Rick Warren: False Teacher or Heretic?

I knew it wouldn’t take long for folks to label me a “Rick Warren” defender. I don’t believe that Rick Warren is a heretic and that hasn’t sat well with certain people. I don’t really care what they think or even say about me. One person even said I had to prove that Warren isn’t a heretic….ok. Tell ya what. Let’s look at the definition of what a heretic actually is and then I’ll leave it up to the folks that believe Warren is a heretic to show me proof….how’s that?

2 Peter 2:1-2 (KJV)

1 But there were false prophets also among the people, even as there shall be false teachers among you, who privily shall bring in damnable heresies, even denying the Lord that bought them, and bring upon themselves swift destruction. 2 And many shall follow their pernicious ways; by reason of whom the way of truth shall be evil spoken of.

 

The Greek word for false prophets is ψευδοπροφήτης (pseudoprophētēs) and means;

 

A spurious prophet i.e. pretended foreteller or religious impostor:

 

 

The Greek word for false teacher is ψευδοδιδάσκαλος (pseudodidaskalos) and means;

 

A spurious teacher, i.e. propagator of erroneous Christian doctrine:

The Greek word for heretic is αἱρετικός (aihretikos) and means the following;

1) Fitted or able to take or choose a thing

2) Schismatic, factious, a follower of a false doctrine

3) heretic

 

The Greek Word for damnable is ἀπώλεια (apōleia) and means the following;

 

Ruin or loss (physical, spiritual or eternal):- damnable (-nation), destruction, die, perdition, × perish, pernicious ways, waste.

 

The Greek word for heresies is αἵρεσις (hairesis) and means the following;

1) Act of taking, capture: e.g. storming a city

2) Choosing, choice

3) That which is chosen

4) A body of men following their own tenets (sect or party)

4a) of the Sadducees

4b) of the Pharisees

4c) of the Christians

5) Dissensions arising from diversity of opinions and aims

 

 

I’ve added the definitions of the key words to demonstrate the importance of getting our terms correct. Now if you notice the text, these false prophets and teachers will bring in damnable heresies meaning these heresies taught by spurious teachers will send us to hell if we believe them. These spurious teachers will choose to teach against what are accepted essential orthodox doctrines such as;

 

1). The Trinity

 

2). The Deity of Christ

 

3). The Bodily Resurrection

 

4). The Atoning work of Christ on the Cross

 

5). Salvation by Grace through Faith

 

The Bible tells us how important these beliefs are as they are or should be the core of our doctrinal beliefs; (Matthew 28:19, John 8:24, 1Corinthians 15, Ephesians 2:8-10).

 

So tell me, how has Rick Warren taught against the Trinity? The Deity of Christ? The Bodily Resurrection? The Atoning work of Christ on the Cross? Salvation by Grace through faith? A heretic would choose to teach a doctrine contrary to the ones previously listed. I don’t see Warren teaching against any of these essentials so labeling him a heretic is completely wrong.

 

Is Rick Warren a false teacher? Probably and you won’t get an argument from me on that. Here’s a short video where Warren steps outside the Bible;

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OvyyEIEDqrQ

 

Adding to the Scriptures? Most certainly! Was he teaching against the essentials? Nope. There are plenty of other similar short videos available online that clearly demonstrate Warren playing fast and lose with the Scriptures and that includes A Purpose Driven Life but I have yet to see anyone categorizing this man a heretic demonstrating how he teaches against essential Orthodox doctrines as listed above.

 

There is a difference between a false teacher and a heretic Brethren. Both are bad for the Body and should be avoided. Just keep in mind that a false teacher teaches false doctrines that may or may not lead you to hell where a heretic and his teachings WILL lead you to hell…..    

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

About these ads

102 thoughts on “Rick Warren: False Teacher or Heretic?

  1. Ok. I think this will help here. I must say that no where have I seen him deny or preach against any of the core doctrines of the Christian faith. So maybe saying he is a heretic may not really cut it. I believe I called him a heretic in one of my former comments. I take that back.

    However, I have a few questions.
    1. Would preaching circumcision and the tithe be called false teachings or are they to be called heretical teachings?

    Phil: I would classify these as false teachings
    2. How then do we classify the error of Hymenaeus and Philetus?

    Phil: Their teaching was and is heresy….they claimed Christ already returned….the same as todays hyper preterists claim

    3. Which is more deceptive and deadly between the false teacher and the heretic?

    Phil: Both are deceptive but the heretic is deadly because they choose to teach against the core Orthodox doctrines

    I’m asking so as to know where to draw the line.

    Phil: Thats where I draw the line Brother…..

  2. Ok. I think I get the picture better now. A heretic denies a fundamental claim of the Christian faith ( it is inconsequential if he teaches other truths or errors as well).
    A false teacher on the other hand does not so much deny the fundamentals of the faith but teaches error all the same (more like a little leaven).
    In short, a heretic is a false teacher and more, while a false teacher is only that: a false teacher.
    Is that it? So, will I be right in saying it’s possible for one to be a false teacher but later cross into heresy?

    Phil: Yes I would have to say I agree with you. I would have to think false teachers often cross over into heresy…..look at the WoF Movement as a perfect example of this……

  3. This is the issue.

    1). The Trinity

    2). The Deity of Christ

    3). The Bodily Resurrection

    4). The Atoning work of Christ on the Cross

    5). Salvation by Grace through Faith

    Does Joyce Meyer deny any of those? Paula White? Kenneth Copeland? Benny Hinn? Jamal Harrison Bryant? Paul Crouch? The other people that you refer to with terms like “The Blasphemer’s Ball”? The truth is that none of the people that you criticize regularly on this site deny those doctrines except people that explicitly reject Trinity. (I say explicitly because some, like T.D. Jakes, claim to, and yes Benny Hinn did withdraw his “trinity of trinities” falsehood.) The only difference between Warren and the rest of these fellows are that Warren is Southern Baptist and the rest are Pentecostal.

    Phil: Nearly all of the names you mention deny either the atoning work of Christ on the crosss and Christs deity in some way shape or form….this has nothing to do with Warrens affiliations Job…

    It is not about what I am saying about you. I have participated on your site many a time and linked to your site from mine many a time. So this is not personal. This is 100% business … the business of Jesus Christ. If anything, the charismatic prosperity doctrine/Word of Faith confusion is more Biblical than a lot of what Warren does. Most of the original charismatic nonsense was the Wesleyan Holiness Methodism that got out of control combined with the work of some poorly educated and trained teachers and pastors. But you can actually associate a Bible verse with virtually every crackpot heresy that they push. Warren, meanwhile, has no Biblical support for a lot of his doctrines.

    Phil: Please be specific on which doctrines have no biblical support…..but wouldn’t that make Warren a false teacher Job?

    Second, it does look like the things that Warren and his group of fellow travelers are influencing the charismatics. Joyce Meyer, Joel Osteen and a great many more charismatic/Pentecostal preachers are trying to move away from the overt charismatic doctrines (which have always been popular with the underclass) to focusing on the Warren “self esteem” thing, which is truthfully nothing more than the New Age metaphysics that guys like Robert Schuller and Norman Vincent Peale have been promoting for decades.

    Bottom line: if Warren is OK, then there really is nothing that precludes me from watching pretty much everybody on TBN, Daystar, TCT, the Word Network, etc. save those who deny Trinity, because apart from that none of those liars, thieves, crooks, perverts, etc. “deny the essentials” either. (And this is besides the fact that Warren has been credibly accused of denying #5 on your list.)

    Phil: Where has Rick Warren denied point 5 Job?

  4. Hi Phil,

    As a recovering hyper-preterist, I can say there are hyper-preterists that do not violate the list of essentials and as far as Hymenaeus & Philetus, well that addresses the timing and not the nature of the resurrection and NO hyper-preterist I’ve ever met claims the resurrection was past at that point in time.

    Phil: I stand corrected

    J Stuart Russel in his book “The Parousia” held to a first resurrection beginning in AD70 and still continuing today and he was not deemed by the Church to be a heretic. Now hyper-preterists will march Russell out as being in agreement, when in fact Russell’s position isn’t. Russell still held to future events which kept him in the framework of orthodoxy while a hyper-preterist will cram everything into an AD70 window leaving no events yet to come.

    Phil: A great book and I always thought it strange the HP’s made him their poster boy so to speak

    I need to locate a book I have here on heresy. It stated my position on heresy quite nicely and basically said a heretic can also be one that has been shown the correct teaching, understands their error, and yet continue to teach apart from scripture. That’s where some WOF teachers fit into heresy imho. Then there can be those residing in heresy that are sincere in their teachings or positions and those can not be deemed as heretics. The difference is do they do so with intent to deceive or are they just deceived themselves.

    Phil: This is where the “choice” comes in no?

    Now when it comes to Warren, I stop short of really deeming him to be heretical, although he is very close to being so imho. IF I have understood others correctly, they have sat down with Warren and explained problems with him face to face. Imho, his position on repentance leads people to a false sense of eternal security and I have seen no signs that he wants to clear up his position there. Maybe I’ve just missed it but if not, then this error is bordering on a violation of an essential of the faith.

    Now To Everyone Else,

    For those who want to know more about hyper-preterism, I am putting together some articles for Phil on the topic. I spent almost 8 years in that movement, so I have a pretty good grip on their strengths and weaknesses. Eschatology is a tough nut to crack. While it’s easy to deem every hyper-preterist a heretic, imho it’s not quite that easy to take a broad brush and paint them all in that light.

    Phil: I’m looking forward to reading this series Sister Dorothy!

  5. Hi Phil,

    Yeah 2Tim is used a lot in regards to hyper-preterism and I only spoke up because this is a strawman argument to HP BUT it has been admitted publicly by Dave Green that IF AD70 is the wrong time, then most certainly HP falls into this heresy. So you weren’t totally off base….lol There is just a distinction that needs to be made with that text.

    The series – well, it may be like teaching a foreign language….because I’m sure you have readers who have no knowledge of AD70, Nero, Josephus, Vespasian, Titus, covenant eschatology, etc….If nothing else, there will be a little background on some Roman history. lol

    Phil: This is the very reason why this series is so important and why I’m thrilled you decided to share it on this site…

  6. Dear sis,

    Please bring it on! While AD70, Nero, Josephus and like characters and dates are not gibberish to me, any history lessons are in order. Christianity has a deep and rich heritage that’s always interesting to dig into again and again.

    Looking forward to this.

  7. What about baptism NOT by full immersion?
    False teachers = any Lutherans/Presbyterians (per Southern Baptists)

    Are you amillennial rather that premill?
    False teachers = any Lutherans/Presbyterians (per dispensationalists)

    Do you see the bread and water as mere elements/symbols?
    False teachers = Calvary Chapel, Southern Baptists, Pentecostals (per Lutherans)

    It goes on, and on, and on, and on…………….

    Also, we must allow for ALL pastors — yeah, even Warren — to have faults, weaknesses, poor judgment, bad days, blind spots, careless, and all kinds of other things that sometimes make some of their messages ….. well….not so perfect.

    The questions are: What is a person’s overall paradigm? What are they trying to accomplish? What are they attempting to communicate? Where is their faith rooted (works vs. faith, Jesus vs. Buddha, etc.).

    Even the term false teacher is too harsh for a person like Warren, who is completely orthodox in his views. And I must say that it seems a bit over the edge to pin the label “false teacher” on anyone using one short youtube video underscored by the STUPIDLY juvenile Darth Vader sound track from Star Wars.

    BTW, as for that video, the concept voiced in it is NOT false — except to someone who might want it to be false.

    Warren, IN CONTEXT, is taking about personality, giftedness, talents, likes/dislikes, tastes in activities, personal passion for various kinds of work. Is this really too difficult for people to see?

    He’s saying that if a person — believer OR unbeliever — wants to find direction in life, then the quickest and easiest way to do that is to begin seeing how you were made by God — look at your SHAPE (as he calls it): “What am I wired to do?”

    People have gone absolutely BERSERK over Warren’s whole God smiling at you line, ripping their hair out, gnashing their teeth — as if he said, “Jesus is not God.” That is an absolutely ludicrous response, imho.

    Warren set the whole thing up, IN CONTEXT, as being about one’s makeup as a creation of God. And that as creations of God, our Creator delights in seeing us functioning and living within the parameters of our talents/gifts and personalities. But the hateful critics want to make this out to be Warren somehow saying God approves of sin in the lives of people who do not know him!!! ROFL. That is absurd.

    And asking in the video: “Where does the Bible say that” is incredibly hypocritical since you can listen to ANY pastor and hear him making all kinds of not-specifically-in-the-Bible assertions through analogy, imagery, and stories in hopes of bringing to life a concept.

