My Answer to Daniel Chew

The following response is to DANIEL CHEW, a critic of Rick Warren, who used his blog to raise various objections to my online conduct regarding Rick Warren. He also made a variety of accusations against me that that directly relate to my integrity, character, and Christian walk. His initial article, “Richard Abanes, Yawn……..,” stated:

After looking through various comments by Abanes on various blogs, I can only say that all I see is someone so blind that he cannot even see his own pride and arrogance. The stench of self-righteousness just radiates from him, and informs his perpetual “crusade” against Christian pastors (Pastor Ken Silva, Dr. Kim Riddlebarger, Pastor John MacArthur etc.), watchmen ministries (Lighthouse Trails Research etc.) and an entire denomination (Chuck Smith and Calvary Chapel), whoever opposes Rick Warren will feel his wrath, regardless of who or what they are. I just can’t understand how such an individual can function really, so deluded that he cannot even see his own pride. And mind you, it is not God or the Scriptures he is defending, but one man who does in fact severely compromises the faith, as a couple of us have exposed his heresy via books. Not to mention the outright denial of the Gospel at the World Economic Forum at Davos where he cheerfully said in the Interfaith session chaired by former British Primer Minister Tony Bair that “The future is not about secularism, but religious pluralism”.

In response, I made a few statements asking for evidence of his accusations:

CHEW: I can only say that all I see is someone so blind that he cannot even see his own pride and arrogance.
RA: Well, Daniel, I would be most appreciative if you’d actually quote some of these things, rather than just making the accusation. I’ll review any examples, and see if either: a) I somehow did indeed stray into arrogance/pride; or b) word something in a way that was taken not how I meant it (since I am sure that you know how difficult it sometimes can be to effectively communicate in this blog medium). I will say, however, that your words are terrifically harsh and seem to be a judgment beyond your field of knowledge — i.e., how can you read my heart? Interesting.

CHEW:The stench of self-righteousness just radiates from him
RA: Really? An actual stench? And a digital stench at that. Incredible. Might you care to explain how I’m displaying self righteousness? Is it self-righteous to present disagreements with pastors and others? Is anyone beyond criticism? That sounds a bit like idolatry to me — and not on my part.

CHEW:opposes Rick Warren will feel his wrath, regardless of who or what they are.
RA: I hardly see anything I have said as….. “wrath.”

CHEW:I just can’t understand how such an individual can function really, so deluded
RA: And might you list … say, three things about which I am deluded? That would be enlightening. Just curious here.

CHEW:it is not God or the Scriptures he is defending, but one man who does in fact severely compromises the faith, as a couple of us have exposed his heresy via books.
RA: I suggest you familiarize yourself with my body of work, rather than simply making this kind of accusation, which is totally unfounded. My work and life have been devoted to defending truth, scripture, and Christian doctrines related to God, Christ, and salvation. Recently I have been dealing quite a bit with Warren because what is happening around him is a perfect example of how NOT to do apologetics. This is an important issue - Warren is simply a side issue that has served as a catalyst to talk about “TRUTH” as well as the right and wrong way to defend the faith. Now, with my newest book on Eckhart Tolle, I am moving away from the Warren issues, and on to other matters. Unlike the opinion of some people, there is more to life than Rick Warren, who is routinely misrepresented. Ahh well.

CHEW:I know that this may be giving publicity-hungry Abanes some spotlight,
RA: Ahhh…more accusation…personal attacks … statements regarding my motivation of the heart. Interesting.

CHEW: … but it is severely hoped that he repents of his defence of heresy and circumlocution, and submits himself to the Word of God.
RA: First, I have nothing to repent of since I have NEVER defended heresy or circumlocution (nice big word, huh?) . Second, I have been submitting myself to the Word of God for nearly 30 years now. If you can show otherwise by my doctrinal views and/or my lifestyle conduct — please do so. My books are available for doctrinal evaluation. TY in advance.

