Prominent Nazarene Theologian Embraces “Big Tent Christianity”

At General Assembly last year, I recall attending a session about the emerging church, presented by Jon Middendorf and Scott Daniels, two of the biggest pushers of this movement within our denomination.  Jon is pastor at Oklahoma City Nazarene, and is the son of current General Superintendent Jesse Middendorf.  In this session, I recall that amongst some of the typical emergent catch phrases I heard, such as “you can’t put God in a box”, and “don’t throw out the baby with the bathwater”, were some comments that referred to a “big tent” ideology.  In other words, the idea is that the Nazarene church is a big tent, and large enough to welcome and embrace or at least include in the “conversation”, a broader range of theological ideas outside of the stated articles of faith in the Nazarene manual.  I suspect some of those broader ideas would include: mysticism, use of Roman Catholic rituals, teaching of evolution, and even the belief that parts of the Bible are not necessarily true!  If anyone following this emergent drama really thinks by now that all Nazarene pastors and theology professors believe in biblical inerrancy, I have a bridge to sell to you.

The “big tent” concept is nothing more than liberalism.  Liberalism by its definition welcomes a broad range of ideas and beliefs, and theoretically is open to all ideas.  In my experience, that is true… until, of course, someone chimes in with their idea that there is absolute truth, and that some things cannot be tinkered with.  That’s when liberalism shows it’s hypocritical, nasty side, by vilifying those who believe in absolute truth.  It’s pretty easy then to show liberalism for what it is, an arrogant, destructive ideology that preaches openness to any idea, unless that idea says there is only one truth.

So along comes a conference this coming September called Big Tent Christianity: Being And Becoming The Church.  Philip Clayton, one of the big organizers, has written this about “big tent Christianity”:

“[It is] urgent … to reclaim a Big Tent Christianity, a centrist return to ‘just Christian’ in word and action. The two poles are driving each other ever further apart, spawning ever deeper hostilities. The solution — in American society as in the church — certainly is not to let the other’s anger fuel my own. As leaders it’s our task to help break the cycle of anger, of rejection leading to rejection, and to foster a radically different understanding of the heart of Christian faith.”

Huh?  What do you mean, reclaim?  Did we lose something?  What two poles?  What “radically different understanding”, after all these years of Christianity?

Well, anyway, here’s the theme as they post it on the website:

What does “big tent Christianity” mean to you? What does it look like in your context? What are your hopes and dreams for the Church?

So in preparation for the September conference, there is an online, week-long session from August 9-13, where you can go and post comments in response to these questions.  And… as a bonus, 15 bloggers will be chosen at random to receive two books, including A New Kind Of Christianity by Brian McLaren!  I suspect you know where this is going.  And then a big, big winner will get to attend a brunch with Brian McLaren at the conference!

(Just thinking: I wonder if the Holy scriptures and what it says will have any significant part in the “conversation” at this conference)

As I looked at the list of conferees, I saw that a scheduled panelist was Dr. Tom Oord of Northwest Nazarene University.  He is scheduled for the last session on the last day.  It is titled Big Tent Spirituality, and he will be joined by emergent stars Tim King and Spencer Burke, and a few others.  When I saw the other conferees, I said to myself, why would a Nazarene theology professor attend and be a panelist at such a conference, with the list of speakers who will be there?

Here are some of the presenters and either a brief summary, or a link to more on each of them.  They are all radical, committed emergent revolutionaries seeking to change the face of Christianity as we know, all for the betterment of Christians who cannot see with their vision.  See if this is the kind of company you would want to keep, and be seen with, as Tom Oord apparently does.

Brian McLaren: Godfather of the emergent movement, biggest name by far.  Believes that we have not gotten it right in over 2,000 years of Christianity.  Has called for a moratorium on homosexuality for five years, then for us to come back and see what we think about it.  Has described Christ’s death on the cross as “almost false advertising for God.”   And asked about homosexuality, he said this: “’You know what, the thing that breaks my heart is that there’s no way I can answer it without hurting someone on either side.”  So much for clarity from a pastor on that issue.

He endorsed a book by Alan Jones called Reimagining Christianity that called the doctrine of the Cross a “vile doctrine.”  Brian McLaren wants us to learn more about ‘meditative practices, about which Zen Buddhism has said much. To talk about different things is not to contradict one another; it is, rather, to have much to offer one another’ (A Generous Orthodoxy, p. 255.)

He is ecumenical:  in a letter to Chuck Colson, he said: “Several years back, you (Chuck Colson) tried to bring Evangelicals and Catholics together, an effort which I applaud and in which I am involved myself.”

Tony Jones: Promotes contemplative practices, including centering prayer, the silence, Jesus Prayer, the labyrinth, stations of the cross, the Ignatien Examen, yoga, Taize worship, lectio divina.  Has said that unrepentant practicing homosexuals can live in harmony with the Christian religion.

See this: http://reformednazarene.wordpress.com/2009/02/02/tony-jones-of-the-emergent-church-rejects-the-doctrine-of-original-sin/

Phylis Tickle: author of  The Great Emergence
See this: http://www.lighthousetrailsresearch.com/blog/?p=1785 and this: http://www.alittleleaven.com/2009/05/whats-being-taught-at-rob-bell.html

Peter Rollins: http://apprising.org/2009/05/27/rob-bell-peter-rollins-and-phyllis-tickle-together-advancing-emergence-christianity/

Jay Bakker (son of Jim Bakker): http://apprising.org/2010/01/25/emerging-church-jay-bakker-and-outlaw-preachers/

Nadia Bolz-Weber: http://apprising.org/2009/11/25/elca-pastor-nadia-bolz-weber-and-tattoo-faith/

Greg Boyd: a proponent of open theism and process theology.
See this: http://apprising.org/2009/06/19/bob-dewaay-refutes-open-theist-greg-boyd/

Tim King and Spencer Burke: http://apprising.org/2008/11/26/spencer-burke-im-a-universalist-who-believes-in-hell/
and: http://apprising.org/2010/02/02/in-the-emerging-church-ooze-conversion-is-out/ (This is amazing as Spencer Burke and Tim King spout off their non-biblical nonsense which smacks of universalism at times.  Folks, just listen to this 9 minutes and you will see a great example of what I mean when I say “religion of man.”  These men not only do not mention Christ during their talk, they reject conversion as something good!)

There are more, but this is just part of this star studded, emergent lineup that is very impressive.  All that’s missing is folks like Rob Bell and Tony Campolo to round it out.

