J. Grant Swank, Jr.
NazNet Site Manager Scott Cundiff still chooses to question whether the Bible is totally reliable as the infallible Word of God.
Site founder and moderator Dave McClung must be confused as well for he has been appealed to to stand alongside the Bible as the Word of God that can be trusted from Genesis to Revelation.
However, McClung continues to foster questions and doubts about the Word of God.
Staff Hans Deventer joins in with the same stanza.
Yet NazNet states on its site that is the friend to the Church of the Nazarene. Not so.
The Protestant evangelical denomination stands with those who witness to the Word of God being absolutely reliable as divine revelation.
Once one thread is pulled from this stance, the whole Bible can be unwoven.
I know. I was a divinity student at Harvard Divinity School. I saw what theologians can do to pull all threads from the Word of God. The end result is Unitarianism, where I was seated as a young
ministerial student.
I know how dangerous that unbiblical journey can become.
Yet NazNet applauds it.
The Church of the Nazarene General Superintendents have been informed of this but seem not to be doing anything about it and its relationship to the site.
This is a travesty.
Read NAZNET STAFF HANS DEVENTER CONFUSED ABOUT ‘INTERMEDIATE STATE’? at http://naznetdistorts.blogspot.com/2009/12/naznet-staff-hans-deventer-confused.html
Read NAZNET CONTINUES TO ESPOUSE HELL AS ANNIHILATION at http://naznetdistorts.blogspot.com/2009/12/naznet-continues-to-espouse-hell-as.html
Wednesday, December 23, 2009
NAZNET CONTINUES TO ESPOUSE HELL AS ANNIHILATION
J. Grant Swank, Jr.
“I agree, no part of us is immortal. That is why I believe that hell is annihilation and immortality is conditional.”
That is what Hans Deventer, NazNet staffer, continues to state on this site that claims to be a friend of the Church of the Nazarene.
Site founder and moderator Dave McClung has been informed about this heresy and yet Deventer continues propagating it.
What is going on here regarding ethics?
What is going on here concerning biblical truth?
Deventer does not care about biblical data. He manufactures his own, McClung baptizing it as legitimate for his site.
The Church of the Nazarene General Superintendents have been informed of this but seemingly cannot do anything about McClung, his site’s claims to be friend of the Nazarenes, and Deventer stating that which is totally against the Bible.
Yet the reading world should know the truth, hence this post.
The Bible states nowhere that the damned go to annihilation. Christ Himself speaks repeatedly of eternal damnation. Those familiar with the Bible know these passages. Those in the Church of the Nazarene know these passages.
Please, someone do something to exorcise these untruths from NazNet or at least persuade the Church of the Nazarene officialdom to post a statement disagreeing with any tie with McClung and his site.
Read NAZNET STAFF HANS DEVENTER CONFUSED ABOUT ‘INTERMEDIATE STATE’? at http://naznetdistorts.blogspot.com/2009/12/naznet-staff-hans-deventer-confused.html
“I agree, no part of us is immortal. That is why I believe that hell is annihilation and immortality is conditional.”
That is what Hans Deventer, NazNet staffer, continues to state on this site that claims to be a friend of the Church of the Nazarene.
Site founder and moderator Dave McClung has been informed about this heresy and yet Deventer continues propagating it.
What is going on here regarding ethics?
What is going on here concerning biblical truth?
Deventer does not care about biblical data. He manufactures his own, McClung baptizing it as legitimate for his site.
The Church of the Nazarene General Superintendents have been informed of this but seemingly cannot do anything about McClung, his site’s claims to be friend of the Nazarenes, and Deventer stating that which is totally against the Bible.
Yet the reading world should know the truth, hence this post.
The Bible states nowhere that the damned go to annihilation. Christ Himself speaks repeatedly of eternal damnation. Those familiar with the Bible know these passages. Those in the Church of the Nazarene know these passages.
Please, someone do something to exorcise these untruths from NazNet or at least persuade the Church of the Nazarene officialdom to post a statement disagreeing with any tie with McClung and his site.
Read NAZNET STAFF HANS DEVENTER CONFUSED ABOUT ‘INTERMEDIATE STATE’? at http://naznetdistorts.blogspot.com/2009/12/naznet-staff-hans-deventer-confused.html
NAZNET STAFF HANS DEVENTER CONFUSED ABOUT ‘INTERMEDIATE STATE’?
J. Grant Swank, Jr.
“The Bible isn't clear about the intermediate state. . .”
That is Hans Deventer lamenting.
The Bible says nothing about an intermediate state.
Why does this Deventer persist that it does? Is this NazNet staffer a part of the Church of the Nazarene? NazNet says he is.
Yet that denomination no way states anything about such a state. It is bogus. Yet the staffer continues posting on the Dave McClung site that the latter states it is supportive of the Church of the Nazarene.
This is totally confusing and disturbing for it goes on and on and on.
When is this intrusion of non-biblical nonsense going to come to an end so that readers are not taken off the biblical course?
McClung has been appealed to about this matter. Nothing done.
Deventer has been appealed to about this matter. Nothing done.
There it is on the site for the world to read as if it is an issue crucial to the Church of the Nazarene.
The Bible speaks of heaven and hell, no intermediate state.
Roman Catholicism speaks of limbo for the unbaptized dead children and purgatory for those not accepted directly into heaven.
All this is heresy.
So where does NazNet staffer Deventer come up with his own concoction of the intermediate state?
Please, NazNet, clean up your site or apologize to readers and the Church of the Nazarene for being sloppy in maintaining your site or purposefully directing readers into heresy.
Read “Eternal torment?” at http://www.naznet.com/community/showthread.php?t=28935
“The Bible isn't clear about the intermediate state. . .”
That is Hans Deventer lamenting.
The Bible says nothing about an intermediate state.
Why does this Deventer persist that it does? Is this NazNet staffer a part of the Church of the Nazarene? NazNet says he is.
Yet that denomination no way states anything about such a state. It is bogus. Yet the staffer continues posting on the Dave McClung site that the latter states it is supportive of the Church of the Nazarene.
This is totally confusing and disturbing for it goes on and on and on.
When is this intrusion of non-biblical nonsense going to come to an end so that readers are not taken off the biblical course?
McClung has been appealed to about this matter. Nothing done.
Deventer has been appealed to about this matter. Nothing done.
There it is on the site for the world to read as if it is an issue crucial to the Church of the Nazarene.
The Bible speaks of heaven and hell, no intermediate state.
Roman Catholicism speaks of limbo for the unbaptized dead children and purgatory for those not accepted directly into heaven.
All this is heresy.
So where does NazNet staffer Deventer come up with his own concoction of the intermediate state?
Please, NazNet, clean up your site or apologize to readers and the Church of the Nazarene for being sloppy in maintaining your site or purposefully directing readers into heresy.
Read “Eternal torment?” at http://www.naznet.com/community/showthread.php?t=28935
Tuesday, November 17, 2009
NAZNET NOT A CHURCH?
J. Grant Swank, Jr.
NazNet Moderator Hans Deventer: “NazNet is an online forum, it’s not a church.”
Incorrect.
NazNet appears as an “online forum.” But in reality when checking out its base line on theology, it acts like a church.
NazNet presents its own doctrines, such, for instance, being Deventer’s belief statements. They include that there is no eternal torment in hell as Christ informs. Instead, Deventer states that the unsaved are zapped via “annihilation.”
Now Deventer right there puts forth a churchly faith statement as churches do. Consequently, Deventer is not only holding forth on an “online forum” but pitting his “doctrines” against the holiness Church of the Nazarene, the latter posted on NazNet as being friends with NazNet.
Further, Deventer and fellow Moderator Scott Cudliff state doctrinal beliefs thusly: the Bible has errors in it. Yes. That’s what they hold faith in. It is not the infallible inerrant Word of God, a divine who knows how to reveal without flaw.
When these two Moderators give forth with that kind of theology, they are not in keeping with the Church of the Nazarene. In fact, they become theological enemies to Nazarenes. That evangelical Protestant denomination believes deity is equipped to tell His own proclamations flawlessly.
As one reads through NazNet, the unmistakable conclusion reached is that Founder and Moderator Dave McClung definitely pits his site against the Church of the Nazarene.
He is forming his own competitive Internet-church to the Church of the Nazarene. If the Nazarene General Superintendents don’t confront this head-on, they are not fulfilling their responsibilities.
In addition, Deventer doctrinally proclaims his belief that “eternal life” as defined by Christ is not everlasting. That poses the question as to whether Deventer has any acumen by which to define terms understood by others as meaning what they mean.
Just importantly, this kind of heresy weave throughout NazNet would put that site in the form of a church. It is a church without buildings. But it does have officialdom and creeds. It does have means by which to communicate those creeds.
So NazNet preaches that heaven is not without end. Hell is not eternal torment. The Scriptures are not reliable.
But there is more: Deventer teaches that infant baptism is divinely approved accurate, more so than adult believers’ baptism. The New Testament states just the opposite; but who cares? We have Deventer.
So now NazNet has its own definition of a sacrament. That surely does move into the churchly venue.
Will the Church of the Nazarene leadership own up to this opposing “church”, doing so as to state publicly that the denomination disavows any “friendly tie” to NazNet? NazNet delights in repeatedly claiming to be Nazarene-friendly. Oh yes, very much so.
Will Nazarenes realize that when reading NazNet they are being drawn into a church as defined by the site’s own doctrinal statements?
Further, a former Moderator Chaplain Barbara Moulton even went so far as to inform me about her position on a moral issue. It was homosexuality.
She, a chaplain, stated she would not witness to the scriptural position on the topic, that is, she would not support God’s stance in public. In other words, she would play coward at that juncture.
I then would take that as a churchly position taken by one of NazNet’s top names, though now she has bowed out of the site, per Dave McClung absenting her from the masthead and also his latest post of “Making NazNet an even friendlier place”.
Read more at NAZNET DISTORTS at http://naznetdistorts.blogspot.com/
NazNet Moderator Hans Deventer: “NazNet is an online forum, it’s not a church.”
Incorrect.
NazNet appears as an “online forum.” But in reality when checking out its base line on theology, it acts like a church.
NazNet presents its own doctrines, such, for instance, being Deventer’s belief statements. They include that there is no eternal torment in hell as Christ informs. Instead, Deventer states that the unsaved are zapped via “annihilation.”
Now Deventer right there puts forth a churchly faith statement as churches do. Consequently, Deventer is not only holding forth on an “online forum” but pitting his “doctrines” against the holiness Church of the Nazarene, the latter posted on NazNet as being friends with NazNet.
Further, Deventer and fellow Moderator Scott Cudliff state doctrinal beliefs thusly: the Bible has errors in it. Yes. That’s what they hold faith in. It is not the infallible inerrant Word of God, a divine who knows how to reveal without flaw.
When these two Moderators give forth with that kind of theology, they are not in keeping with the Church of the Nazarene. In fact, they become theological enemies to Nazarenes. That evangelical Protestant denomination believes deity is equipped to tell His own proclamations flawlessly.
As one reads through NazNet, the unmistakable conclusion reached is that Founder and Moderator Dave McClung definitely pits his site against the Church of the Nazarene.
He is forming his own competitive Internet-church to the Church of the Nazarene. If the Nazarene General Superintendents don’t confront this head-on, they are not fulfilling their responsibilities.
In addition, Deventer doctrinally proclaims his belief that “eternal life” as defined by Christ is not everlasting. That poses the question as to whether Deventer has any acumen by which to define terms understood by others as meaning what they mean.
Just importantly, this kind of heresy weave throughout NazNet would put that site in the form of a church. It is a church without buildings. But it does have officialdom and creeds. It does have means by which to communicate those creeds.
So NazNet preaches that heaven is not without end. Hell is not eternal torment. The Scriptures are not reliable.
But there is more: Deventer teaches that infant baptism is divinely approved accurate, more so than adult believers’ baptism. The New Testament states just the opposite; but who cares? We have Deventer.
So now NazNet has its own definition of a sacrament. That surely does move into the churchly venue.
Will the Church of the Nazarene leadership own up to this opposing “church”, doing so as to state publicly that the denomination disavows any “friendly tie” to NazNet? NazNet delights in repeatedly claiming to be Nazarene-friendly. Oh yes, very much so.
Will Nazarenes realize that when reading NazNet they are being drawn into a church as defined by the site’s own doctrinal statements?
Further, a former Moderator Chaplain Barbara Moulton even went so far as to inform me about her position on a moral issue. It was homosexuality.
She, a chaplain, stated she would not witness to the scriptural position on the topic, that is, she would not support God’s stance in public. In other words, she would play coward at that juncture.
I then would take that as a churchly position taken by one of NazNet’s top names, though now she has bowed out of the site, per Dave McClung absenting her from the masthead and also his latest post of “Making NazNet an even friendlier place”.
Read more at NAZNET DISTORTS at http://naznetdistorts.blogspot.com/
Monday, November 16, 2009
FORMER NAZNET CHAPLAIN BARBARA MOULTON STILL CLOSETS ‘GAY UNIONS’
J. Grant Swank, Jr.
Barbara Moulton told me: “I don't perform them (homosexual ‘marriages’) and will never perform them. I simply am not going to crusade against allowing them to take place in my country.”
“. . . not. . .crusade against allowing them. . .”
So that’s the conclusion of it, is it Ms. Chaplain?
To her cemented conclusion I asked her how she could be a biblical Christian and yet gag her biblical testimony in the marketplace?
My Bible reads that Christ told His own to gospel the world. That includes the Christ ethic regarding issues such as homosexual practice. Moulton refuses to recant her cowardliness for courage in witnessing openly regarding this pressing moral issue.
I have waited for a retraction from the Chaplain. None has been forthcoming.
Instead, Moulton has informed me that she has blocked my email communications. In her own words: “I will be blocking your e-mail.” Clearly noted.
Further, she complains that by exposing her cowardliness, I botched her morning.
She states: “Thanks for starting my day off in such a lovely manner.” That said sarcastically, obviously.
Immediately I thought of God’s heart. How “lovely” has Moulton delighted the divine by hiding “gay nuptials” in the closet. There she put “homosexual marriage” for all time, no matter the call of God to broadcast truth by every means possible.
As Ms. Chaplain locks the closet door, homosexuals clog our boulevards with crusading chants.
Did not Christ say something about not hiding one’s light under a bushel?
Read more re Barbara Moulton: NAZNET DISTORTS at http://naznetdistorts.blogspot.com/
Barbara Moulton told me: “I don't perform them (homosexual ‘marriages’) and will never perform them. I simply am not going to crusade against allowing them to take place in my country.”
“. . . not. . .crusade against allowing them. . .”
So that’s the conclusion of it, is it Ms. Chaplain?
To her cemented conclusion I asked her how she could be a biblical Christian and yet gag her biblical testimony in the marketplace?
My Bible reads that Christ told His own to gospel the world. That includes the Christ ethic regarding issues such as homosexual practice. Moulton refuses to recant her cowardliness for courage in witnessing openly regarding this pressing moral issue.
I have waited for a retraction from the Chaplain. None has been forthcoming.
Instead, Moulton has informed me that she has blocked my email communications. In her own words: “I will be blocking your e-mail.” Clearly noted.
Further, she complains that by exposing her cowardliness, I botched her morning.
She states: “Thanks for starting my day off in such a lovely manner.” That said sarcastically, obviously.
Immediately I thought of God’s heart. How “lovely” has Moulton delighted the divine by hiding “gay nuptials” in the closet. There she put “homosexual marriage” for all time, no matter the call of God to broadcast truth by every means possible.
As Ms. Chaplain locks the closet door, homosexuals clog our boulevards with crusading chants.
Did not Christ say something about not hiding one’s light under a bushel?
Read more re Barbara Moulton: NAZNET DISTORTS at http://naznetdistorts.blogspot.com/
NAZNET MODERATOR HANS DEVENTER: NAZARENES GOOFED ON DEFINITION OF HELL
J. Grant Swank, Jr.
NazNet website Founder/Moderator Dave McClung makes this statement at the site’s outset:
“NazNet is proud to be a loyal supporter of the denomination and its world wide mission -- to respond to the Great Commission of Christ ‘to make Christ-like disciples in the nations.’ This is a Nazarene friendly site and our purpose is: ‘building community among Nazarenes and friends.’”
Not so. In fact, far far from it.
NazNet undercuts Church of the Nazarene historic theology. One of the site’s prime voices is Moderator Hans Deventer, unfortunately.
McClung should absent Deventer from any posts on the site if McClung wants to be honest in his opening statement of support for the Church of the Nazarene.
Deventer propagates heresies that will never be acceptable to Wesleyan holiness teachings of the Church of that Nazarene, that is, unless this denomination transgresses its spiritual journey in disobeying God. And that in fact is happening as I type. If it continues, the Church of the Nazarene will implode under God’s wrath.
For example, NazNet reader Ian Gentles states to Deventer: “I believe in eternal torment. Oh trust me, I don’t like it, but I believe it. Can the church have misunderstood all these centuries?”
Deventer answers: “THE church has had different opinions, and THE church has never felt the need to express itself in the early creeds on this topic. Hence, it is an issue where differences of opinion are allowed.”
Gentles responds: “Did the Nazarene church misunderstand?”
Deventer says: “Yes. Hey, we can't have everything right, can we?”
Gentles continues: “Did i misunderstand the Bible?”
Deventer again: “Yes.”
Yes?
Gentles states he believes the biblical Christ’s teaching regarding eternal torment being just that.
Deventer redirects him to the “truth according to Deventer.” Sadly Deventer does this repeatedly throughout the site.
