CRN SUPPORTS ABORTION!
EXTRA! EXTRA! Read all about it! Rick Warren Denies the Gospel! At least that is what CRN said — and once again they failed to deliver. I laughed out loud when I saw the diagram on the page, explaining exactly how Warren has denied the gospel.
If you have to create such a complex diagram to prove that someone denies the gospel, you are really stretching it. This is one crazy witch hunt we have going on! So, I decided to make some of my own conclusions in life.
* Ken Silva reads books
* books are made from paper
* paper comes from trees
* trees come from the earth
* New-Agers worship the earth
* NEW HEADLINE: “KEN SILVA SUPPORTS NEW AGE WORSHIP!”
* CRN is on the internet
* Al Gore created the internet
* Al Gore supports abortions
* NEW HEADLINE: “CRN SUPPORTS ABORTION!”
Man, oh man… I could go on all day! I guess if you want to make something true, you will stretch all rules of logic to make it so.
May 22nd, 2008 at 7:45 pm
I don’t think I can laugh any harder…….wait……I was wrong…….But now I’m starting to cry.
May 22nd, 2008 at 7:52 pm
I stumbled on this site a few days ago when I was trying to work out why goggling Erwin McManus brought up so many hate sites, and I am loving it.
This diagram certainly speaks of its creator’s dedication and free time, if not their intelligence.
May 22nd, 2008 at 8:39 pm
to qoute the author:
“Of course, it may be objected that those particular persons did not deny the doctrine of Justification by Faith alone. However, since they judge those who do to be Christians, that doctrine is not essential for “Christian-ness” and therefore that doctrine is not central for them anymore, which is no different from denying it since this doctrine is the center of the Gospel and claims to be essential for it.”
OUTSTANDING!
Hang on, I thought justification was by faith alone. In this argument you are saying I can lose my “Christian-ness” by judging someone else a Christian who doesn’t believe in a good enough version of “justification by faith alone” according to your standards.
bear with me here…
Therefore, you are saying justification is by faith AND the ability to correctly identify Christians! You are denying justification by faith alone!
Dir sir… tut, tut. Dare I say…. apostate?
May 22nd, 2008 at 9:40 pm
Sounds like works righteousness to me. Faith + anything = not the gospel. Uh oh, Daniel Chew is a heretic!!!
This kind of reminds me of the incredible article over at Jackie Alnor’s APOSTASY ALERT (you gotta loves some of these names). The article about which I speak is aptly titled, “Heresy by Proxy — Pastors who aid & abet wolves in sheep’s clothing”.
Now you can be a heretic and not even teach heretical doctrines. How convenient!!!
R. Abanes
May 22nd, 2008 at 9:56 pm
I have been saying this about Ken Silva and Ingrid of Slice since I first noticed them. they claim salvation by Grace through faith, then add all these “conditions” to faith and grace… making it works.
That is why I laugh/cry so hard when Ken calls people “semi- pelagian”… it is as if you cannot see he is the pelagian without the semi!
I had a “discussion” with Jim Bublitz who asserted that it was a command and mandate to “judge” others as far as salvation. (He later changed it that it was wrong to judge someone else’s eternal destiny as i was asserting) He miss-used scripture to prove we are to judge others. He missed that when we judge it is not to condemn, which is what these guys thrive on!
These claim grace, and many claim the “doctrines of grace” that Calvin taught, yet in their works and actions deny salvation by Grace through faith. they deny the finished works of the Cross and deny the workings of the Resurrection… If there is someone who is a wolf it is some of the top ODM’s.
iggy
May 22nd, 2008 at 10:24 pm
What’s really funny is that Alan Keyes, a nutcase who people like Ken & Ingrid probably idolize, actually compared himself to an abortion in an interview last week.
May 22nd, 2008 at 10:41 pm
Haha, I missed this.
“Since this is a deductive argument, it is irrefutable if the premises are true and the logical argumentation is valid. And therefore, this is a concrete case against Rick Warren.”
If what I say is true, it’s true. Therefore, I am right.
May 22nd, 2008 at 11:01 pm
OK - the diagram reminds me of Ted Kaczynski’s(unabomber) writings.
A + B(x2) - .34 x 40 days + 23% = my irrefutable conclusion
Like the game doctrinal mousetrap. These just might be the people a comprehensive prescription legislation would help.
May 22nd, 2008 at 11:39 pm
bool Saved = (ODMDoctrine) ? true : false;
May 22nd, 2008 at 11:41 pm
I’ll correct my buggy code:
bool Saved = (TargetDoctrine == ODMDoctrine) ? true : false;
bool Attack = Saved;
Attack (TargetDoctrine);
May 22nd, 2008 at 11:45 pm
arrg there’s still errors in it, but I think I’ll just slink off leaving my nerd jokes behind…
May 23rd, 2008 at 12:15 am
As a young man who fudged their way through five years of a three year I.T Degree, I certainly appreciated it Dave.
May 23rd, 2008 at 12:41 am
Console.Write(”Everything makes sense when represented as code!”);
May 23rd, 2008 at 12:55 am
It’s logic in it’s purest form!
May 23rd, 2008 at 9:29 am
I thought Ken Silva read only reviews of books……shouldn’t we try to me more factual here?
May 23rd, 2008 at 9:46 am
“Rick Warren seems to grow further and further into first heteroorthodoxy , then unorthodoxy, then heresy and now rank compromise and apostasy”
Rick will soon have enough expeirence points to level up to New Age Universalist, then Antichrist and finally, Satan himself!
May 23rd, 2008 at 9:52 am
So Matt: Every time he levels up, does he add +1 to his CHA? That type of Min/Maxing is likely to leave him with low STR or CON…
May 24th, 2008 at 4:35 am
I find it revealing that nobody has addressed any parts of the article besides mocking it. C’mon, I thought you guys said you were smart?
May 24th, 2008 at 6:25 am
I addressed a couple of the parts of your article already, and though I did so in a mocking tone I maintain they were genuine inconsistencies, but ok here’s a few problems that I came up with during half-time at the footy:
1. What are your sources? When did Rick say these things? I’m not saying he didn’t but if this is supposed to be conclusive proof you need to provide evidence of your premises. Otherwise we only have your interpretations… you are basically saying
2. And you say this: “May God use this to open up the eyes of Christians around the world, for His Name’s sake. Amen.”
Presumedly by Christians around the world who need their eyes open you are referring to Christians who consider Rick a Christian and value, at least on some level, his teachings… correct? Otherwise they wouldn’t need their eyes opened by this.