    In Warren’s case, he’s trying to communicate God’s love for humanity, even unbelievers, whom he created (anyone want to read, for instance, John 3:16 for starters, which talks about God loving the world — that means us, even while we were unbelievers). He then draws an analogy between himself as a father to his children, and God as our loving Father in heaven (again, a biblical allusion).

    It’s the height of witch hunting to accuse Warren of being a heretic (or even a false teacher, tbh) simply because he said God gets pleasure out of watching “you be you.” THAT, my friends, is not a false teaching, it is a reasonable extrapolation from scriptures that talk about how God:

    1) created us as individuals with individual personalities;
    2) gifted us for service;
    3) loves us even though we might not know him;
    4) delights in such attribututes as love, kindness, generosity, courage, loyalty, and other traits that can be found in unbelievers (i.e., remnants of the Imago Dei).

    And when he is talking about God saying, “That’s my boy!” — again, it is in the context of getting people to see that who and what they are, as individuals created in God’s image with certain characteristics, is pleasing to God because, well……NEWS FLASH…..God was the one who created them.

    It’s beyond me exactly how a heresy hunter can turn this comment into some kind of salvation remark as an excuse to flash up on the screen: “God does NOT say that to unbelievers! Rick you lied to these people. They’re heading to hell.”

    How ridiculous. Of course, they’re going to hell. But he whole topic in context isn’t that issue! I just shake my head at these witch hunters and ODMs. The CONTEXT is not salvation or the way of salvation or the afterlife! The CONTEXT of his statements relate to:

    1. God’s place as the Creator of us all,
    2. our uniqueness, beauty,a nd worth as beings created by a personal Creator God;
    3. God’s love and appreciation for us as individuals created by God for specific purposes that are consistent with specific personalities, talents, and passions.

    Notice after he says,”That’s my girl,” he adds: “You’re using the talent and abliity that I gave you.” THAT IS THE CONTEXT.

    It’s NOT discernment to take a person’s teachings on one issue (i.e., our identities as God’s created beings), and treat them as if they are about another issue entirely (i.e., salvation, or one’s spiritual standing before God) — just so that you can then turn around and accuse him of either heresy or being a false teacher. Yet that is exactly what’s happening here.

    R. Abanes

  8. JOB: Warren “self esteem” thing, which is truthfully nothing more than the New Age metaphysics that guys like Robert Schuller and Norman Vincent Peale have been promoting for decades.

    RA: Wrong, wrong, wrong wrong. This is a false assertion based on nothing but your own utter misinterpretation/misguided understanding of….well….just about everything Warren has ever said, it seems.

    I’ve been attending Warren’s church for 15 years. I’ve written on and studied Schuller, the New Age, New Thought, and false doctrine — and you are simply wrong. I mean, I don’t know any other way to put it.

    * Schuller’s whole self-esteem thing is based on his denial of original sin and the sin nature. Warren believes in, preaches, and teaches BOTH.

    * Schuller completely redefines sin as having a low self image, while Warren preaches/teaches the historic Christian understanding of “sin” based on scripture.

    * Schuller teaches there are many paths to God through other religions, yet Warren has consistently taught Jesus ALONE is the way, truth, and life (John 14:6).

    * Schuller teaches that you can bring about your own realities by thinking positively, as opposed to Warren who says all things are subject to God’s will, and it is our place to submit to God’s will for our lives as we seek to serve him using our talent, gifts, and personalities.

    STOP this kind of rumor-mongering. This is nothing but gossip and bearing false witness. And in doing so you also smear the Christian reputation and faith of tens of thousands of Christians who attend Saddleback — including me.

    You should apologize, imho. It’s just wrong. Stop riding the witch hunt bandwagon that these ODMs have started online, and start treating your brothers and sisters with courtesy, honesty, integrity, thoughtfulness, careful consideration, and love.

    R. Abanes

  9. Phil,
    You’re wrong, even if you keep to the English. Here’s why:

    I used to think my wife’s Honda was a car, but then I found out that “car” in English meant just about anything used to move large objects along with metal wheels on a metal rail or rails. (Not that my wife’s a large object!)

    Well, is my wife’s Honda a car?

    See the problem?

    Okay, let’s go outside English, but stay out of the biblical languages so that we keep this clinical, not emotional:

    If I wanted to say “I name” in Latin, I would say “voco.” So if I “vocalize”, am I naming my baby? Am I nominating a candidate?

    No. Of course not.

  10. Phil,
    To continue (I hit the wrong key, or something is going wrong when I try to post comments here), I don’t even want to talk about Rick Warren. The language mistake you have made is actually more serious than any false teacher, because it will lead to all sorts of misunderstandings about the Bible. And that leads to fase doctrine, too–the difference being that the Christians with this fundamental misunderstanding won’t be able to discern good doctrine.

    I know this is an innocent mistake, so PLEASE take this as a kind brother to a kinder brother. You have made four mistakes. The first three have to do with languages. The fourth is just not good biblical knowledge, and Job has already done a good job of showing the outcome of that mistake.

    First, NEVER, NEVER use the origin of a word as its definition. It is almost always different, as illustrated above.

    Second, NEVER, NEVER use the origin of a word as its definition, because many ancient words had several meanings and you will have no good reason to choose one and not the other.

    You did this, Phil. You told us that the Greek work for “heresy” could mean the storming of a city. What is your evidence that this definition doesn’t apply to the English word “heresy” and the other definitions do? What is your criterion or what are your criteria?

    Third, there is a hermeneutical principle called “authorial intent”. It means that the intent of the writer or speaker is what’s important. What we think is unimportant, except that we may be right or wrong about the author’s or speaker’s meaning. This is related to the first mistake, but I mention it to you for this reason: The English word “heresy” is COMMONLY used to mean any doctrine at variance with established doctrine or truth. That is a common use among lay people and many theologians. Folks mean that someone is going astray doctrinally.

    So here is a life lesson: When someone says something, don’t say they are wrong until you understand what THEY mean. They may be wrong, but you don’t know that until you know what they actually meant. And it’s a bad way to be treated.

    Fourth is the problem Job articulated. He’s right, Phil. You admitted that Rick Warren adds to the word of God. Thus he is a fale prophet according to the Old Covenant–read Deut. 18 and Proverbs 31. That’s a sin leading to death in the OC. AND that meant hell, as well, because they were to be cut off from God’s people. Again, in Jude 4 we read that those with otherwise good doctrine, but excused ongoing sin would go to hell. Jesus taught the same thing in Matthew 7. If you would like to use a word other than “heresy” for this sort of thing, be my guest, but it fits one of the common uses of “heresy.” So when we say “heresy” in relation to this, it’s common.

    And neither of these things meet your 5 doctrines. Those 5 doctrines were used as a litmus test by the early Fundamentalists. They had good historical reasons for choosing those 5, and even they varied their 5 doctrines. Thus we know that even the Christians who originated your 5 doctrines as criteria for orthodoxy knew that those 5 weren’t all that the Bible requires.

    You could have easily gone to the doctrines of the Reformers, or Augustine, or the Westminster Catechism.

    If you have language questions, please email me. I’ll be happy to give you everything I know on any subject or to even research it for you. Please, never again look to origin for definition. It doesn’t work. When I have time, I’ll try to remember to email you with some more examples of this mistake and how it has lead to all sorts of bad doctrine. It is commonly abused by the Word-of-Faithers and other false teachers. In fact, it’s a good sign the one with whom you are dealing is not being honest with you or they are not well acquainted with the languages or even linguistics in general.

    In Christ,
    Phil Perkins.

  11. Phil,
    NOW, I’ll say a word about Rick Warren. Argue about calling him a false-teacher or a hereitc (Paul warned about arguing about words that we ought to put those who start such arguments out), he is in unrepentant sin on a number of fronts. Thus he should be excommunicated until he changes that.

    And one correction: He is not a false prophet. He commits the sin of a false prophet. That is to say he adds to the Word of God. Thus, again, he should be put out of the assembly and in the times of the Reformers, or the Apostles, or Moses and Aaron, this would have been done.

    But as Elohim said to the Sons of Israel when many collected mannah on the sabboth, “When will you do as I commanded you?”

    Phil Perkins.

  12. Phil: (Paul warned about arguing about words that we ought to put those who start such arguments out)

    RA: If we keep putting “out” everyone you and like-minded discerners say we should be putting out — no one will be left except you and all the so-called “watchmen on the wall.” :-(

  13. Richard,

    John 3:16 is the most misquoted verse in the entire Bible and I see you misapplied it here. You need to go look at it in the context of verses 10-22. This verse is not about God loving everyone, it’s about God loving those that are His.

  14. Dorothy,

    Exactly my point…..you missed it entirely. :-(

    Remember, I am a Calvinist.

    The issue, let me be plainer, is people putting others “OUT” of the church who are indeed his, and using trumped up charges, out of context quotes, perverted arguments, and whole list of other witch hunting techniques to make their condemnations/judgments stick.

    That’s not apologetics. That’s not discernment. That’s not biblical. That’s not godly. That’s not Christian.

    And as for unbelievers — in a crowd full of them, we don’t known exactly WHO is already chosen or who is already his (speaking in the eternal sense), now do we? You and I were once in that crowd, as was every other Christian. Hence, God loved us then, even before our profession. As I noted: “John 3:16 for starters, which talks about God loving the world — that means US, even while we were unbelievers.”

    And that is ONLY from the Calvinist position.

    Now go to non-Calvinists and they will say that God does indeed love ALL (those who will, and even those who will not eventually come to him) — are these people heretics, too, and/or false teachers for misunderstanding/misapplying John 3:16?

    RA

  15. Richard,

    I didn’t miss your point, I missed the distinction Warren makes and you appeared to highlight.

    Now to the question of the “God mocking lie” that God loves everyone – well, I think I’ve qualified it here.

    The Church did meet and declare Pelagianism heresy..and yes, we do have semi-Pelagianism visiable today and ignored.

    Richard, you may think you’re building a case against the ODM’s, but I gotta tell ya – you don’t sound much different than they do when you talk about them. You made some pretty strong statements about Silva here a while back and I requested validation – I’ve yet to see it. Right now, if you want everyone to stay honest, I think this is a good starting point.

    Do I need to go pull the copy of your statements on Silva? I’ll be glad to search and bring them forward again.

    Richard, you keep saying you’re Calvinist, but as I said before, I think you and I have different definitions of Calvinism. So there is no need to keep reminding me. I’ll recognize it when I see it.

  16. Richard,

    Here was the statement that I requested some validation on…back on August 21st.

    RA: Ken Silva’s website is rife with misrepresentations, half-truths, out-of-context quotes, blatant lies, unbiblical judgments, and all manner of baseless accusations against fellow believers. This is all public. Such things sound fairly sinful to me, especially for a pastor-teacher.

  17. Also, this went unaddressed from August 21st.

    I know Warren refers to a “change of mind” in his book and while that is a small part of it, the guts of it are left untold….Take the following link and scroll down to “Repentance defined by Baptists of the Past” and you will see what Spurgeon and Carroll had to say about the men in their day who taught it was a “change of mind”. They do a great job of stating my position in a nutshell. Carroll was so strong in his position he called it treason.

    http://www.wayoflife.org/fbns/repent.htm

    Also:

    WCF Chapter 17 “Of Repentance Unto Life”

    Repentance unto life is an evangelical grace, the doctrine whereof is to be preached by every minister of the gospel, as well as that of faith in Christ.

    II. By it a sinner, out of the sight and sense, not only of the danger, but also of the filthiness and odiousness of his sins, as contrary to the holy nature and righteous law of God, and upon the apprehension of his mercy in Christ to such as are penitent, so grieves for, and hates his sins, as to turn from them all unto God, purposing and endeavoring to walk with Him in all the ways of His commandments.

    III Although repentance be not to be rested in as any satisfaction for sin, or any cause of the pardon thereof, which is the act of God’s free grace in Christ, yet it is of such necessity to all sinners, that none may expect pardon without it.

    Also from the SBC:

    Baptist Faith and Message Section IV – Salvation

    Salvation involves the redemption of the whole man, and is offered freely to all who accept Jesus Christ as Lord and Saviour, who by His own blood obtained eternal redemption for the believer. In its broadest sense salvation includes regeneration, justification, sanctification, and glorification. There is no salvation apart from personal faith in Jesus Christ as Lord.

