A Response To Holiness Today's Attack On Scripture

   In the current issue of HT (Holiness Today, April/May 2012), the Church of the Nazarene’s only official magazine, is an article by Pastor Ulmet, the pastor of Nashville First Church of the Nazarene. You can read it here: http://bit.ly/ISsnnM

   This article must be responded to with force. There is so much in it that is really peripheral to the real issue that I cannot even begin the task of sorting it all out with any brevity. I would encourage you to read a more fully orbed response by one who is very close to Pastor Ulmet and the situation here: http://bit.ly/INkMw7

   I would like to focus on one specific item in this article; Pastor Ulmet’s butchering of Article IV of the Church of the Nazarene’s Articles of Faith.

   The absolute disdain for the truth that Pastor Ulmet demonstrates with his opening sentence under the heading “Doctrinal Heritage” is staggering. He dares turn to Scripture as the basis for our statements of doctrine as if he is writing this article to defend these articles and likewise Scripture itself when the undermining of the authority of Scripture is actually what he is espousing throughout. He calls the theological concept of the inerrancy of Scripture “insidious”. He then invokes the names of Wesley and Wiley and others as if they would side with him in this discussion. He is counting on the ignorance and laziness of the readers of HT to allow him to get away with such outlandish statements.

   In trying as delicately as he can to define Article IV of the Articles of faith of the Church of the Nazarene without letting on how he truly views Scripture he explains it as the “full inspiration of all 66 books...(inerrant) ‘in all things necessary to our salvation.” Of course that is not what it actually says and much less what it actually means.

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

   H. Orton Wiley, the architect of Article IV explains clearly what is meant by the phrase “plenary inspiration”.

   He writes: "By plenary inspiration, we mean that the whole and every part is divinely inspired...We conclude that the Scriptures were given by plenary inspiration, embracing throughout the elements of superintendence, elevation and suggestion, in that manner and to that degree that the Bible becomes the infallible Word of God"

   He goes on: "Superintendence, by which is meant a belief that God so guides those chosen as the organs of revelation, that their writings are kept free from error. (Scripture is) infallibly preserved from all error."

   The theological definition of plenary inspiration is "that kind of inspiration which excludes all defect in the utterance of the inspired message." That is the definition. "Excludes all defect" means inerrant.

   These quotes from Wiley, the first and foremost Nazarene Theologian explain in clear terms and leave no doubt that the Nazarene church, by stating our belief in plenary inspiration, believe in the inerrancy and infallibility of the whole of Scripture, which is all 66 books of the Old and New Testaments and everything contained therein.

   To reiterate: Wiley defines inspiration as having three elements; superintendence, elevation and suggestion. He says that superintendence must be present in ALL inspiration. And he defines superintendence as the fact that God guided the writers to such a degree that the writings were inerrant.

    All of that is contained in just the first six words of Article IV! But it does not stop there. It goes on to refer to the Bible as the “Holy Scriptures”. The word Holy in this context is no empty word. Going all the way back to the beginnings of the Lutheran Church this word was used in combination with Scripture to specifically denote that the scripture referred to as Holy was of divine origin and therefore reliable and inerrant. I do not think this point was lost on Wiley.

   If we yet have any doubts Article IV continues on by specifically stating that it was “given by Divine inspiration”. This is the third time within Article IV that it makes the point that Scripture is inspired, Divinely so, and therefore inerrant. And twice it makes clear that this belief is applied to ALL of Scripture. First by the use of the word plenary which means “fully” and second when the Holy Scripture is defined as the “66 books of the Old and New Testaments.”

   This brings us to the phrase which Pastor Ulmet and countless others like him in our Denomination have seized upon to undermine everything the Article IV has just laid out so emphatically; “inerrantly revealing the will of God concerning us in all things necessary to our salvation.”

   This statement simply is meant to further emphasize, in case there were any doubt, that contained within Scripture is everything we need to know concerning our salvation and that it is inerrantly revealed. This is of utmost importance because our salvation is the purpose for the entirety of Scripture. This is it’s core message and the writers of this article wanted to make absolutely sure that future generations would understand that.

   Nowhere in Article IV does it even suggest that we believe that Scripture is ONLY inerrant in “things necessary to our salvation” as Pastor Ulmet states.

   The very next phrase puts into context what is said about “all things necessary to our salvation”. It is this: “so that whatever is not contained therein is not to be enjoined as an article of faith.”

   What this means is we need not look to anything outside of Scripture in regards to our salvation. Everything we need is found in Scripture and inerrant in its revelation. This of course doesn’t mean that everything else found in Scripture is errant. But that is what Pastor Ulmet would want you to believe or at the very least that it has the possibility of being errant. Article IV tells us three times that all of Scripture is inerrant and we see that by Wiley’s own written explanation of the terms and then for added emphasis tells us that not only are the Scripture inerrant but also its message and we need not look anywhere else but to Scripture for our salvation.

   All of this is very convincing but let’s take a look at the actual Scriptures cited as foundational to Article IV. Let’s go to the source that Pastor Ulmet so rightly pointed out our Articles of Faith are based upon.

 Luke 24:44-47 (HCSB) 
 44 Then He told them, “These are My words that I spoke to you while I was still with you—that everything written about Me in the Law of Moses, the Prophets, and the Psalms must be fulfilled.” 45 Then He opened their minds to understand the Scriptures. 46 He also said to them, “This is what is written: The Messiah would suffer and rise from the dead the third day, 47 and repentance for forgiveness of sins would be proclaimed in His name to all the nations, beginning at Jerusalem.

Here Jesus is speaking and referring to the Law of Moses, the Prophets and the Psalms as Scripture. This of course comprises nearly the entire Old Testament, including Genesis which would be the first book that Pastor Ulmet would exclude from inerrancy. Yet Jesus says it is Scripture. Scripture that He fulfilled. If it were a fable that He fulfilled, what exactly would that make Him?

 John 10:35 (HCSB)
 35 If He called those whom the word of God came to ‘gods’—and the Scripture cannot be broken— 

The poignant phrase here is the statement of fact by Jesus that Scripture cannot be broken. In other words, it is true. In other words, it is not in error.

