Syncretism and patriotism

[Bob Hunter]

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,

So let me get this straight. You are not anti-catholic but you worship with them regularly as they are on their way to hell committing idolatry--Nice! That is just about as clear as mud. Thanks for the explanation, it really helped convince me that you are pro-catholic.

[Paul DeBaufer]

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.

George, I actually expect better from you. Your analogy to the man and wife is a false analogy. Here's why. The man in question does not display an image of his wife, but another woman claiming it is representative of his wife. The people in the video have an image of Christ, it may not look like you're used to, but an image of Jesus it is, that is representative of Christ. So the two scenarios are completely different. Now IF they had an image of some movie star or political figure or anyone other than Jesus, then your analogy would be spot on.

Or are you saying any image of Christ is false and actually the image of another?

Now for those in the crowd that are actually worshiping the image instead of the One it represents, well that would be idolatry.

[Jim Chabot]

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

You may be missing something Greg. These folks would have been waiting because without the priest, there can be no mass. Without the priest there is no opportunity to confess. Without the priest these folks feel truly lost. These folks wait not because they eagerly anticipate a time of worship, they wait because they fear.

What Manny's dad did for these folks was to liberate them from bondage and introduce them to the truth. Jesus said that there would come a day when we worship not in a specific place, nor in a specific manner, rather we worship in Spirit and truth. Manny's dad brought them truth that would set them free.

I don't see this sort of thing happening in other Christian Churches. Either way, I suppose it doesn't matter. We should be about preaching the truth and releasing folks from bondage wherever they reside.

[Benjamin Burch]

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.

It appears you are right. I missed an important line. I actually had very clear, concise, and bullet-proof argument for why he was one of the 12. Oops.

Regardless, there seems to be a clear extension of their orders for preaching and sacrament through the oversight of the Apostles. One could probably make an argument for special extensions of orders for the diaconate in special circumstances (such as persecution). But this would only extend to the Ordained.

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

And yet, I believe in instance here it was entirely appropriate.

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

Whatever you believe this to be, I am sure you agree with me. Every major body of the Church has always believed this, and that is why they have an ordained priesthood (whatever you want to call it).

The only ones who don't - to my knowledge - are those groups who are individual, splinter groups who had to split from a larger body and create their own body where this practice was acceptable.

I stand by my use of "all" here, and I believe your previous statements would require you to agree.

[Jim Chabot]

Jim,

So let me get this straight. You are not anti-catholic but you worship with them regularly as they are on their way to hell committing idolatry--Nice! That is just about as clear as mud. Thanks for the explanation, it really helped convince me that you are pro-catholic.

I don't see a single thing that would be confusing Bob, not one. All I did was tell you the truth, simple as that, complete transparency.

Not once did I say that I was pro-Catholic, I said that I was not anti-Catholic. You didn't inquire as to whether I was pro Catholic, I am not. My Catholic friends realize this and we get along just fine. So I'll ask again, perhaps a little more pointedly. What's your problem? And please be specific.

Nothing to do with you Bob, but I am constantly amazed at the undercurrent that flows around here. It seems that on naznet, unity and friendship are predicated upon agreement. I don't get it, not at all. From my perspective, I would say that anyone who insists that I agree with them in order to be my friend, is not someone capable of being a friend.

And hold up for a minute here. Why is it when I properly addressed the issue of idolatry, you jump straight to "going to hell"? Huh?

[Cam Pence]

I don't see a single thing that would be confusing Bob, not one. All I did was tell you the truth, simple as that, complete transparency.

Not once did I say that I was pro-Catholic, I said that I was not anti-Catholic. You didn't inquire as to whether I was pro Catholic, I am not. My Catholic friends realize this and we get along just fine. So I'll ask again, perhaps a little more pointedly. What's your problem? And please be specific.

Nothing to do with you Bob, but I am constantly amazed at the undercurrent that flows around here. It seems that on naznet, unity and friendship are predicated upon agreement. I don't get it, not at all. From my perspective, I would say that anyone who insists that I agree with them in order to be my friend, is not someone capable of being a friend.

And hold up for a minute here. Why is it when I properly addressed the issue of idolatry, you jump straight to "going to hell"? Huh?

I consider you to be a friend and to have unity with you Jim. That has not changed in the least because we disagree about this issue and i certainly don't require that you change your position for us to stay friends. I apologize if my posts have come across this way. I am sorry if anyone else have broken union with you over it, but generally i do not see this happening here.

[Jim Chabot]

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.

Your missing something important Cam. It is free grace, or at least officially, in practice works are required. Then again that's no different from the old Nazarenes.

Problem is that this "free grace" is only available through God's exclusive agent The Roman Catholic Church, by it's duly authorised representative, the priest. This is bondage and it's not true. If it is true, then I must become a Catholic and I would urge that all of us repent and go back or come home as they say. This is wrong, salvation is not limited nor dispensed by the institution of the church, this is Simony, no institution of man may claim the exclusive right to provide the salvation freely offered directly from God.

And before we start another round of Catholic bashing allegations, I am not doing so, I am simply pointing out things that I disagree with. There are valid reasons to be protestant.

[Cam Pence]

Your missing something important Cam. It is free grace, or at least officially, in practice works are required. Then again that's no different from the old Nazarenes.

