J. Grant Swank, Jr.


NazNet Founder Dave McClung states this on his site: “The only goal I have ever had for NazNet is to build community.”


As I reread that one sentence, I could not help but wonder who this double-speak McClung really is?


He has come across as a sweet gentleman who loves people and wants to help them. However, now that he has set up his web site, he has come across as a major disaster area.


McClung’s site, advertised as a “friend” to the Church of the Nazarene, is anything but. The Church of the Nazarene, birthdated in 1908 in Pilot Point, Texas, has preached biblical holiness.


It is in the Wesleyan theology tradition. The church has brought countless souls to Christ as Savior and Sanctifier.


The Church of the Nazarene has a heritage of teaching biblical truth without compromise or apology. Its educational institutions have brought the denomination in a high level of academic recognition.


I for one graduated from Eastern Nazarene College, then was immediately accepted into Harvard Divinity School. That small Nazarene college in Quincy, Massachusetts, had an outstanding academic standing with Harvard.


But now this church is under attack from one who claims that all he has wanted to do is create community, specifically within the Church of the Nazarene.


How can one acknowledge this while reading on McClung site’s his staffers championing outright heresies?


For instance, NazNet sets forth that there is no
eternal hell for the unsaved. Hans Deventer aggressively, repeatedly leads the march on that one.


That kind of carnage on NazNet does not create biblical community; it fosters confusion and dissension. It can even lead theological novices into blatant untruths. For that, Deventer will answer at the Judgment Seat of Christ; however, reading Deventer on the site makes one wonder if he actually believes in a Judgment Seat of Christ.


Further, NazNet proclaims that the Bible is not to be believed from cover to cover. Hans Deventer and Scott Cundiff endorse this heresy with gusto. Flippantly they dismiss the Word of God is grossly suspect. They apparently have no qualms about scuh blasphemy.


Surely McClung knows of these two staffers cutting through Scripture with their coy suspicions. Further, when Deventer and Cundiff post these suspicions, posters are persuaded to follow their doubts. That is apparent in the comments following. Not all, but even one led astray is one too many for a site that is supposed to be a “friend” to a holiness church.


Read NAZNET DAVE MC CLUNG = LIBERAL PIED PIPER at http://truthinconviction.us/weblog.php?id=P3475


Deventer states that he does not believe the Bible except the part about Christ as Savior. That unreasonable approach to scriptural study is so exegetically moronic that it does not deserve retort.


However, Deventer and Cudiff cavalierly delight in picking and choosing what biblical passages they believe deserve acceptance and which ones are to be discarded. Such hubris.


McClung knows of this. McClung does nothing about it. McClung thereby does not build community. He implodes it.


Read NAZNET DISTORTS for numerous other intrusions on biblical truth. Conclude for yourself whether or not McClung is the kind, gentlemanly Christian he poses for others to believe him to be.


The fact is that he is just the opposite. In these confused theological times the last person a holiness denomination needs is a splinter fitter named Dave McClung.


Read NAZNET DISTORTS at http://naznetdistorts.blogspot.com/

J. Grant Swank, Jr.


NazNet Founder and Moderator Dave McClung, once in the Church of the Nazarene inner circle network, reveals himself now as a theological liberal.


The Church of the Nazarene has been a theologically conservative evangelical, holiness Protestant denomination since 1908.


If McClung and staffers have any say about the denomination’s future, the church will turn into a liberal conclave void of biblical integrity.


McClung has made enough political and social connections over years to hoodwink old colleagues. With that, McClung proceeds as the Pied Piper of the “new church.” Actually, he is creating an Internet church in competition to the historic Church of the Nazarene.


Serving him most ably in this liberal move are Hans Deventer and Scott Cundiff, both moderators.


These three men paint the site with liberal teachings that are based on discarding the inerrant Bible. In fact, Deventer states that he does not believe the Bible. Cundiff agrees, even professing that the more one researches the Scripture, the more one does not know God.


This is blatant heresy, similar to that held by godless Unitarianism.


I was a student at the Unitarian-based Harvard Divinity School. What I was taught there—moral relativism, Bible as just another book, skepticism regarding divine revelation, and situation ethics—NazNet is espousing.


McClung’s scheme is unbelievable when reading his statements. Then when reading Deventer’s and Cundiff’s confessions, one stands in disbelief that a site stating itself a “friend” to the Nazarenes is in reality an upfront enemy.


Is this another sign of spiritually “falling away” as Scripture predicts will happen at the close of the Church Age? It appears to be so.


McClung works night and day to produce an Internet following that undercuts Wesleyan holiness teaching, the faith in an error-free Word of God, and clear proclamations related to salvation and sanctification.


McClung exposes his conniving egocentricity. He is an obvious theological opportunist. This can occur when a man like McClung gets older and needs to hold on to some kind of power, still believing that he has magnetism with the upcoming generation.


NazNet holds to the annihilation of the wicked rather than an eternal hell.


NazNet holds to universal salvation, that is, that all souls are saved for there is no eternal damnation.


NazNet holds to infant baptism embraced by all Nazarenes worldwide.


NazNet espouses the flimflam emerging church.


NazNet sets forth that the Scriptures are suspect from Genesis to Revelation.


Read NAZNET DISTORTS at http://naznetdistorts.blogspot.com/

J. Grant Swank, Jr.


This “reaching across the aisle” business has got to stop.


In other words, bi-partisanship must be passe.


There is no Congress worth listening to, let alone voting for, that lacks moral convictions.


Scott Brown got elected because voters sensed in him a person of moral conviction. He was not swayed one way or another by political opportunism.


Brown was not beholding even to DC Republicans for he said that he got no practical help from them during the campaign. He worked hard with close friends assisting. His DC Party was out to lunch.