 1 Corinthians 15:3-4 (HCSB) 
 3 For I passed on to you as most important what I also received: that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures, 4 that He was buried, that He was raised on the third day according to the Scriptures, 

Here Paul is verifying that the Gospel he preached to them is indeed found in Scripture. This only matters of course if Scripture is reliable. And it is only reliable if it is true.

 1 Peter 1:10-12 (HCSB) 
 10 Concerning this salvation, the prophets who prophesied about the grace that would come to you searched and carefully investigated. 11 They inquired into what time or what circumstances the Spirit of Christ within them was indicating when He testified in advance to the messianic sufferings and the glories that would follow. 12 It was revealed to them that they were not serving themselves but you. These things have now been announced to you through those who preached the gospel to you by the Holy Spirit sent from heaven. Angels desire to look into these things. 

Here again we have an affirmation that the prophesies found in Scripture regarding Jesus and our salvation were directly inspired by the Holy Spirit. It is interesting here that the inspiration of the Holy Spirit was not simply what to write but who they were writing it for. This is quite a revelation! If the Holy Spirit is willing and able to provide this kind of detailed information to the writers of the Old Testament, I suspect He could handle getting accounts of the Creation and the Flood correct. After all, He was there.

 2 Peter 1:20-21 (HCSB)
 20 First of all, you should know this: No prophecy of Scripture comes from one’s own interpretation, 21 because no prophecy ever came by the will of man; instead, men spoke from God as they were moved by the Holy Spirit. 

This one is fairly self explanatory.

 2 Timothy 3:15-17 (HCSB) 
 15 and you know that from childhood you have known the sacred Scriptures, which are able to give you wisdom for salvation through faith in Christ Jesus. 16 All Scripture is inspired by God[a] and is profitable for teaching, for rebuking, for correcting, for training in righteousness, 17 so that the man of God may be complete, equipped for every good work. 

I left this one for last because it contains everything. Scripture is efficacious for salvation through faith in Christ Jesus, all of Scripture is inspired by God, (and remember that Wiley, the architect of Article IV, says that inspiration is synonymous with inerrant) and that Scripture is profitable for teaching, rebuking, correcting, and training in righteousness. It cannot be profitable if it is not true. It is also interesting that not one of the things that this verse says Scripture is profitable for is pertaining to our salvation, they would all be things that would take place after or apart from our salvation. So from the Scriptures (the ones that Article IV cites as the foundation for the Article itself) we see that all Scripture is indeed inspired by God through the Holy Spirit directly and is without error.

   But Pastor Ulmet believes something completely different. He says in this article “the Bible as the fully-inspired and with regard to all things salvific the inerrant Word of God.” Do you see the clever word play? According to Pastor Ulmet the Bible is only inerrant with regard to all things salvific. That is very different from what Wiley wrote and what Article IV states.

   This isn’t a new idea though. There were those in Wesley’s day that put forth this exact idea concerning Scripture and this is how Welsey responded to one of them: "Nay, if there be any mistakes in the Bible, there may as well be a thousand. If there be one falsehood in that book, it did not come from the God of truth."

   In fact, Wesley wonders aloud if this person might actually be an atheist. So maybe Welsey and Wiley would not view those who support the authority of Scripture as being insidious as Pastor Ulmet contends. In fact, it is clear they would not.

  He then again misrepresents what those who stand by the Church of the Nazarene’s belief in the authority of Scripture by saying that they want the Bible's primary purpose to "define all science and research." I would challenge Pastor Ulmet to produce proof of this accusation.

   He then tells a bold faced lie. "We have never, for example, taken an official position on a certain view of Creation or a certain timeline of other events. Never in our history!"

   In the very Articles of Faith that he previously referred to as "precious" the affirmation of the Genesis story of Creation is seen over and over again. In Articles 1, 5, 5.1, 6 and 7, the Genesis story of Creation is taken as literal and foundational to our very salvation or the need of it. Wiley, himself, makes a special point of stating that the truths and facts of the Creation and the antediluvian times had to be inspired. And in his view, inspired and inerrant are synonymous.

  So we DO have an official statement on Creation and that is, it happened the way the Scripture says it happened and not only that but the Genesis account of Creation is foundational to our salvation and our need of it. If that wasn’t our official statement on Creation then four of our Articles of Faith would be baseless.

   Pastor Ulmet brings up many things he is concerned about and some of them such as his position on what I call the “worship wars” are included as a means of distraction even though I actually agree with him on that issue. But the underlying issue in everything else he raises as a concern is the authority of Scripture. If all of Scripture is Divinely inspired and thereby inerrant as Article IV clearly and repeatedly states then each one of his concerns crumble like a house built on sand.

   Pastor Ulmet and many others like him want to recreate a church built on human wisdom, not Scripture and if we sit idly by in our seats in our churches and let them do this then we only have ourselves to blame for the inevitable destruction of our Denomination. As Nazarenes, we are not there yet but the battle is raging on the hill and this is one hill to die upon.

The Truth of Being an Agent of Reconciliation

I must start this post with an admission of guilt. I have been kicking myself in the face all day (figuratively of course, I am far too portly to literally kick myself in the face) because as I have dealt with this idea of the “Gospel of Reconciliation” I have consistently argued against it using my knowledge of Scripture and reason which was easy enough to do, any fifth grader who had read the Bible could have done it, but never once did I actually go to the Bible to read what is actually says about reconciliation! And that is shameful! How can I accuse others of not reading the passages about it when I haven’t done it either?  But now that I have taken the plank out of my own eye and have committed myself to not inserting it again, I can write this post about the truth of what the Bible really says about reconciliation.  So here we go.

