Syncretism and patriotism

[Marcus Kibbe]

It is my perception that you are wrong and your deeply held and clearly stated belief cannot lead to any other conclusion except fundamentalism

This is a good observation, Wes. Such a view is indeed fundamentalism - doctrinal innovation. It is presented under the guise of love/compassion/caring etc., but it is in actuality conformity to doctrine. Fundamentalism will always choose the latter (doctrine) regardless of the effect it has on its followers or on the society of which it is a part.

[Wes Smith]

Well, there goes all the time and effort put into this discussion. Just floating down the drains.



A free advice: don't react after your initial statement and give people the perception you're actually discussing an issue. I can very well understand how people would misunderstand your true intentions.

But, I absolutely appreciate your honesty. I think many people only post to make the opponents of a view that is expressed feel better about their opinion. Has nothing to do with the purpose of NazNet, but honesty is always a gain.

Hans,

Some free advice back to you. There are certain subjects on NazNet at are amazingly predictable. This is/has been one of those. Your free advice could go both ways (to proponents of Christian patriotism as well as those opposed)!

Friend,

Wes

[Hans Deventer]

Hans,

Some free advice back to you. There are certain subjects on NazNet at are amazingly predictable. This is/has been one of those.

Of course. Why do you think I created a new thread out of some replies to my initial question? Exactly because this subject issues into nothing but people defending their views in the public arena that NazNet has become. And as long as it perceived as a public arena, as you apparently do as well, these discussions will never achieve anything.

Your free advice could go both ways (to proponents of Christian patriotism as well as those opposed)!

Of course again! I'd love to have a NazNet rule that says, "Don't write here unless you are willing to change your mind. From whatever persuasion you are."

We agree completely, Wes.

[Wes Smith]

Of course. Why do you think I created a new thread out of some replies to my initial question? Exactly because this subject issues into nothing but people defending their views in the public arena that NazNet has become. And as long as it perceived as a public arena, as you apparently do as well, these discussions will never achieve anything.



Of course again! I'd love to have a NazNet rule that says, "Don't write here unless you are willing to change your mind. From whatever persuasion you are."

We agree completely, Wes.

Hans,

Ha! I actually agree. And if you would feel comfortable making the motion, I would be glad to second it! Do not post unless you are willing to change your mind.

How about this one? No posting of subjects that address subjects about which minds will not change? Ergh. Gets complicated!

Friend,

Wes

[Hans Deventer]

How about this one? No posting of subjects that address subjects about which minds will not change? Ergh. Gets complicated!

Perhaps too complicated. Would you agree that capital punishment is one of those subjects? At first view, I would say so. Yet, through the discussions on this topic here on NazNet I have actually changed my view. So I tend to look more at the willingness of the person than at the subject.

[Cam Pence]

Perhaps too complicated. Would you agree that capital punishment is one of those subjects? At first view, I would say so. Yet, through the discussions on this topic here on NazNet I have actually changed my view. So I tend to look more at the willingness of the person than at the subject.

I actually don't recall a discussion about capital punishment here before. I am sure there must have been one. Weird.

[Doug Ward]

I believe this is a complicated issue, perhaps more so than we realize. First, let me state that love of Christ is, of course, our primary call. Let me also add that love of country, or community is also a good thing. There are many different levels of this, and these intersect and collide in numerous and unexpected ways. I love my the people from the neighborhood in which I was raised. I love my home state of Ohio. I really love the Midwest, and when I say that, I mean the region around the Great Lakes. I take pride in this area. I love my current neighborhood, and the kids with whom my children befriended. I love my fellow believers, but I feel that love more with my people - whom are Nazarenes - even with all of their faults and foibles. I love the local fellowship with whom I meet regularly. These are the people I am in community with - forgive the dangling participle.

There are times I can love all of these people at the same time, and there are no conflicts or issues that arise. I wish this were true of every moment, but it is not. Sometimes, decisions and discernments must happen, because my love for one community impacts my life with another community. Sometimes we feel this tension on a local scale as school issues, or local issues conflict with our lives of faith. Other times our love for country may blind us in our walk of faith.