Ok, then by your own logic if they are affirming him as a Christian they aren’t Christians themselves, they are heretics and apostates.
By you just referring to them as Christians you have AGAIN confirmed YOURSELF as a a heretic and apostate, by your logic.
3. The very argument you are making flies in the face of “Justification by Faith Alone”. Suddenly it is Faith AND the ability to discern “Christian-ness” AND someone else’s doctrine that makes your justified (unless you believe heretics and apostates are justified)!
If the best thing you can attack Rick with is someone else’s theology, then buddy… your argument is in trouble.
May 24th, 2008 at 8:42 am
C’mon, I thought you guys said you were smart?
Ah, appeal to our testosterone. That is one of the dumbest things I’ve heard. Come on, you’re supposed to be smart! Well, that hurts. No really, it does. I feel bad now. I might feel bad all day, because Daniel implied we were dumb. OK, I’m over it.
May 24th, 2008 at 8:46 am
Considering you’re steeped in modernism and most of reject modernism, I’m not sure why expected us to buy your methodology. Although as Matt P said, certain parts of your flow chart were knocked down.
May 24th, 2008 at 10:04 am
Daniel,
The fact you call your little floe chart “irrefutable” pretty much means it will be a waste of time even talking to you about it. You believe what you want to believe about Rick Warren, and your mind’s made up. The fact that you don’t see the difference between saying that individual Catholics may be Christians and condoning the entire organization means you probably won’t listen to any of our arguments.
Quick question to you - which denominations/orgnaization are true Christian churches according to you? If there are more than one, how can they all be true Christian churches? That’s the problem when you see the word “Christian” as an adjective rather than a noun.
May 24th, 2008 at 10:57 am
“C’mon, I thought you guys said you were smart?”
Well, obviously your diagram was faulty in that!
May 24th, 2008 at 11:26 am
Joe:
You misrepresent me.
Tim Reed:
you do not even understand Modernism if you think I am one.
Phil Miller:
Do you understand what is a logical argument? Dedutive arguments BY DEFINTION are irrefutable if the premises are correct and the argument is valid.
>The fact that you don’t see the difference between saying that individual Catholics may be Christians and condoning the entire organization
In fact, I did see the difference, which is reflected in my chart. Did you actually READ the article?
>which denominations/orgnaization are true Christian churches according to you? If there are more than one, how can they all be true Christian churches
True chuches are those which preach and believe in the Gospel. Your argument that there must be only one is a nonsensical premise I reject.
Rick Frueh:
Prove it!
May 24th, 2008 at 11:32 am
Matt P:
no, you dd not address any of the point so far. What you have done is to say “This is ridiculous”, which is a vacuous statement.
>1) What are your sources? When did Rick say these things
The source whereby Warren states that Roman Catholicism is Christian? That was the only thing I said Warre said. Are you saying that we have no proof for that?
>Presumedly by Christians around the world who need their eyes open you are referring to Christians who consider Rick a Christian and value, at least on some level, his teachings… correct? Otherwise they wouldn’t need their eyes opened by this.
>Ok, then by your own logic if they are affirming him as a Christian they aren’t Christians themselves, they are heretics and apostates.
What ‘logic’ are you thinking of? I never said those words (that those who affirm him aren’t Christians), so stop putting those words into my mouth.
>By you just referring to them as Christians you have AGAIN confirmed YOURSELF as a a heretic and apostate, by your logic.
Again, what ‘logic’ are you referring to? Illogic maybe.
>The very argument you are making flies in the face of “Justification by Faith Alone”. Suddenly it is Faith AND the ability to discern “Christian-ness” AND someone else’s doctrine that makes your justified
Strawman and misrepresentation! Again, have you actually read what I have written?
May 24th, 2008 at 11:34 am
Oh, I am considering doing a Richard Abanes here. You know: continue posting until your opponents tire out. Feel free to attempt to bash me.
May 24th, 2008 at 11:36 am
Hahaha. Almost every sentence you wrote in your 11:26AM comment was modernism personified.
I realize you’ve probably equated atheistic naturalism with modernism, but it is only one form of modernism. Christian modernity is quite prevalent, especially among ODMs.
May 24th, 2008 at 11:58 am
Daniel,
You acknowledge that your premises need to be true and your logic valid. I’m pretty sure that the other commenters that disagree with you, including myself, are challenging both of those. In other words, your premises are faulty and your logic invalid.
I assert that we are justified by faith as opposed to works of the law, but that we are not justified by faith alone.
May 24th, 2008 at 12:01 pm
Daniel,
Thus you prove my point. If you seriously think your argument is irrefutable, then there’s no point debating you on it. There are so many holes in your logic, that your whole flow chart collapses under its own weight.
May 24th, 2008 at 12:08 pm
DC: The source whereby Warren states that Roman Catholicism is Christian? That was the only thing I said Warre said. Are you saying that we have no proof for that?
MP: No I’m saying if you are going to say these things you need to provide the evidence you are intepreting so we can see how badly you are doing it. You can’t just say “Rick said it” if this is supposed to be definitive proof you claim it to be.
DC:What ‘logic’ are you thinking of? I never said those words (that those who affirm him aren’t Christians), so stop putting those words into my mouth.
MP: No, but you said those who call Roman Catholics in their Catholicism Christians are heretics, simply because they don’t hold the Doctrine of Justified by Faith Alone. Surely the same must apply to those who consider another heretic a Christian, if they willingly affirm him as one? No? I’m not a heretic then? I kinda like Rick Warren in a mild sort of way so it would be nice if I can get away with it. I mean how many “degrees of seperation” from the lack of Doctrine of Justification by Faith Alone before it stops damning people to apostasy?
DC: Again, what ‘logic’ are you referring to? Illogic maybe.
MP: Hey man, it’s your logic, don’t blame me for it.
DC: Strawman and misrepresentation! Again, have you actually read what I have written?
MP: Did you or did you not say that even if Rick Warren ascribes to justification by faith alone, he is still a heretic if he calls Roman Catholics in their Roman Catholicism Christians? Isn’t that the point of your entire piece? Is that or is that not Faith + Not calling the wrong people Christians = Justification?
