Posts Tagged ‘holiness’

NAZNET CHAPLAIN BARBARA MOULTON = QUIET LIBERAL SUPPORTER

March 5, 2010

J. Grant Swank, Jr.

While NazNet moderators Hans Deventer and Scott Cundiff took owner/founder Dave McClung’s web site from holiness/evangelical/conservative to emergent church liberal, former moderator chaplain Barbara Moulton played cheerleader.

Whatever Deventer and Cundiff posted that was in keeping with the swing from conservative to liberal Moulton cheered on with comments or posting her name in agreement with their heretical positions.

McClung stood by permitting his site to be turned from “friend” to Church of the Nazarene to Judas the betrayer. If there is ever an enemy on the Internet to that denomination, it is NazNet.

The Church of the Nazarene Board of General Superintendents, Nazarene Theological Seminary, Nazarene Bible College, countless district superintendents, Nazarene headquarters’ department heads, Holiness Today editors and other personnel have been informed of the NazNet betrayal.

Moulton is known for her refusing to take a public witness on God’s abhorrence for homosexual activity. She, a chaplain, stated she would not marry two persons of the same gender. But she emphatically stated that she would not make a public testimony concerning the biblical position on the matter.

The latter would be in keeping with Deventer and Cundiff’s posted suspicions that the Bible is in fact without error.

Moulton’s refusal to speak in public on behalf of God was posted on the Internet. With that, McClung stated that she was “pained” by the exposure. However, McClung did not appear pained that his chaplain moderator refused to stand alongside God in His revelation in Scripture.

Moulton then became known as the gay-mum. She was mum on the gay nuptial issue. That spiked a number of responses from biblical believers asking how a Christian chaplain could be so cowardly.

Shortly, Moulton’s name disappeared from the NazNet masthead. Obviously, the “pained” Moulton led to her absenting herself from being moderator. However, she continues to post on NazNet.

Deventer and Cundiff still hold their moderator positions though their postings have been exposed far and wide. Deventer calls the exposure all “lies.” However, whatever has been revealed concerning his theological liberalism has been supported by his quotes from his postings. The same with Cundiff.

Cundiff, pastor of a small church in Alvin, Texas, knows that clergy and district leaders on the South Texas District Church of the Nazarene know of his double-tongue. They know that he preaches the typical Nazarene message from his hometown pulpit while playing the cavalier theological liberal emergent church enthusiast on NazNet.

Cundiff has even stated that the more he studies the Bible the less he knows God. Evidently to get his pastor’s salary check plus benefits, he does know God when preparing his Sunday msesages.

Deventer, from the Netherlands, knows his district superintendent has been informed of his liberal postings. Yet there is no sign that he still cannot believe in the Bible, that unsaved souls are annihilated at death, that there is an “intermediate state” for souls upon death, that he hopes God takes all souls to heaven, that there is no eternal hell, and that the emergent craze has a lot going for it as the new church.

Moulton, in the meantime, remains on NazNet as a contributor. Her postings are usually quite trivial, not broaching in-depth theological matters. However, NazNet readers cannot but remember that she was the chief cheerleader for Deventer’s and Cundiff’s liberal positions throughout.

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

HERETICAL NAZNET HANS DEVENTER’S BOSS TALKS

March 2, 2010

J. Grant Swank, Jr.

NazNet moderator Hans Deventer divulged on Dave McClung’s site that Deventer’s Nazarene District Superintendent had contacted him.

I had communicated with the Netherlands District Superintendent regarding Deventer’s heresies blatantly posted on the supposed “friend”-to-Nazarene web site.

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

These heresies included Deventer not believing in the Bible, holding that unsaved souls are annihilated at death, that souls go to an “intermediate state” upon death, and that there is no immediate entrance into heaven upon death for saved souls.

Further, Deventer was quite enthusiastic about the emergent church’s fuzzy teachings, mainly that one does not need “objective truths”—that is, moral absolutes—as long as one has sweet Jesus. Moral absolutes get in the way. Hugging Jesus is the all-in-all. Deventer stated: “I don’t believe the Bible. . .”

