PDA

View Full Version : Potential Conversion of a Different Sort.


George Wallace
21st December 2007, 06:29 PM (18:29)
I have been reading the 18 December, 2007 Dennis Bratcher thread entitled Conversion of another sort. I was surprised. Surprised at many of the comments, and surprised at the parallel of Shellie Stephens Catholic conversion to what is taking place in my own life.

I’ve been a Nazarene since 1989. From 1985-1989 we attended a Free Methodist Church. So I guess you can say I’ve been a Wesleyan-Holiness Christian for about 22 years. I love the Lord!

As a SS teacher I try to be prepared. One week earlier this year the terms Calvinism or “that’s Calvinistic…” came up during some conversations unrelated to my Sunday School class, and after doing the wise thing, which is nodding in agreement and pretending I understood. I went on my merry way making a mental note to Google this Calvinism stuff. This same week I first heard R.C. Sproul’s Renewing your mind radio program. I enjoyed his teaching on Creation and looked up his Ligonier Ministries, where I found out he too was a Calvinist. So, three times during a one week period I am confronted with the fact that I ain’t got a clue about what they believe. Are they our brothers in Christ?

So I started to study what they believe, not with any desire to abandon my Nazarene convictions or out of any sense of dissatisfaction**, but because I felt like an idiot for not knowing much of anything; I studied in the vain of What Is a Nazarene? Understanding Our Place in the Religious Community ISBN 083-411-5999. I read a zillion web sites. Some sites lead a person to believe we Nazarenes (or more generically Arminians and Calvinist) are brothers in Christ with some different beliefs. Other sites affirm that they are heretics or that we are heretics. What I truly found out is, that as a rule Calvinists do a lousy job at describing what Arminians believe and Arminians are equally poor at communicating what Calvinists actually believe. No real surprise there!

Potentially parallels to Shellie’s conversion?
Well, it would take at least two Dr. Phil’s and an Oprah Primetime Special to explain all that I went through and am still going through trying to wrap my head around Calvinism and trying to compare it to what I believe as a Nazarene. Calvinists do believe in the same Gospel, they just have a different understanding of the character and sovereignty of God. They also have a different understanding of how Grace works in the mechanics of salvation. I’ve read both Why I Am Not a Calvinist ISBN 0830832491 and Why I Am Not an Arminian ISBN 0830832483 among many other books. The point is that after over seven months of study I have to be honest, for me, these Calvinists or Reformed Christians, at least those of the more conservative variety make a lot of sense.

Unlike Shellie, I believe what John MacArthur has to say. I think R. C. Sproul is probably one of the most brilliant Christian teachers you will find on Christian radio. This Reformed Faith seems correct for many reasons but probably the most influential are that their doctrine seems very sound; there is this line in the sand, here is what we believe, here is the Scripture we believe backs that up. They have the Five Solas and their Confessions of Faith (Westminster, and others) they catechize, they emphasize Family Worship. Not to be negative but is seems to me most individual Reformed believers have a much greater knowledge of Scripture and church history than the average Nazarene. They also seem to have a higher view of worship within the Lord’s Day service and appear to be much more God-Centered than Man-Centered. For these reasons and others, those of the Reformed Faith seem to be much less susceptible to false doctrine, cultural influence or change in the name relevance. Some of the things Christians (many denominations not just Nazarenes) have done in the name of being relevant are just mind boggling (1 Cor 1:18).

Those of you who use the Word Action SS curriculum know that the last half of last quarter was spent studying 2 Timothy. As one of the Pastoral Epistles 2 Timothy deals with Paul explaining to Timothy how to handle sound doctrine and how to handle those who espouse unsound doctrine. The beginning of this quarter we are studying in Matthew, chapter 11 verse 7 Jesus says “As John's disciples were leaving, Jesus began to speak to the crowd about John: ‘What did you go out into the desert to see? A reed swayed by the wind?’” One accepted understanding of the reed in the wind is that it is an illustration of something or someone easily swayed, the wishy-washy; the unsound. Obviously, that is NOT one of the characteristics of John the Baptists ministry.

