Church of the Nazarene vs. Anglican

[The Biblicist]

Excellent! THank You! I too like to learn and understand false religions so I can be prepared to help them. Whenever a JW comes to my door I try to keep them engaged as long as I can, pointing out the errors of their beliefs system. The one's I have spoken with in my area are very well brainwashed on their talking points, it is tough to derail them and get them into a real conversation. Most of them check out right quickly when they see i want to talk about the scriptures.

The last encounter I had was with an elderly woman, she didn't flee, but she was well prepared and bent on staying on her own agenda. She stayed for about an half an hour and each time I got her off balanced a bit she would jump to another scripture and try to change the subject back to her side. It was quite enjoyable and although she left with her beliefs intact, I believe God's word does not go out and return void. I trust that God used the truth I presented to put a few dints in her false armor she has constructed around herself.

I have learned from speaking with the JW's is that the number one thing they cannot defend is the NWT that they read from. If you can learn how we got our true translations and be prepared to challenge them on their false one with the facts it really shakes them up a bit. This woman had no answers when I began challenging the bible she decided to put her faith in and I could tell it put her a bit on tilt.

Thanks again!

I try very hard to keep them at the door but their strategy has changed in the last few years. They used to want to start a bible study with you but they lost so many doing this, that now they are trained to avoid anyone where they get stiff resistance and just zero in on the pigeons.

They had no trained Greek or Hebrew scholars on their translation committee.

 

[Michael Wrenn]

I do not "know all this" and in fact, you have given every indication that you are attempting to avoid the judgmental nature of God.

I am indeed calling you out on your theology. It is a miserable and horrid example of non-coherent, compromised, cafeteria-line (I'll take a little bit of this and a little bit of that, because I like it) doctrine. You appear to disavow almost everything that is orthodox and embrace everything that is heterodox in your effort to eliminate a God who forces the conclusion and who also carried the effects of that forcing to the cross.

And, no this has nothing at all to do with Calvinism or OSAS. It has everything to do with SALVATION period. I believe you would disavow salvation in general if pressed hard on the issue.

That is a ridiculous statement, and your whole post is ridiculous and a flat-out lie.

I affirm the Apostles Creed and the Nicene Creed. If you had read the Statement of Principles on our website, you couldn't say what you've said -- unless you deliberately lied.

 

[Michael Wrenn]

When I came home from Veitnam I started attending a little SBC. God had done a work in my life just previous to this where He dealt with me and made me clearly see that I was not serving him as I should. So when I came to this little congregation I was already on fire for the Lord. Pretty soon, I was asked to lead the youth group and the first thing I did was to lead them in door to door witnessing and joining other inter-denominational activities. We worked with the Nazerine congregation and Lutheran and Episcopalin youth in city wide revivals and other activities. There was a ecumenical Pastoral meeting held in the city once a month. I asked my Pastor if I could attend it in our behalf. He did not attend it but didn't prevent me from doing so and so I did. These Pastors were quite astonished that the Baptist congregation finally sent a delegate to represent them in this ecumenical meeting. Indeed, it was the Episcopalin and Assembly of God Pastors that actually made a joke where the Baptists were the brunt of this joke in my presence. This caused me to think about their reactions as they reacted in such a way that inferred Baptists were simply out of place joining such a meeting even though I was quite willing and eager to participate as I had in city wide ecumenical activites. Then the Lord called me to preach and I was driven to more intense studies. I then packed up and went to a independent Baptist college where I was challenged by many things that were contrary to my former ecumenical practices and SBC doctrines. One of my first term papers was dedicated to vindicating the universal invisible church theory. So My first response was to stiffly resist and reject much of what was being taught. I then immersed myself into the scriptures seeking the truth in regard to certain issues and I came out of that study which occurred over a number of years to the position I hold to this day.

P.S. Four years after graduating from that independent college I attended a SBC Seminary where my previous ecumenicalist practices were defended and taught and were my new found beliefs were also taught so that I was caught in the cross fire for three years. This gave me a environment to test both sides. There was a ten year period where I dabbled around experimenting by going to various denominations and attending their services.

Thanks; very interesting story! I do think you are genuine in your beliefs.

 

[Michael Wrenn]

How do you define sin then?

5.3. We believe that actual or personal sin is a voluntary violation of a known law of God by a morally responsible person. It is therefore not to be confused with involuntary and inescapable shortcomings, infirmities, faults, mistakes, failures, or other deviations from a standard of perfect conduct that are the residual effects of the Fall. However, such innocent effects do not include attitudes or responses contrary to the spirit of Christ, which may properly be called sins of the spirit. We believe that personal sin is primarily and essentially a violation of the law of love; and that in relation to Christ sin may be defined as unbelief. CotN Articles of Faith




That's not true. Nazarenes and old school Wesleyans draw a broad distinction between justification and sanctification. A justified person is indeed a new creation.