Therefore, Brown is not going to bow and scrape before Republican power heads in Congress. He will continue to win on his own inner strength, just as he did in Massachusetts.


Sarah Palin is another personage of moral convictions. She knows what values are supreme. She has an ethical might that is defined by Scripture. She has total faith in the God of the Bible.


Therefore, Palin wakes up each morning, not driven by political opportunism, but what she considers to be God’s will for that day. If she does not sense it to be providentially directed, she doesn’t touch it.


This kind of conviction base is what the grassroots is hankering for. There is no doubt about it. These upright citizens are clamoring. They are organizing.


To put it negatively, America’s patriots are so angry at officials revealing their egocentric opportunism that patriots are ready to wipe the current slate clean.


To put it positively, America’s patriots are scouring the landscape, vetting the personages, and determining ballot choices on campaigners who are proven true. The candidates must be real just as the grassroots defines itself as “real America.”


One of the main benefits of the Tea Party Nation is its demand that those running for elections be “real America.” If they are phonies, Tea Party enthusiasts flip them into the nearest dumpsters. Tea Baggers are adamant. They will will strip naked the fakes.


Liberals have convictions. But they are those based on moral relativism and situation ethics. Anything goes, in other words. They have convictions based on anti-God, anti-Bible foundering.


Conservatives are well aware of the liberal convictions for they are antithetical to the conservatives’ moral convictions. These right-wing voters know their ethical moorings. They are well aware of what they hold dear, what they would die for.


Consequently, these moralists will stretch this nation from coast to coast with the stipulation that candidates be morally based. They cannot be merely cute or charismatic. They must be morally grounded.

J. Grant Swank, Jr.


Sarah Palin is no mystery to biblical believers. She is a sister in the faith to those who are genuinely Christian.


Therefore, one can figure out this woman. She is no mystery. Talk about transparency. She’s it.


Palin believes in the Bible as God’s Word. She does not doubt it in any way. She takes seriously the Book stating that one must not add to or subtract from the divine revelation. Therefore, Palin believes in God’s Word as infallible from Genesis to Revelation.


Further, Palin believes that God appeared in Christ as fully God and fully man. This Christ then is her personal Savior. But more: this Christ is her Sanctifier for Palin believes in being filled with the Spirit of Christ.


All of this is experiential with Palin. It is more than church doctrine, more than biblical theology. It is an individual relationship daily with Christ through His indwelling Spirit.


In addition, Palin feeds her friendship with God through daily devotions; that is, she reads her Bible and prays faithfully. When busy, she recalls those biblical verses for soul enrichment. She also maintains that “praying without ceasing” mindset throughout her schedule.


Palin has informed the press that she has surrendered her existence to the God of the Bible. That means that her future is not hers to govern. It is submitted to Providence.


Therefore, whether or not she runs for President is directed by Providence. If she does run, whether or not she wins the office is directed by Providence.


All of this folds into her being a Christian mother and wife. It relates to her morality. It has to do with her entertainment, reading material, hobbies, and so forth.


In other words, being a born again Spirit-filled Christian, Palin enjoys the submission of everything to her Creator Redeemer. This is no chore. This is her liberation.


Having been converted to Christ by confessing her sins to Him, receiving His mercy and forgiveness, Palin witnesses to a life of hope. That hope is founded upon scriptural promises. She believes in a God who cannot fail, who is eternally faithful to His grace children.


Now with this belief system, Palin knows full well that the opposition will seek to destroy her in every way, particularly politically. That is why when Martha Stewart, not a professing born again Christian, snubs Palin by saying Palin is “boring,” Palin is not surprised by that.


Palin knows that Christ informed His followers that they will be hated, let alone snubbed. Therefore, Palin concludes her work to be divinely networked in the spiritual battles.


Palin does know the enemy. She understands the demonic schemes out to undercut her. She is not about to war the fight in her own energies; instead, she commits every one to God as soon as they appear.


Palin has been living this style for years, ever since submitting her existence to Savior Christ. All the more she has fine-tuned her soul to surrender even more precisely each situation to God’s will.


When non-believers then do battle with Palin, it would be wise for them to study her spiritual beliefs. However, most won’t for they don’t care. Or they consider her beliefs to be adolescent, mundane or just plain wrong. That is nothing new of course to biblical believers.


So on with the future. Palin is ready, more than ready, for she has committed that future to her God. What God details for her tomorrows is just fine with Palin. She would have it no other way.

J. Grant Swank, Jr.


NazNet Founder Dave McClung is irresponsible as a biblical Christian for permitting staffers who decry the Word of God as infallible. Question: Is McClung truly a Christian in light of the theological aberrations he is broadcasting via NazNet?


Read NAZNET MODERATOR’S DAVE MCCLUNG IS LAX, INEPT, A TROUBLE-MAKER at http://naznetdistorts.blogspot.com/2009/11/naznet-moderators-dave-mcclung-is-lax.html


Moderators Hans Deventer and Scott Cundiff are prime promoters of heresies.


Yet McClung continues to repeat that NazNet is a “friend” to the Church of the Nazarene. He is not. He is a major enemy to the holiness denomination.


McClung however has held official positions at the Nazarene headquarters and elsewhere. In other words, he had hobnobbed with those in ecclesiastical power—both past and present.


That means that the authoritative personages appear reluctant to discipline McClung for his NazNet continues the heresy push. These authorities have been aptly informed of McClung’s endangerment to the church.


NazNet promotes the Bible as not divine revelation. Deventer blatantly states that he does not believe the Bible. Cundiff has come out for the Scriptures as being just another book.