Chew responded with a full blown article, RESPONSE TO RICHARD ABANES. My responses to his statements in that article are as follows:

CHEW: Warren apologist Richard Abanes
RA: Error #1. I am not an apologist for Warren, officially, unofficially, or otherwise. Yet this is an interesting falsehood that continues to be spread. Out of twenty books on apologetic issues, one book — I repeat, one book (and a rather tiny one, at that) — has been on Rick Warren. I would hardly call that being someone’s apologist. That is absurd. As my website states: “I am not now, nor have I ever been, a spokesperson (official or unofficial) for Rick Warren, Saddleback Church, or any affiliates of Saddleback Church, including Purpose Driven Ministries and pastors.com. Moreover, I have never been contracted or requested by Rick Warren, Saddleback, or any of its affiliates to publicly defend or discuss criticisms of Warren, his books, or his ministry. The comments contained in these articles are my own personal opinions expressed in response to Warren’s critics, and are based on my own investigation and research into Warren (as I have detailed in my book Rick Warren and the Purpose that Drives Him).” So, please get your facts straight, Daniel. TY in advance.

CHEW: The first issue to respond to is with regards to Abanes’ defence of Rick Warren. I think it would be evident to all that most of Abanes’ defence of Warren is almost devoid of doctrine, and he does so by stating that Rick Warren did profess to believe such-and-such a doctrine. Whether be it the fundamentals of the faith, salvation by faith alone, the second coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, or any other doctrine for that matter. Abanes is an ‘expert’ in finding quotes by Warren that somehow supports his thesis that Warren does believe in cardinal Christian doctrines.
RA: Actually, there are two issues to be discussed when dealing with issues surrounding Rick Warren: 1) his doctrinal positions; 2) his social activities.

When dealing with the second issue, which is usually connected to his P.E.A.C.E. Plan, one needs to measure his activities against whether or not he is doing anything outside scripture’s guidelines for living in obedience to Christ’s commands. This is not a difficult thing to examine. And from what i can see, there is nothing unbiblical about Warren’s personal lifestyle or humanitarian efforts.

When dealing with the first issue, it is important to show what Warren believes doctrinally. And I need to correct you again, BTW. I do not show what Warren “did profess to believe,” I quote and demonstrate what Warren DOES profess to believe. And I prove what he professes using standard references to his own teachings from the pulpit, statements in interviews, pastors.com articles, and documentation produced by Saddleback Church. I have dealt with the doctrine of Rick Warren:

here

here

here

here

here

Exactly how you would consider this as being “devoid of doctrine” is beyond me.

CHEW: Now, it must of course be admitted that Rick Warren professes those doctrines, for I am sure Abanes did not fabricate those quotes.
RA: Thank you, Daniel. LoL.

CHEW: Even the Liberals profess the faith, especially before the Fundamentalist/Modernist controversy of the early 20th century.
RA: True - liberals profess Christianity (as do Mormons, JWs, and others), but in their confession they deny the essentials of Christianity (e.g., the virgin birth, the bodily resurrection, etc.). Mormons do the same thing (e.g., monotheism, salvation by grace alone through faith alone). Warren, however, has never demonstrated a denial of the essentials of the faith in either word or deed. You have no quotes to show that he denies the faith, nor does anyone else. I know Rick Warren. I have heard him give several teachings on heaven, hell, salvation, and God. And I have in my hands the doctrinal maturity manual from Saddleback Church — and it’s all orthodox.

CHEW: Even our Lord does not esteem a mere profession of the faith, so why should we?
RA: Agreed. But once more, neither you, nor anyone else, has ever shown that Warren denies ANY essential doctrine of the faith in either word or deed. You might not LIKE what he does (e.g., the P.E.A.C.E. Plan, or PDL, or attending DAVOS, etc. etc.), but that is not tantamount to denying Christ.

CHEW: Abanes somehow think that stating and showing that Warren professes the faith somehow means that therefore he is orthodox. No, what it shows is that he claims to be orthodox.
RA: Wrong. My correction to Warren’s critics is two-fold:

1) I show what Warren professes/teaches;

2) I demonstrate the flaws in how certain critics seek to explain away what Warren professes/teaches.

It is not as simplistic as you make it out to be - i.e., I do not just say, “See, look here, Warren says he believes in Jesus.” Of course, that would be naive and shallow. The meanings behind these words are what matter. And according to all documentation available, the meanings behind Warren’s words are orthodox (unlike the meanings behind the same terms used by Mormons, New Agers, JWs, etc.).

CHEW: For example, how much spin can you place on such a denial of the faith like what Warren did at the WEF at Davos? I certainly didn’t see Abanes trying to defend Warren here (Perhaps I’m wrong; so please show me).
RA: The obvious purpose of this meeting was to bring together the religious leaders of the world in order to call upon those of their faith (and others) to seek peace, toleration, and mutual help toward our neighbors — to hopefully stem the tide of hatred, war, evil, and human suffering. You say Warren committed a “denial of the faith”? By doing what? Just by being there?

