« Pirate Christian Radio FJ Cruiser | Main | A Calling or a Career: Romans 1:1-7 »


Olivier Calle

Small typo in the graphic for the media player:
"Christ-Cenatered" should be

Soli Deo gloria


Chris, why don't you just change the name of your site to "I hate Rick Warren" since you seem to enjoy spending an inordinate amount of time slandering him?

I haven't posted on here for awhile. What a joke your site has become. You not only need to do a fact check before you post statements that aren't true, you really need to check your heart.

Man, you have gone off the deep end.


This is a great clip and not something you'd hear from today's evangelical church.

Though a couple of things to mention:

1) Grace alone is not about imputed righteousness only. God's grace is about spiritual gifts as well. I would have liked to hear about God's grace not just removing the penalty of sin, but delivering from the power of sin as well. The grace of God is manifested in First Corinthians 10:13: "No temptation has overtaken you except such as is common to man; but God is faithful, who will not allow you to be tempted beyond what you are able, but with the temptation will also make the way of escape, that you may be able to bear it."

2) Which brings us to my second concern about this speaker, his attack on John Wesley and his comparison to Roman Catholicism. John Wesley;s Aldersgate experience is one of the most vivid descriptions of the new birth, and he experienced it while listening to Martin Luther's introduction to the commentary on Romans. Wesley also said, that nobody understood justification by grace through faith as well as Martin Luther. So why lump Wesley with roman catholicism? Let me add that George Whitefield, the calvinist, asked before he died that none other than John Wesley preached at his funeral. John Wesley's theology was not perfect, and I disagree with his arminianian interpretation of scripture, nevertheless John Wesley is closer to the reformed tradition than to roman catholicism.

3) With regard to John Wesley's comment that unless a christian fights sin every minute (or something to that effect that's mentioned in the clip) let us say this is not different from anything the puritans taught. Reformed puritan theology (John Owen, Jonnathan Edwards) emphasizes works, every bit as much as John Wesley's, if not more.


Philippians 2:13 is another beautiful piece of scripture that shows that God's grace is manifested not only outside the believer when we look at Christ but inside the believer as well when we look at the power of God to transform the believer within, to purify the believer's heart, to make the believer will good.

Philippians 2:13 "for it is God who works in you both to will and to do for His good pleasure."

Steve Newell


Did you listen to this podcast? If so, what is your take on it? Let's deal with the content of what is talked about.

Is Grace Alone preached by your pastor? If your pastor tells you that you must make a decision for Christ, then your pastor is not preaching grace alone, but grace PLUS your decision. No one can make a decision for Christ, God makes the decision for you (Eph 2).

akira kurasawa

Steve, quit flogging a dead horse. You say no one can make a decision for Christ, some would say I can only reject Christ, not accept him. Others say that I can choose (horrors, the "C" word it's almost as bad as the "D" word) to accept or choose to reject.


We all agree it's God doing the do, not us, not our works, but God. ONLY God.
Your splitting hairs over semantics.

Move along, nothing to see here. Next topic

Thomas Twitchell

Are the people who don't link to a URL, real people?

"So why lump Wesley with roman catholicism? Let me add that George Whitefield, the calvinist, asked before he died that none other than John Wesley preached at his funeral." Because the infusion of grace as a cooperative power is no different than the occult grace of the RC. It is not a tool, i.e. your inference of spiritual gifting. The gift of grace is the very thing that is given. Our sanctification is given the same way as our salvation: Christ has become our salvation both our justification and our sanctification.

What Wesley did, what the RC's do is to make grace a magic talisman that a person can weild at will. In opposition to that was Luther's grace, no matter what Wesley might laud Luther for, Wesleyan grace is the opposite of Luthers. Yes, Whitefield had Wesley preach his funeral. He did not capitulate however and his rejection of Wesley's Arminianism he considered heretical throughout his life. What he did do is grant that even in Wesley's blasphemous position, he was still a believer in the propitiatory sacrifice of Christ and trusted in that. By definition Wesley's grace was a rejection of the reality of justification and sanctification by grace. But, Whitefield accepted him a brother despite his error concerning Biblical grace.



Thomas Twitchell: "What he did do is grant that even in Wesley's blasphemous position, he was still a believer in the propitiatory sacrifice of Christ and trusted in that."

Bill: Whitefield did not agree with Wesley's arminianism, neither did Wesley agree with Whitefield's calvinism. Nevertheless both said that there will be arminians and calvinists in heaven. Whitefield never called Wesley a heretic, quite the contrary he praised him as one of the greatest men of God that ever lived.

From http://www.sermonillustrations.com/a-z/w/wesley_john.htm
"When someone asked Whitefield if he thought he would see Wesley in heaven, Whitefield replied, "I fear not, for he will be so near the eternal throne and we at such a distance, we shall hardly get sight of him."

