Our brother over at Extreme Theology continues to take the high road with regard to how our conversation should always be tempered with gentleness and respect. Quoting this phrase from 1 Peter 3:15, he writes:
I know that I have been guilty of the very behavior I am decrying in this post and I am deeply sorry for committing this sin and repent of it. That being said, I am appealing to all of my Christian brothers and sisters who have a passion for defending the truth and defending the gospel to repent of ad hominem and personal attacks and let your actions and statements and debates always be seasoned with love, compassion, gentleness and respect.
I agree. And, I for one, will join him in asking for forgiveness and the grace to temper all of my future posts and comments with gentleness and respect. Moreover, I have NO doubt that when he ultimately posts his take on the PD conference, he will NOT be in agreement with all that was said there.
That’s OKAY.
As we engage in a conversation with him about ministry philosophy, the role of sola scriptura in our churches, and the centrality of preaching Christ crucified for our sins, let’s take this opportunity to model what we stand for here at CRN.info which is summarized so clearly and succinctly in the passage that Chris R quoted:
but in your hearts regard Christ the Lord as holy, always being prepared to make a defense to anyone who asks you for a reason for the hope that is in you; yet do it with gentleness and respect, having a good conscience, so that, when you are slandered, those who revile your good hehavior in Christ may be put to shame. 1 Pet 3:15, 16.
Notice, it is the “good behavior in Christ” that Peter is highlighting here as being the salt and light aspect of our witness, not the cleverness of our defense. So, let’s all take a deep breath and honor Christ in our tone as the conversation continues.
![Image of The Prodigal God (An Unabridged Production)[2-CD Set]; Recovering the Heart of the Christian Faith](http://ecx.images-amazon.com/images/I/31Jl6fhDLxL._SL75_.jpg "The Prodigal God (An Unabridged Production)[2-CD Set]; Recovering the Heart of the Christian Faith")
164 Comments(+Add)
Impressive.
RA
And Chris is taking quite a beating from within the ODM community. My complimentary comment was met with a criticism of my commenting here. That verbal assault was through a conduit not of my gender.
I continue to be astounded by the way anyone can attribute names to the Pharisees whom Jesus rebuked. It is very easy to see how the Inquisition was generated. Who are these enemies we are supposed to love? Oh, I know, doctrinally sound enemies.
Ground Control to Major Tom, your circuits dead, there’s something wrong, cany you hear me Major Tom?
I stand with Chris Rosebrough on this, but I do think you guys should take most of the blame for this mess. If not for you all instigating and fanning the flames, especially Richard Abanes, we would not have to pick up the pieces made by you all.
Chris R’s post is fantastic. The comments make me despair. It is clear that for most of those commenters nastiness is a doctrinal issue.
Daniel,
Either you are unaware of the way ODMs conducted themselves prior to the creation of this site (sadly, as unChristlike as they deliver their messages are now, they were much worse in the past), or you’re irritated that their sin was actually exposed.
I for one am very excited that Chris R is going in this direction… but confused as to you comment!
I read them and immediately thought of
The only one I see fanning flames is your comments.
iggy
I am beginning to believe Arbanes is the reason for everything wrong in my life. Prove me wrong!
iggy and Tim Reed:
we have always been about loving the sinner and hating the sin. Your tactics now of trying to make it sound like Chris R is actually now different from what he was previously shows you are trying to divide and conquer.
If not for Richard Abanes going over and post at Chris’s site and in so inciting the firestorm, I am sure all would be fine. In fact, may I suggest that if not for the fact that some ODMers lie Tim Wurth have espressed their worries to Chris R, I do not think that you will continue to regard him in such a favorable light? Or are you going to say that regardless of the reaction to Chris R’s post, you would still be favorable to him?
Except that Chris R wrote, “I know that I have been guilty of the very behavior I am decrying in this post and I am deeply sorry for committing this sin and repent of it.”.
“If not for Richard Abanes going over and post at Chris’s site and in so inciting the firestorm, I am sure all would be fine.”
See, See! I knew it! That Arbanes is a snake. All would be fine but for him. Gas is $4 a gallon – why?
Arbanes.
Daniel Chew: I do think you guys should take most of the blame for this mess.
_______________
Dear Daniel,
I am a bit confused by your remark, given your previous statements about me, especially in your blog article titled ““Richard Abanes, Yawn……”
- “all I see is someone so blind that he cannot even see his own pride and arrogance.
- “The stench of self-righteousness just radiates from him, and informs his perpetual ‘crusade’ against Christian pastors”
- “I just can’t understand how such an individual can function really, so deluded that he cannot even see his own pride. And mind you, it is not God or the Scriptures he is defending, but one man”
- “I know that this may be giving publicity-hungry Abanes some spotlight, but it is severely hoped that he repents of his defense of heresy and circumlocution, and submits himself to the Word of God.”
You have also stated to me, “You have NEVER defended heresy? Oh, I forgot, you do not think Rick Warren teaches heresy … silly me. And that is why you are blind, and worse for you now because you claim to be able to see. As Jesus Himself said, “If you were blind, you would have no guilt; but now that you say, ‘We see,’ your guilt remains” (Jn. 9:40b).”
So, in all sincerity, I ask that you please explain how these remarks match up with you agreeing with Chris R? Do you apologize? Do you repent? Am I still guilty of defending actual, full-blown heresy? How did you come to the charge that I am filled with arrogance and pride? Is that based simply on me disagreeing with some of the accusations that have been made against Warren (e.g., that he is a New Ager, or that he is a heretic)?
Bob Dewaay has stated: “My conclusion is this: the chasm between Chris Rosebrough, and me, and Rick Warren that exists is based on ministry philosophy primarily. Privately, we agree on most doctrines.” And also: “There were no differences of theology that I know of, other than we had a chasm in a difference in ministry philosophy.”
So, how is Rick Warren a heretic, whereas Bob Dewaay is not? Are you now saying Bob Dewaay is a heretic? If not, then how can BD not be a heretic even though he and Rick Warren agree doctrinally and have no differences in theology?
RAbanes
Daniel,
I guess you have not been on the receiving end of this “loving the sinner and hating the sin” as a brother in Christ.
I have. Not one has given any real evidence of my “sin” they hate, but they sure have given me much “hate” as a person.
So before you say more, maybe an apology for the hate and lies and other things people like me have had to endure.
i applaude Chris R and any one who sees the error of their ways. I have even given kudos to Ingrid when she has shown read regret for her actions. It seems though that somehow Richard A is still wrong though Chris R seems to be more in agreement with him.
So, to me you just seem to be judging another brother who you simply have a disagreement with. Disagreement is not sin. But to attack slander and lie and cast accusation against others who are nto lying seems to work against all you state.
iggy
Daniel: “If not for Richard Abanes going over and post at Chris’s site and in so inciting the firestorm, I am sure all would be fine.”
RA: I see. Then, let’s go ahead and look at how I am to blame for that firestorm, shall we?
___________________#1
In Chris’s most recent post, “…with Gentleness and Respect” created May 30, I have posted ONCE out of 43 comments, and it states the following:
“Thank you. R. Abanes” (Posted by: Richard Abanes | May 30, 2008 at 03:10 PM)
___________________#2
In Chris’s May 23 post “Thank You to Rick Warren and Saddleback,” I posted 17 times out of 203 comments (a couple of these were duble posted due to a technical glitch).
And in those posts, I spent half my time defending Chris and asking peeps to leave him alone. The other half of the time I was basically trying to simply ask people to stop attacking me personally. I made comments as:
- “He is a Lutheran I am not. I don’t care. He loves Jesus and preaches the gospel and I do, too.”
- “This would be a lot easier if we were all just sitting around a table in a Starbuck’s filling our tummy-tanks with a Vente Kona + an Espresso shot, complimented by Carmel syrup.”
- “There is only ONE Gospel. Salvation by grace alone through faith alone in Christ’s finished work on the cross. There’s not much that needs explaining beyond 1 Cor. 3:3-5.”
- “But if you feel I was so terribly lacking in grace, then fine. I apologize. I would only ask that you be equally as critical/exacting and concerned about grace in tone when it comes to those who attack me, Rick Warren, and others.”
- “My issue with so many of Warren’s critics is not their concern with theology, but their concern with condemning, attacking, and criticizing those things that are not connected to theology at all! But they are artificially connecting them to theology.”
- “If they were being spiritually more fed more fully elsewhere, were growing deeper in Christ elsewhere, were experiencing a vibrant relationship with the Lord more completely elsewhere, believed that the liturgy of church services/worship were more biblical and brought them closer to God elsewhere – than I would be gloriously ecstatic that they had found that somewhere other than Saddleback!! Clear enough? Whether it would be some LCMS congregation or some Reformed Church (e.g., worshiping next to the likes of R.C. Sproul, Michael Horton, or Kim Riddlebarger). I would say, “Go! Be free. Grow in Christ. Take the road that Jesus is leading you to take in him. You are His servant! Let us serve the Lord wherever he places us. The fields are white with harvest!”
- “WE ARE AL ONE BODY! THERE IS ONE BAPTISM. ONE LORD. ON SAVIOR. ON GOD.”
- “Yes, theology is important. What’s NOT important, and what is tragic, is dividing the body of Christ over those things that are not theology – but man-made dogmas, traditions, and opinions.”
- “I’m actually concerned about Chris and how he is going to be treated if he says anything that strays one millimeter away from the ‘Let’s all get Rick Warren as good as we can no matter what it takes and no matter how we do it’ bandwagon.”
So, I’m sorry Daniel, but I simply cannot see how any of these remarks, or other remarks I made were so intrumental in creating a firestorm anywhere. Please explain. Or, anyone, please help me out here.
And NO, I do not want to get this started into a fight. Let’s all abide by Chris’s admonitions here.
RAbanes
I contend that sometimes Mr. Arbanes’ comments are a little verbose and wordy. And there is no one here who can be more qualified to judge in that regard!
I then must assume Daniel does not think slander, lying, and general malice is a sin? If he does think it sin, why would it be wrong for .info to expose this in the ODMs? As this is presumably what you’re saying by stating that we should take the blame for ‘this mess’. Do you think repentance of the aforementioned sins is a ‘mess’?
I find your position untenable. Sorry…
Joe
Also Daniel,
I think you’ve manufactured a ‘firestorm’ in your mind, as I’ve gone through all applicable comments and have found little to none malice, slander, and snarkiness, except of course for in your own comments…ie…
“And no, I am not becoming Warren-friendly or Abanes-friendly. Warren is still a heretic who denies the Gospel by his actions, for the record, though I sure desire that he repents and so be saved.”
Sorry, but this can’t be defended as a comment in the vein of Christlikeness.
That’s very backhanded complimentary of you, “He’s a heretic, I am not friendly with him, but I hope he gets saved…”
Thats like when in the south, people insult you backhandedly, and then think it’s okay to do so as long as they say “Bless his little heart…”
=(
Personally on reflection I think Daniel has given CRN.info a backhanded compliment.
I agree, CRN.info should take the “blame” as in “credit” for all the good that is coming out of this. They have worked hard to find reconciliation with their brothers and sisters in Christ.
Good job guys!
iggy
Daniel,
BTW, Chris R and I have had a lot of discussion in the past. He is one that seems to be more able to just disagree than to flame others. You might learn from his example.
iggy
DANIEL CHEW: “The result is one big explosion, no thanks to these foxes who ruined the Vineyard (SoS 2:15), leaving a mess for us to pick up.” (from your blog).
