Holiness Today Magazine: Helping To Build The One World Religion

“The real basis for Christian unity is agreeing in the truth of God’s word, not “Christian love”.

A friend who is attending PALCON (a leadership conference for Nazarene pastors) wrote me a few days ago. He said “I am at PALCON here at MVNU. We had communion last night and I could swear I was back in a Catholic church. Absolutely appalled about this.” This is no surprise. My father, a Nazarene pastor, would have been appalled as well, given that he was rescued from the bondage of Roman Catholicism, and he preached the real Gospel to the Roman Catholics in Cape Verde for years. And now, the premise of a new article in Holiness Today needs to be repudiated, rejected, and condemned by all Bible-believing Christians in the Nazarene denomination.

One of the appalling things we see today is that men who have been taught in seminary are now leading their congregations down a path towards the one world religion of the Anti-christ. They are either deceived and are totally blind, or they know the lie and choose to promote it. In an online issue dated May 17, 2016, Holiness Today has published an article that suggests that Nazarenes have no differences with Roman Catholics that are worth dividing over. Furthermore, it also promises that in the next issue, that they “will report on ways in which the Church of the Nazarene and the Roman Catholic Church share a very important common heritage in addition to how we can partner together for the kingdom of Go

Pastor Jeremy Scott, a Nazarene pastor from Massachusetts, has now put into written form what has been happening for at least the last seven years, if not more. A few years ago, I wrote an article called The Roman Catholicization of the Church of the Nazarene. From imitating the Catholic Eucharist rituals, ashes to the forehead, and other Catholic practices; to contemplative mysticism such as retreats to Roman Catholic monasteries, practicing the silence and using prayer labyrinths; to using books by, and quoting Roman Catholic mystics in sermons and Nazarene publications, it is obvious what is happening.

And now the Nazarene road to apostasy is becoming a shameless, in-your-face declaration of the desire to become “brothers and sisters” with a false religion whose doctrines and practices brought on the great Reformation and much persecution and death to many faithful believers. But now, pastors and leaders who should know better are purposely ignoring the reality of every idolatrous practice and teaching of the Roman Catholic Church, and are now practicing and teaching some of these things themselves.

In case you did not know, the Roman Catholic Church teaches a false gospel of salvation by works, and condemns all who believe otherwise. This and this alone disqualifies the RCC as part of the body of Christ (see Galatians 1:6-10). There are many, many other satanic teachings of the RCC which are well documented, and if you wish to have a refresher, please read this article on my blog.

Here Are Some Major Points Made By The Writer, With My Comments Following:

1. “I have learned not to assume that someone who is Roman Catholic does not know who Jesus Christ is, even to the depths of Lord and Savior.”

That is true, we should never assume for sure that a specific individual is not saved if he is Roman Catholic. But if he believes in the way that the RCC teaches, such as salvation by works or by baptism, can you truly say that he is saved? Can another gospel save you?

2. “ But the fact is that we do find ourselves divided. And there are differences between us. So can we yet be “one” in ways other than strict doctrinal adherence? Might we be one in worship, in sacrament, and in mission? Can we work together compassionately and tell people that Jesus is Lord?”

The answer is no, because they preach “another jesus, another gospel” (2 Cor. 11:4). Jeremy is incorrect when he says that there will be no divisions. Christ Himself said He came not to bring peace, but to bring a sword. There is an idea that the writer and others in his generation are being indoctrinated with. It is the idea that “doctrines divide”, so why can’t we get along in other ways, such as worship, sacraments, etc? Why can’t we set aside our differences and be “one” for the sake of Christ? The answer is we cannot be “one” if we differ in major doctrines that clearly go against what Scripture teaches! This is Bible 101, and Jeremy should know that, and if he did, he would realize that we cannot compromise the Gospel, otherwise as Paul writes in Galatians 1, “But even if we or an angel from heaven should preach a gospel other than the one we preached to you, let them be under God’s curse!”

3. “Indeed there are huge doctrinal, liturgical, organizational, and missional differences between the Roman Catholic Church and the Church of the Nazarene.”

The writer admits there are huge doctrinal differences, yet he sets that aside like it is nothing. Again, this is the mindset of this generations’ graduating pastors, and many of them who have come out of the seminary in the last several decades with a cavalier attitude towards biblical doctrine. But sadly, even many pastors from the older generation are falling for this unbiblical ecumenical stance.

4. “We value the example of Mary, but not nearly in the same ways that Roman Catholics do.”

 Here, the significance of Mary in Catholic theology is completely brushed aside without mention of what she means to the Catholic Church! Mary is prayed to and venerated by Catholics, is called the “Queen of Heaven”, is believed to have been sinless, and can even bring salvation to individuals! Here are the very words from the current pope, one of the most evil popes in years, when he spoke of Mary:

“ “She is a true mother who gives us life in Christ, and in the communion of the Holy Spirit, brings us into a common life with our brothers and sisters. The model of motherhood for the Church is the Blessed Virgin Mary, who in the fullness of time conceived through the Holy Spirit and gave birth to the Son of God,” Pope Francis continued. “Her motherhood continues through the Church, who brings forth sons and daughters through baptism, whom she nourishes through the word of God.” (Pope Francis)

5. “The temptation is to assume that because we believe someone to be wrong about one thing, then they are wrong about everything. Or we somehow conclude that when someone does one thing incorrectly, then all else that they perform is also suspect.”

