Syncretism and patriotism

[Greg Farra]

You are correct about that, Jim. My dad was a Roman Catholic until he became a Christian and was freed from the bondage of that works-based religion. I recall him telling me how in his wandering in the islands, going around preaching, he stumbled onto a village, where a bunch of people inside a small church, were waiting for hours for the priest to show up. Well, he asked if he could speak to them while waiting, and he preached the real Gospel for Jesus Christ to them. Practically the whole village heard the real gospel for the first time and repented from their sins upon hearing the message of the Cross.

That could probably happen in a lot of churches. Protestant, Catholic, Orthodox and everything in between.

[Larry Parsons]

Larry,
My point remains. Churches should send out missionaries to evangelize the unsaved. Now if someone is part of the RC and does not feel like they haved been saved and they come to know Jesus through the Jesus film or from speaking and working with Nazarene missionaries then great. If they leave the RC and decide to join the CotN then fine. If someone is Nazarene their whole life and comes to know Jesus through the RC and joins them, then great. I could care less if our missionaries evangelize and there are people who respond to their ministries from other faith traditions. Where pride sinks in is when missionaries go specifically to evangelize Roman Catholics because they feel the Catholics are not Christians and need to be saved and made protestant. The RC is not perfect by any stretch of the imagination, but they were "winning people for Christ" long before the reformation and certainly long before the CotN was around.

So you wouldn't like the idea for the RC to come to America to make America a RC country? But wasn't that purpose of the R Irish C when they came pouring into our large city in the 1800's. Show me a country where most of the people of that country is being rule by RC church I will show you people living in poverty. Here in America we don't have the true RC church. If you want to know what true Catholism is albout go to Spain,Italy or Latin America and live with the people.
Thanks
Larry

[Scott Moseley]

I have been considering a couple posts, one which raised the issue of icons, i.e., statues of Mary, baby Jesus, et al., and another utilizing hyperbole by mentioning Easter eggs within the framework of a discussion on syncretism. I must wonder how icons that are part of the story of the Gospel of Jesus Christ, items used in that telling can possibly be representative of syncretism. They are used in the telling of the story of Christ, the communication of the message of faith and belief that IS Christian. It represents the one and the same message. This is NOT a case of mixing a non-Christian message with the Christian message, as it is part of that message.

As for people praying to the icons I suppose that would be a form of idolatry. Yet we bow down before a cross and pray. Now I don't know anyone who would say that they are actually praying to the cross, but to Jesus, that the image, icon of the cross helps them focus and get in touch with Christ. So, the use of traditional, even if outside CotN tradition, icons within the church which represent the story of Christ cannot be syncretism. I suppose that they can rise to the level of idols for some, may look like it to others, yet in general do not.

This supposition that there is something of the hypocrite in those who allow for the presence of Christian icons within the church, but not for American icons arises out of a false analogy and as such becomes a straw man argument. Or is it red herring?

False analogy? Ok then at what point does devotion to an Icon morph into Idol worship? Or for that matter , when does paying respect to a Flag crossover to Idol Worship ? Personally I don’t have any problem with Catholic Christians finding spiritual strength in reflecting on an image of Christ, Mary , Joseph, Balthazar, Gabriel , et.al , (the Manger on display is a great example of Icons in place) HOWEVER when those same Icons take on an Importance and become revered and worshiped in their own right during Church sponsored events and processionals that would in my estimation be representative of syncretism. Please do watch this short video regarding a Church sponsored day of adoration for this particular image of Christ.

Just click the "watch on youtube" link

[Paul DeBaufer]

I don't know at what point that a Christian icon becomes an idol. I think that that is probably an individual point. I think that icons do have the potential to become idols for some. Statues of Mary in the RCC, the cross in protestant churches have the potential to become idols. Yet in most churches the icons are there to point people to that beyond, to that which they represent, the Christian narrative, the Gospel and the person of Christ. There is absolutely no comparison of Christian icons with American (or any other nation's) icons, flags, colours, songs. The former point to Christ and the Gospel message, at least a portion of it. The latter point to secular creations of man. Therefore it is still a false analogy.

I really don't get the point of your video. They have an icon of Christ that brings people out in droves. It is still an icon in that it points to Jesus the Christ. Has it become an idol for some in the crowds? Probably. Do we not display our Christian icons because someone might make them idols? Then remove the cross from our churches. But I still contend that they are appropriate because of what they bring to mind, the story of Christ, His life, crucifixion and resurrection. A far cry from political icons, which have the potential to become idols and point to the secular.

If people cannot see the difference, well there's not much I can do. It is absolutely NOT worth breaking fellowship over.

[Hans Deventer]

Had to think of Hezekiah (2 Kings 18)

3 He did what was right in the eyes of the LORD, just as his father David had done. 4 He removed the high places, smashed the sacred stones and cut down the Asherah poles. He broke into pieces the bronze snake Moses had made, for up to that time the Israelites had been burning incense to it. (It was called Nehushtan.)
5 Hezekiah trusted in the LORD, the God of Israel. There was no one like him among all the kings of Judah, either before him or after him.

[Paul DeBaufer]

Had to think of Hezekiah (2 Kings 18)

3 He did what was right in the eyes of the LORD, just as his father David had done. 4 He removed the high places, smashed the sacred stones and cut down the Asherah poles. He broke into pieces the bronze snake Moses had made, for up to that time the Israelites had been burning incense to it. (It was called Nehushtan.)
5 Hezekiah trusted in the LORD, the God of Israel. There was no one like him among all the kings of Judah, either before him or after him.