I just finished listening to a recent chapel service from the MidAmerica Nazarene University, the college I attended, as well as my wife, my brother, my wife’s sister, and now my son and other’s from my church and district.  They had guests speaking about being “missional” and that all of us are called to be “agents of reconciliation”. Now, one point that was made was that as Christians we can no longer sit back and expect the missionaries to be the one’s taking part in God’s mission in the world while we remain cozy in our world of tasteless salt and dim light.  (my words not his)  And in this I am in full agreement with him. However, it seemed as though no one on that stage had even the slightest clue what God’s mission actually is and what being an “agent of reconciliation” means.  How 7 or 8 Christians could sit on a stage for over a half an hour and talk about how they are doing God’s mission and living out being His agents of reconciliation without once mentioning the Gospel amazes me. So the following is a look at the primary passages where this concept of reconciliation is revealed in Scripture.

Romans 5:1-11

¹ Therefore, since we have been declared righteous by faith, we have peace with God through our Lord Jesus Christ, ²through whom we have also obtained access by faith into this grace in which we stand, and we rejoice in the hope of God's glory. ³Not only this, but we also rejoice in sufferings, knowing that suffering produces endurance, ⁴and endurance, character, and character, hope. ⁵And hope does not disappoint, because the love of God has been poured out in our hearts through the Holy Spirit who was given to us.

⁶For while we were still helpless, at the right time Christ died for the ungodly. ⁷(For rarely will anyone die for a righteous person, though for a good person perhaps someone might possibly dare to die.) ⁸But God demonstrates his own love for us, in that while we were still sinners, Christ died for us. ⁹Much more then, because we have now been declared righteous by his blood, we will be saved through him from God's wrath. ¹⁰For if while we were enemies we were reconciled to God through the death of his Son, how much more, since we have been reconciled, will we be saved by his life? ¹¹Not only this, but we also rejoice in God through our Lord Jesus Christ, through whom we have now received this reconciliation.

   “This entire passage is about the Hope that we have in Christ and that is our inclusion in God’s glory at our resurrection. The point of the cross is laid out clearly. That is to be made righteous and to be spared His wrath. The words “reconciled” and “reconciliation” here refer to our Salvation from His wrath and the forgiveness of our sins.  Notice that it is only AFTER our reconciliation that we are “saved by His life”.  This phrase means that our hope of the resurrection and God’s glory are secured by the reality of Jesus’ life after His resurrection.  This is a great promise for us.  In this passage, reconciliation is synonymous with salvation.”

Romans 11:11-15:

¹¹I ask then, they did not stumble into an irrevocable fall, did they? Absolutely not! But by their transgression salvation has come to the Gentiles, to make Israel jealous. ¹²Now if their transgression means riches for the world and their defeat means riches for the Gentiles, how much more will their full restoration bring?

¹³Now I am speaking to you Gentiles. Seeing that I am an apostle to the Gentiles, I magnify my ministry, ¹⁴if somehow I could provoke my people to jealousy and save some of them. ¹⁵For if their rejection is the reconciliation of the world, what will their acceptance be but life from the dead?

   “Here again we see that the word “reconciliation” is synonymous with the word “salvation”. Additionally, the word “world” is referring to the people called the Gentiles, or all peoples who are not Jewish.  So Paul’s point is that by the Jews rejecting Christ as Messiah, the opportunity for salvation was afforded to the rest of the people of the world. And salvation can safely be defined by Paul’s earlier definition in Romans 5 as being saved from God’s wrath, having sins forgiven and having a hope for a resurrection into God’s glory.”

II Corinthians 5:1-21:

¹For we know that if our earthly house, the tent we live in, is dismantled, we have a building from God, a house not built by human hands, that is eternal in the heavens. ²For in this earthly house we groan, because we desire to put on our heavenly dwelling, ³if indeed, after we have put on our heavenly house, we will not be found naked. ⁴For we groan while we are in this tent, since we are weighed down, because we do not want to be unclothed, but clothed, so that what is mortal may be swallowed up by life. ⁵Now the one who prepared us for this very purpose is God, who gave us the Spirit as a down payment. ⁶Therefore we are always full of courage, and we know that as long as we are alive here on earth we are absent from the Lord - ⁷for we live by faith, not by sight. ⁸Thus we are full of courage and would prefer to be away from the body and at home with the Lord. ⁹So then whether we are alive or away, we make it our ambition to please him. ¹⁰For we must all appear before the judgment seat of Christ, so that each one may be paid back according to what he has done while in the body, whether good or evil.

¹¹Therefore, because we know the fear of the Lord, we try to persuade people, but we are well known to God, and I hope we are well known to your consciences too. ¹²We are not trying to commend ourselves to you again, but are giving you an opportunity to be proud of us, so that you may be able to answer those who take pride in outward appearance and not in what is in the heart. ¹³For if we are out of our minds, it is for God; if we are of sound mind, it is for you. ¹⁴For the love of Christ controls us, since we have concluded this, that Christ died for all; therefore all have died. ¹⁵And he died for all so that those who live should no longer live for themselves but for him who died for them and was raised. ¹⁶So then from now on we acknowledge no one from an outward human point of view. Even though we have known Christ from such a human point of view, now we do not know him in that way any longer. ¹⁷So then, if anyone is in Christ, he is a new creation; what is old has passed away - look, what is new has come! ¹⁸And all these things are from God who reconciled us to himself through Christ, and who has given us the ministry of reconciliation. ¹⁹In other words, in Christ God was reconciling the world to himself, not counting people's trespasses against them, and he has given us the message of reconciliation. ²⁰Therefore we are ambassadors for Christ, as though God were making His plea through us. We plead with you on Christ's behalf, "Be reconciled to God!" ²¹God made the one who did not know sin to be sin for us, so that in him we would become the righteousness of God.

   “Here we have an entire chapter highlighting the very points made in Romans 5 and 11 but this time written to the Corinthians.  The first part of the chapter is stating the fact that we do not belong here on this earth and that all of our longing should be for Heaven. But we are able to have courage in this life and can be content in this life while God’s will is for us to remain here because God has given us the Holy Spirit as a promise that one day we will be with Him in Heaven.  Paul then proceeds to reiterate again what it means to be saved and that it is not just something offered a select few but it is offered to every person in the world.   