Problem is that this "free grace" is only available through God's exclusive agent The Roman Catholic Church, by it's duly authorised representative, the priest. This is bondage and it's not true. If it is true, then I must become a Catholic and I would urge that all of us repent and go back or come home as they say. This is wrong, salvation is not limited nor dispensed by the institution of the church, this is Simony, no institution of man may claim the exclusive right to provide the salvation freely offered directly from God.

And before we start another round of Catholic bashing allegations, I am not doing so, I am simply pointing out things that I disagree with. There are valid reasons to be protestant.

Fair enough Jim. I can respect your opinion and def. don't want you to feel like you cannot point out things you disagree with. This is part of conversation, after all. I will admit that just because I am passionate about my opinion on something, that should not make your opinion worthless or not welcome and apologize if I have been prideful at all in my responses to people on this issue in forum.

[Benjamin Burch]

Your missing something important Cam. It is free grace, or at least officially, in practice works are required. Then again that's no different from the old Nazarenes.

This is not true. Can you substantiate this?

Problem is that this "free grace" is only available through God's exclusive agent The Roman Catholic Church, by it's duly authorised representative, the priest. This is bondage and it's not true. If it is true, then I must become a Catholic and I would urge that all of us repent and go back or come home as they say. This is wrong, salvation is not limited nor dispensed by the institution of the church, this is Simony, no institution of man may claim the exclusive right to provide the salvation freely offered directly from God.

The Catholic and Orthodox Churches both believe this, yet they boh believe that God is free to save outside of their means, and that God in fact does do so, particularly with Protestants as an example. I don't see what is so disagreeable about this.

And before we start another round of Catholic bashing allegations, I am not doing so, I am simply pointing out things that I disagree with. There are valid reasons to be protestant.

Yes, but none you've listed here.

[Jim Chabot]

I consider you to be a friend and to have unity with you Jim. That has not changed in the least because we disagree about this issue and i certainly don't require that you change your position for us to stay friends. I apologize if my posts have come across this way. I am sorry if anyone else have broken union with you over it, but generally i do not see this happening here.

Thanks Cam, I do appreciate this. No I don't think that anyone has broken union with me about it, nor have I with them. Yet there always seems to be a tension in the air, a walking on eggshells so to speak.

For all I know, I could be leaving the same impression on others. I hope not.

So tell me, how and where do we disagree? I don't see a disagreement regarding fellowship with Catholics. Nor with prejudice against them, I hold none. In fact the last time I had supper with Fr. D'Amboise, he encouraged me greatly as he shared some of the changes taking place in his church.

Now I have made specific points on idolatry and Simony, where am I not correct there?

[Greg Farra]

You may be missing something Greg. These folks would have been waiting because without the priest, there can be no mass. Without the priest there is no opportunity to confess. Without the priest these folks feel truly lost. These folks wait not because they eagerly anticipate a time of worship, they wait because they fear.

What Manny's dad did for these folks was to liberate them from bondage and introduce them to the truth. Jesus said that there would come a day when we worship not in a specific place, nor in a specific manner, rather we worship in Spirit and truth. Manny's dad brought them truth that would set them free.

I don't see this sort of thing happening in other Christian Churches. Either way, I suppose it doesn't matter. We should be about preaching the truth and releasing folks from bondage wherever they reside.

Jim,

What I meant was that there are people in all sorts of churches waiting to hear the Gospel.

[Dwayne Petry]

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.

Well put, Jon!

Something EXTRA-ordinary certainly does happen. 1 Cor. 10:16 states that we "participate in the blood and body of Christ. How awesome that GOD would allow us "participate with HIM". Many things we have to accept by faith, and is ,in my opinion, not possible to understand with our limited human understanding.

After communion, the elements that are not consumed, are handled in this fashion: the elements are reverently consumed, the empty cups are rinsed in water (no detergents), that water (with the small amount of consecrated grape juice) is than poured out on the ground in an area with little or no foot traffic (returning it to its natural environment). The cups are than washed in detergent/bleach and allowed to dry. We do not dump them down the sink. I don't know where our pastor came up with this method of disposal of remaining elements, but I appreciate the reverence for the consecrated elements.

Not saying this is the right way/only way, or am I in any way condemning pouring the remaining elements down the drain, just sharing how we do it.

Dwayne

[Benjamin Burch]

My church, in proper liturgical fashion (), makes sure that all of the consecrated elements are consumed.

[Dwayne Petry]

Your missing something important Cam. It is free grace, or at least officially, in practice works are required. Then again that's no different from the old Nazarenes.

Problem is that this "free grace" is only available through God's exclusive agent The Roman Catholic Church, by it's duly authorised representative, the priest. This is bondage and it's not true. If it is true, then I must become a Catholic and I would urge that all of us repent and go back or come home as they say. This is wrong, salvation is not limited nor dispensed by the institution of the church, this is Simony, no institution of man may claim the exclusive right to provide the salvation freely offered directly from God.

And before we start another round of Catholic bashing allegations, I am not doing so, I am simply pointing out things that I disagree with. There are valid reasons to be protestant.

Don't know about Catholic priest in other areas, but there are some, not all, in South Louisiana who will and have told me, family members, and friends, that we will not go to heaven if we are not Catholic.

I live in Cajun Country, which is about 70% Catholic. I certainly hope that this is a regional view held by some Catholic priests, and not reflective of Catholics every where.

[Benjamin Burch]

Don't know about Catholic priest in other areas, but there are some, not all, in South Louisiana who will and have told me, family members, and friends, that we will not go to heaven if we are not Catholic.