Interesting, in Numbers 21

7The people came to Moses and said, ‘We have sinned by speaking against the Lord and against you; pray to the Lord to take away the serpents from us.’ So Moses prayed for the people. 8And the Lord said to Moses, ‘Make a poisonous serpent, and set it on a pole; and everyone who is bitten shall look at it and live.’ 9So Moses made a serpent of bronze, and put it upon a pole; and whenever a serpent bit someone, that person would look at the serpent of bronze and live.

Seems that according to the Pentateuch the people of Israel hadn't strayed so far from what they were instructed to do. I can see it, hundreds of years later, after the miraculous healings took place that the myth of the Nehushtan's healing powers lived on and the people revered the icon through which their ancestors were healed. But in this case maybe it actually became an idol, maybe the people no longer looked upon the pole and recalled their ancestors' healings by God's power and only looked to the snake to find their own healing. Maybe they had forgot God and the thing became an idol.

[Steven Burton]

I think a big problems comes from the fact that most people don't see the icons and things the RCC use as a way to teach people biblical stories to those who can not read. When you have a populace that needs to support itself through manual labor most do not get to become educate. And as such the RCC and Eastern Church had a great idea lets create art that show stories of the bible in are churches. And as now what we have is the end process to that thought. They use icons all through the old testament as a way to point to certain things God did for the people, and sometimes the people over did it. I not sure though that this iconography in the Churches is meant to be worshiped as it has been. But the same could be said of the way many have treated scripture in the past as well.

[Jon Twitchell]

I think a big problems comes from the fact that most people don't see the icons and things the RCC use as a way to teach people biblical stories to those who can not read. When you have a populace that needs to support itself through manual labor most do not get to become educate. And as such the RCC and Eastern Church had a great idea lets create art that show stories of the bible in are churches. And as now what we have is the end process to that thought. They use icons all through the old testament as a way to point to certain things God did for the people, and sometimes the people over did it. I not sure though that this iconography in the Churches is meant to be worshiped as it has been. But the same could be said of the way many have treated scripture in the past as well.

Absoluately. And stained-glass windows in Protestant churches aren't all that different--a way to tell the story, even to those who can't read. (And yet, (just to keep this thread on track) I once served a church where the stained glass windows communicated as much about the church's national identiity as its identity in the Kingdom of God.)

At the same time, anyone who doesn't have at least a small concern about the manipulative potential of the JESUS film needs to spend a little time in reflection.

Don't get me wrong... I think that the JESUS film is a great tool. But in some places, you're taking villages that don't read, have little contact with the "outside" world, and have never seen a television... let alone a big screen with generator-powered images displayed on it. Of course they're going to believe the Story told them by the miraculous, hologram-projecting R2D2-like-box.

And yet, we somehow think that this is "better" than the RC cathedral in Ecuador that is oriented along the equator with windows arranged so that the sun would strike various icons on certain feast days. Perhaps we should allow for the idea that they were just using the technology that was available to them in order to tell the same Story!

[Larry Parsons]

I think a big problems comes from the fact that most people don't see the icons and things the RCC use as a way to teach people biblical stories to those who can not read. When you have a populace that needs to support itself through manual labor most do not get to become educate. And as such the RCC and Eastern Church had a great idea lets create art that show stories of the bible in are churches. And as now what we have is the end process to that thought. They use icons all through the old testament as a way to point to certain things God did for the people, and sometimes the people over did it. I not sure though that this iconography in the Churches is meant to be worshiped as it has been. But the same could be said of the way many have treated scripture in the past as well.

What you are saying here is interesting but can show me where icons were being using throughout the Old Testament? We are not talking about stories that is founnd in the Old Testament are we?
Thanks
Larry

[Jon Twitchell]

What you are saying here is interesting but can show me where icons were being using throughout the Old Testament? We are not talking about stories that is founnd in the Old Testament are we?
Thanks
Larry

Well... some quick examples might be Aaron's staff... or the jar of Manna... Even the ark and the tablets would have been a form of iconography. The Israelites believed that the two largest pillars in the temple represented God's legs... and that God Himself was seated on the ark.

Over and over again, altars were built... trees were identified as special... and stones were carried and became monuments... each one an opportunity for a child to ask, "What happened here?" and for the parent to retell the story.

[Cam Pence]

So you wouldn't like the idea for the RC to come to America to make America a RC country? But wasn't that purpose of the R Irish C when they came pouring into our large city in the 1800's. Show me a country where most of the people of that country is being rule by RC church I will show you people living in poverty. Here in America we don't have the true RC church. If you want to know what true Catholism is albout go to Spain,Italy or Latin America and live with the people.
Thanks
Larry

Once again,Larry, my point still stands. Simply writing off Roman Catholics as people who need to be "saved" by protestantism smacks of pride. I will also add that I feel the same way when the situation is reversed (which I know it is at times). I don't doubt there are RC churches here and other parts of the world that do not do as they should. Don't doubt there are CHURCHES here and other parts of the world guilty of this. And I understand you have major issues (as do several here) with the RCC, however the ongoing smear campaign grows tiresome. Simply pointing a finger at an RC church that acts dispicubly and saying "There is the REAL RCC....I just had to go to another country to find it" won't cut it. If you want to somehow convince me that the RCC is less than our Christian brothers and sisters, then this is not going to do. Also I should once again point out that as long as the RCC subscribes to the same historic creeds of the church as we do, I won't be convinced of such a thing, even if there are RCC churches (or any Christian churches) here or elsewhere that do not take their calling seriously.