All I want to know is, why would a Nazarene theology professor be part of this crowd, unless he agreed with their ideologies?  Will Dr. Oord present at this conference, and then later write a critique on all the warped ideologies these people teach?  Perhaps we can get a hint from one of his posts at his blog: http://thomasjayoord.com/index.php/blog/archives/christian_and_scientific_fundamentalism/.  Here you will get an idea of his opinion of “fundamentalists.”  But there’s more, and if you take the time to read many of his posts there, you will get a good idea of where he is coming from.

And I don’t think that he is the only Nazarene theologian who would find himself comfortable participating in this conference.  I know some Nazarene pastors over at NazNet who would feel right at home in this conference, and that is what troubles me.  It is not just one person or professor I am questioning.  It is this heretical ideology (heretical, yes the no-no word) that is sweeping through the Nazarene and other Christian denominations like wildfire.  It is helping to produce our pastors of tomorrow.

Is it too late, and have all the horses been let out of the barn, so to speak?  Is this just an example of the ideology of many who are teaching in our universities today?  Can we reverse this in some way and be able to again produce more and more pastors and professors who preach and teach holiness, and a complete trust in the bible, and not in the religion of man?  It’s a question worth asking and getting an answer, because as I have said before, this kind of thinking and teaching could result in your child walking away from the Lord, and perhaps worshiping another Jesus.

Is that what you want?  If so, then be happy with it.  If not, then…

Silence in the face of evil is itself evil: God will not hold us guiltless. Not to speak is to speak. Not to act is to act.

Dietrich Bonhoeffer

Additional resource: Pastor Ken Silva’s commentary on Big Tent Christianity: http://apprising.org/2010/04/21/big-tent-progressive-christianity-as-liberalism-2-0/

About these ads

51 responses to “Prominent Nazarene Theologian Embraces “Big Tent Christianity”

  1. Big Tent?
    Yes
    Christian?
    Not even close
    Phylis Tickle (tickle your ears)
    And Brian McLaren are not even Christians
    Plus Tom where do you even start with that guy

  2. I read Oord’s summary of fundamentalism being too narrow. And he rejects an inerrant Bible. He has to, of course; how else could he deny Matthew 7:13, where Jesus says, “Enter through the narrow gate; for the gate is wide and the way is broad that leads to destruction, and there are many who enter through it.”

    That makes straight and narrow the path to follow. I think an apt paraphrase to the above could read, “… and big is the tent that leads to destruction…”

  3. Manny,
    I just returned this morning from a Work and Witness trip to the poorest of the poor in Guatemala. Some of your readers were kind enough to let me know that you had mentioned me in your latest blog.

    Not only am I not a “pusher” of the EC, I don’t consider myself to be emerging and have never considered myself to be part of the EC. I have always considered my position to be similar to the position held by Jim Belcher in his book “Deep Church” as someone who wants to hear the critiques of the EC without leaving the historic church or its orthodox positions. Beyond that, I believe the EC movement to have largely run its course and for all practical purposes to be over.

    I am convinced that one of the most important paragraphs in the Manual of the Church of the Nazarene to be paragraph 26 entitled the AGREED STATEMENT OF BELIEF which reads:
    Recognizing that the right and privilege of persons to church membership rest upon the fact of their being regenerate, we would require only such avowals of belief as are essential to Christian experience. We, therefore, deem belief in the following brief statements to be sufficient. We believe:
    1. In one God – the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit.
    2. That the Old and new Testament Scriptures, given by plenary inspiration, contain all truth necessary to faith and Christian living.
    3. That man is born with a fallen nature, and is, therefore, inclined to evil, and that continually.
    4. That the finally impenitent are hopelessly and eternally lost.
    5. That the atonement through Jesus Christ is for the whole human race; and that whosoever repents and believes on the Lord Jesus Christ is justified and regenerated and saved from the dominion of sin.
    6. That believers are to be sanctified wholly, subsequent to regeneration, through faith in the Lord Jesus Christ.
    7. That the Holy Spirit bears witness to the new birth, and also to the entire sanctification of believers.
    8. That our Lord will return, the dead will be raised, and the final judgment will take place.

    I believe the key statement is the one that reads that “the right and privilege of persons to church membership rest upon the fact of their being regenerate, we would require only such avowals of belief as are essential to Christian experience.”

    This is one of the oldest and most historic statements in the Manual of the church and it describes decisively the Spirit of “in essentials unity, in non-essentials liberty, and in all things charity” that has defined not only the core history of the CoN but the Wesleyan movement in general. I hold deeply to each of these eight statements of belief and am willing to dialogue with those who might go by various labels but hold to these simple tenets of faith in Christ while demonstrating that they have experienced the regeneration of the life of Christ in the Spirit.

    I do not know you well, and I believe that you operate with good intentions –but so did the Pharisees when they crucified Jesus. It is my opinion that you practice the destructive politics of power that the religious rulers used to condemn Christ and that are so visibly present in the politics of the world today. James 2:19 reminds us that even the demons believe the right things and shudder, but it does nothing to detract from the demonic destruction that they employ. Jesus reminds us that, “By their fruit you will recognize them” (Matt. 7:16). I believe that the fruit you are leaving behind is the destruction of brothers and sisters in Christ, the dismantling of the unity of the church, and the corrupting of the Body of Christ by encouraging others to participate in un-Christian forms of power-politics.

    I am thankful for those who instead are working for the building of Christ’s body through the proclamation of the gospel, the extension of God’s transforming grace, and the embodiment of divine love among those in need. I want to be like P.F. Bresee who spent his life preaching to the lost and the poor and uniting together people with a common concern for Holiness in every area of life. I want that fruit, and not a fear-mongering, truth-distorting, and anger-inciting blog to be the fruit of my life.

    When I read your blog I am reminded of this text in Titus 3: “Avoid foolish controversies and quarrels… because they are unprofitable and useless. Warn a divisive person once, and then warn him a second time. After that, have nothing to do with him. You may be sure that such a man is warped and sinful; he is self-condemned.” Titus 3:9-11

    It saddens me that you would misrepresent my views in this way, but I find it consistent with the foolish, quarrelsome, divisive character that is regularly revealed in your posts.

    My prayers are with you,
    Scott Daniels

  4. Scott, I do not know you well either, but I also believe that you operate with good intentions, and I do not have any anger or hatred towards you personally. But I also believe you are misguided, with all due respect, and I believe you do promote unbiblical views with the things and people you support. I heard it straight from you last summer.

    I still remember what I considered a vicious personal attack from one of your postings on Naznet about a year or so ago. I saw it as another attempt by those who support the emergent agenda to intimidate and coerce folks like me into silence, so you would not be exposed. It did not work, and it will not work in the future. The difference between your post then, and mine now, is this: you attacked me personally. I am attacking your belief system, and Jon Middendorf’s, as I heard it directly from you that day at General Assembly. You defended everything emergent; that was your workshop by that title, and just because you deny that you are emergent, does not mean you do not support and promote all of these things. I stand by what I said, because of what you said that day, as well as Jon. I did not ever attack you or Jon personally; that’s the difference between us. I attack your ideology, which is poisoning the very hearts of our youth with doubts of the Bible, evolution, open theology, and mysticism. If you are not emergent, please then affirm that you do not believe in any of that, and that you believe in the inerrancy of scripture. Otherwise, I stand with what I said.

