Basic Christianity

[Hans Deventer]

In another thread this question came up and I would like to distinguish two issues here:


What do you have to believe to be a Christian? What is saving faith? (I would say these questions are identical)

What do you have to believe to be a Nazarene?


For all clarity, I am looking for the basics, the essentials of faith here. Of course there have to be works, for faith without them is dead, but I would like to focus now on the essentials regarding belief.

The reason is that we often talk about essentials and non-essentials, which is a useful distinction in itself, but not so useful if we don't know what is what.

As I am the one asked the question, perhaps I may also give my take.


As to saving faith, the Bible does not elaborate a lot here. There are several texts that are a little different, but the bottom line is believing that Jesus is the Son of God and that he rose from the grave.

Through time, this short confession has grown into the creeds, that describe the essential dogma's of the church, but the bare minimum seems to be less than those.


As to being a Nazarene, it is tempting so simply say, "the Articles of Faith" but one may wonder is there isn't a core even within them. Probably most would agree that an article on the church has a different "weight" than the one on God or Jesus. It is at least noteworthy that prospective members are asked to agree with the short Statement of Belief below, not with the entire Articles of Faith:

We believe in one God-the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit.

We believe that the Old and New Testament Scriptures, given by plenary inspiration, contain all truth necessary to faith and Christian living.

We believe that man is born with a fallen nature, and is, therefore, inclined to evil, and that continually.

We believe that the finally impenitent are hopelessly and eternally lost.

We believe that the atonement through Jesus Christ is for the whole human race; and that whosoever repents and believes on the Lord Jesus Christ is justified and regenerated and saved from the dominion of sin.

We believe that believers are to be sanctified wholly, subsequent to regeneration, through faith in the Lord Jesus Christ.

We believe that the Holy Spirit bears witness to the new birth, and also to the entire sanctification of believers.

We believe that our Lord will return, the dead will be raised, and the final judgment will take place.

I tend to take this one as essential for a Nazarene.

[Billie Goodson]

Hans,

As to Point 1 in your post -- I don't see how your bottom line can be enough
the bottom line is believing that Jesus is the Son of God and that he rose from the grave.
It seems even the demons of Mark acknowledged who Christ was, and one would be assuming that they would also have known of his resurrection. So, that seems hardly enough. We need a personal application of the knowledge of who Jesus is, the simple head knowledge is not enough. This is the contrast between Ascentia is basically having a mental knowledge of the existence of something. We are told that even the demons recognized Christ (even when his own disciples did not always). They had a mental knowledge of Christ. Being aware of God is not enough to escape total depravity. Two words are important: Ascentia and Fiducia
Fiducia is a more complete knowledge. "It involves a trust in something, a giving over to it, a complete believing and acceptance of something. This is the kind of faith that a Christian has in Christ. A Christian, therefore, has fiducia; that is, he has real faith and trust in Christ, not simply an acknowledgment that He lived on earth at one time."

In Point 2 -- I am in agreement with all that is there (as if my agreement carries any weight, and, since I call myself a Nazarene, it is comforting to know I can read the statement of beliefs and be in agreement). The only item that gives me pause is this:

We believe that believers are to be sanctified wholly, subsequent to regeneration, through faith in the Lord Jesus Christ.

I am not sure where I stand on this one. I believe in entire sanctification, no problem. I guess the point it raises is that it is not required. It is a goal, or an objective. But, since it is subsequent to regeneration, it has no bearing on salvation. All should strive for this goal. But, if we are called home before getting there, we are still a Child of God.

Thoughts?

[Hans Deventer]

Hans, As to Point 1 in your post -- I don't see how your bottom line can be enough

I can help. First of all, I already wrote:

"For all clarity, I am looking for the basics, the essentials of faith here. Of course there have to be works, for faith without them is dead, but I would like to focus now on the essentials regarding belief."

Secondly, the Bible tells me so.

John 6:29 - Jesus answered, "The work of God is this: to believe in the one he has sent."

John 6:35 - Then Jesus declared, "I am the bread of life. He who comes to me will never go hungry, and he who believes in me will never be thirsty.

John 11:25 - Jesus said to her, "I am the resurrection and the life. He who believes in me will live, even though he dies"

John 20:30-31 - Jesus did many other miraculous signs in the presence of his disciples, which are not recorded in this book. But these are written that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, and that by believing you may have life in his name.

Acts 16:31 - They replied, "Believe in the Lord Jesus, and you will be saved—you and your household."

Romans 10:9 - That if you confess with your mouth, "Jesus is Lord," and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved.

There are more but for the time being, these will do. Again, I am NOT saying that some mental assent is enough! It is NOT! But this question is about the essential content of our faith, implying it is a living faith, which means, and perhaps is a better translation anyway, trusting. So we are talking about trusting in Jesus. I'm quite sure the demons don't do that.

[Randy Wise]

I can help. First of all, I already wrote:

"For all clarity, I am looking for the basics, the essentials of faith here. Of course there have to be works, for faith without them is dead, but I would like to focus now on the essentials regarding belief."

Secondly, the Bible tells me so.

John 6:29 - Jesus answered, "The work of God is this: to believe in the one he has sent."

John 6:35 - Then Jesus declared, "I am the bread of life. He who comes to me will never go hungry, and he who believes in me will never be thirsty.

John 11:25 - Jesus said to her, "I am the resurrection and the life. He who believes in me will live, even though he dies"

John 20:30-31 - Jesus did many other miraculous signs in the presence of his disciples, which are not recorded in this book. But these are written that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, and that by believing you may have life in his name.

Acts 16:31 - They replied, "Believe in the Lord Jesus, and you will be saved—you and your household."

Romans 10:9 - That if you confess with your mouth, "Jesus is Lord," and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved.

There are more but for the time being, these will do. Again, I am NOT saying that some mental assent is enough! It is NOT! But this question is about the essential content of our faith, implying it is a living faith, which means, and perhaps is a better translation anyway, trusting. So we are talking about trusting in Jesus. I'm quite sure the demons don't do that.

The new covenant relationship is established only through the Son and one who is is this covenant relationship has the Spirit of Christ written on their hearts. It is that Spirit that testifies to us that we belong to Jesus. The simple answer is you go to Jesus to be saved as the circumcision of the Spirit is not done by the hands of men. You wouldn't go to Jesus if you didn't believe in Him.

Randy

[Bob Carabbio]

For viable Christianity to exist - There GENERALLY must be a witness involved with some working knowledge of the Word, and as a result of that witness -

One MUST have been brought face to face with his total inability to save himself through self effort, and that he's hopelessly lost by God's standards. The Holy Spirit must be involved in this since conviction of true spiritual status only comes by the Spirit.

One must, after understanding the magnitude of his personal sin repent of it, and turn from it. The Holy Spirit MUST bring this understanding and conviction since it can't occur any other way.

One must realize that Jesus, and the cleansing of HIS blood sacrifice on the cross is available to him, and therein lies his ONLY hope of salvation before God. This realization of hope is only possible through revelation by the Holy Spirit.

One must ASK in faith (supplied by the Holy Spirit) for the Blood to be applied to his life, and make him clean.

And THEN one can rejoice in the new birth - And begin to find out in the Word of God what it really consists of, and what the requirements are.

All the theological stuff comes later. Much of it will probably have to be un-learned/re-learned several times as life goes on.

I can tell you what's required to properly wear the Assembly of God denominational mask, but I don't know all that much about being Nazarene.

[Barb Bouldrey]

Hans,

I believe you have answered your own questions in exactly the way I would answer them. Your use of the Articles of Faith in your fist post and your use of scriptures in your second post summarize the answers to both questions.

It is so easy to add and add and add and make salvation and being a Nazarene complicated.

John preached an Avent series on the Sounds, Sights, Tastes Smells and Touches of Christmas. He preached last Sunday on the Touches of Christmas and how God wants a relationship with "you."

A right relationship with God and Christ and the Holy Spirit is the summary of Christianity and being a Nazarene...to me.

It is the living of that relationship that gets into details and personal convictions and interpretations.

