This post will serve as the prelude to my critique of what was taught by Rick Warren at the Purpose-Driven Community Conference.
Before I launch into my critique I would like to lay out a few of the presuppositions I am operating from.
1. Testing what a pastor or teacher preaches or teaches against the word of God is Biblically mandated.
1 John 4:1 Beloved, do not believe every spirit, but test the spirits to see whether they are from God, for many false prophets have gone out into the world.1 Thess 5:21 test everything; hold fast what is good.
In fact, even the Apostle Paul, a man who received his doctrines directly from Jesus Christ had the content of his messages tested against the word of God by the Bereans. And the Bereans were said to be of a more noble character than the Thessalonians precisely because they scrutinzed what Paul said against the scriptures.
Acts 17:10 The brothers immediately sent Paul and Silas away by night to Berea, and when they arrived they went into the Jewish synagogue. 11 Now these Jews were more noble than those in Thessalonica; they received the word with all eagerness, examining the Scriptures daily to see if these things were so.
Therefore, Rick Warren is not immune from having his messages and teaching tested against the scriptures to determine whether or not they square with the Word of God.
Therefore, those who test Rick Warren’s teaching against the word of God are following the clear instructions of scripture and are engaging in a noble work.
Therefore, those who test Rick Warren’s teaching against the word of God are not being divisive. Instead, they are being obedient. In fact, those who discover that a teacher is teaching false doctrine and warn the church of that false doctrine and false teacher are not the ones sowing division in the Christian Church. Instead, the ones sowing division in the Church ARE the people who are teaching the false doctrine, not the ones exposing them.
2. Unity with a false teacher is only possible if the false teacher repents of his false doctrine.
3. A published doctrinal statement is NOT definitive proof in deciding whether or not a pastor or teacher is teaching true or false doctrine. As a Lutheran I can point to many Lutheran pastors who claim to subscribe to the confessions of the Lutheran faith as found in the Book of Concord YET these pastors deny and teach against the inerrancy of scripture, argue for the ordination of women and the ordination of practicing homosexuals. Despite their passionate claims to be in agreement with the Lutheran confessions the evidence proves the contrary.
Therefore, what a pastor publicly preaches and teaches MUST ALWAYS be compared with any and all published doctrinal statements to determine whether or not the pastor is adhering to that doctrinal statement. This includes Rick Warren.
4. Calling a false doctrine what it is and calling a false teacher or pastor to repentance IS NOT unloving nor is it incompatible with the Gospel nor does it contradict the clear call in scripture for our Christian apologetics to be done with ‘gentleness and respect’. Jesus, who is God in human flesh and one who has never sinned called people to repentance and faith. Therefore, calling people to repentance whether for behavioral sins or doctrinal errors is one of the most loving good works that a Christian can perform in service to his neighbor.
5. Lastly, everything I post as a critique against Rick Warren or any other teacher MUST be tested against the scriptures. If I am in error, then I pray that you would love me enough to point out my errors and call me to repentance.
Chris, your presuppositions are 100% accurate in my opinion. God's people need your Ministry. You are inspiring, I loved your critique of Evolve 08 that I read a couple of weeks ago for the first time. Keep up the good work.
May God bless you and give you wisdom to write this important critique of the most influential movement in american christianity today, the purpose driven movement.
God bless,
Bill
Posted by: Bill | June 02, 2008 at 08:23 PM
A little clarification, please.
I am not sure what the term "unity" exactly means. As a Lutheran, I agree with most of the Lutheran creeds, however, there are some I am a little on the fence about. But I don't pastor a church, so I guess those are just things I am personally working through. Does that mean I am not in unity with the Lutheran church?
Is unity similar to interpulpit fellowship? Would I need to be unity with someone to take communion with them?
Or does it just mean that we are both Christians?
Thanks-
Posted by: Mike | June 02, 2008 at 09:21 PM
Mike,
For right now we'll define unity as sharing the same faith based upon agreement on cardinal doctrines. Although I do not believe that it is okay to hold to any false doctrine, fact is some doctrines are not negotiable while others are debatable.
For instance, I consider John MacArthur to be a Christian brother even though he is not a Lutheran and we have wildly different views on baptism and the Lord's supper. (BTW, the Lutherans are right on those doctrines 8^) However, I do not believe T.D. Jakes to be a Christian brother because he denies the doctrine of the Trinity.
Furthermore, I do NOT believe that those who hold to the Pelagian heresy are Christians even though they affirm the doctrine of the Trinity.
For the sake of discussion I'll define Cardinal doctrines as the Trinity, deity of Christ, the Vicarious atonement, Salvation by Grace Alone through Faith alone by Christ's work Alone, and the authority of scripture. There may be more but let's start with these ones.
Posted by: Chris Rosebrough | June 02, 2008 at 09:51 PM
Thanks, Chris, that clears it up perfectly.
-Blessings
Posted by: Mike | June 02, 2008 at 10:12 PM
Hi Chris,
I'm interested to see how you'll explain the comments of Bob DeWaay, comments that he's now rushing to recast and re-characterize:
"There were no differences of theology that I know of, other than we had a chasm in a difference in ministry philosophy."
"My conclusion is this: the chasm between Chris Rosebrough, and me, and Rick Warren that exists is based on ministry philosophy primarily. Privately, we agree on most doctrines."
Certainly sounds like some doctrinal agreement to me...
Posted by: Harper | June 02, 2008 at 10:13 PM
Harper,
Great question!
DeWaay is right. We agree on MOST doctrines with Rick Warren. What you may not fully appreciate yet is that the differences between Warren and myself regarding 'philosophy of ministry' also touches on and impacts very important doctrines. Warren's philosophy of ministry is NOT doctrinally neutral.
Stay tuned.
Posted by: Chris Rosebrough | June 02, 2008 at 10:38 PM
But what is printed as a "doctrinal view", and whats preached every Sunday can be two different things
Posted by: Zek | June 02, 2008 at 10:56 PM
* Duplicate, wanted to bring this over to the new thread to get an answer:
Chad & Jazz:
"Warren - i.e. HE EATS WITH SINNERS!--"
Is this what you guys are using in defense of RW & his PEACE plan, in reference to "building bridges" / Network of all sorts of "faiths" & religions for the purpose of his PEACE plan?
My question, his plan has no “Evangelism” in its mission statement. In other words, the “E” as you guys all know doesn’t stand for “Evangelize”. His goal is to not try and change a Muslim’s faith, but rather find a “common ground” between them. IE you have a Prophet, we have a Prophet, let’s “all praise God” The essence of HE EATS WITH SINNERS, correct me if I am wrong, but the great goal was to share the gospel, & work repentance, and change their hearts, open their eyes, to the ONE true GOD???