    A. Regeneration, or the new birth, is a work of God’s grace whereby believers become new creatures in Christ Jesus. It is a change of heart wrought by the Holy Spirit through conviction of sin, to which the sinner responds in repentance toward God and faith in the Lord Jesus Christ. Repentance and faith are inseparable experiences of grace.

    Repentance is a genuine turning from sin toward God. Faith is the acceptance of Jesus Christ and commitment of the entire personality to Him as Lord and Saviour.

    B. Justification is God’s gracious and full acquittal upon principles of His righteousness of all sinners who repent and believe in Christ. Justification brings the believer unto a relationship of peace and favor with God.

    So I’m going to ask again – Where is repentance (as defined by the creeds) in PDL?

    Dorothy – August 21, 2008 at 10:40 am

  18. sigh…whatever. there is puh-lenty online for you to read.

    oh, and yeah, well, i guess have no idea what a calvinist is, and I am just plain old lying.. uh huh, riiiiight….but seriously, folks, no, we don’t have different definitions.

    a calvinist is a calvinist, as I think my explanation of John 3:16 shows. and, of course, neither warren, nor any other Southern Baptist or Calvery Chapelite, would hold to that interpretation of John 3:16.

    Did you completely miss “And that is ONLY from the Calvinist position”?

    Did you miss: “Now go to non-Calvinists and they will say that God does indeed love ALL (those who will, and even those who will not eventually come to him) — are these people heretics, too, and/or false teachers for misunderstanding/misapplying John 3:16?

    That was the POINT–and you still missed it. The POINT, again, is how too many people are excising others from the Body of Christ who are Christians and basing their condemnations on highly flimsy charges. Stick to that point, because, well….that is the point.

    RA

    P.S….As for my accusations against the likes of Ken Silva and others, these have been discussed and documented online — if not to your satisfaction, then that’s YOUR issue, not mine. Many have seen the problems quite plainly and are beginning to take action. You, and like-minded others, however, seem dedicated to certain things, while utterly ignoring other things. Interesting. This is getting so old, tbh.

  19. Hi Naomi,

    The Calvinist discussion began when Richard opened himself up to doctrinal questions. He has a different idea of Calvinism than I do….but he doesn’t understand that, just as he doesn’t appear to understand that Warren has a faulty view of repentanct, so that’s why you see it keep reappearing in our discussion.

  20. Hello Richard,

    Plenty online for me to read- well why don’t you start directing me to the “plenty online” because I haven’t seen it. You’re the one who made the statements, now that I’m holding your feet to the fire here, you want to get a little nasty. Maybe Silva needs to threaten you since you seem to be so lacking in evidence.

    I would like to see some answers HERE. You want the ODM’s to be held accountable, yet you can make outrageous claims about Sivla and can’t or won’t give account. I find that to be very irresponsible and very questionable. If you can’t validate your statements here, then you need to repent.

    No I didn’t acuse you of lying by saying your a Calvinist. I fully believe you think you are. Saying your “something” doesn’t make it true. I had a run in with some universalists who claim they aren’t universalists because it wasn’t comprehensive enough. lol What can be added to 100% to make it more comprehensive? Where they universalists – absolutely….100%

    Also, didn’t Calvery Chapel remove PDL from their platform? I thought I read they did and there was a big blow up over it.

  21. Richard must certainly be a “Calvinist” of a different sort if he agrees with Warren that God enjoys seeing us be ourselves (whether a sinner or not) or some other such nonsense.

    Perhaps Rick and Rich should take a hard look at what the heart of man looks like to God??

    “AWWWW……….look at My enemies who hate me down there!! Ain’t they cute?? I just love watching them be themselves!!”

  22. Dorothy and Naomi,
    Great points, both of you.

    Dorothy–Saying your “something” doesn’t make it true. Jesus agreed with you. Matthew 7. So did James. And so did Jude. Only, I’d go ahead and call Abanes a liar. You’ve actually caught him doing it. He does it a lot and has done it here on this comment thread. There’s nothing wrong with telling the truth in love.

    Naomi–Is Calvin the author of the bible??? No. And he didn’t die for my sins, either.

    I wish more church folk thought like you two do. And I wish more men would stand like you do.

    In Christ,
    Phil Perkins

  23. D: Plenty online for me to read – well why don’t you start directing me to the “plenty online” because I haven’t seen it.

    RA: What a waste of time…… but here:

    http://abanes.com/myarticles.html

    (see Rick Warren articles)

    MONDAY MORNING INSIGHTS

    http://richardabanes.wordpress.com/?s=Ken+Silva

    (dated from newest to oldest)
    ­
    Enjoy the reading….
    _________________
    D: You want the ODM’s to be held accountable, yet you can make outrageous claims about Sivla and can’t or won’t give account.

    RA: Dear readers, here you see an example of another trait of ODMs and their supporters, they invent stories in their minds, odd scenarios, and even conspiracy theories in the face of evidence and documentation that indicates the very opposite of reality. There is, unfortunately, apparently no way to lift the blinders. You tell them a color is blue, they say it is red. You hold up your left hand and point to it, and they say it is your right hand. It’s a waste of time.

    D: No I didn’t acuse you of lying by saying your a Calvinist. I fully believe you think you are. Saying your “something” doesn’t make it true.

    RA: ROFL. Yeah, oh I get it now. I’m not a liar, I’ve just got to be the stupidest professional apologist ever born because I am such an idiot I don’t even know what Calvinism is. ROFL. Thank you for setting that one straight. Truly, :-) that one really did bring a smile to my face. :-)

    I see there’s just really no point, tbh, not with you…LoL. I do, however, wish you all the best Dorothy. And I do hope I can understand Calvinsim someday, maybe after I finish this book on apologetics, doctrine, and theology I am writing — i.e., my 20th to be published by a major publishing house. I think I’m gonna have tomake that my signature.

    cya,

    RA
    ________________________
    “No I didn’t accuse you of lying by saying your a Calvinist. I fully believe you think you are.” – Dorothy

  24. Richard,
    Do you have any other biblical principles and commands we ought to throw out? (You objected to requiring church member to repnt of their sin because we would empty our churches.)

    What are the proper criteria for tossing out biblical commands? If you tell us that perhaps we could decide what we will obey and what we won’t.

    And just ought we tell Jesus to straighten Him out since He went around for three years telling us to repent and that the Kingdom is near? How do you think the God-man got so confused on the issue?

    Help us.

    Phil.

  25. N: Is Calvin the author of the bible???
    RA: NO NO NO NO. And THAT is my point, exactly.

    No man = scripture.
    No man = perfect interpretation.
    No man = who our Master/Lord is.
    No man’s theological system = all the answers and God 100% figured out

    Why? Because as men and women we are sinful, sinful, sinful, sinful. One might say……hmmmmmm….I got it: TOTALLY DEPRAVED (see John Calvin). But I don’t understand Calvinism at all, so you’d better ask Dorothy. ROFL. (see above comment).

    RA

    ________________________
    “No I didn’t accuse you of lying by saying your a Calvinist. I fully believe you think you are.” – Dorothy

  26. Some Warren info I found interesting.
    Warren admited that Ken Blanchard was “not a deep Christian,” and that Blanchard did not have the spiritual discernment to know whether The Celestine Prophecy was a heretical book or not. Yet despite all this, in 2003 Warren openly promoted Blanchard in his pulpit as someone who could train Christian leaders.

    It has been documented that Warren recently joined with the John Templeton Foundation, an organization which promotes spiritual humanism, to be a judge in their “Power of Purpose” Essay Contest

    what are discerning Christians to think when Warren expresses “self-esteem” pop-psychology in the March 2005 article for Ladies Home Journal? Or what about his advocacy of personality testing (based on Carl Jung’s occult-inspired teachings) to find out how Christians are gifted for church service? And what are we to think about Warren’s utilization within the church of Peter Drucker’s human management theories which come, not from God’s word, but from secular humanism and other man-centered philosophies?
    Perhaps the worst of Warren’s reliance on human ingenuity comes when he directs his readers to the heart of The Purpose Driven Life teaching: “finding your SHAPE.” This is where the Christian is encouraged to complete Warren’s SHAPE program in order to find their “purpose.” By taking this assessment course, the Christian explores how God has “shaped” them for ministry through their Spiritual gifts, Heart, Abilities, Personality, and Experience. According to Warren, the SHAPE program identifies “the secret” (pg. 248) that helps you “see more clearly how God is calling us to minister in His world.”
    The question must be asked, however, how did Paul and the other apostles conduct their ministry without it? In truth, the SHAPE program has little basis in Scripture, and is generally a conglomeration of business techniques, psychology, gnosticism and outright paganism.
    Clearly, the fourth tenet of Warren’s SHAPE program, the personality assessment test, is fully rooted in the pagan philosophy of temperament divination. It has no foundation whatsoever in any biblical teaching, not even in part

    This is not to say, of course, that Warren is the Devil incarnate or a raging heretic. But it is well within our Christian responsibility to raise objections when a prominent Christian leader like Warren is inconsistent and displays a certain lack of biblical integrity in both his teaching and in his behavior.I predict he will continue to see godly objections to his ministry, and rightly so.

  27. Richard,

    Your quote is here again:

    RA: Ken Silva’s website is rife with misrepresentations, half-truths, out-of-context quotes, blatant lies, unbiblical judgments, and all manner of baseless accusations against fellow believers. This is all public. Such things sound fairly sinful to me, especially for a pastor-teacher.

    Here is your list.

    1. Silva’s website is rife with misrepresentations

    2. Half truths

    3. Out of context quotes

    4. Blatant lies

    5. UnBiblical judgments

    6. Baseless accusations against fellow believers.

    Ya see Richard, I happen to believe you should have a well prepared list here of examples before spouting off these things. Referring me to two of your websites and another that doesn’t support your cause, just don’t do it for me. Sorry.

    I understand you may believe the above things to be true, but you have failed to convince me, so right now, I see no difference between what you have written here and what Silva wrote about you, which you have still failed to address.

  28. Naomi,

    I do hope you payed attention to Richard’s response on Calvin.

    Ya see, Calvinism is all about the Sovereignty of God, how God elected and predestined those to be conformed into the image of His Son, how without God’s intervention, man is unable to make a good decision because man is totally depraved, and how there was not one drop of blood shed that didn’t need to be shed, etc. Every savation act was 100% perfect.

    These are very important concepts because to lessen any one of the 5 points is an attempt to remove God from his Throne….imho. I take that doctrine very seriously…and Calvinism wasn’t fully formulated by Calvin…:)

    Notice how Richard also defines man as sinful which is 100% correct and as you and I read he says Warren teaches repentance, yet Warren has no view of repentance other than that of a “change of mind”. Warren does not teach Biblical repentance and Richard doesn’t even notice the difference.

  29. Richard,

    You are quite an interesting character. I have enjoyed our conversations and because of that, this one I’m not going to let pass. Until it’s answered, plan on seeing.

    I know I’ve made you a little testy here with my observations and comments but your reaction reminds me of my kids when I hold their feet to the fire. They dance around, talk a lot while saying nothing, and avoid the questions with the accusations: I’m just mean. I don’t understand. I’m just picking on them. Or the one you just used – I must be blind. lol Fact is, I’m just real old fashioned, so that response will not sway my course. It only serves to reinforce it.

    So through all the feathers flying, here is the post that was ignored again. I would really like to see a response to this one from August 21st.

    I know Warren refers to a “change of mind” in his book and while that is a small part of it, the guts of it are left untold….Take the following link and scroll down to “Repentance defined by Baptists of the Past” and you will see what Spurgeon and Carroll had to say about the men in their day who taught it was a “change of mind”. They do a great job of stating my position in a nutshell. Carroll was so strong in his position he called it treason.

    http://www.wayoflife.org/fbns/repent.htm

    Also:

    WCF Chapter 17 “Of Repentance Unto Life”

    Repentance unto life is an evangelical grace, the doctrine whereof is to be preached by every minister of the gospel, as well as that of faith in Christ.

    II. By it a sinner, out of the sight and sense, not only of the danger, but also of the filthiness and odiousness of his sins, as contrary to the holy nature and righteous law of God, and upon the apprehension of his mercy in Christ to such as are penitent, so grieves for, and hates his sins, as to turn from them all unto God, purposing and endeavoring to walk with Him in all the ways of His commandments.

    III Although repentance be not to be rested in as any satisfaction for sin, or any cause of the pardon thereof, which is the act of God’s free grace in Christ, yet it is of such necessity to all sinners, that none may expect pardon without it.

    Also from the SBC:

    Baptist Faith and Message Section IV – Salvation

    Salvation involves the redemption of the whole man, and is offered freely to all who accept Jesus Christ as Lord and Saviour, who by His own blood obtained eternal redemption for the believer. In its broadest sense salvation includes regeneration, justification, sanctification, and glorification. There is no salvation apart from personal faith in Jesus Christ as Lord.

