Over at CRN, Ken Silva, the general editor, published this excerpt from a recent article in the Christian Examiner about all the exciting things that were happening with the PEACE plan via Rick Warren.
A mammoth Christian mobilization effort—with a goal of tapping the time and talents of a billion believers worldwide. Pastor Rick Warren developed the PEACE Plan and unveiled it during a three-day, invitation-only conference that drew 1,700 pastors and business leaders from all 50 states and 38 countries…
“The churches have become fragmented and segmented in a large degree, and there are a lot of silos,” [Warren] said. “When you travel as much as I do and you get not just a national picture, but an international picture, you realize that there’s enormous talent and enormous potential in the church, but it’s not connected”…
it was followed up with this snide remark
O whatever did God do before Rick Warren showed up?
And that was the extent of his article. This is just another example of how the ODMs are not really 100% concerned with defending the truth, proclaiming the gospel, etc. It’s about attacking their self-proclaimed false prophets and teachers as much as they can, whenever they can. This reminds me of the kid on the team that always made fun of the other kids who excelled at the sport. They would usually make some sarcastic remark like “oooohhh! John’s soooooo cool. He can hit a ball all the way out of the park. woooooowwww. What ever would we do without him?” In reality, it was just their way of putting on their pouty-face (what my mom still calls it when I get upset at the age of 24 
).
I find it just a bit funny that they make that statement about Rick Warren when many of them feel it is their God-given responsibility to make sure that the faith stays pure. As if The Almighty was not powerful enough to do that. I mean, whatever did God do before the Christian Research Network came on the scene*?
*Please note that the following statement was a use of sarcasm. It was strictly used to prove the author’s point, and is in no way intended to be taken literally. You may now return to your regularly scheduled programming.
330 Comments(+Add)
How do we know Ken published it? I guess any sentence begining with “O,” is a clue.
My question for the editor is what is Christian and what is research about it?
For the record, Ken Silva is officially responsible for all articles on CRN as the “general editor”. This is standard in all print media.
What is the core disagreement with the plan?
Rick Warren is leading it. Isn’t that enough?
Oh yea, I almost forgot.
I used to think the PEACE plan was some sort of an attempt for nation to nation peace without Christ because that is how it was presented by its detractors. Here is the points:
Promote reconciliation;
Equip servant leaders;
Assist the poor;
Care for the sick; and
Educate the next generation.
The first point has been further defined as the gospel. So, which point do people disagree with, or is it who they include as contributors?
Furthermore…what did God do before we initiated the Truth War to defend God’s weak and puny Truth which needs our help to continue on and endure?
It all kind of reminds me of the movie Kingdom of Heaven where they’d all plot to kill the heathens because God needs the help of our swords to advance His means….and then one dude off in the background of the room would yell “GOD WILLS IT!!!” and then some other guy goes “God wiiiilllllssss eeeet!” and then the whole room starts chanting and puts on their man-shields to feel manly and runs out in to battle to slay their enemies in Jesus Name.
So…GOD WILLS IT!
“with a goal of tapping the time and talents of a billion believers worldwide”
Kind of optimistic to think there are a billion believers in the world… I believe it’s estimated that around 2.3 billion haven’t even been reached with the gospel or even written scripture!
I think RW is living in a bubble. I do not have anything against him personally, I’m just pondering his plan…
He’s doing more than we are, that’s for sure, bubble or not….
*satire as defined ny CRN.Info*
Why preach the Gospel? As if The Almighty was not powerful enough to do so on His Own.
FOR THE RECORD — yet again (since the ODMs willfully refuse to hear the truth):
The PEACE Plan in its entirety is an evangelism strategy to not just alleviate suffering, but most importantly, to remove those obstacles in the world that hinder the spread of the gospel in other countries. Fairly plain and simple.
See my article on WHAT IS THE PEACE PLAN?, especially under the sub-heading “An Evangelism Strategy.”
Documentation is provided.
R. Abanes
Thank you Rich…someone’s gotta keep things honest
Jonathan,
FYI, as of 2008, more than two billion Christians populate the earth. The approximate figure of 2.1 billion (see adherents.com), of course, must be adjusted slightly downward to allow for:
(a) individuals who claim to be Christians, but who do not adhere to any of the biblical doctrines that would actually
make them a Christian (e.g., Oprah); and
(b)denominations/religions and cults that claim to be Christians but deny essential doctrines of the Christian faith (e.g., Mormons and Jehovah’s Witnesses).
Despite such adjustments,
Christianity remains the largest religious group in the world, exceeding Islam by nearly 500 million people.
R. Abanes
Yeah, Abanes is not biased at all…
Dear Ken,
It’s not biased to present documentation and fact. Read it. The truth is there. I can’t help the fact that the PEACE Plan is what it is — an evangelism strategy.
As for bias — NO ONE is completely unbiased. Why? Because we are all sinners and fallible. But I try very, very hard to stay as fair and balanced as possible — unlike some.
peace,
RAbanes
I am off to a fabulous day of fellowship and food.
His research is immeasurably better than yours Ken, sorry..? Personal opinion.
Ken, do you happen to think we’re commanded to FIGHT for God’s Truth? Or rather PROCLAIM God’s Truth…
Kind of a big difference…
Hold on…I gotcha…Phil 1:27….Jude…3…1 Timothy 6:12
….2 Timothy 4:7.
No need to present the verses to me.
I should say “WAR” for God’s Truth, not “fight”, as that can be misinterpreted.
I have been completely unbiased since January 17, 1994 at 3:53 PM with only one relapse yesterday at 8:34 AM>
Ken,
We all have our biases… for example, most ODM cannot see the words “spiritual formation” with assuming some kind of transcendental meditation – regardless of whether or not it’s true.
It would help immensely if you would (without calling him unnecessary names) tell us what is so unbiblical about PEACE.
Neil
OH, you guys, the word you need to describe this, which I will release into your tender loving care, is “POUTRAGE.”
They are “poutraged” at Rick Warren’s PEACE plan or whatever it is.
Just Poutraged.
“Christianity remains the largest religious group in the world”
What? Where in the world did you get this stat?….So much for, “Narrow is the way and few there be that find it.”
“FYI, as of 2008, more than two billion Christians populate the earth.”
If this be the case, any preacher that says our evangelical mission field is small and the funding is less than 1% of the church’s income(stats from the book “Religions and World Missions”) should be repromanded for lying!
I believe this statistic, 2 billion, is a far cry from the truth!
“you realize that there’s enormous talent and enormous potential in the church, but it’s not connected”…
Really??
The body of Christ is/has been and always will be intact, head and all.
You misread passages like 1 cor 12
I have no idea what Warren thinks HE”S connecting.
Abanes is a bloated and pompous.
So what’s new?
Neil,
“most ODM cannot see the words ’spiritual formation’ with assuming some kind of transcendental meditation…”
This is another part of our problem communicating because this is just as much an exaggeration as you would accuse me of with a Rick Warren.
The issue is “spiritual formation” was used first by guys like Richard Foster and orginally meant his stupid spiritual disciplines, etc.
That guys like Donald Whitney, wrongly, try and “save” that term is another issue.
O, and “pouty-faced jealousy?”
Hardly. Jealous of what; being a false prophet?
Nah, think I’ll pass.
Jonathan,
Why are you fighting about a stat?
Stats
Chris….Who’s fighting? I’m not…Just discussing! I like to verbalize my views and opinions just like everyone else.
I don’t believe, by any stretch of the imagination, that there are 2 billion born again believers on the earth. Not even close…a fraction of that.
There are approximately 1.2 million Roman Catholics in those statistics. I believe Richard was quoting secualr statistics that include all Christian denominations.
Richard – will Rick Warren include the Roman Catholic Church to particpate in his peace plan as an evangelical church?
Maybe – except I never use outlandish negative adjectives… you’re site aside, Lighthouse trails lists all the schools that offer a class with the word “Formation” in it’s description – then assumes they are wrong.
But then again, I have yet to see what of Foster’s disciplines are unbiblical, or why contemplation (i.e. meditation) is wrong.
Neil
It just goes to show ya that no matter what ya do – even trying to organize Christians to work together – somebody’s gonna find fault.
Rick,
“will Rick Warren include the Roman Catholic Church to particpate in his peace plan as an evangelical church?”
Asking it that way gives him an out because of the word evangelical. Will Rick Warren include the Roman Catholic Church to particpate in his peace plan as Christian church?
Yes. Rick Warren: “Every Facet of Christianity — Including Catholicism”
Ok, obviously the 2 billion stat is actually the approximation of how many people want to CLAIM to be Christians. No tests were administered to determine the validity of the claim. Most stats are fallible, but the point is, there are many people in the world who ARE Christians, and who are not using their time and talents for God to the extent they could if connected to other people who have need of their gifts (hence the use of the words “not connected”, Chris P). The actual number was not the point (or SHOULD not be).
Also, after reading many of these articles, KEN, should I be surprised that you have not chimed in to explain your reasoning behind the article? The side comments do not help anyone reading this who genuinely wants to understand your position…
Never mind, Richard, Ken just answered my question on CRN. As I alluded to in one of my earlier comments, it would be this association which would keep me and others from endorsing such a peace plan.
Don’t you know, 84.2% of all statistics are inaccurate?
The PEACE plan is just an ambitious plan built in the mold of a worldly system for the promotion of lofty and moral goals. We are living in a day when morals, to a large extent, are being elevated to a form of idolatry. I can cite my workplace as an example, but look at all the companies engaged in corporate responsibility and one-upmanship (remember after the 04 Tsunami as each country rushed to outdo the other in support?)
People are addicted to doing good even in the ungodly world because of how it makes you feel. You can live off the rush for weeks, which I suspect, is what Christians feel like after a short-term mission to Peru or El Salvador, etc… for about 3 weeks. It’s called the Jesus Complex.
Secondly, Catholics are not Christians in the biblical sense so those numbers are way off. Also, the polls are ridiculous because the ask people “Do you believe in Jesus?” “Would you consider yourself a) Christian b) Muslim c) none of the above”? Those stats mean nothing at all.
Christ must be central, not off in the shadows. But because He demands discipleship and adherence to truth, He must be kept in the shadows so as not to disrupt our human plans – we’ll just use His name, kind of like cheese on a mousetrap.
Paul: The PEACE plan is just an ambitious plan built in the mold of a worldly system for the promotion of lofty and moral goals. We are living in a day when morals, to a large extent, are being elevated to a form of idolatry.
RA: Why is it that you’d rather believe the lies, hate, rumors, gossip, and worst that you hear about that NASTY peace plan, rather than just looking at what the peace plan states as its goals and purpose?
It’s as if you WANT it to be some nefarious scheme of the Devil that you can talk about and expose, dare I say, you almost NEED it to be so. Why?
I have presented in the link above in June 28th, 2008 at 12:41 pm EXACTLY what the peace plan is based on it’s printed material. If you’d rather believe/spread lies, for whatever reason, then you will be accountable to God.
RAbanes
How about we let God decide that…
When a church teaches salvation by grace through faith in Jesus Christ, you will still find members who are a product of the system and show little evidence of being born again, and in fact, many are Biblically illiterate as it pertains to salvation itself.
But when a church like the RCC teaches salvation by works that gain grace, along with a myriad of reiligious teachings that have no Biblical support, then the number of members that are products of the system and do not veen claim to be born again elevates disproportionately.
And we do not show Christ’s love to Catholic people when the evangelical community soothes their conscience by assuming many are saved within the RCC because we wish to be benevolent toward them in opposition to some who show disdain, and because of the growing atmosphere of denominational unity.
Biblically we must recognize the Roman Catholic Church as aberrant and doctrinally unbiblical with even cultish tendencies. However we must love and reach out to the Roman Catholic people with the message of salvation by faith alone and the need for personal regeneration.
Somebody named James also said something along those lines about 2000 years ago…
Ken,
What are you doing to help the widow, feed the orphan and help poor? On what or who’s authority do you stand in criticising PEACE? To me it seems you are rather causing strife in the body of Christ.
14 Times in the Gospels it states that Jesus had compassion towards people. And every single time Jesus did something to alleviate the people’s immediate circumstance.
I am trying to hold my anger in here. The audacity to criticise and tear down the good work another Christian is trying to do is beyond my comprehension.
Paul C, believe me after 3 months of doing good the stench gets to you. The glamour disappears. Then it is only the love of Christ that can keep you going. Addiction? I don’t think so. How it makes you feel? Have you ever knelt next to a poor, filthy and stinking person, leading them to the Lord? Do you know the joy? Do you know that all heaven rejoices at that moment? I dare you try it. Sometimes those moments of joy are far apart. Then there is not much of a rush to live off. Then you just put your head down and work, because you know Jesus loves these people and you are the hands and feet of Jesus at that moment.
Ken & Paul C, what are you doing do alleviate the suffering of people in less fortunate countries than your own? I wish you can spend just one day with me and look into the eyes of begging children at every intersection. Perhaps then you will worry less if the PEACE program is enough evangelical to your taste and rejoice that someone is reaching where you are not able to. Through programs like PEACE people may live another day to hear the Gospel and change their eternal destiny. But to ignore people’s immediate need and even go so far to criticise those who do have compassion is sin.
If Rick Warren includes the RCC to help, so what? I am sure if there was some terrible disaster in your city (I pray it will never happen) you would help even if the person standing next to you helping is a RCC/atheist/Muslim. The world is in desperate need of your help. It may be far away from you and you do not feel the urgency, but that doesn’t change the urgency. Stop being critical of those who do help and rather start helping.
If I seem self righteous, please forgive me. I know I am not that doing enough myself to help the people in need. May God change my hart as well.
Ken & Paul C, if you are doing something to help, please tell us.
Gene – I completely agree with your humanitarian thrust, as do I agree with most of Rick Warren’s peace plan. But I can not agree with cooperating with the Church of Rome when it is still clear they do not teach Biblical salvation.
And most recently Pope Benedict reaffirmed the church’s belief that they were the only true church on earth, he is the Vicar of Christ in Peter’s chair, people of other religions can be saved by a good and pious life, and that Preotestants who know that the RCC is the true church but refuse to convert are in danger of eternal damnation.
Those things and MANY others constrain me from any cooperation with the RCC as an institution or her leaders. BTW – I and my business partner started(1993) and maintain a missions organization in Africa that both preaches the gospel and helps with the incredible humanitarian needs on that continent.
Rick,
By saying that I would work together with anybody and all who are helping the poor, I am not affirming their beliefs. If Rick Warren does, well that is his conviction and who am I to judge him on that? I think it is a great opportunity to be a witness when working together with a Roman Catholic/atheist/Muslim/… I haven’t had the opportunity to work with one of these yet. I would that.
When showing compassion something happens in my heart. The hatred for sin grows bigger, the love for my fellow man created in God’s image grows bigger and my love for God grows bigger. In times when I neglect the poor the opposite happens. It is as if the Holy Spirit uses those moments to form me. Kind of that interaction of faith and works that James talks about.
Rick, you know I have lots of respect for you, so I am not taking you on. I think you must live according to your own conviction on this. If you feel I must be corrected on something in this regard, please do so.
Yes, that would be my prayer. But when Rick Warren considers them as Christians in the same way as born again evangelicals, that weakens your evangelistic fervor and even your discernment.
