Why just Warren? Why can some just question Rick Warren and all the usual suspects when he is accused of watering down or at least downplaying the spiritual in favor of the pragmatic? I will confess to having some legitimate concerns in that area myself. But since doctrine is so important in some circles that it generates some to even question people like Rick Warrenâ€™s salvation, why is it not also appropriate to ask some questions about the doctrine of some of the so called doctrinal â€œwatchmenâ€?
If the emergent movement, the purpose driven teaching, and the seeker friendly churches can be asked about expanding a man made grace, why can they not turn around and ask about a works message of salvation that was obviously addressed by the Apostle Paul and is espoused openly by some bloggers?
On a blog called Extreme Theology, Chris Rosebrough, who contributes for CRN and the late Slice of Laodicea, openly teaches that baptism saves and communion is the actual flesh and blood of Jesus. Now if he called himself â€œemergentâ€ he would be castigated as a Rome-loving evangelical for these views, but for some reason his â€œextreme theologyâ€ is overlooked by his watchman friends.
If we can bring shallow theology to the discussion table, we also have a right to bring this works-centered theology into the light of Biblical inspection. Teaching that baptism saves and washes away sins is a Roman Catholic teaching that transfers redemption from the Blood of Jesus to earthly water. It is a serious departure from Biblical orthodoxy. And teaching transubstantiation (or a form thereof) is just as serious. And why do so many people get scathed over their â€œshallowâ€ doctrine and men like this donâ€™t get a second look?
This post is called “Baptism Saves”.
This post is called “Just Bread and Wine”.
Why does this get a wink, because his name is not Warren?