Deventer also aggressively pushed for a worldwide infant baptism acceptance throughout the Church of the Nazarene, though no infants are ever mentioned being baptized per the New Testament. Deventer expressed that he just could not understand why Nazarenes did not get the message that infant baptism was far more superior than infant dedication. Infant dedication is the traditional mode in that denomination.

Deventer definitely leaned in the ritualistic-liturgical “high church” direction of Anglican/Episcopalian when it came to worship style. He delighted in referring to “communion” as the “Eucharist,” the latter term not traditionally used in the denomination. “Communion” is the preferred term.

His theology was old-time liberalism cloaked in his own confused entanglement phrases. Deventer’s communication style was the more unclear the more posh, typical of emergent church proponents.

Deventer stated on NazNet that his boss had received ten emails in two days concerning Deventer’s various anti-Bible posts, none in keeping with the historic Church of the Nazarene.

The District Superintendent told me that he would speak to Deventer about matters. Apparently the boss followed through.

The Church of the Nazarene Board of General Superintendents, Nazarene Theological
Seminary and Nazarene Bible College administrations and faculties have also been informed of NazNet’s theological liberal positions, Deventer’s in particular.

The question then comes down to this: How does Dave McClung, founder/owner of the site, permit these gross theological distortions propagated especially by his two prime moderators—Hans Deventer and Scott Cundiff?

McClung is a wealthy businessman who has held prestigious positions on various denominational boards as well as being one-time President of Eastern Nazarene College, Quincy, MA.

Read “Naznet’s Dave Mcclung’s Cronyism Ups Emergent Devilment” at http://www.articlesbase.com/blogging-articles/naznet039s-dave-mcclung039s-cronyism-ups-emergent-devilment-1903633.html

Why then does he advertise his site as a “friend” to the Church of the Nazarene when he allows constant anti-Bible moderator positions expressed? Some individuals have reached the conclusion that McClung was in fact creating his own Internet church in competition with the Church of the Nazarene.

Read ” Naznet Hans Deventer’s Boss ‘Will Discuss Questions’” at http://www.magic-city-news.com/J_Grant_Swank_61/Naznet_Hans_Deventer_s_Boss_Will_Discuss_Questions13076.shtml

EMERGENT CHURCH ‘SOUTHERN GOSPEL’ PREACHER Xs OUT THE BIBLE

February 26, 2010

J. Grant Swank, Jr.

Scott Cundiff fits right in with the emergent church foolishness.

God is a “violent and genocidal child killer.”

God is deranged when he calls for “Noah’s flood, the fiery destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah, and the slaughter of the Canaanites and Amalekites.”

The Old Testament deity is anathema to this Alvin Texas Church of the Nazarene pastor who serves as moderator on “friend”-to-Nazarenes web site NazNet.

I wonder if Scott Cundiff preaches the above disconcerting suspicions regarding the Bible to his Sunday morning congregation. Of course, it is a small church so maybe those few don’t care what they get for a message.

And when it comes to Cundiff’s Sunday evening evangelistic messages, how can he present the biblical God when there are questions buzzing all around his head concerning the scriptural authority? Perhaps God messed up throughout the entire writ.

Cundiff writes on NazNet that perhaps there is an “’otherness’” to God. What that means is anyone’s guess. Surely God has declared His persona throughout Scripture for us to get the basic point that He is the perfect eternal balance between justice and mercy. However, Cundiff does not seem to get hold of that.

But I would wager that when it comes to preaching biblical sermons in Alvin he sticks to the Word. After all, there is a pastor’s salary check plus parsonage and benefits at stake here. So keep the old holiness preaching going full force. There’s money in it.

But on NazNet, Cundiff changes to a kiss up for liberals on site—some young, others older. And of course he can always depend on Netherlands’ favorite Hans Deventer to back up his agnosticism. And then there is NazNet founder/owner Dave McClung who permits the
two heretics to post anything they please on NazNet.