    A. Regeneration, or the new birth, is a work of God’s grace whereby believers become new creatures in Christ Jesus. It is a change of heart wrought by the Holy Spirit through conviction of sin, to which the sinner responds in repentance toward God and faith in the Lord Jesus Christ. Repentance and faith are inseparable experiences of grace.

    Repentance is a genuine turning from sin toward God. Faith is the acceptance of Jesus Christ and commitment of the entire personality to Him as Lord and Saviour.

    B. Justification is God’s gracious and full acquittal upon principles of His righteousness of all sinners who repent and believe in Christ. Justification brings the believer unto a relationship of peace and favor with God.

    So I’m going to ask again – Where is repentance (as defined by the creeds) in PDL?

    Dorothy – August 21, 2008 at 10:40 am

    Dorothy – September 27, 2008 at 12:37 pm

  30. Phil: Do you have any other biblical principles and commands we ought to throw out? (You objected to requiring church member to repnt of their sin because we would empty our churches.)

    RA: And here we have yet another example of exactly what I have been saying — inventing stories out of thin air, creating statements/intentions that do not exist, existing in a realm of fantasy. Sad. This is just tragic and demonstrates the uselessness of trying to communicate with such persons — they are not functioning within the bounds of reality. I never said a word about throwing out any biblical principles or calling church members to repent.
    __________________
    Phil: What are the proper criteria for tossing out biblical commands? If you tell us that perhaps we could decide what we will obey and what we won’t.

    RA: More fantasy.
    __________________
    Phil: How do you think the God-man got so confused on the issue?

    RA: The delusions continue………

    RA

  31. Dorothy: I see no difference between what you have written here and what Silva wrote about you, which you have still failed to address.

    RA: Fine. :-) if you can’t see it now, you never will. I wish you all the best. As they say in The X-Files: “The truth is out there.”

    RA

  32. Phil:

    Hello. Sorry it took me so long to get back to you. To answer your challenge, A Little Leaven claims that Rick Warren promotes works + faith justification in the very video that appears in your post. Check out a link here on a site that is of some estimation. Please note that they also call him a heretic. http://www.thechristianexpositor.org/page147.html

    Now let us go back to the definition of heresy. You are using a strict technical definition which is problematic. For instance, the “schismatic” portion would include A) the Protestant reformers or B) the pastors and congregation leaving Episcopal and other mainline denominations because of theological liberalism.

    I am working from a more common and widely accepted line of thought that basically goes like this.

    Error: transgressions in man made doctrinal systems in areas where scripture is vague or at least debatable … where two Christians can honestly read the same set of scriptures using standard hermeneutics and arrive at differing conclusions. People are human and have different opinions on many things and as a result my position is that error rarely leads to something worse, like heresy.

    Heresy: an explicit denial of a directly stated and clearly understood Biblical truth in an area that is not an essential or core orthodox doctrine. Unlike error, heresy frequently leads to bigger including apostasy because heresy is the result of willful disobedience and rebellion. This is where Warren is at minimum.

    Apostasy: a person who denies or rejects a core area of Christianity, and as such cannot even be considered a Christian.

    Now going back to the problem of your technical definition of heresy, consider such things as 1 Timothy 6. Among the things that this passage denounces is “supposing that gain is godliness”, which pastor and teacher Bob George credibly asserts as a reference to the prosperity doctrine. That and the other things in 1 Timothy 6 do not speak of denying the essential doctrines of Christianity at all, but rather “to wholesome words, even the words of our Lord Jesus Christ, and to the doctrine which is according to godliness.” In other words, teachings pertaining to Christian truth and Christian living, and it is in this section that the famous “for the love of money is the root of all evil” appears.

    And what does this passage exhort Christians regarding the purveyors and practitioners of this? “from such withdraw thyself.” Which means that if you are in their church, leave. But isn’t that being a schismatic heretic? Nope. Because 1 Timothy 6 calls them “men of corrupt minds, and destitute of the truth.” Now let us interpret scripture with scripture. 2 Timothy 3:8 reads: “Now as Jannes and Jambres withstood Moses, so do these also resist the truth: men of corrupt minds, reprobate concerning the faith.” This is the same area that includes “Having a form of godliness, but denying the power thereof: from such turn away.”

    Please realize that if you investigate 2 Timothy 2 – 6 you see little if anything that fits your technical definition of heresy, but rather immorality, a failure to live as Christians, and false doctrines. Yet this passage calls such preachers “reprobates” with “corrupt minds” and “devoid of truth.” It would thus appear that this passage’s definition of heresy at minimum – and very arguably apostasy – is closer to my operative definition than it is to your technical one.

    So getting back to Warren, my case for declaring that he is someone corrupt, devoid of truth, and that we should turn away from is based on the fact that Warren is a syncretist, blending Christianity with New Age and self – help psychology (among other things). Now 2 Timothy 2 – 6 proclaims that pastors who act in this manner will be known by his behavior, and Warren – as the other link that I gave you stated – does so by lying and engaging in victimization and misapplications of scripture to defend himself.

    So is Warren a heretic according to your technical definition? Probably not. Is he a heretic according to the 2 Timothy 2 – 6 definition and many other such passages that appear in the New Testament? You bet. Should Christians follow Warren? 2 Timothy 2 – 6 makes it clear that the answer is no. Should Christians fellowship with and regard as Christians in good standing people who continue to follow Warren after they have been repeatedly warned regarding what the Bible says? My position is no. I would be curious to know what your opinion would be regarding fellowshipping with and considering as a Christian in good standing a follower of Paula White. Now if you have a post or a video that shows Paula White “denying either the atoning work of Christ on the crosss and Christs deity in some way shape or form” please provide it to me and I will have it up on my own site immediately just as I have often linked to material on your site.

    Phil: Hi Job….I was working from where the Apostles were working from. You and others have done a great job filling in the blanks….one of the main reasons I like operating this site. I guess my whole point, which I poorly articulated is how often and easily the term heretic gets tossed around. It wasn’t a word so easily used in the Apostles day as it is now…

    I wouldn’t fellowship with Paula White and do you remember the video of her and Huch and the whole “Jesus wasn’t God’s only begotten Son”? That’s as close as denying Christ’s deity as you can get IMHO…

  33. Richard,

    IF my highlight of issues were so far off, then how come you meet so much resistance in other arena’s? Ya see Richard, you must be prepared to give a clear and concise defense of your claims. Before I label someone a liar, I can show you clear tangible, concise “proof” that he is. I don’t expect you to have to go searching high and low on the internet to find it and believe my claim just because it’s “out there” somewhere. If that were the case, then I’d be far more likely to believe what’s written about you, than what’s written about Ken.

    Also, you still evade my questions like how Warren complies with the creeds…and since I’ve asked it 3 times with no answer, then I can say at this point in time, it has been presented three times and ignored. I would say that doesn’t bode well for Warren.

  34. Phil:

    Ah. That Larry Huch one. That is on my blog already. Well, you are right there also!

    Phil: Every once in a while I get one right and I will bet you if you look at some other videos on your site you will notice that nearly all of the WoF preachers deny the deity of Christ in one way shape or form…

  35. Hey Phil,

    How about the fact that Mr. Warren says that it is okay that Mormons and Jews comes to his “purpose driven church” conferences because he doesn’t fight over “secondary doctrinal issues”?

    Phil: Ok…..but does that make him a heretic or a false teacher?

  36. Dorothy: how come you meet so much resistance in other arenas?

    RA: I meet similar resistance when talking to Mormons — what does that mean?
    __________
    Dorothy: you still evade my questions like how Warren complies with the creeds

    RA: ROFL. Sooooooo sad. Riiiight…….more fantasies….

    http://abanes.com/warrenessentials.html

    http://abanes.com/cross_sin_hell.html

    http://abanes.com/Warren_Doctrine.html

    Again, as they say in The X-Files, “The truth is out there.” Too bad some people just don’t want it. Really, sad.

    R. Abanes

  37. Richard,

    I have given you a set list of the creeds and you still ignore them. Warren does not teach Biblical repentance – and if you would read what I sent, you would see that the historical Church fathers would have considered him a traitor. I agree with their assessment.

    I’ll leave you in your PDL fantasy land now.

  38. Hi Everyone,

    I do hope those here will take the time to read my post on the creeds and Warren, versus what Richard declares to be Warren’s position. There is a very glaring difference in how the historic Church fathers viewed repentance and how Warren does and a correct Biblical understanding of repentance does affect a major essential of the faith.

    Richard then has to resort to another attack because he can’t defend Warren here, so the problem must be me. lol Don’t be deceived. This is a typical cult response from someone who is well versed in how they operate. Richard isn’t the only one with some cult experience here. lol

    Good try Richard….

  39. Phil,

    Are you serious? So if a preacher gets up in the pulpit and says that all religions are on equal footing including Mormons and Jews that wouldn’t make them a heritic or false teacher? Isn’t that a different Gospel, if man can be saved apart from Christ? I can’t both affirm the Gospel and affirm false religions. He calls these “doctrinal issues”. Well shoot, if that is the case, we might as well join the Mormons in their evangelistic campaigns that is exactly what Rick Warren is doing.

    YES HE IS A FALSE TEACHER! Come on Phil. Anyone who affirms that there is multiple paths to God is a false teacher Phil. You getting soft on me man?

    Phil: I’m not getting soft Brother lol! Just letting folks come to their own conclusions…

  40. Richard,

    Can you explain the statement Mr. Warren gave above please in the link I provided. You can affirm in one sentence whatever you want but when you make other statements like this the first is nulliied.

    For example lets say I tell my wife I love her a lot. And I care deeply for her. I buy her flowers, and pretty outfits, take her to nice dinners, then every monday night I punch her in the mouth. Do you think that nullifies the love I have for her? The same for Warren, to say that Mormons and Jews are “secondary doctrinal issues” and to allow them to come and learn how to grow their false religions is toxic and you know it. Any man who affirms Judahism and Mormonism in one breath and then with the other mention the cross and Christ in the other is a liar or has a great ignorance of the Biblical Gospel either way Jesus would call him a false teacher and so would Paul, and John. Either there is one mediator or not. You can’t be serious.

  41. Richard you said:

    I see there’s just really no point, tbh, not with you…LoL. I do, however, wish you all the best Dorothy. And I do hope I can understand Calvinsim someday, maybe after I finish this book on apologetics, doctrine, and theology I am writing — i.e., my 20th to be published by a major publishing house. I think I’m gonna have tomake that my signature.

    Thats funny. I remeber Paul once said “if I am to boast I will boast in the Cross of Christ”. “my 20th to be published” sounds a bit boastful to me, but hey maybe I am just reading into this.

  42. L: How about the fact that Mr. Warren says that it is okay that Mormons and Jews comes to his “purpose driven church” conferences because he doesn’t fight over “secondary doctrinal issues”?

    Another rumor…..sigh. Here’s the Mormon gossip debunked FOR TEH BILLIONTH TIME:

    ___BEGIN
    According to Brian Davis, Manager of Customer Care, Purpose Driven, no Mormons have ever been through any purpose driven pastor training or conferences or classes-according to all records.

    More importantly, Warren has never said that his programs “welcome” Mormons. His comments relate only to “denominations”.

    The reference to “Mormons” (and “Jews”) was actually the interpretation made by the USA Today of what Warren meant by “denominations”. (Notices it was not in quotations in USA Today — i.e., it was not a direct quote).

    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, quite innocently, penned her story for a secular media outlet using Webster’s definitions of “denomination”-that is to say, a “religious group”.

    It was Grossman who chose the denominations (or “religious groups”) to 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, Jews, or both as simply other “denominations”.
    (Rick Warren and The Purpose That Drives Him, p 90)

    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).

    Furthermore, I have actually taught classes, personally, at Saddleback on cults and, specifically Mormonism, showing the differences between the LDS church and true Christianity.
    ____END

    Please, fellow believers, BE CAREFUL and not so quick to jump on the attack bandwagon. All kinds of bizarre hate-inspired rumors, misquotes, and outright lies continue to circulate about Rick Warren, Saddleback Church, and the members of Saddleback.

    Sigh. This is getting so old……..