Warren was not discussing the truth or falsehood of any faith, including Christianity. His statements, in the context of that meeting, were in reference to how ALL religions can influence the world for the social and political betterment of the environment in which we live. This was not a theological debate forum - but you are trying to make it that kind of forum. You are ignoring its context. The first question asked of him was” “Why faith in the modern world?” It wasn’t any of the following:

“Is Christianity true?”
“Is Jesus the only way of salvation?”
“Is Hinduism, Islam, and other religions just as true as Christianity?

Even as Warren began talking, he addressed the BUSINESS leaders in attendance, telling them, “[T]he future of the world is NOT secularism, it is religious pluralism. You may not like that, but you’re going to have to deal with it. The world is becoming MORE religious, not less.”

Can you really not see what he is saying to those in the audience? He is telling them that the era of secularism, agnosticism, and atheism is over. He then speaks of the vitality of “faith” around the world and how influential it is. This is a true statement — nothing more than a statement of fact. AGAIN, it is not some denial of Christ/Christianity, nor is it any attempt to legitimize whatever salvific doctrines happen to be found in the world’s various religions.

Warren’s views of Christianity, Christ as the only way of salvation, and related doctrines has been made very very clear (see above “HERE” links). But you ignore this information, and extrapolate some kind of advancement of pluralism because he simply uses the word! To anyone simply listening to his words in context can understand this fairly uncomplicated remark.

He then talks about the major social problems of our planet: disease, poverty, illiteracy, political corruption, global warming, and spiritual emptiness. He follows this by making a fairly simple observation: i.e., these problems can’t be solved with the assistance of religious institutions. Uhm, that’s a pretty basic and obvious concept. How is this heretical? Where is he denying Jesus?

Remember, AGAIN, this is a forum to discuss alleviating human suffering — not a forum about which religion is correct.

He goes on to talk about the roles of government, business, and religion in helping alleviate human suffering in the world. As he said, “If you leave it up to secular people to solve THESE PROBLEMS,” it isn’t going to happen. See the context, Daniel? Stop trying to make it something it is not. I don’t see him denying anything or anyone - especially Jesus or the Christian faith.

CHEW: When Warren accepts Roman Catholics as fellow brothers and sisters in Christ, isn’t that a practical denial of the centrality of the doctrine of Justification by faith alone (which Rome still condemns as heresy today by the way)?
RA: Warren is HARDLY the only person who feels that true Christians exist within the Roman Catholic Church. Warren’s views of Roman Catholicism are very similar to those held by a number of conservative, Bible-believing, evangelicals including myself, Ron Rhodes (who attended Saddleback when he lived in California), Gretchen Passantino-Cobern (Answers In Action), Hank Hanegraaff (president of the Christian Research Institute), and Dr. Norman Geisler, co-author with Ralph MacKenzie of Roman Catholics and Evangelicals (Baker Books, 1995).

Of particular relevance, is the book by Geisler and MacKenzie—both of whom are well-respected evangelical apologists. In their volume they discuss the many differences and similarities between Protestants and Roman Catholics. In fact, PART ONE of his book is dedicated to “Areas of Doctrinal Agreement” that lists eight major areas of doctrine that he says evangelicals share with Roman Catholics (120 pages worth). And on top of that, his entire PART THREE is dedicated to “Areas of Practical Cooperation” that includes social action, educational goals, spiritual heritage, and evangelism (see pp. 359-429).

Unfortunately, many of Warren’s critics, as you yourself demonstrate, are vehemently anti-Roman Catholic. This prejudice colors your view of other evangelical leaders—i.e., anyone who does not view RC like you is somehow compromising or heretical. For a quick, yet thorough look at Roman Catholicism from a balanced perspective, I recommend the numerous articles available from the Christian Research Institute on the subject (see resource list). In your one statement about Warren and Roman Catholics, you condemn a huge cross-section of not only lay Christians, but also apologists!

CHEW: So what is the use of documentation being shown that Warren claims he believes in the doctrine of Justifcation by faith alone and perhaps even preaches it, when he most certainly did not truly show that he does in fact believe it?
RA: Actually, he does. Appearing at an economic summit with people of other religiosn does not make you a heretic, nor is it indicative of denying any doctrine of Christianity. To say otherwise is not supported by scripture.

