Church of the Nazarene vs. Anglican

[Michael Wrenn]

HP: Boy, have you ever opened a can of worms.:smilewinkgrin:

I believe in sanctification in practice, although I do not arrive in the same place via their explanations. Practically I would agree with the Nazarene doctrine as far as the lifestyle goes, but again I could not sign onto or raise my right hand to how they demand one think in order to get there.

They would, or at least did believe, that sanctification is the eradication of the sinful nature or the eradication of original sin. (I am not so certain that they have all but abandoned sanctification in reality at this juncture in their Church. After the split several years ago, those that actually held to Nazarene doctrine were forced out, and the Nazarenes took on a new approach different than that which they held to at the inception of the denomination)

I do not believe in original sin, therefore I have a problem with their explanation. My question to them is, if the sinful nature they say is truly eradicated, how then might a believer sin? What possible hold could any outside influence have upon a heart devoid of any desire whatsoever? James clearly states that we sin in the following manner: Jas 1:14 But every man is tempted, when he is drawn away of his own lust, and enticed.

If what the Nazarenes believe (believed) is true, that would eliminate the possibility that James indicates can be the process of temptation to 'every' man, IMHO. I am certain there are Nazarenes who would think that I am wrong here for whatever reasons, and that can be expected among humans to have differing opinions even within such a group. There is usually a Padredurand lurking somewhere in the shadows. :saint: (Just kidding Padre!)


I see it entirely possible that a sanctified believer might indeed sin, although living a life so free from sin it could be rightfully said of such a one they do not sin. I see sanctification as the establishment of a holy walk before God to such a degree that sin would be the totally unusual thing in such a persons life, only under strangely strong temptation and again such a rarity that it could again be said, such a one does not sin.

Of course, I would not see observing a picture in the news stand 'necessarily' as sin nor every evil though entering the mind as some would in error refer to as sin.

One thing is for certain. Those finding such a walk do not do it in their own strength, although it is not accomplished totally apart from their will. One would have to depend on God with their whole heart on a daily moment by moment basis for strength and Divine help via the promised help of the Holy Spirit. I would believe that such a state would have to be entered into by faith in a moment of time, just as did the faith occur that birthed such a one into salvation. Although indeed all believers should grow, even one walking in a state of entire sanctification, the experience itself could not be achieved simply by growth any more than one could simply 'grow' into salvation. Without faith it is impossible to please God.

Should I wait for the arrows to start flying or should I take cover now?

HP, thanks for this very good post.

Considering the part of your post that I put in bold, what do you think the Nazarenes mean by these statements that they ask you to affirm when requesting membership?
"...that subsequent to this [the new birth] there is the deeper work of heart cleansing or entire sanctification through the infilling of the Holy Spirit..."
or:
"...That believers are to be sanctified wholly, sub-sequent to regeneration, through faith in the Lord Jesus Christ..."

BTW, I also have a problem with original sin the way Catholics and Protestants view it. Actually, my view of sin is probably closer to Eastern Orthodoxy.

 

[glfredrick]

The Word says that the man who says he has no sin decieves himself and if we say we have not sinned we make HIM a liar, for HE has said that "all sin."

1Jo 1:6-10 If we say we have fellowship with him while we walk in darkness, we lie and do not practice the truth. 7 But if we walk in the light, as he is in the light, we have fellowship with one another, and the blood of Jesus his Son cleanses us from all sin. 8 If we say we have no sin, we deceive ourselves, and the truth is not in us. 9 If we confess our sins, he is faithful and just to forgive us our sins and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness. 10 If we say we have not sinned, we make him a liar, and his word is not in us.


The writer of Hebrews took up this topic:

Hbr 10:1-4 For since the law has but a shadow of the good things to come instead of the true form of these realities, it can never, by the same sacrifices that are continually offered every year, make perfect those who draw near. 2 Otherwise, would they not have ceased to be offered, since the worshipers, having once been cleansed, would no longer have any consciousness of sins? 3 But in these sacrifices there is a reminder of sins every year. 4 For it is impossible for the blood of bulls and goats to take away sins.

So, clearly, while under the law -- or IF under the law -- one's sin yet remains to be removed, for the law cannot actually remove sin, we still sin, even if perfectly under the law.