Barb

[Dale Cozby]

Concerning being a Nazarene:

These are the questions you answer when joining the Church:
After an explanation of the articles of faith:
1) Do you heartily believes these truths?
2) Do you acknowledge Jesus Christ as your personal savior and do you realize that he saves you now?
3) Desiring to unite with the Church of the Nazarene do you covenant to give yourself to the fellowship and work of God in connection with it as set forth by the General and Special Rules of the Church of the Nazarene?
4) Will you endeavor in every way to glorify God , by a humble walk, godly conversation and holy service; devotely giving of your means; by faithful attendence upon the means of grace; and abstaining from all evil, will you seek earnestly to perfect holiness of heart and life in fear of the Lord?

I wonder how many members we have that have forgotten these statements they made?

Concerning being a Christian: Hmm...We know that we have come to know him if we obey his commands. The man who says, "I know him," but does not do what he commands is a liar, and the truth is not in him. But if anyone obeys his word, God's love is truly made complete in him. This is how we know we are in him: Whoever claims to live in him must walk as Jesus did. I John 2:3-6

Absolute Life changing faith in Jesus Christ and obedience to his command. Faith that leads to actions in keeping with that faith as the evidence of faith. So saved by faith with proofs for assurance of it.

[Billie Goodson]

Again, I am NOT saying that some mental assent is enough! It is NOT! But this question is about the essential content of our faith, implying it is a living faith, which means, and perhaps is a better translation anyway, trusting. So we are talking about trusting in Jesus. I'm quite sure the demons don't do that.

Thanks Hans. That clarified it for me! So you are talking about a fiducia faith. (Don't ask me where I got the fiducia and ascentia definitions, but I like them)

[David Cash]

I like that word "trusting," Hans. To me that is the essential to saving faith. Of course, to get to the point of trust, one would have to believe in God and that Jesus is the way to have peace with God. I would also doubt if very many people would come to that belief without a belief in His death and resurrection.

There are many facts behind this basic statement. They are very important facts, and we would be concerned about the church that tried to deny them. At the same time, for the individual, it really doesn't take a complete theological knowledge to be saved. I'd go with a belief in God, the death and resurrection of Jesus, and trusting in Jesus for forgiveness and peace with God (salvation). Again, it is faith in the sense of trust, of putting one's soul into His care, that makes the difference between a demon's belief and a Christians.

As far as what it takes to be a Nazarene, the shorter form the statement from the Manual basically says it. I do want to note that most of the things required for Nazarenes are also basic Christian theology. Only the part about entire sanctification is really particular, and we'd share that with the rest of the holiness movement, and there are some non-holiness people who, with a slightly different interpretation of the word "sanctify" could assent to it too. As with salvation, the final element is embracing this belief or this church for oneself.

I doubt if I added much more than has already been said, but wanted to get my two cents in anyway.

David Cash

[Randy Wise]

David Cash=>Only the part about entire sanctification is really particular

The Apostles taught of the gift of the Holy Spirit. You will be hard pressed to show a different sanctifying gift given by God in addition to that Spirit of Christ given to us. I think you cause many to seek what they already have been given.
If one is born again they are washed, sanctified and a new creation and though the Spirit of Christ in us helps put down the misdeeds of the flesh we still wear that flesh in this day and age. We have everything we need for life and godliness. We are taught to follow the Spirit and not the flesh

3His divine power has given us everything we need for life and godliness through our knowledge of him who called us by his own glory and goodness. 4Through these he has given us his very great and precious promises, so that through them you may participate in the divine nature and escape the corruption in the world caused by evil desires.

Randy

[Marsha Lynn]

In another thread this question came up and I would like to distinguish two issues here:


What do you have to believe to be a Christian? What is saving faith? (I would say these questions are identical)

What do you have to believe to be a Nazarene?


Good questions. For the first one, I tend to ask a different question that gives me similar answers. It is:

Q. What do I need to be true about the Bible?

A.
There is one God, Creator of the universe, King of kings and Lord of lords.
God loves and values those He created and desires relationship with them.
Jesus Christ was God incarnate dwelling among men.
Jesus Christ revealed the character of God in his life and teachings.
Jesus Christ was crucified. He died and was resurrected by the power of God, being the firstfruits of resurrection.
We can live in relationship with God in this life and look forward to eternity in his presence.


I can hold all of the rest of the Bible loosely as long as those fundamental things are true. For example, I don't need Jonah to be a real historical figure swallowed by a real fish, but I do need to know that God pursues those He calls and has mercy on those who repent.

As to being a Nazarene, I would hope that the basic beliefs of Christianity would be enough to qualify one for church membership, however, I would add one statement in order to be truly comfortable in the Church of the Nazarene:


There is a deeper relationship with God where we are changed to the very core of our being. This level of relationship develops as we completely surrender our lives to God and will, over time, yield amazing results.

[Billy Cox]

This might be dangerously simple, but from my reading of Scripture, one who has a genuine hunger and thirst for righteousness will, by faith and by God's grace, seek the heart of God, listen to His voice and be transformed for a life of service...probably within the context of Christianity, but not necessarily so.

Faith in the Living God transcends every religious framework.

[Billy Cox]

For viable Christianity to exist - There GENERALLY must be a witness involved with some working knowledge of the Word, and as a result of that witness -

One MUST have been brought face to face with his total inability to save himself through self effort, and that he's hopelessly lost by God's standards. The Holy Spirit must be involved in this since conviction of true spiritual status only comes by the Spirit.

One must, after understanding the magnitude of his personal sin repent of it, and turn from it. The Holy Spirit MUST bring this understanding and conviction since it can't occur any other way.

One must realize that Jesus, and the cleansing of HIS blood sacrifice on the cross is available to him, and therein lies his ONLY hope of salvation before God. This realization of hope is only possible through revelation by the Holy Spirit.

One must ASK in faith (supplied by the Holy Spirit) for the Blood to be applied to his life, and make him clean.

And THEN one can rejoice in the new birth - And begin to find out in the Word of God what it really consists of, and what the requirements are.

All the theological stuff comes later. Much of it will probably have to be un-learned/re-learned several times as life goes on.

I can tell you what's required to properly wear the Assembly of God denominational mask, but I don't know all that much about being Nazarene.

Although I have already posted my own interpretation, your post made me think of two aspects of basic Christianity.

1. Revelation of God
2. Our positive response to that revelation

Yes, the Holy Spirit has a role, as does the Scripture, and the person of Christ, and grace, and faith, and good works, but if you want to boil it down as far as it goes, these two aspects might be as irreducible as you can get.

Consider every story of transformation in the Bible. Is there any story that does not include these two elements?

[Hans Deventer]

Thanks for all the replies. It does show that it is almost impossible to isolate the content of our faith from what we actually do. Believing in Jesus is relational indeed.

[Brad Mercer]

Thanks for all the replies. It does show that it is almost impossible to isolate the content of our faith from what we actually do. Believing in Jesus is relational indeed.

Right. As I see it, what it is to actually BE a Christian is to be in intimate relationship with God, which probably has to include knowing who he is and who we are and how he sees us; that then, produces the second command of loving our neighbors as ourselves.

What it means to BE a Christian is different from the question of what things Christians believe. I would happily say that the core, essential beliefs of Christians are found in the creeds.

What you have to believe to be a Nazarene might be simply that "Agreed Statement of Beliefs" to which the manual explicitly requires assent. And the only thing in that not clearly found in the Apostle's Creed is the statement on Entire Sanctification.

Of course, there aren't many occasions in which I personally really have any obligation to decide who's really even a Nazarene, much less who's a Christian. I personally need to be focused on getting better at loving people and seeing in them whatever gives them worth to God, than on deciding whether they're believing or doing the right things to get to heaven.

Brad

[Marsha Lynn]

Of course, there aren't many occasions in which I personally really have any obligation to decide who's really even a Nazarene, much less who's a Christian. I personally need to be focused on getting better at loving people and seeing in them whatever gives them worth to God, than on deciding whether they're believing or doing the right things to get to heaven.

Amen! I appreciate your perspective on this and how it has changed my own views. It's amazing how much energy church people spend deciding whether other people are hellbound or not.

The most memorable example of this I've encountered lately was a Bible study where the discussion became focused on whether the Episcopalian Church can even be considered Christian anymore in light of their openly homosexual bishop. I finally spoke up and pointed out that we have had complete success in excluding professed homosexuals from our own fellowship and that our small group was not likely to sway the actions of the Episcopalians. (Later research showed that there isn't even one church bearing that label in the area. What action was supposed to come out of our conclusion on the matter since it's likely that most of those involved in the discussion don't know a single individual from that denomination personally nor are we frequent consultants for reference books delineating Christian denominations from cults?)