CHEW: After all, if a person claims to believe that Jesus is His Savior, yet continue to worship idols and does not desire to worship God, will you call his profession genuine?
RA: Worship idols? My goodness, where in the world did you extrapolate that from?! This is exactly what I’m talking about. Worships idols? Why don’t you just go ahead and say he makes blood sacrifices at a hidden temple behind his house? Seriously, bro. It’s all the same thing — invented tales.

CHEW: The fact of the matter is that it is no point pointing out what Rick Warren professes to believe, if he continues to deny them by his very actions, in the same way as there being no point trying to convince any true Christian that a person who claims to believe in Christ, but who persists in continuing to worship idols, should be considered a Christian.
RA: Again, your definition of worshiping idols is illusive. And your apparent definition of “denying” also leaves much to be desired. You have your own Chewified definition of “worshiping idols” and denying that basically serves as a convenient yardstick by which you can condemn anyone you want to condemn.

CHEW: The second issue of contention with Abanes is of course the label of being a ‘Warren apologist’, which I am absolutely convinced is correct. Look at all the interactions Abanes has engaged in which I have hyperlinked to in my first paragraph (there are more which I didn’t bother to find) and you will see a recurring pattern.
RA: It’s odd that you would not have found this statement by me:

“I have written nearly 20 books ranging in topics that affect the church — from Mormonism, to Harry potter, to video games, to The Da Vinci Code, to racism, and on and on. One such book happens to be on Rick Warren. I wrote it, and have continued to write about him online, because I am seeking to stop the horrific perversion that is going on within the so-called apologetic community. The once noble calling of apologetics has been grossly twisted into a rampage of ungodly heresy hunters who will stop at nothing to destroy, demean, and deceive in order to root out those whom they have targeted. In this case, it just happens to be Warren. But the tactics they use can easily be transferred to anyone. Their entire approach to apologetics and discernment is unbiblical and sinful. I pray that all of you understand that this IS NOT about Chuck Smith, or Calvary Chapel, or even Rick Warren, or Warren Smith, or me. It is about TRUTH. I say it again, TRUTH. We are to stand and move and minister in TRUTH.”

I actually hadn’t written a thing about Warren for about 2 years - if not more - because I was busy ministering in other areas and dealing with other issues. And currently, I have only been discussing Warren online again since the end of December, which is 4 months out of a full-time ministry that has been going on since 1989. Now, really, you equate that with me being someone’s apologist? I’m not sure how you’d even begin justifying that assessment.

CHEW: In all of these posts, Abanes defends Rick Warren, and not only that, he writes profusely in defence of Rick Warren. Judge for yourselves if any man ought to deserve such passion except for the honor of our Lord Jesus Christ.
RA: Incorrect. I am writing profusely in defense of TRUTH. Truth, Daniel. Warren is a mere catalyst for discussions relating to truth, apologetics, proper discernement, accuracy in reporting, facts vs. misrepresentations. He is a catalyst for discussing these things because he is a target being used by people to justify less than biblical attacks. And, BTW, you have NO IDEA how much passion I have for Jesus Christ. No idea whatsoever. That is yet another judgment of my heart based on some kind of personal, inner, definition of your own about the word “passion.”

CHEW: Perhaps Abanes should take stock of how many words in total has he written/typed in defence of Rick Warren as compared to Jesus Christ (ie the ratio).
RA: Well, I already have a rough idea of this. Why don’t YOU take stock of it? You can start by counting the words I have written in my 19 other books — perhaps beginning with my 651-page book One Nation Under Gods that exposes the unsavory history of Mormonism for what it is, and my 463-page book Inside Today’s Mormonism, which biblically refutes the major doctrines of Mormonism, while comparing them to Christianity. That should take you a while. Seriously, Dan, you need to be very cautious in the kind of accusations you make when they are not based at all on fact. This is the very reason why I have spent the last few months discussing these issues.

CHEW: Not to mention of course that almost all such defences have the same style of “Warren believes such-and-such, therefore your accusation is wrong”, which of course still focuses on what Warren professes and that is a non-issue.
RA: Actually, Daniel, this IS the issue — what does Warren actually believe?

