Apprising Ministries reports that yet another Reformer, Steve Camp, endorses Rick Warren as a Christian and a pastor:
“@worshipfanatic@Rickwarren is monergistic in his soterology in community missional w th gospel;solid crch membership;faithful pastr.” (spelling original).
Camp himself at one time saw Rick Warren's false gospel. In 2008, Camp said about Warren (regarding Warren on Fox News Channel show):
Quote:
What a difference a few years makes."One of his responses? "Try Jesus...?" As Colmes sarcastically quipped in response: "Like the book of the month club..."
Beloved, why can't evangelical leaders just speak the truth in love and give the gospel of the Lord Jesus Christ without the sidebar fodder of feeling like they have to be funny; relate; be relevant; or make Jesus likable. Try Jesus? How disrespectful tothe Lord. Heaven's dread Sovereign doesn't ask to be tried out like a new kind of food or gadget; He doesn't ask to be sampled - He demands to be worshiped, followed, obeyed and submitted to as Lord!
Now some might wonder: "Campi, is this kind of stuff really important today with our economy failing, people really hurting and feeling the pinch, wars still occurring, etc.?" Yes it is - and here is why. The gospel IS the key issue above all others. Not to diminish those other things for they are real concerns, but the eternal state of another's soul is the preeminent weight of all. Even if all around fails and we face some very difficult and trying times financially in our nation, the one true hope of all can never be depreciated or bankrupted - the hope of the gospel of our Lord Jesus Christ. Amen? We are privileged, beloved, to go to a lost world with the hope of salvation and the forgiveness of sins in the gospel of the Lord Jesus Christ.
And this is our hope as believers too. We need to encourage one another with this hope daily. We need to pray for each other like never before. We need to comfort one another with the words of Christ these days and to provoke one another with love and good works. So when a well-known pastor gets on a national news talk show and doesn't really present the true gospel when asked plainly - then it should matter.End quote.
Compare this to Camp's new view (since Piper said the same thing) about Warren:
“@worshipfanatic@Rickwarren is monergistic in his soterology in community missional w th gospel;solid crch membership;faithful pastr.”
Camp went on to say back in his 2008 article on Warren (Brain's quotes in italics--original):
SJ Camp said...
Brain @VOSIF (and please note I am prefacing my question with "if")
Rick Warren truly believes what the transcript records him saying on
Fox, should he be considered within the bounds of biblical, orthodox Christianity?
His views would not be within the bounds of biblical Christianity as defined by either our Lord in His earthly ministry or by the Apostles themselves. BUT, sadly, his views are acceptable today as being within the bounds of contemporary Christianity even within the SBC.
There is a word for this beast of beliefs: pragmatism.
but if he truly believes that you can "give Jesus a try or get your money back", and that salvation is based upon you choosing to "unwrap the gift" which results in your sins being forgiven...what are we to make of this from an eternal perspective?
This approach of "Try Jesus" and "You must Unwrap the Gift..." are unbiblical appeals that place salvation as simply a matter of man's own choosing and affinity to whatever part of Jesus they are willing to try.
IOW, this method of gospel preaching cannot save, it can only damn.
Even Allen Colmes saw the ridiculousness of this try Jesus and if you're not completely satisfied I will give you your money back - guaranteed" philosophy.
This is a long way from: "deny yourself, take up your cross and follow Me."
Can we really call him an evangelical leader?
Yes; because he represents what evangelicalism has devolved in becoming.
Is he a proclaimer of the real gospel?
His methodological approach in this discussion certainly would lead us to believe he is not. However, on occasion, I have heard him get thegospel right. In this regard we must be careful to draw absolute conclusions based upon the pragmatics of his approach. But certainly this approach cited here doesn't represent the biblical gospel at all -though he may believe the biblical gospel.
Is he not, in fact, leading people AWAY from Christ and not TO Christ?