Why do we feel such a need to pass judgment on the spiritual status of others? Are we afraid that God might miss something or that our grace and mercy might accidentally exceed His and that His wrath might overflow from the wicked to those of us who dare love the wicked and open ourselves to the accusation of being a friend of sinners?

Oops. That's a rant, isn't it? Step off the soap box and walk away from the microphone. Time to listen to my own words and leave the judgment of those passing judgment to the Judge.

There's far to go on this journey. My thanks goes out to those who are breaking the path for us. It seems that the Jesus Creed ("Love God; love others") is all the goal any of us will ever need in this life.

Marsha

[Hans Deventer]

Of course, there aren't many occasions in which I personally really have any obligation to decide who's really even a Nazarene, much less who's a Christian. I personally need to be focused on getting better at loving people and seeing in them whatever gives them worth to God, than on deciding whether they're believing or doing the right things to get to heaven.

I guess I need to explain some more. My question did not originate from the desire to decide who is in and who is out. Thankfully, that is not my job anyway. But I feel it is useful to determine what our essentials are, in order to avoid getting heated discussions about issues that are NOT essentials. And the Lord knows, we've had way too much of them.

The interesting thing so far is, for instance, that nobody as yet considered the not drinking of alcoholic beverages an essential. I do recall a GA when you would not have been able to walk away with that impression.

Also, I found it is much easier to agree on the core of our faith, than to agree on the non-essentials. Right now, there are no distinctions in the Manual. It seems as big a sin to deny the divinity of Jesus as it is not to have a church board meeting each month, for no one says what is important and what is not, or less important. Just another example of why we (in my view) need more clarity on the essentials.

I would like to see a church that is clear and unwavering on the essentials of our faith, and is flexible on the application of those truths in an ever changing society. Unity in essentials and liberty in non-essentials, really. I guess I still share Bresee's dream.

[Wilson L. Deaton]

You have asked the question of essentials with regard to Christianity and esssentials with regard to Nazarenes.

My first reaction is that I like (and tend to agree with) the answers you have given.

HOWEVER on a larger scale:

I grow increasingly uncomfortable that these questions have different answers!

I think it is becoming harder and harder to defend the entire system of Christianity being divided into "denominations" that are based primarily on the finer points of doctrine.

I have fallen in love with the double entendre meaning of this statement: "Christianity: It's not what you think."

Wilson

[Marsha Lynn]

I guess I need to explain some more. My question did not originate from the desire to decide who is in and who is out. Thankfully, that is not my job anyway. But I feel it is useful to determine what our essentials are, in order to avoid getting heated discussions about issues that are NOT essentials. And the Lord knows, we've had way too much of them.

Hans, I knew you weren't trying to decide who's in and who's out, but I guess I'm a little unclear as to the value to boiling down one's beliefs to the bare essentials other than either doing just that or in deciding what you're willing to bleed for. In my case, as indicated previously, there's not much I'll go to the stake for, not even everything in the creeds. For example, I'm not going to give my life for the concept that Jesus descended into hell/hades, but I do include his death and resurrection in my most basic beliefs, which is perhaps what the creed is trying to express.

The interesting thing so far is, for instance, that nobody as yet considered the not drinking of alcoholic beverages an essential. I do recall a GA when you would not have been able to walk away with that impression.

I wasn't in on the GA discussions, but I think the alcohol discussions include more fear than light. IF the statement about alcohol were ever removed from the Manual, my children's lives might be destroyed by alcoholism. Perhaps the Manual of the Church of the Nazarene is the only thing standing between them and the abuse of alcohol! The Bible doesn't say that alcohol is inherently bad. What other support do we have to persuade our young people to stay away from it? If you give up that statement, chaos will descend on the church and all will be lost!!!!

That's hyperbole, of course. (Please, don't think I would seriously take such a position.) It's simply a manifestation of the fear common to leaders and parents that the next generation will not catch the values we've held so dear and that have served us so well. We hope that setting those values down on paper will somehow give them more power to keep the next generation and newcomers living in line with our own convictions.

Do you think there's value in the "collective conscience" of the elected representatives of the denomination? Does it help to have those who have gained wisdom with age warn the young of the traps that await them? It's not so much calling something "sin" as issuing warning that certain activities have been found to lead easily to broken relationships, personal pain, and alienation from God.

Also, I found it is much easier to agree on the core of our faith, than to agree on the non-essentials. Right now, there are no distinctions in the Manual. It seems as big a sin to deny the divinity of Jesus as it is not to have a church board meeting each month, for no one says what is important and what is not, or less important. Just another example of why we (in my view) need more clarity on the essentials.

But surely the distinction between the Articles of Faith and parlimentary procedure is clear in the Manual. There is no statement that says, "We believe in the sacred tradition of convening the church board on a monthly basis in order to uphold the spiritual life and health of the church. Those who fail to do so are placing the future of the church in jeopardy and shall be subject to disciplinary action." Even the "collective conscience" statements on issues such as alcohol and abortion are separated from the Articles of Faith.

It looks to me like there are at least three levels of authority in the Manual -- the Articles of Faith, the Special Rules, and the structure of the church at various levels. Do you feel that the Special Rules are routinely elevated to the level of the Articles of Faith?

I would like to see a church that is clear and unwavering on the essentials of our faith, and is flexible on the application of those truths in an ever changing society. Unity in essentials and liberty in non-essentials, really. I guess I still share Bresee's dream.

I'm thinking that the North American history and continued nature of the Church of the Nazarene likely adds to your frustration in these areas. I've often noted that if I draw boundaries for my own behavior (essential beliefs for practical living?) and compare those boundaries to those outlined by the Special Rules in the Manual of the Chruch of the Nazarene, my personal boundaries will almost always fall well within the Manual boundaries. The few places where the Manual steps in with greater restriction than my own conscience are minor and generally not worth worrying about. I've spent a lifetime living within those restrictions and haven't noticed any particular void in my life. But that's because I live in the evangelical American subculture.

Still, I agree with you that it's a shame that fear has become a greater factor in maintaining the status quo than actual conviction. Surely, it was abundantly obvious to every thoughtful person in the denomination that the gap between our statement on the motion picture industry and our practice concerning the same left us looking ridiculously hypocritical before the statement was finally revised to say what needed to be said concerning entertainment rather than maintaining the old restriction against movies shown in theaters while allowing those same movies to be viewed at home. Every once in a while as we enjoy an evening at the local movie theater I remember all those years we passed up seeing even the most innocent shows on the "big screen" because the General Ass'y was too fearful of opening the doors to Hollywood's influence on our young people to do the sensible thing.

So how can we spread faith that the Holy Spirit will be faithful to teach newcomers and the next generation the essentials of holy living and truly make our suggestions of what might be included in those teachings simply suggestions and shared wisdom? Is there a way to do that?

Marsha

[Randy Wise]

Hans,

As to Point 1 in your post -- I don't see how your bottom line can be enough

It seems even the demons of Mark acknowledged who Christ was, and one would be assuming that they would also have known of his resurrection. So, that seems hardly enough. We need a personal application of the knowledge of who Jesus is, the simple head knowledge is not enough. This is the contrast between Ascentia is basically having a mental knowledge of the existence of something. We are told that even the demons recognized Christ (even when his own disciples did not always). They had a mental knowledge of Christ. Being aware of God is not enough to escape total depravity. Two words are important: Ascentia and Fiducia
Fiducia is a more complete knowledge. "It involves a trust in something, a giving over to it, a complete believing and acceptance of something. This is the kind of faith that a Christian has in Christ. A Christian, therefore, has fiducia; that is, he has real faith and trust in Christ, not simply an acknowledgment that He lived on earth at one time."

In Point 2 -- I am in agreement with all that is there (as if my agreement carries any weight, and, since I call myself a Nazarene, it is comforting to know I can read the statement of beliefs and be in agreement). The only item that gives me pause is this:



I am not sure where I stand on this one. I believe in entire sanctification, no problem. I guess the point it raises is that it is not required. It is a goal, or an objective. But, since it is subsequent to regeneration, it has no bearing on salvation. All should strive for this goal. But, if we are called home before getting there, we are still a Child of God.