Read NAZNET HANS DEVENTER: ‘I DON’T BELIEVE THE BIBLE’ at http://naznetdistorts.blogspot.com/2010/02/naznet-hans-deventer-i-dont-believe.html


Read NAZNET’S SCOTT CUNDIFF KNOWS LESS OF GOD at http://naznetdistorts.blogspot.com/2010/02/naznets-scott-cundiff-knows-less-of-god.html


Read NAZNET STILL NOT SURE ABOUT BIBLE BEING INFALLIBLE at http://naznetdistorts.blogspot.com/2009/12/naznet-still-not-sure-about-bible-being.html


Read NAZNET = BIBLE NOT THE WHOLE WORD OF GOD at http://naznetdistorts.blogspot.com/2009/11/naznet-bible-not-whole-word-of-god.html


Deventer and Cundiff repeatedly accent their pet anti-Bible theme.


How does McClung reconcile these horrific theses with being a Christian let alone friendly to the Church of the Nazarene?


Read NAZNET MANAGER SCOTT CUNDIFF DELETES BIBLE AS ALL- OK: INERRANT VS. ERRANT at http://naznetdistorts.blogspot.com/2009/11/naznet-manager-scott-cundiff-deletes.html


Read ANOTHER NAZNET STAFF, SCOTT CUNDIFF, SUPPORTS ERROR-PRONE BIBLE
BIBLE at http://naznetdistorts.blogspot.com/2009/11/another-naznet-staff-scott-cundiff.html


Deventer also pushes his belief that God accepts all souls into heaven—universal salvation. That means that no soul is in hell. In fact, Deventer does not believe in hell. All this is on NazNet as “friend” to biblical believers.


Read NAZNET HANS DEVENTER HOPES GOD TAKES ALL SOULS HEAVENWARD at http://naznetdistorts.blogspot.com/2010/02/naznet-hans-deventer-hopes-god-takes.html


Read NAZNET’S HANS DEVENTER: HELL DARK & LIGHT? at http://naznetdistorts.blogspot.com/2010/02/naznets-hans-deventer-hell-dark-light.html


Read NAZNET’S HANS DEVENTER: ‘NO’ TO ETERNAL PUNISHMENT at http://naznetdistorts.blogspot.com/2010/02/naznets-hans-deventer-no-to-eternal.html


Read NAZNET CONTINUES TO ESPOUSE HELL AS ANNIHILATION at http://naznetdistorts.blogspot.com/2009/12/naznet-continues-to-espouse-hell-as.html


Then Deventer comes up with an “intermediate state” after death. McClung knows that is Roman Catholic teaching; it is not evangelical, holiness belief. Yet McClung permits that blasphemy to stay on NazNet. Why?


Again, it appears that McClung is so webbed by Nazarene politics that he can allow anything he wants. That is why it makes one suspicious that McClung is trying to create a “church” in competition to the Church of the Nazarene. His “church” exists on the Internet.


Read NAZNET NOT A CHURCH? at http://naznetdistorts.blogspot.com/2009/11/naznet-not-church.html


Read NAZNET UNDERCUTS THE CHURCH OF THE NAZARENE at http://naznetdistorts.blogspot.com/2009/11/naznet-undercuts-church-of-nazarene.html


Further, Deventer has this fetish about infant baptism being enveloped globally by the Church of the Nazarene. Nowhere in the Bible is an infant baptized; however, “high church” Deventer and Cundiff want it. Forget the Bible, just state your own manufactured doctrine as truth and you’re in.


Read NAZNET MODERATOR HANS DEVENTER SUPPORTS INFANT BAPTISM OVER ADULT BAPTISM at http://naznetdistorts.blogspot.com/2009/11/naznet-moderator-hans-deventer-supports.html


Then there is former Moderator Chaplain Barbara Moulton who states she will not marry same-gender duos. However, she will never take a biblical public stand on the issue. In other words, she will keep her Christian witness “in the closet.”


Read NAZNET’S CHAPLAIN MODERATOR KEEPS ‘GAY MARRIAGE’ IN THE CLOSET at http://naznetdistorts.blogspot.com/2009/11/naznets-chaplain-moderator-keeps-gay.html


Read NAZNET’S CHAPLAIN MODERATOR BARBARA MOULTON DRAWS SPIKED REACTIONS at http://naznetdistorts.blogspot.com/2009/11/naznets-chaplain-moderator-barbara.html


Moreover, NazNet is enamored by the emerging church. That is quite the new find for NazNet moderators, particularly Cundiff.


Read NAZNET LAUDS OLD HIPPIES’ RELIGION at http://naznetdistorts.blogspot.com/2010/02/naznet-lauds-old-hippies-religion.html


The Bible has errors throughout it.


There is no eternal hell.


All souls go to heaven.


Infant baptism should be practiced worldwide.


A chaplain will not publicly defend God’s position on homosexual practice.


The Church of the Nazarene is old-stuff and needs a liberal release.


McClung creates a “church” on site, same being a competitor to the Church of the Nazarene.


The emerging church flimflam is where it is at for worshipers’ futures.


All the above is boldly stated on the McClung site. There is his photo. There is a group photo of his site pals. And there are the forums in place to proclaim heresies.


Though the General Superintendents have been informed of all this detail, seemingly they have no authority by which to expunge from McClung’s Internet “church” these declarations in direct opposition to the Nazarene heritage.


McClung will answer at the Judgment Seat of Christ for fomenting anti-God beliefs and leading many posters astray with his cute image, flip style, and sweet way of luring especially the young into his web.


Apparently McClung’s ego is large enough in his Pied Piper play at the moment that he really does not care about a final accountability. I frankly do not believe that he, Deventer, Cundiff, and Moulton believe in the Judgment Seat of Christ.


FOOTNOTE: JUDGMENT DAY


Hebrews 9:27:


It is appointed unto men once to die, but after that the judgment.