Deventer tenaciously believes in infant baptism, contrary to the traditional Nazarene infant dedication and adult believers’ baptism.
Deventer teaches that there is no “eternal torment.” Deventer states that “annihilation” is the proper reality.
Deventer teaches that there is no such entity as “eternal life.” “Eternal” is not meant to be everlasting but merely the content, not duration for the saved.
Deventer does not hold that the Bible is the infallible, inerrant Word of God. He believes that the more doubt one holds to, the more one comes upon truth. Moderator Scott Cundiff agrees. NazNet Founder Dave McClung does nothing to correct these heresies.
I emailed Deventer regarding his misuse of Scripture. His email to me let me know that I am his “enemy.”
If am his enemy, I am God’s friend. Deventer destroys the biblical truth; I support biblical truth.
Deventer seemingly has no fear of appearing before the Judgment Seat of Christ for he writes his own holy writ by flying by the seat of his pants.
That’s actually not the way to carry out biblical research, especially for the benefit of inquirers on a site that advertises itself as friend to Nazarenes.
What say, McClung?
Read more: NAZNET DISTORTS at http://naznetdistorts.blogspot.com/
NazNet website Founder/Moderator Dave McClung makes this statement at the site’s outset:
“NazNet is proud to be a loyal supporter of the denomination and its world wide mission -- to respond to the Great Commission of Christ ‘to make Christ-like disciples in the nations.’ This is a Nazarene friendly site and our purpose is: ‘building community among Nazarenes and friends.’”
Not so. In fact, far far from it.
NazNet undercuts Church of the Nazarene historic theology. One of the site’s prime voices is Moderator Hans Deventer, unfortunately.
McClung should absent Deventer from any posts on the site if McClung wants to be honest in his opening statement of support for the Church of the Nazarene.
Deventer propagates heresies that will never be acceptable to Wesleyan holiness teachings of the Church of that Nazarene, that is, unless this denomination transgresses its spiritual journey in disobeying God. And that in fact is happening as I type. If it continues, the Church of the Nazarene will implode under God’s wrath.
For example, NazNet reader Ian Gentles states to Deventer: “I believe in eternal torment. Oh trust me, I don’t like it, but I believe it. Can the church have misunderstood all these centuries?”
Deventer answers: “THE church has had different opinions, and THE church has never felt the need to express itself in the early creeds on this topic. Hence, it is an issue where differences of opinion are allowed.”
Gentles responds: “Did the Nazarene church misunderstand?”
Deventer says: “Yes. Hey, we can't have everything right, can we?”
Gentles continues: “Did i misunderstand the Bible?”
Deventer again: “Yes.”
Yes?
Gentles states he believes the biblical Christ’s teaching regarding eternal torment being just that.
Deventer redirects him to the “truth according to Deventer.” Sadly Deventer does this repeatedly throughout the site.
Deventer tenaciously believes in infant baptism, contrary to the traditional Nazarene infant dedication and adult believers’ baptism.
Deventer teaches that there is no “eternal torment.” Deventer states that “annihilation” is the proper reality.
Deventer teaches that there is no such entity as “eternal life.” “Eternal” is not meant to be everlasting but merely the content, not duration for the saved.
Deventer does not hold that the Bible is the infallible, inerrant Word of God. He believes that the more doubt one holds to, the more one comes upon truth. Moderator Scott Cundiff agrees. NazNet Founder Dave McClung does nothing to correct these heresies.
I emailed Deventer regarding his misuse of Scripture. His email to me let me know that I am his “enemy.”
If am his enemy, I am God’s friend. Deventer destroys the biblical truth; I support biblical truth.
Deventer seemingly has no fear of appearing before the Judgment Seat of Christ for he writes his own holy writ by flying by the seat of his pants.
That’s actually not the way to carry out biblical research, especially for the benefit of inquirers on a site that advertises itself as friend to Nazarenes.
What say, McClung?
Read more: NAZNET DISTORTS at http://naznetdistorts.blogspot.com/
Sunday, November 15, 2009
NAZNET MODERATOR HANS DEVENTER: ‘ETERNAL LIFE’ IS NOT ETERNAL
J. Grant Swank, Jr.
NazNet Moderator Hans Deventer has no clue as to what happens to the soul upon death.
In a particular NazNet discussion slide he states unabashedly that hell is not “eternal torment,” though Christ states same as well and in numerous places gives more data than that.
Yet Deventer upstages Christ by declaring that there is no eternal torment known as “hell.” Instead, hell is “annihilation.” Annihilation? Yes, annihilation, per Hans Deventer.
Nowhere in Scripture does God the revelator proclaim that definition of annihilation for “hell.” Deventer makes it up and yet without apology puts it on the site that underlines its allegiance to the holiness, biblically grounded Church of the Nazarene.
Now in that same discussion slide, Deventer questions “eternal life” as being “eterenal.” Deventer once again plays linguistic magician by taking clear scriptural language and giving it a totally different definition.
Here is typical Deventer: “Eternal life is known to be a quality of life rather than a duration.”
I always thought that “eternal” meant “eternal.” Deventer declares the exact opposite. He says that it has nothing to do with eternality but the content of existence.
This kind of twist and turn repeats itself throughout NazNet while non-theologian NazNet Founder Dave McClung does absolutely nothing to biblically correct these heresies.
No wonder Deventer along with NazNet Moderator Scott Cundiff do not believe that the Bible is in fact the infallible, inerrant Word of God. They state that the Bible is loaded with flaws. Therefore, God has no idea how to communicate a perfect revelation; instead, He makes mistakes or stretches detail at times or just plain misses the point on occasion.
Such hubris. However, hubris is current fare of NazNet overseers.
So there you have it on heaven: it is not eternal. “Eternal” does not mean “eternal” to Deventer.
And the devilish beat goes on and on.
Read NAZNET DISTORTS at http://naznetdistorts.blogspot.com/
NazNet Moderator Hans Deventer has no clue as to what happens to the soul upon death.
In a particular NazNet discussion slide he states unabashedly that hell is not “eternal torment,” though Christ states same as well and in numerous places gives more data than that.
Yet Deventer upstages Christ by declaring that there is no eternal torment known as “hell.” Instead, hell is “annihilation.” Annihilation? Yes, annihilation, per Hans Deventer.
Nowhere in Scripture does God the revelator proclaim that definition of annihilation for “hell.” Deventer makes it up and yet without apology puts it on the site that underlines its allegiance to the holiness, biblically grounded Church of the Nazarene.
Now in that same discussion slide, Deventer questions “eternal life” as being “eterenal.” Deventer once again plays linguistic magician by taking clear scriptural language and giving it a totally different definition.
Here is typical Deventer: “Eternal life is known to be a quality of life rather than a duration.”
I always thought that “eternal” meant “eternal.” Deventer declares the exact opposite. He says that it has nothing to do with eternality but the content of existence.
This kind of twist and turn repeats itself throughout NazNet while non-theologian NazNet Founder Dave McClung does absolutely nothing to biblically correct these heresies.
No wonder Deventer along with NazNet Moderator Scott Cundiff do not believe that the Bible is in fact the infallible, inerrant Word of God. They state that the Bible is loaded with flaws. Therefore, God has no idea how to communicate a perfect revelation; instead, He makes mistakes or stretches detail at times or just plain misses the point on occasion.
Such hubris. However, hubris is current fare of NazNet overseers.
So there you have it on heaven: it is not eternal. “Eternal” does not mean “eternal” to Deventer.
And the devilish beat goes on and on.
Read NAZNET DISTORTS at http://naznetdistorts.blogspot.com/
NAZNET UNDERCUTS THE CHURCH OF THE NAZARENE
J. Grant Swank, Jr.
That is correct.
Site overseers such as NazNet Manager Scott Cudliff and Moderator Hans Deventer champion those who doubt the Bible as a reliable revelation from the Christian God. (See footnote for further detail at NAZNET DISTORTS http://naznetdistorts.blogspot.com/ .)
Yet the Bible states in 2 Timothy 3:16-17: “All Scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness: that the man of God may be perfect, thoroughly furnished unto good works.”
“All Scripture. . .is profitable for doctrine. . .”
When God inspired those words, He meant it. Not just what is convenient Scripture or that which is pleasant to you, but all Scripture. Not just what liberals pronounce as condoned, but all Scripture. That means from Genesis to Revelation, all Scripture is God’s infallible communication.
Does NazNet’s deity have flawed communication skills? Obviously, for Cudliff and Deventer applaud same. NazNet Founder and Moderator Dave McClung must go along with this heresy for he never disciplines his overseers or counters their anti-God views.
By the way, McClung is not a theologian. He is a successful businessman.
Why then does he found and head a primarily religious site, advertising it as Church of the Nazarene-friendly? He is not doctrinally astute. He is not theologically trained. Yet he is forming a seminary-on-Internet and Internet competitive “denomination” against the holiness Nazarene history.
McClung delights in his ego aggrandizement in watching particularly the young follow his Pied Piper musical dance into God’s wrath. McClung is proud. He is conceited. That is why he has molded this NazNet grouse that entices the unknowing into his dark web.
Yet all along he boasts that NazNet is a support system for the Wesleyan holiness Church of the Nazarene. It is just the opposite.
For instance, Cudliff states on NazNet that he is mesmerized by C. S. Cowles’ address regarding the emerging church. In that address, Cowles esteems a liberal theologian who destroys faith in the Bible for ongoing doubt.
Cudliff lifts high that quote from Cowles and states for the world to read that such an heretical view encourages Cudliff’s “Wesleyan perspective.”
That is a lie. It cannot be. Cowles’ quote has nothing to do with endorsing Wesleyan theology and the holiness interpretation of the Word. In fact, that quote enables atheism, not Wesleyan doctrine.
Time and again, such deceit weaves its way through the discussion slides on NazNet. There is much there that is cotton candy; but there is enough to damn. And McClung knows that; but he is so enthralled with his own ego enlargement by this site that he continues to “gospel” lies.
“All Scripture is given by inspiration of God. . .”
That includes the flood in Noah’s day. That flood is scuttled by Cowles and thereby by Cudliff by the latter’s own confession on NazNet.
That divine inspiration includes the slaying of various peoples in the Old Testament period. Such is submerged by Cowles and therby Cudliff.
What these liberals do is to transplant their own divine personality mold upon the Bible—mostly sugary sweet deity images. If the Bible does not support that persona, the biblical verses are scrapped. Of course, Psalm 23 is left. And I Corinthians 13. However, the more difficult passages are yanked out as logically and theologically unsound.
However, God has stated: “All Scripture is given by inspiration of God. . .” It is not there for us to scissor out at our whim. Scripture is not provided for us to critique. It is there by “inspiration of God.” God!
Therefore, if you cannot stomach that God, don’t claim Him.
However, the likes of Cowles, Cudliff, McClung and Deventer want to claim Him to get to heaven; but they disown His ability to give us a responsible revelation. Such hubris. Yet it is there on NazNet while that site witnesses to being a companion to the Church of the Nazarene.
Will the General Superintendents do anything about this?
I don’t know. But I have emailed to them various NazNet samplings to let them know the facts about that site.
If they do nothing, then they have no spines. They are mandated by Christ to tell the truth, defend the truth, and particularly care for the holiness biblical trust of the Church of the Nazarene. Time will tell what they do about such demonic inroads as NazNet.
Some time ago, I wrote about the difficult sections of Scripture in the light of God’s persona. I did not have to slide God off the charts. I instead discovered in the study of those venues that this God I serve is most respectable. It is because of his just and merciful holy nature.
What the rebels such as overseers on NazNet have done is to overweigh God on the love side of His persona and neglect His justice side. One cannot do that.
Holy God is the eternal, perfect balance of justice and mercy. When realizing that truth in both Old and New Testaments, one comes upon a perfect deity, in no need of NazNet’s surgical knives.
Read NAZNET DISTORTS at http://naznetdistorts.blogspot.com/
Read BIBLE HARSH PENALTIES & CHRIST’S ETHIC at http://truthinconviction.us/weblog.php?id=P3256
That is correct.
Site overseers such as NazNet Manager Scott Cudliff and Moderator Hans Deventer champion those who doubt the Bible as a reliable revelation from the Christian God. (See footnote for further detail at NAZNET DISTORTS http://naznetdistorts.blogspot.com/ .)
Yet the Bible states in 2 Timothy 3:16-17: “All Scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness: that the man of God may be perfect, thoroughly furnished unto good works.”
“All Scripture. . .is profitable for doctrine. . .”
When God inspired those words, He meant it. Not just what is convenient Scripture or that which is pleasant to you, but all Scripture. Not just what liberals pronounce as condoned, but all Scripture. That means from Genesis to Revelation, all Scripture is God’s infallible communication.
Does NazNet’s deity have flawed communication skills? Obviously, for Cudliff and Deventer applaud same. NazNet Founder and Moderator Dave McClung must go along with this heresy for he never disciplines his overseers or counters their anti-God views.
By the way, McClung is not a theologian. He is a successful businessman.
Why then does he found and head a primarily religious site, advertising it as Church of the Nazarene-friendly? He is not doctrinally astute. He is not theologically trained. Yet he is forming a seminary-on-Internet and Internet competitive “denomination” against the holiness Nazarene history.
McClung delights in his ego aggrandizement in watching particularly the young follow his Pied Piper musical dance into God’s wrath. McClung is proud. He is conceited. That is why he has molded this NazNet grouse that entices the unknowing into his dark web.
Yet all along he boasts that NazNet is a support system for the Wesleyan holiness Church of the Nazarene. It is just the opposite.
For instance, Cudliff states on NazNet that he is mesmerized by C. S. Cowles’ address regarding the emerging church. In that address, Cowles esteems a liberal theologian who destroys faith in the Bible for ongoing doubt.
Cudliff lifts high that quote from Cowles and states for the world to read that such an heretical view encourages Cudliff’s “Wesleyan perspective.”
That is a lie. It cannot be. Cowles’ quote has nothing to do with endorsing Wesleyan theology and the holiness interpretation of the Word. In fact, that quote enables atheism, not Wesleyan doctrine.
Time and again, such deceit weaves its way through the discussion slides on NazNet. There is much there that is cotton candy; but there is enough to damn. And McClung knows that; but he is so enthralled with his own ego enlargement by this site that he continues to “gospel” lies.
“All Scripture is given by inspiration of God. . .”
That includes the flood in Noah’s day. That flood is scuttled by Cowles and thereby by Cudliff by the latter’s own confession on NazNet.
That divine inspiration includes the slaying of various peoples in the Old Testament period. Such is submerged by Cowles and therby Cudliff.
What these liberals do is to transplant their own divine personality mold upon the Bible—mostly sugary sweet deity images. If the Bible does not support that persona, the biblical verses are scrapped. Of course, Psalm 23 is left. And I Corinthians 13. However, the more difficult passages are yanked out as logically and theologically unsound.
However, God has stated: “All Scripture is given by inspiration of God. . .” It is not there for us to scissor out at our whim. Scripture is not provided for us to critique. It is there by “inspiration of God.” God!
Therefore, if you cannot stomach that God, don’t claim Him.
However, the likes of Cowles, Cudliff, McClung and Deventer want to claim Him to get to heaven; but they disown His ability to give us a responsible revelation. Such hubris. Yet it is there on NazNet while that site witnesses to being a companion to the Church of the Nazarene.
Will the General Superintendents do anything about this?
I don’t know. But I have emailed to them various NazNet samplings to let them know the facts about that site.
If they do nothing, then they have no spines. They are mandated by Christ to tell the truth, defend the truth, and particularly care for the holiness biblical trust of the Church of the Nazarene. Time will tell what they do about such demonic inroads as NazNet.
Some time ago, I wrote about the difficult sections of Scripture in the light of God’s persona. I did not have to slide God off the charts. I instead discovered in the study of those venues that this God I serve is most respectable. It is because of his just and merciful holy nature.
What the rebels such as overseers on NazNet have done is to overweigh God on the love side of His persona and neglect His justice side. One cannot do that.
Holy God is the eternal, perfect balance of justice and mercy. When realizing that truth in both Old and New Testaments, one comes upon a perfect deity, in no need of NazNet’s surgical knives.
Read NAZNET DISTORTS at http://naznetdistorts.blogspot.com/
Read BIBLE HARSH PENALTIES & CHRIST’S ETHIC at http://truthinconviction.us/weblog.php?id=P3256
NAZNET = BIBLE NOT THE WHOLE WORD OF GOD
J. Grant Swank, Jr.
That is correct.
Site overseers such as NazNet Manager Scott Cudliff and Moderator Hans Deventer champion those who doubt the Bible as a reliable revelation from the Christian God. (See footnote for further detail at NAZNET DISTORTS http://naznetdistorts.blogspot.com/ .)
Yet the Bible states in 2 Timothy 3:16-17: “All Scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness: that the man of God may be perfect, thoroughly furnished unto good works.”
“All Scripture. . .is profitable for doctrine. . .”
When God inspired those words, He meant it. Not just what is convenient Scripture or that which is pleasant to you, but all Scripture. Not just what liberals pronounce as condoned, but all Scripture. That means from Genesis to Revelation, all Scripture is God’s infallible communication.
Does NazNet’s deity have flawed communication skills? Obviously, for Cudliff and Deventer applaud same. NazNet Founder and Moderator Dave McClung must go along with this heresy for he never disciplines his overseers or counters their anti-God views.
By the way, McClung is not a theologian. He is a successful businessman.
