield (Mar 4, 2009)

ADKing said:


> The historic Protestant position was that the Bible does instruct us on the posture of prayer. "The posture of prayer is not a matter of indifference. Kneeling or standing (or prostration--my addition) are Scriptural and are expressive of the spirit of reverence ad devotion" (from the RPCNA Directory of Worship).



Is "sitting" listed?


----------



## ADKing (Mar 4, 2009)

Whitefield said:


> ADKing said:
> 
> 
> > The historic Protestant position was that the Bible does instruct us on the posture of prayer. "The posture of prayer is not a matter of indifference. Kneeling or standing (or prostration--my addition) are Scriptural and are expressive of the spirit of reverence ad devotion" (from the RPCNA Directory of Worship).
> ...



Historically, no.


----------



## BobVigneault (Mar 4, 2009)

Everyday, walking home from school, my friends and I would pass in front of my church, St. Francis of Asissi (RCC). I did not want to stand out from the rest so I would try to hide my obligatory 'sign of the cross'. They (protestant rabble) of course would watch intently to see if I would fulfill my obligation. 

First I would have an itch at my hairline just above my forehead,
I would then wipe off the sweat on my shirt just below my heart,
followed quickly by an itch on my left shoulder,
and then I would point to the right at something in the street and tapping my right shoulder as my hand passed by it.

Sometimes they would catch me, sometimes they wouldn't.

There is nothing wrong in the act of signing. It is all about the 'why'.

It is meat offered to idols.

Former RCs won't do it because it looks back to when we offered meat to idols.

Many protestants won't do it because it is too much associated with the apostatized church.

You shouldn't do it if is part of a meaningless repitition or if it has some superstitious value. Because, as Calvin said, our hearts are idol factories we need to be very careful about how we use any religious ritual. It can easily become a superstitious act and then a foothold for the devil.

If it helps you to focus on praying to our Sovereign Father in the name of our Lord by the ministry of the Holy Spirit then you are safe to use it.

One other thing, you might make a lot of protestants nervous so don't flaunt it. It's not a hill to die on.


----------



## Whitefield (Mar 4, 2009)

ADKing said:


> Whitefield said:
> 
> 
> > ADKing said:
> ...



Then is sitting a proper posture for prayer, since "the posture of prayer is not a matter of indifference." If it is not mentioned as such, how could it be a proper posture?


----------



## louis_jp (Mar 4, 2009)

BobVigneault, thanks for that post. I think that is exactly the issue. 

As far as sitting in prayer, For what it's worth, scripture records David sitting (2 Sam. 7:18).

Also, if we are going to be strictly biblical about it, then shouldn't we lift our eyes to heaven when we pray (John 11:41, 17:1), and perhaps lift holy hands, rather than fold them? (1 Tim. 2:8). 

Much of this sounds like the very definition of legalism to me.


----------



## Berean (Mar 4, 2009)

I sometimes stop and pray while sitting and reading my bible.


----------



## MrMerlin777 (Mar 4, 2009)

Adiaphora in my opinion


----------



## Skyler (Mar 4, 2009)

Vampires don't like the sign of the cross.
God loves vampires.
Therefore, we shouldn't make the sign of the cross because it might offend a vampire for whom Christ died.


----------



## BobVigneault (Mar 4, 2009)

Thank you Jonathan, your logic is impeccable.

Well.... maybe it's a little bit peccable.


----------



## MrMerlin777 (Mar 4, 2009)

Skyler said:


> Vampires don't like the sign of the cross.
> God loves vampires.
> Therefore, we shouldn't make the sign of the cross because it might offend a vampire for whom Christ died.


----------



## Zenas (Mar 4, 2009)

Should we? No. I see no mandate that indicates we should.


----------



## matt01 (Mar 4, 2009)

Hamalas said:


> Should we cross ourselves in prayer?



No.


----------



## Brian Withnell (Mar 4, 2009)

whitway said:


> Brian Withnell said:
> 
> 
> > whitway said:
> ...