Matthew 7:21-23: the words of Christ:


Not every one that saith unto me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdom of heaven; but he that doeth the will of my Father which is in heaven. Many will say to me in that day, Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied in thy name? And in thy name have cast out devils? And in thy name done many wonderful works? And then will I profess unto them, I never knew you: depart from me, ye that work iniquity.


Matthew 12:36-37: the words of Christ:


But I say unto you that every idle word that men shall speak, they shall give account thereof in the day of judgment. For by thy words thou shalt be justified, and by thy words thou shalt be condemned.


Romans 2:6-11:


God who will render to every man according to his deed: To them who by patient continuance in well doing seek for glory and honor and immorality, eternal life; But unto them that are contentious and do not obey the truth, but obey unrighteousness, indignation and wrath, Tribulation and anguish, upon every soul of man that doeth evil, of the Jew first, and also of the Gentile; But glory, honor and peace to every man that worked good, to the Jew first, and also to the Gentile: For there is no respect of persons with God.


Romans 14:10-12:


For we shall all stand before the judgment seat of Christ. For it is written, As I live, saith the Lord, every knee shall bow to me, and every tongue shall confess to God. So then every one of us shall give account of himself to God.


I Corinthians 4:5:


Therefore judge nothing before the time, until the Lord come, who both will bring to light the hidden things of darkness, and will make manifest the counsel of the hearts: and then shall every man have praise of God.


II Corinthians 5:10:


For we must all appear before the judgment seat of Christ; that every one may receive the things done in his body, according to that he hath done, whether it be good or bad.


Numbers 32:23:


Be sure your sin will find you out.

J. Grant Swank, Jr.


Dave McClung: Why do you permit this heresy on your NazNet site? You are ultimately responsible for this kind of anti-Bible detail appearing.


NazNet Moderator Hans Deventer states: “So I don't believe in the Bible, I believe in the God to Whom the Bible testifies. A subtle, but crucial difference.


“The witness is trustworthy to bring us to Christ (John 20:31). It can be trusted to do so. And that is its sole purpose, and the only one in which it is and needs to be inerrant.”


Click here for the quote: http://www.naznet.com/community/showthread.php/26610-JUD805-Inerrancy-of-the-Scriptures?p=275152


This is the site that claims to be a “friend” to the holiness Church of the Nazarene.


Yet a site Moderator Deventer states outright that he does not believe in the Bible. Is that helping the denomination? Does that help anyone questing for divine truth? Does that uphold divine revelation of Scripture?


No.


If one does not by faith accept the Bible as divine revelation, how in the name of reason can one have faith in the data relating to Christ? There is no reason why that data should not be suspect.


Missionary to Africa Albert Schweitzer read the data and concluded that Christ was not God. Schweitzer set his thesis forth in “The Quest of the Historical Jesus.”


In that dissertation he said he believed Christ to be a disillusioned young male Jew who held that by dying a violent death He would usher in the kingdom of God.


One must come to the Bible in faith believing it to be the Word of God from Genesis to Revelation. Otherwise, a person can pull one suspect thread after another from the revelation to conclude in nothing. The Unitarians do that all the time.


Therefore, Deventer and other theological liberals on NazNet do no favor for God and the Bible by printing their agnosticism, particularly for young posters to digest it. Deventer is no Christian mentor for posters; he is an enemy to divine truth.


Why then does NazNet Founder Dave McClung and fellow Moderator Scott Cundiff permit Deventer such prime place on NazNet? The buck stops especially at McClung’s desk. He is lax. He is wrong. And he will answer for this at the Judgment Seat of Christ.


Of course, one wonders if the three even believe in the Judgment Seat of Christ, their biblical suspicions running wild throughout the site.


For those interested in believing the Old and New Testament God to be the same merciful and just deity, read YES, YOU CAN BELIEVE IN THE OLD TESTAMENT GOD at http://zenithmax.wordpress.com/2010/02/08/yes-you-can-believe-in-the-old-testament-god/

J. Grant Swank, Jr.


In the Old Testament, God commanded the death penalty in twenty-some cases. This was not because God was barbaric, but because God was civil. The Israeli twelve tribes had no law enforcement agencies. Further, they were surrounded by barbarisms of strange magnitudes exhibited by neighboring pagan nations.


Consequently, for God to establish an Israeli civil community, He set forth stringent punishments--some being the death penalty. He Himself became, in other words, the Law Enforcement Agency for the new nation of Israel. That chosen community thereby was to model morality / civility to the surrounding nations.


Extremely severe penalties then were commanded by God in order to bring in line an Israeli community which tended to be unruly like its neighbors. If God had been lax in penalties, human nature, being what it is, would have tested gladly the boundaries. But when penalties were severe, human nature thought twice before testing the boundaries, hence the death penalty prescribed by God in some instances.


However, once Israel lost its nationhood by "going a-whoring after other loves", Israel's civil structure disappeared. Israel as a nation lost its temple, its government--that is, its two primary components of culture--religion and politics. Pagan nations then ruled over the heretofore nation of God. In this loss was the disappearance of death penalties previously prescribed by God. The death penalty period as dictated by divine revelation, in other words, ended near the close of the Old Testament era.


That is why when Jesus appeared as flesh-and-bones divine revelation, He pronounced, "You used to say, 'An eye for an eye', but now I say to you: Love your enemies." Jesus pronounced a civility of love toward one's enemies. "Love your foes, pray for your foes." This was the New Testament for it was now a new way of dealing with others--all others.


Government was now established primarily within the believer rather than under Israeli kings. "The Kingdom of God is within you." Law was now primarily of the heart. "My law will be written on your hearts." That was the new politic. Further, the tabernacle was now primarily the human frame: "Your body is the temple of the Holy Spirit." That was the new religion.


