Conference yukon::christian_v7

    What's the difference between a Baptist and a Nazarene?  
    
    just curious,
    Mike

>    What's the difference between a Baptist and a Nazarene?  
    
    Wasn't John the Baptist a Nazarene? :-)
    
    Markel (I know, I know...)

>    What's the difference between a Baptist and a Nazarene?  

>>>    Wasn't John the Baptist a Nazarene? :-)

 John was a baptist.  Jesus was a Nazarene!  :-)

  Real answer:  not much.

  Distinctions: baptists believe in eternal security (Once saved always
  saved) and Nazarenes believe the Arminian doctrine that one can apostasize
  and throw away their [new]birth-right; that is, one can fall from grace
  by after accepting God, rejecting him (see "dog returning to his vomit.")

  There are other differences that I'm not too clear on, but they are minor.

  I would be comfortable under the preaching of a Baptist minister (except
  for the twinges I'd get fromthe Calvinist slant).

  I think I wrote a synopsis of the Church of the Nazarene (the proper name)
  in here, but perhaps it is elsewhere on the net.  I have posted the 
  Articles of Faith in outline and some in detail in this conference for
  anyone to examine the doctrine.  Only Ace Lopez wanted clarification on
  one of the articles, and I was not surprized to see that he wanted to see
  the church's position on The Church.

  Here's a reprint of the outline:  if you are curious about what these
  "peculiar" people believe, you can ask here or offline.

       Article I:    The Triune God

       Article Ii:   Jesus Christ

       Article Iii:  The Holy Spirit

       Article Iv:   The Holy Scriptures

       Article V:    Sin, Original And Personal

       Article VI:   Atonement

       Article VII:  Free Agency

       Article VIII: Repentance

       Article IX:   Justification, Regeneration, And Adoption

       Article X:    Entire Sanctification

       Article XI:   The Church

       Article XII:  Baptism

       Article XIII: The Lord's Supper

       Article XIV:  Divine Healing

       Article XV:   Second Coming Of Christ

       Article XVI:  Resurrection, Judgment, And Destiny

The Church of the Nazarene has over 1 million members and growing.
The sad fact is that we started much more new churches outside of the US
than inside (where it is headquartered).

As Don Arey said in another note, we're not a perfect church, because we have
people (like me) in it, but the doctrine is sound, even when the people are
not.  :-) 

Mark

>      Do Nazarenes have to eat grasshoppers and wear camel hair clothes?
>      I notice you wear something that looks like a camel hair jacket. 8^)

Depends on the Nazarene, eh?  John the Baptist did those things, though.

I scooped this up frommy files, Mike:

What makes our church the Church of the Nazarene?

The Church of the Nazarene is a Protestant denomination founded on the
Wesleyan doctrine and experience of entire sanctification. Several new
churches from the east and west coasts got to know each other and found
that their doctrines were very similar and they decided that they should
unite.

The first union assembly was held in Chicago in October 1907. For twelve
years, we were known to the world as the Pentecostal Church of the Nazarene.
It wasn't until 1919, in response to memorials from 35 district as-
semblies, that the church changed the name of the organization to the
Church of the Nazarene.

The Church of the Nazarene is a holiness church.

I have a TXT file of 1887 lines of a three week lesson I did in our midweek
service some years ago. It's yours for the asking (and examining) if you like.

>  Distinctions: baptists believe in eternal security (Once saved always
>  saved) and Nazarenes believe the Arminian doctrine that one can apostasize
>  and throw away their [new]birth-right; that is, one can fall from grace
>  by after accepting God, rejecting him (see "dog returning to his vomit.")
    
    I recently read an excellent paper on the Calvary Chapel's stance on
    Calvinism vs. Arminianism.  I'll post it someday when I get a chance to
    type it in.  We bascially walk a fine line in the middle of these 2
    extremes.
    
    Maybe, when you have the time, post your "Triune God" article in the
    Trinity topic ;-)
    
    Mike

    RE: What's the difference between a Nazarene and a Baptist
    
    Nazarenes and Baptist agree on the fundamentals of salvation.  That
    	man attains salvation through grace and only thru Jesus' sacrifice
    	on the cross.  That there is nothing on our own we can do to
    	merit salvation, it is through faith in Jesus Christ.
    
    That's about all we have in common, I think...
    
    Nazarenes believe that you still have free will after salvation: You 
    	can turn your back on God and "Backslide", Baptists believe that
    	once you are saved, you are always saved, nothing you can do
    	can "unsave" you.
    
    Baptists (I'm talkin' true Calvinists here...  There are a lot of
    	variations on the Baptist doctrine) believe that sin cannot be 
    	defeated in this present life.  One cannot stop sinning.  Nazarenes
    	believe that there is a "Second Work of Grace" called Santification
    	through which the Holy Spirit cleanses the sinning *nature* of
    	a person, freeing him/her for true spiritual growth.  We sing
    	about "Freedom from evil temper and anger, freedom from all the
    	carnal affections, freedom from all that saddened my life..."
    
    The experience of "Entire Santification" is what the Nazarenes are all
    	about, its the central doctrine of the denomination.
    
    Say Mark: How can a Nazarene preacher's kid say that there's not much
    	of a difference? ;-}
    
    Don/

Hi Don ... shouldn't this have gone somewhere else...

But from a Calvinist's perspective, (wallllll, sort of, y'know;-)

�    Baptists (I'm talkin' true Calvinists here...  There are a lot of
�    	variations on the Baptist doctrine) believe that sin cannot be 
�    	defeated in this present life.  One cannot stop sinning.  

Not quite how we would express it.  What we would say is that as per 1 John 
1:8, we cannot achieve total sanctification in this life, though 
satisfaction is only given by aiming for the mark (Philippians 3:14). 
Certainly, the Christian is being sanctified throughout his life, but the
final completion of this is only as in 1 John 3:2, when we see Him face to
face, and are totally, finally and eternally freed from the last vestige of
our sinful nature. 

As to sanctification being a "Second Work of Grace", we would say that this 
is a work continuing within us from the point of salvation, until we 
enter His presence.

�    Nazarenes believe that you still have free will after salvation: You 
�    	can turn your back on God and "Backslide", 

 - Baptists AlSO believe in free will after salvation, and the possibility
of backsliding, as stated.  However, I presume that from what followed,
Nazarenes would identify backsliding as a lost state - where *salvation* has
been lost (presumably irretrievably, from Hebrews 6:4 ?) Baptists believe
that once you are redeemed, there is no temporal power which can remove
that eternal salvation, including this in John 10:28-29.

That's why Paul has to clarify in Romans 6, that 'being a Christian' isn't 
a license for sinning; [ any more than it's prevention from sinning through 
fear of the threat of loss of salvation ] rather, salvation is a love 
motivation towards living a holy life.  Towards sanctification.  It's fun, 
not drudgery; it's love drawing us, not fear driving us.  We have an 
exciting God...

Sorry - I'm sure chit-chat isn't the place for this discussion, but I'm in 
a hurry....  the UK is ending imminently, for me... ;-)


						God bless
								Andrew

>Nazarenes would identify backsliding as a lost state - where *salvation* has
>been lost (presumably irretrievably, from Hebrews 6:4 ?) Baptists believe
>that once you are redeemed, there is no temporal power which can remove
>that eternal salvation, including this in John 10:28-29.

Lost state: yes.  Irretrievable?  Nope, unless one dies in their backslidden
estate, thereby concluding any hope of reconcilliation.

The difference in language and persuasion on this different point between
Baptists and Nazarenes is heard that a person who has met the Lord for
Salvation and thereafter turns (backslides) supposedly never was *really*
saved to begin with.

Different from the idea that the person in the process of sanctification (as
Andrew wellput it) who may err from time to time, willful rebellion after
knowing God's saving grace can happen, and subsequent return to that grace
can also happen (by God's mercy).

(A moderator should move this and 14.6299, to a new note; perhaps we're starting
the OSAS vs FFG arguments anew?)

The prodigal son story is seen by both sides as supporting their view.
While the son is prostituting himself and his fortune in the far country,
he is still a son (supporting Once saved always saved).  But the father
considered him "dead" (and what good is a dead son?) (supporting the idea
that a son can fall from grace).  The wonder of the story for both sides
is that the father *sought* for reconcilliation so that "when he [the son] 
came to himself" he decided to *go back* to his father.

Therefore, son or no, if you are not with the father, you have no part of him
and He considers you dead.

Being irretrivably lost is another matter altogether.  It has to do with the
blasphemy of the Holy Spirit - which may occur from one who has known God's
mercy and salvation and rejected it - though, as the story of the Prodigal
indicates, God is long-suffering and merciful and desires the son to return.

Mark

>A sporadic discussion on the attributes of the Church of the Nazarenes, and

Nit:  Church of the Nazarene, as in Jesus the Nazarene.  We are often 
referred to as Nazarenes, but the church is a church of One Person.

Re .9, and "Church of the Nazarenes" / "Church of the Nazarene"

My apologies.  I hesitated over it, but being unsure of the source 
significance in this instance, hit on the wrong one.  Not the sort of 
mistake to make again. I hope....