Fully understand your position. I'd want to be careful about it though ... while we don't want to cause a weaker brother to stumble 


> Therefore, if food causes my brother to stumble, I will never eat meat again, so that I will not cause my brother to stumble.


but we also should not allow our conscience to be bound by what others think


> 2. God alone is Lord of the conscience, and hath left it free from the doctrines and commandments of men, which are, in anything, contrary to his Word; *or beside it, if matters of faith, or worship*. *So that, to believe such doctrines, or to obey such commands, out of conscience, is to betray true liberty of conscience*: and the requiring of an implicit faith, and an absolute and blind obedience, is to destroy liberty of conscience, and reason also. [emphasis added]


The ideal is to teach the weaker brother so he is not bruised in conscience by what is not forbidden and part of circumstance.

Of course that presupposes it isn't "out there" and done for show, or in such a way as it is inconsiderate of others (prostration during prayer is rather hard to ignore, and answering the question "what if everyone tried to do this" would make it obvious that it would be inappropriate (people would be all over the floor!)

Of course that still does not address is it circumstance or element.

-----Added 3/4/2009 at 10:50:13 EST-----



ADKing said:


> Brian Withnell said:
> 
> 
> > There are some things many reformed folk "do" in prayer that I find no exemplar in scripture. Bowing the head, closing eyes, folding hands. These could be considered circumstances in prayer (the Bible does not instruct us in posture of prayer, but almost exclusively in content) rather than elements in prayer. Where is the line drawn? I don't "cross" myself ... which I would have to ask someone who does what is the significance of the action before I made any kind of determination of "sin" or "not sin" (which is ultimately the question!)
> ...



Interesting. The OPC standards don't have anything on the subject. Some of my view also comes from seeing Jewish expression. They don't bow their heads, close their eyes, fold hands ... my brother is on Jewish convert, and I was surprised that at one point during his daughter's wedding that they called for prayer and nobody moved. No heads bowed, eyes closed, nothing. (I was with the rest of the "gentiles" and was more a spectator than anything else.)

There seems to be a full range of ideas on the subject...


----------



## historyb (Mar 5, 2009)

Okay I been sitting on this but I must.



> *Should we cross ourselves in prayer? *



No we shouldn't make ourselves mad in prayer 

okay everyone can groan now


----------



## LadyFlynt (Mar 5, 2009)

Okay, don't tear me apart, honest question:

It was explained to me as a form of "sign language" meaning "with all my mind, all my heart, and all my strength" (however, I confess, I don't have crosses in my home). I'm just curious as to the response to this explaination, as it doesn't appear to have any superstition attached to it.


----------



## ManleyBeasley (Mar 5, 2009)

No. Emphatically no. What could possibly be the reason to do this that is not superstitious? This *ritual* benefits no one in prayer. We come to the Father relying on the blood of Christ alone. I don't recommend receiving instruction from the Eastern "Orthadox". If it is acknowledged that they believe heresy when it comes to so many important issues why do we think they should instruct us (protestants) in prayer?


----------



## LadyFlynt (Mar 5, 2009)

ManleyBeasley said:


> If it is acknowledged that they believe heresy when it comes to so many important issues why do we think they should instruct us (protestants) in prayer?


And yet that can open a can of worms on other practices that the majority of Christianity practice, even Reformed, that came out of the OC and RC...so where is the line? RPW?


----------



## ManleyBeasley (Mar 5, 2009)

I think much of that practice is for practical benefit (not being distracted). Regardless, pointing out that we may do somethings that are superstitious (some people may turn it into that) in the reformed faith doesn't mean that its ok to cross ourselves.


----------



## LadyFlynt (Mar 5, 2009)

What I am saying is that there is an inconsistency. You are adamant about not crossing yourself, but do you practice Christmas?


----------



## ManleyBeasley (Mar 5, 2009)

LadyFlynt said:


> What I am saying is that there is an inconsistency. You are adamant about not crossing yourself, but do you practice Christmas?


Many Reformed people don't. I personally enjoy it as a gathering of family.


----------



## LadyFlynt (Mar 5, 2009)

I'm aware of that, and I don't either. Yet I find it interesting the adamancy on simple things like crossing oneself, insisting it's superstitious, yet those same people will hang crosses in their home (more superstitious in my opinion) and carry over other practices.