Again, a lack of understanding of Scripture, and illustrates what is a false dichotomy. The Roman Catholic Church does many good things, but that is not the point. The Mormon Church does many things correctly. So does the Jehovah’s Witnesses. Shall we join with them? Christ tells us to obey His commandments if we truly love Him. Not some or most, but all of His commandments. The Roman Catholic Church is far from coming close to obeying His commandments, yet today’s new Nazarene pastor wants to associate with those who preach a false gospel.

6. The gospel calls us not to uniformity, but to unity in love. Christ explicitly told us that people will know that we are following Him by the way they see us love each other. Paul calls us to this same mind of Christ—that we agree together in love in Philippians 2. This is the goal: loving with the love of Christ. The rest is indeed detail.”

This is a sugar coated lie, but a lie nonetheless. The real basis for Christian unity is agreeing in the truth of God’s word, not “Christian love.” This is why we do what we do here. Jude 1 and many other teachings in scripture compels the believer to contend for the faith, exposing the evil wherever it is within the church.” We are not given the freedom to have variations of the Gospel. We cannot believe in “saved by grace” and then have fellowship with those who are “saved by works.” That is a different gospel, yet the writer and many of today’s Nazarene pastors are ignoring essential doctrines for the sake of a false unity. Titus 1:9 says that “He must hold firmly to the faithful message as it has been taught, so that he will be able to give exhortation in such healthy teaching and correct those who speak against it.” And this writer fails to take heed to what John said in 2 John verse 6, after exhorting the believers to walk in love. He said: “Now this is love: that we walk according to his commandments.”

7. The Church of the Nazarene and most all Protestant denominations are offshoots of the Roman Catholic Church… it is also true that the Church of the Nazarene wouldn’t exist without the faithfulness of the Roman Catholic Church over those 1,500 years.”

This is nonsense! The writer either forgets, or refuses to acknowledge, the horrible history of the Roman Catholic Church over those 1,500 years! The persecutions, the killings, the special Jesuit units sent out to hunt down and torture thousands of Christians who refused to bow down to a false religion. Are these pastors being taught this nonsensical idea at the seminaries now? It is outrageous to think that the Roman Catholic Church was faithful in any way to God through the centuries. And now with his attempts to unite all religions with Christianity, including the Muslim faith, the pope is clearly leading the way of unfaithfulness now.

8. “But Jesus calls us in John 17 and other places to more than finger-pointing. Jesus calls us to pray for our enemies and demonstrates to us the example of inviting those unlike us to the table.”

Correct in some way, but not completely. What we do is not “finger-pointing. Jesus and the apostles exhorts us over and over to expose the false teachers, shun those who preach a false gospel, and warn the believers not have anything to do with them. We can pray for our enemies and we do; but we should never abdicate our responsibility to obey the other teachings of Christ and the apostles.

These things are all Bible 101 that a layperson knows. Why does not a seminary graduate understand this? And why does the editor of Holiness Today allow this to be published? Because he either agrees with it, or he could care less what is published! This is not an indictment of Jeremy Scott. He is just one of many who believe this nonsense, and are spreading it. He, like many other pastors, have been indoctrinated with the end times “one world religion” philosophy. I wonder, do the General Superintendents have anything to say about this, since they are charged by the church to interpret and uphold the doctrines of the church? If we asked them for clarification, would they even comment?

It will be interesting to find out in the next issue just how the Nazarene denomination is supposed to partner with those of a false religion. To Jeremy and other pastors who are part of this new movement, I pray that you will repent of this, and instead turn towards preaching the Gospel to those who are following a false religion. Every Nazarene pastor in the Church of the Nazarene must answer this question: will I be complicit in this new “fellowship” with a false religion, or will I protect my people and defend the word of God at all costs?

It is evident that the Church of the Nazarene is fast turning into anything other than a “holiness” church. And regarding the General Superintendents and other major leaders in the church: they need to reject this idea completely, or they need to resign because of their incompetence.

 

Additional Resources:

1. Roman Catholic mysticism and the Emerging Church

https://reformednazarene.wordpress.com/roman-catholicic-mysticism-emergent-church-richard-bennett/

In this 57 minute talk, Richard Bennett explains Roman Catholic mysticism and the Emerging Church.  Richard is a former Jesuit priest who now has a ministry website called the Berean Beacon.

2. Roman Catholicism and Its Heresies

https://reformednazarene.wordpress.com/roman-catholicism-and-its-heresies/

3. Walter Martin: The Greatest Danger in the Church Today
   https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=78wRKmmnwhY

 

Advertisement

John Wesley Was A Fundamentalist: A Rebuttal To Dr. Truesdale’s Argument

John Wesley was a fundamentalist.  He believed the Bible is inerrant and infallible in all that it teaches.  Let’s set the record straight.

“Wesleyans aren’t fundamentalists because that would require them to exchange a high doctrine of Scripture for a low one.”… “We shouldn’t ask the Church of the Nazarene, which is a Wesleyan denomination, to exchange its high doctrine of Scripture for a lesser one.”  (Al Truesdale)

These words by Dr. Al Truesdale in his article from Holiness Today (Why Wesleyans Aren’t Fundamentalists) sums up the thinking of some modern day Nazarene theologians who seem to be revising Nazarene history, as well as revising the history of John Wesley.  In this article, Dr. Truesdale flips things upside down and makes the incredible assertion that those who believe that the Bible is the inerrant, infallible word of God in ALL that it teaches and affirms, have a low doctrine of Scripture.  For him, and other theologians in the Church of the Nazarene such as Thomas Oord, those who reject biblical inerrancy are the ones who have a higher view and doctrine of Scripture!