							Andrew

>    Say Mark: How can a Nazarene preacher's kid say that there's not much
>    	of a difference? ;-}

The differences you cite in .6, Don, don't seem to be *important*
difference to me, even if they are hotly debated and when abused 
on either side, can be a detriment to a full Christian life.

Further, my father's cousins are baptist, and while we talk of Sanctification
as a second work of grace (which I'm not sure is completely descriptive,
my father's cousin once described a point in his life where he was saved
but felt compelled to "give everything" (anything reserved) over to God.
In other words, while the [this] Baptist's didn't and wouldn't use the
terminology we've used to describe the consecrated life, the experience
seems to be the same.  That is, not much difference.

And to explain myself on the "completely description" comment: the best 
definition I have heard to date is that salvation is initial sanctification;
we come to God and repnt of our sins to be cleansed and to live for him.
With most people, cleansed people may not be "sinning" in that they are
committing acts against God's known laws, but neither are they growing in 
grace, meaning that they are not experiencing the fulfilling relationship
with God; relationships are an exchange.  The saved person feels this
urge to go deeper with God - something is missing - something is held back.
It sometimes reaches a crisis point where a person decides to give all
to God, unreservedly, or sublimate the urge until none is left, and the
relationship grows cold.  Nazarenes have refered to this crisis point
and a giving it all to God as the second work, or entire sanctification.
It is a case where one can look and see a single process of Christian
perfection (Philippians 1:6), and yet also see where it may come to a 
head (crisis point).  Both.  (I have also heard of cases where "initial"
and "entire" sanctification were instantaneous.  But each individual will
have an individual love relationship with God.)

It is because the experiences described in defferent terms seem to be
very similar that I think that we are not that much different.

Now, OSAS vs. FFG is a more interesting difference and the Wesley vs. Calvin
debates can lead to misunderstandings.  When last debated, I was interested 
to see the Calivinist's warning to Wesleyans, feeling that such a doctrine 
was a doctrine of living a defeated life, because if sin disfellowships
you, who can stand and say they are a Christian, for people sin every day in
word, thought, and deed.  On the flip side, the Wesleyans warn the
Calvinists of complacency thinking that they could do anything they 
wanted without eternal consequence, since they are saved for all time.

Both sides declare that the devoted Christian neither lives a defeated life,
for the Bible promises deliverance from temptation that we do not have to
sin, and that one must live by their elect estate or perhaps they are not
saved after all.  (Crudely put, but I think the essence of the two sides
are distilled thus.)

Mark

.10

An honest error, Andrew, and not a hard feeling for it.

My father tells a story of loving to sing "My Savior's Love" among the
Baptist brethren.  They particularly emphasize (in a good natured poke)
the following:

"I stand amazed inthe presence of Jesus *the Nazarene*...."

;-)

MM

    There's a difference in the definition of SIN, too:
    
    Nazarenes define sin: 
    
    	"A willful transgression against the known law of God."
    
    I don't know the exact wording of the Baptist definition, but it
    extends to "unwillful" acts.  I "sin every day in thought, word and
    deed" because of my human imperfection.  I am not divine, therefore
    I sin.
    
    Nazarenes believe that once you are saved, you must "quit the sin
    business".  This is next to impossible until sanctification, where
    your carnal nature is purified.
    
    The Baptist believe you *can't* stop sinning (due to the definition)
    but I also believe most Baptist HAVE "quit the sin business" according
    to the Nazarene definition of sin.  (So... there's some common ground?)
    
    Don/
    
    

re .8, Mark

The original question requested the difference between Nazarenes and 
Baptists.  Nazarenes are a sufficiently recent group, I presume for the 
mainstream doctrine to identify the whole.  Not so with Baptists.  In 
England, the Baptist Union was originally faithful to the Word, but some 
20+ years ago, the BU leadership made some very disturbing staements of 
position, denying fundamentals of the faith.  Subsequent to that, many 
Baptists churches seceeded from the Union, becoming independent baptist 
churches; others stayed in the union for various reasons.  Hence, 
particularly in this sort of area, to specify a 'Baptist' position isn't 
vvery reliable.  Instead, below, I've referred to it as the Reformed 
position, which is a more relevant doctrinal context.  I may not be quite 
accurate there - I'll have to track back my Calvin, I don't recall him 
covering backsliding....  But then, I never was good at names.

To continue; I understand you to view backsliding as
temporarily-but-retrievably lost, and distinguish this from the
unforgivable sin (Luke 12:10, Mark 3:29), which is (agreed) irretrievably
lost. Would you understand this to be what is described in Hebrews 6:4? -
I'd better enter it... 

 "It is impossible for those who have once been enlightened, who have 
  tasted the heavenly gift, who have shared in the Holy Spirit, who have 
  tasted the goodness of the Word of God and the powers of the coming age,
  if they fall away, to be brought back to repentance, because to their 
  loss they are crucifying the Son of God all over again and subjecting 
  Him to public disgrace."
						Hebrews 6:4-6

We have a basic difference in understanding over what we understand by the
word "backslidden" :

For you, as I understand it, this means a loss of salvation which can be
reversed.  Any number of times?  How does one know for sure when one is in 
the lost-backslidden state, rather than just failing to live the totally 
victorious Christian life?

Under the Reformed understanding, a backslidden Christian is a Christian
who is living significantly, maybe even totally, out of fellowship with the
LORD.  Not lost their salvation, but lost their peace, and needing to come
to a repentance for restoration - as in Revelation 2:5,22,3:3 (I believe
that 2:16 refers to a fellowship repentance situation).

Your second-guessing the Reformed position doesn't quite hit it.  Often it 
is very difficult to tell the difference (externally) between a backslidden 
Christian, and one who has never been saved.  The LORD does not suffer from 
this problem (1 Samuel 16:7).  Neither, generally, does the backslidden 
Christian, who may react *very* strongly against what he knows needs to be 
dealt with in his own life, as there are strong forces battling within, and 
self is backing the wrong side (cf 1 Corinthians 10:21-22).  

This is very different from the  Christian who lacks assurance, and fears
they are in one of the anomalous positions (unsaved or backslidden) while
really they are just needing plenty good milk (1 Peter 2:2). 

� perhaps we're starting the OSAS vs FFG arguments anew?

No - State the positions, and their grounds, but not into head bashing.  
I'm not interested in changing your position, or proving one 'right' and
the other 'wrong', any more than you should feel constrained to alter my
position.  Not that I believe you could, but then, if I thought you could,
I'd hardly be convinced in my own mind (a variation on Romans 14:5). ;-) 

					God bless
						Andrew

Hi Don,

That's a helpful clarification.  Aaarrgggh!  Perhaps we're closer here than
we realised ;-)  Sure, Reformed / Baptist / Calvinist, or anyway, I, ;-)
understand guilt to be inherent from the sinful nature, rather than only
for conscious, deliberate sin.  It's the very sinful nature which is only
finally lost when we see Him face to face... 

"We sin because we are sinful by nature", rather than "our natures are
sinful because we sin".  That's why we are sinful, and requiring salvation,
from conception (Psalm 51:5), rather than sinful from our first sin.  It's
the nature we inherit from Adam and Eve, not the individual sins. 

The ultimate example of this is that we are unable to live every moment to 
God's glory, as our purpose is (Romans 3:23), though that is how we shall 
live for eternity.  Now *that*'s living.

							Andrew

>Under the Reformed understanding, a backslidden Christian is a Christian
>who is living significantly, maybe even totally, out of fellowship with the
>LORD.  Not lost their salvation, but lost their peace, and needing to come
>to a repentance for restoration - as in Revelation 2:5,22,3:3 (I believe
>that 2:16 refers to a fellowship repentance situation).

An example:  My sister-in-law was in a state of grace (salvation) in
her earlier years.  She even felt a strong call to the mission field.
She was saved.

She is now not in fellowship with God.  If she died tonight, her turning
from God (to the point of denying His existence - perhaps to cope, who knows),
I do not understand her to be under the umbrella of God's grace.  She is
lost and will be lost forever.

Some of my baptist friends might say that my sister-in-law (whose name,
interestingly, is Faith) never really was saved, (because saved persons
cannot be unsaved).

Second point: has she committed the unpardonable sin of balshpemy of the
Holy Spirit?  If she dies in this state, I doubt she would be pardoned
for her betrayal of Christ.  Yet, if she returns in true repentance, will 
she not be pardoned?  My baptist friends will say that she is then a 
Christian, saved, yet the prodigal coming home, never unsaved, but 
out of fellowship.

Same possible events (dying in her rebellion, or coming back to Christ),
different ways of looking at it (Baptist/Nazarene).

Faith's salvation is dependent upon her free will to continue in rebellion
to her destruction or to repent at some point before her judgment comes
and obtain forgiveness.  The interface of the Immortal only shows that 
God knows the end of it; what she will do.  And in this way, she is 
"saved for all time" or not.  But we who are not immortal and omniscient
do not know the end of it.

Faith must come back to God of her own free will.  She had salvation
and it has been forfeited.  What God knows about Faith between now
and her judgment is unknown to us, and to her until she exercizes 
her free will to choose life or death.