In most areas a love of country has superceeded our expression of faith. We have unnecessarily combined the two until it it difficult to see the difference. Many have noticed this. As a result, there can be an over-reaction that creates a default hostility toward the community. Whether it is basic denigration toward the nation, or a a default isolation from any local community. These are two sides of the same coin. I do not want the church to be another support arm for my nation. Nor do I want my church to be the isolated, separated from community people it was in my youth. Nor do I want people sensing a hostility toward the nation in which they reside, I do not think that will end well for the church, or the people we try to impact.

So we strive for this tension filled, middle position. A part of our communities, but not of our communities. This seems to me to be the NT call and ideal.

[Paul DeBaufer]

I believe this is a complicated issue, perhaps more so than we realize. First, let me state that love of Christ is, of course, our primary call. Let me also add that love of country, or community is also a good thing. There are many different levels of this, and these intersect and collide in numerous and unexpected ways. I love my the people from the neighborhood in which I was raised. I love my home state of Ohio. I really love the Midwest, and when I say that, I mean the region around the Great Lakes. I take pride in this area. I love my current neighborhood, and the kids with whom my children befriended. I love my fellow believers, but I feel that love more with my people - whom are Nazarenes - even with all of their faults and foibles. I love the local fellowship with whom I meet regularly. These are the people I am in community with - forgive the dangling participle.

There are times I can love all of these people at the same time, and there are no conflicts or issues that arise. I wish this were true of every moment, but it is not. Sometimes, decisions and discernments must happen, because my love for one community impacts my life with another community. Sometimes we feel this tension on a local scale as school issues, or local issues conflict with our lives of faith. Other times our love for country may blind us in our walk of faith.

In most areas a love of country has superceeded our expression of faith. We have unnecessarily combined the two until it it difficult to see the difference. Many have noticed this. As a result, there can be an over-reaction that creates a default hostility toward the community. Whether it is basic denigration toward the nation, or a a default isolation from any local community. These are two sides of the same coin. I do not want the church to be another support arm for my nation. Nor do I want my church to be the isolated, separated from community people it was in my youth. Nor do I want people sensing a hostility toward the nation in which they reside, I do not think that will end well for the church, or the people we try to impact.

So we strive for this tension filled, middle position. A part of our communities, but not of our communities. This seems to me to be the NT call and ideal.

Very good, Thank you Doug.

[Hans Deventer]

I actually don't recall a discussion about capital punishment here before. I am sure there must have been one. Weird.

It's been a while, Cam. It was on the old forum.

[Dale Cozby]

I actually don't recall a discussion about capital punishment here before. I am sure there must have been one. Weird.

It was a very interesting and somewhat heated discussion ranging from : " Kill them all and let God sort them out, He will know His own." to "It is better for Christianity to peish from the earth and to be killed to the last Christian than to take a life." what a wide range of viewpoints we have here. I find myself often in the middle annoying both sides.

[Benjamin Burch]

Ben,

So happy for you to have your opinion. It doesn't change my perception. And, that's the truth.

Nor does your post/opinion change my perception about your overall declaration of Christian patriotism being syncretism. God bless you for having such strong opinions. Seriously. "It is against the call of Christ to fight and kill, specifically for a flag which has nothing to do with God whatsoever. As such, the Pledge and the Anthem exist as liturgical devices which draw us into a place where we are willing to go against the call of Christ and - worse yet - come up with crazy ways to justify somehow saying it isn't actually against the call of Christ!!

If that isn't syncretism, I'm not sure what is." You believe that so strongly and I'm just saying...go for it.

However (what a great word!) It is my perception that you are wrong and your deeply held and clearly stated belief cannot lead to any other conclusion except fundamentalism, which means that people are excluded from Christianity because they have an alternative belief (going against the call of Christ!) from the fundamentalist/s.

Speaking as an outsider to your exclusivity, I maintain my "perception" along with my healthy perception of my integrity!

And, I might add, again, that I do not have much emotion wrapped up in this thread. It seems somewhat strange to throw such strong words around without much personal emotion. The truth is, I entered participation in this thread with no thought of changing any minds...just the hope of helping Christian patriots feel better about their position. Further participation in this discussion would just lead to more constirnation. So, over and out.