    I wish the emergent church would have run its course by now, but I fear it has just begun. Sorry I don’t buy that for a minute.

    It seems you focus a lot on what the Manual says. What about the Bible, which you would agree is supreme over any church manual? So it says: “We, therefore, deem belief in the following brief statements to be sufficient.” What does that mean? That we can run roughshod over the other teachings of the Bible? Are we not taught in scripture to obey ALL of Christ’s commands, and the teachings of the apostles? You see, that’s is an excuse you guys use to then stretch the gospel to a point where it not being obedient to Christ. In other words: mysticism, prayer labyrinths, contemplative spirituality, centering prayer, ecumenical mingling with the Roman Catholic Church, on and on. But apparently that’s okay with you.

    You quoted: “in essentials unity, in non-essentials liberty, and in all things charity”.
    So does that mean that we can disobey certain clear teachings in scripture, because they don’t fall into some category of “essentials?” How about this: Let’s obey Christ and His teachings, whether we think it is minor or major? How about that? Or do you think that a “non-essential” can be disobeyed?

    Feel free to equate me with the Pharisees, you are not the first to do so. It is my opinion that you and many others like Tom Oord are promoting a distrust of scripture and what it plainly teaches. If you are an evolutionist, you are calling the Bible false. If you don’t believe Adm and Eve were real, you are saying the Bible is lying. If God inspired the scriptures, but it has a falsehood in it, then God must be a liar, right?

    Yes, “by their fruit you will recognize them”. I know that passage well, and it describes those who are perverting the gospel of Jesus Christ with their “religion of man.” That’s what the emergent church movement is. The destruction of brothers and sisters in Christ is being done by those who cause doubt in their minds, and sow seeds of another gospel, another Jesus. That’s where the destruction is happening. By the way, do you think it’s just me and a small handful of dumb, uneducated people? No sir, there are pastors throughout the Nazarene church, many laypeople, and even DS’s, who reject this ideology. What do you say to them, sir? Are they all ignorant or misguided?

    I am thankful for those who are not closing their eyes to this madness and are trying their best to warn other Nazarenes of this apostasy. Thank God for the faithful who will not bow the knee to Baal!

    I will follow the advice of Titus 3: “Avoid foolish controversies and quarrels… because they are unprofitable and useless. Warn a divisive person once, and then warn him a second time. After that, have nothing to do with him. You may be sure that such a man is warped and sinful; he is self-condemned.” Titus 3:9-11

    Consider this to be your first warning. Renounce this ideology, and turn back to trusting the word of God completely- not partially. If I am wrong, I pray that you do trust His word 100%.

    Finally, I have not misrepresented your views at all. As you said, “by their fruits”, and unless you have done an about-face from last June ion Orland that day, I stand by what I said. I only wish I had had a chance to speak to you personally that week before I left.

    However, I will continue to pray for you, Scott.

    Manny

  5. Scott stated-
    “I just returned this morning from a Work and Witness trip to the poorest of the poor in Guatemala.”
    end comment

    Matthew 6:4-5
    “1 “Take heed that you do not do your charitable deeds before men, to be seen by them. Otherwise you have no reward from your Father in heaven.
    2 Therefore, when you do a charitable deed, do not sound a trumpet before you as the hypocrites do in the synagogues and in the streets, that they may have glory from men. Assuredly, I say to you, they have their reward.
    3 But when you do a charitable deed, do not let your left hand know what your right hand is doing,
    4 that your charitable deed may be in secret; and your Father who sees in secret will Himself reward you openly.
    Tim

  6. “Scott stated” Beyond that, I believe the EC movement to have largely run its course and for all practical purposes to be over.”

    What facts do you base that statement on Scott?

    They may change the lingo or approach but the false teaching is still there no matter what this movement calls itself or morphs into
    Tim

  7. I cannot tell you how grieved I am over what is happening in the Church of the Nazarene – it is difficult for me to believe and comprehend. How did we get to this point?? Probably the lack of good, solid holiness preaching and PRACTICE. In addition to being grieved and disappointed and upset, I find myself becoming angry (hopefully not carnally so). Why do not the endorsers of the Emergent Church have decency to leave. Our church needs a clean sweep at our headquarters and seminary and possibly some – at least one – of our highest officials. (When did great holiness leaders of the past straddle the fence?)Some of the articles in Holiness Today, including editorials by David Felter, are especially disturbing. Where do we go from here if this continues? Margerete

  8. Margerete, I wonder if the same people who attack me all the time for being unloving, have now put you in the same category. Or perhaps they think you are just not as educated and sophisticated as they are, to understand anything. I truly wonder what they think of you, now that you have voiced your concern.

    You have a right to be angry- righteously angry at least. I have been angry for a long time, yet through the grace of God, I have not harbored ill will towards any of these people who are perverting the gospel in our churches, and especially our universities. Some of them think we are hateful, but they mistake our despising their unbiblical practices and teachings, and think it is hatred of them personally.

    All I can say is, Margerete, is that about a year and a half ago, I felt all alone and thinking this is too much. No one else seems to care. Then I realized why at first, and even now, so many Nazarenes are still not aware. It’s true, some are hiding their heads in the sand and think that we are the divisive ones, because we are concerned and speaking out. But as I quoted Dietrich Bonhoeffer at the end of this post, his comment reflects a scriptural imperative in the Bible that compels us to speak out against heresy and false teachers, no matter who it is.

    We have all made our choices in this fight. I am praying that if these leaders at the universities do not repent and right the ship, that God will close them all down, rather than lead our children down the path of disbelief.

    So be of courage. Those who will not close their eyes to this madness are being obedient to God. Even the greatest of men are fallible, and we must realize that. We can only trust Jesus Christ, and when a leader goes down the wide path of destruction, we either choose to follow him meekly, or we choose to please God, no matter what the cost.

    Where do we go from here? It’s a day to day thing, I believe, and we each need to trust God, encourage and support each other in prayer, and let Him lead us and guide us to the right decisions we have to make.

    (As far as David Felter, I’m still waiting for his response to my open letter)

    Galatians 1:10 For do I now persuade men, or God? Or do I seek to please men? For if I still pleased men, I would not be a bondservant of Christ.