"9. We believe that justification is the gracious and judicial act of God by which He grants full pardon of all guilt and complete release from the penalty of sins committed, and acceptance as righteous, to all who believe on Jesus Christ and receive Him as Lord and Savior.

10. We believe that regeneration, or the new birth, is that gracious work of God whereby the moral nature of the repentant believer is spiritually quickened and given a distinctively spiritual life, capable of faith, love, and obedience. ~ibid.



No. They believe any failure to be the person in question and not God's ability to hold that which He claims.

"We believe that all persons, though in the possession of the experience of regeneration and entire sanctification, may fall from grace and apostatize and, unless they repent of their sins, be hopelessly and eternally lost." ~ibid.



Wow. I guess our experiences with the CotN were quite different.

"4. We believe in the plenary inspiration of the Holy Scriptures, by which we understand the 66 books of the Old and New Testaments, given by divine inspiration, inerrantly revealing the will of God concerning us in all things necessary to our salvation, so that whatever is not contained therein is not to be enjoined as an article of faith." ~ibid.



Are you sure you were in a CotN? My superintendent was an old school Nazarene with a "Holiness unto the Lord" bumper sticker.



At least they'll be wearing a dress and their hair in a bun.:tongue3:

Thanks for your post!

As I stated to this person, I have a copy of the Manual, but I didn't cite what you did -- figured it was a waste of time because the individual clearly has an agenda to misrepresent and put a Calvinist spin on it.

 

[drfuss]

Actually I did not screw with any of those statements. They are right from Nazarene authors, pastors, and college professors as I encountered them personally. :wavey: Go ahead an claim otherwise, it won't change the facts a bit.

The Articles of Faith is what the Nazarenes denomination believes. It appears that you talked to some people in the Nazarene church who may have strayed or were confused about what Nazarenes believe. Perhaps you did not understand completely or took something out of context.

Any denomination believes in accordance with their agreed upon statement of faith. There are always some within any denomination that are on the fringe of what the denomination actually believes. Some books are written by members of a denomination, trying to change the statement of faith of their denomination. With the internet available, it is easy to go to their webpage and determine what the denomination actually believes.

 

[Michael Wrenn]

The Articles of Faith is what the Nazarenes denomination believes. It appears that you talked to some people in the Nazarene church who may have strayed or were confused about what Nazarenes believe. Perhaps you did not understand completely or took something out of context.

Any denomination believes in accordance with their agreed upon statement of faith. There are always some within any denomination that are on the fringe of what the denomination actually believes. Some books are written by members of a denomination, trying to change the statement of faith of their denomination. With the internet available, it is easy to go to their webpage and determine what the denomination actually believes.

You are correct, and of course there is some variance in what different members believe, and how the doctrines are interpreted. As I stated elsewhere, Dr. Thomas Oord has come up with a very compelling explanation of holiness.

But the basics are there for anyone to see.

And I stand by my assessment: The Nazarene church is basically a moderately conservative, non-fundamentalist, non-Calvinist, Wesleyan holiness denomination which is typically devoid of extremes and treats men and women equally. They are a very good denomination, in my opinion.

Further, they are very mission-minded and have a concern and outreach to the poor. They seem to be trying to live up to Wesley's and the Bible's definition and practice of love.

 

[steaver]

People keep bringing it up, so I keep responding.

Thanks for reminding me again that Jesus was a Calvinist.

See, you bring Calvin into this again, when I said nothing about Jesus being a Calvinist. You keep telling folks to stop putting words in your mouth, then you put words in people's mouths.

Since OSAS is a Calvinist doctrine, what should I call those who believe it? They are at least part Calvinist.

You could say OSAS is a steaver doctrine for that matter and call everyone who believes this doctrine a steaverist. You have bought into someone's misconception that this doctrine began somehow with Calvin.

I can give you my testimony of how I came to embrace OSAS. About fifteen years ago God called me to repentance from a life of living in the world and placed in me a desire to study His word. I learned of this controversy among believers, that some believed a Christian could lose their salvation and some believed in OSAS. So I set out into the scriptures to find for myself which position was correct. After about six months of study and prayer I settled in on OSAS. Now, I did this BEFORE I ever read anything from this Calvin fellow and without ever reading anything from Calvin I came to my conclusions.

So, I absolutely believe Jesus and His apostles taught eternal security in Christ. That is the conclusion I came to by reading what they wrote and without any help from this man called Calvin. It was only afterwards, when people started calling me a Calvinist that I decided to read some of what this TULIP was all about.

 

[steaver]

My beliefs have some similarly to parts of Arminianism, but I have some significant differences, too, so I don't consider myself Arminian -- maybe part or somewhat Arminian.

