Yesterday I had the opportunity to meet with Rick Warren. This meeting was made possible by the generosity of Rick Warren and Saddleback Church. I want to personally thank Rick Warren for the invitation and his generosity with his time and resources. He was truly a gracious host.
Many of the readers of this blog would like details regarding the meeting. Here is what I would like to say on the matter...the meeting with Rick Warren lasted for a little over an hour and was a face to face with myself and Bob DeWaay of Critical Issues Commentary. The tone of the meeting was wonderful. Warren was genuinely interested in getting to know us and he was receptive in hearing both Bob's and I's concerns and critiques of his doctrine and practices. Never once did the conversation turn hostile or angry and Warren was more than willing to answer and address our toughest questions and most serious concerns. Both Bob and myself focused our comments on the Gospel and were encouraged by Warren's receptiveness to both listen to and interact with our concerns.
Neither Bob nor myself were required to sign a non-disclosure and we are being provided with a recording of the conversation. However, I have NO intention of making that recording available to the public because I do not believe that to be appropriate nor would it be in keeping with the spirit of the meeting or the love of Christ.
Over the next week or so, I will be writing a Biblical critique of some of the content of the Purpose-Driven conference. The purpose of this critique is to continue a Biblically grounded dialogue so that we all may wrestle with and engage the Word of God in order that errors within the Body of Christ may be corrected and the good news that Jesus Christ was crucified for our sins may be proclaimed so that we all may be called to a life of repentance AND the forgiveness of sins (Luke 24:44-47).
Grace and Peace to you all in Jesus Christ,
Chris Rosebrough
Hi Richard,
As a fellow supporter of Warren I can appreciate and applaud your ability to be overly-gracious to Warren's detractors. However, I still find it very odd that people who have no problem posting item after item in an attempt to make Warren look bad will now refuse to release the results of an interview which Chris claims Warren answered all their questions with grace and that they had a "wonderful conversation." I have to wonder if the reason for not publishing the talk is because Warren is does not come off as the evil guy he has been made out to be. Good news doesn't sell papers.
grace and peace,
Chad
Posted by: Chad | May 25, 2008 at 08:22 PM
Well said, Richard. I agree with your sentiment entirely and pray that it is returned. I have recently had my go-arounds with Chris on another site (alittleleaven) and have had direct questions go repeatedly unanswered and comments of mine deleted for asking why. Thus, I am at the moment feeling a little suspicious of motives.
But I won't harp on it anymore :) God bless you and keep writing!
peace,
Chad
Posted by: Chad | May 25, 2008 at 09:09 PM
Hi Richard,
As a fellow supporter of Warren I can appreciate and applaud your ability to be overly-gracious to Warren's detractors.
I have never seen Mr. Abanes being overly-gracious to Warren's critics nor very loving either, in fact, he has been quite nasty at times. He has come across as a bully.
Rick Warren is a Scripture twister and as of yet I have not seen Rick Warren repent of that. Many have been burnt and left confused because of that. How does one tell a wolf in sheep's clothing from the sheep?
Posted by: Douglas | May 25, 2008 at 09:31 PM
Judgment will one day come swiftly.
You are 100% accurate about that Mr. Abanes and the whole universe will see.
The whole Purpose Driven Life is about "YOU" and "YOUR" purpose with God tacked on to help "YOU" find "YOUR" purpose. Just check the end of each chapter. There is a little box there with what words as part of the heading?
"THINKING ABOUT MY PURPOSE"
Whose purpose?
God's?
Yours?
Posted by: Douglas | May 25, 2008 at 10:23 PM
Douglas,
I have heard the accusation that Warren is a "scripture twister" numerous times and it is usually by people like yourself who make such generalized statements and can't or won't back it up. If they do, than it quickly become apparent (assuming that both parties are open to fruitful, truth seeking dialog) that what was once thought as "twisting scripture" is really just another way of looking at the same thing through a different, just as accurate, lens. I find that what people usually mean when they accuse someone of twisting scripture is that that person doesn't reach MY conclusions about scripture and are therefore wrong. This is hardly a productive nor inspiring way to approach God's word.
Second, it is a mistake to assume that PDL is not about God's purpose for your life. The entire book is based on that premise. I don't see how that can possibly be missed unless someone simply refuses to open their eyes. In a Christian context (as PDL is) a person can ask "what is your purpose" and all assume that we are under the Lordship of Christ when we seek the answer. Wouldn't you agree?
Posted by: Chad | May 25, 2008 at 10:43 PM
Chad: As a "non-supporter of Rick Warren," I can't resist the temptation to jump in here (again, but this time on a more serious note). You stated: "I have heard the accusation that Warren is a "scripture twister" numerous times...what was once thought as "twisting scripture" is really just another way of looking at the same thing through a different, just as accurate, lens.
A couple of quick observations from my reading of PDL (yep, I really read it). From the section "A Journey with Purpose," Warren states "the Bible is clear that God considers 40 days a spiritually significant time period. Whenever God wanted to prepare someone for his purposes, he took 40 days..." To support his hypothesis, Warren cites the following (among several other "proofs"):
- Noah's life was transformed by 40 days of rain.
- Moses was transformed by 40 days on Mount Sinai.
- David was transformed by Goliath's 40-day challenge."
I always thought the "40 days of rain" was about God's judgment on "the wickedness of man [that] was great on the earth [because] every thought and intent of his heart was only evil continually." (Gen 6:5). I would also assume that 120 YEARS (no forty there...oh wait, divide by 3, right?) would have a much bigger impact, but I'm probably wrong there.
I've always thought the Moses Mount Sinai "encounter" was about God giving His Law to ALL of Israel--not just Moses.
My Bible says NOTHING of David being in the camp during Goliath's 40 day rant.
And what about other numbers mentioned in the Bible when God did some pretty amazing things. Three days in the belly of a whale or in a tomb or six days of creation to name a couple.
Sorry, but I have to file the above examples as "Scripture twisting."
I also found interesting Warren's assertion: "...before you were born, God planned this moment in your life. It is no accident that you are holding this book." Really? God can't/doesn't predestine salvation, but He DOES predestine my reading HIS (Warren's) book at a specific time?!
Posted by: KW (Keith) | May 25, 2008 at 11:35 PM
While I study up on some of what is said in the comments above and before I reply, please have a read of the below:
Bludgeoning with Providence
Misusing the will of God.
I would like to point out Rick Warren's Scripture twisting and I want to be able to point it out so clearly, that one can see, and are left without any doubt.
Posted by: Douglas | May 25, 2008 at 11:54 PM
Keith, you illustrate my point beautifully.
You said: "I always thought the "40 days of rain" was about God's judgment on "the wickedness of man [that] was great on the earth [because] every thought and intent of his heart was only evil continually."