RW is only “using” their influence in their village or temple, with their people for the purpose of his PEACE plan. It’s like “sales guys” networking other sales guys to gain friendship to untimely gain business or further their personal agenda. There is no “plan” to work on their conversion to the ONE true God?
That would be counter productive to his PEACE plan and may even offend the other Faiths. I just don’t see that being RW plan, I see him “selling his PEACE plan”
Posted by: Zek | June 02, 2008 at 11:04 PM
"Warren - i.e. HE EATS WITH SINNERS!--"
One more thought:
"IE you have a Prophet, we have a Prophet, let’s “all praise God”
We are also not talking about the same God??
Posted by: Zek | June 02, 2008 at 11:08 PM
Harper,
I'm not sure where you're getting the information that "Bob DeWaay is rushing to "re-cast or re-characterize" his comments. Wherever did you hear that? Just the opposite -- his comments now are consistent with his book of two years ago -- Rick Warren MAY have private orthodox beliefs, but he preaches a truncated, incomplete gospel.
At Twin City Fellowship website you can listen to Bob DeWaay's last Sunday School class for clarification. Your post is in error in thinking that he is somehow changing something.
Gayle
Posted by: Gayle | June 02, 2008 at 11:15 PM
I had trouble finding the Twin City MP3, here it is if anybody else had trouble finding:
http://www.twincityfellowship.com/audio/bss/20080601_tcf_bss.mp3
Posted by: Zek | June 02, 2008 at 11:30 PM
Pastor Bob's Response to Meeting with Rick Warren (mp3)
Posted by: Douglas | June 02, 2008 at 11:38 PM
Gayle, Zek, and Douglas -
Thanks for the link.
Chris - look forward to hearing your 'put.
Posted by: Janine | June 03, 2008 at 12:04 AM
Here is one more:
Rick Warren's New PEACE Coalition on Cross Talk:
http://www.crosstalkamerica.com/shows/2008/06/should_the_bride_of_christ_rec.php
Posted by: Zek | June 03, 2008 at 12:45 AM
Ingrid ref to this, in the above audio, she ref to Ephesians 3:21 in his response, and corrected there again it's really about the glory of God, not the bride... Very Interesting, worth the listen:
I personally like this quote "I just happen to have a Bible study I wrote on it" reminds me of that Will Ferrell playing George Bush video on youtbe, anyways not sure where I was going with that, just listen:
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=65944
Give PEACE a chance
Posted: June 02, 2008
1:00 am Eastern
By Rick Warren
© 2008 WorldNetDaily
Editor's note: The following is a response to Joseph Farah's column, "Give the glory to God!" (Farah's reply will appear tomorrow.)
I believe Jesus Christ deserves all the glory. It is the purpose of life. The stated theme of the PEACE plan is, "For the global glory of God." That statement is printed on PEACE material. Our members, and other churches doing PEACE call it the "3-G" statement. One church in North Carolina built a "Global Glory of God house" which houses PEACE missionaries.
Joseph, you know that as a rule I don't answer critics, but we can't ignore what the Bible says about this important subject. I just happen to have a Bible study I wrote on it. Here it is.
1. The Bible clearly states in many major passages that God wants His body and bride to receive glory.
Paul commanded that both Christ and his bride receive glory: " … to God be glory in the church and in Christ Jesus throughout all generations, for ever and ever! Amen." Ephesians 3:21 (NIV)
"He died so that he could give the church to himself like a bride in all her glorious beauty. He died so that the church could be pure and without fault, with no evil or sin or any other wrong thing in it." Ephesians 5:27 (NCV)
"Glory belongs to God in the church and in Christ Jesus for all time and eternity! Amen." Ephesians 3:21 (GW)
"God is the One who made all things, and all things are for his glory. He wanted to have many children share his glory, so he made the One who leads people to salvation perfect through suffering." Hebrews 2:10 (NCV)
"May he be given glory in the church and in Christ Jesus forever and ever through endless ages. Amen." Ephesians 3:21 (NLT)
"I die every day – I mean that, brothers – just as surely as I glory over you in Christ Jesus our Lord." 1 Corinthians 15:31 (NIV)
You certainly agree with these verses, don't you, Joseph?
2. Jesus clearly stated that He receives glory through His church. He said the church is His glory!
"And all of them, and since they are mine, they belong to you; and you have given them back to me, so they are my glory!" John 17:10 (NLT)
"And we, who with unveiled faces all reflect the Lord's glory, are being transformed into his likeness with ever-increasing glory, which comes from the Lord, who is the Spirit." 2 Corinthians 3:18 (NIV)
"All I have is yours, and all you have is mine. And glory has come to me through them." John 17:10 (NIV)
"Paul gloried in the church and told them: Indeed, you are our glory and joy." 1 Thessalonians 2:20 (NIV)
3. Christ intends for his church to share in his glory! Giving glory to Christ's bride and body gives glory to Christ. Christ's eternal plan has always been to share his glory forever with this church, his bride. Salvation, sanctification and glorification are all Christian doctrine.
"And now, a word to you who are elders in the churches. I, too, am an elder and a witness to the sufferings of Christ. And I, too, will share his glory and his honor when he returns." 1 Peter 5:1 (NLT)
"Christ is our life, and when he comes again, you will share in his glory." Colossians 3:4 (NCV)
"Because of our faith, Christ has brought us into this place of highest privilege where we now stand, and we confidently and joyfully look forward to sharing God's glory." Romans 5:2 (NLT)
"Now if we are children, then we are heirs – heirs of God and co-heirs with Christ, if indeed we share in his sufferings in order that we may also share in his glory." Romans 8:17 (NIV)
Posted by: Zek | June 03, 2008 at 01:02 AM
Looking forward to your fuller comments, Chris. I had a couple of questions about your presuppositions; if you think anyone else could benefit from a clarification, I'd welcome an answer.
First, everything was basically about what an individual "preaches and teaches." Could I get a definition, or at least a boundary on what this means? In other words, are you only concerned with published works and sermons? Any public statement, written or verbal, made in or out of church? Are actions implicitly included (e.g. attendance at a political/religious rally)?
Second, I'm looking at your point #3 and feeling as though I'm missing something. It seems an unnecessary statement; I don't see the point in bringing up a comparison between doctrinal statements and actual preaching/teaching.
