Reformed Nazarenes

[Manny Silva]

It's not a good thing for a Christian to lie, Manny.

Now you have "judged" me too, Hans? Who said I lied, and what did I lie about?

[Hans Deventer]

The "church" defines the truth? Please tell me you are not serious about this claim.
Here is what defines the truth, Hans: God defines the truth because He is truth, Christ is the Truth, and the truth is revealed to us in the scriptures. WE do not define the truth.
You are absolutely wrong on this.

Hey, wait a minute, we were talking about the Scriptures! I reacted to your statement:

Wrong, Hans. It's the scriptures that are the source of telling us what is false teaching, not us or a group of appointed leaders.

So what is the source of truth? God? The Scriptures? If you say God is, I completely agree. God is the truth, the way, the life. Next question, how does He communicate it?

But we were talking about the Scriptures and it is the Church that defined which books are Scriptures.

[Hans Deventer]

Now you have "judged" me too, Hans? Who said I lied, and what did I lie about?

You lied by saying you surrendered. You don't. Not till your dying day, or if Jesus might confront you earlier. You do not agree with Ben, nor the way he explained the Scriptures. In fact, you never really engaged in a discussion with him, let alone that there would be the slightest change he was able to convince you.

Oh, and as to "judged", in your view the very act of thinking is judging, so yes, we are all judging all day long, according to your personal definition.

[Hans Deventer]

BTW, Manny, I do need to thank you. I've never been forced so strongly to try and understand what orthodox Christianity is, nor who has the right to defined it. Thanks to you, it has gotten a lot clearer. I have no more doubts on who has the right to define that, and even more clearer, who has not.
It even prompted our GS's to write about this. Which, considering the regrettable vagueness in our church on this subject, is a great improvement. That is something good that came out of all this misery.

[Kevin Rector]

In all the back and forth Manny, I don't want us to lose the productive conversation we were having in regards to Hebrews 13:17 which requires us to submit to the authorities over us. I'm still waiting on citations of the scriptures you alluded to that require us to expose and rebuke false teachers. Please don't abandon this conversation Manny as I have quoted directly from the scriptures as you have requested. I think we have found a useful line of inquiry that could potentially draw us closer together.

[Jim Chabot]

Jim, I don't quite understand you here. What can Manny be coming from that would justify his behaviour?

As Ben wrote, none of the issues he fights (Denying Biblical inerrancy, Open Theism, Evolution, Spiritual Formation) have been labelled heresies by the Church Universal or the Church of the Nazarene. What history gives him the authority to sidestep all of that and declare people heretics, false teachers etc etc?

I don't understand how ANY history can provide that authority. Could you please explain?

I can understand how someone's history would give him aversion against these topics. All clear. But I cannot understand how it grant authority to do what he is doing.

My statement was in regard for the context of the statement of Manny's that Ben responded to. I hopefully made no reference to the overarching issue of authority. I stand by my assertion that Ben talked past Manny. I haven't spoken with Manny about this, but I am reasonably sure that Ben's response did not address Manny's question.

It is interesting to me that we spend so much time trying to discern what the writers of scripture actually meant apart from the technical aspects of the text. Yet here we are presented with a real life example, where we can actually ask the writer what he meant, and we fail to do so. Rather we determine for him what he should have meant and fire away.

We are called to love and love calls us to understand.

I suppose that I am writing this more to Ben than to you. I am fully cognizant of the public attacks which you have endured, I cringe when I read them, I feel for you and I believe that you have responded with much grace.

[Jim Chabot]

I want to honor his history and where he is coming from. I do, Jim. However, my history, Manny's history, Hans' history, and your history, none of it makes the Scriptures say something they don't. They may make us read the Scriptures a certain way. Yes. However, that doesn't make that reading correct. It also doesn't give us a right to leave love out of our reading.

So again, I'm not trying to "leave out love" when "I decided what the context is." I'm trying to be honest with the text. It doesn't say what he said it does. It says something quite different; in fact, it says something which is detrimental to what he's doing, and supports many of those he fights against.

Maybe I could be gentler with my response. I'm sure you're right about that.

I understand that you were attempting to be honest with the text. I followed your logic and I said that I agreed with it. Problem is that from my perspective, (I haven't spoken with Manny to confirm this.), you did not speak to Manny's question. You determined the proper context and in effect you pronounced Manny's question to be specious. You did this without confirming Manny's intent. I maintain that love requires us to take that step, we must work toward understanding before we respond, or at least be willing to backtrack to gain this understanding. When we fail to do so we talk past each other.

[Daniel Hamlin]

But we were talking about the Scriptures and it is the Church that defined which books are Scriptures.

I think the true weight of the above-quoted sentence is much heavier and more encompassing than a lot of people realize. It seems that many hold the idea that the Bible as we have it floated "down" from heaven (wink towards the "Where did Jesus Go?" thread ) without realizing that it was humans <gasp> in the form of the Church which decided which books would be in the canon. So, in essence, it's a circular argument. Declaring some thing as "truth" because "Scripture (and therefore God) says so" but forgetting that Scripture was defined by the church.

So, Hans, you are right.

[Hans Deventer]

It is interesting to me that we spend so much time trying to discern what the writers of scripture actually meant apart from the technical aspects of the text. Yet here we are presented with a real life example, where we can actually ask the writer what he meant, and we fail to do so. Rather we determine for him what he should have meant and fire away.

Well, as much as I try to understand the Scriptures, I've tried to understand where the CN's come from. And I smell fear a mile away. Fear that the church is changing, fear that what they always believed and thought the church believed, isn't actually what it believes and believed. Fear that it will fall in heresy, as defined by fundamentalism. Fear that its leaders will too easily listen to voices that, again according to fundamentalism, aren't orthodox. It starts with fear, ends with fear, and in between there is fear.
And of course arguments don't relieve fear. So no arguments will ever amount to anything. For it ultimately isn't about something rational, but about an emotion. Try to reason away an emotion! You won't be able.

