Tuesday, September 30, 2008

Rick is really Roman Catholic and the Cardinal correct

Purpose Driven Pr. Rick Warren, may be Baptist in name but in spirit, he is absolutely Roman Catholic.

Here is what he said in a sermon...

You see it takes more than belief. It takes more than faith to really please God. He says it takes faith that results in loving others. Religion without love doesn't matter. It is not enough to say "I believe". What matters is how I love God and how I love other people, that is the Great Commandment.

Firstly, compare this with Heb 11

6And without faith it is impossible to please him, for whoever would draw
near to God(I) must believe that he exists and that he rewards those who seek him.
What Rick says is denial of JBFA, this is saved by loving. This is going to damn us because we never love as we ought. There is only one who did that -- and you know his name. Though faith produces love, that love is not the basis of our justification. This is an old error - a guy by the name of Osiander believed like Warren and he was corrected by the Concordists.

We are not reckoned righteous by God based by what is inside us and not even on the basis that Jesus lives inside us. And above all, certainly not because we love (because we don't), we are reckoned righteous through faith on account of what Christ has done at Calvary.

So the RC Cardinal (see below) was correct in saying that Protestants should go back to Luther's faith. Why? because certainly Pr. Rick Warren is certainly miles away from that faith. He should not be identifying himself as a Protestant, because he is not.


Kurt Onken said...

Great post, LP. I quoted you in one of my blog posts. I still don't understand the fascination among Lutherans with this guy. Guess it must be those who still want to play the numbers game.

Or wear Hawaiian shirts. Not sure.

L P Cruz said...

Pr. K.

At lunch time today, I kept on thinking at what he said - I just could not believe he said those things and sleep easy at night. He is robbing people of the Gospel -- and getting paid for it!

People are still buying this stuff.

He is rated number 1 most influential Evangelical! His theology is not Protestant and certainly not from the Original Evangelicals!

I think when the RC Cardinal was speaking, he must had Warren in mind, because the Cardinal must be getting confused about these so called "evangelicals". They do not only sound Roman, they are indeed Roman in theology, so the Cardinal must be having a spinning head.

Thanks for quoting me, I appreciate your letting me know, I will go over now.


Steve Newell said...

We have starting a study of Romans at my church. In Romans 1:8, Paul writes about the faith of those in Rome as what is known about them. Not works, but faith. I don't know if this is enough for Saddleback. It is enough for a church to be known by their faith.

L P Cruz said...

Steve N,

Firstly congratulations on the fine programming you guys are doing at Pirate Radio. I enjoy Chris' program.

Yes, the marvel is that Evangelicals pay no quibble with what Rick Warren says, in that they all think it ok. They give him a pass when in pact what Warren is teaching is not orthodox Christianity but Pelagianism if not semi-Pelagianism.

When faith is not a gift, it is not something to be amazed at, they all believe they can believe at will.


Kurt Onken said...

LP...did you happen to hear what Warren said to a news interviewer on Fox News (do you get that down there in Australia?)a few months ago? Conservative host Sean Hannity interviewed Warren and asked him how one gets to heaven. Here was his answer...


I could hardly believe my ears (I saw it when it was broadcast).

L P Cruz said...

Pr. K.

No I haven't we do have FoxTel here but I just watched the video.

I felt like smashing chairs and throwing things in the room when I heard him said what he just said. I felt like breaking things. He makes me angry.

I can not believe pastors are buying his stuff and paying for them. They have gone crazy I tell ya.


J. K. Jones said...


You asked me to keep you posted:

Still laid off from work here in Tennessee, but my niece has been released from the hospital. It seems the multiple holes in her heart have begun to heal on their own (if this keeps up, I may become mildly charismatic).  My father-in-law has come home from the hospital as well.

Your quote from Rick includes: “…faith that results in loving others…”

How does this relate to the often heard quote from Luther, “We are saved by faith alone, but not by a faith that is alone”?


L P Cruz said...


That is good news. I will keep you in my prayers - for work and continued healing.

You do not have to be charismatic to believe God heals and blesses his dear ones;-) (LOL).

Indeed the faith that holds of the promise produces the fruit of the Gospel which is love and etc.

But we are not acceptable to God by what our faith produces, our faith in the Gospel results in justification, for Christ's sake God treats as us righteous.

Pr. Rick confuses sanctification with justification with the first becoming the basis of our standinging before God.

