Monday, February 23, 2009

Another Concerned Nazarene

I am just another concerned Christian that the Church of the Nazarene has become more and more accepting of heretical teachings of the emergent church. I am not alone, I have found other blogs that also are concerned like; Nazarene Psalm 1:13, Reformed Nazarene, and ExNazarene. These courageous men stand up and speak the Truth against the blasphemous teaching of a growing number of so called “educated” theologians and professors in our denomination. A great link that exposes what our colleges are teaching can be found HERE.

Perhaps the devil planted seeds of this problem in our denomination long before the emergent church. I think it started the same way demonic liberalism has crept in to secular schools when the Bible was rejected in our public educational systems. It happened perhaps slower in our Christian schools because we did not remove the Bible, we just simply demoted it to second class under all of our fancy textbooks that contain only the wisdom of men. Our Nazarene colleges fell into temptation of wanting to be accepted by the world and were willing to demote the Bible to a second class book under the textbooks that allowed Nazarene colleges to qualify for accreditation. Right there these colleges put themselves more under the authority of government than the Bible. They may have thought that it was nothing more than a tiny compromise, but look where it has lead.

The Bible should be central in ALL education, it should be read in every class no matter what it is because the Bible is the ultimate authority and is without error on every topic. I even heard one of our colleges were teaching evolution, and this professors wrote a book trying to say that believing in evolution is compatible with the Christian faith. That is out right blasphemy. If evolution were real God would have told us so when He wrote the book of Genesis. Science is the religion of the Devil, and our Nazarene Colleges have decided to worship at it’s alter. I am not saying that science has gotten everything wrong, just where it fails to submit to the authority of the almighty Bible.

Our denomination should be ashamed. Parents send their kids to these colleges so they can learn the Bible and become great Christian witnesses to the world, and these colleges are leading them astray with fake Christianity. One of the other blogs I read said they think as Nazarenes we should stop paying our budgets as a way of protest. That is a bold move, and a Republican and true American I believe that the marketplace is an appropriate place to make such a statement. Going even further though, I think we will make a greater impact on the pocketbook of these ungodly colleges by not sending our kids at all, so they don’t get tuition income. I just do not think we should send our kids to these awful schools and instead we should keep them home and teach them the Bible.

Charles F. Dobson


  1. God wrote the book of Genesis?? Apparently you are not familiar with the concept of canonization. Perhaps one of our fine Nazarene professors could enlighten you.

    Also I'm not sure your idea of a home school college education is very practical. It's hard enough to get a job with a real degree. Unless you are advocating an Amish- type lifestyle you might reconsider your proposal.

  2. NazSchoolGrad,

    I know that God used MOSES to write the book of genesis, but MOSES was writing God's words. He was like God's secretary, taking down the most important memo ever to be given to mankind.

    As far as a different proposal, I'm open to it as long as it is BIBLICAL.

  3. Where in Genesis does it does it say that Moses wrote it? Even by your own standards of what is "biblical" you would be incorrect.

    A majority of Biblical scholarship affirms that Genesis is a collection of multiple sources from different communities during different time periods, hence the two different creation accounts. An appropriate metaphor would be that of a patchwork quilt. These multiple traditions then get blended together at an eve an later date into something closer to the text we have now. Therefore the Genesis text probably didn't exist as a collective whole until the 8th or 9th century BC. Well after the death of Moses.

    Also your idea of a Verbal Dictation type of Inspiration is not coherent with Nazarene doctrine. You might want to consult Article of Faith #4 on the Holy Scriptures in the manual. We Nazarenes believe in Plenary Inspiration.

  4. Article 4 in the manual is not the WORD of God-the Chruch of the Nazarene needs reformation if the manual is not biblical.

  5. You failed to answer my question as to where in the Bible it says Moses wrote Genesis.

    Also where does the Bible make any direct claim to a Verbal Diction Inspiration? If you can't show where the Bible literally says these things then by your own standard aren't they unbiblical?

  6. Deuteronomy 31:9, Deuteronomy 31:24-26, Exodus 24:4, Exodus 34:27, Leviticus 26:46

  7. None of these passages directly state that Moses wrote the book of Genesis. The term "Law" or "Book of the Law" could be referencing any number of things. Nothing within the Scripture defines the term for us. It could be referring simply to the book of Deuteronomy or perhaps only a section of Deuteronomy as some scholars believe.