So there is an “’otherness’” to God that Cundiff can’t understand. Perhaps Cundidff should realize that mortal brains cannot grasp the wholeness of God. Perhaps Cundiff should also conclude that the Word is a divine revelation that will only be totally grasped in eternity when our understanding apparatus is perfect.

In the meantime, believers read the Word by faith. They live the Word by faith. They evangelize concerning the Word by faith.

And those who have not given up on the Word get to see more clearly the God of Scripture as the Holy Spirit gives understanding to the humble. For instance, read the footnote to understand how God can do what He did in the Old Testament time frame. There is reason to it all; but Cundiff gives up too quickly—as does Deventer and McClung plus their clique on NazNet.

Cundiff writes on NazNet: “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 (Old Testament verses) are reminders of that fact.”

However, Cundiff’s suspicions are okay for they keep him in line with his Wesleyan theology. He states that outright. As soon as someone can tell me how agnosticism with such disbelief in the God of Scripture lines up with holiness Wesleyan doctrine, let me know. But Cundfif has come upon the twosome wedding one another quite nicely.

“I find a solid Wesleyan perspective that helps me deal with the issue.” Again, what is the issue? It is that Cundiff cannot believe in the God of the Bible. Yet that baseline brings him closer to his Wesleyan understanding.

Truthfully, there is no tie between John Wesley’s teaching concerning the Bible’s God and Cunciff’s “’otherness.’” None.

Cundiff continues: “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.’”

Cundiff states his belief in this Bible-throw-away. Sad, but true. And he’s right there in the Texas Bible belt (South Texas District/Church of the Nazarene) supposedly ministering the gospel to the unsaved.

So there you have the bottom line: Don’t read the Bible. Don’t study it. If you do, God dies on you.

FOOTNOTE: YES, YOU CAN BELIEVE IN THE OLD TESTAMENT GOD

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.

NAZNET HANS DEVENTER’S BOSS ‘WILL DISCUSS QUESTIONS’

February 17, 2010

J. Grant Swank, Jr.

That’s correct.

NazNet moderator Hans Deventer’s district superintendent in the Netherlands will dialogue with Deventer regarding serious issues conveyed to the boss.

It is about time that this avant-garde non-Nazarene Nazarene, more like unto Unitarian, is confronted with his apostasy posted on the supposed “Nazarene friendly” NazNet founded by supposed “Nazarene friendly” Dave McClung.

Neither Deventer nor McClug are in fact doctrinal companions to the holiness denomination. Instead, they tolerate heresies posted daily.

How do they get by this?

Deventer no doubt has a track record of ten years-plus with NazNet, such time frame making him feel quite comfortable in spewing forth anti-Bible “stuff” from right to left.

McClung is a cozy political crony with scores of high-powered personages in the denomination over years. He also has money, being a wealthy businessman.

However, a third heresy push elitist, Alvin Texas Nazarene Pastor Scott Cundiff, has now been exposed as denomination-loyalist at home base small church but high-powered theological renegade as NazNet moderator.

Now his little flock knows about his double life. His South Texas District leadership knows as well. The Nazarene General Superintendents, Kansas City, Missouri, likewise have been informed.

Finally, truth is getting out regarding the apostasy rampant on NazNet, let loose over years with young posters in particular being sucked into this leftist anti-Scripture profile.

As one NazNet reader emailed me, when analyzing the site’s bowing and scraping to anti-Bible theses, the diabolical data “cuts like a knife.”

Indeed.

To think that the denomination begun in 1908 in Pilot Point, Texas, has sludged into such doctrinal depths is horrific. God, however, being the Omega as well as Alpha, will bring His final say to the wayward site.

McClung, Deventer, and Cundiff in particular will answer severely before the Judgment Seat.