But, Christ came and crucified sin FOR US.

Hbr 10:5-14 Consequently, when Christ [fn] came into the world, he said, "Sacrifices and offerings you have not desired, but a body have you prepared for me; 6 in burnt offerings and sin offerings you have taken no pleasure. 7- Then I said, 'Behold, I have come to do your will, O God, as it is written of me in the scroll of the book.'" 8 When he said above, "You have neither desired nor taken pleasure in sacrifices and offerings and burnt offerings and sin offerings" (these are offered according to the law), 9 then he added, "Behold, I have come to do your will." He does away with the first in order to establish the second. 10 And by that will we have been sanctified through the offering of the body of Jesus Christ once for all. 11 And every priest stands daily at his service, offering repeatedly the same sacrifices, which can never take away sins. 12 But when Christ had offered for all time a single sacrifice for sins, he sat down at the right hand of God, 13 waiting from that time until his enemies should be made a footstool for his feet. 14 For by a single offering he has perfected for all time those who are being sanctified.

Note WHO does the action above, and the verb tenses of that action...

CHRIST takes away the sin, and HIS effects are applied to us. HE is doing the applying, not us. And, eventually, all -- whether or not they like it -- WILL be placed under His feet on behalf of those WHO ARE BEING sanctified by HIM.

Further:

Hbr 10:15-23 And the Holy Spirit also bears witness to us; for after saying, 16 "This is the covenant that I will make with them after those days, declares the Lord: I will put my laws on their hearts, and write them on their minds," 17 then he adds, "I will remember their sins and their lawless deeds no more." 18 Where there is forgiveness of these, there is no longer any offering for sin. 19 Therefore, brothers, since we have confidence to enter the holy places by the blood of Jesus, 20 by the new and living way that he opened for us through the curtain, that is, through his flesh, 21 and since we have a great priest over the house of God, 22 let us draw near with a true heart in full assurance of faith, with our hearts sprinkled clean from an evil conscience and our bodies washed with pure water. 23 Let us hold fast the confession of our hope without wavering, for he who promised is faithful.

Christ has paid the penalty. The Holy Spirit (whom we dare not blaspheme by saying that He has not...) bears witness with us of this truth. Christ writes His law on our hearts and in our minds -- we do not do that ourselves as some here have suggested -- and because CHRIST has done this great work we can enter the holy place as one righteous, not of our own efforts, but solely dependent on HIS. HE sprinkled our hearts with HIS blood. HE is faithful, even when we are not.

Our job then is to remind each other of this great gospel work! We are to gather together in such a manner as to worship the ONE who did this great atoning work for us. We are to remind each other to stop trying to sin against God. And, further, if we wilfully continue in our sin we must realize that there is NO FURTHER SACRIFICE THAT CAN BE MADE.

Hbr 10:29 How much worse punishment, do you think, will be deserved by the one who has spurned the Son of God, and has profaned the blood of the covenant by which he was sanctified, and has outraged the Spirit of grace?

When we turn to our OWN EFFORTS we spurn the Son of God who did what we could not do. We profane the ultimate sacrifice, but there is no further "annual sacrifice" as was present in the OT to deal with our new sins against our Lord.

 

[Heavenly Pilgrim]

MW: "...that subsequent to this [the new birth] there is the deeper work of heart cleansing or entire sanctification through the infilling of the Holy Spirit..."
or:
"...That believers are to be sanctified wholly, sub-sequent to regeneration, through faith in the Lord Jesus Christ..."

HP: I have no problem with either of these two statements as they are posted here. Again, my problems would lie in the definitions of original sin as purported by the CotN, NOT their statements here you posted standing alone.

MW: BTW, I also have a problem with original sin the way Catholics and Protestants view it. Actually, my view of sin is probably closer to Eastern Orthodoxy.

HP: I would like to hear your views on the subject.

 

[The Biblicist]

HP: I have no problem with either of these two statements as they are posted here. Again, my problems would lie in the definitions of original sin as purported by the CotN, NOT their statements here you posted standing alone.

