Abanes replies to me- and I reply to Abanes
Richard Abanes, who accuses Pastor Todd Wilken of KFUO of being a "sectarian" for resisting Rick Warren's un-Lutheran and un-biblical influence in the LCMS, has replied to my post charging him with being a post-modernist.
I, in turn, have responded.
He is not a post-modernist. I withdraw that chracterization. But his attitude toward the issue ot authority and what is or is not binding and/or divisive is at best liberal. It certainly is at variance with the attitude of the Church historically, and of the great Christians of just about every tradition.
I concede that he does not intend to be a liberal on these issues or any other. But there is no other term for someone who restricts the essential content of the Christian Faith to that of the Apostles' Creed!
The basic problem, I suspect, is that Abanes- not being a confessional Christian himself- isn't real clear about what that concept involves.
Like confessing.
I, in turn, have responded.
He is not a post-modernist. I withdraw that chracterization. But his attitude toward the issue ot authority and what is or is not binding and/or divisive is at best liberal. It certainly is at variance with the attitude of the Church historically, and of the great Christians of just about every tradition.
I concede that he does not intend to be a liberal on these issues or any other. But there is no other term for someone who restricts the essential content of the Christian Faith to that of the Apostles' Creed!
The basic problem, I suspect, is that Abanes- not being a confessional Christian himself- isn't real clear about what that concept involves.
Like confessing.
Comments
lib·er·al ( P ) Pronunciation Key (lbr-l, lbrl)
adj.
1. Not limited to or by established, traditional, orthodox, or authoritarian attitudes, views, or dogmas; free from bigotry.
2. Favoring proposals for reform, open to new ideas for progress, and tolerant of the ideas and behavior of others; broad-minded.
Anyone who takes the time to defend Rick Warren and the megachurch movement most certainly qualifies as "Not limited to or by established, traditional, orthodox, or authoritarian attitudes, views, or dogmas," and "Favoring proposals for reform, open to new ideas for progress."
Of course, whether they are really "progress" is open to debate. But Abanes saying he's not a "liberal," while all the while defending the jettisoning of 2,000 years of Christ-centered tradition, is laughable.
RA: You prove my charge of sectarianism by your own words—i.e., all non-lutherans are "false teachers" and "heretics."
you will certainly disagree with me when i say that various passages in scripture can indeed be interpreted a variety of ways—and have been by many godly people—when it comes to non-essentials of the faith.
but you, of course, and apparently lutheranism as you describe it, sees thngs differently. it's either lutheranism or heresy. fine, so be it. that's too bad.
A.W. Tozer rightly observed, “Christianity is rarely found pure....The truth is so vast and mighty that no one is capable of taking it all in....It requires the whole company of ransomed souls properly to reflect the whole body of revealed truth.”
in other words, NO ONE is going to get it all completely perfect—that is impossible because wear all SINNERS, sinful, fallible, spiritually looking through a dark glass. we can do our best, and we know for sure the essentials that relate directly to our knowing God. but there are legitimate areas of diagreement. these areas do not make someone a liberal or a heretic.
ah well. my friend, defend lutheranism to your heart's content. and seek to make the world lutheran. meanwhile, I shall try to defend christ and seek to make the world christian.
As A.B. Simpson (1844–1919) said in The Christ in the Bible Commentary, “No single doctrinal principle is important enough to displace the Lord Jesus Christ Himself as the one name that alone should dominate His Church.”
Displacing the lord is exactly what I see happening with so much sectarians. Their SECT or DENOMINATION and its distinctives have become just as important to them as faith in Christ alone.
Now THAT is what I call unChristlike.