RA: This is in direct reference on your blog to me and the peeps here at .INFO. This passage, according to Wesley’s Notes, refer to: Foxes – The disturbers of the vineyard, or the church, seducers or false teachers. Little foxes – This he adds for more abundant caution, to teach the church to prevent errors and heresies in the beginnings.”
Is this what you are alleging? If so, this is a rather serious charge. Please explain and support how I am a false teacher or a seducer. If you mean something else, please explain.
__________________
DANIEL CHEW: “For example, you can make a short note that you still think Rick Warren has severely compromised the Gospel, even denying it, or something along those lines.”
RA: Bob Dewaay has stated: “My conclusion is this: the chasm between Chris Rosebrough, and me, and Rick Warren that exists is based on ministry philosophy primarily. Privately, we agree on most doctrines.” And also: “There were no differences of theology that I know of, other than we had a chasm in a difference in ministry philosophy.”
How can Warren deny the Gospel if he is theologically and doctrinally in agreement with Bob Dewaay? Does Bob Dewaay deny the gospel?
___________
DANIEL CHEW: As Rom. 14:21 says, we are not to do anything which causes our brethren to stumble.
RA: Can you explain how seeking time to think, pray, and discuss something with others privately is equated with any action that might stumble another? How is it stumbling to anyone to say thank you to someone else – which is a demonstrtaion of kindness, gratitude, and graciousness that God commands us to show?
If I may say so, I think you’ve taken this passage WAY out of context. It is referring to freedoms in Christ – you’ve just twisted this passage in a style that would seem to be reminiscent of the way you accuse Warren of twisting scripture.
___________
DANIEL CHEW: “Another thing which Chris fails to do is to rebuke Richard Abanes. It was obvious that Abanes was instigating much of the heated exchange and bringing out the worst in others.
RA: See above examples of my posts. Please be specific. I don’t see much in my posts that would fit your remarks. And exactly why is it that others who posted some fairly nasty comments would not be worthy of a rebuke as well? Please explain, Daniel, I am interested in your thoughts here.
_______
DANIEL CHEW: To think just because of that that Chris has drank the PD kool-aid
RA: Loaded language, IMHO, which is indeed inflammatory. This conjures up images of Jonestown and cults. And I think it’s THIS kind of language that is causing the firestorms. Do you disagree?
_______
DANIEL CHEW: “Rick Warren, and Richard Abanes is not our main enemy but the pawns of the enemy; Satan is.”
RA: I see. And here it is. I am a pawn of Satan himself. Sigh. Daniel, my friend and brother, you do make things difficult, I confess this publicly.
R. Abanes
“I am a pawn of Satan himself.”
No, more like a bishop!
Oh, Rick. LoL.
“gentleness and respect”
OK, who let them in? No one invited them to the party, lock the door.
Maybe I missed it on the linked post, but the only comment I found from RA on the thread was this one:
Followed by a whole lot of caterwauling (primarily P-Drivel Paula and Tom) and a shot back at RA:
Now, I don’t recall RA writing ANY satire for this site, and while he comments here, I didn’t know he was a writer here (at least yet
) As for “vicious” satire, perhaps they’ve been reading a different site than this one…
Daniel asked:
If you mean, will I still be a brother in Christ to Chris R and act like one even when he disagrees with what he heard at the PD conference, then the answer is YES!
If you mean will I still support Chris R and his right to disagree with the PD conference, then the answer is YES!
If you mean will I refrain from character attack and personal slander regardless of what Chris has to post on the PD conference, than the answer is YES!
Are you willing to join me?
“If you mean will I refrain from character attack and personal slander regardless of what Chris has to post on the PD conference, than the answer is YES!
Are you willing to join me?”
No. Although I try and avoid that approach, everything remains on the table. I have an immeasurable cache that I will unleash when appropriate. Every person is listed in alphabetical order beginning with Arbanes. (The info I have on Richard contains some disturbing footage at a place in Salt Lake City.)
Rick – SSSHShhhhhhhhhh.
And it’s Abanes. Lose the “r.”
Aha Rick,
As one of your “supporters” pointed out in a comment at Extreme Theology:
You can run but you can’t hide.
Paul the apostle wrote this,
“It is true that some preach Christ out of envy and rivalry, but others out of goodwill. The latter do so in love, knowing that I am put here for the defense of the gospel. The former preach Christ out of selfish ambition, not sincerely supposing that they can stir up trouble for me while I am in chains. But what does it matter?
“The important thing is that in every way, whether from false motives or true, Christ is preached. And because of this I rejoce.”
I’ll say this, piggy-backing as it were on Paul’s comments, I don’t really care why or how or when or from what cause a person learns to love in a different way, demonstrate grace in a generous way, and live in peace with others at their own expense. I’m just glad they did.
What does it matter?
Seriously.
What does it matter? I praise God that perhaps, at long last, some of these wounds, that both sides have undoubtedly inflicted on one another, are beginning to be healed. For that I praise God!
I hope what I’m saying makes sense.
jerry
JohnD – I would have requested her husband but after viewing her website I do not believe she has one. An entire blog called Purpose Drivel?
OK, we have a Tom Schlueter sighting on Extreme. He takes Iggy, Richard, and Chris L. to task about gentleness and respect for Mrs. Schlueter. He accidentally included my name.
Gentleness and respect?
Mrs. Schlueter?
Ahem…the painted girls of Sodom are calling.
Yeah I saw that. His hypocrisy is shining through. Its cool for his wife to shred whoever she wants however she wants using whatever invective and sloppy research she wants, but when she’s brought to task using far less hostile tactics its a problem.
Just more team politics from Team ODM.
It very curious your name, Tim, is not mentioned. Hmm…I believe secretly you agree with much of what Mrs. Schlueter says. It’s all becoming too clear.
You’re not Part of the Restoration Movement – you’re Lutheran. Baptism and all, I knew it!
MY COVER!!! IT HAS BEEN BLOWN!
Very sad.
Ken you and I agree…
I am also very sad
I suspect about different issues though.
Tom Schlueter stepping out from the shadows to chide people for not being gentle and respectful has little credibility in the light of his complicity with the many and continuing posts on SOL which practice the same grievances he has suggested are evidenced in others.
See, respectful and gentle.
Wow, I will tackle them one at a time.
iggy:
If you have been shown hatred because you were sincerely deluded and people attack you for being deluded, then I symphatize with you, and offer my apologies on their behalf.
Tim Reed:
Alll of us need to repent at some times due to errors made in the heat of the moment. Do you agree with that?
Rich Frueh:
And this on a post calling for gentleness and respect? Or is the gentleness and respect unidirectional only?
Tim Reed again:
Same as the response to Rick Frueh, now tell me who is the one who is not gentle and respectful.
I’m really sorry, but with such vitriolic comments, do you think any of us is convinced by your call for gentleness and respect?
JohnD:
I am willing to join you with regards to Chris R, if you truly mean it.
You mean like Rick Frueh’s and Time Reed’s comment like this:
Sorry if I am not convinced by your call for reconciliation.
Richard Abanes:
First of all, with regards to the Chris R episode and my post::
What I was alleging is that you are schismatics who divide the Body of Christ.
Refer back to my post regarding Bob DeWaay’s comment on Warren’s orthodoxy.
You are obviously not getting my meaning. This part was to plead for Chris to remember the hurts inflicted on the sheep by the PD paradigm and thus they are the weaker brethren who make wrong inferences due to their past experiences, and therefore they must be assured that Chris is still ok.
See the context. What I was saying is that this is precisely what the commentors likeTim Wurth think may be happening. Whether they are right or wrong is another story altogether, but this is something that must be addressed out of love for the flock of God.
Hey, if I think you are wrong, then this is what you are, right? And you should be thinking the same about me if you are truly consistent with your position.
Richard:
But this is precisely the point. Don’t you realize that your mere presence is provocative enough? Rightly or wrongly, your mere appearance and defence of Chris worsens the situation. Your inability to listen properly to Warren’s critics and your defense of all things Rick Warren al over the web does not particularly endear youself to those who are hurt by the PD paradigm. Why don’t you just stop defending Rick and start proclaiming the Gospel? You know, that would really help matters a lot.
Richard:
with regards to my post on you. I tell you what. I personally think that the charges are correct, but I am willing to make a deal with you. I will remove the offending comments, and you will stop defending Rick Warren and posting comments in defense of him all across the web, all of wich prove the truth of the offending coments. Also, please remove any material on your website of which you accuse pastors and other Christians of various sins with regards to Rick Warren and the PD paradigm. Deal?
Not that I have a dog in this fight I feel the need to respond to some things.
Ricks quote is a direct quote from Ingrid. And the original context of that statement was in a post here on CRN.info that was calling Ingrid to a standard of gentleness to a 15 year old child.
So dare I say Daniel that you once again have missed the point.
This logic simply doesn’t make sense. Nor is it biblical. Quite frankly it only strengthens the case as to why Rich should engage in dialog. But Rich doesn’t need my defense.
Rephrase: Your inability to see things the way we see them and trying to clarify the mis characterizations, lies, or assumptions only hinders others us from doing what we want.
Another Rephrase: Your inability to listen properly to Warren’s defenders and your attacks of all things Rick Warren all over the web does not particulary endear yourself to those who have been helped by the PD paradigm.
I call shenanigans (thanks Chris L.) I suspect that those who are most
vitriolichurt about PD have never stepped into a PD church their only exposure is the ODM’s take on PD. Have their been some who were probably hurt? Sure. But nobody is trotting out all those that have been hurt by legalistic churches as a rationale for their attacks on particular churches or people.Rephrase: Rick Warren in my opinion is not a Christian so defense of him is indefensible. So Rich unplug your computer, shut up, and fall in line like a good little soldier. Oh yeah and let us still defend everything we believe to be “truth” without accountability.
And to think that this biggest complaint I hear about PD is that leadership didn’t allow people to voice their opinions.
Daniel I’ve watched and read much of what you have written, here and elsewhere, and I struggle to see your points in most of what you write. If you are so desperate to “contend for the faith” and “show yourself approved” why not spend more time “rightly” explaining the gospel as you see it. This certainly, IMO, would be greater cause for the kingdom. My favorite quote of late was “The greatest threat to Christianity is not liberalism from the pulpit but laziness in the pews”. Followed up by me favorite quote of all time. “Go and make disciples”.
Good day sir.
Absolutely, but my point wasn’t that Chris R repents and that makes him different. My point was that Chris R is indeed doing something different because he repents. I’m not dividing and conquering (as you asserted earlier) I’m only pointing out what Chris R wrote, and I’m certainly not in any way shape or form making fun of him for having to repent.
Now, on to your ridiculous assertion that my pointing out Tom Schueter’s hypocrisy is some how beyond the pale. You’ll note first the lack of personal invective. I did not call him any sort of name or use any derisive term. The nature of gentleness and respect is not one of lockstep agreement. What Tom has done is hypocritical. He has condemned the tactics of Iggy, Chrs L, and Richard Abanes which are much more gentle and respectful than that of his own wife which he affirms and supports.
Which brings us to your hypocrisy. You condemn me for pointing out the sin in which Tom Schueter has engaged. I did so without personal condemnation, instead only noting the sin itself and offering a reason for why I think that it is present. You on the other hand have been quite insulting in your short time here. You have demeaned the intelligence of others and used personal invective on several occasions. Additionally, you have taken it on yourself to point out the sins of others. If you are going to condemn me for pointing out the hypocrisy in the manner I did, I urge you to at least meet the same measuring stick you’ve applied to me.