To suggest that a child of God has reached or can reach "full" sanctification in this life is not only irrational but ludricrous. The very fact that it is progressive in nature demands that by the very term "progressive" it is incomplete and unfinished and therefore there is always an element of sanctification lacking at all times.

The continuous exhortations by Paul and other Biblical writers to grow, to put on and put off, to put on spiritual armour, to resist, to fight, to yeild, to walk, demonstrate clearly that sin is always present and at work in the Christians life and there is a present spiritual warfare not merely external to the nature of the child of God but within the child of God that is never completed in this life.

The idea of a second blessing, or second level of grace contradicts not only the metaphors of spiritual growth (children, young men, fathers) but contradicts that a child of God is to "walk AS YE RECEIVED" (Col. 2:6) as that doctrine demands there is something you did not receive that one must yet receive.

Acts 11:15-16 proves that the baptism in the Spirit is not an individual personal experience because the nearest reference that Peter could give for such a event was "AT the beginning" rather than "SINCE the beginning" with literally the thousands which had been added from the time of Pentecost.

The "filling" of the Spirit is not a second act of sanctification but merely a repeatable act whereby we come under the direction of the Spirit and is not sustained simply because we are still subject to sin and the fleshly nature.

The idea of living above sin or a second level of grace is due to a fundemental ignorance of the unredeemed aspect of our human nature and more importantly fundemental ignorance of the nature of sin.

Those who teach this doctrine necessarily deny the true nature of salvation as well as the gospel of Jesus Christ, as well as pervert the standard of righteousness demanded by the Law of God to some lower level or standard.

 

[Michael Wrenn]

To suggest that a child of God has reached or can reach "full" sanctification in this life is not only irrational but ludricrous. The very fact that it is progressive in nature demands that by the very term "progressive" it is incomplete and unfinished and therefore there is always an element of sanctification lacking at all times.

The continuous exhortations by Paul and other Biblical writers to grow, to put on and put off, to put on spiritual armour, to resist, to fight, to yeild, to walk, demonstrate clearly that sin is always present and at work in the Christians life and there is a present spiritual warfare not merely external to the nature of the child of God but within the child of God that is never completed in this life.

The idea of a second blessing, or second level of grace contradicts not only the metaphors of spiritual growth (children, young men, fathers) but contradicts that a child of God is to "walk AS YE RECEIVED" (Col. 2:6) as that doctrine demands there is something you did not receive that one must yet receive.

Acts 11:15-16 proves that the baptism in the Spirit is not an individual personal experience because the nearest reference that Peter could give for such a event was "AT the beginning" rather than "SINCE the beginning" with literally the thousands which had been added from the time of Pentecost.

The "filling" of the Spirit is not a second act of sanctification but merely a repeatable act whereby we come under the direction of the Spirit and is not sustained simply because we are still subject to sin and the fleshly nature.

The idea of living above sin or a second level of grace is due to a fundemental ignorance of the unredeemed aspect of our human nature and more importantly fundemental ignorance of the nature of sin.

Those who teach this doctrine necessarily deny the true nature of salvation as well as the gospel of Jesus Christ, as well as pervert the standard of righteousness demanded by the Law of God to some lower level or standard.

It might be startling to you and some others here, but I basically agree with you on this. And I believe this is why I would have a difficult time even becoming a member of the Church of the Nazarene because I don't believe I could affirm what they ask you to affirm in your membership vows. Even if seeing sanctification as love, I don't believe I could affirm entire sanctification as a second, definite instantaneous work of grace. Heck, I believe there are many works of grace! I believe sanctification is progressive, and we are not entirely sanctified until we reach glorification in the next life; that's when I believe sanctification is completed. I think this one thing would keep me out of Holiness denominations.

It's apparent why its very difficult for me to fit in anywhere -- although I might agree with almost everything a certain denomination teaches, I seem to come up against a key doctrine that I can't accept. I really like the Nazarene church, although I disagree with the denomination owning the property. But I just can't get past entire sanctification, no matter how it's defined. John Wesley defined it as "having the mind which was in Christ", and "walking as Christ also walked". Also, "loving his neighbor as himself".... "Indeed, his soul is all love". I don't think this is possible in this life. There was only one perfect man, and that was Jesus. Sure, Jesus exhorts us to these things, but I don't think we can do them perfectly, and I certainly don't think we can ever reach a point here where our souls are "all love" -- not on this side of the grave.