Any comparison with published doctrinal statements will implicitly or explicitly require that the doctrinal statement *also* be tested against Scriptures. That gives only two possibilities:
1) The published doctrinal statement squares with the Word of God. And in that case, the comparison is redundant, because the preaching and teaching is already being compared against Scripture. The only charge would be inconsistency, and that seems trivial, given that there would already be a call to repentence for the false teaching itself.
2) The published doctrinal statement does not square with the Word of God. In this case, it is no credit to the teacher to be consistent with the statement (since he'd be teaching falsely), and no real condemnation if he is not consistent with the statement (if in that case he *is* teaching in accordance with the Scripture).
I know Pastor Bob mentioned the statement of belief recently and in his book, and perhaps that's why it was on your mind. But I'd love to see what I'm missing, because I'm just not seeing how a comparison to a doctrinal statement has similar weight and import to the other four presuppositions you've listed (and with which I agree).
Posted by: Jason | June 03, 2008 at 01:34 AM
CHRIS: the differences between Warren and myself regarding 'philosophy of ministry' also touches on and impacts very important doctrines. Warren's philosophy of ministry is NOT doctrinally neutral.
RA: First, excellent presuppositions. My only comment is your above statement, which is in some ways, also a presupposition. In my view, regarding how 'philosophy of ministry' touches upon or impacts doctrine - one must be very, very, careful. Why?
Because as we start moving out away from black/white doctrinal issues and into the more dicey gray areas of 'philosophy of ministry,' a wide variety of other issues come into play:
- How are hearers actually hearing a message (i.e., you might hear it as a Lutheran, and as a Lutheran, be thinking, feeling, and interpreting it to safeguard your primary concerns, whereas a SBC person or a basic unchurched unbeliever might be hearing or getting from the same thing from the message at all)?
- Is a so-called doctrinal impact from a certain 'philosophy of ministry' truly impacting people in the real world as it plays out, or is it a theory you have based on your own views as a Lutheran (or Calvinist, or whatever)? If people are indeed being impacted, then how many, and to what degree?
- Is the doctrinal impact being noted logical following across the board to those who are hearing the message or participating in th 'philosophy of ministry'?
- What subjective assumptions are being made by you as you analyze and present the doctrinal impact on people? What controls, tests, surveys, polls, means of investigation have been used to verify such an impact?
- Is an apparent impact only that -- i.e., apparent?
- What factors would determine an acceptable level of doctrinal impact as opposed to an unacceptable level of doctrinal impact?
- Who is the arbiter of anyone's 'philosophy of ministry' if that philosophy is against a backdrop of doctrinal orthodoxy -- i.e., what is and is not biblically acceptable in the sphere of: a) our freedoms in Christ; b) our fallibility as humans; c) personality variances; d) room for tolerance in certain areas (and which areas, and who decides that)?
These are just some things to think about. Otherwise, excellent post. But also, for me, please define how narrow you are using the terms "False Doctrine" and "False Teacher."
For you, do these terms relate only to essentials of the faith, non-negotiable, or cardinal doctrines as you word it? Or do the terms extend beyond that to areas with which you, as a Lutheran, would disagree primarily because you are a Lutheran?
For example, is it a "False Teaching" to say that communion is merely symbolic and that only elements are present? And for someone to teach such a thing (for example, a Souther Baptist), would that make them a false teacher?
Where do you draw the line, is what I am asking. Where does False Teacher/False teachings begin - and I assume this is the line you will be using for your analysis.
R. Abanes
Posted by: Richard Abanes | June 03, 2008 at 04:36 AM
CHRIS: the differences between Warren and myself regarding 'philosophy of ministry' also touches on and impacts very important doctrines. Warren's philosophy of ministry is NOT doctrinally neutral.
RA: First, excellent presuppositions. My only comment is your above statement, which is in some ways, also a presupposition. In my view, regarding how 'philosophy of ministry' touches upon or impacts doctrine - one must be very, very, careful. Why?
Because as we start moving out away from black/white doctrinal issues and into the more dicey gray areas of 'philosophy of ministry,' a wide variety of other issues come into play:
- How are hearers actually hearing a message (i.e., you might hear it as a Lutheran, and as a Lutheran, be thinking, feeling, and interpreting it to safeguard your primary concerns, whereas a SBC person or a basic unchurched unbeliever might be hearing or getting from the same thing from the message at all)?
- Is a so-called doctrinal impact from a certain 'philosophy of ministry' truly impacting people in the real world as it plays out, or is it a theory you have based on your own views as a Lutheran (or Calvinist, or whatever)? If people are indeed being impacted, then how many, and to what degree?
- Is the doctrinal impact being noted logical following across the board to those who are hearing the message or participating in th 'philosophy of ministry'?
- What subjective assumptions are being made by you as you analyze and present the doctrinal impact on people? What controls, tests, surveys, polls, means of investigation have been used to verify such an impact?
- Is an apparent impact only that -- i.e., apparent?
- What factors would determine an acceptable level of doctrinal impact as opposed to an unacceptable level of doctrinal impact?
- Who is the arbiter of anyone's 'philosophy of ministry' if that philosophy is against a backdrop of doctrinal orthodoxy -- i.e., what is and is not biblically acceptable in the sphere of: a) our freedoms in Christ; b) our fallibility as humans; c) personality variances; d) room for tolerance in certain areas (and which areas, and who decides that)?
These are just some things to think about. Otherwise, excellent post. But also, for me, please define how narrow you are using the terms "False Doctrine" and "False Teacher."
For you, do these terms relate only to essentials of the faith, non-negotiable, or cardinal doctrines as you word it? Or do the terms extend beyond that to areas with which you, as a Lutheran, would disagree primarily because you are a Lutheran?
For example, is it a "False Teaching" to say that communion is merely symbolic and that only elements are present? And for someone to teach such a thing (for example, a Souther Baptist), would that make them a false teacher?
Where do you draw the line, is what I am asking. Where does False Teacher/False teachings begin - and I assume this is the line you will be using for your analysis.
R. Abanes
Posted by: Richard Abanes | June 03, 2008 at 04:39 AM
Chris R. said: "Warren's philosophy of ministry is NOT doctrinally neutral."
Fair point. I'll be interested to read your analysis, etc.
Gayle - I admit that the "re-cast" line is my own interpretation, and could even be a bit too strong of a word, but this is where I get the idea that Bob is backtracking a bit:
As I posted above, in Sunday School at Twin City, Bob said:
"There were no differences of theology that I know of, other than we had a chasm in a difference in ministry philosophy."
"My conclusion is this: the chasm between Chris Rosebrough, and me, and Rick Warren that exists is based on ministry philosophy primarily. Privately, we agree on most doctrines."