I believe one ODM (Chris R.?) visited either Tim or Chris L. a while back and people here had nice things to say about it. Am I remembering correctly?
Contrast that with the hysterical comments on ET when Chris R. just thanks Rick Warren for being hospitable. I offer a word of charity and I am castigated as someone who’s gone out from the truth. And yet I have strongly sparred with Chris R. in the past.
You see, to be a defender of truth your cache of harshness must be current, no day old manna.
Translation: I’ll stop slandering you if you stop defending Rick Warren from slander. Deal?
Unsolicited Advice: Richard, I’d take a pass on this one…
DC: What I was alleging is that you are schismatics who divide the Body of Christ.
RA: And that is where you’re wrong. I’m the one calling for unity where there has been unnecessary division in the Body because of critics like you! Did you read what i actually stated over at Chris R.’s website? I listed several quotes above — none of which you’ve interacted with. Let’s deal with only one, if you have the time.
How am I being schismatic by saying: “WE ARE AL ONE BODY! THERE IS ONE BAPTISM. ONE LORD. ON SAVIOR. ON GOD.”
How am I being schismatic by saying: “Yes, theology is important. What’s NOT important, and what is tragic, is dividing the body of Christ over those things that are not theology – but man-made dogmas, traditions, and opinions.”
How am I being schismatic by saying: “If they were being spiritually more fed more fully elsewhere, were growing deeper in Christ elsewhere, were experiencing a vibrant relationship with the Lord more completely elsewhere, believed that the liturgy of church services/worship were more biblical and brought them closer to God elsewhere – than I would be gloriously ecstatic that they had found that somewhere other than Saddleback!! Clear enough? Whether it would be some LCMS congregation or some Reformed Church (e.g., worshiping next to the likes of R.C. Sproul, Michael Horton, or Kim Riddlebarger). I would say, “Go! Be free. Grow in Christ. Take the road that Jesus is leading you to take in him. You are His servant! Let us serve the Lord wherever he places us. The fields are white with harvest!”
Now, you have explained what you meant – but I also asked you to support what you alleged about me being schismatic. How are my above statements schismatic?
___________________
DC: Refer back to my post regarding Bob DeWaay’s comment on Warren’s orthodoxy.
RA: So, let me get this straight. You do accept that Warren actually believes the correct doctrine/theology just like Dewaay, and you, and whoever – but he is a heretic, false teacher, deceiver, simply because he doesn’t preach that theology/doctrine EXACTLY how you think he should be preaching it? I mean, even in his statement, Dewaay said he wants Warren to “preach Christ more than he does.” So it seems that all we have happening here is that Warren is not saying Jesus ENOUGH, or hell ENOUGH, or “forensic act of God” ENOUGH, or repent ENOUGH. I’m curious – what is enough, Daniel. Do I have to say “hell” or “retribution” or “wrath” in a sermon every Sunday 3 times? 10 times? 20 times? What would meet your approval? I’m really curious here.
_______________________
DC: This part was to plead for Chris to remember the hurts inflicted on the sheep by the PD paradigm
RA: And what about all the hurts inflicted on the sheep from the Lutheran paradigm, or the Calvinist paradigm, or the Calvary Chapel paradigm? You think people haven’t been hurt in those churches and by those paradigms? Daniel, seriously. Bro, NO church paradigm is perfect. And, TBH, I think some of these issues with people being hurt by the PDL paradigm can also be traced back to SOME of those people simply not liking the ecclesiology of the church they were attending. Who is running a church flock anyway? The pastor (the man whom God has raised up as a shepherd or the sheep)?
_____________________
DC: Hey, if I think you are wrong, then this is what you are, right? And you should be thinking the same about me if you are truly consistent with your position.
RA: Ahhh, and here’s why we differ, my friend. First, given my position, you do not have to jump to the conclusion that I am a pawn of Satan – for goodness sake. Second, no, I do NOT have to think you are a pawn of Satan to be consistent. In fact, that’s not at all what I think. If you’d like, I will post exactly what I think of you in all honesty and fairness – but I will leave you to decide if you want me to post that.
_____________________
DC: Why don’t you just stop defending Rick and start proclaiming the Gospel? You know, that would really help matters a lot.
RA: Well, uhm, I just released a 200 page book against the new Age Movement, Eckhart Tolle, and Oprah Winfrey wherein I staunchly defend the Gospel. And I haev been posting like crazy over at YOU TUBE beneath one of my videos, defending Christianity against the Tolle devotees, Deists, Hindus, and assorted New Agers!!! Soooooo, Daniel, tell me now, has that helped matters a lot now? What do you say now?
________________________
DC: Deal?
RA: ROFL. Nothing like censorship. I’ll tell YOU what. You list where I have factually lied about something or someone – and I’ll remove it. You list where I have not clearly expressed and opinion about something/someone – BUT NOT BACKED IT BY FACTS – and I’ll remove it. My concern at this point is: I’m not sure you can discern between things like verifiable facts, logical conclusions vs baseless opinions.
RA
You gentlemen may find this to be of interest concerning your discussion here:
Pastor Bob DeWaay On His Meeting with Rick Warren
In case you missed it, it was already posted here on a different thread (though not on the AM site). I don’t know that any of us had claimed that Bob agreed with RW – just that he was willing to meet with him.
Newsflash – RW isn’t a dyed-in-the-wool Calvinist. Who knew?
That is most definitely untrue, and I am one example.
Tim Reed:
Sometimes what you think is not demeaning is actually very demeaning to the ones you direct it to, and vice versa.
Rick Frueh:
you should know why people castigate you. Peopl are not castigated you primarily for speaking up for Chris R, but for coming over to CRN.(mis)info and saying one thing, then coming over to ET and Mike Ratliff’s blog and posting another thing altogether. Don’t think we do not notice your double act.
Tim Reed:
OK, I take your word for it. Let’s see if your attitude will change if Chris R starts criticising what Warren is teaching.
Certainly, that is slated for one of my future posts. I do not operate on a post-when-I-feel-like-it basis. I create my own schedule to adhere to, and this will be one of the posts that I have scheduled. In the meantime, you can always check my website where I have listed a ~10 point Gospel presentation if you would like to see it.
Daniel,
I have never (as far as I recall, and if I have I apologize for it now) heaped abuse on anyone for repenting. I don’t have any plans on starting now.
If Chris R wants to critique Warren in a Christlike way you won’t hear word 1 from me. In fact, I rarely defend Warren at all, even when the attacks reach the level of being anti-gospel (the times when I have commented on those attacks have been more out of my love for the absurd and extreme than out of a theological agreement with Warren).
That’s certainly true. And sometimes, many times even, I have gone too far, and have tried to deliberately offend. All I can do is the same thing Chris R has done and repent and carry on in a more gospel oriented way. If I offend unintentionally I apologize, but when I make it clear I didn’t mean to be demeaning to yourself or others there does need to be a certain amount of reconciliation and forgiveness rather than just more catalogueing of my sin (which those who consider me their enemy have gladly put together).
Richard Abanes:
sign…. your anger is coming through.
When I say you are schismatics, I mean that in the context of this discussion, in which, like it or not, you all have not helped but have in fact alienated many of those who have been hurt by the PD paradigm. Yes, you can say that was not your motive until the cows come home if need be, and it is probably true, but what exactly has occurred? Isn’t it true that if you have kept quiet, this mess would not have occurred?
Rich, it is not how many times you need to mention the word “hell”, “sin” or “wrath”. It is not even that Warren does not say the word Jesus enough or any other word for that matter. What we are asking for is that Warren matches his professed faith with his actions. Since we believe that what a person truly believes causes his/her works/actions, therefore we do not think Warren actually believes the truths he claims to believe. Warren can start by reforming his deeds according to his own “seond reformation” in order to prove us wrong. I would love to see that happen.
OK, so how about this: Rick Warren can make a statement that the idea of PD resistors being Sanballets to be demonised and attacked as described in hs friend Dan Southerland’s book Transitioning is wicked and wrong; then I will believe that Waren at least cares a bit about the flock.
You can email me that if you so wish to.
Rich, nobody is saying that you are not standing for the Christian faith. What we are saying is that you are spending a ridiculous amount of time and effort defending Rick Warren. And yes, I know you claim not to be a Warren apologist, but ever consider whether by your actions you behave as such? I leave you to reflect on that.
The problem is: When we give facts to you, you say that you are right and we wrong. So what’s the point?
Rich, I think this is not going anywhere. You obviously are not open to listen even though you claim you are, and I will not accept ipse dixit answers from you either. Let’s go our separate ways, and may God show you your error in His time.
Tim Reed:
OK, thanks for the post. In a spirit of reconciliation then, I apologize also for any offense I have given to you. But I still do not accept your Modernism label.
Hey that’s exactly what I want! We agree!
Do you think that those that profess the “grace” of Christ could start living that out?
Well, it is a process, and we would like to see that from you at CRN.info also.
“but for coming over to CRN.(mis)info and saying one thing, then coming over to ET and Mike Ratliff’s blog and posting another thing altogether. ”
Please give me an example.
Ken – I read your post and Bob’s letter to RW, but I was disappointed in the generality of his statements. I hope he will dileneate later the specific problems he still has with RW and what he actually saw and heard from Rick’s lips and writings that he can place against the Scriptures.
I go on record as agreeing with Bob that Rick is an evangelical believer and that our discussions should have a decidedly Christian tone to them. Perhaps there is some iron sharpening iron is going on here.
I have no posted at Phoenix preacher MY OPEN LETTER TO BOB DEWAAY
This response will also be going up elsewhere on the Internet.
R. Abanes
Richard – you must allow Bob some wiggle room and his friends must allow the same in the other direction.
An Open Letter to Everyone:
Let’s do lunch!
Rick Frueh
(Dr. Jeckle and Mr. Hyde)
PS – More Mr. Hyde (if he was the bad one!)
DC: your anger is coming through.
RA: What? Where??? LoL. This is odd. Anger? Seriously, bro. Where? I took great pains to bend over backwards at non-confrontation and just ask questions.
_________
DC: Isn’t it true that if you have kept quiet, this mess would not have occurred?
RA: Sorry, but the MESS started happening years ago when people like Ingrid Schlueter, the Dombrowskis, Tim Wirth, Warren Smith, James Sundquist, Paul Proctor and others began attacking Warren with hate, vitriolic slander, and bizarre end time conspiracy theories. That’s when the witch hunt began.
_________
DC: What we are asking for is that Warren matches his professed faith with his actions. Since we believe that what a person truly believes causes his/her works/actions, therefore we do not think Warren actually believes the truths he claims to believe.
RA: Ahh, I see. So please, then, do list the “actions” that should be following his profession, which to you, would PROVE his profession is real — and that he is not a wolf in sheep’s clothing; a false professor of the faith; a deceptive talker.
_________
DC: Warren can start by reforming his deeds according to his own “second reformation” in order to prove us wrong. I would love to see that happen.
RA: You don’t seem to even understand what Warren is saying about a Second Reformation, nor what he means by “deed, not creeds.” I suggest you actually take a moment, set aside what you erroneously think he means, and actually read about what he does, in fact, mean. Please read RICK WARREN’S SECOND REFORMATION: Deeds Not Creeds. It’s not what you seem to thikn it is.