  9. scott, it is amazing to me that you would “comment”on this posting that you feel this movement is for all practical purposes over, when the big tent event is nothing but promoting this false christianity. come out of the rain forest clouds and open your eyes . read what orville jenkins had to say re: our naz. g.s.’s and taking responsibility it is a great read and i’m very very thankful he has the guts to tell it straight. i was wondering how many souls being lost for eternity has been worth the conversation when in reality the discussion is overwith.??? scott ,GOD has said . it is His way….. the only way. ALSO, it is never” over”. this very sad world has been echoing satans words “hath GOD SAID” since the garden of eden . you do hold that view ? trust me i’m having second thoughts on your possible biblical views. for the life of me i cannot understand why once Godly people will trade the once preciously treasured truths of forgiveness ,the covering power of his precious blood over our sins,redemption, his love for us, the knowledge of whiter than snow, and i could go on &on.. people will knowingly guide themselfs & their flocks way from such wonderful truth for a lie and a broad way that leads to distruction and broken lives. pastors these days are appeasers. won’t talk on truth, preach the whole word of God, sin , how to live for the Lord, . [ mom used the expression if the shoe fits wear it applies here] you hopefully know who you are!! you were ordained to preach the gospel once and for all delivered to the saints NOTHINGELSE!!! preach the WORD OF GOD and He will build His church. trust His word. not saying you don’t, but to let this or any of this emergant stuff in your church or any church is dancing with the devil. the price is far more than you are willing to pay. this is about eternal souls not some hunk of meat on a hook . i beg you to hear the cry of my heart. preach JESUS AND HIM CRUSIFIED, DIED,AND RAISED TO LIFE EVERMORE, THAT IS OUR HOPE OUR REDEMPTION . ANYTHINGELSE IS NOTHING BUT A CLANGING NOISE. please don’t take this note as mean spirited .i really believe this mess is solvable by using HIS WORD AS A LAMP FOR US TO FOLLOW,NOTHING MORE AND NOTHING LESS!!!
    thanks for your time , mark

  10. Just to add. When I was at GA last year with our CN gang it was largely stated that perhaps those Concerned Nazarenes and Concerned Christians should maybe go find another tent.
    This was after I asked some folks in the naz net booth where our place in the tent was since folks like Jesse Middendorf was not allowing our voice to be heard.
    The tent is only big if you agree(or tolerate) with the heresy the Nazarene denomination is letting in.
    Tim

  11. Oh, yes, good point. And at that session taught by Jon and Scott at General Assembly, after it was over… I was right there when Jesse was asked by us directly, whether folks like us would have the opportunity to have our own forum to refute the EC. His answer: “That’s not likely.”

  12. And then there was the funny (kind of) but sad followup on NazNet a few days later…. when somebody reported that there was security assigned to the session because they were fearful that we were going to get violent!

    I remember that. And it was initially reported by someone who was not even at GA and not an eye witness as we were. How sad.

  13. Manny and Tim,

    I still think you are missing my point. So let me be completely clear. I don’t care if you say/write things about me such as:

    - SD’s has been too kind in his critique of the EC…

    - SD likes to brag about all the amazing things Pasadena First Church is doing in the name of Christ and thus he has already received his eternal reward…

    - SD likes to quote the Manual when he talks about how the Church of the Nazarene is constituted and what the Church of the Nazarene beleives…

    - SD is mean because he once wrote something on NazNet about how he doesn’t like us and thinks the things we do are more destructive than helpful…

    - Or SD is wrong for saying that the EC has run its course and is increasingly irrelevant… (In fact now that I’m home for a while I promise to write a blog in the next couple of weeks about the death of the EC and then you can write a whole series of blogs about why my declaration of the death of the EC is wrong-headed, dangerous, and idiotic).

    None of that will bother me in the least, because MY POINT is that at least when you write those things they are rooted in some form of truth-telling. But when you write things like SD is one of the main “pushers of the EC” in the denomination. It makes me extremely angry because its simply not rooted in anything that is truthful. Now I know that the rules of this game you guys play are that now I should list out all the verses in the Bible that speak about lying, slander, and bearing false witness against another. But I’m just going to assume that when I say that it makes me upset when you lie about me, that this is actually a biblical point that I am making.

    Scott

  14. O yea I forgot about that.
    Part of that rumor was started by that big thug Mike McVeigh who I quess wanted to over dramatize and make it look like he was throwing himself in front of Jon Middendorf.
    Just wanted to look big and make us look bad because that story was forged in the pits of hell.
    Guess it was a good thing that they didnt know about my formal training or the gossip lines would have been ringing off the hook.
    Its almost funny if it wasnt so sad.
    Well let them continue to chase their own tails.
    Max Akita and all the other dogs under the big tent of heresy.
    Tim

  15. I don’t get it, Scott. Could you specify any lie that I have said in my comments? Was I wrong to say that you defended the likes of Foster and some of the other mystics? You or Jon never used the quotes that I attributed? And as far as my opinion that you are one of the main pushers, that is an opinion of course, based on what I know. I could be wrong, I suppose.

    But none of the things that I mentioned in the opening part of the post are false- are they?

    And I still wonder if you believe in the inerrancy of scripture? Do you? Or are you one of those Nazarene pastors who pick and choose what to believe, and who continually emphasize the phrase “only in matters of salvation.”

    My testimony is clear to the world, Scott:

    I believe in the entire truth of scripture, the inspiration and infallibility of scripture, and that all of it IS God’s word (not just CONTAINS God’s word). It is the ONLY source of truth that we need for our Christian faith and practice, because it is COMPLETE in all that God desires us to know about His word, and Jesus Christ, with the guidance of the Holy Spirit revealing His will to us.

    What is your testimony about the Bible? Is it like mine, or are you, like Tom Oord, one of those who look down on those of us who I guess would be called “fundamentalists.” If someone who believes in the entire truth and veracity of scripture is a fundamentalist, count me in!

    So, if I have lied about you… specify what I lied about- don’t just throw that out there.

    Your second warning may come sooner than expected.

  16. This is the second time within a month I have heard someone claim the emerging movement is dead. Why? Is it because the generals issued a mild statement of disagreement with Brian McLaren? This thing is more than a cult of personality. What about the continued support of Leonard Sweet? Sweet and McLaren teamed up on A is for Abductive, which was an emerging primer.

    An interview with Sweet is posted at http://www.graceandpeacemagazine.org/
    This is a Nazarene magazine. The article is in connection with Sweet’s book So Beautiful. This is from one review on Amazon: The basic premise of So Beautiful is that congregations need to re-think their values and priorities. The old APC approach: Attractional, Propositional, Colonial (or ABC: Attendance, Buildings, Cash) won’t cut it for churches that desire to reach this present generation.