Mark

.15 Andrew

Philippians 1:6  Being confident of this very thing, that he which hath
begun a good work in you will perform it until the day of Jesus Christ:

>"We sin because we are sinful by nature", rather than "our natures are
>sinful because we sin". 

True.  But have you not read that the Bible promises us that we can 
be cleansed from sin and go on to "sin no more"?  I agree with you that
we shall not be perfected completely until we meet face to face, but
neither should we remain static to allow ourselve to sin each day in
word, thought, and deed.  We are being perfected so that we "might not sin"
which is why we "hide His Word in our heart."

More later.

Mark

.17 Mark

Agreed generally, and in principle; we should be aiming to erase every 
expression of the sin nature from our lives - that way lies peace, with the 
Holy Spirit, Who is our deposit within, in control.

But on :
� But have you not read that the Bible promises us that we can be cleansed
� from sin and go on to "sin no more"?

When Jesus told the woman caught in adultery to 'go and sin no more', in 
John 8:11, my understanding is that He : 
	� Had a specific situation in view 
	� Was making absolutely clear that He in no way condoned the sin 
	� Was clarifying His support of the principle of the law as given 
	  to Moses

By the 'specific situation in view', I believe that the LORD Jesus was 
referring to the practise of the specific sin.  I rather think that after 
that ancounter, she would be a changed woman....  I don't want to 
side-track on this particular event, but there are indications that in the 
light of the Jewish understanding of the application and meaning of the 
law, there's a lot to read between the lines here (which leads to exactly
why the teachers / Pharisees slunk away; the significance of the writing,
etc). 

In the NIV, the injunction is translated: "Go now and leave your life of
sin", which, I think, expresses what I would understand the implication to
be - making it an act of will - a firm decision; resolve - to behave
differently, to exhibit a different nature reigning inside and working out.
I do not believe that this implies that total perfection is expected to
result, but that doesn't alter the resolve to aim for the high calling. 

Each failing should make us the more resolved to walk the closer to Him, 
that it will not occur again.  But the closer we walk, the more we realise 
there is to be dealt with, as He digs deeper and deeper.  Phew.... Remember 
Eustace, in 'The Voyage of the Dawn Treader', despairing of peeling off the 
dragon layers....?  I think that was meant to represent salvation, but the 
skin peeling part also has a parallel in sanctification...

� neither should we remain static to allow ourselve to sin each day in
� word, thought, and deed.  We are being perfected so that we "might not sin"
Exactly.

Oh - and did you have another reference to "sin no more" in mind?

							Andrew

Getting away from that specific instance, which was an admonishion, we also
have these verses:

1John 3:9  Whosoever is born of God doth not commit sin; for his seed
remaineth in him: and he cannot sin, because he is born of God.

Romans 6:12  Let not sin therefore reign in your mortal body, that ye should
obey it in the lusts thereof.

(Quick search, for there are more and I don't have too much time to dig
at the moment.)

Some guy names Brengle wrote: "...It will not be a hard matter to keep Him 
in your heart if you are in earnest, for He wanted to get there when you 
were a sinner, and He certainly desires to stay there as long as you will 
let Him; and if you will let Him, He will keep you."

God promised Paul that His grace was suffient to endure the "thorn."
Is God's grace specific to Paul?  Can we also be "persuaded that He is able
to keep that which we committ to Him against that day?"

I do not understand the mindset that says that God can maintain the
salvation of a person despite sinful acts of rebellion, yet the same God
cannot keep a person from resisting temptation and from sinning.

Mark

So the real question is

  Can I believer in Baptist doctrines live and worship
  comfortably in a Nazarene community?

>So the real question is
>
>  Can I believer in Baptist doctrines live and worship
> comfortably in a Nazarene community?

Hi Collis.  That all depends on the emphasis placed by each the individual
and the church on the state of grace.  Observing the OSAS/FFG debate of
some time ago, it could become an issue to cause discomfort.  Further,
a baptist would grow tired of (at best) having to translate the words
surrounding "sanctification" into the experience he understands by different
words.  I think the answer is "generally, yes.  They could live and worship
comfortably.  And specifically, no, or the churches may have merged long ago."

:-)

If we step back from both sides, most of us can see that we are coming
at the same issue (state of grace) from different directions (OSAS/timeless/
infinite/divine perspective versus the FFG/time-bound/finite/ human perspective).

I think the paradox of an infinite timeless God intersecting with our 
time line in which we plod inexorably forward is the same paradox that
gives us OSAS and FFG, such that both exist at the same time in perhaps
a shade different than we can grasp.

Point 1:  God knows the beginning and the end already.
          He can see past, present and future all at once,
          and knows how we will choose.

Point 2:  Humans have free will, without which we could not 
          love God and be "robots."  We cannot see the future,
          and the past are all reflections; now is ever present.
          We do not know how we will choose, but choose we must
          because we are locked into time and space.

Error 1:  Because God knows how I will choose, it doesn't matter what
          I choose; I am predestined to choose life ot death.
          He forces me to choose one or the other.  A loving God
          who knows I would choose death, would stop me or not
          have made me in the first place.

Error 2:  Because I free will, I can choose at any time.  The Bible
          says that God calls and there may come a time when God may
          not be found.  To trifle with God's call supposing that 
          tomorrow is another day to accept God's call is dangerous
          to say the least.

Strict Calvinists (remember Marshall Watkins?) would dismiss point 2
altogether and maintain that we have no free will; like we're all part
of this big machine where God arbitrarily picks some to be delighted
and some to be damned.  (Most Calvinists - and perhaps Calvin himself? -
aren't as strict as this.  John Wesley has a sermon about this in Free
Grace.  Perhaps I'll post it here.  I found it interesting, as I normally
would, you may well see.)

Mark

    
    This is an interesting topic.  Southern Baptists (the largest
    Protestant denomination in the world) and Nazarenes, I believe, are
    very close.  However, there are differences as have been identified.  I
    have wondered recently how is it that the Baptist traditions (since
    generally abandoned) of no card-playing, no dancing, no movies, etc. 
    and the Nazarenes' similar objections came to be from two different 
    denominations without some similar root in the past.
    
    It seems like the Nazarene's share the beliefs of the Church of Christ
    denomination in terms of grace and its permanence.
    
    It's all interesting to me.
    
    jeff

[ we're onto perfection, rather than loss of salvation, in .19 ? ] 
you quoted :
� 1 John 3:9  Whosoever is born of God doth not commit sin; for his seed
� remaineth in him: and he cannot sin, because he is born of God.

Taking scripture in context, I see the passage containing this verse as
speaking of a way of life, rather than a state of perfection.  ie, we
should not be in the grip of a particular sin, as He has given us freedom
from such domination.  Verse 9 is clarified by verse 6, which says: "No-one
who lives in Him keeps on sinning.  No-one who continues to sin has either
seen Him or known Him."

If you take either verse 6 or verse 9 to mean complete sinlessness in this 
life, it also implies that it is impossible for anyione to sin once they 
have been born again.  We know from scripture, as well as from experience, 
that this is not the case.

Similarly, you mention :
 "Let not sin therefore reign in your mortal body, that ye should obey it in
  the lusts thereof."					- Romans 6:12

He wouldn't have to mention that if sanctification were completed ...

I don't think I've understood what point you're trying to make here...

� I do not understand the mindset that says that God can maintain the
� salvation of a person despite sinful acts of rebellion, yet the same God
� cannot keep a person from resisting temptation and from sinning.

It's to do with His great love, and the sanctity He has given to free will,
in order to develop that love within us.  But the most important thing is
not to understand Him; it's to love Him.  And that love is expressed by our
attitude to those who share salvation.  Especially those who hold such
wierd doctrines that it's difficult to walk beside where they are ;-) 

Not quite sure where you are coming from in some of .19, in case there's 
points you feel are going unaddressed...

re .21, Those who deny free will are generally referred to as Hyper-Calvinists 
They would even not evangelise, because it's all pre-ordained.  Don't ask 
me how they get round the great commission.  It's heart-breaking to think 
that in all honesty they've let themselves be reasoned out of the blessing 
God offers of being about His work here...  But that's not Calvin.  Uh, 
apologies to any reader who feels I've trodden on their position...!

I was interested in your explanation in .21 of the situation of a baptist 
in a nazarene church, particularly :
� a baptist would grow tired of (at best) having to translate the words
� surrounding "sanctification" into the experience he understands by different
But think of the sanctification it would work in his heart!!!  The patience,
and all that would lead to, from 2 Peter 1:6 ;-).  There are a lot of
people who worship in churches where they would go along with 90% of the
doctrine (or maybe even less!), so long as the *essentials* of the faith
are held inviolable.  Me included.  You learn that there are more important
things than doctrine.  My former pastor was brought up short once by an
elder who, after they'd worked out the doctrines of the basis of faith,
said "But all that won't save you, you know."  Getting the head knowledge 
right is nothing if it is without love (1 Corinthians 13...).  In fact, 
knowledge puffs up, but love builds up (1 Corinthians 8:1).  ie - being 
too sure of doctrine, in an exclusive sense is likely to do more harm than 
good.  The effects of knowledge need to be restrained and controlled by 
love.
 