[Larry Parsons]

Well... some quick examples might be Aaron's staff... or the jar of Manna... Even the ark and the tablets would have been a form of iconography. The Israelites believed that the two largest pillars in the temple represented God's legs... and that God Himself was seated on the ark.

Over and over again, altars were built... trees were identified as special... and stones were carried and became monuments... each one an opportunity for a child to ask, "What happened here?" and for the parent to retell the story.

Jon, I see where you are coming from and I agree with you I just didn't know they were call icon but i do have question where do we find a Jar of Manna in the OLd Testament?
Thnks
Larry

[Jon Twitchell]

I don't think that scriptures call them icons. But it seems as though they are pretty similar--physical objects designated to help tell the Story of God's goodness.

Check out these verses: Exodus 16:33; Exodus 16:34; Hebrews 9:4

[Steven Burton]

Well if you are looking for a word like icon there may have not been one. You have to remember you are talking about another language than English and other languages don't always match up ideas well.

[Jim Chabot]

Jon, I see where you are coming from and I agree with you I just didn't know they were call icon but i do have question where do we find a Jar of Manna in the OLd Testament?
Thnks
Larry

I believe that there was a jar of manna placed into the ark. It was placed there as a visual remembrance of God's faithfulness

One of my favorite songs "The Old Landmark" tells of the twelve stones set up as a landmark specifically purposed to pass the story of the promised land down through the generations.

I watch "The Passion of The Christ" every year during Easter week because I want to remember.

The danger manifests itself when we go from remembrance to worship, and who can say when another has done this. I do think that there is a danger of idolatry in the Catholic Church because of their emphasis on trust in the church and clergy. It is very easy for a Catholic to forget about the presence and person of Christ if they aren't careful to guard their heart.

[Benjamin Burch]

I believe that there was a jar of manna placed into the ark. It was placed there as a visual remembrance of God's faithfulness

One of my favorite songs "The Old Landmark" tells of the twelve stones set up as a landmark specifically purposed to pass the story of the promised land down through the generations.

I watch "The Passion of The Christ" every year during Easter week because I want to remember.

The danger manifests itself when we go from remembrance to worship, and who can say when another has done this. I do think that there is a danger of idolatry in the Catholic Church because of their emphasis on trust in the church and clergy. It is very easy for a Catholic to forget about the presence and person of Christ if they aren't careful to guard their heart.

The Church is the presence of Christ, and is made into this through the partaking of the elements which are literally Christ's Body and Blood.

[Scott Moseley]

I don't know at what point that a Christian icon becomes an idol. I think that that is probably an individual point. I think that icons do have the potential to become idols for some. Statues of Mary in the RCC, the cross in protestant churches have the potential to become idols. Yet in most churches the icons are there to point people to that beyond, to that which they represent, the Christian narrative, the Gospel and the person of Christ. There is absolutely no comparison of Christian icons with American (or any other nation's) icons, flags, colours, songs. The former point to Christ and the Gospel message, at least a portion of it. The latter point to secular creations of man. Therefore it is still a false analogy.



I really don't get the point of your video. They have an icon of Christ that brings people out in droves. It is still an icon in that it points to Jesus the Christ. Has it become an idol for some in the crowds? Probably. Do we not display our Christian icons because someone might make them idols? Then remove the cross from our churches. But I still contend that they are appropriate because of what they bring to mind, the story of Christ, His life, crucifixion and resurrection. A far cry from political icons, which have the potential to become idols and point to the secular.

If people cannot see the difference, well there's not much I can do. It is absolutely NOT worth breaking fellowship over.

I think the responses from this forum to the video I posted showing thousands of frenzied devotees scrambling , pushing, scratching, clawing, for a chance to touch or to have a piece of cloth that has wiped the Idol's (icon) face or to trudge barefooted for hours for health benefits at church a consecrated event pretty much validates the supposition that one man’s Icon is another's Idol. The argument that a graven image fashioned to resemble Christ and is therefore exempt from the analogy of something man made and worshiped much like a flag or patriotism is specious at best. If anyone had taken time to view the short unbiased account of this processional s/he would have heard devotees talk of the majic and rewards that come from faith in THIS statue. The Church by not only not stepping in and correcting this type of thinking and practice, but also sanctioning and condoning this kind of activity, is in my estimation a most explicit and vivid form of syncretic idol worship and its not an isolated event.

No fellowship should not be broken, but the Church should step up and educate and admonish its adherents on where to place their faith and whom to worship.

[Paul DeBaufer]

The Church is the presence of Christ, and is made into this through the partaking of the elements which are literally Christ's Body and Blood.

DIGRESSION ALERT

I kind of like the Orthodox Church's view. The elements become the body and blood of the Glorified Christ and exists in a hypostatic union with the substance and essence of the bread and wine.

Ok I'm done with my part in the digression, thank you for your understanding and patience

[Benjamin Burch]

DIGRESSION ALERT

I kind of like the Orthodox Church's view. The elements become the body and blood of the Glorified Christ and exists in a hypostatic union with the substance and essence of the bread and wine.

Ok I'm done with my part in the digression, thank you for your understanding and patience

This is my belief, mostly.

[Todd Erickson]

I was listening to a podcast the other day where the speaker said that, in truth, when we partake in Communiion, God consumes us.

