Nazarene/Christ In Christian Union/Wesleyan

Just ask your qustion and I am certain some will have a response. :thumbsup:

 

For instance, Nazarenes are basically Wesleyan/Arminian in that they believe in conditions to salvation. They are not Calvinistic in that they do not hold to irresistible grace, limited atonement or unconditional election. They do not believe in OSAS and fully believe that one can renounce their faith, and as such be found outside Christ in the last day. They believe in original sin but do not associate any personal guilt with that belief. They believe infants are innocent.

I am uncertain how they feel about the doctrine of sanctification today. They used to hold clearly to two distinct separate works of grace. That might be slightly changed today. They have changed their focus over the years and have clearly become more liberal in their views, particularly how they view divorce and remarriage and associations with once were denoted as worldly entrapments such as mixed bathing, movie attendance, dancing, and other issues. The Nazarenes have split over some of these issues, with those holding to what Nazarenes once held to having to go their own way and leaving the name of Nazarene behind. Again, one such watershed issue was certainly the manner in which those divorced and remarried were accepted or not accepted within the Church.

On the Atonement they do not view it as do Calvinist which view it as a literal payment, but rather view it more as a substitutional sacrifice, only meted out personally upon the conditions of repentance and faith being fulfilled by the individual as commanded of God.

Ask two different Nazarenes and you most likely get two different answers for their ranks have been filled up in recent years with many who don’t have the foggiest about the issues once important to a Nazarene, nor the doctrines once held by that Church. One would find the same degree of ignorance in most mainline denominations I would believe from talking to many over the years from differing denominations.

Hope this helps some.

 

I cannot speak for CCCU, but I would say Nazarene doctrine is Wesleyan.

 

With a quick perusal of CCCU doctrine, I did come across one thing I believe is different from the Nazarenes. They appear to hold a specific end time view of a ‘literal millennial kingdom on this present earth.’ I cannot remember of the Nazarenes every taking a specific stand as that. I for one would see that as an issue not deserving mandatory doctrinal status as the CCCU appears to have made that view.

 

As to the question of being ‘Wesleyan” that is a good one. I have attended several Wesleyan Churches and understand that in large part they follow somewhat of the ideas and understanding of grace, Scriptures on salvation and sanctification, etc. that Wesley might have had, but as I understand Wesley, if they were truly followers of Wesley it would seem to me that they would follow Wesley in how he judged one as a part of their fellowships or not. I do not know of any group that associates themselves with Wesley’s name that does so. I am not saying there are not some out there some where, I have simply not found them in my lifetime to in my travels. Strange lot those ‘Wesleyans’ are to me anyway.

 

Good luck with the simple explanation part. I served in the United Methodist Church for 13 years and the Church of the Nazarene for one year as an interim. madre's family is Free Methodist. My Mama was raised a Primitive Methodist. I was a candidate at an Evangelical Church in PA a few years back. They were part of 46 Evangelical United Brethren churches that would not join the UMC/EUB merger in 1968.

Historically, most of the Wesleyan rooted churches would ascribe to the 39 Articles of Religion which are a Wesleyan adaptation of the Articles found in the Church of England's Book of Common Prayer. From there you would have to study the history of the specific denomination to find the differences. To use a broad brush, I would categorize the differences as either emphasis or practice.

Holiness and sanctification are two points of discussion with any Wesleyan group. Some teach sanctification as a second work of grace that is instantaneous and complete leading to sinless perfection. Others teach progressive sanctification with entire sanctification coming about the same time you hear the words, "Well done my good and faithful servant."

Not all Wesleyan groups are strictly Arminian either. I pastored a UMC that was started as a Calvinistic-Wesleyan Society in the 19th century. George Whitfield was a Calvanistic-Wesleyan.

madre's grandfather was a District Superintendent in the Free Methodist Church in Ontario. He never wore a wedding ring. Mama's Primitive Methodist roots emphasized avoiding any Sunday activity that wasn't directly related to the public and private worship of God. I rejoiced when we moved and joined an IFB church. They were so liberal I could ride my bike on Sunday afternoons! :godisgood:

Edited to add: John Wesley was never a Methodist. He was ordained into the Church of England and remained so until his death.

 

HP: Just curious. First, what does sinless perfection mean to you in the context you use it? What specific Wesleyan or Arminian group have you personally been assiciated with that held to 'sinless perfection' as a result of sanctification?

 

John and Charles Wesley remained Priests in the Anglican Church until their deaths.

 

The Wesleyan Church includes a sizable contingent of (formerly) Reformed Baptist churches:thumbs:

 

.....Which goes to prove that more often than not, name alone does not necessarily give one the best idea of the doctrines taught in a particular group. For instance, those that call themselves Nazarene today do not hold to some of the same notions as those in the original Nazarene church, yet those that resisted the changes made to long held beliefs were compelled to leave and form new groups with new names.

 

HP: Just curious. First, what does sinless perfection mean to you in the context you use it? What specific Wesleyan or Arminian group have you personally been assiciated with that held to 'sinless perfection' as a result of sanctification?

I mentioned earlier I pastored with the United Methodist Church for 13 years and the Nazarenes for one. My mother was raised a Primitive Methodist. My wife comes from a long line of Free Methodist and Nazarenes. I was raised IFB but joke that I'm not mean enough to remain one.