----------



## a mere housewife (Mar 5, 2009)

Personally I would like to do so as it would give me a 'sense' of something I do long to sense: being hidden in Christ's cross. (It would probably also give me a very supportive sense of being very religious; and perhaps even a flavor of kneeling on a stone floor while people are chanting which I fear I would greatly enjoy  But I know it is not my _feeling _of being covered in the cross that I ought to pursue but the reality, or the feeling of being 'very religious' (or of kneeling on stone floors) that make me so; and I know that this desire for 'feelings' is the attraction for so much extrabiblical worship. So I think it would be very dangerous for me. I think sometimes the 'aesthetic' appeal is bound into the same desire to 'feel' something, just on a more goosebumpy level: whereas the worship God has commanded in this era partakes of the simplicity and offense of the cross in its jarring inner reality, not just as a beautiful outward motion. It's not that feelings aren't part of reality; but they're the part that's supposed to learn to follow, not the part that is supposed to lead. Of course there are different ways to make the mistake of 'leading' with them: I sometimes wonder if the real difference between a charismatic and an EO isn't ultimately that one of them has better _taste_.

I can't say that I would judge another person who stopped with this sign (though all those I know [elsewhere] who are open to this are also open to icons etc); but for myself I think it would be too dangerous to give in to that particular kind of desire.


----------



## louis_jp (Mar 5, 2009)

It sounds more like some people on here have a superstitious fear against it. As if you're somehow giving yourself the evil eye, or invoking some Catholic curse.


----------



## a mere housewife (Mar 5, 2009)

I think the fear is not superstitious, but is more of worshipping God in a way He has not commanded and so telling ourselves sometimes very subtle lies about Him -- if God alone has the right to reveal Himself and to tell us what is acceptable to Him and we realize how corrupt our own minds are in making a god after our own image then yes it does produce a lot of caution in an area like this?


----------



## louis_jp (Mar 5, 2009)

a mere housewife said:


> I think the fear is not superstitious, but is more of worshipping God in a way He has not commanded and so telling ourselves sometimes very subtle lies about Him -- if God alone has the right to reveal Himself and to tell us what is acceptable to Him and we realize how corrupt our own minds are in making a god after our own image then yes it does produce a lot of caution in an area like this?



This was sort of discussed earlier in the thread. I don't see how crossing onself is "worshipping God in a way He has not commanded." Maybe you can enlighten me on this. 

People adopt various postures and habits in prayer that are not expressly endorsed in the bible -- indeed, some seem to go against the scriptural example -- and nobody has a problem with those. I refer to bowing the head or clasping the hands and so forth. When we pray, we pray through the cross of Christ, so how is making the sign of the cross dangerous?


----------



## a mere housewife (Mar 5, 2009)

Louis, I don't believe I have said that crossing oneself is worshipping God in a way He has not commanded? I cited the fear of doing so as a reason for caution in an area that is not addressed by Scripture. As I understand the regulative principle, God tells us what is acceptable to Him in worship. God has not told us that this sign has any significance to edify etc. As such, I have explained above why I believe that making the sign of the cross is dangerous for me: I would attach to it a certain importance as a means of grace (in conveying feelings of grace). If we attach a sense of power or grace to symbols God has not commanded in His worship then yes we are worshipping in violation of the RPW. If as others have mentioned, it's merely a way of focusing attention, as I said earlier, I would not judge a person. Thanks for the interaction.


----------



## Confessor (Mar 5, 2009)

ManleyBeasley said:


> No. Emphatically no. What could possibly be the reason to do this that is not superstitious? This *ritual* benefits no one in prayer. We come to the Father relying on the blood of Christ alone. I don't recommend receiving instruction from the Eastern "Orthadox". If it is acknowledged that they believe heresy when it comes to so many important issues why do we think they should instruct us (protestants) in prayer?



 But I am currently reading _Lord God of Truth_/_Concerning the Teacher_ by Gordon Clark and Augustine, respectively, and in it both of them really, really stress the fact that Christ's teaching us within (by means of immediate knowledge-giving) is what is important. That is, in fact, the purpose of speech and revelation. 

Anyway, such a teaching really stresses the importance of knowledge and of an inner love of God by means of our rational soul, contrary to any physical or superstitious rituals such as making a cross to bring good luck or whatever.