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

NAZNET = MORE UNITARIAN THAN NAZARENE

February 16, 2010

J. Grant Swank, Jr.

NazNet lauds itself on being the “friend” to the holiness, evangelical, Wesleyan Church of the Nazarene.

Not so.

NazNet is more Unitarian/Episcopalian/Catholic than Nazarene.

NazNet moderator Hans Deventer believes the Bible is just another book. He states he does not believe the Scriptures to be the infallible Word of God. Unitarians believe the same.

NazNet moderator Scott Cundiff agrees with Deventer. NazNet founder Dave McClung permits those positions to remain on his Nazarene-friendly site.

NazNet also permits the belief in an “intermediate state” upon death. Roman Catholic teaching states the same.

NazNet permits the annihilation of the unsaved souls at death. Liberal theologians hold to the same.

NazNet espouses infant baptism for all Nazarenes worldwide. There is no record of an infant baptized in Scripture. Liturgical denominations such as Episcopalians and Roman Catholicism believe the same.

NazNet delights in referring to the Lord’s Supper, not as “communion” in the traditional Nazarene manner, but “the Eucharist.” That term is Episcopalian, Catholic, and other liturgical church verbiage. NazNet thrills as being “high church.”

NazNet permits the belief that all souls eventually go heavenward, that is, no souls are damned. If there is an eternal bliss we all find our ways there. Unitarian-Universalists believe the same. Most theological liberals concur.

NazNet considers it posh to promote the emerging church that holds to no moral absolutes. One writes his own religion in the emerging church. Unitarians in particular hold to that. Liberal theologians in general claim that as a staple.

If NazNet is such a friend to the Church of the Nazarene, why does it not provide more dialogue regarding Nazarene heritage emphases? Why does not NazNet accent more fully the biblical call to a holy life, the sanctified experience?

NazNet is wanting in its serious exploration of Wesleyan history and teaching. And when it does refer to Wesleyan teaching, as Scott Cundiff did in his profession of disbelief in the Bible as inerrant, he was wrong. The context of his statement had nothing to do with Wesleyan teaching; in fact, it countered Wesleyan teaching.

Nevertheless, Cundiff must have felt it opportunistic to use the term “Wesleyan” when discounting Scripture as divinely inspired. Did he really know that the word “Wesleyan” in that context was totally contrary to the context?

NazNet has a perfect opportunity to provide posters with in-depth Wesleyan doctrine, biblical holiness and the real-life sanctified experience.

But seemingly all that is “old hat” to the elitists on NazNet. Who, after all, would want to go back to all that bygone stuff when we can knock the Bible as God’s Word, say that all souls end up in paradise, and debunk an eternal hell?

NAZNET PASTOR SCOTT CUNDIFF’S ‘DOUBLE-TONGUE’ EXPOSED

February 15, 2010

J. Grant Swank, Jr.

To read the Alvin, Texas Church of the Nazarene web site, one would conclude that Pastor Scott Cundiff ministered in the old-fashioned Nazarene way.

Cundiff states on the site that he cares for his people in the “classic gospel southern style.” His services and daily devotional offerings are characterized in that fashion as well. In other words, to belong to Cundiff’s church family is like being “down home holiness” folk.

“Classic gospel southern style” would convey that Cundiff’s preaching focused on inviting worshipers to be saved. Then he would preach sermons on believers being sanctified. All this is standard in that holiness denomination since its inception in 1908.

Cundiff’s sermons would be based solidly on the Bible as the trustworthy Word of God; that is, if one believed his “classic gospel southern style” of sermon preparation and delivery. The Bible would be considered the Word of God—entirely, without doubt.

One would then assume that Cundiff’s exegesis of Scripture would be carefully focusing on holy writ as divine revelation—no question. That’s the “Nazarene way.” The Bible is God’s infallible, inspired communication.

After all, is not God capable of providing a revelation that is perfect? If God is God, then His Book is without error.

John 17:17: “Sanctify them through Your truth. Your Word is truth.”