Thoughts?

=>subsequent to regeneration
Does this mean that after regeneration it's too late? If not,"subsequent" won't
do.

Randy

[Wilson L. Deaton]

=>subsequent to regeneration
Does this mean that after regeneration it's too late? If not,"subsequent" won't
do.

Randy

Your question seems to indicate a backward definition of subsequent.
Subsequent means, "occuring or coming later or after."

Thus, that doesn't mean it's "too late."

Wilson

[Randy Wise]

Your question seems to indicate a backward definition of subsequent.
Subsequent means, "occuring or coming later or after."

Thus, that doesn't mean it's "too late."

Wilson

Whoops!
Randy

[Brad Mercer]

I feel it is useful to determine what our essentials are, in order to avoid getting heated discussions about issues that are NOT essentials.

Well, good luck with that. :basic03 And of course, just because it's not absolutely essential doesn't mean it's completely insignificant. The discussion ought not to be quite so heated, and ought not to lead to excommunication, but it might still be a discussion worth having. And of course, you probably already agree with all that. My post wasn't really directed toward you, but was just meant as a reminder to all of us who are reading the thread.

However, it seems to me that the manual says quite clearly what is essential in the Agreed Statement of Belief. I think the statements themselves were posted earlier in the thread, but not the paragraph that I've underlined and made bold. It seems quite explicit to me in that sentence that nothing else in the manual is essential to either salvation or membership in the Church of the Nazarene, even though the preceding paragraph in the manual asserts that: "The Church of the Nazarene is composed of those persons who have voluntarily associated themselves together according to the doctrines and polity of said church....

Here's the complete text of the Agreed Statement of Belief, with the relevant portion underlined and made bold:

IV. Agreed Statement of Belief
26. Recognizing that the right and privilege of persons to
church membership rest upon the fact of their being regenerate,
we would require only such avowals of belief as are
essential to Christian experience. We, therefore, deem belief
in the following brief statements to be sufficient.

We believe:
26.1. In one God—the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit.
26.2. That the Old and New Testament Scriptures, given
by plenary inspiration, contain all truth necessary to faith
and Christian living.
26.3. That man is born with a fallen nature, and is, therefore,
inclined to evil, and that continually.
26.4. That the finally impenitent are hopelessly and eternally
lost.
26.5. That the atonement through Jesus Christ is for the
whole human race; and that whosoever repents and believes
on the Lord Jesus Christ is justified and regenerated and
saved from the dominion of sin.
26.6. That believers are to be sanctified wholly, subsequent
to regeneration, through faith in the Lord Jesus
Christ.
26.7. That the Holy Spirit bears witness to the new birth,
and also to the entire sanctification of believers.
26.8. That our Lord will return, the dead will be raised,
and the final judgment will take place.

[Brad Mercer]

I feel it is useful to determine what our essentials are, in order to avoid getting heated discussions about issues that are NOT essentials.

I have (at least) one other thought on this issue. When we were a new church plant in Texas, we had a board meeting every month or two, and had a treasurer and a board secretary because we thought those were important, valuable things to do, but beyond that, we largely ignored the structural advice in the manual. We just didn't bother trying to fill every slot and run every program.

It was always fun at annual report time when the district missionary president would call me and try to wrangle an annual NMI report out of me. Our pastor was Australian and desperate to start a Nazarene church in Brisbane; our first family of converts were from Sweden and were very eager to have their entire circle of Swedish friends and relatives in Texas and Sweden experience what they were finding in the Nazarene church. Businessmen would visit countries like India and come back with renewed desire to see NewStart-Frisco contribute meaningfully to the worldwide vision of the Church of the Nazarene.

But we didn't have an elected NMI president. We didn't have an elected local NMI board. We didn't have missionary meetings. We didn't read missionary books. We cared very deeply about missions and were eager to pray and give to that cause. That's the only real purpose of all the prescribed offices and activities, but we didn't do any of the prescribed steps to get there. So our dear district president, recognizing that fact, would move mountains to make what we were actually doing fit into the slots in her report. Once or twice we actually were given some sort of award for meeting all the requirements.

Obviously, some people can get really hung up on all those structural things, but I just don't see that the manual requires me to treat them as essential.

In the same way, I'd reword a few of the special rules, make them sound clearly like attempts at cultural applications rather than absolute principles where that's obviously (to me) the case, and change the heading back to "Special Advices" like it was in the 1908 manual instead of rules or covenant or anything else that sounds absolute and binding. But at the same time, I wouldn't leave any of them out entirely. I personally think they're all good advice, at least for me and my family, and certainly issues to think through when we consider the practical applications of loving our neighbors as ourselves. And that's exactly how we presented that section of the manual when we taught it in membership class at NewStart-Frisco (and, for that matter, when I taught the membership class for probably eight years at the Richardson Church of the Nazarene). When people are invited to think lovingly and process issues lovingly, they come to good decisions at least as often as when they're simply told you can't do this or that. Obviously, the manual allows the presentation of the "Covenant of Christian Conduct" or "Special Rules" in a legalistic way, but it also I think gives room to present it the way we have.

The bottom line for me, though, is to make my primary battle the battle to add what the church is missing, rather than to remove all the things it erroneously includes. I want my primary focus to be on filling with love rather than emptying of unlove. I don't think love just automatically rushes in to fill a vacuum we create by emptying out all the bad stuff. I think perfect love crowds out the bad stuff. It casts out fear, and legalism comes from fear.

If we can build an intimately connected community where there is only superficial connection, a lot of the issues like how we address particular moral and social issues become a lot easier to handle. If we fail in creating such community, the demon we cast out will always just be replaced by a dozen new ones.

And again, Hans, I'm not necessarily talking to you here; I'm just thinking outloud about the issues in general.

Brad

[David Cash]

David Cash=>Only the part about entire sanctification is really particular

The Apostles taught of the gift of the Holy Spirit. You will be hard pressed to show a different sanctifying gift given by God in addition to that Spirit of Christ given to us. I think you cause many to seek what they already have been given.
If one is born again they are washed, sanctified and a new creation and though the Spirit of Christ in us helps put down the misdeeds of the flesh we still wear that flesh in this day and age. We have everything we need for life and godliness. We are taught to follow the Spirit and not the flesh

3His divine power has given us everything we need for life and godliness through our knowledge of him who called us by his own glory and goodness. 4Through these he has given us his very great and precious promises, so that through them you may participate in the divine nature and escape the corruption in the world caused by evil desires.

Randy

I struggled with this doctrine for a long time myself, Randy. Scripturally, I tend to see Galatians 5:16-26 as definitive. While this passage does differeniate between the lifestyle of an unsaved person and a saved person, it also, in Galatians 5:25, indicates that if we live in the Spirit we should also walk in the Spirit. To me, there is a difference between having eternal life through the Spirit and making the most of that experience through a deeper spiritual walk. I would also recognize that God can give us a deeper life immediately in answer to prayer rather than leaving us to grow slowly; although, hopefully most of us will also continue to grow as long as we live.

David Cash

[David Cash]

This might be dangerously simple, but from my reading of Scripture, one who has a genuine hunger and thirst for righteousness will, by faith and by God's grace, seek the heart of God, listen to His voice and be transformed for a life of service...probably within the context of Christianity, but not necessarily so.

Faith in the Living God transcends every religious framework.

Billy,

Unless that faith includes direct personal faith in the living Christ it isn't going to bridge the gap between anyone and God. Jesus Himself said that no one comes to the Father except through Him.

David Cash

[David Cash]

[QUOTE]I guess I need to explain some more. My question did not originate from the desire to decide who is in and who is out. Thankfully, that is not my job anyway. But I feel it is useful to determine what our essentials are, in order to avoid getting heated discussions about issues that are NOT essentials. And the Lord knows, we've had way too much of them.

I don't like heated discussions either, Hans. I want to assume that most of us do agree that faith in Christ as one's Savior is essential and nonnegotiable.

Maybe where the challenge comes in with the rest of it is that most of us find different actions and beliefs helpful or harmful to a life of holiness. We have learned some of these things by experience and some by the teachings of our parents and church leaders. It is very difficult to just shrug them off as unimportant, yet most of them are neither essential to salvation nor absolutely essential to a godly life. It is probably profitable to all if we do discuss some of them. But it will be more profitable if we do so respectfully and don't rush in to tear down that which is holy to someone else.