 								Andrew


p.s.

Mark!  You amaze me!  Surely it was someone else using your account?  Or
*can* you spell it 'admonishion' 'over there'? ;-)  Now if it were a mere
hacker, like me.... We have to use admonition here.... perhaps we even need
more of it....  Now the "committ" I could accept as a typo... unless that 
*is* the way you have it...

    re: .23
    
    I like the part about: "But all that won't save you, you know."  !
    
    My dad (Nazarene preacher) has a childhood friend who became a Baptist
    minister.  He and Dad always debated doctrine, Rev Howard Knowles 
    contending that there is no freedom from the carnal nature, Rev Arey
    maintaining that there IS.
    
    Well, when Rev Knowles was on summer vacation from seminary, he
    stayed at my grandfather's farm.  One day as he was milking a cow,
    the cow stepped into the milk bucket.  Rev Knowles went "ballistic"
    and began beating the cow with his fists.  He suddenly felt convicted
    of this, stopped and prayed that God would forever remove this evil
    temper.  He re-dedicated himself and his life to God's service and
    God miraculously "did something" to him.
    
    When he related the experience to my father:
    
    Dad:    "God Sanctified you, Howard!"
    Howard: "No He didn't, there's no such experience"
    Dad:    "God Sanctified you, Howard!"
    Howard: "No He didn't..."
    
    And on it went...  Well, to my mind, Rev Knowles is a Baptist preacher
    who is enjoying the in-dwelling, sanctifying power of the Holy Spirit
    even though he won't admit it because of his doctrine.
    
    So... Doctrine is important, but it's your WALK with GOD, walking in
    the LIGHT that's MOST important, right?!
    
    Don/
    

Amen, Don.  Enjoyed that!

But I certainly believe that there's specific sanctification experiences of
the LORD we can go through which do a deep, character changing work within.
I just wouldn't say that any one of them was final in this body ! 

							Andrew

.23 Andrew


>� 1 John 3:9  Whosoever is born of God doth not commit sin; for his seed
>� remaineth in him: and he cannot sin, because he is born of God.
>
>Taking scripture in context, I see the passage containing this verse as
>speaking of a way of life, rather than a state of perfection. 

Exactly.  Living without [willful] sin is a way of life; a holy life.
Now I put the word "willful" in brackets because I think Don hit the
nail on the head that we define sin differently.

If I was in line (a queue) and I stepped back and landed on your toe,
Andrew, I would turn around and say, "I'm sorry.  I didn't know you 
were back there, Andrew."

The Nazarenes would not consider this a "sin" because there was no 
intent to cause another harm.  The Baptists would consider this a 
sin, because it seems to be outside of the perfect, sovereign will
of God that you should be hurt thusly.

Note, that I would indeed say, "I'm sorry" in a plea for forgiveness,
instead of "Oh, so you're back there?  Lovely weather we're having."
Though I would not consider stepping on your toes inadvertently to 
be a sin against God or you that would cause separation from salvation,
I can accept the idea that because this would be likely outside of "God's
perfect will" it would need to be covered by the atoning blood in the
broad sense.

>Similarly, you mention :
> "Let not sin therefore reign in your mortal body, that ye should obey it in
>  the lusts thereof."					- Romans 6:12
>
>He wouldn't have to mention that if sanctification were completed ...

Perhaps we read this from different perspectives.  Sanctification is
not something that is, and is for all time.  As I explained with the
"be filled with the Holy Spirit" passage meaning "be continually being filled
with the Holy Spirit" so we are to contunally "let not", deny, prohibit,
keep out sin from our mortal bodies.  Complete sanctification where
we won't have to mention it comes when we possess our gifted immortal bodies.
But while we have these mortal bodies, we must be diligent to fend off
temptation, and Christ within us, if we allow Him, can keep us from sinning
against God.  (Again, if you define stepping back on your toe as a sin,
we'll miss the point.)

>I don't think I've understood what point you're trying to make here...
>
>� I do not understand the mindset that says that God can maintain the
>� salvation of a person despite sinful acts of rebellion, yet the same God
>� cannot keep a person from resisting temptation and from sinning.
>
>It's to do with His great love, and the sanctity He has given to free will,
>in order to develop that love within us.  But the most important thing is
>not to understand Him; it's to love Him.  And that love is expressed by our
>attitude to those who share salvation.  Especially those who hold such
>wierd doctrines that it's difficult to walk beside where they are ;-) 

God's great love is able to keep us from sinning.  The Bible says so, and
God also commands us to be holy as He is holy.  We cannot do this in our
own strength, but ONLY in His ABIDING presence in our lives that is
continually maintained (by prayer without ceasing - 1 Thess 5:17 - and 
diligent seeking after God - Heb 11:6).  If God can keep us for our salvation,
why is so little credit given to God's strength and power to keep us from
sinning, if we but depend upon Him for the strength to do so?

------

I agree with what you have said about worshipping in churches where doctrine
is close.  I guess I was being a bit more cynical, know a few who would find
minor discrepencies to be rather disturbing.

(And the admonition misspelling was due to haste; a bona fide error on my part
to leave for lack of time, without checking.)

Oh, and to add.

Let's say a few minutes later, I step back and land on your toe again.
I can't say, "I didn't know you were there."  Even though I may have
forgotten you were there, I was more careless.  

What I'm getting at is a finer shade of gray on culpability.
The difference between the Baptist view of sin and the Nazarene 
view of sin is not as starkly evident as one might casually observe.

Mark

.22 Jeff Benson

>    I have wondered recently how is it that the Baptist traditions (since
>    generally abandoned) of no card-playing, no dancing, no movies, etc. 
>    and the Nazarenes' similar objections came to be from two different 
>    denominations without some similar root in the past.
    
I would wager ;-) that there is a common root.  I would point out, however,
that the *traditions* of no dancing, etc, are traditions and not doctrine.
These traditions are based on corporate conviction about proper Christian
conduct.  The Church of the Nazarene, in the section about special rules
(currently) says nothing about playing cards (per se) but goes into 
considerable length about the principles of holy living and not lending
oneself to the appearances of evil.

(One example is that a long time ago, circuses were prohibited; my guess
because of some untoward entertainment.)  While this prohibition is no
longer in the manual concerning proper conduct of a Christian, the admonition
is to guards against all forms of inappropriate entertainment, including
(and perhaps especially) the television shows you watch.)

>    It seems like the Nazarene's share the beliefs of the Church of Christ
>    denomination in terms of grace and its permanence.

I don't know about the CoC, but I would say that the Baptist who thinks
that the doctrine we hold means that grace is like a strobe light in its
on-again/off-again nature, I think they miss the point and whole of living
holy lives as God has called each of us to.

P.S. There are not a lot of "special rules" for the Church of the Nazarene
as some may be prone to believe (probably based on some of the "traditions"
that are perpetuated without thought; like clich�s that have lost their meaning).
I can post them if you're interested.  

MM

    Thanks Mark.  Oh, so you gamble, eh? ;)
    
    Really, what is the history of the Nazarene church (in a nutshell,
    please!)? 
    
    jeff

    
    >Really, what is the history of the Nazarene church (in a nutshell,
    >    please!)?                                       ^^^^^^^^^^^^^
        
    
    
    You don't know what you ask.  It is harder for a rich man to enter the
    kingdom than for Mark to do this.  I'll bet ;-) he can't

    whoops......I meant 'easier....'

Let's see, in a nutshell.  (I'm no historian.)

Some snippets from the Nazarene manual state:

"Near the close of the 19th century, a movement for the spread and
conservation of scriptural holiness in organized church form developed
almost simultanbeously in various parts of the United States.  This 
movement was similar to the Weselyan revival of the previous century.
The manifestation everywhere of a spontaneous drawing in the utinity 
of the Spirit toward closer affiliation of those of like precious
faith culminated finally in the organization of the Pentecostal Church
of the Nazarene.
  "The great impulse of this movement has been the emphasis placed by
the Scriptures upon the fact that, in the Atonement, Jesus Christ has 
made provision, not only to save men from their sins, but also to perfect
them in love."

... a number of independent churches organizaed, which are identified...

"In October, 1895, a number of persons, under the leadership of Rev. Phineas 
F. Bresee, D.D., and J.P. Widney, M.D., formed the First Church of the
Nazarene at Los Angeles, with 135 charter members.  They adopted statements
of belief and agreed to such general rules as seemed proper and needful
for their immediate guidance, leaving to the future the making of such 
provisions as the work and its conditions might necessitate.  As a result
of this organization a number of churches sprang into existence, reaching as
far east as Chicago."
  "As the group from the East (independent churches mentioned above) and the
group from the West came to know each other better, the feeling grew that they 
should unite..."
  blah blab... Basis of Union... blah blah... "first union assembly was held in 
Chicago in October 1907.  It was agreed that the name of the united body
should be the Pentecostal Church of the Nazarene".... blah blah...other
independent churches organized and named... "In 1907, several representatives 
from the Holiness Church of Christ accepted the invitation of the Pentecostal 
Church of the Nazarene to attend its General Assembly...provisional
arrangements were made to incorporate the two churches into one body..."
...blah ...blah...more history... blah blah...
  "The General Assembly of 1919, in response to memorials from 35 district
assemblies, changed the name of the organization to Church of the Nazarene."
  blah blah... more independent churches united because of the holiness 
movement....and some more...and still some more...end of historical statement.