W. Wiersbe, Wycliffe Handbook of Preaching and Preachers, Moody Press, 1984, p. 255.


What bothers me is that a lot of people like this lutheran speaker are quick to criticize Wesley for his emphasis on holiness, and are silent about the puritans. Jonnathan Edwards and John Owen, insisted on holiness as a requirement for salvation, as much as Wesley did. Wesley, Owen, and Edwards would agree that faith alone saves, but they will also say that good works are a result of faith, as well as evidence of God's grace, and if good works are lacking saving faith is lacking as well.



I'm deeply offended by what Chris wrote: "...the legal bondage that Rick Warren and his band of preachers puts you under."

That is just a flat out lie. Rick Warren is not a legalist; he preaches the gospel of salvation through faith in Jesus Christ's once for all sacrifice. Chris knows this and yet feels it's fine to post a lie on his site implying otherwise. But that's ok. God sees it. God will judge his heart, not me.



Yes, Warren preaches the true gospel. Sometimes. But mostly he preaches Romanist legalism...as Chris has documented.

Some of us feel that preaching truth alone is a requirement, not a bonus. Honestly, is that really so terrible?


I assure you that lutherans have problems with Edwards just as much as Wesley.


What is "preaching truth alone"....that Jesus saves? Rick Warren DOES preach that.

People like Chris and other self-appointed ODM bloggers sit around and nitpick when there are people taking their last breath who need to hear "Believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God and you will be saved".


Mike Baker

The reason why you two talk past each other is becuase you have different understandings of salvation. You are using the same terms but they mean different things because of the different theological backgrounds. I should know, I converted from fanatical agreement with Cat over to Chris' point of view.

To the SBC, Warren does not sound legalistic because he is only talking about santicification. The widely accepted teachings of eternal security and "once saved always saved" mean that all of Warren's teachings of the law would fall into what Lutherans would call the "Third Use" of the Law. To many modern Baptists, the idea that they were saved by faith through Grace in Christ alone is exactly what they profess... but it is colored by the fact that they consider salvation to be a chronological event that has already happened and is complete. To them they are not under bondage because they were saved by faith on [insert date here]. In their new "changed life" they play by different rules than the unbeliever. The Law cannot accuse or condem the securely saved. There is no perceived threat of divine wrath in what Rick is preaching.

In their veiw, the rules, purposes, and steps that are preached for sanctification have no bearing over salvation because salvation cannot be lost. This is how you can preach 95% Law in sermons week in and week out and not be considered legalistic. This is how you can have a belief system that uses the term "Ordinances" (a legal term!) for Baptism and the Lord's Supper and not be considered legalistic. This is how specific heavenly rewards can be dangled over people to bribe them into performing good works and that is just good preaching.

Contrast that with the historic teaching of the church (and Holy Scripture): that we were saved, are being saved, and will be saved. In this view, the Christian must be constantly reminded of salvation by faith in Christ. Becuase of this understanding, preaching like that of Rick Warren is seen as leading people away from faith and into legalism. His followers will not see that because of their misunderstandings about Law & Gospel, the relationship between Sanctification and Justification, and the purpose of preaching.

For the record, you can be drawn down the path of legalism through purpose driven theology. I am living proof.

I can tell you, Cat, that what Rick Warren preaches deeply offends me. I am not speaking out of ignorance. I come from a Purpose Driven, Promise Keeper Household. I have read all the books and studied them while I was sympathetic to his teaching.

...then I independently studied Scripture in context and it all fell apart. I pray that you listen with half of the critical discernment to your own preachers than you do to this humble website. It doesn't matter if we agree with you or not. What matters is that what you believe agrees with what the Bible actually teaches (and not what someone tells you that it teaches). You obviously have the ability to catch people speaking out of context. Start putting that gift to good use and fact check yourself and the people you agree with as harshly as you do your critics.



Sometimes Warren preaches the truth: "Jesus saves." But he usually preaches Romanist legalism, as Chris has documented.

Is Chris throwing the baby out with the bathwater? Absolutely! Warren is a doctor who sometimes gives people medicine, and sometimes gives them poison. Is it too much to ask for Warren to only give people medicine? (Don't pretend you don't understand what I'm saying.)

Why do Chris's "high" standards bother you? That is, why are your standards so low? (How much leaven did Jesus tolerate?)



He gives them POISON??? By telling them they can have eternal life if they accept the free gift of salvation by believing Jesus Christ is the Son of God and He died for their sin???

Pass the Kool-Aid. I'll drink from that cup. Hope to see you in heaven.