And of course you are correct. Do you deny that Noah's life was in some way transformed during that 40 days of rain where wickedness was wiped from the face of the earth and he and his family were spared? Can you say categorically that Noah was in no way, shape or form changed by this event?
You then say: I've always thought the Moses Mount Sinai "encounter" was about God giving His Law to ALL of Israel--not just Moses.
And of course, you are correct. But tell me, who was on Mt. Sinai for 40 days? Was it ALL of Israel or was it Moses? Also, when the name "Moses" or "Law of Moses" is invoked in the OT and in the NT, is it talking about JUST Moses or ALL of Israel?
You then say: My Bible says NOTHING of David being in the camp during Goliath's 40 day rant.
And of course you are correct. And to be clear, what Warren ACTUALLY wrote on page 10 is this, "David was transformed by Goliath's 40-day challenge." Warren doesn't say David was there DURING the rant, as you imply, but simply that David was transformed by Goliath's challenge. Who brought an end to Goliath's challenge? Do you deny that David was transformed by via the cause and effect of Goliath making this challenge to the Israelites?
You then ask: And what about other numbers mentioned in the Bible when God did some pretty amazing things. Three days in the belly of a whale or in a tomb or six days of creation to name a couple.
Good question. What about them? Does Warren say that 40 days is the ONLY significant number in the Bible? Of course not.
You see, when stuff like this actually gets aired out it becomes obvious that there are 2 sides to every coin and we are not always seeing the full (or fair) picture.
peace,
Chad
Posted by: Chad | May 25, 2008 at 11:56 PM
"And of course you are correct. Do you deny that Noah's life was in some way transformed during that 40 days of rain where wickedness was wiped from the face of the earth and he and his family were spared? Can you say categorically that Noah was in no way, shape or form changed by this event?"
Noah wasn't changed or transformed by forty days of rain, spiritually, he already trusted God absolutely, he was changed physically just like the rest of his family and the animals on the Ark, they were all forty days older, they could not step into the same flood twice.
Genesis 6:8-9 (KJV)8 But Noah found grace in the eyes of the LORD. 9 These are the generations of Noah: Noah was a just man and perfect in his generations, and Noah walked with God.
2 Peter 2:5 (KJV) And spared not the old world, but saved Noah the eighth person, a preacher of righteousness, bringing in the flood upon the world of the ungodly;
Boy, you guys are masters at twisting things.
Posted by: Douglas | May 26, 2008 at 12:41 AM
RA - I heard John MacArthur state that the goal of the true gospel is Jesus, and that the goal of the PDL book is you or "your" purpose, and Jesus becomes the "means" to "your" goal. JM's statement was that the PDL book was psychology at best & not theology. How do you & Rick reconcile that type of information?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nI9EzMWZoag
Posted by: john edwards | May 26, 2008 at 12:44 AM
Just FYI, before we were all born, God planned this moment in our lives. It is no accident that we are holding this conversation here tonight.
Or, are you saying God is NOT sovereign and that he does not know the end from the beginning? Be careful how you answer.
Before you were born, God planned this moment in my life. It is no accident that I have pastor Bob DeWaay's book "Redefining Christianity: Understanding the Purpose Driven Movement" in front of me here on my table, it helps me point out to others the errors in Rick Warren's Purpose Driven teachings. Though I can see those quite clearly for myself in Warren's books, articles and videos.
God is sovereign and God is omniscient
God's purposes are unstoppable. They cannot be thwarted and God can do whatever He pleases:
Isaiah 46:10; 43:13; 55:11
Psalm 33:10, 11; 135:6-10; 115:3
Proverbs 19:21
Job 42:2
Romans 9:19
Hebrews 6:17
God is in complete control of everything:
Daniel 1:9; 4:17, 35
Exodus 11:3
Proverbs 21:1
Ezra 1:1
2 Chronicles 20:6
Acts 1:7
Exodus 34:24
1 Kings 8:57-58
1 Chronicles 29:18-19
2 Corinthians 8:16
Jeremiah 10:13
God determines whatsoever comes to pass:
Proverbs 16:1, 4, 7, 9, 33; 20:24; 21:1
Jeremiah 10:23
Lamentations 3:37, 38
Amos 3:6
Acts 17:26-27
Daniel 2:21; 4:35
Psalm 139:16
Ephesians 1:11
Romans 11:36
John 3:27
Job 12:9-10; 14:5
God is sovereign over (controls) evil, sin, and calamity without ever being guilty of wrong:
Isaiah 44:18; 45:7; 19:2; 63:17
Job chapters 1 and 2; see especially Job 1:11-12, 21-22; 2:3, 10 and Job 12:9-10; 42:11
Psalm 105:25
Exodus 4:11, 21; 7:2-4, 13, 22; 10:27
Romans 9:17, 18-23
1 Kings 22:19-23
1 Chronicles 21:1 with 2 Samuel 24:1
2 Thessalonians 2:11, 12
Genesis 45:5-8; 50:20
Revelation 17:17; 13:5; 13:7
Acts 2:23; 3:18; 4:27, 28
Luke 22:22
John 13:27-31; 19:11
* God is sovereign over the entire universe: Ps 103:19; Rom 8:28; Eph 1:11
* God is sovereign over all of nature: Ps 135:6-7; Mt 5:45; 6:25-30
* God is sovereign over angels & Satan: Ps 103:20-21; Job 1:12
* God is sovereign over nations: Ps 47:7-9; Dan 2:20-21; 4:34-35
* God is sovereign over human beings: 1 Sam 2:6-7; Gal 1:15-16
* God is sovereign over animals: Ps 104:21-30; 1 Ki 17:4-6
* God is sovereign over "accidents": Pr 16:33; Jon 1:7; Mt 10:29
* God is sovereign over free acts of men: Ex 3:21; 12:25-36; Ez 7:27
* God is sovereign over sinful acts of men and Satan: 2 Sam 24:1; 1 Chr 21:1; Gen 45:5; 50:20
Posted by: Douglas | May 26, 2008 at 01:05 AM
Chad,
Warren is a serial abuser of Scriptural context.
Example? In a letter to his "Pastors" Warren opens his letter to pastors with
"Pastor, have things been tense around your church? Maybe you need to laugh more. We've long had a motto around Saddleback that says, "We take God very seriously; however, we don’t take ourselves seriously at all.” I think that's played a big part in what God has done through our church."
Within the text of that letter, Warren lays out this little gem:
"One of my favorite verses in the Bible is Psalm 2:4, “The One enthroned in heaven laughs.” Isn’t that a great verse? God has a sense of humor. God laughs! Have you ever seen the face of an orangutan? God thought that one up! That proves he has a sense of humor. Do you want to be more like God? Learn to laugh. A sense of humor can preserve your sanity."