I know many believers who were nice and friendly and even God fearing Roman Catholics who became born again believers outside the church. They now believe the RCC teachings to be unbiblical. I do agree that former Catholics like Ken should speak the truth without using language that is unnecessarily inflamatory.
But I fear Warren will cooperate on an equal spiritual footing and not be aware of the spiritual need within the Catholic people whom God loves and for whom Christ died.
My own opinion – God will sort him out on that.
BTW. For smilies you can ue on a wordpress blog see http://faq.wordpress.com/2006/06/04/what-smilies-can-i-use/
Thank you, brother.
And some people believe that Chris L. is a Biblical scholar.
I’m going to love my new toy. In reality, I’m just a stupid, simple man.
And that, my brother, is in very short supply. I believe my own reservoir runs embarassingly low.
Not to boast Eugene, but I lived in Africa in 2005-06 working in perhaps the poorest and most backward area of Kenya where the Lord led us to build a church from scratch which is still going today by the grace of God. I won’t get into all that is involved when you live in the bush in a foreign land notorious for its insecurity and despair.
Here are a few of our saints: http://www.flickr.com/photos/carrington/89220467/in/set-72157594225796394/
The point I am making is that the moment you open the gates and everyone is saved (despite salvation by works, despite praying to Mary and the saints, despite all the other paraphenalia inserted while Christ is only a part of it) then you are grossly misled. Effective? Sure. Misled? Absolutely. (BTW, I used to be a so-so Catholic before receiving the Lord).
A man must be born again – not born into religion.
Well spoken, Paul.
I am thankful with you that the church is still going and happy to hear where your heart is.
I think we should not so eaily judge others who feel called by God to do His work:
For someone who knows the need, the difficulty to work in countries like Kenya and the call of God to do somethink bout it, this statement is… uhm wierd. Meaning I do not understand how you can think this.
Gene – I agree in substance with that statement. Let me explain. Curing the worlds ills on hunger, disease, and poverty is a great challenge. But as believers, our calling is the gospel.
No where did the Apostle Paul call for these kinds of humanitarian outreaches, however our Lord commanded us to show these kinds of helps to our fellow man. What seems to be at least out of focus is the gospel as the driving motivation for this kind of enormous humanitarian outreach.
Even Jesus recognized the poor would always be on earth, but the Lord’s last words were to go and preach and make disciples. The issue is this, we must never blurr the lines between ministering to people’s physical needs and their spiritual need before God.
Those lines continue to move toward oneness.
Who cares Ken? Does a church save anyone? Did and institution die on the cross for us?
I think the finished works of Christ being the evidence of the power of the love, grace, mercy and kindness of God is sufficient to cover a multitude of sins…
To me that includes Catholics.
You make them sound like they are all un-savable with all your hate speak. Worse you make God out to not be able to forgive and save them!
iggy
A Baptist church can’t save anyone any more than The Roman Catholic Church or Muslim mosque…
Only Jesus saves people.
iggy
Rick you didn’t read Abanes article did you?
And yes Rick, the Apostles, and Jesus, called for humanitarian outreach. Sometimes without “and present the Gospel while you’re at it”. But Warren posits the whole humanitarian aspect to present the Gospel. Read Abanes stuff.
We are goin around in a circle: some believe that Catholics are “saved” Christians while others of us believe that a Catholic still needs to receive the Lord Jesus Christ and be born again.
The Catholic Church is full of erroneous teachings, covered up by pomp and ceremony. The promote concepts that are actually anti-biblical and think nothing of it (again, praying to Mary or praying to saints? How anti-biblical can you get?)
I am not disputing that many good works can be done by Catholics, or by corporations or by countries… That is a fact.
The need is definitely great… sometimes you cry at the despair around you. But the GREATEST need I experienced firsthand is not deliverance from poverty (this is a frame of mind – I can explain…) but spiritual deliverance from darkness – permanent. to see this transformation is stunning as we know.
The moment you start this “big, happy family” concept, you are simply following in the same vein of the world. Catholics should be ministered to so they understand the gospel, not simply assumed to be saved which is NOT love at all.
That’s the problem here: many people equate being nice with love. Sometimes, as the proverb says, these kisses are deceitful. Sometimes it’s the wounds (the clear confrontation that jars) of a friend (though uncomfortable) that is needed.
There is so much I want to comment/ask about this but I have to run to small group now. Perhaps later.
The question is not “Catholics” but the Church of Rome. Catholics should be able to particpate but not the institution.
Iggy – everyone knows only Jesus saves. The RCC has for many years taught that the church saves. They still blurr that line.
Before I go…. We are working through some of Chip Imgram’s stuff in our small group and this scripture came up while I was preparing:
I am sorry if spoke down to any of you just now as if I m better than you. Especially Ken and PaulC.
Yes, please, let’s get this straight. The PEACE Plan is NOT NOT NOT NOT just about humanitarian aid. Sigh.
The primary purpose of the humanitarian aid is to remove those things that are hindering the spread of the gospel so that the gospel can be preached to those who have not heard. Please read the link and documentation I provided.
RAbanes
Eugene – not taken like that at all. Honestly. Have a blessed day!
Richard – will the peace plan invite the institution of the Chrurch of Rome to particpate?
Rick,
Here is the point, the bible is clear that we should not join in marriage or unequally yoked with unbelievers.
Note that it states “unequally” ?
If Rick is heading up the peace plan then he is in charge. Now if Rick was stating that we need to join the Catholics that would concern me, but I see that Rick is saying let the Catholics join us in our peace plan.
See the difference?
If we are subject to the RCC it is being unequally yoked, if they join us it is not only a plan for peace but a back door ministry to reach “unsaved” RCC people who what to work for peace.
What Ken misses is that Rick is taking the lead not lowering himself to the RCC headship.
Also working for peace is what “Believers” should be doing and calling others to join.
Note, that when Jesus gave the sermon on the Mount, that He was speaking to almost all unregenerate Jews… not one was “yoked to the faith”… Yet, Jesus stated, “Blessed are the peacemakers, Blessed are the peacemakers, for they will be called sons of God. ” So, the call to peace in the Name of Jesus is the call that those who hear will come to Jesus and receive Peace and then go out and give it away.
Again, what most ODM’s do is twist the scripture to the point that someone like me who is subject to a worldly boss in a secular job, by their definition… is in sin. That is not only sad, but mean spirited to heap condemnation on people who are only trying to earn a living and take care of their family…
Ken also assumes that Rick accepts the “doctrines” of the RCC… yet if he did, I suspect Rick would be Catholic and not doing what he is doing. Rick loves people. He cares for them deeply. Ken places a lot that is not only unfair but ridiculous at Rick’s feet… and in the end sets a standard of abuse on others that creates stress and division instead peace.
If a Mormon came to my church, I would let them stay, I would let them join us in our “works” ministry team… I would let them serve the poor and hungry and I would work next to him or her… but I would not go to a Mormon church and work under their leading… again see the difference?
iggy
I would not. That is the difference.
Rick,
I’m not sure about inviting the “Institution.” LoL. It sounds so grandiose. I would venture to say that Roman Catholics will indeed be involved as will many other people secular/religious in the attempt to feed the poor, sandbag rivers, build orphanages, set up literacy schools, get medical supplies trucked into remote areas.
The end result will be a drastic reduction in those things that have hindered missionaries from spreading the gospel — rampant disease, poverty, illiteracy. I really do not see the problem here. Warren is using all means at his disposal to take out the walls that sin/world has erected against the spread of the Gospel.
If I wanted to go to a remote village to preach in Africa, but no one in that village could read the free Bible’s I had, but a Roman Catholic priest came along and said – “Hey, I’m an English teacher, do you want me to teach them to read? I can come with you.” Am I supposed to say, “No, you’re a Roman Catholic, go away”? Really, that makes no sense.
Or let’s say I needed to get food supplies to a village where everyone was starving so badly that they couldn’t even begin to hear me share the Gospel. I had 2,000 lbs of food, but no truck. Then, a Muslim, or Hindu, or Buddhist, or secular police officer comes along and says, “I have a truck. Do you want to use it?” Am I supposed to say: “No no no, you’re not a Christian — go away.” Once more, makes no sense.
RAbanes
The narratives you suggest are fairly benign. What if a Roamn Catholic priest offered to teach in a village where you were giving food etc.?
Would he be allowed to teach RCC doctrine if the RCC has participated in the humanitarian efforts? You surely can see the essence of the concern. Ken has posted an article that quotes RW as saying some very inclusive things about the RCC.
Rick – I think what everyone seems to be missing is the actual foundation and premise of Mr. Warren’s initiative. He actually sees Catholics as already saved brothers and sisters in the Body of Christ. The pope is just a brother, as you and I are brothers. Nothing could be further from the truth.
So now, when it comes to preaching the gospel, my question is: which version? In his view it appears that it really doesn’t matter if its Catholic, Protestant, Baptist, whatever – as long as it’s done under the banner of Jesus. This is false.
No Richard, this is not the challenge of missionary work. It is unwillingness – these other things don’t hold back a person called of God from doing missions. So that argument becomes moot. We have all heard stories of people preaching the gospel – now and in the past – in the face of the worst obstacles. But God is not hindered.
That’s why your argument about human “machinery” (ie: the truck to take food or the priest who can translate) is simply invalid.
I find it somewhat disconcerting a disingenuous when Richard and others act as if they cannot see our point of view. The “sighs” are demeaning and used by Ken and others as well. This issue is not some wild rabid fundamentalist beef jerky from which we cannot let go, and it not so nuanced as to be incomprehensible.
I fully understand Warren’s point of view and he has every right to reject mine. But I find it distasteful when part of the discussion is to color a legitimate point of view as not only invalid but as being ignorant of the facts.
Carlos,
Learn to read. Rick asked that question.
Rick,
You sound like a different person all of a sudden. What gives? Why so seemingly hostile.
Now, as for RC, can’t we all realize that there are all kinds of godly, Christ-honoring, God-fearing, Bible-believing Christians who simply have differing opinions on:
1) the category of RC
2) the state of RC “Christians”
3) the rightness/wrongness of working with RCs
4) the place of RC Church in relation to Protestants
I would suggest that all of you read the many different articles available on RC at the Christian Research Institute. These are some of the best articles around.
Warren is HARDLY the only person who feels that true Christians exist within the Roman Catholic Church. Warren’s views of Roman Catholicism are very similar to those held by a number of conservative, Bible-believing, evangelicals including myself, Ron Rhodes (who attended Saddleback when he lived in California), Gretchen Passantino-Cobern (Answers In Action), Hank Hanegraaff (president of the Christian Research Institute), and Dr. Norman Geisler, co-author with Ralph MacKenzie of Roman Catholics and Evangelicals (Baker Books, 1995).
Of particular relevance, is the book by Geisler and MacKenzie—both of whom are well-respected evangelical apologists. In their volume they discuss the many differences and similarities between Protestants and Roman Catholics. In fact, PART ONE of his book is dedicated to “Areas of Doctrinal Agreement” that lists eight major areas of doctrine that he says evangelicals share with Roman Catholics (120 pages worth). And on top of that, his entire PART THREE is dedicated to “Areas of Practical Cooperation” that includes social action, educational goals, spiritual heritage, and evangelism (see pp. 359-429).
Unfortunately, many of Warren’s critics are so vehemently anti-Roman Catholic that this becomes a kind of standard test for orthodoxy. That is unbiblical. The prejudice colors their view of other evangelical leaders—i.e., anyone who does not view RC like you is somehow compromising or heretical.
Once more, we come down to various persons making their own, personal subjective views of certain issues as the standard by which the orthodoxy of others is measured. You want to disagree? Fine.
But don’t go past that. Just say, “Hmm, I think so and so is wrong here, but he loves God and is doing some great work. I’ll go my way and do my work for my Lord in another way and wish him the best.”
R. Abanes
Rick,
Jesus did…
1. No one is right… no one is righteous… yet Jesus forgave and reconciled us/
2. He reconciled us while we were still enemies!
3. Jesus calls us to Himself so that he can work in and through us.
4. This work is not only sharing our faith and the gospel, but showing our faith and the gospel in action.
5. If one joins us to do the works of Christ, then they are being drawn to Christ.
They are one or more steps closer being in a Christian church doing the believers calling than if they stayed in their Mormon or whatever church.
Again, Jesus called unbelievers to do His works why do you deny them that also?
iggy
My sighs, BTW, are NOT at your personal point of view about RC or your choices you make in relation to them. My sighs are at the ongoing need for me and others to try to explain what Warren’s view is — a view that is getting him labeled a heretic — and why his view/choices are not heretical. THAT is what I am tired of seeing/reading.
“Warren’s views of Roman Catholicism are very similar to those held by a number of conservative, Bible-believing, evangelicals including…Ron Rhodes (who attended Saddleback when he lived in California)”
Things are not always as Richard makes them seem. Consider what Rhodes says within RICK WARREN IS SAYING PROTESTANT REFORMERS LUTHER AND CALVIN WERE WRONG in the quote from his book Reasoning from the Scriptures with Catholics.
That misrepresents the issue.
If these quotes are true, that is the core of the disagreement, not that there are true believers within the RCC. Even if I thought a person was a believer and a member of the RCC, I would not allow him to teach the sheep over which I was given responsibility.
If indeed Rick feels that the RCC is a Bible believing Christian church, I strongly disagree with him.
Dr. Carl F. H. Henry from the CRI piece Thoughts on the Conflict over Justification:
The RCC still teaches everything Trent taught when it condemned the actual Gospel of Jesus Christ. If it was apostate then, it is still apostate now.
Rick,
I hate to say this, but……that’s it? Those three quotes? Warren has said NOTHING different from many many many other Christians, nor has he said anything heretical.
There is radical debate over what this all means. Again, if you disagree with Warren, then fine, you also disagree with all those individuals I noted. And, they along with Warren will need to be condemned equally.
Those who are in the RC church and who know/love the Lord, do constitute the church.
And because there are Christians in RC, as there are in the Eastern Orthodox Church, then they are indeed denomination that represent facets of Christianity.
The same, however, CANNOT be said for Mormonism or Jehovah’s Witnesses, etc., which blatantly advance a false gospel, false Jesus, false god, and false spirit.
RAbanes
Wow, those are some really damning quotes….
Now Rick, where you the one that was saved at a Billy Graham crusade?
“This past week I preached in a great Catholic Cathedral, a funeral sermon for a close friend of mine who was a Catholic and they had several bishops and archbishops to participate, and as I sat there going through the funeral Mass that was a very beautiful thing and certainly straight and clear in the gospel I believe, there was a wonderful little priest that would tell me when to stand and when to kneel and what to do…”. ~ Billy Graham
There are more quotes here .
So should we suspect your salvation? I mean should I be talking to you as you were led to Christ by a RCC lover?
iggy
I am well aware of Billy Grahma’s views concerning the pope and the RCC and I strongly disagree with those as well.
Those type of statements are what usually break the serious essence of a discussion. Some of us consider the issue an important one, and I will again reiterate my position that I do not care what anyone thinks, whether they agree with me or not.
