J. Grant Swank, Jr.


In the 1967 Six Day War, Israel gained control of the Sinai Peninsula, Gaza Strip, the West Bank, East Jerusalem, and Golan Heights.


Israel should never give up any of this turf. Israelis have bartered some of it away. It should remain today as it was on June 11.


My wife and I were in Israel in 1966, passing from Jordan into Israel. We went through the Mandelbaum Gate, prayed at the Wailing Wall, visited holy sites, including Gordon’s Calvary where we observed the communion sacrament with friends.


Since then it has pained me to think Israel would lose any of that land fought for. I believe it was a miracle that they won that war in six days.


Now Barack Hussein Obama wants less of Israel and more of Arab earth. Why not? Go figure.


Therefore, Obama is dissed at Israel officialdom not going the Obama Way. Best wishes to Israel on that score. May they stay their course.


Israel, no larger than New Jersey, is recorded in the Old Testament as the land “flowing with milk and honey.” God has smiled upon that navel of the planet while other geographies have more acreage. This is in keeping with God’s fondness of the small and insignificant.


How many times in biblical history did God call upon the little person, the out-of-the-way places, by which to open His will? Bethlehem, for instance, is biblically scored as not very important in mortal eyes. But there deity housed Himself in flesh.


David was a nobody; yet God chose him as Israel’s king.


Nazareth. Well, what good can come out of Nazareth?


Therefore, when I think of Israel, I pray for that part of the world specifically for I know King Christ will return to the Mount of Olives, establishing His millennial reign. It will be back to the little place that the Second Person of the Trinity will rule the planet. In the meantime, I ask God to keep Israel intact.


The other day I was shopping at the mall. I came upon a kiosk manned by two young Israeli’s selling their goods. I chatted with these fellows, finding them especially interesting.


I told them I had visited their country and to that their faces lit up. They were so pleased to be talking to an American who had walked their streets. With that, I invited them to our home. I expect them to visit us one of these evenings.


There is something quite dear about Israel to the soul of the Christian.


Therefore, when I see Israel threatened so rudely, I feel the hurt. The rest of the world turns on them. All through the years, America basically has stood by Israel. But now with a Muslim President, we cannot expect that.


Therefore, I intercede all the more for the Holy Land. I pray that Mount Moriah will remain intact, its holy places not destroyed by Islamic bulldozers, as they have been doing in recent times, focusing on Solomon’s original temple site.


May Jerusalem always remain Israel’s capital city. May it prepare itself for the advent of Christ’s holiness.


Read “Israel Defies Obama with New Settlement Construction” at http://www.newsmax.com/newsfront/israel_obama_settlement/2009/11/17/287567.html

J. Grant Swank, Jr.

 
In the Lakes Region there is this sixtyish gas station clerk who is predictably courteous. It doesn't matter what the lousy weather, the line up of customers or the complainers, she still smiles and serves.


I quietly have taken special note of her--over time. And the research always comes out the same: she is consistently kind and giving. Interesting but not unusual in the neighborhood where I hang my hat.


This mystery woman reminds me of Vi.


Vi was the one who put out the gorgeous, round, luscious fruits in a huge color-splashed bowl. There it was in the center of our morning table--along with the pastries, cereals, hot beverages and whatever else the Massies requested the night before.


Vi saw to it that vacationers Priscilla and Grant were treated exceptionally well. It was "simply her way," Herb and Pearl informed us. And with that, they were most fortunate to have Vi as their housekeeper.


Montego Bay could not have been more outlandishly pleasant that spring. So days we went sightseeing with our host and hostess--he being the retired overseer of the entire island's road system.


Consequently, we got to explore enticing nooks and crannies off the beaten path. Then evenings we laid back at the Bay, closing out our excursions with a full meal set forth by none other than our faithful, meticulous Vi.


"Come join us for Bible," Herb would invite Vi. So she did. We--the five of us--had our devotions together: Bible, prayer and a bit of chatter centering on God's ways with our lives.


The next day was the same: a variety of island birds exchanging messages outside our bedrooms windows, sunlight smiling through those artfully carved air passages in the walls, and that Picasso-like breakfast table--not only lush with exotic tastes but overflowing with happy colors.


In the center of it all--Vi.


Her faith was a simple trust. In that, Vi lived out her love for Jesus. That love was shown practically in her consistent kindness of serving.
 

Then the years slipped by. From Kingston (their second home) came Herb and Pearl's note. Included in much familial detail was the news that heaven had added one. Vi had been taken from Jamaica to serve other tables. Massies were sad but the angels were delighted.


When we have company for dinner and our table needs cleared of its dishes, I often look at my wife to say, "Where's Vi?" Then we chuckle. And then we pause, thanking God that we ever crossed island paths with the likes of one named Vi.