I believe that many Nazarenes are easily swayed and don’t have or don’t use proper discernment. I know I’ll take some heat for this but… Why is the Emergent Movement or ‘Conversation’ being embraced by so many Nazarenes? Why is Brian McLaren speaking at both NNU and Point Loma this winter/spring? This man preaches, that which is antithetical to the one true gospel. In a Christianity Today article he states “I don’t think we’ve got the Gospel right yet…” In an internet radio http://www.wonderosity.com/?s=Mclaren interview McLaren calls the Cross a distraction and openly questions the existence of Hell. I firmly believe that this movement is the type Paul warned about in Galatians 1: “6 I am astonished that you are so quickly deserting the one who called you by the grace of Christ and are turning to a different gospel— 7which is really no gospel at all. Evidently some people are throwing you into confusion and are trying to pervert the gospel of Christ. 8But even if we or an angel from heaven should preach a gospel other than the one we preached to you, let him be eternally condemned!

I do believe that this movement is dangerous and is leading people down the path of destruction. Most Emergent types also embrace so called Christian Mysticism and focus on Contemplative Spirituality (See Lighthouse Trails Research Project http://www.lighthousetrailsresearch.com/contemplativespirituality.htm) I also believe that many in the movement advocate not just ecumenism but pluralism and Universalism.

This can be a topic for an additional post. The point is that in studying Calvinists and what they believe I had to take a hard look at what we Nazarenes believe. From recent studies right now I see our Church of the Nazarene as a huge 100 acre lake that is only about 6 inches deep, and we Nazarenes are all just little sailboats being blown in infinite directions. We have our 16 Articles of Faith. One would think that they would bind us tightly together in our beliefs, but in practice we are all over the place! Within the thread entitled Conversion of another sort we see that. It is scary to me that this nice sister Shellie, whom I don’t know, converts to the Roman Catholic Church and so many of “us” are okay with it? I happen to think a more appropriate reaction would be to say we love her, emphatically disagree with her choice and pray for her! Which is what I will do.

Please watch this brief video series.

http://reformationnation.wordpress.com/2007/11/06/a-comparison-between-john-macarthur-a-catholic-priest-joel-osteen-and-billy-graham/

Do some surfing and start here: http://www.oldtruth.com check out the videos and links.

What I am going to do is continue to study. I plan a deeper study of both the Reformed Faith and Wesleyan-Holiness. I see this study having two potential outcomes.

1. I am reaffirmed in my Nazarene convictions and I contend heavily for my faith as a Nazarene.

2. I come to realize that the Nazarene church is not the best “tent” from which to contend for my faith and I abandon over 20 years of intimate affinity with all things Nazarene.

For those of you still with me on this long post, I’d like to hear your thoughts.

And for you longtime Nazarenes I would like you to think back and remember some of the Preachers and preaching of old. In your mind compare that to what you may be hearing now. Then I challenge you to listen to some Outstanding Preaching and teaching.

http://www.sermonaudio.com/search.asp?SpeakerOnly=true&currSection=sermonsspeaker&keyword=Andrew%5EQuigley (http://www.sermonaudio.com/search.asp?SpeakerOnly=true&currSection=sermonsspeaker&keyword=Andrew%5EQuigley)

Start with the 12 part Malachi series on ‘Routine Religion’ begining on 08/26/07 and /or the 7 Part Camp Meeting series beginning 07/01/07. It seems obvious that Pastor Andrew is preaching the word with wisdom, knowledge, care and authority. A dozen years ago this Pastor had a congregation numbering in the teens and most members were elderly. Now, they are reaching about 100 and looking to move into a bigger facility. Not exactly the exponential growth of a U.S. Mega-Church, but pastor Andrew was able to preach that 12 part Routine Religion series in 6 weeks. Why? Because, most everybody that is there for the morning service is also there in evening. How many Nazarene Churches could do that? In this RPCS church most everyone is there for prayer before service, congregants are there for both morning and evening services and there are 9-10 options during the week to study the word together, plus two additional options to go deeper into theology. They’ve got moms and tots, visitation for shut-ins and much more. This Airdrie RPCS seem like a great model for all Christians and I am truly thankful for the preaching and the example. Check them out http://www.airdrierpcs.org/


Thanks Naznet for the opportunity. I also thank anybody still reading this long post!