John MacArthur agress with me on this issue? Who cares. Warren disagrees with me on this issue? Who cares. I take an individualist stand on issues regardless of anyone else’s position and only adhering to what I personally believe the Scriptures teach.
Has anyone else noticed that the test for orthodoxy is no longer what you stand for/what you believe, but rather it has been perverted to be what you stand against/what you don’t believe? That is not biblical. That is not discernment. That is not apologetics.
RICK: I will again reiterate my position that I do not care what anyone thinks, whether they agree with me or not.
RA: Actually, Rick. You seem to care VERY MUCH whether Warren agrees with you or not. If not, why even bother dealing with it.
Moroever, Ken Silva and the other “discerners” certainly care whether or not Warren agrees with them. And since he doesn’t, then he is a heretic/compromiser, deceiver, false teacher. C’mon, it doesn’t even matter anymore what Warren actually believes in his faith, it’s simply become a mater of whether or not he hates Roman Catholicism. or whether or not he ______ (fill in subjective blank).
RAbanes
Rick,
I find it disingenuous of you to way “Who cares?” as if those quote soooo bad, then we must hold all who stated similar things to the fire also. That would include the people who were led to Christ by a false teacher….
So, really I see you as a bit hypocritical at this point.
Now I say that as a brother who loves you and without malicious and condemnation…. I say it with sadness and hopes for reconciliation between you and Rick…
iggy
Richard – the post was about the PEACE plan. And I asked about its intent and its methodology. I do not care and rarely mention Rick Warren and have just recently criticized others for defining his hospitality as sinister.
You refuse to acknowledge a legitimate view that substantively is at odds with the PEACE plan including your last comment claiming I was lying about caring what Rick Warren thinks as it pertains to what I think and believe.
And coming from you who have been so attacked and labeled as a Warren “lapdog” I feel is especially duplicitous. I have an opinion and no one else’s opinion impacts mine.
And so – I reject cooperating in spiritual endeavors and some humanitarian endeavors with the RCC because I view them as unbiblical. I do acknowledge believers within the church which does not change what they teach. (see Vatican II)
Rick,
The PEACE Plan is Warren’ brainchild, so I’m confused, I think at your statement: “I do not care and rarely mention Rick Warren.” Warren and the Peace Plan cannot be separated. So, that’s why I mention Warren in this thread so often and the issues surrounding him – especially in the way Silva ties together Warren, the PP, and the RC.
_____
Rick: You refuse to acknowledge a legitimate view that substantively is at odds with the PEACE plan including your last comment claiming I was lying about caring what Rick Warren thinks as it pertains to what I think and believe.
RA: What? What has gotten into you? It’s like you’ve taken a ken Silva pill or something. I don’t even recognize your typing from the humorous, light-hearted, agreeable RF I’ve grown to know and love. What’s going on? I am NOT refusing to acknowledge anything. I completely acknowledged it:
Where am I refusing to acknowledge anything? Ken, is that you? What did you do with RF? Call Scully and Mulder!!!!
_________
Rick: And so – I reject cooperating in spiritual endeavors and some humanitarian endeavors with the RCC because I view them as unbiblical.
RA: okay, okay, okay! Dude, lighten up. In one thread you’ve taken our relationship to one of what I thought was a fairly agreeable one, to calling me duplicitous and disingenuous! Again, I ask: What is your problem today?
RAbanes
RA – Rick is being pretty consistent here – he’s always been against the Protestant church pairing up with non-Protestant Christians and non-Christians for humanitarian purposes (a position I disagree with, BtW, but love him anyway…
“Moroever, Ken Silva and the other ‘discerners’ certainly care whether or not Warren agrees with them.”
I couldn’t care less if Warren and/or “apologists” agree with me or not. If that matters to someone then they ought not enter this battlefield.
disingenuous = seeming like you are not cognizant of the particulars of the different views on the subject, including my view that certain cooperations contribute to my eschatalogical view of a coming one world church
duplicitous = you suggesting that I care what Warren thinks when you have vehemently against that labelling of you.
I do not understand you bringing Ken into the conversation, including accusing me of taking a Ken Silva pill. Obviously you have a difficult time discerning subjects about which I feel strongly. I feel just as strongly about the RCC as I do about personal attacks on anyone, including RW.
You can confront people about personal invectives to RW, you can be criticized for defending RW’s hospitality, you can praise his humantarian efforts in Africa, and generally accept him as a brother.
But when you substantially disagree with one of his organized efforts you are told to keep quiet or disagree without going beyond that (whatever that means). That seems like the theme in other blogs of a different nature whose comments can be summarized by “Oh, you are sooo right”.
I disagree. Substantially. Nothing to do with character, motives, or even not generally praying that souls will be reached. I still disagree substantially. Put me down in the minority.
Two definitions:
1. I care about what someone is teaching.
2. I don’t care about what that person thinks about what I think.
Sowhen I say I don’t care about what anyone thinks I am referring to the latter. That is why I almost never quote Luther, or Edwards, or Spurgeon, when it comes to saying “See, I believe like they do!”.
Irrelevant.
“The end result will be a drastic reduction in those things that have hindered missionaries from spreading the gospel — rampant disease, poverty, illiteracy. I really do not see the problem here. Warren is using all means at his disposal to take out the walls that sin/world has erected against the spread of the Gospel.”
Richard, this is the problem….We can see your views and acknowledge your position, yet you don’t come across as though you can see where Rick Frueh comes from in regards to joining questionables, like the RCC, in missions.
You would say, maybe, that the RCC are not questionable, but we believe the preach a different way to be saved. And in that deliniation from core evangelical teaching, we don’t believe in standing hand to hand with them in any endeavor so that we will never be mistaken in preaching or standing for the unbiblical standards we believe the adhere to.
Train up a child…
Rick and Rich – can y’all perhaps ratchet it down a couple of notches?
Rich – Rick has serious issues with the RCC being accepted by Protestants as a Christian denomination. I think he’s wrong, and suspect he’ll be surprised someday (hopefully not in the near future, as we’re always praying about his health).
Rick has serious issues with Christians working with non-Christians and Catholics on any humanitarian endeavors. I’ve gotten a bit overheated with him on the same topic, as well, and think that he’s completely, utterly wrong on the topic. I think he’s wrong, and suspect he’ll be surprised someday.
Rick is not Ken – he’s Rick. Just as opinionated as ever, but just not opinionated in a way that you (or I) would agree with him. Let’s respect that opinion, though, without the ad homenims and hyperbole.
He’s not suggested that Warren is anathema for his position on Catholics (among other things), as Ken & co. have. That’s a key distinction, and let’s recognize it without ratcheting up the heat.
Rick,
I still would still disagree on the topic of aid and relief (which I consider to be an emergency) only being acceptable from a Protestant Christian. I’d note that the people being witnessed to are not only the ones being served…
So does that mean I can put myself down for “I don’t care what Rick Frueh thinks, unless he agrees with me (i.e. when he’s right).”
Thank you, Chris, but that doesn’t alleviate the major problems I have with you!
General question (slightly on the current thread topic, though not the OP) – when you ‘witness’ to a Catholic, do you start from the tacit assumption “You’re not a Christian and you need to come to Jesus” or “OK, you’re a Christian – what do you think about [...] Have you considered [...] etc.”?
If they join your church, do you treat them as a new convert to Christianity or a brother who has grown in wisdom as to the teachings of Jesus?
It’s like I have always contended – almost everything has subjectivity in it. I openly and before God acknowledge that Rick Warren has postively affected millions of people, but he would be the first to say he is not the “pope” as some affectionately call him.
PS – the smile face thing has given me fresh hope for my internet career!
Chris – each situation is different, however, when a person says they are a member of “so and so Catholic Church” I immediately have my doubts. Usually when a former Roman Catholic joins an evangelical church they acknowledge a Christian conversion into which they will grow.
There are exceptions.
Rick, I just felt like for some reason you were acting very hostile toward me today, and I really don’t understand why……
Richard – Nope, no hostility. Go ahead and criticize Miley Cyrus and you will see authentic hostility.
Chris has accurately outlined my position and his as well.
I think he’s wrong, and suspect he’ll be surprised someday.
Richard, you must be able to discern the difference between being passionate in regards to a subject and not passionate against the person in whom you are debating in oppisite view of the subject.
It’s like my discussions with BTT…I passionately disagree with much of his statements/views, but when he represents his views, which usually strongly opposess mine, I don’t take it personally. I accept his view as his and I present my view without looking at it personally. Even though sometimes we stand emotionally erect in the view we espouse, we should take opposite views as not personal just thought provoking.
My father has taken all his hostility out on my backside with the paddle of correction!!!!!!!!!!! It was his release valve! LOL
“can y’all perhaps ratchet it down a couple of notches?”
Chris, maybe we should call nurse Ratchet to enter the discussion! Or bring in the cow bell for some harmony!
kk – here’s my calm bottom line.
1. Rick, you and others have an opinion abut RC, how it should be viewed, and if we should work with it. Kewl. Awesome. Great. It’s acknowledged, and accepted. You also love Jesus, serve him, and do your best as a sinner saved by grace to advance the gospel as best you know how. Again, awesome. I might disagree, but we serve the same Master.
2. Warren and others have an opinion abut RC, how it should be viewed, and if we should work with it. Kewl. Awesome. Great. It’s acknowledged, and accepted. He also loves Jesus, serves him, and does his best as a sinner saved by grace to advance the gospel as best he knows how. Again, awesome. I might disagree, but we serve the same Master.
That’s where the so-called RC “battle” should end — with all of us unified in the essentials and allowing for differences of opinion regarding how we see RC. But that is not what some people are doing. Some people are using a person’s stand on RC as a measure of orthodoxy and true Christian faith.
RAbanes
Respectfully: Then were the Reformers wrong? They did not follow the above advice. They felt, as do I, that the Scriptures teach the RCC preaches a false gospel.
So those who do not agree that the RCC is anathema (Gal. 1:6-9) would not be “unified in the essentials”, being divided on THE essential–the Gospel itself.
Back in the day, Ken, I would have considered myself a Lutheran. Concordia Lutheran to be exact. We were typical Lutherans, only went to church Christmas, Easter and an occasional funeral or wedding.
Once I was born again, I thought it might be a good thing to go back to my roots, so to speak. Once there I learned that a lot of what was taught there was in lock step with some of the dogma that was brought over from the RCC. So, I couldn’t stay as Christ had set me free from what some would call bondages.
The thing I find interesting is that while you condemn Rick Warren for what he does as he reaches out to the Catholics, you walk arm in arm with “protestant” folks that some us believe hold many of the same concepts brought over from the RCC. From where I look, you are doing it only because you simply share the same common “foes”.
So Ken, how much of the RCC teachings can I adhere to without being apostate too?
If you’re curious, I agree with Rick Freuh more than I disagree…..
Some of us consider this an essential. You are asking us to overlook something, which is exactly what the issue is about. If Jesus tarries in 20 years the evangelical world will be one big happy nebulous family with many different opinions on how to be saved.
Scotty – I could not in good conscience cooperate with any church that teaches salvation by sacraments or grace through sacraments either. I was raised Lutheran as well, baptized, confirmed, altar boy, and was lost even though I was proclaimed by the church as “saved”.
That is why church membership in any church is unscriptural and dangerous because it pronounces someone saved as one of the requirements. Many church members may not be saved but they have been accepted into membership as saved.
But in the end many evangelicals feel the RCC is not Biblical in any sense. I am not given to public name calling as in John Hagee, we must be careful what we say. A fool utters his whole heart.
I would also be reisitant to any significant cooperation with today’s Calvinists unless they promised to be silent about their five points which many would not agree to do.
I believe their doctrine is evangelistically obstructionist and much of their preaching is inconsistent with their professed belief system (see my articles on Paul Washer).
RICK: Some of us consider this an essential.
RA: Seriously? Rick, taking a position on RC is nowhere NEAR an essential of the faith.
Views of the RC have NOTHING to do with one’s relationship to, or identification of, God. The entire history of the church bears this out, going as far back as the earliest statements of the faith. And before that, you’re certainly not gonna find anything in scripture that equates essential doctrines with how you view some church.
__________
KEN: So those who do not agree that the RCC is anathema (Gal. 1:6-9) would not be “unified in the essentials”, being divided on THE essential–the Gospel itself.
RA: My goodness, you have just twisted the Bible to suit your own purposes. I can’t believe you, a pastor, just did this.
Gal. 1:6-9 refers to people who actually preach a false Gospel — NOT to people who, for whatever reasons, view a complex religious structure like RC differently than YOU do. This passage in no way refers to something someone does NOT agree to. That’s Bible twisting, Ken.
UNITED in the faith is a call for believers to be united in what they personally believe about God, Jesus, the Bible, and salvation. I may disagree with you on the RCC, but that does NOT place me under some kind of condemnation! I have not changed MY faith by disagreeing with you, which is what you somehow seem to be saying. Again I say, unity in the faith is about what we are for (i.e., what we BELIEVE about God), not what we are against.
RAbanes
Richard – you do not get it.
Oh, I think I do — unfortunately.
I do not consider Warren “anathema”, but I do consider the RCC as such. And I consider certain cooperations with the RCC church as wrong because it gives their gospel credibility. It involves an essential.
Rick Warren is a believer in Jesus and a brother in Christ but is wrong on this issue in my opinion. So it has nothing to do with one’s spiritual standing in Christ.
Rick, good for you!
I wish everyone felt like that. God bless you. I appreciate your opinion.
Now, let’s move on and serve the Lord together. Oooops, wait, too bad I’m not a Christian, but rather a deceiver in the minds of some because I might feel differently than you — (or maybe I don’t).
RAbanes
This is simply a ridiculous statement coming from an alleged “Protestant” evangelical. If I have twisted the Bible, then so did the Reformers who were the original Protestants.
I have simply said those who do not agree with the “Protestant” Reformation position based e.g. on that passage cannot be united with someone like me.
This doesn’t say they are not Christians. Only God can judge that but men like me will never be in unity with them concerning that position.
And there are indeed many so-called noted “apologists” who are non-protesting Protestants. But so also there are many Christians like myself who were led by God away from that apostate Christ-hating system of works-righteousness who agree with Luther that there can be no compromise with Rome.
This these “apologists” had better face. We will never allow the RCC to be considered Christian until she publicly admits her sin, repents, abolishes her antibiblical papal system and begins to preach the actual Gospel.
Good thing it isn’t up to you, then. last time I checked, it was not ours to decide…
Which is pretty funny – it’s like one first-century Jew shunning another Jew because he doesn’t consider the Samartians to be anathema…
Chris L.,
We can also say the inverse; it’s not up to other men to simply decide the Reformers were wrong either.
“one first-century Jew shunning another Jew because he doesn’t consider the Samartians to be anathema…”
I don’t think the analogy follows because the Reformation involves the heart of the Gospel itself. Since the issues involved are exactly that same as when Luther was anathematized by what you would call his “brothers” the choice is clear.
If the Refromers position then was correct, then so it is now. Nothing has changed except public sentiment. My argument wasn’t with you it was with Richard.
He misrepresented what I said and so I simplty corrected it. As far as I’m concerned we’d best drop this because you guys will never convince me of your position concerning the RCC.
Ken, if you have time, will you please read my comment #41 and answer my questions? If I come over harsh, I got bit emotional, so please try to read past that.