However, Cundiff has lived a theological double life now exposed to his South Texas District colleagues and the General Superintendents of the Church of the Nazarene.

Also, this exposure has been communicated to his NazNet colleagues for Cundiff is one of founder Dave McClung’s long-time moderators on NazNet. However, these NazNet colleagues have known of Cundiff’s double life all along for they are a part of it.

While giving the impression to his Bible belt congregation that he is an honest biblically faithful preacher, Cundiff espouses disbelief in the Bible on NazNet. He is joined by fellow moderator Hans Deventer from the Netherlands. Both of these NazNet staffers are permitted their heresy push by McClung—over years. NazNet is in fact a prime enemy to the Church of the Nazarene.

Cundiff and Deventer have posted often on NazNet their conclusion that the Bible is laden with errors. Deventer goes so far as to state that he does not believe in the Bible, except for passages related to Jesus. After all, believing the sections about Jesus provide Deventer with salvation and heaven. The rest of the Book can be discarded.

Cundiff holds basically to the same.

Cundiff witnesses on his church site to being a trustworthy biblical preacher and teacher. But in fact on NazNet he is a cavalier theological liberal who shunts the Bible as a take-it or leave-it. In truth, on NazNet Cundiff comes across as being more Unitarian than Nazarene.

Note this on NazNet as posted 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.

“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.’”

Read that again: “’The more we believe that the whole Word is revelation, the less we know who God is.’” That is provided by Cundiff on NazNet, the latter allowed by NazNet founder McClung.

To the above quotes, Deventer exclaimed his ecstatic approval related to Cundiff’s skepticism concerning the Bible’s trustworthiness.

So there you have it: NazNet moderator Cundiff believes that the more we research the Bible, the “less we know who God is.” At the same time, Cundiff plays “holiness, Bible-believing” preacher to his Texas worshipers.

With all this deception, McClung repeatedly states on NazNet that his web site is a “friend” to the Church of the Nazarene.

Not so.

Read more about Cundiff at NAZNET: STUDY BIBLE, WATCH GOD FADE at http://www.allvoices.com/contributed-news/5187366-naznet-study-bible-watch-god-fade

Read still more about NazNet heresies at NAZNET DISTORTS at http://naznetdistorts.blogspot.com/

Read “Yes, you can believe in the Old Testament God” at http://www.michnews.com/J_Grant_Swank_Jr/jgs021010.shtml

WHY DOES NAZNET SHUT DOWN SITE TO ME?

February 14, 2010

J. Grant Swank, Jr.

As of February 14, 2010, NazNet forbids me to get into NazNet. Why?

Every avenue to the site has been cut off to me.

Logic says NazNet Founder Dave McClung and staffers Scott Cundiff and Hans Deventer do not want me to expose their heresies any further.

Moreover, NAZNET DISTORTS http://naznetdistorts.blogspot.com/ exposes detail upon detail regarding NazNet’s anti-Bible, anti-God postings.

In addition, NAZNET DISTORTS has exposed former NazNet staffer Chaplain Barbara Moulton’s refusal to witness publicly concerning God’s abhorrence of homosexual practice. Moulton stated she would not perform “wedding ceremonies” for same-gender duos but she would not witness publicly to the biblical prohibitions of same either.

Since that exposure, Moulton has left NazNet as a staff member and her name and email address no longer appear on the NazNet masthead; however, she continues to post comments throughout NazNet.

The latest revelation regarding NazNet has been Alvin, Texas Church of the Nazarene Pastor Scott Cundiff’s refusal to accept the Bible as the infallible Word of God. He, a NazNet moderator, has stated that the more one researches the Bible, the less one knows God. Deventer agrees. McClung does nothing to expunge this anti-Church of the Nazarene position from NazNet.

As soon as Cundiff’s lack of faith in the Bible was posted on the Internet on February 13, 2010, NazNet was cut off to me. I have been forbidden access following that exposure.