That, too me, is a whole lot of agreement...and it presents a foundation for respect and cooperation, even while leaving room to discuss some differences in approach. But then Bob (and Chris, as we can read here) came under assault for even acknowledging Rick Warren by thanking him, acknowledging where they agree, and calling for a more conciliatory tone.
The change, for me then, was in a statement he later released where he said in a written statement:
"Tomorrow morning I will make a statement clarifying what I mean when I said that we did not have theological disagreements in our meeting. Rick Warren did not disagree with my positions on doctrine in our meeting. But he did not comment on everything I said." This implies, to me, that expressing areas of agreement caused too many people to question Bob (as they did Chris). So now Bob is saying, Well, he may have said the right things in the meeting, but we all know he's a liar. Besides, he avoided some of my toughest questions. He also, in his statement, references Warren Smith - a person who says that Rick Warren is driving Christianity towards the new age movement and a one world church!
To go from "We agree on most doctrines" to "Oh yeah, Rick Warren is driving the new age train" seems like a strong, sudden shift in Bob's "interpretation" of the meeting.
Posted by: Harper | June 03, 2008 at 06:36 AM
Chris - I believe the mani criteria for false teaching/teachers is connected to the gospel (salvation). So I still do not not get how someone who believes that Jesus is Jehovah in the flesh and yet he beleives the Trinity is one person in thre manifestations as opposed to three persons. To me it is not a gospel distinction. His heresy is his earthly benefit gospel, that is heresy.
Assigning atoning (sin forgiving) value to a ceremony is a much more serious since from our vantage point it is Luther's understandable inability to completely break with Rome. Now when someone who believes in baptismal regeneration believes those who do not believe that are not saved, they are heretics.
However someone like you who believe in it but accept others as brothers who do not, then I and men like MacArthur consider you a brother. Why? Because behind close doors we feel as though you really don't believe it is necessary for salvation because if you did we could not be brothers in your eyes.
My original point being baptismal regeneration is a much bigger issue than the divine makeup of the Trinity which no one can understand, assuming they believe Jesus is God in the flesh. The issue with Rick Warren is not what his doctrinal statement says, it is how he sometimes presents that truth. He is a master of strategy and sometimes pragmatism can spiritually eviscerate the gospel and make it a factual presentation designed to elicit a positive response.
Additionally some of Rick's associations are very dangerous and give the wrong impression of acceptance to other believers as well as a lost world. So in essence it is not the core of RW's beliefs, it is to what extent they are lost through pragmatism and unbiblical alliances in humanitarian efforts. Although it is not a completely accurate teast, when one reaches his kind of popularity either a revival is taking place or the message has become attractive to the carnal man and not the Spirit.
I still appreciate your willingness to be firm in your convictions while still attempting to be humble and respectful. You and I will never be in danger of approaching the humility, and in fact the humiliation, it took for our Great God to be fashioned as one of us. Can you image some orthodox angel suggesting Jesus "go down there and clean house!"? He could have done just that, but he was moved with compassion and love.
We must exhibit a shepherd's heart while attempting to speak correction to anyone, because in the end, it will not be our words that effect any spiritual change, it will be the might moving of the Spirit of God. The same moving of grace that was poured out upon our worthless lives.
Posted by: Rick Frueh | June 03, 2008 at 06:45 AM
Harper,
I don't think that is a fair interpretation of what Bob said. I listened to the whole class. He allowed people to ask whatever question. He did not say that Warren was a New Ager; however, Warren is promoting teachers who are a part of the New Age.
Warren seems to have no standards concerning whom he will associate his ministry with - other than the fact that it won't be a fundamentalist Christian. Whether it is Brian McLaren and the Emergent crowd or Leonard Sweet or some Imam or Buddhist monks if it promotes the PD agenda (which is now solve all the world's problems with poverty and disease) he is cool with it.
Posted by: Janine | June 03, 2008 at 08:52 AM
RA: Where do you draw the line, is what I am asking. Where does False Teacher/False teachings begin - and I assume this is the line you will be using for your analysis.
I think Richard is asking a good question here. I also think Chris largely answered it in the comments, where he defined unity as agreement on the cardinal doctrines, then said: "For the sake of discussion I'll define Cardinal doctrines as the Trinity, deity of Christ, the Vicarious atonement, Salvation by Grace Alone through Faith alone by Christ's work Alone, and the authority of scripture. There may be more but let's start with these ones."
I'm sure there will be questions/comments over how this line is drawn (there are a couple more items I'd defend including), but I think that'll shake out in Chris's actual critique, so I'll wait.
One other thing. Richard, in your questions re: the "impact" of philosophy of ministry on doctrine, I think you've used at least two different definitions of impact, and this equivocation confuses the issue, IMO.
The last few questions that you ask essentially culminate in what I've quoted above, and I think you make a fair point asking how one quantifies the impact of ministry philosophy on doctrine. This is what Chris was claiming, I believe, when he said ministry philosophy was not doctrinally neutral.
However, the first few questions that you ask regard how a ministry philosophy impacts the listener, and how that can be measured. I will agree that any evaluation of doctrine or ministry philosophy can be colored by the evaluator's own worldview, doctrines, etc. and that is something that should be kept in mind when writing a critique. However, your questions go far beyond that, so that listeners are those being ministered to. At best, this is a scope change, and at worst, it begs the question.
It is a scope change because Chris speaks of critiquing ministry philosophy and doctrine. While these things come to life and bear fruit in action (i.e. actual ministry), they are the roots of that tree, if you will, and those roots should be tested against Scripture. To mix metaphors, the beauty of the house says nothing about how well it will survive storms; it will stand or fall solely based on the stability of its foundation (doctrine) and how well its frame is connected to that foundation (ministry philosophy).
Finally, it may beg the question, because it start to open the door to pragmatism as a criteria for ministry philosophy. I don't know what Chris's critique will be, but his presuppositions are all about testing against Scripture. Pragmatism is something completely different, and pragmatic justifications for ministry should themselves by tested against God's Word, not given equal weight to it.
Posted by: Jason | June 03, 2008 at 09:27 AM
The question that needs to be asked is: Does Abanes officially speak for Rick Warren? In other words, when he says "Warren believes and/or teaches," is this actually what Warren actually believes and/or teaches?
And if not, Abanes has more than had his say here. I would think people would be interested in and want to know what Rick Warren himself says, not someone like Abanes who gives them mere speculations about what he thinks Warren probably believes.
Posted by: Ken Silva | June 03, 2008 at 09:57 AM
Chris,
That is a very well written presentation of your presuppositions, and I wish more people with your gifts and platform for teaching would at least acknowledge that we all have presuppositions. I would point out 3 questions that I have from your comments.