In this approach, no question. He did nothing in his interaction with Allen Colmes, for example, to bring him to understanding of the biblical truth claims of the gospel of the Lord Jesus Christ.
End quote.
As if to foreshadow what is to come, Camp gives Warren some unwarranted leeway, those shadows of Warren possibly believing the Gospel and that this is merely a matter of method. Those shadows have turned into a triumphant declaration of Warren’s solid theology and pastoral qualifications.
On the other hand, John MacArthur says in “Ashamed of the Gospel” about approaches or methods:
p. 81 "Some will maintain that if biblical principles are presented, the medium doesn't matter. That is nonsense."
p. 89 “ …any end-justifies-the-means philosophy of ministry inevitably will compromise doctrine, despite any proviso to the contrary. If we make effectiveness the gauge of right and wrong, how can that fail to color our doctrine? Ultimately the pragmatist’s notion of truth is shaped by what seems effective, not by the objective revelation of Scripture."
p. 92-93 on pragmatism:
"Do you see how the new philosophy necessarily undermines sound doctrine? It discards Jesus' own methods---preaching and teaching--as the primary means of ministry. It replaces them with methodologies utterly devoid of substance....In fact it avoids dogma or strong convictions as divisive, unbecoming,, or inappropriate. It dismisses doctrine as academic, abstract, sterile, threatening, or simply impractical. Rather than teaching error or denying truth, it does something far more subtle, but just as effective from the enemy’s point of view. It jettisons content altogether. Instead of attacking orthodoxy head-on, it gives lip service to the truth while quietly undermining the foundations of doctrine. Instead of exalting God, it denigrates the things that are precious to Him. In that regard, pragmatism poses dangers more subtle than the liberalism that threatened the church in the first half of the century."
(See Acts 2 as one example of Peter's approach to evangelism; 1Cor. 1-2 for Paul’s approach to evangelism).
So what has changed in the last two years? Has Warren changed his theology? Did he get saved?
No.
Warren continues to become even more blatant in his inter-faith, socialistic, liberalism. A man posing as a Christian and a pastor can only continue the downgrade.
So that leaves one person who changed: Steve Camp.
Not only is Camp sounding more and more Emergent (“in community missional”; emergentspeak is getting old, not to mention it’s just bad grammar) but he’s not being truthful or accurate about Rick Warren. He’s certainly not holding to what he originally thought about Warren either (he also changed his mind about Driscoll, too).
Something must be in the water in the Reformed circles for mindless bandwagon cheerleading of a man who historically has been a false teacher. Perhaps Piper's rubber stamping Warren, like he did Driscoll, is what gives comfort to so many in that circle to likewise accept such a viper.
I have repeated myself over the years of all the reasons why Rick Warren is not only false teacher, but a false brother. Go here for the list of quotes and links.
Warren is the ultimate teacher of Arminian, man-centered, synergistic corrupt gospel that can’t save. How in the world can this man be monergistic? Because he claims he is? Really? And to whom does he claim this? Piper? Camp? Justin Taylor? The Muslims? The Catholics? The Jews? Tony Blair ?
Don’t people realize the man is a snake and will say, even by his own admission, whatever he needs to, to his particular audience (PDL p. 243, 256 for example)? He is the ultimate hypocrite—saying one thing to one group, while telling another something different—all to please his listeners. These well-educated, well-read people don’t realize this?
I guess not.
Because there’s no way a Reformed person could EVER be deceived. They don’t believe in false teachers secretly sneaking in among them. Nope. Impossible.
Robert Morey bears repeating here (he says something similar to MacArthur's statemenet on pragmatism quoted earlier):
The main problem is that many religious leaders today say one thing and teach another. If you ask Gregory Boyd or the other “Open View of God” heretics if they believe in the “omniscience” of God, they will say, “Yes.” Dumb Christians are satisfied at this point and go their merry way deceived and hoodwinked. But if you force them to define the term “omniscience,” they end up denying that God knows all things! They claim that God does not and cannot know the future.