    Instead of APC/ABC, Sweet suggests that followers of Christ, as individuals and congregations, capture an MRI ethos:
    Missional
    Relational
    Incarnational.

    I noted all of the posted reviews more or less gushed over this book. I have not read it, but I have read other Sweet nothings of merit that go into MRI. My observations: I don’t know if Sweet literally equates the APC and ABC models, but I do know when theologians use the term propositional, they mean non-relative, absolute, and rational truth. If someone rejects propositional truth, they are rejecting the one who says, “I am THE TRUTH.” That’s an absolute. All the talk in the world about getting back to Christ, is just that, talk, if you dispute the absolute truth of Scripture.

    Another reviewer cites the teaching about entering the context of the culture to properly be the body of Christ. What happened to being in the world, but not of it?

    I am really sickened and disgusted with the overkill on incarnational. We live our lives through the power of God. We do not live the life of Christ in His absence. Within a Christian context, Christ only can lay claim to the Word becoming flesh. We are made new creations, but not fresh incarnations. Again, I draw a distinction between Christ being alive in us and us living as incarnations.

    Some may be using the incarnational tag innocently because they don’t view it as strictly as I do, but there is a fine line here that can cross into blasphemy if we begin to lay claims to attributes that only belong to God.

    The only things I see as dead in this equation are, the faith and discernment of many. The movement into the emerging is over for some because they have completed the journey, not because they have abandoned it.

  17. Manny:

    I appreciate your comments and ability to expose those who try and make the Word of God null and void of truth to expound their own particular brand of theology or ideology.

    I carefully read Dr. Oord’s Blog “Christian and Scientific Fundamentalism” I came away with the distinct impression that Dr. Oord does not hold to fundamentalistic teachings or the inerrancy of Scripture and believes those who holds these views are naive, and needs to go on to a wider world of knowledge. He holds himself out as an example ot one who has done this by “shedding his narrow thinking without rejecting his Christian faith” and encourages others to follow.

    If fundamentalist means a religious belief based upon a literal interpretation of Scripture then I’m a fundamentalist to the core. If inerrant means incapable of making mistakes then God’s Word is inerrant to the core.

    Jesus said that man shall not live by bread alone but by every Word that proceeds out of the mouth of God. If we are to live by His Word then we must be judged by His Word; therefore we need to acknowledge His Word or we find ourselves on dangerous ground.

    I believe if God is all present, all powerful, all knowing, and He is, then God is very capable of protecting His Word to ensure that man cannot destroy its truth. Jesus said that heaven and earth will pass away but His Word will remain forever. That’s God’s promise to all of us. God is not a man that he should lie, but satan is the father of all lies.

    Lastly Paul said to his listeners “Follow me as I follow Christ. Paul could not say that unless he was confident that he was on solid ground with his theology and the Christ who gave it. I do not think that any of the emergents or any of our theologians can nor will they make that same claim staking the souls of those who would follow them. If they can’t make that claim then they need to take inventory of their own spiritual life in His truth.

  18. Hi Manny:

    I couldn’t help notice this line taken from the manual.

    2. That the Old and new Testament Scriptures, given by plenary inspiration, contain all truth necessary to faith and Christian living.

    My take on this is that the manual statements are meant to define the size of our “tent.” My reading of this statement would indicate to me that our tent does not cover those who would take us away from scripture. This is one of our “essentials.”

  19. Manny,

    Yes your opinion of me and thus the statement you have made about me is false.

    I would just make one alteration to your statement regarding the Scriptures. Here is your statement:

    I believe in the entire truth of scripture, the inspiration and infallibility of scripture, and that all of it IS God’s word (not just CONTAINS God’s word). It is the ONLY source of truth that we need for our Christian faith and practice, because it is COMPLETE in all that God desires us to know about His word, and Jesus Christ, with the guidance of the Holy Spirit revealing His will to us.

    Here is how I would state it:

    I believe in the entire truth of scripture, the inspiration and infallibility of scripture, and that all of it reveals God’s word – because as the Scripture reveals Jesus Christ is God’s Logos or Word. It is the only source of truth that we need for our Christian faith and practice, because it is complete in all that God desires us to know about His Word – Jesus Christ – and with the guidance of the Holy Spirit, as we read it within the community of faith, he (God) reveals his will to us.

    The problem I have with your statement saying that the Bible is God Word rather than fully reveals God’s Word is that it makes us more like the Muslim faith rather than historic Christian faith. It is a key tenet of the Muslim faith that the Koran IS the Word of Allah. So for the Muslim faith the Koran is the “incarnate” word of Allah. For Christians Jesus Christ is God incarnate but the Scriputre is infallible in its revelation of God’s Word and inerrantly reveals his will.

    This is the historic position of not only the Church of the Nazarene but the Christian faith in general. If you statement is true then it is the Scripture and not just Christ who is worthy of our worship. You may have simply been overstating your point and thus inexact in your use of languague, but I believe affirming the position on Scripture you have articulated here would be to affirm to be a form of idolatry (bibliolatry) that would move us away from orthodox faith and away from the worship of Christ alone as the one “in whom the fullness of God dwells.”

    Scott

  20. Scott,
    First, you again say that I lied about you, but you cannot and will not deny what you spoke about at General Assembly. I have exposed the truth about what you promote, and you cannot even admit that is what you believe in. At least stick up for what you defended that day. What’s wrong with that, if all that is within the bounds of orthodoxy?
    I remember the statement “you can’t throw out the baby with the bathwater”, as a defense of folks like Richard Foster, who say some good things I’m sure. But Scott, that is what deception is all about! An effective false teacher will probably have 98% truth, but if he is tainted with 2% falsehood, then we MUST throw out the baby with the bathwater. That’s where you and I differ, you see. I will not tolerate a false teacher just because he has some nice things to say most of the time. Apparently you and others will.

    You do not and cannot reject Richard Foster, Thomas Merton, Leonard Sweet and all the other false teachers, because you embrace them, don’t you? You do not reject prayer labyrinths, lectio divina, centering prayer or Brian McLaren or Rob Bell, or Doug Pagitt, or Tony Campolo, because you embrace these practices or give tacit approval to them, and are okay with the philosophy of these men. So do not accuse me of falsehood, unless you are ready to say that what you spoke about at GA is no longer valid. But speak about it and defend it you did that day- because I heard it right there.

    And your comment about bibliolatry- outrageous! You would call my respect of scripture to be bibliolatry? What a tiresome argument, put forth by you and others over at NazNet again and again. It is annoying, and untrue, and you, a pastor, ought to respect God’s word- God’s word. Not a book that contains God/s word- it is God’s word, sir, and has no connection with the Koran’s way of belief.