Your comment brought this to mind )) and just tied a couple aspects of my worldview together.  So thank you.


----------



## louis_jp (Mar 5, 2009)

Heidi,

I see; thanks for clarifying.


----------



## Davidius (Mar 5, 2009)

ManleyBeasley said:


> No. Emphatically no. What could possibly be the reason to do this that is not superstitious? This *ritual* benefits no one in prayer. We come to the Father relying on the blood of Christ alone. I don't recommend receiving instruction from the Eastern "Orthadox". If it is acknowledged that they believe heresy when it comes to so many important issues why do we think they should instruct us (protestants) in prayer?



Your statement, like many of the others in this thread, betrays a lot of arrogance by implying special knowledge about the motives and intentions of a large group of people. 

I think it would also be helpful if you, and some of the others using highly critical rhetoric, would define your terms. First, what is superstition? Second, what is a ritual, and is something bad simply because it is a ritual?

Your last statement also falls short. The Eastern Orthodox and Roman Catholics also believe in the trinity. Should we disregard that because we disagree with other teachings of theirs?

**

As to the issue of worship, the sign of the cross is not directed towards others; it is directed towards oneself. Therefore it does not fall under the jurisdiction of "what God has commanded us to offer Him in worship." It's like memorizing and reciting a scripture verse, only physical instead of mental. Would anyone say that it's "ritualistic" or "superstitious" to quote a favorite bible verse when faced with a moment of temptation?


----------



## Whitefield (Mar 5, 2009)

I see crossing oneself in prayer in the same category as posture. No one says you must cross/not cross, nor sit/stand/kneel, nor fold hands/raise hands, nor eyes closed/eyes open, nor speak out loud/speak in mind, in order to make it a real prayer. All these fall under Christian liberty.


----------



## Confessor (Mar 6, 2009)

I am aware this was directed at Manley, but regardless...



Davidius said:


> Your statement, like many of the others in this thread, betrays a lot of arrogance by implying special knowledge about the motives and intentions of a large group of people.



It would only imply the knowledge of what nearly always occurs with rituals: they become _ritualistic_; i.e., rather than reminding people of some truth (the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit, or whatever else it may signify), it becomes just an example of "going through the motions." Instead, rather than memorizing some ritual, people should memorize whatever it signifies and thereby submit their mind to the Lord. For instance, it is much more beneficial to remember to thank the Lord before eating one's food than it is to make sure your eyes are closed a specific amount of time before you begin your consumption. This is not the best example, though, as the latter necessarily accompanies the former. Nonetheless, it would be beneficial if people simply train themselves to _think_ of whatever the ritual is supposed to signify, rather than train themselves to merely do the ritual, which will almost inevitably become...ritualistic. Moreover, when we believe that by merely doing the ritual (going through the motions) we are doing something good, we are clearly *not* doing something good.



Davidius said:


> I think it would also be helpful if you, and some of the others using highly critical rhetoric, would define your terms. First, what is superstition? Second, what is a ritual, and is something bad simply because it is a ritual?



Superstition would be some things carried out because they are believed to achieve good fortune or good standing with God not due to our faith, but _ex opere operato_. For instance, Romanist baptism is superstitious. The Romanist Eucharist is superstitious. A ritual is usually defined under the auspices of superstition, i.e. an event which is superstitious. Inasmuch as superstition is bad, then, rituals are bad too.



Davidius said:


> Your last statement also falls short. The Eastern Orthodox and Roman Catholics also believe in the trinity. Should we disregard that because we disagree with other teachings of theirs?



He didn't say that everything in the Churches is bad, but merely that we should not trust them on some doctrine which we ourselves cannot verify in Scripture. In other words, if they have so much heresy, we should not follow their doctrines or practices _merely on their word._



Davidius said:


> As to the issue of worship, the sign of the cross is not directed towards others; it is directed towards oneself. Therefore it does not fall under the jurisdiction of "what God has commanded us to offer Him in worship." It's like memorizing and reciting a scripture verse, only physical instead of mental. Would anyone say that it's "ritualistic" or "superstitious" to quote a favorite bible verse when faced with a moment of temptation?