    RA

  43. Dorothy: I do hope those here will take the time to read my post on the creeds and Warren

    RA: LoL. I guess you missed th series Warren did on the Creeds this year in the main sanctuary, wherein he went through the texts and talked about their application, and our need to accept them as the formal explanatiosn of our faith. Yeah, you must haev missed those teachings, conveniently. Oh, and I suppose you also haven’t read through the FOUNDATIONS course study manual for maturity at Saddelback that goes through all of the essential doctrines of the Christian faith that are outlined in the Creeds. Hmmmm, to bad. Sigh.
    ____________
    Dorothy: Richard isn’t the only one with some cult experience here. lol

    RA: Oh, silly you :-) , I’m not talking about experience in actually thinking and acting and reading and listening like a cultist, which I admit, you do have some great experience in. LOL.
    _____________
    LIONEL WOODS: Can you explain the statement Mr. Warren gave above please in the link I provided.

    RA: Explained above: See Richard Abanes – October 1, 2008 at 2:24 pm. Bottom Line – Warren never said it.
    ______________
    Job: The thread where Richard Abanes was caught in a lie on my blog and refused to admit it. Please pay attention to the comments below it.

    RA: ROFL. As I posted elsewhere here at Theology Today:

    Lie???? What lie — EXACTLY — did I post? LoL. The only lies in that thread are the lies about my stand on Mormonism, which is easily seen in my books and writings against Mormonism’s false doctrines. You want to quote a lie of mine in that thread? PLEASE PLEASE do so. I’d really love to see that one.

    _________FROM THE THREAD YOU LINKED

    >>>>>>> “Rick Warren Apologist Richard Abanes: Going soft on Mormonism, Is this the direction Rick Warren is Heading”

    A LIE – and you helped spread it.

    >>>>>>> “Why does Rick Warren give seminars with Mormons teaching them how to grow their churches?”

    A LIE – he doesn’t (see above and on your thread, my post #11)

    Despite my civil attempts to clear up your false accusations, you continued trying to push the conversation toward Rick Warren.

    I replied: “This is not a thread about Rick Warren. This is a thread about my supposed sympathy for Mormonism, and Mr. John Baker’s false assertion that my book “Inside Today’s Mormonism” is a blatant attempt to synthesis Mormonism and Christianity. That is a bold-faced lie.”

    You answered: “The title of the thread is “More Evidence That Rick Warren Is Working For One Global Religion”

    I responded: The title of the LINK is ‘Rick Warren Apologist Richard Abanes: Going soft on Mormonism, Is this the direction Rick Warren is Heading’ My supposed softening on Mormonism is the link given as supposed evidence of the primary heading of the thread. I am here to correct you for posting that link based on falsehood as evidence of anything.”
    _____________END

    Who was lying in that thread? You and the others who either: 1) kept INSISTING that I have gone “soft” on Mormonism; or 2) kept IGNORING the fact that the article you linked is a lie from beginning to end.

    R. Abanes

  44. Phil, RA and Crew,

    Thanks for clearing this up. It wasn’t slander because this was what I read and I never saw Mr. Warren respond to any of the emails that went out about this statement. Now again maybe I am wrong, but at least say “hey they misquoted me”. But since you said this was not a direct quote and this isn’t what Mr. Warren believes for that I apologize. There may be some ecclesiological issues I struggle with, with Mr. Warren but if He did not say these things then I would have to affirm him as a brother.

    Richard. Thanks for clearing this up. I was greatly troubled a few years back because of this, but your clarification comforts my heart. Thanks again and thanks Phil for allowing this discussion.

  45. Richard,

    RA: LoL. I guess you missed th series Warren did on the Creeds this year in the main sanctuary, wherein he went through the texts and talked about their application, and our need to accept them as the formal explanatiosn of our faith. Yeah, you must haev missed those teachings, conveniently. Oh, and I suppose you also haven’t read through the FOUNDATIONS course study manual for maturity at Saddelback that goes through all of the essential doctrines of the Christian faith that are outlined in the Creeds. Hmmmm, to bad. Sigh.

    Question Richard – Just how long did this course take? How many pages of this study are devoted to the creeds and which creeds do you teach? Can I have the list?

  46. Dear grandmother Dorothy,

    I really commend your patience. It must have come as a result of renewing your mind for years and years of experience being a mother, then a grand mother. lol

    I understand your point perfectly on the Calvin issue. We just need to stick with scriptures esp when some people are fond of claiming to be calvinist when their doctrines are totally different from his. Let scriptures expose the intent of every man’s heart.

    I read this somewhere on this thread, directed at you I believe:

    ….As for my accusations against the likes of Ken Silva and others, these have been discussed and documented online — if not to your satisfaction, then that’s YOUR issue, not mine. Many have seen the problems quite plainly and are beginning to take action. You, and like-minded others, however, seem dedicated to certain things, while utterly ignoring other things. Interesting. This is getting so old, tbh.

    And I have this to say:
    ….As for whether Warren is a heretic or a false teacher is really not the issue. It has been discussed and well documented based on scriptures that Warren is a certified false teacher — if not to the satisfaction of some, then that’s THEIR issue, not ours. Many have seen his false teachings quite plainly. Like-minded others like Warren, however, seem dedicated to defending him, while utterly ignoring scriptures. Interesting. This is getting so old, huh.

  47. Hi Naomi,

    Yes, this discussion is getting wearing. I’ve hung in there so try and give people a resource to consider as time passes. There are a lot of groups out there claiming to teach and preach certain things and I don’t care how many times they say they’re doing it, in reality they aren’t. They have redefined doctrines, watered down the gospel, added elements that were never in the original Biblical formula, and want to slice and dice any who say they are false teachers or borderline heretics.

    I did laugh over reading your post. Notice how Abanes has to attack me again by saying I’m dedicated to ignoring other things. What a lie. See, this stuff is so suble and woven all through his work. It plants seeds of untruth constantly. It is designed to do just that. It’s very suble, deceptive and it is vile. It is designed to destroy the credibility of those who argue with him. Unfortunately, the only person it defiles is himself.

    I like Richard and firmly believe he believes what he spouts. I look forward to the day when he realizes he’s been used and walks away from it.

  48. Phil,

    I remembered you agreed that Rick Warren preaches a watered down gospel in one of your comments to iBanj whether on this thread or on another one.

    Following the criteria you listed above, I don’t see how a watered down gospel can save anyone. Adjusting the gospel of our Lord Jesus Christ to soothe a particular set of people or for any reason whatsoever is not permitted and can’t save anyone.

    Hear what Paul said:

    Rom 1:16 For I am not ashamed of the gospel of Christ: for it is the power of God unto salvation to every one that believeth; to the Jew first, and also to the Greek.

    Gal 1:6 I marvel that ye are so soon removed from him that called you into the grace of Christ unto another gospel:
    Gal 1:7 Which is not another; but there be some that trouble you, and would pervert the gospel of Christ.
    Gal 1:8 But though we, or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel unto you than that which we have preached unto you, let him be accursed.
    Gal 1:9 As we said before, so say I now again, If any man preach any other gospel unto you than that ye have received, let him be accursed.
    Gal 1:10 For do I now persuade men, or God? or do I seek to please men? for if I yet pleased men, I should not be the servant of Christ.

    Rom 16:17 Now I beseech you, brethren, mark them which cause divisions and offences contrary to the doctrine which ye have learned; and avoid them.
    Rom 16:18 For they that are such serve not our Lord Jesus Christ, but their own belly; and by good words and fair speeches deceive the hearts of the simple.

    1Co 1:17 For Christ sent me not to baptize, but to preach the gospel: not with wisdom of words, lest the cross of Christ should be made of none effect.

    1Co 1:22 For the Jews require a sign, and the Greeks seek after wisdom:
    1Co 1:23 But we preach Christ crucified, unto the Jews a stumblingblock, and unto the Greeks foolishness;
    1Co 1:24 But unto them which are called, both Jews and Greeks, Christ the power of God, and the wisdom of God.
    1Co 1:25 Because the foolishness of God is wiser than men; and the weakness of God is stronger than men.

    You said in your article:

    There is a difference between a false teacher and a heretic Brethren. Both are bad for the Body and should be avoided. Just keep in mind that a false teacher teaches false doctrines that may or may not lead you to hell where a heretic and his teachings WILL lead you to hell…..

    Since a watered down gospel can’t lead to Christ and any addition to the gospel will make the gospel ‘another gospel’ then we can conclude that Warren is a…

    Phil: Where does he water it down? Is his salvation message watered down? If the answer is yes then Warren is a heretic…..and until I see ABSOLUTE proof that he does then I must give him the benefit of the doubt…..

  49. Phil,

    I believe that has been said on this site many times. I guess I will keep my cool till you arrive at your conclusion.

    Phil: Thank you Naomi. I have used the term heretic MANY times on this site and elsewhere….usually with the WoF crowd as well as the “signs and wonders crowd”….

    I would like to hear a few FULL sermons from Warren before I label him a heretic….if I do….

  50. naomi,

    Unfortunately, in your rush to be clever, you made several false statements:

    1. whether Warren is a heretic or a false teacher is really not the issue.
    —Actually, it is the issue being discussed, and debated…

    2. well documented based on scriptures that Warren is a certified false teacher
    — actually the documentation has been shown to be doctored, misinterpreted, and deliberately limited to give a certain appearance

    3. Like-minded others like Warren, however, seem dedicated to defending him, while utterly ignoring scriptures.
    — actually it is indeed the scriptures that have been used again and again to show the truth.

    I suggest you start looking at facts, N.

  51. Phil: Where does he water it down? Is his salvation message watered down?

    RA: Here, Phil, you tell me…….

    http://abanes.com/cross_sin_hell.html

    http://abanes.com/Warren_Doctrine.html

    http://abanes.com/repent.html

    What is most interesting about the LAST link is this whole issue of repentance.

    1. You will find people crucifying Warren for NOT teaching repentance at all!! And in ignoring repentance, he is teaching an easy-believism.

    2. You will find others castigating Warren for preaching repentance so strongly that he crosses over into works-righteousness and salvation by the law.

    ROFL. Go figure.

    What we are seeing is that people are not listening to what he’s actually saying. They are coming at him from their own little theological corner of the universe, then trying to find a word, phrase, illustration, comment, remark, or something they can point to that contradicts their theology. When they find it, they call him a heretic. This is why you have people actually accusing him of opposite false teachings. LoL. It’d be amusing if it weren’t so sad and destructive.

    You’ll also find similar stuff happening with me, saying I’m leaven, unconverted, deceived, lying, yada yada yada. And their proff is: 1) I interpret Warren’s words based on his overall paradigm and teachings (rather than snippets here and there; and 2) I have dared tried to question/correct them online and hold them accountable for their false statements.

    You will find a lot of accusations about my faith, for example, but never see anything produced from my writings that show that I have strayed in the least from the bedrock, biblical teachings surrounding God, salvation, Jesus, the atonement, the afterlife, etc. etc. etc. And when nothing is found, that is when accusations are invented — e.g., the ongoing lie that I have gone “soft” on Mormonism (in direct contrast to two lengthy books I’ve written against Mormonism).

    Just a little insight into what we’re dealing with……

    RA

  52. Dorothy,

    It was a three week course:

    The Apostles’ Creed

    The Nicene Creed

    Westminster Catechism

    If you care, I suggest you get a copy of the FOUNDATIONS doctrinal course that is available. It is the bedrock foundational class study course for doctrine taught at Saddleback. ALL staff members must go through this course. It is doctrinally sound. There is a participants manual and a teachers manual. Get both if you want.

    You can also get it elsewhere for cheaper. This link goes to a full set for churches: 2 teacher guides, 1 participant manual, and CD.

    Just find the individual books somewhere online. Make sure you distinguish between participant guide and teacher guide.

    RA

    And I think, with that, I am about done here….. :-)

  53. Carey,

    I appreciate your response here. What I was hoping to show was a lot less time was spent on these issues than was spent teaching PDL. You did that when you stated there are 11 topics covered over 24 lessons. That’s all I needed to hear.

    So I guess all the essential doctrines are a lot less important. No wonder the visable Church is starved for sound teaching.

    Thanks

  54. Dorothy: Warren does help other religions……..

    RA: Uhm, excuse me can you please list the other “religions” — PLURAL — that he is supposedly helping? What religion”S” are in that article. It’s about his speaking to Jews — that one be ONE religion.

    Moreover, there is a very simple and perfectly reasonable answer to that appearance which has been posted by me in many places online, so I am not going to bother posting again — tbh, I fully expect that it wouldn’t make any difference to you whatsoever any way. Your mind seems basically made up.

    RA

    Warren teaches salvation comes through Christ alone (Jn 14:6), and that includes for Jews. There’s an answer there. Think about it. Again, as I have been saying, “The truth is out there.” The problem is, some people don’t want it.