    The idea of Moses being the author of the whole Pentateuch comes more from the Talmud than from Scripture.

  8. See how confused and mislead all that "education" got you. Before all these "scholars” were around everyone just accepted Moses as the author. “Scripture”, “law”, “Deuteronomy”, are all part of the same thing. But these so called “scholars” show up and start trying to make people doubt and fall away from the Word of God saying how some parts are the Word and other parts are not. And how do they pick which parts? By what they fancy the most then they try and make it sound like it is based on their “scholarship”.

    Listening to scholars when they disagree with the Bible is to listen to the wisdom of men. Just do what the Bible says- come to it like a child- don’t question it- and let the BIBLE save you.

  9. NazSchoolGrad,

    I don't know what you learned in church or Naz school (I went to ENC myself) but let me make clear my position: I rely on God's Word as the ONLY absolutely reliable and final authoritative source for truth.

    Give me some straight answers if you can:

    1. Do you believe that the Bible is the infallible, inerrant Word of God, and that all it teaches and affirms is the truth from God? Yes or No would suffice.

    Have you read these scripture passages, and are they pretty clear to you, or do you think they need some kind of deep thinking and interpretation:

    “All scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness, so that the man of God may be thoroughly equipped for every good work.” 2 Tim 3:16

    “And we also thank God continually because, when you received the word of God, which you heard from us, you accepted it not as the word of men, but as it actually is, the word of God, which is at work in you who believe.”
    1 Thessalonians 1:13

    “For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled.” (Matthew 5:18)

    Shall I go on and give you more scripture?


  10. Charles,

    I don't feel confused. Many biblical scholars (notice I didn't say all) are devout Christian men and women. They aren't trying to destroy the Scripture but to more faithfully understand it within its many contexts. You know, that whole "faith seeking understanding" thing. But what would I know I'm merely the product of liberal brainwashing right???

    Now to your question of picking and choosing. I never said that any part of the scripture was not God's Word. I merely stated that I don't think it originated in the way you think it did. That in no way makes it any less the Word of God.

    And now a question for you. As prescribed in Deut 21:18-21 do support the stoning of insubordinate children? Would you do that to your own children?? If you answer No then aren't you guilty of picking and choosing which parts of scripture are authoritative?

    What about a New Testament example. You are a self proclaiming Republican which I am guessing makes you pro-death penalty? If this is true how do you deal with Matthew 5 38-48, or the 10 Commandments for that matter? By supporting state sponsored execution are you not saying that these scriptures are not authoritative for your life.

    We all pick and choose.


    Thanks for clarifying your position. I would love to provide you with some answers.

    #1. No I do not believe scripture is inerrant or infallible, and neither does the Church of the Nazarene. I do believe it is the Word of God though. Again I direct you and Charles to the Articles of Faith of the Church of the Nazarene. If your Nazarene Churches don't own them I would be more than happy to send you a copy. Biblical inerrancy has never been a tenant of Nazarene doctrine. Why do you insist on turning us into Baptists?

    I have read the scripture you mention many times and it seems pretty clear to me than none of them specifically mention inerrancy. "God-breathed" is not synonymous with inerrancy or infallibility. Also in your last reference to Matthew Jesus is talking about the Torah not the O.T. or the N.T.

    As far as biblical interpretation goes I do not think that it is always possible to glean the meaning of a particular text from just from reading it. The Bible was written within specific socio-political contexts and these contexts are critical to understanding it's meaning.

    Give me as many Scriptures as you want but none of them will literally state that the Bible is inerrant.

  11. NazSchoolgrad

    So... you don't believe in the Trinity either?
    That's not literally mentioned in the scriptures either! But the scriptures affirm the Trinity. So your argument about no mention of inerrancy is useless. Yet you say, the Bible is God's Word, BUT it's not infallible. So God is fallible? That is the logical conclusion.

    My friend, you have common sense, and you should be able to easily understand what the Bible says. And if the Church of the Nazarene truly does not believe in its inerrancy, perhaps I need to move on.
    My allegiance is to Jesus Christ, not a church manual!

    I'm sorry, but I'm hearing from you, the same old tired arguments that I hear from the new age and emergent types, including clearly taking the scripture out of context, including your Old Testmane example. And as far as capital punishment, yes I support this punishment when appropriate for the one who is guilty of MURDER, which is what the meaning is in the Ten Commendments (not self defense). And yes, I am opposed to the MURDER of innocent unborn babies.