   One thing to point put is that Paul is clear that the reconciliation proceeds from God NOT from us.  Reconciliation is not something we do, ever.  It is something God does.  Paul also defines reconciliation again for us with very clear and precise language.  Here he defines it as “not counting people’s trespasses against them”.  To restate that in more modern language, that is the forgiveness of sins. Immediately following that definition, Paul then says that God has given them that very message, the forgiveness of sins, reconciliation.   

   Finally, to make sure his point is well taken, Paul again defines what he means and likewise what Christ means, by reconciliation when he says, “God made the one who did not know sin to be sin for us, so that in him we would become the righteousness of God.” This entire chapter is about the forgiveness of sins in order that people can someday be with God in Heaven!  And THAT is the message of reconciliation that we are to take to the people of the world

Ephesians 2

¹And although you were dead in your transgressions and sins, ²in which you formerly lived according to this world's present path, according to the ruler of the kingdom of the air, the ruler of the spirit that is now energizing the sons of disobedience, ³among whom all of us also formerly lived out our lives in the cravings of our flesh, indulging the desires of the flesh and the mind, and were by nature children of wrath even as the rest...

⁴But God, being rich in mercy, because of his great love with which he loved us, ⁵even though we were dead in transgressions, made us alive together with Christ - by grace you are saved! - ⁶and he raised us up with him and seated us with him in the heavenly realms in Christ Jesus, ⁷to demonstrate in the coming ages the surpassing wealth of his grace in kindness toward us in Christ Jesus. ⁸For by grace you are saved through faith, and this is not from yourselves, it is the gift of God; ⁹it is not from works, so that no one can boast. ¹⁰For we are his workmanship, having been created in Christ Jesus for good works that God prepared beforehand so we may do them.

¹¹Therefore remember that formerly you, the Gentiles in the flesh - who are called "uncircumcision" by the so-called "circumcision" that is performed on the body by human hands - ¹²that you were at that time without the Messiah, alienated from the citizenship of Israel and strangers to the covenants of promise, having no hope and without God in the world. ¹³But now in Christ Jesus you who used to be far away have been brought near by the blood of Christ. ¹⁴For he is our peace, the one who made both groups into one and who destroyed the middle wall of partition, the hostility, ¹⁵when he nullified in his flesh the law of commandments in decrees. He did this to create in himself one new man out of two, thus making peace, ¹⁶and to reconcile them both in one body to God through the cross, by which the hostility has been killed. ¹⁷And he came and preached peace to you who were far off and peace to those who were near, ¹⁸so that through him we both have access in one Spirit to the Father. ¹⁹So then you are no longer foreigners and noncitizens, but you are fellow citizens with the saints and members of God's household, ²⁰because you have been built on the foundation of the apostles and prophets, with Christ Jesus himself as the cornerstone. ²¹In him the whole building, being joined together, grows into a holy temple in the Lord, ²²in whom you also are being built together into a dwelling place of God in the Spirit.

   "Once again, just as in Romans 11, Paul makes the point that Jesus’ sacrifice on the cross was not only for the Jews but also for the Gentiles and that through the cross, both are equally reconciled to God, so much so that they are to become one body and that the Church. The point is clear; the cross of Christ reconciles us to God."

Colossians 1:9-23

⁹For this reason we also, from the day we heard about you, have not ceased praying for you and asking God to fill you with the knowledge of his will in all spiritual wisdom and understanding, ¹⁰so that you may live worthily of the Lord and please him in all respects - bearing fruit in every good deed, growing in the knowledge of God, ¹¹being strengthened with all power according to his glorious might for the display of all patience and steadfastness, joyfully ¹²giving thanks to the Father who has qualified you to share in the saints' inheritance in the light. ¹³He delivered us from the power of darkness and transferred us to the kingdom of the Son he loves, ¹⁴in whom we have redemption, the forgiveness of sins.

 ¹⁵ He is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn over all creation,

 ¹⁶for all things in heaven and on earth were created by him - all things, whether visible or invisible, whether thrones or dominions, whether principalities or powers - all things were created through him and for him.

 ¹⁷He himself is before all things and all things are held together in him.

 ¹⁸He is the head of the body, the church, as well as the beginning, the firstborn from among the dead, so that he himself may become first in all things.

 ¹⁹For God was pleased to have all his fullness dwell in the Son

 ²⁰and through him to reconcile all things to himself by making peace through the blood of his cross - through him, whether things on earth or things in heaven.

²¹And you were at one time strangers and enemies in your minds as expressed through your evil deeds, ²²but now he has reconciled you by his physical body through death to present you holy, without blemish, and blameless before him - ²³if indeed you remain in the faith, established and firm, without shifting from the hope of the gospel that you heard. This gospel has also been preached in all creation under heaven, and I, Paul, have become its servant.

   “And again, we have Paul writing the same points to the Colossians that he had written to the Ephesians and Romans before.  We should not expect that this rendition would be any different than his previous two writings nor that the definitions of the words used would be different.  In this part of the letter Paul does specify that they should bear fruit in good deeds but that in order to please Him, saying nothing about those fruits attributing to their redemption which he clearly states in verse 14 is “the forgiveness of sins.”   

   Further on Paul describes Jesus Christ in great detail culminating in His purpose which is reconciling “all things to himself by making peace through the blood of his cross - through him, whether things on earth or things in heaven.”  The language here is slightly different than what is used in the other letter’s but the idea being expressed is identical; we are reconciled to Christ by His death on the cross.    

   If there is any question, Paul continues by stating the fact that they are reconciled by Jesus’ physical death so that they might be presented “holy, without blemish, and blameless…”.  Paul leaves no question as to what he means when he uses the words “reconcile” or “reconciliation”. He is the only one to use these words in the New Testament and he clearly defines them each time they are used as the forgiveness of sins.

   Its amazing how deceived Christians have become. The “Gospel of Reconciliation” that is being preached from our pulpits and taught on our universities is directly from the mind of Satan and it is time to cut away the sheep skin from the wolves who have invaded our churches and school.”