CHEW: After all, as I have written in my book also, Warren has a forked tongue. He does not so much deny doctrine as he engages in dialetics and changes the message to suit the audience, thus engaging in the very action condemned by Scripture in James 3:10-12. What Abanes needs to do is to show that Warren did not do such things ……..
RA: It’s been done….you won’t accept it for whatever reason.

CHEW: The mere fact that Abanes has written a book for one reason only (defending Rick Warren) clearly does not help him in his bid against being labeled as a Warren apologist. Between this and his tireless campaign to defend Rick Warren, how can this label not be appropriate?
RA: See above.

CHEW: Rather, we are to evaluate why is it that Abanes has spend so much time defending the indefensible against all types of people.
RA: So much time? Hmmm. Well, that is a fairly subjective call isn’t it? Exactly how do you know, BTW, precisely how much time I’ve actually spent on …… anything in my life, let alone my blogging about Warren? That’s a bit of a subjective comment based on, well, nothing…..isn’t it? And when did you become the judge of my time management, anyway?

CHEW: First of all, I am not judging Abanes’ heart, but his actions.
RA: Really? Hmmm, okay, sounds like it to me, but whatever.

CHEW: It is a fact that Abanes is not open to correction at all..
RA: Actually, I am not open to accepting falsehoods and/or faulty reasoning or half-truths and misrepresentations of facts. Big difference.

CHEW: … as seen in his various interactions on blogs. I doubt that I am the first to tell Abanes that profession counts little, but will he listen? Why is it that Abanes’ modus operandi always remain the same, and he always uses the same fallacious logic in defending Warren? Not to mention that he refuses to be corrected by various pastors and in facts attacks them (read his attack on Pastor John MacArthur in a 2005 Challies.com interviews here, and Pastor Ken Silva here). If this is not pride and arrogance, what is?
RA: It would be called standing up for truth — the same way you feel that what you are doing and YOUR attacks are merely standing up for truth.

CHEW: With regards to whether anyone is beyond criticism, of course the answer is no, and THAT includes Rick Warren and Richard Abanes.
RA: I agree - as long as it is based on truth.

CHEW: There is nothing wrong with displaying disagreements with pastors, but what is the attitude in so doing? Is it to treat them with contempt, question their devotion to truth and so on, and most importantly, all the while NOT using Scripture in so doing?
RA: If you are not talking about a scriptural issue — i.e., a certain interpretation of a verse — then you have to deal with the issue. For example, when it comes to John MacArthur, the issue is how he misrepresented Warren’s teachings on CNN. Where am I supposed to use a scripture when the issue is his presentation of Warren’s views - not anything involving a scripture that must be quoted. And if someone is careless about the things they say, then they are being careless. It is not disrespectful to say so. What’s a bit amazing to me is how you and others can say just about anything you want to say about Warren — a pastor — and it’s just fine. Interesting.

CHEW: Is this the way to treat men of God, ministers of the Gospel? The only reason to attack someone like that is only if those people are false teachers (ie not true pastors), which I am convinced Rick Warren is. So is Abanes thinking that John MacArthur, Todd Wilken, and Steve Koukl are false teachers in order for him to treat them so contemptiously?

RA: I never said, or even suggested, that they are false teachers. In fact, Wilken is a friend of mine — I signed the petition to bring his show back. He also had me on his program just before he left the air. And he’s emailed me personally since he’s been gone from KFUO. Moreover, because he has now been removed from the air, I actually took down my articles responding to his criticisms of Warren. And I would also hardly call this criticism worthy of being seen as contemptuous.

Back to my comments, I said: “irresponsible accusations about Warren have really caused me to question their motives and their concerns for truth.” All I am expressing is: 1. my opinion that their accusations have been irresponsible; 2. my personal feelings about what such irresponsible remarks might mean when it comes to their concerns for “truth” regarding Rick Warren — i.e., are they simply rising up against him because of some other personal motives or lack of care. these are understandable opinions and have nothing to do with disrespect or confronting them in any way that is inappropriate.

CHEW: RA: I hardly see anything I have said as….. “wrath.” I’m sure those who are on the receiving end like those mentioned above would sure beg to disagree.
RA: TBH, they probably couldn’t care less what I think. I’m pretty much a nobody compared to them. Seriously — MacArthur, Koukl, Wilken? This are terrifically established, notable, influential leaders in the church.