    And finally, sadly, I do think you speak like a brainwashed liberal. And liberalism has done a lot of harm to our churches and Christian institutions.

    P.S. to Chuck... I am not able to post a comment on your new article. ?? not sure why is that.

  12. NazSchoolgrad

    So... you don't believe in the Trinity either?
    That's not literally mentioned in the scriptures either! But the scriptures affirm the Trinity. So your argument about no mention of inerrancy is useless. Yet you say, the Bible is God's Word, BUT it's not infallible. So God is fallible? That is the logical conclusion.

    My friend, you have common sense, and you should be able to easily understand what the Bible says. And if the Church of the Nazarene truly does not believe in its inerrancy, perhaps I need to move on.
    My allegiance is to Jesus Christ, not a church manual!

    I'm sorry, but I'm hearing from you, the same old tired arguments that I hear from the new age and emergent types, including clearly taking the scripture out of context, including your Old Testmane example. And as far as capital punishment, yes I support this punishment when appropriate for the one who is guilty of MURDER, which is what the meaning is in the Ten Commendments (not self defense). And yes, I am opposed to the MURDER of innocent unborn babies.

    And finally, sadly, I do think you speak like a brainwashed liberal. And liberalism has done a lot of harm to our churches and Christian institutions.

    P.S. to Chuck... I am not able to post a comment on your new article. ?? not sure why is that.

  13. Manny,

    I do believe in the Trinity. I was merely trying to point out the fallacy in your logic. And I'm pretty sure I made my point that people like you say you believe in a literal interpretation yet still affirm things that aren't literally mentioned. It seems you and I are not so different.

    Why are you a Nazarene? Why did you become a Nazarene without researching or doing some checking into our background and doctrine? If you can't square yourself with some of the historical Nazarene positions then I wish you would just move on. Go find a nice Baptist or Reformed Church where your ideas are affirmed and leave us to be who we are.

    As far as being a liberal, that term has never bothered me much. If being a liberal means being educated and having more than a Sunday School based understanding of my faith than I will claim that label with honor.

  14. Nazgrad,
    So again, why do you believe in the Trinity? It is not mentioned in the Bible. That was my point about you saying that inerrant is not mentioned. We come to the conclusion about the Trinity because that is what the Bible teaches. We use Trinity to describe it. We also come to the conclusion that the Bible is inerrant, because that is what it teaches, and if the Bible itself says it is the Word of God, are you then going to say that the Word of God is in error?
    As far as me being Nazarene, I was born Nazarene of parents who ministered for over 60 years, and believe me, my father did not need any of these practices that are going on now, and he would never accept the contention that the Bible is in error.

    Unfortunately, I am fighting within my Nazarene denomination something that is absolutely unacceptable. Sorry you don't see it that way.

  15. Manny,

    You are right about Trinity. The Bible does seem to bear witness towards the notion of God as triune, however the doctrine isn't based solely on scripture but also on tradition. Still, I don't believe the Bible bears witness in any form or fashion to a doctrine of inerrancy. On this point I suppose we will have to agree to disagree. I don't see either of us conceding.

    I in fact would say that the Bible contains errors. Again something we will never agree on. Lucky for me the Church of the Nazarene is okay with my view and doesn't feel like it compromises the validity or authority of Scripture.

    I'm sorry that in your many years of being a Nazarene no one actually taught you what Nazarenes believe.

    Good luck with your fight. I hope you get a jewel in your crown.

  16. "Seem" to bear witness? As far as tradition, that is irrelevant unless it is supported by scripture! Since it is, then it is solid doctrine! And please, read the Bible, and you will find much evidence supporting its inerrancy!

    I think this "conversation" is getting nowhere. And I learned a lot through my years as a Nazarene, and regardless of whether I agree with everything the Nazarene church has in its manual, the Bible is the final authority. What Nazarenes believe is not as important as what the Bible teaches, and what Christians believe, Nazarene or otherwise!

    I don't think any denomination in the world has absolutely everything nailed down perfectly in their manual; but in the essentials, there should be no compromise. I'm sorry you do not see the contradiction you have, saying the Bible is God's Word, yet we cannot rely on it, which you imply since you don't believe it is inerrant. If the Nazarene church manual says that, then I will push for reform and try to get that statement changed.