To sum, it seems as if a bunch of like-minded church bodies said, "hey,
we believe in holiness living, too.  We should get together into a
larger fellowship of like-minded people."  The name is merely an
organizational tag by which all these like-minded church bodies have
identified themselves with.

If you want a list of the churches, organizations, or movements that merged
with the Church of the Nazarene, I'll provide a breif list, but you may
(or may not) find the list meaningless.

Bresee is generally considered the founder of the Church of the Nazarene,
but by the history of it, no one person certainly gets any credit for
uniting these bodies of people.

Mark

Yak, you lousy so and so!  (Of course, you were right.)

I kept it as breif as I thought pertinent.  MM

Details of the forming of the Church of the Nazarene - like water
droplets pulling together.

-----------------------------
5-12-1886  Providence RI movement started, met in homes
1-16-1887   "             Sunday School organized, Oxford Street
6-21-1887  People's Evangelical Church organized, Providence, RI

11-25-1888 Mission Church, Lynn, Ma

3-14 and 15, 1890 these two and other evangelical organizations (see below)
             formed the Central Evangelical Holiness Association.

         Independent Congregational Church, Rock, Ma 
         Emmanuel Mission Church, North Attleboro,MA
         Bethany Mission Church, Keene, NH

1-1894 mission founded in Brooklyn, NY
5-1894 organized as an independent church, Utica Avenue Pentecostal Tabernacle.
2-1895 Bedford Avenue Pentecostal Church
2-1895 Emmanuel Pentecostal Tabernacle
12-1895 These threeformed Association of Pentecostal Churches of America

11-12-1896  Central Evangelical Holiness Association and 
            Association of Pentecostal Churches of America united 
            under the AoPCoA name.

10-1895 Los Angelas First Church of the Nazarene
     .... numbers of churches sprang across to Chicago...

10-1907 East and West organizations unity under The Pentecostal Church of the
        Nazarene.

------------------------

1894  New Testament Church of Christ organized
      ...church spread throughout western Texas and Arkansas.
1888 first holiness churches in Texas were organized, Van Alstyne, TX...
     grew to 20 churches in 1903
1904 Independent Holiness church and the New Testament Church of Christ
     met at Rising Star, TX, and framed a manual and a statement of doctrine
     and basis for union.  
11-1905 Consummated at Pilot Point, TX.  Named Holiness Church of Christ.

10-13-1903 Holiness Church of Christ formally united with the Pentecostal
           Church of the Nazarene
-------------------------
1898 Penetcostal Alliance, in Tennessee and adjacent states, formed.
     Named changed to Pentecostal Mission.  ...decidedly missionary in
     spirit...
2-13-1915 union with the Pentecostal Church of the Nazarene effected in
          Nashville, TN
-------------------------
9-1906 British Isles, Great Easter Roads Hall, Glasgow... other churches
       organized under the name Pentecostal Church of Scotland.
11-1915 united with the Pentecostal Church of the Nazarene.
-------------------------
1919 Name changed to Church of the Nazarene
-------------------------
1917 Jamestown, North Dakota, and group of Methodist laymen organized the
     Laymen's Holiness Association.
1922  "...more than 1,000 people identified with the Laymen's Holiness
      Association united with the Church of the Nazarene."
-------------------------
10-29-1952 International Holiness Mission, London (founded 1907), united.
6-11-1955  Calvary Holiness church of Britain, at Manchester, England, united.
--------------------------
9-7-1958 Gospel Workers churchof Canada united


two holiness groups in 

    RE: .25
    
    > But I certainly believe that there's specific sanctification
    > experiences of the LORD we can go through which do a deep, character
    > changing work within. I just wouldn't say that any one of them was
    > final in this body !
    
    There's a lot of mis-conceptions about Sanctification *within* the
    Church of the Nazarene (it just ain't *PREACHED* like it used to be!)
    and you've hit on one of them:  It certainly ISN'T the end-all-be-all
    of Christian Experience.  It's the START of true Christian Growth!
    
    Before the experience of Santification (Total Surrender on our part,
    Total Infilling on the Holy Spirit's part) Christian growth is slow
    and fraught with defeat.  How can you grow spiritually when you're
    at war with yourself?  (Or should I spell it yourSELF!)
    
    There are three major doctrinal positions on dealing with man's evil
    nature:
    
    		Suppression - Hold it in.  Sorta like a man sitting on
    	                      a basket with a bull-dog inside. Sooner or
    			      later, there's gonna be a problem!
    
    		Counteraction - Live in a state of constantly apologizing
    	                      to God and your fellow man for your outbursts
    	                      of carnality.  Do good deeds to make up for
                              it...
    
    		Eradication - (The Nazarene position) Up-Root it.  Your
                              evil, self-centered nature is "crucified with
    			      Christ" and you become a "new creation"
                              (Apostle Paul's words)
    
    
    But: Once the carnal nature is "eradicated", there is STILL the human
    nature to contend with, all it's weaknesses and foibles, the sanctified
    person still lives in a dirty world and faces endless temptations.
    
    That certainly provides opportunity for ample growth in your Christian
    walk!  What the Christian DOESN'T need it to be hampered by his/her own
    carnal nature (read: selfish interests)
    
    Don/

    re: Mark's review of Nazarene Church - I did not see any mention of the
    adoption of the "Communicant's Single Rule of Conduct", which is
    liberally translated, "NO!".
    
    Daryl

>    But: Once the carnal nature is "eradicated", there is STILL the human
>    nature to contend with, all it's weaknesses and foibles, the sanctified
>    person still lives in a dirty world and faces endless temptations.
    
Tag.  Good stuff, Don.

The difference between the carnal and the human should be highlighted.
And to quote again from the article of faith on Sanctification:

 *  We believe that there is a marked distinction between a pure heart  *
 *  and a mature character. The former is obtained in an instant, the   *
 *  result of entire sanctification; the latter is the result of growth *
 *  in grace.                                                           *

Let us not make Christian perfection the inability to err.  The carnal 
nature desries to satisfy self; the new creation desires to satisfy God.
Sanctification causes diametric changes in motivationm but cannot make
one a mature Christian in an instant, able withstand the trials and
tribulations we will meet in this temporal plane.  But this maturity
of Christian character grows with each new and continuing reliance upon
Christ within when we are faces with endless temptations.  Further:

   We believe that the grace of entire sanctification includes the
   impulse to grow in grace. However, this impulse must be consciously
   nurtured, and careful attention given to the requisites and pro-
   cesses of spiritual development and improvement in Christlike-
   ness of character and personality. Without such purposeful en-
   deavor one's witness may be impaired and the grace itself frus-
   trated and ultimately lost.

It requires constant vigilence.  A soldier without a sword is easily overcome.
Unkempt armor can also lead to being overcome.  Vigilance is necessary to 
keep the spiritual relationship current, and with the power of the Holy 
Spirit within, we do not have to sin.

Mark

.36 Daryl

>    re: Mark's review of Nazarene Church - I did not see any mention of the
>    adoption of the "Communicant's Single Rule of Conduct", which is
>    liberally translated, "NO!".
    
   Ha ha ha  :-)

A.  The Christian Life

32.  The church joyfully proclaims the good news that we may be delivered
from all sin to a new life in Christ.  By the grace of God we Christians
are to "put off the old" - the old patterns of conduct as well as the old
carnal mind - and are to "put on the new" - a new and holy way of life as well
as the mind of Christ [Eph. 4:17-24]
32.1  The Church of the Nazarene purposes to relate timeless biblical principles
to contemporary society in such a way that the doctrines and rules of the
church may be known and understood in many lands and within a variety of
cultures.  We hold that the Ten Commandments, as reaffirmed in the New
Testament, constitute the basic Christian ethic and ought to be obeyed in
all particulars.
32.2  It is further recognized that there is validity in the concept of the 
collective Christian conscience as illuminated and guided by the Holy Spirit.
The Church of the Nazarene, as an international expression of the Body
of Christ, acknowledges its responsibility to seek ways to particularize
the Christian life so as to lead to a holiness ethic.  The historic ethical
standards of the church are expressed in part in the following items.
They should be followed carefully and conscientiously as guides and helps
to holy living.  Those who violate the conscience of the church do so at
their own peril and to the hurt of the witness of the church.  Culturally
conditioned adaptations shall be referred to and approved by the Board of
General Superintendents.
32.3  In listing practices to be avoided we recognize that no catalog, 
however inclusive, can hope to encompass all forms of evil throughout the 
world.  Therefore it is imperative that our people earnestly seek the aid of
the Spirit in cultivbating a sensitivity to evil which transcends the mere
letter of the law; remembering the admonition: "Prove all things; hold
fast that which is good.  Abstain from all appearance of evil." [1 Thes 5:21-22].
32.4  Our leaders and pastors are expected to give strong emphasis in our
periodicals and from our pulpits to such fundamental biblical truths as will
develop the faculty of discrimination between good and evil.
32.5  Education is of the utmost importance for the social and spiritual
well-being of society.  Public schools have a mandate to educate all.  They are 
limited, however, as to their scope and, in fact, are prohibnted by court
rulings from teaching the basic tenets of Christianity.  Nazarene educational
organizations and institutions, such as Sunday Schools, day schools, colleges,
seminaries, are expected to teach children, youth, and adults biblical 
principles and ethical standards in such a way that our doctrines may be known.
This practice may be instead of or in addition to public schools, which
often teach secular humanism and fall short of teaching principles of holy
living.  The education from public sources should be complemented by holiness
teaching in the home.  Christians should also be encouraged to work in and with
public institutions to witness and influence these institutions for God's
kingdom [Matt 5:13-14].

