A post-modernist attacks Wilken
(NOTE: While I retain the title of this post for archiving purposes, it should be made clear that I withdraw my charge.
Rick Abanes is not a post-modernist. He does not deny that there is such a thing as ultimate truth, of a sort of inaccessible, Platonic kind. Instead- as the exchange in the comments on this post will make clear- he is merely a modernist- one who denies that truth is finally accessible.
Either way, the heresy he espouses is one of the most fundamental and dangerous the Church faces today. It holds, in theory, that no teaching of the Scriptures behind which a current consensus of American Christians (emphatically not the entire Church Militant) cannot be assembled is binding. In practice, teachings such as baptismal regeneration and the Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist- not only clearly taught by Scripture, but confessed by an overwhelming majority of Christians not only presently on earth, but throughout the ages- cannot be insisted upon without incurring the stigma of "sectarianism!"
But the denial or trivialization of these articles of the Faith Once Delivered is apparently somehow not sectarian! Oddly, he does this all in the service of the notion that the "denominational distinctives," in his phrase, of American Evangelicalism may properly be urged within the Lutherans church and that it is somehow "sectarian" of Lutherans to object, insisting instead upon their own.--REW)
Someone named Richard Abanes has undertaken to defend false teacher Rick Warren by equating the criticism of one of Warren's most eloquent critics with "sectarianism."
Apparently "sectarianism" simply involves having the conviction that doctrines which agree with the Bible are preferable to doctrines which don't. Rev. Todd Wilken of KFUO, the LC-MS radio station in St. Louis, believes, it seems, that Lutheranism is biblical Christianity in its purist form (a conviction concerning his or her own denomination shared by any Christian with an ounce of integrity), and thus equates Warren's deviations from Lutheranism (i.e., biblical teaching as Wilken understands it) as constituting false doctrine.
Hello! Does the faith have content, or not? And if it does, is that content verified by the testimony of Scripture, or by the consensus of everybody who chooses to call himself an "Evangelical?" Is the Christian faith that which was once delivered to he saints, or the lowest common denominator of the shallowest most minimal concept of what this "Jesus" business is all about?
Abanes baldly states that denominational differences are simply "non-divisive." He does not defend this proposition; he merely states it, knowing that today's post-modern "Evangelical" mind set offers much support for his own shallow attitude that no doctrine can possibly be important if Christians disagree about it.
The Abanes article is itself a pretty damning indictment of Warrenism. If it can only be defended by claiming that it's "sectarian" to criticize its unbiblical content, it's on pretty shaky ground.
For anyone but a post-modernist, that is.
Sceleratissimus Lutheranus has a fine response to the Abanes nonsense. He also has his own fine response to Warren's false teaching.
Thanks to Aardvark Alley for the heads up.
Rick Abanes is not a post-modernist. He does not deny that there is such a thing as ultimate truth, of a sort of inaccessible, Platonic kind. Instead- as the exchange in the comments on this post will make clear- he is merely a modernist- one who denies that truth is finally accessible.
Either way, the heresy he espouses is one of the most fundamental and dangerous the Church faces today. It holds, in theory, that no teaching of the Scriptures behind which a current consensus of American Christians (emphatically not the entire Church Militant) cannot be assembled is binding. In practice, teachings such as baptismal regeneration and the Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist- not only clearly taught by Scripture, but confessed by an overwhelming majority of Christians not only presently on earth, but throughout the ages- cannot be insisted upon without incurring the stigma of "sectarianism!"
But the denial or trivialization of these articles of the Faith Once Delivered is apparently somehow not sectarian! Oddly, he does this all in the service of the notion that the "denominational distinctives," in his phrase, of American Evangelicalism may properly be urged within the Lutherans church and that it is somehow "sectarian" of Lutherans to object, insisting instead upon their own.--REW)
Someone named Richard Abanes has undertaken to defend false teacher Rick Warren by equating the criticism of one of Warren's most eloquent critics with "sectarianism."
Apparently "sectarianism" simply involves having the conviction that doctrines which agree with the Bible are preferable to doctrines which don't. Rev. Todd Wilken of KFUO, the LC-MS radio station in St. Louis, believes, it seems, that Lutheranism is biblical Christianity in its purist form (a conviction concerning his or her own denomination shared by any Christian with an ounce of integrity), and thus equates Warren's deviations from Lutheranism (i.e., biblical teaching as Wilken understands it) as constituting false doctrine.