    I'm done with this. Too many dead ends.

    You are on my prayer list, and I truly mean that.


  17. Manny,

    I agree this is going nowhere. Not that I ever really thought it would. Please at least do me the favor of actually going to the manual to read Article of Faith #4. If you feel like starting a crusade after that then so be it, but at least know what you're talking about. Good luck getting it changed.

    Thanks for the prayers.

  18. NazSchoolGrad, Here it is.

    IV. The Holy Scriptures

    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.

    (Luke 24:44-47; John 10:35; 1 Corinthians 15:3-4; 2 Timothy 3:15-17; 1 Peter 1:10-12; 2 Peter 1:20-21)

  19. As you can see it only affirms inerrancy is areas concerning "our salvation." Anything else is up for grabs.

  20. Sorry

    What I meant to say was,

    As you can see it only affirms inerrancy in areas concerning "our salvation." Anything else is up for grabs.

  21. That's what the manual says... and it needs to be corrected. The Bible does not affirm that specific statement about "only matters of salvation". The Bible affirms that it is the Word of God.

  22. Well good luck getting it changed.

  23. Thanks. If it can't be changed or clarified, no problem, I still believe what the Bible teaches, that it is the Word of God, and since it is, it is sufficient for answers to everything, not just salvation matters.
    I was in a conversation with my pastor recently when he mentioned that phrase, and I plead guilty for not remembering that it was right out of the manual. So my natural reaction in my mind was, "says who?" that it's only for matters of salvation. You see what I mean? I don't think that statement is backed up by scripture! So I do believe it has to be thrown out. It should really say that the Bible is inerrant in everything it teaches or affirms, otherwise God is assumed to have made mistakes when He inspired the writers.

    So anyway, NazGrad, thanks for your opinions on this. If you respond, I don't mind if you have the last word on this. That's basically my last thought on it; not trying to duel with you forever on this.
    Take care.

  24. I just don't think the statement needs backed up by Scripture. The Article of Faith is a lens through which to look at Scripture. It gives one an interpretive framework. Your lens of inerrancy is no more supported by Scripture than the Nazarene lens.

  25. NazGrad, Hmmm, I implied I might give you the last word... maybe one more time.

    Again I stand by my statements that the Bible proves by itself that it is inerrant... read the scriptures. The Article of Faith is not the Bible; the Bible speaks plainly in almost every instance (parts of Revelation comes to mind of the few areas that are not easily interpreted). Our lens should be the reading and receiving of God's Word, and if the articles of Faith accurately reflect God's Word, great! If not, change it to reflect it without ambiguity.

  26. Manny,

    I didn't think you actually would. You enjoy this too much.

    First of all the Bible does not speak plainly in many circumstances. It contains multiple ambiguities. Just try to reconcile the vindictive Yahweh with the forgiving Christ.

    And again I don't believe inerrancy is supported by Scripture based on the reasons I have already posted. Please realize, as we continue our discussion, that I don't accept your premise, and I won't no matter how many more times you state it.

    Secondly, it is impossible to read and receive God's Word (or any text for that matter) in any sort of objective manner. We are always reading into the text our culturally conditioned biases. Therefore the Bible cannot be the lens through which we read the Bible. That notion is nonsensical. These biases (or lenses) mean that all understandings of scripture are subjective. Hence the very reason you read the text and think it affirms inerrancy while I read the same text and come to the opposite conclusion.

  27. NazSchoolGrad,
    "I am the way, the truth, and the life; no man comes to the Father except through me."

    How do you read this text? Are there multiple ways of "translating this?" The Bible is plainly read in most instances, no matter what "cultural" lens you are coming from. And I do believe that you should read in the context of all the other Bible text, not in the context of your cultural experiences.

    We have a logical brain that God gave us. If the Bible over and over claims that it is the Word of God, how can the Word of God not be inerrant. That would make it unreliable. Is God's Word unreliable?

  28. Manny,

    I knew you couldn't leave this alone.

    Why do you insist on linking the term Word of God with inerrancy? What is your rationale for doing so? The former does not necessarily imply the later, nor does Scripture affirm it. In fact you prove my point about cultural lenses. You read inerrancy into the the term Word of God because that is how you have been culturally conditioned to understand it.

