It's funny that the "Concerned Nazarenes" website does not allow any comments. Cowardly in my opinion. Why don't these folks allow a dialog with those who disagree?
Nazarenes are a dying denomination, not because of emergent theology, but because they are becoming irrelevant to the culture around them.
Your lack of respect for the traditions of others frighten me. I don't agree with much of RCC doctrine, but the way you broadcast your hatred of the RCC doesn't belong in the COTN.
Perhaps you can address the substance of what I said. Again, I love all Catholics and all people- as Christ commands us to love. However, I will not sweep under the rug the heretical teachings of the RCC, and ignore the opportunities to warn people of that, as well as the false doctrines of the emergent church.
Christians should NOT respect the traditions of any church that calls itself Christian- we are to expose teachings- or do you ignore those commands from Jesus and the apostles?
It is reckless and irresponsible to stay silent while false teachings corrupt the minds of Christians.
If you simply disagree with some these RCC doctrines, but do not condemn these teachings, you are disobeying scriptural admonition from Jesus and the apostles.
The websites purpose is not to dialog forever with those who refuse the truth; it is to warn and educate others of the heresies coming into the church. We are not interested in a conversation" with those who promote false teachings.
These "Concerned Nazarenes" are full of so much hatred. They are also very full of anti-Catholic bigotry. Doesn't the Bible say that you will recognize them by their fruits? I don't see any good fruit from this group. I'm just glad we don't have any of these bigots in my church.
Its interesting that you repeat the same line of defense that many emergents use- anti-Catholic bigotry.
Not so, but this illustrates how so many folks will not try to defend what I have exposed as having nothing to do with scriptural teaching. Instead, you resort to personal attacks. I do not hate Catholics; I do condemn any RCC teaching which is unbiblical.
Perhaps you can answer me and let me know which of the following teachings of the RCC do you approve?
You are twisting Manny Silva's words, he does NOT hate the Catholics, but is obeying the scripture in exposing false teachings as did Jude and Paul and all of the old testament prophets, and the new testament apostles.
Manny Silva is not a bigot, we are to worship God who is Spirit, and we must worship Him in spirit and truth. A genuine Catholic CANNOT worship God in truth because they worship Mary, who is a sinner just like the rest of us. Even Jesus's own mother need a Saviour.
Look gsbaracuda, Manny is the judge of what is acceptable and not acceptable in God's eyes. In fact, his interpretation scripture is the only valid one. We all know that even though there are many denominations having completely different views on theological issues, Nazarenes are the only one's who have it right.
If you are calling foul on foster it is up to you to build the case why he is so wrong, not up to every body us to defend him from your vague criticisms. What is wrong for instance with lectio divina ?
I won't be around much today for extensive answers. Big happenings that will keep me busy. But in brief: First, lectio divina is not described in any way in scripture as a way to pray. It actually was invented by Origen, who was actually a heretic, who among other things, believed that Jesus was a created being.
Jesus gave the proper model for praying, and meditation in the Bible or prayer is always done in a simple, direct way without a ritualistic method prescribed.
The education question is not meant to be demeaning or arrogant, but potentially lend credibility to you or not. You are asking me to prove Foster innocent with scripture, I say you prove him guilty with scripture. For instance you mentioned "embracing pop-psychology" as one issue, well how does that cross some biblical law? I would say you embrace pop theology, and you are a false teacher.
No, I am asking you to justify with scripture, the practice of contemplative prayer, breath prayer, lectio divina, use of prayer labyrinths, etc, all which Foster and others promote.
"No, I am asking you to justify with scripture" You are the one claiming these things are so problematic, therefor it is up to you to prove that they violate scripture. The reality is they do not.
So you approve of all that Pastor Gilley has pointed out as wrong? I assume you do, and if so, you're okay with open theism, rosary beeds, confession to priests, and all the others, as being biblically sound?
Do you believe there are false teachings, and if so, how do you determine when something is a false teaching?
