Rick Warren's revealing comments

Hi Krispyyou do pick 'em! ;-) fundamentalism is term which has had quite a history. Fundamentalism was a 'reaction label' meant different things to different people. JI Packer wrote a book entitled Fundamentalism and the Word of God explaining why he did not think 'fundamentalist' was now a useful label for 'conservative evangelicals'. It is a good book to read and not long; there is an excerpt here which should give you a flavour of the discussion.

KrispyKrittr wrote:Confusion! He's one of the most influential Christian leaders in the Western Hemisphere... this must be discussed.Yes I do believe this does need to be discussed also. I remember a year or two ago that the church body that I attend on Sundays went the (PDL) Purpose Driven Life book and right after that I started to realize that this is something a little different. It did not match Biblical Christianity. I am sorry if that offends anyone that is not my intent. I you all beloved of God graciously allow me to share my testimony with you. It seemed very similar to Biblical Christianity. Slowly I started finding more out about the movement that Rick Warren is apart of is leaven that can leaven the whole lump. The thing I have noticed is that it is very very subtle.This man Rick Warren is a very influential Christian leader and his books are being read in many churches. Also churches are having 6 week series of sermons based from the PDL book and also churches are having Sunday school lesson strait out of the PDL book (It makes for great discussions). Some churches are even rethinking how they have church and are starting to go by Rick Warren’s ways, because his church has something right.I am deeply concerned with the way Warren is leading multitudes of Christians. I am afraid of what may happen in the future with this movement. Watchmen, people of God this is a call to pray. Yes we need to lift up our voice but also and much greater is the call to pray. If you have read through all my post please, I beg you to pray about this before you click to the next page on the internet.

First, I believe that this forum is one of the places where this kind of dialogue is so very appropriate. Second, I appreciate the differences and how you each "speak" to one another. I even agree that Rick Warren is preaching a very watered down message. It angers me and it offends me. As he and others begin to market their agendas and methodologies, it even strikes me as "sordid gain".My question, in regards to this topic, is this:Is it appropriate to "preach" this type of rhetoric? I am in such a quandry. Sunday after Sunday, we are hearing the bashing. Not that it isn't true, but is it TRUTH?? Every Sunday, we hear how bad televangelists are, how bad J. Osteen is, how bad Jesse Duplantis is, how bad Rick Warren is. We hear how bad tradtional denominations are getting, how bad mega-churces are, how bad typical church goers are... and I am not exageratting!! This has been going on for months! AND we are also hearing, over and over, how we must live above reproach and how, if we are not living this perfect life, then we cannot have fellowship with Christ. I do not disagree that I am a sinner. I do not disagree that light and dark have no fellowship. I do not disagree that I must strive to live a life above reproach. But I am so tired of being beat to death!! I have almost lost HOPE!! I don't mean to hijack this post... and if this is not the appropriate place to pose this question, please re-direct me.Hope

Neil and Granny are right about the David Brainerd biography. David was suffering from TB in the 1730's in the unsettled Indian lands of the American colonies. He ended up leading a bunch of bead rattling Indians to Jesus. His diary was rewritten by Johnathan Edwards. David tells of his personal trials and feelings through the periods before and during this Indian revival then finishing with the days preceding his early death at about 29 years of age. This is one of the best books I've ever read and I recommend it to any who will read it.In Christ,GaryE

KrispyKrittr wrote:This has the potential to be a great thread... So what is so great about this thread? :-(

What I do Neil, is if a thread upsets me, I just don't look at it.When the whole Toronto Blessing thing burst on our shores some years ago I was constantly being asked for my opinion. I used to say, perhaps glibly, "I have no comment. I am a Bible student; this phenomena has no biblical basis; I have no comment." It was based on a word God had spoken to my heart some time earlier. “And said unto them, Whosoever shall receive this child in my name receiveth me: and whosoever shall receive me receiveth him that sent me: for he that is least among you all, the same shall be great. And John answered and said, Master, we saw one casting out devils in thy name; and we forbad him, because he followeth not with us. And Jesus said unto him, Forbid him not: for he that is not against us is for us.” (Luke 9:48-50, KJVS)It is easy to see the bigotry of the disciples in this passage; "because he followeth not with us". They had encountered these folks and their instinct was to 'forbid them'. Authoritarian ways die hard. What a nerve? What right did they have to 'forbid' someone acting in the name of Christ.The thing which really spoke to me was the phrase "Forbid not: for he that is not against us is for us". Now I have to tell you in all honesty that I don't like this counsel. I would far prefer that God closed the mouths of folk who will cause inevitable confusion. I would like to wipe them from the web and tend my neat and tidy garden. I still stand amazed at Paul's testimony in Philippians “Some indeed preach Christ even of envy and strife; and some also of good will: The one preach Christ of contention, not sincerely, supposing to add affliction to my bonds: But the other of love, knowing that I am set for the defence of the gospel. What then? notwithstanding, every way, whether in pretence, or in truth, Christ is preached; and I therein do rejoice, yea, and will rejoice.” (Phil. 1:15-18, KJVS)Every instinct in me is to plead for 'purity' and a 'cleansing' from all the destructive mixture that I see on every side, but my beloved brother Paul "according to the wisdom given to him" ... rejoices! Lord, increase my faith!The word that I heard in my heart was 'forbid not'. This does not mean that God approves or endorses the behaviour of these 'outside my camp'. He does not say 'Go and join them' or 'Encourage them' He just says 'Don't forbid'. In other words; 'leave it alone'. There is a cryptic proverb that often sets me thinking “He that passeth by, and meddleth with strife belonging not to him, is like one that taketh a dog by the ears.” (Prov. 26:17, KJVS)I am not afraid to rebuke the wicked nor to contend for the faith once delivered to the saints, but as a life-long interferer in other people's jigsaw puzzles I am slowly learning the wisdom of those verses which say James 1:19 Wherefore, my beloved brethren, let every man be swift to hear, slow to speak, slow to wrath: James 1:20 For the wrath of man worketh not the righteousness of God.

After a bit of a self imposed break from everything...glad to know that there is much love for the moderators, always making sure that we will have some work to do. ;-) Finding this somewhat of a quandary as to what to do with it, or better, what to say to it, taking in all of the comments.Being that this like many past discussions have a lot of history here, a search through the forum again bearing this out, it does raise some new questions to the matter at hand as well as the 'manner' of bringing it forth.Is it necessary?Yes. I do believe so. And perhaps a very good response in general has been made already here:How to be a Successful Ear-scratcher There can be no denying that this is a very large problem, ignoring it will not make it go away and the purpose of being of some help is impossible to determine, lest it raise some questions in the minds of readers and cause some reflection.Indeed it can appear to be nothing more than just mere bashing, another divisive subject, another 'trashing' of another ministry. Perhaps that is not completely unwarranted due to the manner of how these things are presented, a suspicion may be just in the titles used. But, and we have been through this before about 'naming names', are we out to slander or to set forth problematic areas and where they stem from and who they are coming from? There is a difficulty in perception as to intent and in judging with right judgment. If we talk in generalities it can often lead to more confusion.Without being wishy-washy about the content here, think there is something to be gleaned from all these comments.One is if this finds one tired of hearing these things being brought forth then do go ahead and move on to something else and leave it be. That is not an accusation, just an observance. I agree that it can become weary as was mentioned if this is all that one was to hear constantly. Think something got missed from this mention:Is it appropriate to "preach" this type of rhetoric? I am in such a quandary. Sunday after Sunday, we are hearing the bashing. Not that it isn't true, but is it TRUTH?? Every Sunday, we hear how bad televangelists are, how bad J. Osteen is, how bad Jesse Duplantis is, how bad Rick Warren is. We hear how bad tradtional denominations are getting, how bad mega-churces are, how bad typical church goers are... and I am not exageratting!! This has been going on for months! AND we are also hearing, over and over, how we must live above reproach and how, if we are not living this perfect life, then we cannot have fellowship with Christ. I do not disagree that I am a sinner. I do not disagree that light and dark have no fellowship. I do not disagree that I must strive to live a life above reproach. But I am so tired of being beat to death!! I have almost lost HOPE!! Do note the concern and the word in quotes; "preach" and if you back up just prior to that:First, I believe that this forum is one of the places where this kind of dialogue is so very appropriate. Second, I appreciate the differences and how you each "speak" to one another. I even agree that Rick Warren is preaching a very watered down message. It angers me and it offends me. As he and others begin to market their agendas and methodologies, it even strikes me as "sordid gain".This is very well put. If these things are to be discussed we need to keep them within the framework of the issues at hand.Balance. Yes, absolutely. It is needed. But I do not think it is necessary to dismiss one for the other, nor is it necessary to take shots here at someone because this happens to be an area of particular concern that is felt worthy of discussion. If it seems to be too much of the same thing, then please just leave it be.With that I would like to address at the same time those other concerns, those on the other side of balance. It can be a bit worrisome that these other areas get less attention and think that like "HopeinHim" stated, it can leave one feeling beat up and left with a sense of "what then?" Certainly this was mentioned within the context of "preaching", but there is an alternative here. Many a good posting goes unanswered and unnoticed while the more problematic issues of the church get the bulk of the attention. What I am driving at is, the balance is already in place, it just needs to be sought out. The messages are here, Sparks and Tozer and Duncan Campbell, Zac Poonen, Leonard Ravenhill, Paris Reidhead.... Might I add that just as often they were addressing many of the very same issues being brought forth here?. Just as well the deeper issues, the matters of the heart, where all the troubles lie.Then there is the articles. If you want to find it, it's there. It is the beauty of this site that there is much to glean from without being pigeonholed into one denominational construct or another.Lastly, think an important matter is this; There is a way of looking at things from two different perspectives. One is from the outside in, the other from the inside out. For those who have experienced and often still live with the ramifications either to themselves or to their loved ones of much of the nonsense presented as Christianity today, there needs to be an understanding of what motivates them. If you have not been in their shoes it is but observance, one may be able to commiserate and grasp it from afar but it is different from living it and dealing with it day in and day out. Just as well and a good mention also made about those who bring forth troublesome topics, they very much can bring forth an incredible amount of wrath from their own Brethren upon themselves, do they do this lightly? Surely some of it may be warranted when the motives are skewered, by that it would seem properly that it should come in a form of correction not in anger. But thank God for those who are not afraid nor bent on destroying, but exposing what needs to be exposed, snatching out the sheep from the clutches of what can only be properly stated as another gospel.Yes, I am one of them and though it rubbed me the wrong way in the beginning it also drove the goad in to the area's already being pricked. This would be the "good" of these types of discussions. Ultimately it was these very same "divisive" types that led me right to this door and Oh my, how all this here has reversed it all and changed it all, to borrow from Mr. Reidhead. There can be no denying that there is a vast difference between what soul searching, heart exposing, tried and true, real life preaching and teaching found throughout this site and that which is largely being presented in our day. It is fact.Maybe a help would be to along side bringing forth the rather (Edit)un-pleasantries would be to include the remedy to the problems. Personally it would be an exhortation to turn around and go back-wards, back to the classics, back to Christian history, back to the 'greats' of the faith. It was and continues to be with great astonishment to discover the depth and grasp of what is meant by this walk of faith. I am deeply indebted to an unnamed saint, a dear, somewhat elderly lady that pointed me back-wards while I was in a similar distress over all the confusion. To find a spiritual intelligence that was both factual, true and real. A Tozer, a Chambers, a T. Austin Sparks, Bunyon, Brainered and Bounds to name but a few.There is great treasure here brethren, there is an alternative and a hope to what has become such a commercialization of Christianity as to render it ineffectual and left wanting.