And now, an aside. I’m sorry if I treat this as ridiculous, but I can’t help it. The alternative is to treat it seriously and that’s just too depressing. I showed this to a few people and they assumed it was a joke by one of Rick’s friends.
Your whole blog is dedicated to “vain disputation” and here I am getting caught up in it, I mean your survey is “In your opinion, which of the following are the most misquoted verses of the Bible within the Visible Church?” SERIOUSLY?
Is this honestly what you think Christianity is about? Is this what fired your souls when you came to the lord? Writing up logic charts to decide who’s apostate? Please just answer ‘Yes’ so I can recognise this as totally vain disputation and walk away.
May 24th, 2008 at 1:55 pm
–Hahaha. Almost every sentence you wrote in your 11:26AM comment was modernism personified.–
You can kind of judge whether your position is sound, Daniel, when they start calling you a “modernist”. It just means that you try to make sense, and aren’t much swayed by your feelings, or their’s.
May 24th, 2008 at 2:09 pm
And now I see that Jazz’s problems with postmodern Christians has more to do with the postmodern than the Christian.
May 24th, 2008 at 2:10 pm
Jazz - you do realize that “Modernism” is relatively new in the grand scheme of things, and that the church survived 1700+ years without it? Right?
Would you propose that we must ‘convert’ one to a modernist mindset before they can accept the gospel? In the case of Daniel’s wacky chart, it’s been a long time since I’ve played the kids’ game “Mousetrap”, but the Rube Goldberg contraption in that game was far more stable than the logic behind the silly flowchart.
Perhaps if you have to try so hard and make such specious arguments to prove someone is a heretic, you were off-base in your assumption of guilt from the get-go…
May 24th, 2008 at 3:08 pm
BTW, this is why ODMs have such problems with postmodern Xtians, the Reformation was largely a movement of modern Xtians away from pre-modern Xtians. So when they take their identity from the Reformation they mistake a movement away from modernity as a movement away from Christ.
May 25th, 2008 at 2:27 am
Hey Daniel! I see you qoute C.S. Lewis on your site. Here’s another quote from C.S. Lewis - It was addressed to a woman who had recently converted to Roman Catholicism from Episcopalian.
“It is a little difficult to explain how I feel that tho’ you have taken a way which is not for me I nevertheless can congratulate you — I suppose because your faith and joy are so obviously increased. Naturally, I do not draw from that the same conclusions as you — but there is no need for us to start a controversial correspondence!”
Wha-oh. C.S. Lewis congratulates a woman for becoming a Roman Catholic FROM a mainstream denomination! Surely by your logic he MUST be a heretic and apostate? I mean he’s in the EXACT SAME position as Rick on this issue… worse even, he’s actively congratulating a Protestant becoming a Catholic…
So are you going to take down any quotes by C.S. Lewis on your websites or renounce your chart? (Personally I’d stick with ol’ C.S but that’s up to you).
May 25th, 2008 at 2:37 am
DUDE! Look what else I found on your website, written BY YOU:
“Do not think that a mere profession of faith in Jesus is your hell insurance policy! Jesus has said that not everyone who calls him Lord will enter the Kingdom of heaven (Mt. 7:21), but those who obey God and does His will.”
Is that SO different than the 450 year old section of the Council of Trent you qouted to condemn Rick as a heretic?
“If any one saith, that by faith alone the impious is justified; in such wise as to mean, that nothing else is required to co-operate in order to the obtaining the grace of Justification, and that it is not in any way necessary, that he be prepared and disposed by the movement of his own will; let him be anathema.”
This is fun.
May 25th, 2008 at 9:58 am
Tim Reed:
so Aristotle, Plato and Socrates are Modernists? Ever heard of Aristotelian logic?
Also, ever read the writings of the early church fathers, like Ireneas for example in his book Against heresies? Is he a Modernist too?
May 25th, 2008 at 9:59 am
Christian P:
by your own words you claim to deny the doctrine of salvation/ Justification by faith alone?
May 25th, 2008 at 10:02 am
Phil Miller:
>Thus you prove my point. If you seriously think your argument is irrefutable, then there’s no point debating you on it. There are so many holes in your logic, that your whole flow chart collapses under its own weight.
I have already challenged all of you: Prove that it is wrong. I am just repeating the definition of what constitutes a sound argument back to you. Go find fault with the dictionary if you disagree.
Also, so for your argument that “If you seriously think your argument is irrefutable, then there’s no point debating you on it. There are so many holes in your logic, that your whole flow chart collapses under its own weight”, are you claiming it to be infallible? If so, then there is similarly no point in debating you also, isn’t it?
May 25th, 2008 at 10:31 am
Matt P:
thanks for being willing to interact.
MP: No I’m saying if you are going to say these things you need to provide the evidence you are intepreting so we can see how badly you are doing it. You can’t just say “Rick said it” if this is supposed to be definitive proof you claim it to be.
DC: You want proof for that statement? Let’s see… the statement that I made about Warren with regards to Roman Catholicism is “Rick Warren affirms Roman Catholics as Roman Catholics as brothers and sisters in Christ”. Proof for that comes aplenty. I have other examples, but I think this video will suffice for now. Question: Do you think what Rick Warren says in this video about Roman Catholics proves the truth of this statement of mine?
MP: No, but you said those who call Roman Catholics in their Catholicism Christians are heretics, simply because they don’t hold the Doctrine of Justified by Faith Alone.
DC: simply because “they = Roman Catholics” don’t hold to the doctrine of justification by faith alone.
MP: Surely the same must apply to those who consider another heretic a Christian, if they willingly affirm him as one? No? I’m not a heretic then? I kinda like Rick Warren in a mild sort of way so it would be nice if I can get away with it. I mean how many “degrees of seperation” from the lack of Doctrine of Justification by Faith Alone before it stops damning people to apostasy?
DC: Did I say what kind of heretic Warren is? Do you know that there are various degrees of heresies and heretics? Warren is a heretic by practice, not by belief (at least not that I can see, though they are certainly in error). I thought Emeregents just LOVE to talk about praxis?
MP: Did you or did you not say that even if Rick Warren ascribes to justification by faith alone, he is still a heretic if he calls Roman Catholics in their Roman Catholicism Christians? Isn’t that the point of your entire piece?
DC: Yes.
MP: Is that or is that not Faith + Not calling the wrong people Christians = Justification?