Therefore, for the New Testament Church Age, it is the law of love toward all--friends and foes. Jesus provided a simply stated ethic. He refused to garble it with amendments. But, one may ask: "What about these atrocious crimes and the death penalty?"


The biblical answer is still the same: love your friends and foes in Jesus. What kind of Christian love then can be shown to a multiple-murderer / rapist / arsonist / child molester? What kind of Christian love can be meted out to a Hitler?


It is a Christian tough love. Tough love keeps the exceptional criminal alive but consigns that one to supervised environs without parole. Hopefully, even that exceptional criminal then may come upon redemption through Christ, yet never be placed in tempting circumstances whereby he again may do others and Himself harm.


Keeping the individual alive also allows the possibility that, realizing human justice systems to be flawed, that person in truth may be found innocent though originally pronounced guilty. Indeed, the future may prove this to be fact if new evidence is forthcoming. History has case files on those in the aforementioned category.


Reason this moral / ethical situation from God's perspective: Adam and Eve slew God's love when they played loose with Eden's snake. However, God did not slay them. Instead, God banished them to their own solitary isles of remorse, hoping at least for their eternal redemption.


You once slew God's love by going your own stubborn way. In reality, you pronounced yourself Lord of your life. It is a hurtful truth to you now that you are a believer; nevertheless, living once in sin and for sin, you were once that callused toward your own loving Creator. However, did God obliterate you? No, instead God searched you out, loved you even while you were enemy, in hopes of redeeming what was left of your destiny.


He now invites each Christian to live out that same kind of persevering, at-times-tough love toward all others--especially those who are Enemy. God has already walked for us the path of love-for-foes. We, of all creatures, should know this for sure. Praise be to a loving, merciful God!


He then invites us to join Him on that love path. He has walked it for us. He asks us now to walk it for others.

J. Grant Swank, Jr.


In the Old Testament there is recorded the divine directive to kill. In Noah’s generation, God drowned all but eight righteous individuals.


Let God be God.


There is not only the loving, merciful component in the divine persona; there is also the wrathful, just component. Deal with it. Accept it. That’s God.


Since God created the sphere and all related to it, God has the right to set His own rules. One of them is that following God is to live; turning against God is to die.


Noah’s generation knowingly turned against God. Sodom and Gomorrah did the same. And so forth. When cultures rebel against the God of the universe, they die in one way or another.


The innocent children within those collections are taken to heaven via divine mercy, for “of such is the kingdom of God.”


Christ stated the same concerning obeying and disobeying God; therefore, the New and Old Testaments agree. Christ stated that those who turn against God spend eternity in hell. Those who obey God spend eternity in heaven.


Therefore, there is no violent, mad Old Testament God in contest with a sweet, caring New Testament God. God is the same God throughout the Bible.


Regarding the harsh punishments set forth in the Old Testament, read BIBLE HARSH PENALTIES & CHRIST’S ETHIC at http://truthinconviction.us/weblog.php?id=P3465


However, NazNet Moderator Scott Cundiff and others on that website staff do not like the Old Testament God’s actions when He destroys peoples. That is one conclusion that prods these staffers to discount the inerrancy of Scripture.


NazNet staffers in the main champion a Bible with errors in it. That opens up the following: pull one error thread and where does one stop? It’s all up to the reader, of which there are countless. The ultimate thread pull is to end up in the Unitarian-Universalist camp.


What mortal dares to discount the Word of God as totally reliable, eternally revealed truth that must not be added to or subtracted from? Yet on NazNet that exercise is championed. It is lauded. That is blasphemous.


Note this on NazNet as planted by Moderator Scott Cundiff:


“In a devotional I dealt with the command given by God to wipe out entire people groups as part of the occupation of Canaan. Writing from a devotional point of view my take away is that there's that about God, an ‘otherness’ that is beyond us and that passages like that are reminders of that fact.


“However, in the open letter (of Dr. C. S. Cowles of Point Loma Nazarene University), I find a solid Wesleyan perspective that helps me deal with the issue, not from a devotional point of view, but rather from a theological one. I appreciate this insight.


“And van de Beek is right. No matter how hard one tries, it is impossible to reconcile the many commands to kill enemies in the Old Testament with the commands to love our enemies in the New.


“Even more difficult is the portrait painted of God as a violent and genocidal child killer in the Old Testament (Noah's flood, the fiery destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah, the slaughter of the Canaanites and Amalekites), and in Christ the lover of children in the New.


“Van de Beek admits as much. He confesses that ‘The more one wants to let all of Scripture speak for itself . . . the more unclear the Bible becomes. The more we believe that the whole Word is revelation, the less we know who God is.’”


Can one imagine that? The more one researches the Bible, the more the Word of God becomes “unclear.” That leads to unbelief; but that is permitted for there is no other choice. “The more we believe that the whole Word is revelation, the LESS WE KNOW WHO GOD IS.”


Consequently, a flippant knowledge of Scripture is best for the reader really does not get to know the God of the Book. However, when one spends a lifetime delving into the Bible’s minutia, the less one understands God. That’s what NazNet’s staffers declare by their support of Cowles and Van de Beek.


And with that, Cundiff applauds both men. Staffer Hans Deventer agrees, of course, for Deventer’s statements elsewhere on NazNet conclude him not to accept the total reliability of the Bible.


Where is NazNet Founder Dave McClung at this point? He is agreeing with the Cowles statement. Not only that, he agrees having it posted on his site that claims to be a “friend” of the Church of the Nazarene.


The denomination has never promoted disbelief in the Bible and thereby concluding one finds God unknowable.