Just because someone says, “I believe in sola scriptura,” does not mean he really believes in it. If he elsewhere says that the Bible is not the final authority in faith and practice, he has denied insubstance what he supposedly affirmed as a slogan. Heretics have always done this. What they affirm with the right hand is what they deny with the left
hand. It does not matter what doctrine is at stake.
In the early 1980s, those who denied the inerrancy of Scripture did not begin by openly denying it. They redefined it until the term “inerrancy” meant errors!
Those who deny the bodily resurrection of Christ often pretend to believe in it by tricky words and double talk. Believe me; I have heard some slick theologians in my day!
Apostasy in Scripture is of two kinds: doctrinal and moral.
A heretic can be a good person who is very moral. Yet, he can also be an anti-Christ. The monk Pelagius was according to all a good man,morally speaking. Thus when I point out some teacher as a heretic, evanjellyfish usually respond, “But he is sooo nice! He is a good man. How dare you attack him!”
They assume that heretics are always mean and vile. A nice heretic who says that right phrases and theological clichés cannot be a heretic in their mind.The problem with heretics who are“nice” is that we tend to let them get away with the most outrageous teaching because they seem to be so nice.
End quote.
How else to people think heretics come in among them? By announcing themselves as such?
Jud 1:4 For certain people have crept in unnoticed who long ago were designated for this condemnation, ungodly people, who pervert the grace of our God into sensuality and deny our only Master and Lord, Jesus Christ.
Jud 1:12 These are hidden reefs at your love feasts, as they feast with you without fear, shepherds feeding themselves; waterless clouds, swept along by winds; fruitless trees in late autumn, twice dead, uprooted;
2Pe 2:1 But false prophets also arose among the people, just as there will be false teachers among you, who will secretly bring in destructive heresies, even denying the Master who bought them, bringing upon themselves swift destruction.
So is this true: “@worshipfanatic@Rickwarren is monergistic in his soterology in community missional w th gospel;solid crch membership;faithful pastr.”?
Warren Is Synergistic, not Monergistic: he denies Justification by Faith ALONE:
Rick Warren said on Hannity’s show in 2008, on how to get to heaven: “Give as much of yourself as you understand to as much as you understand about me and then keep growing in it.” This denies the preaching of the Gospel of Jesus Christ, and salvation by grace alone.(Why do you think he has his PEACE Plan and the PDL both of which he sells to believers and unbelievers alike?)
In an interview with inter-faith website "beliefnet" :
"But going back to this thing about heaven and getting into a perfect place. Let’s say we got a scale of 1 to 100. Let’s put Hitler at zero and Mother Teresa at 100 OK. And Steve you’re at 85 and Larry’s at 65 and I’m at 45. The truth is, some people are better than others, there’s no doubt about it. Some people are more moral than others, they’re nicer, they’re less selfish, less self-centered, things like that. But the truth is, nobody makes [it] to perfection… And so somebody’s got to make up that difference. And that’s the gift I believe Jesus came to – to make up the difference between my zero and my 100 or my 45 and 100 -- somebody’s got to make up that difference. "
This is monergistic? Not unless Camp and Piper redefine what monergism means. Go here for the difference (ironic considering Camp’s new claim that Warren is monergistic when he isn’t;by his own definition, Warren is synergistic).
Monergism necessitates the absolute sovereignty of God. So does Warren believe in such a God?
Same beliefnet interview:
"No body works correctly – we all have problems with our bodies. The weather doesn’t work correctly – tornados and hurricanes and stuff like that. It’s the result of living on a broken planet. That’s why we’re to pray “Thy will be done in earth as it is in heaven” ‘cause in heaven it’s done perfectly. God’s will is not done most of the time on earth. When people go, “oh, that hurricane must have been God’s will” – baloney! That wasn’t God’s will. God’s will is not done most of the time. If I go out and get drunk and run over a pregnant mother and kill her and her baby, that’s not God’s will, that’s my will."