DC: No. It’s the same relation between faith and works. Just like faith alone justifies, but the faith that justifies is not alone, so therefore in this case faith alone justifies, but the faith that justifies works itself out in correct praxis, which in this case is manifested in calling non-Christians Christians. Hey, you guys should know this, since you do talk a lot about praxis, don’t you?
MP: And now, an aside. I’m sorry if I treat this as ridiculous, but I can’t help it.
DC: Apology accepted. You seem to be a more reasonable guy.
MP: Your whole blog is dedicated to “vain disputation” and here I am getting caught up in it
DC: Go do the arithmetric and compare how many posts I have criticising other compared to the number of post whereby I do not do so, then come back and tell me whether your assertion is correct.
MP: Is this honestly what you think Christianity is about?
DC: No, but Christianity includes that as well.
MP: Is this what fired your souls when you came to the lord?
DC: What fires up my soul is that people are saved from both sin and false teachings (which is sin too).
MP: Writing up logic charts to decide who’s apostate? Please just answer ‘Yes’ so I can recognise this as totally vain disputation and walk away.
DC: How many logic charts have I drawn to “decide who’s apostate”? Answer = ONE. And I don’t decide who’s apostate; they decide for themself if they want to be a heretic by doing the wrong action; you know praxis?
May 25th, 2008 at 10:35 am
Matt P:
Regarding CS Lewis’ quotes, they are irrelevant to the main topic, but anyway I will answer it.
So will I remove the quotes by Lewis? No, because 1) Lewis is dead; 2) I do not use him as authority for anything more than “Mere Christianity”; 3) Few people know what he actually believes and stands for. If Rick Warren fulfils these criteria, and his materials are reasonably good (at least on par with Lewis), then I do not mind using them for illlustration purposes, not for doctrinal instructions.
May 25th, 2008 at 10:37 am
Matt P:
>DUDE! Look what else I found on your website, written BY YOU:
“Do not think that a mere profession of faith in Jesus is your hell insurance policy! Jesus has said that not everyone who calls him Lord will enter the Kingdom of heaven (Mt. 7:21), but those who obey God and does His will.”
Is that SO different than the 450 year old section of the Council of Trent you qouted to condemn Rick as a heretic?
“If any one saith, that by faith alone the impious is justified; in such wise as to mean, that nothing else is required to co-operate in order to the obtaining the grace of Justification, and that it is not in any way necessary, that he be prepared and disposed by the movement of his own will; let him be anathema.”
This is fun.
No, they are totally different. I was talking about a mere profession of faith, not true saving faith. Trent was talking about Justification, not a mere profession.
May 25th, 2008 at 11:39 am
Wow, someone seems to cry a lot when his own logic collapses under its own weight…
Just the C.S. Lewis example, alone, and the rationalization you’ve afforded yourself displays the moral bankruptcy of your silly flowchart.
May 25th, 2008 at 12:13 pm
Have you heard of Aristotle, Plato and Socrates?
Morons!
May 25th, 2008 at 7:51 pm
Hey Dan!
I didn’t watch the whole video but I’ll believe you. My point was you need to quote sources if you are claiming a ‘true premise’, not that there weren’t any. I have no problem with him being Catholic-neutral so that wasn’t a problem for me.
Also, I’m not an Emergent, I go to a CRC Church in Australia, and before that grew up in the Uniting Church. My pastor doesn’t even like the men to wear shorts up the front.
I really appreciate some of the teaching from Erwin McManus (the only emergent guy I am really familiar with) but I think some of it is a little woolly. Is Rick Warren Emergent by your definition? I feel the same way about him. I’m completely unfamiliar with whatever praxis is but will gladly Google it.
So bad luck! I’m just an ordinary, run-of-the-mill Christian who like millions of others would find your chart hilarious. Oh, and one chart is more than enough.
Your C.S. Lewis defense seems really weak, in my honest opinion. I think it’s very relevant, you first quote to non-Christians is from a heretic, by your logic, so it speaks to your logic.
1) he’s dead is pretty silly
2) ok whatever, but I doubt you’d quote Rick on ANYTHING EVER but
3) seems totally whack… one of the criteria before you quote Rick would be that “Few people know what he actually believes and stands for”.
EH? That just seems monumentally silly.
Anyway I hope you enjoy the discussion as much as I do. I can’t see either of us changing each others minds (It’s the Internet, after all), but thrashing things out is always fun.
May 25th, 2008 at 7:52 pm
Rick:
Anyone who quotes The Princess Bride is going to heaven. That’s my new doctrine.
(No need for a chart Dan, I’m only joking.)
May 25th, 2008 at 8:14 pm
Daniel,
Yes, I deny justification by faith alone. I do not deny justification by faith, rather, I affirm it. I also affirm justification by grace as per my quoted passage above. Also, we have been justified by the blood of Jesus Christ (Rom. 5:9), by the Holy Spirit (1 Cor. 6:11)
As far as salvation by faith alone. Romans 10:10 - “for with the heart man believes, resulting in righteousness, and with the mouth he confesses, resulting in salvation.”
Man, there really seems to be a whole lot more to this than some people let on. Shall I continue?
May 25th, 2008 at 8:16 pm
Oh yeah, Rick, major props for the Princess Bride quote. That was an awesome tie in.
May 26th, 2008 at 7:02 am
–And now I see that Jazz’s problems with postmodern Christians has more to do with the postmodern than the Christian.–
Really? If that’s so, then why does the label “modernist” seem to be so a popular one around here? I’ve been called it recently, and so has Mr. Chew.
Perhaps you need to look in a mirror before throwing labels.
May 26th, 2008 at 7:58 am
Faith alone is necessary for salvation. Everything else as it pertains to signs of obedience are by products of salvation and not means of attaining such salvation.
Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ and you shall be saved. The “call upon the Lord” or “mouth confessions” are expressions of faith, not distinct and separate or even necessary elements of salvation procurements. The deaf man can “call” upon the Lord by use of his hands because in the end it is faith alone that saves.
If calling, and verbal professing, and hand gestures, and baptism, and communion, good works, and all other outward things are manifestations of faith and not parts of a salvation equation then they are acceptable. If they become necessary for salvation and are considered as enhancing counterparts to faith then they are heretical in the most basic form.
May 26th, 2008 at 8:00 am
Wow - did you take logic from the same school as Mr. Chew? Seriously.