Sometimes friends say to me, "I don't know what this old world's coming to!" And of course we can all read between the lines on that one.


But when I hear that lament, I often think back to past-tense Vi. And then I remember present-tense sixtyish gas station clerk. So with that I conclude that the world's probably like it's always been--some bad, but some good, too.


Well, then, what's the good ones' secret? How can they do it--serving, breathing out an unadorned kindness, reliable in their love? Why don't they cave in? Why don't they leap into the bank lobby and shoot-em-up?


Jesus opened up secret's door a long time ago when He washed His disciples' feet. "Wash one another's feet. For I have given you an example. The servant is not greater than his lord. Neither he that is sent greater than he that sent him. If you know these things, you are happy if you do them." (John 13:14-17)

 
"Happy if you do them."



Yessirree. I think Vi learned that a long, long time ago.

J. Grant Swank, Jr.


When Bill O’Reilly asked Sally Quinn questions regarding Sarah Palin’s faith on The Factor, Quinn was all over the answer board.


Quinn went on and on about her recent visit with Rick Warren, touting his bestseller, “The Purpose Driven Life,” and commending him and his wife for being so nice. So what’s that got to do with O’Reilly’s question about Palin? Nothing.


Quinn then went on about Palin giving birth to a Down syndrome child but in interviews Palin saying that she knew she could have chosen abortion.


Quinn read into Palin’s abortion remarks that Palin might finally have concluded to go for that. Instead, the obvious reasoning concerning Palin’s comments was that she briefly was tempted with the abortion
choice but, knowing her faith base, soon buried that option.


Quinn would have her stretching out her angst until it was pitted into desert sands.


Quinn then questioned Palin’s free will versus predestination. Where Quinn thought she was going on that track cannot be picked up by rational mortals. She was smilingly stupid at that juncture so that logical TV watchers would have thrown a shoe through their screens.


Quinn was snide all the way through O’Reilly’s interview, maintaining that pretty smile that was crusted cold. It appeared she was more motivated to show off her fashionable garb than succinctly responding to O’Reilly.


Quinn, a woman, did no favor for genuinely analyzing another woman now in the spotlight. Typical of feminists.


O’Reilly kept coming back to Palin’s simple Christian faith. Quinn decidedly was about shredding O’Reilly’s thesis by positing Palin as an unrefined complicated doctrinal mess.


When biblical believers hear Palin, they know her Christian faith is indeed fundamental; that is what spins secularists on their heads. Nevertheless, Palin is Palin. And Palin is a scriptural disciple who sincerely believes what she has learned the Christian way.


Too bad that liberals like Quinn don’t get it. Too bad that feminists don’t get it.


That all the more reveals the definite split Palin will continue to create throughout America as her pre-campaign revs up. The biblical believers versus secularists will shoot crevices across the Republic’s crust from coast to coast.


Let the crust begin.


Read “Palin's Pentecostal faith: liberals will pounce” at http://www.renewamerica.com/columns/swank/091118


Read  WOMEN ENDORSING PALIN? IT’LL BE SLICE-N-DICE at http://grantswank.blogtownhall.com/2009/11/18/women_endorsing_palin_it%E2%80%99ll_be_slice-n-dice.thtml

J. Grant Swank, Jr.


Women should support women.


That’s what feminists preach. They write it as a part of their creed. It’s basic.


Not however when it comes to Sarah Palin. She will not get the support of America’s women in total. Not on your life.


Instead, Palin will split women in two camps just as she will divide Americans into two opposing segments: believers versus secularists.


Women who are liberals will slam, dunk and bury Palin. They will pick her apart more than liberal males. Take for example The View. The liberals there cannot tolerate Palin.


So it will go throughout Hollywood’s celebrities, coast-to-coast politicians and theologically liberal churchwomen. They will slice and dice. They will not care a twit that she is female. And females against a female get out the claws like no other animal.


Because Palin is morally based on the Bible, secularist females will tear her apart. Feminism’s creed states just the opposite. But hang the creed.


Feminism is basically an opportunist swing anyhow. It stands for LIBERAL. Period. Anything conservative—politically or theologically—is chewed meat.


Watch Palin become more and more popular with America’s moralists and then you will witness daily Battle Royal. Liberal women will mount stallions, button up dueling garb and go after Palin’s heart—right there in the bull’s eye.


All the more, feminism’s hypocrisy will come to the fore just as it did during the McCain-Palin run for the White House. Females who despised Palin let it be known by screeching it from the witchtops.


I cannot get out of my head the look on Barbara Walter’s face every time Palin was brought up then. She was restrained but it was obvious that her trying for equality-for-all was wearing thin.


The other three panelists liberal bound held Walter’s position to the close. Their faces turned to stone.


