Proof of the depth of Warren's apostasy

back to theology home page
back to Purpose Drive index page

Logical Deductive argument for Rick Warren's compromise and denial of the Gospel

Introduction:

With the passage of time, it seems that Rick Warren seems to grow further and further into first heteroorthodoxy , then unorthodoxy, then heresy and now rank compromise and apostasy, topping his actions up with his appearance at the World Economic Forum Interfaith session at Davos, Switzerland. Yet Warren apologists such as Richard Abanes have continued their untenable position that Rick Warren is orthodox. It is to this effect that it would be good to present one short logical deductive argument which proves once and for all Warren's apostasy and denial of the Gospel. Since this is a deductive argument, it is irrefutable if the premises are true and the logical argumentation is valid. And therefore, this is a concrete case against Rick Warren.

Logical Arrow Diagram: (Premises boxed in blue, conclusion boxed in red)

Followed by:

Word form:

The first things which must be established before discussing Rick Warren is to discuss the questions "What is the Gospel?", "What is the relation of the Gospel to an professed ecclesiastical group?", and the relation of the members of the group to the group as a whole. For the first question, it is put forth that the doctrine of Justification by Faith alone (Sola Fide) is THE core of the Gospel, and the article upon which the Church stands or falls. This of course is easily proven by appeal not only to Romans and proof texts such as Eph. 2:8-9, which explicitly teachers that salvation is by faith not of works, but also more importantly for this discussion the Epistle to the Galatians, as Paul fought and anathemized the Judaizers who were busy trying to pervert the Faith and destroy the salvation of the Galatian Christians. As an example of the importance of the matter, it can be seen in Gal. 1:6-9 that Paul place anyone and everyone who preaches a false gospel, even an angel, under an eternal curse of God, being devoted to destruction without pity or the possibility of redemption (which is what the term in the Greek αναθεμα, anathema means). And we can see that the error of the Judaizers was not that they were promoting salvation by works, nor by rituals, but by contributing works to the initial act of faith for salvation.(Gal. 3:3). This shows that far from a trivial issue, God through the inspired writings of the apostle Paul revealed to us that adding works as being meritorious for salvation in any form, and regardless of how little it contributes as long as it contributes a part towards salvation, is to create a false gospel that makes its teachers and professors liable to the anathema of God. The doctrine of Justification by Faith alone teaches this exact truth; that salvation is by faith from beginning to end with works contributing NO part towards it. As such, its denial is to fall into the error of the Judaizers and therefore is a false gospel. Truly, therefore, the doctrine of Justification by Faith alone IS indeed THE core of the Gospel, which means that its denial is to compromise and deny the true Gospel.

Roman Catholicism does indeed deny the doctrine of Justification by Faith alone, which can be seen in the proceedings of the Council of Trent, which have never been revoked:

CANON IX.-If any one saith, that by faith alone the impious is justified; in such wise as to mean, that nothing else is required to co-operate in order to the obtaining the grace of Justification, and that it is not in any way necessary, that he be prepared and disposed by the movement of his own will; let him be anathema. (Council of Trent, Sixth Session, On Justification)

Since that is the case, and Justification by Faith alone is central to the Gospel according to the Scriptures, Roman Catholicism through its spurious anathema condemns herself as apostate as she denies the true Gospel (Conclusion 1).

Now with regards to the relation of churches to the Gospel, it must be admitted that only churches or ecclesiastical groups which believe the Gospel can be legitimately called Christian, by definition. Since that is the case, if any person believes that a particular ecclesiastical group is Christian, then they must also believe that that group believes in the Gospel. Now, professing Roman Catholics who are in communion with Rome and are faithful to her represent Roman Catholicism when they are doing something as Roman Catholics. Therefore, a person who affirms professing Roman Catholics as Roman Catholics (not just as human beings) in Roman Catholicism as being brothers and sisters in Christ, then this of course must mean that they believe that Roman Catholicism is a legitimate Christian group/denomination. This of course must be done without any coercion or compulsion, because under compulsion, Man can do many things just to save his own skin. Putting the two together as shown in the diagram ("If a person believes an ecclesiastical group is Christian, then he/she believes that the group believes the Gospel" — If q, then r ; "If a person affirms professing Roman Catholics as Roman Catholics in Roman Catholicism as being brothers and sisters in Christ when not under compulsion, then he/she must believe that Roman Catholicism is a legitimate Christian group" — If p, then q) would yield the proposition "If a person affirms professing Roman Catholics as Roman Catholics in Roman Catholicism as being brothers and sisters in Christ when not under compulsion, then he/she believes that Roman Catholicism believes the Gospel" (If p, then r)