Chris, I challenge you to actually look up and read Psalm 2. Is God having a good time there? Is He just kicking back and exhibiting how one shouldn't take things too seriously?
That's one small example of many. Scripture isn't there for us to make up some argument and then cut and paste verses out of context in order to support it. Warren's handling of the Scripture is horrific at times. No conjecture about it.
Posted by: Janine | May 26, 2008 at 01:18 AM
Noah wasn't changed or transformed by forty days of rain, spiritually, he already trusted God absolutely, he was changed physically just like the rest of his family and the animals on the Ark, they were all forty days older, they could not step into the same flood twice.
Douglas, I think I would have to disagree with you on this point. Coming from an area of the country where hurricane Katrina hit. I think 40 days of rain radically transformed Noah's life. Hurricane Katrina buffeted the place where I live for about 24 hours and flooded the town where I live for about an hour, and people's lives, attitudes and feelings will never be the same. Ever.
Noah endured rain for forty days and nights. The storm he endured killed almost everyone on earth. From personal experience, my opinion was that he was profoundly changed. And I think that's what Richard was saying. Just my two cents.
-Blessings
Posted by: Mike | May 26, 2008 at 01:28 AM
Warren's handling of the Scripture is horrific at times.
Well, so is what I've been reading these last few minutes. Guys, will you please take your argument elsewhere? You're not going to see eye to eye this side of eternity. Just stop....please. If an Unbeliever was to read this thread,(especially the last 10-12 posts) they would want nothing to do with Christians and they'd certainly wonder how in the name of all that's holy we go around calling each other sisters and brothers when we're acting more like cats and dogs.
What must the Lord think of all of these poisonous conversations going on when there are so many better ways to be spending our time..........
Posted by: catransplant48 | May 26, 2008 at 01:46 AM
I think 40 days of rain radically transformed Noah's life.
No. The 40 days of rain radically transformed the unrepentant wicked instead. Mr. Warren is wrong, Richard Abanes is wrong and you are wrong. Noah was already radically transformed even before the first rain drop.
Rick Warren's version is straight out eisegesis to proof text his very own ideas of a forty day spiritual journey program. It is his reading into Genesis 6 a teaching that is not there. Rick Warren twists the Scripture there.
Eisegesis is something Rick Warren does throughout his Purpose Driven Movement.
Eisegesis
[ahy’-suh-jee‘-sis]
(Greek eis-, “into” + Greek hegeisthai, “to guide”)
The interpretive fallacy of reading into (eis-) the text of Scripture a preconceived theology in order to make it fit with what those presumptions require. Eisegesis is to be contrasted with exegesis which involves the arrival of meaning from or out of (ex-) the biblical text, without the presumption of meaning dictating the results.
Posted by: Douglas | May 26, 2008 at 03:34 AM
What must the Lord think of all of these poisonous conversations going on when there are so many better ways to be spending our time..........
So all who discuss Rick Warren's Scripture twisting and false teachings are engaging in "poisonous conversations" are they? I am looking into the very first Scripture Warren uses in the Purpose Driven Life book that Rick Warren twists and distorts and I am having great difficulty in putting it together so as I do not get ripped to shreds by the likes of you and Richard Abanes and others.
I will post this for a start even though they are not my words I do agree with what is said:
Ephesians 1:11
A similar type of thing happens in the very next paragraph of the book. Warren makes a biblically defensible statement, “You must build your life on eternal truths, not pop psychology, success-motivation, or inspirational stories.” Excellent! But rather than backing this truth with proper Scripture, he decides to use a distorted paraphrase of Ephesians 1:11 found in The Message once again. It reads, It’s in Christ that we find out who we are and what we are living for. Long before we first heard of Christ and got our hopes up, he had his eyes on us, had designs on us for glorious living, part of the overall purpose he is working out in everything and everyone. Warren says that this quote gives us three insights into our purpose, the first of which is, “You discover your identity and purpose through a relationship with Jesus Christ.”
In analyzing these comments we begin with a literal translation of the verse: Also we have obtained an inheritance, having been predestined according to His purpose who works all things after the counsel of His will (NASB). This verse says nothing about discovering our purpose through a relationship with Christ. It speaks about our position in Christ – our eternal inheritance in Him. This verse tells us that we have been made the heirs of God; through no merit of our own we were given the right to all the blessings of salvation, both now and in eternity. It speaks of being “predestined according to His purpose,” not finding our purpose or identity.”
"To show that the abuse of Matthew 16:25 is not an isolated incidence, let us consider the passage Warren uses on the un-numbered cover page of his book where he dedicates it to “you.” Here is the passage he cites: “It’s in Christ that we find out who we are and what we are living for. Long before we first heard of Christ, . . . he had his eye on us, had designs on us for glorious living, part of the overall purpose he is working out in everything and everyone” (Ephesians 1:11 Msg. as cited by Warren). Here is what a real Bible says: “also we have obtained an inheritance, having been predestined according to His purpose who works all things after the counsel of His will” (Ephesians 1:11). First of all let us consider to whom Paul is speaking. It is clear from the context of Ephesians 1 the “we” means believers, not people in general. Warren is writing to people in general. He tells his readers that if they do not have a relationship with Jesus he will explain later how to have one (Warren: 20), which shows he is not writing just to Christians. Furthermore, Warren’s “Bible” says, “we find out who we are.” This suits his motif of a spiritual journey of self-discovery. But the real Ephesians 1:11 says nothing about finding out who we are. It tells us that Christians have obtained an inheritance. Warren’s version does not even mention that concept. It says, “he had his eye on us.” The Bible says that Christians were “predestined according to His purpose.” The pseudo-translation used by Warren does not even have the concept of predestination. The real Bible teaches God’s sovereign purposes as the ground of the believer’s hope, and assures us that God’s comprehensive sovereignty means that nothing can thwart God’s eternal purposes. Warren’s “Bible” citation obscures this truth and implies universalism in the way he applies it.
It is sinful to claim to speak authoritatively for God when one is not. It is sinful to add to or take away from God’s Word. One cannot introduce a statement “the Bible says” and then cite what the Bible does not say. Warren does this many times. The paraphrased Bibles he uses are often not even legitimate paraphrases. To paraphrase is to say the same thing in different words. When one says something totally different conceptually, then those words have no relationship to the meaning of the original author. To do this with the Bible is forbidden (Deuteronomy 4:2; Revelation 22:18, 19). To claim the weight of infallible, inerrant inspiration and use this to teach concepts totally unrelated to those of the Biblical authors is to take the Lord’s name in vain. Warren does this often." - pastor Bob DeWaaay
The glorious living God has for us is reserved for when we die and we are glorified. In this life we travel a road less traveled, a road of suffering, persecution, trials, tribulations, beatings, mocking, torture, martyrdom, sickness, diesease, death all the day long. In all that, God's elect rejoice, they count it all joy, they are not busy trying to find their S. H.A. P. E.