Hello! Does the faith have content, or not? And if it does, is that content verified by the testimony of Scripture, or by the consensus of everybody who chooses to call himself an "Evangelical?" Is the Christian faith that which was once delivered to he saints, or the lowest common denominator of the shallowest most minimal concept of what this "Jesus" business is all about?
Abanes baldly states that denominational differences are simply "non-divisive." He does not defend this proposition; he merely states it, knowing that today's post-modern "Evangelical" mind set offers much support for his own shallow attitude that no doctrine can possibly be important if Christians disagree about it.
The Abanes article is itself a pretty damning indictment of Warrenism. If it can only be defended by claiming that it's "sectarian" to criticize its unbiblical content, it's on pretty shaky ground.
For anyone but a post-modernist, that is.
Sceleratissimus Lutheranus has a fine response to the Abanes nonsense. He also has his own fine response to Warren's false teaching.
Thanks to Aardvark Alley for the heads up.
Comments
RABANES: Dear friend, you should be more careful about what you accuse people of and do more research about indivuals you label.
1. i am NOT a post-modernist. i am a conservative evangelical christian—a soft-Calvinist, to be precise.
2. i am a well-respected apologist for christianity, having written 15 books on apologetic issues with major christian publishers. please, friend, be careful.
POSTER: Someone named Richard Abanes has undertaken to defend false teacher Rick Warren
RA: again, you resort to name-calling without getting your facts straight and without even bothering to hear the other side of an issue—which is very obvious. please list teh false doctrines warren teaches on the central teachings of christianity—there are several to choose from.
POSTER: apparently "sectarianism" simply involves having the conviction tht doctrines which agree with the Bible are preferable to doctrines which don't.
RA: This is a strawman. nowhere do I define sectarian that way. I actually explain myself in my various articles, which you apparently have not read.
POSTER: Is the Christian faith that which was once delivered to he saints, or the lowest common denominator of the shallowest most minimal concept of what this "Jesus" business is all about?
RA: I suggest you read the apostles creed. that is christianity.
POSTER: Abanes baldly states that denominational differences are simply "non-divisive." He does not defend this proposition; he merely states it, knowing that today's post-modern "Evangelical" mind set offers much support for his own shallow attitude that no doctrine can possibly be important if Christians disagree about it.
RA: You have strawman falling all over the place. I discuss all of these things, including referneces to the creeds, the essentials of the faith, and exactly why i find wilken's article so harmful—one of the most major reasons being that he UTTERLY misrepresents warren's words and takes them out of context, as i demonstrate by providing warren's words IN CONTEXT.
POSTER: The Abanes article is itself a pretty damning indictment of Warrenism. If it can only be defended by claiming that it's "sectarian" to criticize its unbiblical content, it's on pretty shakey ground.
RA: it's obvious now that you did not even read my responses because this is NOT the overarching reason that I criticize Wilken. basically, wilken misrepresents what warren even believes. therefore, his entire premise is faulty.
POSTER: For anyone but a post-modernist, that is.
RA: again, more bearing false witness. i denounce in the stongest of terms post-modernism. you now have to say that either you have information no one else has and can prove your assertion, or you are wrong about me being a post-modernist. if i am a liar, please post your documentation to show i am a post-modernist.
in christ,
R. abanes
PS i know wilken personaly and have been on his show as a guest MANY times as a defender of the faith.
WATERS: Dear friend, you should have followed that first piece of advice in your writing about Pastor Wilken.
As to "researching individuals you label," I base the label on your own
writing in the article in question, namely the basis on which you charge Pastor Wilken with "sectarianism." Of course you are not conscious of the inconsistency of your position with conservative Christianity; I assume that if you were, you would change that position.
You repeat the same limitation of authority to the "basics" of Christianity (thereby denying the authority of Scripture on any issue not agreed about by a general consensus of Christians)later in this post. I grant that you are more precise here, apparently following a liberal Lutheran named Gruntvig in making the Apostles Creed rather than the New Testament the source of authority for the content of Christianity.