AND TO DAVID, you have redefined "liberal" to include anyone who does not share your views or hold to lutheranism. that is very inappropriate. you need to look up calssic definitions of theological liberals—i.e., in reference to religion.
and i do not MAKE the Apostles' creed equal to Christianity. that is an oversimplification (understandble). but the creeds have defined for the world the tenets of Christianity. In my post i noted what the central doctrines are, and why they are central to the faith. (I also state this on my website).
these are the formal expressions of Christianity. certainly, as you say, the new testament is christianity. but the creeds (apostles,' nicene, etc. etc.) serve to outline and clarifiy the most central teachings of the faith—they came about as a result of heretical doctrines that needed to be dealt with (BTW, speaking in tongues, organ music, end-times views, etc. were not the issues).
Oh, and by the way, you noted in your definition of liberal, that it was a person "Not limited to or by established, traditional, orthodox, or authoritarian attitudes, views, or dogmas," and "Favoring proposals for reform, open to new ideas for progress."
ok, sure. by that definition your own denomination was founded by a liberal by the name of Martin Luther. Hence, you are in a liberal denomination.
cordially,
R. Abanes
Funny you should mention the Nicene Creed, which confesses "One baptism for the remission of sins," when you don't believe that's what baptism is for at all.
adheres to.
Well, let's see...
BANES:You prove my charge of sectarianism by your own words—i.e., all non-lutherans are "false teachers" and "heretics."
WATERS: First, I didn't say that all non-Lutherans are false teachers and heretics. It isn't the denomination to which one belongs that matters; it's the doctrine.
Secondly, I prove no such thing. Rather, I prove that I stand in the company of Luther, Calvin, and every great Christian of history in 1) believing my own faith; 2) rejecting the recent false teaching that Scripture is inherently unclear (and that therefore only what is generally agreed upon is binding and authoritative- thereby effectively negating the sola scriptura and making the lowest common denominator the only real source of authority in the Church), and 3) that- as I maintained all along- your own definition of "sectarianism" in fact comprehends anything which might reasonably qualify as doctrinal orthodoxy or the proclamation of the whole council of the Word of God.
ABANES: You will certainly disagree with me when i say that various passages in scripture can indeed be interpreted a variety of ways—and have been by many godly people—when it comes to non-essentials of the faith.
WATERS: I don't disagree with the first part at all. Various passages can indeed be interpreted in various ways, and I have not called the godliness or sincerity of anyone into question. I merely disagree that all interpretations of such passages are of equal validity, or that the difference arises in a lack of clarity on the part of the Bible. Rather, it comes from the regrettable habit of sinful human beings of superimposing their own pet ideas and philosophical presuppositions on Scripture. Thus, the denial of Scripture's clear teaching with regard to the Sacraments, for example, and the idiosyncratic positions taken by Reformed Evangelicalism in the face (by the way) of the vast consensus of Christians both living and dead that Christ is truly present in the Eucharist and that Baptism regenerates.
The teachings of the Scriptures on these points are crystal clear.
Tozer, of course, follows the usual, tiresome party line of those who are afflicted by modernism in their view of biblical truth, and it's based on a fundamental non-sequitur. It's true that the human mind is too puny
to completely comprehend divine truth. But here we encounter one of the foundational errors of Reformed theology: the failure to recognize that our failures are not God's, and that the infinite is fully capable of the finite. God has revealed Himself to us quite clearly. Any failure to apprehend that revelation is neither the fault of God nor of truth. It's our own.
The Simpson quote is, of course, relativistic gibberish. One cannot confess Jesus Christ without confessing the fullness of what He taught. A better summary of the essential argument of the doctrinal liberal cannot be found that this lame attempt to seperate the Savior's Name from His words and work!
I do disagree that anything to which God has clearly spoken can ever be a
non-essential. And that, really, is the essence of what we have been arguing about, my friend.
ABANES: In other words, NO ONE is going to get it all completely perfect—that is impossible because wear all SINNERS, sinful, fallible, spiritually looking through a dark glass. we can do our best, and we know for sure the essentials that relate directly to our knowing God. but there are legitimate areas of diagreement. these areas do not make someone a liberal or a heretic.
WATERS: Ah, I see. Nobody is going to get it completely right, so just give up, eh, and regard anything anyone disagrees about as unimportant? Why don't I think Jesus would go along with that program?