Posted by: Douglas | May 26, 2008 at 04:13 AM
Douglas,
Are you being serious? Is that all you have - your stand that Noah was most definately NOT spiritually transformed but only physically because of the flood? You call Warren an eisegete for it and yet you go on and on about your own interpretation of Noah's physical rather than spiritual constitution when you yourself have no scriptural warrant for such a claim.
And the funniest thing about all this is Warren made no distinction! He said: Noah's LIFE was transformed by 40 days of rain. You say: "he was changed physically just like the rest of his family and the animals on the Ark"
So you both agree that Noah was changed in some respect during the 40 days. Praise God! I find it odd that you would argue that he was ALREADY transformed spiritually before the flood ever happened. Douglas, are you arguing for a position that says transformation is a one time, static event in someone's life and that from that moment on we never grow spiritually again? Careful what you argue against or for because it may back you into a theological corner.
peace,
Chad
Posted by: Chad | May 26, 2008 at 07:29 AM
Janine, you said: Scripture isn't there for us to make up some argument and then cut and paste verses out of context in order to support it.
I agree. Nor is it to be used the other way around, against someone in the way it has been used on this thread.
Though you may disagree with Warren's use of Psalm 2:4 (and I personally might have chosen one of a dozen other passags that speak to what he was attempting to say) Warren is not wrong about the point he is trying to make. Unless you believe in a joyless God who wishes the same demeanor for us all?
I can forgive someone and even overlook an occassional misuse of a verse here and there (as a pastor myself I can understand how this is going to happen - we are human, afterall) as long as the use of the verse in question does not distort who God is and what God's plan for the world is overall. Warren is not wrong to say we as pastor's need to laugh more and take ourselves less seriously.
peace,
Chad
Posted by: Chad | May 26, 2008 at 07:40 AM
Janine, you said: Scripture isn't there for us to make up some argument and then cut and paste verses out of context in order to support it.
I agree. Nor is it to be used the other way around, against someone in the way it has been used on this thread.
Though you may disagree with Warren's use of Psalm 2:4 (and I personally might have chosen one of a dozen other passags that speak to what he was attempting to say) Warren is not wrong about the point he is trying to make. Unless you believe in a joyless God who wishes the same demeanor for us all?
I can forgive someone and even overlook an occassional misuse of a verse here and there (as a pastor myself I can understand how this is going to happen - we are human, afterall) as long as the use of the verse in question does not distort who God is and what God's plan for the world is overall. Warren is not wrong to say we as pastor's need to laugh more and take ourselves less seriously.
peace,
Chad
Posted by: Chad | May 26, 2008 at 07:41 AM
Chad: You stated, "Keith, you illustrate my point beautifully." As long as you believe that's true, I'm sure you will sleep well at night. My comments were pointed toward your previous statement re: Warren's "scripture twist[ing]" in which you stated "people like yourself who make such generalized statements and can't or won't back it up." I was merely pointing out why I believe Warren is a "scripture twister." I wasn't looking for your defense of him--although I knew you and Richard could not resist.
My point, that you obviously ignored, is that Warren's phrasing of the events used to support his "40 days" hypothesis suggests God's intention was solely for the individual, i.e. Noah, Moses, David. That's the point Warren is attempting to make: EVERY single person that reads his book was predestined to read it, and be transformed by it. If you want to include my disgust for the book and it's sophmoric logic, I guess you could say I was transformed as well.
I thought it was funny that you didn't address the "predestination" comment I made. Warren is certain that people were predestined to buy and read his book, but according to what I beleive I know of his theology, God doesn't predestine people to salvation. PDL must be more important.
This is really pretty simple between you and I: You (and Richard) are enamored with Rick Warren and would charge hell with a squirt-gun to defend him. I have no use for Mr. Warren or his latest program designed to sell more books, Bible covers, notepads, mousepads, journals, etc. Yes there are "two sides of the coin" and I choose to stay on one side while you remain on the other. A waste of time to continue the conversation from my perspective. I answered your allegation. Have a great Memorial Day.
===
I like how Richard Abanes comments on his own comments: "...I notice no one decided to comment on my very clear explanation given..."
Posted by: KW (Keith) | May 26, 2008 at 08:56 AM
Keith,
I don't know why you seem surprised that someone like me or Richard would respond to your publically made allegations about Warren's abuse of scripture. If you don't wish to have your comments discussed on a public forum you are welcome to turn the computer off.
Keith, you say: "My point, that you obviously ignored, is that Warren's phrasing of the events used to support his "40 days" hypothesis suggests God's intention was solely for the individual, i.e. Noah, Moses, David."
I didn't ignore it, I simply found it nonsensical. This is a simple matter, Keith. Does God care about individuals? Does God care about you and I, Keith? A simple yes or no will do. Second question: Does Warren specify anywhere in PDL that God is ONLY concerned with individuals, with ONLY you and I? Yes or no?
Your argument is dependent upon your taking the extreme position to one side and attributing to Warren views that he does not himself hold and then arguing against those. That is a straw man.
Keith: I thought it was funny that you didn't address the "predestination" comment I made.
I find it "funny" that you would post something not expecting anyone to make a defense of Warren (yet knowing we could not resist), and then find it funny that one portion of your post was not addressed.
Keith, you are confusing two very different theological issues. One does not need to hold to a God who predestines one's salvation (and conversely, one's damnation) while affirming a God who works to bring about ALL things for His good purposes. I assume you believe as I do that the Holy Spirit is actively working in the world to draw people to God? Will you deny that God can use any tool God desires to woo them or lead them unto repentance?
Lastly, I am not "enamored" by Warren nor anybody else. What I am disturbed by is how Christians tear other Christians apart and strive for division rather than unity. You think Warren's book is too milky and not meaty enough? Fine. I have no beef with that. For many, milk is exactly what they need to digest. Why not allow God to work through the means God desires to draw people unto Himself? Your energies could be far better utilized if you (you generally speaking) would spend your time praying that God be glorified through the work of fallible human beings rather than playing god yourself and already declaring the verdict.
I trust you have a great Memorial Day as well. If you would like to read my personal thoughts on PDL you can on my blog. Post is titled Purpose Driven or Drivel?
peace,
Chad
Posted by: Chad | May 26, 2008 at 09:17 AM
Keith,
I also agree with Richard that we are not moving forward at all but remaining static when certain points and questions are not answered but continually ignored and new ones are stacked on them. In my first response to you I addressed each of your concerns and asked some pointed questions. You ignored them. I overlooked your predestination comment but got to it in the post above. Would you mind either bolstering your argument from your first post (about David, Noah and Moses and my questions to you about them) or retract them and acknowledge that you were unfair in your statements?
