Rick Warren opposes fundamentalism

You are absolutely right. Anyone who lives for Christ is living out God's purpose in their life.

 

One thing wrong with 'not needing the gospel'.

The Word of God abideth ever. It does not change, and the child of God is to desire the sincere milk of the Word that he or she may grow thereby.

One cannot say just because they made a profession of faith, that they do not need the Word of God. Many of the modern churches, nay, social clubs, encourage the member to leave the Bible at home and study their materials (which they will sell for a nominal fee).

Many churches are no longer the house of God, but rather a gossip center, a weight-loss meeting place, a dance or bingo hall, or just plain dead because pastors are not learning the Word of God in the cemetery's they go through.

 

You are absolutely right. Anyone who lives for Christ is living out God's purpose in their life. </font>[/QUOTE]the context was reaching out to the lost. but that's ok, I understand that it's not necessary to preach Jesus Christ anymore. We have PDL . . . it's all about purpose . . . not salvation.

 

You cannot even see the error of your own quotes -- I guess you are only qualified to point out the errors of others. You said in an earlier post that we were instructed to examine things like the Bereans. I simply asked where that instruction was given. But then again, you are ignoring questions, so I am not surprised you missed it.

And if you want to pity congregations, pity those whose leaders are so focused on those inside the fold they neglect to reach those outside the flock.

Churches have one of two options: focus on reaching or focus on keeping. We prefer to focus on reaching.

 

Deuteronomy 10:12 And now, Israel, what doth the LORD thy God require of thee, but to fear the LORD thy God, to walk in all his ways, and to love him, and to serve the LORD thy God with all thy heart and with all thy soul,
Deuteronomy 10:13 To keep the commandments of the LORD, and his statutes, which I command thee this day for thy good?

That is to be our purpose while on this earth.

 

Ya know - I really love the Bible. It's cool. It tells us what God wants, what is truth, what is evil. I was always taught that God's Word was the final Word on what anyone taught, preached, or sold - claiming what they have is based on Scripture. So, silly me, I have to weigh everything in that Light. I am just impossible, aren't I?

 

Go for it! That light is GREAT! Even more so than holysandwich light or whatever your link-o-the-day is.

 

The biggest threat to christianity in the 21st. century is ecumenical movements like the one RW is trying to promote. His PEACE plan.

Rick Warren and Bill Hybels have done to evangelicalism what has been done to public schools by polictical correctness.

Its called the "dumbing down of evangelicals"

People don't think the anti christ will be followed by millions. Well evangelicals are proving that to be false by how blindly they follow one or two men and their methods.

 

BTW in that article in the Pew whatever RW sure does alot of self promoting. I remember Paul getting stoned and imprisoned for standing boldly for the Gospel and here is "america's pastor" basically sucking up to a bunch of lib. reporters who only want to interview RW because he is the hottest thing going in christian marketing. I'll give him one thing. He sure did learn alot from Peter Drucker. He knows how to push his "brand".

 

Is there enough gospel truth in you to convict a Catholic?
It's probably better to be accepted by a Catholic who will listen to the Word, than stand on the outside railing against the people who are spreading it. </font>[/QUOTE]Gina,

If you had the best selling book in Christian history would you be glad or sad that there isn't enough gospel truth to convict someone who is Catholic? That's the question. This isn't about me, or you, or the average Joe. It's about the man Time magazine called "America's pastor". </font>[/QUOTE]It IS about me and you. Do we have less requirements as Christians than that man?

The Holy Spirit convicts a man, not a book. If the Catholics that are unsaved read a bible and aren't convicted, do you critique the Scriptures and condemn God?
If not, why are you blaming Rick Warren for not convicting people that you have decided need to be convicted?

 

I just read this article. TYPICAL is all I can say. One of RW's statements is that he is tired of hearing what the "church" (I have never found this universal church but RW is sure it exists) is AGAINST. E X C U S E ME! That is what my saviour DID! HE PREACHED AGAINST S I N, religious establishment, legalism (mans rules for God's to gain favor with God), nicolaitan separatism, corruption in the synogogues....etc, ad infinitum.... Christ spent his time preaching A G A I N S T things that OFFEND God and send men to hell. He was a fundamentalist. RW is not. RW is obviously the better man.

 

thanx for your permission, gina ain't nothing gonna stop me now - get outta the way

 

I heard him say personally that his mentor was W.A. Criswell. He has learned some things from others but his real mentor was Criswell. Criswell gave Warren his blessing.

 

The Bible tells us a lot of things but it doesn't get us to heaven. It can tell you what to do but it can't do it for you.

A lot of pew sitters know about God but they really do not know Him. They are passionless. They read their Bible and learn about God and still do not really know Him.

Many non-Christians collect old Bibles as antiques. But I would rather know God.

 

I am not suggesting they are mutually exclusive that is why I used the word "focused". What I am suggesting is that a church will usually focus more attention on one of those two things. Most tend to focus on keeping.

For example if your church decided to become seeker-sensitive and focus on reaching unbelievers, you probably would seek to find another church. You would find a church that focused its attention on expositional preaching, discipleship, etc. You would find a church focused primarily on the flock. Would you say this is a fair analysis?

 

You are right in one aspect...Jesus did take a stand against something -- the religious establishment of his day and their man-made parameters of righteousness. We could call it modern day fundamentalism.

Jesus a fundy? Have you read who he associated himself with? I am afraid he would not meet the secondary separation standard of most fundies.

 

One of RW's statements is that he is tired of hearing what the "church" (I have never found this universal church but RW is sure it exists) is AGAINST. E X C U S E ME! That is what my saviour DID! HE PREACHED AGAINST S I N, religious establishment, legalism (mans rules for God's to gain favor with God), nicolaitan separatism, corruption in the synogogues....etc, ad infinitum....

I may not love everything about Rick Warren but I agree 110% with his statement.

Yes we should be against sin, and unwaveringly so. But it troubles me that evangelicalism has become so legalistic. Jesus certainly would not have approved of churches splitting over women wearing pants or people using NIV Bibles.

It seems we are more concerned about what we are against than what we are for, which is bringing the gospel to the lost.

It troubles me that the lost world tends to view us as "hypocrites" or "judgmental". I would be proud to wear the label of "strict" or fanatically devoted" - but the label of "hypocrite/judgmental" makes me think we are not showing Christ as much as we should be.

 

I don't agree with RW---we are to stand on "truth in love"---a quick examination of 2John 1:1-6 will tell us that truth and love cannot be seperated! You can't have one without the other! To stand on love without truth and to stand on truth without love would be like watching a one legged man in a jump rope contest!!

To stand on truth means you are for what truth is for and you are against with truth is against. But to stand on truth---means you WILL be against something!!! What gripes me is that nobody wants a church that stands on truth in love. What gripes me is that we have people in church who are led to believe that the church cannot be AGAINST something! One thing that that 1st Century church stood up for was truth---and to stand up for truth meant that they were against anything that was not true----and when Annias and his dear sweet wife came struttin' into the churchhouse full of love but not one ounce of truth---the truth showed up against a lie---and the liars died, didn't they???!!! Every last liar in that church house that stood against the truth that Peter stood on---died!!!

A church that teaches love without truth is like a one legged man in a jump rope contest!

Give me a church that will love me in truth and I will show you Jesus in that church!!!

Those who stand on truth in love will be labeled "hypocrites"???? So what!!!??????? The Pharasees and Saducees labeled Jesus as a "son of Beelzeebub----did that MAKE Jesus a son of beelzebub????

[ January 17, 2006, 08:56 AM: Message edited by: blackbird ]