Abanes is back... and gone
I remind Richard Abanes of a Mormon.
But he "tried."
What reminded him of a Mormon was my statement that I believe that Lutheranism is an accurate summary of the teachings of Scripture, but at the same time am interested in defending the latter rather than, per se, the former. To him, this was double-talk, along the lines of the Latter Day Saints' notion that you're saved by grace alone- after you're finished obeying the law!
In any event, anyone with doubts about the appropriateness of Rick Warren's writings for confessional Christians of any denomination need to become acquainted with the concept of biblical authority this Warren disciple invokes to protect Warren from charges of false teaching.
In fairness, it should be noted that later in the discussion Abanes backed off his reduction of the binding content of the Christian faith to the Apostles' Creed, and expanded it to the earlier versions of the Nicene Creed, as well as to a rather difuse and undefined group of "essentials" about which there is no controversy.
I do not say "interconfessional controversy," because Mr. Abanes' position makes "confessions" essentially impossible. Opinions, yes; confessions, no.
In modifiying his position, he inadvertently repudiated his own position and labeled the Roman Catholic (and Lutheran) position on Baptism as false doctrine! In the last analysis, he seems to believe that a general "consensus" of what everybody believes are the "clear" and "central" teachings of Christianity are all that is binding- unless he himself disagrees with it; one cannot, in his view, be a false teacher by holding to "denominational distinctives" with which other Christians, in good faith, disagree. Hence, we Lutherans have no right to criticize the theology of The Purpose-Driven Life, since some Christians, in good faith, think it scriptural!
In any event, the doctrine of baptism clearly taught by Scripture, and confessed by the overwhelming majority of Christians both today and throughout history, is something Mr. Abanes is willing to label as false doctrine. Its denial, on the other hand, is merely a "denominational distinctive." His standard of orthodoxy seems to be somewhat elastic; apparently Mr. Abanes' own theology has a considerable impact, after all, on what he considers to be included in that "consensus" which establishes the sum total of what is binding in Christianity. But he doesn't notice that such is the case- and far less does he notice that, to the extent to which it is, the he's doing exactly what he faults confessional Christians for doing!
Mr. Abanes' position is very contemporary, and very American. Once again, I should make it crystal clear that I do not believe for a moment that Mr. Abanes intends to teach falsely, or that he is conscious of doing so; he is a false teacher, but not a heretic, not only for that reason, but because while his position opens the way for the denial of beliefs essential to salvation (after all, it ultimately destroys the authority of Scripture!), his position as such does not espouse them.
Anyway, I hope Mr. Abanes thinks about this stuff a great deal more than, thus far, he obviously has. Perhaps then his shallow, malleable version of Christianity may toughen and stiffen. I do not say that I expect him to become a Lutheran. But perhaps eventually he may develop sufficient clarity of thought to at least match his undoubted integrity of intention with intellectual integrity as well- and become at least a confessional Calvinist, ala, say, R.C. Sproul or even Michael Horton!
(The links, BTW, have been fixed-twice- but you may need to sign in to Blogger to use them, since they're to comments in this blog. If that doesn't work for some reason, they're to the comments on the posts below titled Abanes replies to me- and I reply to Abanes, and A post-modernist attacks Wilken.)
But he "tried."
What reminded him of a Mormon was my statement that I believe that Lutheranism is an accurate summary of the teachings of Scripture, but at the same time am interested in defending the latter rather than, per se, the former. To him, this was double-talk, along the lines of the Latter Day Saints' notion that you're saved by grace alone- after you're finished obeying the law!
In any event, anyone with doubts about the appropriateness of Rick Warren's writings for confessional Christians of any denomination need to become acquainted with the concept of biblical authority this Warren disciple invokes to protect Warren from charges of false teaching.
In fairness, it should be noted that later in the discussion Abanes backed off his reduction of the binding content of the Christian faith to the Apostles' Creed, and expanded it to the earlier versions of the Nicene Creed, as well as to a rather difuse and undefined group of "essentials" about which there is no controversy.
I do not say "interconfessional controversy," because Mr. Abanes' position makes "confessions" essentially impossible. Opinions, yes; confessions, no.
In modifiying his position, he inadvertently repudiated his own position and labeled the Roman Catholic (and Lutheran) position on Baptism as false doctrine! In the last analysis, he seems to believe that a general "consensus" of what everybody believes are the "clear" and "central" teachings of Christianity are all that is binding- unless he himself disagrees with it; one cannot, in his view, be a false teacher by holding to "denominational distinctives" with which other Christians, in good faith, disagree. Hence, we Lutherans have no right to criticize the theology of The Purpose-Driven Life, since some Christians, in good faith, think it scriptural!
In any event, the doctrine of baptism clearly taught by Scripture, and confessed by the overwhelming majority of Christians both today and throughout history, is something Mr. Abanes is willing to label as false doctrine. Its denial, on the other hand, is merely a "denominational distinctive." His standard of orthodoxy seems to be somewhat elastic; apparently Mr. Abanes' own theology has a considerable impact, after all, on what he considers to be included in that "consensus" which establishes the sum total of what is binding in Christianity. But he doesn't notice that such is the case- and far less does he notice that, to the extent to which it is, the he's doing exactly what he faults confessional Christians for doing!
Mr. Abanes' position is very contemporary, and very American. Once again, I should make it crystal clear that I do not believe for a moment that Mr. Abanes intends to teach falsely, or that he is conscious of doing so; he is a false teacher, but not a heretic, not only for that reason, but because while his position opens the way for the denial of beliefs essential to salvation (after all, it ultimately destroys the authority of Scripture!), his position as such does not espouse them.
Anyway, I hope Mr. Abanes thinks about this stuff a great deal more than, thus far, he obviously has. Perhaps then his shallow, malleable version of Christianity may toughen and stiffen. I do not say that I expect him to become a Lutheran. But perhaps eventually he may develop sufficient clarity of thought to at least match his undoubted integrity of intention with intellectual integrity as well- and become at least a confessional Calvinist, ala, say, R.C. Sproul or even Michael Horton!
(The links, BTW, have been fixed-twice- but you may need to sign in to Blogger to use them, since they're to comments in this blog. If that doesn't work for some reason, they're to the comments on the posts below titled Abanes replies to me- and I reply to Abanes, and A post-modernist attacks Wilken.)
Comments
Enjoy. Or whatever.
I note once again that I stand corrected: at least in his approach to Scripture, Mr. Abanes seems to be a Modernist, not a Post-modernist. He does not deny that truth exists; he merely denies that, beyond a limited point, it can be definitively adduced from Scripture.
Really!