If Palin goes further than putting on the table her book, she better wear thick protective gear. Or else she can continue to do what she does best: hold her convictions solid and let God shoot level the enemy.


I think she will choose the latter.


Read PALIN TO RIGHTLY DIVIDE USA ALL THE MORE at http://truthinconviction.us/weblog.php?id=P3263


Read PALIN’S PENTECOSTAL FAITH: LIBERALS WILL POUNCE at http://truthinconviction.us/weblog.php?id=P3262

J. Grant Swank, Jr.


Sarah Palin, if running for President, surely will divide this Republic all the more into two definite segments—fiercely opposing segments.


Already we have two primary segments: believers and secularists.


Believers are those moralists who hold to the God of the Bible, particularly the New Testament God in Christ. It may be via Roman Catholicism, evangelical Protestantism, Orthodox Christians, or non-church members who hold to biblical ethics.


Secularists are exampled by Joy Behar on The View. She is with conviction a non-believer who holds that this life is all there is. No deity. No hereafter. No judgment accountability. This is it; write your own (im)morals.


George W. Bush’s interviews regarding his faith brought out remarks that he read the Bible, prayed to Christ, believed in the hereafter, and other basics common to biblical believers.


This infuriated secularists. They charged him with swords and knives aplenty. Likewise Laura.


But with Sarah Palin, Pentecostal, all the more swords will cut and slash. Interviewers from a secularist-based media will pound away till blood flows in her boulevards. Headlines will misquote her. Liberal press will cut her to ribbons.


Therefore, if there was a divide in the Republic with Bush, all the more so with Palin. Will she make it through a campaign let alone a sit-down in the White House? That is a tough question to answer.


But one thing Palin cannot afford to do is to compromise who she is. And who she is is known now by thinking moralists. Thinking moralists know their faith, ethic, biblical mooring and its practical lifestyle. They are also tuned into buzzwords that reveal truth or double-talk.


Therefore, if Palin compromises her ethic, it will be picked up immediately by genuine moralists. And they will not let her get by with hypocrisy.


For instance, when Bush invited Muslims to a Ramadan dinner in the White House at which time he lifted high the Koran, announcing its placement in the White House library, knowledgeable biblical believers shot him down—and appropriately so.


When Bush told a visiting Muslim leader that many paths lead to God, knowledgeable biblical believers let not a moment go by without informing the President that he was so utterly incorrect.


These two faith failures will long be remembered by those who know the solid faith they hold as eternal truth. Eternal verities cannot be sliced through. They cannot be used opportunistically for this or that. They are God-given; therefore, even the President of the United States cannot sheer off truth’s solidity.


If Palin tries for the numbers’ game by playing politically correct in any venue, she’s done. Secularists will immediately drive home her inconsistency. Moralists will drive home her weakness.


She cannot afford inconsistencies or weakness. She sounds solid now. She must sound solid all the way through to whatever.


In doing so, she will divide the American people all the more into two fighting segments—secularists versus biblical believers.

J. Grant Swank, Jr.


Sarah Palin will be quizzed about political this and that. But when she runs for Oval Office, if she does, and it surely does appear as if it’s in her adrenaline swing, her being Christian will be shredded.


She is not only Christian in the biblical definition, but also “evangelical” when it comes to tags.


And not only “evangelical,” but charismatic/pentecostal.


That issue alone will swab the deck. The atheists, agnostics and generic secularists will warp and woof. They will holler and screech. They will write and scrawl. They will pull up the sewer tops from every evangelical and pentecostal persona in the past century.


Further, they will take especially the pentecostal beliefs and strew them from coast to coast, then every continent. They will misplace them, misstate them, malign them and nail them to hell’s front door.


The bloody war that awaits evangelicals and charismatics in particular is not yet envisioned by the general biblical believers. But it will be forthcoming if she goes further than marketing her book.


Her local church will be swarmed with reporters. Her pastor will have to hide from media. Every churchgoer there in her hometown will likewise be buttonholed. Some will speak clearly regarding doctrine. Others won’t have a clue and so will stir up the theological pot to dirt.


Then First Dude will be quizzed till he’ll flee on dogsled. Palin children will be asked if they agree or disagree with family faith, especially the matriarch’s claim.


The Bible verses relating to miracles, the Second Coming and speaking in tongues will make front page fodder, mostly screwed up to the nth.


Imagine what Katie Couric will do with the Word.


Those truly interested in the topic will be twittering and emailing and posting till their fingers fall off. In the meantime, God will oversee the mayhem and wonder what happened when Sarah Palin decided to run run run.


The circus has not even started yet. Wait till they pitch the Big Tent.

J. Grant Swank, Jr.


NazNet Moderator Hans Deventer: “NazNet is an online forum, it's not a church.”