I would disagree. When people make the sign of the cross they are clearly doing it towards God or with respect to God. That's why it often precedes prayer. Memorizing Bible verses is simply an act of learning about God which is not worship, strictly speaking. But I would say that anything related to prayer falls under the category of worship.


----------



## Matthias (Mar 6, 2009)

LadyFlynt said:


> ManleyBeasley said:
> 
> 
> > If it is acknowledged that they believe heresy when it comes to so many important issues why do we think they should instruct us (protestants) in prayer?
> ...




The line is SCRIPTURE.. RPW, Confessions, sessions, councils, elders, deacons, etc etc etc do not draw the line. We can talk personal opinions until our heads explode, but as Christians, the WORD is the line. The answer is in the Bible.


----------



## Davidius (Mar 6, 2009)

Confessor said:


> I am aware this was directed at Manley, but regardless...
> 
> 
> 
> ...



You're a rationalist, so you know that your own argument here is wrong. It doesn't really matter what normally happens; experience does not yield knowledge. How about a _reductio ad absurdum_? Going to church every Sunday is also ritualistic. Celebrating the eucharist is ritualistic. Your very argument is, in fact, why most American Christians have rejected traditional Christianity. It would seem, then, that something more than the charge of "ritualistic" is necessary. Furthermore, your borderline gnosticism is a bit disconcerting. People should just train themselves to think of whatever the ritual is supposed to signify? That may be the Anabaptist and Marcionite position, but orthodox Christians do not reject matter and the influence it has on the soul. 



Davidius said:


> I think it would also be helpful if you, and some of the others using highly critical rhetoric, would define your terms. First, what is superstition? Second, what is a ritual, and is something bad simply because it is a ritual?





Confessor said:


> Superstition would be some things carried out because they are believed to achieve good fortune or good standing with God not due to our faith, but _ex opere operato_. For instance, Romanist baptism is superstitious. The Romanist Eucharist is superstitious. A ritual is usually defined under the auspices of superstition, i.e. an event which is superstitious. Inasmuch as superstition is bad, then, rituals are bad too.



First, Roman Catholic theology does not teach that the sacraments act without regard to the disposition of the recipient. This is a false notion, and if you want to be a philosopher you need to represent your opponents accurately.



Roman Catholic Catechism 1128 said:


> This is the meaning of the Church's affirmation49 that the sacraments act ex opere operato (literally: "by the very fact of the action's being performed"), i.e., *by virtue of the saving work of Christ, accomplished once for all*. It follows that "*the sacrament is not wrought by the righteousness of either the celebrant or the recipient, but by the power of God*." From the moment that a sacrament is celebrated in accordance with the intention of the Church, the power of Christ and his Spirit acts in and through it, *independently of the personal holiness of the minister. Nevertheless, the fruits of the sacraments also depend on the disposition of the one who receives them.*



Second, inasmuch as you are wrong about the meaning of _ex opere operato_, you are wrong to equate superstition with ritual. For you, ritual means anything you choose not do repeatedly (though many Christians find plenty of things we Reformed do to be ritualistic), but that others may. For you, anything to which you personally do not ascribe meaning is superstitious. 



Davidius said:


> Your last statement also falls short. The Eastern Orthodox and Roman Catholics also believe in the trinity. Should we disregard that because we disagree with other teachings of theirs?



He didn't say that everything in the Churches is bad, but merely that we should not trust them on some doctrine which we ourselves cannot verify in Scripture. In other words, if they have so much heresy, we should not follow their doctrines or practices _merely on their word._



Davidius said:


> As to the issue of worship, the sign of the cross is not directed towards others; it is directed towards oneself. Therefore it does not fall under the jurisdiction of "what God has commanded us to offer Him in worship." It's like memorizing and reciting a scripture verse, only physical instead of mental. Would anyone say that it's "ritualistic" or "superstitious" to quote a favorite bible verse when faced with a moment of temptation?





Confessor said:


> I would disagree. When people make the sign of the cross they are clearly doing it towards God or with respect to God. That's why it often precedes prayer. Memorizing Bible verses is simply an act of learning about God which is not worship, strictly speaking. But I would say that anything related to prayer falls under the category of worship.