Friend,

Wes

Thanks Wes. It doesn't lead to fundamentalism or believing others are out, as I've said. But thanks.

Maybe if you held it you'd have no choice but to exclude others but please do me a favor and do not project this onto me.

[Cam Pence]

It was a very interesting and somewhat heated discussion ranging from : " Kill them all and let God sort them out, He will know His own." to "It is better for Christianity to peish from the earth and to be killed to the last Christian than to take a life." what a wide range of viewpoints we have here. I find myself often in the middle annoying both sides.

Up until reading that I would have been interested in having that discussion, but perhaps not

[Wilson Deaton]

Up until reading that I would have been interested in having that discussion, but perhaps not

Cam, if you want meaningless heated debate, go ahead and start the thread...

If you are simply looking for the right answer send me a private message and I'll send it to you.

Wilson

[Cam Pence]

cam, if you want meaningless heated debate, go ahead and start the thread...

If you are simply looking for the right answer send me a private message and i'll send it to you.

Wilson

thank you!

[Marcus Kibbe]

It doesn't lead to fundamentalism.

Ben, I can imagine it must be devastating when one discovers they are a fundamentalist. You're experiencing denial right now - thats okay - its normal. Relax and catch some b-ball games this weekend to get the mind off it. This will likely be a slow process.

[John Kennedy]

Of course. Why do you think I created a new thread out of some replies to my initial question? Exactly because this subject issues into nothing but people defending their views in the public arena that NazNet has become. And as long as it perceived as a public arena, as you apparently do as well, these discussions will never achieve anything.

Of course again! I'd love to have a NazNet rule that says, "Don't write here unless you are willing to change your mind. From whatever persuasion you are."

We agree completely, Wes.

While it is possible to despair of conversations that fail to ever achieve resolution, one of the virtues of futility is that it has a lot of continuity built in.

[Hans Deventer]

Ben, I can imagine it must be devastating when one discovers they are a fundamentalist. You're experiencing denial right now - thats okay - its normal. Relax and catch some b-ball games this weekend to get the mind off it. This will likely be a slow process.

Are you talking like an expert, or just trying to provoke him as much as you can? Or both? For all I can tell, unlike Ben, you are a person that never chanched his mind. Which to me, is the high point of Fundamentalism. But I may be guilty of confusing it with arrogance.

Btw, reading wikipedia's definition, the issue gets clearer:

Fundamentalism is the demand for a strict adherence to specific theological doctrines usually understood as a reaction against Modernist theology, combined with a vigorous attack on outside threats to their religious culture.[1] The term "fundamentalism" was originally coined by its supporters to describe a specific package of theological beliefs that developed into a movement within the Protestant community of the United States in the early part of the 20th century, and that had its roots in the Fundamentalist–Modernist Controversy of that time.[2]

With Modernest Theology, the article seems to describe a late 19th century, liberal kind of theology and all that came from it. Need I say more?

Seems to me the way how you deal with the concept would make Jesus a fundamentalist as well. He seemed to have some pretty strong ideas.

[John Dahl]

Syncretism and "Social Justice" anyone?

[Hans Deventer]

Syncretism and "Social Justice" anyone?

Ok, has this topic become political? If a Dahl get's involved, it usually is.

[John Dahl]

Ok, has this topic become political? If a Dahl get's involved, it usually is.

No Hans, nothing political unless you're determined to go there. I was just trying to see if others had the same feelings about the combining of their Christian faith with the religion of "social justice". You know, worshiping at the alter of secular "social justice" under the guise of faith in spite of the detrimental effects it has on society.

Just looking to see if consistency is the rule of the day.

[Benjamin Burch]

Ben, I can imagine it must be devastating when one discovers they are a fundamentalist. You're experiencing denial right now - thats okay - its normal. Relax and catch some b-ball games this weekend to get the mind off it. This will likely be a slow process.

No, if you mean to say I'm a fundamentalist in that on this issue I believe it to be fundamental and that I am in no way wrong, and those that disagree with me are wrong... then yes. I've admitted as much.

If you mean that it leads me to count others as "outside" or "not true Christians", or not Christians at all.... you're wrong.