I have also read that entire sanctification puts us back in the state in which Adam was before The Fall. I think that is entirely false.

So my view of sanctification is different from the Wesleyan and Holiness views.

However, when I answer HP about original sin, be prepared to be further startled. It just shows that I may not belong anywhere after all.

 

[glfredrick]

The concept of a second blessing or complete sanctification before our glorification in the presence of God misses one of the big issues of soteriology, i.e., that we WILL be glorified, which WILL complete the task of being conformed to the image of Christ.

The entire discussion is akin to the over-realized eschatology of the Corinthian people, who (wrongly) thinking that they were already completely sanctified, they cared no longer if they sinned, or the nature of those sins, for all was done and they were in their final state. As I recall, Paul took them to task about the issue on multiple occaisions, two of which we have recorded as 1 & 2 Corinthians.

 

[Michael Wrenn]

HP: I have no problem with either of these two statements as they are posted here. Again, my problems would lie in the definitions of original sin as purported by the CotN, NOT their statements here you posted standing alone.



HP: I would like to hear your views on the subject.

Okay, I will try.

On second thought, it would be easier to link to an article, and then I may offer clarification or amendment, if needed. I basically believe the Eastern Orthodox view of original sin; see this article, and look about one-third of the way down to "Sin" and then under that, "Original Sin": https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eastern_Orthodox_Christian_theology#Original_sin

Also, the EOC view of sanctification is progressive, as I understand it.

I also have an affinity for their views on Heaven and Hell.

Anyway, if you have any questions, I will try to answer.

I'll look forward to your comments.

 

[Michael Wrenn]

The concept of a second blessing or complete sanctification before our glorification in the presence of God misses one of the big issues of soteriology, i.e., that we WILL be glorified, which WILL complete the task of being conformed to the image of Christ.

The entire discussion is akin to the over-realized eschatology of the Corinthian people, who (wrongly) thinking that they were already completely sanctified, they cared no longer if they sinned, or the nature of those sins, for all was done and they were in their final state. As I recall, Paul took them to task about the issue on multiple occaisions, two of which we have recorded as 1 & 2 Corinthians.

Yes, I certainly agree, but couldn't belief in OSAS do the same thing? Not to bring this back to OSAS, but it seems these two doctrines are opposite extremes which could produce the same results!

Oh, I know there is not an exact parallel, but one who believes in OSAS thinks that no matter how much they sin or the nature of that sin, that they are completely safe and can't be lost.

 

[Heavenly Pilgrim]

Biblicist: Those who teach this doctrine necessarily deny the true nature of salvation as well as the gospel of Jesus Christ, as well as pervert the standard of righteousness demanded by the Law of God to some lower level or standard.

MW: It might be startling to you and some others here, but I basically agree with you on this.

HP: Michael, if you basically agree with that arrogant over the top remark, that is nothing more than a thinly veiled personal attack, denoting any and all that would believe in sanctification as a second work of grace, as out side of the faith preaching another gospel, perverting the law of God, and as such justly to be condemned and to be cursed, (see, I know the rest of the verse) you are certainly beyond the pale of reasonable discussion.

Biblicist deserves nothing but condemnation from the moderators of this board when he posts such remarks.

 

[glfredrick]

Yes, I certainly agree, but couldn't belief in OSAS do the same thing? Not to bring this back to OSAS, but it seems these two doctrines are opposite extremes which could produce the same results!

Oh, I know there is not an exact parallel, but one who believes in OSAS thinks that no matter how much they sin or the nature of that sin, that they are completely safe and can't be lost.

OSAS, the way you describe it -- though held by any number of persons out there -- is not precisely the way that the Bible states it. It is not just "saved and nothing else matters..." Paul took care of that when he said, "By all means not..." in regards to remaining sinful after salvation (anti-nomian).

The principle in Scripture is "persevere" or "endure" until the end.