FOOTNOTE: BIBLE HARSH PENALTIES & CHRIST’S ETHIC at http://truthinconviction.us/weblog.php?id=P3465

J. Grant Swank, Jr.


In the Old Testament there is recorded the divine directive to kill. In Noah’s generation, God drowned all but eight righteous individuals.


Let God be God.


There is not only the loving, merciful component in the divine persona; there is also the wrathful, just component. Deal with it. Accept it. That’s God.


Since God created the sphere and all related to it, God has the right to set His own rules. One of them is that following God is to live; turning against God is to die.


Noah’s generation knowingly turned against God. Sodom and Gomorrah did the same. And so forth. When cultures rebel against the God of the universe, they die in one way or another.


The innocent children within those collections are taken to heaven via divine mercy, for “of such is the kingdom of God.”


Christ stated the same concerning obeying and disobeying God; therefore, the New and Old Testaments agree. Christ stated that those who turn against God spend eternity in hell. Those who obey God spend eternity in heaven.


Therefore, there is no violent, mad Old Testament God in contest with a sweet, caring New Testament God. God is the same God throughout the Bible.


Regarding the harsh punishments set forth in the Old Testament, read BIBLE HARSH PENALTIES & CHRIST’S ETHIC at http://truthinconviction.us/weblog.php?id=P3465


However, NazNet Moderator Scott Cundiff and others on that website staff do not like the Old Testament God’s actions when He destroys peoples. That is one conclusion that prods these staffers to discount the inerrancy of Scripture.


NazNet staffers in the main champion a Bible with errors in it. That opens up the following: pull one error thread and where does one stop? It’s all up to the reader, of which there are countless. The ultimate thread pull is to end up in the Unitarian-Universalist camp.


What mortal dares to discount the Word of God as totally reliable, eternally revealed truth that must not be added to or subtracted from? Yet on NazNet that exercise is championed. It is lauded. That is blasphemous.


Note this on NazNet as planted by Moderator Scott Cundiff:


“In a devotional I dealt with the command given by God to wipe out entire people groups as part of the occupation of Canaan. Writing from a devotional point of view my take away is that there's that about God, an ‘otherness’ that is beyond us and that passages like that are reminders of that fact.


“However, in the open letter (of Dr. C. S. Cowles of Point Loma Nazarene University), I find a solid Wesleyan perspective that helps me deal with the issue, not from a devotional point of view, but rather from a theological one. I appreciate this insight.


“And van de Beek is right. No matter how hard one tries, it is impossible to reconcile the many commands to kill enemies in the Old Testament with the commands to love our enemies in the New.


“Even more difficult is the portrait painted of God as a violent and genocidal child killer in the Old Testament (Noah's flood, the fiery destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah, the slaughter of the Canaanites and Amalekites), and in Christ the lover of children in the New.


“Van de Beek admits as much. He confesses that ‘The more one wants to let all of Scripture speak for itself . . . the more unclear the Bible becomes. The more we believe that the whole Word is revelation, the less we know who God is.’”


Can one imagine that? The more one researches the Bible, the more the Word of God becomes “unclear.” That leads to unbelief; but that is permitted for there is no other choice. “The more we believe that the whole Word is revelation, the LESS WE KNOW WHO GOD IS.”


Consequently, a flippant knowledge of Scripture is best for the reader really does not get to know the God of the Book. However, when one spends a lifetime delving into the Bible’s minutia, the less one understands God. That’s what NazNet’s staffers declare by their support of Cowles and Van de Beek.


And with that, Cundiff applauds both men. Staffer Hans Deventer agrees, of course, for Deventer’s statements elsewhere on NazNet conclude him not to accept the total reliability of the Bible.


Where is NazNet Founder Dave McClung at this point? He is agreeing with the Cowles statement. Not only that, he agrees having it posted on his site that claims to be a “friend” of the Church of the Nazarene.


The denomination has never promoted disbelief in the Bible and thereby concluding one finds God unknowable.


FOOTNOTE: BIBLE HARSH PENALTIES & CHRIST’S ETHIC at http://truthinconviction.us/weblog.php?id=P3465

J. Grant Swank, Jr.


“Malcolm Hoenlein, executive vice chairman of the Conference of Presidents of Major American Jewish Organizations, expressed concern about Obama in a June interview with Newsmax’s Chief Washington Correspondent Ronald Kessler.


“’There’s a lot of questioning going on about what he (Obama) really believes and what does he really stand for,’ Hoenlein said.


‘[Jews] are genuinely very concerned,’ he
added.”


Surely this is so much talk that already knows the answer; but is it politically correct to ask questions that one already knows the answers to? Apparently.


Marxist Muslim Barack Hussein Obama is true to the Koran’s Allah. That should give the edge to Jews wondering where Obama is coming from when it comes to his do-nothing about Israel. It also should give American Jews a hunch as to why Obama is not doing more to prevent Islamic terrorists from blowing up portions of our country.


Why oh why do these queries about Obama’s beliefs continue to feed news reports?


And why oh why do American Jews still vote for Obama and his shadow government along with Dem comrades out to behead our nation?


“The Anti-Defamation League’s National Director Abraham Foxman gives President Barack Obama an ‘F’ – a failing ‘report card’ grade after his first year in office for his ‘accomplishments’ in dealing with the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.”


Surely. So does Fox News’ Shawn Hannity give Obama an F. Every thinking patriot should do the same though some of Hannity’s so-called intelligent panel members have even upped Obama to a C+ grade. Hannity responded frustratingly at such moments by assuring his viewers that he personally gave Obama an F across the board.


Obama does nothing practical for Israel because as a Muslim he is on the side of the Muslim despots out to do in Israel. Is not that obvious? What else would a devout Muslim do, especially when the head of the most powerful nation on Earth?