Your behavior is laughable; your strawman tactics are perfectly transparent. If you have nothing to say, why don't you stop trolling Rosebrough's blog? Seriously.

For the third time (again, it's not as if you could possibly misunderstand this): Warren also preaches Romanist legalism; that is his poison. When he preaches the true gospel, it's great; but when he preaches poison, it's bad. It's too bad Warren doesn't only preach the true gospel.

Jonathan Schultz


He gives them POISON??? By telling them they can have eternal life if they accept the free gift of salvation by believing Jesus Christ is the Son of God and He died for their sin???

Pass the Kool-Aid. I'll drink from that cup. Hope to see you in heaven."

Cat, now you are the one guilty of what you often accuse others of: taking things out of context. Tim wasn't calling the Gospel poison, and I find it nigh high to impossible to believe you don't know that. He was calling the "Romanist legalism" poison. And as a former evangelical, I agree with him.



Jonathan and Tim,

If facts backed up what you're saying you bet I wouldn't be on here, but I originally addressed Chris because he crossed the line of decency by printing yet another in a series of lies about Rick Warren.

You two jumped on the "I hate Rick Warren" bandwagon and are just as out of line to print false accusations about Rick Warren when you aren't bothering to print FACTS to back up your equally laughable accusations.

What are you going to say to Rick Warren when you see him in heaven? "Gee, my brother, I guess God really DOES love you and since you're here, you're obviously saved and not the Antichrist we painted you as, so maybe we were wrong to spend so much of our time condemning you and the work you did to tell the lost about Jesus...."

You are unbelievable!!

I did not misunderstand Tim's comment at all. Jonathan, outline your "Romanist legalism" and tell us all in your great wisdom how Rick Warren "sells" it. Tim, give specifics about the word "poison" you toss about so freely. And both of you, back your accusations up with solid facts and then maybe there can be a sane dialog.



Seriously, cut the charades. (You're here because you're a Warren fanboy; I think everyone who reads this blog knows that.) And it's obvious that your behavior here is intentional--our posts are simply too clear, and you're clearly reading them. But I'll play along:

1. I first used the term "Romanist legalism," not Jonathan, and I used it several posts back. And Rosebrough has already explained what Romanist legalism is, in earlier posts. (Given how long you've trolled this blog, surely you've read them.)

2. I already gave specifics about Rick's "poison," and Jonathan repeated them. Romanist legalism = poison.

3. Rosebrough has already demonstrated (in earlier posts) that Rick teaches Romanist legalism, among other things (like the gospel). Rick teaches both.

"Back your accusations up with solid facts and then maybe there can be a sane dialog."

Actually, first you need to stop pretending you don't understand our (crystal-clear) "accusations." Seriously.

Chris Rosebrough

Hey Cat,

Be sure to tune into today's edition of Fighting for the Faith. We'll be taking a look at last week's "Gospel" presentation by Pastor Rick in his 40 Days of Love Campaign.

I don't want to give it away but...let's just say that Rick Warren gets it WRONG.

I'll post the show segment on this site for your review afterward.


One disagreement with your thinking and the fangs come out. Not a surprise. Which Tim are you; Wirth or Challis? And I'm not a "fanboy" as you so eloquently put it, I'm simply a Christian who attends Saddleback and knows the heart and character of my pastor. And no, I really don't know what the heck you're talking about when it comes to the term "Roman Legalist" but that's ok, you just go ahead and avoid explaining it.

Your point #1 - Way to side-step what I asked.

Your point #2 - Ditto

Your point #3 - Prove it.

I see you conveniently avoided my question about what you will say to Rick Warren when you meet him in heaven. Care to answer that?



Rick: "It takes more than faith to please God." That is Romanist legalism, not the gospel. It is spiritual poison.

"Prove it."

Step 1. Scroll to the top of the blog.
Step 2. Move your mouse to the right-hand column titled "Categories."
Step 3. Click the "Purpose Driven Critique" link.
Step 4. Read the proof.

"I see you conveniently avoided my question..."

I will say, "Hi Rick! Christ is risen! Alleluia!" Coincidentally, you will say the same thing to Chris.

Since I answered your question, answer mine: How often does Rick preach/teach legalism?


Tim, thank you, I needed a good laugh today.