Faith carries other carts like the train engine that carries carriages, but the carriages it carries is not the reason why God justifies us, it is solely the faith that holds the promise that for Christ's sake and work we are forgiven.

This faith is authored by no one else but Christ - the author of our faith.

Keep on sending that resume. May God give you favor in your work life.


J. K. Jones said...


I don't think that Rick Warren would disagree with what you are saying. I think that he is trying to say that the faith that saves is a faith that works in the way that you have described.

My problem with Rick is not what he believes when he is pressed for an answer (he does answer the question correctly). My issue with Warren is that he must be pressed (read "nailed to the wall") because his method of presenting his message is so confusing. This topic is way to important and cannot be confused.


L P Cruz said...


A Protestant who says faith is not enough means that something is going on to what 'faith' is.

When some one says it takes **more than faith** to please God, that should ring a bell because the RCC has affirmed that as well.

We can say the faith that justifies carries fruit at the same time we should not say - it is not enough. This is where Rick is not.

Look at what he says "It is not enough to say I believe". But that is exactly what the creeds do! Rather than find out if people have love, find out if people have faith.

Besides, as we know we do not love as we should anyway.

To ask if we have faith, we ask the question - did Jesus die for me, what saith me?


Past Elder said...

You wonder why the Creeds don't strike someone! What do they say -- I believe in love, the power almighty, which creates works of compassion and forgiveness, and I believe in justice too?

Hell no. It says I believe in specific persons (Father, Son and Holy Ghost) who have taken specific actions (became Man, died, rose again) which establish specific things (the holy catholic church, forgiveness of sins, resurrection of the body, everlasting life, stuff like that).

What happens is, the creed becomes not a statement of things in which I believe, or if you will things which I believe to be true, but my particular metaphors drawn from my own culture and history for universals expressed in a variety of other metaphors for the same universals -- peace, love, whatever.

L P Cruz said...


The creed is also a way of keeping my thinking within range of proper thought so that when I am entertaining ideas outside it I know I am treading on unsafe grounds.

I noticed too when one time when I was entertaining doubts about God's acceptance of me the line "we believe in the forgiveness of sins" and that line convicted me.


Lucian said...

Without faith we can't be sAved does not contradict that faith (Protestantly so understood) is not enough.

Not only that it does not contradict anything, but it fits so perfectly nice with Paul's and James' words, that there's nothing more to add. (Save that You're being incoherent).

L P Cruz said...


The fact that you agree with Rick proves Rick is not a protestant... we should really take note of the people who are praising us. Sometimes it is not in our credit.


Lucian said...

Rick is very much a Protestant. [And so are You]. You can't even put all Lutherans in a single pot [that's what I've learned from my conversations with You and others]; even less so all Protestants. The fact that many Protestants don't share Your own version of 'by faith alone' (nor did they ever) should not surprise You in the least. Your view is unknown here in the 'Old Land'. :-|

L P Cruz said...

Which Old Land are you talking about? And so what if it is not recognized? Who morphed?

Absolutely I am a protestant, but if as you suggest that Rick is a Protestant, then that is saying a lot, it is saying you are one too.

On we being placed in one pot...you place high premium on humility but it seems you fail at it too, for your triumphalistic insinuation that the Orthodox is one monolithic body is simply hot air.


Lucian said...

Well, unfortunately for You, Rick is a Protestant. Puting all Protestants in one bucket is like putting Hinduism in one bucket: and we do that: we call them all Hindus. But their beliefs varry over a very large beach of values. So's with the Protestant faith. Sorry if reality upsets You. (They all say the Solas, just like they all say the Creed, and read the same Bible, but the interpretation varries from one denomination to another, each fully convinced that their own one is the correct one).

As for 'pride', who shall renounce Christ in this world will be renounced by Christ in the next. To say "One God, One Faith, One Baptism", and to tell people the Truth isn't "pride". It's our duty.

L P Cruz said...

But it is not me who puts all in one bucket, it is you for I do not classify Rick as a Protestant.

It is not one thinks about one's self. Sometimes that is not true, it is what one confesses.

I agree to tell the truth is not pride, but your monolithic triumphalistic view of Orthodoxy is not the truth either.


Lucian said...

Yes, and what Rick confesses is Protestantism. To be a Baptist is just that: to confess to the utter necessity of "believer's baptism" for one's salvation. He's not indebted to You, nor to Luther, nor to Your view of Luther, in whom and in which he does not believe anyway.