Well, as someone once said, that's your opinion. I believe you are again speaking in ignorance, perhaps because you do not like Catholics and Orthodox because of other opinions they hold, and are ready to accept any accusation against them, no matter how ill-informed or prejudiced, without the proper scrutiny. You aren't allowed to simply make up whatever meaning you want and then attribute it to other people. 

Aside from individuals crossing themselves, priests make the sign of the cross over their congregations, over the recipients of baptism, over those being confirmed, over the elements of the eucharist, etc. It is patently obvious that God is not the object of the sign.


By the way, when I speak of ignorance, I mean it in the plainest sense of the word, i.e. simply not knowing. I do not mean it to be derogatory.


----------



## Matthias (Mar 6, 2009)

Davidius said:


> Confessor said:
> 
> 
> > I am aware this was directed at Manley, but regardless...
> ...



If God is not the object of it, or in ANY way glorified by it, how can it be justified in His worship?


----------



## Davidius (Mar 6, 2009)

Jeffrey,

Again, you and the other detractors are simply asserting that God does not receive any glory from this. That you cannot fathom it at this moment does not make it so. 

And by "object" I'm speaking in grammatical terms. The person making the sign of the cross is not "signing" God, but God doesn't only receive glory from shouts of praise directly to him. I'm sure everyone here knows this, which is why I suspect that the general disagreeableness is due more to a "hands over the ears" posture than anything else.


----------



## Confessor (Mar 6, 2009)

Davidius said:


> You're a rationalist, so you know that your own argument here is wrong. It doesn't really matter what normally happens; experience does not yield knowledge. How about a _reductio ad absurdum_? Going to church every Sunday is also ritualistic. Celebrating the eucharist is ritualistic. Your very argument is, in fact, why most American Christians have rejected traditional Christianity. It would seem, then, that something more than the charge of "ritualistic" is necessary. Furthermore, your borderline gnosticism is a bit disconcerting. People should just train themselves to think of whatever the ritual is supposed to signify? That may be the Anabaptist and Marcionite position, but orthodox Christians do not reject matter and the influence it has on the soul.



On the contrary, I don't think it would be correct to set church attendance and the sign of the cross as equivalent. The former involves all the actual spiritual activity (that is indeed the entire benefit of going to church) which involves mentally apprehending the sermon, engaging in spiritual fellowship, etc. The latter, on the other hand, is merely a means to "officially" make a prayer complete, or to bring good luck. I'm not denouncing the "material" aspect of prayer; I'm rejecting the part of it which is supposedly good in itself, the part which purportedly brings about good _ex opere operato_, a good luck charm or a means of "officially" completing some religious act. In other words,, it's a superfluous and ill-intentioned rather than necessary or well-intentioned act.

If you wanted to do a _reductio ad absurdum_, I think a daily Bible reading would have been a better example (since it's individual rather than corporate), but that still does not work, for the reading of the Bible is logically required to engage in the spiritual activity.



Davidius said:


> First, Roman Catholic theology does not teach that the sacraments act without regard to the disposition of the recipient. This is a false notion, and if you want to be a philosopher you need to learn how to represent your opponents accurately.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Of course there are some sacraments wherein Romanists say that they also depend on the disposition of the one receiving them (especially penance). But I wasn't saying that all of them are _ex opere operato_, and I apologize if that is how I came across. As one extremely obvious example of a Romanist ritual where grace acts _ex opere operato_, take infant baptism. They believe that the priest's baptizing of the baby actually removes the baby's stain of sin, and of course this is irrespective of the baby's disposition, because he's a baby. Part of Romanist doctrine is that even a heathen may baptize a baby if the infant looks as if he will not survive much past birth. There are certain stipulations on how the heathen may do so, etc., but nonetheless, it is clear that the act is superstitious.



Davidius said:


> Second, inasmuch as you are wrong about the meaning of _ex opere operato_, you are wrong to equate superstition with ritual. For you, ritual means anything you don't do with repetition, but that others may.