Dr. Truesdale was my Greek New Testament professor at Eastern Nazarene College in three classes. Greek New Testament was my favorite subject at ENC, and he was an excellent teacher whom I greatly respected.  But I am afraid he is wrong in much of what he asserts here.  As I spent some time thinking on what approach I would respond, of which there were several, I received the following from my friend Allen Marsh.  It addresses one of the approaches I was contemplating for a rebuttal, which would deal with the historical aspects of the views of Wesley and fundamentalists.  Another approach would also be to deal with the question of whether the Bible is fully inerrant in ALL that it teaches.  Allen’s approach in his writing was solely to address historical accuracy, and here is what he wrote:

(by Allen Marsh)

 “Why Wesleyans Aren’t Fundamentalists” has much good information.  It also contains errors.

The very first sentence is opposite of fact—that fundamentalists have a low view of Scripture (inerrancy) and Wesleyans (certainly not all) have a high view (the Bible has errors).  To believe the Bible IS the Word of God is a high view while to believe the Bible only CONTAINS or BECOMES in certain situations the Word of God but contains errors is a low view.

According to the article, John Wesley, early Methodists, and the early Nazarenes had a low view of Scripture.  I will here argue for historical accuracy, not to prove inerrancy.

Wesley wrote:

“All Scripture is given by inspiration of God (consequently, all Scripture is infallibly true).”

“We know, ‘All Scripture is given by inspiration of God,’ and is therefore true and right concerning all things.”

“[I]f 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.”

“Will not the allowing there is any error in Scripture shake the authority of the whole?”

Here are two examples from Methodism:

Adam Clarke stated:

“Men may err, but the Scriptures cannot; for it is the Word of God himself, who can neither mistake, deceive, nor be deceived.”

Richard Watson (1781-1833), the first systematic theologian of Methodism, stated that the authority of scripture “secures the Scriptures from all error both as to the subjects spoken and the manner of expressing them.”

Following are a few examples regarding early Nazarenes and inerrancy:

Many of the early Nazarene leaders came out of the Methodist Church during the conflict in the early 1900’s referenced in the article. They stood unequivocally for biblical inerrancy.  E. P. Ellyson, in his Theological Compend, wrote, “The Holy Spirit knows all the truths of nature, and would not inspire an untruth.”  “Logically and morally we are as much bound by the geological writings of Moses as by the theological writings of Saint Paul.”

 

As late as 1948 Ross Price wrote in the Herald of Holiness, “Our Lord…assumed the absolute truth of the Scripture…. The Bible is correct astronomically, geologically, historically, medically, botanically, zoologically, meterologically, prophetically, and spiritually.” (29 Nov. 1948).

Not until the 1960’s did soteriological inerrancy become the Nazarene view in academic circles although it was first suggested in the 1930’s.  That view is taught in academic circles but not to the general public.  The adult Sunday school lessons for the Fall of 2010 taught Genesis 1-11 as historical, not fictional.  Try teaching soteriological inerrancy to the tribes of third-world countries.

For one thorough study of this, see “Eighty Years of Changing Definitions in the Church of the Nazarene” by Dr. Daryl McCarthy.

The above information reveals the fallacy of most of the article’s other arguments, but I want to speak to one more.

The author says, “God himself, not information about him, is the primary content of revelation.”  He says fundamentalists are concerned with facts about God while Wesleyans are concerned with relationship with God.  How can you know a person without knowing information about him?  You can’t.  The more you know about the person, the better you know him.

The author said that “not everything in the Bible is essential to God’s self-disclosure.”  But it is.  The Bible says He created the heavens—He is greater than that.  It discloses God’s power, wisdom, holiness, love, mercy, justice, creativity, organization, attention to detail, etc.  God is truth.  His written word is “God-breathed,” true in its entirety when understood as it was written. There are problems with translations and there are problems with interpretations, but that the Bible is inerrant is the historic Wesleyan and Nazarene position.

Dr. Gleason L. Archer said that “almost every problem in Scripture that has been discovered by man, from ancient times until now, has been dealt with in a completely satisfactory manner by the biblical text itself.”  And Dr. John Warwick Montgomery said, “I myself have never encountered an alleged contradiction in the Bible which could not be cleared up by the use of the original language of the Scriptures and/or by the use of accepted principles of literary and historical interpretation.” 

To be honest, those promoting soteriological inerrancy only should say they have changed from what our founders believed.

Additional Resources:

https://reformednazarene.wordpress.com/biblical-inerrancy/

http://www.fwponline.cc/v16n2/v16n2reasonera.html

https://reformednazarene.wordpress.com/inerrancy-and-wesleyanism/

http://www.fwponline.cc/arm_extend/Inerrancy_01.pdf

 

Dan Boone Goes After Bible Believers Again

[Dan Boone likens Bible believing Christians to Islamic fundamental “jihadists”; Dan Boone believes that parts of the Psalms were borrowed from the Pagans; Dan Boone promotes pagan prayer labyrinths, contemplative mysticism and false teachers; Dan Boone is an ecumenist who compromises with a false religion.]

Dan Boone: “Religious fundamentalism is one of the hot topics in the world today and this website has given me the best model, other than Islamic fundamentalism, to demonstrate to students how religious fundamentalism works.”

Dan Boone: “I only argued with them in the first place because they were making false claims about Trevecca, and to expose them for who they really are—religious fundamentalists.   But you can’t have discussions with people whose minds are already made up… Rational conversation with them is not possible”

Dan Boone “Hinduism. I even reminded the writer that God’s people have often taken elements of other religions and sanctified them for Christian use—Canaanite songs became Jewish psalms, pagan feasts became Christian meals, and so on.” (email to a concerned Nazarene)

Dan Boone: “Now, I must confess a sin. I did not listen to some friends who told me that I would not find a rational conversation here. I am most likely viewing these websites for the last time and would urge all thinking Christians to join me in the exit. Maybe we can stun them with our silence.