I think that clarification is important. Wes has said the second. This is not true. Take it for what it is.

[Hans Deventer]

You know, worshiping at the alter of secular "social justice" under the guise of faith in spite of the detrimental effects it has on society.

Yeah, that's what I meant. Pure Politics.

[Wes Smith]

Feeling somewhat like I'm at a basketball game and someone has determined that there should be more than one ball in play. "No, I'm not a fundamentalist. Yes, I am."

Also, I totally get John's social justice comparison. And in a friendly sort of way I get Hans' response. Consistency is tough, tough work!

Friend,

Wes

[Hans Deventer]

Wes, I think people don't get that a solid conviction does not equate the rejection of a person. We had the very same discussion with Jim not so long ago about pacifism. I believe a Christian should not use violence. Then people start to argue that I therefore think that if one does believe a Christian can use arms, I would consider them not to be Christians! That is not true, and that is exactly why this is not fundamentalism.

It is possible to have a conviction that goes deep, yet refuse to put others who disagree outside the Christian realm.

It think this is the issue.

[Mike Schutz]

I was just trying to see if others had the same feelings about the combining of their Christian faith with the religion of "social justice". You know, worshiping at the alter of secular "social justice" under the guise of faith in spite of the detrimental effects it has on society.

John - A clarification is in order, especially if you desire the consistency at which you seek, and in keeping with the idea that there is possibly a patriotism that can honestly live alongside Christianity without doing it harm:

Do you recognize that there is "social justice" that is not "secular," but is a reasonable extrapolation of the Christian faith? And if you do not, what do you call Christian social action to make the priorities of the kingdom more evident in the world?


John - please understand, I am honestly asking this question, as I do recognize that "secular social justice" and "Christian social justice" are two very different things.
I am asking because, while I believe that it is very possible for Christianity and patriotism to co-exist in the life of the believer without patriotism doing harm to faith (depending upon how it is practiced), I do not see social justice the same way. I believe Christian social justice is an imperative of the Church in the world, and secular social justice is a very denial of the Lordship of Jesus Christ.

[Roy Richardson]

I saw this on the clearance rack at my local Christian book store and it made me think of this thread.

[Scott Moseley]

Expanding on this thread's topic: Let me ask this forum how does one delineate Worship / devotion / duty / allegiance? The conversation in play seems to have many parallels with the longstanding discussion/divide between the protestant / Roman Catholic view of Idol worship/Devotion/duty/allegiance. And interestingly , though I hate to make too wide of swath with the brush, it seems that those of us that have no problem expressing devotion to a flag, do in fact have a huge problem with Christians showing devotion to a statue of Mary or an image of the infant Jesus and to the same degree, Those here who see syncretic worship in patriotism most likely see no syncretism in the Roman Catholic expression of devotion to graven images. Am I too far off here?

[Paul DeBaufer]

Expanding on this thread's topic: Let me ask this forum how does one delineate Worship / devotion / duty / allegiance? The conversation in play seems to have many parallels with the longstanding discussion/divide between the protestant / Roman Catholic view of Idol worship/Devotion/duty/allegiance. And interestingly , though I hate to make too wide of swath with the brush, it seems that those of us that have no problem expressing devotion to a flag, do in fact have a huge problem with Christians showing devotion to a statue of Mary or an image of the infant Jesus and to the same degree, Those here who see syncretic worship in patriotism most likely see no syncretism in the Roman Catholic expression of devotion to graven images. Am I too far off here?

Interesting because I used to have that view of the RCC. I have no problems with the icons' presence. I am sure that there are those within the RCC who do worship and make idols of the icons, but in my very limited experience I have not seen it. But is this syncretism or idolatry?

[Benjamin Burch]

Expanding on this thread's topic: Let me ask this forum how does one delineate Worship / devotion / duty / allegiance? The conversation in play seems to have many parallels with the longstanding discussion/divide between the protestant / Roman Catholic view of Idol worship/Devotion/duty/allegiance. And interestingly , though I hate to make too wide of swath with the brush, it seems that those of us that have no problem expressing devotion to a flag, do in fact have a huge problem with Christians showing devotion to a statue of Mary or an image of the infant Jesus and to the same degree, Those here who see syncretic worship in patriotism most likely see no syncretism in the Roman Catholic expression of devotion to graven images. Am I too far off here?