CHEW: 1) that Rick Warren’s official teachings constitute his true belief, 2) that whatever Warren does has no bearing on what he claims to believe, 3) that anyone who criticizes Rick Warren hates him.
RA:Here’s my thoughts:

1. Well, you have yet to prove otherwise. And please, as long as you have brought this up, do tell, what ARE his “TRUE” beliefs then?

2. I never said that! Strawman.

3. I never said that, either. Strawman #2. I think it can be shown that some people do hate Warren, simply by their sheer nastiness and mean-spirited tone. But if you want to assert that NOBODY who criticizes Warren literally hates him, then fine. I have no problem with that. Sure. Okay. I’ll concede that. It’s irrelevant , anyway. I would simply say that by some of the critical language used by some of Warren’s critics, it certainly seems to me as if soem of them truly hate Warren. better?

CHEW: Again, this has nothing to do with your “motivation of the heart”, but your actions. Just because I do not comment at various sites in which you have made a fool of yourself several times over does not mean I do not know of the fact that you have been defending Rick Warren all over the Christian blogosphere. Do you have a search engine software that somehow alerts you anytime any person anywhere comments negatively on Rick Warren?
RA: Okay, now I am a fool. More name-calling. Nicely done. As I have stated, this whole Rick Warren thing is a mere catalyst that has to do with larger issues — truth, discernment, Christian love, heresy-hunting, proper apologetics, division in the Body of Christ. These are the real issues - not Rick Warren per se.

CHEW: Please tell me you are lying. You have NEVER defended heresy? Oh, I forgot, you do not think Rick Warren teaches heresy … silly me. And that is why you are blind, and worse for you now because you claim to be able to see. As Jesus Himself said, “If you were blind, you would have no guilt; but now that you say, ‘We see,’ your guilt remains” (Jn. 9:40b).
RA: Now, it is just getting silly. Please list with documentation (NOT extrapolation) - The heretical doctrines Rick Warren believes about the following: God, Jesus, the Bible, salvation. TY in advance.

CHEW: As a side note, do you believe in what Rick Waren says, that “The future is not about secularism, but religious pluralism”?
RA: Read above about the WEC at DAVOS.

Daniel, I do wish you well, and hope that as the years go by, you reflect more thoughtfully on these issues and look to Christ as your guide. I wish you much peace, godly blessings, and a closer walk with he who saved us by dying on the cross for our sins and rising again form the dead so that we might have life with him eternally as a free gift of grace.

R. Abanes

___________________________________________________________

___________________________________________________________

___________________________________________________________

In reply to my above remarks, Daniel Chew released a most interesting post filled with not only more personal attacks, but comments that suggested he had not even really read my response! Interesting. It appeared on his blog as follows:

Your answer to the charge of being a Warren apologist is to point to your books, but I have already answered that argument before you have even made it. And you have ignored almost all the points I have made, while denying anything wrong with events such as Davos and the embrace of Roman CatholicISM. The question has never been whether there are true believers within Roman Catholicism, which is possible though highly improbable, but whether Roman CatholicISM is Christian in the first place. Such straw men and obfuscation does not help your cause, really.

And when we have documented Warren’s errors (see my book as an example, or Pastor Bob Dewaay’s excellent book on the topic also), you just dismiss them without interacting with them, while claiming you are a “seeker after TRUTH”. Is it any wonder that nobody believes your claim to be a “seeker after TRUTH”?

And I see you cannot recognize an analogy when you see one. How can you call yourself an apologist when you cannot even understand the basic form of argument by way of analogy (ie the analogy of the person who continues to worship idols after professing faith in Christ? Again, your inability to understand an argument is seen most evidently when you think that I am calling you a fool when I merely mention that “you have made a fool of yourself”. No, it is your guilty conscience that is condemning you as a fool, in the same way as a person who objects to the statement “hypocrties are sinners” by asking the writers how they can be judgmental by calling them hypocrites.

As it has been said, your very comments reveal more about yourself than about others. When someone can claim to be a seeker after TRUTH while at the same time refuses to interact with their opponents, all the while stating that they have not proven their case, you sure know they are lying. So Richard, when would you be seriously interacting with the points MacAthur, Dewaay and I have raised, instead of just dismissing them fiat?