Dan Boone: “My concern is that we have diminished God by elevating the Bible.” 

Dan Boone: “I believe that God is pained over the tenor of the discussion between the literalists of seven-day creation theories and the evolutionists of the slow creative-process theories. To prove either one correct is not a saving act. God is not wringing his hands hoping we defend the literal interpretation of Gen. 1.”

Dan Boone: “What I find more exciting and authoritative is the thought that the people of God were exiled in the pagan land of Babylon, listening to pagan stories about the origin of the universe, and the breath of God spoke through a prophet giving them a different understanding. They hijacked the Babylonian tale of creation and declared God to be the one who, in the beginning, created creation and came to take up residence with us in the cosmic temple. Now that’s authority” (from letter to area pastors in response to Sue and Don Butler’s article)

Somewhere in his Christian journey, I believe Dan Boone (and the many Nazarenes who believe the way he does) took a detour down the wrong path.  It is evident in his writings, and it is evident in what he believes, practices and defends.  Although we must continue to expose the lies of the emergent church, we must also pray for those who have been deceived by satan into believing the lies, such as Dr. Boone.  Remember that their primary goal in relation to us is not to educate us, but to shut us up.

When it comes to folks who challenge the things he teaches and believes, there is nothing charitable about Dan Boone.  In spite of suggesting a few years ago that people like me should be “stunned with our silence”, he just could not resist again.  President Boone of Trevecca Nazarene University wrote a book a few years ago called A Charitable Discourse, although the content is far from charitable.  Who can take the book seriously when the author suggests that fundamental Bible believing Christians are no better than fundamental Islamic jihadists?

 Now he has written an article in Holiness Today entitled The Screwtape Letters Meets A Charitable Discourse.  If you are not familiar with the fictional book by C.S. Lewis, it is a series of 31 letters written from the perspective of a senior demon, Screwtape, addressed to one of his underlings.  In the letters, Screwtape acts as a mentor to Wormwood, his nephew, giving advice and counsel on how best to lead to damnation a man referred to as “The Patient.”  It is a cleverly written series of letters which among other things, suggests that even intellectuals are susceptible to demonic enticement and trickery.

The article seems somewhat clever, and it never mentions anyone in particular, but to those of us that it is directed at, we understand.   In my opinion, it has no business being published in a magazine whose purpose was originally to write on holiness and other uplifting topics.  I wonder if the editor of HT would give equal time for someone to respond to yet another attack piece on Bible believers (remember Rev. Kevin Ulmet’s article?).

This is simply another old attempt to send a message to Bible believing Christians that we are the problem in the church, and that satan is using us to divide the body of Christ.  Perhaps Dan Boone has never given one thought to the possibility that satan is using him and others to divide the body of Christ, not us.  Keep in mind that the difference between many of us and the Dan Boones of the church is that we always point out the specific teaching or practice, and let the word of God condemn it or uphold it.  The strategy of folks such as Dan is to employ personal attack and unsupported accusations. This is their only viable weapon.

Here are a few excerpts from the article, which should be online now:

“By enticing them with the wonders of electronic media, you have whetted their appetites for religious blood in the water.”

The tactics of Dan, as well as that of Rev. Kevin Ulmet in his “loving” article in Holiness Today a few months ago, are exactly the same.  They practice the very “jihadist attacks” Dan mentions in his book, while at the same time promoting a “holy conversation.”  In his book, he talks about “speaking truthfully without fear of reprisal.”  Yet he compares Bible believers who dare to speak truthfully as nothing more than equivalent to “jihadists.”  I have now seen that this is the only reliable defense they have.

“As the dominant conversation of their gathering centers on the trivial…”

Perhaps Dr. Boone is complaining that focusing on such things as his promotion of prayer labyrinths, mysticism, and re-writing of plain Scriptural teachings, will reveal the falsehoods that he so tenaciously clings to in spite of clear Biblical teaching to the contrary.  But if anyone thinks I am picking on just Dan Boone, let me be clear.  He is just one of the upfront spokesmen for a movement which many church leaders, pastors, and district leaders have wholeheartedly bought into.  He speaks for them, and so what is written here is just as much about them as it is about Dan Boone.

Let’s take a look at some of his beliefs again:

Dan Boone believes that parts of the Psalms were borrowed from the Pagans

Dr. Boone believes that the Psalms were just different renderings of Babylonian myths, and that parts of the Bible were just the Israelites copying what they heard the pagans say.  Here is what he sent in an email to a concerned Nazarene:

“The Hebrew creation account is a re-telling of the Babylonian tale. Their Hebrew feast days are re-interpretations of the Canaanite days. The Royal Psalms in the collection of Psalms were once Canaanite songs.”

If that is the case, then Dr. Boone clearly does not believe that the scriptures are wholly inspired by God, but that some parts come from pagan traditions!  Who else believes this stuff?  Has Dan Boone ever shown us through the word of God that what he says here is true?

Dan Boone promotes pagan prayer labyrinths, contemplative mysticism and false teachers

Trevecca Nazarene University has had a prayer labyrinth on campus for years.  After we brought that to light, he changed the name of it to “prayer walk.”  It’s still a pagan practice, yet Dan Boone and others think that Christians can “redeem” these pagan practices for their own use.  Trevecca also allowed the advertising of a yoga class on their campus, and part of Dr. Boone’s response to me was that he had no opinion about yoga.