I think you make the point for me.... One has problem with devotion to things in the Church, but not outside of the Church.

Another side has no problem with devotion to things within the Church, but has a problem with devotion to things outside of the Church.

[Wes Smith]

Interesting because I used to have that view of the RCC. I have no problems with the icons' presence. I am sure that there are those within the RCC who do worship and make idols of the icons, but in my very limited experience I have not seen it. But is this syncretism or idolatry?

Paul,

I took some flack in an above post because I suggested that someone who is a syncristic, patriotic Christian would pray to the flag and confess to the flag.

Here we have the suggestion that in the RCC someone might pray to someone due to their closer proximity to God and confess to someone with closer proximity to God and that is okay?

I am simply awed by what I perceive to be the errancy of such logic.

Friend,

Wes

[Hans Deventer]

Paul,

I took some flack in an above post because I suggested that someone who is a syncristic, patriotic Christian would pray to the flag and confess to the flag.

Here we have the suggestion that in the RCC someone might pray to someone due to their closer proximity to God and confess to someone with closer proximity to God and that is okay?

I am simply awed by what I perceive to be the errancy of such logic.

Friend,

Wes

It is not so hard. Do you ever ask someone to pray for you? If so, that is exactly what the RC's are doing. The difference is only in them including the church triumphant. It is a broader concept of the community of the saints. Sure, there will be those who actually pray to saints, but the official teaching is merely one of communication in asking someone to pray for us.

Being a protestant, I never do this, but I have to admit I have a hard time finding fault, since I also believe that those who died in Christ, are alive to Him. And since the Bible teaches that at least Moses and Elijah are actively involved in what happens down here, it is hardly a stretch to believe the same goes for more saints.

[Dale Cozby]

It is possible to have a conviction that goes deep, yet refuse to put others who disagree outside the Christian realm.

It is also difficult to hold a deep conviction and not come across as one who holds those who do not share the same depth of conviction as somehow less mature, inferior of faith or in error. If we say, "I once thought as you do now..' somehow it isunderstood as: "we are wiser than they'.
Coming off as being humble and wise at the same time is difficult to express on a forum board.

[Wes Smith]

It is not so hard. Do you ever ask someone to pray for you? If so, that is exactly what the RC's are doing. The difference is only in them including the church triumphant. It is a broader concept of the community of the saints. Sure, there will be those who actually pray to saints, but the official teaching is merely one of communication in asking someone to pray for us.

Being a protestant, I never do this, but I have to admit I have a hard time finding fault, since I also believe that those who died in Christ, are alive to Him. And since the Bible teaches that at least Moses and Elijah are actively involved in what happens down here, it is hardly a stretch to believe the same goes for more saints.

Hans,

Searching my personal data bank to see if I recollect a scripture or two that encourages us to pray to respected chain of the redeemed. So far, coming up blank.

This is actually a good example of the issue of this thread, I think. No, one cannot be patriotic as a Christian because the forms and practices suggest the same as worship of God even if the patriotic Christian has no overt or subtle compromise going on. It is sycretism, pure and simple. However, if a Christian blatantly prays to a saint or overtly confesses sins to a mediator, that is fine because it is in the context of the church. I have no words to describe my wonderment at this logic.

Can we take the next step and communicate with the dead in this progression? My prayers with God are two-way. Would there be a problem with seeking a little advice from relatives and friends who have passed on?

I see light years difference between asking a friend to pray directly to God (through Jesus Christ in the power of the Holy Spirit) for needs in my life and addressing the dead in order to get some advice or favor.

Is it possible to turn a corner here and crack the door open to practices that may not be acceptable to one but acceptable to another and allow grace to flow both ways?

Part of my personal desire is to hear (read) someone say, "Okay, all (or, even MOST of) you patriotic believers are not syncretistic. We have have held our council and since you love God with you whole heart and soul and mind and strength and your neighbor as youself, you are in! That is the essence of Christianity. We have looked at your lives...you attend and faithfully support the various activities of the church, pay your tithes, refrain from evil practices, love your families, are courteous, do not read the Sunday paper, do not attend the circus, do not participate in mixed bathing, do good to folks in your lives, and share your faith when the opportunity arises, (need more?). You are in! Welcome to the fellowship of true believers."