Now the question is of course, and you've alluded to that already, where does that fear come from? That is indeed where a person's history plays a role, a big role. But perhaps even more, one's character. The need to control, the angst to let go and let God be God, a latent Messiah complex (I have to save the church and if I don't do it, no one will). I'm not a psychologist but these must be some of the elements as far as I can understand. There may be many more.

The problem with all of this of course is that we cannot help. It's work for a Christian therapist rather than a theologian. And a therapist can't do a thing unless people recognize there's a problem, as we all learned from the AA. (The recognition "Hi, I'm John, I'm an alcoholic" is the start of any process of healing.)

So all that we actually can do on a webforum is defend against the false accusations, the misquotes, the inconsistent and faulty reading of the Scriptures, the arrogance in claiming the right to set up a court and judge people in the legal sense, the lack of discerning the Body of Christ.

We are called to love and love calls us to understand.

And then? Let the wolves devour us? Let them destroy pastors and families, teachers and faculty, churches and laity? Then what, Jim? Please continue.

[Manny Silva]

Hey, wait a minute, we were talking about the Scriptures! I reacted to your statement:



So what is the source of truth? God? The Scriptures? If you say God is, I completely agree. God is the truth, the way, the life. Next question, how does He communicate it?

But we were talking about the Scriptures and it is the Church that defined which books are Scriptures.

I think you might be playing with words here. God is truth, and he reveals His truth through the scriptures. Do you agree with that? If so, what is the big deal with what I previously said?

[Shea Zellweger]

I understand that you were attempting to be honest with the text. I followed your logic and I said that I agreed with it. Problem is that from my perspective, (I haven't spoken with Manny to confirm this.), you did not speak to Manny's question. You determined the proper context and in effect you pronounced Manny's question to be specious. You did this without confirming Manny's intent. I maintain that love requires us to take that step, we must work toward understanding before we respond, or at least be willing to backtrack to gain this understanding. When we fail to do so we talk past each other.

Jim,
I've really been trying to stay out of this conversation, and seem to be succeeding, save for when it comes to your posts . I think Ben's response was spot on. If the question is wrong, then the best way to respond is to demonstrate why the question should be rephrased. In this instance, Manny took a quote out of context to formulate his initial question, so Ben had to choose between placing the quote back in context and demonstrating why the question was invalid, or going along with the question. I think if he had chosen the second option, he just would have perpetuated a conversation based on an inaccurate understanding of Scripture.

[Manny Silva]

In all the back and forth Manny, I don't want us to lose the productive conversation we were having in regards to Hebrews 13:17 which requires us to submit to the authorities over us. I'm still waiting on citations of the scriptures you alluded to that require us to expose and rebuke false teachers. Please don't abandon this conversation Manny as I have quoted directly from the scriptures as you have requested. I think we have found a useful line of inquiry that could potentially draw us closer together.

2 Tim 4: 1-5 I charge thee therefore before God, and the Lord Jesus Christ, who shall judge the quick and the dead at his appearing and his kingdom; Preach the word; be instant in season, out of season; reprove, rebuke, exhort with all long suffering and doctrine. For the time will come when they will not endure sound doctrine; but after their own lusts shall they heap to themselves teachers, having itching ears; And they shall turn away their ears from the truth, and shall be turned unto fables.

Ephesians 5:6-11 Let no one deceive you with empty words, for because of such things God’s wrath comes on those who are disobedient. Therefore do not be partners with them. For you were once darkness, but now you are light in the Lord. Live as children of light (for the fruit of the light consists in all goodness, righteousness and truth) and find out what pleases the Lord. Have nothing to do with the fruitless deeds of darkness, but rather expose them.

Matthew 7:15-20 “Watch out for false prophets. They come to you in sheep’s clothing, but inwardly they are ferocious wolves. By their fruit you will recognize them. Do people pick grapes from thornbushes, or figs from thistles? Likewise every good tree bears good fruit, but a bad tree bears bad fruit. A good tree cannot bear bad fruit, and a bad tree cannot bear good fruit. Every tree that does not bear good fruit is cut down and thrown into the fire. Thus, by their fruit you will recognize them.

Titus 1:9-2:1 He must hold firmly to the trustworthy message as it has been taught, so that he can encourage others by sound doctrine and refute those who oppose it. For there are many rebellious people, mere talkers and deceivers, especially those of the circumcision group. They must be silenced, because they are ruining whole households by teaching things they ought not to teach—and that for the sake of dishonest gain. . . . Therefore, rebuke them sharply, so that they will be sound in the faith and will pay no attention to Jewish myths or to the commands of those who reject the truth. To the pure, all things are pure, but to those who are corrupted and do not believe, nothing is pure. In fact, both their minds and consciences are corrupted. They claim to know God, but by their actions they deny him. They are detestable, disobedient and unfit for doing anything good. You must teach what is in accord with sound doctrine.

[Rich Schmidt]

So all that we actually can do on a webforum is defend against the false accusations, the misquotes, the inconsistent and faulty reading of the Scriptures, the arrogance in claiming the right to set up a court and judge people in the legal sense, the lack of discerning the Body of Christ.

This brings us back to Kevin's repeated appeal to Hebrews 13:17. Our denomination already has a process for setting up a court and judging if a pastor or other ordained leader has departed from solid biblical teaching, has fallen into sin, or otherwise disqualified himself/herself for leadership. It appears (because they've never stated otherwise*) that the Concerned Nazarenes have been unwilling to submit to their leaders by following this process they agreed to follow when they became members of the Church of the Nazarene. Instead, they have set up their own court and are judging by their own standards of what is biblical and what disqualifies someone for leadership.