All the while Palestinian National Authority President Mahmoud Abbas continues to applaud Obama’s do-nothing policy. Each day Obama does nothing to aid Israel, Abbas wins. And so it will continue throughout the Obama
dictatorship.


Read “ADL's Foxman Gives Obama 'F' Grade for Accomplishment” at http://newsmax.com/Headline/foxman-obama-middle-east/2010/02/07/id/349206

J. Grant Swank, Jr.


Sarah Palin hit the nail on the head when she told the Tea Party Nation Convention that this repeated mantra of ‘bi-partisanship’ needs to find exit. Quickly. Like right now.


When Congressmen continue to boast on their bi-partisanship, it reveals their lack of conviction. That’s the upshot of what Palin was declaring.


For an elected official to state sweet things to media by continually bragging on how nicely he reaches “across the aisle” makes bland a Congress.


Greta Van Susteren of Fox News gets to the same point. When interviewing John McCain, he kept sounding lovely by accenting his “bi-partisanship” in Congress.


She interrupted him abruptly to ask him why he said those sweet words about his opponents. And then she went on to refer to others who do the same. She did not let up on her criticism of limp verbiage.


She put it to McCain by saying that accenting how kindly Congressmen dialogue with one another gives the American public the idea that conviction has drained out. Of course, the present proof is that conviction has indeed drained out, except for liberals. They cling to insane conviction even when it beheads the nation.


Van Susteren said that conservative patriots want leaders who stand for something, not for officials who kiss up to one another with these pretty phrases.


Palin drummed the same. And the Convention responded loudly with cheers of assent.


From what Scott Brown has been telling about his senatorial style, it appears he is of the same conviction cloth. He’s not going to be cute with other Congressmen; instead, he’s going to stand up for what Brown believes and so go at it.


It’s time that this wishy-washy laudatory verbiage be cut out of Congressmen’s giving forth. It does not make points with the grassroots.


Let feathers fly. Let sparks flash. Let the moralist convictions light up the sky.


If not, we have a mush for a Congress. At present, that appears to be what we are paying for, keeping the mush limpid.

J. Grant Swank, Jr.


Isn’t this what makes patriots distrust Marxist Muslim Barack Hussein Obama all the more? In his address to the National Prayer Breakfast, he inserted this:


“’. . .surely you can question my policies without questioning my faith, or, for that matter, my citizenship.’”


Everyone should continue to press this man to the wall concerning his “faith” and his “citizenship.”


His faith is Muslim for he said “my Muslim faith” when interviewed by George Stephanopoulos. His Protestant papers are a mask for his commitment to the Koran’s Allah.


View “Barack Obama Slips Up - My Muslim Faith” at http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=18VOGykrgHo


Another view “Obama: ‘My Muslim Faith’”
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XKGdkqfBICw


For more coverage, click here: http://www.google.com/webhp?hl=en&ned=us&tab=nw&q=#hl=en&source=hp&q=my+muslim+gaith+george&aq=f&aqi=&oq=&fp=173c88006b48283c


And for his citizenship, every thinking American not biased to Dems simply says to the President: Show us your birth certificate.


Anyone else who values his integrity would have shown his birth certificate long ago in order to settle that matter once and for all.


Yet to this day, that issue continues to remain unwrapped because Obama hides truth, even thinking that by mentioning it in his speech he will convince the public to accept his honesty. Not going to happen.


Those familiar with Islam know that Islamics are commissioned by their deity to lie. Lying is a virtue to Muslims. Therefore, we have a lying person in the Oval Office. He has been caught in so many lies that it is laborious to list them all.


And if making promises and then not keeping most of those promises can be regarded as lying, add that to his lying lifestyle and one has an arch-deceiver in the White House.


There simply has to come the moment when some American-loyal judge demands the obvious—Obama’s birth certificate. This waiting game is a travesty, a slap in the face to Liberty.


Grassroots Americans remaining true to the U. S. Constitution, their pledge of allegiance to the American flag, and working hard to keep our freedoms secure deserve a leader who is at least that much in line with the core of the nation.


However, we don’t.


All the more then that Obama’s faith and citizenship be questioned until this lying personage coughs up facts to the satisfaction of every honest American.


Read “Obama's prayer: ‘Don't question my citizenship’” at http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=124115

J. Grant Swank, Jr.


NazNet Site Coordinator Hans Deventer wobbles again.


The question is asked on NazNet as to who believes in universalism.


Read http://www.naznet.com/community/showthread.php/30581-Are-you-a-universalist-at-heart


Universalism believes that all souls go to heaven. God’s grace is universally applied, no soul excepted, hence the creation of the Unitarian-Universalist Society, headquartered in Boston.


“Universalism refers to the belief that all humans can be saved through Jesus Christ and eventually come to harmony in God's kingdom. A related doctrine, apokatastasis, is the belief that all mortal beings will be reconciled to God, including Satan and his fallen angels. In the 17th-century and 18th-century Europe and America, other Christian reformers came to believe in a universally loving God and felt that God would grant all human beings salvation. Read “Universalism” at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Universalism


The Bible over and over again states that there is an eternal hell and an eternal heaven. Those who follow Christ go to heaven. Those who do not, go to hell. This reveals divine mercy and justice in balance, just as the Bible teaches.


Can the Bible get clearer than that?


Obviously the Bible is offbeat for Deventer. Deventer does not regard the Bible as infallible. He holds that it has errors in it. Question to Deventer: Once you pull one error thread from the Bible, where do you stop? If you logically continue to your heart’s content, you will end up in the Unitarian-Universalist camp.


Deventer states in reply to this NazNet site question “Are you a universalist at heart?” the following limp response for a designated NazNet staff member.