This denies the control that the Sovereign Creator has over all His creation despite entire chapters that say differently (Ps 33; Job 38-42, Eph. 1, Is. 46:10), which outworking therefore also denies God’s sovereign control over the “new creation” or salvation of the elect. Warren historically and consistantly is a synergist, not monergist. He also clearly denies the doctrine of Justification.
Here’s Warren’s “in community missional with the gospel”:
About getting to heaven: “WARREN: I'm saying that this is the perfect time to open their life, to give it a chance. I'd say give him a 60-day trial.” (Remember Camp's response and concern of the absolute lack of declaring Christ in this interview, above.)
“I happen to know people who are followers of Christ in other religions.” —Rick Warren Aspen Ideas Festival, The Aspen Institute, July 6, 2005, “Discussion: Religion and Leadership,” with David Gergen and Rick Warren
“...You may be Catholic or Protestant or Buddhist or Baptist or Muslim or Mormon or Jewish or Jain, or you have no religion at all. I’m not interested in your religious background. Because God did not create the universe for us to have religion. He came for us to have a relationship with him.” —Rick Warren United Nations, Interfaith Prayer Breakfast, September 2005
Also, Rick signed the unity letter to the Muslims, declaring that Christians and Muslims worship the true God. We know that is not true because Islam denies Jesus Christ who is God and they deny the Trinity.
Warren prays in the name of Isa and asks for Allah’s forgiveness at Obama's swearing in as president.
A Little Leaven reports Warren’s inter-faith practice with the Jews to rid the world of poverty.
“Warren spoke at Sinai as part of the Synagogue 3000 program, which aims to revitalize Jewish worship. His teachings apply to 95 percent of all people, regardless of religious belief. As he put it to a group of rabbis at a conference last year -- using a metaphor that might be described as a Paulian slip: "Eat the fish and throw away the bones." “Warren told Wolfson his interest is in helping all houses of worship, not in converting Jews. He said there are more than enough Christian souls to deal with for starters.” -Jewish Journal
Bob DeWaay deals with Warren’s promotion of Eastern Mysticism and false gospel; more here.
So is Camp right when he tweeted:“@worshipfanatic@Rickwarren is monergistic in his soterology in community missional w th gospel;solid crch membership;faithful pastr.”?
So far has Rick Warren proven himself to be monergistic in his soteriology? Has he clearly and boldly declared the only Gospel and the only Savior that can save? Is he truly "missional" (assuming that word still means to be mission-minded--to proclaim the Gospel of Jesus Christ)? Are these teachings of Warren's that of a faithful man of God, a man who stands as a shepherd behind the pulpit weekly as a mature believer?
This “faithful” “pastor”’ has a horrid view of the sheep who love God’s Truth:
Joseph Farah of World Net Daily comments on what Rick Warren says about disunity:
“While mega-pastor Rick Warren has joined a group of 100 church leaders calling for interfaith dialogue and the building of "common ground" with Muslims, he has a slightly different outlook toward Christians with whom he disagrees. In his latest missive to fellow pastors, he writes: "You've got to protect the unity of your church. If that means getting rid of troublemakers, do it." "As pastors, as shepherds of God's people, it's our job to protect our congregations from Satan's greatest weapon – disunity," he writes. "It's not always easy, but it's what we've been called to do."
Here's an excellent article from Crossroad on how Warren and the PDLers deal with dissenters.
What else does this "faithful pastor" proclaim?
"And I think that one day, everyone of us is gonna stand before God and he’s not gonna say, “What religion were you? Were you Jewish? Were you Christian? Were you Buddhist? Baptist?” I don’t think he’s gonna say, “What church did you go to?” I think he’s gonna say first thing, first, “What did you do with my son who I sent to earth? Did you ever really get to know him? Did you even check him out? Did you trial test faith in him?” You know, “What did you do?” It’s about a relationship not a religion." - Warren in his beliefnet interview
On page 34 of his PDL book, Warren says, “God won’t ask about your religious background or doctrinal views. The only thing that will matter is, did you accept what Jesus did for you and did you learn to love and trust him?”