May 26th, 2008 at 8:02 am
Chris L,
I call it the Pee Wee Herman rebuttal…
“I know you are but what am I?”
iggy = )
May 26th, 2008 at 9:02 am
Rick,
When the children of Israel put the blood of a lamb on their doorpost, was this only a ‘manifestation of faith’? Or - was the combination of faith and action (as we define it) what was required to save the first-born?
Part of the problem that we seem to have is that we try to compartmentalize “this is faith” and “this is manifestation of faith”. James says that you can’t have one without the other. In Hebrew thought, this was never an issue, because they were both sides of the same coin. Hellenism (and yes, Platonic Dualism) compartmentalized these, as if they were two separate things…
May 26th, 2008 at 9:16 am
Ummm… what? Not to get all modernist on you here, but that’s a non-sequitur if I ever saw one.
May 26th, 2008 at 9:19 am
Obedience to the law was the sign of saving faith. Placing the blood on the doorposts was a sign of faith in God’s protection. God saw the blood, not the “labor” which would be made completely clear in the New Testament. I do not understand you, are you saying some form of works is necessary and inclusive for salvation? Or are they just outward revelations of what has authentically transpired by faith alone?
Were the wives and children protected in Egypt even though the father probably did the actaully blood placement? That illustration cannot be defined without New Testament, Pauline specifically, doctrinal specifics. It is dangerous to use Old Testament narratives as foundational instead of supportive.
May 26th, 2008 at 9:23 am
The visible manifestation is not faith. Faith is belief not works. Faith is exposed through manifestation. When one sits on a chair the unseen faith that it will hold us is revealed. A person can believe a chair will hold him without sitting on it, but until he sits upon it we cannot know.
Also, people can do works without faith. People can feed the poor without faith in Christ and that is works without faith. There were Jews who followed the law but were not saved.
May 26th, 2008 at 9:25 am
Rick,
So though we are save through “it is by grace you have been saved, through faith” the other side of the equation is walking out that faith.
It is like a bridge, Paul on one side ushering us in with the teaching of grace through faith, then James greets us on the other side to show us and encourage us to do the works of faith. It is both. Yet, even those works are God’s works, just as the fruit we bear is God’s fruit and so on…
iggy
May 26th, 2008 at 9:28 am
No one is suggesting a dead faith without works, but if I read Chris correctly he is giving works an elevated place instead of a post salvation manifestation that naturally follows true salvation. You have addressed an issue about which no one disagrees.
May 26th, 2008 at 9:44 am
Rick - I’m saying that the entire idea of separating “faith” from “works” is irrelevant. One without the other - in either combination - is dead. The very notion of separating the two was a Greek, Hellenistic one, and leads to all sorts of useless debate and gyrations/accusations over things like baptismal regeneration.
In reality, there is no separation between faith and action. You act in a manner that describes what you believe.
But faith without visible manifestation is not really faith, then, either.
So, when we read:
One (repentence, baptism) flows from the other (faith), but they are all part of the same thing. When you constantly denigrate those who believe in ‘baptismal regeneration’, as you put it, you’re just cursing one half of the equation. Having been part of a church which teaches baptismal regeneration, it is completely baseless to say that it is teaching works apart from faith. Nobody I know within it believes that you can be baptized and have your sins forgiven without faith.
May 26th, 2008 at 9:52 am
Peter’s statement at Pentecost is doctrinally misleading but understandable given the embryonic state of the church. Paul’s gospel presentations in Acts are much more accurate, however the book of Acts is not doctrinally foundational and contains all sorts of statements that would eventually be doctrinally refined by Christ through Paul.
As you have left unreported, Peter’s presentation on Penetcost says nothing about faith. One could erroneously make the assumption that baptism saves without faith. I again suggest a well meaning and Holy Spirit used invitation which would be later revealed in greater truth.
May 26th, 2008 at 10:00 am
Just prior to Peter’s statement:
This is implicitly a statement of faith. Additionally, Acts was authored after many of Paul’s letters, so to suggest that it is inferior to Paul is a bit specious.
May 26th, 2008 at 10:07 am
It is not for doctrinal purposes foundationally. And your verse before Peter’s invitation is a real stretch. They were convicted but Peter did not say to believe on Christ. They did believe on Christ through the Holy Spirit, but all through Acts there are many erroneous presentation of God’s gospel message. James couldn’t even bring himself to preach just faith, he even wanted the Gentiles to avoid “things strangled”.
That is not church doctrine. All church doctrine comes from the teaching epistles and the New Testament narratives are supportive. The chronology of the books is incredibly irrelevant unless you suggest collusion apart from inspiration.
May 26th, 2008 at 10:18 am
My apologies - I didn’t realize that parts of the Bible were irrelevant (primarily everything unsigned by Paul, I guess…)
Not at all - ‘cut to the heart’ is an indication of a change of belief and a conviction. No stretching required.
Wrong, again. James’ ruling with the Jerusalem council was in regards to practice, not salvation. That entire reference in Acts 15 is saying that - in terms of praxis - that Gentiles should follow the Noaic Law, but that they were free of the Mosaic Law.
Hogwash - that the modernist church elevates Paul and despises much of the rest of Scripture in comparison is undeniable, but I’ll stick with the other 1700 years of Christianity, thank you very much…
May 26th, 2008 at 10:27 am
“James’ ruling with the Jerusalem council was in regards to practice, not salvation.”
Of course. But until then (chapter 15) James required following the law and until Chapter 10 Peter didn’t even realize Gentiles could be saved. Pretty deeply flawed theology.
And if believe that the teachings epistles carry the same weight as the narratives wich include wrong statements then your theology can never be accurately reconciled.
And the words “cut to the heart” were followed by what shall we do? So they desired direction for their faith and Peter erroneously pointed them to baptism. Peter would later more clearly preach the gospel. It cannot be disputed that Peter preached salvation through baptism. He never mentioned faith in Christ, only baptism in Christ.
May 26th, 2008 at 11:18 am
Wow, Rick…
Maybe we need to reword Paul’s advice to Timothy:
Wow - if only there was a guide to point to the rest of the parts of the Bible that are false! Or, maybe, with the correct context, we can trust it all, rather than just declaring the part “erroneous” that we don’t happen to like…
May 26th, 2008 at 11:29 am
Removing my tongue from my cheek - the reason Peter doesn’t have to mention faith in Christ is because it is implicit in the act, itself - one of repentance and purification. Just prior to the baptism account:
So - Peter gives the message about Christ - the hearts of the people are impacted (which we would separate out as “belief”) - and, in response, they are baptized. It is a continuous act, not a compartmentalized one.