In conclusion, unless you start to seriously interact with the points we have raised up instead of parroting your same old statement of denial, I think our interaction is done. After all, what’s there to discuss when someone refuses to interact with anything except in the form of denial? To throw back to you your own statement: “Read my book”

In my final reply to Mr. Chew, I stated the following:

CHEW: Reiteration of fallacies does not an argument make.

RA: The claim that a fallacy was reiterated does not an argument make.

1. I explained why I am NOT an apologist for Warren, and how your analysis of my activities in the area of apologetics is radically skewed and based on an apparent ignorance of the scope of issues with which I have dealt.

2. I went through the matter of profession/confession, pointing out that am actual difference between Warren’s profession and confession has not been adequately documented.

3. I analyzed Warren’s comments at DAVOS WEC.

4. I asked for you to provide a list of Warren’s “TRUE” beliefs, which you have not yet supplied.

5. I re-linked web pages where doctrine is indeed discussed, yet you failed to give any defense for your assertion that my words are “devoid of doctrine.”

6. I asked for evidence and clarification about your charge that Warren is engaged in worshiping idols - evidence you again have failed to give.

7. I addressed the highly subjective arguments you made in relation to whether or not I had behaved improperly toward various Christian leaders such as John MacArthur.

So whatever you’re talking about in the above opening salvo has nothing to do with the actual substance of my response to you. I expected as much, but in my optimism had hoped for better.

CHEW:Your answer to the charge of being a Warren apologist is to point to your books, but I have already answered that argument before you have even made it.
RA: I’m not sure how to even respond to this — yet again. I spoke DIRECTLY to this issue, explaining why you are incorrect in your analysis of my Warren-related activities. If anyone is ignoring anything here, my friend, it is you. (BTW, have you started counting the words in my 2 books on Mormonism? And as for pointing to my books, the very reason I did that — which I thought you’d understand — is to demonstrate that my activities regarding Warren are actually quite minimal.

CHEW: And you have ignored almost all the points I have made,
RA: LoL. if you say so, Daniel. If you say so. See above list — again.

CHEW: while denying anything wrong with events such as Davos and the embrace of Roman Catholicism.
RA: I explained the DAVOS meeting quite plainly and rationally. If you can refute that explanation using any evidence from the meeting itself, then plz do so. As for Roman Catholicism, I supplied you with relevant information on that issue as well — if you’d like to refute that, then by all means, do that as well.

CHEW: The question has never been whether there are true believers within Roman Catholicism, which is possible though highly improbable, but whether Roman Catholicism is Christian in the first place.
RA: Hmmm, really? You’re changing your tune now. You stated: “When Warren accepts Roman Catholics as FELLOW BROTHERS AND SISTERS in Christ, isn’t that a practical denial of the centrality of the doctrine of Justification by faith alone…” Do you not even recall what you yourself wrote? I specifically addressed your own words! This is hardly “straw men and obfuscation.” Sigh.

CHEW:Is it any wonder that nobody believes your claim to be a “seeker after TRUTH”?
RA: Nobody? Nobody? Hmm, you must have done an incredibly huge survey to get that piece of information. Grats.

CHEW:How can you call yourself an apologist when you cannot even understand the basic form of argument by way of analogy (i.e.,the analogy of the person who continues to worship idols after professing faith in Christ?
RA: LoL. I see.

CHEW: Again, your inability to understand an argument is seen most evidently when you think that I am calling you a fool when I merely mention that “you have made a fool of yourself”.
RA: Making a distinction without a real difference. Don’t play word games.

CHEW: No, it is your guilty conscience that is condemning you as a fool….
RA: Ahhhhh….I like the sound of that righteous indignation you have going now.

CHEW: When someone can claim to be a seeker after TRUTH while at the same time refuses to interact with their opponents, all the while stating that they have not proven their case, you sure know they are lying.
RA: Oh, okay, so now I am a liar? You know, Daniel, you just keep making these accusations, all the while claiming that you are not making accusations. Interesting.

CHEW: when would you be seriously interacting with the points MacAthur, Dewaay and I have raised, instead of just dismissing them fiat?
RA:Unbelievable.

CHEW: …… what’s there to discuss when someone refuses to interact with anything except in the form of denial?
RA: ROFL — truer words never spoken, Daniel. Truer words never spoken. I do wish you all the best. And hope that as you grow in your years, you will grow in your maturity, as well as in the knowledge and grace of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ. Peace to you. Keep it light. Keep it real.

Ahhh Well. It all ended pretty much as I expected it would end.