[Jim Chabot]

DIGRESSION ALERT

I kind of like the Orthodox Church's view. The elements become the body and blood of the Glorified Christ and exists in a hypostatic union with the substance and essence of the bread and wine.

Ok I'm done with my part in the digression, thank you for your understanding and patience

I think then we are clearly into idolatry. Once we take an inanimate object and declare it to be God, I think we are in great danger. This is indeed a very serious matter.

Clearly we are to make use of the elements to "remember" and I realize that things do get a little cloudy as Jesus did say the words "this is my body", however the context indicates that this statement wasn't to be taken literally even at the very first occasion, as he continued with "this do in remembrance of me." As to the blood, he was clearer, this is the blood of the new covenant, the blood is the life, this is the life of the new relationship we have with our God through the Spirit. Again this is a remembrance.

Even if we were to determine that Jesus actually did dispense His body to the disciples in the form of bread. Do we not attribute the power of diety to the priest who claims this same power. Again, to accept this teaching requires that the priest be elevated to the position of God.

I realize that some may be agitated or offended and that isn't my aim. This isn't something where I can see compromise, this is serous business that I fear may mean the difference between heaven and hell for many. This is a valid reason for evangelism among churches who consider themselves to be Christian.

There is a reason for placing the words "in remembrance of me" on our communion tables.

I think that I like the response that Scott gave in his example of idolatrous worship.

No fellowship should not be broken, but the Church should step up and educate and admonish its adherents on where to place their faith and whom to worship.

In the CoTN, we should be clear in our teaching and we should warn of the danger whereby our minds eye may be drawn astray.

[Todd Erickson]

Erm. How is Paul (or the Orthodox church) being idolatrous here?

[Bob Hunter]

I think then we are clearly into idolatry.
I realize that some may be agitated or offended and that isn't my aim. This isn't something where I can see compromise, this is serous business that I fear may mean the difference between heaven and hell for many.
I think that I like the response that Scott gave in his example of idolatrous worship.
In the CoTN, we should be clear in our teaching and we should warn of the danger whereby our minds eye may be drawn astray.

Just a little bit over the top Jim. I sure hope you are not revving up your anti-catholic rhetoric, because that kinda pushes my buttons.

[Jim Chabot]

Just a little bit over the top Jim. I sure hope you are not revving up your anti-catholic rhetoric, because that kinda pushes my buttons.

Don't have an anti-Catholic bone in my body Bob, no worries there. Don't jump fall into the trap that says that we must agree with Catholic doctrine or we are anti-Catholic. It simply isn't so.

One of my sons in the faith is devoutly Catholic, I do not discourage him in any way because I know also that he is firmly in the Lord's hand. We have been on many snowmobiling trips together, when we are away for the weekend we alternate, I go with him to mass on one week and he will go with me on another. I do not take communion with them because I believe that it is idolatry, realizing that it would be nothing for me, yet I decline lest I convey that idolatry is ok. This doesn't push his buttons, it surely shouldn't push yours.

I am pretty good friends with a few priests and I would not hesitate to have this conversation with them. It isn't like we don't already know that we have differences here. I have a cousin who is a brother and I have a couple of cousins who are nuns, I've even sung at mass a few times. On one occasion I had sung "O What a Savior" the priest remarked how he wished that I was on his team. I asked him if he knew of a fellow named St. Paul, then I repeated the story of 1 Corinthians 1. To which he replied, "you have me there!"

Anti Catholic? Nope not me, you have the wrong guy. Do I agree with all of their doctrine? Well of course not silly, otherwise I would be Catholic wouldn't I?

Over the top? I don't think so. Could we discuss this rationally, is that possible?

I am saying that should one consider a man made object to be God, it is necessarily idolatry. And while there may be other more subtil forms, this one is definition #1.

[Jim Chabot]

Erm. How is Paul (or the Orthodox church) being idolatrous here?

I spoke to the view, not to Paul. Paul said that "I kind of like" he didn't say that he espoused their view.

The idolatry is I believe prima fascia, to consider a manmade object to be God. Unless one suggests that even though it is considered to be God, the object isn't worshiped. Although logically this would be incredible for one one hand we have an object that we consider to be God but we will not worship this God?

[Paul DeBaufer]

I think then we are clearly into idolatry. Once we take an inanimate object and declare it to be God, I think we are in great danger. This is indeed a very serious matter.

Clearly we are to make use of the elements to "remember" and I realize that things do get a little cloudy as Jesus did say the words "this is my body", however the context indicates that this statement wasn't to be taken literally even at the very first occasion, as he continued with "this do in remembrance of me." As to the blood, he was clearer, this is the blood of the new covenant, the blood is the life, this is the life of the new relationship we have with our God through the Spirit. Again this is a remembrance.

Even if we were to determine that Jesus actually did dispense His body to the disciples in the form of bread. Do we not attribute the power of diety to the priest who claims this same power. Again, to accept this teaching requires that the priest be elevated to the position of God.

I realize that some may be agitated or offended and that isn't my aim. This isn't something where I can see compromise, this is serous business that I fear may mean the difference between heaven and hell for many. This is a valid reason for evangelism among churches who consider themselves to be Christian.

There is a reason for placing the words "in remembrance of me" on our communion tables.

I think that I like the response that Scott gave in his example of idolatrous worship.



In the CoTN, we should be clear in our teaching and we should warn of the danger whereby our minds eye may be drawn astray.