Incorrect.


NazNet appears as an “online forum.” But in reality when checking out its base line on theology, it acts like a church.


NazNet presents its own doctrines, such, for instance, being Deventer’s belief statements. They include that there is no eternal torment in hell as Christ informs. Instead, Deventer states that the unsaved are zapped via “annihilation.”


Now Deventer right there puts forth a churchly faith statement as churches do. Consequently, Deventer is not only holding forth on an “online forum” but pitting his “doctrines” against the holiness Church of the Nazarene, the latter posted on NazNet as being friends with NazNet.


Further, Deventer and fellow Moderator Scott Cudliff state doctrinal beliefs thusly: the Bible has errors in it. Yes. That’s what they hold faith in. It is not the infallible inerrant Word of God, a divine who knows how to reveal without flaw.


When these two Moderators give forth with that kind of theology, they are not in keeping with the Church of the Nazarene. In fact, they become theological enemies to Nazarenes. That evangelical Protestant denomination believes deity is equipped to tell His own proclamations flawlessly.


As one reads through NazNet, the unmistakable conclusion reached is that Founder and Moderator Dave McClung definitely pits his site against the Church of the Nazarene.


He is forming his own competitive Internet-church to the Church of the Nazarene. If the Nazarene General Superintendents don’t confront this head-on, they are not fulfilling their responsibilities.


In addition, Deventer doctrinally proclaims his belief that “eternal life” as defined by Christ is not everlasting. That poses the question as to whether Deventer has any acumen by which to define terms understood by others as meaning what they mean.


Just importantly, this kind of heresy weave throughout NazNet would put that site in the form of a church. It is a church without buildings. But it does have officialdom and creeds. It does have means by which to communicate those creeds.


So NazNet preaches that heaven is not without end. Hell is not eternal torment. The Scriptures are not reliable.


But there is more: Deventer teaches that infant baptism is divinely approved accurate, more so than adult believers’ baptism. The New Testament states just the opposite; but who cares? We have Deventer.


So now NazNet has its own definition of a sacrament. That surely does move into the churchly venue.


Will the Church of the Nazarene leadership own up to this opposing “church”, doing so as to state publicly that the denomination disavows any “friendly tie” to NazNet? NazNet delights in repeatedly claiming to be Nazarene-friendly. Oh yes, very much so.


Will Nazarenes realize that when reading NazNet they are being drawn into a church as defined by the site’s own doctrinal statements?


Further, a former Moderator Chaplain Barbara Moulton even went so far as to inform me about her position on a moral issue. It was homosexuality.


She, a chaplain, stated she would not witness to the scriptural position on the topic, that is, she would not support God’s stance in public. In other words, she would play coward at that juncture.


I then would take that as a churchly position taken by one of NazNet’s top names, though now she has bowed out of the site, per Dave McClung absenting her from the masthead and also his latest post of “Making NazNet an even friendlier place”.


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

J. Grant Swank, Jr.


Marxist Muslim Barack Hussein Obama will be confronted by Senate Dems who oppose his baby killing when the health care debates fires up soon.


Obama and wife give no apologies for cheering on slaying of the womb innocents, though they photo themselves as the loving family with the caring father as head.


Lies lies lies abundant. Lies, by the way, are permitted by the Koran’s Allah to further Islam World Rule.


Obama, using the anti-Bible United Church of Christ (Congregational) as US cover for his Islamic devotion, continues the UCC furthering of infant slaughter.


But when pro-life Dems start declaring their convictions in the upcoming wrangle, then Obama will be faced with those of his own political kin who trounce his stance.


The House put strict restrictions on their version of the health care tumble. Will the Senate?


“’This is a horrible dilemma,’ said Larry Sabato, a political science professor at the University of Virginia. ‘The Democrats have to pass something – they have no choice,’ he said, adding that they have backed themselves into a corner by making healthcare reform a priority” per FT.com’s Anna Fifield in Washington.


The House passed a bill that “prevents abortion coverage in the public health insurance option but also prohibits private health insurers that have any customers receiving federal subsidies from offering abortion coverage to anyone else.”


Obama sidelines the abortion bit since walking into the Oval Office. But now he’ll have to speak up or be considered The Boy many consider him to be.


Read “Abortion clause raises problems for Obama´at http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/1da64700-d2dd-11de-af63-00144feabdc0.html


FOOTNOTE:


The Bible speaks of a fetus as a person, not simply tissue that can be discarded if found to be a bother or nuisance. Since the fetus is a person from the moment of conception, then the destroying of the fetus is killing a person.


“In the past, some people have mistakenly speculated that perhaps the body might be in the process of formation for some time, and then 'God breathes a soul into it.' They had it backward. The life that is present forms matter into a body for itself'” (Joseph Breig, "Life Forms Matter," The Catholic News, Jan. 24, 1974, p. 8).