__________
DC: Rick Warren can make a statement that the idea of PD resistors being Sanballets to be demonised and attacked as described in his friend Dan Southerland’s book Transitioning is wicked and wrong; then I will believe that Warren at least cares a bit about the flock.
RA: Actually, DC, I tihnk this would be a good idea. I always have thought that Rick was too flip about those in various churches who might disagree with a pastor’s decision to convert to PD. Would I have been that flip? No. But am I a pastor? No. I do have my opinions, however. And I think Rick has been insensitive.
At the same time, however, I will ALSO say that when it comes to those who have disagreed with their churches going purpose driven and have left (and now are more than a little bitter), the issue seems to be two-fold when it comes to THEIR culpability.
1. They need to let go of their bitterness, anger, resentment, and unforgiveness. It is eating them up and helps nothing.
2. Who is running a church? Is it the Pastor, raised up by God, along with his hand-picked associates, and a board of elders (where they have such positions)? Or is it the congregation, specifically, however many people out of a body who don’t want PDL? This is an issue of ecclesiology. In non-democratic churches, it is NOT the congregation, or a small group of people within the congregation who runs things — sorry to say. It is the senior pastor and other church leaders. And this is why those who do not agree with the direction of a church/pastor are, indeed, supposed to leave and find a church more in agreement with their needs. God has NOT given them the responsibillity, the rights, or the authority to tell a pastor what he should or should not do. Whose church is it?
And I wonder why these people, who are so hurt, have not looked at their situation in a COMPLETELY DIFFERENT WAY! Maybe God actually wanted to move them on to a new/different church so they could grow differently; perhaps have them meet others in a different church to whom they could minister; find new experiences in Christ in this adventure we call the Christian walk!
But no, instead, they sit and stew and brew and moan and complain about how bad, nasty, and awful Warren is. To me, if Warren has been flip/insensitive, then on the other side of that coin, the people having left newly converted PDL churches are equally guilty of not accepting from the Lord a difficult trial, allowing bitterness to take root, and being unwilling to let go and move forward in Christ. Just my opinion.
___________
DC: You can email me that if you so wish to.
RA: I will do that.
_____________
DC: What we are saying is that you are spending a ridiculous amount of time and effort defending Rick Warren.
RA: Two things bro. 1. I type very very very very fast. And the words come easy. I don’t spend as much time as you think on Warren. And I feel teh bulk of my work in ministry can show that.
As I’ve said before. I posted some stuff in mid-2005, then said NOTHING about Warren for almost 3 years. I only started posting again barely 5 months ago. And during THAT same period of time – wrote a 200 page book against Eckhart Tolle and the New Age. And I have been ministering to unbelievers at YOU TUBE. This sliver of time out of years of apologetic ministry is like a drop in the bucket to me. And as I have also said, THIS IS NOT ABOUT RICK WARREN PER SE TO ME ANYMORE!
Pleeeeaaase, understand that. It’s about truth, accountability, caution, godliness, humility, agape, unity, and the nature of apologetics/discernment in general. For me, it stopped being just about Warren a LONG time ago. Warren is a catalyst for such discussions, and his critics give ample examples to show how NOT to do apologetics and how NOT to use “discernment” as an excuse to attack people unfairly.
R. Abanes
Lunch?
Daniel stated concerning living out grace:
It should not matter what CRN.info does or does not do… You are not responsible by their words but to the words of Jesus. He said forgive and be forgiven.. and if you do not forgive you will not be forgiven.
I hope you learn to forgive!
Also, can you give a specific example where grace is not given? Meaning, that someone here through actions and words have stated that they do not see anyone “not saved” that professes Christ?
I see “painted little whores of Sodom” as lacking grace.. as it cuts across the very words of God to Peter concerning what God has made clean in Christ… meaning people… but I ahve never seen anyone here state that Ken, Ingrid, or anyone else is not “saved by grace”… I do see myself asking over and over that if they profess the “doctrines of grace” that why do they not give grace to others? I ask why it seems that Ingrid feels that she can judge others and then be just like the world in other ways as in using the world’s ways to promote her own station. I ask why it seems so many act as if they had received some greater grace than the rest of us that makes them able to judge other sinners thus saved by said grace as lesser than themselves?
I ask many things like that and all I get is “iggy is arrogant” like answers for even asking! LOL!
I get “iggy is ’superior’ acting with his “LOL’s”
I see the only thing that CRN.info does is call others to grace and if someone does not return to it, hold them to their own standard… and I see you whine about your own standard!
iggy
Let’s be clear here, Daniel, about the accusations that have been flying back and forth -
The ODMS: Rick Warren & Me & anyone who supports Warren = false teachers, non-Christians, deceivers, scripture twisters, of the world, outside the church, false brethren, need to repent, New Agers, tools of the Anti-Christ, lying prophets, evil, monsters (yes, Time Wirth called me a “monster”), akin to Nazis (thank Tim Wirth again for this one).
The AODMs: The ODMs are unloving, untruthful, harsh in their criticisms/accusations, often inaccurate, not Christ-honoring, judgmental, cause division, will not hold themselves accountable to the same standards they place on others, are inconsistent in their judgments, misuse scripture, need to repent.
Never once (I don’t think) have any of us who stand against you critics ever dared question your standing within the church as true Christians – especially given your public confessions of Christ as Lord and your public calls for others ot come to faith in Jesus.
And yet the same cannot be said for you and other ODM peeps. And you base your willingness to excise some of us (particularly Warren) from the true Body of Christ based on:
1) our unwillingness to see the PDL/PDC issue YOUR way;
2) our expressions of a different ministerial philosophy (to borrow Dewaay’s words);
3) our external practice of our internal faith, which might not match yours on all levels or in all ways.
Who is dividing the Body of Christ? Who is being unbiblical? Who is going BEYOND scripture for measures of true faith? I submit the guilt ones are those ODMs who have caused no end of strife and division.
But it’s not too late. We can all sit down and talk about these things if some individuals can set aside their hate, bitterness, fear, anger, and unteachable spirit. I am NOT completely right. Warren is NOT completely right. You are NOT completely right. Dewaay is NOT completely right.
A good example is the whole issue I have already noted about how Warren, I think, has been insensitive to people whose churches have gone PDC and they have disagreed about it. I do believe that publicly he has been too flip about it. But there are errors that have been made on the ODM side too, like the absurd statement that Warren is a pantheist and that he doesn’t care about doctrine at all (based on snippets taken totally out of context).
Shall we continue in this fashion? Or make changes?
R. Abanes
R. Abanes
Richard,
Between me you and the lampost… I am most greatful for this one! = )
iggy
I’ll go to lunch w/ anyone
ra
“Rick Warren & Me & anyone who supports Warren = false teachers, non-Christians, deceivers, scripture twisters, of the world, outside the church, false brethren, need to repent, New Agers, tools of the Anti-Christ, lying prophets, evil, monsters (yes, Time Wirth called me a “monster”), akin to Nazis (thank Tim Wirth again for this one).”
I think Nazis was a little over the top. The rest are theologically substantive meant for your good.
Rick, you’re sooooo bad. Stop it. LoL.
RA
iggy:
I do not know where you are coming from, so I cannot say anything about your beef with Discernment ministries. My statement was not to say that I am not going to forgive CRN.(mis)info and its contributors, but that I would like to see the people here practice the very same grace they claim to say they have to those who disagree with them. In fact, I would say CRN.(mis)info has been a positive help to the Kingdom of God, in a negative sort of way, in helping us to a certain extent in examing ourselves so that what we say is not wild conjecture.
With regards to whining about my own standard, let me just say that the same can be said of the commentors of CRN.(mis)info. If you think I am whining about my standard, I similarly see you all whining about yours. Need I remind you what the firs reaction to my chart was? “Wow, how stupid!” “Modernist!” You think that was gracious?
I thought that you all think blanket generalization and condemnation is wrong? Tell me again, why is the sin of one person the sin of the group? Or is that acceptable only for “the ODMs”?
Again, why are all of us critics lumped together? Show me where did I ever say that
1) Richard Abanes and the folks at CRN.(mis)info are not Christians
2) Warren is a pantheist (even Warren Smith didn’t say that by the way), or Warren is a New Ager
3) Warren doesn’t care about doctrine at all
?
Daniel,
it seems that you are hurt over that some did not see your chart as accurate. Again, also, critic is not the same as judgment and condemnation. When I stated you were a modernist was after you tossed out “post modern” at myself and others without understanding where I come from.
Have you even considered trying that? You came in like a bull in a china store and used ODM inflammatory language then accused everyone here of not showing you grace… maybe if you showed grace first as the example you might have received it. Personally I was nice to you… never angry with you… and tried hard to show you my perspective against your constant assertions and accusations of what you thought I believed yet, (as you have just confessed) you still ahve no idea where I am coming from?!?!?! LOL!
I responded with mostly scripture and you responded with comments that were often meant as put downs… and again attacked stating things like crn.(mis info) which is name calling… and such… You seem consistent in speaking blessing and curses in the same sentence then tell us to give grace… LOL! Grace was given… I think you missed it in your condemnation of us!
A wise man listens to both sides before he decides… Chris R has found wisdom…
My prayers are with you,
iggy
BTW Richard’s comment in #71 are the things he has been called… not that he is calling anyone else that… I am not even sure what you are stating in your response as it makes no sense at all…
Yet, if one is part of of a group as an individual and has responsibility for that group, such as how they reel me in at times here… they are taking responsibility as a group and I am individually.
I have personally corresponded with many of the people at CRN. Almost without exemption they state they are nto responsible for what others say at that site and are responsible only for themselves.
God judged individuals and nations… So God will judge the individual and the group. If you want book chapter and verse… I suggest starting in Gen 1 and go until you hit the last verse in Revelation…
So, yes if the leader… AKA editor (Ken Silva) let’s slander go through, and someone else like Chris R sees it and does nothing, then Chris R may be chastised by God for not doing anything, Yet so far CR is trying to call for a change. I think God will honor that.
iggy
RIchard,
If I answered Daniel’s quesiton for you and was out of line I apologize, I did not mean to give answer for you but just have no idea what Daniel means by that comment. I look forward to your answers as I bet they are better than mine! = )
iggy
Good question. Here is my answer:
1) Stop allowing Mormons and Roman Catholics to take part as churches in the 40DOP or DOC or whatever program Warren wishes to start, without they first becoming Christians and renouncing their false religion.
Renounce playing politics and involving the Church in social causes void of the proclamation of the Gospel. Take part only in social causes that are coupled with a clear proclamation of the Gospel of Christ
2) Publicly call on the Pope to repent of denying the Gospel, to repudiate the Council of Trent with its attendent anathemas against bible believers
3) Do not preach “how to grow your synagogue” messages to unrepent Jews but call on them to believe in their Messiah Jesus Christ
4) Publicly repudiate what he calls a pervasion of his teaching in churches kicking out believers (Purpose Driven resistors) and stating that those who say that this is what they have learned from him or the PDC are in serious error.
5) Stop using the Message pervasion and stick to good Bible translations like the NASB, NKJV and the ESV. Repent of using 13 different bible “translations” and of ripping the verses out of context in his PDL
6) Emphasize that what the Lord requires is not sacrifice but obedience, and therefore what is required is holy living more than what any member can contribute to the Church and her programs. Emphasize that the Church should love and treat all her members equally whether they are serving in the church or not.