George Wallace
Proverbs 3: 5&6

Anne and Dwayne Hood
21st December 2007, 09:49 PM (21:49)
George, when I first saw your name, I immediately thought of Alabama. Where are you from?
We cannot attack someone, who, apparently has already let the COTN for some reason or other. You cannot help people, by attacking or scolding them. I was utterly shocked, when I first began posting less than six years ago. I am conservative, but some that consider themselves, conservative, on here, come nearer to thinking of me as fanatical, where as, I have a tendancy to think of them as liberal---considering, how I grew up. So, lots of the people on Nazaet, ignore me until this day. I knew how to work very carefully with members of the churches we attended, but was too quick to sound condemning, when I came on Naznet.
Believe you me, I hope that I have made a lot of progress. But, even on Naznet, we have to work with a heart of love, even if we do not agree. We can not just set our belief, and agenda, and dislike anyone who does not agree with us. I know this to the point, that I feel many people have pushed the "ignore" button for me. Many read, but few respond.
If we can only learn, to be as wise as serpents, but as harmless as doves, we will learn that we will be more able to win people with honey, easier than with vinegar (or a sour hard attitude).
I am not saying that that is your attitude, but I am responding to what you said about responding to the lady that converted to the RC church.
Not too long ago, someone came aboard and told us that he was an atheist. We welcomed him kindly, and that was basically the end of his posting.

But, if you do not mind, tell us about what you learned about Calvinism.

To my understanding, two of the main beliefs of Calvinism is predestination and eternal security. Only those predistined to be saved, can be saved, and once they are, they cannot lose their salvation.

Eric Frey
22nd December 2007, 09:15 AM (09:15)
I really didn't see you point out any substantial theological issues of Calvanism over Wesleyan/Arminian theology. Perhaps the one you addressed, the sovereignty of God, I would suggest is not an issue of whether God is sovereign, but rather what that means.

As far as the other things you like about the reformed church seem to be issues of high-church vs free-church:

"Reformed Faith seems correct for many reasons but probably the most influential are that their doctrine seems very sound; there is this line in the sand, here is what we believe, here is the Scripture we believe backs that up."

Ability to make authoritative interpretation of scripture is greater in high-churches than in free-churches.

They have the Five Solas and their Confessions of Faith (Westminster, and others)

they catechize,

they emphasize Family Worship.

Not to be negative but is seems to me most individual Reformed believers have a much greater knowledge of Scripture and church history than the average Nazarene.

They also seem to have a higher view of worship within the Lord’s Day service

and appear to be much more God-Centered than Man-Centered.

I would suggest that each of these is an issue of high-church vs. low-church (which is why I have an affinity toward high-church). Consider the Presbyterian & Reformed churches with the American Baptist churches. I would suspect the reasons you listed above are true of the Presbyterians and Reformed Churches, but not true of the many American and Southern Baptist variations.

In the same way we have the same issues within Weslyanism. Consider the Anglican tradition. Anglicans and Methodists tend toward (at least historically) high-church qualities you mentioned above while the free church traditions like the Weslyan and Nazarene churches are much more like what you seem somewhat critical of.

Yes there are significant theological differences, but it seems you have indicated the polity issues rather than the theological ones.

Ian Gentles
22nd December 2007, 01:35 PM (13:35)
Yes we got a thing about Calvinism, and get hipper calvanist mixed up with evangelical calvanism, which bye the way preaches the gospel. Yes i find many Nazarenes confused over doctrine, sadly! But, and here it comes, Wesley wasnt confused and its his doctrine i look at closely!

Steven Martinez
22nd December 2007, 04:31 PM (16:31)
The problem in regards to Calvinism is that many Nazarenes do not understand the doctrines we disagree with. For example, Nazarenes believe in election and predestination for they are biblical (read the first 2 chapters of Ephesians). However we reject a form of predestination that is refered to as superlapsarian double predestination. This is the belief that God predestines people to hell as well as heaven. This is an extreme form of Calvinistic theology that stems more from Beza (the person who picked up for Calvin after he died) than Calvin himself, although Calvin came to this conclusion. Nazarenes believe that God elected Abram to be the father of God's chosen or elected people - Israel. It is our belief that through Jesus, the Church has been grafted into this vine and therefore, all who join the Body are part of this election. So has God predestined anyone to be with Him? The answer is yes. God has chosen all of us from the beginning to be with Him that none shall perish. However, he has given us response-ability to respond to His call.
As far as Eternal Security... this is a straw man arguement that engages believers and no one else. Have you ever seen two "sinners" have this discusion? It seems to me that this is a discusion where we should just drop the arguement and go make disciples by winning souls for Christ. Personally what I find fascinating is that those who argue for security are ussually very happy to proclaim their freedom of will to recieve Christ but desire to lose this freedom if comes to rejecting the grace has been given to them so apparently God's love and grace removes our freedom. Who knew?

Edith K. Thurmond
23rd December 2007, 11:12 AM (11:12)
Not too long ago, someone came aboard and told us that he was an atheist. We welcomed him kindly, and that was basically the end of his posting.