And that is not how I defined ritual, though I do realize that I defined it incorrectly earlier. I'm not sure exactly how to define it (e.g. if it be proper to distinguish between _superstitious_ and _non-superstitious_ ritual; between rituals and sacraments, etc.), but for now I wouldn't say it's a very useful criterion in itself, as "superstitious" can be the only label we have to use. In other words, the only question we need to ask is, Is making the sign of the cross superstitious?



Davidius said:


> Again, I believe you are simply speaking in ignorance, perhaps because you do not like Catholics and Orthodox because of other opinions they hold, and are ready to accept any accusation against them, no matter how ill-informed or prejudice, without the proper scrutiny. You aren't allowed to simply make up whatever meaning you want and then attribute it to other people.
> 
> Aside from individuals crossing themselves, priests make the sign of the cross over their congregations, over the recipients of baptism, over those being confirmed, over the elements of the eucharist, etc. It is patently obvious that God is not the object of the sign.



Hey now, don't take my statements pertaining to one aspect of the argument and apply them to another. I was distinguishing between crosses made during prayer and memorizing Bible verses. I was only speaking of how the cross may be used during one instance, _viz._ individual prayer.

In each of those cases you cited, they are doing them to try to "make official" something. They're trying to "officially" change the essence of the bread and wine. They're trying to "officially" bless their congregation. They're trying to "officially" declare an infant baptized. When this is combined with how often we almost always see it -- e.g. when people are in precarious situations or athletes before a sports game -- it seems obvious to me that it is only designed as some sort of good luck charm or to work _ex opere operato_. (This is abundantly evident when you see more traditional Romanists may get upset if others forget to make the sign of the cross.) And that, combined with the fact that it's used in worship services (which you stated above) or in prayer directly to God, makes it forbidden on the basis of the regulative principle.

-----Added 3/6/2009 at 02:25:49 EST-----



Davidius said:


> By the way, when I speak of ignorance, I mean it in the plainest sense of the word, i.e. simply not knowing. I do not mean it to be derogatory.



I know that's what you meant; you're a nice guy.


----------



## Matthias (Mar 6, 2009)

Davidius said:


> Jeffrey,
> 
> Again, you and the other detractors are simply asserting that God does not receive any glory from this. That you cannot fathom it at this moment does not make it so.
> 
> And by "object" I'm speaking in grammatical terms. The person making the sign of the cross is not "signing" God, but God doesn't only receive glory from shouts of praise directly to him. I'm sure everyone here knows this, which is why I suspect that the general disagreeableness is due more to a "hands over the ears" posture than anything else.



Ok great, you have responded to an opinion of mine with an opinion of yours. Exactly what you rebuked Confessor for. This is my point. I have not even stated my view of "crossing". How do you know im not on your side? I asked one question, and was looking for a BIBLICAL response. 

From what i see, you dont like opinions...unless they are your own.


----------



## a mere housewife (Mar 6, 2009)

Davidius said:


> As to the issue of worship, the sign of the cross is not directed towards others; it is directed towards oneself. Therefore it does not fall under the jurisdiction of "what God has commanded us to offer Him in worship." It's like memorizing and reciting a scripture verse, only physical instead of mental. Would anyone say that it's "ritualistic" or "superstitious" to quote a favorite bible verse when faced with a moment of temptation?



David, I think the difference that at least I have to keep in mind thinking about this is that Scripture is an ordained means of God's grace and crossing oneself is not. I would compare crossing oneself to a mnemonic device, not to prayer or the Word? Probably you didn't mean to imply otherwise but it seems best to be as clear as possible for the benefit of those who do attach some kind of grace to a symbol which God has nowhere said that He uses to communicate grace. 

In the same way, I think it can bring glory to God as you would speak of a mnemonic device bringing glory: not as something directly edifying to us or others, in that it is not something which God has commanded, through which God reveals Himself, communicates grace, or has joined to the ministry of the Spirit: but as a personal help to something else like focus in worship, which _do_ glorify Him?

I think it's important to keep these distinctions in mind because I know my own tendency is to want to cross myself because I think that somehow it will minister grace to me that is not found in and can be had in addition to the ordained means. I think that is where the practice would become 'superstitious'.

I don't mean to be argumentative: simply to clarify this point as it's been a helpful discussion for me.

I don't see you around much: I hope you and Emily are well?


----------