    I would argue that the term Word of God as it is used in John 1 is not referring to the Bible but to Jesus Christ. Jesus is the true Word of God and the full revelation of God's self. The book simply tries to bear witness to this fact. Sometimes it does a good job at this task and sometimes it doesn't.

    This is the cultural lens through which I read the text. It doesn't make it any less authoritative or useful than your lens does.

    P.S. Charles, why don't you talk to me anymore!!

  29. You did not answer my question about John 14:6. Just trying to understand how you read that.

    You are reading incorrectly. If the Word of God IS the Word of God, as scripture does say
    (1 Thess 1:13) then how can it NOT be inerrant?
    That is my rationale. No cultural conditioning here; you are implying that God is imperfect if His Word is not perfect and inerrant!
    Your cultural lens has nothing to do with the following verse that says:

    “And we also thank God continually because, when you received the word of God, which you heard from us, you accepted it not as the word of men, but as it actually is, the word of God, which is at work in you who believe.” 1 Thessalonians 1:13

    How do you "translate" that?

    It is obvious! You cannot argue that this verse can have multiple meanings. It says, that what Paul sent, was actually the Word of God!

    As far as Charles, maybe he's taking a break, because I'm going crazy here with the obvious stuff that you don't see! :-)

    When I've had enough, maybe he'll take over. :-)


  30. NazSchoolGrad,

    Here's another question I meant to put in the loast post, which I think could be a Yes or No:

    Do you agree or disagree with this:

    "The Bible is the inspired Word of God, and is the only basis for truth within the Christian church."

  31. Manny,

    I did not answer your question about John 14:6 because I don't understand how it is relevant to the discussion. I think you are just trying to bait me into saying I believe there are paths to God other than Jesus so that you can nail me on it.

    As far as Thessalonians 1:13 goes I think your translation is fine. Still I do not see how it implies inerrancy. It states that the author feels his previous message to the Thessalonian community was the Word of God. How does that affirms inerrancy??

    You are reading a doctrine into the text that is not directly expressed by the author. In other words you are reading Scripture through your cultural lens.

    Also I have never implied that God is imperfect. Only that human beings and their systems of language have been imperfect at times of fully capturing and conveying the divine revelation of God

  32. I suppose I would "nail you on it", if you said otherwise! It is relevant only to establish how you read the scriptures. Sure, some scripture, like some of the Revelations text, is hard to pin down completely as to what they mean, but otherwise, most scripture is plainly read and therefore plainly understood.

    That's the point. There is no other logical conclusion from reading the statement than: Jesus IS the ONLY way to the Father.

    For the last time, I will state that scripture, both Old and New Testaments, has ample references that testify to the inerrancy and reliability of God's Word. Perhaps I will post a blog someday with a fuller exposition on that.


  33. Manny,

    There is no other logical conclusion for reading John 14:6 based on your particular lens. However someone with a different lens could easily find another way of reading it. You won't accept it as true, but they probably wouldn't accept your reading either.

    You are going to have to use something better than the "Bible says so" to convince me it supports a doctrine of inerrancy. You can't use the Bible to validate the Bible. It's like using the word you are attempting to define in your definition. It's not really helpful or intelligent.

    Also I would assume this post probably answers your Yes/No question.

  34. NazSchoolGrad,

    This could be a little longer, call it my closing statement to you, because I have said all I think I could say to you. IF YOU CAN’T TRUST IN THE BIBLE, WHAT CAN YOU PUT YOUR TRUST IN?

    My "Lens" has nothing to do with John 14:6. It is plainly stated and has no other meaning!

    1. You apparently don't have anything to rely on as your source for truth, except perhaps your own opinion, based on your cultural influences and personal experience, which is open to much subjectivity and possible error; that opens things up for each individual to "interpret" John 14:6, which is plainly stated by Jesus.

    2. You reject Jesus' very words, that He is the Way, the Truth, and the Life, as plainly said. There can be no other meaning from that, no matter how you argue it. So my conclusion is you either are not sure Jesus is the only Way, or you reject that and wish not to admit it.

    3. The Bible itself validates itself, because of what it says about itself! Please try to read it without bringing any cultural bias in; you can read it plainly in almost every verse.

