I came across the blog (Pop Culture Mix) of a long-time Saddleback member (15 years) and his name is Richard Abanes. His most recent blog chronicles how he posted comments at other blogs maintained by Dr. Kim Riddlebarger (Riddleblog) and Chris Rosebrough (Extreme Theology). Dr. Riddlebarger and Mr. Rosebrough had posted blogs about Rick Warren’s Christmas message broadcast on the Fox News Channel. The main point of contention by Riddlebarger and Rosebrough was RW’s use of the term mulligan.
RW stated in his Christmas message that God wants to give us a second chance this Christmas. He then tells everyone that we would all like to have “do-overs” in our lives. RW continues by discussing the mulligan in golf. The mulligan is when someone hits a bad shot in golf, then they “take a mulligan” by hitting another shot and the bad shot doesn’t count against you. RW says, “What if we had mulligans in every area of life; financial mulligans, relationship mulligans; health mulligans; or you know I’d like to just do that one over. I’d like to take better care of myself, my body, my relationships. Did you know that God loves to give second chances? Did you know that he loves to give mulligans? It’s why he sent Jesus Christ to earth at Christmas. In fact, the Bible says that before God created you, He already knew the worst things you’d do with your life and He still made you. He still loves you. A lot of people think that God is angry at them. He’s not angry at you, He’s mad about you. He made you to love you. God says, ‘I know all your sins, all your mistakes, all your faults, all your failures, even the ones you haven’t done yet’; God already knows those and He says, ‘I love you and I offer you a chance to be forgiven and have them completely wiped out’.
This above paragraph shows just more of the same half-truths preached by RW week-in and week-out. The message is long on love and short on necessary components of the Gospel, such as a need for a person’s debt of sin to be paid or substitutionary atonement. Also, to tell an unbeliever that is still dead in their trespasses and sins that, “God is not angry at you,” tramples on God’s justice and righteousness. Woe to RW, for Psalm 5:4-6 says, “For you are not a God who takes pleasure in wickedness; No evil dwells with You. The boastful shall not stand before Your eyes; You hate all who do iniquity.”
The Abanes post entitled, “Rick Warren and the Mulligan Wars,” presented his side of the story through e-mails with Rosebrough and blog comments. He explained that the mulligan analogy was “an absolutely acceptable message/analogy that Warren used to try and help non-Christians understand what happens at salvation because of Jesus’ death on the cross (which he mentioned by reading Colossians 2:13-14: “God makes you alive with Christ when he forgives all your failures and sins. he [sic] did this by erasing the charges that were brought against us by the laws God established. He took those charges away by nailing them to the cross”).
Abanes continues his defense of the mulligan analogy by saying, “It wasn’t a perfect analogy; not a theologically astute analogy. But it was perfectly acceptable – and not at all heretical.” Abanes contends that RW was speaking to unchurched people and chose his words to “break through the unbeliever’s mind.” He claims those people that are critical of RW are trying to force RW into using a particular set of words in the presentation of the Gospel. Rosebrough later asks Abanes to adhere to certain hermeneutical principles and to lay his exegesis on the table for all to see related to the first chapter of the Purpose Driven Life book. Abanes offered no exegesis and instead gave endorsements related to books on apologetics that he has written. However, providing endorsements by other Christian men does not make you credible. A proper exegesis utilizing hermeneutics of the texts used by RW in the PDL would give him credibility in this situation.
Abanes ends the re-cap of dialogue by stating, “It all ended rather badly, with Rosebrough leveling the most vitriolic, extreme, and hate-filled accusation ever made against me to date: “…then my assessment of you is that you are no longer a Christian Apologist but instead you’ve become a very dangerous member of a cult and have become an enemy of Christ and His church. . . . for the sake of the Body of Christ, I must treat you as a wolf in sheep’s clothing and an enemy of the cross.” This statement by Rosebrough about Abanes being an enemy of the cross was caused by Abanes’ refusal to demonstrate(using solid hermeneutical principles) that the teachings of RW are biblically sound.
I’m willing to give RW some space with terms like “Mulligan”. RW likes to use the term “bad hair day” and maybe he was having one. However, RW has proven time and time again that he does not preach the whole counsel of God. For instance, RW skips to the application of salvation to the elect as indicated by the quoting of Colossians 2:13-14. We can’t talk about the application of salvation without first having the accomplishment of salvation. Additionally, RW’s statements about being loved and accepted by God just the way we are skips directly to reconciliation. However, reconciliation is based upon first having propitiation. Therefore, Abanes’ justification for RW using the mulligan analogy fails even though RW quoted Colossians 2:13-14.
Dr. Morey gives the definition of propitiation in Studies In The Atonement as, “Propitiation is that priestly work of Christ wherein He removed God’s anger and wrath by the covering over of our sins through the substitutionary sacrifice of Himself to God, thus securing our acceptance before God. Then reconciliation is defined as “that sovereign work of God the Father in which His alienation from sinners is removed through the propitiatory sacrifice of Jesus Christ. Reconciliation flows out of and is based upon propitiation.”