Romans 8:18-23

¹⁸For I consider that the sufferings of this present time are not worth comparing with the glory that is to be revealed to us. ¹⁹For the creation waits with eager longing for the revealing of the sons of God. ²⁰For the creation was subjected to futility, not willingly, but because of him who subjected it, in hope ²¹that the creation itself will be set free from its bondage to decay and obtain the freedom of the glory of the children of God. ²²For we know that the whole creation has been groaning together in the pains of childbirth until now. ²³And not only the creation, but we ourselves, who have the firstfruits of the Spirit, groan inwardly as we wait eagerly for adoption as sons, the redemption of our bodies. ²⁴For in this hope we were saved. Now hope that is seen is not hope. For who hopes for what he sees? ²⁵But if we hope for what we do not see, we wait for it with patience.

   “Finally, I must include this passage from Romans because it is used in combination with the verses about reconciliation to create this impression that Scripture teaches that we, as agents of reconciliation, are to bring about this redemption of creation. I have already explained fully the passages regarding true reconciliation so it seems this passage should be moot but let’s look at it anyway.   

   This passage first begins with stating that the things we go through, the suffering, ‘are not worth comparing with the glory’ to be revealed.  And what is the ‘glory’?  It is our entrance to Heaven.  Paul further describes this glory as the ‘revealing of the sons of God’, ‘adoption as sons’, ‘the redemption of our bodies’.  Additional clues that Paul is strictly talking about Heaven comes when he refers to this glory as ‘this hope’.  And not simply “this hope” but that in this hope we were saved.  This language matches the other passages exactly.  Paul is consistent in his presentation of the Gospel as being the forgiveness of sins which saves us from God’s wrath and gives us the hope of Heaven. He says the same thing here in regards to those who are to be adopted as sons.  Then he makes a connection that we see nowhere else in Scripture.  He tells us that all of creation longs for the day of our final redemption so that it too may be set free from its bondage to decay wrought on it by Adam’s sin.  Yet it is clear that creation’s hope does not lie in us but in our redemption by God.   

   He also makes clear that this will take place at the redemption of our bodies which will take place upon Christ’s return. So in the end anything we do to attempt to redeem or reconcile creation to God is an effort in futility.  It isn’t pure vanity since we are called to be stewards of what God has given us and made us rulers over but if we expect our work for the planet or even for our fellow man to somehow be a part of their redemption, we are being duped.”

The Twisted Nature of the Liberal Mind

As I drove through Bismarck on my errands Saturday, I was listening to NPR. (only God knows why) Actually, the reason I stopped on that station which I usually avoid like the plague (in reality I have never really avoided the plague as it were so maybe it should be "avoid like a pair of Nike shoes") was because the person being interviewed was talking about his travels around the world using the lowest forms of "conveyance" (his word) in the world. Having recently visited Guatemala and experiencing some similar travel situations, it peeked my interest. But as I listened, I began to realize that there was something more to his story than simply revealing these sad stories of destitution to the general public who may never experience them firsthand.

 My first inclination that something was amiss was when he was describing his trip over the Andes mountains in Peru. Without going into all the details, he described traveling in a packed bus(he was sitting in the stairwell with his legs hanging out of the bus)down steep mountain roads made of mud, with cliffs rising and falling mere inches from the bus at times. There were no bathroom facilities because a man was using the bathroom to store the crates of fruit he was selling to the passengers and the man next to him had a sick child who was vomiting on the bus and defecating out the windows during the terrifying ride down the mountain. All of that is horrible enough but what he said after that description was what made my ears perk up. He said (and I am paraphrasing here) that after he just accepted all of the dirt and filth and discomfort, it was one of the most invigorating and heartening trips he ever took. He went on to describe some of the positive things of the trip such as that the passengers were kind and people brought him food (the host had to point out that they were SELLING him the food, a fact that he deliberately left out and we will see why in a moment).

 After discussing this part of his trip a little more, he went on to describe returning to the United States and how he took a Greyhound bus from the West coast to his home in the East. I am guessing that this was his idea of the lowest form of "conveyance" in the U.S. He described this leg of his journey as the most depressing and discouraging part of his travels. Why? Because the people were not very open, and he had to buy food from a vending machine. It was clear now what his message was as he continued to describe the shortcomings of the United States. His message was that no matter how bad things may be in Third World countries, the United States is much worse.

 This reveals the corruption of the Liberal Mind. In order to twist reality to to fit the liberal way of thought he had to disregard all the negative aspects of the horrific conditions in which he was traveling, and there, in this world of his own creation, he could find utopia of liberal thought, people living in harmony. That is the ideal of the liberal mindset. It doesn't matter if those harmonious people are starving to death, or plummeting off mountain passes to their deaths as long as they were living in harmony. So, instead of being concerned about the suffering of the child who was vomiting on the bus, or the indignity of being forced to defecate out the window of a public bus, or the humiliation of needing to purchase food stored in the toilet of a bus, or living in constant fear of death every time they had to take to the road, the liberal mind is concerned about the impersonal nature of buying food from a vending machine or the unwillingness of strangers on a bus to speak openly to each other. You see, America's goal is not harmony, it is freedom and prosperity. That is anathema to the liberal mind.

 As I listened, this all played out in front of me. He would not have been so candid if he had not thought he was speaking to friends, which is why he was on NPR. He was honest about ignoring the negatives in order to bolster his position, yet he was caught in his dishonesty by an only slightly more honest host when talking about people bringing him food on the bus. He would have been just as well with giving us the impression that he was being fed free of charge out of the kindness of their hearts because it lent itself to his point. If a person is willing to lie to support his position, it makes me question the validity of that position. He complained about the vending machines as if it were the only food offered to the passengers of this bus on their 72 hour trip across the U.S. I simply don't believe that. And somehow he found vending machine sandwiches more repulsive than unrefrigerated fruit stored in a public toilet. He complained about the "standoffishness" of the passengers of the bus on Grey Hound when I can imagine he made no effort to strike up a conversation. If he had, he may have found things very different. And finally, while I am sure the Peruvian Andes are more breathtaking than the deserts of the Southwest U.S., he made no mention of the natural beauty of the country side he experienced in that last leg of his journey. I am sure there was beauty somewhere along the line. But that is the liberal mind. It is a twisted view that requires a twisted reality. Remember this as you vote tomorrow. Would you rather live in America, or take a Peruvian bus to work each day? Providing you have a job at all.

