The Highway Forums General Discussion Open Forum I hoped that it will never happen but it did.

Hey Pilgrim,

I've thought about responding several times but thought better of it since I consider myself an irenicist rather than a polemicist, and I have no desire to defend the teachings and ministry of Rick Warren (that appears to be Richard Abanes' job anyway). As I said in a previous post: "I am no fan or apologist for Rick Warren. I think his writings are quite shallow and much of his theology is just plain wrong". Also, not having made a thorough study of his work, I would not try to defend Warren from charges of heresy or being a false teacher -- maybe he is, maybe he isn't. What I said was" "My concern is not so much that Warren is a "false teacher," but that there are so many better ones that a church or Christian could use." It is obvious that Warren is not a Reformed Christian; but, it is also obvious that he is not a relativist, a pluralist, or an inclusivist, which is what I believed Johan was implying when he mentioned that Warren "actually said that there is truth in every religion." My apologies, Johan, if that is not what you were trying to imply.


I raise no objection to your first theological premise (i.e., the universality and totality of human depravity and the imputation of Adam's guilt to all his descendants); however, conviction of sin that is wrought by the Holy Spirit and leads to repentance is not of guilt for Adam's sins but for one's personal sins committed "in the body" (2 Cor. 5:10; Rom. 2:6). One does not repent for Adam's sins but for his own sins, and this is all that a minister or preacher of the gospel needs to say and all that a hearer needs to understand. And even though no one may "have to do ANYTHING to go to hell!" Paul does seem to go to an awful lot of (apparently unnecessary) trouble in the first three chapters of Romans to tell us all of the things people do actually do to warrant the wrath and deserve the condemnation of God.


No argument here: "As it is written, "THERE IS NONE RIGHTEOUS, NOT EVEN ONE; THERE IS NONE WHO UNDERSTANDS, THERE IS NONE WHO SEEKS FOR GOD; ALL HAVE TURNED ASIDE, TOGETHER THEY HAVE BECOME USELESS; THERE IS NONE WHO DOES GOOD, THERE IS NOT EVEN ONE" (Rom. 2:9-12). However, the fact is that anyone who hates God by nature and hears the good news about Christ will reject Him. No one who loves God and hears the good news about Christ will reject Him. To "reject Christ" is to reject God and His plan of salvation; to "exchange the truth about God" (which is evident "within" him and "to" him) "for a lie" (Rom. 1:25). Toward Christ there is no neutral stance -- you are either with Him or against Him (Mt. 12:30; Luke 11:23). You do not go to hell for not believing in Christ or rejecting Him; but, if you do not repent and believe in Him, you will be subjected to eternal punishment and torment on account of your sin, rebellion against, and hatred of God.



They can't! Regeneration precedes faith and repentance or "accepting Jesus." Nevertheless, the Church's proclamation of the gospel call or the invitation to "receive Christ and believe in His name" (John 1:11) must be extended to all (Mt. 11:28-30; Rom. 10:14; Rev. 22:17). While God's effectual calling of His elect (Rom. 8:30) is irresistible, the general or external calling (through which God effectually calls His elect) is offered to all and can be (and will be) rejected by unregenrate sinners. We do not know who God's elect are so we must always proclaim the gospel freely and to all men. Does the unregenrate sinner (or the sinner who is being regenerated) really need to be apprised of all of this (i.e. their total inability) before being called to repent and believe? John MacArthur doesn't do it; James M. Boice didn't do it, so why should Rick Warren have to?



"More than likely" you're probably right, and the gospel of cheap grace, easy-believism is not the gospel of our Lord Jesus Christ (and of course, there is no other gospel). Most of the things I've read by Warren are about "living the Christian life" or sanctification, though he'd probably consider the latter term old-fashioned. Whether he would defend an all-out antinomian Dispensationalist easy-believism doctrine like Ryrie, Hodges, or the Word Faith heretics I don't know. If so, this would be the most serious charge against him in my opinion, and I would be quite willing to examine evidence of this if there is any. However, I cannot say that I know or even believe that he teaches this.


I couldn't agree with you more here. Although I admire the work of men like Winfried Corduan, Harold Netland, and Michael Harbin who have documented in meticulous detail that all religions most emphatically do NOT teach the same thing, it saddens me to see how many (especially young) Christians seem more interested in discovering and consuming the few paltry, scattered crumbs of truth to be found in the world's false religions than in partaking of the eternal and infinite riches of the One who is the Truth (John 14:6) -- Christ -- "in whom are hidden all the treasures of wisdom and knowledge" (Col. 2:3).