This is the first time that I have come across someone that has put together an effort to defend the theology of RW. Apparently, Abanes wrote a whole book on the subject. Usually, the typical “Saddleback Sam” that I speak with feels very uncomfortable talking about Christianity or is only interested in the large church campus or number of people attending the church. When I’ve brought up shortcomings related to RW’s teaching, the regular or intermittent Saddleback attendee usually points to such things as RW’s book being on the best-seller list. This is much like Abanes’ attempt to give himself credibility by parading his endorsements on the back cover of books that he has written, instead of actually defending RW’s theology by using hermeneutics resulting in a sound biblical defense.
{ 35 comments… read them below or add one }
Drew, We know this is parr for the course about RW. I find it very sad that someone would try to defend the false teaching of this so called pastor.We need to remember to pray for him and all those who are deceived by his shallow teaching.Glory to God in the highest and continue to rightly divide the word of truth my brother!
I wonder why God’s Word never mentioned Messiah’s “large church campus” or “number of people attending”…hmmm could it be that “the way is narrow” and “some teachings are hard to understand”?
Drew,
>Abanes offered no exegesis and instead gave endorsements related to books on apologetics that he has written. However, providing endorsements by other Christian men does not make you credible. A proper exegesis utilizing hermeneutics of the texts used by RW in the PDL would give him credibility in this situation.
ANSWER: Actually, if you would have read the interchange CLOSELY, my reply of apologetic credits/endorsements was in response to Chris accusing me of not knowing “the first thing about Biblical Hermeneutics,” which was an unwarranted attack against my personal/professional integrity. Consequently, I raised my qualifications and credentials to assure readers that I do have knowledge of hermeneutics and scripture.
>This is much like Abanes’ attempt to give himself credibility by parading his endorsements on the back cover of books that he has written, instead of actually defending RW’s theology by using hermeneutics resulting in a sound biblical defense.
ANSWER: I don’t have to “give” myself credibility, I already have credibility. And it is sad, in my eyes, that you or anyone else would resort to personal attacks, innuendos, and attempts to impugn my long-standing reputation as a biblically-sound apologist who has stood for truth, the gospel, and Christian doctrine for so many years. Unfortunate, but I certainly bear you no hard feelings.
As for Rick Warren’s beliefs, I suggest you read my book on him titled “Rick Warren and the Purpose that Drives Him.” It lays out exactly what Warren believes and teaches from his own lips and from internal Saddleback teaching tools.
As for each and every word/sermon that comes out of him, I’m not really interested in analyzing every syllable that comes from Warren somewhere in the world.
My newest posts about the whole Muligan issue offers plenty of information to show how/why Warren’s approach is just that — an approach. It is not a false gospel. It is not heresy. It is not self-help. True, many of his messages are not complete, in-depth theology/soteriology lectures. Nor are most of them worthy of some systematic theology seminary class.
His preaching is, instead, a method of trying to communicate the gospel in an easy-to-undertsand style to unbelievers–that’s it. Is it perfect? No. Is it a method God wants everyone to use? No. beyond improvement? Hardly.
But we are all working toward the same goal — sharing the gospel the best way we know how to those God has put in our path, and hopefully seeing many of them embrace the Christ of the Bible, by whom eternal life is recieved as a free gift of God by grace through faith.
Richard Abanes
Keep up the good work Drew.
Most of the people involved with a “big church” have not “heard” the gospel yet; maybe you’ll be the one that gets them thinking and asking questions?
If they are reading this blog then we can point them to the Full Counsel of God, with proper exegetical and hermeneutical translation. After all it is the disposition of their soul for all eternity!
My biggest problem with RW is that he is not teaching the whole truth. [shameless plug to follow] If you read “Professional Responsibilities of a Pastor” on this site, a true shepherd leads his people into all truth and Biblically-defined fruit will follow. To me, the mulligan analogy trivializes the all-important step of repentance and clear identification and conviction of sin. If a person does not know his sin and does not repent, how can he truly be regenerate? It is possible that Drew has not perfectly represented Abanes quotes, but the question still remains: does the ‘fruit’ of RW’s preaching correspond with Biblical fruit? Is a majority of his congregation exhibiting the fruit of the Spirit, the proof of the regenerate?
Greetings Jon,
You asked: Is a majority of his congregation exhibiting the fruit of the Spirit, the proof of the regenerate?
Now, you might not believe me, but all I can say from being there for 15 years or so is, “yes.”
Fruit I have seen is:
- repentance from sinful lifestyles,
- letting go of worldy desires, ideas, philosophies
- willingness to serve others as Christ served others,
- committment to learn more spiritual truths from scripture (i.e., meat of the Word — or deeper theology),
- acceptance of the need to defend teh faith (Jude 3), and
- the technical, biblical fruit of the spirit,as listed in Galatians 5:19-23: love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness and self-control.
The whole counsel of God is indeed taught at Saddleback. Hence, the fruit that is evident there. As a member of Saddleback, especially if enrolled in the spiritual maturity classes, one is taught the essentials of the Christian faith, including God’s nature, Christ’s nature, the nature of the atonement (what happened on the cross that made available to us the free gift of salvation by grace alone thru faith alone), and doctrines pertaining to the afterlife.