If you are speaking of Andy, he does not claim to be an atheist and is a minister in another denomination. If he isn't your reference, then I stand corrected.

Blessings to You

Anne and Dwayne Hood
23rd December 2007, 03:47 PM (15:47)
Edith, I don't remember the man's name, but he said he was an atheist.

Glenda Harvey
26th December 2007, 02:12 PM (14:12)
Edith, I don't remember the man's name, but he said he was an atheist.

I also remember someone coming on the board who said he was an atheist and had a question for Christians. It was not Andy, I remember that thread also. I believe the person thanked those who answered his question and never posted again.

Edith K. Thurmond
26th December 2007, 03:24 PM (15:24)
I also remember someone coming on the board who said he was an atheist and had a question for Christians. It was not Andy, I remember that thread also. I believe the person thanked those who answered his question and never posted again.

Could this be the one referenced? http://www.naznet.com/community/showthread.php?t=14481&highlight=atheist

Since Andy still reads here occasionally, I was trying to make sure that no one thought he was an atheist.

Thanks, Anne and Glenda, and....

Christmastide blessings,

Glenda Harvey
27th December 2007, 01:31 PM (13:31)
I'm pretty sure that that's the post I was thinking of. I guess he didn't really ask questions but he didn't stay with us for very long.

Genevieve Boller
28th December 2007, 09:06 PM (21:06)
Interesting...I very recently went on a long spiritual journey very similar to what you're describing here.

The interesting thing is that I came to the opposite conclusion. I'm very new to the Church of the Nazarene and I sincerely wanted and needed to have answers to my questions (regarding calvinist vs. armenian as well as the entire sanctification issue) before I could go any further with the CotN. I now have complete peace and I praise God regularly for putting me here, because it demonstrates how very well He knows me. He put me here because I am who I am, based on all of my life experiences and my unique personality and spirit. I'm here because this church fits me and because I can and do fully embrace its theology.

Hmm...what do you think God thinks of all of this? I've often thought that all of this squabbling amongst the family (the universal church) grieves the heart of the Father. Perhaps we spend so much time bickering over the details that we regularly forget what's really important to Him?

If you decide to leave the CotN, but remain in the family of God, then may peace go with you, brother. I will see you in Heaven regardless. :basic03

Also, I agree with Eric Frey~ it sounds like you are more troubled by polity issues than theological ones. Liturgy has been an issue of much bickering over the years...

Genevieve Boller
28th December 2007, 09:10 PM (21:10)
Have you ever seen two "sinners" have this discusion? It seems to me that this is a discusion where we should just drop the arguement and go make disciples by winning souls for Christ.

Amen. How I wish people could expend as much energy in loving people into the Kingdom as they do in vehemently disagreeing with their (perceived) opponents.

George Wallace
7th January 2008, 02:03 PM (14:03)
Anne,
Thank you for your reply I had this info in my post but needed to delete it to meet the space requirement.

Me:
I’m a 43 year old recently retired USMC Gunnery Sergeant, college graduate, married almost 23 years to my beautiful best friend, 3 great children - two boys ages 22 & 17 plus our new 18 month old baby girl. (Yeah I know I’ll be 59 when she graduates High School, but she is such a joy!) I am currently, and have often been (wherever we have been stationed) an adult Sunday School teacher and active in other ministries. I’ve been a Nazarene since 1989, prior to that I was a Free Methodist.

I am originally from Colorado, my grandfather was George Joseph Wallace, my dad was George Richard, I’m George John and my oldest son is George JOSEPH Richard Wallace. Since my grandfather was born prior to the politician George C. Wallace of Alabama I consider myself descended from the original. I used to get questions about my name all the time but not so much anymore; you are showing your age Ha Ha! I am sorry for not replying sooner. Besides the baby my wife and I also care for my mother who is wheel chair/bed ridden. I really don’t have the time I would like to spend writing on this blog. I just felt compelled. I will try to formulate a succinct answer to your question about what I have learned about Calvinism and post it soon.

Thank you,
George
1Cor 1:18

George Wallace
7th January 2008, 03:19 PM (15:19)
Eric,
You wrote:

I would suggest that each of these is an issue of high-church vs. low-church (which is why I have an affinity toward high-church). Consider the Presbyterian & Reformed churches with the American Baptist churches. I would suspect the reasons you listed above are true of the Presbyterians and Reformed Churches, but not true of the many American and Southern Baptist variations.

In the same way we have the same issues within Weslyanism. Consider the Anglican tradition. Anglicans and Methodists tend toward (at least historically) high-church qualities you mentioned above while the free church traditions like the Weslyan and Nazarene churches are much more like what you seem somewhat critical of.

