I call it like I see it.
31st July 2005
Wow. It seems that interview I posted about on challies.com has caused quite a ruckus.
Now I’m not going to start pointing fingers but it is the extremists on both sides that give the “sane” group a bad name. All sorts of comments from calvinists in an uproar because Richard calls himself a calvinist but calls limited atonement and irresistable grace how he sees it in the Scripture. Fellow Christians hurling words like, heresy, heretic, false doctrine, etc etc…at each other. In addition, anti-PDL people throwing stones at Tim just for posting the interview, as if Richard was some sort of anti-Christ.
Well I call it like I see it too. I am definitely against Richard Abanes and his support for the PDL and you can read part 2 of Tim’s interview with him to see why. However, Richard claims to be a brother in Christ and you have to respect some of his comments in the interview. Why would I throw out everything he has to say just because he is a Rick Warren supporter? Give me a break. His comments on Harry Potter, as well as much of what he had to say seems pretty right on (and Scriptural) to me. In case some of you die hard (or hyper-)calvinists weren’t aware, “limited atonement” as held by many is a very weak position Scripturally.
What we are seeing displayed here friends is not Christianity. It is the same scoffing and “hatred” we are warned against in the Scripture. Perhaps some of these so-called “Christians” who are speaking so harshly should step down off their pedestal and spend more time in the Scripture.
P.S. Since I brought up PDL, I should probably mention that my objections may not be the same as most people that constantly bash it (and Rick Warren). However, that is for another post if I ever feel it is important enough to go into more detail about the issue. My general comments on it can be found here.
Addendum 7/31:
Phil Johnson at PyroMania comments on the Richard Abanes interview.
What I find interesting in all this is that Richard Abanes is associated with Saddleback Church / Rick Warren (whom he is defending) and Phil Johnson is associated with Grace to You / John MacArthur (whom he is defending). Both the interview and Phil’s post are worth reading if you have the time. At the very least you get to see some well written defenses/analysis of certain statements/issues.
Addendum 8/1:
One last comment on all this. Tim posted his opinion on the interview and I have to say I think he hit the nail on the head. Below is a reproduction of my comment on Tim’s blog.
Just wanted to say I think you hit the nail on the head here Tim. The question is, why is Richard defending Rick at all (because he goes to his church?). Yes, I know Richard claims it is because he is defending “truth” but that is irrelavent as far as I am concerned. The only “truth” worth “defending” is the Word. Defending some man’s ministry (apart from the Scripture) is pointless IMO. Both Richard and Phil are guilty of defending a third party in this instance. Let the person speak for themselves if they wish, otherwise, it is just hearsay.
Greg Koukl and Ken Silva’s response on the ever growing discussion. This should be my last comment/update on this issue. You can follow the rabbit trail as far as you like with the links provided thus far.
AMDG
July 31st, 2005 at 17:04
I dare you to throw your comment, “. . . In case some of you die hard (or hyper-)calvinists weren’t aware, “limited atonement” as held by many is a very weak position Scripturally. . . .” onto one of your comments on the Pyromaniac–it would make for interesting conversation over there–don’t you agree
?
Bobby
July 31st, 2005 at 20:03
heh, I am sure it would…probably not a good idea though, I am sure many of the commenters have been to this blog
I probably should have used the term “stiff-necked” anyway.
AMDG
August 1st, 2005 at 23:23
It’s interesting, the Apostle Paul had no problem with defending himself, against pseudo-Apostle’s (see the whole epistle of II Corinthians). Why doesn’t Warren just set the record straight himself. It seems that our Christian leaders are so “over-committed”, many times, that I wonder who in fact they are ministering to? Many of these mega-church pastors are celebrities, and as we’ve seen in the media, celebrities can get away with saying just about anything (fallacy=appeal to the people)–and are considered an automatic authority based purley upon their status. I’m not saying everything Warren says is fallacious, or contrary to the gospel, but of course it doesn’t take much syncretization before the church ends up worshipping the “golden calf”, and still thinks they are maintaining pure biblical Christianity (look at Israel). God constantly, through the prophets, chastized, and disciplined His people for being like the “nations”. It is the height of arrogance, when the church in America thinks she has “progressed” beyond the ancient Israelites.
You know what really frustrates me, Brian, as I have been looking and linking to all of the RA/Warren banter. Neither side brings up actual scripture in their discussion. They might allude to it in a generalized way, but never go to it for counsel in this regard. I guess this is symptomatic of the biblical illiteracy that is rampant in the church–even amongst those who claim to be biblicists. I’m done rambling, thanks for listening/reading.
