Church of the Nazarene vs. Anglican

[Michael Wrenn]

In that case, I would suggest going to the Nazarene church. They reject God's ability to keep His children too.

They define sin as only being the willful breaking of a known law of God. This is counter to what Scripture tells us.
They believe you are not a new creation at salvation but are being made into one.
They believe your free will trumps God's sovereignty.
They do not believe the Bible to be holy or to be God's inerrant Word.
They are embracing the mystics and emergent theology (although some brave souls are still fighting this).
They have women preachers.

You have mischaracterized some positions and are misstated others. Good job!

They reject that God keeps anyone by force or spiritual lobotomy to remove free will.

They believe you are a new creation at salvation, that you are sanctified and being sanctified.

Free will trumps God's sovereignty? No, this is a Calvinist mischaracterization.

They believe in the plenary inspiration of the scriptures but prefer to attribute inerrancy only to God -- as do I. Of course fundies would rather make the Bible an idol and a paper pope.

About the only thing you got right is that they allow women pastors.

 

[Michael Wrenn]

We just have the audacity to take God at His Word and rest in it with confidence in a Father who loves us and keeps us.

What a coincidence; so do I!

But I don't believe He would keep me against my will. I have the freedom to reject what I once received.

 

[DHK]

You, too, huh? Is this a character flaw in those of your position?

What I was speaking to is that Calvinists are so belligerently sure that they and only they are right, that their beliefs and interpretations are the only ones that can be substantiated from scripture, and that everyone else is thus apostate.

Somehow I just believe that there were true Christians before Calvin.

Not everything purported to be Calvinism today is Calvinism. Calvin didn't believe in TULIP, for example. That is an English acronym. Calvin didn't speak English. He lived in Geneva and spoke either Dutch or German. But his books were not originally written in English, so where did TULIP come from.

If you read his commentary on John 3:16 one must come to the conclusion that Calvin did not believe in "limited atonement" and perhaps not even "unconditional election." He certainly believes that Christ died for all that are in the world. He says that very specifically. So those who take the Reformed position today and call themselves Calvinists are really deceiving themselves when they call themselves Calvinists. They should learn what he believes first.

As to eternal security, Calvin certainly believed that, as did most Christians right down to the time of the Apostles. That you would have a hard time proving wrong.

 

[Michael Wrenn]

Not everything purported to be Calvinism today is Calvinism. Calvin didn't believe in TULIP, for example. That is an English acronym. Calvin didn't speak English. He lived in Geneva and spoke either Dutch or German. But his books were not originally written in English, so where did TULIP come from.

If you read his commentary on John 3:16 one must come to the conclusion that Calvin did not believe in "limited atonement" and perhaps not even "unconditional election." He certainly believes that Christ died for all that are in the world. He says that very specifically. So those who take the Reformed position today and call themselves Calvinists are really deceiving themselves when they call themselves Calvinists. They should learn what he believes first.

As to eternal security, Calvin certainly believed that, as did most Christians right down to the time of the Apostles. That you would have a hard time proving wrong.

No, I wouldn't but let's not get into that, please.

Otherwise, thanks for a good post. I mean that.

 

[mont974x4]

You have mischaracterized some positions and are misstated others. Good job!

They reject that God keeps anyone by force or spiritual lobotomy to remove free will.

They believe you are a new creation at salvation, that you are sanctified and being sanctified.

Free will trumps God's sovereignty? No, this is a Calvinist mischaracterization.

They believe in the plenary inspiration of the scriptures but prefer to attribute inerrancy only to God -- as do I. Of course fundies would rather make the Bible an idol and a paper pope.

About the only thing you got right is that they allow women pastors.

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.

 

[Michael Wrenn]

I think the Nazarenes are a god, solid, moderate-conservative church. I think the AMiA is also that, maybe even more conservative than the Nazarenes. I think I could probably fit into both, if I didn't have to accept infant baptism.

I want to stay away from extremes of the right or left.

 

[mont974x4]

What a coincidence; so do I!

But I don't believe He would keep me against my will. I have the freedom to reject what I once received.

And so you have embraced the lie of a god too small to keep his own. God gives His people a new heart and causes them to walk in His ways. He finds His sheep and they know His voice and they follow Him. He loses no one.

 

[Michael Wrenn]

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.

It certainly won't, and I have a copy of the manual to prove it.

You have stated a couple of truths and put a Calvinist spin on everything else.

 

[Michael Wrenn]

And so you have embraced the lie of a god too small to keep his own. God gives His people a new heart and causes them to walk in His ways. He finds His sheep and they know His voice and they follow Him. He loses no one.