Yes there are significant theological differences, but it seems you have indicated the polity issues rather than the theological ones.

After re-reading my post I can see how one could get the above understanding from that. But actually the opposite is probably more true, if I were to “switch” from my Nazarene Faith to the Reformed Faith I think for me one of the hardest parts of that transition would probably be to the more formal or High church form of worship, that is required by some of the more conservative reformed denominations.

My mother used to attend a Lutheran Church. I used to attend once in awhile with her. I really had no understanding of the what, why and how, of a traditional Lutheran service but the formality of it seemed insincere and put me off. Many of the reformed Calvinistic churches, while not the same in doctrine to the Lutheran Church do practice a somewhat similar formal style of worship this would be a bit hard for me to get used to. (The Lutheran service is my only experiential frame of reference.) Often times I think people can believe that the formals steps are all that is required for proper worship. But, as I am learning, if you are truly observing some of these formalities with reverence and love (i.e. you know why you are worshiping this way) then this in fact is part of being more God-Centered and less Man-Centered. Honestly, I think if you ask many Nazarenes “Why do you go to church on Sunday?” Their answer would be phrased in some sort of an “I” statement. The answer would be about what church is or does for them, not about our duty and desire to worship Him.

Polity and Formality aside, I think what is attractive to me is that Calvinists seem steadfast! They do not seem to jump on the next-best-thing-in-Christianity bandwagon. Many of us seem to do just that! This to me is sad and indicative of a less than firm foundation.

One cannot effectively study a different denomination without performing a closer inspection of one’s own denomination. To understand the differences one must compare and contrast. Although I have and am still studying the theology of both it is in my studies of Calvinist and Nazarene web sites that the practical difference is most profound. Example 1:
Post-Modernism Emergent church philosophy seems to be for the most part eagerly embraced by many web savvy Nazarenes. It is also being accepted at some of our colleges NNU and Pt Loma are both having Brian McLaren speak this spring. All of the Reformed faith blogs and sites are adamantly against this “Conversation” or movement. I will join them in stating that I believe it to be heresy. I have heard Brian McLaren with my own ears call the “Cross a distraction” and “false advertising for God.” I have heard him openly question the existence of Hell. Why are Nazarenes having anything what so ever to with this kind of thinking? How do his ideas square with our Articles of Faith?
Example 2: Many Calvinist blogs are hard on Rick Warren. At first I didn’t understand why, but after much web surfing ‘Me thinks he doth Compromise too Much!’ He appears to have embraced much error for the sake of unity. Although not a web reference; I watched Warren’s Christmas Eve Special on Fox News. He had people pray what is typically called the Sinners Prayer, a prayer of salvation asking Jesus into your heart without any reference whatsoever to sin and the need for repentance? Watched with my own eyes…Heard it with my own ears! Yet many of us continue to embrace his Purpose Driven ideas.. Why?

The fact that we Nazarenes seem to be all over the place, practically and to some extent theologically has much more to do with my dissatisfaction than does any affinity for High church formality.

Really I think we are highly Deficient in Discernment!

Thank you for replying to my post.

George
1Cor 1:18

James Diggs
7th January 2008, 05:11 PM (17:11)
Hi George,

You wrote this after you cut and pasted what you said at the start of this thread into another one.

Now I will apologize in advance to Roland and any other Post-Modernists out there but when I read pro-postmodern/emergent thought expressed, with their lack of certitude I feel like saying “Yes Virginia, there is a Santa Claus…!” Meaning, I am not arrogant enough to say that I or any human has every line of scripture understood with 100% accuracy, but there are absolutes! Christ, Salvation, Heaven, Hell, right and wrong…. How can anyone read the Pastoral Epistles (Titus, 1 & 2 Timothy), plus Jude and 2 Peter and reconcile these books with much of what is being espoused by post-modernists?

I just don’t get it?!

Clearly you would like to talk about the emergent church and post modernity as it relates to some in the Nazarene tradition.

How can anyone read the Pastoral Epistles (Titus, 1 & 2 Timothy), plus Jude and 2 Peter and reconcile these books with much of what is being espoused by post-modernists?

As I said in another post just recently, post-modernity in many ways actually has more in common with pre- modernity than modernity. The interesting thing is that scripture came from the context of pre-modernity so I think this recent shift to post modernity could be helpful (provided we are careful). I think Paul would be as shocked at how we read the things he wrote through our modern lens as you are when it is read through a post modern one.