I think your objections, especially when you claim that the priest is deified, neglect the power and action of the Holy Spirit. I do believe that the Orthodox statements say that this hypostatic union occurs through the power and action of the Holy Spirit (explicitly) and not through the power and action of the priest (implicitly).

Also consider:

Because of the Byzantine distinction between the essence and energies of God, we never find the category of "essence" (ousia) employed to speak of the Eucharist: the glorified flesh of Christ is filled with the divine energies, not with the divine essence. If it were, then all who partake of the Eucharist would be joined to the essence of God, which is impossible.

[Jim Chabot]

I think your objections, especially when you claim that the priest is deified, neglect the power and action of the Holy Spirit. I do believe that the Orthodox statements say that this hypostatic union occurs through the power and action of the Holy Spirit (explicitly) and not through the power and action of the priest (implicitly).

Also consider:

Because of the Byzantine distinction between the essence and energies of God, we never find the category of "essence" (ousia) employed to speak of the Eucharist: the glorified flesh of Christ is filled with the divine energies, not with the divine essence. If it were, then all who partake of the Eucharist would be joined to the essence of God, which is impossible.

This is helpful. This view is close to Wesley's view whereby Communion is seen as a means of grace. While I don't agree with it, I don't see this as idolatry either.

In your original post it appeared that they were saying that the elements actually became God. Or at least that was what I gleaned from the use of the term "hypostatic union", granted I will admit to unfamiliarity with this view, so your added information helps a lot.

My remarks were toward the Catholic doctrine where the elements become the actual body and blood of our Lord, and that without a priest this change cannot occur. We don't give this a whole lot of thought in this country or in Europe where there are plenty of priests. But think back on Manny's story of the villagers who waited for hours for the priest. They did so because they believed that they required communion in order to be saved, and further that the priest was the only one who could give them this. To these folks the church through it's agent the priest was their source of salvation. I know folks who have actually believed this.

[Kevin Rector]

The Church is the presence of Christ, and is made into this through the partaking of the elements which are literally Christ's Body and Blood.

I think that is better said, "The Church is the presence of Christ, and is made into this through the indwelling presence of the Holy Spirit." But that's why I'm still a Nazarene and you're not.

[Kevin Rector]

...one man's Icon is another's Idol.

Very well said. I have some money in my wallet. To me it's a way to buy food and stuff for my family, for others it's an idol that they worship. I enjoying watching some sports from time to time, for other people said sports teams and their iconography are the idols they worship. Perhaps it's not so much the item but our relationship to it that matters. So perhaps we should be very slow to judge those faith traditions that venerate icons ("veneration" and "worship" do have different definitions).

[Benjamin Burch]

In your original post it appeared that they were saying that the elements actually became God. Or at least that was what I gleaned from the use of the term "hypostatic union", granted I will admit to unfamiliarity with this view, so your added information helps a lot.

The elements become - for God's people - the literal body and blood of the risen Christ.

My remarks were toward the Catholic doctrine where the elements become the actual body and blood of our Lord, and that without a priest this change cannot occur. We don't give this a whole lot of thought in this country or in Europe where there are plenty of priests. But think back on Manny's story of the villagers who waited for hours for the priest. They did so because they believed that they required communion in order to be saved, and further that the priest was the only one who could give them this.

It is the normal belief throughout the large majority of Christianity, and throughout Christian history, that the normative means through which you are saved are the sacraments. It is the normal belief throughout all of Christianity that the priest, through ordination, is commissioned to mediate these normative means of grace.

Nothing about this should imply that God cannot save folks when a priest cannot make it there on Sunday.

To these folks the church through it's agent the priest was their source of salvation. I know folks who have actually believed this.

Christ is our source of salvation.
The Church is the Body of Christ.

Salvation comes normatively through the Church and her sacraments, through the agency of the Holy Spirit, through the priests God has ordained to serve God's people in this capacity.

[Benjamin Burch]

I think that is better said, "The Church is the presence of Christ, and is made into this through the indwelling presence of the Holy Spirit." But that's why I'm still a Nazarene and you're not.

I would agree 100% with your statement. I simply believe - and most of the Church throughout our history has believed - that this takes place in a concrete location/event - the Baptism and the Eucharist (the Eucharist is an ongoing extension of our Baptism).

[Benjamin Burch]

I was listening to a podcast the other day where the speaker said that, in truth, when we partake in Communiion, God consumes us.

Being Consumed: Economics and Christian Desire by William T. Cavanaugh

I highly suggest this book.

[Jon Twitchell]

Somehow we've wandered pretty far afield... but I wanted to lend some thoughts to the discussion on the Eucharist.

In Middendorf's "The Church Rituals Handbook," we find a couple of paragraphs which speak to this:

Lord, we pray that in Your goodness and mercy, Your Holy Spirit may descend upon us, and upon these gifts, sanctifying them and showing them to be holy gifts for Your holy people, the bread of life and the cup of salvation, the body and blood of Your Son, Jesus Christ.

Elsewhere, we read:

Pour out Your Holy Spirit on us, gathered here, and on these gifts of bread and wine. Make them be for us the body and blood of Christ, that we may be for the world the Body of Christ, redeemed by His blood.

Emphasis mine.

Is this the Manual? No.
Is it authoritative? No.
But it's published by Beacon Hill Press, which implies to me that it was fully vetted before being published.