Seems simple to me.

Friend,

Wes

[Benjamin Burch]

Part of my personal desire is to hear (read) someone say, "Okay, all (or, even MOST of) you patriotic believers are not syncretistic. We have have held our council and since you love God with you whole heart and soul and mind and strength and your neighbor as youself, you are in! That is the essence of Christianity. We have looked at your lives...you attend and faithfully support the various activities of the church, pay your tithes, refrain from evil practices, love your families, are courteouss, do not read the Sunday paper, do not attend the circus, do not participate in mixed bathing, do good to folks in your lives, and share your faith when the opportunity arises, (need more?). You are in! Welcome to the fellowship of true believers."

I guess I haven't been very clear...

"Okay, all (or, even MOST of) you patriotic believers are not syncretistic.

My friend and I were talking about this the other day, and that this was why I do not vote. Because, by extension, I am supporting war, and blah blah down the line. He asked me how it is that I can draw a line at voting, how do I know I don't participate in other ways?

I told him that I am not so sure, and we can never be sure, and that I am as guilty as any other. That is why I come back to the Liturgy every Sunday. That is why I confess my sin[/B]s every Sunday, and it is why I partake of the Eucharist every Sunday.

We are all syncretists to varying degrees.

We have have held our council and since you love God with you whole heart and soul and mind and strength

Most merciful God,
we confess that we have sinned against you...
We have not loved you with our whole heart;

and your neighbor as yourself,

we have not loved our neighbors as ourselves.

you are in!

You're in!! We're all sinners along for the ride who are being perfected into Christ's image. Again...

Read This Post.

I get the impression you didn't read it the first time. I've tried to say "you're in" over and over again, but you seem intent on, instead, saying my logic is flawed and really I have to believe that you're out.

Just in case anyone missed it the first time...

Most merciful God,
we confess that we have sinned against you
in thought, word, and deed,
by what we have done,
and by what we have left undone.
We have not loved you with our whole heart;
we have not loved our neighbors as ourselves.
We are truly sorry and we humbly repent.
For the sake of your Son Jesus Christ,
have mercy on us and forgive us;
that we may delight in your will,
and walk in your ways,
to the glory of your Name. Amen.

[Benjamin Burch]

Hans,

Searching my personal data bank to see if I recollect a scripture or two that encourages us to pray to respected chain of the redeemed. So far, coming up blank.

This is actually a good example of the issue of this thread, I think. No, one cannot be patriotic as a Christian because the forms and practices suggest the same as worship of God even if the patriotic Christian has no overt or subtle compromise going on. It is sycretism, pure and simple. However, if a Christian blatantly prays to a saint or overtly confesses sins to a mediator, that is fine because it is in the context of the church. I have no words to describe my wonderment at this logic.

Can we take the next step and communicate with the dead in this progression? My prayers with God are two-way. Would there be a problem with seeking a little advice from relatives and friends who have passed on?

I see light years difference between asking a friend to pray directly to God (through Jesus Christ in the power of the Holy Spirit) for needs in my life and addressing the dead in order to get some advice or favor.

Is it possible to turn a corner here and crack the door open to practices that may not be acceptable to one but acceptable to another and allow grace to flow both ways?

Part of my personal desire is to hear (read) someone say, "Okay, all (or, even MOST of) you patriotic believers are not syncretistic. We have have held our council and since you love God with you whole heart and soul and mind and strength and your neighbor as youself, you are in! That is the essence of Christianity. We have looked at your lives...you attend and faithfully support the various activities of the church, pay your tithes, refrain from evil practices, love your families, are courteous, do not read the Sunday paper, do not attend the circus, do not participate in mixed bathing, do good to folks in your lives, and share your faith when the opportunity arises, (need more?). You are in! Welcome to the fellowship of true believers."

Seems simple to me.