A little edit there..."Un- pleasantries"Note Philologo's comments as well, looks as they came in at the same time. Thank you Ron.Perhaps another thing I forget to mention is the matter of 'where our head is at', at any given moment in this walk. The books we read or our reading at the time will give more emphesis to different areas and would be expected to generate our thoughts outward from that. And of course all things ought to lead to our reading of the scriptures themselves, not necessarily 'by themselves'.

I am not afraid to rebuke the wicked nor to contend for the faith once delivered to the saints, but as a life-long interferer in other people's jigsaw puzzles I am slowly learning the wisdom of those verses which sayJames 1:19 Wherefore, my beloved brethren, let every man be swift to hear, slow to speak, slow to wrath: James 1:20 For the wrath of man worketh not the righteousness of God.This is good wisdom Ron. I think it important to note that sometimes the company we keep can greatly influence us to follow a multitude to do evil. Case in point, as a young believer I recall listening to Hendrick on the Bible Answer Man broadcast and learned how to shred heretics. Then he started shredding folk of the full Gospel persuasion. Problem was, guys at my work listened to him to and took the stuff they learned from Hank and used it upon me. This caused serious division among a non-denominational bunch of guys that met together every Thursday for bible study. We were in unity and walked in love until that program came along. Guess what? I was ready at this point to level anathema upon the program and would pray for God to deal swiftly with the man (thats the NEC version of what I prayed). About that time, my dad who had been an alcoholic for 25 years and was delivered started listening to Hank! WHEEEW! He started asking me, Have you ever heard of the Bible Answer Man? Ummm! Uhhh! Gulp! Yes, I have. Well I been listening to him and....Guess what? God used that man to help awaken my dad from his careless state and help bring him to conviction. In time he quit listening to him as he grew in the Lord. Actually he quit listening when he was on in the car once and the radio started smoking! I'm no fruit cake, and neither is he, but that was all he needed to leave off with that. That was waaayyy too much strife being sown unnecessarily. What am I saying? Don't destroy someones faith who may have came to Christ through some of these means. God can use hank and God can use Benny or Rick (ouch!). God can speak through a mule! Why did our Lord not forbid Judas to speak? He knew he was a devil! I, like Ron would like to purge the body of all this madness, but...In time my dad was able to sort through who to and not to listen to. Yet in the early stages you can rip up the tare and take the wheat with it.

Ron, your post was an answer to prayer for me. I tend to struggle between both sides, should I or shouldn't I? When you have discernment it gets difficult to know where you draw the line and what you are responsible for. Though, my main concern is to bring people to Jesus.I think we can point out false gospels by proclaiming what is true, stating what is false, but not having to mention names or ministries. In His love, Chanin

Wow. I'm really surprised by this thread. I'm pentecostal, I believe in the fundementals--but i also evangilize the neihborhoods and such. I guess according to Ricky I'm a skitzo-christian who doesn't know who he really is! :-( Glad Jesus cleared that whole thing up when he saved me by his atoning, virgin born blood, as i read about in the ifflable scriptues! Anywho, think about this gang. PDL is the most talked about book since Jabez. The quotes that now don the back of the book are no longer from Billy Graham and various others from the Christian Community, but from liberal media like USA Today, NT Times etc. I think it was Ravenhill who said that the world could not get along with the holiest person to walk the planet--what makes you think it will get along with you. What makes me really wonder is this:Time Magazine ranked Rick Warren (who is a pastor) the most influentual evangilist today. Wow. All it takes is selling 20 million copies of you latest book too! i'm on my way, my book is almost done! just my two cents. BTW my book is entiltled: The Secret Prayer of Jabez Concerning The Purpose Driven Cotton Candy Gospel Poison Causing millions to be Left Behind Reading the TNIV" It'll be a best Seller ! (j/k) :-P :-P :-P

Paul named names. It's right in scripture the names of those he was dealing with.Paul was an apostle and spoke by infallible revelation. His 'namings' were not personal opinions.

Quote: "Paul was an apostle and spoke by infallible revelation. His 'namings' were not personal opinions."When talking about unsound doctrine and false teachings of Rick Warren, Benny Hinn, Joel Osteen, Peter Popoff and the such...isn't it a matter of Scriptural knowledge and understanding more so then someone's personal opinion?When some teacher or pastor is leading others down a path the Bible teaches us leads to hell, our opinions should go out the window and we should stand up and speak out agaist these "angels of light"I don't think anyone knows Rick Warren personally enough to even make a personal opinion. If they do they should keep it to themselves. As for me I not concerned with personal opinions - I'M CONCERNED WITH THE TRUTH OF THE WORD OF GOD BEING TRUMPETED FORTH TO A DEAD AND DIEING WORLD! not some watered down modern version.

Seems like this could be called "the night of the long knives."It happens even in the church. ;-)

Getting a hard to navigate in here! We need to mark false teachers~we need to know those that labor among us and we need to realize that this is exactly the prophetic implications that Ezekial the prophet spoke about. He told the people (in chap 33 i think). He told his prophet that the people would flock to him like on that plays skillfully and sings well. but that they would not listen--we are to warn. True we do let our judgements get clouded by opinion--our judgement must be clearly founded and based in scripture. From what i have read on this post (see the start) it is obvious that if this man is discounting the fundamentals or "writing them off" then the outcome is obvious--They will have a form of Godliness but deny the power to make them godly. So what then do we do? Let men detroy the truth so that no man can seek it---or destroy the men that seek the truth??

Thanks Robert, always appreciate your imput here.Guess what? I was ready at this point to level anathema upon the program and would pray for God to deal swiftly with the man (thats the NEC version of what I prayed). About that time, my dad who had been an alcoholic for 25 years and was delivered started listening to Hank! WHEEEW! He started asking me, Have you ever heard of the Bible Answer Man? Ummm! Uhhh! Gulp! Yes, I have. Well I been listening to him and....Guess what? God used that man to help awaken my dad from his careless state and help bring him to conviction. In time he quit listening to him as he grew in the Lord. Actually he quit listening when he was on in the car once and the radio started smoking! I'm no fruit cake, and neither is he, but that was all he needed to leave off with that. That was waaayyy too much strife being sown unnecessarily. What a perfect and almost exact similar situation I found myself in. The same one that brought a lot the things to my attention and began at first ruffling the feathers, challenging my thinking and helping me ultimately withdraw out of so much of the WOF doctrine and now.... I agree, things go to far and there needs to be care in how all this is put out there.What am I saying? Don't destroy someones faith who may have came to Christ through some of these means. God can use hank and God can use Benny or Rick (ouch!). God can speak through a mule! Why did our Lord not forbid Judas to speak? He knew he was a devil! I, like Ron would like to purge the body of all this madness, but...That's a potent thought about Judas. Another is indeed the means the Lord might use...How about the guitar player for Ozzy Osbourne? Zakk Wilde's words every playing the refrain even now, but never as strongly as the night everything broke open into repentance.. "Sweet Jesus, where did I go?"I also struggle with similar thoughts expressed by many here on whether to name names and actually to answer Krispy's question we have had this discussion before, though it seems quite a long time ago now. Think this may come back to titles and such, it can give a wrong impression of intent and motive, yet it would be just as difficult to address something for instance what Robert shared about....."That guy on the radio" if we were stuck into that realm only.But just as was well said, judging someones character and giving opinions of them ought not to be in our thoughts. I don't really see that happening as much as there is an assumption to it and would again refer back to title headings in this regard, it lends itself to those assumptions.Is there an easy way or a 'good' way to go about this? Or must it always being a drawing of a line in the sand and a 'for or against'? When that is not the issue... I agree there needs to be great care in dealing with these things, but they do need to be dealt with. I would say it is just as bad, indeed worse to be thinking that there is some kind of superiority in bringing forth matters of concern and belittling the people with undue comments and swipes at them. If we are to bring forth these things we ought to have a better alterantive and character of own to present to them, otherwise it will all fall on deaf ears.

Scripture (written by Paul) says to MARK false teachers. When something is marked, everyone can see it. It doesn't say mark teachings... it says teachERs.So what do you think 'mark' means in this context?

Quote: "Paul was an apostle and spoke by infallible revelation."Ron, You are scaring me.There's the perfection of Christ and then there's the imperfection of the rest of us. Paul could no more be infallible than the rest of us. This is where I have significant problems with biblical interpretation; attributing demigod status to fallen humans, so that the Bible can be called infallible.We have been over this so many times. It is your opinion versus the inspired and infallible scripture. I made my choice a long time ago, and so did you.

I believe Warren's motives are very good. But as Zack likes to say... we can be right, but be wrong.I believe your motives are very good, but...

My dear brother,An offended brother is more unyielding than a fortified city, and disputes are like the barred gates of a citadel. Prov 18:19 In all I have read it appears that you have not forgiven the 'false teachers' for leading you down the garden path?

Wow. Was it not paul who stated, under the inspiration of the Holy Ghost of God, that "Some preach Christ for selfish gain and contention? But i glory that Christ is preached at all?"i have to agree with Ron, if we elevate our opion above scripture, we're wrong. i can sacrifice prefrence, we cannot sacrifice principal. I will reinerate that i find it disturbing that we (my bookstore) has sold more copies of PDL than ANY other book....including all our Bible translations (no offense to anyone) combined. Many churches in our area, opted to use PDL for thier teahcing---opting NOT to use the Bible--that is what makes his statments so dangerous. there is a biography coming out of Ashley Simpson, the one held hostage--it's about the power of Purpose Driven Life..(direct quote from Zondervan Pub.)Drawing on the tremendous courage and faith, Ashley turned to her Bible and a best sellgin book that has already showed 22 million people thier purpose in God's Plan (PDL)Sounds to me like the teachings of this book are ranked over GODs whose has changed BILLIONS and BILLIONS of lives and contiunes to and will after PDL is off the NY times bestsellers list. Again that is, I think the primaruy concern of this thread. Not to destroy or ruin Rick Warren. The teachings are dangerous and in some places errorunus--they need to be confronted.