I live in Cajun Country, which is about 70% Catholic. I certainly hope that this is a regional view held by some Catholic priests, and not reflective of Catholics every where.

This is a pre-Vatican II belief. Some old-school Catholics who don't pay much mind to the Second Vatican Council will still hold fast to their older lines. However, Vatican II was quite clear, and Pope Benedict XVI is very clear on the matter as well, evidenced by his strong ecumenical relations with German protestants.

For Catholics, officially, we are not part of the One, True, Holy and Apostolic Catholic Church... but we are saved none-the-less. They believe the same about Orthodox Christians.

Orthodox Christians believe the same about Catholics and Protestants.

[Paul DeBaufer]

It seems that on naznet, unity and friendship are predicated upon agreement. I don't get it, not at all. From my perspective, I would say that anyone who insists that I agree with them in order to be my friend, is not someone capable of being a friend.

I don't think I could be friends with someone who completely agreed with me on everything. Heck, I don't even agree with me on everything.

[Bob Hunter]

I don't see a single thing that would be confusing Bob, not one. All I did was tell you the truth, simple as that, complete transparency.

Not once did I say that I was pro-Catholic, I said that I was not anti-Catholic. You didn't inquire as to whether I was pro Catholic, I am not. My Catholic friends realize this and we get along just fine. So I'll ask again, perhaps a little more pointedly. What's your problem? And please be specific.

Nothing to do with you Bob, but I am constantly amazed at the undercurrent that flows around here. It seems that on naznet, unity and friendship are predicated upon agreement. I don't get it, not at all. From my perspective, I would say that anyone who insists that I agree with them in order to be my friend, is not someone capable of being a friend.

And hold up for a minute here. Why is it when I properly addressed the issue of idolatry, you jump straight to "going to hell"? Huh?

Jim,

Just how I'm reading you I guess. No worries, I know better than to predicate a friendship on agreement. I have my share of NN scars, so no reason to inflict any on you. I guess i just disagree with on things.

[Hans Deventer]

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.

Personally, I have less problems with considering RC's Christian than some in the extreme Calvinistic corner. To me, the heart of the matter is, what God do people worship? If that God (for instance) resembles Allah more closely than the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, doubts arise. It is all about who you worship.

[Marcus Kibbe]

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.

You're either mistaken, or not being honest. Though Protestants and Catholics may use the same terms, they do not mean the same things by them.

This is not unlike the situation with Pelagius. He also used orthodox theological terms in his teaching. The problem was, the way he defined his terms contradicted their biblical and orthodox meaning. If no one ever pressed Pelagius for the definition of his terms, and was simply satisfied with general statements of beliefs, he would have surely appeared orthodox.

Fortunately, the Catholic church has not left us in doubt as to what it teaches about the doctrinal content of faith that is saving. The Catholic church has clearly defined the meaning of such faith. You can deny it all you want, but it doesn't change the fact, that according to the Church of Rome, apart from an embracing of its doctrines there is no saving faith. Vatican I makes this abundantly clear. The gospel according to Rome consists of justification that is a process and is dependent upon the works and merits of the individual, the Roman Catholic sacraments as a means of salvation, the full embracing of the Roman Catholic teaching of papal infallibilty and jurisdiction and the Marian doctrines of the immaculate conception and assumption. Unless one believes these things and submits to them there is no justification or salvation.

This is a fundamental denial of the biblical teaching of salvation.

Any by the way, Vatican I was reaffirmed by Vatican II:

In order that the episcopate itself might be one and undivided, He placed Peter over the other apostles, and instituted in him a permanent and visible source and foundation of unity of faith and fellowship (Cf. Vatican Council I, Session 4, the dogmatic constitution ‘Pastor aeternus’). And all this teaching about the institution, the perpetuity, the force and reason for the sacred primacy of the Roman Pontiff and of his infallible teaching authority, this sacred Synod again proposes to be firmly believed by all the faithful (The Documents of Vatican II (Chicago: Follett, 1966), Chapter III.18, p. 38).

[Paul DeBaufer]

The gospel according to Rome consists of justification that is a process and is dependent upon the works and merits of the individual,

I think that a good case can be made for this biblically. If we consider works that are Spirit inspired. I think both Jesus and Paul make a case for this. Just a for instance Matthew 25:31-46; Philippians 2:12. Now I think that both Jesus and Paul are talking about works that are the result of cooperating with the Holy Spirit and not obedience to the Mosaic law to try to be saved/justified.

[Hans Deventer]

I think that a good case can be made for this biblically. If we consider works that are Spirit inspired. I think both Jesus and Paul make a case for this. Just a for instance Matthew 25:31-46; Philippians 2:12. Now I think that both Jesus and Paul are talking about works that are the result of cooperating with the Holy Spirit and not obedience to the Mosaic law to try to be saved/justified.

8 For by grace you have been saved through faith, and this is not your own doing; it is the gift of God— 9 not the result of works, so that no one may boast. 10 For we are what he has made us, created in Christ Jesus for good works, which God prepared beforehand to be our way of life.

We just should not presume that "faith" equals "mental agreement". Faith without works is dead, and not even worth mentioning.