33  We hold specifically that the following practices should be avoided.

[abbrevieated]

Entertainments which are subversive of the Christian ethic.
(Outlines principles - gives Scripture refs.)

Lotteries and other forms of gambling (legal or illegal).

Membership in oath-bound secret orders or societies.

Social dancing.

The use of intoxicating liquors as a beverage or tafficking therein.

The unprescribed use of [drugs], or misuse and abuse of
prescribed medicines.

That's it.  It goes on to make statments about Marriage and Divorce,
Abortion, Homosexuality, Christian Stewardship, Church officers, and
Amending special rules.  And this sums those beliefs of the Christian
life beyond the doctrine outlined in the Articles of Faith.

Mark

    Help me understand, Mark.  I attended a Nazarene Church for a period of
    time.  A person that frequently filled the pulpit when the Pastor was
    absent, gave significant financial aid, drove the school bus on many
    occassions, cut the lawn, painted, etc. etc., wanted to be in charge of
    the young people's education program, but could not because he smoked. 
    The reason given was that it showed a giving in to excess, yet the
    Pastor was 65 lbs. overweight ...?  He even joked that he was fat,
    because he had to sample everyone's desert at the potluck dinner so no
    one would feel slighted... I thought this might have been an excess...  
    
    Another thing was that, in general, the congregation would not go to a
    movie theatre, yet they would watch Hollywood's movies on TV.  Doesn't
    this violate the statement on non-Christian entertainment?
    
    I'd like to know if this was just the particular congregation or is it
    the Nazarene Church??
                                                                          

        Just a bit on Calvinism, here.  I attend a fundamental,
        independent, Baptist church.  Our pastor has consistently preached
        *AGAINST* what he calls the five points of Calvinism.  Of the fifth
        point, which is OSAS, he says that Calvinists have a different
        understanding, coming from their predestination bent.  He did say
        that a lot of Baptist churches are Calvinist to one degree or
        another, but not the churches with whose pastors he fellowships.

        He also said that sanctification is a life-long process.   In 
        1-John somewhere, John says something like, "If they went out from
        amoung us then they were not of us," which supports the argument
        for those fallen to have not been truly saved in the first place.
        Instead they were intellectually aware of the salvation by faith in
        Christ, but there was no real change in the heart, and their
        appearance of being good Christians for a while was a result of
        their dependence on their flesh, not the Spirit of God.

        In James it says, "The devils know and tremble."  Yet they are
        unsaved. I believe that the unsaved can lead people to Christ.  In
        "Evanglizing the Cults," the chapter on the occult was written by a
        person who was told by her astrologer to seek reconciliation with
        Christ!  Remember that slave occultist in Acts that was following
        Paul and Silas around advertising to the crowds something like,
        "These men have the truth, they speak of the true God....". 
        Finally Paul told the unclean spirit to come out of her.  Of
        course, that ruined her soothsaying, and her owners had Paul and
        Silas jailed.  

        "By their fruits ye shall know them," and "they that persevere to
        the end" show that it's not just what we do, but that our hearts
        have changed such that we persevere to the end.  Somewhere (I
        forget exactly where) in the Bible it says that our hearts are
        "desperately wicked" and "who can know the heart" and "only God can
        know the heart."  For this reason, at our church and churches like
	it that I've attended, there is always an invitation to the
	unprofessed and the professing believers as well, to check their
	hearts, be sure of their salvation, measure their hearts against the
	word of God.

        David was a man after God's own heart, but a wicked sinner. 
        Adulterer (many times over), murderer, liar, but because he was
        saved, he was able to confess, repent, and renew his fellowship
        with God.  He did NOT escape judgement (chastisement), however. 
        Look at the tragedies in his life.  One of David's son raped one of
        David's daughters by another wife.  That son's brother (Absalom)
        murdered the rapist.  Absolom led a rebellion against his father
        and almost succeeded!  Absolom was in turn murdered by his uncle at
        the decisive battle.  Another son, Adonijah, was murdered by
        Solomon.

	Solomon, having been given the awful example of polygamy by his
        father, had 700 wives and 300 concubines.  Solomon yielded to his
        wives' gods and even wound up worshipping them.  Solomon's son
        Rehoboam, following his father's bad example of overtaxing the
        people, lost 10 of the tribes to Jeroboam, dividing the Kingdom
        into Israel and Judah.  It goes on and on and on, getting worse and
        worse, culminating in the captivity.
	
        Our church has no rule book, but preaches against drinking alcohol,
        polygamy (divorce-remarriage), smoking, gluttony, rock music
        (whatever the content), mixed-couple dancing (jigs and step dances
        are ok, as long as they don't involve sexually-suggestive motion),
        immodest dress, and the wearing of men's apparel by women (and vice
        versa, of course). Some of these things are mentioned in the Bible
        as abominations, others are things the Bible has shown can damage
        testimony or judgement or things that can bring judgement in this
	lifetime.

        Many people in our church don't have televsions.  Most of the stuff
        that comes out if it is wicked ("I will set no wicked thing before
        my eyes").  People say that you can always find something good on
        it, but would you rummage in the dumpster outside a restaurant to
        find something to eat, or would you seek to wash a dishes to *EARN*
        your food?  How do you handle those ungodly commercials?  We
        recently had some relatives visit from Italy.  They are professing
        Christians, saved by the blood.  They don't speak any English, but
        they were appalled by what they SAW on American TV.  They called it
        "Fattoria del Diavolo", the Devil's workshop.

        For those who would offer TV evangelism, all I have to say is you
        can't do God's work man's way (remember Cain), and "cast not thy
        pearls before swine, lest they trample it into the mud and turn and
        rend you."  If you mix the world with Jesus, what you have is the
        world, NOT Jesus.  TV can be used with carefully selected
        instructional videos, video sermons, and home-schooling, but the
        antennae and cable connection should be removed.
	
        Nobody is expected to give up all these things at once, it is a
        process.  When the Holy Spirit convicts you of something, and you
        are willing, you will change.  If you don't, you will probably
        suffer some "recompense which is meet" for your bad judgement.  The
        Lord chastises those whom He loves.  The Spirit knows best which
        things to change and when.  But we should never stop seeking the
        guidance of the Spirit for continual growth.

	Tony
	

Re: 260.26, Mark ...

Yes - we're using the same words to describe different things.

� Complete sanctification where we won't have to mention it comes when we
� possess our gifted immortal bodies. 
Agreed.  And our purpose is to work towards it throughout our Christian 
lives.
� God also commands us to be holy as He is holy.  We cannot do this in our
� own strength, but ONLY in His ABIDING presence in our lives that is
� continually maintained (by prayer without ceasing - 1 Thess 5:17 ...

Now, I would hold that we are unable to be as holy as He is, but that it is
a target to constantly approach and satisfy, through practical holy living,
and sanctification.  His strength is constantly enabling us to get closer 
to the mark... (no pun)

The toe-stepping example is kinda trivial to decide the boundary of
responsibility for unaware sin, partly because of the situational ethics
(there are folk who would actually come up behind you to precipitate such a
result to cause embarrassment.  But I won't).  And I already forgave you
for stepping back on me, even in thought - couldn't stand the guilt of an
unforgiving mind ;-) .  Ultimately, the man-to-man type of 'sin' only takes
on real meaning when related to God, because none of us is significantly
better then any other, by His standards of perfection.  I wouldn't refine
on such a trivial circumstance as 'spoiling' one's perfection.  In fact,
the love, personal affirmation and acceptance expressed in the apology is
probably of more positive value than any harm of the accident. 

A more realistic parallel is that of the drunk who runs over someone 
without even realising it.  He is responsible for being drunk, and
therefore, for the (significant) actions resulting from that, whether he
realises what happens or not. 

We have sinful natures, which result in sin.  Particularly, in the failure
to reflect God's glory perfectly. - "All have sinned and come short of the
glory of God".  We are incapable of *perfectly* reflecting God's glory, 
though sanctification brings us continually closer...  We go along, like the 
drunkard, unaware of how imperfectly we reach His ideal.  It's His mercy 
that conceals the worst from us, or we would never bear the horror of 
seeing ourselves in all our uncleanness.  He just shows us a little bit at 
a time, as we can bear it, and as we're ready to have that part of our 
lives touched.