Gill, supralapsarian and thought by some to be "hyper-Calvinist" ( include that info because if one who holds as strongly as that to God's sovereignty sees perseverence as a primary doctrine than it is likely so) said it like this:

How preposterous and irrational must it be in a man who thinks himself to be a child of God, and believes he shall persevere to the end, from this consideration to indulge himself in all manner of sin, as if resolving that he will persevere no longer!” (John Gill, The Cause of God and Truth, Part 3, section 6

What I think you are describing is in fact called "easy believism" and as I said, some do hold to that tenet. Those who are cognizant of their doctrines in accordance with Scripture would not, however, for we recognize that God's forgiveness of sin is not also license to sin.

As an aside, who exactly DO YOU THINK teaches what you suggested as OSAS where sin no longer matters? Just wondering... I've not seen that many groups that identify with Christianity that are all about rampant sin simply because they are saved. Rather, I mostly find the topic coming up in discussions as a point to be used to bash an oponent over the head, but in any case, I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and let you show me where some are that do hold that doctrine the way you suggest.

 

[DaChaser1]

OSAS, the way you describe it -- though held by any number of persons out there -- is not precisely the way that the Bible states it. It is not just "saved and nothing else matters..." Paul took care of that when he said, "By all means not..." in regards to remaining sinful after salvation (anti-nomian).

The principle in Scripture is "persevere" or "endure" until the end.

Gill, supralapsarian and thought by some to be "hyper-Calvinist" ( include that info because if one who holds as strongly as that to God's sovereignty sees perseverence as a primary doctrine than it is likely so) said it like this:



What I think you are describing is in fact called "easy believism" and as I said, some do hold to that tenet. Those who are cognizant of their doctrines in accordance with Scripture would not, however, for we recognize that God's forgiveness of sin is not also license to sin.

As an aside, who exactly DO YOU THINK teaches what you suggested as OSAS where sin no longer matters? Just wondering... I've not seen that many groups that identify with Christianity that are all about rampant sin simply because they are saved. Rather, I mostly find the topic coming up in discussions as a point to be used to bash an oponent over the head, but in any case, I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and let you show me where some are that do hold that doctrine the way you suggest.

the truth is that what keeps ANY of us kept as stasying saved is the person and power of God!

Simple fact that jesus said that he WILL rise up ALL those His father gave Him to be saved...

he and the father are One, NONE take them out from God!

No Way and NONE means ME and You!

 

[Heavenly Pilgrim]

DaChaser1: the truth is that what keeps ANY of us kept as stasying saved is the person and power of God!

HP: When you eliminate the will of man from playing any part, placing all emphasis on God and God alone, you necessitate deterministic fatalism. You necessitate double predestination, for if one does not get saved or keep saved it is God refusing to do that which is necessary for salvation to happen or to continue. It makes a mockery of punishment for refusing to do, what is in reality is, an impossibility, if the necessary means to accomplish are not chosen by God Himself.

One makes a mockery of very warning to examine ones self, or to stay faithful until the end, for if you have it your way, it is either a done deal or no deal, without the least input one way or another from the man, God, according to Scripture, holds accountable for the outcome.

No DAChaser1, it is not all up to God. God has granted to man a will to exercise without which no salvation is possible nor will it be maintained. Again, you are suggesting a system of absolute fatalism, which is simply not set forth in Scripture or reason.

 

[Michael Wrenn]

HP: Michael, if you basically agree with that arrogant over the top remark, that is nothing more than a thinly veiled personal attack, denoting any and all that would believe in sanctification as a second work of grace, as out side of the faith preaching another gospel, perverting the law of God, and as such justly to be condemned and to be cursed, (see, I know the rest of the verse) you are certainly beyond the pale of reasonable discussion.

Biblicist deserves nothing but condemnation from the moderators of this board when he posts such remarks.

No, no, no, I just meant that I agree with the general position that entire sanctification is not achievable in this life, and that sanctification is progressive. That's all I meant.

 

[Michael Wrenn]

OSAS, the way you describe it -- though held by any number of persons out there -- is not precisely the way that the Bible states it. It is not just "saved and nothing else matters..." Paul took care of that when he said, "By all means not..." in regards to remaining sinful after salvation (anti-nomian).

The principle in Scripture is "persevere" or "endure" until the end.