Nevertheless, as of February 14, 2010, South Texas Church of the Nazarene District officialdom has been informed of Cundiff’s NazNet statements concerning his disbelief in the entire Bible as divine revelation.

One wonders how far NazNet will go in its splintering of the Church of the Nazarene before McClung as Founder will apologize to the Church of the Nazarene for propagating heresies.

Then Cundiff needs to confess at least to his local congregation that he does not have faith in the entire Bible as God’s error-free Word.

Deventer needs to make exit from NazNet for he is exceptionally brash in his forthright denial of eternal damnation. He does not believe the Bible per his own confession on NazNet. Yet McClung permits this moderator to continue posting anti-Scripture opinions.

All the while McClung repeats that NazNet is a “friend” of the Church of the Nazarene. It is not. It is a prime enemy and has been for some time.

Read NAZNET DAVE MCCLUNG IS IRRESPONSIBLE AS ‘CHRISTIAN’ at http://truthinconviction.us/weblog.php?id=P3472

In addition, the denomination’s General Superintendents have been informed all along of NazNet’s heresies push. Specific details have been sent to the Superintendents every time NazNet heresy exposures have been placed on the Internet.

I have sent to McClung, Cundiff and Deventer the following article detailing faith in the Bible as the infallible Word of God; however, NazNet’s power clique continues to hold to the Bible being laden with errors.

Read “Yes, you can believe in the Old Testament God” at RenewAmerica.com http://www.renewamerica.com/columns/swank/100209

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

NAZNET DAVE MC CLUNG = LIBERAL PIED PIPER

February 11, 2010

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/

IS LOVING ADAM LAMBERT A HATE CRIME?

November 25, 2009

J. Grant Swank, Jr.

Don’t you just love Adam?

After all, who lately has made such an adieu about cuddle this and kissing that? A pinch here, a fondle there.

Now that America is under hate crime watch, is loving Adam Lambert a hate crime? I was pondering that this evening when reading all about ABC zapping him for their “Good Morning America” bit.

The whole problem is this: So you love Adam Lambert. Does that mean that you hate God?

Adam Lambert is telecasting that he is an out-o-the-closet kind of person. And he proves it on stage by kissing an onstage male entertainer—impromptu, so who can judge him for doing what his drives tell him what to do?

More than that, he leads around stage fellow males on leashes. Now if that’s not anti-Petticoat Junction, I don’t know what is.

But the quandary is this: Adam Lambert does this kind of mix-up and gets cancelled on one major network while picked up on another. He’s got thousands of Americans phoning in to television execs complaining about his capers. He’s got interviews with reporters, whining he’s sorry if his lifestyle stuffs it in people’s faces.

Then he persists in romping around while screaming out a screech and smashing a male’s head in his crotch.

Now is loving Adam Lambert a hate crime? Because I read in the Bible that doing that kind of thing as a male to male is repulsive to biblical deity. And so if it is that basic a madness, then perhaps Adam Lambert is putting his signature to a hate crime.

I mean by that that God hates his display because it is sin.

Of course, everyone who knows a smidgen about the Bible knows that the God of the Book forgives a genuinely repentant soul. So if Adam Lambert sincerely confessed his whatevers to God, God would bestow mercy. Note: it would have to be sincere; that is, to “go and sin no more,” as Jesus told the woman caught in adultery.

However, of course, I am not at all leaning in the direction of Adam Lambert running to the confessional for at this juncture in his young life he is making a lot of money and fuss over his carnal flips. He’s got a lot of people yakking pro and con. That makes for a star slot in some individuals’ opinions.

But back to the main point: Is loving Adam Lambert a hate crime? That is, is loving Adam Lambert equal to his committing a hate crime. Maybe I should have put it that way at the outset.

In any case, it is a serious matter. For if one Adam Lambert is committing a hate crime in God’s estimation then it would behoove him to weigh his present spotlight in nastiness with what lays ahead eternally.

What say you?

NAZNET NOT A CHURCH?

November 17, 2009

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/