If you or I get it wrong, we have the text itself between us to discuss and to correct us. We have each other. We have the church of the ages. Consulting these would be the faithful thing. Throwing up one's hands and declaring it all to be a matter of opinion, on the other hand, is a modern liberal cop-out.
you beg the question- which isn't human sinfulness or lack of capacity, but the capacity of God for making Himself understood.
Nobody claims that anyone understands the truth completely. Wilkens and I (and the Church of the ages, even in its most profound disagreements) rather claims that truth matters, and that to treat it otherwise because of what any percentage of people think about it is to be unfaithful- especially since the matters in question are perfectly clear. Again, it's only a tiny minority of Christians who have ever denied the Real Presence of Christ in the Sacrament or Baptismal regeneration, for example- or failed to see that the Scriptures teach both with absolute clarity.
It's precisely the sinful superimposition of human philosophy on those clear teachings which even call these matters into question. The same can be said of the other false teachings Warren supports, and which you argue should be tolerated.
It is those teachings, and the argument that they should be tolerated, which make one a liberal or a heretic.
Are there things Scripture is unclear about? Sure. On what day did God create the angels? What color was Simon Peter's beard? There are all sorts of other details which God didn't see fit to tell us about. The problem is that the issues you seek to dismiss as "denominational distinctives" aren't among them. Nor is Scripture at all unclear about them.
ABANES: Ah well. my friend, defend lutheranism to your heart's content. and seek to make the world lutheran. meanwhile, I shall try to defend christ and seek to make the world christian.
WATERS: But you see, I have no interest in defending something called "Lutheranism." What I am defending is the whole council of God's Word; that I believe that it coincides with the teachings of Lutheranism is conincidental. You, on the other hand, seek to defend a watered-down, pale, shallow "Christ," bereft of many of the basics of His own teachings, because you're afraid that somebody might disagree with you.
That isn't defending Christ, my friend- nor is it any way to "make the world Christian. Rather, its seeking to please men rather than God- and I hastily add that I do not suggest that such is your intention. The problem is that that's what your position comes down to.
One of the differences between us, of course, is that- believing the biblical witness about such things, I don't think it's my job to "make the world Christian," but rather to do what you refuse to do: to faithfully declare the whole counsel of God's Word, and let the Holy Spirit do the work.
Another basic teaching you mangle in quite Warrenesqe fashion.
ABANES: Displacing the Lord is exactly what I see happening with so much sectarians. Their SECT or DENOMINATION and its distinctives have become just as important to them as faith in Christ alone.
Now THAT is what I call unChristlike.
WATERS: But you are the one who is displacing the Lord by treating His teachings as unimportant and non-divisive unless there's a consensus on what He means. You've made a totally illusory unity an idol, and excluded the Lord you claim to honor.
You bear false witness, of course, when you suggest that for "sectarians" (if you mean by that term Wilkens, myself, and other confessional Reformation Christians) Christ is displaced by "their denomination or sect." The issue is not anybody's denomination or sect. It's the clear teachings of Christ and the Scriptures. And the "distinctives" to which you refer are among them. You dishonor Christ when you seek to dismiss His teachings because others disagree with them.
And that is what I call "unfaithful."
Parenthetically, I would suggest that any reading of the Gospels would rather quickly correct the impression that your approach was Christ's!
But I grow weary of belaboring what has been obvious to the faithful throughout history, until fairly recently.
Mr. Abanes, we have established that your definition of "sectarian" is simply
"a Christian who seeks to declare the whole counsel of God's Word," and includes Luther, Calvin, the other Reformers, and all the great saints and martyrs and doctors of history.
We have established that your entire argument boils down to the notion that the Bible is unclear, or at least that God is unable to communicate clearly to sinners such as we. I admit that there are certain parallels in this fashionably liberal notion to Calvin's faulty Christology, and the doctrine of the Lord's Supper which sprang from it. But it still is essentially Gnostic. Our sin is not an obstacle to God's communicating in ways which we are capable of understanding- which, in fact, He has done, and clearly, on the very issues you term "denominational distinctives."