The key words for most people seem to be "may they be for your people the body and blood of Christ." The idea is that the elements are not sanctified for anything other than the purpose that they were intended--to nourish the people of God. As one friend of mine said, if I spill the grape juice on my shirt, I haven't spilled the Blood of Christ. When we dispose of the elements, we need not use a special sacristy drain--we can dump them down the sink. And yet... when the ordinary elements and the ordinary people meet together with the Holy Spirit around His Table, something EXTRA-ordinary most certainly happens, for the purposes that God intends. Christ is somehow present when we gather at the Table... and not in the same way that we would say Christ is present at the beach or in the mountains.

[Benjamin Burch]

Somehow we've wandered pretty far afield... but I wanted to lend some thoughts to the discussion on the Eucharist.

In Middendorf's "The Church Rituals Handbook," we find a couple of paragraphs which speak to this:



Elsewhere, we read:



Emphasis mine.

Is this the Manual? No.
Is it authoritative? No.
But it's published by Beacon Hill Press, which implies to me that it was fully vetted before being published.

The key words for most people seem to be "may they be for your people the body and blood of Christ." The idea is that the elements are not sanctified for anything other than the purpose that they were intended--to nourish the people of God. As one friend of mine said, if I spill the grape juice on my shirt, I haven't spilled the Blood of Christ. When we dispose of the elements, we need not use a special sacristy drain--we can dump them down the sink. And yet... when the ordinary elements and the ordinary people meet together with the Holy Spirit around His Table, something EXTRA-ordinary most certainly happens, for the purposes that God intends. Christ is somehow present when we gather at the Table... and not in the same way that we would say Christ is present at the beach or in the mountains.

Yes, yes, and yes.

[George Wallace]

I really don't get the point of your video. They have an icon of Christ that brings people out in droves. It is still an icon in that it points to Jesus the Christ. Has it become an idol for some in the crowds? Probably. Do we not display our Christian icons because someone might make them idols? Then remove the cross from our churches. But I still contend that they are appropriate because of what they bring to mind, the story of Christ, His life, crucifixion and resurrection. A far cry from political icons, which have the potential to become idols and point to the secular.

If people cannot see the difference, well there's not much I can do. It is absolutely NOT worth breaking fellowship over.

So, following the current theme this thread is taking, I’ll give you a scenario; so, say you are married and you love your wife dearly and you are ever so devoted to her. Now, let’s say you work long hours and like to keep a picture at your workplace and also in your wallet. Now let’s just say that instead of your wife’s pictures, you instead have some pictures of some other equally lovely woman, a woman unknown to you, say it was her picture which came with the wallet and frame. Yet you say “Honey, when I gaze upon these pictures (iconographs) of her, really, sweetie they increase my love and devotion to you! They help me ‘remember’ you and long for you…”

How pleased, do you think the wife in this scenario is likely to be with her hubby?

How is that scenario any different from what you say about icons of Christ above?

As for the Cross you are correct, that is why many of the conservative small reformed and Presbyterian churches, virtually any church which has had a strong Puritan influence will not have Crosses displayed.


As for not being important enough for fellowship breaking…well, if they are in fact worshiping and icon as God… how is that different from Israel’s failure to tear down the High Places? How is this different than worshipping Yahweh while also worshiping the Baals?

Personally, I believe this is exactly what the second commandment is directed toward.

You are correct about that, Jim. My dad was a Roman Catholic until he became a Christian and was freed from the bondage of that works-based religion. I recall him telling me how in his wandering in the islands, going around preaching, he stumbled onto a village, where a bunch of people inside a small church, were waiting for hours for the priest to show up. Well, he asked if he could speak to them while waiting, and he preached the real Gospel for Jesus Christ to them. Practically the whole village heard the real gospel for the first time and repented from their sins upon hearing the message of the Cross.

That could probably happen in a lot of churches. Protestant, Catholic, Orthodox and everything in between.

This seems to presume that they all posses and proclaim the same Gospel and herein I believe lies the problem. Do you really believe that the Romans preach the same Gospel as do the Protestant churches?

Once again,Larry, my point still stands. Simply writing off Roman Catholics as people who need to be "saved" by protestantism smacks of pride. ...

If you want to somehow convince me that the RCC is less than our Christian brothers and sisters, then this is not going to do. Also I should once again point out that as long as the RCC subscribes to the same historic creeds of the church as we do, I won't be convinced of such a thing, even if there are RCC churches (or any Christian churches) here or elsewhere that do not take their calling seriously.

Cam,
I believe this comment also requires me to ask, do you really believe that the Romans preach the same Gospel of Jesus Christ as do Protestant Churches?

You see, it seems to me, and I may be wrong, that both you and Greg are making the presumption that all of these churches preach the same Gospel. It seems like you would say without significant qualification, Baptist, Lutheran, Wesleyan, Methodist Roman or Orthodox… its all good. What ever float your boat or works for you…

Certainly something like that could be said if one were just comparing the Protestants on the list. But once you add the Romans… it a whole new ball of wax in my opinion.

All those Protestants are or should be preaching as part of the Gospel, FREE GRACE! At least as far as I am aware, the Mainstream of Roman Catholicism does not preach free grace. (I say mainstream because there are some Evangelical Catholics – by Evangelical I am referring to Salvation by Grace through faith - alone)

Now all the others, whether they be Baptist, Lutherans or ??? may disagree significantly on many, many issues, important issues, but as Protestants they do agree that Salvation is by grace through faith and that that is part of the Gospel. Whitefield and Wesley disagreed but both have sermons on Free Grace.