I will hold myself to the same standard I ask of you and others.
peace,
Chad
Posted by: Chad | May 26, 2008 at 09:26 AM
Here's what I don't get about the recorded conversation that Chris and Bob had with Rick Warren: if Chris never intended to post it for the public, why did he even mention that it was recorded in the first place? If no one mentions a recording was made, no one wants to hear it. If Bob and Chris wanted to respect the "spirit" of the conversation, why would you broadcast that a conversation was recorded? It seems like there is an ulterior motive involved...otherwise, I don't think it would have been mentioned to begin with.
Posted by: Harper | May 26, 2008 at 11:09 AM
Chad: You asked for support for why people think Warren "twists scripture." I gave you mine. I thought that's all you were asking for. I didn't realize I was bound to comment on your rebuttal. I've heard all your arguments before--as I'm sure you've heard mine. I didn't see the need to rehash, thus your assertion that I "ignored." Would it have made any difference? No. We both know that. We could do this "you didn't respond to me" thing all day long at in the end, neither of us will have budged an inch. Why waste the time? I don't understand your insistence on an argument.
"If you would like to read my personal thoughts on PDL..." Already did. Nothing new there for me.
No need for us to enter into a discussion re: predestination. Different sides of the coin again.
Why should I retract my opinion?! Who are you to determine that MY personal opinion is "unfair?" To who? Because it doesn't agree with yours? You are allowed to have your own opinion and no one is demanding that you "retract" it.
Posted by: KW (Keith) | May 26, 2008 at 11:12 AM
Richard: For lack of a better term, I'm a Calvinist. Sorry you didn't pick up on that. I still don't believe that EVERYONE that buys and/or reads PDL will be transformed, but then that's an opinion that Chad doesn't allow me to have.
Posted by: KW (Keith) | May 26, 2008 at 11:33 AM
Keith,
Then why are you here?
Look, I did not tell you you had to retract your statements or your argument. I was simply asking you to defend it in light of the other side presented. You choose not to do so. That is up to you. What it looks like is that your argument, as I said, is nothing but a straw man and obviously is unable to stand up to scrutiny. I'm not looking for an argument but that truth be told and owned up to. If you aren't willing to defend your own statements and accusations than I won't consider anything you have to say as valid, nor should anyone else.
take care.
Chad
Posted by: Chad | May 26, 2008 at 12:14 PM
Richard,
I think you might have misquoted/interpreted Janine's reference to "we've long had a motto". She was quoting a statement from one of Warren's letters to pastors, she was not referring to herself.
And the Psalms 2:4 reference that Warren used to support his argument that God has a sense of humor? Well, it at least shows that Warren has an eisogetical sense of humor.
Peace
Posted by: John Draper | May 26, 2008 at 12:49 PM
Keith, I meant to add the following to my post above:
You said: Would it have made any difference? No. We both know that. We could do this "you didn't respond to me" thing all day long at in the end, neither of us will have budged an inch.
I couldn't agree with you more. The reason for this, I think, is because discussions on topics like these tend to fall prey to the same sort of routine that you and I are having. Person A lists some reasons they do not like Warren (or add your favorite heretic) and Person B responds with a different way of viewing those reasons and offers a counterproposal. Now what SHOULD happen, and WOULD happen if you and I were having this conversation over a coffee or a beer is Person A would say something like, "I see your point, but..." to which Person B would then reframe what he or she stated. We would be involved in a give-and-take discussion where we don't just pile on more arguments and ignore the answers given by the other party and consider their truthfulness.
I would argue that if we can have a conversation like described here, we WOULD make progress. But alas, you are right - the way this is presently going is a waste of time.
peace,
Chad
Posted by: Chad | May 26, 2008 at 12:57 PM
RA- I too am a Calvinist, not in the sense that I agree with Calvin on all of his writings, but as to the doctrines of grace or TULIP, spot on, and as far as I am concerned most biblical.
The way I understand salvation, it being a supernatural act of God & the Holy Spirit to save whom He chooses. In a sense I have heard John Piper make the case the the Holy Spirit "flies" behind the "true gospel" and falls on whom He pleases when the "true gospel" is being preached. It pleases God to work on some taking out the heart of stone and replacing with a heart of flesh that responds, God does that. That power is present in "true gospel" presentation. I have heard guys like Paul Washer make the same case, that if the gospel message is changed/repackaged or watered-down, it loses its POWER!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pBSXT443Ge8
So my question is, if you are in fact a true Reformed/Calvinist, how can you not be encouraging Rick that the his PDL book & movement would be almost useless in terms of theology. In other words, if the message is watered-down, it has NO power, and if it has NO power what use is it as a "Christian" book? If we are "lowering the bar" and taking the POWER away from the gospel message, my fear is we do more harm than good in the Great Commission. What good is it if we have millions a people thinking they are saved cause the "bar is so low" only to potentially hear those words... "...depart from Me, you who practice lawlessness..."Matt7:23b
Posted by: John Edwards | May 26, 2008 at 01:37 PM
What is amazing to me is the amount of controversy America's favorite pastor gets every time he opens his mouth and publicly tries to make a his case. The critics here are brothers in Christ, with one simple goal, that the gospel message stays pure, and we protect true and sound Christian doctrine. Do guys like John Piper or Paul Washer get this level of criticism from other true Christians' when they preach, or make a case? No, why, because when we compare what is said by Piper & Washer against 2000 years of solid True Christian doctrine, it holds up against God's word, the message is not different, it's not changed, it's pure. If Rick staid pure to the gospel, we wouldn't have these Christian bothers & sisters, feeling compelled to take up their vacation day, trying to correct what they feel is a problem...
Posted by: john edwards | May 26, 2008 at 01:52 PM
John Edwards,
Certainly you do not wish to make the argument that the less criticism one recieves from religious folks the more true their message is. Such an argument would make Jesus (to name just one preacher) the most un-true speaker that ever lived.
Posted by: Chad | May 26, 2008 at 02:31 PM
Richard,
As a Wesleyan, I couldn't appreciate your last post any more than I do. If you could see me you'd see me standing and applauding :) Oops..I best be careful lest I get tagged for being "enamored" by you!
grace and peace.
Posted by: Chad | May 26, 2008 at 02:56 PM
After this I give up trying to expose Rick Warren's Scripture twisting and false teachings here. It is just too difficult for me to do any more. Mr. Abanes, you are one very slippery character, I cannot beat you.
"The Bible is clear that God considers 40 days a spiritually significant time period. Whenever God wanted to prepare someone for his purposes, he took 40 days:
Noah's life was transformed by 40 days of rain." p.9-10 Purpose Driven Life.
Where in the Bible does it actually say "the Bible is clear that God considers 40 days a spiritually significant time period?" Rick Warren says that the Bible is clear on this. I have never read that in any Bible to date.