    4. You sound just like McLaren, Jones, Bell, Pagitt, and all the others who defy the authority of scripture; who imply that everything in the Bible is up for re-interpretation using your own "lens"; who suggest that the Bible is ever- changing based on culture and personal experience; who have not, as far as I have read, testified to their own repentance from sin and turning to Jesus Christ.
    These people think they are the new enlightened ones; instead of relying on the scriptures, they make up their own theology as they go and question the Bible.

    I have no idea how someone can claim to be a Christian, then turns around and says, we cannot know for sure what the Bible means. It is mind-boggling how so many are being deceived in this way. If you have no certainty as to the reliability of the scriptures, what is left? I’ll tell you: what is left is man’s own imagination, reason, and personal desires and hopes as to what a Christian should be and is defined as. That leaves it open for everyone to have their own personal version of Jesus Christ.

    My friend, there is only one true Jesus Christ, and He is plainly revealed to us in the scriptures. I hope someday you find Him, because you will not find Him by using your own reasoning and personal experience; you will find Him by reading His Word and allowing the Holy Spirit to guide you into truth.

    With that, I will finish my discourse with you and sincerely put you on my prayer list, along with the others I have talked to who seem to share your perspective. Thanks for at least being civil and not being rude and condescending as others have been.


    "Galatians 1:6-10 I am astonished that you are so quickly deserting the one who called you by the grace of Christ and are turning to a different gospel— which is really no gospel at all. Evidently some people are throwing you into confusion and are trying to pervert the gospel of Christ. But even if we or an angel from heaven should preach a gospel other than the one we preached to you, let him be eternally condemned! As we have already said, so now I say again: If anybody is preaching to you a gospel other than what you accepted, let him be eternally condemned! Am I now trying to win the approval of men, or of God? Or am I trying to please men? If I were still trying to please men, I would not be a servant of Christ."

  35. Manny,

    1. I have lots of things to rely on as sources of truth. None of them would fit on your pre approved list though. In addition to Scripture truth can be found in experience, reason, art, and science to name a few, and is discerned through conversation, community, and my tradition (lens). Limiting truth to one source is dangerous. If you don't believe me just look at church history. Things (even good things) tend to become demonic when they are absolutized.

    2. I do not reject the claim of John 14:6. Not subscribing to your understanding of Scripture does not mean I reject the words of Christ. I merely pointed out that other traditions may be able to find different ways to read that verse. I never said I affirmed a different reading just that it was possible.

    3. As I have stated before it is impossible to read the Bible without a cultural bias. Though you don't see it your doctrinal position are actually cultural biases, as are mine.

    4. I think the men you speak of would agree with what I just stated above. Therefore they are trying to be humble and honest about the fact that everyone reads their biases into Scripture. I don't believe they are denying the Scriptures authority as I have heard all the speak of using the Scripture as a guide for their respective communities. They may use it differently than you but that does make them wrong. At least it doesn't make them any more wrong than you may be.

    Finally I have a real problem with you questioning my Christianity. I love how you and all your friends always use that as your trump card. Just because I don't agree with your doctrinal positions I don't know Christ. I'll have you know that I have been a Christian for 16 years. I grew up in the Church of the Nazarene where I was saved and baptized. I spent four years studying theology at one of our schools and am now in full time professional ministry. Next year the Church of the Nazarene will ordain me as a elder. They seem to be okay with my faith.

    I don't mind disagreement and civil discussion but when you start attacking my commitment to Christ you have crossed the line.

  36. NazSchoolGrad,

    I did not intend to make it seem that I questioned YOUR commitment; I did not. So rest assured, I would not and did not; sorry if you took it that way, my friend.

    I was really just asking a general question, and I always ask this sincerely... how can someone claim to be a Christian who also questions the authority of the Bible? Simple enough, it's a difficult thing for me to fathom. What kind of certainty would that person have?

    You are to be ordained soon, and I congratulate you. If someone in your church someday thinks there are other ways to God, what would you say, as their pastor?

    I read other sources for truth, and even consider experience and tradition, but I always in the final analysis compare them to what the scriptures say. It is sometimes very dangerous to rely on experience, emotions, and cultural history, because they are susceptible to be flawed and in error! You must at least admit that. On the other hand, the sole authority that is ALWAYS reliable is the Bible.