1. Where does the bible mention "cardinal doctrines"?
2. Where does the bible clearly teach which "doctrines are not negotiable while others are debatable"?
3. If you are a Lutheran, couldn't you save yourself a lot of time (and maybe headaches) proving that Pastor Warren (and every other SBC pastor)teaches false doctrine simply by teaching [as the Baptist Faith and Message says: "The Lord's Supper is a symbolic act of obedience whereby members of the church, through partaking of the bread and the fruit of the vine, memorialize the death of the Redeemer and anticipate His second coming."]?
Posted by: Brett S | June 03, 2008 at 10:04 AM
Ken raises a very real question. Who is Richard Abanes and why does he believe that he knows Rick Warren's beliefs better than anyone else who has read and heard Rick's material? Does he speak officially for Warren and Saddleback in all things? Is he on the payroll? He has his own blog and website as well as many books. Why is he traveling the Internet seeking whom he may devour among Rick Warren's critics by questioning and arguing and rebutting everything anyone tries to say? Chris, your presuppositions are right on, and we look forward to reading your take on this. We don't look forward to watching Richard Abanes undermine and attempt to neutralize everything you have to say. You have a right to be heard without a point by point rebuttal of every phrase you write.
Posted by: Ingrid Schlueter | June 03, 2008 at 10:24 AM
Thank you Harper for your explanation, but I'm having a hard time finding any place where Pastor Bob DeWaay has said "Rick Warren is driving the New Age train."
I attend Twin City Fellowship and have listened intently to his accounts of what happened at the meeting with Rick Warren, Bob DeWaay and Chris Rosebrough. In fact, I just listened again to see if I might have missed something. The only thing that I heard with respect to the new age is that Donald McGavran who influenced Rick Warren also influenced C. Peter Wagner and folks who definitely are in the New Age movement.
Posted by: Gayle | June 03, 2008 at 10:29 AM
Brett,
The Baptist Faith and Message is not a confessional document that SBC churches and pastors are required to subscribe to in order to be part of the SBC. The Lutheran Church - Missouri Synod requires that both pastors and local parishes subscribe to the Lutheran Confessions in order to be part of the LC-MS.
I do not know if either Pastor Warren or Saddleback subscribe to the Baptist Faith and Message as the correct exposition of the Christian faith.
As Chris stated, one can claim to subscribe to a set of doctrines on paper and deny them in practice. This is a major issue in the LC-MS since it really comes down to "What does it mean to be Lutheran?". On paper, the Episcopal Church USA appears orthodox in their theology, but their actions have run counter to their doctrine.
Posted by: Steve Newell | June 03, 2008 at 10:36 AM
Steve,
I understand your point. I didn't mean to reference the Baptist Faith and Message as a confession or creed. My point was that every SBC pastor I've ever heard, teaches that the Lord's Supper is a merely symbolic and optional part of Christian worship. (at least one that wants to keep his job)
Posted by: Brett S | June 03, 2008 at 10:44 AM
Ken,
I don't want to get into an argument with you Chris's blog and take up bandwidth. SO, let's keep this short and sweet. :-) Despite my better judgment, I am actually going to try to make my answers very plain for you -- and I pray that you really want to hear me. because often, if I were to be honest, it does not seem like you want to listen.
__________
KS: Does Abanes officially speak for Rick Warren? In other words, when he says "Warren believes and/or teaches," is this actually what Warren actually believes and/or teaches?
RA: Why are you asking this question at all?? You've already answered it for yourself in your latest missive "RICK WARREN AND A “BALANCED” REVERSAL OF THE PROTESTANT REFORMATION wherein you state: "Richard Abanes Speaks For Rick Warren And Clarifies His Position" and "Since Abanes is now speaking for Rick Warren." I'm sure you (and others) can see why I don't understand exactly what you're doing here asking the above question.
But for the benefit of others - the latest statements in your most recent article are wrong. I DO NOT SPEAK FOR RICK WARREN. I never have, and I venture to say, I never will. But again, why did you ask this - I have stated this ad nauseum ad infinitum all over the Internet already - the clearest place being my website.
Now, I am unsure as to exactly your point might be. I would guess that your hope is to imply that I am not a reliable/valid source of commentary when it comes to Warren's views. If that is the case, then you will need to show proof of that since I have been recognized as a professional apologist more than capable of analyzing the different religious belief systems of various groups, individuals, cults, and religions. I've certainly been able to analyze and explain Mormonism, J.K. Rowling, and Dan Brown's The Da Vinci Code, etc etc. Warren is just another public religious figure.
____________
KS: And if not, Abanes has more than had his say here.
RA: TBH, Ken, this just sounds like your desire to censor me so that others cannot have access to an opposing viewpoint. I will leave and never comment here again if Chris asks me to do so.
_____________
KS: I would think people would be interested in and want to know what Rick Warren himself says, not someone like Abanes who gives them mere speculations about what he thinks Warren probably believes.
RA: I am not giving any "speculations about what he thinks Warren PROBABLY believes." I am using the very same apologetic/discernment techniques I have used now for 15 years as a professional, well-respected, Christian apologist to dissect and analyze the beliefs/views of everything from Mormonism, to religious White Supremacists, to the Harry potter books, to The Da Vinci Code, and on and on and on.
If we are trying to decide who to trust, then I think it's important to pint out that I have access to far more information than you do when it comes to Warren. I not only have the same Internet documents you can access, but I also know the man personally, attend his church regularly, have taught doctrinal classes at Saddleback, was on staff at Saddleback under Warren's leadership, have written for Warren's Ministry Toolbox.
And here is the most important thing -- I actually take what Warren says IN CONTEXT and do not twist/pervert his statements which, if I may be honest, is what I see you and others doing habitually.
__________
INGRID: Who is Richard Abanes .....
RA: A respected, well-established, professional apologist who has been publicly recognized/honored for his past work/expertise in the area of apologetics.
Now, lest I be accused of being prideful, arrogant, or haughty, it was INGRID who asked for my credentials -- basically who I am and what right do I have to be heard. What are your credentials, Ingrid?
INGRID: .... and why does he believe that he knows Rick Warren's beliefs better than anyone else who has read and heard Rick's material?
RA: Might I ask: "Why do you believe that you know Rick Warren's beliefs better than me?"
Moreover, I have never said I know them better than anyone else. They're really not that difficult to understand, TBH. You could, if you wanted to, understand them perfectly fine. But you choose to spin them, twist them, pervert them, misquote them, half-quote them, nit-pick them in order to serve your own agenda. In the end, you succeed in manufacturing a body of teachings/doctrines that are not part of Rick Warren's world at all, but rather, part of a invented caricature of Rick Warren that you wish to erect and attack.