    Anything less than a complete trust in the word of God is a lack of faith in Him who guided the writers of the 66 books flawlessly, in my opinion. Yes, Jesus is THE WORD, but the scriptures are what He gave us to reveal His truth. I don’t have a degree in religion, so why I am I giving you a lesson like this? It can only mean that you have been deceived, and I will pray that God opens your eyes and you turn away from the “religion of man.”

    Furthermore, you insult the many Nazarenes who reject what YOU say is the position of the church. It is not sir, and if the Generals clarified that your position is correct about bibliolatry, that is when I would have to walk away from it all. I am a Christian first, and if our leadership ever denied the complete truthfulness and errorlessness of God’s word, I would reject it and leave the Nazarene church. And I would not be alone.

    Do you read the Bible enough to know all the places in it that affirm time and again the scripture and their inspiration from God? This bibliolatry foolishness is just that- foolishness. A folly that has been indoctrinated into who knows how many pastors and future pastors in seminary! What an embarrassment. I am ashamed to hear this time and again, and I pray to God that my son will never hear any Christian professor ever teaching him to doubt any of God’s word.

    So consider this the second warning to you.

  21. Manny:

    When I was saved and later sanctified 48 years ago I could not have told you the four gospels by name. My new life began with Christ and continues with Christ as my constant companion and Holy Spirit my guide. 48 years I have served the Lord and He has done me no wrong. During these 48 years the Bible has become my book of choice. The Holy Spirit my author of choice. God’s Word has never been more real and alive from Gen. [1:1 to Rev. 22:20] He is the author and finisher of my faith according to His Word.

    During these 48 years I have not found one person who can disprove the Bible is not the inerrant Word of God though many claim it not to be. Many who once believed that it was the inerrant Word of God began to change their belief when they began to drift away from the truth and embrace what men had to say without any proof to suit their ideology or claim to fame.

    I am often reminded of what God asked Job [38:] “Who is this who darkens counsel! By words without knowledge?” Man is only half as smart as he thinks himself to be. This reminds me that unless I know something for a fact to remain silent until God reveals His Word to me. The Holy Spirit is the only author that I trust and I have never caught Him in a lie about the truth of God’s Holy Word as some men claim they have.

    I think Paul said it best as to why some men do not believe that the Bible is God’s inerrant Word of truth. I Cor. [2:14-15] “But the natural man does not receive the things of the Spirit of God, for they are foolishness to him; nor can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned. But he who is spiritual judges all things, yet himself is rightly judged by no one. ” Those who judge the fundamentalist who believe the Bible is the inerrant Word of God should take heed to this Scripture.

    I do not believe that His Word is limited to the community of faith to be inerrant as Scott believes it is. God is not bound by our rules we are bound by His Word. When will some ever get this the sad truth is some will not.

    Lige

  22. Hi Manny,
    Not being a Nazarene, What are the “essentials”? As a follower of The Lord, and His call to Holiness I thought that everything given to us was essential to salavation. From Genesis to Revelation. I think otherwise The Lord wasted His precious time giving us His Word. Both Christ and His written Word. After leaving the Free Methodist church for their unrepentant plunge into any Satanic idea that comes along, the Nazarene’s are not far behind. Those who follow the Lord must leave the buildings behind and let those who have fallen away keep them. And for those who think it is only the Nazarenes that are in trouble it’s also the Wesleyans as well as Free Methodists. They have turned from their first love. We should put out a call for those who wish to fellowship with true believers to find each other for worship. Nazarenes, Free Methodists, Wesleyans and others who have been told they should find another place to worship perhaps we should and call upon the Lord to bless us.
    In Christ,
    Beth

  23. Hi Beth,
    Glad to hear from you again.

    I am one Nazarene who believes the “essentials” means, obeying all that is taught in the scriptures- not just the articles of faith as some others think. And I absolutely agree with you- that everything given to us is essential. If we disobey in one area, we disobey in all.

    I could not agree with you more on all that you said. I am Christian first, Nazarene second. At some point, there will be a time for me to walk away, unless dramatic turnarounds happen. I’m not sure if it’s too late for the denomination.

    Amen to your call for those who truly wish to worship as true believers, not rebellious men and women who want to make their own rules and create another gospel.
    Blessings,
    Manny

    It is for many Nazarenes already.

  24. There are two main things that I believe the emergent church despises what folks like me believe and stand for:

    1. The Perfect Infallible inerrant word of God. They come up with the most man centered excuses for doubting God’s word. Even when they say the believe n the infallibility of God’s word, they end up qualifying that statement, and show that they really don’t believe in the word of God, except for what they pick and choose. They cannot stand the fact that it is God who knows everything, and since they cannot understand everything, they have to come up with explanations, even if it costs them trusting in God’s word.

    2. The biblical doctrine of separation. In this one, they just cannot stand the thought that God has commanded us “to not be conformed to the world”, and also to “not be unequally yoked with non-believers.” Instead, they must join hands with anyone that professes with their mouths a belief in Christ, but they do not honor God;s word and refuse to separate from those who preach a false gospel.
    Hence their flirtation with the works of false teachers like Henri Nouwen, Thomas Merton, Richard Foster, Leonard Sweet, Tony Campolo, Brian McLaren, Rob Bell, Doug Pagitt, Phylis Tickle, Spencer Burke, Jay bakker, Nadia-Bolz Weber, Tim King, ….

    “Big Tent Christianity”… otherwise known as “the wide road” that Jesus Christ warned us about. Not for me. I’ll take the narrow gate and straight path.

  25. Scott stated “SD likes to brag about all the amazing things Pasadena First Church is doing in the name of Christ and thus he has already received his eternal reward…”

    Scott come on, really?
    You put the focus totally on yourself you didn’t even mention your church’s name on your post.
    Plus I believe you just wanted to set yourself up to look big in everyone’s eyes before you proceed to slam on this site and its owner as well as the rest of us.
    Your not promoting EC and you think the movement is over.
    In my opinion you are either in self denial,or self deceived.
    Plus Scott you have said some mean spirited things so don’t go acting all self righteous now.
    The verse I quoted was spot on.
    And then you stated”
    In fact now that I’m home for a while I promise to write a blog in the next couple of weeks about the death of the EC and then you can write a whole series of blogs about why my declaration of the death of the EC is wrong-headed, dangerous, and idiotic).
    Sorry Scott I cant speak for Manny put for myself I know I don’t need to spend time proving what you state is misleading and wrong.
    Discerning Christian’s will see that for themselves after reading what you write.
    People already see that here from the few comments you made.
    (Manny where is that smiley face button?)
    Tim

  26. Hi Cathy,
    Great call. But to the ec doctrine is a millstone around their necks.For those shepherds, the Lord will cease to feed. If we continue to support with service and money we go against Ezekiel 34. You are so right.
    Manny- It sounds like the leadership is taking a page from the progressives and Saul Alinsky attack and bear false witness. They want people to be fearful.
    We are praying for you.
    In Christ
    Beth

  27. It amazes how many people accuse Manny of bibliolatry, but in the same breath these accusers are directly/indirectly undermining the authority and trustworthiness of the Word of God by saying that the very act of God’s inspiration, essentially, has mistakes.