Had you been that specific in your original article, I would not have called you a post-modernist, but merely a theological liberal. Certainly the replacement of Scripture with the Apostles' Creed as a standard of what is and is not divisive is hardly a "conservative" position!
You have an impressive number of books published. You also appear to have an impressive reputation as an apologist. For both, I congratulate you. Neither, however, are necessarily credentials of orthodoxy, a quality I cannot ascribe to you, given your attitude toward the question of doctrinal authority, as well as your profession of another doctrinal tradition. Again, it should be observed that Calvin, too, would find your notions on the subjects of doctrinal authority and what should or should not be understood as divisive inadequate.
ABANES: I am NOT a post-modernist. I am a conservative evangelical Christian- a soft-Calvinist, to be precise.
WATERS: Sorry, but there's very little that's conservative about reducing the content of Christianity to the Apostle's Creed, as you do later in your comment- an innovation Calvin would have condemned as vigorously as would Luther. And regarding the lowest common denominator of Christianity as defining its essentials has a great deal more in common with Post-Modernism than with any form of Christianity the Reformers or Christians of any previous age would have recognized!
I agree, though, that it's not Post-Modernism. It's just generic liberalism. You know- like Wilken talks about.
At the same time, the assumption which seems to lurk around that conviction of yours seems remarkably like the notion that truth is unknowable (or at least that, since people disagree about the teachings of Scripture, they must be unclear). I admit that this position is actually "Modernism," rather than "Post-Modernism."
ABANES: Again, you resort to name-calling without getting your facts straight and without bothering to hear the other side of than issue- which is very obvious. Please list the false doctrines Warren teaches on the central teachings of Christianity- there are several to choose from.
WATERS: Be aware, again, that I regard your argument that only certain teachings of the New Testament as important as in itself false doctrine.
Warren is guilty of many errors which he shares with "Evangelicalism" generally. Among these is an unbiblically optimistic anthropology, a failure to recognize the centrality of the Sacraments in biblical Christianity and in both sanctification and justification, and a general failure to distinguish Law and Gospel adequately.The suggestion that sanctification is a 50/50 proposition between God and humanity fails to recognize that ultimately even our own efforts to live a Christian life are God's working within us to will and to do- and results, not from a following of "principles," but through spontaneous gratitude engendered by the Gospel rather than by the Law. A failure to locate the essense of the Gospel in the forgiveness of sins, and a lack of accurate focus on the very purpose of Christ's incarnation.
But of course, you're very aware of the false teachings I'm referring to. Another Lutheran blogger, who critiqued Warren and answered you quite admirably, deleted his post because you were insulted by it.
Like Pastor Wilken, I believe that the teachings of Scripture are accurately summarized in the Book of Concord. You, of course, do not, apparently limiting even the authority of the Scriptures to those teachings contained in one of the documents in that book, the Apostles' Creed.
If regarding the rejection of our understanding of what Scripture teaches (including such on such very central issues as anthropology, the dynamics of justification and sanctification, and the role of the Sacraments) makes me- or Pastor Wilken- a sectarian, then every great Christian of history is also a sectarian. You and popular modern minimalism concerning the substance of the Faith are the new kids on the block, and I must confess that I find your vision remarkably shallow.
I think you have your answer about false teaching and Rick Warren. If more needs to be said, it can only be this: that Rick Warren's teaching is un-Lutheran is a perfectly reasonable ground for Pastor Wilken to find fault with his writings being given credence in the Lutheran Church. In fact, it is simply another way of saying that he is, in fact, a Lutheran. More than that, it means that Pastor Wilken is being faithful to his ordination oath!
ABANES: This is a strawman. Mowhere do I define "sectarian" that way (as "having the conviction tht doctrines which agree with the Bible are preferable to doctrines which don't". I actually explain myself in my various articles, which you apparently have not read.
WATERS: Of course you don't. But that is what the substance of your accusation of "sectarianism" against Pastor Wilken amounts to. You base your accusation on the limitation of authority (or at least "divisiveness") to certain "central" teachings (which you have now defined as the content of the Apostles Creed). You even baldly state, in so many words, that denominational differences are not "divisive!"