Gill, supralapsarian and thought by some to be "hyper-Calvinist" ( include that info because if one who holds as strongly as that to God's sovereignty sees perseverence as a primary doctrine than it is likely so) said it like this:



What I think you are describing is in fact called "easy believism" and as I said, some do hold to that tenet. Those who are cognizant of their doctrines in accordance with Scripture would not, however, for we recognize that God's forgiveness of sin is not also license to sin.

As an aside, who exactly DO YOU THINK teaches what you suggested as OSAS where sin no longer matters? Just wondering... I've not seen that many groups that identify with Christianity that are all about rampant sin simply because they are saved. Rather, I mostly find the topic coming up in discussions as a point to be used to bash an oponent over the head, but in any case, I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and let you show me where some are that do hold that doctrine the way you suggest.

I didn't mean to suggest that I knew personally people who believe this, but I was saying that it logically could lead someone to think they were saved and would remain so, regardless of their words or actions.

For instance, if someone turned away in whatever manner or for whatever reason, if they had held to OSAS, wouldn't they think they could continue in that state and yet be saved?

 

[Michael Wrenn]

HP: When you eliminate the will of man from playing any part, placing all emphasis on God and God alone, you necessitate deterministic fatalism. You necessitate double predestination, for if one does not get saved or keep saved it is God refusing to do that which is necessary for salvation to happen or to continue. It makes a mockery of punishment for refusing to do, what is in reality is, an impossibility, if the necessary means to accomplish are not chosen by God Himself.

One makes a mockery of very warning to examine ones self, or to stay faithful until the end, for if you have it your way, it is either a done deal or no deal, without the least input one way or another from the man, God, according to Scripture, holds accountable for the outcome.

No DAChaser1, it is not all up to God. God has granted to man a will to exercise without which no salvation is possible nor will it be maintained. Again, you are suggesting a system of absolute fatalism, which is simply not set forth in Scripture or reason.

I agree completely.

 

[Heavenly Pilgrim]

MW: I didn't mean to suggest that I knew personally people who believe this, but I was saying that it logically could lead someone to think they were saved and would remain so, regardless of their words or actions.

HP: We have some on this board, including one preacher, that testifies to sinning everyday in thought word and deed. So, I can say I know someone, on this board, that admits he sins daily and yet sin has no effect on his salvation. That is simply stating, 'I remain saved regardless of my actions or words.' If that is not a license to sin, nothing is. If that is not pure antinomianism, what else could it be?

 

[steaver]

In the CMA Church I attended, they were simply confused or did not care about entire sanctification as far as I could tell. I certainly never heard it discussed in any manner, not in the pulpit or in the Sunday School classroom that I can recall.

Well, were they confused or did you never hear it discussed??

 

[DaChaser1]

HP: When you eliminate the will of man from playing any part, placing all emphasis on God and God alone, you necessitate deterministic fatalism. You necessitate double predestination, for if one does not get saved or keep saved it is God refusing to do that which is necessary for salvation to happen or to continue. It makes a mockery of punishment for refusing to do, what is in reality is, an impossibility, if the necessary means to accomplish are not chosen by God Himself.

One makes a mockery of very warning to examine ones self, or to stay faithful until the end, for if you have it your way, it is either a done deal or no deal, without the least input one way or another from the man, God, according to Scripture, holds accountable for the outcome.

No DAChaser1, it is not all up to God. God has granted to man a will to exercise without which no salvation is possible nor will it be maintained. Again, you are suggesting a system of absolute fatalism, which is simply not set forth in Scripture or reason.

problem with that view is that the Bible states that GOD is the One that keeps us in jesus, that HE makes sure none are lost!

 

[DaChaser1]

I agree completely.

its Gods Will, per jesus, that NONE that he saves get ever again lost...

The NT has NO verses supporting that a christian saved by grace of God can undo/lose His eternal life!

 

[steaver]

Does the CMA teach entire sanctification? I looked at them a long time ago, and liked what I found out, but since there were no churches anywhere near me, I gave that one up.

We teach a believer is Justified by grace through faith alone and is being sanctified by Jesus Christ through the indwelling Holy Spirit. Complete sanctification is not attainable while still in this body of death, it is a mortal life long process.