Dr. Boone promotes one of the leading teachers of contemplative mysticism, false teacher Richard Foster (see the attached letter to pastors).  See also the article Richard Foster: Evangelicalism’s Mystical Sparkplug, and decide if his teachings reflect sound Biblical doctrine.  Foster, for instance, makes the amazing claim that non-believers can also practice the Christian spiritual disciplines: “We need not be well advanced in matters of theology to practice the Disciplines. Recent converts–for that matter people who have yet to turn their lives over to Jesus Christ–can and should practice them” (Celebration of Discipline, 1978, p. 2).

In the same letter,  he called both Thomas Merton and Ignatius of Loyola spiritual giants.  Merton was not a spiritual giant- he was a monk who said that he was “deeply impregnated with Sufism” because he believed that Eastern mysticism was compatible with and could be incorporated into Christianity.  He placed Mary high on a level equal to Jesus, he prayed to many catholic saints.  He was influenced by Aldous Huxley, who found enlightenment through hallucinogenic drugs.  Quote: “I see no contradiction between Buddhism and Christianity. The future of Zen is in the West. I INTEND TO BECOME AS GOOD A BUDDHIST AS I CAN” (Source: Way of Life)  Yet, Dan Boone calls him a spiritual giant.

Ignatius of Loyola was no wiser, and as the founder of the Jesuits he brutally persecuted Christians and swore complete submission to the pope.  As most Roman Catholics do, he venerated Mary.  He practiced extreme asceticism, living in a cave for a year and never bathing.  He also promoted and taught visualization prayers, breath prayers, and other unbiblical practices (Source: Way of Life).  Yet, Dan Boone calls him a spiritual giant.

Also, in his profile at Nazarene Theological Seminary, which is no longer posted, he said the following:

“…I am deepening in the mystical forms of prayer..”

Can anyone point me to any Biblical instruction on the mystical forms of prayer?

Dan Boone is an Ecumenist Who Compromises With A False Religion

In a Letter to Pastors he wrote in 2009  he not only erroneously claimed that the Roman Catholic church was the only church for 1500 years after Christ, but he also exposed more error along with his ecumenical get along with everyone philosophy.  How is it that we can “be one” with the Roman Catholic Church?

“While Nazarenes are different from Catholics in very significant ways, we believe that we will share eternity with them in the presence of the Christ who prayed that we might be one.”  

And for years Trevecca has sponsored a trip for students to the Abby of Gethsemani, a monastery in Kentucky which was home to Thomas Merton.  They openly promote practicing the silence, which Dr. Boone has erroneously justified by twisting the meaning of Psalm 46:10 totally out of context.  (Read article here)

So could it be that Dan Boone and his intellectual friends have succumbed to demonic enticement and trickery, to the point that they are blinded to the truth and now believe a lie?  Has he been duped by another Wormwood into believing a lie?  Or is it that myself and other Christians who are opposed to his ideology and the practices he promotes, are the ones who have succumbed to demonic lies?  For you see, it is either the one, or the other.  Dan Boone cannot be right, and at the same time, we who oppose his philosophy cannot also be right.  Truth is truth, and the rest is doctrines of demons.

I just ask again for anyone to contrast with Scripture, and make up your mind.

Related Articles:

 

https://reformednazarene.wordpress.com/2010/02/08/conversation-with-a-university-president/

http://sadnazarene.wordpress.com/category/dan-boone/

https://reformednazarene.wordpress.com/2011/08/30/a-charitable-discourse-or-compromise/

https://reformednazarene.wordpress.com/2012/03/26/a-response-to-dan-boones-report-on-soulforce/

Dan Boone sermons at College Church of the Nazarene:

Gods That Must Be Carried (9/18/2012)

Revival Chapel (9/18/2012)

The Neighbors (9/19/2012)

Overwhelmed (9/19/2012)

Overprotected (9/20/2012)

Responding To A Nazarene Pastor’s Attempt To Discredit Bible Believers

Rev. Ulmet,

This letter is in response to your article (“I Am A ConcernedNazarene”) in the March/April edition of Holiness Today, the premier publication of the Church of the Nazarene which reaches Nazarenes across the world, in print and on the internet.  After reading it several times, I hardly knew where to begin to respond.  I do not especially like to correct a pastor who is in error.  It is not the first time I have had to do this, and it is never enjoyable.  A pastor is charged with the responsibility to lead and teach his flock as an undershepherd of the Great Shepherd.  But undershepherds are not perfect, they are susceptible to error like anyone else, and must be corrected when necessary, even by a layman without a theology degree.  (I recall the Bereans who were commended by Paul for making sure he was in line with Scripture, even though from the viewpoint of men, he was of greater stature then they).

You posted your article publicly, therefore this response must be public.  Please understand that this is intended for the purpose of correction, for reproof, to help you see the errors of what you have written to many Christians.  I have no animosity towards you, but many Nazarenes believe that what you and other pastors and college professors are promoting is very dangerous and unbiblical.  You have only succeeded in attacking and questioning the integrity and sincerity of many more than you know, but you have not succeeded in destroying their integrity.

There is no Matthew 18 imperative here to confront you in private.  When serious error is put forth publicly to Christians, it must be refuted publicly for the benefit of all, and for reproof and correction of the one who is in error.  Paul the apostle saw the need to correct Peter in public, because Peter had been promulgating incorrect teaching to other Christians.  Paul did not concern himself with Peter’s credentials as an original apostle of Jesus Christ; he did not worry about what others would say about him criticizing such a great man as Peter; he was only concerned with the truth, and correcting any false teaching, no matter who it came from.  And as I recall, Peter humbly took this public rebuke, and learned from it.  I pray that you do the same.