Placing this intermediate conclusion together with the fact that Roman Catholicism denies the doctrine of Justification by Faith alone gives us an interesting statement that "If a person affirms professing Roman Catholics as Roman Catholics in Roman Catholicism as being brothers and sisters in Christ when not under compulsion, then he/she believes that Roman Catholicism believes the Gospel while denying the doctrine of Justification of Faith alone", which is hereby simplified into the stated statement that "If a person affirms professing Roman Catholics as Roman Catholics in Roman Catholicism as being brothers and sisters in Christ when not under compulsion, then he/she believes that the doctrine of Justification by Faith alone is not a major part of the Gospel". We have seen just now the actual centrality of the doctrine of Justification by Faith alone as being totally scriptural and that its denial entails compromise and denial of the true Gospel. So therefore, if a person affirms professing Roman Catholics as Roman Catholics in Roman Catholicism as being brothers and sisters in Christ when not under compulsion, they are actually denying the Gospel themselves (Conclusion 2).

Of course, it may be objected that those particular persons did not deny the doctrine of Justification by Faith alone. However, since they judge those who do to be Christians, that doctrine is not essential for "Christian-ness" and therefore that doctrine is not central for them anymore, which is no different from denying it since this doctrine is the center of the Gospel and claims to be essential for it.

From this, we go to the example of Rick Warren. Now most certainly Rick Warren is NOT doing what he does under compulsion (unless self-compulsion is called compulsion), and Rick Warren does in fact affirm professing Roman Catholics as Roman Catholics in Roman Catholicism as brothers and sisters in Christ. In fact, what Rick Warren did was worse because he explicitly claimed that the Roman Catholic church is just 'another denomination', and he helps Roman Catholics to grow their churches as they get involved in the 40 Days of Purpose campaign. So in this we do not even have to talk about individual Roman Catholics since the evidence is so obvious. And therefore, through this line of deductive reasoning, Rick Warren therefore can be seen to willingly compromise and deny the Gospel, for any denial of the centrality of the doctrine of Justification by Faith alone is a denial of that doctrine (the 'alone' part), and therefore a denial of the Gospel.

And with this we finish our logical flow of argumentation with the conclusion that Rick Warren is a heretic and an apostate (for this is an appropriate description for someone who willingly and knowingly repudiates the Gospel of our Lord Jesus Christ, repeatedly). The case is seen to be water-tight and the argument sound since this is a deductive argument whereby all the premises are true, and the argument flow is valid (the conclusions flow from the premises). May God use this to open up the eyes of Christians around the world, for His Name's sake. Amen.

P.S.: The same argument flow can be used for anyone who affirms Roman Catholics as Roman Catholics in Roman Catholicism as brothers and sisters in Christ, and even for other religions like Morminism (though the premises need to be altered to fit) as seen in the case of people like Richard Mouw.

Addenum:

It may be objected that the to move from the premise "Roman Catholics who are in communion and faithfulness to Roman Catholicism represent Roman Catholicism, especially when they are doing something as Roman Catholics" to the intermediate conclusion "If a person affirms Roman Catholics as Roman Catholics in Roman Catholicism as brothers and sisters in Christ, when not under compulsion, then he/she believes that Roman Catholicism is a legitimate group" is invalid, and thus needing another premise along the lines of "Affirming someone of a religious sect, qua as being part of that sect, is a sufficient condition for evincing a belief in the complete propriety and total legitimacy of the religious sect, notwithstanding specific variations that inevitably occur between “legitimate and willing members” and the official doctrinal proclamations of the sect" is needed. To that, I can agree, and the reason why this is omitted is because this unwritten premise is a truism (which is self-evidently true). The idea here is that such an affirmation is not affirming the persons as human beings, men, women, Americans, Singaporeans or whatever these people may be, but as to their corporate identity/status as part of that group, which in this case refers to Roman Catholicism. Therefore, there is a world of difference between affirming Roman Catholics as human beings, as friendly neighbors, as kind colleagues and friends, as compared to as Roman Catholics. When you affirm them as Roman Catholics, then you are already talking about Roman Catholicism sans any reference to any other aspects of the individuals who are Roman Catholics, since all other references to the individuals are not affirmed here but only their Roman Catholicism. Therefore, the argument remains sound.