  55. A Three Week Course…HA HA HA HA HA HA HA

    Surely you jest…..3 whole weeks….devoted to the creeds.

    That’s not teaching the creeds. That’s claiming to teach the creeds before sweeping them under the carpet. LOL

    This is exactly what I wanted to reveal.

    As for repentance just being a “change of mind”, well, I’m sorry, maybe one of these days you’ll understand the falsehood and the problems associated with that postion.

  56. Phil,

    The problem we’re seeing here isn’t just about Warren, or the failure of the “foundations” course, it’s about the lack of firm doctrinal, unwatered down expository preaching.

    No wonder all these false doctrines are creeeping into the Church. Imho, every man who stands in a pulpit right now and doesn’t use sound, solid, expository preaching is just adding fuel to the fire. Then if he stands up and claims he needs to reword GOD’S WORD because it’s too negative a message, he needs to be shown the door. I won’t waver on that no matter how many Abane’s show up claiming I’m closed minded.

    It’s a sad day when a “professional apologist” can’t even discern the meaning of repentance and thinks a three week course in the creeds is sufficient for maturity.

    I’m afraid in this area, you and I may disagree.

    Phil: We don’t disagree Dorothy. I agree with you that expositional preaching is a must…a lost art actually….I just want to hear more then sound bites on youtube…..and one way or another I’m going to get my hands on as many sermons as I can and let Warren tell me what or who he is.

  57. Richard,

    You said:

    What is most interesting about the LAST link is this whole issue of repentance.

    1. You will find people crucifying Warren for NOT teaching repentance at all!! And in ignoring repentance, he is teaching an easy-believism.

    2. You will find others castigating Warren for preaching repentance so strongly that he crosses over into works-righteousness and salvation by the law.

    My response:

    This is a perfect example of Warren NOT being clear and concise in his statements. IF Christians have so much problem discerning what he’s saying, did it ever occur to you, that he isn’t saying it correctly?

    I had a boss who use to say – when in doubt scribble – well, Warren’s work reminds me of that statement.

  58. BTW – I don’t find Warren failing to teach repentance. I find him teaching a false repentance…there is a difference and in my opinion he is very close to violating an essential of the faith. In that statement, I am giving he the benefit of the doubt.

  59. Hi Everyone,

    I have a question for today.

    Here is Rick Warren’s Peace Plan – 5 global giants.

    1. Spiritual emptiness
    2. Self Serving leadership
    3. Extreme poverty
    4. Pandemic diseases
    5. Rampant illiteracy

    Here is his solution.

    P – Promote reconciliation
    E – Equip leaders
    A – Assist the Poor
    C – Care for the Sick
    E – Educate the next generation

    Now can anyone tell me how the solution solves #1 of Warren’s global giants?

  60. The last time I checked, this site is not labeled a RA campaign site. What I see first eachtime I log on is:

    Theology Today
    Take no part in the unfruitful works of darkness, but instead expose them Ephesians 5:11

    I’m wondering where all these hullabaloo came from.
    Some people shouldn’t turn it to a cheap campaign site. Go figure!!!

    Phil: You’ve been around here long enough to know I allow people to make comments….I like the lively discussions. Richard Abanes hasn’t turned this site into anything….he’s just as welcome here as you are….but thanks for your concern.

  61. Phil,

    You really don’t have to label Warren a heretic. We all know he is a false teacher and we know what scriptures says about false teachers. If you have forgotten, here is a reminder:

    Rom 16:17 Now I beseech you, brethren, mark them which cause divisions and offences contrary to the doctrine which ye have learned; and avoid them.
    Rom 16:18 For they that are such serve not our Lord Jesus Christ, but their own belly; and by good words and fair speeches deceive the hearts of the simple.

  62. Dorthy,

    I am not sure I proved your point. How many lessons should there be? Have you seen how in depth the lessons are or what the topics were? I was hoping to give you some information to research to make a conclusion based on that. I am not a super huge Warren fan but I believe this particular series is solid. When I had a chance to share with a group of teens It took us almost a year to get through it meeting for an hour once a week. I would hope you would check it out for yourself and not turn it off just because Warren’s name is attached to it or because it was designed to be “only” 24 sessions which as I mentioned earlier can turn into a lot longer when you have teens with a bunch of questions. Also it has reccomendations from Hank Hannegraff and Josh McDowell two of the more conservative voices out there. Hopefully you can look at it and judge it by it’s own standards and not through the “Rick Warren is bad” glasses.

  63. Hi Carey,

    It isn’t the series that I have such a problem with. It’s Richard refusing to answer my creedal questions, then him using this platform to say Warren’s teaches the creeds, without answering my questions again. lol

    Carey, I mean this in the best of lights. I think many of these programs are not beneficial to the body of Christ. They give people a false sense that they know more than they do, so they don’t keep searching.

    When I run into another Christian who has “studied the creeds” through a foundations class, then I have a totally different view of their maturity than I do of a Christian who tells me they have read Phillip Schaffs 3000 page work on the creeds, or the WCF which is 500 pages.

    I don’t say this to demean anyone. It’s just that our entire Christian study has become so diluted, that the body is suffering.

    I have a friend who is a retired Anglican educator and let me tell ya…the study list he has put on my plate is pretty intensive. I laugh and say it would take me 5 lifetimes to read it all, but the point is that he is driving me to study…So many send the message that lots of study is cripling our “purpose”, but that’s a lie. I have plenty of time to do it all – study, evangelize, attend to Church functions, and enjoy life.

    It’s just time to stop selling ourselves short or allowing others to convince us that our time wasting activities are not of our own making.

  64. Dorothy: HA HA HA HA HA HA HA

    RA: How deeply theological of you and how biblical mature, not to mention how loving that sounded.

    The messages were delivered to a mixed crowd of believer and unbelievers. I suppose he could have delved into teh creeds for about a year or so, but exactly who woud he be trying to reach and what would be be trying to accomplish.

    Sorry, i was not aware of any biblical verses that describes precisely how long one must spend speaking on the creeds to not deserve to be mocked and ridiculed by fellow Christians.

    How long is long enough according to your apparent divine knowledge. Woul 1 month not get HA HA HA HA HA HA HA? Perhaps 3 months or 6 months? NO HA HA HA HA HA HA HA then? Oh, let’s say a full year, no, two years on the creed every week in order to really be godly.

    This is tragic.

    R. A.

  65. I keep wondering whatever happened to that verse in the Bible that talks about a servant standing or falling before his own master.

    Every church has a different flavor: Lutheran, Saddleback, Calvary Chapels, charismatic, R. C. Sproul’s church, etc. etc. etc. — so what?

    The differences exist because people are different, their needs are varied, their maturity levels aren’t equal, certain congregations have different mixes of attenders — not to mention a church’s location and how that influences the needs and direction of any church.

    The bottom line issue that needs to be analyzed is what doctrinal viewpoints on the essentials of the faith are being presented to the church: the deity of Christ, one God, salvation by grace through faith, the atoning work of Christ on the cross — i.e., the gospel.

    Outside of such pivotal points of agreement is a wide latitude for differing styles of preaching, approaches to theological maturity, kinds of music, views of social/political activism, study plans, methods of imparting the deeper doctrines of the faith, evangelism programs, church governing, organizational structure, Bible Study activities, ministry opportunities, etc. etc. etc. — it goes on and on and on.

    To mock and ridicule Warren for teaching on the creeds for only three weeks is the height of arrogance, elitism, self-righteousness, and the mark of ignorance and an unloving spirit. Sorry, to be so harsh, but its the truth.

    Dorothy’s comment would be like a Calvary Chapel attender saying “HA HA HA HA HA HA” to a Lutheran because they not only spent 3 weeks on eschatology, but got it all wrong (in that CC person’s eyes). Or it’d be like a Lutheran saying ” HA HA HA HA HA HA” at any protestant church for only spending 1 week on a teaching about the communion elements, and then getting that all wrong (per the Lutheran).

    This kind of exclusive, narrow-minded, ignorant bigotry is dividing the church. Love, understanding, tolerance, freedom to be different, and the use of BIBLICAL measurements of what is, and what is not, righteous have all gone out the window. And we are left with legalists and accusers of the brethren via the bearing false witness.

    As for Rom 16:17 –> Look in the mirror, naomi.

    And Dorothy, if you can’t see how the PEACE plan might help with some of these global giants that are hindering the spread of the gospel, well…..that’s unfortunate. You said: “Now can anyone tell me how the solution solves #1 of Warren’s global giants?”

    Here’s a clue — If people can’t read, then they can’t read the Bible. And if you seek to eradicate illiteracy, then millions more people could read about Jesus (see, that wasn’t so hard, was it?).

    Once more, as I have been saying all along: “The truth is out there.” But you have to want it.

    R. A.

  66. Dorothy: This is a perfect example of Warren NOT being clear and concise in his statements. IF Christians have so much problem discerning what he’s saying, did it ever occur to you, that he isn’t saying it correctly?

    RA: He’s perfectly understandable. In fact, when it comes to some of his doctrinal statements, you’d have to be either:

    a) an idiot; or
    b) seriously committed to your own personal agenda

    to NOT understand what he says. Certain people want to actually understand what he’s saying.

    And the so-called difficulty for people to understand Warren can also often be traced to them just nit-picking and choosing snippets of messages and statements of his, then using them to make it seem like Warren is saying what THEY say he is saying — not what he’s actually saying. And that is truly lousy research (not to mention unbiblical and ungodly).

    R. A.

  67. Richard,

    I decided to let you run with this one to see where you would take it. Let’s back up here so everyone can see what the “REAL” issue is that’s on the table and how the creeds became an “issue”.

    I gave you 3 – count them – 3 specific creeds on repentance and asked you to show me where Warren taught repentance as defined in the creeds.

    You can’t answer that question because on your link, Warren is quite clear, that he teaches repentance as a “change of mind” which the creeds don’t affirm.

    So, you have to bring forth that Warren is creed friendly and you go on to say that he has taught the creeds using foundations. Yes, I did find it quite humerous that you would resort to such a reply. In fact, I laughed so hard I almost fell off my chair.

    imho Warren can not teach the creeds in depth, because he is in violation of the ones on repentance and I am in agreement with the historic Church fathers on those who teach repentance is just a “change of mind”. One was so strong as do define those who teach repentance is just a “change of mind” – is committing treason. I agree.

    You keep stating that he teaches repentance but NOT ONCE have you denied that Warren teaches repentance is only a “change of mind”, thus redefining repentance.

    Since August 21st, you have not been able to give a response to my question. You keep changing the topic and try to make it about “me”. It isn’t about “me”, it’s all about how Warren defines repentance.

    You know it and I know it but your whole approach has been to attack me personally with name calling and insinuations – like today, where I’m an exclusive, narrow minded bigot and divisive. When you resort to that type of argument the only person you demean is YOU. I’m not going to respond to all the name calling, but I may compile a list and share it.

    Thank you for showing us all that “LOVE” that PDL speaks about…it’s was good to see it in action….maybe you need to burn PDL and find a better “purpose”. This one isn’t working too good.

  68. Hi Naomi,

    I do hope you have noticed in Richards responses to me today – couched inbetween the name calling, his focus is on humans and their needs – not God’s – and that’s his argument for why there are different flavors or denominations.

    What we are seeing is the foundation of a humanist, socialist gospel where the needs of the people have to be met before they can know God. How 180 is that. Did Paul worry about the social ills of the 1st century (we all know how decadent the Roman empire was), or did he stay on task and teach and preach Christ crucified?

  69. Dorothy: When I run into another Christian who has “studied the creeds” through a foundations class, then I have a totally different view of their maturity than I do of a Christian….

    RA: Now, this is VERY interesting……. you say when you meet a Christian who has “‘studied the creeds’ through a foundations class…” — is THAT what you stated?

    What a fascinating point, Dorothy, because NO SUCH PERSON EXISTS! The creeds are not studied in the FOUNDATIONS class. That is a Systematic Theology course, which does not have any sections on Creeds. I was referring to another series in referencing the Creeds — not FOUNDATIONS.

    So, please tell us all, Dorothy –> When/where did you meet ANYONE who had studied the creeds in the FOUNDATIONS class, thus enabling you to make your comparison of them to someone else???

    ANSWER: Nowhere.

    Thanks for exposing yourself. Now here is where it would be appropriate to insert “HA HA HA HA HA HA,” if I were so inclined to do so. You made up your whole scenario based on your misunderstanding of my comments about when/where the creeds were studied.

    You know, D., lying was one of the first things I learned was wrong when I first became a Christian as a teenager. Hmmmm, interesting. I think even Calvinists believe lying is wrong, right?