In the context of the Catholicism of the Middle Ages, Luther doubtless was a liberal by David's definition. But you- and Rick Warren- are liberals by modern criteria. You take a relativistic approach to truth- and that, far more than the various unbiblical doctrines you espouse (these can be discussed among Christians who, though disagreeing about them, nevertheless regard them as important; that's the way real unity is built) is what makes Warren- and you- such a grave and desperate threat not to Lutheranism, but precisely to the Gospel you water down and adulterate.
And that, of course, was the basic thrust of the very valid critique by Pastor Wilken for which you take him so volumnously- and unconvincingly- to task.
You and the brand of doctrinal indifference you represent are as grave a threat as any other form of Gnosticism has ever been. You set aside the Word of God for the sake of "reaching" people. But there is nothing left to reach people with- except a Savior whose teachings are subject to veto by majority vote.
The great creedal statements of Christianity do, indeed, portray the general outlines of the faith. But they do not address all that the Bible clearly teaches. Some of the confessions the church has made are subscribe by only some. But to the degree that they agree with the clear testimony of Scripture, such statements- such as those comprehended in the Book of Concord- remain just as catholic, just as universal, and just as biblical as if the entire visible church subscribed them.
It's called the sola Scriptura, and its'your setting of this principle aside in favor of the modernist notion that truth is unknowable, Scripture unclear, and the lowest common denominator the only true authority which makes your witness less than that which Christ commandes us to give- and your Christ a watered-down, adulterated,
and much-obscured Savior.
Sincerely,
Bob Waters
Flacius, I guess that's pretty much my reaction, too. Mr. Abanes has spilled quite a bit of ink in confirming Pastor Wilken's charge that he and the theology he represents are a form of liberalism, and all he's accomplished is to repeat tired old clices of the theological Left.
And complain about being mistreated when shown how groundless his relatively few actual arguments are But then, when you're defending a movement as theologically thin and vacuous and as biblically indefensible as Warrensim, what else can you do?
There are three forms of the Nicene Creed. The earliest, dating from the first ecumenical council at Nicea that dealt with the Arian heresy (325 AD), ends at v. 8: "And [I believe] in the Holy Ghost." This was the authorized form of the creed all the way up until the Council of Chalcedon (451 AD).
As for the expanded creed to which you refer (i.e., the Nicaeno-Constantinopolitan creed), this dates to 381 AD. and adds the phrase that you cited (among other phrases). In my post, I refer to the former, not the latter—i..e, the original/early form of the Nicene Creed (325).
now, as for the later version, it is very telling to note that the phrase you cited appears in context as follows: "And in One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church. I confess one baptism for the remission of sins. We look for the resurrection of the dead, and the life of the world to come."
by 381, the year this version was adopted, the church was increasingly needing to identify not only christian doctrines—but also itself as the church (at this point, we are really starting to see what would eventually become the RC from which Luther broke several hundred years later). notice, we have the church more solidly defined as "One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic." then, we immediately have the introduction of the new baptism line. hmmmmm. could they be connected? I think so.
there are three ways to look at this added passage that can explain it in a way other than the way you are interpreting it. take your pick. personally, i can see the validity of all three. both of them certainly do not detract from my use of the Nicene Creed (325 version).
1) the first explanation is provided by the well-known calvinist, e. cal beisner (who, interestingly, is the brother of Lutheran Church Missouri Synod author/apologist Getchen Passantino) has said: "Evangelicals should take its sense in Acts 2:38 as the proper sense to give it in the Nicene Creed. I believe that a resounding case, based on usage of the word EIS throughout Scripture, can be made that in Acts 2:38—EIS APHESIN TON HAMARTION HUMON—means not "in order to effect (i.e., achieve) the remission of your sins" but "in reference to (i.e., because of) the remission of your sins." That is how I take it in the Nicene Creed" (E. Calvin Beisner Responds to David K. Bernard, a oneness pentecostal). Your alternate interpretation for actual remission of sins through baptism, as beisner says, "begs the question by assuming that the baptismal remissionist interpretation of the Creed's clause is correct rather than the interpretation above."