Where in the Bible does it actually say that "whenever God wanted to prepare someone for his purposes, he took 40 days?" I have never read that in any Bible to date.
Where in the Bible does it actually say that "Noah's life was transformed by 40 days of rain." I have never read that in any Bible to date.
Oh. Just becuase Rick Warren says it, that means it must be true?
Noah was not transformed by 40 days of rain, the wicked were, they were transformed from living wicked to drowned wicked. Noah and any other of God's people are transformed by the word of God.
Rick Warren states on (page 9) "Whenever God wanted to prepare someone for his purposes, he took 40 days;
Noah's life was transformed by 40 days of rain.
Moses was transformed by 40 days on Mount Sinai .
The spies were transformed by 40 days in the Promised Land.
David was transformed by Goliath's 40 days of challenge.
Elijah was transformed when God gave him 40 days of strength from a single meal.
The entire city of Nineveh was transformed when God gave the people 40 days to change.
Jesus was empowered by 40 days in the wilderness.
The disciples were transformed by 40 days with Jesus after the resurrection."
This is a misrepresentation of scripture. The bible does not teach as Rich Warren suggests that whenever God wanted to use someone he took 40 days.
"Noah was a righteous man, blameless among the people of his time, and he walked with God." Genesis 6:9 the 40 days of rain was not at all to transform Noah, as Rick Warren wrongly suggests. Noah was already prepared when the rains came; he had spent approximately 100 years building the ark and was a preacher of righteousness. "If he (God) did not spare the ancient world when he bought the flood on its ungodly people, but protected Noah, a preacher of righteousness and seven others." ( 2 Peter 2:5)
The 40 days of rain was God's judgement on a wicked and violent human race not a time of preparation or transformation for Noah. " The Lord saw how great man's wickedness on the earth had become, and that every inclination of the thoughts of his heart was only evil all the time. The Lord was grieved that he had made man on the earth and his heart was filled with pain. So the Lord said," I will wipe mankind, whom I have created, from the face of the earth-men and animals, and creatures that move along the ground, and birds of the air-for I am grieved that I have made them." But Noah found favour in the eyes of the Lord. This is the account of Noah. Noah was a righteous man, blameless among the people of his time, and he walked with God . Noah had three sons: Shem, Ham and Japheth. Now the earth was corrupt in Gods sight and was full of violence. God saw how corrupt the earth had become, for all the people of the earth had corrupted their ways. So God said " I am going to put an end to all the people, for the earth is filled the violence because of them. I am surely going to destroy both them and the earth." ( Genesis 6:5-13 ) (Emphasis added)
http://www.moriel.org/articles/discernment/church_issues/analysis_of_purpose_driven_life.htm
Warren declares (page 9) “life’s most important question” to be, “What on earth am I here for?” Is this the most important question of life? Might scripture suggest, “Who is God?” may be more important? He goes on to declare that after you finish his book, “you will know God’s purpose for you … “ This strikes me as presumptive arrogance on Warren’s part: how can he know each reader will know God’s purpose at the completion of his book?
Still on page 9, Warren tells us, “Whenever God wanted to prepare someone for his purposes, he took forty days.” Here’s that smug assurance again, declaring this and providing no reference. Not only is this statement wrong (how long did God take to prepare Saul to become Paul? More than three years.), it is a blatantly false statement that lends numerology-based “credibility” to his premise. 40 is a significant number used myriad places in scripture – but God is not tied to numbers and no man should try to define God in ways and methods He has not revealed to us in His Word. And it was 40 YEARS, not days, that Moses and company wondered in the wilderness – and this was after Moses had spent 40 YEARS, not days, in the desert being “prepared for God’s purposes”. Note that on page 222, Warren runs down several examples of God taking long periods of time to prepare certain people. He covers himself by saying these incidents are “character building” rather than “preparing for God’s purpose.” Confused?
Warren tells us (pg 10), “Jesus was empowered by 40 days in the wilderness.” Empowered? Scripture says He was tested, severely – and was ministered to by angels after Satan left Him. The number of days has significance, no doubt, to Biblically literate Jews, but is not a formula that God relies upon to fulfill His plans. Warren prophecies that the reader will be transformed by the 40 days he plans for us in his book. A period of time never transforms a person – only God can do that and He is not tied to calendars or clocks.
Why is Rick Warren driven to make this egregious error? Why does he manipulate his source information to reinforce what can only properly be called numerology?
http://www.biblebb.com/files/PDLreview-SB.htm
How do we attain Christian growth?
The PDL promotes a simplistic and inspirational approach to Christian living. This is wrapped in a language that is lively and common-sensical that one would hardly argue with. But let three lines of thought be a due warning.
1. Formula approach to spiritual success: 40-day spiritual journey
Warren's own assessment of what he seeks to do with his book is to be "a guide to a 40-day spiritual journey... that will reduce your stress, simplify your decisions, increase your satisfaction and most important, prepare you for eternity." [p. 9] He reckons that a special significance attaches to forty days, asserting: "The Bible is clear that God considers 40 days a spiritually significant time period. Whenever God wanted to prepare someone for his purposes, he took forty days." [p. 9]
It is easy to demonstrate how arbitrary Warren's assertion is. The first incident that Warren cites is that "Noah's life was transformed by 40 days of rain" [p. 10]. The allusion is to the forty days and forty nights of rain that caused the deluge on earth (Gen 7:4, 12, 17). But surely Warren has made a capricious conclusion here. Can we not as readily conclude that forty days here represent God's time of judgment rather than a transforming period? One thinks also of Jonah's threat of divine judgment in forty days on Nineveh (Jonah 3:4). Surely there is more basis for taking forty as a number of judgment. In addition, on what ground did Warren conclude that it was during those forty days of rain that Noah's life was transformed? Why not before the deluge itself when "Noah found grace in the eyes of the Lord" (Gen 6:8)? Or why just the forty days? Why not include the 150 days when the flood prevailed? Why not include the ten months afterward when the ark rested on Ararat? And then further number of days followed. "It rested 40 days before the water subsided sufficiently to suggest disembarking, when a raven (which could easily find its food on the carcasses of the animals which had been destroyed) was sent forth, and did not return (Gen 8:7); but a dove sent out at the same time found no rest and returned empty to the ark (Gen 8:9). After 7 days, however, it was sent out again and returned with a fresh olive leaf (Gen 8:11). After 7 days more the dove was sent forth again and did not return. After 56 days more of waiting Noah and his family departed from the ark." (ISBE). All these sets of time-periods were all significant to Noah's life. They all contributed to his build-up. But when everything was back to normality, Scripture does not hide the shameful fall of Noah into sin. Definitely the mere forty days were not that transforming into complete spiritual victory!