7) Set himself against the relativism and inclusivism present in the Emerging Church Movement. He can do it lovingly the way Carson does it.
9) Stop being unequally yoked with members of the CFR in politicking. Get back to calling all Man to repentance, including the big shots over in CFR who are lost apart from the saving knowledge of Jesus Christ
I will rejoice the day Warren does all of this.
Those are your issues with RW? Most of what you request is unreasonable at best and unbiblical at worst.
As Richard has said many times before what you really want is for RW to do things like you do them. And believe exactly what you believe.
Daniel,
I agree with what Chris said. It sounds like you want Warren to be your puppet, really. To me it’s the real irony in all this stuff. A lot of Warren’s critics seem to accuse him of being a “people-pleaser” or “ear-tickler”, but it seems they are really only mad at him because he’s not pleasing them or tickling their ears.
Daniel Chew… Holding Rick Warren Hostage for Jesus!
I see the head lines now…
Good grief… and he tried to hold everyone here to his standard of Grace!?!?!?!
I think that was surpassed… I would not want people here to stoop as low as that grade is…
I hope CRN.info holds to the Grace of Christ that it has and not cow tow to the likes of pseudo grace Daniel pushes…
Repent Daniel, repent. Come back to Grace through faith and stop holding people to works righteousness for salvation.
iggy
The line of demarcation will always be the way in whcih Rick Warren is spoken of as it concerns him and his teachings. To say he over pragmatizes the gospel, or to say he has questionable associations, or to say he is unwise in some of his dealings and verbiage is a legitimate platform for discussion.
But when you say he denies the gospel, or is an anti-christ, or even that he is not saved then you have not only raised the stakes, you have removed any room for Christian dialogue. And as evidenced by the comments on Extreme Theology, some will not even allow any respect or gentleness when it concerns Rick Warren. It is unseemly at best.
I have come this very day to believe that is a demonic spirit which infests the pride of people and deceives them into believing they are some sort of Truth Knight dispatched to slay the dragon.
Truth is most dramatically, profoundly, and most powerfully revealed within the context of humility.(see “The Cross” as reference). Jesus told Paul “My strength is made perfect in weakness” and like the monkey who cannot turn loose from the peanut because he attempts to solve the problem through his own strength, we so often refuse to speak in humility and graciousness because we think ourselves way too highly than we ought and we have come to believe our words themselves are the solution.
And much of this comes from those who give lip service to “God’s sovereignty” and the “Doctrines of Grace”. Their words call into question the depth of their faith in grace and sovereignty.
DC: I thought that you all think blanket generalization and condemnation is wrong? Tell me again, why is the sin of one person the sin of the group? Or is that acceptable only for “the ODMs”?
RA: Let me clarify.
1. The ODMs, as group of people, have made the accusations against us (see the list under the AODMs). I made a blanket generalization because the individuals who frequent this blog and other blogs know specifically who is being discussed.
2. I also included a generalized list of the accusations that it we as AODMs make against ODMs (listed under AODMs). I did this to show a comparison between our KIND of accusations and their KIND of accusations that are generally made. I think you misunderstood. In my #71:
“THE ODMs” = what they call us
“THE AODMs” = how we view them
__________
DC: Again, why are all of us critics lumped together? Show me where did I ever say that
1) Richard Abanes and the folks at CRN.(mis)info are not Christians
2) Warren is a pantheist (even Warren Smith didn’t say that by the way), or Warren is a New Ager
3) Warren doesn’t care about doctrine at all
RA: Dan, thank you for asking. Notice that in context I stated: “But there are errors that have been made on the ODM side too, LIKE THE absurd statement that ….” This means that there are other absurd statements that I did not list, but would fall under the same classing as absurd — the “like the” phrase indicates such listed things are mere examples of many.
Would you like me to share from my perspective those things you have specifically written? If not, I understand, I do want to respect where you want to go with this conversation.
My responses to your main statements are already on my blog.
RA
DANIEL: 1) Stop allowing Mormons and Roman Catholics to take part as churches in the 40DOP or DOC or whatever program Warren wishes to start, without they first becoming Christians and renouncing their false religion.
RA: (begins by pulling hair out)
SIGH. MORMONS DON’T TAKE PART
AND HAVE NEVER
TAKEN PART!!!!!!!
(he sez rolling his eyes – not again)
Daniel, Daniel, Daniel – Just FYI broski, here we have YET AGAIN this egregious rumor that the ODMs gleefully ran with, and even now, after it’s been debunked, they will not let it die and seem to relish spreading about Rick Warren (not necessarily you, but others) — it’s just too good of an inflammatory, fear-mongering, juicy story to let go.
And it’s a rumor based on a single line from a USA Today that was NOT accurate. Ready? Okay, here’s the truth – which I have posted online more times than I can count. And I know the truth because unlike the ODMs, I actually took the time to investigate and research the issue.
____AN URBAN LEGEND ANSWER____
The whole rumor about Warren holding Purpose Driven for Mormons dates back to a USA Today interview with Warren by their religion reporter Kathy Lynn Grossman.
In the comments Warren made to USA Today during that interview, he spoke of “denominations.” He never once mentioned any denomination by name, but in context was simply talking about the various denominations that often come to the PDL conferences (i.e., Lutheran, Methodist, Presbyterian, etc.). The word “Mormon” is NOWHERE in his remarks — only “denominations.”
The reference to “Mormons” was actually an interpretation/insertion made by the USA Today journalist of what SHE thought Warren meant when he said “denominations.” She thought this because, as a secular writer, she sees no real difference between the various religious/Christian “denominations.” So, she thought she’d spice up the article and help readers by putting in her OWN notion of what Warren meant by “denominations.”
I learned this through several emails exchanged with Cathy Lynn Grossman on April 8, 2005 and a telephone conversation with her on April 27, 2005.
The USA Today writer told me that she innocently penned her story for a secular media outlet using Webster’s definition of “denomination” – i.e., a “religious group.” Again, it was Grossman who who chose the denominations (or “religious groups”) to put in the list, believing they sounded best in the article. Warren himself did not say, and indeed, he is not quoted as saying, that he views Mormons as simply other “denominations” that he teaches.
I then contacted Brian Davis, Manager of Customer Care, Purpose Driven. According to Davis, no Mormons have ever been through any purpose driven pastor training or conferences or classes per all records. More importantly, Warren has never said that his programs “welcome” Mormons.
Rick Warren’s direct quote about Mormonism and other cults is as follows: “[The Apostle]Paul says that they were zealous but ‘their zeal is not based on knowledge.’” That describes a lot of cults and religions today. A lot of Jehovah’s Witness are zealous without knowledge, and Mormons, [and] Moonies. Paul says they are zealous but they don’t really know the truth.” (Rick Warren “The Truth Is For Everybody,” part 26, n.d.; Rick Warren, “Discovering Life Mission,” CLASS 401).
_________URBAN LEGEND END
As for Roman Catholics, brother, you MUST begin to accept that there are many honorable, thoughtful, intelligent, Bible-based, Christ-honoring, God-centered Christian pastors, teachers, apologists who have differing opinions on Roman Catholicism than you do. Please understand that fact of life. And you cannot go around condemning everyone who disagrees with your view of Catholics (which, TBH, seems a bit extreme).
Warren’s views of Roman Catholicism are similar to those held by a number of conservative, Bible-believing, evangelicals including myself, Ron Rhodes, Gretchen Passantino-Cobern (Answers In Action), Hank Hanegraaff (president of the Christian Research Institute), and Dr. Norman Geisler, co-author with Ralph MacKenzie of Roman Catholics and Evangelicals (Baker Books, 1995).
Of particular relevance, is the book by Geisler and MacKenzie—both of whom are well-respected evangelical apologists. In their volume they discuss the many differences and similarities between Protestants and Roman Catholics.
In fact, PART ONE of his book is dedicated to “Areas of Doctrinal Agreement” that lists eight major areas of doctrine that he says evangelicals share with Roman Catholics (120 pages worth). And on top of that, his entire PART THREE is dedicated to “Areas of Practical Cooperation” that includes social action, educational goals, spiritual heritage, and evangelism (see pp. 359-429).
Unfortunately, many of Warren’s critics are vehemently anti-Roman Catholic, and this prejudice has often colored their views of other evangelical leaders—one case in point, Rick Warren. For a quick, yet thorough look at Roman Catholicism from a balanced perspective, I recommend the numerous articles available from the Christian Research Institute on the subject (see resource list).
Do you really want me to go through 2 – 10, Daniel? Tell me honestly. are you interested in really looking at these issues, or not?
R. Abanes
BALANCE –
1. There are Roman Catholics who are saved
2. Roman Catholicism is not Bible Christianity
Daniel,
I think you’ve probably realized this but I wanted to make it clear. Labeling you as a modernist was not a pejorative remark. It was instead meant to show you how your communication breaks down when you throw that kind of a modernistic construct at someone who isn’t a modernist.
I would make clear that the way we use the term “modernist” is slightly different than the way Spurgeon and his followers used it. He was referring to a specific type of modernist (naturalistic modernism), while we refer to a more general form of modernism, of which several streams can be compatible with Christianity (in fact many of the men I admire most in the faith are modernist Christians).
Chris, thanks for stopping by and the invite to your great site.
Just to through a wrench in the above, may I offer something?
BALANCE:
1.ALL have been saved.
2.Roman Catholics are part of “ALL”
3. Roman Catholism, like Protestantism, is an attempt to live out a past, accomplished fact.
grace and peace,
Chad
There’s a thought.
Eat, drink, and be merry!
Rick,
Why do you say that?
If I have understood your subliminal assertion, you are suggesting universalism? (everyone is or will be saved?)
Chad,
Thank you for coming by… I see the point you’re making (one often made in counterpointing ‘religion’ vs. ‘faith).
…and I agree with it (sorry for the incomplete thought there).
I realize that a lot more ‘qualification’ make folks more comfortable that universalism is not being supported, but rather being somewhat ‘generous’ with our orthodoxy (to borrow a term).
Rick,
Not universalism in the sense that all paths lead equally to God. I do hope and pray (even believe), however, that hell will be empty and heaven will be gloriously full of God’s salvation to the entire cosmos. In the very least that it is not the eternal punishement and fire that it is often thought to be. How this occurs or when it occurs, is less important than WHY it occurs – because Jesus promised that he will draw ALL unto himself and that one day every knee WILL bow and confess Christ is Lord. Like C.S. Lewis said, if there is a hell, the lock will be on the inside.
peace,
Chad
Chris,
You are right. And even as I hit the “submit” button on that short quip I regretted it. It would take a lot more than just a post here or a comment there to fully flesh out what all that means. I certainly don’t want to use your space for that.
A great book I just finished reading is “Who Will Be Saved?” by Will Willimon. This ought to be required reading for any pastor or leader in the church. I am putting notes together on my blog – hopefully I will get it together before Christ returns!
peace,
Chad
Distilled down that is universaliam. In the end, everyone will be saved (or all who are not will be annihilated).
That is a step further than just a generous orthodoxy, it is complete cosmos restoration without the negative (judgment, hell, etc.). But do not worry, the next generation will go further than we could ever imagine.
Eat, drink, and be merry, for tomorrow we’re saved.
Rick,
Not at all. “Distilled down” it is God’s gracious act of salvation through Jesus Christ that is far more reaching and GRACE-filled than we could ever conceive.