You said that you are a fourth generation Nazarene born into a Nazarene pastor’s family, the son of a district superintendent, and you have a BS and MS from Nazarene institutions.  I’m a second generation son of a Nazarene pastor who was rescued from the bondage of the Roman Catholic Church and who preached holiness for 50 years, and I have a BS and MS from non-Nazarene institutions.  But it really does not matter, does it, our heritage or educational pedigree?  Whatever credentials or background you or I have are irrelevant to any of these issues; let’s judge them only by the word of God.

There are a few areas I wish to address:

1. The Personal Nature of Your Attacks Against Many Nazarenes

This was I believe the most irresponsible thing you did, and for a pastor who is charged with greater responsibilities, it was doubly shameful.   What was worse was that not one of these words you used had one ounce of substantiation and had no documented information and proof.  Here are just some of the words you used to characterize a lot of Nazarenes:

“driven by categorization, guilt-by-association”;  “gotcha” tactics that more represent radical politics than anything remotely biblical, Christian, or certainly holiness”;  “Internet rumormongers”; “Salem-witch-hunt”; “Inquisition-type atmosphere”; “Our presidents…  are under direct and often slanderous attacks from various sources”;  “full of self-righteous piety”; “great derision and mistrust in the scurrilous E-mail exchanges”; “mistrust and gossip”; “no regard whatsoever to biblical conflict resolution principles”; “inflaming the emotions of the faithful”; “unjustly and manipulatively ratcheted up by the fully-aware bloggers”; “special-interest-political-action-group thinking”.

May I suggest that if you have even read the things we all have been saying, that you have simply ignored the substance, and resorted to your only strategy available: demonize those who disagree!  You said all these words simply because we are speaking out against what we believe to be false teachings according to God’s word?   With these words and more, what you have done is not only vilified the obvious and more visible “Concerned Nazarenes”, but you have attacked the integrity, honesty, and sincerity of the many Nazarenes who you do not know, and who have sent me many testimonies.  “These people”, as you refer to them, have written to me many times to tell me of the heartbreak they have experienced as they have watched their denomination of many generations slowly being infiltrated from within with false teachings like a cancer.  Some have told me of being demonized, of being called the divisive ones, and forced to leave their churches of many years, simply for daring to be Bereans and questioning the “new” teachings of their pastors.  Others have left the denomination because they could not find another Bible believing Nazarene church to go to.  Some still struggle on in their church, hoping that they can still make a difference.

These are the very people you speak of when you use those words.  Some of these godly and saintly people have served the Lord faithfully long before you were born, and for you to paint them all like this is an insult to them and their faithful testimony.  Most of them have risked a lot more than I have risked, including pastors who have stood up for the truth.  You have no idea what kind of destruction has occurred because of those who promulgate a theology of emergent openness to everything under the sun, which is doing nothing but watering down the Gospel, and is destroying our churches and our Christian universities.  You owe these people a sincere apology for the false words that were uttered in your attack piece, and you need to repent to God for painting them all in this light.

I quote here a former Holiness Today editor, the late Rev. William McCumber, who wrote in his book This Jesus:

“… I am troubled by “emergent theory” that is moving toward an “emergent church.” Leaders of this “conversation” or “movement” call themselves “post-modern” and I guess if you need a tag that one is about as good as another. My concern about them springs from their distortions of Scripture and their diminishing of Jesus …. More disturbing to me is the fact that the Jesus they talk about is not the Jesus of Scripture … Only the Jesus disclosed to us in the New Testament is relevant to our times and adequate for our salvation. To diminish Him is to destroy ourselves.”

I could give you further examples and quotes from God-fearing, Jesus-loving men and women of God in the Nazarene denomination, as well as other denominations who have rejected the godless ideology of the emergent church.  Perhaps someday, with their permission, I will publish their testimonies, as a witness to those who are siding with God’s word, not man’s word.  I prefer to be on their side of the issue, not yours.  I ask you, who then has been led by the Holy Spirit, and who has not? It can’t be both, can it? (See point #3).

After some people read your article at the Holiness Today FaceBook site, I was amazed at what some of them said, in spite of the caustic words you used to describe so many Nazarenes.  I have attached a running dialogue of that Holiness Today Facebook Discussion. Here are some of their words:

“ Excellent, Kevin!”
“ It was such a well-thought out, even-handed look at the whole issue. If anything could bring about true and charitable conversation, it would be this.”

“ Thank you for this timely article.”

“ This article is a needed statement that has been long in coming. I commend the editors of Holiness Today for the courage to publish what they knew would be a controversial article. The way in which many in the church have had to suffer under unfounded attacks often based on second hand information or on ignorance has been heartbreaking. I know that on my own district one church was divided by these unfounded attacks and a young pastoral couple suffered greatly because of it.”

“ I agree with you, David, an article meant to reconcile and bring civility has brought out such animosity, anger and personal attacks.”

“ Best article I have ever read in H.T. Maybe there is hope!”

“ No longer only saddened, now I am outraged that good pastors are being subjected to attacks such as this. I don’t even have words to express my disgust. It’s not a defense of truth or correct doctrine, but an outright assault on those who do not kowtow to a narrow interpretation. Pastor Ulmet, HT, thank you for the article. I might otherwise have never known the vitriol many of our pastors and professors are facing. Pastor Brickley is correct in that we have a way to settle differences. This is not it.”

