Steven,

You missed the point of my post Sunday, August 10, 2008 at 11:21 AM.

Let me try to state it using an abbreviated version, in case you failed to read the whole thing. I know sometimes in blogs, we can miss things:

“.... he loves to hunt/peck for just the right damning words out of the mouth of his target of choice, then bases just about EVERYTHING on that one isolated instance—rather than viewing those words against a backdrop of literally thousands of other statements/messages to the contrary. . . . It is highly significant that Rosebrough rarely talks about the myriad of other statements that Warren has made which show him to be WHOLLY orthodox in EVERY way. Relevant statements, messages, comments, and teachings that would reveal Warren’s complete paradigm on the various issues in question (in this case: salvation, sanctification, and eternal rewards, etc.) are relegated to the IGNORE pile.”

This is not apologetics. It’s not discernment. It’s witch hunting. I could probably make 90% of the pastors/teachers in America out to be heretics based on various isolated words, phrases, comments, and poorly worded teachings they have made throughout the years.

One must never—EVER—condemn someone for something based on an isolated teaching, especially one that leaves room for all kinds of mental constructs that exist in the minds of majority of people listening to a particular teacher—in this case Warren.

Herein is where we see what is indeed one of Warren’s weaknesses—he is sometimes rather sloppy in his approach to issues, tends to speak in sound-bites, pushes to make things memorable (sometimes at the expense of accuracy), and usually doesn’t think ahead about how NON-members, who have NOT sat under his teachings might take certain things he says.

I can assure you, not a single member of Saddleback who is to the least degree familiar with Rick would take that teaching to mean what Rosebrough is alleging. Having said that, might someone somewhere might get the wrong idea? Sure. Of course.

But that result is demonstrating a different problem with that teaching (and Warren), rather than the problem being identified by Rosebrough (i.e., that Warren is adding conditions to salvation). Rosebrough, in other words, is misidentifying the problem. And that helps no one.

All of these issues contribute to the discussion of the message in question, and make it a FAR more complex issue than Rosebrough—throughout his giggle-filled radio program—makes it out to be.

R. Abanes

CHRIS P.: What Abanes is saying is that you can say something scriptural and true in one breath, and something unscriptural and false in the next.

RA: ROFL. That’s not what I’m saying. But whatever.
_______________
CHRIS: I don’t consider Abanes to be any kind of apologist at all.

RA: Well, it appears, given my track record, and ongoing projects, that you are among a serious minority. But I do respect your opinion. Truly I do. And I wish you all the best with those authors you do consider to be apologists. There are certainly many good ones out there, and many of them, are indeed far better than me.

RAbanes

Chris,

At this point, the truth is that you, sir, are simply not worth my time, nor energy.

Throughout my dealings with you publicly, and privately, you do not listen—nor do you even try to listen. You are out to win an argument, fight, and prove a pre-determined point in your head. You falsely (and sadly) think that this is apologetics. It is not.

I would add that you also seem to have, in my personal opinion, a rather large chip on your shoulder, which tends to cloud your reasoning and push you to say and do things that are unwise and inappropriate.

For example, you attempted to pass yourself off as a “professional” apologist at the Phoenix Preacher blog, and only when forced to provide evidence of that declaration regarding yourself, did you admit that you, indeed, are not in any way a professional apologist. So, I would say, stop trying to be one. That is something that you, most definitely, are not.

Proverbs 26:5: “Answer a fool according to his folly, or he will be wise in his own eyes.”

If you are interested, I suggest you look up the notes on this Proverb in the Commentary on the Old Testament by Keil & Delitzsch. It explains the sharpness of my answer. I mean no disrespect. (The Eerdman’s Bible Commentary—one volume—is also most enlightening).

R. Abanes

Steven,

Friend, there is a history here—both public and private—between Chris and I that you are not aware of.  That history, which you are not part of, made my comments appropriate.

I ask for your understanding since Chris and I have had interactions that you are not privy to. My responses, given that interaction, were neither defensive, nor rude—although I can see how you might think otherwise.

There is far more to my response than meets the eye.

thank you,

RAbanes

Steven,

I respect your opinion and wish you the best. I bear no hard feelings against Chris, and wish him the best as well.

peace in him,

RAbanes

CS: ..... but some serious problems with his doctrine and theology.

RA: CS, I greatly appreciate your comments. Warren’s “doctrine and theology” are sound. What leaves much to be desired, IMHO, involves:

- his politics (due to my personal views of politics as they relate to the Kingdom of God);
- broad generalizations about how Christianity can change a person’s life;
- a personal perspective of the Christian life that at times is very limited (i.e., his frame of reference is that of a person raised in white America in a Christian family);
- questionable interpretations of select passages of scripture;
- use of less than admirable Bible translations (personally, I loathe “The Message");
- use of sound-bites that over-simplify some complex issues/topics/points
- use of language that can, for those who are unfamiliar with his broader teachings, lead to a wrong impression of his stand on certain issues (a case in point being this money message in question);
- his distilling down of the complexities of a Christian’s life into easy, numbered steps that are supposed to work for everyone....

These and other issues would be legitimate criticisms. They are marks of a person who is human. They are not indicative of a person who can be labeled a heretic or false teacher. He is doctrinally and theologically sound. He is NOT perfect. And he would be the first to admit that.

R. Abanes

Hey Brian,
hey I have heard people use bulldog positively.

apparently you haven’t noticed the scriptural criticism that is everywhere on the web.  Do you listen to Rush Limbaugh at all or does a little satire get your panties in a wad?

Sure would be nice if the men had more gumption and less tendency to whine and cry than the women around here.

btw I can think of plenty of very harsh Scripture used against hypocrites and false teachers.  What’s your point?  Do you have a problem with only noticing the Scriptures that support your point of view?

Mr Abanes, right back atcha.

Paula
Nice work.
Abanes is a self promoter just like his uncle Rick..