I, like Pastor Wilken- and Luther, and Calvin, and the Church of the ages- reject that position emphatically. And whatever else about Pastor Wilken's writings you may find fault with, it is that upon which you base your accusation of "sectarianism." I suggest that what you term "sectrarianism" is what has generally been known throughout the Christian era as simply a concern for biblical teaching, combined with a recognition that there are a great many movements and people out there whose teaching is not biblical.
In his doctrine of sanctification, in his understanding of the mission of Christ- and yes, in precisely those Baptist distinctives you point to- Pastor Warren is a false teacher. His teachings are invading Pastor Wilken's denomination, which is also mine. Pastor Wilken has faithfully resisted. Good for him.
Now, I've noticed from your articles that you're a great deal better at making charges and negative statements than you are at supporting them. You assert quite well. If you choose to respond to this, I would appreciate a bit more. Don't just say that I'm wrong. Show how.
ABANES: I suggest you read the apostles creed. that is christianity.
WATERS: I suggest you read the Holy Scriptures. That is Christianity. Their doctrinal content are nicely summarized in the Book of Concord. Now, I know that you disagree with me on the later point. The historically approved way of approaching that disagreement would be to show, point for point, where you disagree and why, on the basis of Scripture, rather than lowering the standard to a self-chosen list of "central" teachings beyond which God's Word is not decisive.
ABANES: You have strawman falling all over the place. I discuss all of these things, including referneces to the creeds, the essentials of the faith, and exactly why i find wilken's article so harmful—one of the most major reasons being that he UTTERLY misrepresents warren's words and takes them out of context, as i demonstrate by providing Warren's words IN CONTEXT.
WATERS: As you argue by so providing Warren's words.
Mr. Abanes, however much you may refer to the Creeds, Rick Warren is still, as Lutherans understand the teachings of Scripture (I believe correctly), a false teacher, and Lutherans are perfectly justified, on the basis of Scripture, in opposing an approach to Christianity which we believe to be heretical- and especially its influence in our own fellowship.
That has always been our position. That has been the position of orthodox Christians throught the ages. The reduction of the criteria for determining what is or is not divisive to a small number of "lowest common denominator" items, or even to the Creed, is a novelty- and one which I would argue is every bit as dangerous as the influence of "Evangelical" theology itself.
Now. If the main thrust of your concern is that Pastor Wilken has quoted Pastor Warren inaccurately, you do well to take that up with Pastor Wilken. However, I would gently suggest that calling him names like "sectarian" and suggesting that it is somehow inappropriate for a Lutheran pastor to oppose what his confession regards as false teaching because it isn't Lutheran tends to place the perceived emphasis otherwise than you wish.
His premise is sound. That Rick Warren's teaching on the subject matter of his book are, as you yourself point out, typically Southern Baptist itself justifies that premise.
Your apparent limitation of authority to the lowest common denominator is not something I invented. Of course, it's true that I merely conjecture that you believe that truth is unknowable beyond the points where Christians generally agree. I apologize if this is the case, but would be fascinated to know upon what other basis your position can be coherently held.
Certainly it is not a position which can be reasonably regarded as "conservative" in any sense.
I am aware of your acquaintance with Pastor Wilken, and with your having appeared on his program; you point both things out in your article. I would suggest, however, that you don't know Pastor Wilken, Lutheranism, or confessional Christianity nearly as well as you think you do. He hasn't changed- and neither has the content of the Faith once delivered to the saints, which is considerably more extensive than the content of the Apostles' Creed.
I would suggest, in conclusion, that the best course for you would be to call Todd Wilken and talk it over. I am certain that you and he are coming from such radically different
places that you are misunderstanding him. Perhaps in some respects he misunderstands Rick Warren as well- though what is perfectly clear in Pastor Warren's book certainly merits opposition as false teaching.
Certainly it is not possible to regard it otherwise,and nevertheless to hold a Lutheran understanding of the Christian Faith.
In Christ,
Bob Waters
RA: You prove my charge of sectarianism by your own words—i.e., all non-lutherans are "false teachers" and "heretics."
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).
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.
cordially,
R. Abanes
R. Abanes, this statement of yours is perhaps an example of why Bob "smelled" postmodernism:
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.
It's as if you are suggesting here there is no right and wrong, no one true way to interpret a given passage. This denial of absolute truth is, as you know, a main tenet of post-modernism.
We can argue definitions all day, but terms like liberal, heretic, etc, really are indications of a NON-POMO worldview, and the idea that there is a right and a wrong.