    Phil: Come on Richard. Dorothy isn’t lying…if I understand her correctly she believes it takes longer to teach the creeds you mentioned. That’s her opinion Brother.
    _________________
    DOROTHY: …. without answering my questions again. lol

    RA: First, your questions have been answered. Second, there’s really no point in dealing with you anymore, given what you’ve already shown as your agenda and unwillingness to look at truth — let alone tell the truth. So, it ends here for you.

    R.A.

    Phil: Dorothy studies Richard. I’ve gotten to know her through this blog and two things I can state as absolutes. 1) She is constantly seeking the truth and 2) she has looked at what you presented and she disagrees with you. That doesn’t make her a liar nor does it make you a liar. You simply disagree. Soon you and many others will see just how much she values the truth…and the price she paid to tell that truth. I’m proud to call her my sister in Christ…..just as I am to call you a Brother in Christ

  70. Hello Phil,

    PHIL: Dorothy isn’t lying….

    RA: :-) Okay, if you say so, I’ll retract my lying accusation.

    But at the same time, I have to ask Dorothy a question in response to her very clear comment: “WHEN I run INTO another Christian WHO HAS “studied the creeds” THROUGH A FOUNDATIONS class, then I have a totally different view of their maturity than I do of a Christian….”

    Words have meaning and communicate certain messages. She speaks English. I speak English. You speak English. She is saying, very clearly here, that “WHEN” she meets other Christians who have studied the creeds “THROUGH A FOUNDATIONS” class….”

    So, as an honest, thoughtful, legitimate question I am asking: “Dorothy, what Christians have you encountered who have studied the creeds ‘through’ the Foundations class?” I want to know because we don’t teach the creeds through the Foundations class. I am looking at both the teacher manual and participant guide right now.

    So who is saying that they studied the creeds through the Foundations class at some church, and which church?

    Phil, I think this is a legitimate question. If Dorothy was saying something else, I am most certainly VERY VERY open to be corrected.
    ______________
    PHIL: Dorothy studies

    RA: That may be, but her studies have led her into error — perhaps not in her own life application, but at the very least, in how she judges and condemns the life application and studies of others. That is the problem with Dorothy, whose comment about me not even understanding Calvinism is still delightfully shocking.

    Also, Phil, PLEASE, do not think that I used the word lying/liar because Dorothy disagrees with me. NO NO NO NO! :-( Goodness, no! That isolated observation was based ENTIRELY on her statement about meeting Christians who had studied the creeds (supposedly very superficially) through the Foundations class. And this comment she directly links the the overall superficial spiritual maturity of such believers. This is an important point.

    Moreover, has she even looked at the FOUNDATIONS class. It is a very well constructed, lay Christian’s, beginning-intermediate Systematic Theology course. It would do well at many, if not most, churches.

    R.A.

  71. Hi Phil,

    Thanks for the comments. As for Richard, he has become verbally abusive and offensive imho and I will not dialog with him further. I do believe all the reports out there about him contain more truth than error. I pushed the envelope to see for myself.

    To answer the charge on the “foundations” challenge. It’s up to Richard to prove I ever used it in context of a proper name or associated with the particular course he’s speaking of. I do believe it you look back in my posts that when I refer to books, authors, etc., I alway capitalize them. So I do have a track record there.

    I hope Abanes has a good editor. I never used it in that manner and I did it on “purpose”. I figured I’d get this reaction out of him and it just goes to prove that my charges are true and he can’t answer them. When he is challenged and can’t answer, he becomes confrontational and attacking.

    Whose the one claiming his answers are all over the internet and refusing to give clear concise examples? Richard Abanes….

  72. Hi Everyone,

    It doesn’t take a rocket scientist to know that a course that contains in its title “foundations” is a beginners course. It might be the best course on the planet to set a foundation, but it is elementary. That does in no way imply that it’s inferior but it will definitely be limited in scope.

    Unlike Warren who thinks people are filled with head knowledge, I totally disagree. I think way too many Christians today are basically illiterate. Does that make me a better Christian because I have so much time to study? Absolutely not. It just means we have a lot of Christians who are being deprived of the most marvelous labor of love – seeing and hearing God speak to them in personal study. I advocate it and I do everything in my power to promote it.

    I also do not believe there is such a thing as a Christian with too much head knowledge who is not driven to labor in the Lord’s work. Not even a viable concept if you are a child of God imho.

    Now how many people do I know who I can discuss the creeds with who are knowledgable? Very few. One of the women I study with occasionally just told me she finished the Westminster Creed and Confessions – she studies daily – it took her a year. So if someone wants to know why I laugh when another reports a three week study in the creeds – there’s your answer.

    Ya see, in today’s environment, everything is timed. There’s a fallacy of timed Bible studies – know the Bible in 90 days – or 40 days to find this or that. Study is on God’s time, not ours and to set time standards on anyone’s study is placing God on mans timetable and I’m sorry, God doesn’t work that way.

    One of the first studies I did myself was on the Sabbeth versus Sunday issue. It took me 3 months and I worked through the entire Bible. I spent over 800 hours in that study alone. Yes, I studied 60-80 hours a week back then. Let me tell ya – spend 800 hours doing something and you don’t forget it anytime soon.

    I’m here to tell ya, you can sit in all the Bible studies out there, but there is no replacement for digging in and doing it yourself. It’s hard work, but let me tell ya, when you get to the answer, you realize you’ve had the best teacher there is….and there is no other.

    Last but not least, when Mr. Abanes can conduct himself like a Christian gentleman I will resume communications with him, but until then, I will not respond.

    For now, I’m going to take some time off and do some writing so I can get Phil the articles on why I abandoned full preterism and guess what? The creeds played a valuable role. :)

  73. (I have posted this comment a dozen times, but it doesn’t seem to go through)
    Phil: I hope you aren’t accusing me of not allowing you to post this because I allow EVERYONE to comment….

    Dorothy,

    I see very clearly. Just decided to be quiet. I can imagine that Peter needed to get a Phd before he was fit to be called an apostle. And I need to be learned before I can taste of the free gift of salvation. How come a lot of people that have read about Jesus didn’t believe in Him when he came? Really interesting!!!

    Phil: I don’t understand what this has to do with anything….please explain that….

    Education will aid salvation! How come we have so many professors that are atheist? Scriptures make it clear that God has not left Himself without a testimony. Phil: The only ONE that aids Salvation is God through His Holy Spirit…..where is this coming from?

    Acts 14:14-18
    Act 14:14 Which when the apostles, Barnabas and Paul, heard of, they rent their clothes, and ran in among the people, crying out,
    Act 14:15 And saying, Sirs, why do ye these things? We also are men of like passions with you, and preach unto you that ye should turn from these vanities unto the living God, which made heaven, and earth, and the sea, and all things that are therein:
    Act 14:16 Who in times past suffered all nations to walk in their own ways.
    Act 14:17 Nevertheless he left not himself without witness, in that he did good, and gave us rain from heaven, and fruitful seasons, filling our hearts with food and gladness.

    Act 14:18 And with these sayings scarce restrained they the people, that they had not done sacrifice unto them.

    If education were to be that important, then the educated should be the first to embrace the gospel. I thought it is glaring that deception is no respecter of persons. I wonder how the illiterates in the early church got to understand Christ despite the fact that they didn’t have an education.

    Man centered religion. Religion that seeks to find solutions to the problems of man. It is nothing new anyway. It has been there a long time ago. ( Gen 11:4-6). New Ageism in its grandeur.

    At this point Dorothy, I will prefer to be silent. Truth we know is absolute and it speaks clearly for itself. He that hath an ear let him hear. God bless!!!

    Phil: Which truth Naomi?

  74. D: … he has become verbally abusive

    RA: I think it’s called “the truth,” not abuse
    ____________
    D: It’s up to Richard to prove I ever used it in context of a proper name . . .

    RA: Okay, sure…

    {1} Richard Abanes – October 1, 2008 at 5:01 pm
    through the FOUNDATIONS course…..

    {2} Dorothy – October 2, 2008 at 10:52 am
    [QUOTED Richard, . . . through the FOUNDATIONS course...] Just how long did this course take? How many pages of this study are devoted to the creeds

    {3} Carey – October 2, 2008 at 2:04 pm
    Question about the Foundations material I purchased the complete set a few years back

    {4} Richard Abanes – October 2, 2008 at 3:46 pm
    Dorothy, It was a three week course: The Apostles’ Creed The Nicene Creed Westminster Catechism If you care, I suggest you get a copy of the FOUNDATIONS doctrinal course that is available.

    {5} October 3, 2008 at 11:02 am
    The problem we’re seeing here isn’t just about Warren, or the failure of the “foundations” course, it’s about the lack of firm doctrinal…

    October 3, 2008 at 4:29 pm
    {6} When I run into another Christian who has “studied the creeds” through a foundations class, then I have a totally different view of their maturity than I do of a Christian…

    Clearly, the context of the message thread was discussion of: “FOUNDATIONS course,” “Foundations material,” “FOUNDATIONS doctrinal course,” “‘foundations’ course, and “foundations class.”

    It is rather obvious that we were all talking, in context, about this course/class that I initially mentioned. And you stated very plainly when meet someone who had learned the creeds from the foundations class.

    Phil: I think Dorothy was refering to “foundational courses” in general…Warren isn’t the only one that teaches such a course…..
    _______________
    D: I hope Abanes has a good editor. I never used it in that manner and I did it on “purpose”. I figured I’d get this reaction out of him

    RA: Ooooohhh, I see. So you deliberately trues to say something that would deceive me and give a false impression? Well, now we can choose between:

    1) you lying about meeting someone who had studied the Creeds in the foundations course; or

    2) you deliberately used language in an attempt to willfully deceive me and give me a false impression so I might respond in a certain way that you could attack.

    Interesting. Neither are very Christian or biblical.
    ____________
    D: “When I run into another Christian who has “studied the creeds” through a foundations class, then I have a totally different view of their maturity than I do of a Christian…”

    RA: Here you are referring to my remark in #4 above, which lists a “three week course” followed by my recommendation for you to obtain a copy of the FOUNDATIONS course, which is something altogether different. You misinterpreted it, thinking I was saying that the creeds were in Foundations. But the formating of that post shows I moved on to another issue. Your misreading of my post led you to make your false remark about meeting people who had learned the creeds through the “foundations course.”
    _____________
    D: I gave you 3 – count them – 3 specific creeds on repentance and asked you to show me where Warren taught repentance as defined in the creeds. . . . You can’t answer that question because on your link, Warren is quite clear, that he teaches repentance as a “change of mind” which the creeds don’t affirm.

    RA: Oh my gracious. Dorothy, go do some reading about what the earliest creeds are — as opposed to what the later creeds are, as opposed to what Systematic Theology is, as opposed to the definition of one word (repentance) that is not even addressed in the earliest of creeds. Or, you might want to read my book, “Defending the Faith” (Baker, 1997), which is based on the earliest creeds. I also suggest you do a word study on the word repentance, and its relationship to the fruit of repentance to see where Warren is coming from.
    ____________
    D: Yes, I did find it quite humerous that you would resort to such a reply. In fact, I laughed so hard I almost fell off my chair.

    RA: This is just sad.
    _____________
    D: imho ………………. [ the rushing sound of air] . . . . . It isn’t about “me”,

    RA: Oh, but dear Dorothy, it is so very much about you, and you can’t even see it. It’s been about you for a long, long time. And you don’t even know it.
    _____________
    D: What we are seeing is the foundation of a humanist, socialist gospel where the needs of the people have to be met before they can know God.

    RA: More fantasy and delusion. Strawman argument. Dorothy, you are seeing what you want to see. Humanist? Socialist? There’s really nothing more to say. Dorothy, just throw in Communist and Nazi, too. Although you wouldn’t be the first one to do that. And go ahead and list Hedonism, as well as Satanism, and Theosophy. You might as well. It really makes no difference at this point, imho.
    _____________
    D: Did Paul worry about the social ills of the 1st century…..

    RA: Wow……….[scratches head]…..wow…….

    RAbanes

  75. PHIL: I don’t understand what this has to do with anything….please explain….
    PHIL: ….. where is this coming from?
    PHIL: Which truth…?

    RA: Welcome to my world. :-)

    R.A.

  76. Never will I think such towards you. i think the posting issue has to do with wordpress. I had difficulties posting from my mobile all through yesterday.

    Phil: Please accept my apologies for misunderstanding you?

    My comment up there is in response to what Dorothy directed at me concerning RA’s response to her question: Now can anyone tell me how the solution solves #1 of Warren’s global giants?