Do you hold to any other of the 5 points of Calvinism

Here again, should I call you a 4 point Arminian or however many points it is that you agree with him? Does this make any sense to you? The way I see this is that anyone who fails at any of the 5 TULIP points then they fail to be a Calvinist.

 

[steaver]

I try very hard to keep them at the door but their strategy has changed in the last few years. They used to want to start a bible study with you but they lost so many doing this, that now they are trained to avoid anyone where they get stiff resistance and just zero in on the pigeons.

They had no trained Greek or Hebrew scholars on their translation committee.

This is why I was very surprised this woman was willing to engage with me for such a long time (30 minutes is very long for a JW) . She obviously felt very comfortable in her knowledge of the scriptures, but she didn't know who she was up against :tongue3:. The funny part was when I asked her what she thought about Ephesians 2:8-9 she replied, "I don't think I am familiar with that passage". I told her that I worship Jehovah and she said well people can be decieved and worship Jehovah incorrectly, I said then you could be deceived, and she would laugh and say "Oh no, I am not decieved". So I said how do you know you are not decieved and she said because I read the scriptures, so that brought me right into the New World mistranslation and then she was unable to defend her book.

I believe the best way to get through to a JW is to show them how riddiculus it is to believe in a translation that is for one very recent (only 60 years old) and secondly has no credible scholarly support. You have to get to the root of the problem, wrong book equals wrong beliefs.

 

[Heavenly Pilgrim]

PadreDurand: You'll find folks that think you're going to Hell because you looked at a magazine cover in the grocery store checkout line...

HP: Well, that is not as far out as a book I read that says that one was condemned for eating a piece of fruit.

Are you suggesting that it cannot be sin for one to look at or read something they honestly believe is an affront to common decency and a Holy God? Maybe you are just over stating something that in reality you have never witnessed happening? Why would you throw such a comment out in such a way that would tell one that if in fact they would go to the CotN that they would encounter actions such as you describe? I personally know many attending a CotN for many years and I have never once encountered any such thing happen to them nor suggest that such would occur if I would attend.

 

[padredurand]

HP: Well, that is not as far out as a book I read that says that one was condemned for eating a piece of fruit.

Are you suggesting that it cannot be sin for one to look at or read something they honestly believe is an affront to common decency and a Holy God? Maybe you are just over stating something that in reality you have never witnessed happening? Why would you throw such a comment out in such a way that would tell one that if in fact they would go to the CotN that they would encounter actions such as you describe? I personally know many attending a CotN for many years and I have never once encountered any such thing happen to them nor suggest that such would occur if I would attend.

Hyperbole, HP. I'm sure you understand. :thumbsup:

Do you want some real examples? madre comes from 5 generations of Wesleyans, Free Methodists and Nazarenes and, in spite of my IFB raising served 13 years with the UMC and one with the CotN. Here's a few examples that could potentially lead to a shipwreck of faith: tobacco in any form, alcohol in any form, reading magazines with scantily clad women on the cover, dancing, going to the motion picture theater, card playing, wearing any jewelry including a wedding ring, fancy dresses and short hair on the women folk..... I figure anyone having such a tenuous grip on their salvation should entrust it to someone strong enough to hold on to what He saves.

 

[Heavenly Pilgrim]

PadreDurand: Here's a few examples that could potentially lead to a shipwreck of faith: tobacco in any form, alcohol in any form, reading magazines with scantily clad women on the cover, dancing, going to the motion picture theater, card playing, wearing any jewelry including a wedding ring, fancy dresses and short hair on the women folk..... I figure anyone having such a tenuous grip on their salvation should entrust it to someone strong enough to hold on to what He saves.

HP: First, your last sentence makes no sense to me. Maybe I am just not reading it as I should.

It would appear that I have had contact with numerous individuals and groups that have stronger standards than do the Nazarenes. From everything I can gather, the Nazarenes have lost their testimony on practically every notion you mention above......but according to Scripture, eating a piece of fruit could be potentially danger to ones faith.

Have we forgotten the admonition of Scripture? "Anything not of faith is sin?" or "to him that knoweth to do good and doeth it not, to him it is sin?" I say anyone of the things you mentioned, and a whole lot more, "COULD BE" potential to sin, (depending on individual light and knowledge, or even requirement by God to them personally that may not be required by God in the lives of others) and sin is indeed "potentially" fatal to ones relationship with God.......or have you bought into the OSAS notion as so many have?

 

[padredurand]

HP: First, your last sentence makes no sense to me. Maybe I am just not reading it as I should.

The point I was trying to make - and apparently doing a poor job - is simple. There are some in the Holiness camp that see the potential of a believer to lose their salvation at every turn. It comes across as if a saved person is only saved to the degree the individual is able to conduct themselves in a way that is appropriately holy. Any perception of wrongdoing is grounds to proclaim the individual as lost again thus my comment on the tenuous grip.