I am a Lutheran because Lutherans are right.
(I had to stop myself from softening that with "I think" - guess we all swim in a sea of Postmodernism)
RA: let me be clear—I am not a post-modernist. look at my list of books—they are filled with objective statements of what is and is not true.
but let's face it, people disagree about all kinds of things including biblical interpretations on various passages. disagreeing iwth you and saying hey, let's cut each other some slack on various issues, doe snot make me post-modern. it makes me someone who sees a world lost and dying and going to hell and all they see is people like you and i fighting about baptism, communion, the end-times, robes, organ music, and whether or not to recite the Apostles' Creed during sunday services.
sorry, but people need jesus. that is step one—not whether or not stained glass should be in every church because they depict biblical truths.
here's proof that i am not a post-modernist: there is an eternal, personal Triune God. that is an objective truth that I embrace. jesus christ died on the cross for our sins and by his shed blood offers the free gift of eternal life to those who by faith accept that gift of deserved grace. that is an objective truth that i embrace. without christ as savior, a person is destined to spend an eternity apart from God. that is an objective truth that i embrace.
peace in Him,
RAbanes
There are those in our own LCMS that think like you.
I am not saying you are not a Christian. I am not saying we should sit around and argue till blue in the face over doctrine. Of course there is a time and a place for everything.
And of course people need Jesus. No one over here disagrees with that.
Of course it's a fact of life that Christians interpret things differently.
What we do disagree with is the attitude that you seem to take, that differences of doctrine are trivial. Postmodernism says doctrine doesn't matter because there is no absolute truth. You affirm absolute truth. Fine. But you still seem to be saying that the truth doesn't matter. Ok, that SOME truths matter, and others don't. So, what should we call this, POMO's little sister?
I find that everything God teaches us is important. That includes not only salvation by grace through faith in Christ, but also the importance of Baptism as a means of grace, the real presence of Christ in the Meal, etc...
RA; ok, look. truth matters. yes. but i am saying, my goodness, let's put things in perspective. that's all.
ya know there are christians who hate lutherans for all kinds of reasons—i.e., it's a dried up, spiritually-dead, lost in tradition, no Holy Spirit-infused denomination, etc etc etc.
i say, wait now, they just have differences of opinion on issues like worship style and various doctrines that—even if they are wrong (which i happen to believe you are)—do not remove them from the family of God through Christ.
i am not going to break fellowship and start name-calling because you view communion and baptism differently than i do. how do you think so many wars have started? people fixate on what divides, not what unites—and then they pour TREMENDOUS amounts of energy into literally fighting about this stuff.
this is RELIGION, not a relationship with God.
these same people who want to fight, are the same ones that say if you do not agree with everything THEY believe then you are a heretic, liar, false teacher, gnostic, new ager, liberal, and post-modernist.
look, you are a lutheran. okay, fine! do you love Jesus Christ and are you seeking to serve him? fine. me too! sure we disagree on some things and we can intelligently discuss them—and you'll probably go back to your church and I'll go back to mine. again, fine.
but it is ungodly and divisive to start going out mudslinging because i did not end up believing exactly as you believe. that is the point. where do we leave room for our sinfulness and fallibility (things that i think we both would accept as a truth)?
NO ONE, and i mean NO ONE, has it all perfect down the line. now this would seem rather obvous since we both agree that all of us are sinners—imperfect, fallible, non-omniscient human beings.
RA
So be it. As the proprieter of this blog, I hereby exercise my right to get in the last word, even after a year.
So here we go:
ABANES: Ok, look. truth matters. yes. but i am saying, my goodness, let's put things in perspective. that's all.
WATERS: If you truly believe that God's blessed, comforting and empowering grace in the biblically understood sacraments of Baptism and the Lord's Supper- of which the "Evangelical" teaching robs us; the question of how one becomes a Christian; whether we are indeed "dead in sin," as Paul teaches, without the Spirit's intervention, or merely sorta sick, and needing to merely "decide" to get well; whether it is God or our our own programs and efforts which sanctify us and achieve His purposes in the world; and whether the clear and unambiguous teachings of Scripture need to be ratified by a consensus of a biblically deficient "Evangelcal" movement in order to count are unimportant issues, your own sense of perspective is seriously warped.