So as to whether or not to specifically target Romans for evangelization well, I think that it is certainly advisable. I see it as smacking of concern and not pride. If it is done in pride then yes that is the wrong motive. I have always said, I am not in charge of who is and is not saved, I certainly don’t know and would nor feign to say, unless a person openly rejects Christ then that seems certain, but even such a person is not beyond redemption until he shakes off this mortal coil.

I advocate evangelizing the Romans just like any other people. If you ask them about their relationship with Jesus if they cannot articulate something akin to the free grace Gospel then we need to preach it to them.

Personally, I cannot consider the Roman Church -as an Institution- a Christian Church even with their so-called adherence to the ecumenical creeds. However this does not mean that there aren’t individuals in the Roman Faith that are saved. There are saved Romans in the body of Christ.

I believe it breaks out like this; there are saved Roman Catholics, but they are saved in-spite of their churches teaching not because of or by it.

The elements become - for God's people - the literal body and blood of the risen Christ.

It is the normal belief throughout the large majority of Christianity, and throughout Christian history, that the normative means through which you are saved are the sacraments. It is the normal belief throughout all of Christianity that the priest, through ordination, is commissioned to mediate these normative means of grace.

Nothing about this should imply that God cannot save folks when a priest cannot make it there on Sunday.

Christ is our source of salvation.
The Church is the Body of Christ.

Salvation comes normatively through the Church and her sacraments, through the agency of the Holy Spirit, through the priests God has ordained to serve God's people in this capacity.

Appealing to history Ben? Appealing to the majority Ben? How many times have you, when confronted with these said something to the effect of “I don’t care about what they did historically –they were wrong… Or I don’t care about what the majority did, they were wrong…”

It is the normal belief throughout all of Christianity that the priest, through ordination, is commissioned to mediate these normative means of grace.

Tell that to Phillip, tell the Eunuch his Baptism is invalid. You really should watch phrases like “every” and “Always” “all” “never.”

Also you seem to as ‘always’ phrase your opinions, beliefs and statements as dogmatic fact. ‘Never’ using phrases like ‘I believe’, ‘In my opinion’ ect. We all know that is just the way you do things and we just deal with it. But it was certainly easier when you were a Nazarene. But now, you should more be careful about how you phrase these things here. Remember this is a Naz Friendly site !

Oh and Salvation is…

8 For by grace you have been saved through faith, and that not of yourselves; it is the gift of God, 9 not of works, lest anyone should boast.

[Benjamin Burch]

All those Protestants are or should be preaching as part of the Gospel, FREE GRACE! At least as far as I am aware, the Mainstream of Roman Catholicism does not preach free grace. (I say mainstream because there are some Evangelical Catholics – by Evangelical I am referring to Salvation by Grace through faith - alone)

Now all the others, whether they be Baptist, Lutherans or ??? may disagree significantly on many, many issues, important issues, but as Protestants they do agree that Salvation is by grace through faith and that that is part of the Gospel. Whitefield and Wesley disagreed but both have sermons on Free Grace.

Catholics and Orthodox believe in free grace every bit as much as Protestants to my understanding. They're also much more Biblical, particularly when it comes to understanding Paul. It's really not even close. Protestants have gotten it so wrong it's insane.

I believe it breaks out like this; there are saved Roman Catholics, but they are saved in-spite of their churches teaching not because of or by it.

You misspelled "Baptist".

Appealing to history Ben? Appealing to the majority Ben? How many times have you, when confronted with these said something to the effect of “I don’t care about what they did historically –they were wrong… Or I don’t care about what the majority did, they were wrong…”

In terms of the Christian faith? I'm not sure of many, if any. The Christian faith is something received, not something made up as we go, to our liking, or to our interpretation. The fact that 64% of Christianity has always believed a particular way, for over 2,000 years (and was much more than 64% for much of those 2,000 years) is pretty strong evidence. That you'd like to neglect that is quite meaningless to me.

Tell that to Phillip, tell the Eunuch his Baptism is invalid. You really should watch phrases like “every” and “Always” “all” “never.”

Philip was an apostle of the Lord Jesus Christ!!! How much more ordained to priesthood can one be!?

I think Philip proves my point. What on earth are you talking about, George???

Also you seem to as ‘always’ phrase your opinions, beliefs and statements as dogmatic fact. ‘Never’ using phrases like ‘I believe’, ‘In my opinion’ ect. We all know that is just the way you do things and we just deal with it. But it was certainly easier when you were a Nazarene. But now, you should more be careful about how you phrase these things here. Remember this is a Naz Friendly site !

Oh and Salvation is…

Nazarenes have an ordained priesthood. In fact, as far as I know, all of Christianity does. If they do not, I would contend they are not Christian.

[Benjamin Burch]

Oh and Salvation is…

I completely agree. Salvation is by grace through faith, not of ourselves, a gift of God, not of works of the law, lest anyone should boast.

Every Roman Catholic I know would agree with this.

Baptism and the Eucharist are free gifts we have done nothing to earn, but have accepted by faith. They have nothing to do with us, and are certainly not works we have done. Instead, they are gifts of God, works of God, through which we are saved through our faithful acceptance.

It's not difficult, George.

[Cam Pence]

Cam,
I believe this comment also requires me to ask, do you really believe that the Romans preach the same Gospel of Jesus Christ as do Protestant Churches?