A faithful pastor according to Scripture:
Titus 2: 1 You must teach what is in accord with sound doctrine.
Titus 1:9 He must hold firm to the trustworthy word as taught, so that he may be able to give instruction in sound doctrine and also to rebuke those who contradict it.
1Ti 6:3 If anyone teaches a different doctrine and does not agree with the sound words of our Lord Jesus Christ and the teaching that accords with godliness, 4 he is puffed up with conceit and understands nothing. He has an unhealthy craving for controversy and for quarrels about words, which produce envy, dissension, slander, evil suspicions,
This "faithful pastor" goes on in his beliefnet interview:
"I do accept the Bible as a standard of authority and I judge my experience by it not vice versa."
“A” standard of authority, but not THE standard of authority. This is no faithful pastor! (see 1 & 2 Timothy). The very thing pastors are supposed to guard with their lives, this "faithful" pastor tosses aside as merely "an" authority. That's a very low view of the thing we're to uphold above all else!
This "faithful pastor's" view of inspiration isn't biblical, which is why his view of the Living and Active Word of God is so low:
"And we believe that when God speaks to us that’s called inspiration. When Satan speaks to us that’s called temptation. And when I’m talking to myself and I think it’s God, that’s delusion."
This “faithful pastor” has a wife that teaches men from the Bible. How is that faithful to the commands of Scripture in 1Tim.3 and Titus 1-2 as well as 1Cor. 14?
This "faithful pastor" celebrated the perversion of homosexuaility on Father's Day in 2008: “Gay dads celebrate Father's Day with Rick Warren, author of "The Purpose Driven Life" - Source
So is this accurate: “@worshipfanatic@Rickwarren is monergistic in his soterology in community missional w th gospel;solid crch membership;faithful pastr.”?
Not in the least.
John MacArthur in “The Jesus You Can’t Ignore” (p. 206-208):
1Th 5:21 “but test everything; hold fast what is good. 22 Abstain from every form of evil.”
John7:24 “Do not judge by appearances, but judge with right judgment."
We are also called to be soldiers for the cause of truth. The spiritual conflict between the forcesof darkness and the truth of God is, after all, WAR.
That means, among other things, we have some fighting to do. As we have seen throughout this book, the popular notion that conflicts is always to be
avoided is simply wrong. There are timeswhen we MUST be confrontiverather than collegial.
Titus 1:10 For there are many who are insubordinate, empty talkers and deceivers, especially those of the circumcision party. 11 They must be silenced, since they are upsetting whole families by teaching for shameful gain whatthey ought not to teach.
If you wince at that or think there’s no way such an aggressive attitude could possibly be a sanctified response to doctrinal error in a postmodern culture, you need to review and rethink what the entire NT says about false teachers and how Christians should respond to them—especially from Jesus’ point of view.In His final recorded messages to the church, given to the apostle John in a vision of several decades after Christ’s ascension into heaven, we see that the silencing of false teachers was still one of our Lord’s primary concerns, even from His throne in heaven. He addressed seven churches….Only two of the churches, Smyrna and Philadelphia, were commended for their faithfulness without any qualification or hint of rebuke. Both of them had remained true to Christ despite the influence of “those who say they are Jews and are not, but are a synagogue of Satan”(Rev. 2:9). All five other churches received various measures of rebuke, based on how corrupt, unfaithful, or spiritually lethargic they were.