But you’ve created a false dichotomy – The RCC of today has a number of distinct differences from that of Luther’s day (just as the Protestant church has changed, as well). The question isn’t whether or not the Reformers were wrong, it is whether or not the Catholics are Christians – which is truly ONLY for God to decide. You’re conflating multiple issues here – one can support the Reformation and pursue a relationship with Catholics.
I have serious issues with the RCC, as an institution, and some of its official doctrines, but I do not approach individual Catholics as if they were unbelievers, though I do encourage them to study the Bible (which the RCC tends to discourage), and to search for the answers to some rather pointed questions. In many cases, they already agree that salvation is through faith alone, and they interpret RCC doctrine to support that (though I have questioned Vatican II’s wording on the matter).
Ken,
Yes they were wrong on somethings and some of the things you attack others over they had no issue with… Calvin, Luther and many others were directly influenced by the Christian Mystics… but you seem to not believe anything happened until the Reformation… God was dead until Calvin and Luther arrived I guess is your view.
These were mere men, Ken… they had flaws and were wrong on many things.
Was Luther right to be anti semitism? Was Luther right that the book of James should be removed from the bible?
Was Calvin right to kill and murder others? I mean that is one of the Big Ten isn’t it?
Again, these were mere men. They were not perfect and were often wrong in what they did.
Were they right about all the things wring with the RCC church? Luther did not attack the parishioners, he attacked the apostate pope and corruption. Most of the RCC doctrines stayed in tact with Calvin and Luther.
Luther also may be wrong that it is “Faith alone” as it is faith in something, the Person of Christ Jesus that saves us. He also missed that were are works that follow, that are not ours but God that He does in and through us. Luther could nto reconcile becuase he had redefined something and some of them were not biblical accurate.
Now they did as good as they could… but again, they were men not the gods you lift them up to be.
iggy
Ya know, at some point, there has to break with the reformers, especially since pretty much all the ODMs are coming from theological perspectives that would have had them killed in Geneva, or denied fellowship at Wittenberg.
Luther was used of God in spite of his many faults. I sometimes believe God chose him so he could not get the credit, and yet we still want to assign him and others credit. The question should never be about what some else believes or taught, it is what has God shown you.
Everything has changed since the Reformation. No part of the church is the same and the RCC has changed as well. I am too busy trying to allow God to reform me. He continues to nail quite a number of theses’s on my door and I keep taering them down.
Tim,
You made my diet wild cherry pepsi come out my nose!
LOL!
iggy
Well, at least it wasn’t caffeine-free diet wild cherry pepsi, or you might not have survived (with a title that long).
Seriously, though, our beverages have gotten way too specialized
Ken,
You are twisting the Bible because you are misusing it to redefine “unity” to refer to what we should all be AGAINST, rather than what we should all be for.
That’s why you misuse the Bible.
Unity in essentials means unified around what we all agree about God and salvation — NOT how we all feel about the various pro/con arguments that relate to how we view a complex/multi-faceted/non-monolithic structure like the RCC.
Oh, and btw, as for the Reformers, they were right in what they did. But the RCC is NOT the same political/theological entity it was back in the 1500s. So please, don’t try to act/talk like the Reformers when it comes to the RCC — it doesn’t make you a Reformer, it makes you someone who doesn’t match up with reality if the 21st Century and who causes division over non-essential opinions.
You seek to pit Christians against other Christians under the guise of standing for truth — and all because they don’t agree with you and your various stands issues. But you’ve missed it all, my friend, you’ve missed it, big time.
And BTW, are you going to go after Chris Rosebrough and attack him for his stand on communion?? The body/blood ois REALLY present under the elements? Sounds like Luther took that one from the RCC. Go after Rosebrough. And what about impartation of grace through baptism to regenerate, which Rosebrough also believes in as a Lutheran? Go after him for that too.
You’re selective, Ken. You nit-pick and choose who/what you want to attack — not for truth’s sake, but for the sake of advancing whatever agenda you personally have about a person or thing.
RAbanes
Oh, as an addendum, NO the Reformers were not ALWAYS right, but they were trying to do their best — but fell, slipped, and stumbled along the way because they were human and sinners saved by grace. Hmmmm, sort of like……….OH, Rick Warren. But that doesn’t apply to Warren, does it, Ken?
RAbanes
Gentlemen,
It is quite obvious that the Reformers were wrong in some things. Duh. The question refers to the the issue under discussion–the Gospel itself.
If you think that the RCC teaches anything one iota different concerning their non-gospel works-righteousness sacramental system and justification since Trent you are woefuly misinformed.
Wow, a bigtime “apologist” like Richard Abanes ought to know that.
I have been away for weeks because I am moving and only read up to about post 53.
Rick, this stopped me in my tracks. You said:
Gene – I agree in substance with that statement. Let me explain. Curing the worlds ills on hunger, disease, and poverty is a great challenge. But as believers, our calling is the gospel.
This surprised me, Rick. I don’t understand how you separate the two. It is as if you are saying feeding the poor, healing the sick, clothing the naked and sheltering the homeless is not the gospel but a mere tack-on. Something that is “nice” to do if you can get around to it after the real important “stuff.” I think that is contrary to everything Jesus taught.
KS: Wow, a bigtime “apologist” like Richard Abanes ought to know that.
RA: LoL. I don’t consider myself that big time. But if you think so, well, gee, ken, thanks!!
And as for the RCC church, yes, dear Ken, it has changed — socially, economically, politically, culturally, internationally, and theologically in how it sees/treats non-Catholics.
Sorry, you’re gonna have to go beyond Chick tracts and The Two Babylons.
R. Abanes
We didn’t need the death, burial, and resurrection of Jesus Christ to do those things. They represent God’s character, but they do not in and of themselves lead to eternal life.
The final words of Jesus were to go and preach and make disciples. That is the calling of the church, the humanitarian issues should come naturally to us. Since you theology does not include a concern over the eternal destiny of anyone, then I can see why you elevate humanitarian efforts as the gospel.
Richard,
Are you physically unable to stay on point or something?
I couldn’t care less about it’s surface changes, though the current Pope is old-line in his view of non-Roman Catholics.
My point is clear: The RCC has never changed one iota from its Council of Trent concerning its anathema of sola fide and sola gratia since, as Dr. R.C. Sproul correctly stated, it anathematized the Gospel of Jesus Christ.
That individual Roman Catholics may be saved in spite of its non-gospel by reading the Bible is irrelevant. That the RCC attempts to patronize non-Roman Catholics with superficial changes at Vatican II is irrelevant.
Why don’t you actually make the time to become informed on the issue Richard. The Roman Catholic Eternal World Television Network knows a lot better than you and I what the RCC official positions are VATICAN II—THE MYTHS
They may not lead to eternal life, but they are a demonstration and physical manifestation of its temporal aspect…
Rick,
Who is saying that the eternal state of those being ministered to doesn’t matter?
Since you theology does not include a concern over the eternal destiny of anyone, then I can see why you elevate humanitarian efforts as the gospel.
Now come on, Rick. I have been away for a while but surely not long enough that you can distort my position so deeply. To the contrary, my theology is incredibly concerned over the eternal destiny of everyone. But that destiny is not contingent upon crossing a few T’s or dotting a few I’s, as you seem to think it is. Rather, the actions we do today (humanitarian or otherwise) deeply impact the kingdom of tomorrow. Our eternal destiny, IOW, is being formed even today, with every mouth fed, body clothed, and sickness healed.
Lastly, how can you say we didn’t need the death, burial, and resurrection of Jesus Christ to do any of this? It is by the power of the Holy Spirit, the same power that raised Christ from the grave, that makes all of this possible. It is the Spirit that leads us to do those things which glorify Christ and give us a hope for which the risen Jesus was but the first fruits.
In short, you cannot separate humanitarianism/good works from the gospel. Do do so leaves the gospel impotent.
peace,
Chad
Humanitarian efforts
+
Gospel preaching
=
two sides of the same coin — i.e., Christianity.
the Great Commandment
(Matthew 22:37-40) and
the Great Commission
(Matthew 28:19-20)
Also relevant:
James 1:27 – “Religion that God our Father accepts as pure and faultless is this: to look after orphans and widows in their distress and to keep oneself from being polluted by the world.”
James 2:14-17 – “What good is it, my brothers, if a man claims to have faith but has no deeds? Can such faith save him? Suppose a brother or sister is without clothes and daily food. If one of you says to him, ‘Go, I wish you well; keep warm and well fed,’ but does nothing about his physical needs, what good is it? In the same way, faith by itself, if it is not accompanied by action, is dead.”
Romans 10:15 – “And how can they preach unless they are sent? As it is written, ‘How beautiful are the feet of those who bring good news!’”
Mark 13:10
“And the gospel must first be preached to all nations.”
1 Corinthians 9:16
“When I preach the gospel, I cannot boast, for I am compelled to preach. Woe to me if I do not preach the gospel!”
Not that complicated.
R. Abanes
well said.
Yay! They’re no longer burning people at the stake – that is cause for celebration indeed. Honestly, this is a good thing indeed – I couldn’t imagine what millions of Protestants actually went through for those hundreds of years.
But my question is this… if a person or group promotes:
- praying to Mary (aka Hail Mary full of grace…)
- praying to saints (aka Saint Rocco, please protect me…)
- never needing to be born again, just simply assimilated into their belief just like a person born Italian is Italian
- believing in the power and efficacy of sacraments
… the list goes on on on and on…
How do these beliefs chord with the Gospel? Seriously, I am trying to understand the logic here.
Welcome back Chad!
That is exactly how I believe it to be.
Humanitarian efforts demonstrate the gospel.
Paul C-
We could perhaps learn much from the Catholics when it comes to prayer. There is a lot of underlying issues surrounding the invocation of the saints. There are many Christians (Protestant and Catholic) who take seriously that we are, as the writer of Hebrews exclaimed, surrounded by a great cloud of witnesses, those saints who have gone on before us. I think that when properly understood, and who is truly being venerated, some of the anxiety over this issue can be diffused.
As for the “born again” issue, this too is complicated. I have no problem with the “assimilation” model. We have an old saying even in Protestantism – “I am saved, I am being saved, and I will be saved.” There is something beautiful about understanding our life here as a journey into God and a growth, as Paul puts it, from grace to grace, from glory to glory. Baptism is not the end of the journey but the beginning.
What is wrong with believing in the power and efficacy of the sacraments? Do you believe they are powerless and worthless? Do you believe they have no value whatsoever? What value do you give them, if any? Jesus gave them great value and promised to be in our midst during the Eucharist. This is just one of many tangible ways in which our Lord is with us. It is just one more way that we can be nourished by God and grow in Spirit. Do you not agree?
peace,
Chad
Agreed.
Is someone here saying they save, rather than demonstrate?
Good question, Nathanael. I do not see anyone saying they save.
So Rick, it is impossible, by your own admission, to separate the “gospel” from humanitarianism because they go hand in hand. Therefore, Warren’s PEACE plan and all that he is doing, with whomever he chooses to do it with, is a demonstration of the power, body and blodd of Jesus Christ to heal the world. It is a demonstration of the gospel.
I would even go so far as to say that those who are doing humanitarian works who do not profess Christ as Lord are doing so unwittingly. They are proclaiming Jesus Christ – they just don’t know it….yet.
A picture frame is not the picture, but it presents the picture.
“I would even go so far as to say that those who are doing humanitarian works who do not profess Christ as Lord are doing so unwittingly. They are proclaiming Jesus Christ – they just don’t know it….yet.” :l
Wow, that would have saved the martyrs a bunch of trouble. My comment about your concern about the eternal destiny of people was not malicious, you believe all will be saved. It was meant to show that universalism does believe differently than most of evangelicalism.
Rick,
You mentioned the last command of Jesus:
Jesus commanded and showed how to care and be compassionate. It is therefor impossible in my mind to seperate the eternal saving gospel from the humanitarian effort side of it. Like Richard said two sides of the same coin.
*sigh*
Rick, I am not sure how many times I have to say it but I will say it for your benefit once more: I do not believe ALL will be saved. I believe that God, in his sovereign love and mercy, MAY choose to save everyone. Hell, once again, (and sadly) is a very real reality. There is a big difference between saying all will be saved (i.e. all roads/paths lead to God – a position I do not hold) and holding out hope that all will be saved, a position I do hold.
I would say that my hope and desire is in line with God’s hope and desire – that none should perish but all will be saved. If that makes me different than most of evangelicalism, so be it. I’m happy with that.
peace,
Chad
*sigh*
Rick, I am not sure how many times I have to say it but I will say it for your benefit once more: I do not believe ALL will be saved. I believe that God, in his sovereign love and mercy, MAY choose to save everyone. Hell, once again, (and sadly) is a very real reality. There is a big difference between saying all will be saved (i.e. all roads/paths lead to God – a position I do not hold) and holding out hope that all will be saved, a position I do hold.
I would say that my hope and desire is in line with God’s hope and desire – that none should perish but all will be saved. If that makes me different than most of evangelicalism, so be it. I’m happy with that.
peace,
Chad
Gene – you are suggesting works are a part of the gospel. Only faith which results in works (Eph.2)
lol….apparently I needed to say the above twice
Chad – I apologize. Although your position does not mirror mine, I have unintentially misrepresented your view. The explanation you just gace is much better and more Biblicalthan universalism.
Sorry, brother.
Rick,
You are going to have me sighing soon as well…
No works never did and will never save anyone. I’m just saying Jesus said we must do as He did and say what He said together with preaching Him as Saviour.
Rick, no worries. I understand that the topic is one with many nuances. I need dialog partners like yourself to help me refine my articulation of it.
peace.
How so? The rosary? Scripted prayers like Apostles’ Creed, Hail Mary, etc…? Kindly explain.
I was a Catholic and know many Catholics. Many pray to saints when they want something (ie: health, safety, etc). You are completely missing the point and meaning of Hebrews 11 when it refers to being surrounded by a cloud of witnesses. Anyone praying to saints is committing idolatry. We have a single mediator – Christ Jesus and Him alone.
What is so complicated? Jesus basically meant that a man must have his own experience, much like Peter in Matthew 16 or John 6. He was mildly rebuking Nicodemus (John 3) for using logics to come to the conclusion he was Messiah.
They have become traditional and seasonal to-do’s. I see no value in them in they way they’re practiced. What’s with infant baptism? How about confirmation?
Sure, baptism and communion are important because they are biblical. I have been baptized and we celebrate communion (not according to the teaching of transubstantiation of course).
And the Reformers roll over in their grave.
Not sure I understand… how so?
And for the record – I am not one who claims or sees the need to claim reformers as being perfect. In truth, I have more admiration for those whose names never made the headlines of history than for the big fish – though they helped move the ball downfield.
“I am not one who claims or sees the need to claim reformers as being perfect.”
No one does, it’s a red herring.
The Reformers were sacramentalists in baptism and communion, not to mention their adherence to infant baptism to the point where some Reformers would advocate death for anyone who wasn’t.
They would see the current state of protestant theology as a profound ahem reformation against the reformation.
Mt. Rushmore = The Reformers
Bloggers = The Performers
Holy Spirit = The Informer
Holy Spirit = Transformer
Emerging = Getting Warmer
Some emerging – deformer.
