Church of the Nazarene vs. Anglican

[Michael Wrenn]

I would offer that you have probably studied what appealed to you based on your several a priori presuppositions, and what you have studied only leads you deeper into the abyss.

When I read some of your stuff I realize that you are a reasonable seeker and that you are also a very human individual who hopes to love in faith, worship God, etc., and yet you take up positions that are completely antithetical to the Scriptures from beginning to end. That seems incoherent and inconsistent. It seems like your study has led you down roads where persons take up and disagree with mainstream belief in the Christian realm. It seems that you have furthered those beliefs with further study in that same direction, as if once your path was set you could not or would not veer off to see another direction, and so you now find yourself a man without a church BECAUSE NONE ARE RIGHT ENOUGH. What a travesty, when God has given His own Son who WILL BUILD HIS CHURCH.

Somehow, with your efforts at study, you have turned 180* what actually happened and what was actually held as doctrine.

Actually, I have experienced and studied enough that my beliefs are not narrow enough to fit into some places who base and define their entire system on a couple of narrow points of view. Another instance of that: I believe that all the gifts of the spirit are for today, but I don't believe the very narrow interpretation and requirement that the Pentecostals put on them, especially one of them. And I like the Nazarenes, but their reason for being seems to be entire sanctification.

The abyss? No, that is what I climbed out of, into the clear air of God's Spirit.

Antithetical to the scriptures? You mean my belief in the teachings of the Apostles Creed and the Nicene Creed, the statements that all orthodox Christians believe?

No, what I have done is strip away narrowness and extremes, and Calvinism. I stand on quite firm and solid ground. My views are basically moderate Baptist/Anabaptist, and Celtic. Jesus is my personal Savior, and I depend on Him to get to heaven.

 

[DaChaser1]

Actually, I have experienced and studied enough that my beliefs are not narrow enough to fit into some places who base and define their entire system on a couple of narrow points of view. Another instance of that: I believe that all the gifts of the spirit are for today, but I don't believe the very narrow interpretation and requirement that the Pentecostals put on them, especially one of them. And I like the Nazarenes, but their reason for being seems to be entire sanctification.

The abyss? No, that is what I climbed out of, into the clear air of God's Spirit.

Antithetical to the scriptures? You mean my belief in the teachings of the Apostles Creed and the Nicene Creed, the statements that all orthodox Christians believe?

No, what I have done is strip away narrowness and extremes, and Calvinism. I stand on quite firm and solid ground. My views are basically moderate Baptist/Anabaptist, and Celtic. Jesus is my personal Savior, and I depend on Him to get to heaven.

remember creeds NOT inspired, and that the Gifts of the Spirit today are NOT revelatory in nature, as they once were as in the Book of Acts!

 

[Michael Wrenn]

remember creeds NOT inspired, and that the Gifts of the Spirit today are NOT revelatory in nature, as they once were as in the Book of Acts!

I understand about creeds. I just believe that the creeds I mentioned teach what is in the Bible. They are a short summary of the Christian faith.

 

[glfredrick]

Michael, you certainly come off with some of your statements as if you are so far into left field that you could not possibly undertand much of the history of theology, the church, or the Bible.

Why that is, I'm not sure -- but perhaps your open-minded stance has not benefited you as much as you would like to think.

And, as far as accusing the rest of us of being narrow-minded, perhaps, but I've already demonstrated that I have as much a background as you, and probably am advanced in my studies over you. All that and a couple of bucks will get you a cup of coffee somewhere at a gas station these days. But in any case, there is a DELIBERATE narrowing of the mind to the path of orthodoxy -- and that is where most of us walk -- not because we are too narrow-minded to know other paths, but rather because we are too concerned with what God says via the ENTIRE revelation so as to not go off exploring where we ought not. Hope you get the allusion...

 

[DaChaser1]

Michael, you certainly come off with some of your statements as if you are so far into left field that you could not possibly undertand much of the history of theology, the church, or the Bible.

Why that is, I'm not sure -- but perhaps your open-minded stance has not benefited you as much as you would like to think.

And, as far as accusing the rest of us of being narrow-minded, perhaps, but I've already demonstrated that I have as much a background as you, and probably am advanced in my studies over you. All that and a couple of bucks will get you a cup of coffee somewhere at a gas station these days. But in any case, there is a DELIBERATE narrowing of the mind to the path of orthodoxy -- and that is where most of us walk -- not because we are too narrow-minded to know other paths, but rather because we are too concerned with what God says via the ENTIRE revelation so as to not go off exploring where we ought not. Hope you get the allusion...

that usually is red letter that someone does not want to think that God would be "unfair" with salvation, as some of His critics have suggested here on BB!

 

[steaver]

I just turned 57.

I'm not sure if I ever turned completely away from God. When I was about 20, I began to question everything, and this went on for three years or so. I became an agnostic briefly -- or so I thought. Maybe, though, I was just rejecting the Calvinist concept of God. What brought me back was my discovery of the original Quakerism of George Fox. And then I remember watching the movie, Jesus of Nazareth, starring Robert Powell; that movie made Jesus real to me in a way that He hadn't been in a long time.

So, was I ever lost during that time? I can't say for sure. I don't know if I ever went through a conscious willful rejection of Jesus; looking back now, I don't believe I did. I know it makes no sense to say I was an agnostic, but then say what I just did, but somehow I think I more so rejected the concept of God and Christ that I had, rather than the real Jesus Himself.