J I Packer's book Fundamentalism and the Word of God contains these paragraphs:The name developed out of the habit of referring to the central redemptive doctrines which Liberalism rejected as "the fundamentals". This usage goes back to at least 1909. In that year there appeared the first of twelve small miscellany volumes devoted to the exposition and defense of evangelical Christianity, entitled Thc Fundamentals. Through the generosity of two wealtl1y Californians, the set was sent free to "every pastor, evangelist, missionary, theological student, Sunday School superintendent, Y.M.C.A. and Y.W.C.A. secretary in the English-speaking world, so far as the addresses of these can be obtained", (Compliments of Two Christian Laymen, The Fundamentals, Chicago, Testimony Publishing Company, 1909, Vol. I, p. 4) and over three million copies were eventually circulated. Among the authors who contributed to these volumes were men of the calibre of James Orr, B. B. Warfield, Sir Robert Anderson, H. C. G. Moule, W. H. Griffith Thomas, R. A. Torrey, Dyson Hague, A. T. Pierson and G. Campbell Morgan. Many of the articles were thoroughly scholarly pieces of work, as Hebert allows in his review of them (Op. Cit. P. 17 ff). The series contained positive biblical expositions of the controverted "fundamentals" the inspiration and authority of Scripture, the deity, virgin birth, supernatural miracles, atoning death, physical resurrection and personal return of Jesus Christ, the reality of sin, salvation by faith through spiritual regeneration, the power of prayer and the duty of evangelism. With these went polemics against positions opposed to the "fundamentals" Romanism, Darwinism, "higher criticism" and such cults as Ghristian Science, Mormonism, Spiritualism and Jehovah's Witnesses' and some impressive personal testimonies to the power of Christ.This use of "the fundamentals" as a conservative slogan was echoed in the Deliverance which the General Assembly of the Northern Presbyterian Church issued in 1910, while The Fundamentals were in process of publication. This specified five items as "the fundamentals of faith and of evangelical Christianity": the inspiration and infallibility of Scripture, the deity of Christ, His virgin birth and miracles, His penal death for our sins, and His physical resurrection and personal return. From that time on, it seems to have become habitual for American Evangelicals to refer to these articles as 'the fundamentals' simply. The General Assembly's list was adopted, with minor variations and additions, as the doctrinal platform of later 'fundamentalist' organizations, of which the first was the still surviving World Christian Fundamentals Association, formed in 1919. In 1920, a group of evangelical delegates to the Northern Baptist Convention held a preliminary meeting among themselves 'to re-state, reaffirm and re-emphasize the fundamentals of our Neiv Testament faith'; u hereupon an editorial in the Baptist Watchman-Examiner coined the title "Fundamentalists" to denote 'those who mean to do battle royal for the fundamentals'. The word was at once taken up by both sides as a title for the defenders of the historic Christian position. The Concise Oxford Dictionary is thus right when it defines "fundamentalism" was: "maintenance, in opposition to modernism, of traditional orthodox beliefs such as the inerrancy of Scripture and literal acceptance of the creeds as fundamentals of Protestant Christianity." This is what the term originally meant, and this is what the large number of American Evangelicals who still use it to describe their position mean by it today.J I Packer goes on to explain why the term is not appropriate in modern discussion. I have no axe to grind for Rick Warren; I know nothing about him. I have never read the Purpose Driven anything and had never heard the name before I joined SI. But It is unfair to conclude that you know what Warren teaches just because he doesn't want to use the term fundamentalist. In some circles I would not use the word fundamentalist because their concept of fundamentalism is very different from mine. For this reason Christ did not admit to being Christ to the Jewish nation; their concept of the term made it impossible to use other that to non-Jews.I do not 'react' to someone who does not call himself a fundamentalist in the way you do. You opposition to Rick Warren seems to be based on your misunderstanding of an historical term. If you want to know what Saddleback Church believes you can find their Doctrinal Constitution here. Please read it and tell me what you disagree with.

I had a brother rebuke me (pm'ed me) for my stand in the other thread because I stated that I'm very slow to judge anyone who makes a profession in Christ, I was told that I'm setting myself up for following the false prophet, how ever I don't often spend much time listening to others but generally just listen to the voice of my shepard Jesus Christ. I appreciate your post Ron.

Here's what I posted in that pm for ya all to see: I can appreciate your concern. However I do believe that calling someone who professes to be a born again believer in Christ a false prophet is a very serious charge, and I for one do not desire to go into eternity with such a charge toward another on my account. There are thoughs I have called decieved or labled in error, even thoughs who prevert the truth, but to name names can and is a very slippery slope and unless you have a direct mandate from God to do such you better proceed with caution. Look closely to Paul's writtings and see the number of times he names, names and in what context he does so. Most of the time the writters of the NT just note charaistics of those false teachers or false whatevers. I'll leave you with 2 scriptures for your own edification and doctrinal journey, use them for good, not evil. Phil 3:18-19/ James 3:13-18 Bro. Daryl In a follow up post I asked how often he had prayed and fasted for the one he was so quick to condemn. He hadn't. I pointed out that Paul named names, very very few......especially in light of the g-r-e-a-t amount of time his ministry spanned, before he actually publically (in a letter to a church HE ESTABLISHED) made note to them of a specific person or persons. Now, I'm going to guess here that only one person in these threads, maybe 2, but most of you won't give bios so who really knows, has established a church. So what really qualifies one who has never lead a church to judge a church, or headed a ministry to judge a ministry? Paper swords is what comes to mind , but be careful because sometimes even misplaced zeal will come back as your judge in ways you can't even imagine. In Christ, Brother Daryl

I've been somewhat following this thread since the beginning. From the get-go I noticed what seemed to me to be some weak arguments and conclusions based on the information offered in the openning post.So I decided to do something that tends to be very interesting and enlightening for me... I checked the context. I think I get very blessed EVERY time I do this. Wow, I had no idea what I was getting myself into. As I type this post I'm in the process of printing out this 48 page interview which is referenced in the openning post and there is a link to. I simply clicked on the link and started reading without seeing how long it was. By the time I checked the length, I was already totally drawn in and, other than one interruption from a friend, I haven't stopped reading it for hours. This interview is just fascinating. Before today, I had never read or heard anything by Rick Warren (except I think maybe if someone referenced and/or pointed out something to me). But I've never read any of his books, never read an article, or ever heard a message of his, to my knowledge. I didn't think I really had much of an opinion about him, but I now realize I did have MANY false assumptions that I guess were subtle and not really picked up on my radar to deal with. I think I noticed every fruit of the spirit evidenced by Rick Warren in this interview. Perhaps he is wrong about his understanding of fundamentalists or fundamentalism, I really don't know, but I believe this man really does have great wisdom. I was amazed time and time again as I continued on through this interview at Warren's wise, insightful, and humble responses to all kinds of questions. And he did get many tough questions. I didn't think I'd ever get into his stuff, but I am now confidant that I will at least read PDL, and probably a lot more. You may not agree with all of his beliefs or philosophies, but you've got to admit the guys got guts. From what I could tell, he didn't shrink back from his convictions, but he also didn't stir up unneccessary controvery. Some of his responses really reminded me of the way Jesus responded to some questions about government, taxes, etc. The direct route is not always the noblest, wisest way to go. Anyway, once again my assumptions were way off, and from what I have heard others say about this man and his ministry (not just on SI), I think many others probabaly are too. I think it's well worth the time to read this interview in it's entirety. It made a Rick Warren fan out of me!

Well GrannieAnnie, I would call you blessed.Have a certain fondness for anyone that takes the time to seek out the thoughts of a TAS, wish to God we had as much reaction to his writing's as we do to some of these other things, just to balance everything out and give us all a better perspective... Besides, you are a breath of fresh air here.

Quote:"Have a certain fondness for anyone that takes the time to seek out the thoughts of a TAS"Well, in that case, let me just add that I am a TAS fan as well. I've been very blessed by his teachings. :-)

I know I am a little late with a reply to the original message, but Warren's comments are disgusting, yet not really surprising. His book was given freely at our church (by the truckload)and it just seemed fishy. Kind of like, 'why are we putting so much effort into following these activities, when we should be organizing prayer meetings, Bible studies, and evangelism.' Everyone is always trying a 'new way." How about God's way (II Chronicles 7:14)?I agree also about his ignorance of Christian groups. I only got converted 3 years ago, and I am already more familiar with 'who believes what' than a best selling-Christian author? And I got most of my info from the net. So where is he getting all this stuff from? Is someone funding Warren (ooooooh in the background)? There is so much to write in response, but it seems as if all the non-fundamentalist views have similar talking points, like they have learned them from a class or something (heresy 101). I mean, if you don't believe those 5 fundamentals, you have worked humanism into your philosphy.Like someone said, it is all prophesied, so we shouldn't sweat it, but make people aware of it, keep our focus on Christ, and win people to the Lord, regardless of what the enemy does.

I am still presuming that the Doctrinal Statement of Saddleback Church will have some correlation to Warren's own theology. Am I right in this presumption. Has anyone read Saddleback's Doctrinal Statement? Can anyone tell me what is wrong with it?What we are posting on here is not 'Warren's Revelations' but Krispy's perceptions of Warren's comments in difficult forum. I had read the 'interview'. Unlike todd I have not become a Warren fan; I think he hedges a little too much for my liking. But this whole thread is based on Krispy's misinterpretation of what the word 'fundamentalism' means to Christians with some knowledge of its history. From what I have picked up here on SI, I doubt I would have much sympathy with the PDL, but I feel that what you are doing to Warren is unrighteous and unfair.Maybe this is not my quarrel and I ought not to be taking an ex-marine, 350 pound bench presser, by the ears; but then I'm a pacifist and consequently afraid of no one.

Dear Philologos,I agree with you 100%.It is not the man but his book, that is being viewed, and publically discussed.http://discernment-ministries.org/Conferences.htmIf anything, a far wiser and more skillful way of handling this is to first really read the book, then examine the cases for and against and then like a good researcher publish your findings.Some have already done this:Warren Smith - Deceived on PurposeL & S Leslie and S. Conway - The Pied Pipers of PurposeYour Virus Protection And Firewall for Purpose Driven Life Theology - James SundquistThe Purpose Driven Life and Critique - T.A. McMahonThe Purpose Driven Programme - Albert James Dagerjust to mention a few...I personally read enough of this book to be convinced that it had some glaring problems, but being a writer myself I know that often in the beginning we make the biggest mistake and that is to access information from outside sourses, other than the Scriptures, or varieties of texts to make a point, this particular form is often what causes problems, a lesson in it for all of us posting comments here. If you do, make sure it comes from the Word of God, and not from your head or is matched to a version, that fits your thinking.We can only pray that Bro. Rick, gets it right next time.Amen.:-P The 'Articles' section of the above link has some recent research. Keepin' it Real for Jesus.

It is not the man but his book, that is being viewed, and publically discussed.I don't think this is what this thread started out to discuss. Krispy's URL was not the one you use. His starting point for this thread was Myths of the Modern Mega-Church which is described asDiscussionMyths of the Modern Mega-ChurchMonday, May 23, 2005Key West, FloridaSome of the nation's leading journalists gathered in Key West, Florida, in May 2005 for the Pew Forum's biannual Faith Angle conference on religion, politics and public life. Conference speaker Rick Warren, pastor of the largest church in America, addressed misconceptions many Americans have about mega-churches. He also discussed his best-selling book, The Purpose Driven Life, as well as current trends in the evangelical movement, the work his church is doing for AIDS and poverty relief in Africa, and some of his views on hot-button political and cultural issues. ??Other conference speakers were John DiIulio (University of Pennsylvania), who spoke on faith-based initiatives, and Reuel Marc Gerecht (American Enterprise Institute), who spoke on Islam and democracy. It was this context in which he was using the word 'fundamentalist' and with that audience it would have the academic connotation that Warren wanted to distance himself from.

Mind if I ask where I am off on my definition of 'fundamentalism'?Have you read the J I Packer URL that I quoted in my first response to your post? See end of post.Also... what do you make of Robert Schuller's teachings? This is an important question because Rick Warren considers himself to be a disciple of Schuller.I have no idea what Schuller's teachings are other than a vague recollection that he was into positive thinking. There is not one Christian in a thousand over here who would even have a vague idea as to who Schuller was/is.I would request that folks who post on these sites remember that this is an international forum and things which may loom large on one person's horizon don't even show up on another's. :-) edit addition.I repeat my earlier questions.I am still presuming that the Doctrinal Statement of Saddleback Church will have some correlation to Warren's own theology. Am I right in this presumption. Has anyone read Saddleback's Doctrinal Statement? Can anyone tell me what is wrong with it?An excerpt from J I Packer's Fundamentalism and the Word of God.