Again, you talk about things as if we all have universal agreement what is and is not false teaching. More often rather than actual false teaching the term is typically use a a club to be down any divergent idea other than your own.
This is the problem here. You have not answered the question I had about any of those Richard Foster points I mentioned; and apparently you also are unable to ever recognize false teaching, because you did not answer that question.
Would it be okay of you addressed both questions from a Biblical perspective, maybe even using scripture, if that's alright with you?
Foster is fine, if you don't like him sorry. If you want to try to pick him apart and label it "false teaching", fine, but realize money if not evangelical would disagree. I am not saying I agree with everything Foster writes, but most of the issues you mention are a stretch to call false teachings.
Just out of curiosity what is your theological training? You are quick to label and judge others and I am just curious if you have any education to back up you judgments ??
Look, I can't let comments continue like this forever. The education question is totally irrevelevant and arrogant, as if I or any other Christian needs advanced theological training!
If you want to support your answers, and your approval of Foster's teachings with Scripture, do that. You still cannot support any of these Foster teachings and justify them Biblically. I've heard this kind of argument for too long to put up with it.
Let's use the scriptures to support what we believe.
3. promotion of visions, revelations and charismatic gifts (pp. 108, 165, 168-169, 171, 193); endorsement of rosary and prayer wheel use (p. 64); misunderstanding of the Old Testament Law for today (pp. 82, 87); mystical journaling (p. 108); embracing pop-psychology (pp. 113-120); promoting Roman Catholic practices such as use of spiritual directors, confession and penance (pp. 146-150, 156, 185); and affirming of aberrant charismatic practices (pp. 158-174, 198).
2. We would be hard pressed to find in one so-called evangelical volume such a composite of false teaching. These include faulty views on the subjective leading of God (pp. 10, 16-17, 18, 50, 95, 98, 108-109, 128, 139-140, 149-150, 162, 167, 182); approval of New Age teachers (see Thomas Merton below); occultic use of imagination (pp. 25-26, 40-43, 163, 198); open theism (p. 35); misunderstanding of the will of God in prayer (p. 37);
1. Well, yes, there are many issues here. And Fosters book is a classic of what? Certainly, not faithfulness to the Word of God. Besides his warning that you need a prayer of protection, here are some references, all from his book, that Pastor Gary Gilley lists in his critique:
Celebration of Discipline alone, not even referencing [Richard] Fosters other writings and teachings and ministries, is a virtual encyclopedia of theological error.
Is there an issue here? Looks fine to me. Foster is a modern classic. The denomination is not moving some terrible direction, it more likely you were just not as familiar with who we have historically been theologically.
I heard of the Emerging Naz Movement 3 days ago. I use to be a fan of Dr. Daniels of the PazNaz church-I actually found out a/b the EC b/c I was going to his site to listen to his sermons. By God's prompting I went to read his blog first & he meantioned the EC, so I went to check it out. Then I went back to his blog & he had a link to a document submitted to the Naz Superintendants that was submitted by 6 naz leaders including Middendorf, a personal friend of Daniels. Very disturbing stuff.
Thank you for posting this. I 've been reading about it as I am searching for answers to this Emerging nazarene Delimma. I had never even heard of it until three days ago.
It's funny that the "Concerned Nazarenes" website does not allow any comments. Cowardly in my opinion. Why don't these folks allow a dialog with those who disagree?
Nazarenes are a dying denomination, not because of emergent theology, but because they are becoming irrelevant to the culture around them.
Your lack of respect for the traditions of others frighten me. I don't agree with much of RCC doctrine, but the way you broadcast your hatred of the RCC doesn't belong in the COTN.
vernonalum 2 years ago
Perhaps you can address the substance of what I said. Again, I love all Catholics and all people- as Christ commands us to love. However, I will not sweep under the rug the heretical teachings of the RCC, and ignore the opportunities to warn people of that, as well as the false doctrines of the emergent church.