Why then does he found and head a primarily religious site, advertising it as Church of the Nazarene-friendly? He is not doctrinally astute. He is not theologically trained. Yet he is forming a seminary-on-Internet and Internet competitive “denomination” against the holiness Nazarene history.
McClung delights in his ego aggrandizement in watching particularly the young follow his Pied Piper musical dance into God’s wrath. McClung is proud. He is conceited. That is why he has molded this NazNet grouse that entices the unknowing into his dark web.
Yet all along he boasts that NazNet is a support system for the Wesleyan holiness Church of the Nazarene. It is just the opposite.
For instance, Cudliff states on NazNet that he is mesmerized by C. S. Cowles’ address regarding the emerging church. In that address, Cowles esteems a liberal theologian who destroys faith in the Bible for ongoing doubt.
Cudliff lifts high that quote from Cowles and states for the world to read that such an heretical view encourages Cudliff’s “Wesleyan perspective.”
That is a lie. It cannot be. Cowles’ quote has nothing to do with endorsing Wesleyan theology and the holiness interpretation of the Word. In fact, that quote enables atheism, not Wesleyan doctrine.
Time and again, such deceit weaves its way through the discussion slides on NazNet. There is much there that is cotton candy; but there is enough to damn. And McClung knows that; but he is so enthralled with his own ego enlargement by this site that he continues to “gospel” lies.
“All Scripture is given by inspiration of God. . .”
That includes the flood in Noah’s day. That flood is scuttled by Cowles and thereby by Cudliff by the latter’s own confession on NazNet.
That divine inspiration includes the slaying of various peoples in the Old Testament period. Such is submerged by Cowles and therby Cudliff.
What these liberals do is to transplant their own divine personality mold upon the Bible—mostly sugary sweet deity images. If the Bible does not support that persona, the biblical verses are scrapped. Of course, Psalm 23 is left. And I Corinthians 13. However, the more difficult passages are yanked out as logically and theologically unsound.
However, God has stated: “All Scripture is given by inspiration of God. . .” It is not there for us to scissor out at our whim. Scripture is not provided for us to critique. It is there by “inspiration of God.” God!
Therefore, if you cannot stomach that God, don’t claim Him.
However, the likes of Cowles, Cudliff, McClung and Deventer want to claim Him to get to heaven; but they disown His ability to give us a responsible revelation. Such hubris. Yet it is there on NazNet while that site witnesses to being a companion to the Church of the Nazarene.
Will the General Superintendents do anything about this?
I don’t know. But I have emailed to them various NazNet samplings to let them know the facts about that site.
If they do nothing, then they have no spines. They are mandated by Christ to tell the truth, defend the truth, and particularly care for the holiness biblical trust of the Church of the Nazarene. Time will tell what they do about such demonic inroads as NazNet.
Some time ago, I wrote about the difficult sections of Scripture in the light of God’s persona. I did not have to slide God off the charts. I instead discovered in the study of those venues that this God I serve is most respectable. It is because of his just and merciful holy nature.
What the rebels such as overseers on NazNet have done is to overweigh God on the love side of His persona and neglect His justice side. One cannot do that.
Holy God is the eternal, perfect balance of justice and mercy. When realizing that truth in both Old and New Testaments, one comes upon a perfect deity, in no need of NazNet’s surgical knives.
Read NAZNET DISTORTS at http://naznetdistorts.blogspot.com/
Read BIBLE HARSH PENALTIES & CHRIST’S ETHIC at http://truthinconviction.us/weblog.php?id=P3256
That is correct.
Site overseers such as NazNet Manager Scott Cudliff and Moderator Hans Deventer champion those who doubt the Bible as a reliable revelation from the Christian God. (See footnote for further detail at NAZNET DISTORTS http://naznetdistorts.blogspot.com/ .)
Yet the Bible states in 2 Timothy 3:16-17: “All Scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness: that the man of God may be perfect, thoroughly furnished unto good works.”
“All Scripture. . .is profitable for doctrine. . .”
When God inspired those words, He meant it. Not just what is convenient Scripture or that which is pleasant to you, but all Scripture. Not just what liberals pronounce as condoned, but all Scripture. That means from Genesis to Revelation, all Scripture is God’s infallible communication.
Does NazNet’s deity have flawed communication skills? Obviously, for Cudliff and Deventer applaud same. NazNet Founder and Moderator Dave McClung must go along with this heresy for he never disciplines his overseers or counters their anti-God views.
By the way, McClung is not a theologian. He is a successful businessman.
Why then does he found and head a primarily religious site, advertising it as Church of the Nazarene-friendly? He is not doctrinally astute. He is not theologically trained. Yet he is forming a seminary-on-Internet and Internet competitive “denomination” against the holiness Nazarene history.
McClung delights in his ego aggrandizement in watching particularly the young follow his Pied Piper musical dance into God’s wrath. McClung is proud. He is conceited. That is why he has molded this NazNet grouse that entices the unknowing into his dark web.
Yet all along he boasts that NazNet is a support system for the Wesleyan holiness Church of the Nazarene. It is just the opposite.
For instance, Cudliff states on NazNet that he is mesmerized by C. S. Cowles’ address regarding the emerging church. In that address, Cowles esteems a liberal theologian who destroys faith in the Bible for ongoing doubt.
Cudliff lifts high that quote from Cowles and states for the world to read that such an heretical view encourages Cudliff’s “Wesleyan perspective.”
That is a lie. It cannot be. Cowles’ quote has nothing to do with endorsing Wesleyan theology and the holiness interpretation of the Word. In fact, that quote enables atheism, not Wesleyan doctrine.
Time and again, such deceit weaves its way through the discussion slides on NazNet. There is much there that is cotton candy; but there is enough to damn. And McClung knows that; but he is so enthralled with his own ego enlargement by this site that he continues to “gospel” lies.
“All Scripture is given by inspiration of God. . .”
That includes the flood in Noah’s day. That flood is scuttled by Cowles and thereby by Cudliff by the latter’s own confession on NazNet.
That divine inspiration includes the slaying of various peoples in the Old Testament period. Such is submerged by Cowles and therby Cudliff.
What these liberals do is to transplant their own divine personality mold upon the Bible—mostly sugary sweet deity images. If the Bible does not support that persona, the biblical verses are scrapped. Of course, Psalm 23 is left. And I Corinthians 13. However, the more difficult passages are yanked out as logically and theologically unsound.
However, God has stated: “All Scripture is given by inspiration of God. . .” It is not there for us to scissor out at our whim. Scripture is not provided for us to critique. It is there by “inspiration of God.” God!
Therefore, if you cannot stomach that God, don’t claim Him.
However, the likes of Cowles, Cudliff, McClung and Deventer want to claim Him to get to heaven; but they disown His ability to give us a responsible revelation. Such hubris. Yet it is there on NazNet while that site witnesses to being a companion to the Church of the Nazarene.
Will the General Superintendents do anything about this?
I don’t know. But I have emailed to them various NazNet samplings to let them know the facts about that site.
If they do nothing, then they have no spines. They are mandated by Christ to tell the truth, defend the truth, and particularly care for the holiness biblical trust of the Church of the Nazarene. Time will tell what they do about such demonic inroads as NazNet.
Some time ago, I wrote about the difficult sections of Scripture in the light of God’s persona. I did not have to slide God off the charts. I instead discovered in the study of those venues that this God I serve is most respectable. It is because of his just and merciful holy nature.
What the rebels such as overseers on NazNet have done is to overweigh God on the love side of His persona and neglect His justice side. One cannot do that.
Holy God is the eternal, perfect balance of justice and mercy. When realizing that truth in both Old and New Testaments, one comes upon a perfect deity, in no need of NazNet’s surgical knives.
Read NAZNET DISTORTS at http://naznetdistorts.blogspot.com/
Read BIBLE HARSH PENALTIES & CHRIST’S ETHIC at http://truthinconviction.us/weblog.php?id=P3256
NAZNET MANAGER SCOTT CUNDIFF DELETES BIBLE AS ALL- OK: INERRANT VS. ERRANT
J. Grant Swank, Jr.
Once again, NazNet counters its prime aim. It states that it is Church of the Nazarene-friendly. The Church of the Nazarene historically accepts the Bible as the inerrant Word of God, a few rebels excepted.
Now NazNet seeks to turn that around by making the Bible weighed down in error, therefore opening up the window for dark shadows. When one takes away the conviction that the Bible is the pure Word of the divine, mortals start to slice and dice.
In that, NazNet joins the rebels.
Liberals have been doing slice and dicing for years, hence the liberal creed of doubt over faith.
NazNet encourages that doubt over faith, particularly when making sense of the “harsh passages” of the Old Testament. And this is to be Church of the Nazarene-friendly? This is supportive of the “Nazarene community” that NazNet plays up to?
Cundiff, along with NazNet Founder Dave McClung and Moderator Hans Deventer, adore C. S. Cowles’ position of errancy.
NazNet readers are encouraged to read in full Cowles’ “An Open Letter Concerning Scriptural Inerrancy.” Note: http://www.naznet.com/inerrant.htm
Highlighting that encouragement, Cundiff states the unthinkable: “I find a solid Wesleyan perspective that helps me deal with the issue, not from a devotional point of view, but rather from a theological one. I appreciate this insight.”
A Wesleyan perspective? Hardly.
All the more NazNet overseers use companionable words to cozy up to Nazarenes, e.g., “Wesleyan.”
Yet with that “Wesleyan” slide-in, who could then doubt Cowles’ position. It must be a winner for Cundiff to give it the Wesleyan wave.
Cundiff then on NazNet provides this Cowles quote: “No matter how hard one tries, it
is impossible to reconcile the many commands to kill enemies in the Old Testament with the commands to love our enemies in the New.
“Even more difficult is the portrait painted of God as a violent and genocidal child killer in the Old Testament (Noah’s flood, the fiery destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah, the slaughter of the Canaanites and Amalekites), and in Christ the lover of children in the New.
“(Dutch Reformed theologian A.) Van de Beek admits as much. He confesses that ‘The more one wants to let all of Scripture speak for itself . . . the more unclear the Bible becomes. The more we believe that the whole Word is revelation, the less we know who God is.’”
“’. . .the more unclear the Bible becomes’”? “’. . .the less we know who God is’”?
If a guide is going to take us in that direction, do we really want to follow that guide, that theological modus operandi? Apparently Cundiff finds that guide in keeping with his “Wesleyan perspective.” Seemingly Cundiff discovers that journey helpful in his theological understanding. So with that, NazNet encourages Nazarenes to travel hand-in-hand in Cundiff’s come-upon.
I have discovered just the opposite than Cundiff, Cowles, Deventer, McClung, and de Beek. I have found that the more one wants to let all of Scripture speak for itself, the clearer the Bible becomes. The more I believe the whole Word is revelation, the more I know who God is. That’s my personal testimony, satisfied that I am that it is a secure one.
How can Cundiff, apparently supported by McClung and Deventer with other site overseers, ever agree with de Beek? In that, these individuals strip all confidence in the divine revelation as being purely perfect.
But is God imperfect in His communication? Is the Word thereby flawed so as to leave us hanging with doubts innumerable? Is the Bible we have held to over time now declared to be crippled so that we are left with merely another literature piece?
What these doubters have exposed is not the imperfect Bible. What they have revealed is their lack of intellectual acumen plus lack of spiritual excellence.
If they had drawn upon the Holy Spirit’s guidance, they would have come upon answers to their questions, solutions to their problems.
It is possible to read in the Spirit to as to be more convinced than ever that the supposed harsh biblical passages all the more reveal the personhood of a just and loving deity.
Both Old and New Testaments speak pointedly concerning the divine nature. Instead of relying on our preconceived portrait of God, wanting the Bible to support that, we must take the scriptural data as is. With that, God’s persona will come into form in its reality.
Let that reality stand as who God is, for it is in truth who God is.
Someone asked me: “You’ve apparently linked belief in Christ with blindly following everything in the Bible?”
That questioner did not believe that I could hold to an Old Testament God who was the same God who appeared in the New Testament. Here is my answer to his questioner:
In the Old Testament, God commanded the death penalty in twenty-some cases. This was not because God was barbaric, but because God was civil. The Israeli twelve tribes had no law enforcement agencies. Further, they were surrounded by barbarisms of strange magnitudes exhibited by neighboring pagan nations.
Consequently, for God to establish an Israeli civil community, He set forth stringent punishments–some being the death penalty. He Himself became, in other words, the Law Enforcement Agency for the new nation of Israel. That chosen community thereby was to model morality / civility to the surrounding nations.
Extremely severe penalties then were commanded by God in order to bring in line an Israeli community which tended to be unruly like its neighbors. If God had been lax in penalties, human nature, being what it is, would have tested gladly the boundaries. But when penalties were severe, human nature thought twice before testing the boundaries, hence the death penalty prescribed by God in some instances.
However, once Israel lost its nationhood by “going a-whoring after other loves”, Israel’s civil structure disappeared. Israel as a nation lost its temple, its government–that is, its two primary components of culture–religion and politics. Pagan nations then ruled over the heretofore nation of God. In this loss was the disappearance of death penalties previously prescribed by God. The death penalty period as dictated by divine revelation, in other words, ended near the close of the Old Testament era.
That is why when Jesus appeared as flesh-and-bones divine revelation, He pronounced, “You used to say, ‘An eye for an eye’, but now I say to you: Love your enemies.” Jesus pronounced a civility of love toward one’s enemies. “Love your foes, pray for your foes.” This was the New Testament for it was now a new way of dealing with others–all others.
Government was now established primarily within the believer rather than under Israeli kings. “The Kingdom of God is within you.” Law was now primarily of the heart. “My law will be written on your hearts.” That was the new politic. Further, the tabernacle was now primarily the human frame: “Your body is the temple of the Holy Spirit.” That was the new religion.
Therefore, for the New Testament Church Age, it is the law of love toward all–friends and foes. Jesus provided a simply stated ethic. He refused to garble it with amendments. But, one may ask: “What about these atrocious crimes and the death penalty?”
The biblical answer is still the same: love your friends and foes in Jesus. What kind of Christian love then can be shown to a multiple-murderer / rapist / arsonist / child molester? What kind of Christian love can be meted out to a Hitler?
It is a Christian tough love. Tough love keeps the exceptional criminal alive but
consigns that one to supervised environs without parole. Hopefully, even that exceptional criminal then may come upon redemption through Christ, yet never be placed in tempting circumstances whereby he again may do others and Himself harm.
Keeping the individual alive also allows the possibility that, realizing human justice systems to be flawed, that person in truth may be found innocent though originally pronounced guilty. Indeed, the future may prove this to be fact if new evidence is forthcoming. History has case files on those in the aforementioned category.
Reason this moral / ethical situation from God’s perspective: Adam and Eve slew God’s love when they played loose with Eden’s snake. However, God did not slay them. Instead, God banished them to their own solitary isles of remorse, hoping at least for their eternal redemption.
You once slew God’s love by going your own stubborn way. In reality, you pronounced yourself Lord of your life. It is a hurtful truth to you now that you are a believer; nevertheless, living once in sin and for sin, you were once that callused toward your own loving Creator. However, did God obliterate you? No, instead God searched you out, loved you even while you were enemy, in hopes of redeeming what was left of your destiny.
He now invites each Christian to live out that same kind of persevering, at-times-tough love toward all others–especially those who are Enemy. God has already walked for us the path of love-for-foes. We, of all creatures, should know this for sure. Praise be to a loving, merciful God!
He then invites us to join Him on that love path. He has walked it for us. He asks us now to walk it for others.
Once again, NazNet counters its prime aim. It states that it is Church of the Nazarene-friendly. The Church of the Nazarene historically accepts the Bible as the inerrant Word of God, a few rebels excepted.
Now NazNet seeks to turn that around by making the Bible weighed down in error, therefore opening up the window for dark shadows. When one takes away the conviction that the Bible is the pure Word of the divine, mortals start to slice and dice.
In that, NazNet joins the rebels.
Liberals have been doing slice and dicing for years, hence the liberal creed of doubt over faith.
NazNet encourages that doubt over faith, particularly when making sense of the “harsh passages” of the Old Testament. And this is to be Church of the Nazarene-friendly? This is supportive of the “Nazarene community” that NazNet plays up to?
Cundiff, along with NazNet Founder Dave McClung and Moderator Hans Deventer, adore C. S. Cowles’ position of errancy.
NazNet readers are encouraged to read in full Cowles’ “An Open Letter Concerning Scriptural Inerrancy.” Note: http://www.naznet.com/inerrant.htm
Highlighting that encouragement, Cundiff states the unthinkable: “I find a solid Wesleyan perspective that helps me deal with the issue, not from a devotional point of view, but rather from a theological one. I appreciate this insight.”
A Wesleyan perspective? Hardly.
All the more NazNet overseers use companionable words to cozy up to Nazarenes, e.g., “Wesleyan.”
Yet with that “Wesleyan” slide-in, who could then doubt Cowles’ position. It must be a winner for Cundiff to give it the Wesleyan wave.
Cundiff then on NazNet provides this Cowles quote: “No matter how hard one tries, it
is impossible to reconcile the many commands to kill enemies in the Old Testament with the commands to love our enemies in the New.
“Even more difficult is the portrait painted of God as a violent and genocidal child killer in the Old Testament (Noah’s flood, the fiery destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah, the slaughter of the Canaanites and Amalekites), and in Christ the lover of children in the New.
“(Dutch Reformed theologian A.) Van de Beek admits as much. He confesses that ‘The more one wants to let all of Scripture speak for itself . . . the more unclear the Bible becomes. The more we believe that the whole Word is revelation, the less we know who God is.’”