Yo Philologos,It would be the same thing that is wrong with his book, as his church is upon his own admission an experimental church, where he tried out his theology. Savvy.Aeryck by Jesus Christ'The Global Day of Prayer appears to be a chief mechanism for launching a “Second Reformation” in Christianity. The GDOP provides a convenient vehicle to transition the church from the old order to a new global order. Rick Warren is quoted as saying at the Global Day of Prayer event, “The first Reformation was about belief; this one’s going to be about behavior.” www.pastors.com/article.asp?ArtID=8280 [emphasis added] An official press release from Saddleback Church states that if “Christians mobilize to confront the five ‘global giants’ of spiritual emptiness, egocentric leadership, poverty, disease, and lack of education, it could spark a second Reformation.” 'http://www.discernment-ministries.org/NLJulyAugust_2005.htmLarger problems are looming!edit-add: What we believe.http://www.saddleback.com/flash/believe2.html

Hi GrannieAnnie,That was a monster comment. You emboldened your verse section and it has expanded the page.Now if you want to get rid of those unsightly links, this is the code. Look out for my pm.I agree let's leave old Rick alone, and just pray for him. Right?Aeryck by Jesus Christ

What is Christ's heart for those who have read `A Purpose Driven Life`?

This is turning into a good case in the court of public opinion.The first to plead his case seems right, Until another comes and examines him. Prov 18:17Has anyone ever heard this saying. 'Democracy is the pathetic attempt of the collective wisdom of individual ignorance.'

So I have been asked today to speak on the evangelical mega-church and then a case study of Saddleback, and part of what I would like to do is share my journey – I would like to tell you the story behind the story of my life changed. You know, when you write the best-selling book in the world for the last three years, that changes your life and I'm not the same person I was three years ago. And, you know, maybe I can share that. But since you're journalists, before we look at this idea of the myths about the mega-churches, I would like to just give you maybe four or five trends or stories I think you need to be aware of that have come in on the scene, because as I travel around the United States, and around the world, I see them over and over. The first trend that I would say you need to be aware of is the return of the evangelical movement to its 19th-century roots; that is going to be a big story – the return of the evangelical movement to its 19th-century roots. What are those roots? Compassionate activism – and I am not talking about politics; I am talking about the fact that about a hundred years ago, Christianity split into two wings in the Protestant division and this hasn't been happening with Catholicism, but it did happen in Protestantism. There is a fellow named Walter Rauschenbusch, who is the man who came up with the term "social gospel." Rauschenbusch was a liberal theologian and he basically said we don't need this stuff about Jesus anymore; we don't need the cross; we don't need salvation; we don't need atonement; we just need to redeem the social structures of society and if we do that people will automatically get better. This is basically Marxism in a Christian form. And there were even magazines like The Christian Century, which was a pretty audacious title when it started at the beginning of the 20th century – as if to say, this is going to be the Christian century; we are going to bring in the millennium simply by changing the social structures of society. Well, nobody believes that anymore after two world wars and a bunch of other stuff. But what happened is Protestantism split into two wings, the fundamentalists and the mainline churches. And the mainline churches tended to take the social action issues of Christianity – caring for the sick, for the poor, the dispossessed, racial justice and things like that. Today there really aren't that many Fundamentalists left; I don't know if you know that or not, but they are such a minority; there aren't that many Fundamentalists left in America. I have given up trying to encourage people to read the man himself, so here is a quotation from the item under discussion.Warren has in mind, almost certainly, the Lausanne Covenant which he would say began the process of restoring evangelicalism to its original roots. (Now I am personally uncomfortable with the Lausanne Covenant but I will try to explain its origins) Worldwide spokesmen of the evangelical movement of the calibre of John Stott issued as statement (did they have the right?) that the evangelical movement was going to get involved in social change in contrast to what was sometimes viewed as obscurantist preoccupation with personal salvation. Stott and the others decided that it was the function of the church to change the world. This would mean the evangelical movement getting its hand 'dirty' with charitable work and politics rather than just 'preaching the gospel'.At the beginning of the century the term 'fundamentalists' as a title for 'Christians' who were opposed to the liberalism of the day. They called them fundamentalists because of their because of their constant claim that the 'fundamentals' of Christianity were not up for arbitration. It produced something of a seige mentality among 'bible believers' with the enemy at the walls. It was the 'ghetto-ising' of bible believers. Later people like Packer argued that this isolationism was effectively a retreat and that bible-belief was the traditional foundation of the church and that liberalism was the interloper not bible believers. Packer argued that the phrase 'evangelical party' had a much nobler heritage and connected better with the history of the church; he was arguing about the title not the people. In the UK in particular the title 'conservative evangelical' was much better understood. 'fundamentalist' then, as now, had a faintly ominous sound.Warren is in a hostile environment in this discussion and its trying to keep it open. He knows what most people think fundamentalists are, and that they have rejected the notion that these primitives have anything to offer, so Warren is choosing the more acceptable title 'evangelicals'. The problem with the term evangelicals is that it has become much broader over the last half century. It now included 'moderate' and 'liberal' evangelicals. Of the fundamentals the only 'fundamental' that liberal evangelicals would have difficulty with would be 'the infallibility of the scriptures as originally given' but these more liberal evangelicals have become much more identified with politics and relief. Warren is taking his stand with the people who believe that the church can change the world, and ought to.This has its consequences. Do we stand with the Pro-Lifers because there are pro-life or do we separate from them because some of them are not 'fundamentalists'? Do I stand with a pro-life Muslim, or with a bible-believing abortionist? And sometimes we have to make those decisions.What Warren is doing is taking his stand with the more open more world-involved branch of bible-believers, and quietly ditching the 'fundamentalist' title. This does not necessarily indicate that he has fallen out with the fundamentals but only with the fundamentalists. I still challenge someone to tell me what is wrong with the Saddleback Doctrinal statement. Let me tell you what I think is happening. I think folk are sensing that Warren is pushing out the envelope too far and that his methodology has aspects which David Hunt would define as occult in origin. The instinct then is to jump all over him and to interpret everything he says and does in terms of his defection. I am not defending Warren, I disagree with some of his positions, but I am protesting at what I believe is an unfair treatment. We shall be judged by every word that we have spoken, but not by every idea that people thought we had.

Philologos,Why not cut all the pointless arguing, speculating, name calling and name dropping, and do the book. (*)Let's make like those Bereans and test it to see if it lines up with the Word of God.'Prove all things; hold fast that which is good.' [1Thessalonians 5:21] Aeryck by Jesus Christ:-P ps. The test of 'common faith'(*)alt-add: Scriptural reference to my thought:-'And the brethren immediately sent away Paul and Silas by night unto Berea: who coming thither went into the synagogue of the Jews. These were more noble than those in Thessalonica, in that they received the word with all readiness of mind, and searched the Scriptures daily, whether those things were so.' [Acts 17:10-11]edit-add 2:- a final reflectionMatthew 5:34-37. Now you know why my copy ended up in the bin.

Why not cut all the pointless arguing, speculating, name calling and name dropping, and do the book. I have no intention of doing the book. This thread was about the man.

Thanks Philo. That seemed like an unblinking impartial look at Warren. I think the idea that he has crossed over from a Christian idealogical priority into Christian pragmatic priority is where the tension is created. (forgive me if I oversimplified your point...you stated it very well.) I confess I am befuddled at what is driving everyone crazy about Rick Warren...These days the claim that a Christian leader is using new age methodologies is so common that it almost doesn't mean anything anynmore. I mean c'mon, some people think "grace" is a new age philosophy!True I have heard a few statements attributed to him that I disagree with but only because people were bringing these statements to my attention. If some one wanted to do harm to me, I'm sure they could spend a little time in these threads and extract a few of my less thoughtful words. Then by adding commentary such as "Notice what Mike is saying here...this certainly doesn't line up with what Paul or Jesus said", and the next thing you know, nothing I could do would matter anymore. (I'm not a national figure but the dynamic is the same...)In my real experience, the people I know who enjoy his books are sincere Christians with a real desire to grow in the Lord. A few of my friends credit PDL with reviving their walk with God.I'm not against reviewing a movement as influencial as PDM. It's unlikely that everything about it, or it's leader is going to be agreeable. Certainly anything that is "church growth" these days can be latent with downright unspiritual approaches to building churches. However, too often it seems that we only have two basic categories that we cram large ministries in; "guilty of heresy" and "probationary pending further review." ;-) Like Ron, Zeko and others here, I'm not for defending Warren blindly, but would at least like the actual evidence to be brought forth at this point. Do we have the smoking gun?MC

Philologos,What good will it be to discuss the man's ideas without having a personal, live interview to ask him in person?Aeryck by Jesus Christ

I still challenge someone to tell me what is wrong with the Saddleback Doctrinal statement.I don't have a problem with Saddleback's or with Willow Creeks doctrinal statements. They're both as "Orthodox" as they can get. I do have a problem with their interpretation of them in how they put them in to practice. Willow Creeks perfect doctrinal statement doesn't stop them from allowing Muslems from preaching from their pulpit, and Saddleback's hasn't stopped Rick Warren's collaboration with men like Robert Schuller and Peter Drucker.

Nooo... this thread was about his statements concerning what he termed as "fundamentalism".OK it's not about the book or the man. It's about what the man said in a multi-faith radio programme in a hostile environment where the word 'fundamentalist' could not be used without prejudice.

Stop! This is starting the judgmental thing all over again. We are commanded by the Lord Jesus to love one another. This is wrong, I know it. Remember the moat in the eye!...?

What good will it be to discuss the man's ideas without having a personal, live interview to ask him in person.That would exclude the possibility of most of us ever discussing anyone else's ideas. In particular, it would prevent you discussing my ideas, and me yours.No, if a man has expressed his ideas in open forum it must be acceptable to discuss those ideas. But in this instance we are discussing a man's use of the word 'fundamentalist' and hanging him out to dry because he doesn't use it in the way we do.

No it is just simply and plainly, judging a brother. End 2

OK, I will do it as no one else seems to want the job.1. The Deity of our Lord Jesus Christ.Saddleback (Warren Answer)Who is Jesus?Jesus Christ is God’s Son and an equal of the Father. He has existed from the beginning of time, yet lived on earth during the first century A.D. Throughout His earthly life, he was completely God and completely human at the same time. After living a perfect, sinless life, Jesus offered Himself as the perfect sacrifice for every human being who has ever lived by dying on a Roman cross. After three days in the grave, he defeated sin and death by rising from the grave. He then ascended to Heaven and will return to earth one day to reign as King.2. The Virgin Birth. Saddleback Church: No stated comment.3. The Blood Atonement.Saddleback Church: See 1 above.4. The Bodily Resurrection.Saddleback Church: See 1 above.5. The inerrancy of the scriptures. Saddleback ChurchWhat is The Bible? The Holy Spirit inspired human authors to write the books of the Bible. Every word of scripture is chosen by God himself. The Bible is God’s love letter to all of humanity and is the final authority in every issue it communicates. It is complete truth, and we can trust it for all matters in this life and eternity.Other than the virgin birth, which Saddleback does not specifically mention, I can't see any problems with Saddleback/Warren's position. How about you?

If all Rick Warren ever produced is that doctrinal statement it would be fine. It's all the other stuff that is the problem. :-o

I don't like the term "hanging him out to dry"... the misrepresents what I'm trying to do and say here. Thats definitely not my motive.You are acting as chief witness, judge and jury. And all the basis of his 'revelations' in a radio programme. Again, I am not defending PDL. I dislike everything I have heard about it, but I am concerned for the reputation of someone, who in terms of this forum, has no opportunity to defend himself. I am just saying that that on the basis of the evidence from his radio programme, I do not find him 'guilty as charged', and this thread was entitled "revealing comments" and had a URL for anyone to check them out.