Did Warren shove all of this into his Christmas sermon? Uhm, no. But he put enough into it to get thru to Grandma whoever, or Uncle what’s-his-name, both of whom happened to be visiting Saddleback on Christmas Eve after not being in chruch for maybe 30 years.
They needed to hear something they could grasp — i.e., a morsel of life-giving bread that told them they do not have to be stuck in their dead-end life apart from God. They needed to know that Jesus, by going to the cross for their sins, was essentially allowing them to start life over again — i.e., a do over, in essence.
Not a perfect analagy, true — no analogy is perfect. But it gets the point across to people.
Now, it’s absurd, really, to start splitting hairs about the EXACT technicalities of a “mulligan” in golf, and whether that applies proportionately or disproportionately to the precise nature of our sins and the ramifications of them in conjunction with the necessity to “do over” the Law, which is of course impossible, since it is actually impossible to keep the law, and hence, it is only by Christ’s propitiation for our sins and imputed righteousness that we…… well, you get my point, I hope.
A lot of people at Christmas were probably just trying to: 1) not commit suicide; 2) make it thru another dark holiday with relatives they don’t really love, 3) looking for hope in a hopeless world, 4) begrudgingly sitting in a church they really didn’t want to be at to begin with, 5) understand a concept utterly foreign to their way of thinking (total forgiveness – no strings attached.
It was not the time to do anything else but share the Good News in the simplest way possible. Rick chose a certain analogy. You and others may have chosen another analogy or another way to speak to such people. Fine. Go for it. Let’s all do the work of the kingdom.
Sadly, others do not seem to feel this way. It’s either their way, or no way. Sigh.
Happy New Year, Jon.
Richard Abanes
Reformed Rich- Jesus asks, “Why do you persecute me?” I’m defending the Gospel that Jesus saves, not RW in particular, although that is who you all are fond of attacking.
Drew- The Shepherd is Christ.
Reformed Mama- The Bible does mention large synagogues and arenas. Also, I’m certain that the Gospel is simple enough for less intelligent people than you to be saved.
Richard- Excellent defense. I’ve been attempting to find the hearts of the accusers on this site for awhile. What is truth without love?
Tim and Jon- I’ve noticed the problem: you keep preaching the diagnosis (sin), rather than the cure (salvation).
Drew. Yesterday I posted the following comment at Richard Abanes’ site, only to have it deleted (twice). I asked him why he was deleting my comment. He didn’t answer, so I’ll post it here.
>>>>>>>>>>>
To Richard Abanes on 01/10/08
It seems as though Drew is spot on in his post. If Dr. Morey has accurately described propitiation and reconciliation, then Drew’s argument is valid and based on true premises. This is what Dr. Morey had to say:
>>Dr. Morey gives the definition of propitiation in Studies In The Atonement as, “Propitiation is that priestly work of Christ wherein He removed God’s anger and wrath by the covering over of our sins through the substitutionary sacrifice of Himself to God, thus securing our acceptance before God. Then reconciliation is defined as “that sovereign work of God the Father in which His alienation from sinners is removed through the propitiatory sacrifice of Jesus Christ. Reconciliation flows out of and is based upon propitiation.”
Drew Kerr, critical of Rick Warren’s “Mulligan” analogy, as well as your defense of it, said:
>>RW skips to the application of salvation to the elect as indicated by the quoting of Colossians 2:13-14. We can’t talk about the application of salvation without first having the accomplishment of salvation. Additionally, RW’s statements about being loved and accepted by God just the way we are skips directly to reconciliation. However, reconciliation is based upon first having propitiation. Therefore, Abanes’ justification for RW using the mulligan analogy fails even though RW quoted Colossians 2:13-14.
So when you say:
>>True, many of his messages are not complete, in-depth theology/soteriology lectures. Nor are most of them worthy of some systematic theology seminary class.
>>His preaching is, instead, a method of trying to communicate the gospel in an easy-to-undertsand style to unbelievers–that’s it. Is it perfect? No. Is it a method God wants everyone to use? No. beyond improvement? Hardly.
The question becomes, why defend rather than rebuke incomplete messages based on shallow theology? Furthermore, the question of truth emerges when preached messages are compared to the biblical exegesis of competent scholars and fount wanting. I am persuaded of the legitimacy of criticism such as Kerr’s, on the basis that he truly believes that RW is not telling the truth. Kerr demonstrates why he believes RW is in error, and thus far, the complaints against you have been that you have not been able to demonstrate why he is not. As an observant onlooker, it looks like you’re just trying to make money off the whole controversy. Please, consider the exegetical results that prove that Rick Warren’s Christmas message was a lie.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
I must have said something that he didn’t like, or that he didn’t want anyone to read.
Harold Cerula
Harold — GREETING!!!!
Actually, the reason why your comment wasn’t approved was because it said nothing, absolutely nothing, new. You added zero to the discussion. What you asked — again — has already been answered, ad nauseum, ad infinitum. I’m sorry if you can’t/won’t see it. I truly am. I did, however, post your initial reference to this blog, which I felt was important to show the ongoing conflict.
Read The Mulligan Wars, parts 1, 2, 3 again.