[Scott Moseley]

This thread has gone way off topic and has a run its course. I personally have learned quite a bit as the topic ran its course - thanks for all your thoughts and expressed opinions all. Topics like this of course are not for the faint of heart as passions run deep , but dialogue and mutual respect and a shared quest for learning should trump all (spades included ) . I really like NazNet where Politics and Religion are open for discussion! (hard to find that anymore). I am really amazed at the talent assembled here and thoughts that are freely shared. Its really cool community. We must all if we are join in dialogue do so in a way as to not confront the person, but rather the point. Mean spirited attacks whether hurled in defense or not have no place nor do accusatory labels and name calling. I'm probably out of place here with this message as I am way down in # posts count and most of my posts are in fun stuff like sports , movies and books. (sports can get kinda fiesty - but its fun and entertainment). I hope folks in the theological forums don't equate squashing some huge point for your theological persuasion the same has making a great dis on your hated rival sports team. As Religion / politics / philosophy are very personal often with years of personal history associated, we must all be careful as we tread. I encourage all to Continue to illuminate , continue to agree; and to disagree and provide reason with reason in shared unity of Glorifying Christ.

[Kyle Borger]

My apologies up front if I say something that has been said. I am on a very slow network while sitting in a ski lodge in the mountains. It would take me all day to scroll through the 6 pages of replies. But I do want to give my 2 cents.

I'm kind of a plain spoken kind of guy so I won't be using some of the more intelligent words that make me have to find a dictionary.

I'm am not aware of any nation that is a Christian nation. Perhaps a nation that is founded on pre-destination theology could be a Christian nation by forcing all who live there to worship Jesus, but even that seems difficult as it is certain that Jesus wouldn't force everyone in that nation to believe and it seems rather unkind to force someone that Jesus refuses to call to follow His commandments. My point is that any nation that attempts to be a Christian nation can't be a Christian nation. Why? Choice. Any nation that allows its citizens to choose their belief system and to a certain degree their moral system will not be Christian because eventually you get to the point where you must behave in a manner that does not force someone to obey your moral system. Rules of society are different than moral rules.

The United States wrote into the constitution that we must have the freedom of religion. You can argue that they meant Christianity, but that isn't what it says so the nation must allow all forms of religion. I suppose the argument is that when you lift up the country on the same level as the church you have a problem because you are in turn supporting other faiths and other religions.

You don't have to live in the US to be a Christian as I am sure many on here would testify to. You can even be a Christian in a country that makes following Christ illegal. So our faith is not dependent upon country.

I can appreciate the sacrifices others have made so that I might have the freedom to worship as I choose and to a certain degree appreciate the riches I receive as a citizen of my country, but I think some have a problem separating their faith from their country. I have seen some act as if you are not patriotic that you are not Christian. You can't make that claim. Just as I am tired of one political party or another try to claim God. The reality is that both parties are full of sinners who pay no attention to Jesus except when it comes to votes.

The other problem in america? It is impossible to separate religion and government. Each person will respond, vote, rule, attempt to persuade, and teach based on their bias. If you have faith in something you are going to lean that way even if you attempt to provide the other side. Your choice of words, your non-verbal communication, something, is going to trend towards your bias. Teachers who are Christian will present a topic in a different manner than a proclaimed atheist even if both are within the "rules" of what is allowed.

Bottom line.... Our country, whatever country that may be, provides the foundation for our life and the rules we must live within as a society, but no country can dictate our personal relationship with our Savior. Our relationship with our savior will influence how we live within our societies rules, and yes at times will call us to disobey and go to jail or even to death.

[Paul DeBaufer]

My apologies up front if I say something that has been said. I am on a very slow network while sitting in a ski lodge in the mountains. It would take me all day to scroll through the 6 pages of replies. But I do want to give my 2 cents.

I'm kind of a plain spoken kind of guy so I won't be using some of the more intelligent words that make me have to find a dictionary.

I'm am not aware of any nation that is a Christian nation. Perhaps a nation that is founded on pre-destination theology could be a Christian nation by forcing all who live there to worship Jesus, but even that seems difficult as it is certain that Jesus wouldn't force everyone in that nation to believe and it seems rather unkind to force someone that Jesus refuses to call to follow His commandments. My point is that any nation that attempts to be a Christian nation can't be a Christian nation. Why? Choice. Any nation that allows its citizens to choose their belief system and to a certain degree their moral system will not be Christian because eventually you get to the point where you must behave in a manner that does not force someone to obey your moral system. Rules of society are different than moral rules.

The United States wrote into the constitution that we must have the freedom of religion. You can argue that they meant Christianity, but that isn't what it says so the nation must allow all forms of religion. I suppose the argument is that when you lift up the country on the same level as the church you have a problem because you are in turn supporting other faiths and other religions.

You don't have to live in the US to be a Christian as I am sure many on here would testify to. You can even be a Christian in a country that makes following Christ illegal. So our faith is not dependent upon country.

I can appreciate the sacrifices others have made so that I might have the freedom to worship as I choose and to a certain degree appreciate the riches I receive as a citizen of my country, but I think some have a problem separating their faith from their country. I have seen some act as if you are not patriotic that you are not Christian. You can't make that claim. Just as I am tired of one political party or another try to claim God. The reality is that both parties are full of sinners who pay no attention to Jesus except when it comes to votes.

The other problem in america? It is impossible to separate religion and government. Each person will respond, vote, rule, attempt to persuade, and teach based on their bias. If you have faith in something you are going to lean that way even if you attempt to provide the other side. Your choice of words, your non-verbal communication, something, is going to trend towards your bias. Teachers who are Christian will present a topic in a different manner than a proclaimed atheist even if both are within the "rules" of what is allowed.