My thoughts anyway.

David Cash

[Randy Wise]

I struggled with this doctrine for a long time myself, Randy. Scripturally, I tend to see Galatians 5:16-26 as definitive. While this passage does differeniate between the lifestyle of an unsaved person and a saved person, it also, in Galatians 5:25, indicates that if we live in the Spirit we should also walk in the Spirit. To me, there is a difference between having eternal life through the Spirit and making the most of that experience through a deeper spiritual walk. I would also recognize that God can give us a deeper life immediately in answer to prayer rather than leaving us to grow slowly; although, hopefully most of us will also continue to grow as long as we live.

David Cash

Well that's ok with me. If you are born of the Spirit of Christ you are washed and sanctified and teaching to follow that Spirit doesn't speak to me of a 2nd act of grace. One who is born again is a new creation and there would be a visible outward witness in that persons life of that relationship with Jesus.
Randy

[Hans Deventer]

Hans, I knew you weren't trying to decide who's in and who's out, but I guess I'm a little unclear as to the value to boiling down one's beliefs to the bare essentials other than either doing just that or in deciding what you're willing to bleed for.

I'm sorry Marsha, I fear I can't explain it any better :basic04

In my case, as indicated previously, there's not much I'll go to the stake for, not even everything in the creeds. For example, I'm not going to give my life for the concept that Jesus descended into hell/hades, but I do include his death and resurrection in my most basic beliefs, which is perhaps what the creed is trying to express.

Well, that is exactly what I am looking for.

I wasn't in on the GA discussions, but I think the alcohol discussions include more fear than light. IF the statement about alcohol were ever removed from the Manual, my children's lives might be destroyed by alcoholism. Perhaps the Manual of the Church of the Nazarene is the only thing standing between them and the abuse of alcohol! The Bible doesn't say that alcohol is inherently bad. What other support do we have to persuade our young people to stay away from it? If you give up that statement, chaos will descend on the church and all will be lost!!!!

7What shall we say, then? Is the law sin? Certainly not! Indeed I would not have known what sin was except through the law. For I would not have known what coveting really was if the law had not said, "Do not covet." 8But sin, seizing the opportunity afforded by the commandment, produced in me every kind of covetous desire. For apart from law, sin is dead. 9Once I was alive apart from law; but when the commandment came, sin sprang to life and I died. 10I found that the very commandment that was intended to bring life actually brought death.

11For sin, seizing the opportunity afforded by the commandment, deceived me, and through the commandment put me to death. 12So then, the law is holy, and the commandment is holy, righteous and good. 13Did that which is good, then, become death to me? By no means! But in order that sin might be recognized as sin, it produced death in me through what was good, so that through the commandment sin might become utterly sinful.

14We know that the law is spiritual; but I am unspiritual, sold as a slave to sin. 15I do not understand what I do. For what I want to do I do not do, but what I hate I do. 16And if I do what I do not want to do, I agree that the law is good. 17As it is, it is no longer I myself who do it, but it is sin living in me. 18I know that nothing good lives in me, that is, in my sinful nature.[c] For I have the desire to do what is good, but I cannot carry it out. 19For what I do is not the good I want to do; no, the evil I do not want to do—this I keep on doing. 20Now if I do what I do not want to do, it is no longer I who do it, but it is sin living in me that does it.

21So I find this law at work: When I want to do good, evil is right there with me. 22For in my inner being I delight in God's law; 23but I see another law at work in the members of my body, waging war against the law of my mind and making me a prisoner of the law of sin at work within my members. 24What a wretched man I am! Who will rescue me from this body of death? 25Thanks be to God—through Jesus Christ our Lord!


That's hyperbole, of course. (Please, don't think I would seriously take such a position.) It's simply a manifestation of the fear common to leaders and parents that the next generation will not catch the values we've held so dear and that have served us so well. We hope that setting those values down on paper will somehow give them more power to keep the next generation and newcomers living in line with our own convictions.

FEAR!!!!!!!!!! Exactly, Marsha, exactly. And THAT is my worst fear, that all we do is legislate and react out of fear. The very thing I said in the GA floor last time. F.D. Roosevelt was right:

So, first of all, let me assert my firm belief that the only thing we have to fear is fear itself -- nameless, unreasoning, unjustified terror which paralyses needed efforts to convert retreat into advance.

Do you think there's value in the "collective conscience" of the elected representatives of the denomination? Does it help to have those who have gained wisdom with age warn the young of the traps that await them? It's not so much calling something "sin" as issuing warning that certain activities have been found to lead easily to broken relationships, personal pain, and alienation from God.

Yes, I do believe in that. But unless we can show something better, our warnings won't help, because sin will always look more attractive.

But surely the distinction between the Articles of Faith and parliamentary procedure is clear in the Manual. There is no statement that says, "We believe in the sacred tradition of convening the church board on a monthly basis in order to uphold the spiritual life and health of the church. Those who fail to do so are placing the future of the church in jeopardy and shall be subject to disciplinary action." Even the "collective conscience" statements on issues such as alcohol and abortion are separated from the Articles of Faith.

It looks to me like there are at least three levels of authority in the Manual -- the Articles of Faith, the Special Rules, and the structure of the church at various levels. Do you feel that the Special Rules are routinely elevated to the level of the Articles of Faith?

My feelings agree. Yet in practice, there is no difference. Our DAB asked for room to elect more people to the board. Denied, it's against the Manual. We eventually put that motion before the GA. Denied again. And I can go on for quite some time. The practice is that no one dares to go against the Manual, no matter if it is in the Articles of Faith, the Special Rules or anywhere else. It seems indeed we have a "sacred tradition of convening the church board on a monthly basis". :basic04

Still, I agree with you that it's a shame that fear has become a greater factor in maintaining the status quo than actual conviction.

[...]

So how can we spread faith that the Holy Spirit will be faithful to teach newcomers and the next generation the essentials of holy living and truly make our suggestions of what might be included in those teachings simply suggestions and shared wisdom? Is there a way to do that?


Well, that is why I started this discussion. What does REALLY matter, what are you willing to go to the stake for? I think we need that answer and we need even more the "the essentials of holy living" without adding layer upon layer of rules and regulations..

[Hans Deventer]

And of course, just because it's not absolutely essential doesn't mean it's completely insignificant.

Agreed. But it should not divide the community.



IV. Agreed Statement of Belief
26. Recognizing that the right and privilege of persons to
church membership rest upon the fact of their being regenerate,
we would require only such avowals of belief as are
essential to Christian experience. We, therefore, deem belief
in the following brief statements to be sufficient.

Yes, you are right! Thanks! I'm still a good Nazarene, thankfully! Because I have one point in the Articles of Faith that I don't agree with, or at least, am not so sure of. But the statement below does not contain it.


We believe:
26.1. In one God—the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit.
26.2. That the Old and New Testament Scriptures, given
by plenary inspiration, contain all truth necessary to faith
and Christian living.
26.3. That man is born with a fallen nature, and is, therefore,
inclined to evil, and that continually.
26.4. That the finally impenitent are hopelessly and eternally
lost.
26.5. That the atonement through Jesus Christ is for the
whole human race; and that whosoever repents and believes
on the Lord Jesus Christ is justified and regenerated and
saved from the dominion of sin.
26.6. That believers are to be sanctified wholly, subsequent
to regeneration, through faith in the Lord Jesus
Christ.
26.7. That the Holy Spirit bears witness to the new birth,
and also to the entire sanctification of believers.
26.8. That our Lord will return, the dead will be raised,
and the final judgment will take place.

[Martijn van Beveren]

In another thread this question came up and I would like to distinguish two issues here:


What do you have to believe to be a Christian? What is saving faith? (I would say these questions are identical)

What do you have to believe to be a Nazarene?


For all clarity, I am looking for the basics, the essentials of faith here. Of course there have to be works, for faith without them is dead, but I would like to focus now on the essentials regarding belief.

The reason is that we often talk about essentials and non-essentials, which is a useful distinction in itself, but not so useful if we don't know what is what.

As I am the one asked the question, perhaps I may also give my take.

[LIST=1]
As to saving faith, the Bible does not elaborate a lot here. There are several texts that are a little different, but the bottom line is believing that Jesus is the Son of God and that he rose from the grave.