Do you have a problem with God saving everyone if God so chooses? I realize this is difficult for many of who have been raised in the church. We have, in varying degrees, made it sort of a relgious necessity (even hobby?) to draw lines and define ourselves over and against what we are not. We cannot conceive of a God who would actually love them and therefore there must be a place for them to go, away from us, because that is how we would do it.
It is why the gospels are so scandalous. No one could fathom that the Messiah, the one who was meant to wipe out the them and restore the us would go and have dinner with whores, sinners, tax collectors and Roman centurions.
This same God who loves so lustfully for his creation is the same God that is reconciling ALL things to himself through Christ. So yeah, I have the hope that one day ALL will be saved. God has an eternity to see such a feat come to pass, and we get front row seats as those who presently know God as revealed in his Son. How cool is that?
peace,
Chad
I do consider that theology as so unbiblical as to be heretical in the extreme. And it will not go unoticed the amount of strong disagreement with that view, or lack thereof, as compared with strong dissent and argument on issues with far less eternal consequences. If that view is correct than it makes all discussion obsolete and without purpose, as well as assigning the Great Commision as nothing more than throwing a newspaper on everyone’s lawn to inform them of their good fortune.
There is only one view that is of a greater heresy than universalism, that is the view that there is no God.
Rick,
I’m sorry you feel that way. But I disagree that such a view makes all discussion obsolete. In fact, it has the opposite effect for we desire to know this God and be in relationship with this God who has loved us to such a great degree. Indeed, we learned to love because he first loved us.
You must find Paul’s words in Romans 5 downright blashphemous when he declares that just like sin entered ALL through one man, even so, through one man’s righteous act came the free gift to ALL men. Paul is sounding like a universalist.
The Great Commision is very much about declaring the headlines of GOOD NEWS that Jesus is Lord and death has been defeated. You are saved, therefore, REPENT and turn to the God who loves you even now (that last line is Calvin, by the way).
peace,
Chad
As if I haven’t had this discussion too many times before. It is what I call “flat earth”, meaning it is so absurd as to be agrumentatively unproductive.
Rick, forgive me, but is this the part of the conversation where I ask, “why is that absurd?” and you respond with “just because, and it isn’t even worth talking about.” To which I then respond with, “well, that sounds absurd.” To which you then ask, “why?” I retort back with, “just because.” At some point we have a good laugh and start asking, “who’s on first?”
If that is the case, I thought I’d offer the above to save us much time. We will have all of eternity to hash this out.
grace and peace,
Chad
Chad,
Are you saying “all in unless opt out”?
iggy
Hi iggy,
Not necessarily. We certainly run the risk of alienating ourselves eternally from God (although I have hope that this will not happen). We can be so self-righteous and so stubborn that we eternally snub the God who says, “you need me, I am THE way.”
The interesting question, perhaps, is how long does God have to convince the truly stubborn? I don’t buy into annhilation because scripture seems pretty clear that ALL will be raised (bodily) and judged. Judgment is a scary thing. To one day sit before our Creator and hear him say, “look, we have all eternity to work this out” and be confronted with just how worthless I am and how loving God is will bring me trembling to my knees. Sadly, some may continue to insist on their obstinance. We have lost an imagination for the horror of a life seperate from the God who loves. Neuhaus asks if biblical talk of hell is predicative (this is the way it shall be) or cautionary (this is the way it can be if one turns away from Christ’s outstetched hand). (Willimon, Who WIll Be Saved? 75).
Does that answer your question?
peace,
Chad
Chad,
I think this is where you and I differ.
I see the issue now is that we are forgiven dead men… and a dead man needs life. I see that Roman 5:10 states this very clearly.
Yet, the issue is this, man is not immortal, only Jesus is… as scripture states…
Man must be clothed with the imperishable and immortal… as we are still perishable.
Without this man is raised at the judgment but then cast into eternal death.
Now I see more merit to annihilation-ism expect for Jesus own words concerning those who did not do the will of the Father…
Now we cannot have eternal punishment and all saved at the same time. Jesus words seem pretty clear. Note “eternal” is not an “age” word it is “everlasting, perpetual, it is without time so it is begun without God and ever without God. it is eternal death…
iggy
“Now we cannot have eternal punishment and all saved at the same time.”
Sit back and listen, my brother. You are about to enter the Twilight Zone!
Rick,
You might be surprised… often i am…
iggy = )
Where do I get smileys?
Rick -
While I suspect your “twilight zone” comment was aimed at me and meant to be a jab, I take it as a great compliment. Barth often said that the task of a preacher is to introduce people to the “strange, new world” that is found within the pages of scripture. Indeed, it is like a twilight zone.
Iggy- I think you will be surprised that we are not far off from each other. I’ll respond more fully in a moment – my four kids are restless
peace,
Chad
Not a jab at you personally, Chad. Never that.
The theology you espouse, well, I can be very creative in my descriptions!
Chad,
One odd days Rick is a good guy, even days watch out!
iggy
Iggy,
Rom. 5:10 seems to indicate that in Adam all have sinned and in Christ all will be made alive, don’t you agree?
I agree with you that man is not immortal. This comes as a gift from God. The Timothy text as well as 1 Cor. 15 are both amazing passages that give us a glimpse into the eternal purposes of God and the hope we have in bodily resurrection. N.T. Wright has some marvelous things to say about all of that in his book, Surprised by Hope, which I am doing a study on currently (the notes can be found on my blog).
In the end, there is good reason to believe that what was perishable (the “spirit” that has propelled our earthly bodies) will be made imperishable. In otherwords, what was corruptible will be incorruptible and we will be enlivened by the same Spirit that rose Christ from the grave. This is Good News! and the center of Christian hope and proclamation.
Now, we also have reason to believe from scripture that all will be raised to judgment, do you agree? You mention Matthew 25, which as you know is a parable. As with all parables there are certain allowances we need to keep in mind, one of them being the right to hyperbole, which Jesus was not afraid to use from time to time. With that said, allow me to offer a few quotes from Willimon on this topic and on this passage. He says it far better than I ever could (all are from “Who Will Be Saved?)…
“Hell is the opposite of heaven. Hell is that eternal separation that is contrary to what God wants: eternal reconciliation. If we have little firsthand experience of heaven, that time and place where God is all in all, we know next to nothing, since Jesus came among us, of hell, that time and place where God is not. It is th enature of the risen Christ to intrude, to encroach upon empty places of the heart, to fill each drab void with radiant light. So forgive Christians for not knowing much about hell- the void where love is not, where Christ’s victory is null. Those of us who have been stalked by the risen Christ tend to believe that it is difficult for any humna to keep the Hound of Heaven forever at bay.” (69).
“And yet the God who loves us has made us as those who are able to turn aside from God’s move toward us, those how are able to refuse God’s outstretched hand.”
“something in us does not want the God who wants us. Something in us finds it quite attractive at last to be where God is silenced, and we are free at last to be as we damn well please. Hell is getting what you think you really want. Thus hell remains a real, but nevertheless inexplicable, possibility, a failure not of the resourceful love of God, but rather of our own disordered desire.”
Regarding the parable of the sheep and the goats:
“Please note that in Jesus’ parable, both the blessed sheep and the cursed goats are ignorant – both ask, “Lord, when did we see you?” Neither the sheep nor the goats were out looking for Jeuss, nor did they know Jesus when he stood before them. Both were encountered by him incognito as he pushed into their lives in the faces of the poor, the imprisoned, the famished. This suggests to me that the parable of the Great Judgment is not a lesson in how to shape up and, therefore, avoid God’s judgment but rather a statement on the impossibility of circumventing God’s judgment. We shall be judged, says the parable, no matter how zealously you worked…and the judgment shall be that of God, not those urged by either porgressive or conservative preachers.”
“Recently, a professor of Islamic studies at UNC declared, “if you live a good and righteous life here on earth then hopefully there will be no suprises in the afterlife.” He was obviously not talking about the Christian faith where, according to Matthew 25, there will be suprises for everyone! Surprising Jesus was notorious for welcoming whores into the kingdom ofGod and telling the presumed righteous that they could go to Gehenna. The Judge who sits on the throne suprises becuase his judgments are unlike ours.”
Ok, enough quoting. The point is this: salvation belongs to God alone. We all will be judged, those who think they are “in” and those who don’t even know they are “out” and those who don’t even know they are “in.” And we all may just be surprised. None of this precludes the possibility that judgment is not something that takes time, just like salvation takes time. None of this must assume that salvation, the accomplished FACT that has happened, is not happening, and will happen, must take place only in the span of our earthly lifetime. God has all of eternity to bring about what He Himself has said he desires: that none should perish but all have everlasting life. As Paul claims to the Corinthians – you have been reconciled to God. Therefore – BE reconciled. Salvation is accomplished for ALL. So, like Rick rightly notes, we must place the newspaper in everyone’s lawn so that they might repent (turn) and stop living life like God has not already told them “YES!”
peace,
Chad
There is an eternally significant difference in the message of “Be saved” and “You are saved”.
I guess Jesus’s words of “few there be that find it” mean here on earth. Everyone finds it in the end. That is antithetical to historic Christianity. Even Rob Bell, who questions many of the hell references, stated his belief in a lake of fire for some.
Chad,
Now I agree with most of all you stated, but no where did I see you give an answer to “all being saved”… I see that the need for a “hell” which you seem to acknowledge, seems to negate the literal “all”.
I am not saying someone must know the literal Name Jesus to be saved…I see the idea of the “Name” in scripture is bigger than just the surname “Jesus”. In fact I see the same thing that you do as that the sheep and goats both are ignorant… and maybe even confused as to their standing.
Again, the main thing is I do not see “all are saved” I see “all are forgiven” yet I do nto equate forgiveness with salvation. Even the sheep had a relationship with Jesus though they did not know His Name…they did the will of the Father and by doing that, walked as Jesus did.
I see that you might be confusing Forgiveness with salvation. ON the Cross all are forgiven, which leads all to the potential of salvation, yet without the “Life” we are but forgiven dead men. I see this “Life” comes now and not later… it is perfected Life later at the Resurrection.
iggy
Iggy,
No, I would agree with what you say above. Forgiveness and salvation are definately different. I would say salvation is both past, present and future. To use an old diddy – we are saved, we are being saved, and we will be saved. Forgiveness, I would say, is just one aspect (albeit an important one) of salvation as a whole. I didn’t mean to make salvation anemic – I think it is very robust and encompasses the entire work of God through history (and what will be culminated in the judgment).
As for the need for hell, I guess one might say there is no need if all are saved. I don’t know. Perhaps there is a need for hell but not an eternal one. Perhaps, because salvation takes time, there is time (like eternity?) where those who do not die to themselves to be made alive in Christ will be refined – a purgatory, if you will. The God I see revealed in Jesus Christ allows me to hang on to the hope that one day all will be saved. When we gather around the throne to worship God we may be surprised to find who we are singing next to.
Does that help answer the question? Or did I just muddy it up more? Welcome to the Twilight Zone.
Making it up as you go along.
Rick,
Why so glib? Do you have a hope that hell is empty or full? What is God’s desire?
My desire is irrelevant. The only reference is the written revelation. I do believe a misguided desire for compassion overrides truth when it comes to universalism.
It is not true and heretical. Even Iggy goes with an “opt out” theory because he sees the Scriptures cannot be twisted to teach total salvation.