Bottom line.... Our country, whatever country that may be, provides the foundation for our life and the rules we must live within as a society, but no country can dictate our personal relationship with our Savior. Our relationship with our savior will influence how we live within our societies rules, and yes at times will call us to disobey and go to jail or even to death.

Thank you Kyle! So eloquently stated, concise and quite impactful.

I love this: any nation that attempts to be a Christian nation can't be a Christian nation I agree.

Again, thank you.

[Marcus Kibbe]

My point is that any nation that attempts to be a Christian nation can't be a Christian nation. Why? Choice. Any nation that allows its citizens to choose their belief system and to a certain degree their moral system will not be Christian because eventually you get to the point where you must behave in a manner that does not force someone to obey your moral system. Rules of society are different than moral rules.

I don't follow your logic, here. It would be anti-Chrisitian to force people to "obey [a nations] moral system". Are the following "rules of society" or "moral rules"?: respect for the individual, protection of individual rights, respect for personal freedom, the value of hard work, the need to show care for the poor and weak, the value of generosity, the value of giving aid to other nations, the respect for the law, etc. These are American cultural values - values provided by the intellectual background of Christian beliefs.

What does a "Christian nation" even mean? Is Christian teaching the primary religious system that influenced the Founding Fathers? YES Were the majority of the Founding Fathers Christian who generally believed in the truth of the Bible? YES Is Christianity the largest religion in the US? YES Was there a Supreme Court decision at one time that affirmed that the US is a Christian nation? YES (Church of Holy Trinity v. the United States - 1892) Are the majority of people in the United States born-again Christians? NO Is belief in Christian values the dominant perspective promoted by the US govt.? NO Does the US govt. promote Christianity as the national religion? NO Does a person have to profess Christian faith in order to become a US citizen? NO

Trying to answer whether the United States is a "Christian nation" all depends on what you mean by "Christian nation". Because there are multiple different meanings in peoples minds as to what this means, the question is ultimately unhelpful and only leads to arguments, misunderstandings, and confusion.

[George Wallace]

George, I actually expect better from you. Your analogy to the man and wife is a false analogy. Here's why. The man in question does not display an image of his wife, but another woman claiming it is representative of his wife. The people in the video have an image of Christ, it may not look like you're used to, but an image of Jesus it is, that is representative of Christ. So the two scenarios are completely different. Now IF they had an image of some movie star or political figure or anyone other than Jesus, then your analogy would be spot on.

Or are you saying any image of Christ is false and actually the image of another?

Now for those in the crowd that are actually worshiping the image instead of the One it represents, well that would be idolatry.

Well, I waited a few days hoping you might think this through a bit more and add to your response, but…

Sorry you really expected better, but as analogies go that is one of the best I have ever seen or used. Most all of them are weak at some point or another and can breakdown, but the one I related that you are responding to is one of the most spot on, or tightest I have ever known.

I had really hoped and expected clearing thinking from you Paul, you’re better than that. So we’ll back up. First question:

So Paul, are there “REALLY” “ “ANY” images of Christ? (We both know that we have not been nor are we talking about humans as image bearers)

The context of your response makes it appear that you just take as defacto that there are images of Christ. So what does He look like? Does He look like Max Von Sydow in The Greatest Story Ever Told? Or does He look Like Willem Defoe in The Last Temptation of Christ? Or does he more closely resemble Jim Caviezel from The Passion?

Does He resemble the WASP Jesus, or the Norsk Jesus (Which looks just like the WASP Jesus, but has blue eyes and blonde hair) or the Rasta Jesus whose dreads are thick enough to make the crown of thorns, no biggie? How about it, is He supposed to have an ‘aura’ around Him like in the old Eastern paintings, or do you prefer the Miraculous Jesus face on the grilled cheese sandwich?

Really Paul, you know for certain that we have zero images of Jesus! He never sat for a portrait, nor was he memorialized in marble or bronze.

So as I had hoped you would see that you were really on to something in your second question, but…

So, for clarity sake, there is no such thing as an image of Christ, in the sense that we have been talking, like a portrait, bust or photo.

Now, one can disagree about if what is going on in the video or with any other icon/image is a violation of the Second Commandment; certainly I believe that it is a blatant violation, others may not. So Impasse, I would say they are wrong and vice versa.

But, as for my wife husband photo analogy, well like I said it is spot on at this point! The glorified and ascended Christ sits at the Father’s Right hand. So, none of those who practice this iconic abomination can nor are they truly adoring, using as a help or remembrance, venerating or worshiping and “image” of Christ! They are only doing –whatever it is- they are doing with a vain man made thing.

So, just like in the scenario I presented, if Jesus is likened to the wife, all of those type followers are gazing upon another and saying it is done in longing and remembrance of Him. Just like I stated when the husband used a photo of a similar looking woman to remember and long for his wife! She ain’t gonna be too happy!

Your wife may resemble Michelle Pfeiffer, she ain’t gonna like it if you have Michelle’s pic on your desk on in your wallet instead of hers!

So yeah I expected better of you Paul and you almost got there with your second question, in the context that we have been using there ain’t no such thing as an image of Christ.

Now that doesn’t even touch on the two natures of Christ and the fact that even if we did have a portrait or a bust to work from, you could only be dealing with a half of a Christ unable to fully depict Him.