If Scripture is our authority, then we will obey Hebrews 13:17. And in the context of the Church of the Nazarene, that means that we follow the process in place to discipline those who have wandered from the faith, persisted in heresy/sin, etc. For the health of the church and the glory of God. And if, after following that process, we believe that we can no longer submit to the leadership of our church... then, as Kevin suggested earlier, we should find a different church with leaders we can submit to.

I haven't heard Manny or anyone else argue that this process is corrupt or sinful or unbiblical or otherwise unacceptable. I don't remember any resolutions at the last General Assembly trying to modify it. So I'm still at a loss as to why they haven't followed it.

Edited to add:
* Manny, in post 206 of this thread, said, "I tried some things which followed the manual's guidelines, and I ran into dead ends doing it. So much for following the manual." He clarified in post 214, saying, "The dead ends I refer to mean that the proper guidelines in the manual were ignored, not that I did not get my way as I saw it." Without specifics, I don't know what those "some things" from the Manual are that he tried.

[Manny Silva]

And then? Let the wolves devour us? Let them destroy pastors and families, teachers and faculty, churches and laity? Then what, Jim? Please continue.

Do you know personally of any families that have been destroyed? And were they destroyed because of opposition to emergent ideology? Just wondering, Hans.

[Hans Deventer]

Do you know personally of any families that have been destroyed? And were they destroyed because of opposition to emergent ideology? Just wondering, Hans.

I don't need to shoot heroine in order to know it's bad. But people I trust have shared enough.
Thank God the claws of the CN's haven't reached to my district yet so with much gratitude I can say the answer is no, perhaps with the exception of Grant's 10 emails in one day to my DS. Of course, that was enough explanation for him.

And of course it's not just emergent theology, but I don't have to tell you all the stuff you oppose.

[G R 'Scott' Cundiff]

"You are a false teacher."

"Hey man, Jesus says don't judge"

"Ah ha - you are judging me!"

"There you go again, this time you're judging me for judging you for judging me!"

"Now I've got you! You're judging me for judging you for judging me for judging you."

"Ouch! Judged again!"

"See how you are? You're judging me for judging you for judging me for judging you for judging me for judging you!"

----

Who's on first?

[Jim Chabot]

Jim,
I've really been trying to stay out of this conversation, and seem to be succeeding, save for when it comes to your posts . I think Ben's response was spot on. If the question is wrong, then the best way to respond is to demonstrate why the question should be rephrased. In this instance, Manny took a quote out of context to formulate his initial question, so Ben had to choose between placing the quote back in context and demonstrating why the question was invalid, or going along with the question. I think if he had chosen the second option, he just would have perpetuated a conversation based on an inaccurate understanding of Scripture.

Yes the best way to respond would be to demontrate why the question should be rephrased. And then let the initial poster explain, then once there is an understanding we can move forward. For some reason my mind continually wanders back to Isaiah, where God says "come let us reason together" So you see Ben had a third option, which should have been the first.

[Hans Deventer]

I think you might be playing with words here. God is truth, and he reveals His truth through the scriptures. Do you agree with that? If so, what is the big deal with what I previously said?

I'm not at all playing. God is truth. Thankfully we have something we agree on! Let's not take that for granted.

The big deal of course is, as Daniel understood, that the CHURCH has defined what the Scriptures are! It's not the gospel of Thomas or of Judas, it's not the Didache, it's not Enoch I-IV etc. It's the 66 books we nowadays know as the Bible. So it is the CHURCH that has defined what constitutes the primary witness of God's truth.

And the crucial issue here of course is that if you put yourself outside that church, that community of faith, you put yourself outside the group that has defined what the true witness to the Truth (which is Jesus) is.

Surely you know that the Bible is not like the book of Mormon, presumably descended from heaven on golden plates? Which is exactly why your inerrancy theory is also at fault.

[Jim Chabot]

I don't need to shoot heroine in order to know it's bad. But people I trust have shared enough.
Thank God the claws of the CN's haven't reached to my district yet so with much gratitude I can say the answer is no, perhaps with the exception of Grant's 10 emails in one day to my DS. Of course, that was enough explanation for him.

And of course it's not just emergent theology, but I don't have to tell you all the stuff you oppose.

You have misread this particular aspect of the conversation. Manny has made the assertion that he had tried the manual procedure and that it was ignored.

[Jim Abrams]

Manny, I'm not clear weather or not your question was meant for Hans exclusively. But I do know of several families who are experiencing a great deal of unnecessary pain and deep heartbreak. The cause of which can be directly traced back to the way in which some CN people have chosen to go about propagating their ideas. To say that the families were destroyed would (in my option be an overstatement) I am still holding out hope that the love and grace of God will work redemption there. Feel free to by-pass my comments if your question was not open ended.

[James Diggs]

Sorry, I don't accept what you said because you seem to ignore much of what I have said, or you misquote it, James. As you have misquoted my friedn Tim as well.

What did I ignore or misquote? As for my “misquote” of Tim, I guess he is saying agrees with you according to his latest post on his concerned Nazarene blog HERE that he posted about this thread. (By the way Tim said he is banned from NazNet, is that true?)

Here is what Tim wrote about me.