2) the clause may indeed mean exactly what you say it means! but rather than it being a sign of orthodoxy, it is a sign that by the year 381 the false doctrines that would eventually form the backbone of Roman Catholicism were already beginning to creep into the established church, which in turn would eventually motivate Luther to begin the reformation!
3) the phrase, given its proximity to the clause about the "One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church" might be a reference to baptism being admittance to the church by way of being a seal/mark/proof of one's remission of signs. baptism, in other words, cleanses a person of their sins in the eyes of men—hence, allowing entrance into the church. this "before men" proof of salvation/justification might be akin to the oft-disputed reference in James about works, which context is not FOR salvation. our works, according to James, proves our salvation to men (see James 2;22-24).
AS FOR Bob's RANT—
well, it's amazing. he reminds me of a mormon, actually.
he says he is not saying somthing, and then he allegedly proves he is not saying it by actually just saying it using different words.
for example, Bob writes: "I have no interest in defending something called 'Lutheranism.' What I am defending is the whole council of God's Word."
the whole council of God's Word? THAT'S LUTHERANISM to you, Bob. hence, you are defending Lutheranism! amazing.
it reminds me of the mormon who says, 'we don't teach salvation by works" then says, "we teach salvation by grace after all you can do" (see the Book of Mormon). you're doing the same thing with other issues—e.g., like how you view Lutheranism as THE way.
And you falsely state: "You, on the other hand, seek to defend a watered-down, pale, shallow "Christ," bereft of many of the basics of His own teachings, because you're afraid that somebody might disagree with you."
really? please do describe my shallow, watered-down view of Christ since i believe he is the God-man, 100% God, 100% man, sinless, perfect, second person of the holy Trinity, eternal, and co-equal with the father, who dies on the cross for ours sins, and who, by his shed blood, we may by grace alone through faith alone receive the gift of eternal life. he rose physicaly/bodily from the dead and will return visibly to judge the world.
oh, wait, i forgot—i'm a heretic, compromising, liberal because i don't choose to accuse people of other denominations of being false teachers. oops. sorry, my bad (yes, you're right, I am being a bit sarcastic).
now, as for you calling Tozer a modernist and Simpson a liberal-relativist, well . . goodness, there are no words. it's just sad.
RA
False doctrine? Mr. Abanes, are you sure that baptismal regeneration wasn't just a "denominational distinctive?"- you know, like purgatory, or indulgences, or justification by faith and works, or prayer to the saints, or any of those other things which we dare not condemn because some people think that Scripture permits them?
You realize, don't you, that with that one line, you've lost this entire debate?
From your false witness against Pastor Wilken on, you have called names and made accusations aplenty- accusations which, upon examination, have pretty generally turned out not to have much in the way of content, by the way.
Do you think it escapes your readers that your essential- in fact, finally your only- argument is that no one has a right to disagree that Rick Warren's theology is compatable with Scripture?
But you just haven't been able to coherently defend you indefensible position- the root of which is the very American, very Gnostic, and very liberal notion that the utterly clear teachings of the Holy Scriptures on what in fact are extremely central articles of the Christian faith (including matters like the Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist and baptismal regeneration, which are recognized as crystal clear by the overwhelming majority of Christains on earth today, and have been by the overwhelming majority of Christians throughout history- somehow don't count unless they are accepted by the blatently rationalistic branch of Christianity to which you adhere.
And, hey- you have that right under our constitution.
Just as you have a right to believe that we are wrong to reject Warrenism.
Just as we have a right to reject Warren! So why do you whine so about it? Why not defend Warren on the basis of Scripture? Why instead take the liberal, Christ-dishonoring position that differences concerning even central teachings of Christ don't matter if everybody doesn't agree that they're essential?