As for Orthodoxy, here is where the Truth lies. ;-)

Augustinian Successor said...

What Rick confesses is NOT Protestantism. Luther was a Protestant and Rick either does not understand or he does not agree with what Luther and the Reformers taught.

Lucian said...

Luther was a Protestant

And so is Rick.

Seriously, guys: from a Baptist POV, Luther commited the ultimate and unforgivable sin: permitting or allowing children or babes to be babe-tized. :-) As far as these guys are concerned, Luther's the one that has some good deal of explaining to do:


Enjoy! :-)

Augustinian Successor said...

Not in the true sense of the word, he isn't. You wanna know what truth is, read Luther. Other than that is playing church, toying around with trinkets and so on and so forth.

Lucian said...

You wanna know what truth is, read Luther

Since there's no verse in the Bible stating that ...

read Luther

I did: and it's not Lutheranism. (At least not the one that L.P. Cruz, David Schuetz, Past Elder, Pastor Weedon, etc. knew and espoused).

read Luther

No: *YOU* read Luther!

read Luther

Here's a link from my own blog (and sorry for the shameless self-promotion). :-)

Which brings me back to the same question I've asked Pastor Weedon a long time ago back on Schuetz's blog: if Lutherans in particular (and Protestants is general) couldn't even keep intact or alive the teachings and doctrines of men that lived a mere 500 yrs ago, how on earth do they then claim that they actually keep the teachings of the Fathers alive and intact? (given that, as we all know, all them little Fathers that lived 1000 or 1500 or more yrs ago were actually proto-Lutherans anyway -- as Lutheranism has consistently and historically claimed, and as many -or some- Lutherans [Pastor Weedon; Josh the Lutheran] still do).

... And here's another little link to help You better ponder the above question.

Augustinian Successor,

what Sola Scriptura do You find in the man (Augustine) that said that he wouldn't believe the Gospel if it weren't for the Catholic Church?

And here's something else I've observed (and which I've also posted on Schuetz's blog long time ago) : I couldn't help myself but notice the way that the Catholic defense of *mandatory* clerical celibacy and the Protestant defense of *Sola* Scriptura liken each-other: the Catholics cite all those beautiful things from both Scripture and Fathers which speak with such highly-exalted words about virginity ... and the Protestants, in their turn, gather together all those wonderful things that both Scripture and Fathers have to say about the Bible ... AND THEY BOTH BEG THE QUESTION!

L P Cruz said...


How are you not escaping begging the question that the Orthodox Church (and I wonder which one you should mean) preserves the teaching of the Fathers.

You do not have a statement of faith except the Ecumenical Creeds which we Prots and RCs officially subscribe? If that is all you have and we all agree to it then you are also begging the question or arguing by special pleading. We Prots have not preserved it but you guys have but yet we agree to what you agree which you assume (I should think) as a minimum is what is to be preserved.

You can simply answer the question... how do I become an Orthodox Christian? Which Bishop should I go to? Would it be ok by you say if I go to the Russian Metropolitan here?


Lucian said...

Uhm,...what exactly are You asking me? :-\ (You're questions seem a bit weird ... I'll try answering them to my own understanding of them as I have it now).

0) "Begging the question" in the sense that they showed that that thing was good, but they failed to show what they had to: that it was the *only* one ('SOLA fide'), or that it was *mandatory* (ONLY un-married Priests...no married ones alowed).

1) Instead of choosing to duel with anyone in Scripture and Fathers (which is senseless), I chose to put a simple question, one whose answer is easily observable with the naked eye, and on which everyone can agree: Lutherans didn't exactly follow Luther; modern Lutherans don't follow the old Lutherans: no Apostolic succession, not even in simple maters of faith ... less so in Priesthood (to which they don't hold anyway).

2) The Protestants don't exactly follow the Creed(s):

- Calvinists are "auto-theos-ists" and "aseitists" and think that Niceea is in need for some serious revising. (i.e., the Triabloguers).
- traditional Protestants confess the Filioque.
- their view of the Trinity is generally Augustinian and overall a-patristical.
- they refuse to call the Virgin Mary a Virgin. ('of the *Virgin* Mary and of the Holy Ghost').
- they refuse to call the Mother of God as such (Luke 1:43); their excuse is the same as Nestorius'. (As a fun-fact, they do not shy away from calling their own mothers "MY mother", notwithstanding the rather obvious fact that their mothers didn't give birth to "them", but to their bodies...yet they have no Biblical [see above] nor logical problem with denying God's mother the same right).
- some of them hold to Chilliasm, condemned by the very same Church Councils that so cleverly crafted the Creed: and also from the words `whose Kingdon shall have NO end'.
- "I believe...in the...Church" : they don't actually do that.
- "One...Church" : they don't actually believe that.