    As far as McLaren and the rest, I could show many, many statements by them (see my blog) that clearly show a disdain for the Bible and what it plainly teaches. I don't need to expound at great length on that here. They clearly hold their own "wise" opinions high above scripture, and cause many peopel to doubt what the Bible clearly teaches:

    Mclaren: let's have a 5-00 year moratorium on the question of homosexuality", or "its possible that one can follow Jesus and stay within their own religion" (paraphrasing, but accurate)
    Tony Jones: says that homosexuality is okay and no problem for Christians, and he denies original sin is real
    Rob Bell: claims among other things that Jesus chided Peter for not having faith in Peter, when it obviously meant Jesus. There is much more that I cannot get into, but you just have to read or hear what he says.

    I could go on and on. The bottom line: The disrespect the Bible and only pretend to be humble about it, so that they can insert whatever meaning they want into the scriptures.
    Unless you don't know them, I can't believe you seem to hold their teachings in such high regard.

    Finally, limiting truth to one source is dangerous? For me, we can have many sources; my only point is, and please listen, there is ONLY ONE, ABSOLUTELY, 100% OF THE TIME, FINAL AUTHORITY AND RELIABLE SOURCE... THE BIBLE! God's Word which He gave to us.



  37. I'm late to this discussion, but I thought I'd share that I believe the Church of the Nazarene's approach to Scripture is eminently biblical, because it looks to the Bible itself to say what the Bible is for, rather than making claims about it that Scripture itself doesn't make.

    Some examples?

    2 Tim. 3:16-17 was already quoted earlier. It tells us that the Bible is useful in at least 4 ways, all so that we can be fully equipped for every good work.

    Luke 1:4 says Luke wrote his gospel so Theophilus (maybe a reference to any "lover of God") may know the certainty of what he was taught. He doesn't claim to be an eyewitness to the events or to be simply dictating what God said, but specifically says in 1:3 that he has carefully investigated the matter.

    1 John 1:3-4 says he's writing so that they may enjoy fellowship together with the Father and the Son and experience the fullness of joy. In 1 John 2:1 he says he's writing these things so that his hearers will not sin.

    2 Tim. 3:15 says that the Scriptures "are able to make you wise for salvation through faith which is in Christ Jesus."

    The Manual statement actually sounds remarkably similar to that last one, doesn't it?

    The Church of the Nazarene seems to have decided from the start to stay out of as many arguments as possible, and it looks like this is one of them. Our statement on Scripture is one of the reasons I'm glad to be an ordained elder serving as a local church pastor in the Church of the Nazarene.

    I'm also glad that I grew up in the home of a Nazarene pastor. My grandparents were Nazarene. I've been soaking in it my entire life. :)

  38. reformednazarene...

    This conversation blows my mind.

    Attack and then retraction, just nonsense.
    "I hope someday you find Him (Jesus)"
    and then
    "I did not intend to make it seem that I questioned YOUR commitment; I did not."

    Why is the Bible being made God here?


    How about God? The Bible is not God. No matter how you translate or intepret it.

    Good luck with whatever you are driving at here. It seems to be just argumentative and categorizing others based on your own understanding of anyone who tries to discuss things that don't come from your own mouth. Not everyone who disagrees with YOU is Emergent, a non-Christian, or wrong. It is irresponsible to not know where the Bible came from and its purpose, and then uphold it like it is our Creator.

    God bless you in spite of yourself.

  39. 請你這一次不要再刪
    跨宗教 跨領域
    Blogger 未分類文章 提到...

    *Weiss 前世今生來生緣



    * 於 March 12, 2009 02:46 AM 回應






    蔡昀叡?"! 靈修

    2009年3月11日 下午 12:04

  40. NazSchoolGrad said "The idea of Moses being the author of the whole Pentateuch comes more from the Talmud than from Scripture."

    Typical of a Naz School Graduates. A complete biblical infidel.

    Heb 7:14 For it is evident that our Lord sprang out of Juda; of which tribe Moses spake nothing concerning priesthood.

    The writer of Hebrews had no bones about Moses being the author of Genesis speaking about Melchisedec.

    Joh 5:46 For had ye believed Moses, ye would have believed me: for he wrote of me.

    Joh 5:47 But if ye believe not his writings, how shall ye believe my words?

    Again the Nazarene Church is producing 1st class infidels and Biblical Blockheads!

    These verses are only the tip of the Iceberg, NazSchoolGrad needs to go to school.