Rick,
Your desire is irrelevant? Rick, I’m not asking you to rewrite history or predict the future. It’s a simple question about what you desire hell to be. Empty or full? Are you afraid of admitting that you desire hell to be empty that you might sound too much like me? Are you afraid that admitting that you hope God saves all that you might sound like a universalist? Or is it the other way around? Do you desire hell to be full and fear that this will make you sound unusually harsh and somewhat judgmental? What do you suppose God’s desire is? Surely you can anwer that one, right? (hint: 2 Peter)
And a “misguided desire for compassion”? What do you mean by that? I would rather err on the side of compassion, wouldn’t you?
peace,
Chad
Chad – yours is a subjective Christianity that sculpts doctrine according to your own desires and the dictates of your imaginations. I desire my brother to be saved, that doesn’t make it so.
Your philosophy, as I had noted earlier, is argumentatively unproductive not only due to your low view of Scripture, but your high view of your own thoughts. If everyone is to be saved, sit back, relax, and enjoy the ride. We will see…
Rick,
It saddens me that you would say those things. It appears that I have either been unclear in the above comments or you have missed what I have been trying to say.
First, I have a very high view of scripture. Why would you think otherwise? I find it troublesome that people who disagree with another person’s theology automatically assume that it is because they value scripture more than the other. Nothing could be further from the truth. It is scripture, Rick, that has “sculpted” my imagination and dictates the philosophies I give heed.
I have said this several times now, Rick, that this does NOT give way to a “eat drink and be merry” nor a “sit back and relax” sort of behavior. Salvation is tied to ethics. We have GOOD NEWS to tell to the world because they are currently unaware of the great thing done for them in Christ our Lord! We have WORK to do as we help bring about God’s will “on earth as it is in heaven.” Anyone who says that we can just sit back and enjoy the ride is lazy and ignorant of the grace and love shown to them in Christ and has not captured the vision that that love sparks in us.
Please stop characterizing something as “low view of scripture” or as hedonism simply because you don’t understand it. Trust me, neither is the case and if you think it is, it is my fault in poorly explaining it or…something else.
peace,
Chad
One other thing- I notice that you have not answered the question yet. Do you desire a full hell or an empty one?
Thanks,
Chad
I desire no hell. I desire I had no sin. I desire I always loved. I desire I wasn’t a diabetic. I desire all AIDs sufferers were cured.
I have quite a list. Just wishful thinking which isn’t truth. I believe Doug Pagitt would be a better dialogue partner.
Probably so. Sorry I got you off on this tangent.
grace and peace,
Chad
Chad,
I want to clarify that there are a few different “hell’s”
1. the grave
2. Hades/Sheol which is the flip side of Abraham’s Bosom/Paradise
3. Gehenna/Lake of Fire the eternal “hell” which most refer to.
4. Tartarus
Each is different and has a different purpose.
I am talking about #2 which is not eternal, but I see #3 as eternal.
It is like N.T. Wright explaining New Creation as the life after-the after life… Heaven is the resting place before the New Creation and it also is not eternal.
iggy
BTW this conversation between Chad and myself is the type of discussion we emergents have. I respect him though we seem to disagree. I am making him back his assertions as he is challenging mine. I do not see him attacking me and I hope he does nto see me as attacking him. To me this is healthy and challenging dialog that leads to growth and edification of both parties. We most likely will still not agree but we are aiming at understanding each other and in all humility agree in the end we are most likely both wrong… LOL!… but hold it all out loosely so that it can be challenged.
Respect is the greatest value we share in the emerging conversation. Many that converse here seem to see no one outside their own theological view as worthy of respect… that is sad.
I truly respect Chad. I also believe if he is wrong, that God will correct him… as God will also correct me. If he is not emergent it is still my responsibility to treat him as an equal and nothing less as we are both just mere men walking out our faiths as best we grasp what God is doing.
iggy
Rick,
All theology is subjective to us. We interpret scripture through our own filters… even you Rick. I see the Calvinist as the most extreme example as well as the hyper Arminian (picture that one!) = ) Think Brother Jed and Sister Cindy…
That is why I tell Pastorboy he is a relativist as he will not answer whose truth is true… LOL!
Again, Steve Camp who disagrees with PB who disagrees with me who disagrees with SC and Chris R and you and….
The point is we all are wrong at some point as we all can’t be right. As in the case of regeneration, one may be right, all may be wrong… but we all cannot be right.
We only see “truth” relative to the system or knowledge we have…
iggy
I have been free of subjectivity since September 21st, 1999.
Oh geez. Brother Jed. He started a riot at my university.
Iggy,
Thank you for sharing that. One of the earliest definitions I was given for theology in systematics was “our finite language about the infinite God.” We grasp, grope, and stumble to speak of that which we really know so little about. But we are not left without hope – we have been given the gift of God himself, Jesus Christ, who reveals God to us. No other religion can make such a magnificent claim.
I agree with your sentiments (they aren’t romantic, are they?) completely
It is because of the above, because we have faith in a SOMEONE (who is our advocate) and not in SOMETHING, and because that Jesus gave himself totally for the salvation of the world, that I hold out hope that hell could one day, eventually, in God’s perfect timing and solely by his doing, be empty.
Iggy, why do you suppose Gehenna must be eternal? I certainly think it could be. Yet I am not so sure it must be.
grace and peace,
Chad
Rick: I have been free of subjectivity since September 21st, 1999.
Rick, thanks for the laugh. That was the funniest thing I have heard all day.
peace,
Chad
Chad,
No romance… already have a wife and two kids… and I am too tired to start elsewhere = )
As far as Gehenna
It was a reference to a garbage dump outside of Jerusalem. Again, as I understand it, it is also the Lake of Fire… though I acknowledge that it was thought to be a “purgatory” to the Jews.
It is a place of punishment. In Matthew 10 we see that Jesus stated this.
If both body and soul are destroyed, how are they purged? This is one passage where the word Gehenna is used.
Jesus also referred to Gehenna in
Notice the fire never goes out?
Now, most importantly one must remember that God created the Lake of Fire for Satan and those who followed him. It was not made for man, though as I read Revelation, men who follow Satan will end up in the same end.
Remember this is after the 1000-year reign and before the judgment of the dead.
Again, Jesus and Jude referred to this as “eternal punishment”
I do not like the idea myself. Yet, I just find that it is there… I hate that any find their way to that end.
iggy
Chad,
I just wanted to say how refreshing it is to converse with someone without having them tossing out heretic or call me other names… thanks.
iggy
Iggy,
How old are your kids? I have 4, ages 18 months, 3, 4 and 5. I think I know what you mean by being too tired – lol. But aren’t they great?
I don’t have much time so let me just add some commentary to the passages you highlight. But first, let me say that I have no delusions that I am right about this. As the quote from Willimon above attests, we know so little about life with God (and that even with the gift of Jesus) why should we presume to know much about life absent of God (hell)?
For Matt. 10:28 – I agree with you that if both are destroyed, they cannot be purged. That would be a contradiction. But I also note that Jesus did not say this is a sure reality or a necessity. In context, Jesus is warning of coming persecution. This could be seen as assurance to his followers to put their hope in God, not men. Men can only kill the body, God can (not will) destroy both body and soul. Therefore,if you are to fear anyone fear God – the Creator and Taker of life.
Mark 9:43. I think this is another example of Jesus’ use of hyperbole. We don’t have evidence of many early Christians walking around with out hands or eyes due to self-gouging/lashing. I think Jesus’ point is this: life with God entails ethical living. It would be far better to live life here maimed than it would be to live eternally having rejected a life with God. And the fire that never goes out? As you mentioned, Gehenna was a literal place – a garbage dump outside Jerusalem. As I recall, there was a fire there and it never did go out. It burned year round to clean up the refuse.
Revelation, as you know, is apocalyptic literature and I’m not as well versed in it as I like to be. I know many have the Left Behind series as their commentaries on Revelation (not saying you do – although I admit to having read them
) I need to brush up on this.
Matthew 25:46 I commented on earlier. And Jude, let me fit that into a summation:
Hell is a very real reality, but not a necessary one. Hell is not so much a place as it is a state of being. If the New Jerusalem is the eternal presence of God with us than hell is that which exists because we have rejected God’s outstretched hand in Jesus. But hell, in this sense, is not unreachable by the God who cannot be contained and shows throughout scripture a relentless love, almost an insane lust, for creation, especially us humans. I see no reason why even hell cannot be redeemed one day in eternity. Again, to quote Neuhaus: he asks if biblical talk about hell is predictive (this is the way it shall be) or cautionary (this is the way it can be if one turns away from Christ’s open hand). I am leaning more in the direction of the latter (this was not always the case. I used to be a rabbid conservative!)
Sorry to cut this short. Gonna go catch a movie with my wife since the kids are down for bed.
peace,
Chad
Iggy,
Just caught your last line of: I just wanted to say how refreshing it is to converse with someone without having them tossing out heretic or call me other names… thanks.
I second that. I have been banned from some sites and called everything from antichrist, heretic, false-prophet, etc. One pastor and auther (Bob Morey) even said it to me in Latin! I was sort of impressed.
peace,
Chad
Although I did not call you a heretic, I do believe the theology is heresy.
But here is an honest question for Chand and Iggy so that I may get your perspective.
1. What are, if any, areas that you would consider as heresy?
2. Do you consider it wrong when someone calls something heresy when that is what they honestly believe?
Rick,
If someone adds works to the Cross and denies the resurrection…
Now I will and do name names at times. Marcus Borg to me is a heretic because he denies the physical resurrection of Jesus. Though recently I read N. T. Wright be much more gracious and state something to the effect that Marcus “knew” at one time so he is hesitant to call Marcus such.
Also, I have had a friend looking into Norman Grubb who is what I thought from where I come from, but it turns out he believes we actually become “iggy-Jesus” or “Rick-Jesus”. He goes beyond the Union in Christ and makes us inseparable. My friend took many months of dialog before he came to me with his research. He did not go on the web punch in a name and read and find 10 out of 15 sites called Grubb’s ministry heretical.
I could name a few more, but I also want to add that many have found help from these men in their faith. Even Marcus Borg has helps some find faith in Jesus after they have lost it for a time.
The biggest areas.
1. Denies the physical resurrection.
2. Adds works to Grace (though I am gracious with people like you Rick) j/k
3. Teaches that Jesus is not the only way or not The Way, The Truth, The Life…
I see as a follower of Jesus Grace need be the filter we use. I am hesitant to use the word as it is not a nice word. I may toss it out back to a ODM as I hold them to their own standard to show their shortcomings.. yet that seems to be an act of futility as some cannot even understand satire and other simple points of logic!
Yet, honesty does not give us permission to me mean SOB’s… It does not make us more righteous so that we can abuse others and attack them without giving them a way to reconciliation and grace. through our mercy toward them. It is like a heart attack. One can be sincere and honestly believe it is not happening to them, yet when they die from it it did not change the facts it happened. If we do not forgive and live a life of forgiveness… we will not be forgiven. That is not works, but a sign of a changed heart that has been Loved by God so that one can love others with God’s love.
Without true love from God, Grace and truth are hollow and mercy is nonsense .
iggy
“If someone adds works to the Cross”
Does that include teaching that the act of baptism washes away sins as well as faith in the cross?
Rick,
On a personal level from what I see in scripture yes… yet, I also see why someone might believe that way and be so convinced that to not be baptized, sees they are sinning.