    Who was the very first person in the Bible to question the authority of God’s Word?

    Now the serpent was more subtil than any beast of the field which the LORD God had made. And he said unto the woman, Yea, hath God said, Ye shall not eat of every tree of the garden? (Gen 3:1 KJV)

  28. Brad:

    Good point. This story involving Adam, Eve, and the serpent validates the authority and trustworthiness of God’s Word because what God promised would happen did happen. Not only did the serpent misquote God’s Word in an attempt to undermine His authority to deceive Eve. Eve not being out done caught up in the moment misquoted God by adding to what God had actually said. The Jews believe this act of lying led to Eve’s downfall. Those who do not believe that God’s Word is true and they take away or add to it will eventually lead to their downfall as well.

    Those who preach another gospel or teach a different word (as the emergents heresy is) other than the Bible should read Paul’s letter to the Galatians [1:6-8] and mark it in their Bible for future reference. “I marvel that you are turning away so soon from Him who called you in the grace of Christ, to a different gospel, which is not another, but there are some who trouble you and want to pervert the gospel of Christ. But even if we, or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel to you than what we have preached to you, let him be accursed.”

  29. Hey Manny: With this discussion it may be good to revisit an article written by Mike Oppenheimer titled ” The Mindset of Mockers in the last days”.
    This was featured as part of our DVD and it features Scotts pal Emergent pastor Jin Middendorf along with unbeliever Greg Horton. Greg was part of Jons church to some degree. Im not sure if he was a youth pastor or something like that.
    Horton is a unbeliever in biblical Christianity so this was not a very good idea at best.
    When I spoke with some of the folks at Naz Net at GA even the emergent folk stated that Greg was now outside of the camp/tent.
    Wired Parish has now disapeared since I did a article on Jon and his buddy Gregs podcasts.
    Here is a link to Mikes article

    http://www.letusreason.org/Emerge6.htm

    By the way Jon Middendorf was invited to be a part of the DVD to share his side of the story all expenses paid for him and his family.
    He turned us down.
    Which of course is his right to do.
    Tim
    Tim

  30. Thanks, Tim, I was actually trying to track that down. I thought it was on your website.
    Manny

  31. I have a link to it on my site as well.
    But the links to Wired Parish are gone now.
    So I gave you the direct link to Mikes article.
    This kind of stuff happens all the time when the truth is exposed.
    I think probably at Saddleback (Rick Warrens church) they have a regular person beside Richard Abanes who monitors when they are exposed.
    Links disapear all the time without any notice of people stating they were in error etc..
    Business as usual.
    Tim

  32. You would think they would be thrilled that they got more exposure! Don’t they truly believe in what the preach? If so, why be ashamed of it? Shout it from the rooftops.

  33. Seven Deadly Spirits: The Message of Revelation’s Letters for Today’s Church

    top of Page 25, “In fact, I am borrowing the word emergent from a group of theorists who describe themselves as emergentist”14

    top of Page 26 William Hasker defines emergence this way….

    middle of page 28 “I want to be very clear: those who would seek to change the church must change things that are seen. The deadly spirits that we will explore cannot be changed without the peoples, structures and methods of the church changing, but I am convinced that the genius of the letters in Revelation is John’s underlying recognition that complete change can not occur without naming, describing and calling to account the collective spirit of the church.”

  34. Pam,

    Just to be clear about my book. When I use the word “emergent” in the book it is referring to a theory of personhood not the church. The “emergentist” theory of personhood (as it is used by philosophers of personhood) says that people are more than the sum of their parts. When the parts of the body together – argues the emergentists – something new and more than the sum of the parts (the soul of the person) emerges.

    I am essentially argeeing with human person theorists who believe that people have souls. I’m going to go out on a limb and say that this is a point that we would all want to agree on.

    But thank you for demonstating:
    1. your ability to use Amazon word search
    2. that the word emerging can be used as a verb with no correlation to the EC
    3. the methodology of de-contexutalization for the sake of an agenda

    sd

  35. SD said, “When I use the word “emergent” in the book it is referring to a theory of personhood not the church.”

    page 26 “Like emergents who argue concerning human persons that, given a particular complex arrangement, something new and previously nonexistent appears, Wink interprets the angels of the church as those entities that emerge from the collective lives of the various members of the church.”

    Yes, the emergents were speaking of human person theorists, but with the Wink statement you then transitioned into a church change discussion.

    SD said, “I am essentially argeeing with human person theorists who believe that people have souls. I’m going to go out on a limb and say that this is a point that we would all want to agree on.”

    I have no problem with the idea of a soul.

    I used your words that called for change through an “emergent lens”. I thought that was in context of the discussion between you and Manny. Did I distort?

    Regarding the demonstration of my Amazon word search, verb usage and de-contexutalization skills… thank you. It wasn’t probably a compliment but I’ll take it as one.

    I would like to ask you a question about the subject matter of your book. Why did you use the 7 churches in Revelation to speak about Boundary Keeping, Consumerism, ect? When I read Revelation 2 & 3 I don’t see these things. Isn’t it about Jesus talking to the churches about the good and ugly in their churches? BTW, I liked a lot of what you had to say… I just thought you were straining to make it about the 7 churches in Revelation.

    Revelation 2
    2I know your deeds, your hard work and your perseverance. I know that you cannot tolerate wicked men, that you have tested those who claim to be apostles but are not, and have found them false. 3You have persevered and have endured hardships for my name, and have not grown weary. 4Yet I hold this against you: You have forsaken your first love. 5Remember the height from which you have fallen! Repent and do the things you did at first. If you do not repent, I will come to you and remove your lampstand from its place. 6But you have this in your favor: You hate the practices of the Nicolaitans, which I also hate.

    page 30 “In Ephesus we find discover a church faced with rapid change that, in the midst of standing for what is right, has lost it’s ability to love one another.

    I don’t see Jesus speaking about rapid change in those verses. But then I’ve probably been put into the “Thomas’ Snowsuit critic” category for noticing discrepancies.

  36. Yes you did distort. I was still using “emergentist” in the human theorist way. I was arguing that just like the body is more than the sum of its parts, that the church is more than the sum of its parts. I argue that this is why Jesus through John addresses the “angel” of each church. He addresses the angel because the spirit of the church that has “emerged” (in the human theorist way) is more than the sum of the individual members of the church. Thus, if we are going to change the church we have to name and change the spirit or the ethos of the church.