Warren's arbitrary conclusion of the forty days in Noah is duplicated in the other incidents of forty days that he uses. Such as his claim "The spies were transformed by 40 days in the Promised Land." For those familiar with the narrative, this certainly is a misfit. For ten of those spies were afflicted with cowardice, and it was their weakness that prevailed among the Israelites that delayed their entry into the Promised Land. Can one really conclude that those forty days were transforming of their lives? The truth is that the assignment of spiritual significance to the number forty is a personal imposition. If one were to play this number game, there are more references in the Scriptures to events happening in seven days. Why not seven days then? Or why not three days which Jesus no less alluded to? How about the "time, times, mid and half time" of the apocalyptic references?
Any formula approach to attaining transformation or sanctification must always be treated with suspicion. The clear principle is that we are to live a lifetime of continuous warfare. Jesus' own time-reference for discipleship, to use his own words, "If anyone desires to come after Me, let him deny himself, and take up his cross daily, and follow Me" (Luke 9:23). It is not forty days, but all your days will be a day-to-day commitment to deny oneself in order to follow the Lord! (cf. Eph 6:10ff; Jn 15:1ff).
http://www.banneroftruth.org/pages/articles/article_detail.php?795
Posted by: Douglas | May 26, 2008 at 03:21 PM
Chad:
You stated- "...Look, I did not tell you you had to retract your statements or your argument. I was simply asking you to defend it in light of the other side presented."
Yes you did. Your EXACT words were: "Would you mind either bolstering your argument from your first post (about David, Noah and Moses and my questions to you about them) or retract them and acknowledge that you were unfair in your statements? (Emphasis mine)
Again, your assertion that my comments/opinion is "unfair" is based on our differences. I've not stated that YOUR opinion is unfair. I understand exactly where you are coming from. I've read PDC and PDL, cover to cover. Just because YOUR opinion doesn't agree with mine doesn't make yours unfair.
I "defended" my opinion in my very first post addressed to you. I stand by it. I didn't realize it was that hard to understand or needed bolstering. I am "here" because I followed the link from CRN.Info. I enjoy reading blogs on various topics. My initial contact with you here was, as I've already stated, in response to your accusation that people who accuse Warren of "twisting Scripture" regularly fail to support their belief. I did that--I had no disillusion of converting you to my way of thinking. You, on the other hand, seem to think that a face-to-face conversation might change my opinion. I don't think so.Chad, I'll type real slow here- y o u a n d I d o n o t a n d w i l l n o t a g r e e o n t h i s o n e. (And that's OK; we can't win them all)
Posted by: KW (Keith) | May 26, 2008 at 03:52 PM
Keith, this will be my last response to you unless there is something fruitful to comment on.
You did state your opinion in your first post. I have pointed out why your opinion is not factual and doesn't take into consideration other just as substantial and valid views. You, for some reason, think that there is no reason to either further support your opinion in light of what I offered nor do you feel the need to retract what you said. This I don't understand. If I post on my blog that Keith is a liar because he said X, Y, and Z and you claim otherwise by offering an interpretation of X, Y, and Z than would you not expect me to either expound on my original slander or at the very least apologize and admit that I spoke falsely This is exactly what you are doing. You and others lay out your complaints and when others offer a different perspective you ignore them. Warren, in his interview with Colbert was apparently right: the definition of a fundamentalist is one who stops listening.
Posted by: Chad | May 26, 2008 at 04:05 PM
RA: RA: Sorry. I disagree. I would say that power is present everywhere
Clarification - "power of the Holy Spirit to save", if we can agree that He is most likely going to "fly" behind the true gospel, why bother we man-made substitutes. Can't we all agree that God is sovereign, and His gospel, needs no updating, "no re-writes"? What ever happened to don't add or subtract from His word?
RA: You mention Washer. Let me say, that as a Calvinist I am embarrassed by him.
Well truth is truth no matter what, truth cuts like a knife, but at least he is preaching the entire council of God. And the "sheep" will hear the gospel even in tough sermons, example, "Sinners in the Hands of an Angry God", talk about the Holy Spirit moving on a people!
Since you mentioned brother RC, take a look at this and let me know if you think RC & the panel are misguided, got things wrong?:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A2zvqQ1w-Os
Posted by: john edwards | May 26, 2008 at 04:11 PM
Chad: You stated - "Keith, this will be my last response to you..." It took you a while, but you finally got it--I think.
My initial comment was in in response to your "can't or won't back it up" statement. I wasn't looking for a dialog with you; I was simply stating why I feel the way I do about Rick Warren. I wasn't looking for your approval, disapproval, an opportunity to flesh out my or anyone else's opinion. I think your "your opinion is not factual" statement is a bit arrogant. You need to come to grips with the fact that sometimes two people, no matter what or how much information is presented, will NEVER agree. You remind me of my dad...he can't/won't give up on trying to convert me from Calvinism. It's done wonders for our relationship.
Here's an alternate option to your hypothetical conversation:
A: I believe so-and-so about such-and-such.
B: Really? I believe the opposite.
A: Well, I guess we diagree. Let's change topics.
Posted by: KW (Keith) | May 26, 2008 at 04:20 PM
God speed, Keith. The world of blogs will be an interesting (albeit, boring and dead) one indeed if we all adopt your "I'm right, your wrong, and I don't want to hear your side of it nor respond to it" posture.
FYI: In case you are new to conversations such as these, when you make an assertion about another pastor you should at least be prepared to back up your argument when others refute it.
take care,
Chad
p.s. You should listen to your father :)
Posted by: Chad | May 26, 2008 at 04:34 PM
Chad: "...you should listen to your father." And you should actually listen to me. I never said you were wrong (and I never claimed that my opinion was "right" for everyone else). If you're going to quote me, at least quote me accurately.
"FYI: In case you are new to conversations such as these, when you make an assertion about another pastor you should at least be prepared to back up your argument when others refute it." I DID!!!!! I didn't say you had to agree with it. Forgive my frustration, but are you really that dense? I answered your "question." How many times do I have to point that out to you? You didn't agree with my answer. THAT'S OKAY. Gee weez, Chad. Take a deep breath and get over yourself. You're not helping your (Rick Warren) cause.
Posted by: Keith | May 26, 2008 at 05:06 PM
RA- Okay Richard do you think Rick Warren preaches the entire council of God, cause I don't see it?
RA- Second question, if he (RW) doesn't preach the entire council of God, in your 'humble' opinion, would that be wrong?
RA- Also is it appropriate for a pastor, on his Sunday service, to always preach a "seeker" message, and defer the bible teaching to a 101/201 class, that happens on a different day? In other words, should a pastor feed his flock the bible on Sunday when he has the best chance to reach the people. Or hope they actually come to a 101/201 class?
RA- I hear that (RW) has members sign a covenant of some sort? Is it appropriate to asks members or readers of a book to sign a covenant, regarding their teachings,does truth need a signature?