"Your hands shaped me and made me. Will you now turn and destroy me? Remember that you molded me like clay. Will you now turn me to dust again? Did you not pour me out like milk ... and knit me together with bones and sinews? You gave me life and showed me kindness, and in your providence watched over my spirit" (Job 10:8-12 NIV).


"Before I was born the LORD called me; from my birth he has made mention of my name...and now the LORD says--he who formed me in the womb to be his servant..." (Isaiah 49:1, 5).


"The word of the LORD came to me, saying, ‘Before I formed you in the womb I knew you, before you were born I set you apart; I appointed you as a prophet to the nations’" (Jeremiah 1:4-5).


In the following passages we note that personality is ascribed to the unborn.


"For you created my inmost being; you knit me together in my mother's womb. I praise you because I am fearfully and wonderfully made; your works are wonderful, I know that fully well. My frame was not hidden from you when I was made in the secret place. When I was woven together in the depths of the earth, your eyes saw my unformed body. All the days ordained for me were written in your book before one of them came to be" (Psalm 139:13-16).


"Sons are a heritage from the LORD, children a reward from him" (Psalm 127:3).


Exodus 21:22-25 relates how Israel was to judge a circumstance relating to the death of the unborn:


"If men who are fighting hit a pregnant woman and she gives birth prematurely but there is no serious injury, the offender must be fined whatever the woman's husband demands and the court allows. But if there is serious injury, you are to take life for life, eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot, wound for wound, bruise for bruise."


All of the latter deals with unintentional hurt that comes to a pregnant woman; how much more will divine penalty come upon those who intentionally discard the fetus? The Gospel of Luke ascribes personality to the fetus within Elizabeth:


"When Elizabeth heard Mary's greeting, the baby leaped in her womb, and Elizabeth was filled with the Holy Spirit... As soon as the sound of your greeting reached my ears, the baby in my womb leaped for joy" (1:41, 44).


Mere tissue does not leap for joy; only personhood leaps for joy. The Bible regards the fetus as having personality. In Galatians, Paul speaks of himself as a person while still in his mother's womb, but more a person consecrated by God for a holy mission (compare Jeremiah 1:5 for the same accent):


"But when God, who set me apart from birth, and called me by his grace, was pleased to reveal his Son in me so that I might preach him among the Gentiles..." (Gal. 1: 15-16).


Since the Bible regards the fetus as personality, then the aborting of the fetus is murdering personality.


Some verses from Scripture dealing with murder are then appropriate for study, such as Genesis 9:6: "Whoever sheds the blood of man, by man shall his blood be shed; for in the image of God has God made man." Also, read Exodus 23:7: "Have nothing to do with a false charge, and do not put an innocent or honest person to death, for I will not acquit the guilty." Note I Peter 4:15: "If you suffer, it should not be as a murderer..."


If the Republic returned to the biblical definition of personhood, we would defend every womb child.


John Adams said the following:


"Our Constitution was made only for a religious and moral people. It is wholly inadequate for the government of any other."


Andrew Jackson said the following:


"The BIBLE is the rock on which our Republic rests."


Daniel Webster:


"If we abide by the principles taught in the BIBLE, our country will go on prospering."


"For all the talk of freedom and self-determination, the abortion movement is at its heart a movement denying rights to a silent segment of humanity and soliciting public sanction, support and subsidy to its own cause" (Donald P. Shoemaker, ABORTION, THE BIBLE AND THE CHRISTIAN, Hayes Publishing Co., 1976, p. iv).

J. Grant Swank, Jr.


Barbara Moulton told me: “I don't perform them (homosexual ‘marriages’) and will never perform them.  I simply am not going to crusade against allowing them to take place in my country.”


“. . . not. . .crusade against allowing them. . .”


So that’s the conclusion of it, is it Ms. Chaplain?


To her cemented conclusion I asked her how she could be a biblical Christian and yet gag her biblical testimony in the marketplace?


My Bible reads that Christ told His own to gospel the world. That includes the Christ ethic regarding issues such as homosexual practice. Moulton refuses to recant her cowardliness for courage in witnessing openly regarding this pressing moral issue.


I have waited for a retraction from the Chaplain. None has been forthcoming.


Instead, Moulton has informed me that she has blocked my email communications. In her own words: “I will be blocking your e-mail.” Clearly noted.


Further, she complains that by exposing her cowardliness, I botched her morning.


She states: “Thanks for starting my day off in such a lovely manner.” That said sarcastically, obviously.


Immediately I thought of God’s heart. How “lovely” has Moulton delighted the divine by hiding “gay nuptials” in the closet. There she put “homosexual marriage” for all time, no matter the call of God to broadcast truth by every means possible.