    Thus several NT schoalrs argue that the spirit or angle of the church of Ephesus (the passage you quoted) is a form of legalism. On the one hand they are praised for having good filters of orthodoxy (they stood up to the Nicolaitans) but on the other hand they have lost the love (their fist love) that made them the church in the first place. They can keep their filters, but if they don’t return to the centrality of love they will be removed as one of Christ’s churches.

    The “rapid change” aspect of Ephesus comes from my study of ancient Ephesus and the nature of its culture in the first century.

    I’d be glad to send you a copy of the book if you want to email me your address. I did do a fair amount of research for the book. But I’d be glad to hear your reflections on it. Nashville First recently used it in all of their adult Sunday school classes and they seemed to benefit from the discussion of what the angel of their church looks like in relationship to the angels of the churches in Revelation 2-3.

    Don’t feel too bad about the de-contextualization. I find it to be the primary spiritual gift of the CNs :)

  37. I like to get straight answers to questions, like:

    1. What is the biblical justification for, OR against, using a prayer labyrinth in a Nazarene or any other evangelical church?

    That’s just one question. I’ll be posting a series of questions that future pastors would need to answer in an interview.

    CNs, by the way, are interested in the truth. Our spiritual gifts vary depending on what God has given us.

  38. SD said, “Thus, if we are going to change the church we have to name and change the spirit or the ethos of the church.”

    This is where the “energy” in the discussion comes from. You give an appearance of “Emergent Church” like mindedness and yet run from the description. I don’t think I distorted.

  39. Scott Daniels position of scripture is not the historic position of the Church at large or the Church of the Nazarene.

    Like a typical apostate, he plays a game with words called catachresis. His speech does not match that of anyone in the Bible, save that described by the anti-Christ.

    Jesus tells a little different story about the scriptures.

    Joh 5:39 Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me.

    Now, Scott Daniels does not believe the “scripture” Jesus is referring to is the word of God but in his opinion only reveals (straining at gnats) the word of God. The scriptures obviously testify of Jesus but he uses this truth to merge it with a lie. Creating an emergent doctrine.

    Joh 10:34 Jesus answered them, Is it not written in your law, I said, Ye are gods?
    Joh 10:35 If he called them gods, unto whom the word of God came, and the scripture cannot be broken;

    In these second verses Jesus makes himself the author of their scripture by saying “I said.” Then goes on to equate for the student that “the word of God” and the “scriptures” are synonymic and cannot be broken (ever wonder why not one of His bones were broken.) Therefore, Jesus states that the scripture is “the word of God” it is what he himself “said.”

    The Bible concludes for itself that the word of God, I know this is going to sound simple, but it is the very words that come out of God’s mouth. That is traditional Christianity! Isa 55:11

    The variations of words do not matter so long as the words are synonymous: Bible, book, writings, scriptures, the law, the prophets, the psalms, the word of God, etc. all referring to the same thing. Jesus himself is synonymous with the word of God. How about this Revelation, 19:13 “his name is called The Word of God.” Hypocrites are always pretending they are more interested in what God intended, i.e. the meaning or the message opposed to simply what he (God) said.

    The reason Scott does not hold to the Biblical view of scripture is because the Catholic Church via his higher learning has convinced him that the bible is man made and in reality has mistakes in it. (One doesn’t have to be in Bible College long to learn that!) If I’m misstating it pastor, then please with plainness of speech tell me, is there a bible that I can buy where the very words are perfect and infallible, absolutely trustworthy? Does such a scripture exist that you yourself could not possibly through diligent study of history, archeology, people, languages, or other fresh disciplines correct the verbiage of. I’m sure it won’t be long and you will be sitting on a committee to bring the Emergent world a better bible, if you haven’t already. You are deceived.

    If Scott Daniel’s theory is correct then he becomes a hypocrite and a blind guide:

    Mat 23:16,17 Woe unto you, ye blind guides, which say, Whosoever shall swear by the temple, it is nothing; but whosoever shall swear by the gold of the temple, he is a debtor!

    Ye fools and blind: for whether is greater, the gold, or the temple that sanctifieth the gold?

    Tell me, whether is greater, Jesus, or the scriptures which sanctify him?

    The problem with Scott is that he refuses to see that he is blind, and naked. His book on the seven churches is an unbiblical mess.

    One more for good measure.

    Psa 148:13 Let them praise the name of the LORD: for his name alone is excellent; his glory is above the earth and heaven.

    Psa 138:2 I will worship toward thy holy temple, and praise thy name for thy lovingkindness and for thy truth:

    for thou hast magnified thy word above all thy name.

    Beware folks; education, smooth talk, and a subtle transformation are emerging, not because of enlightenment. But because there is nothing new under the sun!

    The emergent philosophies of today are nothing more than the garbage of time past.

    Steve

  40. SD said, “I’d be glad to send you a copy of the book if you want to email me your address. I did do a fair amount of research for the book. But I’d be glad to hear your reflections on it. ”

    Scott you can send copies of your book to Manny if you would like them to be read and reviewed. He can forward it to me or others if he is interested in doing book reviews. I would ask that you write that you would like the CNs to review and aren’t going to cry foul play.

    I personally don’t know the CNs on this blog, but I find their passion for Scriptures refreshing. I look for teachers who use the Bible to interpret the Bible, use the Bible as their primary text instead of history, historians or NT scholars.

  41. I will read Scott’s post, and perhaps post a response to it sometime in the next few weeks.

  42. If you tell a lie big enough and keep repeating it, people will eventually come to believe it. The lie can be maintained only for such time as the State can shield the people from the political, economic and/or military consequences of the lie. It thus becomes vitally important for the State to use all of its powers to repress dissent, for the truth is the mortal enemy of the lie, and thus by extension, the truth is the greatest enemy of the State.”
    -Joseph Goebbels

  43. If anyone gets a copy of Scotts book (Scott writes books?) please send me a copy a well send it ahead to Pastor Gary Gilley so he perhaps would review it.
    Tim

  44. Scott Daniel said, “If someone as thoughtful and insightful as Dan Boone couldn’t make any headway with them, I don’t know what I was thinking… Nevertheless, I have found the only thing worse than being a target of their concerns is to have them become one’s advocate. As I think a church leader friend of mine recently found out, the only thing worse than being their enemy is to be their friend.”

    I have a Biblical World View. If your teaching doesn’t line up with the scripture as it’s written in the Bible then I don’t think you are Biblical. I think everyone at NTS is shocked about that also. It is not about being nice or mean, it is about Biblical vs Humanism.

Comments are closed.