Emerging (now) – Legalist (former)
okay…I’m stretching it a bit here.
Paul C,
As we see there is little hope they’ll stay on point. Any point that is which isn’t their preconceived point.
Odd, that’s what they so often accuse the evil ODMs of doing. However, men like me are not the ones saying we can’t know things for certain.
Interestingly enough the base argument here is: I might not know things for certain, but I know you’re wrong.
It seems odd to me that we would approach a Catholic any differently than we would anyone else who call himself a Christian. I’ve met people who went to Baptist churches who seemed to have little understanding of the Bible and had no visible fruit in their life. I’ve also met Catholics of whom I would be very comfortable saying they had a real relationship with God.
I guess I don’t understand the need to pass these blanket judgements. If we’e going to start judging everyone by the church they attend, then I think we’d all be in bad shape as there aren’t any perfect churches or denominations.
“If we’e going to start judging everyone by the church they attend, then I think we’d all be in bad shape as there aren’t any perfect churches or denominations.”
Mormons? Jehovah’ Witness?
Of course not. Some mof us feel the RCC does not teach Biblical salvation either.
Well, I don’t consider them churches, because what they believe about Jesus is fundamentally different then what the Bible reveals. I don’t believe Catholics would dispute the nature of Jesus and the Godhead that Protestants believe.
I’m not saying that the Catholic church is a-ok. I’m just saying that I’m comfortable condemning them all.
Phil – why are there Baptists who are not saved and then become born again but have no message problem with a Biblical Baptist church.
However when Roman Catholics, like my mother-in-law, gets saved, she immediately realized the RCC was not a church that preached the born again experience? Same with Motmons who get saved etc.
That is the difference among others.
Canons of Dordt, Heidelberg, Westminster, Belgic Confession etc… The Catholics aren’t the only ones who script a faith experience.
I think that when properly understood, and who is truly being venerated, some of the anxiety over this issue can be diffused.
My biggest problem with the RCC. But I also know a lot Protestants who commit adultery in other ways. They may not venerate people but they certainly do a good job with buildings, pulpits, and style of dress.
I’ll probably get wacked for saying this but the Evangelical world has really abused this concept. Not disagreeing that acceptance of Jesus is necessary rather disagreeing that there is a formula (say this prayer ) for salvation.
Calvin and Luther both held to the tenet of Infant Baptism. As for communion well there all kinds of flavors (pun intended) to that.
Scrub
from my above comment.
Rephrase:
However when some Roman Catholics, like my mother-in-law, gets saved, they immediately realized that their local dioceses RCC was not a church that preached the born again experience?
I still haven’t gotten an answer to my comment #135. We seem to skirt issues we find difficult to address rather than being honest enough to confront them head-on. I’m not trying to trap anyone, but a biblical response should be presented.
Why is it OK for someone to pray to Saint Rocco (as an example) for protection and NOT considered OK for someone to pray to the Hindu god Krishna?
I’m not trying to condemn anyone personally – there are many terrific Catholics who are sincere and much more devout and full of good works than myself, of that I’m sure.
I guess that hold thing about Reformation was just a side show that was essentially a waste of time. They were just quibbling about non-essentials.
No one has really addressed this, but there is a spiritual element at work. The adversary wants nothing more than to lead people astray – away from the saving grace of Jesus Christ into religious observances, false doctrine, myths and man-made models.
The Catholic Church’s very foundation (not it’s not Peter) is faulty. Despite that, they have built a magnificent structure with a stunning veneer. But it is not a house of truth, built on the foundation of the apostles and prophets. This is not a condemnation, but an observable fact.
Here’s something to consider: imagine Christ in His homespun standing beside Pope Benedict XVI in the finest of garments, the red shoes, a ring that can double as a weapon which people bow and kiss, the golden shepherd’s staff and all the other paraphenalia. The phrase that comes to mind, without a word from either’s mouth: “unequally yoked.”
Here’s something to consider: imagine Christ in His homespun standing beside [insert pastor's name] in the tailored suit, the wing-tips, a tongue that can double as a weapon from which people believe every word, the brand-new Mercedes and all the other paraphenalia.
That is in some ways why it is so subtle. They don’t dispute those things, but they dispute the nature of salvation. Read Vatican II through, and then read Pope Benedicts last encyclical and see blatant heresy.
* All religions can lead to God
* A dead baby goed into limbo
* Most Catholics have to pay for their sins in pergatory
* Infant baptism saves – kinda (see above)
* Priests forgive sins
* If you die with an unconfessed mortal sin you go to hell
* When the pope speaks ek cathedra it is as authoritative as the Bible
* Tradition is equal to the Scriptures
* Mary answers prayers and has a following within the church
* Indulgences are still practiced
On and on it goes. That cannot be considered Biblical at all.
“Here’s something to consider: imagine Christ in His homespun standing beside [insert pastor’s name] in the tailored suit, the wing-tips, a tongue that can double as a weapon from which people believe every word, the brand-new Mercedes and all the other paraphenalia.”
I’ll say it again, if Jesus came back as an incarnate man I think he would live and look more like Shane Clairborne than John MacArthur. No one else here has had the guts to make that statement because you are afraid of ODM attacks!
Paul C-
Counted prayers (like the rosary) are for some a rich and powerful way to pray and encourage spiritual growth. And as chris said, most Protestant denominations have a creed they live by. In my church we recite the Apostle’s Creed each Sunday. Why would you take issue with that?
Since you say you are a former Catholic than you should know this better than I – honestly, did your priest teach you that Jesus is NOT the high priest and the sole mediator? Did your priest teach you that praying to saints is just like praying to Jesus Christ, the Son of God?
As for the born again issue, evangelicals place far too much emphasis on “personal experience.” I would argue that this is NOT what Jesus was shooting for in his chat with Nicodemus. Your salvation is not tied to how much you “feel” it – that is completely subjective.
I disagree with your devaluation of the sacraments. As a pastor I baptize infants and encourage it. Confirmation is something we as Methodists do as well. It is a period of instruction in which we invite those who have been baptized to now live up to and into their baptism. What a great moment in the life of a young person to affirm the witness and testimony of the Holy Spirit in their lives working in and through the church body gathered who have reered and nurtured him or her from the font and now onto the grave. Baptism is a work God does, not us. I also endorse and promote constant communion, or weekly at the very least. These are means of grace – ways in which we grow from grace to grace. I think Protestants can learn a lot from the RCC esteem for the sacraments and the frequency with which they are administered.
peace,
Chad
Rick,
You are by far one of the more balanced commenters here.
Amazing… a guy with some “celebrity” within his religion wants to rally us around a cause that no one would argue is biblical – yet nearly 200 posts mostly dedicated to gets an invitation…
Neil
Nathaniel – don’t let your guard down. Just when you think I’m David Banner – BOOM – I turn into the Incredible Hulk!
Thanks. I have my issues.
PS – since I made the Clairborne statement I’ve had five death threats!
Don’t worry…your boys will protect you.
Chad – I see we are very far apart on this issue.
Jesus specifically mentioned that we should not pray repetitive prayers/chants as they do not avail. Other world religions also do this (which I presume is where Catholicism got it from). When a person sins, they go to confession and the priest absolves them of their sin and says, “Now, go say 7 ‘Our Fathers’ and 5 ‘Hail Marys’”.
Let me openly confess I wasn’t much of a Catholic (more the Christmas/Easter type, if that). So far in this conversation no one can provide a valid scriptural reason that justifies praying to saints or anything other than Jesus and the Father. It is completely invalid and unscriptural. And this is just the tip of the iceberg.
All I can say to this is WOW! I’m not charismatic or your typical evangelical, just a Christian, but to downplay it is completely false.
Confirmation is not needed if someone is baptized when they actually receive the Lord.
Again, WOW!
In everything Chad, I appreciate the kind way in which you approach discussions, but I think we are very far away here on this issue.
I would actually agree with Chad to a large extent. I’m not saying we don’t need to have a personal experience, but I don’t think that’s all that there’s supposed to be.
I think the one thing that Evangelicals have gotten away from is the concept of the Church as Christ’s body. When we become a Christian, we are baptized into the body of Christ. The Church is saved as a collective whole, not a bunch of individuals with a personal savior.
I think this goes against the grain of many American Christians, because we so highly value individualism. It’s hard for us to admit that we really do need to be part of something bigger than ourselves.
KS: Things are not always as Richard makes them seem. Consider what Rhodes says within RICK WARREN IS SAYING PROTESTANT REFORMERS LUTHER AND CALVIN WERE WRONG in the quote from his book Reasoning from the Scriptures with Catholics.
RA: Another example of you twisting truth and extrapolating bizarre notions from its and pieces of information. Warren has not said the Reformers are wrong — that’s called putting words in someone’s mouth.
Warren, in fact, has said the Reformers were right: “I am praying for a second reformation of the church that will focus more on deeds than words. The first Reformation was about beliefs. This one needs to be about behavior.”
Doctrinally, the Reformers hit it right on. But as already stated, things have changed substantially from the Reformation area on a number of levels.
And as for Ron Rhodes, he is a personal friend of mine who I have known for many years. I know exactly where he stands on the RCC and on Rick Warren, since we both attended church together and Warren was our pastor until Ron moved to Texas.
I look forward to you condemning Rhodes as a deceived product of Purpose Driven. And just so you know Ron’s stand on Rick Warren, I quote his endorsement for my book on Warren:
“I’ve known Rick and Kay Warren for years, and have been amazed at the disinformation being disseminated about Rick since the success of The Purpose-Driven Life. I am therefore happy to see that Rich Abanes has written a balanced, fair analysis that separates fact from fiction regarding Warren’s ministry and teachings.”
– Dr. Ron Rhodes
President, Reasoning from the Scriptures Ministries
So, again, Ken, please do begin producing attack articles on Ron Rhodes just as you have written attack articles against me and others who support Warren.
And, btw, how can you be quoting from someone like Ron Rhodes who is so deceived by Warren? I think your discernment must be off. My new article will be: “KEN SILVA SUPPORTS DEFENDER OF RICK WARREN.” Yes, I think that’d be good. I’ll get to work on it.
R. Abanes
Paul C,
With every head bowed and every eye closed now; We just wanna thank you Lord, We just wanna praise you Lord. If you never accepted Christ as savior repeat after me in your heart ….
Would this be an example of vain repetition, or repetitive prayer??
I think the RCC practice of “praying to saints” can basically be described as intercessory prayer. Are the saints in heaven any less alive (in Christ) than Christians in this world?
I think Chad is much closer to the truth on the issue.
Peace,
Chad & Brett S: can you share with me about purgatory please?
All this arguing over who was right in the Reformers v. The RCC strikes me as slightly silly since everyone here who has weighed in so far would have been anathematized by both.
At some point the arguments which feature the Reformers are pitted against the RCC and then we’re asked “so did the Reformers die for nothing?” needs to stop, because our theology says that what they killed/wrote/advocating killing to keep guys like us from believing what we believe.
The only possible exclusion from this is the LCMS Lutherans, but considering that they’ve unequally yoked themselves to people who don’t believe in sacraments or infant baptism, or other major theologies they considered to be non-essential, I doubt they’d be all that welcome in Reformation circles.
Paul C,
Ah purgatory, very mysterious. I know very little about it, other than it’s not really a physical place, but more a state of the soul. (I like to think that I may be going through the worst of it now on my bad days)
I like the way CS Lewis described it:
[Our souls demand Purgatory, don't they? Would it not break the heart if God said to us, 'It is true, my son, that your breath smells and your rags drip with mud and slime, but we are charitable here and no one will upbraid you with these things, nor draw away from you. Enter into the joy'? Should we not reply, 'With submission, sir, and if there is no objection, I'd rather be cleaned first.' 'It may hurt, you know' - 'Even so, sir.']
Which apostle came up with this teaching? Peter, Paul, James or John? Or maybe Jesus Himself advocated this?
Just so I understand this: Jesus specifically said that “If you ask anything in my name, the Father will grant it.” But in case that doesn’t work, you can do an end-run around Jesus to ask a “specialist” (saint who focuses in one or more area of blessings) to ask Jesus to ask the Father to grant it?
Either you are joking or you are being wilfully blind.
Yes, they are dead awaiting the glorious resurrection when Jesus returns to establish His kingdom on the Earth. That’s another discussion altogether though
Any scriptural reference on purgatory you can find?
No Paul, I’m not joking.
I’m assuming that you may have other christian brothers and sisters that you would ask to pray for and with you, maybe for a sick relative or other need. Most Evangelical churches have intercessory prayer groups, or dial-a-pray hotlines, and more power to them. [Brothers, pray for us. 1 Thessalonians 5:25]
I think the bible is pretty clear that even the angels can intercede for us. And I think the book of Hebrews talks about the saints in heaven being higher in power that the angels. You’ll have to forgive me; I read my bible a lot but I’m not to good at remembering that chapter and verse thing.
You seem like a nice and intelligent guy Paul, but I’m not sure I like your view of heaven very much.
Again, Brett – I’m sure you’re a nice guy too. Not asking you to kill yourself looking up scriptures:)
It’s just that there is no reference or hint to purgatory at all.
My view on the resurrection is that it occurs when Jesus Christ returns to establish His kingdom on the earth. Do you not see it the same way?
Ken did you just defecate on the blood of the reformers? I mean now you sound more insane! LOL!
You hold them up and THE authorities, then you say that they were not perfect and call that a red herring. LOL!
You seem to not be standing on a rock, and that sand is shifting fast under you feet….
Watch out for that wave! You might be tossed about by every wave of doctrine as long if it is “Reformed”…
So now, which is it…. the reformers are infallible and authoritative or are they all red herrings and mean nothing?
Chaos and confusion when you are around… I think I will stick to reading the bible as it is easier to understand than you are.
iggy
Also women taking on the authority of Luther? Does anyone know the name of Luther’s wife, and if so, can you present her words to rebuke John Ek?
Her ministry was Luther, and he called her the morning star of Whittenburg. A godly women. Luther would not approve of what has morphed and blurred the gender lines given by God.
By the way, no less than CH Spurgeon rebuked all the infant baptizers. He said it was understandable that some like Luther would still have the smell of Roman smoke on their doctrines, but hundreds of years later all protestants should be free from such Roamn heresies!
Spurgoen, I think I might have lit one up with him!
Paul,
You trying to get me in trouble? I’m a Catholic man; I’m not allowed to be lookin’ up scriptures without approval!!
After further review, you are correct. The word “purgatory” is found nowhere in my bible. I believe in purgatory, but I can’t prove it to you from the bible. If God wants you to believe it, then he’ll show it to you. I’ve got nothing against you one way or the other.
I think 1Cor 3:15 is one of the classic texts in reference to purgatory, and there is one very small paragraph in the CCC about it. I will keep checking the bible though; maybe purgatory is in the same chapter and verse that teaches “sola scriptura”.
Purgatory is a place where dead sinners still have to suufer to redeem themselves because the blood of Christ was insufficient.
Complete fabrication I believe meant to keep people living in line both to shorten their time in pergatory and help release their loved ones since the church teaches that living saints can do good in place of their dead loved ones.