___________
INGRID: Is he on the payroll?
RA: Sorry, just a second............. ROFL!!!! I wish. This is a nice conspiracy that you and others often spin, and TBH, it sure would be nice if it were true. But the truth is, NO, sadly, LoL, I am on no payroll. And I have said this before, so why are you still asking this question?
__________
INGRID: We don't look forward to watching Richard Abanes undermine and attempt to neutralize everything you have to say. You have a right to be heard without a point by point rebuttal of every phrase you write.
RA: You're right. He does. And he has a delete button. In fact, I will absolutely stop commenting completely if Chris says the word. Totally up to you Chris.
R. Abanes
Posted by: Richard Abanes | June 03, 2008 at 11:15 AM
Ingrid: You have a right to be heard without a point by point rebuttal of every phrase you write.
Does this "right" extend to everyone, Ingrid? Or only those whose side you are on?
Just curious.
Posted by: Chad | June 03, 2008 at 11:40 AM
JASON: I think you've used at least two different definitions of impact, and this equivocation confuses the issue, IMO. . . . your questions go far beyond that, so that listeners are those being ministered to. At best, this is a scope change, and at worst, it begs the question. . . .
RA: This might partially be a problem stemming form the fact that I don't know what Chrs has in mind. So, I am sort of guessing and shooting in the dark when it comes to what he might actually be referring to.
_________
JASON: It is a scope change because Chris speaks of critiquing ministry philosophy and doctrine. While these things come to life and bear fruit in action (i.e. actual ministry), they are the roots of that tree, if you will, and those roots should be tested against Scripture.
RA: Certainly. I meant only that if we are going to trace backward, so to speak, from a ministry philosophy to the roots (i.e., doctrines), we must be extremely careful to not see doctrines that would be present of WE were to have that kind of ministry philosophy.
Let me give you an example. Sometimes I will say something to my wife that she instantly hears as truly irritating, or hurtful, or inappropriate. I am befuddled by it. Why? Because in order for her to have said something like I said (or make the observation I made), she would have to feel/believe certain things. But I am actually not thinking/believing anything remotely similar to what is in her mind -- because we are different people, with different frames of reference (i.e., background), personalities, and emotional/psychological makeups.
Now, let's apply that to Warren (or anyone else, TBH). If he has a "ministry philosophy," there a very likely certain doctrinal ideas that go hand in hand with what he is doing -- but we must be careful that we do not impose on HIM the doctrinal ideas that WE would have to hold if WE were to implement such a "ministry philosophy." Does that make sense? I hope I said that better.
Most important here, at least to me, is that the "Cardinal" doctrines, as Chris has labeled them, are all there -- we all embrace these cardinal doctrines, and as a result, stand together as one body of believers united in the faith once and for all delivered to the saints (Jude 3). This seems to be what Bob Dewaay was indicating when he noted: ""There were no differences of theology that I know of" and "Privately, we agree on most doctrines."
The question, then, becomes this: By Warren's use of a his "ministry philosophy," are those privately agreed upon doctrines radically changed enough to manifest themselves publicly as completely different doctrines? I don't think so.
Other questions:
- Who is to measure how doctrines must be verified outwardly via "ministry philosophy"?
- What biblical passages relate to ministry philosophy?
- Is someone rightly labeled a false teacher, heretic, deceiver based NOT on what they believe, but whether or not other Christians agree that those beliefs are being demonstrated clearly enough in their ministry philosophy?
- How does this well-accepted and beloved phrase from church history relate to Warren: "In essentials, unity; in non-essentials, liberty; and in all things, charity."?
R. Abanes
Posted by: Richard Abanes | June 03, 2008 at 11:43 AM
"What are your credentials, Ingrid?"
A father.
"Who is Richard Abanes..."
A condescention emanating from the self righteous presupposition that she is somebody. Everyone on the common ground called the internet has the same right to express opinions within the priesthood of the believer and the gender specific offices.
"Why is he traveling the Internet seeking whom he may devour among Rick Warren's critics by questioning and arguing and rebutting everything anyone tries to say?"
Besides a description that could be on the speaker's resume, I find the "whom he may devour" phrase to be especially unchristian since it associates Richard with Satan. Mrs. Schlueter continues to plumb the depths of personal invectives.
I find Richard's comments to sometimes be tedious, but he has every right to speak what he sees as truth as does Chris Rosebrough. It is noteworthy to see some who could not find spiritual nutrition on the "respect and gentleness" post have returned with effervescence to the "presuppositions" post. I agree with both.
Posted by: Rick Frueh | June 03, 2008 at 11:47 AM
STEVE: I do not know if either Pastor Warren or Saddleback subscribe to the Baptist Faith and Message as the correct exposition of the Christian faith.
RA: Yes. They do. Each staff member is given a copy of it. Saddleback is dyed-in-the-wool Baptist Faith and Message.
RAbanes
Posted by: Richard Abanes | June 03, 2008 at 11:47 AM
Rick,
You're naughty. LoL. Stop using up bandwidth.
RA
Posted by: Richard Abanes | June 03, 2008 at 11:49 AM
Janine said:
"I don't think that is a fair interpretation of what Bob said...He did not say that Warren was a New Ager; however, Warren is promoting teachers who are a part of the New Age."
Gayle said:
"I'm having a hard time finding any place where Pastor Bob DeWaay has said 'Rick Warren is driving the New Age train.'"
First, let me thank you both for your responses. I've been somewhat nervous to toss out some thoughts because, based on some other posters, I almost expected to get picked apart. I appreciate that you can both disagree with me, ask questions, and carry on a reasonable discussion.
Regarding the new age claims - they weren't in any audio recordings that I listened to. Perhaps I'm being too sensitive, but I was reacting to a written statement released by Bob DeWaay after his initial reaction (the Sunday School audio recording). In the statement, he wrote:
"I will not allow myself to be pitted against any of Warren’s critics. I read Warren Smith’s book and spoke with him on the phone...The New Age implications are in Rick Warren’s movement and are helping lead toward a One World church...I don’t believe Rick Warren is a true New Age believer...Warren Smith simply says there are New Age implications to what Rick Warren is doing, and I agree with him."
So, I'm willing to admit that perhaps "driving the new age train" was too strong. But I still find it troubling that Bob can say that he has "no differences of theology that I know of" and that "we agree on most doctrines" but also say that Rick Warren (wittingly or unwittingly) is helping to push us toward a one-world new age religion. I just don't see how those two sentiments jive.