Tim Wirth: Now I also want to address some staements James Diggs has stated on Naz Net and other places.
James on Naz Net stated “I made some headway with Tim Wirth who finally said that he would accept me as a real Christian and a brother in the Lord, but he has so far not wanted to build on that.”
James also stated “Your good friend Tim Wirth recently retracted his belief that I wasn’t a Christian and now says he accepts me as such.’
Well lets clear this up.( And I also want to say I dont hate anyone not James not Bob but I do not like their actions)
Plus I really pray that James confess’s and rejects the false teachers he has promoted.
Anyway what I actually said to James was this “Yea James if you truly believe as you stated we are brothers in the Lord like it or not : )
That being stated I am estranged from other family members who promote and endorse false teachers.
Even though if you believe as you have stated we are brothers I still stand against much of what you promote and would ask you for Christ’s sake to reject the false Emergent teachers and teach from the scripture.”
I think that James has took some liberties with my statement as well as added some spin of his own.
My statements were contingent that James really believed what he stated and is a saved Christian.
If James is a saved Christian we are brothers, we however are estranged because to the best of my knowledge James has not openly rejected any of the false teachers he has promoted or exposed people and his congregation to. .

I don’t see how I “twisted" Tim’s words, it seems what he really means is that he doesn’t think I really believed what I confessed and so I am still not a real Christian. He did say, “Yea James if you truly believe as you stated we are brothers in the Lord”. And I do believe it. I didn’t twist anything when I gave the most generous response to Tim I could think of and that is to thank him for accepting me as a brother in Jesus. I went out of my way to do this. I never said that we didn’t have disagreements about some things, just that our disagreements should be worked out as brothers in Jesus.

Now apparently Tim thinks he left himself an OUT in his statement when he said “IF I believe”. In this the “twisting” was done by him so that he can play both sides- on one hand say I am a Christian, and on the other say I am not. I originally didn’t read the “IF” as an “out” because I assumed that Tim, like all of us, has no special ability to determine what someone else sincerely believes by faith. Apparently Tim thinks he look into people’s heart like God does. Apparently Tim is saying I do not believe what I confess and I am not a Christian after all, because he calls the claim that he accepts me as a brother in Christ a "twisting of his words".

Questions for Tim:

If the above is true I would like to know where the Bible says that it gives you the ability to determine the sincerity of faith of others?

If it is instead true that you do accept me as a Christian, then where does the Bible say that God thinks it is ok for brothers in Christ, made so through the precious blood of Jesus, live estranged and unreconciled to one another?

Finally, you say that I promoted or exposed people in my congregation to false teaching. That is a wild and serious claim and warrants you provide specifics and evidence to back up such an allegation. What are you basing that on? What specific false teaching have I promoted to my church? Have you ever attended my church? Do you know any one that has? Tim you either need to provided substance to your accusations or retract them. Your accusations are nothing short of slanderous.

[G R 'Scott' Cundiff]

(By the way Tim said he is banned from NazNet, is that true?)

A long time ago Tim stated on NazNet that NazNet was a waste of his time and that he wouldn't be posting here. I accommodated him. If he has changed his mind and wants to register again, and will follow the rules, he can re-register as everyone has done since our restart.

[Scott Sherwood]

Very wrong, Manny, it is the church that defined what the Scriptures are, and hence the church that defines what the truth is. In this case, the CotN as the part of the Body of Christ that you have freely joined and submitted yourself to.

The "church" defines the truth? Please tell me you are not serious about this claim.
Here is what defines the truth, Hans: God defines the truth because He is truth, Christ is the Truth, and the truth is revealed to us in the scriptures. WE do not define the truth.
You are absolutely wrong on this.

I think this exchange captures in a nutshell how the parties in this controversy both occupy positions on opposite extremes of the Church of the Nazarene and end up arguing past what I would call the "missional middle" of the church.

In my opinion, HD's view of Scripture does not recognize the degree to which the church , having closed the canon, placed itself in submission to the Scripture and thus calls it "our rule of both faith and practice." It seems to me that HD's view comes dangerously close to giving the church authority over Scripture.

MS's view of Scripture, in my opinion, does not recognize the degree to which the church has authority to interpret the scriptures on behalf of its members, which is to say the church's interpretation carries considerably more weight than my own individual view. If I think the church is substantively wrong in its interpretation, it would be better for me to find another church than to violate the covenant I freely entered into when I became a member: "not inveighing against but wholly committed to its doctrines and usages and actively involved in its continuing
witness and outreach." If I think Elders in the church are substantively wrong in their interpretations and I follow the agreed means of resolving this difference and the outcome is not to my liking, I need to refer to the covenant I freely entered into when I became a member. (see above).

[Bob Hunter]

Guys, seriously? Tim Wirth is thanking you for the publicity. The more attention you give them, the more attention they demand. (And trust me, there is no limit to their demands) Why don't we do as Dan Boone advised and, "stun them with our silence."

[Gary Creely]

2 Tim 4: 1-5 I charge thee therefore before God, and the Lord Jesus Christ, who shall judge the quick and the dead at his appearing and his kingdom; Preach the word; be instant in season, out of season; reprove, rebuke, exhort with all long suffering and doctrine. For the time will come when they will not endure sound doctrine; but after their own lusts shall they heap to themselves teachers, having itching ears; And they shall turn away their ears from the truth, and shall be turned unto fables.

Ephesians 5:6-11 Let no one deceive you with empty words, for because of such things God’s wrath comes on those who are disobedient. Therefore do not be partners with them. For you were once darkness, but now you are light in the Lord. Live as children of light (for the fruit of the light consists in all goodness, righteousness and truth) and find out what pleases the Lord. Have nothing to do with the fruitless deeds of darkness, but rather expose them.

Matthew 7:15-20 “Watch out for false prophets. They come to you in sheep’s clothing, but inwardly they are ferocious wolves. By their fruit you will recognize them. Do people pick grapes from thornbushes, or figs from thistles? Likewise every good tree bears good fruit, but a bad tree bears bad fruit. A good tree cannot bear bad fruit, and a bad tree cannot bear good fruit. Every tree that does not bear good fruit is cut down and thrown into the fire. Thus, by their fruit you will recognize them.