Rick,
I think that’s the idea that Luther was fighting against (rightly so in my opinion) that was allowed and perpetuated by arrogant and sinful Italian clergy in German. But that’s not the true doctrine of purgatory.
Which is why a number of the writers here don’t subscribe to systematic theologies. The Bible says about itself what it says, and extrabiblical doctrines which add to God’s words just muddle things up – whether it’s “purgatory” or “sola Scriptura”
Brett,
My understanding, from the history of Catholicism, is that the concept of ‘Purgatory’ is completely hinged upon the one reference in Peter to the Book of Enoch, where he writes:
Here, the word Peter uses for “prison” (which some connote to ‘hell’) is Tartarus, which is based on Greek mythology – the place where the dead (who are in Hades, which is the grave (Sheol in Hebrew) not Hell, as some connote it) are tormented for their sins in life.
What Peter is writing about was addressing the question about what happened to people who died before Jesus’ death, burial and resurrection (who never had a chance to accept him or his message). Because Peter did not use the word Hades or Sheol, this led to the belief that there was some sort of condition where one could be punished, but from where one could also be redeemed after death.
Because this has no support elsewhere in the accepted Jewish canon (which didn’t include Enoch) nor in Jesus’ teaching, it is reasonably argued that this was a special occurrence (Jesus giving a chance to those who could not be held accountable for rejecting him, because they could not have ever heard of him), and not a constant occurrence.
Supporting evidence would be Jesus’ words to the thief on the cross next to him – “I tell you the truth, today you will be with me in paradise.” Since the thief was (obviously) dying in a state of sin that would “require” a time in purgatory, according to RCC doctrine, there is no way that he could be with Jesus in Paradise that day. (It also suggests that the creednal clause about Jesus spending those three days in hell is mistaken, as well…)
You’ve actually hit upon my major beef with the RCC when I’m talking to Catholic (often ex-Catholic or soon-to-be-ex-Catholic) friends – and that is, as you alluded, that the RCC discourages deep scriptural knowledge and personal application of hermeneutical principals to Scripture. [Just a few months ago, I had to explain what the gospels were and where to find them in the Bible to someone who'd been a regular attender in the local diocese for a couple of decades. That ticks me off.]
If you’re going to disagree with me on a theological point, that’s OK – let’s discuss it. But if you can’t find it in the Bible (whether it’s purgatory or Sola Scriptura), then you’re already on shaky ground – Scriptural support is always key in my book.
Yeah, you do that Richard. I am amazed at how you continually try and dodge the issues. You said Rhodes’ position on the RCC is the same as Warren’s and I showed you from my own personal copy of that book I cited that it isn’t.
You’re digging yourself a huge hole here Richard.
Warren is double-minded here. Out of one side of his mouth he says the Reformers were right. They, who were involved in this Reformation at the risk of their own lives, judged the RCC apostate by Scripture.
I’m sure you understand that, e.g. Luther and later Calvin taught it was no longer Christian. Rick Warren says it is. Therefore Warren is in effect saying they were wrong and he’s talking out of both sides of his mouth.
This has nothing to do with the issue of the RCC. And you can say this until you’re blue in the face:
However, it won’t alter the fact that absolutely nothing has changed in the canons of Trent which anathamatized the Gospel itself.
I do not question Rick Warren’s motive, I question his method. I do not need Luther or Calvin, I can read. (phonetically!)
Oh, Ken. Sorry, I can’t teach you apologetics/discernment, church history, and logic on a single blog thread.
. I look forward to your articles against Ron Rhodes, who supports Warren.
RAbanes
Is that tired old crying face all ya got, Richard? I am now a face madman since Gene gave me the key to the ark. Here is a sample-
Ken, you are twisted.
Richard, you are an embarassment.
See? I love this game!!
Hello Chris,
I ‘m probably not the best source for defending purgatory, and in all honestly I didn’t bring it up. John’s Revelation is the thing that helps me make some sense of purgatory, when he speaks of how “nothing unclean shall enter heaven”. I’m not sure how he’ll do it, but I have faith and hope that God will make me clean one way or another.
That whole thing about “time off of purgatory” is largely based on symbolic language are artistic liscence, (Dante and the like) and not actual doctrine.
I would like to hear and discuss more about the RCC discouraging scripture knowledge and the like, but (maybe later) I gotta go feed my kids. Those little suckers never get tired of eating do they!
Say what you want about the RCC but nobody can put on a summer festival like those people. :p
““nothing unclean shall enter heaven”
Brett, if you read Acts chapter 10 you will read a story of how God convinced Peter that Gentiles could be saved. The Lord lowers unclean meats before the Jewish Peter and says “Rise Peter, kill and eat”.
Now Peter refuses because he knows those meats were unclean under the law of Moses, but God says “What God has cleaned do not call unclean”.
Right after that experience God calls Peter to the house of an “unclean” Gentile named Cornelius and Peter witnesses to him and he and his whole family get saved. Peter now knows Gentiles can come to Christ as well as Jews and be made clean.
Nothing unclean will enter heaven, but we who believe in the Lord Jesus have been made clean, not by works of righteosness which we have done, but by His sin cleansing blood.
So God is actually saying no one who hasn’t been washed in Christ’s blood by faith, and have their name written in the book of life will enter heaven.
And we can all say “Amen!”
Richard,
So when all else fails we play the “Oh, I’m sorry you’re just not as informed as I am” card, eh.
Way to address the actual issues.
Rich you sing.
Ken you play guitar.
I think you two should get together and write a song.
In the spirit of “Ebony and Ivory” maybe.
I just got through listening to a praise cd from Chris Pajak. He and Ken both have great voices!
“So when all else fails we play the “Oh, I’m sorry you’re just not as informed as I am” card, eh.”
Just to let everyone know I am completely informed on every subject without controversy. My humility keeps me from disclosing how restrained I keep my silo of incedible knowledge just so I can appear to be discoursing on an even playing field.
That is as much as I can reveal at this time because you all continue to need milk. Next week I’ll start with a little chicken and attempt to work you up to some extremely well cooked meat.
chris,
No thanks. Richard has to be a solo act. With him there ain’t no room on stage for anyone else.
KEN: Way to address the actual issues.
RA: I actually do, and have, and continue to address the issues – with reams of documentation (in-context, BTW). But you ignore the truth and side-step everything that doesn’t fit what you want to prove. I can’t help that.
For example, the fact is that Ron Rhodes supports Rick Warren as a pastor, Christian, and man of god doing the Lord’s work — deal with consistently and attack him, or else, don’t attack others for supporting Warren.
The fact is that the PEACE Plan is an evangelism strategy through and through for the Gospel spread — deal with it.
The fact is that Warren both professes and preaches all the doctrinal essentials of the faith — deal with it.
I could go on and on and on. The list is nearly endless.
_________
KEN: …. we play the “Oh, I’m sorry you’re just not as informed as I am” card
RA: If the shoe fits, wear it. And my friend, the loafer I handed you, fits like a glove.
RAbanes
I do not seek the praise of men. All men have feet of clay including the ones you named. Sola Scriptura, my friend, not Sola Scriptura AND those who agree with me.
Luther stood alone and refused to listen to even some of his friends. So should we, wrapped in grace, and somehow allowing humility to be our fragrance.
KEN: With him there ain’t no room on stage for anyone else.
RA: So sad.
RAbanes
And interestingly enough I feel the exact same way about you. So out of respect to Chris L. I am through trying to speak with you re. the Roman Catholic Church.
I said nothing about Rhodes not supporting Warren as a pastor. I said his view of the RCC is different, with documentation in context.
I said nothing about the PEACE plan because I believe that Warren is a synergist and his gospel presentation is perverted anyway.
And Warren’s view of the RCC is the opposite of the Protestant Reformers he says he agrees with. Anyone who can read will know that you and Warren will have to deal with it.
Now I’m going on memory here Chris so give me a little wiggle room as I’m not home and can’t dig into my computer at home. We spend the summers up north.
Purgatory became a mandatory belief with the Council of Florence…..1400 A.D. Sumthin‘. And a lot of it came from one of the two Maccabees books from the Apocrypha. Again I can’t give you chapter and verse with my other computer being 1300 miles away!!
“I do not seek the praise of men.”
Yes, I know how humble you are Rick. You’ve never listened to any men who were teachers in your Christian walk. Right.
Seriously, can you read? Where did I say I was looking for praise from men? I didn’t.
Maybe if you weren’t so busy acting childish so often here you’d be able to see all I said was that these teachers (a function which is a gift from Christ to His Church by the way) also hold the position I have reached via sola Scriptura.
Scotty – I was thinking there were some refs in Jubilees (which deals with other-worldish sort of stuff), but when I’ve pressed for Biblical basis, Peter’s been the only answer (as it also is the basis for churches which practiced praying/baptism for the dead, etc.)
Ken – you are easily offended. I learned by myself and have never listened to anyone, aspecially my wife!
My point has always been “Who care what someone else believes, it “adds nothing to me” (Paul). One guys says “MacArthur believes as do I” and another says “But Wright believes like I do”. That’s all, it is irrelevant.
OK, talk among yourselves.
And, honestly, that particular passage in Peter (along with the Genesis bit about the Nephilim) are often used in some of the most bizarre ways in developing doctrine, so it hasn’t surprised me when I’ve heard Peter’s use of Tartarus drug into the whole thing.
Is that the same as the plate of Nephite?
For anyone trying to stretch and defend the doctrine of purgatory – you need to stop wasting time. It is unbiblical and was used as a form of spiritual slavery to make people more dependent and at the mercy of the church than they already were.
According to Answers.com: “Purgatory entered official Catholic dogma in 1245, and has remained there ever since.”
Where was it before that? When did Jesus hint at it, or the prophets or even the apostles? Never – because they had no vested interest in enslaving.
The reason I brought up purgatory is because it is so OBVIOUS and non-debateable (though some surprised me). I brought it up because it stands out among a plethora of other “doctrines” as being completely false and completely the creation of a man-made, misled, darkened institution.
There are dozens of other examples of where the Catholic church misses the mark or intentionally deviates from the path of Christ in the name of Christ – “teaching for doctrines the commandments of men.”
People should not be made to feel comfortable in this blind organization (we know what Jesus said about blind leaders), but I have noticed many on this thread defend what is indefensible with flimsy arguments (ie: the defense of praying to saints which is ridiculous).
BTW what is equally interesting (and sad) is that the very people who are quick to mock fundamentalism and traditionalism in the Protestant arena (on this blog) are so quick to run to the defense of the Catholic church which is more guilty of “religion” than any other organization – by far.
Rick,
Sorry to disappoint you but you didn’t offend me. You misrepresented what I said and I simply corrected you.
Ken,
For some reason it seems much more humble coming from Rick than from you…
iggy
“Seriously, can you read?”
My previous post is backwards.
My hope is to figure out these tags before the Lord returns. Wish me luck.
Yes! A Nephilim sighting…. 10 points!
M.G.,
Right backatcha.
Paul C,
Actually, it is not true fundamentalism or traditionalism that anyone mocks it is the twisted modernist form of those things that we mock that cannot see that is as tainted and wrong as the things they attack.
One definition I am opposed to is this one… if this is the definition of fundamentalism then you can have it…
I do not see Christianity as a “militant” or political movement in this way… I see quite the opposite.
Yet I am very much a traditionalist… I am against the revisionism of tradition that people like Ken Silva do.
So basically if you took time to understand what people like me are actually protesting, we are most in the tradition of Protestantism than the “fundamentalism” of many of the ODMs.
iggy
Uhm – apples and oranges, Paul.
The last time I checked, nobody on this blog has said that fundamentalists and/or traditionalists aren’t Christians.
If we wanted to be discernmentalists, we could write reams on theological problems with the RCC. As you might note above, when we get into doctrinal discussions (in this case, purgatory), we do not support the RCC traditional teaching at odds with what is taught in Scripture.
OK – if you desire any credibility, those of us who take issue with Rick Warren, I would like Ken and Mrs. Schlueter and Mike mCorley etc. to openly rebuke Ray Comfort for being at a conference with known heretics of the exterem wing of the health and wealth movement.
http://www.inspiringexcellence.org/IE08Speakers.htm
Will we see the same ferver about the Way of the Master being compromised?
You won’t get any argument from me I agree!
I’ve been called a fundamentalist more than any other label. We won’t talk about the other labels as most of them boil down to four letter words.(grins)
I looked at the list Rick, my favorite there was Mike Murdock. Now that boy has worked money grubbing into an art form!!
Scotty – these guys are very heretical and extreme Arminians. I’ve heard Duplantis say absolute crazy things. How about saints in heaven can still go to hell if they sin? There’s a great theology.
We will see if the same consistent fervor about Rick Warren will translate to Ray Comfort and The Way of the Master ministry. Of all the sarcasm and criticism and YouTube clips against guys like Bentley, they are hypocritiacl to share a platform with them.
And they criticized Bell for the Seeds Conference, we will see how they treat one of their own. He may get what I cal “The Piper Pass”.
Paul C, you wrote:
For anyone trying to stretch and defend the doctrine of purgatory – you need to stop wasting time. It is unbiblical and was used as a form of spiritual slavery to make people more dependent and at the mercy of the church than they already were.
That is not exactly true. The doctrine of purgatory came to be as a result of theologians trying to answer the question: what happens to people
who commit post-baptismal sins?
It was not meant to be a form of spiritual slavery but a form of hope for those who thought they have completely botched it with God in this life.
I do not believe in a purgatory in the Dante sense of it. But nor do I believe hell is by necessity an eternal state of affairs for people. As C.S. Lewis put it, if there is a hell then the lock is on the inside.
As for my remarks yesterday about evangelicals placing too much emphasis on personal experience please note that I did not say personal experience is not important. Only that it should not be the definitive marker in a Christians’s life. Much of my problem with that is the individualistic emphasis placed on salvation. It becomes all about ME and about how I feel and read scripture and what I personally believe – to hell with everyone else. That smacks of egoism, not a life born again by a communal (Triune) God.
peace,
Chad
I don’t know that I could accept that. It’s been a very good cash cow for the RCC. The monies put forth for special masses, poor boxes, indulgences, in hopes of praying a loved one out of purgatory is cruel!
Chad,
Most seem to think purgatory was a RCC thing, yet the Jews taught it well before there was a RCC. Interestingly it is the period between now and the resurrection and the “eternal” salvation and judgement… it is the temporal state we call hell…
Now from there the doctrines that state one is punished for a time in penance for their sin I believe was added by Jew and the RCC.
This is why historical understanding of doctrines and where they came from is important.
Now do we through out “purgatory” as Luther did with “works” or do we look at it and the biblical teachings it has for us. The temporal “hell” is real. It holds those who wait for judgement and the eternal punishment to come… but they are not the same and should not be confused.
iggy
O whatever did God do before Ken Silva showed up?
Sorry, just had to say it…
iggy
Scotty-
The indulgences were cruel. That was the straw that broke the camel’s back for Luther. But if you’ll remember that was not an RCC doctrine per se but a greedy attempt by a single pope and a few minions to pay off the debt for a cathedral.
The bottom line is that the doctrine of purgatory (when not abused, as all doctrines can fall prey to), was meant to give hope, not slavery.
peace,
Chad
Iggy-
Good points.