R. Abanes
Harold,
As a moderator of this blog, I can assure you that you can comment at-will, whenever you want, and we will not play pope. In reading your comment, I found nothing that would have caused for me to not approve it to appear on this blog.
P.S. I am not in agreement with the PopCultureMix moderator. I believe you did bring something new to the discussion: the perspective of an onlooker that sees the Warren apologist as a money-maker. With a quick google search I found an Amazon author page selling 20+ titles. I also ran across some articles regarding charges of plagiarism. See the following:
http://www.cultlink.com/ar/abanes-frost.htm
Thank you for your perspective. It adds dimension to the discussion, especially since the Warrenite boasts of self-proclaimed credibility. Feel free to comment as you wish. We will not play popery-games here.
Jude 3
P.S.S. The Warrenite does not offer good arguments in the defense of the Mulligan analogy. The Mulligan analogy is incompatible with revealed theology, and simply is not true. It is not true. It is not true.
Richard,
I appreciate your comments and taking the time to defend RW.
In my comment regarding sin, my whole point is that people *will not* treasure the solution (Jesus) until they clearly realize the severity and consequences of their problem (sin), thereby creating a cheap grace. I think we both agree this was a very expensive gift.
Maybe you can help me, but when I visited Saddleback, I saw very few carrying their Bibles (check on the pastor ~ Bereans), no crosses, very little participation in worship, and very light, application-only messages. Granted, it was one visit. I’m puzzled how such an environment can produce the fruit you mention.
Finally, I struggle to understand how someone with the character of Hillary Clinton would receive *two* standing ovations at Saddleback. I do not personally know Senator Clinton, but from widely available news, reports and observations, this is a clear case of anti-Biblical character (read ‘evil’) being praised and not discerned by supposedly spiritual people. Has RW lost his way in this regard?
STEPHEN: … the perspective of an onlooker that sees the Warren apologist as a money-maker. With a quick google search I found an Amazon author page selling 20+ titles.
ME: And here we are with the personal attacks and accusations again. It’s odd, really, I have to say, why there is so much pure nastiness flying around.
1. I am NOT a Warren apologist (see my rumors page, http://abanes.com/rumorcontrol.html, under “Rick Warren”). And as I’ve posted elsewhere on the internet, “I have never defended Warren. I have always defended truth, and also what biblical apologetics should be. What I see going on with the Warren attacks have nothing to do with either truth or apologetics. The hateful rhetoric, nit-picky arguments, half-truths, misinformation, disinformation, lack of love, baseless assumptions, and outright lies coming from so many of Warren’s critics reveals a slew of tragic problems within the Body of Christ. These problems are what I am trying to correct as I stand for truth — and truth alone.”
2. As for the amazon.com page, with 20+ books, that would be there because, well, uhm, I’m a Christian author. I’m not really sure what that has to do with being a money-maker. It’s my career/ministry.
STEPHEN: I also ran across some articles regarding charges of plagiarism. See the following:
ME: Yawn. You can read about that at the basic wiki article on me.
STEPHEN: … especially since the Warrenite boasts of self-proclaimed credibility.
ME: The Warrenite? Are we living in Medieval England. “My Lord, pay no attention to The Saracen, he speaks lies.” BTW, I’m not an -ite of any kind (to borrow the insightful words of Joseph Smith in The Book of Mormon). And as I’ve already mentioned elsewhere, the ONLY reason I said anything about my credentials was because I was told that I basically had no credentials.
STEPHEN: We will not play popery-games here.
ME: lol. Dude, you’re killing me with all this lingo.
Peace at ya,
R. Abanes
Jon,
JON: I appreciate your comments and taking the time to defend RW.
ME: Again, not defending Rick Warren. I’m defending truth, and teh proper way to do apologetics. What is goingon with attacks against R. Warren are only symptoms of a much, much bigger problem throughout the church among so-called discernment ministries, doctrine-sifters, and lay apologists.
JON: In my comment regarding sin, my whole point is that people *will not* treasure the solution (Jesus) until they clearly realize the severity and consequences of their problem (sin), thereby creating a cheap grace.
ME: Agreed. The sticking point is — how much does one have to hear before they realize how deep in sin they are. I’ve met a LOT of people who know full well how deep in sin they are and how miserable a sinful existence is. I don’t hav eto bash them over the head with that — I need to give them the solution.
JON: I think we both agree this was a very expensive gift.
ME: Agreed 100%.
JON: Maybe you can help me, but when I visited Saddleback, I saw very few carrying their Bibles (check on the pastor ~ Bereans), no crosses, very little participation in worship, and very light, application-only messages.
ME: Hmmm, interesting observations. Well, here are my two cents.
1. Bible verses used in the message are typed out already on the bulletin, this helps non-Christians who don’t have Bibles to follow along and not feel like idiots cause they don’t know their Jeremiah from their Philippians. Bibles are normally present at other studies and classroom courses for maturity, and various other subjects. I personally taught classes on cults and the Bibles were everywhere.
2. No crosses? You missed the 100 foot cross outside the building and the 6ft+ cross at the front of the church? Odd. Moreover, I would venture to say there were a whole lot of crosses worn around necks and on fingers in rings (but you missed these, too, for understandable reasons). Also, are you saying we can actually judge the doctrinal purity of a church by how many crosses you see around? Cults have that one covered easy.