Hope that answers your question in some way.

I would venture to say that what brought you back was the power of God. I enjoyed the testimony, thank you! :thumbs:

What I have found with the anti-osas posters on this board is that none of them have a personal testimony of how they had been saved and then became lost and then became born-again-again. You personally have been saved for at least 50 years and your testimony fits perfectly with the OSAS doctrine. Yet somehow you cannot see that it is God who has kept you saved and is keeping you saved, even when you doubted and your mind questioned your heart.

Thanks again for the testimony! :thumbs:

 

[Michael Wrenn]

Michael, you certainly come off with some of your statements as if you are so far into left field that you could not possibly undertand much of the history of theology, the church, or the Bible.

Why that is, I'm not sure -- but perhaps your open-minded stance has not benefited you as much as you would like to think.

And, as far as accusing the rest of us of being narrow-minded, perhaps, but I've already demonstrated that I have as much a background as you, and probably am advanced in my studies over you. All that and a couple of bucks will get you a cup of coffee somewhere at a gas station these days. But in any case, there is a DELIBERATE narrowing of the mind to the path of orthodoxy -- and that is where most of us walk -- not because we are too narrow-minded to know other paths, but rather because we are too concerned with what God says via the ENTIRE revelation so as to not go off exploring where we ought not. Hope you get the allusion...

(See bolded): I was not doing that. I never applied that to anyone here. What I was referring to was mainly those who build their theological system on one thing -- doctrine, practice, emphasis, etc. For instance, that speaking in tongues was, is, and must be the only initial evidence of the baptism with the Holy spirit.

 

[Michael Wrenn]

I would venture to say that what brought you back was the power of God. I enjoyed the testimony, thank you! :thumbs:

What I have found with the anti-osas posters on this board is that none of them have a personal testimony of how they had been saved and then became lost and then became born-again-again. You personally have been saved for at least 50 years and your testimony fits perfectly with the OSAS doctrine. Yet somehow you cannot see that it is God who has kept you saved and is keeping you saved, even when you doubted and your mind questioned your heart.

Thanks again for the testimony! :thumbs:

You are quite welcome.

 

[glfredrick]

(See bolded): I was not doing that. I never applied that to anyone here. What I was referring to was mainly those who build their theological system on one thing -- doctrine, practice, emphasis, etc. For instance, that speaking in tongues was, is, and must be the only initial evidence of the baptism with the Holy spirit.

Oh, come on now... You are writing to US, here on the board, not some one out there somewhere.

You have made reference to the narrow-minded thing in at least three threads that come to mind, and when called on it, you again backpeddle.

And, I'll call you on one other thing as well. What ELSE would you build your theological system on besides doctrine? Do you have some insight that the rest of us are ignorant of? Speak up!

 

[Michael Wrenn]

Oh, come on now... You are writing to US, here on the board, not some one out there somewhere.

You have made reference to the narrow-minded thing in at least three threads that come to mind, and when called on it, you again backpeddle.

And, I'll call you on one other thing as well. What ELSE would you build your theological system on besides doctrine? Do you have some insight that the rest of us are ignorant of? Speak up!

Writing to you, but not about you in that post -- and you should know that based on the post. Stop accusing me of doing something I wasn't. if I want to address something to someone specifically, I'll do it, and you know that, too.

On the last bolded part -- What are you talking about!?

 

[The Biblicist]

Writing to you, but not about you in that post -- and you should know that based on the post. Stop accusing me of doing something I wasn't. if I want to address something to someone specifically, I'll do it, and you know that, too.

On the last bolded part -- What are you talking about!?

Explicit biblical precepts and principles supported by Biblical examples is what doctrine is established on. Doctrine is not established on subjective experiences. Subjective experiences, like Biblical examples can be used to support doctrine but not to establish doctrine. Doctrine must be established upon the objective Word of God in spite of subjective experiences or so says Isaiah (Isa. 8:19-20).

 

[Michael Wrenn]

I think I've finally decided where I will attend church, and this is how I decided: I have come to the conclusion that being a moderate non-Calvinist does not mean that I could be a Nazarene or Anglican, or Presbyterian, etc. Why? Because I hold to the core Baptist principles. I talked to Nazarene officials, and they told me that a person who believes in OSAS wouldn't fit in the Nazarene church, and they expected ministers to have been entirely sanctified. A superintendent did tell me that the experience could be interpreted as cleansing or surrender of self-will.

Then I talked to a pastor of a small Baptist church near me. He told me I didn't have to believe in OSAS to join his church. And he said that while he didn't believe in women pastors, that he was an evangelist and worked frequently with Nazarene and Methodist women pastors. He told me he knew people who said they would walk out of a service held by a woman pastor, but he said he wouldn't go that far.

So, the Nazarenes would have me declare acceptance of and belief in entire sanctification, the doctrine of the Nazarene church, and would expect me to not hold to OSAS. But the Baptist church would only ask if I accepted Jesus as my Savior and wished to be a part of that church. I could believe in OSAS or not. I would not have to declare allegiance to the BF&M 2000 or any other statement of faith.

So, I believe I'll be attending this little SBC church and maintaining my affiliation with the CBF.

Thanks for all feedback on this thread.