Will Willimon in his newest book, Who Will Be Saved? (a fantastic book, btw), talks about the potential for a Protestant Purgatory where works is not the thrust or concern but God’s gracious work is emphasized. IOW, it is that time in which God continues to strive to save those who, like Israel, have continued to snub their Creator.
I practice an indulgence every time I converse with Chris L.
In all due respect Chad, it’s still going on today! I married a Catholic, I’m up to my armpits with Catholics, my wifes family and the portagee side of my family.
I have a cousin who built a shrine to Mary in his living room! He’s given a boat load of money to the church in hopes of getting his and my grandfather out of purgatory.
As much as we’d like to think not, the RCC hasn’t changed that much. Most of what I see coming from Rome is mostly lip service.
Scotty-
What a rich tapestry of faith you are privledged to be part of with such a diverse family. I find that to be a wonderful opportunity to grow and learn.
I agree that it is unfortunate that what a church actually teachs is not always followed through with by its adherents. Calvin and Luther, in themselves, are in many respects very different from Calvinists and Lutherans. That fact alone, however, does not make Calvin and Luther wrong, does it?
I would want to know from your cousin why he built that shrine. Have you ever asked him? What does he think he is doing in that act? Does he feel closer to God through Jesus Christ? Does he think Mary is a “god”? Those would be questions I would ask and I think (I hope) we would all be pleasantly surprised by the answers. The answers might include some of the same reasons we might say we construct an alter in the church and invite people to kneel at it to pray. Why? Do we need an alter to be near to God? Do we need to kneel? Do we need to close our eyes? Do we need to bow our heads and fold our hands?
peace,
Chad
Paul C,
I mentioned CS Lewis’ belief if purgatory because I assumed his work was admired by many here (by me anyway). Purgatory was not OBVIOUS and non-debateable to him, and he wasn’t even bound by the man-made, misled, darkened institution, like me.
I don’t understand why others think reams of information are required to dispute purgatory, when the Catholic church has only made 2-3 short sentences in defining it. We’re free to have any other theories of purgatory, but most Catholics I know spend very little time discussing it. I believe I have been saved by Jesus, but being saved to me is not just “getting to heaven”. I don’t plan on getting to heaven by piling up enough good works; only by faith in Jesus Christ as my savior. But without good works (in Christ) we can never become holy/(wholly good), which is what the bible says we must become when Jesus saves us. Jesus is not limited by just saving us from the eternal punishment due to sins, but from our sin themselves. He actually has the power to make us clean. If you want bible alone (it’s not my specialty), but I’ll try:
Brett, I truly admire your openness – it is refreshing. As I mentioned in my earlier comment, I decided to mention purgatory in the first place (what a can of worms it’s become) as a simple demonstration that this is ONE OF DOZENS of false doctrines and teachings that are maintained in the Catholic Church – not the main or only one by far.
I made the assumption that because it is so blatantly obvious that it is a man-made teaching, it might shed some light on other man-made teachings that are completely anti-biblical (not just added on, but actually contrary).
Personally, I like CS Lewis (though I’ve only read “Mere Christianity”).
One thing to note here: if you pause from defending a position here (ie: belief in the Catholic Church) and actually seek the truth as clearly revealed in the scriptures, it’s amazing how clear things become. Not trying to be arrogant or anything, but I have personally found this helpful.
Amazing… a guy with some “celebrity” within Christianity wants to rally us around a cause that no one would argue is biblical – yet nearly 250 posts mostly dedicated to gets an invitation…
Neil
Thanks Paul,
I’m with you on one thing; I don’t beleive the bible was written to defend positions.
If the bible is so amazingly clear, why do so many smart guys on this blog argue about what is says?
One of the few things that I have found pretty clear is that Jesus intentionally built and left his followers a church. Hopefully we are all part of it in some way.
Neil –
My grammarian circuit may be confuzzled today, but I’m not grasping what you’re saying…
Neil,
I’m with Chris.
You made a similar comment on #173 that had me scratching my head.
I figured it was just me.
But Chris is pretty smart.
Help us out!
Chris – ditto
I didn’t say that did I? What I mean is that what often happens is that we have bought into positions first and then try to formulate what the Bible says around that. It’s like the cart before the horse.
I believe the Bible should act as a foundation on which we stand. When you decide to move off the foundation (ie: Catholic Church) then you’re getting into a bad situation much like the religious in Jesus’ day. As I said earlier, he reprimanded them for “teaching for commandments the doctrines of men.”
This is what the Catholic Church has done and still does. All the apostles were very forceful in their language against men who were bringing false concepts into the church and lamented the sad fact that people were being led astray.
…and Rick too…I’m in good company.
Paul,
Is this is a position that you have already bought into?
I’m not trying to be a smarta** by pointing out the obvious contradiction here:
Brett – I am referring to what Paul said in Ephesians 2:
We are to be “built on the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Christ Jesus himself being the cornerstone, in whom the whole structure, being joined together, grows into a holy temple in the Lord.”
Not sure where the contradiction is at all…
The church is the pillar and foundation of truth – unfortunately not everything with a steeple on it is seen as a church in the eyes of God (trying to be gentle here). I would suggest that the Devil is not so much interested in closing churches down as he is in taking people off the foundation of truth.
The Catholic Church is NOT the foundation of truth – as evidenced by their dozens of false teachings and commandments of men. The scripture you quoted beautifully illustrates what the true church ought to be and should serve as a clarion call to those ensnared by a false belief system.
Paul,
I assure you that I am “ensnared” by no one but Jesus Christ, and I hope you will join me in praying for anyone who may be ensnared by false beliefs.
Paul C-
I wouldn’t want to say that the “church is the pillar and foundation of truth.” I understand what people are trying to say when they say that, like when they say the same thing about scripture, but the church (and scripture) is not the same as Jesus Christ.
As another Paul put it, we are cracked earthenware vessels. The church, no matter how hard we try, is not Jesus Christ and we do a HUGE disservice to the world when we try to say we are (or at least, on the same level with Christ). The church does not equal Jesus. The church (and scripture) points to that which IS truth and the foundation of truth.
Casting it in any other way leads to either triumphalism or despair. Triumphalism in that the church (run by humans) begins to think itself too highly and able to accomplish anything it wishes without the aid of the Spirt or despair in that when we fail (and we do all the time) we are left wondering, “is this all there is?”
You are right: The Catholic church is NOT the foundation of truth. But neither is my Methodist church or a Baptist church or a Presbyterian church or even Rick
(couldn’t resist, friend).
To get back on topic: When any church sees itself as the bastion and protector and keeper of TRUTH, it leads to what we see going on here: nothing getting done because we refuse to work with those “other” churches that are, as you say it, “ensnared by a false belief system.” If we practice the same humility as the Lord we all serve, we might step back and ask whether we too could be ensnared by a false belief system – for all we know, as fallible, broken vessels, we ALL could be duped. In the meantime, let us rejoice that we serve a God bigger than our faults who chose to save us WHILE we were still sinners, weak and even enemies of God. I am certain that such a God, who saves even his own enemies, can handle people “ensared in a false belief system” or are earnestly striving to love God with all their heart, soul, and mind.
peace,
Chad
Well check out this blerb from FoxNews:
http://www.foxnews.com/wires/2007Jul10/0,4670,PopeOtherChristians,00.html
“LORENZAGO DI CADORE, Italy — Pope Benedict XVI reasserted the primacy of the Roman Catholic Church, approving a document released Tuesday that says other Christian communities are either defective or not true churches and Catholicism provides the only true path to salvation.”
Thus proving ONCE AGAIN that all roads in Ecumenical Land must need lead to Rome.
Richard? Richard?
So are you asserting the “they do it too!” defense?
No Chris, I am ascerting that the Roman heierarchy has NEVER changed this claim and that Rick and others are right on in their assessment. There can be no compromise with Rome.
To clarify – Rome as in the Institution (not individuals) – which has a very well established agenda and every means necessary (physical, political, monetary) with which to see it carried out.
John – you have been very balanced in your approach. It is difficult to make clear that we love the Catholic people, we believe there are save people that still belong, but we cannot cooperate with a reilious organization that is so unbiblical in so many ways, most importantly on salvation.
Thanks for your dialogue here.
John: “… other Christian communities are either defective or not true churches and Catholicism provides the only true path to salvation.”
RA: The RC Church is wrong, wrong, wrong here, and in many many many other areas.
But this is not the issue with which I am even dealing. The issue is: How do we approach other Christians who feel differently than we do regarding the RCC, and their approach to the RCC.
The Bible does NOT give us permission to call people who disagree with us on the RCC compromisers, deceivers, liars, blind, one-world religion pushers, pawns of Satan, non-Christians, people who have turned their back on God, enemies of the cross, yada yada yada.
THAT is the issue, as far as I am concerned. Moreover, the Vatican can say all they ant to say for political and traditional purposes, but the practical outworking of such views is practically zero. You ask 100 RCs if they believe this (or anything else that comes down from the Vatican), and you’ll be luck to find a few who actually believe it — especially in America.
RAbanes
John: ….. and every means necessary (physical, political, monetary) with which to see it carried out.
RA: I SERIOUSLY doubt that….we no longer live in Europe in the 1300s. But because I disagree with you, and think it might be perfectly acceptable to work with RCs to feed a few starving kids, or build a hospital, are you going to excise me from the Body of Christ and call me a deceiver? Where is that in scripture?
RA
Well maybe “Blind” and “pawns of Satan”, but the others Nahhh.
No, Not a deceiver, Richard, but one of the deceived. Probably yes.
????
Joining Roman Catholics to feed the starving and build hospitals in an indication I’m deceieved?
…deceived
(spel chek is brokin)
Richard, please. One of the more easily and independantly provable charasterics of the Church of Rome. I guess kings, presidents and prime ministers drop by the Vatican just to see the art or every religious demonations have their own banks or country for that matter! LOL.
JH: No, Not a deceiver, Richard, but one of the deceived. Probably yes.
RA: Wow. That’s all I can say at this point.
JH: I guess kings, presidents and prime ministers drop by the Vatican just to see the art or every religious demonations have their own banks or country for that matter! LOL.
RA: Uhm…..it’s a Independent State. The Vatican is an Independent State. See? My goodness, it doesn’t mean that the RCC is going to take over the world! Oh, my….I weary now. cyas.
Nathanael,
I have no reason to think that the RCC does not have individuals truely concerned and filled with compassion for the poor. You are deceived, however, if you think money or resources from Rome (or their local branch office) do not come with strings attached.
My overall point is this. If you believe God is calling you to service for the poor or any other ministry He is a big God and will provide your needs, even work miracles. He has proven it over and over. But, there is no need to join with apostate institutions. Individuals of like minds, perhaps yes, institutions, no. Just because someone offers help does not mean it is expedient, wise or best in the end to accept it (Sanballat, anyone?). Much less to seek said help out. I have personally met the former Archbishop of New Orleans, a fine fellow, and we have a new and very nice and popular Archbishop here in Houston. I would not yoke myself with the institution they represent on any project but would have them over for dinner and be their friend easily.
No problem. That’s your call.
I just find it a bit extreme to then conclude that those who would are deceived.
I never said I believed that Richard. You are attempting to deflect attention from my core argument by stating things I have never claimed. But, as there is both a political and religious element to the Antichrist’s coming One World Government, and as the papacy is a significant world player in both the political and religious arenas (and if we can’t agree there Richard I will have to blatantly question your intellectual integrity), it will by default, have to play **some** part in it. Some, including myself, believe a major part in bringing about a one world religion.
OMG! Did someone say “conspiracy?” Let the ridicule begin.
OK. I could see how you might think that being deceived and all.
touché
and “Uhmm” right back at cha! My point exactly. You don’t see heads of state in a revolving door to see the King of Andorra, for example.
One final thought and I have to get back to work. When I lived in New Orleans I had a real call to get involved in the homeless ministry. Being a Baptist I, of course immediatly contacted our local SBC homeless mission to volunteer. Well they guy there was a jerk and seemed to care less about needing my help. I was so desperate to get involved I had contacted the N.O. Catholic charities to set up an interview to go work at their mission. The ultimate pragmatic decision. But over the weekend I found an article in the news paper about how the Union of Gospel Missions was sending a director to start up a mission in N.O. for the homeless. I called the next day, started out helping to sweep the floors and ended up on the board of directors a year or so later — all without having to sacrifice any principles or join with any group I had serious doctrinal issues with. God is good and God provides.
John: …. (and if we can’t agree there Richard I will have to blatantly question your intellectual integrity), it will by default, have to play **some** part in it. Some, including myself, believe a major part in bringing about a one world religion.
RA: Then I guess you must go ahead and question the intellectual “integrity” of a whole lot of Christians who don’t share your eschatology. Point made yet again.
RAbanes
JH: You don’t see heads of state in a revolving door to see the King of Andorra, for example.
RA: It’s your interpretation of events in the world, IMHO, that is a bit….. oh nevermind.
“Then I guess you must go ahead and question the intellectual “integrity” of a whole lot of Christians who don’t share your eschatology.”
I do. Severely!
OK guys, you’ve convinced me. But can someone please send out another clarion call when this big world takeover occurs. I may be in good position to call my branch office to have a new roof put on my house, and the old truck paid off.
“But can someone please send out another clarion call when this big world takeover occurs.”
Brett – in all seriousness and humility I believe when that day arrives it will be too late. That is what I believe and I take no pride in it. You can love Jesus and not agree with me, but if my eschatology is even close to truth deception is now solidifying around the world.
My eschotology:
“You also must be ready, for the Son of Man is coming at an hour you do not expect” (Luke 12:40 ESV).
Am I looking for signs of his coming?
Or am I looking for Him?
Rick: ….. if my eschatology is even close to truth deception is now solidifying around the world.
RA: Rick, I love you, bro, but would you or anyone else want a list as long as a boulevard of this same comment being made by innumerable end-time watchers going as far back as the first century? Take a look at my book End-Time Visions: The Road to Armageddon? and/or Gary DeMar’s last Days Madness.
RAbanes
Rick,
Deception has always been pretty solid around the world. I suppose that’s why the world needs Christ to redeem it.
“but would you or anyone else want a list as long as a boulevard of this same comment being made by innumerable end-time watchers going as far back as the first century? ”
They were all wrong and I can prove it!
Look, I think we do a great disservice by using terms such as “tools of Satan” and all the rest. Everytime you exceed the speed limit we are tools of Satan and not a good witness for Christ. So I judge no one in their eschatology, I just humbly know I am correct. Be ready for the great disappointment of 2008.
Richard, under most circumstances I would just say we have a difference of opinion and let it go, but conspiracy theories aside, in regards to Rome’s influence in World politics and your continual denial thereof I really have to question your supposed academic neutrality here. I mean really, Pope Paul was credited with being a major factor in bringing down communism for Pete’s sake. And again, the steady stream of politicians to the Vatican is just tourist traffic? Just google “vatican politics” if you have a few years to spare. Sheesh! Again, laying aside the conspiracy theories and eschatological implications, this particular line of denial borders on the ludicrous.