On that point I'd have to agree with you Ron. And to stay in the comfortable middle and to be fair to you Krispy, it seems as though you are interpreting Warren's statements in light of his wider body of work. Would I be correct in that assumption?Is that how you spell program Ron? (we americans don't know how to spell anything...lol)

Thanks Ron for bring some levelheadedness to all this. The sense of everything running away and the antagonism rising...it is very disturbing.Again and again and again, why is it that the hearts of some must be driven to a taking of sides amongst Brethren of all people...I will never tire of applying the Lords own words to us all: Luk 9:55 But he turned, and rebuked them, and said, Ye know not what manner of spirit ye are of. Have had to reassess this whole thing from the beginning thanks to some very good observance from a few. Ron, you are right in the manner of how this was brought about and what it is becoming. It got off on the wrong footingeven if there is some agreement to the inherent problems associated with it in the whole, or better perhaps, some of our own perceptions of it.It is worth mentioning that there are many prior threads related to this whole area and a lot of rehashing is being done again.What I didn't recognize is that the premise is problematic from the original posting in that there is a drawing out of assumptions by what is assumed to be said by what is not being said. The classic case of "If you believe this than you must therefore believe that". I do understand the issue and the concerns here, but the manner which it was brought forth is off. What it ends up becoming is some sort of feeding frenzy that I am sure was never intended, but here we are.And I must apologize for my part in it, I did not see it until the questionings began to come forth.Like these things tend to do, growing tentacles and going off into different directions, a generality becomes the form though it is hidden out of sight... sigh, how to express this?What I think Ron did here that is very helpful to the whole matter is to square up the original question and draw back to it. It is on the wrong line that perhaps what was wanting to be expressed by Krispy came through. If I may, perhaps this is where some of us would have a problem with all of this as a whole, a generality:Warren has in mind, almost certainly, the Lausanne Covenant which he would say began the process of restoring evangelicalism to its original roots. (Now I am personally uncomfortable with the Lausanne Covenant but I will try to explain its origins) Worldwide spokesmen of the evangelical movement of the calibre of John Stott issued as statement (did they have the right?) that the evangelical movement was going to get involved in social change in contrast to what was sometimes viewed as obscurantist preoccupation with personal salvation. Stott and the others decided that it was the function of the church to change the world. This would mean the evangelical movement getting its hand 'dirty' with charitable work and politics rather than just 'preaching the gospel'.Beyond that, as with some other of the bigger more noticeable ministries largely of American origins and brought up in recent events around here is the ideas of marketing Christianity, of making it into and bring into it's fold 'big business', leadership guru's (that's not a swipe), management coach's etc. etc. The problem being that many of these are not even Christians themselves.It seems that these are different perceptions as to what it is that is to be expected going forward, something that has been touched on here before... The coming of Gods Kingdom on the earth by manner of "Christians" and "Christianity" overtaking the world as a whole and 'ushering in' the return of the Jesus Christ (Kingdom Now, I believe is the catch phrase)or the opposite view that the world will overtake us ultimately with the suffering of the saints, persecution, enduring to the end. One seems to be a mindset of the 'Super Saints", taking over, the other the suffering servants. Not trying to be flip here in the least.The questions that keep coming forward to me personally and I guess what ultimately always gave that queasy feeling inwardly, embarking on this journey is really just that... Is Christianity and outward external, conquering matter or an inward subduing of the heart, mind, soul, "changing of the guard", giving up the reliance on the self made man and giving over a loyalty to the One who will subdue all things under His feet? Including, blessedly, my own depraved nature, conforming and changing the disposition into His own. Perhaps where it gets muddy is that both...'sides' if you will are borrowing from each other in some manners as to 'what we ought to be doing' while we are here.Certainly don't have all the answers, but it seems glaring enough that "knowledge shall increase" and with that confusion abounds, things are not so cut and dried anymore as much as we would like them to be. Assumptions, suspicions, projections, presumptions, these things keep coming up and it seems the most glaring omission in it all is that the Lord Himself is often left out of the picture, all the while we go running about "His business". I just wonder sometimes, did He ever really tell us to do so in this manner? So much seems to be a fleshly going about things... a 'doing' before we have even begun to become a 'being'...I don't know, I really don't know.... something is just off here.

Is that how you spell program Ron? (we americans don't know how to spell anything...lol)The London Times has the following protocol...for computers: programfor the arts etc: programmeI worked a little with a Canadian who insisted on using programme for computer programs so I get a little mixed up. the Americans have not forgotten their roots.. hence "programmers" reverts to the double 'mm' of the original. As with theology, sometimes you just can't tidy things away into neat parcels. :-) we americans don't know how to spell anything...lol we spell 'anything' just the same way as you do.. :-?

we spell 'anything' just the same way as you do..You could have said we americans don't know how to spell nothing. :-P

Someone earlier in this thread said something about building a case against Rick Warren, and I had to agree with him. When building a case in the court of law you have to go by certain protocols in order for your case to be valid. If you step out of those protocols, certain parts of your case (if not the whole case) can be thrown out of court or "stricken from the record". There are certain things you do and don't do. You don't use hearsay. You don't use evidence obtained illegally. And you don't allow biased accusations etc. etc. Like philologos said, I am not trying to defend Rick Warren, but this should be done fairly. Perhaps he is teaching a watered down message, but does that make him a false teacher? I believe any teacher that is teaching true repentance and salvation, that their messages should bring people to anguish over their seperation from God, and cause them to cry out to God for mercy for their sins. If a person is merely preaching a comforting message to those who through sin have seperated themselves from God, or from His will, then I believe that persons messages are definitely watered down and/or only half truths. If Rick Warren were to start preaching true repentance, turning away from sin, hatred of sin etc. I am sure that 3/4's of his congretation would probably leave. (Note: this is not a judgement of anyone at his church, just an observation. I have been to churches like his, [on a smaller scale of course] which which broke apart when they really started getting into the word of God, and stopped worrying about the humanistic point of view.) I know of a lot of televangelists whos personal lives are unfruitful and who, to me, when I compare their ministries to what the Bible has to say, seem like very wicked people. I will not name them here, not because I believe we should not name names, but because that is a different subject altogether. So far I have not seen or heard of any unfruitful or wicked works from Rick or his church. As far as I can tell, Rick is a brother in Christ and we need to give him the benefit of the doubt. However, I am not saying that we should listen to or follow his teachings blindly, or that we shouldn't point it out when he is off the word. I believe Warren's motives are very good. I believe this as well, but as my dad likes to say so often "The road to hell is paved with good intentions". THE sweetest graces by a slight perversion may bear the bitterest fruit. The sun gives life, but sunstrokes are death. Preaching is to give life; it may kill. The preacher holds the keys; he may lock as well as unlock. Preaching is God’s great institution for the planting and maturing of spiritual life. When properly executed, its benefits are untold; when wrongly executed, no evil can exceed its damaging results. It is an easy matter to destroy the flock if the shepherd be unwary or the pasture be destroyed, easy to capture the citadel if the watchmen be asleep or the food and water be poisoned. - E.M.BoundsThe preaching that kills is non-spiritual preaching. The ability of the preaching is not from God. Lower sources than God have given to it energy and stimulant. The Spirit is not evident in the preacher nor his preaching. Many kinds of forces may be projected and stimulated by preaching that kills, but they are not spiritual forces. They may resemble spiritual forces, but are only the shadow, the counterfeit; life they may seem to have, but the life is magnetized. The preaching that kills is the letter; shapely and orderly it may be, but it is the letter still, the dry, husky letter, the empty, bald shell. The letter may have the germ of life in it, but it has no breath of spring to evoke it; winter seeds they are, as hard as the winter’s soil, as icy as the winter’s air, no thawing nor germinating by them. This letter-preaching has the truth. But even divine truth has no life-giving energy alone; it must be energized by the Spirit, with all God’s forces at its back. Truth unquickened by God’s Spirit deadens as much as, or more than, error. - E.M.Bounds Rick seems very sincere in what he is doing, but "sincerity is no substitute for the truth." Rick may have the best intentions, but if what he is doing is not from God, if he is allowing humanistic doctrine into his teachings, then those teachings as E.M.Bounds said, can kill.Assumptions, suspicions, projections, presumptions, these things keep coming up and it seems the most glaring omission in it all is that the Lord Himself is often left out of the picture, all the while we go running about "His business". This is so very true, and I believe it happens to most of us in our Christian lives. It's like a friend of mine once said "we get so worked up about what we want to do for God, that we run out ahead of God and leave Him out of the picture". A major problem today, is that there are so many people who think that in order to serve God, they have to be a pastor or minister. Unfortunately in a lot of cases, they haven't been called to do so. In their zeal to serve God, they rush out and make their own decisions, rather than consult God on the issue. So many people don't realize that they can serve God with their own lives, by submitting to His will and being an example of Jesus Christ to everyone around them, just as well as a pastor can. You don't have to be a great evangelist, a pastor, minister, teacher etc. Too many people, being something like the foot in the body of Christ try and be the hand. They do not realize that where they are at, where God has placed them, is just as important as being a pastor. My point is this: It's possible that Rick wasn't called to be a pastor, and he merely did it to follow in his dad's footsteps. Whatever the reason for his watered down message, it does not make him a bad person, it just makes him wrong. Should we point out when someone is teaching a false doctrine? Yes we should. But if all we are doing is pointing out their false doctrines, or their unfruitful lives, if we're not getting down on our knees and praying for them, then that just makes us a hypocrite. I am sorry to have taken so much of your time, and I don't mean to point any fingers here, so don't think that is what I was doing. But I had to get that off my chest.Always in Christ ~Shaun

Well just to clearify things, I spent three and a half hours yesterday reading all 10 pages of posts so I would know what was going on in the conversation ;-)

Has any one here read the book?"It's not about you. The purpose of your life is far greater than your own personal fulfillment, your peace of mind, or even your happiness. It's far greater than your family, your career, or even your wildest dreams and ambitions. If you want to know why you were placed on this planet, you must begin with God. You were born by HIS purpose and for HIS pirpose."That's how the book starts, and although I didn't read the whole book, I didn't find any red flags to wave. The book seems sound if somewhat simple but apparently seems to meet the needs of a lot of people, and frankly it would have saved me from a lot of grief in my earlier years had I read it.There is a lot of judgement on this website, very sad actually, that so many that claim to be our Lords' behave as Pharisee's and judges.I suggest rather than collecting the torches and pitch forks to drive the evil Rick from your midst, you pick up a copy of the book and read it, THEN start a thread about what is actually heretical about the book. Until then, maybe some of us should consider our own hypocritcal attitudes and judgements and stop the finger pointing.

Hi jimbob,There is a bit of a contradiction here:Has any one here read the book?That's how the book starts, and although I didn't read the whole book, I didn't find any red flags to wave.There is a lot of judgement on this website, very sad actually, that so many that claim to be our Lords' behave as Pharisee's and judges.I suggest rather than collecting the torches and pitch forks to drive the evil Rick from your midst, you pick up a copy of the book and read it, THEN start a thread about what is actually heretical about the book.Until then, maybe some of us should consider our own hypocritcal attitudes and judgements and stop the finger pointing.Difficult to make these kinds of comments if 1)You have not read the book in it's entirety 2)Make assumptions based on that. 3) Make a judgment here without first checking to see if perhaps there hasn't been previous discussion on all this.Try typing into the search engine any combination of words related, there has been more than a few threads on all this.Yes, I have read the book in it's entirety.No, I do not think it is the worst heresy in the world.I also don't think it lives up to it's statement that it is "not all about you", just mostly. Careful with that plank brother.

OK, I read the rest of the book, not my cup of tea, but my pitchfork and torches statement stands!In your humble opinion, does the book cause more harm than good?