Friend,

Wes

And someone is upset that I have the audacity to tell them that their faith does not resemble the historic faith of the Church. I don't get it. We've gone so far afield in Evangelicalism that we're nowhere near what the Church has historically believe, and what Christianity - as a whole - has always believed. Then we build ideas in opposition to what Christianity has always believed, and we hold it up as Christianity!! Oh, goodness. The confusion!

Searching my personal data bank to see if I recollect a scripture or two that encourages us to pray to respected chain of the redeemed. So far, coming up blank.

Tradition has historically been an equal partner to Scripture. I can find you plenty of support in tradition if you like.

However, if a Christian blatantly prays to a saint or overtly confesses sins to a mediator, that is fine because it is in the context of the church.

Yet we've always done this. It isn't "praying" in terms of as we do to a deity. But we use that term so as to try and make it seem like something it isn't. The more accurate term would be "petition".

Can we take the next step and communicate with the dead in this progression? My prayers with God are two-way. Would there be a problem with seeking a little advice from relatives and friends who have passed on?

Considering that we do not pray to the dead as we pray to God, this makes no sense. Nice straw man.

I see light years difference between asking a friend to pray directly to God (through Jesus Christ in the power of the Holy Spirit) for needs in my life and addressing the dead in order to get some advice or favor.

This is so far from Christian in thought process that I'm not sure what to do.

There is no difference between asking my friend to pray directly to God for me through Jesus in the power of the Holy Spirit and asking St. Gregory of Nazianzus to pray for me directly to God through Jesus in the power of the Holy Spirit. No difference at all... except that we believe as a Church that St. Gregory has already gone on to be with Christ, in Christ's presence. Thus, he might be even better to ask!!

This really comes down to Eucharistic Theology and there is a reason this is the central theology for the majority of Christian traditions. Do we believe the creed we recite at our baptism?

I believe in the Holy Spirit,
the holy catholic Church,
the communion of saints,
the forgiveness of sins,
the resurrection of the body,
and the life everlasting.
Amen.

Do we believe that through the communion, we are all made one in Christ, living members of his Body? Do we believe that this life is everlasting, and is not interrupted by death? Do we believe, therefore, that through the Communion we actually have communion with those who have gone on to be in Christ's presence until the day we're united again in our resurrection? Do we believe that through our union with Christ, we are actually all one in unity together, and have communion with each other, equally with all those who have gone on to be in Christ's presence?

You keep using this word "dead" to describe those who have gone on to be in the presence of Christ. Yet..

‘I am the resurrection and the life. Those who believe in me, even though they die, will live, and everyone who lives and believes in me will never die.

Do we not see how central this is to our very own Christian faith? And yet we cut it down with our anti-Catholic axes.

If you truly believe that it is syncretistic for me to petition St. Irenaeus to pray for me, and to give me strength, then I will no longer ask my father to pray for me or to give me strength.

You have effectively ripped out the very heart of our faith, Wes.

[Wes Smith]

I guess I haven't been very clear...



My friend and I were talking about this the other day, and that this was why I do not vote. Because, by extension, I am supporting war, and blah blah down the line. He asked me how it is that I can draw a line at voting, how do I know I don't participate in other ways?



We are all syncretists to varying degrees.











You're in!! We're all sinners along for the ride who are being perfected into Christ's image. Again...

Read This Post.

I get the impression you didn't read it the first time. I've tried to say "you're in" over and over again, but you seem intent on, instead, saying my logic is flawed and really I have to believe that you're out.

Just in case anyone missed it the first time...

Benjamin,

Here's my hand.

I confess EVERY morning on my walk!

Friend,

Wes

[Wes Smith]

And someone is upset that I have the audacity to tell them that their faith does not resemble the historic faith of the Church. I don't get it. We've gone so far afield in Evangelicalism that we're nowhere near what the Church has historically believe, and what Christianity - as a whole - has always believed. Then we build ideas in opposition to what Christianity has always believed, and we hold it up as Christianity!! Oh, goodness. The confusion!




Tradition has historically been an equal partner to Scripture. I can find you plenty of support in tradition if you like.



Yet we've always done this. It isn't "praying" in terms of as we do to a deity. But we use that term so as to try and make it seem like something it isn't. The more accurate term would be "petition".



Considering that we do not pray to the dead as we pray to God, this makes no sense. Nice straw man.