And finally, Rev. Ulmet.  These are your words:

“We can handle these challenges in biblical ways. We can sit down and reason together.” (K. Ulmet)

You call this diatribe that you wrote a biblical way of handling these challenges?  This is how you like to sit down and reason together?  Have you actually taken up anyone on their offer to sit down and discuss these issues with you, in front of others, and let them decide for themselves?  I know others have accepted your offer, so let me do the same.  I would travel to a venue of your choice, let you select whomever you wish to help you, and bring the same number of people with me.  Sure, let’s sit down and not necessarily just reason together, but compare our ideologies and let others decide which is biblical.  Would you accept this challenge from someone who has no theology degree?

There have been quite a few “Likes” for your article on the HT FaceBook page.   It was more than 100 the last time I looked.  (There have been over 2,000 on the Holiness Today website).  And yet, these folks who complimented you somehow looked past the vitriol that flowed from your pen, and complimented you on how kind and loving and wonderful your words were.  They thought that this was a great example for others to see.  Yet, they switched on the condemnation immediately upon any Nazarene who dares to say a word against the ungodly movement called the emergent church.  Is this where our denomination is heading, that discernment is thrown out the window, and the ones who are insisting that we stand for biblical truth, and believe in the Bible, have become the enemy of the church?

It is no wonder that I truly believe that we are in the last days, and that satan has already started sending a great delusion into the minds of many Christians.

2. The Sol Alinsky-Like Tactics Of Diversion From The Facts

That being said, I want to also point out that this is no surprise to us.  This is a tactic that my friend John Henderson spoke of in his response, which is the tactic of personalizing the issue against your opponent, much like Sol Alinsky promotes in his book Rules For Radicals.  If you have no substantive argument against your opponent, just go after him personally, and divert the attention of your readers from the core issues, like the facts of the matter, and how they hold up to scripture.  Rev. Ulmet, I believe you are guilty of that tactic, but it’s no surprise, because I have yet to see one person who promotes this emergent foolishness defend his positions and beliefs using Holy Scripture, which is the ONLY source of authority for our Christian faith.  Our infallible authority is not the Church Manual, nor a professors’ theological musings; it’s nothing else but the word of God, and if the Church Manual goes against God’s word; we ought to correct it, not hold allegiance to it.

This diversionary tactic I have no doubt will fail, because the truth of God’s word will overcome the false attacks against those who love God and respect His word.

3. You Said That The Holy Spirit Prompted You To Write Your Words

You said in a posting to your congregation:

“This article was prompted by the Holy Spirit some months ago after observing for some time the tactics and approaches of a few who are critical of our denomination, our pastors and leaders, our Universities and other entities.”

And now compare this quote:

“After the truth was revealed to me by the Holy Spirit, and being prompted by the Holy Spirit to be in obedience to God’s word, I went out determined to refute the emergent church and its’ false teachers in our denomination, exposing their tactics and approaches to as many Nazarenes as I could, in order to keep many from being deceived.” (A concerned Nazarene)

Rev. Ulmet, the prompting of the Holy Spirit never leads a man to error, because the Holy Spirit always leads a trusting believer into truth, and will never contradict the Scriptures.  If it does lead to error, then it is not the Holy Spirit.  It is another spirit that leads a man to say two opposites in one breath: that the Bible is God’s inspired word, BUT that it is also only inerrant in “matters that pertain to salvation.”

The implication from your “Holy Spirit” statement is obvious: since the “Holy Spirit” guided you to write what you did, then everyone should accept that all those who do not agree with you are wrong.  If that is the case, we ought to all repent of what we are doing, and join your “side.”  But wait, how does one determine who is correct, when two people claim the Holy Spirit prompted them to opposite conclusions?  One must compare what they claim with the word of God.  I will leave it to informed readers to make up their minds as to which statement is Holy Spirit inspired.

4. Your Own Words Tell Us That You Do Not Trust All Of Scripture

Quotes:  “To those who would deny full inspiration of all 66 books or dispute inerrancy “in all things necessary to our salvation” we must lovingly but firmly respond with our deep conviction of this Word being God’s Word!”  and  “We subscribe to God as Creator, the Bible as the fully-inspired and with regard to all things salvific the inerrant Word of God.”

I find it incredible that you start out with an affirmation of the inspiration of Scripture and that it should be defended firmly; but then you weaken that very affirmation by qualifying inerrancy as being only in regards to those things necessary to our salvation!  First, I reject that revision of our official statement because it reveals your distrust in all of Holy Scripture.  Secondly, who or what has given you or anyone else the authority to declare that Scripture is inerrant ONLY in matters of salvation?  And thirdly, who or what is the arbiter of what is or is not necessary for salvation?

You also seem to have an unusually high esteem of the Church Manual, perhaps too high.  You said: “our precious Articles of Faith”, and “”we must boldly declare our allegiance to Article IV of the Articles of Faith of the Church of the Nazarene.”  Perhaps that is the problem today in our church.  We are almost holding up the Church Manual as equal to Holy Scripture, and that surely we must hold allegiance to it, in spite of the fact that we fallible Nazarenes seem to change the meaning of that very Manual every four years!  So our final allegiance should only be to one set of words, and that would be the Holy Bible, not the Church Manual.

 5. Your High And Misguided View Of What Our Schools Should Teach Our Students

This I really had to address, because one of the major problems with our schools today, including our seminaries, is the reckless and careless teaching (all documented by the way) of unbiblical practices and ideas.  These are not taught as things to avoid, but as good things, and this is destroying the solid foundations these schools once had.  It is troubling what you said:

“But we must also remember that higher education requires exploration of many ideas and various traditions. Our professors must be supportive and encouraging of our theological and doctrinal positions, while also carefully leading students through a necessary and healthy process of critical evaluation, as well as personal growth and maturity.”