In the CotN The Manual is the constitution and bylaws of the denomination. Here's an excerpt concerning Entire Sanctification:

In my experience with the CotN - about a year but that's another story - there is the full spectrum of practice under this same umbrella. Entire sanctification is provided by the blood of Jesus, is wrought instantaneously by faith, preceded by entire consecration; and to this work and state of grace the Holy Spirit bears witness. Some take this to mean that entire sanctification renders a regenerated man incapable of sin. That is contrary to what Wesley taught.

Back to my one year stint with the CotN. I was a hired gun. There was a church of about 75 members whose pastor of 15 years had been reassigned. The church was in shambles including a Jezebel that was crushing the life out of a faithful few. My job was to do some house cleaning in the most literal sense. Jezebel had other ideas. My predecessor taught that an entirely sanctified person was incapable of sin. By inference and application it was taken that regardless of what you did it was not sin. That is contrary to historic Wesleyan teaching and the CotN doctrine not to mention no Biblical support for such a notion. As a result this Jezebel ran roughshod over the whole church. Why not she thought. I can behave with impunity because I am sinlessly perfect. Thank the Lord I was able to run her and her minions off in less than 90 days. Obviously this is an extreme example but not unheard of. There are other churches within the denomination that hold to progressive sanctification which I believe is consistent with Wesley's explanation cited above.

 

HP: I believe more often than not that is a paper duck. I have attended some of the Churches far longer than evidently you did as a hired gun and have only heard one testimony from one individual that a sanctified believer is incapable of sin. I have never heard such stated from any pulpit, and I have sat under thousands of sermons in my lifetime, most in Wesleyan/Arminian settings. I have heard many say that sanctification indeed makes one unwilling to sin, but not unable to sin.

HP: I would agree.

HP: Maybe you just could be mean enough to remain an IFB.

 

I'm glad to hear you say that. It won't stand a biblical test and should be rejected. That said, there are still those who proclaim it.

I wasn't mean spirited about it. The woman was teaching heresy on many fronts and I had a responsibility to stop it. She was like an octopus on rollerskates. She had a choice. She could repent or leave. She chose the latter.

Oh, and about the home church... Did you ever hear a sermon about the evils of pre-marital interdigitation? :laugh: Old Reverend Steambelly had me so convinced I was hell-bound on the express I didn't know what way was up. I might have been washed in the blood but it wasn't going to stick because my hair was too long, listened to the wrong music (anything with a 2/4 beat), wore blue jeans, was known to associate with pre-marital interdigitators and whatever particular burr was under his saddle at the moment. I know he is not representative of IFBs as a whole but that old boy thought everybody but him had been baptized in muddy water.

 

HP: Glad to hear that. :thumbsup:

 

This is an interesting discussion on Wesleyan Arminian beliefs. Before John Wesley came along, Arminianism was generally only what I call Classic Arminianism. Of course, some 5 poing Calvinists connsider all non-5 Point Calvinists as Arminians.

John Wesley, while stressing santification, introduced the belief that a Christian could lose his salvation while still believing. Classic Arminians believe that a Christian can forfeit his salvation by deciding to stop believing, but cannot lose his salvation while still believing.

Some of the main denominations that are Classic Arminians are: Lutherans, Free-Will Baptists and Assemblies of God (since 1978).

 

You forgot The United Methodist Church in your listing. They are the main mainline Wesleyan-Arminian denomination. The Annual Conference I served in was so far removed from their historic roots it was hard to tell it was a religious organization let alone a Christian one. They were absolutely consumed by a secular, social activism. They forgot (or rejected) Wesley's admonishment that, "We have no greater task than to make disciples of Jesus Christ." Conference gatherings were about (in order of importance): Money, human sexuality and environmentalism. Open doors, open minds, open your wallets....

 

HP: If this is true, what in the world were you doing there?

 

I believe I was where God wanted me for that season.

In spite of the bushel being rotten at the top, as it were, there are still good Christian people that needed a Christian pastor. My father-in-law started in the Free Methodist Church in Canada before moving to what was then the Methodist-Episcopal Church. He was and is more than just a FIL. He has been my spiritual mentor. He encouraged me to consider the denomination as a mission field. I met with the elders at the home church and discussed it at length.

My intention was to stay for five years and move on. Five came and went like the wind and before I knew it a decade passed. My FIL was right. I met some sound folk who loved the Lord and loved their local church. They felt abandoned by their leadership. The parish where I stayed the longest (UM pastors are itinerant and move frequently) had endured a string of pastors who were not even born again. They went through three pastors in the one year that followed my departure. The first was a divorced woman who was a self-proclaimed man hater, the second a man facing disciplinary charges from his previous church and the third, a man who thought it would be nice if he could help people in his retirement.

Ultimately, the abandonment of basic Christian tenets and the constant harangue from above became unbearable. My last year with the UMC was the year the Episcopal church elected an openly homosexual man to Bishop. Our bishop wrote a letter encouraging the Conference to be tolerant and understanding of the question of human sexuality - including the issue of this Episcopal bishop. I replied that I could not support any person who demanded a right to live in sin and for me to be accepting of their disobedience because it was culturally popular. That was the beginning of the end. Between the candidating process, credentialing and pastoral ministry I had over sixteen years invested.