You see, it seems to me, and I may be wrong, that both you and Greg are making the presumption that all of these churches preach the same Gospel. It seems like you would say without significant qualification, Baptist, Lutheran, Wesleyan, Methodist Roman or Orthodox… its all good. What ever float your boat or works for you…

Certainly something like that could be said if one were just comparing the Protestants on the list. But once you add the Romans… it a whole new ball of wax in my opinion.

All those Protestants are or should be preaching as part of the Gospel, FREE GRACE! At least as far as I am aware, the Mainstream of Roman Catholicism does not preach free grace. (I say mainstream because there are some Evangelical Catholics – by Evangelical I am referring to Salvation by Grace through faith - alone)

Now all the others, whether they be Baptist, Lutherans or ??? may disagree significantly on many, many issues, important issues, but as Protestants they do agree that Salvation is by grace through faith and that that is part of the Gospel. Whitefield and Wesley disagreed but both have sermons on Free Grace.

So as to whether or not to specifically target Romans for evangelization well, I think that it is certainly advisable. I see it as smacking of concern and not pride. If it is done in pride then yes that is the wrong motive. I have always said, I am not in charge of who is and is not saved, I certainly don’t know and would nor feign to say, unless a person openly rejects Christ then that seems certain, but even such a person is not beyond redemption until he shakes off this mortal coil.

I advocate evangelizing the Romans just like any other people. If you ask them about their relationship with Jesus if they cannot articulate something akin to the free grace Gospel then we need to preach it to them.

Personally, I cannot consider the Roman Church -as an Institution- a Christian Church even with their so-called adherence to the ecumenical creeds. However this does not mean that there aren’t individuals in the Roman Faith that are saved. There are saved Romans in the body of Christ.

I believe it breaks out like this; there are saved Roman Catholics, but they are saved in-spite of their churches teaching not because of or by it.

George,
Yes I believe they preach the same gospel. They preach that they "believe in one God,
the Father Almighty,
maker of heaven and earth,
and of all things visible and invisible;

And in one Lord Jesus Christ,
the only begotten Son of God,
begotten of his Father before all worlds,
God of God, Light of Light,
very God of very God,
begotten, not made,
being of one substance with the Father;
by whom all things were made;
who for us men and for our salvation
came down from heaven,
and was incarnate by the Holy Ghost
of the Virgin Mary,
and was made man;
and was crucified also for us under Pontius Pilate;
he suffered and was buried;
and the third day he rose again
according to the Scriptures,
and ascended into heaven,
and sitteth on the right hand of the Father;
and he shall come again, with glory,
to judge both the quick and the dead;
whose kingdom shall have no end.

And they believe in the Holy Ghost the Lord, and Giver of Life,
who proceedeth from the Father [and the Son];
who with the Father and the Son together
is worshipped and glorified;
who spake by the Prophets.
And I believe one holy Catholic and Apostolic Church;
I acknowledge one baptism for the remission of sins;
and I look for the resurrection of the dead,
and the life of the world to come. AMEN." Crazy thing is so do us protestants.


This brings me to my next point. You seem to discount the historic creeds of the church here to focus, what you believe to be (despite Ben pointing out, correctly, that Catholics do belive in free grace) , the main focus of the gospel on the five solas, specifically fide. That is fine but that is not what I believe the gospel hinges on. I believe it hinges on Jesus, who He is and what He has done. I agree with protestant doctrine more than I do with RC doctrine, hence me pastoring a Nazarene church, however, on the historic creeds of the church, both agree. Those creeds were written so that we could understand the things for which we agree and that should unite us as essentials and specifically so that people couldn't just add whatever they wanted as essential and cause dissention. Unfortunately this continually happens from evey side of the fence. We want to be right so bad that eventually we will even discount brothers and sisters from the "group" to prove a point. This may be disguised as "smaking of concern" but I believe it is pride. (In fact the word "concerned" has been made extremely unclean to me as it is mainly used to "save" someone from disagreeing with someone else because they just KNOW they are right.) You are of course entitled to your opinion that the RCC is not Christian and that Christians therein are only Christians because of good old protestantism and I can even respect your opinion as I do not consider you to be someone who does not think deeply about his theology, however I believe you are wrong, and if the only reason I get for your position that the Catholic Church is not Christian is simply because they are not protestants then I will not be swayed in my opinion.

[George Wallace]

Philip was an apostle of the Lord Jesus Christ!!! How much more ordained to priesthood can one be!?

I think Philip proves my point. What on earth are you talking about, George???

2Then the twelve called the multitude of the disciples unto them, and said, It is not reason that we should leave the word of God, and serve tables.

3Wherefore, brethren, look ye out among you seven men of honest report, full of the Holy Ghost and wisdom, whom we may appoint over this business.

4But we will give ourselves continually to prayer, and to the ministry of the word.

5And the saying pleased the whole multitude: and they chose Stephen, a man full of faith and of the Holy Ghost, and Philip, and Prochorus, and Nicanor, and Timon, and Parmenas, and Nicolas a proselyte of Antioch:

Phillip was not an ordained apostle of the Lord Jesus Christ. Phillip was ordained by the Church to the ministry of the Diaconate. That is, he was not an ordained minter of the Word and Sacrament. Yet he baptized, or administered a Sacrament.

I happen to agree with your statement about ordained presbyters. I was merely pointing out that the use of "ALL" is rarely appropriate.

George

[Cam Pence]

You misspelled "Baptist".

I don't care where you fall on this debate,thats funny. Just spit my sweet tea out