I see it as the same as Romans 14 and meat sacrificed to idols… Meat does nothing, but if it condemns the man to eat of it, then they should not, if not them partake as unto God.
If a man is convinced Jesus is enough and nothing is needed, then walk in that faith. If one needs to “do” something, and in that cleanses his conscience (though Christ already is sufficient) so be it and I trust Jesus will teach that person to grow in their trust in Him.
I choose to give some who I see not trust Jesus in as much faith as I might see myself having, with grace. (THAT WAS HARD TO WRITE WITHOUT FEELING IT SOUNDS ARROGANT >>>> I am not meaning it that way, but in all humility knowing I am NOTHING except what Christ Jesus is in me.)
iggy
I make a distinction. Those that teach baptismal regeneration and say people like me are not saved, they are heretics.
People like Tim who believe it but say I am saved, they are brothers because in the end they are delightfully duplicitous.
Hey, why are you up so early, Iggy? You want to be first to vote for Obama!!
Rick, I’ll be happy to answer your questions. I am curious how (or why) you think it is different to call someone’s theology heresy and not call the one espousing it a heretic. I do appreciate, however, you not throwing that word around loosely, as many are prone to do.
1. What do you consider heresy?
I am pretty much in agreement with Iggy on this one. If I stick with just the NT, what I see as “heresy” is a person who denies the bodily resurrection of Jesus. That for me is central to the Christian proclamation, that Jesus has defeated sin and death and is the first fruits of the hope we all have. Frankly, I see little if nothing else in the NT itself that (from the apostles perspective) that they were concerned about.
Making works necessary for salvation. I would qualify this, though, by saying that our Roman Catholic friends are not heretics in this regard. When I say “works as necessary for salvation” it is to say that grace is being denied as free gift (or more to the point, that there is no need of grace), that God in Jesus has not done something to open the door to heaven.
I am quick to point out that many of my protestant brothers and sisters are no different than our RCC brothers and sisters – they have simply changed the system of “works” from one of penance to one of mental assent to a set of propositional truths or doctrins. While not “heresy” I consider it to be a departure from orthodox understandings of grace (gift!).
2. Do you consider it wrong when someone calls something heresy when that is what they honestly believe?
Again, I would sign off on what Iggy says here. It is odd to me that people who have been shown much grace when they were least deserving of it and even still continually stumble and fail the Giver of Grace, we withhold grace to others who are striving to know God just as we.
I hear the message of Jesus as one calling us to serve our brother and sisters, to love others as we love ourselves, to be humble and willing to die to self, to be last rather than first. It is a self-emptying, always, and that emptying cannot include my wanted to define myself over and against another. Jesus does not cater to Peter’s question “but Lord, what about THEM?” in John 21, but rather tells Peter, “what is that to YOU? YOU, follow ME.” When I put myself in a position where I can judge another and call them a heretic, I am essentially saying I know better and I am asking God, “what about THEM?” That is God’s business. My business is to follow Jesus. That is a hard enough task in and of itself. And by God’s grace, if I do it well, others will see the difference in THAT life as compared to the one who is off-center. Words won’t be necessary.
I am deeply disturbed by the amount of energy that is expended by Christians (you know who they are) to simply point out the wood in someone else’s eyes. I know they think they are doing a service to the church, but are they really? I wonder just how much good comes of it. It is as if they think they can do a better job than the Holy Spirit of leading, pointing people to truth. I wonder what might happen if we all just got out of the way of God and stopped being the judge (and I don’t care how many people want to take Jesus’ command to not judge lest you be judged and yet still justify their judging – it’s wrong, period).
grace and peace,
Chad
I am always up early… I work nights so my work day starts around 11pm and ends between 5 or 10 am…
I sleep when I can….. or don’t.
= )
iggy
Rick,
Oh and I am not sure who I am voting for yet! I can’t remember is I am registared Dem or Rep… LOL!
For a long time one of us (my wife and me) would registar as one and the the other the other… so we could get all the dirt… errr… info on the candidates… yet I am not sure that matters in MOntana.
So… Ron Paul, Obama or Mcain…but just not sure…
iggy
iggy,
I staged my own personal inter-party “Operation Chaos”, and voted for Mitt Romney.
Just one of the little things in my head that make me giggle!
Chad,
You have to one of the, if not THE, most gracious visitor I have ever seen on this site! Thanks for using the Bible as reference, looking at context, and addressing ornery-ness (my word) with kindness. Hope you continue to hang out…
Zan
or is that Intra-party? I always forget which is which….well, you get the idea
Zan,
I appreciate your kind words but also must say, God help us and this site if they are true! I recognize that my ornery-ness (great word, btw) can get the best of me and often has. My wife will be the first to testify to that.
I like it here. Thanks for what you all are doing. It is refreshing.
grace and peace,
Chad
Chad,
When you examine the writings of Jesus’ disciples and their disciples (Polycarp, etc.), there is an implicit and explicit exclusivity presented, regarding Christianity. With the second-generation disciples, in particular, you have Gentile, Greek Christians who do not have a Eastern/Hebrew (metaphorical, concrete) mindset, but rather a much more Western (literal, abstract) one. As such, exclusivity seems to become more ‘clear’ or ‘literal’ in their teaching, but doesn’t contradict Jesus’ own claims (ex. John 14:6), or Paul’s follow-up claims (ex. 2 Corinthians 6:14).
So, I wonder, with the view you’ve put forth, what is the advantage to a devout Buddhist in SE Asia to instead follow the way of Jesus, with a full knowledge of the persecution and unrest that is likely to accompany such a conversion?
Excellent observation – it goes along with a point I was making in the past few weeks on the inseparability of “faith” and “works”, how we’ve tried to compartmentalize them, and how James and other Jewish Christians understood (and argued) that they could not be divorced from one another.
ChrisL,
So, I wonder, with the view you’ve put forth, what is the advantage to a devout Buddhist in SE Asia to instead follow the way of Jesus, with a full knowledge of the persecution and unrest that is likely to accompany such a conversion?
Chris, this is a fantastic question. I doubt I am one to do it justice.
I think you are right about the development of thought from Hebrew to Helinistic, metaphor to literal. You mentioned the second generation disciples, Polycarp and so forth, and as you know he and his contemporaries were martyred. Do you suppose their move towards exclusivity could be contrived as a means of reassurance to their minority band of followers facing persecution from the Roman Empire? I don’t know the answer to that. It is something I have been considering only recently and would like to hear your take (or others).
But to your question of the unfortunate Buddhist. What is the advantage to him? If we were sharing a beer right now and we could share a laugh, my first response might be, “Hopefully a quick and painless death.” Jesus tends to mess up our lives, at least he did mine. But more to the point, I think the Buddhist gains a knowledge that he is no longer living a lie, but rather his death (should it come by persecution or otherwise) does not have the final say, that there is no absorbtion into nothingness or some diffused ocean of being, but rather death has been defeated, he will be raised again, and that his actions and prayers of today have a lasting and even eternal impact on the kingdom of tomorrow. He gains the joy of waking up from delusion, the delusion that comes from the world and its many idols which we serve, and seeing Truth – Truth not as a set of ideals or propostions but a Person who loved him enough save even him – even while in his current state of delusion. He gains the peace and joy of knowing that if and when he suffers he suffers along with his Christ and the One who promises to wipe every tear from every eye and he gains the hope that one day all of this mess will be restored, renewed and reconciled to the God who is all and in all.
I guess I am saying that ignorance is NOT bliss. Brueggemann gives a definition of evangelism that I like a lot. It characterizes evangelism as “an invitation and summons to ’switch stories’ and therefore to change our lives.” That “story” is the story of God in Jesus Christ who has come to feast with us sinners. The Buddhist, then, gains the advantage of no longer living a lie. To repeat Rob Bell’s repeated refrain in The God’s Aren’t Angry, “you don’t have to live this way.”
Love to hear your thoughts. This is stuff I am only just recently writing about after thinking on them for some time.
peace,
Chad
Chad,
Just be warned… “the others” have not been around this side of the island for a couple of days. They are not so nice… = )
iggy
Igs – is that a reference to Lord of the Flies? If so, Chad’s already met
JackKen and company on another blog…I am the one troll with whom they can endure. That either means I am a little nicer or I am a compromiser. The answer differs with the different camps.
I will admit that you are respectful and humble, Chad. I will attempt to show likewise. Is there a XHTML tag that places the word heresy within a smiley face?
I believe that is a reference from the TV series Lost.
lol@rick. No, but there should be. I don’t mind being called a heretic as long as you tag on that I am your favorite heretic. If I am going to hell I want to be the best at the going of it.
Phil, are you a Lost fan??! I don’t know what I am going to do now on Thurs. nights!
Yes, it’s about the only show my wife and I watch, really (well, besides The Simpsons).
By the way, your last comment was sent to the spam queue for some reason. Who know’s…
“Chad’s already met
JackKen and company on another blog…”Ah, and I love you guys too.
Yeah, I’m logged in on another computer. That might be why.
We only recently were converted to Lost. My wife and I rented the first 3 seasons on DVD and watched them like mad to get caught up for this season.
I missed the first season and never had the strong desire to ‘catch up’. Between “Heroes” and AI (and sometimes House) that’s about it for me (on a regular basis)…
Ken,
If your vitriolic and slanderous attacks were as gentl as Chris L’s literary allusion, this site wouldn’t exist.
Chad,
Thanks for your comments here. They’ve been fantastic. Iggy, you too. The conversation you two have been having, along with others who have joined in has been a fantastic demonstration of the spirity of unity commanded of us in Scripture. PLUS, some of the subjects you’ve brought up have been FANTASTIC. I really can’t add anything, so I’m just saying THANKS!
Joe
Thank you Tim.
You all ARE playing really nice.
Good puppies!
BTT,
Why thank ya. Yep. Me no be bad no more.
Well, I have taken a nice break so that I can spend time with God, as my interaction here has sapped my spiritual vitality. Seriously, you guys do not know what kind of negative effects your words have on the spiritual life of others. So anyway, here will be one of my last comments, to wrap things up. If anyone is interested in continuing, they can email me.
Richard:
you are welcome to show me, but I will not be coming back here, so if you want to, email me.
And with regards to Mormons, ok, I take that back since I have no evidence, but I will not accept your spin on RCism
iggy et al:
Your argument about “works righteousness” sounds like that made by Zane Hodges and co, and I will reject such argumentation on the same grounds as theirs. If you want to carry on, email me
chris et al:
The things I have listed are applications of Scripture and Scripture alone. If you want to dispute that fact, say so plainly.
I’ve met Jack. Is this Sawyer or John Locke?
Sorry, but I don’t watch Lost – Jack Sawyer, though, is the lead character in The Talisman, which I’m reading right now (among other things)
Well, I am sure there is only 7 degrees of separation between the lot. Kevin Bacon is lurking somewhere, I am sure.
Hi seems Chris is speaking about his trip on the Mike Corley show on the 6th
http://theexpositor.wordpress.com/2008/06/04/chris-rosebrough-on-his-visit-with-rick-warren/
OK Chris L., please tell me how you construct a diagram that reflects this.
Corley likes Driscoll.
Driscoll likes Warren.
Corley doesn’t like Warren.
Driscoll likes Corley.
Ken likes Corley.
Ken doesn’t like Warren.
Warren doesn’t like Ken.
OK, I’ll stop. Go ahead and make some diagram with those disconnects.