Posted by: john edwards | May 26, 2008 at 06:10 PM
RA- Was curious where (RA) went but then I found this article on the Watcher's Lamp, so he must be busy there defending (RW), too busy to answer my last ?s
http://watcherslamp.blogspot.com/2008/05/peace-coalition-harlotry-rising.html
Watcher's Lamp quote:
"...At a wedding the bride is the main character, the center, the star of the show – everyone else is supporting cast, but the glory goes to the bride," Warren concluded. "The P.E.A.C.E. Plan is built on the same principle. The Bride of Christ – of which the church is its local expression around the world – deserves the focus, the credit and the glory for faithfully serving their communities year after year."
Warren uses his presupposition to reinforce the notion that any church is a "good church". One certainly would not criticize the "good works" of a "good church". After all, this is a modern reformation, according to Warren, of "deeds, not creeds...I don't care why you do good as long as you do good."
Warren may not care, but Christ certainly does...
Matthew 7:21-23 "Not everyone who says to me, 'Lord, Lord,' will enter the kingdom of heaven, but the one who does the will of my Father who is in heaven. 22 On that day many will say to me, 'Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in your name, and cast out demons in your name, and do many mighty works in your name?' 23 And then will I declare to them, 'I never knew you; depart from me, you workers of lawlessness.'
Warren's opinion of where and why the glory belongs to the church is blasphemous. The Bride of Christ exists to glorify God. Here's just one passage that reveals to Whom the glory belongs:
Ephesians 3:21 to Him be glory in the church and in Christ Jesus throughout all generations, forever and ever. Amen.
For Rick Warren to confer focus, credit and glory on "good churches" for the "good works" in their communities is blasphemous. From the Gospel of Luke:
26:26 "Woe to you, when all people speak well of you, for so their fathers did to the false prophets.
Here's just one example of what Christ spoke of regarding a type of response from the world...
John 17:14 I have given them your word, and the world has hated them because they are not of the world, just as I am not of the world.
From whom should the church look for focus, credit and glory?
Matthew 6:1-3 "Beware of practicing your righteousness before other people in order to be seen by them, for then you will have no reward from your Father who is in heaven. "Thus, when you give to the needy, sound no trumpet before you, as the hypocrites do in the synagogues and in the streets, that they may be praised by others. Truly, I say to you, they have received their reward.
The Bride of Christ Rick Warren claims is reflected in his ecumenical P.E.A.C.E. plan is not the Bride of Christ found in the Bible. It more closely resembles one of the many daughters of the harlot in Revelation 17..."
Posted by: john edwards | May 26, 2008 at 06:41 PM
RA- Sad, John, it's so pathetic, grievous, and sad - i.e., what you are doing. And it's sinful.
I am sorry you see it that way! I do appreciate your insight & answers.
You obliviously know Rick, his teachings, much better than I do. I am sure you have labored many hours and have probably looked at every critique & critic to Rick Warren and his PDL movement multiple times and have a answer for each and every one.
It seems to me that you have a problem with every attempt on trying to correct RW & his teachings. As if you have already made up your mind before you read the question of the person that is trying to point out RW and any errors that he may have in his approach to the gospel. I did see where you said that you "don't defend RW but defend truth..."
If you really compare RW against 2000 years of preachers, that have come before RW, guys like M luther, CH Spurgeon, Edwards, and even J Piper. How can they all be in alignment with each other, and RW is different, doesn't that answer the question in your heart, or bear any witness to the truth?
Is there anything in Rick's teachings or methods that you feel are not biblical?
Posted by: john edwards | May 26, 2008 at 07:39 PM
RA- Thanks for the insight & answers, sorry if I offended you or anybody or seemed insensitive, I just feel strong about defending the gospel.
I just re-read 2 Timothy 2:16-18
16Avoid godless chatter, because those who indulge in it will become more and more ungodly. 17Their teaching will spread like gangrene. Among them are Hymenaeus and Philetus, 18who have wandered away from the truth.
So I shall now log off my PC and go find some truth in my Holy Bible. And spend some time looking at my own sin, my faults, and areas that I need to work on...
God bless
Posted by: john edwards | May 26, 2008 at 08:42 PM
BTW, John Edwards....not that it amounts to a theological hill of beans, but for your information Class 101, 201, etc. ARE in fact offered on Sundays at Saddleback Church....in the afternoon, after most seekers have attended Sunday morning services. Does that make you happier?
Posted by: catransplant48 | May 26, 2008 at 09:41 PM
Richard,
I just have one question and I hope you would carefully contemplate the question before giving your answer.
You are a member and regular attender of Saddleback, correct? Each week, at every service, is Jesus Christ the central focus, lifted up and glorified through song, prayer and Word and the object of worship?
Posted by: junosmom | May 28, 2008 at 12:18 PM
Hi Richard - That's a great response and one that I truly appreciate. You are not the first I've heard testify to the spirit of Saddleback in this way and you have spoken very clearly, I think. Thanks for offering a thoughtful response.
Posted by: Josh | May 28, 2008 at 02:03 PM
Sounds just like election season. Warren's rotten fruit is before us every day, all day for years but yet, come election time, they say what we want to hear and all is right in the world.
Even so Lord Jesus, Com quickly.
Posted by: Renee | May 28, 2008 at 03:34 PM
Dear Renee,
"Rotten fruit"? What rotten fruit are you speaking of? Are you insinuating that the testimonies of fellow Christians on this topic are lies?
I agree with Josh and thank Richard for his responses, especially the last. I was holding my breath, waiting for a response like yours, Renee. Why are people so quick to judge, so harsh, within the body of Christ? Who is the Judge and who sees into the hearts of men? Is it you Renee?
Posted by: Chad | May 28, 2008 at 03:48 PM
Renee - What? What's Rick Warren "running" for? If Rick doesn't address the concerns of some of the people who post on this site, he's a deaf heretic. If he does address them (by inviting some of the critics to meet with him), then he's "faking" good fruit to try and when a popularity contest. He's damned if he does, damned if he doesn't.
I love how a broad statement is thrown out like "Rick Warren's rotten fruit". Which rotten fruit is that? Tithing 90% of his salary? Confronting the HIV/AIDS pandemic? Speaking out in defense of the poor? Why do we spend this much time devouring the man...Galatians 5:14-15. I would prefer that you not waste your energy slandering him, but if you do, support the broad generalizations you make.
Posted by: Sandusky | May 28, 2008 at 03:52 PM
Renee, thank goodness, I've been looking for you. Since you're able to see into other people hearts, judge their motives, and see if they are "truly" saved (or just faking), can you let me know how I'm doing?
After that, can you make a ruling on a few more people for me? It's so nice to know someone who can so easily judge that state of someone's soul!
Posted by: Plankman | May 28, 2008 at 03:55 PM