Through time, this short confession has grown into the creeds, that describe the essential dogma's of the church, but the bare minimum seems to be less than those.

Hello Hans and others,

Well, I must say that I'm really into faith essentials lately. So talking about the basics is unaviodable. I must say that I'm new to this forum, so I'm a little uncomfortable but I'll just have to do my best. I've read every part till so far and it all has been interesting so far.:basic01
however, I read this part of Hans questions and I think I want another one added. Maybe It's not completly in line with your question, but it definitly comes to the essential understanding of heaven, hel and sin and saving.
My question goes like this:
When we read scripture and quote from it, do we take into consideration that it is written in a time different from ours? Also that certain groups are adressed which makes deciphering the content more precice and difficlut? That certain essentials might be interpretated by the early church in one way, while the original text might mean/imply something totally different?

My own thoughts have been brewing lately, and I just need to hear what others have to say about this.


As to being a Nazarene, it is tempting so simply say, "the Articles of Faith" but one may wonder is there isn't a core even within them. Probably most would agree that an article on the church has a different "weight" than the one on God or Jesus. It is at least noteworthy that prospective members are asked to agree with the short Statement of Belief below, not with the entire Articles of Faith:

[INDENT]We believe in one God-the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit.

We believe that the Old and New Testament Scriptures, given by plenary inspiration, contain all truth necessary to faith and Christian living.


this is what I mean... How do we interpretate scripture? Which glasses do we use?:basic07

also now something else pops into my mind. How flexible should our church be when new things are discoverd and the world moves into a next step. do we follow, or do we stick to our "solid" belief?
:fav01

Martijn (Marty)

[Bob Carabbio]

Agreed - they're REALLY the foundation of everything spiritual. I just tossed in a little detail based on the initial entry process.

[Hans Deventer]

When we read scripture and quote from it, do we take into consideration that it is written in a time different from ours? Also that certain groups are addressed which makes deciphering the content more precise and difficult?

Yes, I try to.

That certain essentials might be interpreted by the early church in one way, while the original text might mean/imply something totally different?

This one needs more explanation. The early church was quite close to the time in which the New Testament was written, so the chance that they interpreted "totally different" from the original intent of the writer seems less likely than it would be for us. But I am a little worried when you even include the essentials among those that might be wrongly interpreted. That would be shocking, to say the least. Are you referring to some specific issues?

[Martijn van Beveren]

Yes, I try to.



This one needs more explanation. The early church was quite close to the time in which the New Testament was written, so the chance that they interpreted "totally different" from the original intent of the writer seems less likely than it would be for us. But I am a little worried when you even include the essentials among those that might be wrongly interpreted. That would be shocking, to say the least. Are you referring to some specific issues?

Well, if it comes down to how we define Hell and judgement as one or two then I'd might say yes. Because this originates straight from the persian way of thinking (about 1000 b.c.), taken over by the pharasees. they embraced the thought of hell to ensure that the people of God, the jews, stayed on track so that they might be in favor of God and victor over the Romans in those days. So when Jesus meets up with them he uses most of the hell and judging elements back on them. And not for us to feel the blazing fires we took over and implemented into our story.
So if we look at many churches today you see a certain view of "the saved ones" and the people who are sort of "lost". the "us" and "them" perspective. I'd wonder if God truly ever had that in mind when he created the earth and man on it.
I do not find Hell back in the Old Testament, for as far as my knowledge reaches :).
I think that God's goal is true justice and peace, a state of reconciliation where we learn to respect and love one another. That's more the theme I try to implement in my walk of life.:fun10

This doesn't make sin a smaller thing though, that's a different theme.

martijn

[Hans Deventer]

Well, if it comes down to how we define Hell and judgement as one or two then I'd might say yes. Because this originates straight from the persian way of thinking (about 1000 b.c.), taken over by the pharasees. they embraced the thought of hell to ensure that the people of God, the jews, stayed on track so that they might be in favor of God and victor over the Romans in those days. So when Jesus meets up with them he uses most of the hell and judging elements back on them. And not for us to feel the blazing fires we took over and implemented into our story.
So if we look at many churches today you see a certain view of "the saved ones" and the people who are sort of "lost". the "us" and "them" perspective. I'd wonder if God truly ever had that in mind when he created the earth and man on it.
I do not find Hell back in the Old Testament, for as far as my knowledge reaches :).
I think that God's goal is true justice and peace, a state of reconciliation where we learn to respect and love one another. That's more the theme I try to implement in my walk of life.:fun10

Martijn, I agree and I know where you are coming from. This is the very reason why I like the "Agreed Statement of Belief" so much.

I agree with "26.8. That our Lord will return, the dead will be raised, and the final judgment will take place."

But I do not agree with the part in italics of the Articles of Faith: "22. We believe that glorious and everlasting life is assured to all who savingly believe in, and obediently follow, Jesus Christ our Lord; and that the finally impenitent shall suffer eternally in hell.

From what I know, the idea of an immortal soul is Greek philosophy, not Biblical. In the Bible, eternal life is a gift. And most images that talk about hell, talk about a fiery garbage dump, a place where everything is destroyed.
So I understand our Lord's words in Matt 25:46 ("Then they will go away to eternal punishment, but the righteous to eternal life.") to be about eternal consequences. There is no second judgement.
Also, eternal life is often most of all a quality of life, less about simply an "endless" life. Anyway, I see very little Biblical support for the idea that "the finally impenitent shall suffer eternally in hell". I would write, "the finally impenitent shall be destroyed in hell".

As Hebrews 10 has it:

35 So do not throw away your confidence; it will be richly rewarded. 36 You need to persevere so that when you have done the will of God, you will receive what he has promised. 37 For in just a very little while, "He who is coming will come and will not delay. 38 But my righteous one will live by faith. And if he shrinks back, I will not be pleased with him." 39 But we are not of those who shrink back and are destroyed, but of those who believe and are saved.

Or 2 Peter 2

10 This is especially true of those who follow the corrupt desire of the sinful nature and despise authority. Bold and arrogant, these men are not afraid to slander celestial beings; 11 yet even angels, although they are stronger and more powerful, do not bring slanderous accusations against such beings in the presence of the Lord. 12 But these men blaspheme in matters they do not understand. They are like brute beasts, creatures of instinct, born only to be caught and destroyed, and like beasts they too will perish.

I'm really thinking about submitting a resolution to the 2009 General Assembly to have this part of our Articles of Faith amended. Though having learned a few things, it's probably wisest to refer it to a group of Nazarene theologians for advice. The GA won't take action on an amendment other than to refer it.

[Martijn van Beveren]

Martijn, I agree and I know where you are coming from. This is the very reason why I like the "Agreed Statement of Belief" so much.

I agree with "26.8. That our Lord will return, the dead will be raised, and the final judgment will take place."

But I do not agree with the part in italics of the Articles of Faith: "22. We believe that glorious and everlasting life is assured to all who savingly believe in, and obediently follow, Jesus Christ our Lord; and that the finally impenitent shall suffer eternally in hell.

From what I know, the idea of an immortal soul is Greek philosophy, not Biblical. In the Bible, eternal life is a gift. And most images that talk about hell, talk about a fiery garbage dump, a place where everything is destroyed.
So I understand our Lord's words in Matt 25:46 ("Then they will go away to eternal punishment, but the righteous to eternal life.") to be about eternal consequences. There is no second judgement.
Also, eternal life is often most of all a quality of life, less about simply an "endless" life. Anyway, I see very little Biblical support for the idea that "the finally impenitent shall suffer eternally in hell". I would write, "the finally impenitent shall be destroyed in hell".

I'd partially agree with you here. The eternal thing is way overestimated. The Jews didn't believe in it, they use the hebrew word "sheol", but it wasn't wat we made out of it. Sheol simply meant place of the dead, in other words, graves. Nothing more, but in latter biblical translations we see the word translated as hell. wich "we" think is the whole big eternal fire thing of some sort. In the OT They were much more concerned with trying to fill (sacrifices) the relational gap between them and God than being cast into flames or being heaven bound.
So, When I think of this and knowing that the Jews were never really interested in the afterlife, but only trying to figure out how to live life the way God has meant. It explains the all the abiding rules much better. The ones who were busy with different kinds of hell and al those afterlife things were their neighbours, the other tribes, kingdoms and cultures. And later thus the pharasees.
So what you'll find in most examples in the Bible about hell and sorts are more to used it merely because that's what they had to work with in their language. These methaphors helped to build a bridge between not knowing and knowing. The Jews wanted to tell a story so they had to work with the stuff they knew and try to wrap it into something understandable.
But still, I'm not sure wether we are on the right track if it comes down to the justice and judgement thing.