“’. . .the more unclear the Bible becomes’”? “’. . .the less we know who God is’”?
If a guide is going to take us in that direction, do we really want to follow that guide, that theological modus operandi? Apparently Cundiff finds that guide in keeping with his “Wesleyan perspective.” Seemingly Cundiff discovers that journey helpful in his theological understanding. So with that, NazNet encourages Nazarenes to travel hand-in-hand in Cundiff’s come-upon.
I have discovered just the opposite than Cundiff, Cowles, Deventer, McClung, and de Beek. I have found that the more one wants to let all of Scripture speak for itself, the clearer the Bible becomes. The more I believe the whole Word is revelation, the more I know who God is. That’s my personal testimony, satisfied that I am that it is a secure one.
How can Cundiff, apparently supported by McClung and Deventer with other site overseers, ever agree with de Beek? In that, these individuals strip all confidence in the divine revelation as being purely perfect.
But is God imperfect in His communication? Is the Word thereby flawed so as to leave us hanging with doubts innumerable? Is the Bible we have held to over time now declared to be crippled so that we are left with merely another literature piece?
What these doubters have exposed is not the imperfect Bible. What they have revealed is their lack of intellectual acumen plus lack of spiritual excellence.
If they had drawn upon the Holy Spirit’s guidance, they would have come upon answers to their questions, solutions to their problems.
It is possible to read in the Spirit to as to be more convinced than ever that the supposed harsh biblical passages all the more reveal the personhood of a just and loving deity.
Both Old and New Testaments speak pointedly concerning the divine nature. Instead of relying on our preconceived portrait of God, wanting the Bible to support that, we must take the scriptural data as is. With that, God’s persona will come into form in its reality.
Let that reality stand as who God is, for it is in truth who God is.
Someone asked me: “You’ve apparently linked belief in Christ with blindly following everything in the Bible?”
That questioner did not believe that I could hold to an Old Testament God who was the same God who appeared in the New Testament. Here is my answer to his questioner:
In the Old Testament, God commanded the death penalty in twenty-some cases. This was not because God was barbaric, but because God was civil. The Israeli twelve tribes had no law enforcement agencies. Further, they were surrounded by barbarisms of strange magnitudes exhibited by neighboring pagan nations.
Consequently, for God to establish an Israeli civil community, He set forth stringent punishments–some being the death penalty. He Himself became, in other words, the Law Enforcement Agency for the new nation of Israel. That chosen community thereby was to model morality / civility to the surrounding nations.
Extremely severe penalties then were commanded by God in order to bring in line an Israeli community which tended to be unruly like its neighbors. If God had been lax in penalties, human nature, being what it is, would have tested gladly the boundaries. But when penalties were severe, human nature thought twice before testing the boundaries, hence the death penalty prescribed by God in some instances.
However, once Israel lost its nationhood by “going a-whoring after other loves”, Israel’s civil structure disappeared. Israel as a nation lost its temple, its government–that is, its two primary components of culture–religion and politics. Pagan nations then ruled over the heretofore nation of God. In this loss was the disappearance of death penalties previously prescribed by God. The death penalty period as dictated by divine revelation, in other words, ended near the close of the Old Testament era.
That is why when Jesus appeared as flesh-and-bones divine revelation, He pronounced, “You used to say, ‘An eye for an eye’, but now I say to you: Love your enemies.” Jesus pronounced a civility of love toward one’s enemies. “Love your foes, pray for your foes.” This was the New Testament for it was now a new way of dealing with others–all others.
Government was now established primarily within the believer rather than under Israeli kings. “The Kingdom of God is within you.” Law was now primarily of the heart. “My law will be written on your hearts.” That was the new politic. Further, the tabernacle was now primarily the human frame: “Your body is the temple of the Holy Spirit.” That was the new religion.
Therefore, for the New Testament Church Age, it is the law of love toward all–friends and foes. Jesus provided a simply stated ethic. He refused to garble it with amendments. But, one may ask: “What about these atrocious crimes and the death penalty?”
The biblical answer is still the same: love your friends and foes in Jesus. What kind of Christian love then can be shown to a multiple-murderer / rapist / arsonist / child molester? What kind of Christian love can be meted out to a Hitler?
It is a Christian tough love. Tough love keeps the exceptional criminal alive but
consigns that one to supervised environs without parole. Hopefully, even that exceptional criminal then may come upon redemption through Christ, yet never be placed in tempting circumstances whereby he again may do others and Himself harm.
Keeping the individual alive also allows the possibility that, realizing human justice systems to be flawed, that person in truth may be found innocent though originally pronounced guilty. Indeed, the future may prove this to be fact if new evidence is forthcoming. History has case files on those in the aforementioned category.
Reason this moral / ethical situation from God’s perspective: Adam and Eve slew God’s love when they played loose with Eden’s snake. However, God did not slay them. Instead, God banished them to their own solitary isles of remorse, hoping at least for their eternal redemption.
You once slew God’s love by going your own stubborn way. In reality, you pronounced yourself Lord of your life. It is a hurtful truth to you now that you are a believer; nevertheless, living once in sin and for sin, you were once that callused toward your own loving Creator. However, did God obliterate you? No, instead God searched you out, loved you even while you were enemy, in hopes of redeeming what was left of your destiny.
He now invites each Christian to live out that same kind of persevering, at-times-tough love toward all others–especially those who are Enemy. God has already walked for us the path of love-for-foes. We, of all creatures, should know this for sure. Praise be to a loving, merciful God!
He then invites us to join Him on that love path. He has walked it for us. He asks us now to walk it for others.
Friday, November 13, 2009
NAZNET REFUSES BIBLICAL STANDARD RE EMERGING CHURCH
J. Grant Swank, Jr.
NazNet highlights the topic on its site. But officially it does not take a biblical stand against the Emerging Church.
Naturally that could not happen, for NazNet settles for an errant Bible. That is, the Word of God is not granted us by a deity who knows how to perfect His communications skills.
Therefore, NazNet sets forth the Emerging Church topic and lets it fly. Relativism counts most.
Why does not a site that boasts on being a friend to the holiness Church of the Nazarene declare biblical convictions concerning Scripture and the bogus Emerging Church?
One, of course, cannot expect that kind of bold declaration from the overseers Founder and Moderator Dave McClung, Moderator Chaplain Barbara Moulton, Moderator Hans Deventer, and Manager Scott Cundiff.
These persons waffle when opportunistic. They are not grounded in biblical insight. They pose as experts concerning biblical faith but in fact they are amateur pied pipers luring the unsuspected reader.
These individuals have created a site that has no sound scriptural base. It is more in league with theological liberals than evangelical, holiness scholarship.
Now here is a biblical definition of the Emerging Church that can be trusted:
Once you proclaim that there are no absolutes, you put yourself outside Christianity.
Christianity is constructed on the biblical absolutes or it's not Christianity.
There are all kinds of prostitutions of Christianity; but God knows Christianity when He sees it. And when He sees the real thing, it's based on His absolutes as set forth in divine revelation.
The Emerging Church basically is the throwback to hippies with religion tagging along somehow somewhere.
The Emerging Church won't say anything absolute about homosexuality or abortion. That means it's a cowardly conclave that wants more of self than God's truth.
God's truth is set forth in Scripture. Regarding homosexual practice, God abhors it. Regarding killing womb babies, God abhors it.
Therefore, when the Emerging Church plays chicken on such ethical concerns, it sides with the dark powers. God is light. The Emerging Church cohabitates with compromise and that lifts it outside the genuine company of believers.
The Emerging Church is a fad. It is a giggle kind of group that is self-centered in that whatever plays best for the constituents is what goes.
Christians are not on Earth to play best for self. Christians are here to live out the inerrant biblical ethic—period.
The Emerging Church boasts of its swing dance group, its happy hour, its hiking clubs and so on and so on. Whatever serves self’s giddy get-up this Friday works for the Emerging Church.
That's a far cry from biblical commissions to live out holiness, go into all the world to make disciples of Christ, and be separate from worldliness unto God's impress.
The Emerging Church is touted among some today as The Latest in religious zeal, even at times including the term “evangelical” in its description.
All this is so much untruth in advertising.
This Emerging Church self-based flimflam will dissipate for it has no actual substance. Its little candle will light itself dry. However, while it sputters, it will destroy truth in some quarters and thwart the gospeling of the Earth.
The world is crazy. Yes. And part of that nuthouse stuff is the Emerging Church.
With that, farewell to those who pride themselves on having discovered something new. It’s nothing more than the old hippie bag with a religion of self-preoccupation.
Read NAZNET DISTORTS at http://naznetdistorts.blogspot.com/
NazNet highlights the topic on its site. But officially it does not take a biblical stand against the Emerging Church.
Naturally that could not happen, for NazNet settles for an errant Bible. That is, the Word of God is not granted us by a deity who knows how to perfect His communications skills.
Therefore, NazNet sets forth the Emerging Church topic and lets it fly. Relativism counts most.
Why does not a site that boasts on being a friend to the holiness Church of the Nazarene declare biblical convictions concerning Scripture and the bogus Emerging Church?
One, of course, cannot expect that kind of bold declaration from the overseers Founder and Moderator Dave McClung, Moderator Chaplain Barbara Moulton, Moderator Hans Deventer, and Manager Scott Cundiff.
These persons waffle when opportunistic. They are not grounded in biblical insight. They pose as experts concerning biblical faith but in fact they are amateur pied pipers luring the unsuspected reader.
These individuals have created a site that has no sound scriptural base. It is more in league with theological liberals than evangelical, holiness scholarship.
Now here is a biblical definition of the Emerging Church that can be trusted:
Once you proclaim that there are no absolutes, you put yourself outside Christianity.
Christianity is constructed on the biblical absolutes or it's not Christianity.
There are all kinds of prostitutions of Christianity; but God knows Christianity when He sees it. And when He sees the real thing, it's based on His absolutes as set forth in divine revelation.
The Emerging Church basically is the throwback to hippies with religion tagging along somehow somewhere.
The Emerging Church won't say anything absolute about homosexuality or abortion. That means it's a cowardly conclave that wants more of self than God's truth.
God's truth is set forth in Scripture. Regarding homosexual practice, God abhors it. Regarding killing womb babies, God abhors it.
Therefore, when the Emerging Church plays chicken on such ethical concerns, it sides with the dark powers. God is light. The Emerging Church cohabitates with compromise and that lifts it outside the genuine company of believers.
The Emerging Church is a fad. It is a giggle kind of group that is self-centered in that whatever plays best for the constituents is what goes.
Christians are not on Earth to play best for self. Christians are here to live out the inerrant biblical ethic—period.
The Emerging Church boasts of its swing dance group, its happy hour, its hiking clubs and so on and so on. Whatever serves self’s giddy get-up this Friday works for the Emerging Church.
That's a far cry from biblical commissions to live out holiness, go into all the world to make disciples of Christ, and be separate from worldliness unto God's impress.
The Emerging Church is touted among some today as The Latest in religious zeal, even at times including the term “evangelical” in its description.
All this is so much untruth in advertising.
This Emerging Church self-based flimflam will dissipate for it has no actual substance. Its little candle will light itself dry. However, while it sputters, it will destroy truth in some quarters and thwart the gospeling of the Earth.
The world is crazy. Yes. And part of that nuthouse stuff is the Emerging Church.
With that, farewell to those who pride themselves on having discovered something new. It’s nothing more than the old hippie bag with a religion of self-preoccupation.
Read NAZNET DISTORTS at http://naznetdistorts.blogspot.com/
DID NAZNET CHAPLAIN MODERATOR MUM-ON-GAY-NUPS BARBARA MOULTON QUIT?
J. Grant Swank, Jr.
Chaplain Barbara Moulton’s name and email address no longer appear on NazNet masthead page 1.
Has she quit?
NazNet Founder and Moderator Dave McClung emailed me that she was pained due to being exposed as cowardly in not publicly stating her refutation of homosexual practice.
God in His Word states clearly his refutation of homosexual practice.
Moulton said to me: “I am not going to crusade against allowing them (homosexual ‘marriages’) to take place in my country.”
How then can she be a Christian chaplain let alone a moderator on a supposed Christian site? Further, this site states repeatedly that it is a friend of the holiness Church of the Nazarene, the latter publicly not endorsing homosexual unions?
McClung said he was seeking to be a peacemaker about this issue when it came to Moulton’s being in pain and the exposure given her regarding her anti-biblical stance.
McClung was being no peacemaker or he would have made peace with God’s position on the matter.
He would also have made peace with the site’s integrity by refuting his chaplain moderator’s position.
McClung in no way sought peace. He sought to squelch the exposure of one of his prime staff members.
Read NAZNET DISTORTS at http://naznetdistorts.blogspot.com/
Chaplain Barbara Moulton’s name and email address no longer appear on NazNet masthead page 1.
Has she quit?
NazNet Founder and Moderator Dave McClung emailed me that she was pained due to being exposed as cowardly in not publicly stating her refutation of homosexual practice.
God in His Word states clearly his refutation of homosexual practice.
Moulton said to me: “I am not going to crusade against allowing them (homosexual ‘marriages’) to take place in my country.”
How then can she be a Christian chaplain let alone a moderator on a supposed Christian site? Further, this site states repeatedly that it is a friend of the holiness Church of the Nazarene, the latter publicly not endorsing homosexual unions?
McClung said he was seeking to be a peacemaker about this issue when it came to Moulton’s being in pain and the exposure given her regarding her anti-biblical stance.
McClung was being no peacemaker or he would have made peace with God’s position on the matter.
He would also have made peace with the site’s integrity by refuting his chaplain moderator’s position.
McClung in no way sought peace. He sought to squelch the exposure of one of his prime staff members.
Read NAZNET DISTORTS at http://naznetdistorts.blogspot.com/
ANOTHER NAZNET STAFF, SCOTT CUNDIFF, SUPPORTS ERROR-PRONE BIBLE
J. Grant Swank, Jr.
NazNet Manager G. R. ‘Scott’ Cundiff supports the errant position of Dr. C.S. Cowles of Point Loma Nazarene University. Cowles puts forth his thesis here: http://www.naznet.com/inerrant.htm
Cowles’ presentation is entitled: “Scriptural Inerrancy? ‘Behold, I Show You A More Excellent Way’: An Open Letter by C. S. Cowles / Spring, 2009 Point Loma Nazarene University.”
Cundiff joins NazNet Moderator Hans Deventer in wiping out total faith in the Bible as God’s inerrant revelation.
NazNet Founder and Moderator Dave McClung says nothing to refute this. Instead, he continues to play blind. Not only on this issue, but when Moderator Chaplain Barbara Moulton refuses to go into public air to defend God’s abhorrence of homosexual liaisons.
This reveals most boldly that NazNet is no support for the Church of the Nazarene, though claiming to be so time and again throughout the site. Instead, NazNet is at work daily to shatter the holiness denomination so that it no longer will be holiness or evangelical or theologically conservative.
McClung, businessman, is no theologian. He should not be creating on the Internet a seminary-type that sucks in particularly the young. McClung enjoys his pied piper role. He strokes those who post liberal positions, as do Cundiff and Deventer.
Cundiff is old enough to know better. He is no young chap still trying to find his way. Therefore, he and McClung delight in forming a theologically liberal following to submerge the holiness voice of the Church of the Nazarene.
Instead of using NazNet to enhance holiness teaching, elaborating intelligently the wise interpretation of sanctification in Scripture, NazNet does everything but that.
It fills up its site with contention and anti-biblical positions. These include Deventer’s defense of annihilation of the wicked rather than the biblical teaching of eternal torment.
Also, these include Deventer’s admiration of infant baptism over the biblical teaching of adult believers’ baptism only.
Cundiff fosters the questioning of the Word of God. He lends his site position most assertively to direct readers in the suspicion direction.
One who knows the Bible must ask these overseers this basic query: Do you not fear the Judgment Seat of Christ? Do you not take seriously at least that portion of Scripture or have you dismissed that as too horrific to believe?
Read NAZNET MODERATOR’S DAVE MCCLUNG IS LAX, INEPT, A TROUBLE-MAKER at http://naznetdistorts.blogspot.com/2009/11/naznet-moderators-dave-mcclung-is-lax.html
NazNet Manager G. R. ‘Scott’ Cundiff supports the errant position of Dr. C.S. Cowles of Point Loma Nazarene University. Cowles puts forth his thesis here: http://www.naznet.com/inerrant.htm
Cowles’ presentation is entitled: “Scriptural Inerrancy? ‘Behold, I Show You A More Excellent Way’: An Open Letter by C. S. Cowles / Spring, 2009 Point Loma Nazarene University.”
Cundiff joins NazNet Moderator Hans Deventer in wiping out total faith in the Bible as God’s inerrant revelation.
NazNet Founder and Moderator Dave McClung says nothing to refute this. Instead, he continues to play blind. Not only on this issue, but when Moderator Chaplain Barbara Moulton refuses to go into public air to defend God’s abhorrence of homosexual liaisons.
This reveals most boldly that NazNet is no support for the Church of the Nazarene, though claiming to be so time and again throughout the site. Instead, NazNet is at work daily to shatter the holiness denomination so that it no longer will be holiness or evangelical or theologically conservative.
McClung, businessman, is no theologian. He should not be creating on the Internet a seminary-type that sucks in particularly the young. McClung enjoys his pied piper role. He strokes those who post liberal positions, as do Cundiff and Deventer.
Cundiff is old enough to know better. He is no young chap still trying to find his way. Therefore, he and McClung delight in forming a theologically liberal following to submerge the holiness voice of the Church of the Nazarene.