About the only thing you could reasonably get away with (But, would still be a violation IMO) would be a Revelation 19 Jesus.

Then I saw heaven opened, and behold, a white horse! The one sitting on it is called Faithful and True, and in righteousness he judges and makes war. His eyes are like a flame of fire, and on his head are many diadems, and he has a name written that no one knows but himself. He is clothed in a robe dipped in blood, and the name by which he is called is The Word of God. And the armies of heaven, arrayed in fine linen, white and pure, were following him on white horses. From his mouth comes a sharp sword with which to strike down the nations, and he will rule them with a rod of iron. He will tread the winepress of the fury of the wrath of God the Almighty. On his robe and on his thigh he has a name written, King of kings and Lord of lords.

(Revelation 19:11-16 ESV)

Blessings
George

[Paul DeBaufer]

Well, I waited a few days hoping you might think this through a bit more and add to your response, but…

Sorry you really expected better, but as analogies go that is one of the best I have ever seen or used. Most all of them are weak at some point or another and can breakdown, but the one I related that you are responding to is one of the most spot on, or tightest I have ever known.

I had really hoped and expected clearing thinking from you Paul, you’re better than that. So we’ll back up. First question:

So Paul, are there “REALLY” “ “ANY” images of Christ? (We both know that we have not been nor are we talking about humans as image bearers)

The context of your response makes it appear that you just take as defacto that there are images of Christ. So what does He look like? Does He look like Max Von Sydow in The Greatest Story Ever Told? Or does He look Like Willem Defoe in The Last Temptation of Christ? Or does he more closely resemble Jim Caviezel from The Passion?

Does He resemble the WASP Jesus, or the Norsk Jesus (Which looks just like the WASP Jesus, but has blue eyes and blonde hair) or the Rasta Jesus whose dreads are thick enough to make the crown of thorns, no biggie? How about it, is He supposed to have an ‘aura’ around Him like in the old Eastern paintings, or do you prefer the Miraculous Jesus face on the grilled cheese sandwich?

Really Paul, you know for certain that we have zero images of Jesus! He never sat for a portrait, nor was he memorialized in marble or bronze.

So as I had hoped you would see that you were really on to something in your second question, but…

So, for clarity sake, there is no such thing as an image of Christ, in the sense that we have been talking, like a portrait, bust or photo.

Now, one can disagree about if what is going on in the video or with any other icon/image is a violation of the Second Commandment; certainly I believe that it is a blatant violation, others may not. So Impasse, I would say they are wrong and vice versa.

But, as for my wife husband photo analogy, well like I said it is spot on at this point! The glorified and ascended Christ sits at the Father’s Right hand. So, none of those who practice this iconic abomination can nor are they truly adoring, using as a help or remembrance, venerating or worshiping and “image” of Christ! They are only doing –whatever it is- they are doing with a vain man made thing.

So, just like in the scenario I presented, if Jesus is likened to the wife, all of those type followers are gazing upon another and saying it is done in longing and remembrance of Him. Just like I stated when the husband used a photo of a similar looking woman to remember and long for his wife! She ain’t gonna be too happy!

Your wife may resemble Michelle Pfeiffer, she ain’t gonna like it if you have Michelle’s pic on your desk on in your wallet instead of hers!

So yeah I expected better of you Paul and you almost got there with your second question, in the context that we have been using there ain’t no such thing as an image of Christ.

Now that doesn’t even touch on the two natures of Christ and the fact that even if we did have a portrait or a bust to work from, you could only be dealing with a half of a Christ unable to fully depict Him.

About the only thing you could reasonably get away with (But, would still be a violation IMO) would be a Revelation 19 Jesus.




Blessings
George

I don't even have an image of Jesus in my head or imagination, but I am weird. I don't keep pictures of the people in my life, I hold my thoughts of them close to my heart without the aid of images. But I imagine some benefit from having an image to gaze upon which brings to mind the object of their adoration and stirs their heart for that person.

I agree that there are no authentic images or factual representations of Jesus incarnate. However, that doesn't preclude people from imagining what He looks like. Of course all paintings, drawings, sculpture, etc. of Jesus are products of the artist's imaginings, sometimes prayerful sometimes not. For the people who benefit from gazing upon an image of what they think Jesus looks like maybe it helps them bring their hearts closer to the real Jesus, helps stir their hearts toward Him greater than if there were no image. But as long as the image takes them to the real Jesus in their hearts and minds, who am I to tell them that they cannot or that their image is wrong? Like I said I am not one who creates visualizations of Christ in my mind, I don't need that. But i think in words, many think in pictures and need the visualizations.

That said, I apologise as I now see that for you, and in a very real sense, there can be no images of Christ, so all images are false. In this sense your analogy is fair in that the image that brings Him to mind and heart is not Him.

[Hans Deventer]

I agree that there are no authentic images or factual representations of Jesus incarnate. However, that doesn't preclude people from imagining what He looks like. Of course all paintings, drawings, sculpture, etc. of Jesus are products of the artist's imaginings, sometimes prayerful sometimes not. For the people who benefit from gazing upon an image of what they think Jesus looks like maybe it helps them bring their hearts closer to the real Jesus, helps stir their hearts toward Him greater than if there were no image. But as long as the image takes them to the real Jesus in their hearts and minds, who am I to tell them that they cannot or that their image is wrong? Like I said I am not one who creates visualizations of Christ in my mind, I don't need that. But i think in words, many think in pictures and need the visualizations.