Considering your “all-inclusive” view of Christianity, I honestly don’t know what light would be shed. Sure, there have been people in every age that thought Christ would return in their lifetime. We can start with the apostles themselves and cover the spectrum all the way to people right now holed up in Texas thinking He’ll be here on August 6th (apologies to anyone from Texas – not sure why that state came to my mind first…)
Sure, but why you would wilfully be deceived even when shown the truth is another thing altogether. Most of the parables and Christ’s admonitions were to warn His followers to NOT be deceived and to not fall asleep (spiritually speaking).
I do mnot like the RCC, but I do like incense. Really. I have often used incense in my prayer room whcih everyone can smell. It sometimes is ma way to dull my senses to this world and allow my spirit to seek God.
Uh-oh…does that make me contemplative??
JH: Again, laying aside the conspiracy theories and eschatological implications, this particular line of denial borders on the ludicrous.
RA: I’ve never denied the RCC “influence in World politics.” Where did I do that? I just said it was an Independent State! That would make it political and player in the international scene. Okay, so what?
_____________
PAUL: Considering your “all-inclusive” view of Christianity, I honestly don’t know what light would be shed.
RA: Really? I will expect an apology for this one since you’ve just falsely accused me.
I have no “’all-inclusive’ view of Christianity.” Christianity is the only true religion. Jesus is the ONLY way of salvation (John 14:6). Others who do not acknowledge Christ need to have the gospel — the life, death, and resurrection of Jesus Christ 1 Corinthians 15:1-4) — preached to them. And they must accept Christ as their personal Lord and Savior, understanding that it is by his death on the cross for their sins that they are freed from the penalty of death, and made alive by the Holy Spirit unto eternal life, which is a FREE gift of God, since we are saved by grace alone through faith alone. Now, DO, please tell me, where my “all-inclusive” Christianity exists. Feel free to use any of my writings. Otherwise, I expect an apology.
R. Abanes
“I expect an apology.”
I am sorry you have an all inclusive view of Christianity. Do you still have that picture of Joseph Smith in your prayer closet?
BTW – Chris is going on vacation, can Tim provide the dead horse thing when it is needed? I believe everyone has presented their view with sufficient force and conviction. See Richard, I can be strong and passionate without loosing my Christianity.
You need to wait until SOL attacks some unbeliever and you will see the correction vitriol about which people know and love me. Until then – smiley faces!
I am not referring to other “world religions” like Hinduism and Buddhism, but the fact that you don’t seem to acknowledge gross deception – beginning with the Catholic Church – in Christianity itself. If I am mistaken then I am sorry Richard, but the fact you don’t see the Catholic Church and apostate is concerning, hence my reference to “all inclusive” (ie: you’ll overlook all the false elements)
Paul: … the fact you don’t see the Catholic Church and apostate is concerning, hence my reference to “all inclusive” (i.e.: you’ll overlook all the false elements)
RA:
1. I have NEVER said I don’t see the errors and false teachings in the RCC. So that is not a “fact” of any kind. I have NEVER overlooked the false elements. I am a ex-RC who LEFT the RC church over its false elements, as well as the abuse I suffered from nuns/priests (not sexual, THANK GOD), and the hypocrisy I lived with as a child. So, please you’re stepping on some sensitive toes here when it comes what I’ve had to go through with the Catholic church, and how I have had to come to grips with how God was misrepresented to me by them. I know full well, as only an ex-Catholic can know, what the problems with the RCC are. I lived through it. Mmkay. Thank you for understanding.
2. Taking a different approach to how we deal as Christians/Protestants with the RCC and its errors (or false teachings) does NOT make me or anyone else “all-inclusive.” Such is a mis-use in apologetic circles of that term.
RAbanes
I’m an ex-Catholic as well – though not a very good one. Sorry to hear about what you went through.
If “Taking a different approach”, as you say, involves working hand-in-hand with an apostate church, thinking that all is OK (as Rick Warren seems to hint at in the fact he’s willing to acknowledge them as being in Christ like every other Christian despite numerous anti-biblical doctrines – very wierd??) then I think you are on some seriously dangerous ground.
I have no problem with humanitarian outreach, nor do I think anyone commenting on this thread does, but when it is done in the name of Christ and multiple Christs are believed and promoted, it’s called “confusion”. I guess we’ll see how it plays out.
Warren has a certain level of “celebrity” within American Christianity. Using this pulpit as it were he has launched a plan to try and get all the Christian horses pulling in the same direction. A direction that no one has provided any biblical objection to…
Yet here we are approaching 300 comments and the issue that is being focussed is the validity of including catholics in the call to help address poverty and spread the Gospel of Christ.
Seriously, if God himself came down and presented the good news some blogger would bitch about him not doing it the way THEY think it should be done.
Neil
Ah, yes – I understand, and agree wholeheartedly! Sorry, it’s been a looooooooong week (and it’s only Tuesday).
I’m sure they’ll bitch more about the fact that you used the word “bitch”…
I do agree with your point, though. I just picture the ODM’s at the Eschaton complaining to God – “what do you think you’re doing letting them make it through!”
Neil ,- you have minimized an issue about which others feel strongly. That is not fair and is self serving for your particular view point.
Perhaps Jesus might come down and say that the RCC has deceived many and why did you not separate yourselves.
I’ll be waiting along with you, Brett, since I’m Partial-Preterist, and tend to think that a good number of Christians are reading newspapers looking for what Josephus wrote about 1950 years ago…
Yeah, I thought about that… it’s a risk I’m willing to take.
Neil
Allow me to be the lemming…
Neil I can’t believe you used that word just now. That’s completely unacceptable and, to be honest, very unbecoming of a Christian. My brother, sweet and bitter waters should not proceed from the same source. Make up your mind and stop being double-minded.
How was that?
I suppose that may be true… though it was not my motivation I can say “Now ya know how I felt when you belittles my interest in the Imago Dei…” but that’s after the fact.
The point remains, however, instead of addressing Ken’s snarkiness in his post, or even the merits of what Warren wants to accomplish, this whole thing has been derailed.
Neil
Rick,
I think I’ll just quote from the primary passage we’ve got on the logistics of Judgment Day:
This is not to base all of theology off of one passage, but Jesus must have had a bit of prioritization to include this and not “I tell you the truth, because your theology was correct and you separated from those whose interpretations were less correct than yours, you are blessed…”
very good… what this site needs is a discussion on acceptable language of the Christian… then again, maybe not.
I do not see your point. That prophetic narrative is works if taken alone.
It is works if taken alone, but it is interesting to note that the King (who alone does the separating) does not seem to be the least bit concerned about the creed to which I adhere.
Chris L – not sure I follow here (it’s been a long day). I don’t think that anyone here is arguing that the things outlined in that challenging and critical parable are unimportant. Did you get that from something posted?
I think the discrepancy is this: some believe that those that are Catholics are already saved and A-OK despite all their false beliefs (a la Rick Warren’s statements) while others say, not so fast, the Catholic church is an apostate religious institution that has left the foundation completely.
You miss the ENTIRE point. It is not simply a matter of subscribing to different creeds, but much, much deeper than that. Oh well – I think I’ve said enough.
I could quote Jesus’s words to the rich young ruler and contend that in order to truly follow Jesus we must sell all that we have, not have the right theology. That is an old agrument.
Sorry, Paul.
I was not trying to sum up the ENTIRE point.
I was merely stating that it is interesting…
What is the record # of comments?
666
As merely an observer (sans my one comment) over the course of this thread I just wanted to point out that I appreciate much of the comments. The discourse was cordial and respectful.
Anyways just wanted to point that out.
But you notice, Rick (and Paul) that Jesus’ teachings and admonitions are not focused upon having the perfectly correct soteriology, yet somehow we treat that as the unforgivable sin, unable to be covered by God’s grace.
Paul:
But you pulled a bait-and-switch here – the first half (some believe that those that are Catholics are already saved) and the second half (the Catholic church is an apostate religious institution) have different subjects – the first is focused upon the individuals, and the second is focused upon the institution (inferring that accepting the individual grants full acceptance of the whole).
Ratzinger’s comments regarding the primacy of the RCC pretty much makes it obvious that the RCC isn’t teaming up (as an institution) with any Protestant organizations, and I wouldn’t infer RW’s inclusion of Catholics as carte blanche acceptance of the RCC (which is how it is portrayed). In fact, my personal experience has been that when I have worked with Catholics in the past, it has given far more opportunities to discuss all of the gospel with them than when I come from the standpoint of “you’re not a Christian, you’re a Catholic…” (which was me, at one time).
I feel compelled at this point to admit I bought Pope Bendicts book “Jesus of Nazareth” and it was good. I also appreciate some of Scott Hahn’s teachings.
There, I am absolved.
I’m not positive, but I think it was 450 on the yoga thread (which actually tended to stay on topic, unlike this one), though it got pretty boring with amy & Ken not answering which body positions were ontologically evil.
/ducks to avoid thrown objects
PAUL: I think the discrepancy is this: some believe that those that are Catholics are already saved and A-OK despite all their false beliefs (a la Rick Warren’s statements)
RA: Not so fast. Stop speaking in broad-brush generalities that obscure subtlety of thought, nuances, and gray areas. The world/people is not some black and white sketch. With you and others complex issues are reduced down to either all this, or all that. But there is more to the picture than what makes you comfortable.
Warren has NEVER said ALL catholics are saved, nor has he said RCC is “A-OK despite all their false beliefs.” It’s not that simplistic. And the problem is trying to make it that simplistic.
Legitimate apologists/discerners since long ago have put the RCC in a category by itself — i.e., an odd mixture of decidedly orthodox views, blended with erroneous concepts, coupled with a broad base of who/what Catholics are throughout the world. I suggest you read Roman Catholics and Evangelicals (Baker Books, 1995) by Dr. Norman Geisler, co-author with Ralph MacKenzie.
Even Walter Martin didn’t take the extreme anti-RCC stand now being professed some people. And he ESPECIALLY would have NEVER condoned using one’s view of the RCC as some sort of measure of orthodoxy, intellectual integrity, or faithfulness to the Gospel.
Martin never labeled the RCC a cult. Why if they are so apostate as you and others say? he used all kinds of other words, but NEVER a cult, which he defined as: “A cult, then, is a group of people polarized around someone’s interpretation of the Bible and is characterized by major deviations from orthodox Christianity relative to the cardinal doctrines of the Christian faith, particularly the fact that God became man in Jesus Christ (Walter Martin, The Rise of the Cults, p. 12).
Did you catch this phrase: “…major deviations from orthodox Christianity relative to the cardinal doctrines of the Christian faith.” So, whatever the RCC is, it’s not this, according to Walter Martin. We are left with it being a Christian denomination (as Rick Warren and others consider it to be) in serious error on a number of fronts and at various levels of depth.
Argue with Walter Martin.
RAbanes
Oh how about here:
and here:
or here:
Don’t you read your own comments?
JH: Moreover, the Vatican can say all they want to say for political and traditional purposes, but the practical outworking of such views is practically zero.
RA: Excuse me, but I am referring here to the oft-repeated bizarre conspiracy theory usually associated with the RCC and the one world government. We live in an atheistic/agnostic world wherein the business/political powers that be trump the RCC at every turn.
__________
JH: [quoting me] I SERIOUSLY doubt that….we no longer live in Europe in the 1300s.
RA: See above.
____________
JH: Don’t you read your own comments?
RA: No, John. I don’t. I don’t read them at all. I have no idea what I write. LoL. My writing is the not the problem – it’s your reading.
PAUL: I think the discrepancy is this: some believe that those that are Catholics are already saved and A-OK despite all their false beliefs (a la Rick Warren’s statements)
RA: Not so fast. Stop speaking in broad-brush generalities that obscure subtlety of thought, nuances, and gray areas. The world/people is not some black and white sketch. With you (and others), complex issues are reduced down to either “all this,” or “all that.” But there is more to the picture than what makes you comfortable.
Warren has NEVER said ALL Catholics are saved, nor has he said RCC is “A-OK despite all their false beliefs.” It’s not that simplistic. And the problem is people trying to make it that simplistic.
Legitimate apologists/discerners since long ago have put the RCC in a category by itself — i.e., an odd mixture of decidedly orthodox views, blended with erroneous concepts, coupled with a broad base of who/what Catholics are throughout the world. I suggest you read Roman Catholics and Evangelicals (Baker Books, 1995) by Dr. Norman Geisler, co-author with Ralph MacKenzie.
Even Walter Martin didn’t take the extreme anti-RCC stand now being professed some people. And he ESPECIALLY would have NEVER condoned using one’s view of the RCC as some sort of measure of orthodoxy, intellectual integrity, or faithfulness to the Gospel.
Martin never labeled the RCC a cult. Why if they are so apostate as you and others say? He used all kinds of other words for the RCC, but NEVER a cult, which he defined as:
Did you catch this phrase: “…major deviations from orthodox Christianity relative to the cardinal doctrines of the Christian faith.” So, whatever the RCC is, it’s not this, according to Walter Martin. We are left with it being a Christian denomination (as Rick Warren and others consider it to be) in serious error on a number of fronts and at various levels of depth.
Argue with Walter Martin.
RAbanes
Chris L: “I tell you the truth, because your theology was correct and you separated from those whose interpretations were less correct”
Exactly! Thats why I think that catholicism/sacramentalism for all its faults (chief among them being sinful, hypocritical catholics) has always fought against the original heresy of gnosticism, which has many repetitions. Gnosticism teaches the seductive message that the material world in not important; and the only thing that truly counts is the spiritual, the GNOSIS, that lifts the elect above others. God entered the world to redeem us in our humanity not to remove us from it. I like historian George Weigel’s description:
I would agree with that statement.
Did anyone read a reference to “conspiracy theories” in RA’s first comment? Anyone?
I’m going to frame that!
JH: I’m going to frame that!
RA: Don’t frame it. Just change.
Ive always wondered why Jacob Prasch views on Rick have never been commented on,Kens understated in comparision…
He spoke at my church not long ago hmmmm he was interesting..Clever guy but woweeee!!
Andy: Ive always wondered why Jacob Prasch views on Rick have never been commented on, Kens understated in comparision…
RA: They have see my article on PRASCH titled Moriel MInistries: My Way is God’s Way – most enlightening is how he responded to me (see end of my article).
RAbanes
Haha i like Jacob about some things, he knows alotttttttttttttttt of stuff about Judaism and the Midrash etc a awful lot,i dare say he could give Chris L a run for his money on that subject…
But he can be pretty harsh..
PS my comment on ur submission wasn’t bing cruel just seemed a little tit for tat??
Hahaha some may say he as your number Richard
“Is this man for real?
Our decision is to ignore him as a lost cause as we can only engage with people who behave in a rational manner.”
http://simplyagape.blogspot.com/2008/03/more-on-jacob-prasch-and-richard-abanes.html
two sides to a story after all
PS I should of added i don’t disagree with much Jacob says, just sometimes the manner he says it in..
I just found it odd that he’s not been mentioned here,considering he takes a much harder line then Ken does..
Does all this mean, then, that I cannot join forces with an “unsaved” person to fight poverty, or abortion?
And how close must a person’s soteriology fit mine before I may work with them – say someone holds to a vicarious atonement, but believes in baptismal regeneration? – can I work with that person?
Neil
Neil,
That can of worms has been opened so many times, the worms have all escaped.