In your humble opinion, does the book cause more harm than good?To tell you the truth, I just don't know and maybe that is part of the whole problem. Even the question begs an answer... pragmatism... the end justifies the means. To turn that question sideways a bit, if it was a 60/40 split in favor of, what of the 40% ? It's difficult to go back through all this again with so much already being said.I guess the concern is in what we are seeing all around in this time we live in... the commercialization of Christianity. The 'success' model, when from what I can tell is not what we have been promised. The difficulty is also in what can be seen as criticism when often times it's just attempting to sort through ... is this true? Is this what we ought to be about.. "Our 'purpose'? It's all rather muddy. A good example right here: Purpose Driven in Rwanda Difficult to criticize this attempt and again I don't think by and large that is the issue, that of being critical.There is just a missing element that I think is the great danger in so much of this, much of this modern day paradigm. Even the other thread here on the Kingston church I believe it is, again difficult to make broad sweeping generalizations, but to read what is presented in their own statements, after the brief John 3:16,17;What You Do Next Counts Forever.As always, no pressure. But if you're ready to become a Christian, a follower of Jesus, pray something like this in your own words . . . "Dear God, I know that I'm a sinner and that I cannot save myself. But I believe you loved me enough to send Jesus to die on the cross for my mistakes and that you raised him from the dead. Right here and now, I ask you to forgive my sins, come into my heart, and take over my life. Be the manager of everything I think and say and do from now on. Thank you." "For if you confess with your mouth that Jesus Christ is your Lord, and believe in your heart that God has raised him from the dead, you will be saved. For it's by believing in his heart that a man becomes right with God, and with his mouth he tells others about his faith." (Romans, chapter 10, verse 9 & 10)If you've decided to trust Jesus with your life, congratulations, and welcome to God's family! To grow in your new relationship, have daily conversations with God (prayer), study his plan for your life (the Bible), and hook up with other believers (the local church).Congratulations? Again, it's this success platform and maybe the troubling aspect is in not telling all the truth upfront before hand, this rushing headlong into 'salvation' without counting the cost, without considering what it means, without repentance, without...Mar 13:12 Now the brother shall betray the brother to death, and the father the son; and children shall rise up against their parents, and shall cause them to be put to death. Mar 13:13 And ye shall be hated of all men for my name's sake: but he that shall endure unto the end, the same shall be saved. Joh 15:18 If the world hate you, ye know that it hated me before it hated you. Joh 15:19 If ye were of the world, the world would love his own: but because ye are not of the world, but I have chosen you out of the world, therefore the world hateth you. Joh 15:20 Remember the word that I said unto you, The servant is not greater than his lord. If they have persecuted me, they will also persecute you; if they have kept my saying, they will keep yours also. Joh 15:21 But all these things will they do unto you for my name's sake, because they know not him that sent me. Joh 15:22 If I had not come and spoken unto them, they had not had sin: but now they have no cloke for their sin. Mat 10:34 Think not that I am come to send peace on earth: I came not to send peace, but a sword. Mat 10:35 For I am come to set a man at variance against his father, and the daughter against her mother, and the daughter in law against her mother in law. Mat 10:36 And a man's foes shall be they of his own household. Mat 10:37 He that loveth father or mother more than me is not worthy of me: and he that loveth son or daughter more than me is not worthy of me. Mat 10:38 And he that taketh not his cross, and followeth after me, is not worthy of me. Mat 10:39 He that findeth his life shall lose it: and he that loseth his life for my sake shall find it. What of this 'purpose'? Marked just one segment in bold, it has some personal application, not in self pity nor in twisted superiority. It's pain and anguish of soul and deep grieving all the day long, beyond 'depression', depression is often selfish,... it's a crushing.Have something from Oswald Chambers that speaks much better than I ever could. Will post it elsewhere.It's incomplete, maybe that's it.It's not telling the whole truth and the whole story.What if your 'purpose' was to be put on a shelf, hidden away somewhere?What if your 'purpose' was to be shamed and embarrassed, humiliated as our Lord was?Spat on, abused, persecuted. Tortured. Put in jail? This is happening right now in various parts of the world, what would a 'purpose driven life' say to them?How about financial ruin? How about Paul?2Co 11:23 Are they ministers of Christ? (I speak as a fool) I am more; in labours more abundant, in stripes above measure, in prisons more frequent, in deaths oft. 2Co 11:24 Of the Jews five times received I forty stripes save one. 2Co 11:25 Thrice was I beaten with rods, once was I stoned, thrice I suffered shipwreck, a night and a day I have been in the deep; 2Co 11:26 In journeyings often, in perils of waters, in perils of robbers, in perils by mine own countrymen, in perils by the heathen, in perils in the city, in perils in the wilderness, in perils in the sea, in perils among false brethren; 2Co 11:27 In weariness and painfulness, in watchings often, in hunger and thirst, in fastings often, in cold and nakedness. 2Co 11:28 Beside those things that are without, that which cometh upon me daily, the care of all the churches. 2Co 11:29 Who is weak, and I am not weak? who is offended, and I burn not? 2Co 11:30 If I must needs glory, I will glory of the things which concern mine infirmities. It's not about you? Sure it is, telling yourself that is one thing, living in it is altogether different.

Dorcas,Let me give you a couple of examples of my issues with the tone and context of a lot of threads, and the general mindset or "spirit" of this website;I played the feature speaker at the top of the home page, it was a sermon on hell by D. Wilkerson. Very soon into the sermon he made the claim that "Jesus preached more on hell than he did on heaven". Really? I think if you check it out with your concordance Jesus spoke of heaven more than hell by a ratio of about 10 to 1.Jesus also used the word "sinner" 21 times, but he used the word "pharisee" 92 times. Why do I mention this? Because Pharisee's see themselves as righteous and point the finger at OTHERS and proclaim SINNER! Which group did Jesus seem more angry with (brood of vipers/whitewashed tombs)?On another thread there was a well written article about our responsbilty to warn people about going to hell, the article starts out with"...so many are missing the point of what Christianity is about...responsibility." That's the point of Christianity? RESPONSIBILITY?Sorry friends, the point of Christianity is CHRIST! Died for our sins, resurrected from the dead, and living (by HIS grace) in union with those who through faith (and that not of ourselves) worship and serve Him as Lord.The above mentioned article also quotes several passages from Romans chapter 1, all in context and all true enough, but a vital part when pointing out the sins of the world is Romans 2:1 (thats right after Romans chapter 1 and for good reason);"Therefore you have no excuse, everyone of you who passes judgment, for in that which you judge another, you CONDEMN YOURSELF; for you who judge practice the same things."We are specifically told not to judge outsiders, yet you will notice that some of the most viewed threads on this site often are the ones that will have SIN! HELL! EVIL! in the titles. I probably could get alot of mileage if I started a thread called "Evil homosexual sinners going to HELL!"I would like to think that alot of this stuff is out of a genuine concern for the lost, but I get the definite impression that a desire for self righteousness has a great deal to do with it. I pray for all of us (me at the top of the list)to show mercy and compassion for the lost and our brothers and sisters who are led astray, and to lay aside any judgemental attitudes. To help them instead of finger point and to think of them as Christ did, as lost sheep, not despised sinners.

crsschk,I suppose it comes down to your view on God's power in the end. If you view one's salvation as something he must make sure HE maintains and protects, then I suppose you must in your own mind spell it out very clearly to a potential convert all the various cost salvation will entail. I for one knew a whole lot of nothing about the Gospel when I "got saved", no one (human) "led " me to the Lord, so I know for a fact my God through the Holy Spirit can lead anyone out of the errors that may be present in anyones teaching.Don't you believe if anyone truly prayed for Jesus to "forgive my sin's, come into my heart, and take over my life..." that that prayer was inspired by the Holy Spirit's working and that God is big enough to see it through, in spite of the hype surrounding Rick Warren?"All that the Father gives Me will come to Me, and the one who comes to Me I will certainly not cast out" Jn. 6:37"No one can come to Me unless the Father who sent Me draws him; and I will raise him up on the last day." Jn. 6:44 You or I just don't know this side of Heaven how many will be won or lost for Christ through this mans approach, it's still between the individual and God and all of our protests won't change any thing in that respect.If a person has a Bible, the Holy Spirit (for He will teach us all things) and a brain, in my opinion he can figure out truth from error if he is seeking to.

hello everyone,just want to drop in for a second and post a few comments. btw- Hello Michael! God bless you!I believe there may be some truth to the statement that we can become pharisee-ical whenever we begin to point the finger at false teachers. The major danger is when we begin to compare. I can confess that I fell into that before and the Lord reminded me of this below:Luke 18:9-14To some who were confident of their own righteousness and looked down on everybody else, Jesus told this parable: "Two men went up to the temple to pray, one a Pharisee and the other a tax collector. 11The Pharisee stood up and prayed about[a] himself: 'God, I thank you that I am not like other men—robbers, evildoers, adulterers—or even like this tax collector. I fast twice a week and give a tenth of all I get.'But the tax collector stood at a distance. He would not even look up to heaven, but beat his breast and said, 'God, have mercy on me, a sinner.'"I tell you that this man, rather than the other, went home justified before God. For everyone who exalts himself will be humbled, and he who humbles himself will be exalted." I'm very thankful the Lord revealed this to me because I don't want to go the route of pride.At the same time, that does not mean we should overlook the errors of Rick Warren. He has caused GREAT damage to the Body of Christ. THe last 2-3 years I've come across a significant number of Christians that are quite grieved and burdened concerning the state of The Church. Many can't even find a church that ministers to believers. Most of these seeker churches focus on the goats rather than the sheep. I could go on and on about this subject because it truly grieves my heart when I consider how many are truly searching for answers and they go into these 'churches' and watch video clips and 15 minute skits, and another 15 minute sermon that the pastor downloaded from www.willowcreek.com .. you see I could go on and on about this but my comfort thru all this is that The Lord knows those who are His. Those that are His will hear His voice and follow Him and THEM, no one can snatch from His Hand. amen?! amen.Chris Carmichael has great website on this subject. Christian Unplugged - website that expose the Seeker Sensitive, Church Growth MovementGod bless each of you. I'll be back when I have time. jcg

Let me give you a couple of examples of my issues with the tone and context of a lot of threads, and the general mindset or "spirit" of this website;jimbob,Don't you see that you are doing much the same thing that you are making accusations of here?You haven't been here long enough to even begin to make a fair assessment of what all has been discussed here in over two years time. There is a broad range of opinion, culture, experience, knowledge and I would say an awful lot of freedom and forbearance with one another. This is a peculiar medium in that there is a lot of misconceptions and a particular patience necessary to allow things to develop, to allow for clarification and to wrestle with our own thoughts. It has been rightly said that you very well may find what you suspect if that's the prerogative you approach it with. It is also a difficult thing that very often questions are just questions, not necessarily statements.You could just as well find many articles written about some very edifying things here and yes, some of the more thought provoking or patient and time consuming things do get bumped off the main page. You are taking a cursory glance and making a judgment yourself, you have no idea what the 'mindset' of this site is.

Hey crsschk, (what a hard nick to spell :P)Our youth group from church I'm attending is doing Rick Warren's 40 days. About last week God gave me the courage to adress and state a question to the group regarding John 3:16. What if someone would stop believing? Would that person still be saved? (everyone went silent for a while..)Later on we adressed evangelizing and I shared some things I was concerned about. Like watered down methods in getting people to choose for Christ. Like having much hands up for Christ in church is the same as having fruits. (One reason I left a youth church I was in)One sister of Christ of mine didn't agree as 'you can't say everything' in advance.While this is true, still I think its unfair to get people to choose and afterwards inform that its not an easy breeze floating to heaven.You can't tell everything, but you can speak about a bit from all so both Gods Love and Truth shines through. As we are not to trick people into heaven but want them to know the consequences. Or as Ray Comfort states in 'Hells best kept secret', they know why they put on the parachute (Jesus)! I found your post about 'Purpose driven Rwanda' a great example + the texts you provide.So my question is if I can copy a large section of your post and show it to her. I think its neccesary to ask your permission and inform you about this. ;-) Well, I would have asked this in a pm but I don't have anything to hide! so I post it here. :-) Thanks in advance and God bless!