May 26th, 2008 at 11:35 am
Rick, did you come to this understanding by yourself or did you learn it from someone else? (I’d really like to know if this is an understanding held by many people. I’ve never heard anyone interpret this passage in this way.)
Amen.
May 26th, 2008 at 12:01 pm
I would like to point out to Rick that the there are many places in Scripture (including Paul’s epistles) that contain implied truths. If every book in the Bible contained all truth, we would need only one book.
More specifically, Acts 2:40 tells us that Peter used many other words to warn them and exhort them to salvation.
May 26th, 2008 at 6:46 pm
I’m sorry Rick, but I’m revoking your salvation by The Princess Bride quote. Have to agree with Chris L on this one.
May 26th, 2008 at 7:11 pm
“Peter used many other words”
But the Holy Spirit chose those to record which was the core. Paul was careful in Galatians to insist he spoke with no one about “my gospel”, and eventually all the apostles came to embrace his faith alone message since no one ever disputed Paul’s ascertion he received it from Jesus Himself.
You would have thought that the apostles would have objected to this new comer taking a leading role because they had lived with Jesus. But it seems they acquiesced to his authority. The calling out of the Apostle Paul was no trivial matter and the Lord must have considered it very important or He would have used the twelve alone.
Not only did Paul assume authority over the other apostles, God used him to write at least 13 (Hebrews?) epistles of the New Testament. That is also a major sign of Paul’s importance in church doctrine. Peter refers to the deep truths by “our brother Paul” as hard to be understood. Each New Testament book has a general and specific purpose. Philemon is not to prove the deity of Christ, and Romans is not to narrarate the life of Jesus.
All Scripture is profitable for doctrine, but not all Scripture deals directly with the church and the message of the gospel. Paul is the only apostle to use the term “my gospel” because he was the first to preach salvation by faith alone and to recognize the universality of the gospel offer.
Should tongues be necessary for salvation? Baptism” Good works? Lord’s Supper? Church membership? Where do you go to find the teaching for this important question? The epistles, and specifically Paul’s writings. Otherwise you get different denominations that rely heavily on different books.
There can be no duplicity. If baptism is necessary for salvation than it is. It cannot be necessray for some and overlooked for others. It cannot be somewhere in doctrinal limbo, or preferable by God but not necessary. If baptism washes away sins then it is necessary for salvation. If not it is visually metaphoric and a public testimony.
There is a completely subjective way I know it isn’t necessary - I was saved and was not baptized for two years and then was baptized as a symbol. I am still saved.
May 26th, 2008 at 7:13 pm
Sorry, I forgot. Here are some reasons Amy -
http://judahslion.blogspot.com/2006/10/unique-calling-of-apostle-paul-in.html
May 26th, 2008 at 7:14 pm
Amy - here are some reasons I and others view the apostleship of Paul:
http://judahslion.blogspot.com/2006/10/unique-calling-of-apostle-paul-in.html
May 26th, 2008 at 8:13 pm
I don’t think anyone here is claiming you are going to hell if you aren’t baptised, but I might be wrong. I also don’t think baptism is just a symbol - I can’t think of a passage of scripture that treats it that way but by all means show me one.
I think this whole discussion tends to get caught up in a lot of semantical issues more than most.
I found David Pawson’s “The Normal Christian Birth” an interesting read on this subject but that was awhile ago so he may have been a heretic and I’ve forgotten :). He advocates a synthesis of the ‘liberal’ emphasis on repentance, the ‘evangelical’ on faith, the ’sacramental’ on baptism and the ‘pentecostal’ on the Spirit.
May 27th, 2008 at 4:34 am
Christian P:
then we part ways. If you want to discuss further regarding the biblical teaching of Justification by Faith alone, please email me.
Matt P:
thanks for the admission. I’m surprised you are in a CRC church however. But no, I do not think Rick Warren is an Emergent, but he thinks they are fine, that’s for sure …
Chirs L:
>Wow, someone seems to cry a lot when his own logic collapses under its own weight…
Coming from someone who doesn’t understand modernism, thanks for the admission of your own irrationality. I find it very telling that you cannot even answer questions that are placed to you.
To all:
with regards to CS Lewis, firstly, that is a rabbit trail. Secondly, there are certain principles involved of which I can see that there is no point discussing here in this postmodern environment. After all, any mention of any of them would immediately invoke the cry of “modernism”.
May 27th, 2008 at 4:38 am
Oh, my bad. The comment directed towards Chris L was meant to be to for Tim Reed also.
And jazzact13, thanks.
May 27th, 2008 at 6:44 am
Daniel,
I think your argument is both unsound and invalid.
First, the argument isn’t sound because I would disagree with the premises where you state that professing Roman Catholics represent Roman Catholicism, to affirm Roman Catholics is to affirm that Roman Catholicism is a legitimate Christian group, and if you affirm Roman Catholics as brothers and sisters, you affirm that [Roman Catholicism] believe[s] the gospel. I dispute the first premise and second premises because I think it’s unbiblical (and the first premise is problematic for other reasons). I’m unaware, but please correct me if I’m wrong, where Jesus, Paul, or Peter rebuked those who stumbled by false teaching, on the basis that it gave credence or credibility to those who caused the stumbling. I dispute the third premise because it commits the fallacy of equivocation. You seem to equate what particular Roman Catholics may believe with what Roman Catholicism teaches, which doesn’t follow. Therefore, you need to tailor the argument to what Rick Warren has actually said in order to make it work. In other words, more proof is needed.
I dispute the validity of the argument because the premise that affirming Roman Catholics affirms the validity of Roman Catholicism does not follow from the fact that Roman Catholics represent Roman Catholicism. Another premise is needed.
Also, in your blog’s banner, I would change Jesus Chist to Jesus Christ.
Hope this is helpful.
M.G.
May 27th, 2008 at 7:30 pm
“Also, in your blog’s banner, I would change Jesus Chist to Jesus Christ.
Hope this is helpful.”
Hahaha, M.G you are my new hero.
May 27th, 2008 at 8:33 pm
As opposed to what other enviornment?