The Latest Tripe in the Nazarene/Emergent Mess

So here is a link to an editorial in our Nazarene publication, Holiness Today: http://www.nph.com/nphweb/html/h2ol/articleDisplay.jsp?mediaId=2402180&nid=lcol David J. Felter, editor in chief, concludes his flowery editorial with these words referring to emergent nazarenes; [Just]"Because they are different does not mean they are aberrant." Here is my response; "Just because you can wax eloquent doesn't mean your words are less the lie." Again, you can no sooner have a "post-modern Christian" as you can have a "Satanic Christian" and I pray that the leadership in our Denomination realize this before people will begin to add "Nazarene Christian" to this list of oxymora.

Emerging Theology?

Admittedly, this is a post born out of utter frustration and dismay. So take it as you may.

Here are some lyrics that just seem to sum up emerging thought and theology:

"The top becomes the bottom

The fantasy becomes reality

The conceptions change

The landmarks dissolve

And all becomes intermingled

To flirt with the despicable

In a trance without end

Where the ice burns

Like glowing embers I've always ignored the doubt

Answers are in the questions"

Especially the last line.  It is such a summary statement that seems to fit the "conversation" so well.  At every turn "everything must change" is put into practice.  Definitions, doctrines, theology, methods of biblical interpretation, the very nature of God and man. These lyrics make the statement well.  They spell out the emergent movement perfectly.  If I had the time I could match a quote from an emergent leader, even an emergent nazarene for that matter, with each line of these lyrics.  I love the line, "I've always ignored the doubt".  It is so ironic.

The thing about these lyrics that is the most frightening, outside of what they actually say, is that they are taken from the band Samael and the album Ceremony of Opposites.  Samael is held to be the most authentically satanic band of all time.  If the pastor of my church has more in common with the people who emulate these lyrics than he/she does to the historical Christian Faith then its time for a new pastor. 

We can no longer sit by and allow the "intellectuals" in our denomination to lead us down the left hand path.  The difference between the Swiss brothers in Samael and the brothers in the emerging movement are that the Swiss brothers come out and tell us that the result of this philosophy is death, while the emerging brothers blindly walk the same path to the same result.

 I use the word brothers though they are not my brothers, they are their own.

A Response to "John Wesley and The Emerging Church"