I just starting listening and reading this site.
God saved me from my self-salvation in 1992

Right now I am tired the gospel is HARD to find out here.
I want to thank you for what I have heard so far from your site.
It has been good and hopeful for my heart in Jesus doing it all for his sheep.
I hope it does NOT change in mid stream I hope the walk of the believer does NOT become the deciding factor on whether they EVER truly was given the free gift of salvation for Christ sake to Honor the Father and do the will of the Father in His plan for salvation before the foundation of the world.
I know the verse faith without works.
This scares me.
What if I don't see the works. Then where does someone knowing they have nothing to give God go, I already thought I believed by His Grace that His Son was the ONLY way.
Where in the world could someone go from this point.
It it hopeless and despairing and hurtful and if God's instruction has been given to me. It is dishonoring to God Himself.
But, this is the reality of the person who is honest and really can not see any good works, and if there may be a few it doesn't compare to the motive of the work which could be wrong. Or the selfishness, or indifference or etc. etc of the person.

This faith will produce works? Humm

It just must be works of FAITH like Heb 11 chapter.

Otherwise, hummm it is a whole new law to keep. Again it is good - supposly done out of love.
But, still a whole new law of love.
Who can do it?
And is it contingent upon the first saving of the Holy Ghost in regeneration?
This could my my mind and eyes just so tired that I can not think anymore.

Still thanks for the good words so far on your site.
Hope the Lord blesses your site.
Hope I keep reading and am edified by your site.

Gee, I feel kinda selfish writing all this about - but maybe God will make it good for another believer. Maybe He will give an answer that can help myself and others HOPE IN THE LORD>



Are you tired of being reminded of your faults? Does your church NOT accept you for who you are? Does your church community constantly remind you of your imperfections? Does it seem utterly impossible to "do right" with others and "be right" with God? Do you leave your church service feeling inadequate? Do your church leaders make you feel insecure?

If you answered, "yes" to even one of these questions, you might be feeling frustrated, depressed, and ready to give up trying to be faultless, perfect, or a "good person." After all, how is it possible to please everyone?

To be sure, we all have faults and imperfections, and so long as we are measured against the standards of others, we always will. Moreover, in our daily lives, each of us is constantly being reminded of these faults, in the hope that this will help us to change for the better. But there is a problem with this. That is, in reminding us of our faults, people tell us something we already know. We know that we are not perfect in the eyes of others. But being reminded of this fact does not help us change, but rather makes us frustrated and depressed. Surprisingly, this is what often happens in many church experiences.

If this has been your experience, what you need is not more "bad news" concerning your faults in the eyes of others, but "good news" concerning your perfection in the eyes of God. Indeed, it is the bringing forth of such "good news" that the church experience is supposed to be about. While you may have faults in the eyes of other people (who also have faults), in the eyes of God, you are without fault. In the eyes of God you are perfect.

God has told you that you are perfect; God has told you that you are righteous; God has told you that you are without fault...God, who is absolutely perfect, sees you just like he sees himself.

Most religious leaders want you to think that you have to "do right" to "be right." You do have to "do right" for your own sake. But you don't "do right" to "be right" with God. God loves you no matter what you decide to do!

If you are tired of being reminded of your faults and are ready for some more "good news" please continue to read.

The word "gospel" literally means something. You wouldn't know it by looking up the word in the dictionary. Webster's has it defined strictly in its modern day cultural and historical context. And you definitely wouldn't know it by most religious doctrines, either. They often are so divisive, intolerant, and downright hateful. But, thankfully, we have a resource for a more intimate portrayal of the real meaning of the word gospel, the inspired messages contained in the Bible.

Simply stated, the gospel means in the original language "good news". And there are only two varieties of this gospel: grace and peace.

There is no bad news in the good news!

And here's the good news. God loves all men and women the same. We believe ALL human beings have been made righteous in the sight of God, because, amazingly, somehow God chose to redeem the world as the scriptures state so clearly by the sacrificial life and death of Jesus Christ The Son of God. This is foreshadowed and predicted in the ancient Hebrew writings and eventually revealed in much of what is known as the New Testament by the recorded words of Jesus, Paul the apostle, and many others.

This is not Christianity; the Bible never uses that word. This is redemption.

What this is is people of all faiths, backgrounds, and proclivities, being loved, redeemed, reconciled, saved, heaven-bound, totally spiritually equal in the eyes of the Creator. Together, we're learning more about this good news. And we are letting the whole world know we have all already been redeemed by the blood of the Lamb. We are all already perfect and holy forever accepted by God!

If this is good news to you and you would like to know more please contact me for bookings. (Go to the Contact page.)

This good news needs to be shared with the whole world. Let me come and teach at your church or any place of gathering. We will dig into this great mystery of God that is explained clearly thoughout the Holy Scriptures. Go to www.god-accepts-us-all.com

The comments to this entry are closed.

October 2010

Sun Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat
          1 2
3 4 5 6 7 8 9
10 11 12 13 14 15 16
17 18 19 20 21 22 23
24 25 26 27 28 29 30

A Little Leaven

Support This Site

Follow Me on Twitter

  • Twitter

Twitter Updates

    follow me on Twitter