Also, we must not forget that the incarnation is a very important issue in this area (and obviously, many others). People were not allowed to create images of the Father. Jesus steps in and boldly declares: "Whoever has seen me has seen the Father". Seems to me any depicting of Jesus, understanding we don't know what He really looked like, is a testimony to the crucial truth of the gospel: the invisible God became man, to be seen and touched. So whatever people might abuse, at the heart of it there is something totally beautiful.

Here's the best part of any Jesus film I have ever seen. Touches me whenever I see it.

[Paul DeBaufer]

The other Wednesday evening I was walking into the Presbyterian church along with the Catholic priest for the Lenten ecumenical service. Fr. Mike looked at me with the long hair and all and said something about me being able to play Jesus. I said something about not having a beard. Mike told me Jesus didn't have one. Our ideas of what He looked like are shaped by our cultural experiences and artistic representations. These vary widely, but aren't they all just as valid?

[Marian Schwaller Carney]

My church, in proper liturgical fashion (), makes sure that all of the consecrated elements are consumed.

I have not been reading this thread, but this comment made me smile. I agree with a complete use of the blessed elements, comes from my Episcopal days.

I recently served communion for the first time for our little church. The service concluded and a few minutes later I turned to the 'altar' ( a plain table) to drink what was left of the juice in the central cup I had used, and I found it empty. Apparently, one of my little acolytes did the job for me (The remaining bread goes to the birds in our yard.)

[Karen Troxler]

When I was a child, my paternal grandmother was in charge of preparing the Communion at our church. She grew up in the Lutheran church and only became a Nazarene as an adult. I remember her treating the leftover elements with extreme care...the remaining grape juice was poured down the sink, and I assume the crackers/bread was thrown away too. I remember specifically the grape juice, however, because it was the drink of choice for my brother and me when we went to grandma's house. When I asked one time if I could drink it she said no, because this was "special." Though I don't remember her exact explanation, I do remember that she treated it very reverently, something that I think is sometimes missing in the Nazarene church, and something that I have never forgotten after all these years.

(Edited to add--sorry I just realized that this has nothing to do with the main point of the thread!)

[Benjamin Burch]

comes from my Episcopal days.

That would be where I'm at!

[George Wallace]

I don't even have an image of Jesus in my head or imagination, but I am weird. I don't keep pictures of the people in my life, I hold my thoughts of them close to my heart without the aid of images. But I imagine some benefit from having an image to gaze upon which brings to mind the object of their adoration and stirs their heart for that person.

I agree that there are no authentic images or factual representations of Jesus incarnate. However, that doesn't preclude people from imagining what He looks like. Of course all paintings, drawings, sculpture, etc. of Jesus are products of the artist's imaginings, sometimes prayerful sometimes not. For the people who benefit from gazing upon an image of what they think Jesus looks like maybe it helps them bring their hearts closer to the real Jesus, helps stir their hearts toward Him greater than if there were no image. But as long as the image takes them to the real Jesus in their hearts and minds, who am I to tell them that they cannot or that their image is wrong? Like I said I am not one who creates visualizations of Christ in my mind, I don't need that. But i think in words, many think in pictures and need the visualizations.

That said, I apologise as I now see that for you, and in a very real sense, there can be no images of Christ, so all images are false. In this sense your analogy is fair in that the image that brings Him to mind and heart is not Him.

Seems your position is at quite a variance from Wesley's.

The second commandment is concerning the ordinances of worship, or the way in which God will be worshipped, which it is fit himself should appoint.Here is, [1.] The prohibition; we are forbidden to worship even the true God by images, Exodus 20:4 ,5.First, The Jews (at least after the captivity) thought themselves forbidden by this to make any image or picture whatsoever. It is certain it forbids making any image of God, for to whom can we liken him? Isaiah 40:18 ,25. It also forbids us to make images of God in our fancies, as if he were a man as we are. Our religious worship must be governed by the power of faith, not by the power of imagination.Secondly, They must not bow down to them - Shew any sign of honour to them, much less serve them by sacrifice, or any other act of religious worship. When they paid their devotion to the true God, they must not have any image before them for the directing, exciting, or assisting their devotion. Though the worship was designed to terminate in God, it would not please him if it came to him through an image. The best and most ancient lawgivers among the Heathen forbad the setting up of images in their temples. It was forbidden in Rome by Numa a Pagan prince, yet commanded in Rome by the Pope, a Christian bishop. The use of images in the church of Rome, at this day, is so plainly contrary to the letter of this command, that in all their catechisms, which they put into the hand of the people, they leave out this commandment, joining the reason of it to the first, and so the third commandment they call the second, the fourth the third, &c. only to make up the number ten, they divide the tenth into two.For I the Lord Jehovah, thy God, am a jealous God, especially in things of this nature. It intimates the care he has of his own institutions, his displeasure against idolaters, and that he resents every thing in his worship that looks like, or leads to, idolatry: visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children unto the third and fourth generation - Severely punishing. Nor is it an unrighteous thing with God if the parents died in their iniquity, and the children tread in their steps, when God comes, by his judgments, to reckon with them, to bring into the account the idolatries their fathers were guilty of. Keeping mercy for thousands of persons, thousands of generations, of them that love me and keep my commandments - This intimates, that the second commandment, though in the letter of it is only a prohibition of false worship, yet includes a precept of worshipping God in all those ordinances which he hath instituted. As the first commandment requires the inward worship of love, desire, joy, hope, so this the outward worship of prayer and praise, and solemn attendance on his word. This mercy shall extend to thousands, much further than the wrath threatened to those that hate him, for that reaches but to the third or fourth generation.