Unlike Shellie, I believe what John MacArthur has to say. I think R. C. Sproul is probably one of the most brilliant Christian teachers you will find on Christian radio. This Reformed Faith seems correct for many reasons but probably the most influential are that their doctrine seems very sound; there is this line in the sand, here is what we believe, here is the Scripture we believe backs that up.

I think MacArthur ends up spending more time arguing for the modernity in the name of the gospel than he does the gospel itself. The concept of “absolute truth” is an idea that stemmed from fathers of modernity such as Socrates and Plato and not from scripture. Yet MacArthur reads scripture from this lens, and though the lens itself is not altogether bad the most absurd thing about MacArthur's position is that he doesn’t acknowledge that he himself has his own subjective lens that has been influenced by the western/modern culture he grew up in.

Another weakness of the lens of modernity is that it reduces all truth to what can be measured and maped in a system. I think in many ways modern systematic theology such as reformed theology (but even Armenian) can sometimes treat scripture like an elaborate connect the dot picture. After some connect all the dots many arrogantly claim that the picture it creates is all that God is- he is no more and no less. This then can become dangerously close to idolatry. Modernity wants us to put everything together in a nice neat package where we can diagram all its parts and understand what levers cause which effect and action. Sure this comes across as sound when we look at it as a closed system on paper but it denies both the complexities of reality and the vastness of the mysteries of God.

Do not misunderstand me, I think modernity has given us a gift in systematic thinking and theology that will last, but I also think we need to start to understand its limitations too. To often people construct an understanding of such systems about God and then end up just following the prescribed boundaries of these systems rather than seeking and following God himself.

Not to be negative but is seems to me most individual Reformed believers have a much greater knowledge of Scripture and church history than the average Nazarene.

I think reformed believers actually have a very small view of church history that just follows the reformers. It is almost like they think after the book of Acts came Luther and Calvin and nothing happened in between. Their view of scripture denies the presence of the historical Church in the process of forming and canonizing of the scripture; though they acknowledge dates in history when scripture was canonized they act as if the scripture fell from the sky rather than emerged as the trustworthy testimony of human beings and their experience with the incarnational truth of God as the body of Christ.

I would also say that most reformed believers because of the nature of their paradigms do not even consider things like the orthodox or eastern orthodox vast history in the world as part of church history either. Not all of Christianity has been in the west through out history and it did not begin in the west. Yet reformed church history limits itself primarily to just that.

George,

I think you bring up great questions but before you are ready to chuck away the emergent church as some sort of heresy I would suggest taking more time in researching it beyond just guys like MacArthur and Piper who believe it or not are not coming from historically the most orthodox view of Christianity.

The topic of the emergent church and post modernity seems to come up periodically on this blog and I think this is a good place to explore it because the community here is very diverse with people who would take a position on all sides of the issue. So, you are very likely to get a wide range of opinions to consider and weigh.

Thanks for your question and your passion for Christ and what is true.

Peace,

James

David Pettigrew
8th January 2008, 11:44 AM (11:44)
Hi George, and welcome to naznet. I think I enjoyed your post. Or, I'll tell you like a lady told me recently when she left the service and shook my hand. "That was a good message, Pastor. I really enjoyed a lot of it."

First of all, it's exciting to see the teacher of an adult Nazarene SS class actually put this much thought and preparation into their lesson.

You bring up two big issues that we in the Wesleyan Holiness "movement" face, and they are related.

1) Our educational and ordination requirements for elders and deacons are perhaps too easy. Therefore, a lot of our people end up being taught a mishmash of pop theology, and label anything "Calvinism" with which they don't agree.

2) I fear that when tent meetings quit working and we went into a numerical decline, we lost our identity and went into an "adopt whatever works" mentality, which has resulted in our churches trying to be everything at once, badly, rather than be one thing and be the best at it.

In other words, you can walk into the average Presbyterian, Lutheran, Episcopal, or Catholic church and pretty much know what you're going to get. Walk into the average Nazarene church, and it's like Forrest Gump's box of chocolates. Some are nuttier than others, of course.

This is why I'm a big proponent of holiness, holiness, holiness in our teaching, preaching, singing, and living. We can diverge on what that looks like, but until we understand it's our only reason to exist as a group, we'll just keep bumping in to each other on your 100 acre lake.

Also, please keep in mind in your journey that the grass is always greener on the other side. It may seem like the Calvinists have it all together, but they really face a lot of the same issues you bring up, plus a whole nother set of their own!