Again: I'm not exactly looking for a duel here; just to point out that our views are NOT the same.

3) I'm Orthodox as in "Christian Orthodox" ... not Jewish Orthodox, not Monophysite. OK? And I'm not an "Old Believer" or "Old Calendarist" either.

4) You become Orthodox by Baptism into the Orthodox Church. (Baptism is directly followed by Oiling and Holy Communion). Any Priest can offer You these Mysteries.

5) I honestly don't know what kind of Russian Metropolitan You have there ... if he's the head of a Russian Old-Believing Church or of a Russian Old-Calendarist Church, then he's not in communion with us.

Just for clarification:

- the Orthodox Churches are these: Greek, Serbian, Bulgarian, Romanian, Russian, Georgian.
- the Monophysite Churches are: Coptic (Egyptian), Ethiopian, Syriac, Armenian, Indian (Thomist).
- the Old Believers and the Old Calendarists are schisms, not heresies.

Augustinian Successor said...


You read Luther since you're so ignorant of what Luther taught! You said that what Luther taught was not Lutheranism. Sorry to burst your bubble, but THERE!

Secondly, Augustine taught sola Scriptura like the Fathers before him. This is why there was a difference in e.g. the attitude towards the Apocrypha and even the number of the Apocrypha! This is why he could denounce Pope Zosimus who initially sided with Pelagius. So, there, another of your ego bubble being burst!

As for the rest of your statement, they don't make no sense, UNDERSTAND!

Augustinian Successor said...

In what sense do the modern Lutherans do not follow Luther? you have got to be specific here, instead of just yapping away.

And listen here, Your in the wrong blog! Not all classical Protestants are the exactly the same, just as not all Orthodox are exactly the same! Not all Orthodox pursue ecumenical relations with Rome, get it? Not all Orthodox seek reconciliation with the Orientals, get it? Not all Orthodox agree that the Pope is the Antichrist, get it? Not all Orthodox regard the filioque as a theologoumenon, get it?

But the Orthodox have one thing in common - they have got the doctrine of Cross WRONG! Union with the Incarnate God precisely gives you total and complete holiness, get it? No, you don't, that's why you hanging around and barking up the wrong tree.

Lucian said...

Augustinian Succesor,

I don't want to re-warp here my discussion(s) with this blog's owner, namely L.P. Cruz, and with Past Elder, Pastor Weedon and David Schuetz. -- feel free to ask our host here. In any case, what I said stays.

The way You view the books not in the Hebrew back-fires on You: the exact same thing can be said about the rejection of many canonical books from the NT. In both cases, there was a hard-core, as well as fringes, and an evolution that took place. Do a little experiment and take all the lists from the Fathers throughout the ages and see that when You intersect all lists, You will never go below a certain number, nor will You exceed a certain number either when You'll do a reunion of all books from all lists.

Augustinian Successor said...

I do not know what you are waffling on, Lucian but I tell you this the different lists produced at different times(!!!) by different traditions is no comfort for those who look to Tradition (big T) as a guarantee of orthodoxy!

Alright I read your post for the second time and you spke of the Fathers? Which Father? Augustine who apparently differed with Jerome. Not really but the nuances in terms of the broader and narrower list was there. Who? Origen who stuck to the Palestinian list? Rufinus who also followed suit? Even Trent has a different of the Apocrypha?

And on evolution, there was no evolution. No Orthodox worth his salt speaks about evolution when its come dogma or Scripture. The canonical list did not evolve. They were just obscured or confused for a little while due to the circulation of post-apostolic works such such as the Shepherd of Hermas, and Gnostic gospels.

Lucian said...

The canonical list did not evolve.

Oh, but I'm affraid it did... What I wanted You to see for Yourself was the parameters or limits between which it oscilated, and how these oscilations reduced themselves over time, converging at the verge between the firstand the second millennium in what we have today.

They were just obscured or confused for a little while due to the circulation of post-apostolic works such such as the Shepherd of Hermas, and Gnostic gospels.