This is the full text of a letter I sent to Preacher's Magazine concerning an article they printed by Hal Knight, entitled "John Wesley and The Emerging Church".   http://www.nph.com/nphweb/html/pmol/emerging.htm The letter sent to the editor was an abridged version of this what is printed below. (End Notes will be added soon) To the Editor, My utter anguish was ever so slightly assuaged when I discovered that Hal Knight was not a Nazarene but rather a United Methodist. This fact renewed my hope, however feeble it may be, that our Denominational leaders have not “gone off the deep end”. Still, another fact remained; this article was published in a Nazarene publication. And so my anguish continues. Mr. Knight begins by claiming that the emerging churches’ vision of discipleship, church and mission is congruent with those of the Wesleyan tradition. He then attempts to prove that statement true to abysmal results. I first would ask Mr. Knight what is the emergent definition of discipleship, church and most importantly, mission? Definitions are of utmost importance when dealing with emergents as they have left no common word untwisted, unmodified or uncreated (as we shall see later). Coming up with answers to these questions is nearly impossible because of the decentralized nature of this movement but we certainly can arrive at what the definitions are not, if not what they are. Mr. Knight describes emergents as “deeply committed persons”. Committed to what, I wonder? Committed to Scripture? Committed to seeing lost souls saved? Committed to personal holiness? I would propose, none of the above. They are committed indeed, but to their own individual interpretations of Christianity. Mr. Knight also tries to equate this emergent movement with earlier “awakenings” such as the Wesleys were involved. Only, he forgets to point out a major difference. That being, in the past, reformations and awakenings drew the church back to Biblical truth, unlike this movement away from it. As Mr. Knight continues to characterize emergents, he states that “Pervasive rationalism…compromised mission” and “Individualism impoverished community.” In a Denomination such as the Church of the Nazarene, we find ourselves driven toward missions on every level and “impoverished community” would seem to be reserved for larger churches. However, I have been in large churches that had wonderful community. I think this statement is broad and over-reaching; therefore, it is unreliable as a foundation to reject an entire mindset and culture. Mr. Knight does manage to raise one concern about the movement, however oversimplified and generic it is, and then spends three paragraphs attempting to refute it though never actually addressing the issue at hand, the fact that the emerging church abandons truth and embrace relativism. Which is not surprising really, since it is a difficult endeavor to refute the truth. It is much easier to distract and confuse until everyone forgets what the refutation was about in the first place, which is precisely what Mr. Knight does. His first of four responses to this concern about emerging churches is remarkable. Mr. Knight asserts that “a commitment to truth does not necessitate a commitment to modernity or a rejection of post-modernism.” Yet, the opposite is true. A commitment to truth absolutely necessitates a rejection of post-modernism since post-moderns (emergents) whole heartedly reject truth or at least our ability to know it, which effectively eliminates truth, regardless of its existence. Mr. Knight’s second response is that “unorthodox” (i.e. heresy) may be needed for the “health of the church”. Since when has heresy been acceptable or healthy for the church to where it should be welcomed? How did the early church deal with heresy? They rejected it. Mr. Knight wants us to believe that the heresies found in the emerging church are somehow on the “fringe” but that the center of the movement is orthodox. This could not be further from the truth. The heretical “fringe” (or “unorthodox fringe” as Mr. Knight coins them) are not the fringe element at all. They are the leaders, the foundation, the inspiration and the driving force behind the emergent movement. And the few adherents to the emerging movement who still hold to some aspect of orthodoxy are far more inclined to dispense with sound Biblical doctrine than to address a heresy within their ranks. Continuing to his third point, Mr. Knight claims that “enlightenment rationalism is itself no guarantee of orthodoxy…” So what? This point does absolutely nothing to address the issue. Pointing out that heresy has existed at other times in church history is a non-point. Let’s address how the church dealt with heresy then compared to how the emerging church does so today. Let’s talk about the fact that heresy was never at the center of those prior movements while it is at the very core of the emerging church movement. Luther, Arminius, Calvin, Wesley all rejected heresy when it reared its ugly head. Emergents embrace it. Mr. Knight’s final response (or non-response) is an outright lie. He claims the emerging church has a “highly faithful appropriation of Christian tradition…” based on not much more than a couple emergent book subtitles. He lauds their “exult(ation) in traditional spiritual practices and imagery” and “respect for tradition”. But he fails to mention that their exultation of “imagery” is just that, an image. Images and traditions gutted of their very substance. What the emerging church practices is nothing more than ritual, ironically, the very thing they claim to detest in orthodox churches. From here, his last vain attempt to make us believe that emergents love truth as we do, Mr. Knight moves on to comparing supposed similarities between emergents and Wesley. The misrepresentations are vast and many. 1. Emerging churches “understand discipleship as ‘following closely and emulating the person and ministry of Jesus.’” Emerging churches have a complete disregard for doctrine and the prerequisite to discipleship, which is salvation. Does the above definition of discipleship reflect our Denominations’ definition or the Bible’s for that matter? Scripture and sound doctrine are the very foundation of discipleship. Neither of which are held with regard in emerging circles. 2. Emerging churches “seek to follow Jesus as Lord as well as trust Him as Savior.” Emerging churches disregard the need for a personal savior and view Jesus (even) if He is actually God) as nothing more than a model – certainly not a being to subject oneself to, certainly not Lord. 3. Emerging churches “announce…a promise of a world to come.” Now, I am assuming by the phrase “a world to come” he means Heaven, though I admit this might be a huge leap of faith on my part. He might be referring to the promise of a world to come without the oppression of Christianity and Capitalism, in which case, he would be right for once. But I am going with the first interpretation, in which case, he is wrong, again. Emergents not only ignore the promise of Heaven but ridicule those of us who mention it. In fact, the Christians’ focus on Heaven is one of the emergents biggest complaints, which Mr. Knight actually points out later on. He can’t have it both ways. 4. Emerging churches “understand the Gospel to encompass social transformation as well as personal salvation.” Where is this definition of the Gospel found in Scripture? The Biblical Gospel is very clear and simple, repentance and forgiveness of sins. Everything else, Entire Sanctification, Holiness, Love, comes from that starting point. Mr. Knight wants us to believe that Wesley held this same, unscriptural view of the Gospel. He states “John Wesley emphasized that salvation is ‘a present thing’ and entails not only forgiveness of sins but also the living of a new life.” Despite the fact that he mentions Wesley’s view of salvation not the Gospel which is what the discussion is about, it is an inaccurate representation of what Wesley taught concerning salvation. Wesley, in his comments referring to salvation being “a present thing” was delineating between a Scriptural view of salvation and one that stated salvation only truly occurred when one was glorified in Heaven. In other words – the forgiveness of and freedom from sin is not something merely to look forward to upon death but could be grasped immediately by the one repentant, thereby empowering the new Christian to a life of Holiness, Love and Service. This is right in line with Scripture, which tells us we are “saved to good works”. TO good works, not BY them, which is what emerging churches teach. The dirty little secret is that emerging churches preach a completely different gospel than that of Scripture – even Jesus Christ, whom they claim to so closely emulate. 