Bobby
August 1st, 2005 at 23:57
I hate to do this, but:
> In case some of you die hard (or hyper-)calvinists weren’t aware, “limited
> atonement” as held by many is a very weak position Scripturally.
Are you saying that the doctrine of limited atonement has weak support in scripture? Or are you saying is a lot of people have it skewed? The latter I would agree with. The former, not.
At this point, instead of tiresome internet polemic, I would suggest Hugh Martin’s “The Atonement” or even John Owen’s “Death of Death…” Read those two, and then read the bible, and then tell me whether definate atonement has little scriptural support… It only has poor scriptural support if we simply have not done our homework.
As for Warren, I’ve softened after reading Abanes opinions. Some of us Reformed Fundy types can be so blinded about outing our brothers in Christ. They are mistaken, and have stuff to learn, and us moreso.
Let’s help each other.
August 2nd, 2005 at 08:15
I wouldn’t call it it rambling…you discuss some important points.
We have a “back and forth” argument taking place without the use of Scripture as a basis. As a result it is a “tit for tat” which is mostly meaningless.
We have people defending/attacking third parties instead of those third parties addressing the issues themselves. If said third parties don’t care enough to defend themselves then it doesn’t warrant anyone else defending them.
Your point about Warren not addressing the charges (himself) brought against him from fellow brothers and sisters in Christ (with Scriptural backing) is a serious one.
AMDG
August 2nd, 2005 at 08:47
Immovable,
Actually, I am saying a bit of both. Let me explain.
Most subjects that have strong Scriptural support are generally not contested. Why? Because the teaching is clear.
“Limited atonement” as taught by some does not fall into that category. Notice I said as “taught by some”. There is plenty of teaching on limited atonement that does not go beyond what the Scripture says on the subject. There are plenty of exegetical studies on the subject. However, even those exegetical studies vary on their defense.
Therein lies the problem on subjects without strong Scriptural support. The “details” can be skewed either way and they can be defended exegetically without any problems concerning that defense.
If you are interested in where I stand… I try to stand just as the Scripture stands on issues. This does leave a lot to be desired by some people.
A few more examples to clear up my statements.
The doctrine of “predestination” and God’s will is taught but the “details” are not. See Romans 9:20 and context. Paul does not give us the when/what/where/why other than who are we to question God. Many people have written books and books to try to teach “detail” that isn’t in the Scripture. Consequently, they have invented all sorts non-Bilblical things such as the “dual will of God” etc etc… They invent these to try to fit God into their understanding which simply cannot be done. We can only go by what God has revealed to us in His Word. Nothing more, nothing less.
I recently did a bit of study on preterism and this is another good case of weak Scriptural support. The full preterist is hinging all of his doctrine on a few verses, a few events and external “exegetical” study. The fact of the matter is there are exegetical studies that both support it and refute it. However, the Scripture as a whole just doesn’t support their view and if your exegesis uses intrinsic sources (the Scripture itself) you will have a mountain of verses to “explain away” before you can support that view.
So now to limited atonement. The extent that some teach it is filled with assumptions and attempting to make verses fit into our “logic” and “understanding”.
In my opinion such courses of action do not build “sound doctrine”.
AMDG
August 7th, 2005 at 17:02
Pastor Ken Silva has recently posted some very interetsing and I might add unbiblical accusations against me at his website—and simply for no other reason than because I dared say that his public statements about Rick Warren were inaccurate.
see http://www.christianunplugged.com/abanesassessment.htm
I have now posted an 8-part (yes, 8-part) reply to Mr. Silva, since he took it upon himself to bring into question not just my views on Rick Warren, but my entire Christian “walk with Jesus”!!!—how predictable.
My lead off Part 1 article is at http://abanes.com/kensilva3.html
Of particular interest, I think, is my response to Silva’s unfortunate accusations about my entire “walk with Jesus” based on nothing more than the fact that I happen to enjoy “country music” and the band “Green Day.” My response to these rather odd charges can be found in the last part of the series at:
http://abanes.com/kensilva46_65.html
RAbanes
January 10th, 2006 at 11:47
Wow, real tough throwing all that anti-calvinist stuff in there. Does it annoy you as much as it annoys me when people talk about theology like they own it? “As if you didn’t know that theres absolutely no reason to believe that limited atonement stuff” Wow, with one sentence you decimate the opposition. How backwards. What do you believe, let me just mindlessly hack at it with my words.
January 11th, 2006 at 00:44
parker,
Who were you addressing your comment to? I couldn’t find the quote in your comment anywhere in the posts above.
Personally, I am more “anti-follower” than I am anti-calvinist…I am not a follower of John Calvin, I am a follower of Christ and Christ alone.
AMDG