Why should you be offended or surprised that people should reject and fight against a teaching which violates their own confession of faith and- in terms that even you can surely relate to- their own best understanding of Scripture?
As it is, you've chosen to take your stand upon a cop-out every one of us has heard as an excuse for not taking Christianity seriously in the first place. Of course I can shack up with my boyfriend! Of course I can have an abortion if I want one! And I can be a good Christian even so. I just disagree with your interpretation. And it's all a matter of interpretation, right?
Mr Abanes, do you really not see that the cop-out on which you build your argument utterly destroys the possibility of Scripture ever being used as an authority effectively?
One thing Jesus said very clearly wwas his disciples would be those who continued in his word, not those who declare it "unclear" if they, themselves, don't happen to like it. But the fact is that you and others who share your position do exactly that. In fact, it is upon that presumption, and upon it alone, that your entire argument rests!
So let's take a look at your lastest
shall we?
Your lengthly essay on the Nicene Creed was very interesting. As we've seen, it also destroyed your entire argument.
What's fascinating, of course, is that the testimony of Scripture with regard to Baptism is on the Roman Catholic side. So is the consensus of the overwhelming majority of Christians through the ages. But here the essense of your position is revealed: you reserve the right to reject the teachings of Scripture, and even the consensus of Christianity, if it doesn't suit you- and then complain when you are rightly called a false teacher for it!
And that, Mr. Abanes, reminds me of a Mormon! Incidentally, your comparison of my position with Mormonism lacked quite a bit in the area of coherence. When I say that I understand Lutheranism to be an accurate summary of the doctrinal teachings of Scripture, I mean exactly what I say. There is nothing to be added, in the fashion of the Mormon discussion of justification to which you refer. That argument- besides being uncharitiable and inapt- was actually rather lame.
Yes, Mr. Abanes, for me Lutheranism is, indeed, the whole counsel of God's Word. I can understand that to a modernist such as yourself, that would be "amazing." It wouldn't have been amazing, say, to Zwingli; after all, unlike us, he lived in an age in which people still understood that to believe one thing is to reject its denial. But he would have understood your position nonetheless. That's why he thought Luther was being unreasonable for regarding a denial of the plain words of Christ at the Last Supper as grounds for a rejection of fellowship.
But relativists like you and old Ulrich have been rare in the history of the Church, and thank God. If the Church as a whole had taken your approach to the question of biblical authority rather than the confessional one I espouse, the Church, humanly speaking, would never have survived!
Imagine! A Christian who believes his own confession! Wonders never cease!
Of course, what you find amazing wouldn't have been amazing to the Reformers- even Zwingli would have disagreed, but not surprised- or to the Fathers. They understood that a confession was a statement of what you believed to be God's truth, not of what you thought might be a pretty good theory, but hey, what do I know?
Mr. Abanes, your fuzziness about the truth is, once again, the most dangerous thing about you and the entire body of false teaching it represents. That it's alien to Christ, to the apostles, to the martyrs, and to the Reformers, but very, very at home in the spiritually and intellectually s shallow world of modern America, really ought to give you pause. It's frightening that it doesn't.
Something has puzzled me throughout this whole business, Mr. Abanes. You claim that your friend Todd Wilken was just fine and dandy with people who weren't Lutheran until this Warren thing came up. This, of course, is blatant nonsense. Pastor Wilken- or any confessional Lutheran- is perfectly willing to engage n respectful dialogue with his fellow believers of other confessions, even while believing their teachings on a greater or lesser extent differ from those of Scripture. But did you really never know that the Missouri Synod was a confessional church body? Did you really not know its attitude toward what it understands to be deviations from Scripture? Did you not know that you would not be welcome at a Missouri Synod communion rail- precisely because we are not one in faith? Can it really be that you were so naive, so innocent, and so ignorant of Lutheranism that Pr. Wilken's response to Warren surprised you?