Titus 1:9-2:1 He must hold firmly to the trustworthy message as it has been taught, so that he can encourage others by sound doctrine and refute those who oppose it. For there are many rebellious people, mere talkers and deceivers, especially those of the circumcision group. They must be silenced, because they are ruining whole households by teaching things they ought not to teach—and that for the sake of dishonest gain. . . . Therefore, rebuke them sharply, so that they will be sound in the faith and will pay no attention to Jewish myths or to the commands of those who reject the truth. To the pure, all things are pure, but to those who are corrupted and do not believe, nothing is pure. In fact, both their minds and consciences are corrupted. They claim to know God, but by their actions they deny him. They are detestable, disobedient and unfit for doing anything good. You must teach what is in accord with sound doctrine.

The question becomes who defines the false teacher or prophet? A loosely affiliated rouge group running an underground smear campaign, or the historical theological positions of the church. What is interesting is each of these passages assumes there is a larger group that has an agreed on orthodoxy, and they are commissioned to be on the look out for smaller rouge groups pushing other teachings.

I think it is important to know who is who.

Basically CNs and the like want a moderate evangelical denomination to become a fundamentalist denomination. Why? Because for most of there life that is who they thought we were. and why do they think that? Because that is what many churches think we are. Thats was what I though before I went to ENC, and nothing in my local church would have ever challenged that idea.

To me it is very plain to see why things like CN and Manny have appeared.

[Rich Schmidt]

You have misread this particular aspect of the conversation. Manny has made the assertion that he had tried the manual procedure and that it was ignored.

As I just mentioned in a post earlier today, Manny said that has tried "some things" from the Manual. We have no way of knowing what those things were, but I assume that if he brought formal accusations in writing against someone, that he would have mentioned it at some point.

[David Pettigrew]

Do you know personally of any families that have been destroyed? And were they destroyed because of opposition to emergent ideology? Just wondering, Hans.

I sure do.

[Mike Fraley]

2 Tim 4: 1-5 I charge thee therefore before God, and the Lord Jesus Christ, who shall judge the quick and the dead at his appearing and his kingdom; Preach the word; be instant in season, out of season; reprove, rebuke, exhort with all long suffering and doctrine. For the time will come when they will not endure sound doctrine; but after their own lusts shall they heap to themselves teachers, having itching ears; And they shall turn away their ears from the truth, and shall be turned unto fables.

Ephesians 5:6-11 Let no one deceive you with empty words, for because of such things God’s wrath comes on those who are disobedient. Therefore do not be partners with them. For you were once darkness, but now you are light in the Lord. Live as children of light (for the fruit of the light consists in all goodness, righteousness and truth) and find out what pleases the Lord. Have nothing to do with the fruitless deeds of darkness, but rather expose them.

Matthew 7:15-20 “Watch out for false prophets. They come to you in sheep’s clothing, but inwardly they are ferocious wolves. By their fruit you will recognize them. Do people pick grapes from thornbushes, or figs from thistles? Likewise every good tree bears good fruit, but a bad tree bears bad fruit. A good tree cannot bear bad fruit, and a bad tree cannot bear good fruit. Every tree that does not bear good fruit is cut down and thrown into the fire. Thus, by their fruit you will recognize them.

Titus 1:9-2:1 He must hold firmly to the trustworthy message as it has been taught, so that he can encourage others by sound doctrine and refute those who oppose it. For there are many rebellious people, mere talkers and deceivers, especially those of the circumcision group. They must be silenced, because they are ruining whole households by teaching things they ought not to teach—and that for the sake of dishonest gain. . . . Therefore, rebuke them sharply, so that they will be sound in the faith and will pay no attention to Jewish myths or to the commands of those who reject the truth. To the pure, all things are pure, but to those who are corrupted and do not believe, nothing is pure. In fact, both their minds and consciences are corrupted. They claim to know God, but by their actions they deny him. They are detestable, disobedient and unfit for doing anything good. You must teach what is in accord with sound doctrine.

There's something in this reply that I don't understand. Someone asked a question about a scripture, and what we have in reply is scripture. My guess is that I am to assume that these three scriptures are meant to rebuttal the single scripture that was sited before. Does scripture fight scripture?

Certainly, these scriptures that you site need to be accounted for in terms of your oppositions use of exegesis. Though doesn't the same standard hold for both sides of this debate? If not, then we get into a bible fight and are left with nothing more than the notion that scripture is divided on this subject. Is scripture both for a position and against it?

[Hans Deventer]

In my opinion, HD's view of Scripture does not recognize the degree to which the church , having closed the canon, placed itself in submission to the Scripture and thus calls it "our rule of both faith and practice." It seems to me that HD's view comes dangerously close to giving the church authority over Scripture.

I do not agree with the characterisation of my view. The church recognised God's truth in the books that now constitute the Bible, and indeed has therefore submitted itself to it. That is the very reason why the books ended up in the canon. What I object to is that the Scriptures could be seen like the book of Mormon. That is simply not true. All we have, more or less, as written with the finger of God, are the 10 commandments Moses brought down from Sinai. That's it.

More importantly of course is that the key of the revelation in the written word, is the Living Word. But that's another story.

[Hans Deventer]

You have misread this particular aspect of the conversation. Manny has made the assertion that he had tried the manual procedure and that it was ignored.

Well, accept it. I've had resolutions rejected, in fact, the last one was killed in a committee consisting of 7 persons and thus never made it to the floor! That sucks.

[Scott Sherwood]

I do not agree with the characterisation of my view. The church recognised God's truth in the books that now constitute the Bible, and indeed has therefore submitted itself to it. That is the very reason why the books ended up in the canon. What I object to is that the Scriptures could be seen like the book of Mormon. That is simply not true. All we have, more or less, as written with the finger of God, are the 10 commandments Moses brought down from Sinai. That's it.