ABANES: ya know there are christians who hate lutherans for all kinds of reasons—i.e., it's a dried up, spiritually-dead, lost in tradition, no Holy Spirit-infused denomination, etc etc etc.
i say, wait now, they just have differences of opinion on issues like worship style and various doctrines that—even if they are wrong (which i happen to believe you are)—do not remove them from the family of God through Christ.
WATERS: Hate is not a motivation worthy of any Christian, and I think you might be better advised to rebuke that sin rather than defend Lutherans.
That people mistake often artificially manufactured emotion (or even genuine, spontaneous emotion!) for the manifestation of the Holy Spirit and choose to disregard His authentic witness in Scripture is a common manifestation of our fallen nature, and no particular indictment of those who resist the temptation. I agree that it is one to which our culture is especially prone.
ABANES: say, wait now, they just have differences of opinion on issues like worship style and various doctrines that—even if they are wrong (which i happen to believe you are)—do not remove them from the family of God through Christ.
WATERS: Worship style aside (another discussion),they aren't mere "differences of opinion." They're matters upon which Scripture is perfectly clear- and upon which these individuals have chosen to believe human philosophy and their own ideas rather than Scripture. I cite specifically the issues of Baptism and the Lord's Supper, on which the "Evangelical" position is nothing more or less than a rejection of what the words of Scripture say in order to adhere to what the errant human mind considers reasonable.
Incidentally, lest there be any confusion, we do not exclude anyone who trusts in Jesus as their Savior from the Kingdom of God. If you are suggesting otherwise, you ought to know better- and you should be ashamed of yourself. Nor do we refuse fellowship to anyone in any sense in which our own confession would not be compromised by practicing it.
ABANES: i am not going to break fellowship and start name-calling because you view communion and baptism differently than i do. how do you think so many wars have started? people fixate on what divides, not what unites—and then they pour TREMENDOUS amounts of energy into literally fighting about this stuff.
this is RELIGION, not a relationship with God.
WATERS: Your condemnation of "earnestly contending for the Faith once delivered to the saints" is both noted and contrasted with the admonition of St. Jude. I think the consensus of the New Testament would be that the preservation of the Gospel in its integrity is rather important to our relationship with God.
Rick, this statement is hard to credit. This entire conversation is taking place because you have presumed to call people (to use your own frame of reference) with different "denominational distinctives" a particularly nasty name- sectarian- for no other reason than that they have objected to the influence in their denomination of a book whose sum and substance is the advocacy of denominational distinctives which conflict with them. That, and because they have the effrontery to conform their own faith and teaching to the Word of God as they understand it, rather than adopting your own minimalist viewpoint- a viewpoint which is not only an innovation in church history, strictly condemnted by Scripture itself,
and which effectively destroys the authority of Scripture in favor of the consensus of a innovative and theologically ideosyncratic theological movement to which not all Lutherans (myself being an example) even want to be identified!
You have done exactly what you insist that you will not do, Brother Abanes. You have from the beginning. Do you really not see that?
I will leave aside the familiar-if not entirely cogent- "Evangelical" contrast between "religion" on one hand, and "a relationship with God" on the other. Jesus saves. Nothing of ours saves, Rick, except instrumentally- and that includes our relationship with God.
Where people teach contrary to the Word of God, St. Paul gives his advice quite clearly in Romans 16:17. We are warned about false teachers by Jesus, by Paul, by John, by Jude... it's hard to see how much clearer or more consistent the New Testament can be about the matter. Nowhere do I see anything about taking a vote as to whether a particular teaching of Scripture ought to count, or even as to whether everybody acknowleges that it's clear.
And it's not a matter of your viewing baptism and the Supper differently than we do. It's a matter of viewing them- as well as many other serious matters- differently from the clear testimony of Scripture, and choosing to follow human philosophy instead.
Much of the remainder of this section is sheer bombast. Don't you see, Rick, that you're insisting that we disregard our own conscience and take the attitude you espouse, and are calling us a nasty name because we won't? Yes, the notion that wars are caused by people standing up for their principles is indeed a tired and shop-worn relic of the modernist position you advocate, but the fact is that very little worthwhile is accomplished or even survives in this world without people being willing to insist on their own consciences.