“’I'm a Nazarene, I do not believe in universalism, but I hope God does.’”


Sappy.


That is typical unsteady Deventer and others on NazNet. Instead of forthrightly endorsing the Bible with Scriptural references, they wobble, they waffle. They must think that is cute. It is not cute. It is blasphemous to counter the Word of God with one’s willy-nilly statements.


Again, NazNet claims to be a “friend” of the evangelical, holiness Church of the Nazarene. No way does that church support universalism or wobbly sweet nothings as Deventer prints on the site.


NazNet cannot be trusted. It is not biblically solid.


Deventer also believes that unsaved souls are annihilated at death; they suffer no eternal hell.


NazNet is no friend of God, the Bible or the Church of the Nazarene.


Read NazNet Distorts at http://naznetdistorts.blogspot.com/

J. Grant Swank Jr.


NazNet’s Coordinators Scott Cundiff and Hans Deventer stand at the forefront of cheerleaders applauding the emerging church.


NazNet Founder Dave McClung obviously endorses the emerging church along with his staffers for he does not discount their enthusiasm.


One can count on NazNet to champion the bizarre and left of center while at the same time repeatedly stating it to be a “friend” to the Church of the Nazarene. That denomination is having troubles enough regarding the emerging church without a site “friend” getting onboard this experimental charade hoodwinking congregations into believing the emerging church is solidly based on Scripture.


Regarding the emerging church, once you proclaim that there are no absolutes, you put yourself outside Christianity.


Christianity is constructed on the biblical absolutes or it's not Christianity.


There are all kinds of prostitutions of Christianity; but God knows Christianity when He sees it. And when He sees the real thing, it's based on His absolutes as set forth in divine revelation.


The Emerging Church basically is the throwback to hippies with religion tagging along somehow somewhere.


The Emerging Church won't say anything absolute about homosexuality or abortion. That means it's a cowardly conclave that wants more of self than God's truth.


God's truth is set forth in Scripture. Regarding homosexual practice, God abhors it. Regarding killing womb babies, God abhors it.


Therefore, when the Emerging Church plays chicken on such ethical concerns, it sides with the dark powers. God is light. The Emerging Church cohabitates with compromise and that lifts it outside the genuine company of believers.


The Emerging Church is a fad that will fade - and the quicker the better. It is a giggle kind of group that is self-centered in that whatever plays best for the constituents is what goes.


Christians are not on Earth to play best for self. Christians are here to live out the biblical ethic - period.


The Emerging Church boasts of its swing dance group, its happy hour, its hiking clubs and so on and so on. Whatever serves self's giddy get-up this Friday works for the Emerging Church.


That's a far cry from biblical commissions to live out holiness, go into all the world to make disciples of Christ, and be separate from worldliness unto God's impress.


The Emerging Church is touted among some today as The Latest in religious zeal, even at times including the term "evangelical" in its description.


All this is so much untruth in advertising.


This Emerging Church self-based flimflam will dissipate for it has no actual substance. Its little candle will light itself dry soon.


The world is crazy. Yes. And part of that nuthouse stuff is the Emerging Church.


With that, farewell to those who pride themselves on having discovered something new. It's nothing more than the old hippie bag with a religion of self-preoccupation.

J. Grant Swank, Jr.


NazNet Coordinator Hans Deventer poses his questions about an eternal hell.


One of the dilemmas he posits is that there cannot be an everlasting fire in total darkness called “hell” even though Jesus stated that.


Therefore, this reasoning helps Deventer conclude that when Jesus speaks of an eternal burning fire as well as entire darkness, He must have been uninformed.


That then edges Deventer closer to his doctrine of the annihilation of the unsaved rather than those souls spending forever in punishment.


In other words, Deventer knows more than Jesus. There is no other conclusion that a bystander can reach but that—Deventer knows what hell is and Jesus was mistaken. Consequently, eternal hell is not. Deventer says so.


Deventer is obviously ignorant of the fact that total darkness with intense heat already exists. It is the burnt out star known as the “black hole.”


Black holes in the universe are just those—entities in which there is no light at all and at the same time there is heat beyond description. In other words, black holes could very well stand for “hell.” At least, they supply the existence of Jesus’ definition.


Deventer needs to move over and let Jesus be God. When God speaks in the Bible, whether we understand what is there or not, does not discount what is there.


Deventer finds it difficult to reckon with his finite brain. He is mortal. He is not capable to think through eternal data to its nth degree. Therefore, Deventer needs to quit depositing doubt on NazNet and start upping his faith quotient in the infallible Word of God.


However, Deventer and fellow Coordinator Scott Cundiff do not hold to an infallible Scripture. They conclude that the Word of God has errors in it. That doubt factor is blatantly stated on NazNet. What then are posters to think when these two staffers question the Bible as the truth-full divine revelation?


In the meantime, NazNet Founder Dave McClung needs to request Deventer in particular to keep his anti-Bible doubts to himself rather than blather them all over a site that claims to be a “friend” to the Church of the Nazarene.


Such cutting up Nazarene beliefs in the name of “friend” is not friendly at all. It is betrayal.


All of this has been pointed out to the Church of the Nazarene General Superintendents, but seemingly to no avail. Could it be because McClung has been “high up there” in various denominational positions over years and therefore has insulated himself against criticism?


I don’t know; but the heresies continue to stand on NazNet even though the Nazarene leaders have been requested to do something about them. Apparently the denomination can be sacrificed in other protect a fellow politician.


And so the dreadful beat goes on of NazNet threatening the Church of the Nazarene’s integrity. NazNet, in short, appears to be creating a “church” of its own while playing up to the Church of the Nazarene hierarchy, trying to appear companionable.


Read NAZNET DISTORTS at http://naznetdistorts.blogspot.com/