Christians should NOT respect the traditions of any church that calls itself Christian- we are to expose teachings- or do you ignore those commands from Jesus and the apostles?
MannyRSilva 2 years ago
It is reckless and irresponsible to stay silent while false teachings corrupt the minds of Christians.
If you simply disagree with some these RCC doctrines, but do not condemn these teachings, you are disobeying scriptural admonition from Jesus and the apostles.
The websites purpose is not to dialog forever with those who refuse the truth; it is to warn and educate others of the heresies coming into the church. We are not interested in a conversation" with those who promote false teachings.
MannyRSilva 2 years ago
These "Concerned Nazarenes" are full of so much hatred. They are also very full of anti-Catholic bigotry. Doesn't the Bible say that you will recognize them by their fruits? I don't see any good fruit from this group. I'm just glad we don't have any of these bigots in my church.
vernonalum 2 years ago
Its interesting that you repeat the same line of defense that many emergents use- anti-Catholic bigotry.
Not so, but this illustrates how so many folks will not try to defend what I have exposed as having nothing to do with scriptural teaching. Instead, you resort to personal attacks. I do not hate Catholics; I do condemn any RCC teaching which is unbiblical.
Perhaps you can answer me and let me know which of the following teachings of the RCC do you approve?
MannyRSilva 2 years ago
1.The veneration and elevation of Mary as being co-redeemer with Christ,
2.The equalizing of the authority of scripture with the tradition of the RCC
3.Claiming that the bread of the Eucharist is the actual body of Christ
4.Belief in purgatory
5.Idolatrous praying to statues, crosses, etc.
6.Its practice of mindless meditation
7.Its doctrine of celibacy
The RCC is an apostate church, and my denomination is heading in that direction also. I pray more will wake up before its too late.
MannyRSilva 2 years ago 2
@vernonalum
You are twisting Manny Silva's words, he does NOT hate the Catholics, but is obeying the scripture in exposing false teachings as did Jude and Paul and all of the old testament prophets, and the new testament apostles.
Manny Silva is not a bigot, we are to worship God who is Spirit, and we must worship Him in spirit and truth. A genuine Catholic CANNOT worship God in truth because they worship Mary, who is a sinner just like the rest of us. Even Jesus's own mother need a Saviour.
jetlag700 7 months ago
Look gsbaracuda, Manny is the judge of what is acceptable and not acceptable in God's eyes. In fact, his interpretation scripture is the only valid one. We all know that even though there are many denominations having completely different views on theological issues, Nazarenes are the only one's who have it right.
Jpj1918 2 years ago
If you are calling foul on foster it is up to you to build the case why he is so wrong, not up to every body us to defend him from your vague criticisms. What is wrong for instance with lectio divina ?
gsbaracuda 2 years ago
I won't be around much today for extensive answers. Big happenings that will keep me busy. But in brief: First, lectio divina is not described in any way in scripture as a way to pray. It actually was invented by Origen, who was actually a heretic, who among other things, believed that Jesus was a created being.
Jesus gave the proper model for praying, and meditation in the Bible or prayer is always done in a simple, direct way without a ritualistic method prescribed.
MannyRSilva 2 years ago
The education question is not meant to be demeaning or arrogant, but potentially lend credibility to you or not. You are asking me to prove Foster innocent with scripture, I say you prove him guilty with scripture. For instance you mentioned "embracing pop-psychology" as one issue, well how does that cross some biblical law? I would say you embrace pop theology, and you are a false teacher.
gsbaracuda 2 years ago
No, I am asking you to justify with scripture, the practice of contemplative prayer, breath prayer, lectio divina, use of prayer labyrinths, etc, all which Foster and others promote.
MannyRSilva 2 years ago
"No, I am asking you to justify with scripture" You are the one claiming these things are so problematic, therefor it is up to you to prove that they violate scripture. The reality is they do not.
gsbaracuda 2 years ago
So you approve of all that Pastor Gilley has pointed out as wrong? I assume you do, and if so, you're okay with open theism, rosary beeds, confession to priests, and all the others, as being biblically sound?