Within the Holiness camp are those that hold that an individual's ability to remain saved is dependent on the individual and their appearance of holiness. In my experience I have witnessed folk proclaiming to stand in need of being re-saved because of a perceived failure on their part to maintain a standard of holiness based mainly on the long-standing traditions of the local congregation.

It raises the question that begs an answer: Who does the saving? Is it Jesus and His finished work or is an individual's ability to maintain a prescribed standard of living? In the real world I had to contend with folks who were mean spirited and obstinate but because they neither smoked, drank or played cards were considered in good standing within the church. There were other folks who had by all evidence a genuine conversion experience who were continually discouraged in their walk because their progress toward entire sanctification was deemed too slow.

It often appeared as if one's salvation experience is akin to plucking petals off a daisy, "He loves me. He loves me not. He loves me. He loves me not." I do not believe that to be found anywhere in Scriputure.

 

[steaver]

....... and sin is indeed "potentially" fatal to ones relationship with God.......or have you bought into the OSAS notion as so many have?

I have many debates with you on this topic of OSAS and if my memory serves me right, you held the position that sin could not cause a person to lose their salvation but only chosing to not believe anymore. Have you changed your poisition on this? Can sin void a Christian's salvation in your pov?

 

[steaver]

[/FONT][/COLOR]

The point I was trying to make - and apparently doing a poor job - is simple. There are some in the Holiness camp that see the potential of a believer to lose their salvation at every turn. It comes across as if a saved person is only saved to the degree the individual is able to conduct themselves in a way that is appropriately holy. Any perception of wrongdoing is grounds to proclaim the individual as lost again thus my comment on the tenuous grip.

Within the Holiness camp are those that hold that an individual's ability to remain saved is dependent on the individual and their appearance of holiness. In my experience I have witnessed folk proclaiming to stand in need of being re-saved because of a perceived failure on their part to maintain a standard of holiness based mainly on the long-standing traditions of the local congregation.

It raises the question that begs an answer: Who does the saving? Is it Jesus and His finished work or is an individual's ability to maintain a prescribed standard of living? In the real world I had to contend with folks who were mean spirited and obstinate but because they neither smoked, drank or played cards were considered in good standing within the church. There were other folks who had by all evidence a genuine conversion experience who were continually discouraged in their walk because their progress toward entire sanctification was deemed too slow.

It often appeared as if one's salvation experience is akin to plucking petals off a daisy, "He loves me. He loves me not. He loves me. He loves me not." I do not believe that to be found anywhere in Scriputure.

You hit the nail on the head brother! :thumbsup: This is what happens to those who hold to the pov that one can lose their salvation, they become as you described here, whether they believe so or not, subconsciencly they look down their noses at others while ignoring the person in the mirror.

 

[Heavenly Pilgrim]

Steaver: I have many debates with you on this topic of OSAS and if my memory serves me right, you held the position that sin could not cause a person to lose their salvation but only chosing to not believe anymore. Have you changed your poisition on this? Can sin void a Christian's salvation in your pov?

HP: I have no idea where you got that position from, but it was not from me. As to your last question, sin can indeed affect ones salvation subsequent to a 'salvation experience.'

 

[Heavenly Pilgrim]

PadreDurand, you might be able to find some in the Baptist camp that believe the earth is flat. (Relax all you Baptists. Just as an illustration of a point:thumbsup I personally would not characterize whole movements by the odd notions of some.

I am far more concerned with your views than anyone else's not on this list. Let me ask you. Does sin in the life of a believer have the potential of separating them from God? Do you hold to OSAS? Do you believe one can backslide, and turn their back on God via sin in their life? If so, would they be in need of 'doing their first works over' in order to restore a right relationship with God? If they fail to repent and turn again to God ,is there any hope of salvation for them?

 

[Heavenly Pilgrim]

Steaver: This is what happens to those who hold to the pov that one can lose their salvation, they become as you described here, whether they believe so or not, subconsciencly they look down their noses at others while ignoring the person in the mirror.

HP: Thats right Steaver. If you have no real evidence, just make it up. One thing about putting up your own ducks to shoot at is that the target is not able to defend itself or move.

 

[steaver]

HP: I have no idea where you got that position from, but it was not from me. As to your last question, sin can indeed affect ones salvation subsequent to a 'salvation experience.'

Then Jesus' death was not enough for you. Sad position to hold. For you sin everyday.

 

[steaver]

I am far more concerned with your views than anyone else's not on this list. Let me ask you. Does sin in the life of a believer have the potential of separating them from God? Do you hold to OSAS? Do you believe one can backslide, and turn their back on God via sin in their life? If so, would they be in need of 'doing their first works over' in order to restore a right relationship with God? If they fail to repent and turn again to God ,is there any hope of salvation for them?

Complete lack of understanding regeneration, born-again. Unless one understands this, one will never understand the bible's teaching of OSAS.