Instead of using NazNet to enhance holiness teaching, elaborating intelligently the wise interpretation of sanctification in Scripture, NazNet does everything but that.
It fills up its site with contention and anti-biblical positions. These include Deventer’s defense of annihilation of the wicked rather than the biblical teaching of eternal torment.
Also, these include Deventer’s admiration of infant baptism over the biblical teaching of adult believers’ baptism only.
Cundiff fosters the questioning of the Word of God. He lends his site position most assertively to direct readers in the suspicion direction.
One who knows the Bible must ask these overseers this basic query: Do you not fear the Judgment Seat of Christ? Do you not take seriously at least that portion of Scripture or have you dismissed that as too horrific to believe?
Read NAZNET MODERATOR’S DAVE MCCLUNG IS LAX, INEPT, A TROUBLE-MAKER at http://naznetdistorts.blogspot.com/2009/11/naznet-moderators-dave-mcclung-is-lax.html
Thursday, November 12, 2009
NAZNET MODERATOR HANS DEVENTER NAMES ‘ENEMIES’
J. Grant Swank, Jr.
Hans Deventer has labeled me one of his “enemies.”
I did not reply to his email to me about that except to accept his conclusion.
I am not an enemy to any person who defends truth as defined by the Bible. I have stood by the scriptural data regarding eternal damnation, adult believers’ baptism, homosexual activity, and the Word of God being inerrant.
Because of that I stand enemy to Moderator Hans Deventer and Chaplain Moderator Barbara Moulton. As a footnote to the aforementioned, NazNet site Founder and Moderator Dave McClung supports these two staff members and thereby disagrees with biblical data, thus disagreeing with me.
Deventer has disagreed with biblical data regarding eternal damnation in stating simply that he believes the unsaved are annihilated. This is not scriptural.
Deventer has disagreed with biblical data regarding adult believers’ baptism in supporting infant baptism. Infant baptism is not scriptural.
Deventere has disagreed with biblical data regarding the Scriptures being inerrant. He believes they are open to error. This is not scriptural.
Deventer’s moderator colleague Barbara Moulton disagrees with the biblical call to defend the biblical ethic in public. She, a chaplain, will not take the biblical opposition to homosexual unions into the open. She is adamant about that. She, a chaplain, will not let the public know that God abhors homosexual activity.
What does she preach as a chaplain? If she preached to listeners to go forth with the gospel, she would have to footnote that sermon by admonishing that gospel witnessing is fine except for publicly defending the divine refutation of homosexual activity. Is not that usurping the divine authority?
Now concerning biblical data, I agree with same for I dare not transgress God’s revelation. God has spoken about hell as being “eternal torment.” Of course, Christ provides more descriptive terminology concerning the state of the damned.
God has no other New Testament information concerning baptism but that individuals who have knowingly accepted Christ as personal Lord give witness to that by being baptized. This is a public testimony that God has washed away the sins of the soul.
New Testament data states nowhere that any infant was baptized. None. That is Roman Catholic liturgy. But it is not what the biblically moored Church of the Nazarene has practiced since its start.
The Church of the Nazarene has the custom of dedicating little ones. That is proper and does not go against any biblical information; however, infant baptism can be found nowhere in the Bible.
As for the Bible being God’s eternal without-error Word, there can be no conclusion thereby reached but that God knows how to communicate perfectly. If God is incorrect in some of His communication, then He is not fit to be God.
Those claiming that the Bible has errors in it cannot explain the difficult passages such as the supposed harsh verses of the Old Testament.
That means that these individuals have not taken the nerve to think through, via the Holy Spirit’s guidance, the explanation satisfactory to accepting these verses as history.
Here, for example, is a thinking through of the difficult passages that leaves the Bible without error: BIBLE HARSH PENALTIES & CHRIST’S ETHIC at http://grantswank.blogtownhall.com/2009/11/10/bible_harsh_penalties__christ%E2%80%99s_ethic_2.thtml
So for disagreeing with Deventer’s unbiblical conclusions, he has tagged me one of his “enemies.”
For that reason, I am most honored to accept the label. At least I am true to the God of the Bible and therefore have no fear of the Judgment Seat of Christ.
Read NAZNET FOUNDER PLAYS BLIND at http://grantswank.blogtownhall.com/
Hans Deventer has labeled me one of his “enemies.”
I did not reply to his email to me about that except to accept his conclusion.
I am not an enemy to any person who defends truth as defined by the Bible. I have stood by the scriptural data regarding eternal damnation, adult believers’ baptism, homosexual activity, and the Word of God being inerrant.
Because of that I stand enemy to Moderator Hans Deventer and Chaplain Moderator Barbara Moulton. As a footnote to the aforementioned, NazNet site Founder and Moderator Dave McClung supports these two staff members and thereby disagrees with biblical data, thus disagreeing with me.
Deventer has disagreed with biblical data regarding eternal damnation in stating simply that he believes the unsaved are annihilated. This is not scriptural.
Deventer has disagreed with biblical data regarding adult believers’ baptism in supporting infant baptism. Infant baptism is not scriptural.
Deventere has disagreed with biblical data regarding the Scriptures being inerrant. He believes they are open to error. This is not scriptural.
Deventer’s moderator colleague Barbara Moulton disagrees with the biblical call to defend the biblical ethic in public. She, a chaplain, will not take the biblical opposition to homosexual unions into the open. She is adamant about that. She, a chaplain, will not let the public know that God abhors homosexual activity.
What does she preach as a chaplain? If she preached to listeners to go forth with the gospel, she would have to footnote that sermon by admonishing that gospel witnessing is fine except for publicly defending the divine refutation of homosexual activity. Is not that usurping the divine authority?
Now concerning biblical data, I agree with same for I dare not transgress God’s revelation. God has spoken about hell as being “eternal torment.” Of course, Christ provides more descriptive terminology concerning the state of the damned.
God has no other New Testament information concerning baptism but that individuals who have knowingly accepted Christ as personal Lord give witness to that by being baptized. This is a public testimony that God has washed away the sins of the soul.
New Testament data states nowhere that any infant was baptized. None. That is Roman Catholic liturgy. But it is not what the biblically moored Church of the Nazarene has practiced since its start.
The Church of the Nazarene has the custom of dedicating little ones. That is proper and does not go against any biblical information; however, infant baptism can be found nowhere in the Bible.
As for the Bible being God’s eternal without-error Word, there can be no conclusion thereby reached but that God knows how to communicate perfectly. If God is incorrect in some of His communication, then He is not fit to be God.
Those claiming that the Bible has errors in it cannot explain the difficult passages such as the supposed harsh verses of the Old Testament.
That means that these individuals have not taken the nerve to think through, via the Holy Spirit’s guidance, the explanation satisfactory to accepting these verses as history.
Here, for example, is a thinking through of the difficult passages that leaves the Bible without error: BIBLE HARSH PENALTIES & CHRIST’S ETHIC at http://grantswank.blogtownhall.com/2009/11/10/bible_harsh_penalties__christ%E2%80%99s_ethic_2.thtml
So for disagreeing with Deventer’s unbiblical conclusions, he has tagged me one of his “enemies.”
For that reason, I am most honored to accept the label. At least I am true to the God of the Bible and therefore have no fear of the Judgment Seat of Christ.
Read NAZNET FOUNDER PLAYS BLIND at http://grantswank.blogtownhall.com/
Wednesday, November 11, 2009
NAZNET MODERATOR’S DAVE MCCLUNG IS LAX, INEPT, A TROUBLE-MAKER
J. Grant Swank, Jr.
Why does supposed Church of the Nazarene-friendly NazNet Founder and Moderator Dave McClung permit a Chaplain Moderator Barbara Moulton to be his site overseer?
She does not take a public stand for the biblical abhorrence of homosexual nuptials. She keeps God’s stance in the closet.
She says: “. . .for the record, I do have objections to gay marriage. I don't perform them and will never perform them. I simply am not going to crusade against allowing them to take place in my country.”
Read more: NAZNET’S CHAPLAIN MODERATOR KEEPS ‘GAY MARRIAGE’ IN THE CLOSET at http://grantswank.blogtownhall.com/2009/11/10/naznet%E2%80%99s_chaplain_moderator_keeps_%E2%80%98gay_marriage%E2%80%99_in_the_closet.thtml
Also, NAZNET’S CHAPLAIN MODERATOR BARBARA MOULTON DRAWS SPIKED REACTIONS at http://grantswank.blogtownhall.com/2009/11/10/naznet%E2%80%99s_chaplain_moderator_barbara_moulton_draws_spiked_reactions.thtml
Where is Moderator Dave McClung? Why does he permit this kind of “leadership” on NazNet when it is undermining the Bible and the denomination?
Further, another moderator, Hans Deventer, states that he opposes Christ’s statements concerning hell’s eternal torment. He opts for annihilation.
Read more: NAZNET MODERATOR HANS DEVENTER NIXES ETERNAL HELL. HE’S NAZARENE? at http://grantswank.blogtownhall.com/2009/11/10/naznet_moderator_hans_deventer_nixes_eternal_hell_he%E2%80%99s_nazarene.thtml
Where is Moderator McClung? Why does he permit Deventer to upstage Christ on clear biblical data? Deventer obviously has the theological clout to cancel out Christ’s warnings for Deventer’s own holy writ.
McClung allows this to continue day after day.
Further, Hans Deventer endorses a Bible fraught with errors. This is in keeping with another overseer, Site Manager and Moderator Scott Cundiff. They both use the site to indoctrinate that God has trouble communicating a perfect revelation; therefore, it is up to each reader to pick and choose what he considers legitimate biblical material.
Read NAZNET SAYS BIBLE NOT 100% NO-ERROR RELIABLE at http://grantswank.blogtownhall.com/2009/11/10/naznet_says_bible_not_100_no-error_reliable.thtml
It takes some intelligence to reach the conclusion that difficult biblical passages actually support the perfect divine revelation. But evidently NazNet site overseers don’t have that kind of intelligence.
Check this out for balanced reasoning: BIBLE HARSH PENALTIES & CHRIST'S ETHIC at http://grantswank.blogtownhall.com/2009/11/10/bible_harsh_penalties__christ%E2%80%99s_ethic_2.thtml
The Church of the Nazarene historically has endorsed adult believer’s baptism.
However, Hans Deventer has a more excellent way. It is the Roman Catholic position of infant baptism. Here are Deventer’s own words: “I've changed from one who supported adult baptism to one who now supports infant baptism.”
(This is typical of NazNet. The site seeks to form the Church of the Nazarene into the Catholic/Anglican/Episcopal high church mold. This includes changing the Nazarene reference to the Lord’s Supper as “communion” to Deventer and clique’s high church term “Eucharist.” They adore the term “Eucharist.”)
For more explaining why infant baptism is nowhere to be found in Scripture, click NAZNET MODERATOR HANS DEVENTER SUPPORTS INFANT BAPTISM OVER ADULT BAPTISM at http://grantswank.blogtownhall.com/2009/11/10/naznet_moderator_hans_deventer_supports_infant_baptism_over_adult_baptism.thtml
McClung turns his head the other way when Barbara Moulton hides in her coward’s closet rather than take the God-side in opposing in the marketplace homosexual “marriage.”
McClung turns his head the other way when Hans Deventer boasts that annihilation takes precedence over Christ’s “everlasting torment” warning for unbelievers.
McClung turns his head the other way when Hans Deventer and Scott Cundiff put NazNet’s top-of-the-list reading errance in Scripture. At the top of the list! It is not merely a hidden read in the site; it is highly recommended for all site viewers.
McClung turns his head the other way when Hans Deventer chants his support for infant rather than the biblical adult baptism.
In addition, when Internet readers found out about Barbara Moulton cowardice, McClung emailed me to ask me to stop such posting for Moulton was in “pain” over it.
Can you imagine that?
She was in pain over being exposed as a coward. She was in pain because truth won out. What about God’s pain in seeing one who claims to be His own child not standing up publicly for Father’s ethic?
Further, McClung emailed me that he was seeking to be a “peacemaker.”
I did not email McClung back; but I wanted to. Now I will ask him so that you may read my questions: Mr. McClung, Founder and Moderator/NazNet, why do you not seek making peace with God and His perfectly communicated divine writ? Why do you permit your colleagues to slice through the biblical record?
Further, if you want to make peace in the eternal, God-blessed sense, why do you use your site to play “denomination-on-site-in-competition-with-the-Church-of-the-Nazarene”?
You act as if you are usurping the General Superintendents by playing General Superintendent, seminary professor, college religion professor and so forth. Your “educational staff” equals site overseers who have in fact created their own bogus seminary training center.
If you are a person of integrity, you will stop your site’s propaganda and support gospeling the world with biblical truth.
I doubt if your ego will permit you to do that.
Why does supposed Church of the Nazarene-friendly NazNet Founder and Moderator Dave McClung permit a Chaplain Moderator Barbara Moulton to be his site overseer?
She does not take a public stand for the biblical abhorrence of homosexual nuptials. She keeps God’s stance in the closet.
She says: “. . .for the record, I do have objections to gay marriage. I don't perform them and will never perform them. I simply am not going to crusade against allowing them to take place in my country.”
Read more: NAZNET’S CHAPLAIN MODERATOR KEEPS ‘GAY MARRIAGE’ IN THE CLOSET at http://grantswank.blogtownhall.com/2009/11/10/naznet%E2%80%99s_chaplain_moderator_keeps_%E2%80%98gay_marriage%E2%80%99_in_the_closet.thtml
Also, NAZNET’S CHAPLAIN MODERATOR BARBARA MOULTON DRAWS SPIKED REACTIONS at http://grantswank.blogtownhall.com/2009/11/10/naznet%E2%80%99s_chaplain_moderator_barbara_moulton_draws_spiked_reactions.thtml
Where is Moderator Dave McClung? Why does he permit this kind of “leadership” on NazNet when it is undermining the Bible and the denomination?
Further, another moderator, Hans Deventer, states that he opposes Christ’s statements concerning hell’s eternal torment. He opts for annihilation.
Read more: NAZNET MODERATOR HANS DEVENTER NIXES ETERNAL HELL. HE’S NAZARENE? at http://grantswank.blogtownhall.com/2009/11/10/naznet_moderator_hans_deventer_nixes_eternal_hell_he%E2%80%99s_nazarene.thtml
Where is Moderator McClung? Why does he permit Deventer to upstage Christ on clear biblical data? Deventer obviously has the theological clout to cancel out Christ’s warnings for Deventer’s own holy writ.
McClung allows this to continue day after day.
Further, Hans Deventer endorses a Bible fraught with errors. This is in keeping with another overseer, Site Manager and Moderator Scott Cundiff. They both use the site to indoctrinate that God has trouble communicating a perfect revelation; therefore, it is up to each reader to pick and choose what he considers legitimate biblical material.
Read NAZNET SAYS BIBLE NOT 100% NO-ERROR RELIABLE at http://grantswank.blogtownhall.com/2009/11/10/naznet_says_bible_not_100_no-error_reliable.thtml
It takes some intelligence to reach the conclusion that difficult biblical passages actually support the perfect divine revelation. But evidently NazNet site overseers don’t have that kind of intelligence.
Check this out for balanced reasoning: BIBLE HARSH PENALTIES & CHRIST'S ETHIC at http://grantswank.blogtownhall.com/2009/11/10/bible_harsh_penalties__christ%E2%80%99s_ethic_2.thtml
The Church of the Nazarene historically has endorsed adult believer’s baptism.
However, Hans Deventer has a more excellent way. It is the Roman Catholic position of infant baptism. Here are Deventer’s own words: “I've changed from one who supported adult baptism to one who now supports infant baptism.”
(This is typical of NazNet. The site seeks to form the Church of the Nazarene into the Catholic/Anglican/Episcopal high church mold. This includes changing the Nazarene reference to the Lord’s Supper as “communion” to Deventer and clique’s high church term “Eucharist.” They adore the term “Eucharist.”)
For more explaining why infant baptism is nowhere to be found in Scripture, click NAZNET MODERATOR HANS DEVENTER SUPPORTS INFANT BAPTISM OVER ADULT BAPTISM at http://grantswank.blogtownhall.com/2009/11/10/naznet_moderator_hans_deventer_supports_infant_baptism_over_adult_baptism.thtml
McClung turns his head the other way when Barbara Moulton hides in her coward’s closet rather than take the God-side in opposing in the marketplace homosexual “marriage.”
McClung turns his head the other way when Hans Deventer boasts that annihilation takes precedence over Christ’s “everlasting torment” warning for unbelievers.
McClung turns his head the other way when Hans Deventer and Scott Cundiff put NazNet’s top-of-the-list reading errance in Scripture. At the top of the list! It is not merely a hidden read in the site; it is highly recommended for all site viewers.
McClung turns his head the other way when Hans Deventer chants his support for infant rather than the biblical adult baptism.
In addition, when Internet readers found out about Barbara Moulton cowardice, McClung emailed me to ask me to stop such posting for Moulton was in “pain” over it.
Can you imagine that?
She was in pain over being exposed as a coward. She was in pain because truth won out. What about God’s pain in seeing one who claims to be His own child not standing up publicly for Father’s ethic?
Further, McClung emailed me that he was seeking to be a “peacemaker.”
I did not email McClung back; but I wanted to. Now I will ask him so that you may read my questions: Mr. McClung, Founder and Moderator/NazNet, why do you not seek making peace with God and His perfectly communicated divine writ? Why do you permit your colleagues to slice through the biblical record?