May 28th, 2008 at 12:24 am
M.G.:
>Roman Catholics represent Roman Catholicism
That was NOT my premise. My premise was “professing Roman Catholics who are in communion and faithfulness to Roman Catholicism represent Roman Catholicism, especially when they are doing something as Roman Catholics”
>to affirm Roman Catholics is to affirm that Roman Catholicism is a legitimate Christian group
First of all, that is not a premise. Secondly, you miss out the other part of the statement “as Roman Catholics in Roman Catholicism”
>if you affirm Roman Catholics as brothers and sisters, you affirm that [Roman Catholicism] believe[s] the gospel
Again, that is not a premise. If you want to dispite that, dispute the validity of the intermediate argument which produces this intermediate conclusion. Also, you have ommitted the important words again “as Roman Catholics in Roman Catholicism”
>I dispute the validity of the argument because the premise that affirming Roman Catholics affirms the validity of Roman Catholicism does not follow from the fact that Roman Catholics represent Roman Catholicism. Another premise is needed.
Again, that was not my argument. See above as to what the missing parts of the argument are.
>Also, in your blog’s banner, I would change Jesus Chist to Jesus Christ
Thanks. Changed.
May 28th, 2008 at 12:28 am
Chris:
>As opposed to what other enviornment?
As opposed to a Christian environment, or a Modernist environment, or a Mystical environment, or a Materialistic environment.
May 28th, 2008 at 1:03 am
Daniel,
Hey man I am a bad speller also… even with spell check I manage to miss something.
iggy
May 28th, 2008 at 1:19 am
Yes, I wasn’t laughing at your spelling Daniel, I just thought a large block of argumentative text with a random spell check comment on the end was kind of funny.
May 28th, 2008 at 6:50 am
Daniel,
Thanks for responding.
I’m unsatisified with your response, though. I paraphrased your premises and intermediate conclusions, without distinguishing between them, as a form of shorthand. I perhaps should have been more careful.
So let me put a finer point on things. You style your argument as deductive. So the truth of the conclusions *must* be found in the truth of the premises. They are not.
You state, as a premise: “professing Roman Catholics who are in communion and faithfulness to Roman Catholicism represent Roman Catholicism, especially when they are doing something as Roman Catholics.”
You then conclude: “if a person affirms professing Roman Catholics as Roman Catholics in Roman Catholicism as brothers and sisters in Christ when not under compulsion, then he/she believes that Roman Catholicism is a legitimate Christian group.”
The conclusion does not follow from the premise. You need another premise, something to the effect of, “whenever representatives of a self-styled Christian sect are affirmed, qua representative, such an affirmation evinces a belief in the legitimacy of the Christian sect.”
Such a premise, though, isn’t true. While it may perhaps be true in secular organizations, I find the premise to be thoroughly unbliblical.
Why? Simple. In the New Testament, there is a sharp distinction made between spiritual leaders and spiritual followers:
Luke 17:1 “And He said to His disciples, ‘It is inevitable that stumbling blocks should come, but woe to him through whom they come! It would be better for him if a millstone were hung around his neck and he were thrown into the sea, than that he should cause one of these little ones to stumble.’”
James 3:1 “Let not many of you become teachers, my brethren, knowing that as such we shall incur a stricter judgment.”
My paraphrases notwithstanding, I stand by my point that the intermediate conclusion “if a person affirms professing Roman Catholics as Roman Catholics in Roman Catholicism as brothers and sisters in Christ when not under compulsion, then he/she think that [Roman Catholicism] believe the gospel” suffers from the fallacy of equivocation. In short, I would change the previous premise and intermediate conclusion, replacing “believe” with “preach.”
Sects and their spiritual leadership are responsible for right doctrine and the correct preaching of the word. (See Galatians 1:9 “As we have said before, so I say again now, if any man is preaching to your a gospel contrary to that which you have received, let him be accursed.”) Individuals and congregants are tasked with believing the word that is preached. Your use, in the intermediate conclusion, of “believe,” an indeterminate “they” (it seems to refer to professing Roman Catholics, but then you put Roman Catholicism in brackets) is confusing. You blur the lines between what Roman Catholicism preaches, what individual congregants may happen to believe, and what the implications of those two facts are. (Plus, as phrased, I would dispute the premise “Only ecclesiastical groups which believe the gospel can legitimately be called Christian.” That can’t be right, can it? Does that mean if one member of an ecclesiastical group fails to believe the gospel, out of millions, that the group must fail? Seems a bit absurd.)
Those are the reasons I believe that the argument is not valid. One reason, among others, I believe the argument isn’t sound is because the premise “professing Roman Catholics who are in communion and faithfulness to Roman Catholicism represent Roman Catholicism, especially when they are doing something as Roman Catholics” is, perhaps intentionally, unclear, and in reality is either a.) a truism or b.) not necessarily true.
Of course, any member of an sect or group will represent that group. They may be good or bad representatives, but they still reflect the larger organization in some way. In that sense, the premise is a truism. But, going further, is it accurate to describe any faithful member of a group or sect as typic of the larger organization? That’s a *highly* debatable proposition, going to the heart of questions regarding spiritual authority and personal autonomy.
I would be interested in a *substantive* response to my critiques. I hope my full quotations have been helpful.
M.G.
May 28th, 2008 at 6:55 am
I would submit that many Roman Catholics are as clueless to the intricacies of their church teachings as many Baptists are about their church teachings. Paul rejoiced that some soldiers were speaking a form of the gospel in a mocking way because Paul knew the word was being spread.
Many Catholics just believe in Jesus and only God knows who is born again.
May 28th, 2008 at 6:57 am
Or in your case, a modernist Christian environment.
May 28th, 2008 at 7:06 am
Daniel,
I can see that you’re a sincere guy, and I do commend you for that despite my disagreement with your arguments. I guess my question for you would be this - if you accept the fact that people are in different “environments” as you say (perhaps the term “worldview” would be a better descriptor), wouldn’t you want to try as best you could to communicate with these people if you truly believe your message is worth hearing?
For a good number of people, a presentation that is propositional or deductive in nature really doesn’t communicate with them very well. First of all, people are distrustful of people presenting facts and figures. Secondly, it’s just not how these people think.
So rather than trying to make people convert to your worldview and getting mad at them for not, maybe you should try presenting your ideas in a way that’s meaningful to them. Would a missionary to a foreign country and get mad at people for not speaking his language and understanding his culture? If he did, he would be endlessly frustrated. So a missionary accepts the fact that he will have to change some aspect of his thinking and presentation when dealing with people who live and operate in a different culture.