3. There is nothing wrong with life application messages. Jesus taught life application messsages constantly (see gospels).
JON: Finally, I struggle to understand how someone with the character of Hillary Clinton would receive *two* standing ovations at Saddleback.
ME: I’m not really into politics. I know that ALL the candidates were invited, not just her. Moreover, I would be the LAST person to say that the validity of one’s Christianity must be measured by which political candidate they endorse. That is very dangerous and unbiblical grounds to be treading on.
Richard Abanes
Even if we excused the “mulligan” analogy as simply a poor choice in communicating the gospel, what excuse can there possibly be for the repeated and continual misuse of Bible verses accomplished by ripping them out of context?
I understand that we, as followers of Christ and in our zeal for the lost, can err by employing non-Biblical methods under the guise of innovative ways to be culturally relevant.” But what are we left to think after repeatedly warning, rebuking, and admonishing somebody for continuing to employ these techniques and for perpetually failing to present the whole truth?
Should we not follow the Bible in dealing with this?
“If your brother sins, rebuke him, and if he repents, forgive him”
“If your brother sins against you,go and show him his fault, just between the two of you. If he listens to you, you have won your brother over. But if he will not listen, take one or two others along, so that ‘every matter may be established by the testimony of two or three witnesses.’ If he refuses to listen to them, tell it to the church; and if he refuses to listen even to the church, treat him as you would a pagan or a tax collector.”
Are we not at the last step?
Dear Apostle Paul,
Your nit-picky arguments reveal a slew of tragic problems within the Body of Christ. Here’s an example of something you wrote a couple of thousand years ago.
Now the promises were made to Abraham and to his offspring. It does not say, “And to offsprings,” referring to many, but referring to one, “And to your offspring,” who is Christ.
These problems are what Richard Abanes is trying to correct as he stands for truth — and truth alone. His truth, mind you.
Stephen your just being unloving!
“Moreover, I would be the LAST person to say that the validity of one’s Christianity must be measured by which political candidate they endorse. That is very dangerous and unbiblical grounds to be treading on”
Yes, after all “judge not lest ye be judged.” We as Christians should make zero effort to discern between right and wrong and should NEVER question pastors who endorse or otherwise support everything that is antithetical to Christ’s teachings. And we should absolutely not use such fruit as evidence of false teaching or doctrine. We should simply be happy to attend church services with more heathen than believers. And if anybody gets out of line we should criticize them for being envious because they do not enjoy the privileges of bigger buildings, more money, more members, or circus clowns before and after every service. Our battlecry: If it’s good enough for Barnum Bailey, it’s good enough for Christ!
Wow, you guys are really something else. I mean, in all seriousness, do you really think your tone is….Christ-honoring? I’m really curious here, have you ever bothred to even read 2 Timothy 2:24-25. Let’s stop with the nasty word games, clever insults, and sniping — part of ongoing problem with so-called defenders of the faith.
AGO: Yes, after all “judge not lest ye be judged.”
RA: Well, that IS biblical, and when taken in context, is certainly valid.
AGO: We as Christians should make zero effort to discern between right and wrong
RA: Strawman. Never said that.
AGO: and should NEVER question pastors who endorse or otherwise support everything that is antithetical to Christ’s teachings.
RA: Strawman. Never said that either.
AGO: And we should absolutely not use such fruit as evidence of false teaching or doctrine.
RA: Strawman. Never said that. (In fact, you might want to just scroll up a bit to Richard Abanes, January 11th, 2008 at 7:56 am, post and read it where I talk about fruit. Hmmm, really odd.)
AGO: We should simply be happy to attend church services with more heathen than believers. And if anybody gets out of line we should criticize them for being envious because they do not enjoy the privileges of bigger buildings, more money, more members, or circus clowns before and after every service.
RA: Strawman — again. Never said anything like that. And to be honest, you just sound bitter and envious at this point. Ah well.
AGO: Our battlecry: If it’s good enough for Barnum Bailey, it’s good enough for Christ!
RA: Nope. Strawman once more. This is just all kind of tragic, folks. Really, it is. (sigh)
Richard Abanes
Abanes,
I really do get much amusement from your answers. My last post was hyperbole. Alas, you missed the point since you didn’t address the actual issue.
What you did actually say is “Moreover, I would be the LAST person to say that the validity of one’s Christianity must be measured by which political candidate they endorse. That is very dangerous and unbiblical grounds to be treading on”
This statement is so ridiculous that it deserves mockery. And that’s exactly what my last post was designed to do.
Validity of one’s Christianity ought to be evaluated in every aspect of one’s life. Every single one. And just to note, we aren’t talking about just anybody are we? We are talking about a preacher, not just any preacher, but one with staggering influence over Christians as well as the general population. Such position bares tremendous responsibity to speak the truth and SUPPORT it in every aspect of life, including politics. If a pastor endorses a candidate that has explicity stated that she has and will support immoral, anti-Biblical policy that will destroy the fabric of our society, then I have to question that pastor’s committment to his responsibility and, thereby his Christianity.