The sort of thing I mean, is where one comes to a stage in life, and in the
walk with the LORD, where the heart is aware that something previously 
thought of as harmless gives a little discomfort.  Areas it contains which 
do not honour the LORD grate, and compared to them, the amusement value 
seems dry and forced.  Yesterday it was perfectly OK - we enjoyed it 
together.  Why shouldn't we today?  And the answer is so easy to repress,  
making life take on the dryness of the suspect amusement, instead of the 
richness of His presence...  Television programs are the obvious target, 
where people who do not know the LORD, and whose lifestyle positively 
rejects Him are welcomed into our home by our choice alone.  Especially 
those fictional programs, which treat the destruction of relationships, and 
the breaking of God's law as some thing humorous.

Everyone has their own boundary here.  But each person's boundary is not 
static.  It's moving, as we hear more or less of His voice.  The mild 
occasional expletive has taken your living-room by surprise, and it spat at 
the most honoured Guest you delight to entertain.  Suddenly, one day, you 
realise that it was personal to the Guest dwelling within you, and it hurt.
The 'trivial amusement' suddenly took on a different significance, and you 
don't want it in your life any more.  For most people, it is still 
'harmless', but for you, it's taking His place, and it has become too 
expensive a price to pay.

This goes on to overlap the 'rules' area, really, showing why we can't
legislate strict boundaries, but only guidelines.  As Paul did, in
referring to the meat / no-meat situation in Romans 14.  Each musty liva 
faithfully according to the Word of God (absolute undeniable basis), then 
according to what God says through their conscience, to live without guilt 
before Him.  Different in detail for each individual, according to the 
length and direction of their walk with the LORD....

Enough from me!
						God bless
							Andrew

>    Help me understand, Mark... but could not because he smoked. 
>    The reason given was that it showed a giving in to excess, yet the
>    Pastor was 65 lbs. overweight ...?

Daryl,

  Tell me whether you believe this disparity to be the fault of the
Church of the Nazarene and its doctrine, or someone who happened to 
be a Nazarene?

>    Another thing was that, in general, the congregation would not go to a
>    movie theatre, yet they would watch Hollywood's movies on TV.  Doesn't
>    this violate the statement on non-Christian entertainment?
    
A few notes back, in the special rules section, I reprinted the section 
on entertainment.  That is the position of the Church of the Nazarene.

(1) I know Nazarene people who went to the movie theater, even when it was
    explicitly shunned in the manual.  

(2) Watching TV does not *necessarily* violate the statement of non-Christian
    entertainment.  But, neither does the movie theater these days, which
    is why the wording now deals with *principles* of Christian conduct 
    towards entertainment. 

>   I'd like to know if this was just the particular congregation or is it
>    the Nazarene Church??

It is not the Church of the Nazarene, but neither would I say that it is
ONLY this particular congregation.

Why?  Every church, no matter where you go, is made up of individuals,
each of whom are in various stages of their spiritual journey.  When it
was explicitly spelled out that "we hold that the practice of attending
the movie theater"  - because it was an industry that supported other 
anti-Christian (not simply non-Christian) movies and related stuff - 
I thought those who attended should have had the decency to give up their 
membership, even though they would still be more than welcome to attend.
As the manual says, "Those who violate the conscience of the church do so at
their own peril and to the hurt of the witness of the church."  (There are
some people attending my church who choose not to join the membership because
of some disagreements with some special rules, and I have a whole lot more
respect for these people than I do those who disagree with the special rules,
yet join membership anyway.  To me, they have lied if they knowingly join
the church without intention to follow the "conscience of the church.")

There's about 700 more lines I'd like to write about this, Daryl, 
concerning "rules" past and present, caffeine versus tobacco versus weight
versus alcohol, and other things you bring up (hypocrisy), but let me sum
by saying that the Church of the Nazarene is its doctrine and to a lesser
extend its people as much as  Christianity is its doctrine and to a lesser 
extent its people.  We've debated what a "true" Christian really is, and
a "true" Nazarene, and a "true" baptist, and a "true" Catholic is often
different than many of the representatives we've seen in each of the
churches, because these representatives have failed us.

Had I had more experience in church hopping, it wouldn't take long for me 
to find the aenemic congregation, the hypocrits in each and every church, 
the Pastor who is not living as he should.  I don't know what church
fellowship you belong to Daryl (I should pay more attention, I suppose),
but can you think of some affiliated churches that wouldn't come up to snuff?

I am embarrassed by reports of Nazarene churches and Nazarene people who
have not exemplified Christ, and I am embarrassed and heart-broken when people
who have called themselves Christian have failed to exhibit Christ in 
their lives.  Worse it is when Christians with a bright witness fall into
sin and damage the image of Christianity.

Yes, we have Nazarenes who are infants in Christ.  And some that aren't
very Christian.  Some whole churches are affected by troubled leadership
or power trips by powerful families.  Some pastors I know have left the
ministry because of adultery.  They were (and some of them are) Nazarenes
by association and it is embarrassing and heart-breaking to have them
besmirch the Church universal and the Church of the Nazarene.

But, the Church of the Nazarene is a holiness church and calls its people
to holy living as written in the Scriptures.  It calls its membership to
live as beacons, light and salt in the community; a holy people in an unholy
world.

Mark

Note 260.40    LEDDEV::CAMUSO
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Hi, Tony.  Glad to see you here.  I have no arguments, but one comment.

>        Our church has no rule book, but preaches against drinking alcohol...

The Manual of the church of the Nazarene is not a rule book, for clarification.
It is not held or owned by a majority of the membership.  The clergy all have
one, because it contains the constitution and governing rules of the
organization, as well as rituals (such as weddings, funerals, baptism,
communion, etc).  That the articles of faith are written means that anyone can
know what the Church of the Nazarene believes (and why).  As for rules being
preached, these are also done, but preaching for the call to holy living is a
greater emphasis than preaching against unholy living, as I am sure your church
does anyway.  I am glad that my church has adopted a more principled approach
to such things as entertainment, rather than being too explicit about what I
can and cannot do.  (I suppose things were a bit more obvious than they are
these days.)

About TV, and mixing the world with Jesus: we are to in the world but not of
it.  Light goes into darkness but is not mingled with it, yet it *is* in it...
to dispel it.  If light does not travel into darkness, darkness is not
dispelled.  If we had more [true] Christians in the television industry,
the devil's workshop would be more of a moral battleground, and ideally,
a source of light to the world.

Mark

>>The Manual of the church of the Nazarene is not a rule book, for clarification.
>>It is not held or owned by a majority of the membership.  The clergy all have

        Thanks, Mark for the clarification.  There are times that I wish
        (in my flesh, of course) our church had things more clearly
        spelled-out.  We tend to tolerate least the sins in other people
        that we have overcome ourselves.  This only provides a convenient
        way for us to ignore confrontation with the Holy Spirit on the
        cleaning up we still have to do in our own lives.  

>>About TV, and mixing the world with Jesus: we are to in the world but not of
>>it.  Light goes into darkness but is not mingled with it, yet it *is* in it...
>>to dispel it.  If light does not travel into darkness, darkness is not
>>dispelled.

	I think we're saying the same thing different ways, here.  I just
	want to add the following allegory.

        Doctors visit a patients, prescribe the treatment, and move on to
        the next patient, returning to the first patient after making the
        rounds, and continuing to visit periodically until the patient's
        medical condition is resolved one way or the other. Their
        associations and fellowships are conducted with other medical
        professionals, that they may be edified in their practice.

>>If we had more [true] Christians in the television industry,
>>the devil's workshop would be more of a moral battleground, and ideally,
>>a source of light to the world.

        Amen!  Alas, I don't see this happening, because commercial
        television is driven by market (covetous, lust-of-the-flesh)
        forces.  Christians are called to go out "two by two" to evangelize
        the world.  I think this means "in person".  TV and radio 
        ministries can serve the flock for edification, but I don't really
        see them as effective evangelists.  In fact, some have done much
        more harm than good, fueling the big-media engine with money,
        scandal, and juicy gossip.  I see big media as swine trampelling
        the pearls of God into the mud, and turning and rending Christians.

	Tony.

!>>If we had more [true] Christians in the television industry,
!>>the devil's workshop would be more of a moral battleground, and ideally,
!>>a source of light to the world.
!
!        Amen!  Alas, I don't see this happening, because commercial
!        television is driven by market (covetous, lust-of-the-flesh)
!        forces.  Christians are called to go out "two by two" to evangelize
!        the world.  I think this means "in person".  TV and radio 
!        ministries can serve the flock for edification, but I don't really
!        see them as effective evangelists.  In fact, some have done much
!        more harm than good, fueling the big-media engine with money,
!        scandal, and juicy gossip.  I see big media as swine trampelling
!        the pearls of God into the mud, and turning and rending Christians.

Agreed that there are cases to cite, just as those who would cite the
Inqusition and other "Christian" atrocities.  And you opinion in the 
matter is noted... gratefully.  My opinion differs and sees the light
and salt being more than the commission to the 70 to go out two by two.
Light and salt exist alone if necessary, as Elijah stood alone against
450 Baal priests.  The two can be "one plus God" equals majority.