More importantly of course is that the key of the revelation in the written word, is the Living Word. But that's another story.

Thank you for clarifying. I am sorry for the mischaracterization. It was not my intent. It sounds like we both view the parts of the Scriptures not given by verbal dication as every bit as inspired and authoritative as those tablets. "Inspired" and "authoritative" in a sense that would not apply to anything written or produced by the church since.

[Jim Chabot]

2 Tim 4: 1-5 I charge thee therefore before God, and the Lord Jesus Christ, who shall judge the quick and the dead at his appearing and his kingdom; Preach the word; be instant in season, out of season; reprove, rebuke, exhort with all long suffering and doctrine. For the time will come when they will not endure sound doctrine; but after their own lusts shall they heap to themselves teachers, having itching ears; And they shall turn away their ears from the truth, and shall be turned unto fables.

Ephesians 5:6-11 Let no one deceive you with empty words, for because of such things God’s wrath comes on those who are disobedient. Therefore do not be partners with them. For you were once darkness, but now you are light in the Lord. Live as children of light (for the fruit of the light consists in all goodness, righteousness and truth) and find out what pleases the Lord. Have nothing to do with the fruitless deeds of darkness, but rather expose them.

Matthew 7:15-20 “Watch out for false prophets. They come to you in sheep’s clothing, but inwardly they are ferocious wolves. By their fruit you will recognize them. Do people pick grapes from thornbushes, or figs from thistles? Likewise every good tree bears good fruit, but a bad tree bears bad fruit. A good tree cannot bear bad fruit, and a bad tree cannot bear good fruit. Every tree that does not bear good fruit is cut down and thrown into the fire. Thus, by their fruit you will recognize them.

Titus 1:9-2:1 He must hold firmly to the trustworthy message as it has been taught, so that he can encourage others by sound doctrine and refute those who oppose it. For there are many rebellious people, mere talkers and deceivers, especially those of the circumcision group. They must be silenced, because they are ruining whole households by teaching things they ought not to teach—and that for the sake of dishonest gain. . . . Therefore, rebuke them sharply, so that they will be sound in the faith and will pay no attention to Jewish myths or to the commands of those who reject the truth. To the pure, all things are pure, but to those who are corrupted and do not believe, nothing is pure. In fact, both their minds and consciences are corrupted. They claim to know God, but by their actions they deny him. They are detestable, disobedient and unfit for doing anything good. You must teach what is in accord with sound doctrine.

Hbr 13:17 Obey them that have the rule over you, and submit yourselves: for they watch for your souls, as they that must give account, that they may do it with joy, and not with grief: for that [is] unprofitable for you.

Okay, so lets say that all these verses are true, how does one reconcile them? The Hebrews verse is clear, we must submit to our church leadership, while their burden must be for our souls. But then there are the other verses that warn us of the possibility of false teachers. How does one proceed here, and how serious must the breach be from sound doctrine, before action.

I think that we need to understand that the verses given in Timothy and Titus are directed toward Pastors. I believe that these are given in order that Pastors will warn their flock regarding the presence of false teachers.

The passage in Matthew instructs us to examine fruit, Ben has pointed this out correctly, it isn't so much of a doctrinal issue as it is one of actual examination of ones testimony. The Spirit will bear fruit, is it there? This deals with false prophets, not necessarily applicable to church leadership. I'm thinking that this verse deals more with our dealings with those outside of the church, than it does regarding our submission to leadership.

This leaves the verse in Ephesians. Empty words? It is implied that these words bring destruction to those who listen, and I'm thinking that this may be the crux of the CN issue. Again where is the line drawn, I know of some KJV only baptists who draw the line with the KJV and adherence to everything that they believe, they will fellowship with no one else, declaring them to be the works of darkness. My opinion is that they go way too far this way, so where does one draw a line and what action is recommended? This verse indicates that we should move away, do not partner with them. How do we do this and how does this line up with the Manual procedures?

And then we get back to Hebrews 13.

[Jim Chabot]

Well, accept it. I've had resolutions rejected, in fact, the last one was killed in a committee consisting of 7 persons and thus never made it to the floor! That sucks.

Ok, I think that I am hearing you now.

Are you saying that if one follows the procedure and is ignored by the DS, then the next step is either 1. Accept it, 2. Appeal to the General Assembly in writing, or 3. Leave the local church or the denomination.

Which brings up a question. Is it ok to leave one local church to join another within the CotN, or must one leave altogether? Given that situations will vary of course.

[Rich Schmidt]

Ok, I think that I am hearing you now.

Are you saying that if one follows the procedure and is ignored by the DS, then the next step is either 1. Accept it, 2. Appeal to the General Assembly in writing, or 3. Leave the local church or the denomination.

I don't know if that's what Hans is saying or not (it probably is), but it's what I and others have said earlier in this thread.

[John Brickley]

Do you know personally of any families that have been destroyed? And were they destroyed because of opposition to emergent ideology? Just wondering, Hans.