“And to be honest, you just sound bitter and envious at this point.”
Ahhh, the fallback argument of seeker-sensitive apologists everywhere. There must be a handbook somewhere that instructs these apologists that when you can’t argue from the Bible, accuse the other of envy. Allow me to clear this up for you: I think you mistake envy for pity. There will be a lot of people in hell and I can assure you that it’s not envy I feel.
ABANES: “Wow, you guys are really something else. I mean, in all seriousness, do you really think your tone is….Christ-honoring?”
ME: That depends on whether or not you have contextualized Christ, or not. Here’s a reminder of our kick-ass Messiah:
JESUS: “But woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! For you shut the kingdom of heaven in people’s faces. For you neither enter yourselves nor allow those who would enter to go in.”
ABANES: Yawn. We have Mulligan analogies now that are way more effective than your archaic evangelistic techniques.
JESUS: Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! For you travel across sea and land to make a single proselyte, and when he becomes a proselyte, you make him twice as much a child of hell as yourselves.
ABANES: Longer yawn. Ad hominem.
JESUS: You blind fools!
ABANES: All of this hateful rhetoric is quite telling of one’s spiritual condition. I should know. Not only did I prance around on Broadway stages as a professional male dancer, I also teach a spiritual maturity class at Saddlebags. Men have told me I look cute in tights, so there!
JESUS: You blind men!
ABANES: It is sad, in my [blind] eyes, that you or anyone else would resort to personal attacks, innuendos, and attempts to impugn my long-standing reputation as a male ballet artist who has also worn skirts on the weekend for fun. Unfortunate, but I certainly bear you no hard feelings.
JESUS: You blind guides, straining out a gnat and swallowing a camel!
ABANES: lol. Dude, you’re killing me with all this lingo.
JESUS: Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! For you clean the outside of the cup and the plate, but inside they are full of greed and self-indulgence.
ABANES: Strawman. I never mentioned ANYTHING about washing dishes, or why I write books.
JESUS: You blind Pharisee! First clean the inside of the cup and the plate, that the outside also may be clean.
ABANES: Now, it’s absurd, really, to start splitting hairs about the EXACT technicalities of a purist view of “so-called” dishwashing and whether that applies proportionately or disproportionately to the precise nature of our degree of eyesight.
JESUS: Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! For you are like whitewashed tombs, which outwardly appear beautiful, but within are full of dead people’s bones and all uncleanness.
ABANES: Dude, the language is seriously dated and irrelevant! I suggest you read my book titled “How I Became an Apologist After Guest-Starring on Fame in 1983.” It lays out exactly why I posed for my glamour shots in whitewashed jeans, and how the zip-up backside tight-fit non-boot-cut jeans were highly fashionable back then.
JESUS: So you also outwardly appear righteous to others, but within you are full of hypocrisy and lawlessness.
ABANES: Yawn. I don’t have to “give” myself credibility, I already have credibility.
JESUS: You serpents, you brood of vipers, how are you to escape being sentenced to hell?”
ABANES: Ho hum. This isn’t even worth my time answering. Seriously, I’d rather be shaking my toosh at male customers of the new Saddlebags strip-club (conveniently located directly below the “Lube-it-Up” vehicle maintenance center across from the spiritual maturity hall). You asked nothing, absolutely nothing, new. You added zero to the discussion. What you asked — again — has already been answered, ad nauseum, ad infinitum. I’m sorry if you can’t/won’t see it. I truly am.
SHLOMO: Answer a fool according to his folly, lest he be wise in his own eyes.
ABANES: (sigh), This is just all kind of tragic, folks. Really, it is.
Stepehen –
I’m sorry to see you go down this thoroughly nasty path. Truly, I am. It will do you no good. And, since our conversation is clearly over, I respectfully request that you not attribute to me words I never said using the “ABANES:” preface.
Sorry you’re so angry. Seems like we can no longer talk in a civil tone. And in all seriousness, you need to talk to somebody.
Ah well. I bid you peace and hope the best for you.
JON, if you’re out there, I look forward to seeing what you may have to say about what kind of fruit being demonstrated here. Hmm.
Peace in Christ,
Richard Abanes
Stephen:
ROFL. That was far better than my hyperbole.
RA:
“Stay away from a foolish man, for you will not find knowledge on his lips”
See ya.
Quick question: Has anyone else had a post deleted on Richard’s blog for asking for a straightforward explanation of RW’s mulligan analogy or hermeneutical practice? I’ve tried a couple times, and it appears from this that other folks are experiencing the same phenomenon of disappearing posts. It was my understanding that these sorts of blogs were supposed to help clarify issues, and I’m having difficulty understanding how deleting a post for some other reason than profanity or sheer hate mail aids in this. (Granted, I’m rather new to the game, so maybe I’m missing something.)
Isn’t the best way to respond to an argument (even one mistakenly taken for an attack) to answer the question directly?
Just wondering.
ABANES: since our conversation is clearly over…
ME: We had a conversation?
ABANES: Sorry you’re so angry.
ME: I’m angry? You’re sorry?
ABANES: Seems like we can no longer talk in a civil tone.
ME: Yawn.