A prominent theme in practically all Jesus’ messages to those seven churches is the issue of how they responded to false teachers and rank heretics in their midst. It is clear from those letters to the churches in Revelation that battling heresy is a duty Christ expects every Christian to be devoted to. Whether we like it or not, our very existence in this world involves spiritual warfare—it is not a party or a picnic. If Christ Himself devoted so much of His time and energy during His earthly ministry to the task of confronting and refuting false teachers, surely that must be high on our agenda as well. His style of ministry ought to be the model for ours, and His zealagainst false religion ought to fill our hearts and minds as well.
End quote. (emphasis mine)
What a difference between what MacArthur says and what Piper, Camp, Taylor, etc. are doing: giving endorsements to a false teacher.
Joh 7:24" Do not judge by appearances, but judge with right judgment." Just because people claim the five Solas or claim to be Christians, or claim to believe in Jesus, doesn't make it so. If they declare another way, another gospel, another way of justification, another Jesus, they've denied what they said they believed. A false teacher claims many "right" things before he slips in his errors. We must dig and inspect the fruit all the way around. That's why Paul, John, & Jesus sternly warn:
Eph 5:6 Let no one deceive you with empty words, for because of these things the wrath of God comes upon the sons of disobedience.7 Therefore do not become partners with them;8 for at one time you were darkness, but now you are light in the Lord. Walk as children of light 9 (for the fruit of light is found in all that is good and right and true),10 and try to discern what is pleasing to the Lord.11 Take no part in the unfruitful works of darkness, but instead expose them. 12 For it is shameful even to speak of the things that they do in secret.
Mat 7:15 "Beware of false prophets, who come to you in sheep's clothing but inwardly are ravenous wolves. 16 You will recognize them by their fruits. Are grapes gathered from thornbushes, or figs from thistles? 17 So, every healthy tree bears good fruit, but the diseased tree bears bad fruit.
2Jo 1:9 Everyone who goes on ahead and does not abide in the teaching of Christ, does not have God. Whoever abides in the teaching has both the Father and the Son. 10 If anyone comes to you and does not bring this teaching, do not receive him into your house or give him any greeting, 11 for whoever greets him takes part in his wicked works.
I'll end with Spurgeon's words from the Downgrade Contraversy which speaks to this very issue of counting an enemy of the cross as a friend instead of foe:
To pursue union at the expense of truth is treason to the Lord Jesus.
He is our Master and Lord, and we will keep his words: to tamper with his doctrine would be to be traitors to himself. Yet, almost unconsciously, good men and true may drift into compromises which they would not at first propose, but which they seem forced to justify. Yielding to be the creatures of circumstances, they allow another to gird them, and lead them whither they would not; and when they wake up, and find themselves in an undesirable condition, they have not always the resolution to break away from it.
As a matter of fact, believers in Christ's atonement are now in declared religions union with those who make light of it; believers in Holy Scripture are in confederacy with those who deny plenary inspiration; those who hold evangelical doctrine are in open alliance with those who call the fall a fable, who deny the personality of the Holy Ghost, who call justification by faith immoral, and hold that there is another probation after death, and a future restitution for the lost. Yes, we have before us the wretched spectacle of professedly orthodox Christians publicly avowing their union with those who deny the faith, and scarcely concealing their contempt for those who cannot be guilty of such gross disloyalty to Christ. To be very plain, we are unable to call these things Christian Unions, they begin to look like Confederacies in Evil.
But how are we to act towards those who deny his vicarious sacrifice, and ridicule the great truth of justification by his righteousness? These are not mistaken friends, but enemies of the cross of Christ. There is no use in employing circumlocutions and polite terms of expression:—where Christ is not received as to the cleansing power of his blood and the justifying merit of his righteousness, he is not received at all.
It is our solemn conviction that where there can be no real spiritual communion there should be no pretense of fellowship. Fellowship with known and vital error is participation in sin. Those who know and love the truth of God cannot have fellowship with that which is diametrically opposed thereto, and there can be no reason why they should pretend that they have such fellowship.
No comments:
Post a Comment