It seems that Warren apologist Richard Abanes has not yet retired, and he is still carrying on his old antices ie defending Rick Warren, all without using the Scriptures of course. Here is an interesting article by Drew Kerr published this year against Richard Abanes' defense of the indefensible once again, and the exchange over in the comment section is certainly enlightening.
After looking through various comments by Abanes on various blogs, I can only say that all I see is someone so blind that he cannot even see his own pride and arrogance. His self-righteousness attitude informs his perpetual "crusade" against Christian pastors (Pastor Ken Silva, Dr. Kim Riddlebarger, Pastor John MacArthur etc.), watchmen ministries (Lighthouse Trails Research etc.) and an entire denominaion (Chuck Smith and Calvary Chapel), whoever opposes Rick Warren will feel his wrath, regardless of who or what they are. I just can't understand how such an individual can function really, so deluded that he cannot even see his own pride. And mind you, it is not God or the Scriptures he is defending, but one man who does in fact severely compromises the faith, as a couple of us have exposed his heresy via books. Not to mention the outright denial of the Gospel at the World Economic Forum at Davos where he cheerfully said in the Interfaith session chaired by former British Primer Minister Tony Bair that "The future is not about secularism, but religious pluralism". It is hoped that Abanes will repent of his defence of heresy and circumlocution, and submits himself to the Word of God.
15 comments:
As per Davos -
Defining the church of Jesus Christ as a fertile mercantile field is the ultimate compromise. It is reverse boycottism reasoning that the commerce industry should view the church as consumers instead of followers of Jesus Christ.
I still contend Rick Warren is well meaning however his affable personality has lead to compromise. I have my doubts as to whether God ever intended any man to hold such sway over millions of people. One slight directional mistake can evolve into a giant movement of gospel dilution.
Hello Rick [Frueh],
I agree that Rick Warren is well-meaning. However, good intentions have never saved anyone, ever. As it has been said, "The road to hell is paved with good intentions".
With regards as to whether God 'intended any man to hold such sway over millions', if by that you mean as their de facto pope, then no. If by that you mean that it is God's will that certain individuals have came to influence millions of people, then it is undeniable that there are many such people, like Martin Luther, John Calvin, John Bunyan etc, who have influenced countless millions of people throughout history. Not to mention Augustine and the Apostles themselves, and of course our Lord Jesus Christ Himself.
So no, I have no problem with anyone influencing millions of people in the latter sense, but most definitely I have a problem with the statement as interpreted in the former sense. And with much influence comes great responsibility, and that is why James wrote in his epistle that not many should be teachers (Jas. 3:1). Due to his large sphere of influence, Warren has a lot of responsibility, and thus he has a lot to be held accountable to God for as he slides towards apostasy.
> I can only say that all I see is someone so blind that he cannot even see his own pride and arrogance.
Well, Daniel, I would be most appreciative if you'd actually quote some of these things, rather than just making the accusation. I'll review any examples, and see if either: a) I somehow did indeed stray into arrogance/pride; or b) word something in a way that was taken not how I meant it (since I am sure that you know how difficult it sometimes can be to effectively communicate in this blog medium).
I will say, however, that your words are terrifically harsh and seem to be a judgment beyond your field of knowledge -- i.e., how can you read my heart? Interesting.
_____________
> The stench of self-righteousness just radiates from him
Really? An actual stench? And a digital stench at that. Incredible. :-) Might you care to explain how I'm displaying self righteousness? Is it self-righteous to present disagreements with pastors and others? Is anyone beyond criticism? That sounds a bit like idolatry to me -- and not on my part.
_____________
> opposes Rick Warren will feel his wrath, regardless of who or what they are.
I hardly see anything I have said as..... "wrath."
_____________
>I just can't understand how such an individual can function really, so deluded
And might you list ... say, three things about which I am deluded? That would be enlightening. Just curious here.
______________
> it is not God or the Scriptures he is defending, but one man who does in fact severely compromises the faith, as a couple of us have exposed his heresy via books.
I suggest you familiarize yourself with my body of work, rather than simply making this kind of accusation, which is totally unfounded. My work and life have been devoted to defending truth, scripture, and Christian doctrines related to God, Christ, and salvation.
Recently I have been dealing quite a bit with Warren because what is happening around him is a perfect example of how NOT to do apologetics. This is an important issue - Warren is simply a side issue that has served as a catalyst to talk about "TRUTH" as well as the right and wrong way to defend the faith.
Now, with my newest book on Eckhart Tolle, I am moving away from the Warren issues, and on to other matters. Unlike the opinion of some people, there is more to life than Rick Warren, who is routinely misrepresented. Ahh well.
________________
> I know that this may be giving publicity-hungry Abanes some spotlight,
Ahhh...more accusation...personal attacks ... statements regarding my motivation of the heart. Interesting.
____________
> ... but it is severely hoped that he repents of his defence of heresy and circumlocution, and submits himself to the Word of God.