Manny,

As you know I have not entered directly into this or any other discussion with you so as to try to protect and respect our relationship, but I simply must respond to what you are saying here. The cost of what you and your friends have been doing is simply too great to ignore. You need to be aware of that and take responsibility for it. I cannot begin to tell you how much what you have done and what you are doing breaks my heart. When you ask do you know personally of any families that have been destroyed, perhaps destroyed is too strong a word, but suffered greatly is not. For example what about our relationship Manny, yours and mine? You know by now full well that I am in complete disagreement with what you are doing, and I wonder how greatly our relationship has suffered as a result. I still love you and your family, and I still consider you a part of my family but do you feel the same about me? Do you not think what you done, the harm you have caused to the church and your family does not cause me to suffer? I weep for you and your family Manny but you placed yourself in a place where those who really care about you (and are not just stoking your fears and emotions to get you to do the things you are doing) can do little or nothing to help you see reason because you demand that all follow in lock step behind you or you reject them. And how much suffering has your obsession brought to your own family when your obsession divided you from your church? Manny I have been in your church many times as you know, I know your pastor well (I went to seminary with him and have preached in his churches both in Maine and RI), I have sat in Sunday School classes that he taught, I have heard him speak, I have listened to him in seminary classes, and he is NOT in my opinion an Emergent pastor any more than I am, we just don't agree with you on a number of issues (In fact since my seminary days when I first knew him, I thought pastorally he was one of the most gifted students at Seminary and I still feel he is an excellent pastor). Why does that make us wrong and you right? And why does that give you authority to bring such pain into your own church? If the district and denomination examined your pastor over many years of an ordination process and saw in him one who represents the best ideals and beliefs of the Church of the Nazarene, and Nazarene Theological Seminary trained him and saw in him one who was not only equipped but graced to be a pastor, then who are you that you think you have the right and authority to judge that he is not? If the district and the denomination accepts what he teaches as faithfully reflecting the doctrine and practice of the Church of the Nazarene, then who are you to judge differently?

Of course there is a process outlined in the Manual for dealing with situations where we think the pastor is preaching or teaching something that is contrary to the faith and practice of the Church of the Nazarene and that has been spelled out to you already on this thread. If accusations have been made and the district finds them baseless or wrong and does not move forward with the process, that does not mean that you have hit a dead end as you phrased it earlier, it simply means the church thinks that you are wrong. So my question then becomes how is it that you are the authority when so many people placed in positions of authority and entrusted with authority by the church after years of rigorous training and experience (including your own pastor and District Superintendent) tell you that you are wrong? How is it that you turn and judge them? Is it because they do not agree with you? Then isn't the real issue here one of a rebellious spirit? If those who have devoted their lives to service of Christ and His church and made the effort to prepare for that service through intense study of Scripture tell you that you are wrong, can't you see that you are being rebellious against your church in doing what you are doing. Could you not admit that you might be wrong in what you are doing? Is that not possible for you to see?

Manny I wish it were just you and I that are suffering because of the efforts of you concerned nazarenes, but the sad case is that it is not. I know a church that has intentionally been divided by one of the principle leaders of the CN's (I will not say what church so do not even ask) because like you that leader took it upon himself to judge that the pastor of a given church was a "emergent pastor." He did not follow the manual process to address the "problems" that he saw but rather embarked on a smear campaign against the pastor. He proceeded to contact members of this congregation regularly until it reached the point that about 30 people left this church. The stress and the suffering of pastoral family got so bad that it almost cost the pastor's wife their baby (she almost had a miscarriage). She called your partner in CN's and told him the suffering he was causing both the church and their family and that she almost lost the baby over it, and his response: "It is God's judgement upon you." That is just one of 3 churches that I know of personally that this "leader" of the CN's is attacking and trying to divide. So Manny your work has literally caused the suffering of many many people. Not to mention the tremendous price that the family of this other leader in the CN's is paying because of his obsession.

My question for you Manny is how many people have to get hurt before enough is enough? We can debate theology and inerrancy until we are blue in the face but that is not the point any longer and has not been for a long time (the truth is there have been people in every church that I have served that hold to a strict view of complete inerrancy of scripture but they show love and respect to those who hold different views and we love each other and learn from one another). The point is your disregard (as well as the other leaders of the CN's) for the lives of the people that you are attacking and the health of the churches and institutions that they serve. You are accountable for that Manny. Because of the public way in which you have pursued this campaign instead of going to the persons directly and following the procedures outlined in the Manual (and in Scripture) you have pushed and pushed and brought pain to many.

Manny when will enough be enough? How much suffering (both for your family and others) do you need to cause before you are satisfied that you have done enough? I am sorry but you simply cannot claim innocence in the suffering of others as you were implying to Hans, that will not stand.

Words cannot express how deeply deeply sorry I am to have to write this, but you need to know the fruit of what you are doing. My fear is that you have known all along and it simply does not phase you, and if that is the case then my sorrow over you is compounded all the more. Know that I love you Manny and I want the best for you, but what you are doing is wrong and you are hurting people. I pray that one day you will see that and that you will stop this crusade that you are on.

I am praying for you.

Your Brother in Christ,

John

[David Pettigrew]

I don't know what any of us can possibly add to what John just said.

[Manny Silva]

Manny,

As you know I have not entered directly into this or any other discussion with you so as to try to protect and respect our relationship, but I simply must respond to what you are saying here. The cost of what you and your friends have been doing is simply too great to ignore. You need to be aware of that and take responsibility for it. I cannot begin to tell you how much what you have done and what you are doing breaks my heart. When you ask do you know personally of any families that have been destroyed, perhaps destroyed is too strong a word, but suffered greatly is not. For example what about our relationship Manny, yours and mine? You know by now full well that I am in complete disagreement with what you are doing, and I wonder how greatly our relationship has suffered as a result. I still love you and your family, and I still consider you a part of my family but do you feel the same about me? Do you not think what you done, the harm you have caused to the church and your family does not cause me to suffer? I weep for you and your family Manny but you placed yourself in a place where those who really care about you (and are not just stoking your fears and emotions to get you to do the things you are doing) can do little or nothing to help you see reason because you demand that all follow in lock step behind you or you reject them. And how much suffering has your obsession brought to your own family when your obsession divided you from your church? Manny I have been in your church many times as you know, I know your pastor well (I went to seminary with him and have preached in his churches both in Maine and RI), I have sat in Sunday School classes that he taught, I have heard him speak, I have listened to him in seminary classes, and he is NOT in my opinion an Emergent pastor any more than I am, we just don't agree with you on a number of issues (In fact since my seminary days when I first knew him, I thought pastorally he was one of the most gifted students at Seminary and I still feel he is an excellent pastor). Why does that make us wrong and you right? And why does that give you authority to bring such pain into your own church? If the district and denomination examined your pastor over many years of an ordination process and saw in him one who represents the best ideals and beliefs of the Church of the Nazarene, and Nazarene Theological Seminary trained him and saw in him one who was not only equipped but graced to be a pastor, then who are you that you think you have the right and authority to judge that he is not? If the district and the denomination accepts what he teaches as faithfully reflecting the doctrine and practice of the Church of the Nazarene, then who are you to judge differently?