    RA:

    And Dorothy, if you can’t see how the PEACE plan might help with some of these global giants that are hindering the spread of the gospel, well…..that’s unfortunate. You said: “Now can anyone tell me how the solution solves #1 of Warren’s global giants?”

    Here’s a clue — If people can’t read, then they can’t read the Bible. And if you seek to eradicate illiteracy, then millions more people could read about Jesus (see, that wasn’t so hard, was it?).

  77. Phil,
    U claim u allow all to comment,but at yomi’s instance u censure mine.U went on his blog to defend him.
    Phil: I do post comments and Yomi never asked me to censure you. You twisted my words and used them to attack my FRIEND and BROTHER….Completely unacceptable…

    As u can see naomi makes little sense except to regorgitate things she’s told.
    If u will be fair ,including Yomi,post all comments,IN SEASON &OUT OF SEASON

    Phil: Naomi makes a LOT of sense….I just misunderstood her. Its easy to do when you have 5 “debates” on 5 different threads going on at the same time…..and I am posting your comment….

  78. Phil,
    attack your “friend and brother” is this what this is all about.
    You go on his light and give the impression its no ODM,….so all his articles”exposing” false teachers and etc is not online discernment but pastoring his “sheep”.

    Phil: The majority of his articles exposing false teachers have to deal with Nigerian “pastors”…the sort of thing he should do for his sheep

    You amaze me phil.
    There should be no cultic tendency,allow objectivity.
    Again,i need answers from you on questions i put across to you.

    Phil: You believe we shouldn’t expose false teachers but the Bible clearly states we should….and you will MOST DEFINATELY get your answers my friend….

  79. i meant you go on his site to”contend for the faith” sorry your mutual faith.
    its pitiful.Scripture before commradrie.

    Phil: Now you are being as disingenious here as you are there.

  80. phil
    U call me disingenius’ha ha ha,
    Have u tried answering my questions.

    Phil: Yep….just finished….

    Again,folks who are not too right in doctrine…

    Phil: Please demonstrate where I’m not “too right in doctrine”

    2-2 thess 3 for those who flout apostolic teaching,to treat them as brothers not enemies.
    Peter,decieved the church,…yet still a brother and apostle.
    Phil: This needs clarification….

    Whats the diff btw abusive words and rebuke.
    Is contending for the faith all dats to be done.
    those not too correct in doctrine,yet are in muslim regions etc.
    Pls answer,or are u jittery like yomi.
    Phil: Jittery? Hardly……sometimes I hold a comment back for a couple of days….in times past I would have carved up this post like a Thanksgiving Turkey

    You are either been dishonest about yomi’s blog or u dont want to ”lose” your ”friend &brother”
    Over to you

    Phil: Nope…not worried about that at all and please demonstrate for me how I’m being dishonest……

  81. Femmy Folorunso, you are here again? Don’t you think it’ll be more honourable of you to just read through your comments before posting, as well as take the time to read up all that’s presented before being eager to post? Just a thought.

  82. Phil,

    I have observed with much concern the debate.The debate has largely been between Dorothy and Richard Abanes.While in the abstract we may consider debate to be healthy for the Body of Christ,some of what is posted is no more than nit-picking defence of preconceived notions,from which there must be no shift.

    If this were not so,why would there be the angry and continuing reference to the length of the lessons on the creeds at Pastor Warren’s congregation!Missionaries came to Africa for example centuries ago.I have little doubt the natives were not put through a year of lessons on the Nicene Creed.And what do we make of the continuing insistence that Pastor Warren was training up non-Christians,when it had been proved that no such thing occurred.

    We need to walk in love.We need to appreciate that God placed man in very different circumstances,all over the world.Appreciating these personal,cultural,educational and other differences,is not necessarily propagating a man-centred humanism.You may wish for example to compare the plain syntax and simplicity of language of the book of James,with the theological complexity of Paul in Romans or Hebrews.

    It seems clear to me on the weight of evidence presented so far that Pastor Warren may not be considered a false teacher,or a heretic.This is your attitude,Phil,I believe.

    Phil: Heretic no that hasn’t been proven to me….false teacher….hmmm…..lets just say that I have read PDL and I don’t like it nor would I recommend it to a non-believer or a new Christian….there’s some good things in there and some not so good things in there IMHO….

    I would like to note,in conclusion,if you would permit me,the need to avoid becoming professional heresy hunters,in a bid to defend the purity of God’s revelation in Scripture.

    In its minimalist expression, the gospel is concerned with the birth,life,death and resurrection of Jesus Christ.Central doctrinal teachings include grace,redemption etc.We need to concentrate on these essentials.

    Phil: Ok. But what about those he oppose the doctrines above? Are we to be silent concerning this?

  83. PHIL: “lets just say that I have read PDL and I don’t like it nor would I recommend it to a non-believer or a new Christian….there’s some good things in there and some not so good things in there IMHO….”

    RA: TY TY TY TY, Phil. See, I can read this and say: “Hmmm, yeah. Okay. Fair enough. I can see your point. You have a valid opinion and thanks for voicing that opinion so we can all learn and grow from the observations so all of us can try to improve on it and do better in our own writings.”

    Phil: I do think its fair to publicly point out what are believed to be scriptural errors within the PDL for discussion and debate….iron sharpening iron is always a good thing….

    Contrary to so many false accusations and rumors about me being in Warren’s hip pocket, or being on his payroll ( ha ha ha), or acting at his behest as some sort of online “pitbull” or Nazi PR spinner (yes, these and worse have been said), I have consistently posted my own criticisms of PDL as well as my criticisms of his overall approach. But these have been summarily ignored simply because: 1) I don’t wholeheartedly condemn him as a heretic/false teacher; and 2) I have dared criticize/correct those who do.

    Phil: I know you aren’t on the payroll….I know someone that worked for RW before all the PDL stuff started. He remembers you fondly. He said you are a fighter and he also said you are a fine Christian man who loves the Lord. I’ve waded through numerous threads on other blogs and seen the fights and name calling on both sides but that happens sometimes…

    Thanks, Phil! You’ve given an absolutely understandable and acceptable one-line opinion of PDL. I think we’d have a great time talking about it more in-depth over coffee.

    R. A.

    Phil: That I would like very much….I would also like to discuss the LDS as well. Before coming to Greece I lived in Vegas and spent a considerable amount of time witnessing to Mormon “elders” and from what I’ve been told you have written two exceptional books on the subject…..

  84. Ibanj
    u are here too.
    i guess for yomi?
    Phil: Ibanj is a regular reader…..he defends Christ and not Yomi…

    What makes u think i have not tead through.As u usual,anyone who disgarees with the approach hasnt read thru.
    Phil: I have to agree with Ibanj….

    u are simply yomis boy.U neva disagree with him,u even commend all he does,so much for following “christ”
    All am simply saying here is,checking false teachers is no primary preoccupation
    2)an attempt to use Jesus&theapostles as models.again catches u in your obsession..the same group call these apostles special,we dont function as they do..bla bla ,yet u use the same as models.
    All i advocate for is LET CHRIST BE PREACHED Phil1.
    3)love..should be applied to all…not just to your friend&brother in ODMS
    So,banji adenusi…you are a man follower

    Phil: Can you prove Ibanj is a “man follower”? I know you have an axe to grind with Yomi but you need to grind that axe somewhere else….consider yourself banned from this discussion…..

    BTW: I Haven’t forgotten you…..just deciding the difference between ridicule and rebuke and how I will apply BOTH to your coment directed to me…..stay tuned…..

  85. Hi Phil
    Clearly,I did not suggest the we ignore persons who corrupt or otherwise attack the core of Biblical Christianity.But I did maintain that our eyes need to be primarily focused on the core,the essentials of the faith.This is exactly what Jude did in his brief letter.

    Phil, what I took objection to was the tone of the dialog,as well as the un-hermeneutic methods being deployed.We really need to take care so that we do not eventually end up picking on,say, a single word spoken or written,twisting it out of context,and using that single word as the sole basis for detecting wrong teaching.

    Phil: Can you be more specific regarding “un-hermenuetical methods”. Also remember we are dealing with peoples beliefs and passions run strong in these type of debates. I thought the tone was fairly clean compared to other threads I’ve seen regarding this topic

    Maybe history can assist us here.In the first three centuries of Christianity,for example,there were a series of heated Christological, soteriological,pneumatological and other debates.We need to remember the several thousands that lost their lives as a direct result of these controversies.More recently, we recall the era in which Professors in the Theolgy Faculty of the University of Tunbingen taught with revolvers tucked under their cloaks!

    The point here really is that the Christological disputes degenerated essentially into disputes over a few choice words,such as the Greek word filioque.Expressions of one’s faith had to be of an exact nature,as witnessed by the competing Creeds.Living the faith came to assume only a secondary importance.

    I believe that if one looked closely enough,it might be possible to detect heresy in almost any statement,especially if we did not come to the debate with open minds but with preconceived notions,not the facts on the table.

    Phil: I agree with this statement….my mom used to say “those who go looking for trouble always find it”….

  86. PHIL: from what I’ve been told you have written two exceptional books on the subject…..[LDS]

    RA: Yes. Basically, there was so much to say on Mormonism that I wanted to break it up into two books.

    The first, ONE NATION UNDER GODS, is a full history of Mormonism from its beginnings to around the year 2000. It covers a lot about Joseph Smith, Smith’s occultism, the Book of Mormon, the revelations of Smith, Blacks & the Priesthood, the early bloody years in Utah, and of course, polygamy.

    The second, INSIDE TODAY’S MORMONISM, responds from an evangelical perspective to all the major doctrines of Mormonism — paying careful attention to refuting the most recent arguments of Mormon defenders.

    You can click on both these books for more information, including excerpts, on my website: http://abanes.com/ . I hope the volumes help you and others share the gospel with LDS folks, who are some really lovely people.

    R.A.

  87. Phil
    I am not quite sure we have exhausted the possibilities on RW.
    On another blog for example yomisays there recently was a 4 part examination of PDC.This rough-hewn pastor actually made such incredible assertions as that the Church of Christ is entirely self sufficient,and as such may dispense with such skills as those of adminiistration,accounting etc!Perhaps ,the Church is an island of existence.Also it was asserted that the Bible does not show us differing methods of evangelism,that there is no need for contextualisation of the gospel,and that the only purpose of the Church is evangelism etc.
    This has forced me to reread PDC-I am doing this right now.Time permitting,I would like to revisit the matter of the purposes of the Church,using a review of PDC as an anchor,within the next couple of months,as a guest blogger.I will get back to you soon.

  88. If a pastor preaches or teaches a gospel without gospel truths then it is heresy, is it not? In R.W. “The Purpose-Driven Life”, he ends day one with the following:
    “Andrei Bitov, a Russian novelist, grew up under an atheistic Communist regime. But God got his attention one dreary day. He recalls, ‘In my twenty-seventh year, while riding the metro in Leningrad(now St. Petersburg)I was overcome with a despair so great that life seemed to stop at once, preempting the future entirely, let alone any meaning. Suddenly, all by itself, a PHRASE APPEARED: Without God life makes no sense. Repeating it in astonishment, I rode the phrase up like a moving staircase, got out of the metro and WALKED INTO GOD’S LIGHT.”

    For the sake of numers the C.G.M. has watered down the gospel of Christ, which is actually no gospel at all. A shallow treatment of sin will leave a sinner unchanged. God’s Spirit will never allow a true teacher of His Word to simply mention the word sin at times without defining it Biblically or emphasizing mankinds hopeless condition. Because of sin, we deserve hell and will reap everlasting destruction as we stand before an infinitely, holy and just, sovereign God!

  89. If he isn’t a heretic why is he praying to the “god of our many understandings”? Who is that?

    If he isn’t a heretic then why is he on the same board with Tony Blair who is clearly advocating for the unity of all the faiths, when scripture forbids this?

    Those are just two examples, can anyone explain them.

  90. I do not know much about Rick but I do know Jesus the Christ. A follower of Christ will produce the fruits of the Spirit. The love of God is to be shared to all peoples. Our faith is both substance (Truth)and practice (living it). You can not have one without the other and still call it faith. We must all agree that one must live by one’s conscious to live according to the dictates of his own heart in light of the Holy Spirit’s guidance giving good reason for one’s assertions and life choices. Too often we judge men to harshly being zealous for the truth when we are called to be brothers united in our earthly battle with the forces of evil. We must remind ourselves that God defines himself as love and with that the whole meaning of life. To love God with all your heart, mind and soul and to love your brother as yourself. Be kindly affectionate towards one another.

Comments are closed.