But it's your liberalism on the subject of Scriptural authority which surprises me- and which is even more dangerous than Warren's errors. What? Do other people not agree with what seems to be a clear and central teaching of Jesus or His apostles? Why, we'll just agree to disagree!How can you imagine in a million years that the Lord looks with favor at such an attitude?
Mr. Abanes, do you have any idea how craven that approach is- how unworthy of the heritage you claim when you call yourself a Christian, a Calvinist, a believer? Do you have any concept how unworthy it is of the heritiage of the martyrs who died rather than surrender an iota of God's precious truth? Do you have any idea how unworthy it is of one who claims to follow Jesus?
Yes, Mr. Abanes, for me Lutheranism is indeed "the whole counsel of God's Word." And no Christian with an ounce of integrity will settle for anything less in a confession. It troubles me that you don't see that. Calvin did. The Fathers did. Perhaps the Platonic element in your Calvinism is the reason why you can't conceive of God's truth as knowable. But no; I know too many Calvinists of integrity who regard disagreement with their convictions as false doctrine, too. I guess we have to leave it a blaming it on your having bought into liberal and modernist presuppositions on the subject.
Now, you ask- rhetorically, if rather unartfully- what renders you a false teacher. I've already answered that question, but I will again.
You reject Christ's teachings regarding the Sacraments, and argue that Pastor Warren should not be accused of teaching falsely because he misidentifies the central purpose of the Incarnation and fails to deal biblically with the centrality of the forgiveness of sins and justification.
You defend Pastor Warren's unscriptural teaching regarding the nature of sanctification, and the role of the human will.
You seek to set aside clear teachings of Scripture on the ground that they are unclear. You deny the authority of Scripture in that you maintain that one cannot be properly called a false teacher if people disagree as to the meaning of the applicable text. You maintain that the teachings of Jesus should not be regarded as binding unless some arbitrary consensus of the whole Church agrees upon their meaning. You maintain this despite the fact that the branch of Christianity you represent holds- and is in fact defined by- utterly idiosyncratic views on the Sacraments.
Jesus said that one would be His disciple if one continued in His word.
You seek to set it aside- when not rationalizing it away.
It is, indeed, sad that the two individuals you quote should have taken relativistic and liberal positions on the issue of authority.
I will not speculate as to the philosophical errors which drove them their, or characterize their theology as a whole. The fact remains, however, that the quotations you adduce are veritable battle cries for relativism, and constitute, finally, a rejection of the authority of Scripture on the ground of presuppositions more at home in Gnosticism than in biblical Christianity.
RA: now, I not only advocate relativism, but i am also in the gnostic camp? brilliant. you might also want to throw in nazi and satan worshiper, while your at it.
ah well, i tried.
peace-out,
RA
Try arguments- especially scriptural ones (I noted that you did reference Scripture in your second from last post. Trouble is that- like most Reformed attempts to offer alternative "interpretations" of perfectly clear passages- they really involve importing human philosophical presuppositions and allowing them to modify the passage by dictating what it can and can't mean.
Such, invariably, is the source of the "disagreements" which you claim
prevent clear and central teachings of the New Testament from being authoritative- or their rejection divisive.
And obviously, I didn't accuse you of being a a Nazi or a Satan worshipper because you didn't convict yourself out of your own mouth of those things.
Mr. A, holding a conversation with you is like a visit to the Department of Arguments from that Monty Python sketch. "No, it's not" is about the best you can do.
So go ahead and preach your truncated, twice- censored Christ.
(Interesting that human philosophy as well as human consensus get a veto over His words in your scheme of things). I'll stay with the real one, assume that what He said is what He meant- and continue to oppose people like Rick Warren, who
teach things contrary to central tenets of Scripture.
I guess I shouldn't be too surprised if people who manage to evade the Bible's clear teaching on baptismal regeneration also find a way to weasel out of the Nicene Creed's confession of it.
However, nobody who had studied the Church Fathers would be able to make that argument with a straight face.