HEIDI SUE: Has anyone else had a post deleted on Richard’s blog for asking for a straightforward explanation of RW’s mulligan analogy or hermeneutical practice? I’ve tried a couple times, and it appears from this that other folks are experiencing the same phenomenon of disappearing posts.
ME: He is participating in what I have named “popery games.” It’s a favorite “power-move” that is enjoyed by damage control obsessed blog moderators incapable of dealing with valid criticism, the Bible etc. For some really exciting popery games, visit J.P. Moreland’s site. When I asked valid questions regarding natural theology and began a conversation regarding the noetic effects of the Fall, as soon as I refuted “free-will” my comments were deleted. I searched and searched for a mulligan button to click, but like Abanes’ blog, Moreland offered no do-over’s…
THE SOVEREIGNTY OF BLOG
Drew,
I thought your recap of this issue was done fairly and with an eye for defending the Biblical Gospel.
Grace and Peace to you.
This is by far my favorite topic to date.
Yeah Drew, keep ‘em coming. Oh, and don’t worry if you screw it up, you get a Mulligan!
Is Mr. Warren a Muslim convert among personages at Biola University, the
Navigators, YWAM, the Billy Graham Center, etc.?
Posted by “Chuck O’Neal, Pastor BGBC” @ Shepherd’s Fellowship
= J.F. MacArthur, et al.
http://www.shepherdsfellowship.org/Comments.aspx?Post=3671
“A few months ago the Yale Center for Faith and Culture wrote a letter to the
Islamic world on behalf of all Christendom asking forgiveness from the ‘All Merciful
One’ (an alternate name for Allah found in the Koran).
They went on to establish that Christians, Jews, and Muslims all genuinely love
and serve one and the same god of love.
Muhammad is referenced and quoted as a true prophet of God, and his life is
upheld as an exemplary life of love, faith, and righteous service unto God, on par
with Jesus Christ.”
[~= Shahada, the primary declarations of Muslims. --T.R.]
“The letter draws theological truths regarding God’s character and central
commands from the Koran.”
Some of those who endorsed the Yale letter:
“-Rick Warren, Founder and Senior Pastor, Saddleback Church
-Doug Pennoyer, Dean, School of Intercultural Studies, Biola University
-Michael W. Treneer, International President, The Navigators, Colorado Springs, CO
-Lynn Green, International Chairman, Youth With A Mission
-Rev. Roy Oksnevad, Director Muslim Ministry, Billy Graham Center at Wheaton, IL
-Rev. Dr. John Stott, Rector Emeritus, All Souls Church, Langham Place, London, UK
The unabridged letter can be found at:
http://www.yale.edu/faith/abou-commonword.htm “
I’m known as “doodlebug,” i.e. an ant-lion larva, or a device for finding buried minerals.
I have compiled Mormon assertions that were acquired from books that were obtained at the afore-said Minister’s church.
E.g., Richard Baer’s Letter to Family & Friends, which is available from a Mormon apologetics-site.
I guess I’m not totally surprised about the rick warren endorsement.
Guys, Jesus called people whitewashed tombs because He knew what he was talking about. I’m so sorry that name-calling is your defense on these matters rather than sticking to what had already been agreed upon, that the issue with Saddleback isn’t heresy on salvation, but a stylistic difference in the approach on sanctification once saved.
In any case, I’ve located the person who has authority at Saddleback to book Dr. Morey as a speaker. You may want to familiarize yourself with the different ministries or classes at Saddleback so Dr. Morey will glean the greatest satisfaction (i.e. Celebrate Recovery or other groups). Messages are taught in a series, mostly by teaching pastors, but various groups to ask in guests by invitation.
David Chrzan, Chief of Staff, is in charge of inviting speakers on behalf of Rick Warren. rrc2@saddleback.net
Feel free to trade invitations for a nice dinner or lunch first. I implore you, bretheren, to try to be nice to each other. An God bless you efforts toward resolving your differences.
Remember, you’re supposed to be Ambassadors of God.
2 COR 5:18 All this is from God, who reconciled us to himself through Christ and gave us the ministry of reconciliation: 19 that God was reconciling the world to himself in Christ, not counting men’s sins against them. And he has committed to us the message of reconciliation.
R.C. – Biblical Thought Dot Com never agreed upon the message being about sanctification rather than salvation. The repsonse given to Abanes was equal to his refusal to give a sound biblical defense utilizing hermeneutics. We are still waiting for an answer from anyone related to this statement:
“RW skips to the application of salvation to the elect as indicated by the quoting of Colossians 2:13-14. We can’t talk about the application of salvation without first having the accomplishment of salvation. Additionally, RW’s statements about being loved and accepted by God just the way we are skips directly to reconciliation. However, reconciliation is based upon first having propitiation. Therefore, Abanes’ justification for RW using the mulligan analogy fails even though RW quoted Colossians 2:13-14.”
If you refuse to show how you arrive at telling us that RW is correct in presenting a gospel that requires no repentance, then you are on a fool’s errand. Although you are free to leave comments, Biblical Thought Dot Com will not likely respond to your comments or give them the time of day.
Repentance and belief go hand in hand. When someone is regenerated and turns toward God in belief, they must also turn away from their sin in repentance.