"the finally impenitent shall be destroyed in hell"

What do we mean with the "good" and the "bad", who will be saved and who will not? I think we are way to busy trying to fit this into our belief system while this answer might be the wrong one. What if the Gospel is not telling us who's going to heaven or hell, but how the world will be saved... Saved from sin and all that belongs with it. It's more telling us how we will be saved from evil that forms from within us. So we must seek for God's rightiousness! instead of counting souls.
So, my opinion however goes much more to the salvation side. I think there will be judgement, but it's more purifying through cleansing "flames". So is this really the point? Shouldn't we worry more about justice than about Hell? Where does grace fit in? hope? peace? God's will for mankind?


10 This is especially true of those who follow the corrupt desire of the sinful nature and despise authority. Bold and arrogant, these men are not afraid to slander celestial beings; 11 yet even angels, although they are stronger and more powerful, do not bring slanderous accusations against such beings in the presence of the Lord. 12 But these men blaspheme in matters they do not understand. They are like brute beasts, creatures of instinct, born only to be caught and destroyed, and like beasts they too will perish.


Pharisees... :fun12


I'm really thinking about submitting a resolution to the 2009 General Assembly to have this part of our Articles of Faith amended. Though having learned a few things, it's probably wisest to refer it to a group of Nazarene theologians for advice. The GA won't take action on an amendment other than to refer it.
[/QUOTE]

I think it's good to shake the tree! But are you really firm about out what it is you're hoping to change/reach. It's not that I would like to see this changed, but I'm hoping to make a greater jump. This "thing" has wasted already to many "condemned/lost" souls.
1 corr. 12:12-31;13:1-13

seeking for more,
martijn

[Randy Wise]

Martijn, I agree and I know where you are coming from. This is the very reason why I like the "Agreed Statement of Belief" so much.

I agree with "26.8. That our Lord will return, the dead will be raised, and the final judgment will take place."

But I do not agree with the part in italics of the Articles of Faith: "22. We believe that glorious and everlasting life is assured to all who savingly believe in, and obediently follow, Jesus Christ our Lord; and that the finally impenitent shall suffer eternally in hell.

From what I know, the idea of an immortal soul is Greek philosophy, not Biblical. In the Bible, eternal life is a gift. And most images that talk about hell, talk about a fiery garbage dump, a place where everything is destroyed.
So I understand our Lord's words in Matt 25:46 ("Then they will go away to eternal punishment, but the righteous to eternal life.") to be about eternal consequences. There is no second judgement.
Also, eternal life is often most of all a quality of life, less about simply an "endless" life. Anyway, I see very little Biblical support for the idea that "the finally impenitent shall suffer eternally in hell". I would write, "the finally impenitent shall be destroyed in hell".

As Hebrews 10 has it:

35 So do not throw away your confidence; it will be richly rewarded. 36 You need to persevere so that when you have done the will of God, you will receive what he has promised. 37 For in just a very little while, "He who is coming will come and will not delay. 38 But my righteous one will live by faith. And if he shrinks back, I will not be pleased with him." 39 But we are not of those who shrink back and are destroyed, but of those who believe and are saved.

Or 2 Peter 2

10 This is especially true of those who follow the corrupt desire of the sinful nature and despise authority. Bold and arrogant, these men are not afraid to slander celestial beings; 11 yet even angels, although they are stronger and more powerful, do not bring slanderous accusations against such beings in the presence of the Lord. 12 But these men blaspheme in matters they do not understand. They are like brute beasts, creatures of instinct, born only to be caught and destroyed, and like beasts they too will perish.

I'm really thinking about submitting a resolution to the 2009 General Assembly to have this part of our Articles of Faith amended. Though having learned a few things, it's probably wisest to refer it to a group of Nazarene theologians for advice. The GA won't take action on an amendment other than to refer it.

Hans=>But I do not agree with the part in italics of the Articles of Faith: "22. We believe that glorious and everlasting life is assured to all who savingly believe in, and obediently follow, Jesus Christ our Lord; and that the finally impenitent shall suffer eternally in hell.

Hans,
I assume it's the judgment part you have trouble with and not the eternal life part. ref your Article 22

The new testament does speak of two resurrections in REV 20 and that is supported in Dan 12.

Randy

[Hans Deventer]

I assume it's the judgment part you have trouble with and not the eternal life part. ref your Article 22

No Randy, it is the eternal suffering part, with stress on "eternal". I agree with the judgement part, it seems hard not to agree with that anyway.

[Hans Deventer]

I think it's good to shake the tree! But are you really firm about out what it is you're hoping to change/reach. It's not that I would like to see this changed, but I'm hoping to make a greater jump. This "thing" has wasted already to many "condemned/lost" souls.

Well, I don't know how far the jump would go. That I would leave up to the Nazarene theologians. Perhaps the best solution would be to stick to judgement and not elaborate too much on that. Sometimes, in creeds, one can try to say too much.

[David Cash]

I would suggest that before we assume that Jesus was just using a Persian Hell doctrine that He didn't believe in to get back at the Pharisess that we consider that He only spoke the truth and didn't deliberately mislead people.

Hell and eternity are found in the Old Testament. For the good side of eternity, consider David's closing words in Psalm 23 about living in the house of the Lord forever. Or compare Jesus' teachings on hell in Matthew 18:7-9 with Isaiah 66:24. I would suggest that anybody who wants to reinterpret hell as a New Testament adaptation of pagan beliefs study out what the Old Testament says about it. And I believe that Jesus and the New Testament writers had a solid Old Testament basis for what they said about Hell. They didn't need to consult with the pagans whose views they rejected.

It is possible that some of today's scary pictures of constantly charring flesh make Hell worse than the Scriptures do. But I can't come up with any solid Biblical authority to deny the fiery and eternal nature of Hell. It would be nice if that were the case, but somebody is going to have to show me some passages I've overlooked to do so.

David Cash

[Hans Deventer]

It is possible that some of today's scary pictures of constantly charring flesh make Hell worse than the Scriptures do. But I can't come up with any solid Biblical authority to deny the fiery and eternal nature of Hell. It would be nice if that were the case, but somebody is going to have to show me some passages I've overlooked to do so.

I don't deny the fiery and eternal nature of hell. I'm just saying the fire will do what it usually does: destroy.

[Joyce Miller]

I don't deny the fiery and eternal nature of hell. I'm just saying the fire will do what it usually does: destroy.

It's interesting that you've referred to a literal interpretation of fire. If this is truly what the scriptures intend, and it may be, then perhaps we can further meditate on what fire does. From a chemist's perspective, and in actuality, fire doesn't destroy; it causes matter to change form. In fire, matter is neither destroyed or created. Combining with oxygen, wood and petrol are changed to carbon dioxide and water which can then be recycled. Other materials, such as gold, are purified as the non-gold components are oxidized. So such analogies comparing fire to hell could lead to vastly different conclusions: eternal destruction, recycling, or purification.

Just something to think about...

[Roland Hearn]

It's interesting that you've referred to a literal interpretation of fire. If this is truly what the scriptures intend, and it may be, then perhaps we can further meditate on what fire does. From a chemist's perspective, and in actuality, fire doesn't destroy; it causes matter to change form. In fire, matter is neither destroyed or created. Combining with oxygen, wood and petrol are changed to carbon dioxide and water which can then be recycled. Other materials, such as gold, are purified as the non-gold components are oxidized. So such analogies comparing fire to hell could lead to vastly different conclusions: eternal destruction, recycling, or purification.

Just something to think about...

That is a very good statement Joyce I appreciate your thinking on that. I don't think there is anything literal about the use of the idea of fire. I think it was the best vehicle to describe the kind of suffering that was trying to be communicated. I think the same is true of "streets of gold." These are illusions to something that is beyond our experience and therefore impossible to describe adequately. Still I like what you did with that Joyce.