More Calvinist spinning and twisting. I bet you'd love the old Chubby Checker song, "The Twist".

 

[Michael Wrenn]

It's sad that everything has to come back to debating OSAS. I wish we could stick to the topic, or at least stop discussing OSAS here.

 

[The Biblicist]

Just curious, why? Was it to help them out of their lost religion? Or was this before you learned they were not Christian?

What did you learn from them? I am always interested in first hand experience for this is how we really know what is being taught by these religions.

It began as an educational process. I wanted to know what they believed. I collected their books and read them. One day a person came to me asking for help. His wife was an ex-JW who had just been saved but neither knew how to deal with their JW friends. I met with them trying to help them understand how to respond to them. Soon the JW's were involved in the Bible study. It had a happy ending, the JW's soon left them alone and they gained personal experience where they could stand on their own with them.

 

[Michael Wrenn]

It began as an educational process. I wanted to know what they believed. I collected their books and read them. One day a person came to me asking for help. His wife was an ex-JW who had just been saved but neither knew how to deal with their JW friends. I met with them trying to help them understand how to respond to them. Soon the JW's were involved in the Bible study. It had a happy ending, the JW's soon left them alone and they gained personal experience where they could stand on their own with them.

From reading another post of yours, I see you have quite a varied background. Would you also mind sharing how you came to embrace the Baptists? I am always interested in people's stories -- how they got from where they were to where they are.

 

[steaver]

It's sad that everything has to come back to debating OSAS. I wish we could stick to the topic, or at least stop discussing OSAS here.

Michael, I believe you are guilty of your own rebuke. From what I have read so far, you have labeled everyone here and around the world who believe in eternal security a Calvinist. It appears to me that you have made Calvinism the topic here. Anyone who supports OSAS in your mind is a Calvinist.

I for one understand OSAS as taught by Jesus and HIs apostles, but I am not a Calvinist. I don't call everyone who does not understand OSAS a Arminian! Why the labeling from you? Are you an Arminian?

 

[steaver]

It began as an educational process. I wanted to know what they believed. I collected their books and read them. One day a person came to me asking for help. His wife was an ex-JW who had just been saved but neither knew how to deal with their JW friends. I met with them trying to help them understand how to respond to them. Soon the JW's were involved in the Bible study. It had a happy ending, the JW's soon left them alone and they gained personal experience where they could stand on their own with them.

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!

 

[glfredrick]

It's sad that everything has to come back to debating OSAS. I wish we could stick to the topic, or at least stop discussing OSAS here.

It is not that everything comes back to debating OSAS, or even debating Calvinism.

Everything comes back to the cursed bloody cross. THAT is what you are trying to avoid.

 

[Michael Wrenn]

Michael, I believe you are guilty of your own rebuke. From what I have read so far, you have labeled everyone here and around the world who believe in eternal security a Calvinist. It appears to me that you have made Calvinism the topic here. Anyone who supports OSAS in your mind is a Calvinist.

I for one understand OSAS as taught by Jesus and HIs apostles, but I am not a Calvinist. I don't call everyone who does not understand OSAS a Arminian! Why the labeling from you? Are you an Arminian?

People keep bringing it up, so I keep responding.

Thanks for reminding me again that Jesus was a Calvinist.

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

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?

 

[Michael Wrenn]

It is not that everything comes back to debating OSAS, or even debating Calvinism.

Everything comes back to the cursed bloody cross. THAT is what you are trying to avoid.

That is an insult and an untruth. I am asking you to stop making false statements about me and my beliefs. I believe in the atonement, or reconciliation, just not the extremist, Calvinist, penal substitution theory of it.

You know all this, so if you intend to keep posting falsehoods and insults, stop responding to me.

 

[glfredrick]

That is an insult and an untruth. I am asking you to stop making false statements about me and my beliefs. I believe in the atonement, or reconciliation, just not the extremist, Calvinist, penal substitution theory of it.

You know all this, so if you intend to keep posting falsehoods and insults, stop responding to me.

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.

 

[padredurand]

In that case, I would suggest going to the Nazarene church. They reject God's ability to keep His children too.

They define sin as only being the willful breaking of a known law of God. This is counter to what Scripture tells us.

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

They believe you are not a new creation at salvation but are being made into one.

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.

They believe your free will trumps God's sovereignty.

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.

They do not believe the Bible to be holy or to be God's inerrant Word.

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.

They are embracing the mystics and emergent theology (although some brave souls are still fighting this).

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

They have women preachers.

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

 

[The Biblicist]

From reading another post of yours, I see you have quite a varied background. Would you also mind sharing how you came to embrace the Baptists? I am always interested in people's stories -- how they got from where they were to where they are.

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.