As Ms. Chaplain locks the closet door, homosexuals clog our boulevards with crusading chants.


Did not Christ say something about not hiding one’s light under a bushel?


Read more re Barbara Moulton: NAZNET DISTORTS at http://naznetdistorts.blogspot.com/

J. Grant Swank, Jr.


NazNet Moderator Hans Deventer has no clue as to what happens to the soul upon death.


In a particular NazNet discussion slide he states unabashedly that hell is not “eternal torment,” though Christ states same as well and in numerous places gives more data than that.


Yet Deventer upstages Christ by declaring that there is no eternal torment known as “hell.” Instead, hell is “annihilation.” Annihilation? Yes, annihilation, per Hans Deventer.


Nowhere in Scripture does God the revelator proclaim that definition of annihilation for “hell.” Deventer makes it up and yet without apology puts it on the site that underlines its allegiance to the holiness, biblically grounded Church of the Nazarene.


Now in that same discussion slide, Deventer questions “eternal life” as being “eterenal.” Deventer once again plays linguistic magician by taking clear scriptural language and giving it a totally different definition.


Here is typical Deventer: “Eternal life is known to be a quality of life rather than a duration.”


I always thought that “eternal” meant “eternal.” Deventer declares the exact opposite. He says that it has nothing to do with eternality but the content of existence.


This kind of twist and turn repeats itself throughout NazNet while non-theologian NazNet Founder Dave McClung does absolutely nothing to biblically correct these heresies.


No wonder Deventer along with NazNet Moderator Scott Cundiff do not believe that the Bible is in fact the infallible, inerrant Word of God. They state that the Bible is loaded with flaws. Therefore, God has no idea how to communicate a perfect revelation; instead, He makes mistakes or stretches detail at times or just plain misses the point on occasion.


Such hubris. However, hubris is current fare of NazNet overseers.


So there you have it on heaven: it is not eternal. “Eternal” does not mean “eternal” to Deventer.


And the devilish beat goes on and on.


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

J. Grant Swank, Jr.


That is correct.


Site overseers such as NazNet Manager Scott Cudliff and Moderator Hans Deventer champion those who doubt the Bible as a reliable revelation from the Christian God. (See footnote for further detail at NAZNET DISTORTS http://naznetdistorts.blogspot.com/ .)


Yet the Bible states in 2 Timothy 3:16-17: “All Scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness: that the man of God may be perfect, thoroughly furnished unto good works.”


“All Scripture. . .is profitable for doctrine. . .”


When God inspired those words, He meant it. Not just what is convenient Scripture or that which is pleasant to you, but all Scripture. Not just what liberals pronounce as condoned, but all Scripture. That means from Genesis to Revelation, all Scripture is God’s infallible communication.


Does NazNet’s deity have flawed communication skills? Obviously, for Cudliff and Deventer applaud same. NazNet Founder and Moderator Dave McClung must go along with this heresy for he never disciplines his overseers or counters their anti-God views.


By the way, McClung is not a theologian. He is a successful businessman.


Why then does he found and head a primarily religious site, advertising it as Church of the Nazarene-friendly? He is not doctrinally astute. He is not theologically trained. Yet he is forming a seminary-on-Internet and Internet competitive “denomination” against the holiness Nazarene history.


McClung delights in his ego aggrandizement in watching particularly the young follow his Pied Piper musical dance into God’s wrath. McClung is proud. He is conceited. That is why he has molded this NazNet grouse that entices the unknowing into his dark web.


Yet all along he boasts that NazNet is a support system for the Wesleyan holiness Church of the Nazarene. It is just the opposite.


For instance, Cudliff states on NazNet that he is mesmerized by C. S. Cowles’ address regarding the emerging church. In that address, Cowles esteems a liberal theologian who destroys faith in the Bible for ongoing doubt.


Cudliff lifts high that quote from Cowles and states for the world to read that such an heretical view encourages Cudliff’s “Wesleyan perspective.”


That is a lie. It cannot be. Cowles’ quote has nothing to do with endorsing Wesleyan theology and the holiness interpretation of the Word. In fact, that quote enables atheism, not Wesleyan doctrine.


Time and again, such deceit weaves its way through the discussion slides on NazNet. There is much there that is cotton candy; but there is enough to damn. And McClung knows that; but he is so enthralled with his own ego enlargement by this site that he continues to “gospel” lies.


“All Scripture is given by inspiration of God. . .”


That includes the flood in Noah’s day. That flood is scuttled by Cowles and thereby by Cudliff by the latter’s own confession on NazNet.


That divine inspiration includes the slaying of various peoples in the Old Testament period. Such is submerged by Cowles and therby Cudliff.