Do you believe there are false teachings, and if so, how do you determine when something is a false teaching?
MannyRSilva 2 years ago
Again, you talk about things as if we all have universal agreement what is and is not false teaching. More often rather than actual false teaching the term is typically use a a club to be down any divergent idea other than your own.
gsbaracuda 2 years ago
This is the problem here. You have not answered the question I had about any of those Richard Foster points I mentioned; and apparently you also are unable to ever recognize false teaching, because you did not answer that question.
Would it be okay of you addressed both questions from a Biblical perspective, maybe even using scripture, if that's alright with you?
MannyRSilva 2 years ago
Foster is fine, if you don't like him sorry. If you want to try to pick him apart and label it "false teaching", fine, but realize money if not evangelical would disagree. I am not saying I agree with everything Foster writes, but most of the issues you mention are a stretch to call false teachings.
Just out of curiosity what is your theological training? You are quick to label and judge others and I am just curious if you have any education to back up you judgments ??
gsbaracuda 2 years ago
Look, I can't let comments continue like this forever. The education question is totally irrevelevant and arrogant, as if I or any other Christian needs advanced theological training!
If you want to support your answers, and your approval of Foster's teachings with Scripture, do that. You still cannot support any of these Foster teachings and justify them Biblically. I've heard this kind of argument for too long to put up with it.
Let's use the scriptures to support what we believe.
MannyRSilva 2 years ago
3. promotion of visions, revelations and charismatic gifts (pp. 108, 165, 168-169, 171, 193); endorsement of rosary and prayer wheel use (p. 64); misunderstanding of the Old Testament Law for today (pp. 82, 87); mystical journaling (p. 108); embracing pop-psychology (pp. 113-120); promoting Roman Catholic practices such as use of spiritual directors, confession and penance (pp. 146-150, 156, 185); and affirming of aberrant charismatic practices (pp. 158-174, 198).
Is that enough?
MannyRSilva 2 years ago
2. We would be hard pressed to find in one so-called evangelical volume such a composite of false teaching. These include faulty views on the subjective leading of God (pp. 10, 16-17, 18, 50, 95, 98, 108-109, 128, 139-140, 149-150, 162, 167, 182); approval of New Age teachers (see Thomas Merton below); occultic use of imagination (pp. 25-26, 40-43, 163, 198); open theism (p. 35); misunderstanding of the will of God in prayer (p. 37);
MannyRSilva 2 years ago
1. Well, yes, there are many issues here. And Fosters book is a classic of what? Certainly, not faithfulness to the Word of God. Besides his warning that you need a prayer of protection, here are some references, all from his book, that Pastor Gary Gilley lists in his critique:
Celebration of Discipline alone, not even referencing [Richard] Fosters other writings and teachings and ministries, is a virtual encyclopedia of theological error.
MannyRSilva 2 years ago
Is there an issue here? Looks fine to me. Foster is a modern classic. The denomination is not moving some terrible direction, it more likely you were just not as familiar with who we have historically been theologically.
gsbaracuda 2 years ago
Thanks. Blessings to you as you work to staying with the truth of the scriptures!
Manny
MannyRSilva 2 years ago
I heard of the Emerging Naz Movement 3 days ago. I use to be a fan of Dr. Daniels of the PazNaz church-I actually found out a/b the EC b/c I was going to his site to listen to his sermons. By God's prompting I went to read his blog first & he meantioned the EC, so I went to check it out. Then I went back to his blog & he had a link to a document submitted to the Naz Superintendants that was submitted by 6 naz leaders including Middendorf, a personal friend of Daniels. Very disturbing stuff.
GenevaPilgrim 2 years ago
Thank you for posting this. I 've been reading about it as I am searching for answers to this Emerging nazarene Delimma. I had never even heard of it until three days ago.
mismindles 2 years ago