First, I have nothing to repent of since I have NEVER defended heresy or circumlocution (nice big word, huh?) :-) .
Second, I have been submitting myself to the Word of God for nearly 30 years now. If you can show otherwise by my doctrinal views and/or my lifestyle conduct -- please do so.
My books are available for doctrinal evaluation. TY in advance.
Hello Richard,
thanks for dropping by. I am rather busy at the moment, so I will respond to your comment later.
Daniel,
More of the same, brother! Abanes asks: "I will say, however, that your words are terrifically harsh and seem to be a judgment beyond your field of knowledge -- i.e., how can you read my heart? Interesting."
He has possibly confused your Christian knowledge and discernment which enables you to approve what is excellent, with the impossible: the reading of one's heart.
~Or~
He has drug out the red herring again in an attempt to lead you away from his stinky trail - or as you have put it: stench!
Either way, don't fall for his tricks (not that you would!). Remember what our Lord said as recorded in Matthew 12:33-37
“Either make the tree good and its fruit good, or make the tree bad and its fruit bad, for the tree is known by its fruit. You brood of vipers! How can you speak good, when you are evil? For out of the abundance of the heart the mouth speaks. The good person out of his good treasure brings forth good, and the evil person out of his evil treasure brings forth evil. I tell you, on the day of judgment people will give account for every careless word they speak, for by your words you will be justified, and by your words you will be condemned.”
You have rightly judged him based on what he has said and written; rightly concluding as you have!
Press on, brother! Your article was received with joy - do more of them.
>You have rightly judged him based on what he has said and written; rightly concluding as you have!
Mmmmmmmm. More stenchy stuff. Dude, seriously. Just asking for some examples.
And Matt. 12:33-37 really has nothing to do with anything at this point -- except perhaps in relation to those who would make false accusations against others and their words come back to haunt them.
"Dude, seriously. Just asking for some examples."
If Daniel's post states that his position is that you are blind to your offenses, then he would be inconsistent to give you examples - he believe's you're blind to them.
P.S. No one will be surprised to hear that you have a new book defending Eckhart Tolle and his views. If you were willing to ride Purpose Driven's wave to riches, no one will be surprised to hear that you are now riding Tolle's wave to fame. Wow, you really do believe in the "Power of Now!"
STEPHEN: P.S. No one will be surprised to hear that you have a new book defending Eckhart Tolle and his views. ........
ROFL!! And exactly how long did you take investigating how I am now "defending Eckhart Tolle and his views." You have just proved so many of my statements so beautifully. I thank you. :-)
You're the one who said it a couple of comments ago: "Now, with my newest book on Eckhart Tolle, I am moving away from the Warren issues, and on to other matters. Unlike the opinion of some people, there is more to life than Rick Warren, who is routinely misrepresented. Ahh well."
So, the answer is, not long at all!
ROFL x 100.
You have no idea how true your words are: "not long at all!"
I do wish you the best always. It was Grrreat meeting you. :-)
Seriously, Stephen, all kidding aside, you should probably be aware of the fact that my book on Tolle is a detailed refutation of his teachings as well as a biblical response to the New Age Movement's foundational beliefs. Just FYI. I thought you might to know that.
http://abanes.com/An_New_Earth_Tolle_Abanes.html
"Seriously, Stephen, all kidding aside, you should probably be aware of the fact that my book on Tolle is a detailed refutation of his teachings as well as a biblical response..."
You can't even discern the need for a detailed refutation of Rick Warren's teachings, nor a biblical response to them. So your credibility in providing a biblical response to the new age movement or anything for that matter is shot - no matter how much you pat yourself on the back!
>No vulgarities or character assasination (Daniel Chew's "rules on commenting").
WIKI -- Character Assassination: "Character assassination is an intentional attempt to influence the portrayal or reputation of a particular person, whether living or a historical personage, in such a way as to cause others to develop an extremely negative, unethical or unappealing perception of him or her"
DANIEL CHEW: "[Abanes is] so deluded that he cannot even see his own pride."
Interesting.
Oh, and Stephen, next time, I would ask that you please do a minute or two of research next time before making a comment on my books, theological positions, or views. Google works great, just fyi.
Have a nice week. :-)
Stephen:
>If Daniel's post states that his position is that you are blind to your offenses, then he would be inconsistent to give you examples - he believe's you're blind to them.
True, it would be logically inconsistent if I were to do so in the hope of showing him he is wrong. But that has never been my primary aim. Furthermore, doing so would function in the same way as the proclamation of the Gospel to the unregenerate. Those whom God has predestined will turn, but those whom He has not done so will harden their hearts and thus increase their condemnation before God. This two-fold effect is informs my answering of Abanes, so that if the Spirit grants sight, he may repent, but if he continues on in his blindness, his guilt before God increases.
Richard:
I have responded to your comments in a new post. And with regards to character assassination, stating facts is not the same as character assassination, in the same way as calling a rapist a rapist is NOT character assassination.
Post a Comment