Hello Warrior4Jah,You may use whatever you find helpful. I just hope that something doesn't get lost in the mix of all of this. What instantly jumps to mind for so much of our modern day assumptions may be codified in these verses;Luk 14:25 Now great crowds were traveling with Him. And turning, He said to them, Luk 14:26 If anyone comes to Me and does not hate his father and mother, wife and children, brothers and sisters, yes, and his own life also, he cannot be My disciple. Luk 14:27 And whoever does not bear his cross and come after Me cannot be My disciple. Luk 14:28 For which of you, intending to build a tower, does not first sit down and count up the cost, whether he has the resources to complete it? Luk 14:29 Lest perhaps after he has laid a foundation, and is not able to finish, all those who see it begin to mock him, Luk 14:30 saying, 'This man began to build and was not able to finish.' Luk 14:33 So likewise, every one of you who does not renounce all his possessions cannot be My disciple. At the same time, what Jimbob stated is not to be overlooked either. There are many ways and quite often many of us have come to the Lord just as he stated. But where I would differ with him is in how easily it is to get caught up in 'the show of things', where one is more likely to bow to peer pressure even if unaware of it. It is something that has been discussed here a great deal in the past and was personally caught up in much of it for a time. So to point out where things are a concern, to be considered finger pointing is a given, it is neither to be unduly critical nor is it to leave well enough alone though sometimes it is a wonder the futility to keep belaboring the point.Stranger still on a personal level was the louder voices that drew my attention that something was amiss. They touched a nerve that was being suppressed and the rational that kept fighting it finally began to listen to see if these same voices that were so adamant might be worth considering. The same 'judgmental' ones were the very avenue to take a hard look at what I was allowing myself to buy into.But for all that I think this is a far better treatment, from one of own here. It has a better balance and understanding;Receiving Christ

i have been brought to see that Jesus is the savior.He uses anything or anyone who willspeak to someones heart. in 1965 i was walking down canal st. in new orleans, with my new ,red , large thomson chain reference bible in my hand shen a rough looking man asked me if i was saved. i said that i was a new christian and yes i was save. then he asked if i spoke in tongues. i said that i haven't even heard of that. he then told me i was not saved and was going to hell where i belonged. i ran away thinking if that is what i would have to be like i woul not be a christian very long. that night i wept and sought God for i was very shakened by this event. God showed me that he uses all different types of people to reach all different types of people and that He would even use me.since then i have seen people get saved by listening to rock operas, watching plays, and all sorts of foolishness. i still weep when i see people respond to the gospel in repentence. i have seen hundreds of catholics saved, many jews(some orth.) a rabbi, atheist. the Holy Spirit does not need our formula or our denomination or ourmethods to bring someone to Jesus. it is His plan His sacrifice, His covenant,His body. chill ! jimp

In my most humble opinion I think that the teachings of Rick Warren are a cancer that is eating away at the heart of MOST North American congregations. The teachings cross all denominational boundries, and bring a luke warmness to the whole "church".Why does everyone flinch when someone points out error?? This topic has been going around and around on this site as long as I have been a member.. I had no problem confronting my pastor when this program came into my church a year ago.. I was told that I was the only one to approach him with concerns, and that they had approval from the district office.. I have been looking, and praying for a church that still preaches the word, but they are hard to find..We have biblical authority to confront error..Eph 5:11 And have no fellowship with the unfruitful works of darkness, but rather reprove them. Does this sound like a church you might know??Rev 3:15 I know thy works, that thou art neither cold nor hot: I would thou wert cold or hot. Rev 3:16 So then because thou art lukewarm, and neither cold nor hot, I will spew thee out of my mouth. Rev 3:17 Because thou sayest, I am rich, and increased with goods, and have need of nothing; and knowest not that thou art wretched, and miserable, and poor, and blind, and naked: Rev 3:18 I counsel thee to buy of me gold tried in the fire, that thou mayest be rich; and white raiment, that thou mayest be clothed, and that the shame of thy nakedness do not appear; and anoint thine eyes with eye salve, that thou mayest see. Rev 3:19 As many as I love, I rebuke and chasten: be zealous therefore, and repent. Seeking His will daily Greg

Hey crsschk,Thank you for allowing me to use things in your posts. I will also read the pdf you have provided! :-)Jimbob also says something which indeed cannot be overlooked at. If a person has a Bible, the Holy Spirit (for He will teach us all things) and a brain, in my opinion he can figure out truth from error if he is seeking to.

If a person has a Bible, the Holy Spirit (for He will teach us all things) and a brain, in my opinion he can figure out truth from error if he is seeking to.That can be misunderstood I think. How many 'have' all those things and yet are still in error? What does a new believer know and what are we to do with all the other believers that have the Holy Spirit "to teach us all things" ? I think that passage often alluded to gets more mileage then what was intended.1Jo 2:27 But the anointing which ye have received of him abideth in you, and ye need not that any man teach you: but as the same anointing teacheth you of all things, and is truth, and is no lie, and even as it hath taught you, ye shall abide in him. 1Jo 2:27 - But the anointing which ye have received - That ointment, the gifts of the Holy Spirit, mentioned 1Jo_2:20 (note).Ye need not that any man teach you - The Gnostics, who pretended to the highest illumination, could bring no proof that they were divinely taught, nor had they any thing in their teaching worthy the acceptance of the meanest Christian; therefore they had no need of that, nor of any other teaching but that which the same anointing teacheth, the same Spirit from whom they had already received the light of the glory of God, in the face of Jesus Christ. Whatever that taught, they needed; and whatever those taught whose teaching was according to this Spirit, they needed. St. John does not say that those who had once received the teaching of the Divine Spirit had no farther need of the ministry of the Gospel; no, but he says they had no need of such teaching as their false teachers proposed to them; nor of any other teaching that was different from that anointing, i.e. the teaching of the Spirit of God. No man, howsoever holy, wise, or pure, can ever be in such a state as to have no need of the Gospel ministry: they who think so give the highest proof that they have never yet learned of Christ or his Spirit.And is truth - Because it is the Spirit of truth Joh_16:13.And is no lie - It has nothing like the fables of the Gnostics. It can neither deceive, nor be deceived.Adam Clarke's CommentarySome of us were brought out of the darkness with less than fully functioning brains (case in point)and are easily mislead and can get caught up in a whole host of things (again, case in point). It is interesting that for all the percieved ugliness of working out what we know or that which we have come to learn, it is in this willingness to challenge and be challenged that we learn and grow and let go of fall assumptions. So part of it is true, I guess it would just be in the sense of where this is taken to be "alone", that by these things in isolation are enough, they are not. It is ultimately a collective effort, think that is what the Lord is after anyway...Joh 17:11 And now I am no more in the world, but these are in the world, and I come to thee. Holy Father, keep through thine own name those whom thou hast given me, that they may be one, as we are.

I guess you missed that last part of the statement..... about figuring out truth from error if he is SEEKING to.Which brings me back to an earlier statement I made about D.Wilkerson and his claim that Jesus taught more on hell than he did on Heaven. I made the statement that Jesus talked more about Heaven than hell by a ratio of 10 to 1, has anyone checked out who's claim is correct?

actually Wilkerson is correct. Many people make the mistake of doing a word search of the gospels and concluding there's more hits for "heaven" than "hell" IN THE GOSPEL. If you limit the search to the very words of Christ, you will see that Wilkerson is right.

In my most humble opinion I think that the teachings of Rick Warren are a cancer that is eating away at the heart of MOST North American congregations.Amen on that. I ended up leaving two churches over this issue, and I know many others who did the same and some don't even attend church anymore because they've given up.

Hell is mentioned 420 times in the NT. Any Seventh Day Adventists out there? I'm curious how they explain away 420 mentions of Hell.Grace and Peace...

I did that and My statement stands! READ the very words of Christ yourself!Matt 5:3 "Blessed are the poor in spirit for theirs is the kingdom of HEAVEN"Matt 5: 10" Blessed are those how have been persecuted for the sake of righteousness, for theirs is the kingdom of HEAVEN"Matt 5:12 "Rejoice and be glad, for your reward in HEAVEN is great..."I could go on and on there are 128 times Jesus mentions Heaven.There are 11 times He mentions Hell.Those are the very words of Christ. Wilkerson is wrong. I had never heard of David Wilkerson before SI, I had to research him to see why you all revere him so much. He has done much, but he is also capable of error, just like everyone else.

Where do you get that hell is mentioned 420 times in the NT? I'm sitting here with my concordance, I count 23 times for "hell" and "hades" combined!

I could go on and on there are 128 times Jesus mentions Heaven.what is the context of the usage though?Matthew 5:20"For I say to you, that unless your righteousness exceeds the righteousness of the scribes and Pharisees, you will by no means enter the kingdom of heaven."Matthew 7:21 “Not everyone who says to Me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ shall enter the kingdom of heaven, but he who does the will of My Father in heaven."these are just a couple off the first page of hits on got on the word "heaven". To say Jesus spoke mostly about heaven is misleading unless you explain fully.

hello again jimbob, you said:You or I just don't know this side of Heaven how many will be won or lost for Christ through this mans approach, it's still between the individual and God and all of our protests won't change any thing in that respect.Why then in your opinion do we have so many warnings in the epistles about false teachers and their teachings? I'm no heresy hunter but Christians should be willing to test things against the Word of God. Warren's book does not stand the test. Have you checked Warren's quotes of bible verses? He purposely used The Message version for his references because they are not accurately translated. Also, if you take a look at the Purpose Driven Church, you'll get a better idea of whats behind the PDL book and Rick Warren's whole approach. It's basically all about accomodating the sinner IN CHURCH, focusing on the goats rather than the sheep. Warren's whole approach is about methods, surveys, and marketing. I totally believe in reaching the lost and evangelism, but not at the expense of Truth, i.e.- watering things down (no more altars, long prayers, mentioning of Hell or Judgement, The Blood of Jesus). I could give you page numbers and examples where Warren suggest such things.

The context of the usage is HEAVEN, it is used 128 times! The context of the usage of HELL is used 11 times! Are we having having a hard time grasping this concept?If Jesus is talking about what the kingdom of Heaven is like or how to get there, then He's talking about HEAVEN!If Jesus is talking about what hell is like or how to get there, then He's talking about HELL!The ratio is 10 to 1,Heaven to Hell. Study your Bible.Now you say the PDL book is wrong, give me one example of a heresy in the book, not something you don't like, but an actual heretical statement. There are 13 pages to this thread yet I don't recall anyone pointing out an actual heretical statement from the book, I'm not saying there aren't any, but I would like to see it.