Prior responses to you have also included answering a fool according to his folly, as was the final answer given to Abanes that sent him away to make shallow and unbiblical defenses of the Purpose Driven madness. If you think that the last comment directed at Abanes was name calling, then you have missed the point.
Listen! Do not continue to pull away from the biblical gospel and the faithful preaching of that Biblical gospel. Although, I wonder if you have ever understood the gospel in the first place. RW has preached a false gospel for a long time and just last week showed more of his true colors when he proclaimed the following at the National Cathedral: “The future is not about secularism, but the future is about religious pluralism”.
I’m sorry…did RW present the Gospel in that video? I really don’t recall “doofus” being used in the Bible, but that was the essence of RW’s gospel message.
Abanes and his wild attacks on legitimate apologists on pastors is ridiculous, these teachers of the Word of God who are honestly responding things that Richard doesn’t address in his myriad of articles. He is always misrepresenting what is said for more rhetoric, see his writings exalting his ego while he smothers truth for the sake of his selfish investment and foundation-less convictions. These might sound like harsh words, but I get tired of dishonesty in the form of self-righteous accusations made by men like Richard Abanes, who has, and will continue to voice his deluded view and defense of Rick Warren.
Drew,
Just a note to say “well done.” When I first started my blog as a sounding post, to warn against the apostasy spreading across the land, I was quite ignorant of the other efforts being created for the same purpose. Of course I am now well aware of the many who are laboring against this scourge, trying to hold it in check, and am glad to come across this site. I will be adding it to my feed to help promote what you are doing here.
RW’s mulligan speech would have us believe that our Father has an unlimited number of “mulligans” to deliver to the unsaved. The Bible does not teach this. On the contrary, God has revealed that His mercy will NOT continue on endlessly, as pictured in Jesus’ parable of the barren fig tree (Lk. 13:6-9) , as RW presumes. The endless mulligans could be better understood as Abanes repeated attempts, on every blog across the net, to give new life to Warren’s botched theology. Richard Abanes is Rick Warrens mulligan man.
Good work and Peace,
Steve Blackwell
I have to echo Steve’s well done Drew as well. It’s good to see that people are really starting to see what Rick Warren and his excuseoligist Richard Abanes are really all about. When I debated Abanes over at Tim Challis website many years ago it seemed like I was alone. I also dont rejoice in the fact that Richard is really deceived. His first Harry Potter book was really pretty good and I felt it was a good warning to the Body of Christ. From there sadly Richards books seem to be just cut and paste jobs with no real substance at all. Its almost insanity to see a guy claim he doesnt speak for Rick Warren and then appears everywhere on the net telling us what Rick Warren is really saying. Richards book “Rick Warren and the Purpose that Drives Him” was a really poor defence of Rick Warren.
One instance in the book was Abanes could perhaps have set the record straight in his interview with Rick Warren about Warrens alliance’s with new ager Ken Blanchard and Warrens association with Robert Schuller.Richard never addressed the fact that Rick Warren (even now) allows Ken Blanchard (who Warren himself call a weak Christian) speak at Saddleback. Ken Blanchard continues to endorse new age books and is still a member of the Hoffman Institute. As with Schuller- of course anyone can see the effect Robert Schuller has had on Rick Warren. A profound influence for sure (and who would know better but Ricks own wife). In the Warren interview when asked if Robert Schuller was his mentor there is a total of 4 sentences used .
RA: And (Robert) Schuller is your mentor!
RW: And Schuller is my mentor!
RA:Okay, wait. Is Schuller your mentor?
RW: No! Never has, never would be!
source-”Rick Warren and the Purpose that Drives Him, Rick Warren in His Own Words, page 29.
A interview with Rick Warren a perfect opportunity for Warren to set the record straight and they dedicated 4 sentences on a very hot issue.
Of course later on in the book Richard dedicates about 7 pages to make excuses for both Rick and Kay and their endorsement of Robert Schuller.
If they didnt agree with what Schuller was all about why even step foot into the guys church?
Which they never stopped doing Kay even attending the rethink conferance
And I often wonder why Rick allows Richard to run his mouth it has done nothing but hurt Warrens deception. My view has pretty much been let Abanes keep talking he keeps digging himself a bigger hole. Sad that this could happen to anyone.
The whole Abanes/Warren camp is nothing but double speak.
Warren will say that the church should not be a business and then in another article states the church should be entrepreneurs.
Rick states he gives away 90 percent of his income while paying himself and Kay back a heafty salary from his own Acts of Mercy foundation.
Funny thing is last week when I was writing a series of articles on Abanes I felt nothing but love for the guy.
Really. I know that may not come out in my articles.
And Im telling you that had to be the Lord.
The best thing we can do besides pointing out the error that Abanes spread’s like wild fire is to truely pray for the guy so the Holy Spirit will lift the scales off this guys eyes.
The influence and fruit of purpose driven and Saddleback is apparent and manifested itself in Richard Abanes.
Abanes has a vested interest in Rick Warren and Saddleback if he see’s the truth he stands to lose everything.
To me that is a really scary fact.
Peace
Tim Wirth
{ 1 trackback }