This is so far from Christian in thought process that I'm not sure what to do.

There is no difference between asking my friend to pray directly to God for me through Jesus in the power of the Holy Spirit and asking St. Gregory of Nazianzus to pray for me directly to God through Jesus in the power of the Holy Spirit. No difference at all... except that we believe as a Church that St. Gregory has already gone on to be with Christ, in Christ's presence. Thus, he might be even better to ask!!

This really comes down to Eucharistic Theology and there is a reason this is the central theology for the majority of Christian traditions. Do we believe the creed we recite at our baptism?



Do we believe that through the communion, we are all made one in Christ, living members of his Body? Do we believe that this life is everlasting, and is not interrupted by death? Do we believe, therefore, that through the Communion we actually have communion with those who have gone on to be in Christ's presence until the day we're united again in our resurrection? Do we believe that through our union with Christ, we are actually all one in unity together, and have communion with each other, equally with all those who have gone on to be in Christ's presence?

You keep using this word "dead" to describe those who have gone on to be in the presence of Christ. Yet..



Do we not see how central this is to our very own Christian faith? And yet we cut it down with our anti-Catholic axes.

If you truly believe that it is syncretistic for me to petition St. Irenaeus to pray for me, and to give me strength, then I will no longer ask my father to pray for me or to give me strength.

You have effectively ripped out the very heart of our faith, Wes.

Benjamin,

Whoops! Thought we had something going there for a couple minutes. Now, I've done gone and ripped the heart out of "our" faith. There I go again.

I thought this was about fire crackers and sparklers and such. Now I'm interrupting fellowship between the folks and St. Gregory of Nanzianzus (one of my personal favorites because of his universalistic leanings) and St. Irenaeus. God forbid!

Read my lips...my communication has NOTHIING to do with how folks relate to those who are dead but still alive. Was only trying to get a little space for we Christian patriots. You have granted such space. I extended my hand and I do not intend to take it back. What you will not hear from me is that you and your folks are syncretists because you have some ongoing prayer relationship with saints from years gone by.

Friend,

Wes

[Benjamin Burch]

Benjamin,

Whoops! Thought we had something going there for a couple minutes. Now, I've done gone and ripped the heart out of "our" faith. There I go again.

I thought this was about fire crackers and sparklers and such. Now I'm interrupting fellowship between the folks and St. Gregory of Nanzianzus (one of my personal favorites because of his universalistic leanings) and St. Irenaeus. God forbid!

Read my lips...my communication has NOTHIING to do with how folks relate to those who are dead but still alive. Was only trying to get a little space for we Christian patriots. You have granted such space. I extended my hand and I do not intend to take it back. What you will not hear from me is that you and your folks are syncretists because you have some ongoing prayer relationship with saints from years gone by.

Friend,

Wes

Fair enough. However, as I've already said, we're all syncretists.

[Wes Smith]

Fair enough. However, as I've already said, we're all syncretists.

Benjamin,

True. Fair!

Friend,

Wes

[Marcus Kibbe]

And someone is upset that I have the audacity to tell them that their faith does not resemble the historic faith of the Church. I don't get it. We've gone so far afield in Evangelicalism that we're nowhere near what the Church has historically believe, and what Christianity - as a whole - has always believed. Tradition has historically been an equal partner to Scripture. I can find you plenty of support in tradition if you like.

You're appealing to "history" without qualification. Who's history? What time period? Surely not the early church or post-reformation church. You assume your understanding is correct or better simply because it is "historical". Why should we consider a particular doctrine as being divinely revealed simply because it was trasmitted from antiquity? That's a logic fallacy. Error as well as truth is past on from generation to generation.

The irony of your argument is that the rejection of RCC "Sacred Tradition" is actually an appeal to "historic faith". Christ and his apostles constantly appealed to the written Scriptures to prove their teaching. Jesus challenged the traditions of his day by appealing to Scripture (Mark 7). "Sacred Tradition" cannot be checked by the Scriptures because it is considered to be of equal value. Thus, in your view, "tradition" is uncorrectable and unaccountable. It is raised to the level of Holy Scripture, thus opening the door to a flood of errors.