Further, if you want to make peace in the eternal, God-blessed sense, why do you use your site to play “denomination-on-site-in-competition-with-the-Church-of-the-Nazarene”?
You act as if you are usurping the General Superintendents by playing General Superintendent, seminary professor, college religion professor and so forth. Your “educational staff” equals site overseers who have in fact created their own bogus seminary training center.
If you are a person of integrity, you will stop your site’s propaganda and support gospeling the world with biblical truth.
I doubt if your ego will permit you to do that.
Tuesday, November 10, 2009
NAZNET MODERATOR HANS DEVENTER SUPPORTS INFANT BAPTISM OVER ADULT BAPTISM
J. Grant Swank, Jr.
Deventer states it clearly: “I've changed from one who supported adult baptism to one who now supports infant baptism.”
This is another example on theologically liberal based Naznet of stirring up disagreement and contention within the Church of the Nazarene.
What gospel benefit is Deventer’s input when the primary energy of the church should be preaching salvation while the world slugs it out for hell’s gain?
Hans Deventer delights in planting division on that site. Other site overseers join him daily.
In another venue, Deventer blatantly proclaimed that hell is not eternal torment but annihilation. This is a travesty. This is not Nazarene teaching. This is not Nazarene doctrinal heritage. This is not Bible.
Deventer knows that his heresy is a slam against Jesus’ own teachings concerning everlasting damnation promised the unsaved.
Check it out: NAZNET MODERATOR HANS DEVENTER NIXES ETERNAL HELL. HE’S NAZARENE? at http://grantswank.blogtownhall.com/2009/11/10/naznet_moderator_hans_deventer_nixes_eternal_hell_he%E2%80%99s_nazarene.thtml
In another site slot, Deventer endorses biblical errancy, that is, the divine revelation being fraught with errors.
Biblical inerrancy has been the foundational grounding of the Church of the Nazarene since its inception. Now the likes of Deventer spook the church with suspicions off the charts. He will answer to the God who revealed the perfect Word when Deventer stands at the Judgment Seat of Christ.
Psalm 19:7 states: “The law of the Lord [is] perfect, converting the soul.”
James 1:25 states: “But whoever looks into the perfect law of liberty, and continues [therein], he being not a forgetful hearer, but a doer of the work, this man shall be blessed in his deed.”
Check it out: NAZNET SAYS BIBLE NOT 100% NO-ERROR RELIABLE at http://grantswank.blogtownhall.com/2009/11/10/naznet_says_bible_not_100_no-error_reliable.thtml
Now Deventer declares that infant baptism is superior to believers’ adult baptism. It is superior in his view or he would not have changed.
In the Church of the Nazarene there are those clergy who infrequently for various reasons will baptize infants. That has been officiated without contention. However, the primary modes have been sprinkling, pouring and immersion for adults who testify to being saved.
In the denomination there is the customary dedication of infants. This is biblical sense for the parents dedicate their little ones to the Lord, promising to rear their offspring in the ways of a biblical lifestyle.
In Scripture there is absolutely no outright data of infants being baptized though liturgical conclaves read into one verse or another same. Reading into verses is not equal to a verse clearly stating a truth.
Again, there is not one Scripture passage stating that an infant is baptized. All Scripture passages concerning Christian baptism relate to those who profess to accepting Christ as Savior. They, as mature thinking persons, have made a conscious choice to receive divine mercy in salvation.
Now Deventer ups the infant non-biblical position against the adult biblical position. Such hubris. But that is not a surprise when reading Deventer’s iconoclastic proclamations on NazNet.
Yet NazNet states itself to be a companion to the Church of the Nazarene. In reality it is not.
It is a breeding ground for egocentric, theologically opportunistic intellectual-wannabes. These seek to supplant the Nazarene heritage with a liberal stance that eventually will split the denomination into splinters.
Why the church prime leaders from Kansas City headquarters onward through district and regional levels don’t speak out against this divisive intention is beyond reason. It can only by the political network that continues to turn away from truth.
Read other troubling matters related to NazNet:
NAZNET’S CHAPLAIN MODERATOR KEEPS ‘GAY MARRIAGE’ IN THE CLOSET at http://grantswank.blogtownhall.com/2009/11/10/naznet%E2%80%99s_chaplain_moderator_keeps_%E2%80%98gay_marriage%E2%80%99_in_the_closet.thtml
NAZNET’S CHAPLAIN MODERATOR BARBARA MOULTON DRAWS SPIKED REACTIONS at http://grantswank.blogtownhall.com/2009/11/10/naznet%E2%80%99s_chaplain_moderator_barbara_moulton_draws_spiked_reactions.thtml
NAZNET WEBSITE UNFAIR at http://www.michnews.com/J_Grant_Swank_Jr/jgs110609.shtml
Deventer states it clearly: “I've changed from one who supported adult baptism to one who now supports infant baptism.”
This is another example on theologically liberal based Naznet of stirring up disagreement and contention within the Church of the Nazarene.
What gospel benefit is Deventer’s input when the primary energy of the church should be preaching salvation while the world slugs it out for hell’s gain?
Hans Deventer delights in planting division on that site. Other site overseers join him daily.
In another venue, Deventer blatantly proclaimed that hell is not eternal torment but annihilation. This is a travesty. This is not Nazarene teaching. This is not Nazarene doctrinal heritage. This is not Bible.
Deventer knows that his heresy is a slam against Jesus’ own teachings concerning everlasting damnation promised the unsaved.
Check it out: NAZNET MODERATOR HANS DEVENTER NIXES ETERNAL HELL. HE’S NAZARENE? at http://grantswank.blogtownhall.com/2009/11/10/naznet_moderator_hans_deventer_nixes_eternal_hell_he%E2%80%99s_nazarene.thtml
In another site slot, Deventer endorses biblical errancy, that is, the divine revelation being fraught with errors.
Biblical inerrancy has been the foundational grounding of the Church of the Nazarene since its inception. Now the likes of Deventer spook the church with suspicions off the charts. He will answer to the God who revealed the perfect Word when Deventer stands at the Judgment Seat of Christ.
Psalm 19:7 states: “The law of the Lord [is] perfect, converting the soul.”
James 1:25 states: “But whoever looks into the perfect law of liberty, and continues [therein], he being not a forgetful hearer, but a doer of the work, this man shall be blessed in his deed.”
Check it out: NAZNET SAYS BIBLE NOT 100% NO-ERROR RELIABLE at http://grantswank.blogtownhall.com/2009/11/10/naznet_says_bible_not_100_no-error_reliable.thtml
Now Deventer declares that infant baptism is superior to believers’ adult baptism. It is superior in his view or he would not have changed.
In the Church of the Nazarene there are those clergy who infrequently for various reasons will baptize infants. That has been officiated without contention. However, the primary modes have been sprinkling, pouring and immersion for adults who testify to being saved.
In the denomination there is the customary dedication of infants. This is biblical sense for the parents dedicate their little ones to the Lord, promising to rear their offspring in the ways of a biblical lifestyle.
In Scripture there is absolutely no outright data of infants being baptized though liturgical conclaves read into one verse or another same. Reading into verses is not equal to a verse clearly stating a truth.
Again, there is not one Scripture passage stating that an infant is baptized. All Scripture passages concerning Christian baptism relate to those who profess to accepting Christ as Savior. They, as mature thinking persons, have made a conscious choice to receive divine mercy in salvation.
Now Deventer ups the infant non-biblical position against the adult biblical position. Such hubris. But that is not a surprise when reading Deventer’s iconoclastic proclamations on NazNet.
Yet NazNet states itself to be a companion to the Church of the Nazarene. In reality it is not.
It is a breeding ground for egocentric, theologically opportunistic intellectual-wannabes. These seek to supplant the Nazarene heritage with a liberal stance that eventually will split the denomination into splinters.
Why the church prime leaders from Kansas City headquarters onward through district and regional levels don’t speak out against this divisive intention is beyond reason. It can only by the political network that continues to turn away from truth.
Read other troubling matters related to NazNet:
NAZNET’S CHAPLAIN MODERATOR KEEPS ‘GAY MARRIAGE’ IN THE CLOSET at http://grantswank.blogtownhall.com/2009/11/10/naznet%E2%80%99s_chaplain_moderator_keeps_%E2%80%98gay_marriage%E2%80%99_in_the_closet.thtml
NAZNET’S CHAPLAIN MODERATOR BARBARA MOULTON DRAWS SPIKED REACTIONS at http://grantswank.blogtownhall.com/2009/11/10/naznet%E2%80%99s_chaplain_moderator_barbara_moulton_draws_spiked_reactions.thtml
NAZNET WEBSITE UNFAIR at http://www.michnews.com/J_Grant_Swank_Jr/jgs110609.shtml
NAZNET SAYS BIBLE NOT 100% NO-ERROR RELIABLE
J. Grant Swank, Jr.
Once again, NazNet sets forth the liberal position.
Yet NazNet claims to be a friend to the evangelical, holiness Church of the Nazarene. Obviously, per numerous posts on its site, it is no friend.
It is popular on NazNet, particularly by site overseers, to support a Bible not fully reliable.
NazNet basically claims the Word of God is errant. That is, it has errors in it.
Therefore, one is left to pick and choose what is error and what is not error. Imagine the hubris of the mortal, especially in deciphering the divine revelation.
NazNet Manager G. R. ‘Scott’ Cundiff supports the errant position of Dr. C.S. Cowles of Point Loma Nazarene University. Cowles puts forth his thesis here: http://www.naznet.com/inerrant.htm
Cowles’ presentation is entitled: “Scriptural Inerrancy? ‘Behold, I Show You A More Excellent Way’: An Open Letter by C. S. Cowles / Spring, 2009 Point Loma Nazarene University.”
NazNet Moderator Hans Deventer echoes Cundiff’s praise for Cowles’ lecture that the Scriptures have errors in them. Hans says regarding Cundiff’s writing: “I have only one comment: WOW! Thank you, Dr. Cowles. This is a keeper.”
There can be no doubt that NazNet fosters biblical errancy. There is no doubt that NazNet encourages theological liberalism.
In addition, for more liberal positions, note: NazNet Chaplain Moderator Barbara Moulton states her preference for not taking into the openthe biblical position on homosexuality.
She states that she will not champion God’s position on the subject by defending God’s position in public. She will permit homosexuals to take over media coverage, for example. But she herself will keep her opinion in the closet.
In other words, it must not be nice or Christian to support in the marketplace the biblical stance regarding homosexual practice.
Read more: NAZNET’S CHAPLAIN MODERATOR KEEPS ‘GAY MARRIAGE’ IN THE CLOSET at http://grantswank.blogtownhall.com/2009/11/10/naznet%E2%80%99s_chaplain_moderator_keeps_%E2%80%98gay_marriage%E2%80%99_in_the_closet.thtml
In addition, Moderator Hans Deventer states that Jesus was wrong when declaring hell is “eternal torment.” Deventer states the correct view is to proclaim that unbelievers are annihilated upon death.
Read more: NAZNET MODERATOR HANS DEVENTER NIXES ETERNAL HELL. HE’S NAZARENE? at http://grantswank.blogtownhall.com/
Obviously, when one holds to biblical errancy, one can stray from the biblical ethic and moral base. That moves right into the theological liberal mode of writing your own holy writ, such being done throughout NazNet.
What those of us who hold to inerrancy do is think deeply about biblical research rather than lie down to say Quit. Saying Quit opens up Pandora’s Box for whatever one wants. That leads to theological anarchy.
It is also just what Satan would want for a holiness denomination once aligned solidly behind the Bible as the infallible divine revelation. NazNet fosters canceling out this Nazarene heritage for theological opportunism.
Behind it all is hubris, Eden’s first sin.
If the Church of the Nazarene continues endorsing this position, the denomination will unravel to lose the divine blessing. It will come under the divine curse as the liberal denominations are experiencing today.
Here is an example of thinking deeply through the biblical data.
The following centers on the harsh penalties of the Old Testament in light of the New Testament’s love ethic: BIBLE HARSH PENALTIES & CHRIST’S ETHIC at http://grantswank.blogtownhall.com/2009/11/10/bible_harsh_penalties__christ%E2%80%99s_ethic_2.thtml
Those who, like NazNet, follow Cowles are cowards in that they lie down to whimper Quit.
Genuine biblical researchers don’t do that. The biblical scholars in the past who were loyal to the inerrant divine revelation did not say Quit.
Those biblical researchers today who are loyal to the inerrant divine revelation do not say Quit.
Be forewarned: NazNet is no friend to the Church of the Nazarene. It is theologically liberal based, not holiness-conservative in its primary direction.
Once again, NazNet sets forth the liberal position.
Yet NazNet claims to be a friend to the evangelical, holiness Church of the Nazarene. Obviously, per numerous posts on its site, it is no friend.
It is popular on NazNet, particularly by site overseers, to support a Bible not fully reliable.
NazNet basically claims the Word of God is errant. That is, it has errors in it.
Therefore, one is left to pick and choose what is error and what is not error. Imagine the hubris of the mortal, especially in deciphering the divine revelation.
NazNet Manager G. R. ‘Scott’ Cundiff supports the errant position of Dr. C.S. Cowles of Point Loma Nazarene University. Cowles puts forth his thesis here: http://www.naznet.com/inerrant.htm
Cowles’ presentation is entitled: “Scriptural Inerrancy? ‘Behold, I Show You A More Excellent Way’: An Open Letter by C. S. Cowles / Spring, 2009 Point Loma Nazarene University.”
NazNet Moderator Hans Deventer echoes Cundiff’s praise for Cowles’ lecture that the Scriptures have errors in them. Hans says regarding Cundiff’s writing: “I have only one comment: WOW! Thank you, Dr. Cowles. This is a keeper.”
There can be no doubt that NazNet fosters biblical errancy. There is no doubt that NazNet encourages theological liberalism.
In addition, for more liberal positions, note: NazNet Chaplain Moderator Barbara Moulton states her preference for not taking into the openthe biblical position on homosexuality.
She states that she will not champion God’s position on the subject by defending God’s position in public. She will permit homosexuals to take over media coverage, for example. But she herself will keep her opinion in the closet.
In other words, it must not be nice or Christian to support in the marketplace the biblical stance regarding homosexual practice.
Read more: NAZNET’S CHAPLAIN MODERATOR KEEPS ‘GAY MARRIAGE’ IN THE CLOSET at http://grantswank.blogtownhall.com/2009/11/10/naznet%E2%80%99s_chaplain_moderator_keeps_%E2%80%98gay_marriage%E2%80%99_in_the_closet.thtml
In addition, Moderator Hans Deventer states that Jesus was wrong when declaring hell is “eternal torment.” Deventer states the correct view is to proclaim that unbelievers are annihilated upon death.
Read more: NAZNET MODERATOR HANS DEVENTER NIXES ETERNAL HELL. HE’S NAZARENE? at http://grantswank.blogtownhall.com/
Obviously, when one holds to biblical errancy, one can stray from the biblical ethic and moral base. That moves right into the theological liberal mode of writing your own holy writ, such being done throughout NazNet.
What those of us who hold to inerrancy do is think deeply about biblical research rather than lie down to say Quit. Saying Quit opens up Pandora’s Box for whatever one wants. That leads to theological anarchy.
It is also just what Satan would want for a holiness denomination once aligned solidly behind the Bible as the infallible divine revelation. NazNet fosters canceling out this Nazarene heritage for theological opportunism.
Behind it all is hubris, Eden’s first sin.
If the Church of the Nazarene continues endorsing this position, the denomination will unravel to lose the divine blessing. It will come under the divine curse as the liberal denominations are experiencing today.
Here is an example of thinking deeply through the biblical data.
The following centers on the harsh penalties of the Old Testament in light of the New Testament’s love ethic: BIBLE HARSH PENALTIES & CHRIST’S ETHIC at http://grantswank.blogtownhall.com/2009/11/10/bible_harsh_penalties__christ%E2%80%99s_ethic_2.thtml
Those who, like NazNet, follow Cowles are cowards in that they lie down to whimper Quit.
Genuine biblical researchers don’t do that. The biblical scholars in the past who were loyal to the inerrant divine revelation did not say Quit.
Those biblical researchers today who are loyal to the inerrant divine revelation do not say Quit.
Be forewarned: NazNet is no friend to the Church of the Nazarene. It is theologically liberal based, not holiness-conservative in its primary direction.
Monday, November 9, 2009
NAZNET MODERATOR HANS DEVENTER NIXES ETERNAL HELL. HE’S NAZARENE?
J. Grant Swank, Jr.
In his own words: “I believe that hell is annihilation.” Check it out here: http://www.naznet.com/community/showthread.php?t=28935
Clear words. Simple words. Definitions understood without commentary.
Hans Deventer is moderator of a supposed Church of the Nazarene supportive site per the site’s own “advertisement.”
The Church of the Nazarene has never preached that hell is annihilation. I was born into that denomination and have graduated from that church’s seminary, having graduated from that church’s liberal arts college.
I have never heard any professor, preacher or evangelist claim that “hell is annihilation.”
Jesus never stated that hell is annihilation. Instead, he stated just the opposite. Hell is everlasting torment for the damned.
That is why the traditional Church of the Nazarene proclaimed that hell is eternal torment for that denomination sought to underline exactly what the Bible states. That denomination was not known for diverting from the Word, that is, until Hans came along with his theologically liberal colleagues on NazNet.
NazNet, to use Hans as an example, seeks to stir up confusion though the site claims just the opposite as its reason for being. It needs readers. It needs responders. Therefore, it moves into that which is contentious in order to get readers.