I'll go back and listen to some more of Bob's thoughts...I'd also be interested to hear your reaction. Thanks!
Posted by: Harper | June 03, 2008 at 11:53 AM
Rick,
Well said. Oh, and you're naughty.
peace.
Posted by: Chad | June 03, 2008 at 11:53 AM
The question that needs to be asked is: Does Silva officially speak for God? In other words, when he says "Warren is an apostate...Warren is a heretic," is this actually true? Is he receiving a revelation from God regarding all things Warren?
And if not, Silva has more than had his say here. I would think people would be interested in the places that the Kingdom of God is breaking out all around them, not hearing from someone like Silva who gives them mere speculations about what he thinks that state of Warren's heart and ministry is.
Posted by: Plankman | June 03, 2008 at 12:02 PM
Plankman raises a very real question. Who is Ken Silva and why does he believe that he knows Rick Warren's beliefs better than anyone else who has read and heard Rick's material? Does he speak officially for God? Is he receiving a special revelation? He has his own blog and website. Why is he traveling the Internet seeking to devour Rick Warren by questioning and arguing and rebutting everything anyone tries to say? Chris, your presuppositions are clearly stated, and we look forward to reading your take on this. We don't look forward to watching Ken Silva attempt to gain control of your blog and shout everyone else into submission.
Posted by: Plankman | June 03, 2008 at 12:07 PM
Harper,
Is it a big issue with whether Rick Warren is joining the New Age? It doesn't appear to me that Pastor Rick has a problem with any so-called "man of peace." What matters is if they will join with him to eradicate poverty and disease.
The statement that Pastor Bob made about the church doing what ONLY the church can do resonates with me - save people who are sliding towards eternity and hell without knowing Christ.
Shouldn't that be the primary goal? And can you partner with other faiths to bring that message? How would a Muslim "man of peace" help to share the message of Christ?
Posted by: Gayle | June 03, 2008 at 12:08 PM
RA: If that is the case, then you will need to show proof of that since I have been recognized as a professional apologist more than capable of analyzing the different religious belief systems of various groups, individuals, cults, and religions. I've certainly been able to analyze and explain Mormonism, J.K. Rowling, and Dan Brown's The Da Vinci Code, etc etc. Warren is just another public religious figure.
KS: If this is the case then you should have no roblem when others of us who are also apologists are "analyzing" Rick Warren because as you so eloquently stated above "Warren is just another public religious figure."
And this was my point of my coment to which you refer. I appreciate your making it for me. Since you are "recognized as a professional apologist more than capable of analyzing the different religious belief systems of various groups, individuals, cults, and religions."
So, to my friend and brother in Christ Chris Rosebrough I say, have at it with your analyzing Rick Warren's teachings as now you even have the blessing of Richard Abanes.
Posted by: Ken Silva | June 03, 2008 at 12:19 PM
Plankman,
lol.
peace.
Posted by: Chad | June 03, 2008 at 12:22 PM
And with that, Ken, everyone should agree. It isn't about "who is who", it is about the issues of some of which Gayle raised quite succinctly. These are the things I hope and feel confident Chris Rosebrough will deal with.
Posted by: Rick Frueh | June 03, 2008 at 12:25 PM
Gayle,
I don't mean to answer your post to Harper but you raise a good question/point.
You say: The statement that Pastor Bob made about the church doing what ONLY the church can do resonates with me - save people who are sliding towards eternity and hell without knowing Christ.
Shouldn't that be the primary goal? And can you partner with other faiths to bring that message? How would a Muslim "man of peace" help to share the message of Christ?
I don't know that this is the primary goal nor is it even A goal. The Church does not save, it invites. Jesus saves. The church is called to be a beacon of light in a dark world. Saving "souls" isn't even what God does - God saves the entire person, and the entire cosmos. The physical is intertwined with the spiritual.
Working to bring about peace, justice and mercy in areas of the world where they do not exist is, and should be, one of the primary goals of the Church. We have for far too long abdicated this role and left it to the government. The world will not know us by how many "souls" we are saving but "they will know us by our love." We show love to the world when are question ceases to become, "WHO is my neighbor?" but rather, "HOW can I be your servant?"
So yes, I am all for joining up with anyone who wants to put forward the banner of peace, justice and mercy, regardless of their faith. They are my neighbor. God will draw them the only way God can draw.
grace and peace,
Chad
Posted by: Chad | June 03, 2008 at 12:31 PM
I butchered a line above. My grammar teacher would kill me.
I meant to say: We show love to the world when OUR question ceases to BE, "WHO is my neighbor?" but rather, "HOW can I be your servant?"
:)
Posted by: Chad | June 03, 2008 at 12:33 PM
Harper,
Bob's explanation is that he is giving Warren the benefit of the doubt based upon his doctrinal statement. Based upon that statement, Warren is Orthodox. Bob also says he won't argue with those who say that by his actions he betrays that statement, because he believes that they do have a point. But, Bob is being gracious.
Regarding the New Age, nothing in that statement indicates a belief in typical "New Age" theology. Warren doesn't preach that we are gods, or differences on essentials such as that. Yet, he does utilize people who are New Age in philosophy. So, that's where Bob is coming from. He believes Warren is not a New Ager, yet is leading the train by virtue of who he provides an audience. (I would also extend this to his emergent buddies. He may not be emergent, but he is a key promoter of such by virtue of his associations)
Posted by: Janine | June 03, 2008 at 12:34 PM
Richard, based on what you've written, you and I have different definitions of "ministry philosophy" and since the context of our conversation is Chris's blog, I'm going to wait for more from him, rather than doing anything else to muddy the waters. I firmly believe clarity is key to any discussion, especially nuanced ones, and most especially heated nuanced ones. This has already gone further with less fuel than it should have.
Posted by: Jason | June 03, 2008 at 12:47 PM
Richard,
I don't know if you missed one of the earlier comments I left for Mike. So, I'll repost it as a an answer to one of your questions as it pertains to unity and non-cardinal doctrines like baptism and the Lord's supper.
Posted by: Chris Rosebrough | June 03, 2008 at 12:49 PM
INGRID: Who is Richard Abanes .....
RA: A respected, well-established, professional apologist who has been publicly recognized/honored for his past work/expertise in the area of apologetics.
INGRID: It's often our "respected, well-established, professional apologists" who are contributing to the problems in the church. People listen to them instead of consulting their own Bibles. As Luther once put it, the humblest Christian, armed with a sound knowledge of the Scriptures, is no match for the most erudite apostate scholar. And, I would add, is less likely to be afflicted with pride.