Unfortunately, the way you phrase this is not the way it is being done.  You and many of your colleagues instead promote and encourage an “anything goes philosophy under the guise of “we are a liberal arts institution.”  A Nazarene school should not be claiming to be a Nazarene school, if it does not reflect and teach its students the core values that the denomination says that it holds and teaches.  Under this excuse, our schools have introduced our students to dangerous teachings by Tony Campolo, Tom Oord, Brian McLaren, Rob Bell, and many others.  Instead of promoting the equipping of our students to combat and refute the false teachers, you promote the indoctrination of our students with these false teachings.

This pastor’s words reflect the same philosophy, which is what is coming out every year from our seminaries as they are being themselves indoctrinated with emergent (aka missional) ideology:

“A fine quality Christian Liberal Arts Education like the one you will find at Eastern Nazarene College, Northwest Nazarene University, Nazarene Theological Seminary… operate with an educational philosophy that equips the next generation of nurses, doctors, lawyers, ministers, business men and women, musicians etc. to engage our post-modern world as effective and exceptional young Christians.  The fact of the matter is that neither the world nor the church of the Nazarene operates under this closed system of thought that you have chosen for yourself and continue to promote with your e-mails and blog.  Some denominations and many bible colleges find it their purpose to operate within these strict confines and that is fine for them.  I believe they have a valuable place in God’s Kingdom.  But a liberal arts education and a missional church do not operate that that way”

That is exactly what is wrong today with many of our pastors and professors today, captivated by liberal post-modern thinking, in exchange for the simple truth of God’s word.

6. You Seem To Have An Aversion To “Test All Things, Prove That Which Is Right”

Quotes:
“Our ability to historically separate the biblical from the unbiblical-while at the same time loving the person and leaving the judgment to God…”
“Under the guise of protecting the church from ‘emergent ideas and concepts, whatever those are…”

“We can sit down and reason together.”

“Even when we disagree, we can do so agreeably without casting dispersion and eternal damnation on someone else.”

“discourage others from division…”

These are things that jumped out at me, so I ask you: as a pastor, do you not wish to preach the whole council of God?  I think we all know that at some point in time any Bible believing pastor is going to confront error filled beliefs or false teaching.  Are you saying that we should always just simply agree to disagree?  If so, you have an incorrect understanding of the many passages in Scripture that command us to reprove, rebuke, to even shun and cast out of the church, those who would cause divisions by their false teaching.  You see, the dividers are not those who are trying to keep God’s word pure.  The real dividers are the very people Concerned Nazarenes are fighting to either correct and lead to repentance, or if not, to make them leave the church so as not to cause any further harm to God’s people!

Another concerned Nazarene read your article and here is what he said about a few of your thoughts:

“Apparently the author considers “emergents” mavericks that God has raised up to be used by God for His Glory and the advancement of His kingdom.  Really?  It is my opinion that none of the emergent leaders are in the class of those the author cited and I cannot believe the author includes the “emergent” leaders in his reference to “God’s servants” that are responsible for the “explosion of new and creative ideas” today.”

I assume also that is what you meant in your reference to mavericks, and if so, I believe that the “mavericks” of today do not come close to being called God’s servants.  In fact, in most of these mavericks’ cases, you will find a real disdain for the Bible, and a pick and choose attitude as to what is relevant.  They all ignore many parts, and particularly the passages that warn of false teachers, which is no surprise.

If you refuse to obey the Scriptural commands to expose and refute false teaching, you would be just as guilty as those who promote false teaching.  The only question left is, are you simply in error, or are you purposely and knowingly promoting the false teachings of the emergent church?  And so, your plea for Christians to stop using words such as “heretic” and “unorthodox” and “emergent” and “threat” should be ignored by Bible believers in exposing the dangers to the church.  We will not accede to this request to keep silent, for we will be as guilty as the watchman on the wall who fails to blow his trumpet at the sign of danger.

You were so correct when you said “our Wesleyan-Arminian and Holiness Movement history that have guided us well for over a century are under attack. Not from those outside our Christian faith, but from those inside.”  How right you were, but little did you know that this “inside attack” is coming from folks who are redefining John Wesley in ways that fit their emergent ideas.  This attack comes from those of you who reject true holiness and invent one that is based on social good deeds.  This attack is from those who reject the Bible as fully God’s word, instead qualifying it as “containing” God’s word.

My prayer is that those who are reading this will have a better understanding of what we are fighting.  I am fighting your ideas, not you personally.  However, since you are promoting these ideas, I have a responsibility to respond when these ideas run contrary to Scripture.  If you truly want to help out in these situations, then I suggest that the next time you write something, please use specific quotes and specific documented information if you are going to accuse a bunch of Bible believing Christians of such things that you have.  It is only fair, because what we strive to do is document everything, state what the person is saying or teaching- and make our opinion known based on the Bible only.

I conclude with these quotes of Dave Hunt, which reflect solid biblical doctrine and teaching:

“The Bible allows for no compromise, no discussion, no dialogue with the world’s religions (emergent) in search for common ground. Remember, Christianity is not a religion but distinct from all of them.

Jesus didn’t say, “Go into all the world and dialogue about faith. He said, “Go ye into all the world and preach the gospel.

A reasonable and genuine faith must take very seriously what Jesus said – not what somebody says about what Jesus said, but His very words as recorded in the Bible.”
(Dave Hunt, The Berean Call)

Manny Silva

A Response To Holiness Today’s Attack On Scripture

” 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.”

by Nyk Edinger (Original source: The Black Horse Inn)

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.

Nik Edinger