Of course there is a process outlined in the Manual for dealing with situations where we think the pastor is preaching or teaching something that is contrary to the faith and practice of the Church of the Nazarene and that has been spelled out to you already on this thread. If accusations have been made and the district finds them baseless or wrong and does not move forward with the process, that does not mean that you have hit a dead end as you phrased it earlier, it simply means the church thinks that you are wrong. So my question then becomes how is it that you are the authority when so many people placed in positions of authority and entrusted with authority by the church after years of rigorous training and experience (including your own pastor and District Superintendent) tell you that you are wrong? How is it that you turn and judge them? Is it because they do not agree with you? Then isn't the real issue here one of a rebellious spirit? If those who have devoted their lives to service of Christ and His church and made the effort to prepare for that service through intense study of Scripture tell you that you are wrong, can't you see that you are being rebellious against your church in doing what you are doing. Could you not admit that you might be wrong in what you are doing? Is that not possible for you to see?

Manny I wish it were just you and I that are suffering because of the efforts of you concerned nazarenes, but the sad case is that it is not. I know a church that has intentionally been divided by one of the principle leaders of the CN's (I will not say what church so do not even ask) because like you that leader took it upon himself to judge that the pastor of a given church was a "emergent pastor." He did not follow the manual process to address the "problems" that he saw but rather embarked on a smear campaign against the pastor. He proceeded to contact members of this congregation regularly until it reached the point that about 30 people left this church. The stress and the suffering of pastoral family got so bad that it almost cost the pastor's wife their baby (she almost had a miscarriage). She called your partner in CN's and told him the suffering he was causing both the church and their family and that she almost lost the baby over it, and his response: "It is God's judgement upon you." That is just one of 3 churches that I know of personally that this "leader" of the CN's is attacking and trying to divide. So Manny your work has literally caused the suffering of many many people. Not to mention the tremendous price that the family of this other leader in the CN's is paying because of his obsession.

My question for you Manny is how many people have to get hurt before enough is enough? We can debate theology and inerrancy until we are blue in the face but that is not the point any longer and has not been for a long time (the truth is there have been people in every church that I have served that hold to a strict view of complete inerrancy of scripture but they show love and respect to those who hold different views and we love each other and learn from one another). The point is your disregard (as well as the other leaders of the CN's) for the lives of the people that you are attacking and the health of the churches and institutions that they serve. You are accountable for that Manny. Because of the public way in which you have pursued this campaign instead of going to the persons directly and following the procedures outlined in the Manual (and in Scripture) you have pushed and pushed and brought pain to many.

Manny when will enough be enough? How much suffering (both for your family and others) do you need to cause before you are satisfied that you have done enough? I am sorry but you simply cannot claim innocence in the suffering of others as you were implying to Hans, that will not stand.

Words cannot express how deeply deeply sorry I am to have to write this, but you need to know the fruit of what you are doing. My fear is that you have known all along and it simply does not phase you, and if that is the case then my sorrow over you is compounded all the more. Know that I love you Manny and I want the best for you, but what you are doing is wrong and you are hurting people. I pray that one day you will see that and that you will stop this crusade that you are on.

I am praying for you.

Your Brother in Christ,

John

John,
It is very sad to see you write this, seeing that I considered you a friend. It would have been better if you wrote me privately, or even called me, yet this is the first time you said anything like this to me, and you do it in a public forum, friend.
There is too much to respond to now, but I will later on give a full response to you, a pastor, who should not have written this in this manner.
I cannot let this go unchallenged. I will also forward a copy of this to family back home who are praying for you, and to those who you have referred to in this commentary, and in my opinion, you have just slandered.

Sincerely in Christ,

manny

[Benjamin Burch]

Wrong, Hans. It's the scriptures that are the source of telling us what is false teaching, not us or a group of appointed leaders.

Manny,

My question is...

Who determines what the proper understanding of Scripture is when two people disagree on how it is interpreted? Why is your interpretation authoritative?

[Ryan Plott]

John,
It is very sad to see you write this, seeing that I considered you a friend. It would have been better if you wrote me privately, or even called me, yet this is the first time you said anything like this to me, and you do it in a public forum, friend.
There is too much to respond to now, but I will later on give a full response to you, a pastor, who should not have written this in this manner.
I cannot let this go unchallenged. I will also forward a copy of this to family back home who are praying for you, and to those who you have referred to in this commentary, and in my opinion, you have just slandered.

Sincerely in Christ,

manny

He's just judging you though, I thought that was ok for Christians regardless of the forum....

[Benjamin Burch]

I surrender Ben.

It's not a good thing for a Christian to lie, Manny.

Now you have "judged" me too, Hans? Who said I lied, and what did I lie about?

Well it's good to know that this is not a lie! Praise God! Because, if you do in fact "surrender," that means you would heed this teaching, and start judging people by the fruits Scripture talks about! You will end your crusade on good, godly, Christ-like men who you think are heretics. This is wonderful news Manny, and I am so glad to know you are not lying. I'm being 100% serious right now, not sarcastic. I hope you know. I'm incredibly happy right now.