On page 20 of the Purpose Driven Life, Rick Warren writes that God is not just the starting point of our life; He is the SOURCE of it. One cannot possibly as a Christian state that this is wrong. This is exactly the same message I received from God, well before this book was published: Church stop your programs and activities and return to His Word, study it and obey it. This is the same message each Christian should hear from God, if they are really seeking Him.As the Church we major at pointing fingers at “sinners” and look to well-known preachers and pastors for answers, while there is only ONE TRUTH and that TRUTH is God, and there is NO OTHER.Consider King David, a man loved by God. He committed adultery and murder just to satisfy his own lust. Yet, God loved him. You know why? Because in all his sin, David always turned back to God and repented. He sought God; he may have wandered, but He always turned back to God, NOT to men, but to God. How would King David have made out in "our Christian world" today? Would we consider him a prophet, a man loved by God? Frankly, I doubt it.That is what some of us seem to major in, pointing out the sin of our government, other Christians, or the world, instead of turning to God’s Word, finding Him and Worshipping HIM in Spirit and in Truth.

jimbob, and all others who do not have a problem with The Purpose Driven Life..I submit this information.Purpose Driven Life Page 101. Noah's life was transformed by 40 days of rain2. Moses was transformed by 40 days on Mount Sinai3. The spies were transformed by 40 days in the Promised land4. David was transformed by Goliath's 40 day challenge5. Elijah was transformed when God gave him 40 days of strength from a single meal6. The city of Nineveh was transformed when God gave the people 40 days to change7. Jesus was empowered by 40 days in the wilderness8.The disciples were transformed by 40 days with Jesus after his resurrection.\t\tWhat does the Bible say about these events..**If Noah had waited until it had started to rain, he and his family would have drowned with the rest of the world..1.Noah was transformed when he encountered God, and believed Him. Genesis 6: 13-222.Moses was transformed when he encountered God, and believed Him Exodus Ch. 3 3.Only 2 of the men that went into the Promised Land, Caleb, and Joshua, came back with positive reports, the other 10 brought back evil reports. Numbers 13:28-33 14:64.David was transformed when he trusted on the Lord. 1 Samual 17:375.Elijah was transformed when the Lord spoke to him, and comforted him. 1 Kings 19:9-196.The city of Nineveh was transformed when they believed God & repented. Jonah 3:57.Jesus was empowered when He received the Holy Spirit. Matthew 3: 16-17 Mark 1:10-11 Luke 3:22 John 1:32-34 Jesus was sent into the wilderness to be tempted by satan! Matthew 4:1 Mark 1:13 Luke 4:28.The disciples were encouraged by contact with the risen Lord (Luke 24:52) but were not transformed (Mark 16:14) They were transformed by waiting (Acts 1:4) and being filled by the Holy Spirit. Acts Ch. 2These examples of error, misdirection are found on page 10 of The Purpose Driven Life..I believe that there is sufficent error here to call this book herecy, and is just another man made attempt to conform the gospel of God to fit man..I have another concern with a statement by Rick Warren on page 12 of this same book. " I am excited because I know all the great things that are going to happen to you". How can he possibly "know"?? If I could stomach it, I would go further into the book, but if this is how it starts, how can it ever redeem itself????? In Christ Greg :-?

I agree with Smokey. Well put. We must also realize that a statement can be just as heretical by what it doesn't say, as it can by what it does say. Remember, 50% or 75% or 99% truth is still 100% a lie. We have many people and preachers who don't blatantly preach outward lies, but the parts they leave out or quickly gloss over is what makes their teaching and preaching so dangerous and just as heretical as blatant lies. These “little white lies” that slip into teaching and preaching that make the message easier to swallow are more dangerous and ear tickling than blatant lies.So one question we might want to all ask ourselves with Rick Warren's teachings, and Joel Osteen's, Joyce Meyer's, and your own pastor's, and thousands of others is: "WHAT ARE THEY LEAVING OUT OR GLOSSING OVER???"

I was going to lambast you over your ignorance, but I see that you simply do not reconize that others have a different burden or calling than yourself. I see that if someone does not agree with YOUR opinions 100% as you see them, than that person in your eyes is indeed in danger of hells fire.Luke 9:51-56; " When the days were approaching for His ascension, He was determined to go to Jerusalem; and he sent messengers on ahead of Him, and they went and entered a village of the Samaritans to make arrangements for Him. But they did not receive Him, because He was traveling towards Jerusalem. When his disciples James and John saw this, they said, Lord do You want us to command fire to come down from heaven and consume them? But He turned and rebuked them, and said, "You do not know what kind of spirit you are of; for the Son of Man did not come to destroy men's lives, but to save them." And they went on to another village."If some is condemned in your eyes for what they DON'T SAY, Lord have mercy on your souls.

Maybe you misunderstand. I know many bothers and sisters with a different calling or burden than my own. I am not talking about me or my opinions at all, these you are more then welcome to disagree with, what I am talking about is the Word, character and nature of God. If you preach or believe all hell and no heaven or all heaven and no hell - then you are a liar and misrepresenting God and His Son Jesus Christ. This will absolutely endanger you of Hell fire. The Scriptures show us repeatedly that God does not take lightly those who misrepresent His character or twist or water down His Words. If you preach salvation without repentance or repentance without conviction, confession, or turning from sin - you are in very grave danger of Hell fire. If preach all love and no wrath, or all grace and no judgment, or all mercy and no fury or anger, then, again you misrepresent God and His Son Jesus Christ, and are in danger of hell fire. If you preach a self-serving humanistic Jesus you are in danger of the same. If you preach a God who condones homosexuality or adultery, but every thing else you preach is correct, you are preaching a false God and are in danger of hell fire. It is not me you must agree with 100%, for I have many brother and sister who I share minor disagreements with, but rather, my friend, it is God you must agree with 100%. It is not my opinion of God, but the God of the Bible and likewise it is not my opinion of Jesus that you must agree with, but the Jesus of Scripture in whom you must believe to be saved. That’s the problem many believe in a God and a Jesus they have made up in their own minds and not the God and Jesus of the Bible. The believe in a half Jesus or a half God or a half gospel that is really not the real God or real Jesus or real Gospel written about in the Scriptures. We absolutely must insist that men preach the FULL council, nature, and character of God and not some half truths that are easy to swallow and thus misrepresent God. I think you would be hard pressed to one other preacher on this site or person on this forum who would disagree with this. I hope this helps clarify and/or open your eyes to the truth.It is a good thing you didn't try to lambast me, you might of just ended up making yourself look silly and foolish. :-P It is always better to discuss things first - save the lambasting for last resort. ;-)

jimbobAs I continue to shake my head over your response, I have to realise that even when scripture is used to exspose error, there are those who choose to cling to a lie. 2Th 2:9 Even him, whose coming is after the working of Satan with all power and signs and lying wonders, 2Th 2:10 And with all deceivableness of unrighteousness in them that perish; because they received not the love of the truth, that they might be saved. 2Th 2:11 And for this cause God shall send them strong delusion, that they should believe a lie: 2Th 2:12 That they all might be damned who believed not the truth, but had pleasure in unrighteousness. Greg

we should always be examining ourselves prior to correcting anyone else. But that doesn't mean weNEVER correct, right? I'll be the first one to admit I make mistakes. But I do feel compelled to speak the Truth to brothers and sisters in the Lord that are following after Warren and his erroneous teachings. Go to the main willow creek website and they tell you how popular they are and how many thousands of churches are using their methods. It'sa very serious problem, and not one we should simply avoid and hope it goes away.

Good Review of Purpose Driven Lifethis review covers alot of the problems regarding the PDL.

Purpose driven life was the first Christian book I ever bought.I started with it and finished it (strangely I didn't lookup any verses as I didn't knew he had made references on the last pages..)Before I read this book I already turned from my old ways (otherwise I would probably not have bought such a book) and I was really surprised that this book was such a hit. I mean, what’s so special about this book? I already wouldn't recommend that book to others back then when I finished it.I used to say 'this book might be good for sleepy Christians'.. (I refrain from such statements now, but that’s what I thought)I also recall finding his statement that 'your life will change' a bit weird. I mean, I was already changed by God! :-D How could he predict that every, reading this book will be ‘converted’? (into his thinking?) A pretty bold statement which really gets your ‘hopes up’ at start.After that I started reading the Bible everyday.Right now I wouldn't recommend this book, not for evangelizing and not for 'christians'.There are some good things in this book, but I don't like the way he uses scripture taking them out of context and beyond its meaning at times.That plus the things I simply don’t agree with.Now the hard part.. after I turned to God I was the only one to go to church.I've prayed for my family members and my sister returned to the Lord. My mom went back to church and my parents are even going together now!One day my mom said that she would never set foot in church with my dad ever. Next week they where in church together and now they go to church every Sunday! :-D Not long ago they decided to join in with PDL and are going to one of many church groups.I heard from my mom that my dad said that he wanted to know more about Gods Word and wanted to study the Bible. I was like ‘wow’, because he never reads the Bible by himself.I didn’t like PDL, but as it would start in our church and like everyone is following it I did pray that God may use it for His honour. Still while God did great things to my family I’m pretty worried about them.The good points about PDL is that everyone gets together and talks about it with each other.Thank God that the youth group I’m in doesn’t blindly follow Rick Warren and we do have good discussions and conversations.My mom is very enthusiastic about PDL and says I’m to critical when I shared my concerns… She would pick Rick Warren’s findings above mine because he’s a more mature Christian. I’ve only been converted since around the summer of 2004. Then she urges me to read the book everyday as its so good. (I’m also in a group for these 40 days period) If I read a day from RW’s book I would like to check his findings and statements including searching Bible texts. Unfortunately I don’t have the time to do this. I’m not to well in dividing my time, but if I have to choose to read Gods Word or RW’s book it will be the first.While I’m not praying against PDL, I do hope that God can get the most out of it.I’m still pretty worried about my parents, and continue to pray for them. Yea it’s cool to get together in groups and talk about things with each other.. but that can also be done without PDL on a church wide scale. I prayed to God that Christ would be the centre of my family and my parents would grow closer to God and to each other. I just know that God is working in our family and I continue to pray till they are radical for Christ and not just ‘normal’ churchgoers which blend in nicely with everyone else.I’m worried that my mom doesn’t see the errors in this book. She even interprets how RW meant things so that there are no errors! PDL is not the Bible, having a lot people to read this book or a lot churches supporting it is also not the same as ‘fruit’. Just like having services where a lot of raised hands is regarded as fruit by many.If we look at the story of Jesus being tempted by satan for 40 days, we see that he also uses scripture for his lies! As someone else wrote, satan is so subtle and did this trick before in the Garden of Eden. Not all is negative though, the good thing about Rick Warren is that he does tell people to get into the Bible. RW's book will be put away when finished, Gods Word will not I hope. :-) Hmm this message turned out a little long.Just some things I would like to share...JCGarc55, thanks for the link! I will read through it when I'm home.God bless!

Slice of Laodicea
[url=http://christianresearchnetwork.com/]http://christianresearchnetwork.com/[/url]

SOL has many, many articles on Rick Warren.

If any preacher talks about self-esteem instead of Christ-esteemed, I turn him off. Unfortunately, many preachers are perpetuating this humanistic (YOU CAN DO IT) message that seems to leave Jesus out of the mix.

...then there's TBN...

Anyway, I have found that books by men must be a last resort compared to the very Word of God.

TBN - Circus or Church - Sad and Hilarious.
[url=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sdTldR17Zms&mode=related&search=]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sdTldR17Zms&mode=related&search=[/url]

What is so dangerous is that poison is made up mostly of true components with only a very little bit of poison. For instance... Rat poison has about 99.995% inert (edible) components, the poison part is only .005%.

The point is that we need to know God's word and how to take what others write/say and bounce it off that standard (something all christians need to learn). If it doesnt measure up, we need to make biblical corrections to keep ourselves and others on the right path.

I think what I mentioned in another thread also applies here...

"We know for a fact that if we follow the bible, which has not error, we are secure in our salvation in doing so; BUT we are not assured the same authority or correctness of any other works (outside of the bible)... The NT warns many times to not heed “other gospels”, or "other messages"... Jesus Himself said “Heaven and earth will pass away, but my words will not pass away.” Luke 21:33.

For me and my family all the PDL/Rick Warren books have been thrown away. The bible has so much that we need to know, we figure why waste 40 days on lukewarm stuff.