Maybe TV hasn't been effective.  The answer is not to trash TV, but to 
make it effective.  If we Christians withdraw from all that has become
corrupted or ineffective, it will be soon when there will be nothing
from which to withdraw.  No, I think we should be in the world to change it;
and this is different from being of the world.

Mark

RE:      <<< Note 260.46 by TOKNOW::METCALFE "Eschew Obfuscatory Monikers"

	Hi, Mark.

!        forces.  Christians are called to go out "two by two" to evangelize
!        the world.  I think this means "in person".  

         I think you misconstrued this remark.  I repeat, I think this
         means "in person."  One person and the Holy Spirit, in person, is
         a more effective outreach than commercial television.  N'est ce
         pas?

>>Maybe TV hasn't been effective.  The answer is not to trash TV, but to 
>>make it effective.  If we Christians withdraw from all that has become
>>corrupted or ineffective, it will be soon when there will be nothing
>>from which to withdraw.

	We still have the word of God and the uncorruptable person of the
	Holy Spirit.  We don't need television.  
	
>>No, I think we should be in the world to change it;
>>and this is different from being of the world.

	Amen!  It's only our preferred techniques which differ.  

	Tony
	

>	We still have the word of God and the uncorruptable person of the
>	Holy Spirit.  We don't need television.  


You are correct, we don't need TV.  But we can use it.

>	Amen!  It's only our preferred techniques which differ.  

Exactly, friend.  And what this means to me is that we will 
multiply our ministries rather than make them redundant.  :-)

Mark

 Notes .48 and .49 have been deleted.






 Jim co mod

>>Exactly, friend.  And what this means to me is that we will 
>>multiply our ministries rather than make them redundant.  :-)

        Amen, again!  I think there are a lot more of the "minors" on which
        we agree than disagree.  

	Tony
	

>>>Exactly, friend.  And what this means to me is that we will 
>>>multiply our ministries rather than make them redundant.  :-)
>
>        Amen, again!  I think there are a lot more of the "minors" on which
>        we agree than disagree.  

I just had another thought, too, Tony.  We get along fine after some 
bumps and scrapes over some "minors" (remembering rock and roll).
Too many of us major in minors and miss the majors.  I don't mind
looking at the minors and even shaking my head in disagreement at
some of the opposing views held.  It's when minors become majors
that problems arise.  I much prefer shaking my head in disagreement,
yet coming away with the love of fellowship nevertheless.  This note,
for all of its [pseudo-]differences between Baptist and Nazarene
positions, has typified it for me, and I thank you, and others for
the discussion.

Mark

RE:      <<< Note 260.54 by TOKNOW::METCALFE "Eschew Obfuscatory Monikers" >>>

        I agree heartily, to all of 260.54 brother.  I'm still a young'un
        (3 years old this October), so please forgive my sometimes scruffy
        demeanor.

	Tony

I'll move the notes on perfection to another topic tomorrow.

Thanks for the patience.

MM

Notes 260.44, .47, and .56 have been moved to 266.1, .2, and .3
in a separate topic about Christian Perfection.

Mark M

Boy!  I'm gone for a week and the place runs wild with topics I'm interested
in.

As primarily a Calvinist who has frequent occasion to visit Churches of the
Nazarene and a number of in-laws either current members of the Church of the
Nazarene or raised in such, I have noticed other differences beyond the
interesting one of sanctification.  

Nazarene churches have frequently been the only ones which could make poorer
(economically disadvantaged for PC out there) people feel comfortable in
some places I have lived.  They have thus been an instrument of immense
worth for evangelism of true Christianity.  Messages of both music and the
spoken word are more frequently able to reach the less educated while able
to interest and help the most educated.

While Baptists and Nazarenes are among the most rigid in doctrine, it has
seemed to me that the Baptist services are more formal and structured.

Pastors of the Church of the Nazarene have been among the easiest to discuss
all matters with in my experience.  Baptist pastors defy any characterization
since they are much more individual.

Some differences I can't explain.  They both are among the most able to
minister to youth and/or young families.  I see a commonality in the young
people each appeals to, but I can't put a description on it.

My apologies to all fellow Calvinists (the rest of this uses Baptist to
mean those calling themselves "Baptist"), but only the Assemblies of God
and some non-denominationals come close to rivaling the Church of the Nazarene 
in music, its appreciation, and its training.

Some similarities are also interesting.  The Baptists, Nazarenes, and Catholics
are the only ones I know of who offer real Christian higher education in many 
areas of study.  Point Loma is a first-rate school.  Liberty Baptist and Bob
Jones are major efforts whose success I am not in a position to judge.

There are differences in church government.  Local Baptist churches are more
independent.  Pastors are chosen by the local Baptist church and tend to 
remain at one church longer.

All of the above is IMHO, subject to correction and/or enhancement, and only
the result of interested observation.

Lew

Thanks Lew - interesting...  I enjoy AOGs too, but haven't sampled a 
nazarene yet ;-)

							Andrew

Note 260.59   MIMS::GULICK_L
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Okay, Lew, where do I deposit the money?

Wow.  Can I print this for some Nazarenes to see?

I cannot speak to the differences in the feel of a church, and wonder how much
can be attributed to doctrine, tradition, local or regional influences, etc.

Making the poor feel comfortable: this an interesting and continual effort.
Interesting, because having God in one's life invariably brings people out of
the poor class into the middle class (statistically; presumably because of
rearranged priorities) - continual effort because middle class America can
easily become ingrown and huddled groups of Christians, losing their sight for
evangelism.  The Church of the Nazarene has commissioned studies to avoid what
seems to be a trend among new churches (ref. Elmer Towns) that peak at 85 years
and go into a decline or plateau.  A lot of this is due to the middle-classing
of a church that used to evangelize, and indeed began, in the inner cities;
making life better because new life was made through repentance and salvation.
The Church of the Nazarene is about 85 years old and is making efforts to
re-establish inner city missions.  We grew very quickly over the past year or
so in new church plants, but MOST (by far) were outside ofthe United States.
But revival is in the air, and not just for the Nazarenes.  Can you sense it?

Mark

� Wow.  Can I print this for some Nazarenes to see?

Careful, Mark ... need to be look out for that pride .... ** I ** think it 
ought to  be seen by * Baptists * .... ;-) ;-)

							Andrew

Meanwhile, the decline in virility and vision of a denomination can be
easily understood when you realise that the first generation has laid it
right on the line for the LORD.  They don't just *believe* the doctrines
they've been taught, or even learnt, which make them distinctive; they've
*lived* them to the hilt.  They have become 'unclean to their brethren for
the sake of the LORD - or at least, for what they believe of the LORD... 
It cost them. 

That isn't so for any subsequent generation (unless that item of 'truth' 
is lost and re-found).  Most who join a denomination are saved into 
it - with relatives who are either in it already, or not Christians at 
all.  The stigma of a 'new separation' doesn't stick to them in the same 
way.  They haven't suffered quite that same lonely fore-runner experience.
There are others there already to make a welcome home...  Some of the 
keenness of fervour, honed by the fire (to scramble metaphors) is 
sacrificed for something else the fellowship now hasd instead, which must 
be focussed on Him to the point of pain if it is to keep fresh...

							Andrew

>� Wow.  Can I print this for some Nazarenes to see?
>
>Careful, Mark ... need to be look out for that pride .... ** I ** think it 
>ought to  be seen by * Baptists * .... ;-) ;-)

As it should, Andrew.  But also to Nazarenes, not for pride, but for those
Nazarenes who fall short of their doctrine in their living as a reminder
of how it should be.

I have heard many of the criticisms of my church, as I am sure we have
all about our own churches (unless you have a singular, independent
and happy fellowship; [are you in-grown, too?]).  Belonging to a holiness
organization doesn't make one holy and belonging to a Christian organization
does not make one a Christian.  But holiness and Christlikeness are found
in His indwelling and abiding Spirit.  And to this end, there are many
Spirit-filled and sanctified baptists, and many elect of God Nazarenes,
as there are those in both who would shame the name of Christ, as well as
the name of the religious structure to which they ally themselves.

Thank you, Lew, for saying such nice things.  I was thrilled to hear it
come from a non-Nazarene.

Mark

Re. -.1

You're welcome, Mark.  Keep in mind that none of this compromises my believing
in a different form of sanctification than you do, that being an area in which
I am Calvinist.

As an aside, some of the views expressed before are related to my questions
in the tithing note.  When I asked if the tithe should all go to the par-
ticular church we attend or belong to, one thing I had in mind was being
able to also support a Nazarene church in area.  There is a clear mission
there that I must recognize as a function of "the body", but is not a
function of the church we belong to.  In fairness, the same would be
true of our church if we were members of the Nazarene church.  This is not
meant to reopen that topic here, but to give an insight along the lines
discussed here.

Now then, whenever I get around to having a a few weeks off, maybe we can
actually discuss sanctification :-).

Lew

Differences noted, but big deal... brother.  :-)