What these liberals do is to transplant their own divine personality mold upon the Bible—mostly sugary sweet deity images. If the Bible does not support that persona, the biblical verses are scrapped. Of course, Psalm 23 is left. And I Corinthians 13. However, the more difficult passages are yanked out as logically and theologically unsound.


However, God has stated: “All Scripture is given by inspiration of God. . .” It is not there for us to scissor out at our whim. Scripture is not provided for us to critique. It is there by “inspiration of God.” God!


Therefore, if you cannot stomach that God, don’t claim Him.


However, the likes of Cowles, Cudliff, McClung and Deventer want to claim Him to get to heaven; but they disown His ability to give us a responsible revelation. Such hubris. Yet it is there on NazNet while that site witnesses to being a companion to the Church of the Nazarene.


Will the General Superintendents do anything about this?


I don’t know. But I have emailed to them various NazNet samplings to let them know the facts about that site.


If they do nothing, then they have no spines. They are mandated by Christ to tell the truth, defend the truth, and particularly care for the holiness biblical trust of the Church of the Nazarene. Time will tell what they do about such demonic inroads as NazNet.


Some time ago, I wrote about the difficult sections of Scripture in the light of God’s persona. I did not have to slide God off the charts. I instead discovered in the study of those venues that this God I serve is most respectable. It is because of his just and merciful holy nature.


What the rebels such as overseers on NazNet have done is to overweigh God on the love side of His persona and neglect His justice side. One cannot do that.


Holy God is the eternal, perfect balance of justice and mercy. When realizing that truth in both Old and New Testaments, one comes upon a perfect deity, in no need of NazNet’s surgical knives.


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


Read BIBLE HARSH PENALTIES & CHRIST’S ETHIC at http://truthinconviction.us/weblog.php?id=P3256

J. Grant Swank, Jr.

"I'm going to pick you two up on Saturday morning at 10. Be ready. Don't ask any questions. Just plan on it being a whole day's affair."

Bill handed us the invitation. We waited till Saturday knowing that it would end up to a rare, treasured gift from a dear friend who cared about making us happy.

Bill knew more nooks and crannies in Southern Maine than anyone else I know. No doubt that is because he grew up here. So it was that we would be on our ways, Bill driving of course, to take in scenes we had never explored before. I was born and grew up in Maryland. Priscilla was born and grew up in Nova Scotia. Therefore, to be escorted around this impressive state was indeed a royal treat.

Bill's God was real to him. Therefore, when he saw a mountain that he filed away in his favorite memory bank, Bill called out to the rest of us: "Now see that over there? Did you ever take in a scene like that before in your whole life?? What a God we serve!"

If we did not immediately stop talking, look where he pointed, Bill refused to be ignored. His invite was repeated in a slightly louder volume until we got the message. Because we knew Bill was crafting the day's excursion for our pleasure, we obliged quickly. With that, we were never disappointed.

Then around the next turn on some far-out country road, Bill pointed out an old barn that fit into his special memory bank. Or it would be a running brook or meadow or a roadside where he and Esther had come upon some deer. There were also those dirt roads where wild turkeys impeded his travel, such detailed as no hindrance at all. "There were three dozen of them!"

Bill adored God's world. Bill loved to share God's world with others. He was caught up in the Lord's handiwork more than anything else that surrounded him. The Creator's nature offering to mankind was definitely a prime jewel box in Bill's life.

Then when Bill became ill, it was our turn to pick him up for a Saturday drive to the hinterlands. We never planned the route for we could never choose that which would match up to Bill's unique agenda. So while we provided the chauffeuring, Bill charted the course.

I recall driving up Douglas Mountain to an apple orchard. What a time we had in meeting the new young owners. Bill fell right in line to specify for them the history of their fresh environs. Then of course we drove off with some choice apples for eating along the way.

How I miss Bill so very much, particularly during autumn. It was in this season especially that Bill scouted out the most colorful, peaceful hideaways. Sometimes we four took a picnic lunch. At other times Bill knew the restaurant perfect for our noontime meal. He was always on target.

As his days became more bleak on this turf, his travels outside his home were more precious to him. He was bored inside the house. So a return gift to Bill was to stop by his place, help him into the van, and then drive off somewhere. I knew that just getting out of the house was indeed a boon, let alone the surprises he had already arranged for our pastimes that day.

Then one day God took Bill home to the Forever Scene. That was a glorious moment for Bill. But it was a very down time for the rest of us.

However, it's Thanksgiving again.

And with this year's prayers, I thank God once again for the memories. They will never fade. And the ones Bill handed me are some of the richest. One of these moments I will see him again. And when I do, I will be sure to thank him for sharing his nature thanks to God with two close friends.