[Hans Deventer]

It's interesting that you've referred to a literal interpretation of fire. If this is truly what the scriptures intend, and it may be, then perhaps we can further meditate on what fire does. From a chemist's perspective, and in actuality, fire doesn't destroy; it causes matter to change form.

Now that is an interesting take. So you would say that what happens in a crematorium is not really destruction, it is just making people change form. All that is left are ashes but I guess you are right, there is still some form left.
However, for the sake of a non-chemical understanding (and I think the Lord when referring to the firy garbage dump of Jerusalem, which is the image He most often used referring to hell, did not have chemistry in mind), I rather stick to destruction as in everyday use. Which was the very reason why they burned garbage anyway.

So I'm not making a literal interpretation, I'm looking at the purpose of the image and that is what I try to apply.

I think it is the ultimate consequence of rejecting the One who is Life itself. And because He is also Love itself, He cannot force us, never has and likely never will. I believe C.S. Lewis was right when he wrote that in the end, two kinds of people are left: those that say to God, "Thy will be done" and those to whom God says, "thy will be done". But rejecting the source of life can only lead to death and destruction. I read nothing about an eternal soul in the Scriptures, I read about a God who gives eternal life to those who believe.

[Wilson L. Deaton]

Anyway, I see very little Biblical support for the idea that "the finally impenitent shall suffer eternally in hell". I would write, "the finally impenitent shall be destroyed in hell".

As Hebrews 10 has it:

35 So do not throw away your confidence; it will be richly rewarded. 36 You need to persevere so that when you have done the will of God, you will receive what he has promised. 37 For in just a very little while, "He who is coming will come and will not delay. 38 But my righteous one will live by faith. And if he shrinks back, I will not be pleased with him." 39 But we are not of those who shrink back and are destroyed, but of those who believe and are saved.


This thread, along with the Hussein execution thread has got me thinking...

It seems to me that people who believe in an eternal consciousness in hell rather than destruction should logically be opposed to capital punishment.

Explanation:
The idea of life in prison versus execution is a kind of typology of, or micro-analagous to, eternity suffering in hell versus being destroyed in hell. If God's system is to keep the person "alive" and imprisoned in hell forever, should not our system should follow that pattern?

Wilson

[Martijn van Beveren]

Well, I don't know how far the jump would go. That I would leave up to the Nazarene theologians. Perhaps the best solution would be to stick to judgement and not elaborate too much on that. Sometimes, in creeds, one can try to say too much.

Well, I think you're right. there are many others who can study on this who will have sufficient knowledge in how to handle this in a Nazarene manner...
Though I hope they go and explore a new way of possibilities. Sometimes we tend to focus so much on the one item, with a certian point of view. That's what I mean with a jump further. All in the means to accomplish a new line of though and release or adjust an old one we tend to defend with all our might and reason.
The preserving way of thought is what get's most Dutch traditional churches into a dying tradition.

martijn;)

[Billy Cox]

That's okay. It's human nature to fill in the details, since that's where the devil is found.

[Billy Cox]

"...no one comes to the Father except through Me."

Here is an outline of how we Christians usually interpret this verse:

1. No one comes to the Father except through Christ

2. No one can know Christ except through Christianity

3. Therefore no one can come to the Father except through Christianity.

I contend that this line of reasoning is flawed and self-serving. I further contend based on my reading of Romans 4, that Abraham had 'direct personal faith in the living Christ' thousands of years before Jesus walked the earth.

I therefore believe that a genuine hunger and thirst for righteousness will inevitably lead one to Christ, even if they never encounter genuine Christianity.

[Randy Wise]

"...no one comes to the Father except through Me."

Here is an outline of how we Christians usually interpret this verse:

1. No one comes to the Father except through Christ

2. No one can know Christ except through Christianity

3. Therefore no one can come to the Father except through Christianity.

I contend that this line of reasoning is flawed and self-serving. I further contend based on my reading of Romans 4, that Abraham had 'direct personal faith in the living Christ' thousands of years before Jesus walked the earth.

I therefore believe that a genuine hunger and thirst for righteousness will inevitably lead one to Christ, even if they never encounter genuine Christianity.

My thoughts
Those that listen to the Father and learn from Him go to Jesus - per Jesus; God's Holy Spirit is out in the world working all the time. The world just doesn't see Him

Randy

[Martijn van Beveren]

Wow this is going very rapid... I hope I can keep up with this "heated" conversation :) LOL
But, let's get back to the subject...


I would suggest that before we assume that Jesus was just using a Persian Hell doctrine that He didn't believe in to get back at the Pharisess that we consider that He only spoke the truth and didn't deliberately mislead people.


well, It has nothing to do with misleading here... I'm reading, trying to make a statement. By stating a questionmark in applying certain custom views. And how some foreign terms were used in those times to get the original message through.
So not to mislead anyone, but to get them at their way of life. These guys held onto a way of thinking into terms of hell which was not of the original Jew perspective. that's what the Saddusees had already covered. Trying to keep as much to the original laws as possible.


However, for the sake of a non-chemical understanding (and I think the Lord when referring to the firy garbage dump of Jerusalem, which is the image He most often used referring to hell, did not have chemistry in mind), I rather stick to destruction as in everyday use. Which was the very reason why they burned garbage anyway.

So I'm not making a literal interpretation, I'm looking at the purpose of the image and that is what I try to apply.



Hell and eternity are found in the Old Testament. For the good side of eternity, consider David's closing words in Psalm 23 about living in the house of the Lord forever.

This is the good side, not the bad. besides, Hell isn't mentioned here...


Or compare Jesus' teachings on hell in Matthew 18:7-9 with Isaiah 66:24. I would suggest that anybody who wants to reinterpret hell as a New Testament adaptation of pagan beliefs study out what the Old Testament says about it. And I believe that Jesus and the New Testament writers had a solid Old Testament basis for what they said about Hell. They didn't need to consult with the pagans whose views they rejected.

It is possible that some of today's scary pictures of constantly charring flesh make Hell worse than the Scriptures do. But I can't come up with any solid Biblical authority to deny the fiery and eternal nature of Hell. It would be nice if that were the case, but somebody is going to have to show me some passages I've overlooked to do so.

David Cash


Well, I will not come up with more passages to throw because that is not the issue. The whole idea behind it is, that we are learned to break up scripture piece by piece, word by word, and gain knowledge about it, seek the truth (so the intention is good). But in my opinion(and others) we tend to forget the larger reality in which the bible exists, especially the story that carries each biblical statement. We take stories out of their historical and narrative context, as if the bible is a sort of timeless textbook with no context and/or no history. So, why do we tend to tear a passage straight out of it's lifecycle? I know, it takes a lot more time to figure out, but there are more ways than one to read and interpretate scripture. Is it then not important to take also this into account?


I think it is the ultimate consequence of rejecting the One who is Life itself. And because He is also Love itself, He cannot force us, never has and likely never will. I believe C.S. Lewis was right when he wrote that in the end, two kinds of people are left: those that say to God, "Thy will be done" and those to whom God says, "thy will be done". But rejecting the source of life can only lead to death and destruction. I read nothing about an eternal soul in the Scriptures, I read about a God who gives eternal life to those who believe.

Yup...
though let's stay focust on the present and build God's kingdom here for the needy,subjected and outcasted. that's were Jesus was pointing at, and sometimes giving a hard warning to those who thought that they were "better"or doing "good".:eek:

martijn

[Martijn van Beveren]

I'm really thinking about submitting a resolution to the 2009 General Assembly to have this part of our Articles of Faith amended. Though having learned a few things, it's probably wisest to refer it to a group of Nazarene theologians for advice. The GA won't take action on an amendment other than to refer it.

Hans, I thought about it some more, and I think you´re right. You have my support on this. :fav18
What does it take to get this resolution there?

Martijn:bannana

[Hans Deventer]

Hans, I thought about it some more, and I think you´re right. You have my support on this. :fav18
What does it take to get this resolution there?

Well, the shortest way is to have our District Assembly adopt the resolution. Any District Assembly can submit resolutions to the General Assembly. Or 5 members, but since we have only 2 delegates, that won't work so will.

Do notice that the resolution needs to be adopted no later than by our March 2008 District Assembly. The 2009 one is to late for the resolution to be included in the Delegate's Handbook.