Posted by: Ingrid | June 03, 2008 at 12:56 PM
I apologize ahead of time if this is too far afield from the thread, but I couldn't help but respond--especially as Zek seems to be using similar hermeneutics and paraphrase-hopping methods as Rick Warren.
Zek wrote (italicized): Joseph, you know that as a rule I don't answer critics, but we can't ignore what the Bible says about this important subject. I just happen to have a Bible study I wrote on it. Here it is.
1. The Bible clearly states in many major passages that God wants His body and bride to receive glory.
Paul commanded that both Christ and his bride receive glory: " … to God be glory in the church and in Christ Jesus throughout all generations, for ever and ever. Amen." Ephesians 3:21 (NIV)
God is the one who is getting the glory--in this particular text, the church and Christ Jesus are the location or means by which God gets glory (hence the Greek εν rather than προς or some such). The church is not receiving glory, and in this text, Jesus is not directly receiving glory. (This does not discount other places where Christ does receive glory.)
"He died so that he could give the church to himself like a bride in all her glorious beauty. He died so that the church could be pure and without fault, with no evil or sin or any other wrong thing in it." Ephesians 5:27 (NCV)
"[He died] that he might sanctify her, having cleansed her by the washing of water with the word, so that he might present the church to himself in splendor, without spot or wrinkle or any such thing, that she might be holy and without blemish." Ephesians 5.26-27 (ESV)
The NCV paraphrase gets overly creative here, especially when you don't read v 26 along with v 27. The splendor of the church comes from having been cleansed and sanctified, not from what the people in it do and get praised for from the outside world.
"Glory belongs to God in the church and in Christ Jesus for all time and eternity! Amen." Ephesians 3:21 (GW)
Another paraphrase, but it still can't hide the fact that the glory belongs to God, not the church itself.
"God is the One who made all things, and all things are for his glory. He wanted to have many children share his glory, so he made the One who leads people to salvation perfect through suffering." Hebrews 2:10 (NCV)
"But we see him who for a little while was made lower than the angels, namely Jesus, crowned with glory and honor because of the suffering of death, so that by the grace of God he might taste death for everyone. For it was fitting that he, for whom and by whom all things exist, in bringing many sons to glory, should make the founder of their salvation perfect through suffering." Hebrews 2.9-10 (ESV)
Another creative paraphrase from the NCV and selective reading that shifts the focus away from Jesus' glory. Again, the text here points to the glory of the sons as the glory that comes through God's work, not what the church does.
"May he be given glory in the church and in Christ Jesus forever and ever through endless ages. Amen." Ephesians 3:21 (NLT)
Another paraphrase of this Ephesians text, and yet again it cannot hide the fact that the glory belongs to God, not the church itself!
"I die every day – I mean that, brothers – just as surely as I glory over you in Christ Jesus our Lord." 1 Corinthians 15:31 (NIV)
This is the text that comes closest to making your point (BTW, thanks for using a more literal translation on this one!), but the nuance of καύχησιν is one of boasting and pride, which may or may not carry negative connotations (other places where Paul uses it, it's generally negative). Also, it's in the context of an oath (using the particle νή), so I'm not entirely sure this text can be used to show that the church should get glory, although I'm open to debate.
You certainly agree with these verses, don't you, Joseph?
2. Jesus clearly stated that He receives glory through His church. He said the church is His glory!
"And all of them, and since they are mine, they belong to you; and you have given them back to me, so they are my glory!" John 17:10 (NLT)
"All mine are yours, and yours are mine, and I am glorified in them." John 17.10 (ESV)
More paraphrases, and more of a focal shift. Again, Jesus is the one glorifed here, and "in them" shows that God's people are the means by which He is glorified.
"And we, who with unveiled faces all reflect the Lord's glory, are being transformed into his likeness with ever-increasing glory, which comes from the Lord, who is the Spirit." 2 Corinthians 3:18 (NIV)
We are reflecting the Lord's glory… we have glory insofar as we are transformed into his likeness. So as long as you're saying "the church is His glory" quite literally and that the church itself should not be glorified, you're doing well with this one.
"All I have is yours, and all you have is mine. And glory has come to me through them." John 17:10 (NIV)
Again, church as means, not as object of glory.
"Paul gloried in the church and told them: Indeed, you are our glory and joy." 1 Thessalonians 2:20 (NIV)
I'm assuming the opening quotation mark was a typo here. In any case, Paul calls the Thessalonians the glory and joy of Paul and company. The Thessalonians were in a sense here a notch in Paul's belt. (This opens up a whole different discussion on what works, missions, etc, are worth, but that's for another day.)
3. Christ intends for his church to share in his glory! Giving glory to Christ's bride and body gives glory to Christ. Christ's eternal plan has always been to share his glory forever with this church, his bride. Salvation, sanctification and glorification are all Christian doctrine.
"And now, a word to you who are elders in the churches. I, too, am an elder and a witness to the sufferings of Christ. And I, too, will share his glory and his honor when he returns." 1 Peter 5:1 (NLT)
"So I exhort the elders among you, as a fellow elder and a witness of the sufferings of Christ, as well as a partaker in the glory that is going to be revealed…" 1 Peter 5.1 (ESV)
Of course we will partake in God's glory… the glory that is going to be revealed. We may or may not see evidence of that glory here on earth; it is certainly not one of God's goals that we see glory here on earth.
"Christ is our life, and when he comes again, you will share in his glory." Colossians 3:4 (NCV)
Even the paraphrase gets it right--"when he comes again"-- not glory on earth.
"Because of our faith, Christ has brought us into this place of highest privilege where we now stand, and we confidently and joyfully look forward to sharing God's glory." Romans 5:2 (NLT)
"Through him we have also obtained access by faith into this grace in which we stand, and we rejoice in hope of the glory of God." Romans 5.2 (ESV)
Hope= looking forward to (cf. Romans 8.24), not what we have now.
"Now if we are children, then we are heirs – heirs of God and co-heirs with Christ, if indeed we share in his sufferings in order that we may also share in his glory." Romans 8:17 (NIV)
Again, of course we will share in Christ's glory, but we will also share in his sufferings. And again, the focus here is not our glory, but Christ's.
-----
This whole spiel boils down to: The church reveals God's glory; it is not to be glorified in and of itself. One should never say, "How great is our church!" but rather, "How great is our God!"
Posted by: Heidi Sue | June 03, 2008 at 12:57 PM
Chris - wiggle room in the Trinity as long as Christ is part of the Godhead.
3 persons - That's my view.
1 person in three manifestations - OK
The rest you stated are absolutes.
Posted by: Rick Frueh | June 03, 2008 at 01:08 PM