May 29th, 2008 at 4:45 am
Phil:
The Bible commands all people from all walks of life and possessing all worldviews to repent and turn to Christ and embrace His lordship over their lives in all areas, including their worldview. The Christian worldview clashes with the Jewish worldview of Jesus’ time and the Greek and Roman and other pagan worldviews then too. Since such is the case, it is NOT my worldview but what is the Bible’s worldview that is the issue.
And just so you know, I am not white and I live in an Asian society, albeit with some Western influences. So all the postmodern talk about “contextualization” rings hollow, since we who live in a non-Western society know how to adapt our methods of ministry for example, and similarly other areas of “doing church”. Yet, we do not jettison the Christian faith and message in an effort to be “relevant”. I find it fascinating that a lot of this talk about postmodernism and contextualization is no different from the Liberal Modernist view of “Asian theology” and “African theology” a century earlier, which is still with the liberal Asian churches even today. Also fascinating is that few Emergents have ever come and see whether their idea of contextualization is workable in countries like China, Central Asia and Middle East. Surely if there is such a need for contextualization, these countries are it. So where are all the Emergent missionaries? Why are most of them holed up in the (Dis)United States of America?
May 29th, 2008 at 4:53 am
Tim Reed:
>Or in your case, a modernist Christian environment.
Why should anyone just accept your ipse dixit? You have not shown that you even know what is Modernism. I guess this is Tim Reed’s definition of Modernism:
Modernism = Whatever worldview that does not accord with my postmodern skeptical worldview
I somehow find it hard to believe that you Emergents truly believe in having a world of multi-color and of various shades of grey as you claim. Otherwise, why is Tim Reed so sure of labeling me a “modernist Christian” (an oxymoron)? Of course, if that is the case, then the Modernist/Fundamentalist controversy of last century was in actual fact nonsense (Modernism vs Modernism? ROFL!)
May 29th, 2008 at 4:56 am
M.G.:
thanks for your thoughtful response. I will be replying later when I have time.
May 29th, 2008 at 6:43 am
Daniel,
This is a pretty egregious series of non-sequiturs. How does it follow from a critique of modernism that someone can’t be sure of anything? What a broad brush! Do you imagine postmodernists rushing into traffic because “the truth” of cars running them over somehow isn’t absolute?
Even worse, what on earth is nonsensical about modernist thoughts or movements being in contention with one another? Voltaire v. Leibniz, Kant v. Hegel, Nietsche v. Everyone… aren’t all these thinkers pretty much emblematic of the same Enlightenment worldview dominant over Europe from the 16th century onwards?
The debate between fundamentalism and the larger culture in the 19th and 20th centuries was primarily epistemological. What is the ultimate source of authority for determining truth, scientific observation or the Bible? This dispute, however, didn’t stop fundamentalists from approaching the Bible in a thoroughly *modern* manner. In other words, one of the hallmarks of fundamentalism is to approach the Bible using something akin to the Baconian method-a methodical examination and ordering of propositions so as to arrive at a comprehensive and overarching understanding of that being examined. This method, moreover, is classically modern.
Importantly, though, the supposition that a worldview can’t support rival theories, suppositions, etc. in contradiction with each other is, in all honesty, total rubbish.
I appreciate your zeal, Daniel, I really do. But it does not advance the cause of Christ to look for demons in every closet and the worst in every critic. Whenever you (or I) do, the first casualty is always the *truth.” Guaranteed.
May 29th, 2008 at 6:47 am
Two things: I messed up the formating, can someone fix it? And I should have written Enlightenment/Rationalist worldview from the 17th century onwards.
May 29th, 2008 at 7:04 am
Daniel,
I believe you are incorrect or too narrow about your view of modernism. The Fundamentalist/Modernist split in the early 20th century was important, and of course it is true what you say. However, fundamentalists still think like modernists in a lot of ways. The belief in metanarratives and the dependence on a rational methods is still there. I believe that is one reason why so many fundamentalists take a cessationist position when it comes to things like spiritual gifts.
I would say that there is room for different worldviews within the historic Christian faith. One example I would give is the first century church. The original Christians really thought of themselves as Jews. In fact they kept a lot of the Jewish customs still. When Greeks started becoming Christians there was a controversy about whether or not they should adopt these Jewish customs as well. Of course, it was decided that they didn’t need to, and Greek Christians probably continued to see the world a bit different than their Jewish counterparts.
Actually, as far as contextualization goes, I would say that Eastern cultures probably have a little easier time understanding Biblical concepts than we do. When missionaries have had the most trouble communicating is when they try to make these people see Scripture through the western lens they have imposed on it.
May 29th, 2008 at 9:54 am
>Importantly, though, the supposition that a worldview can’t support rival theories, suppositions, etc. in contradiction with each other is, in all honesty, total rubbish.
So can your worldview support the rival theory of “the supposition that a worldview can’t support rival theories, suppositions, etc. in contradiction with each other is, in all honesty, is total sense”? If not, then your statement is total rubbish. If so, then my point is validated.
> The belief in metanarratives and the dependence on a rational methods is still there
Nobody here has proven that the belief in metanarratives and the dependence on rational methods is symptomatic of modernism. You guys seriously have not read the writings of the early church fathers (who live way before modernism even reared its head) if you continue to parrot such historical falsehood. Anyway, is this derivative statement “there is no valid metanarratives” absolutely true? If not, then your statement is false, because then there may be valid metanarratives. If it is true, then that statement quaify as a metanarrative statement.
> I would say that Eastern cultures probably have a little easier time understanding Biblical concepts than we do
I happen to be an ethic Chinese and I know my culture, having studied Chinese history and literature before, so can you all stop the patronizing now? We Chinese see things with various nuances but we are not so irrational as to contradict the law of contradiction. One school of traditional Chinese philosiophy embraces a form of dialetics, not contradiction, while you Europeans were still living in tents back then (~6th century BC), or at least most of Europe except near the Mediterranean. So stop all this “Western lens” thing. In point of fact, I am sorely tempted to call this movement of yours the new imperialism; imposing your philosophy on us non-whites as usual (Point of fact, we non-whites did not invent this irrational non-philosophy).
May 29th, 2008 at 9:57 am
Daniel - How in the great big wide world did you ever arrive at some “non-white imperialism” component in this thread?
I stand amazed - and I don’t mean the song.