J. Grant Swank, Jr.

 

 

Once again, NazNet counters its prime aim. It states that it is Church of the Nazarene-friendly. The Church of the Nazarene historically accepts the Bible as the inerrant Word of God, a few rebels excepted.

 

 

Now NazNet seeks to turn that around by making the Bible weighed down in error, therefore opening up the window for dark shadows. When one takes away the conviction that the Bible is the pure Word of the divine, mortals start to slice and dice.

 

 

In that, NazNet joins the rebels.

 

 

Liberals have been doing slice and dicing for years, hence the liberal creed of doubt over faith.

NazNet encourages that doubt over faith, particularly when making sense of the “harsh passages” of the Old Testament. And this is to be Church of the Nazarene-friendly? This is supportive of the “Nazarene community” that NazNet plays up to? 

 

Cundiff, along with NazNet Founder Dave McClung and Moderator Hans Deventer, adore C. S. Cowles’ position of errancy.

NazNet readers are encouraged to read in full Cowles’ “An Open Letter Cncerning Scriptural Inerrancy.” Note: http://www.naznet.com/inerrant.htm

Highlighting that encouragement, Cundiff states the unthinkable: “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.”

A Wesleyan perspective? Hardly.

All the more NazNet overseers use companionable words to cozy up to Nazarenes, e.g., “Wesleyan.”

 

Yet with that “Wesleyan” slide-in, who could then doubt Cowles’ position. It must be a winner for Cundiff to give it the Wesleyan wave.

Cundiff then on NazNet provides this Cowles quote: “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.

“(Dutch Reformed theologian A.) 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.’”

“’. . .the more unclear the Bible becomes’”? “’. . .the less we know who God is’”?

If a guide is going to take us in that direction, do we really want to follow that guide, that theological modus operandi? Apparently Cundiff finds that guide in keeping with his “Wesleyan perspective.” Seemingly Cundiff discovers that journey helpful in his theological understanding. So with that, NazNet encourages Nazarenes to travel hand-in-hand in Cundiff’s come-upon.

I have discovered just the opposite than Cundiff, Cowles, Deventer, McClung, and de Beek. I have found that the more one wants to let all of Scripture speak for itself, the clearer the Bible becomes. The more I believe the whole Word is revelation, the more I know who God is. That’s my personal testimony, satisfied that I am that it is a secure one.

How can Cundiff, apparently supported by McClung and Deventer with other site overseers, ever agree with de Beek? In that, these individuals strip all confidence in the divine revelation as being purely perfect.

But is God imperfect in His communication? Is the Word thereby flawed so as to leave us hanging with doubts innumerable? Is the Bible we have held to over time now declared to be crippled so that we are left with merely another literature piece?

What these doubters have exposed is not the imperfect Bible. What they have revealed is their lack of intellectual acumen plus lack of spiritual excellence.

If they had drawn upon the Holy Spirit’s guidance, they would have come upon answers to their questions, solutions to their problems.

It is possible to read in the Spirit to as to be more convinced than ever that the supposed harsh biblical passages all the more reveal the personhood of a just and loving deity.

Both Old and New Testaments speak pointedly concerning the divine nature. Instead of relying on our preconceived portrait of God, wanting the Bible to support that, we must take the scriptural data as is. With that, God’s persona will come into form in its reality.

Let that reality stand as who God is, for it is in truth who God is. 

Someone asked me: “You've apparently linked belief in Christ with blindly following everything in the Bible?”


That questioner did not believe that I could hold to an Old Testament God who was the same God who appeared in the New Testament. Here is my answer to his questioner:


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.


NazNet highlights the topic on its site. But officially it does not take a biblical stand against the Emerging Church.


Naturally that could not happen, for NazNet settles for an errant Bible. That is, the Word of God is not granted us by a deity who knows how to perfect His communications skills.


Therefore, NazNet sets forth the Emerging Church topic and lets it fly. Relativism counts most.


Why does not a site that boasts on being a friend to the holiness Church of the Nazarene declare biblical convictions concerning Scripture and the bogus Emerging Church?


One, of course, cannot expect that kind of bold declaration from the overseers Founder and Moderator Dave McClung, Moderator Chaplain Barbara Moulton, Moderator Hans Deventer, and Manager Scott Cundiff.


These persons waffle when opportunistic. They are not grounded in biblical insight. They pose as experts concerning biblical faith but in fact they are amateur pied pipers luring the unsuspected reader.


These individuals have created a site that has no sound scriptural base. It is more in league with theological liberals than evangelical, holiness scholarship.


Now here is a biblical definition of the Emerging Church that can be trusted:


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. 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 inerrant 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. However, while it sputters, it will destroy truth in some quarters and thwart the gospeling of the Earth.


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.


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