You won't find any Gnsotic Gospels in ANY list. You will however find the Shephard et al in MANY lists. When You understand why this is so, You'll be a step closer to understanding us.

No Orthodox worth his salt speaks about evolution when its come dogma or Scripture.

Dogma does not evolve. But who wrote what is not dogma. The dogma (30 AD) preceded the NT Scriptures (50 AD) by a good TWO DECADES. The faith of Abraham (3300-3400 AM) preceded the Torah (4100 AM at the very best) by at least ONE MILLENNIUM.

When You'll do the task I gave You, You'll notice that the never-disputed books are the ones that have the testimony of entire Churches on their side: the four Gospels, Acts, and Paul's letters to Churches or Bishops. Then You'll see that those addressed to 'everyone in general and no-one in particular' are the ones that score lowest [general Epistles, including Paul's, and Apocalypse, to seven Churches].

The idea is that the testimony of the Church is the rule of thumb here: `cuz Christ said so (as it's recorded in Matthew).

Augustinian Successor said...

The Canon NEVER evolved. The Canon is what it is due to their intrinsic quality, not because some church council one day decided that it should it is the Canon.

Church councils simply recognised or acknowledged the Canon as such. It was a fallible compilation of infallible books. You remember this rule of thumb, you can never go wrong. When you do as I have told you, and stop being like not-so-smart smart alec, then you'll see why your position simply does not hold water.

I repeat: Councils do not confirm but AFFIRM the Canon. Evolution presupposes that what one have at the moment is inferior to the future development. The Canon which is complete is never inferior at any point in time to future compilation. It is there. It only needs the recognition of the Church for the Canon to be explicitly RECEIVED.

Reception of the Canon is NOT evolution. You see how ridiculous your claim is now???

Lucian said...

No, ... I don't. I will not bully You around for Your faith, but I hope You do understand my position and the rather obvious reasons for it ... don't You? -- I only meant to answer Your unclarity about us believing in a developement of Canon, while at the same time not suffering to hear about evolution of dogma.

Augustinian Successor said...

You don't admit it, but you know that your position is ridiculous and self-contradictory, lacks coherence, not to mention unOrthodox. The Canon does not develop; it does not need to. The Canon is a "measuring rod". This implies fixity, a static position. If it were not so, then Orthodoxy by its own account cannot own up why dogma does not need development only in terms of articulation, definition or clarification.

Lucian said...

There are canons for penance, canons for prayer, canons for fasting, canons for services, and -yes- even canons for scripture: i.e., which scriptures to read publicly in Church and which not.

The Canon of Truth (the lex orandi lex credendi) is one of the measuring rods for determining the canon. That's why we don't have a problem with any of the various lists. Every book contained in any list is Orthodox. There are no un-Orthodox books in any list. That's why You'll find none of the Gnostic apocrypha in any list anywhere. That's why there was never any infighting among us regarding canon, as there was regarding Easter (when the guys who celebrated it after the manner of the Jews were suspected of Judaizing -- which is a heresy), or even the Calendar (when we were blamed of becoming 'papists' [another heresy] or syncretists [yet another heresy] by some guys who said that that's what we were doing by accepting the New *Gregorian* Calendar; these guys [few in number] broke off with their own large national Churches when these continued to be in communion with us, calendrical differences notwithstanding).

In any case, during Church history, there were no schisms because of various lists, and that's because there was nothing wrong with any of them.

Augustinian Successor said...

I thought of giving you the last word, Lucian, but then thought the better of it.

Canon law is different the Canon of Scripture. But you are right that there is a "narrower" and "broader" canon as attested to e.g. in the dispute between Jerome and Augustine. There is generally no disagreement on the constitution of the protocanon. But on the issue of the "liturgical" canon, i.e. on what is to be included also in the public reading, there is some disagreement. Canon law regulates the life of the Church, especially what Lutherans would call the public ministry or the ministerial priesthood. But the Canon of Scripture refers to the catalogue or listing of the books of Scripture.

In light of what Paul McCain has said to Dan Woodring, I take this opportunity to say to you, Lucian, that Jesus Christ died on the Cross for your sins. Receive thou therefore the unconditional, the gracious forgiveness of sins, for the sake of Him Who died for thee, that thou mayest be justified by faith apart from the deeds of Law. Therefore, Repent, and believe the Gospel.

The Cross is not a repair work. The Cross is something completely new. The Cross is the self-giving of Jesus to this world for the forgiveness of sins which creates new life out of the old creation.