5. Mr. Knight also claims that emerging churches are “rooted in Wesley’s vision of Holiness of heart and life.” Again, a falsehood of the highest degree. Emergents have an open disdain for personal Holiness (or “personal piety” as they call it). It is one point on which they dissolve often to verbal violence, hatred and vulgarity. Yet, this “personal piety” is exactly what Wesley is referring to when he speaks of Holiness of heart and life. Wesley’s point is that it must come from salvation by faith not be a means to salvation which was the contemporary mindset to which he was so opposed. Mr. Knight’s misrepresentation is unfortunate. He then comments that this “vision of Holiness of heart and life” has “never disappeared”. Which begs the question; why the need for an emerging movement? Why not just join with the people who have continued to hold true to this vision? Namely, the Nazarenes. I can answer the question. It is because the emerging church has changed the definition of Holiness and it is not what Wesley taught. It isn’t that the Nazarene Denomination has somehow wandered away from Wesleyan Holiness; rather it is that emerging churches do not teach Wesleyan Holiness – but some gutted, perverted shell of it, which hold resemblance in the spelling of the word only. Next, Mr. Knight references Dieter Zander who claims that “most church people have an understanding of the gospel something like this: Give a little, do a little, pay membership dues, get a “going to Heaven” ticket (through accepting the gospel)”. This statement doesn’t even make sense in and of itself. He said that people think the gospel is do X, do Y, do Z, and then accept the gospel. But he just finished saying the gospel was X, Y, Z yet on top of that one must accept the gospel which is do X, Y, Z. Nonsense. And it is nonsense that this is what most Christians believe. Just speaking from the perspective of the Nazarene Church (since that is my main concern here) we do not, nor have we ever taught a works based salvation. If anyone in our churches believed what is stated above then our leadership have gone terribly wrong somewhere. But I am more inclined to think that Mr. Knight ad Mr. Zander would be hard pressed to find even one person in our churches who believe what was stated, much less a majority. Ironically, though this quote is attempting to disparage nearly all current Christians for believing in a works based salvation, it is the emerging church itself which whole heartedly promotes a works based salvation. Strange. But I digress. Mr. Knight tries to connect Wesley’s view of contemporary churchmen with Zander’s fabricated view of current churchmen. However, amazingly, Wesley’s quote describes emergent churchmen far more accurately than it does Nazarenes! He describes a “religious man” who tries to live “honestly” and “fairly”, who is regularly at church involved in rituals, gives much and does good, in order to gain salvation. That’s an emergent if I have ever met one! Granted, there are people in our churches with the same mentality but it is not preached from our pulpits nor supported in our writings. Yet, it is exactly what is taught in the emerging churches. In fact, Mr. Knight inadvertently makes this case when he points out that the “only thing missing from Wesley’s account and Zander’s is the point about accepting the Gospel!” This inclusion by Zander is very telling about the emerging church. Acceptance of the Gospel (in this case meaning repentance and forgiveness of sins) is as abhorrent to them as is not giving enough, or not doing enough. Wesley’s point was that the contemporary religious man had no acceptance of the Gospel behind his good works. Zander includes acceptance of the Gospel as something of which to be ashamed. The two statements are not only incongruent but they couldn’t be more different! As Mr. Knight continues trying to compare Wesley with emergents, he comes to a central theme in the emerging churches, being missional. He describes emerging churches as “Pre-eminently missional”. I can’t help but wonder if that is what a church should be Biblically but that is a “conversation” for another time. Mr. Knight tries to equate emergents’ idea of God’s mission in the world and Wesley’s God-given mission for the Methodists. My questions are as follows; what is God’s mission in the world according to Scriptures? What do the emergents say their god’s mission is in the world? What was Wesley’s God-given mission for the Methodists? How do they compare? Wesley’s stated mission was to “spread Scriptural Holiness over the land.” “Scriptural Holiness” assumes two things; first, it is based in Scripture. Second, is salvation which is a pre-requisite to Holiness. Emergents’ mission is a little sketchy. I think that it is fair to say that it is to live as close to how their version of Jesus supposedly lived. Since they reject the authority of Scripture and only hold loosely to Jesus’ words, there is no need for this emulation to be based on Scripture. There is no pre-requisite of salvation either. God’s mission in the world, according to Scripture is to reconcile people to Himself by eliminating the thing separating people from Him, sin. This is accomplished through salvation – that is repentance and forgiveness of sin, the Gospel of Jesus Christ. Wesley’s mission for the Methodists matches up well with Scripture and Jesus’ own description of the Gospel and the Great Commission. The emergents come nowhere close on any level. Mr. Knight says that emergents see all of the life as “potentially sacred”. I would say they see all of life as already sacred. He quotes Bolger and Gibbs as saying “for emerging churches, there are no longer any bad places, bad people or bad times…” this, I think, is a true description of emergent churches. If all is sacred and no one is “bad” then what need is there for salvation or the Cross? None. And they are not timid in saying so. Mr. Knight, then, strangely, militates against the concept of the “elect and the dammed (sic).” I say this is strange, as coming from a Wesleyan background, there is no such doctrine in the Methodist church or the Nazarene Church. Still, he feels the need to misrepresent once again, Wesley’s position by claiming that to Wesley, all people are in one category – sinners. Of course, everyone begins life in this state of being a sinner but Scripture and Wesley both make a distinction between regenerate and unregenerate persons. Regardless, Mr. Knight just got done telling us that for emergents there are no “bad people” and then he follows that with Wesley saying that everyone is sinful and wants us to somehow come to the conclusion that emergents and Wesley agree. Amazing. Even if what Mr. Knight says about Wesley were true, which it isn’t, that would effectively make Wesley incongruent with emerging churches – exactly the opposite of Mr. Knight’s point for writing this article in the first place! Mr. Knight continues with a series of statements that, if they were not so serious, would be laughable. He claims that, while leaders like Tony Jones travel the world explaining why the Bible has no authority, emergents “hold(ing) strongly to the authority and primacy of Scripture.” This is a bold face lie. He highlights their sacrilege of the Eucharist as “being very traditional” – though it is gutted of its meaning and purpose and often as far from “traditional” as one could imagine. So, again, an untrue statement. Now Mr. Knight takes on emergents' championed phrase, “generous orthodoxy,” which simply means anything goes, except orthodoxy, of course. He mentions that Wesley distinguished essential doctrines from opinions yet is remiss in leaving out that emergents hold no such list of essentials. He lists Wesley’s essentials as “The Trinity, the deity of Christ, the Authority of Scripture, Original Sin, Grace, Justification and Sanctification.” The only one of these that emergents may hold to is the Deity of Jesus and that I can say with no serious amount of certainty. He goes on to say that Wesley believed that “one could not be a Christian and have that life apart from belief in the essentials.” At this point I am not really sure where Mr. Knight is trying to go because he just proved that Wesley would not consider emergents as Christians at all. Maybe one can have too much education. Finally, we reach the end of this as Mr. Knight introduces some “emergebabble” that they are so known for. He brings up some convoluted argument about orthodoxy, orthopraxy, and orthopathy. Orthopraxy turns out to be a medical term referring to treatment of deformities by use of mechanics and “orthopathy” doesn’t seem to actually be a real word. At least I could find no reference to it outside of emergent circles where it was not clearly defined. But beyond this, he makes this statement which should be clear in its error to any Christian. He states: “our beliefs and hearts are shaped by our experience of serving God and our neighbor…” This is the heart of what is wrong with the emerging church. Beliefs are shaped by the shifting sands of experience not the solid rock of Scripture. A house built on sand will surely fall and this emerging house cannot fall soon enough! The end finally arrives with Mr. Knight saying that “generous orthodoxy must be not only generous, it must also be orthodox.” Finally, with this I can agree and again shake my head, wondering what the point of this whole exercise was. Mr. Knight set out to show the congruence of Wesleyan theology with emerging church ideals and in the end proves just the opposite. I am glad I could assist him in his endeavor. But, seriously, my concern about this article being printed in a Nazarene Publication is heart rending. If this cancer called the emerging church is allowed to infiltrate our denomination – the end of our church as we know it will come within the next decade. It was totally irresponsible for this to be allowed into print. I pray to God for better leadership in the future. In His Majesty’s Service, Nicholas Edinger