It’s the same with Hans’ opinion that infant baptism is his okay-baptism. He states in another venue that he once believed in believers’ adult baptism; however, he’s now an advocate for infant baptism.
Spin the theologically liberal bottle once again, Hans.
Yet you still state that you are supportive of the Church of the Nazarene? Not so. You are supportive of your place on the NazNet site that you hope will supplant the historic Church of the Nazarene teaching by claiming it worn out. The past is “old hat.”
Whether it is annihilation or infant baptism, these two examples are just two of others that seek to plant, particularly in the young readers, questions regarding the denomination’s heretofore biblical proclamations.
NazNet is not then a friend to the traditional history of the Church of the Nazarene. It is a rebel.
Hans and NazNet overseers are out to be popular, not to be theologically biblical or friends of the Church of the Nazarene. Therefore, the Church of the Nazarene leadership should come out in defense of biblical doctrine, exposing NazNet as not a genuine companion.
So, Hans, you join liberals in prostituting Scripture to your own opinions, such as your definition of hell as annihilation. You knew from the start that you were handling a basic biblical teaching that you were subverting. But for your own personal popularity and your site’s increased readership, you took the gamble of toying with the Word.
Of course, you will answer for this from God for He will not tolerate those who twist and turn His revelation in order to suit their own egocentric aims. Opportunistic you, as well as your other site overseers, may think you are the new gurus for the Church of the Nazarene. But you are not.
Using the Bible as evidence, you are not friends to the Church of the Nazarene.
As a troubling postscript, Hans also states this set of confusing words: “The Bible isn't clear about the intermediate state.”
The biblical Protestant does not believe in an “intermediate state.” Biblical believers know that the Word teaches that at death the soul goes to heaven or hell. There is no middle state—the “intermediate state.”
Roman Catholicism and some other liturgical conclaves teach an intermediate state. Catholic teaching has traditionally taught a limbo space for unbaptized infants who die. Catholic teaching also has taught a purgatory, an “intermediate state.”
However, the Church of the Nazarene specifically has never believed in limbo or purgatory or any other “place” called “intermediate state.”
I personally believe that Hans does not know what he is talking about on various points in his post here: http://www.naznet.com/community/showthread.php?t=28935
He truly is not theologically knowledgeable so as to monitor an evangelical holiness site.
Yet he continues on NazNet’s claimed-to-be supportive site for the Church of the Nazarene.
Not sound. Not true.
For further digressions from the Church of the Nazarene’s biblical past, read: NAZNET’S CHAPLAIN MODERATOR BARBARA MOULTON DRAWS SPIKED REACTIONS at http://www.allvoices.com/contributed-news/4578553
FOOTNOTE: GOD WARNS OF ETERNAL HELL
The Bible teaches that there is a fiery everlasting hell, a place that Jesus warned people about. Note this sampling of Scripture:
“And if your hand or your foot causes you to stumble, cut it off and throw it from you; it is better for you to enter life crippled or lame, than having two hands or two feet, to be cast into the eternal fire,” (Matt. 18:8)
“. . .these will go away into eternal punishment, but the righteous into eternal life” (Matt. 25:46)
Jesus says: “Depart from me, you cursed, into everlasting fire. . .” (Matthew 25:41)
“22 . . . the rich man also died, and was buried;
23 And in hell he lift up his eyes, being in torments, and saw Abraham afar off, and Lazarus in his bosom.
24 And he cried and said, Father Abraham, have mercy on me, and send Lazarus, that he may dip the tip of his finger in water, and cool my tongue; for I am tormented in this flame.
25 But Abraham said, Son, remember that you in your lifetime received good things, and likewise Lazarus evil things: but now he is comforted, and you art tormented.
26 And beside all this, between us there is a great gulf fixed: so that they which would pass from hence to you cannot; neither can they pass to us, that would come from thence.
27 Then he said, I pray you therefore, father, that you would send him to my father’s house:
28 For I have five brethren; that he may testify unto them, lest they also come into this place of torment. (Luke 16:22-28)”
In his own words: “I believe that hell is annihilation.” Check it out here: http://www.naznet.com/community/showthread.php?t=28935
Clear words. Simple words. Definitions understood without commentary.
Hans Deventer is moderator of a supposed Church of the Nazarene supportive site per the site’s own “advertisement.”
The Church of the Nazarene has never preached that hell is annihilation. I was born into that denomination and have graduated from that church’s seminary, having graduated from that church’s liberal arts college.
I have never heard any professor, preacher or evangelist claim that “hell is annihilation.”
Jesus never stated that hell is annihilation. Instead, he stated just the opposite. Hell is everlasting torment for the damned.
That is why the traditional Church of the Nazarene proclaimed that hell is eternal torment for that denomination sought to underline exactly what the Bible states. That denomination was not known for diverting from the Word, that is, until Hans came along with his theologically liberal colleagues on NazNet.
NazNet, to use Hans as an example, seeks to stir up confusion though the site claims just the opposite as its reason for being. It needs readers. It needs responders. Therefore, it moves into that which is contentious in order to get readers.
It’s the same with Hans’ opinion that infant baptism is his okay-baptism. He states in another venue that he once believed in believers’ adult baptism; however, he’s now an advocate for infant baptism.
Spin the theologically liberal bottle once again, Hans.
Yet you still state that you are supportive of the Church of the Nazarene? Not so. You are supportive of your place on the NazNet site that you hope will supplant the historic Church of the Nazarene teaching by claiming it worn out. The past is “old hat.”
Whether it is annihilation or infant baptism, these two examples are just two of others that seek to plant, particularly in the young readers, questions regarding the denomination’s heretofore biblical proclamations.
NazNet is not then a friend to the traditional history of the Church of the Nazarene. It is a rebel.
Hans and NazNet overseers are out to be popular, not to be theologically biblical or friends of the Church of the Nazarene. Therefore, the Church of the Nazarene leadership should come out in defense of biblical doctrine, exposing NazNet as not a genuine companion.
So, Hans, you join liberals in prostituting Scripture to your own opinions, such as your definition of hell as annihilation. You knew from the start that you were handling a basic biblical teaching that you were subverting. But for your own personal popularity and your site’s increased readership, you took the gamble of toying with the Word.
Of course, you will answer for this from God for He will not tolerate those who twist and turn His revelation in order to suit their own egocentric aims. Opportunistic you, as well as your other site overseers, may think you are the new gurus for the Church of the Nazarene. But you are not.
Using the Bible as evidence, you are not friends to the Church of the Nazarene.
As a troubling postscript, Hans also states this set of confusing words: “The Bible isn't clear about the intermediate state.”
The biblical Protestant does not believe in an “intermediate state.” Biblical believers know that the Word teaches that at death the soul goes to heaven or hell. There is no middle state—the “intermediate state.”
Roman Catholicism and some other liturgical conclaves teach an intermediate state. Catholic teaching has traditionally taught a limbo space for unbaptized infants who die. Catholic teaching also has taught a purgatory, an “intermediate state.”
However, the Church of the Nazarene specifically has never believed in limbo or purgatory or any other “place” called “intermediate state.”
I personally believe that Hans does not know what he is talking about on various points in his post here: http://www.naznet.com/community/showthread.php?t=28935
He truly is not theologically knowledgeable so as to monitor an evangelical holiness site.
Yet he continues on NazNet’s claimed-to-be supportive site for the Church of the Nazarene.
Not sound. Not true.
For further digressions from the Church of the Nazarene’s biblical past, read: NAZNET’S CHAPLAIN MODERATOR BARBARA MOULTON DRAWS SPIKED REACTIONS at http://www.allvoices.com/contributed-news/4578553
FOOTNOTE: GOD WARNS OF ETERNAL HELL
The Bible teaches that there is a fiery everlasting hell, a place that Jesus warned people about. Note this sampling of Scripture:
“And if your hand or your foot causes you to stumble, cut it off and throw it from you; it is better for you to enter life crippled or lame, than having two hands or two feet, to be cast into the eternal fire,” (Matt. 18:8)
“. . .these will go away into eternal punishment, but the righteous into eternal life” (Matt. 25:46)
Jesus says: “Depart from me, you cursed, into everlasting fire. . .” (Matthew 25:41)
“22 . . . the rich man also died, and was buried;
23 And in hell he lift up his eyes, being in torments, and saw Abraham afar off, and Lazarus in his bosom.
24 And he cried and said, Father Abraham, have mercy on me, and send Lazarus, that he may dip the tip of his finger in water, and cool my tongue; for I am tormented in this flame.
25 But Abraham said, Son, remember that you in your lifetime received good things, and likewise Lazarus evil things: but now he is comforted, and you art tormented.
26 And beside all this, between us there is a great gulf fixed: so that they which would pass from hence to you cannot; neither can they pass to us, that would come from thence.
27 Then he said, I pray you therefore, father, that you would send him to my father’s house:
28 For I have five brethren; that he may testify unto them, lest they also come into this place of torment. (Luke 16:22-28)”
NAZNET’S CHAPLAIN MODERATOR BARBARA MOULTON DRAWS SPIKED REACTIONS
J. Grant Swank, Jr.
NazNet chaplain moderator Barbara Moulton stated to me: “. . .for the record, I do have objections to gay marriage. I don't perform them and will never perform them. I simply am not going to crusade against allowing them to take place in my country.”
I responded: “God help us! So there you have it. Simple words that convey just what they say. No doubt as to what she believes. Nothing there to quibble about.”
She’s “not going to crusade against them (‘gay marriages’) allowing them to take place in my country.” There you have it, believing friends.
NazNet has a chaplain moderator who permits the homosexuals to get full coverage day and night while she hides away in the site’s underground. There can be no other conclusion reached than that she is a religious coward overseeing a site that claims to be elitistically alluring.
Not so.
For more, read NAZNET’S CHAPLAIN MODERATOR KEEPS ‘GAY MARRIAGE’ IN THE CLOSET at http://www.allvoices.com/contributed-news/4574089
Those reading this responded with their own angst:
“Barbara Moulton is following in the steps of those German Lutherans who sang their hymns in their PC insulated churches while the wheels of the box trains carrying Jewish families to their deaths kept to the rhythm of their religious songs.
“Don't crusade against any sin, Barbara! but ‘gain the whole world’ of prestige and position; however, don't forget the second part of that verse!”
And. . .
“Hi Grant,
I have been reading your posts about Naznet with interest and also a sad heart. For those of us who poured our hearts out with loving compassion pastoring our churches and stressing the importance of heart holiness, it is sad to witness decline of any type. As you well know, we are going to be attacked for taking our stands for that which is true and just. God bless! Keep on keeping on.”
And. . .
“. . .chaos and confusion! These people are nuts. . .”
And. . .
“Is she a coward or what????????????? Naznet tries to make itself out to be socially active.
“Obviously one of its moderators is not that when it comes to putting her biblical convictions in the market place. But that is where it finally counts, isn't it? Naznet is made up of elitist think-themselves-intellectuals with giddy this and that throughout, kissups aplenty.
“But when it comes to moving off the site into the open air, obviously one of the chaplain (!) moderators is not willing to be so bold. Such hypocrisy. Secret discipleship does not count at the eternal throne.”
And. . .
“I had a brief email exchange with Barbara Moulton a couple of years ago regarding a cheap shot she took at Hannity. She is Canadian and, like most non-US types on Naznet, she has no objections to ‘gay marriages’ and finds socialism to be entirely compatible with the Scriptures.
“The ‘upholding the traditional Nazarene standards types’ seemingly has left the Naznet forums during the last 2-3 years. Statements from leaders in Kansas City Nazarene headquarters seem to indicate a similar decaying pattern.”
Read NAZNET WEBSITE UNFAIR at http://www.michnews.com/J_Grant_Swank_Jr/jgs110609.shtml
NazNet chaplain moderator Barbara Moulton stated to me: “. . .for the record, I do have objections to gay marriage. I don't perform them and will never perform them. I simply am not going to crusade against allowing them to take place in my country.”
I responded: “God help us! So there you have it. Simple words that convey just what they say. No doubt as to what she believes. Nothing there to quibble about.”
She’s “not going to crusade against them (‘gay marriages’) allowing them to take place in my country.” There you have it, believing friends.
NazNet has a chaplain moderator who permits the homosexuals to get full coverage day and night while she hides away in the site’s underground. There can be no other conclusion reached than that she is a religious coward overseeing a site that claims to be elitistically alluring.
Not so.
For more, read NAZNET’S CHAPLAIN MODERATOR KEEPS ‘GAY MARRIAGE’ IN THE CLOSET at http://www.allvoices.com/contributed-news/4574089
Those reading this responded with their own angst:
“Barbara Moulton is following in the steps of those German Lutherans who sang their hymns in their PC insulated churches while the wheels of the box trains carrying Jewish families to their deaths kept to the rhythm of their religious songs.
“Don't crusade against any sin, Barbara! but ‘gain the whole world’ of prestige and position; however, don't forget the second part of that verse!”
And. . .
“Hi Grant,
I have been reading your posts about Naznet with interest and also a sad heart. For those of us who poured our hearts out with loving compassion pastoring our churches and stressing the importance of heart holiness, it is sad to witness decline of any type. As you well know, we are going to be attacked for taking our stands for that which is true and just. God bless! Keep on keeping on.”
And. . .
“. . .chaos and confusion! These people are nuts. . .”
And. . .
“Is she a coward or what????????????? Naznet tries to make itself out to be socially active.
“Obviously one of its moderators is not that when it comes to putting her biblical convictions in the market place. But that is where it finally counts, isn't it? Naznet is made up of elitist think-themselves-intellectuals with giddy this and that throughout, kissups aplenty.
“But when it comes to moving off the site into the open air, obviously one of the chaplain (!) moderators is not willing to be so bold. Such hypocrisy. Secret discipleship does not count at the eternal throne.”
And. . .
“I had a brief email exchange with Barbara Moulton a couple of years ago regarding a cheap shot she took at Hannity. She is Canadian and, like most non-US types on Naznet, she has no objections to ‘gay marriages’ and finds socialism to be entirely compatible with the Scriptures.
“The ‘upholding the traditional Nazarene standards types’ seemingly has left the Naznet forums during the last 2-3 years. Statements from leaders in Kansas City Nazarene headquarters seem to indicate a similar decaying pattern.”
Read NAZNET WEBSITE UNFAIR at http://www.michnews.com/J_Grant_Swank_Jr/jgs110609.shtml
NAZNET’S CHAPLAIN MODERATOR KEEPS ‘GAY MARRIAGE’ IN THE CLOSET
J. Grant Swank, Jr.
Is this not puzzling to you as a biblical believer?
NazNet’s moderator, who also tags herself as a chaplain, told me that she is against “gay marriage” but would not take the issue out in public.
This is so like NazNet: opportunistic, conveniently in-house and shallow “Christian.”
Are we not to be lights in the world—not hidden under the bushel?
Are we not to be salt to the earth?
Are we not to be in the world, yet not of the world?
Are we not to allow ourselves to be hated for the cause of Christ rather than carve out hideaways for safe cover?
How interesting that the open homosexuals take to the marketplace, boulevards, church pulpits, and anywhere they can find foothold.
But Ms. Barbara Moulton, chaplain moderator on NazNet, would have the biblical believer not go where scriptural convictions air. She’s not going to go in open space to state that God considers “gay marriage” no place in marriage.
Yet NazNet prides itself on being contemporary Christian. It says in so many words, “Come to us to talk out the latest and act out the boldest.”
However, one of its own moderators is so cowardly as to state to me that she does not intend on taking the homosexual issue into the open.
This is a direct contradiction, Ms. Moulton. You are showing your cowardliness so brashly. You are also revealing your lack of theological understanding when it comes to the Christ ethic of the Gospels.
Christ permits His disciples no place to cower, to compromise the mode as well as the message. Instead, He told His own to go into all the world to preach the gospel. Preaching the gospel is “out there.” It’s where the opposition derides.
Christ never sidestepped the opposition. He went after them. Further, when they came after Him, He was ready—with power, with logic, with separating soul from spirit.
If we are to be like Christ, we are to be of like courage.
Homosexuals taking to the malls and government steps are in our face. Yet you sit there in your comfortable Internet site office having coffee.
That is absolutely insulting to the rest of us who are carrying the cause and cross where it counts—where the enemy is, where the friends are, where Christ is overseeing the fray.
I am stunned today. I am shocked to read what you have stated to me. It is beyond abhorrent. Yet it is right there in front of me. No wonder today’s church is so lame. No wonder its impact is derided as drained.
So it is that you are among the site’s leaders who counsel input daily to others? This is unthinkable.
NazNet chaplain moderator Barbara Moulton states to me: “. . .for the record, I do have objections to gay marriage. I don't perform them and will never perform them. I simply am not going to crusade against allowing them to take place in my country.”
God help us!
So there you have it. Simple words that convey just what they say. No doubt as to what she believes. Nothing there to quibble about.
She’s “not going to crusade against them (“gay marriages”) allowing them to take place in my country.”
There you have it, believing friends.
NazNet has a chaplain moderator who permits the homosexuals to get full coverage day and night while she hides away in the site’s underground. There can be no other conclusion reached than that she is a religious coward overseeing a site that claims to be elitistically alluring.
Not so.
Is this not puzzling to you as a biblical believer?
NazNet’s moderator, who also tags herself as a chaplain, told me that she is against “gay marriage” but would not take the issue out in public.
This is so like NazNet: opportunistic, conveniently in-house and shallow “Christian.”
Are we not to be lights in the world—not hidden under the bushel?
Are we not to be salt to the earth?
Are we not to be in the world, yet not of the world?