If you disagree with us on the Sacraments or on how a person becomes a Christian or on the main heresy of Warren's work- the notion that sanctification and the accomplishment of God's purposes is a fifty-fifty effort between ourselves and God- fine. Then in fraternal and charitable candor, let's discuss our differences and see whether we can resolve them. If we can't, it doesn't mean that either of us aren't Christians, or that either of us are "sectarians. But it does mean that our fellowship is already disrupted ipso facto to the extent that we cannot in integrity practice it! Is that really so hard a concept?
And let's not forget that it's you who called us 'sectarians" for condemning what amounts to a reflection of his own "denominational distinctives" in his wretched book!
ABANES: look, you are a lutheran. okay, fine! do you love Jesus Christ and are you seeking to serve him? fine. me too! sure we disagree on some things and we can intelligently discuss them—and you'll probably go back to your church and I'll go back to mine. again, fine.
but it is ungodly and divisive to start going out mudslinging because i did not end up believing exactly as you believe. that is the point. where do we leave room for our sinfulness and fallibility (things that i think we both would accept as a truth)?
WATERS: Rick, come off it! You are the one whose mudslinging with regard to Pastor Wilken, who merely pointed out in a very civilized and charitable fashion the numerous biblical deficiencies of Rick Warren's regrettable book, motivated this post and initiated this entire discussion!
We leave room for our sinfulness and fallibility in being open to correction. More about that in my response to your final assertion.
ABANES: NO ONE, and i mean NO ONE, has it all perfect down the line. now this would seem rather obvous since we both agree that all of us are sinners—imperfect, fallible, non-omniscient human beings.
WATERS: But Rick, this is not about you or I having it all perfect down the line, and it never has been.
It's about God having it all perfect down the line. It's about the Scriptures having it all perfect down the line.
And it's about whether God is in fact a competent communicator. It's about the clarity of matters about which the Scriptures are perfectly clear- matters
concerning which our disagreement generally boils down to nothing more or less than your choosing (along with American "Evangelicalism" generally) reject and to disbelieve what Scripture plainly and consistently asserts, because you hold it to be unreasonable.
It's about whether the Holy Spirit is a competent communicator. It's about whether Holy Scripture is an adequate ground of authority for the Church- or whether the Scriptures lose their authority whenever a sufficient number of people choose to disbelieve what they say or to regard them as unclear.
The Sola scriptura is at stake here, Rick- and not only the Sola scriptura, but literally every teaching of the Christian faith.
Where we disagree, we need first to agree on the matter of authority. And it is patent that it is precisely here that we disagree. We insist on the Sola scriptura; you insist that what Scripture clearly teaches must be ratified by a certain percentage of an historically and doctrinally ideosyncratic movement called American Evangelicalism. Your attitude toward Scripture's adequacy is precisely that of Roman Catholicism, except instead of positing an authenticating teaching office, you substitute a consensus of the all the different (Evangelical) denominations.
Either way, when you deny the adequacy of Scripture, you deny the Sola scriptura! If Scripture is inadequate, then something else (in your case, this "consensus" you advocate) becomes a suppliment. It really isn't hard!
If you truly confessed it (as I believe, by the way, that you honestly think you do), what we would need to do would be to discuss our differences in the light of Scripture.
while doing what you refuse to do: respecting each other's right to insist upon those teachings one believes to be biblical and binding, and to refrain from forms of fellowship which would violate the integrity of our beliefs.
Regrettably, we disagree both about Scriptural authority and about the responsibility of each side to maintain its own integrity under Scripture. You choose to side with the modern world in denying the fundamental logical premise that one cannot confess a position without rejecting its denial.
We take the Reformation's view of Scripture and of truth, and you take that of the modern secular world. And that is where our true disagreement lies.
Matters of doctrine on which Scripture clearly and unambiguously speak, Rick, are simply not mere "matters of opinion- and to insist otherwise is to destroy the authority of Scripture.
One more thought: if we disagree as to whether Scripture is clear on a given matter, I commend to you the propositon that we are obligated to follow our own consciences rather than the assertion of others of a lack of clarity which we are convinced does not exist.
Keep your own "denominational distinctives" to yourself, Rick. And keep your consensus, too. We'll stick with the Sola scriptura.