Blessings
George

[Benjamin Burch]

Seems your position is at quite a variance from Wesley's.


Blessings
George

Wesley always was a really silly dude. There is a lot about Wesley not to like.

[George Wallace]

Wesley always was a really silly dude. There is a lot about Wesley not to like.

I agree with you there!

But as for what he is saying here, well that is just what Protestants believe.

Blessings
George

[Benjamin Burch]

I agree with you there!

But as for what he is saying here, well that is just what Protestants believe.

Blessings
George

Well, I've never really been protestant as far as that word means anything to you. Also, the wonderful think about St. Paul's Cathedral here in San Diego is that the theology from the pulpit is very liberal Anglo-Catholic, without much "protestant" seasoning.

[Jim Chabot]

I agree with you there!

But as for what he is saying here, well that is just what Protestants believe.

Blessings
George

Thanks for sharing that, while I can find plenty of places where I'm not willing to stand with Wesley. I'll gladly stand with him on this, I have noticed over the years that my discomfort level seems to be proportionate to the level of "special" and "sacred" things in a church.

I was talking with my brother in law this afternoon and we conversed a bit on this thread. He reminded me that we officially embrace the memorial position of communion, as holiness people would not embrace the "means of grace" aspect, and heaven forbid there be any talk of an actual change in the elements.

So I went and read it;

XIII. The Lord’s Supper
17. We believe that the Memorial and Communion Supper instituted by our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ is essentially a New Testament sacrament, declarative of His sacrificial death, through the merits of which believers have life and salvation and promise of all spiritual blessings in Christ. It is distinctively for those who are prepared for reverent ap- preciation of its significance, and by it they show forth the Lord’s death till He come again. It being the Communion feast, only those who have faith in Christ and love for the saints should be called to participate therein.
(Exodus 12:1-14; Matthew 26:26-29; Mark 14:22-25; Luke 22:17-20; John 6:28-58; 1 Corinthians 10:14-21; 11:23-32)

The Lord himself ordained this holy sacra- ment. He commanded His disciples to partake of the bread and wine, emblems of His broken body and shed blood. This is His table. The feast is for His disciples. Let all those who have with true re- pentance forsaken their sins, and have believed in Christ unto salvation, draw near and take these emblems, and, by faith, partake of the life of Jesus Christ, to your soul’s comfort and joy. Let us remember that it is the memorial of the death and passion of our Lord; also a token of His com- ing again. Let us not forget that we are one, at one table with the Lord.

Reading this brings a level of comfort, I have to admit that all of these variant beliefs and practices do make me uncomfortable. Although I am glad for those who are satisfied by other faith traditions.

I'm glad to be reminded that there is a reason that protestant communion tables bear the words "In Remembrance of Me"!

And I'm glad to be both protestant and holiness!

[Benjamin Burch]

Thanks for sharing that, while I can find plenty of places where I'm not willing to stand with Wesley. I'll gladly stand with him on this, I have noticed over the years that my discomfort level seems to be proportionate to the level of "special" and "sacred" things in a church.

I was talking with my brother in law this afternoon and we conversed a bit on this thread. He reminded me that we officially embrace the memorial position of communion, as holiness people would not embrace the "means of grace" aspect, and heaven forbid there be any talk of an actual change in the elements.

So I went and read it;





Reading this brings a level of comfort, I have to admit that all of these variant beliefs and practices do make me uncomfortable. Although I am glad for those who are satisfied by other faith traditions.

I'm glad to be reminded that there is a reason that protestant communion tables bear the words "In Remembrance of Me"!

And I'm glad to be both protestant and holiness!

Catholic tables could say the same thing.

[Jim Chabot]

This thread has been really helpful to me as we explore the different ways that syncretism becomes present in worship. Some have pointed out patriotism and worldly elements while others are bothered with liturgy, icons, variant communion beliefs and the like. I'm thinking that all of these have potential to distract our worship if used improperly. It has been a good exercise and I've learned a lot.

Interestingly our service this week was based upon the story of the cleansing of the temple. We are doing a modified version of Ashes to Fire, and this week is "whip of cords". As I prepared, I thought of this thread and realized that this was exactly the story of the temple cleansing. They were introducing religious elements into the temple worship, there were folks there selling aids to worship. Jesus encountered syncretism and He was ticked!

So I started out with a slide showing a darkened and colorless picture of a church with the word syncretism in quotes at the top. I explained that we had been discussing this for a few days and where they could find it. Then I added some light and color to the picture along with the definition, I went on to explain that the importance of worship is our view and focus. I added color and light to the picture once, showing it without the words and I recalled the story of Jesus talk with the samaritan woman. Adding in the remainder of color and light I displayed the text of John 4:23. Repeating the words "Spirit and truth" I said "lets sing!"

We had a great time of worship! Glad to have been a part of this thread, I've gotten a bit of fire and focus from this discourse!

[Paul DeBaufer]

George, John Wesley, and others who believe that images of Jesus are wrong,

When you come to visit my house I will put such images away, if I had any. I would not want to offend you. I believe that we have freedom in this. Hans line of reasoning resonates with me, but far be it from me to allow the freedom I see to be an offense to you when you are my guest.