Are we not to allow ourselves to be hated for the cause of Christ rather than carve out hideaways for safe cover?
How interesting that the open homosexuals take to the marketplace, boulevards, church pulpits, and anywhere they can find foothold.
But Ms. Barbara Moulton, chaplain moderator on NazNet, would have the biblical believer not go where scriptural convictions air. She’s not going to go in open space to state that God considers “gay marriage” no place in marriage.
Yet NazNet prides itself on being contemporary Christian. It says in so many words, “Come to us to talk out the latest and act out the boldest.”
However, one of its own moderators is so cowardly as to state to me that she does not intend on taking the homosexual issue into the open.
This is a direct contradiction, Ms. Moulton. You are showing your cowardliness so brashly. You are also revealing your lack of theological understanding when it comes to the Christ ethic of the Gospels.
Christ permits His disciples no place to cower, to compromise the mode as well as the message. Instead, He told His own to go into all the world to preach the gospel. Preaching the gospel is “out there.” It’s where the opposition derides.
Christ never sidestepped the opposition. He went after them. Further, when they came after Him, He was ready—with power, with logic, with separating soul from spirit.
If we are to be like Christ, we are to be of like courage.
Homosexuals taking to the malls and government steps are in our face. Yet you sit there in your comfortable Internet site office having coffee.
That is absolutely insulting to the rest of us who are carrying the cause and cross where it counts—where the enemy is, where the friends are, where Christ is overseeing the fray.
I am stunned today. I am shocked to read what you have stated to me. It is beyond abhorrent. Yet it is right there in front of me. No wonder today’s church is so lame. No wonder its impact is derided as drained.
So it is that you are among the site’s leaders who counsel input daily to others? This is unthinkable.
NazNet chaplain moderator Barbara Moulton states to me: “. . .for the record, I do have objections to gay marriage. I don't perform them and will never perform them. I simply am not going to crusade against allowing them to take place in my country.”
God help us!
So there you have it. Simple words that convey just what they say. No doubt as to what she believes. Nothing there to quibble about.
She’s “not going to crusade against them (“gay marriages”) allowing them to take place in my country.”
There you have it, believing friends.
NazNet has a chaplain moderator who permits the homosexuals to get full coverage day and night while she hides away in the site’s underground. There can be no other conclusion reached than that she is a religious coward overseeing a site that claims to be elitistically alluring.
Not so.
NAZNET UNFAIRLY DELETES ROBERT HARTMAN’S INPUT ON SITE
J. Grant Swank, Jr.
It is sad that NazNet continues its unfair mode by deleting Robert Hartman’s input on the site. That input delivered a defense of my character and writing style, the latter constantly derided by responders on the site.
Those responders were granted full permission by the site moderator Barbara Moulton to continue their snide remarks; but Mr. Hartman’s courteous statements were consider cause for the moderator to close off discussion.
One cannot now find on the Internet Mr. Hartman’s logical and rightful comments for the site overseers, Hans Deventer in particular, have noted on that discussion slide that those overseers have deliberately deleted Mr. Hartman’s input from the discussion.
These overseers state that Mr. Hartman’s registration on NazNet is suspect. They state that his email address is not legitimate. In fact, his email address is quite legitimate. How they reached that conclusion is suspect and of course bogus.
The obvious is that overseers now conclude that Mr. Hartman’s comments are legitimate. Being so, the overseers don’t want the public to read them, so they have deleted them.
Again, NazNet takes the low road, unethical for certain. Yet NazNet prides itself on being a morally based evangelical Internet site. Not so, evidently.
I ask NazNet to return Mr. Hartman’s input to that site so that readers can read for themselves what he stated. Let the readers decide if Mr. Hartman’s input was cause for closing down discussion.
Note original post below. Note that where the reader is directed to read Mr. Hartman’s own posts that that will not work. Clicking on that link data will not produce that which NazNet has deleted for fear that Mr. Hartman’s logic will hold sway.
CHURCH OF THE NAZARENE: NAZNET WEBSITE UNFAIR
J. Grant Swank, Jr.
There on NazNet website was a discussion regarding my EASTERN NAZARENE COLLLEGE ANTICHRISTIAN PLAY PRESENTED post recently on numerous sites. Read http://www.naznet.com/community/showthread.php?t=28930
The NazNet discussion was particularly mean regarding me and my writing content and style.
I was born into the Church of the Nazarene which is basically unofficially the dialogue base of this website. I pastored in that denomination from 1964-1998.
Now my posts regarding the antiChristian drama presentation at my alma mater becomes, not by my submission by the way, a discussion piece on NazNet.
With that, people who know me and don’t know me plow in. Their remarks are so cheap and slap-stick pocking that it is unbearable to imagine that a Church of the Nazarene-related website would tolerate such tawdry fare, especially when it is so derision-based against a pastor—myself.
Then friend Robert Hartman enters the discussion with a gentlemanly polite defense of Grant Swank, his writings over half a century and his biblical convictions.
That raises the ire of responders all the more. They become even more vicious, nasty and, yes, unChristian in the guise of appearing spiritually excellent.
Now the moderator of that particular discussion point closes down the site. But it is not in the midst of responders’ discourteous slams against me. It is when Robert Hartman logically, courteously defends my character and writings. Read http://www.naznet.com/community/showthread.php?t=28930&page=17
Moderator Barbara Moulton closes down the discussion by disciplining Robert Hartman. It is his comment input that is put down as the necessity for stopping all further remarks.
What?
Nasty, mean-spirited cheap comments can flow like a river without Moulton’s interference. However, when Robert Hartman enters to rightfully defend me and my positions, he is the villain who has brought an end to that discussion thread.
NazNet, if you reflect the Church of the Nazarene in present tense, the denomination is in sad shape. Sad sad shape indeed.
By the way, I checked out other NazNet discussion slides and find that often the same few responders are floating from dissuasion slide to discussion slide. There are not countless individuals involved in the NazNet site.
In addition, I came upon the NazNet discussions regarding the Eucharist. May I ask what “Eucharist” has to do with the Church of the Nazarene? Everyone in religious studies knows that the Church of the Nazarene has never long-term history spoken of communion by the term “Eucharist.” It has always been called “communion” or “the Lord’s supper.”
Does this Eucharist nomenclature simply expose the small grouping of elitist Nazarenes who are pushing for a complete change within the denomination? I have heard that there are those desiring to erase the past heritage of the Nazarene worship style for a mimicking of high church whatever.
By reading the comments on the NazNet discussion slide regarding the Eucharist, I would conclude that these wise-guys are part of the elitist crew who have no idea what they are talking about. They simply go on and on to impress one another as some sort of intellectuals into ritual this-and-that.
All in all, NazNet lacks quality, intellectual excellence and spiritual loyalty to the Scripture, particularly the Bible’s accent on holiness. That is a travesty.
It does not look healthy for the Church of the Nazarene if NazNet reflects that denomination.
Read I BELIEVE IN MIRACLES: GOD PROVISIONS at http://jgrantswankjr.blogspot.com/2009/03/i-believe-in-miracles-god-provisions.html
It is sad that NazNet continues its unfair mode by deleting Robert Hartman’s input on the site. That input delivered a defense of my character and writing style, the latter constantly derided by responders on the site.
Those responders were granted full permission by the site moderator Barbara Moulton to continue their snide remarks; but Mr. Hartman’s courteous statements were consider cause for the moderator to close off discussion.
One cannot now find on the Internet Mr. Hartman’s logical and rightful comments for the site overseers, Hans Deventer in particular, have noted on that discussion slide that those overseers have deliberately deleted Mr. Hartman’s input from the discussion.
These overseers state that Mr. Hartman’s registration on NazNet is suspect. They state that his email address is not legitimate. In fact, his email address is quite legitimate. How they reached that conclusion is suspect and of course bogus.
The obvious is that overseers now conclude that Mr. Hartman’s comments are legitimate. Being so, the overseers don’t want the public to read them, so they have deleted them.
Again, NazNet takes the low road, unethical for certain. Yet NazNet prides itself on being a morally based evangelical Internet site. Not so, evidently.
I ask NazNet to return Mr. Hartman’s input to that site so that readers can read for themselves what he stated. Let the readers decide if Mr. Hartman’s input was cause for closing down discussion.
Note original post below. Note that where the reader is directed to read Mr. Hartman’s own posts that that will not work. Clicking on that link data will not produce that which NazNet has deleted for fear that Mr. Hartman’s logic will hold sway.
CHURCH OF THE NAZARENE: NAZNET WEBSITE UNFAIR
J. Grant Swank, Jr.
There on NazNet website was a discussion regarding my EASTERN NAZARENE COLLLEGE ANTICHRISTIAN PLAY PRESENTED post recently on numerous sites. Read http://www.naznet.com/community/showthread.php?t=28930
The NazNet discussion was particularly mean regarding me and my writing content and style.
I was born into the Church of the Nazarene which is basically unofficially the dialogue base of this website. I pastored in that denomination from 1964-1998.
Now my posts regarding the antiChristian drama presentation at my alma mater becomes, not by my submission by the way, a discussion piece on NazNet.
With that, people who know me and don’t know me plow in. Their remarks are so cheap and slap-stick pocking that it is unbearable to imagine that a Church of the Nazarene-related website would tolerate such tawdry fare, especially when it is so derision-based against a pastor—myself.
Then friend Robert Hartman enters the discussion with a gentlemanly polite defense of Grant Swank, his writings over half a century and his biblical convictions.
That raises the ire of responders all the more. They become even more vicious, nasty and, yes, unChristian in the guise of appearing spiritually excellent.
Now the moderator of that particular discussion point closes down the site. But it is not in the midst of responders’ discourteous slams against me. It is when Robert Hartman logically, courteously defends my character and writings. Read http://www.naznet.com/community/showthread.php?t=28930&page=17
Moderator Barbara Moulton closes down the discussion by disciplining Robert Hartman. It is his comment input that is put down as the necessity for stopping all further remarks.
What?
Nasty, mean-spirited cheap comments can flow like a river without Moulton’s interference. However, when Robert Hartman enters to rightfully defend me and my positions, he is the villain who has brought an end to that discussion thread.
NazNet, if you reflect the Church of the Nazarene in present tense, the denomination is in sad shape. Sad sad shape indeed.
By the way, I checked out other NazNet discussion slides and find that often the same few responders are floating from dissuasion slide to discussion slide. There are not countless individuals involved in the NazNet site.
In addition, I came upon the NazNet discussions regarding the Eucharist. May I ask what “Eucharist” has to do with the Church of the Nazarene? Everyone in religious studies knows that the Church of the Nazarene has never long-term history spoken of communion by the term “Eucharist.” It has always been called “communion” or “the Lord’s supper.”
Does this Eucharist nomenclature simply expose the small grouping of elitist Nazarenes who are pushing for a complete change within the denomination? I have heard that there are those desiring to erase the past heritage of the Nazarene worship style for a mimicking of high church whatever.
By reading the comments on the NazNet discussion slide regarding the Eucharist, I would conclude that these wise-guys are part of the elitist crew who have no idea what they are talking about. They simply go on and on to impress one another as some sort of intellectuals into ritual this-and-that.
All in all, NazNet lacks quality, intellectual excellence and spiritual loyalty to the Scripture, particularly the Bible’s accent on holiness. That is a travesty.
It does not look healthy for the Church of the Nazarene if NazNet reflects that denomination.
Read I BELIEVE IN MIRACLES: GOD PROVISIONS at http://jgrantswankjr.blogspot.com/2009/03/i-believe-in-miracles-god-provisions.html
NAZNET WEBSITE UNFAIR
J. Grant Swank, Jr.
There on NazNet website was a discussion regarding my EASTERN NAZARENE COLLLEGE ANTICHRISTIAN PLAY PRESENTED post recently on numerous sites. Read http://www.naznet.com/community/showthread.php?t=28930
The NazNet discussion was particularly mean regarding me and my writing content and style.
I was born into the Church of the Nazarene which is basically unofficially the dialogue base of this website. I pastored in that denomination from 1964-1998.
Now my posts regarding the antiChristian drama presentation at my alma mater becomes, not by my submission by the way, a discussion piece on NazNet.
With that, people who know me and don’t know me plow in. Their remarks are so cheap and slap-stick pocking that it is unbearable to imagine that a Church of the Nazarene-related website would tolerate such tawdry fare, especially when it is so derision-based against a pastor—myself.
Then friend Robert Hartman enters the discussion with a gentlemanly polite defense of Grant Swank, his writings over half a century and his biblical convictions.
That raises the ire of responders all the more. They become even more vicious, nasty and, yes, unChristian in the guise of appearing spiritually excellent.
Now the moderator of that particular discussion point closes down the site. But it is not in the midst of responders’ discourteous slams against me. It is when Robert Hartman logically, courteously defends my character and writings. Read http://www.naznet.com/community/showthread.php?t=28930&page=17
Moderator Barbara Moulton closes down the discussion by disciplining Robert Hartman. It is his comment input that is put down as the necessity for stopping all further remarks.
What?
Nasty, mean-spirited cheap comments can flow like a river without Moulton’s interference. However, when Robert Hartman enters to rightfully defend me and my positions, he is the villain who has brought an end to that discussion thread.
NazNet, if you reflect the Church of the Nazarene in present tense, the denomination is in sad shape. Sad sad shape indeed.
By the way, I checked out other NazNet discussion slides and find that often the same few responders are floating from dissuasion slide to discussion slide. There are not countless individuals involved in the NazNet site.
In addition, I came upon the NazNet discussions regarding the Eucharist. May I ask what “Eucharist” has to do with the Church of the Nazarene? Everyone in religious studies knows that the Church of the Nazarene has never long-term history spoken of communion by the term “Eucharist.” It has always been called “communion” or “the Lord’s supper.”
Does this Eucharist nomenclature simply expose the small grouping of elitist Nazarenes who are pushing for a complete change within the denomination? I have heard that there are those desiring to erase the past heritage of the Nazarene worship style for a mimicking of high church whatever.
By reading the comments on the NazNet discussion slide regarding the Eucharist, I would conclude that these wise-guys are part of the elitist crew who have no idea what they are talking about. They simply go on and on to impress one another as some sort of intellectuals into ritual this-and-that.
All in all, NazNet lacks quality, intellectual excellence and spiritual loyalty to the Scripture, particularly the Bible’s accent on holiness. That is a travesty.
It does not look healthy for the Church of the Nazarene if NazNet reflects that denomination.
Read I BELIEVE IN MIRACLES: GOD PROVISIONS at http://jgrantswankjr.blogspot.com/2009/03/i-believe-in-miracles-god-provisions.html
There on NazNet website was a discussion regarding my EASTERN NAZARENE COLLLEGE ANTICHRISTIAN PLAY PRESENTED post recently on numerous sites. Read http://www.naznet.com/community/showthread.php?t=28930
The NazNet discussion was particularly mean regarding me and my writing content and style.
I was born into the Church of the Nazarene which is basically unofficially the dialogue base of this website. I pastored in that denomination from 1964-1998.
Now my posts regarding the antiChristian drama presentation at my alma mater becomes, not by my submission by the way, a discussion piece on NazNet.
With that, people who know me and don’t know me plow in. Their remarks are so cheap and slap-stick pocking that it is unbearable to imagine that a Church of the Nazarene-related website would tolerate such tawdry fare, especially when it is so derision-based against a pastor—myself.
Then friend Robert Hartman enters the discussion with a gentlemanly polite defense of Grant Swank, his writings over half a century and his biblical convictions.
That raises the ire of responders all the more. They become even more vicious, nasty and, yes, unChristian in the guise of appearing spiritually excellent.
Now the moderator of that particular discussion point closes down the site. But it is not in the midst of responders’ discourteous slams against me. It is when Robert Hartman logically, courteously defends my character and writings. Read http://www.naznet.com/community/showthread.php?t=28930&page=17
Moderator Barbara Moulton closes down the discussion by disciplining Robert Hartman. It is his comment input that is put down as the necessity for stopping all further remarks.
What?
Nasty, mean-spirited cheap comments can flow like a river without Moulton’s interference. However, when Robert Hartman enters to rightfully defend me and my positions, he is the villain who has brought an end to that discussion thread.
NazNet, if you reflect the Church of the Nazarene in present tense, the denomination is in sad shape. Sad sad shape indeed.
By the way, I checked out other NazNet discussion slides and find that often the same few responders are floating from dissuasion slide to discussion slide. There are not countless individuals involved in the NazNet site.
In addition, I came upon the NazNet discussions regarding the Eucharist. May I ask what “Eucharist” has to do with the Church of the Nazarene? Everyone in religious studies knows that the Church of the Nazarene has never long-term history spoken of communion by the term “Eucharist.” It has always been called “communion” or “the Lord’s supper.”
Does this Eucharist nomenclature simply expose the small grouping of elitist Nazarenes who are pushing for a complete change within the denomination? I have heard that there are those desiring to erase the past heritage of the Nazarene worship style for a mimicking of high church whatever.
By reading the comments on the NazNet discussion slide regarding the Eucharist, I would conclude that these wise-guys are part of the elitist crew who have no idea what they are talking about. They simply go on and on to impress one another as some sort of intellectuals into ritual this-and-that.
All in all, NazNet lacks quality, intellectual excellence and spiritual loyalty to the Scripture, particularly the Bible’s accent on holiness. That is a travesty.
It does not look healthy for the Church of the Nazarene if NazNet reflects that denomination.
Read I BELIEVE IN MIRACLES: GOD PROVISIONS at http://jgrantswankjr.blogspot.com/2009/03/i-believe-in-miracles-god-provisions.html
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)