Rick Warren on the condition of man...

Molly proves once again that she believes that only the type of attracting she approves of is correct.

I am sitting anxiously awaiting Molly and Preach's book on ministry methodology so that I can have the only correct pattern.

TIC ALERT!!!

 

Begs the question of "how" we are to be like Him in character.

Is this Warren's answer?

Man is not the "object" supreme or otherwise in God's creation.

Man has zero potential for good. He is dead in sin. He isn't just marred! He is unrighteous... even his supposed good works are as filthy rags before God. His only hope is in the imputed righteousness of Christ and sanctification by the Holy Spirit.

No. According to Romans 5 we are separated from God by our sin nature. Our existence as sinners is not an attitude. It is a state of being that precludes any genuine goodness.

[ November 18, 2002, 01:43 PM: Message edited by: Scott J ]

 

I would say that this response exposes your presuppostions. That is not what the statement said. It says that man, not his potential for good, is marred by sin. It certainly a valid interpretation of this phrase to say that if man can overcome his bad attitude then he can tap into that inate potential for good.

It is not a point clearly articulated here. I also don't think I am arguing semantics when I say that it is God's potential for operating through us to do good and not OUR potential for doing good somehow activated by God.

The more I read the criticisms then the substance and attitude of your rebuttals, the more credence I give to his detractors.

You've done more to persuade me that there might be some significant problems with Warren than PTW or Molly.

 

Nope,I agree with Don,that true believers will naturally be attracted to the meat of the Word,no attracting necessary....

 

I also must add that great pastor's or teacher's jobs are to guide and direct us to know the Word and through their passion for the Word,we love the Word,too. We can love the Word on our own,but the great examples before us can encourage us to seek more of God's word and love it even more. There is a great responsibilty on these leaders to lead their flock correctly and rightly dividing the Word of truth,so that they are not ashamed.

Scott J,
Yes,Rick W.'s website(saddleback.com) under beliefs(if you can find it) says exactly what PTW stated on his original post. Their beliefs are actually listed on a subtopic page with their roller hockey,fishing,and other various ministries. You can learn a lot about their church on the website,but it hard to find doctrinal statments or anything about the Ministry of the Word.

[ November 19, 2002, 05:02 PM: Message edited by: Molly ]

 

Being unfamiliar with Warren or his ministry, you have no grounds upon which to discern the legitimacy of any criticism, detraction, or rebuttal.

Therefore .....

Pass the Morton's

As far as Warren's beliefs in the human condition, I will wait for someone to show us where Warren believes that a person can have a relationship with God through any means except a saving relationship with Jesus Christ. Guess what? It's not going to happen because Warren is just as orthodox in his beliefs as anyone who has posted here.

We can argue till we are blue in the face over the semantics of total depravity in relation to the sinful nature of sinful humans, but the bottom line is that Rick Warren believes people are going to Hell without Jesus Christ. And that is the human condition about which Warren is concerned.

 

If by goodness, you mean something a sinner can do to earn God's favor, then I cannot show you a single text. If by goodness, you mean the potential to do what is right through the grace of Jesus Christ, there are many passages.

Once again, you have made the accusation that Warren has compromised the gospel. If this is the case, can you show us how he has stepped outside the ORTHODOX circle in his view. Notice I used the word Orthodox and not 5-point Calvinism. Are you suggesting Rick Warren is not an evangelical?

 

Regardless of calvinism or whatever title you or I want to use,Truth is Truth...I read his statement to mean that humans have potential to do good....There is none righteous,no not one. There is nothing good in us,it is simply a weak doctrianl statement. If he means otherwise,maybe the wording of it should be more carfeully attended to.

[ November 18, 2002, 06:01 PM: Message edited by: Molly ]

 

SBC,Do you believe in absolute truth or variations of truth?

 

This question is an insult.

It never ceases to amaze me some of the jumps in logic some people can make.

Of course I believe in absolute truth. And believe it or not, I am probably as Reformed in my theology as you are.

 

No. But I have very good grounds to judge the arguments presented here. To be honest, I have seen more grace and less evasion from defenders of Jack Hyles and Peter Ruckman than what I have seen from you.

Your answer to anything you don't want to address is to obliquely attack the critic while denying that the criticism has substance.

... then why doesn't he proclaim it clearly on his website? The arguments are not just against what he says but what he doesn't say.

This is simply another evasion of a substantial issue. It matters a great deal whether Warren is telling people that they are basically good and just need a proper guide to channel the good or telling people they are sinners without the ability to do good.

There is no need to argue until our faces are blue. Romans 3 says there are none righteous, none the do good, and that all are sinners. It seems from the statement that started this thread that Warren would like to redefine what this means.

 

I am saying that the quote that started this thread is ambiguous at best and exalts man far above what the Bible teaches at worst.

I don't care how you label him, or me for that matter. The fact is anyone who teaches that people are basically good and just need a little magic formula to bring it out of them is teaching something contrary to scripture.

 

If you want to prove these assertions by actual quotes or examples, I will be happy to deal with any "criticism with substance."

Show them to me.

Is this post a prime example of someone attacking someone else for attacking someone else? You are attacking me for attacking? Where is the irony in that?

Again show me where I have avoided the issue and attacked the person instead.

Your presuppositions were evident from your first post, so we should not expect you to view this discussion objectively.

BTW, I can look back over the threads on Warren and find question after question that I have raised which received no answers. I can find Scriptures I have refuted or arguments I have shown to be faulty. I have asked repeatedly for factual evidence for accusations leveled against Warren. And yet I am the one who is being evasive? You are just full of irony today!

[ November 19, 2002, 12:10 PM: Message edited by: SBCbyGRACE ]

 

Warren teaches that people are going to Hell if they do not commit their life to Jesus. Is that contrary to Scripture?

Your "magic formula" straw man is another example of misrepresentation. Slowly but surely you reveal that you are wearing the same color glasses as Preach. Of course it is easier to attack straw men than deal with reality.

 

No. What is contrary to scripture is the idea that salvation is a sort of self-help program that utilizes the inate goodness in the recipient.

You accused me of being a slave to my presuppositions. I admitted up front that I was wary of change but not close-minded to it. I am probably even more wary of tradition.

Whatever revelation you are getting about my opinions has been primarily formed by your posts. I have generally read yours in detail and skimmed those of Molly and PTW.

I started from a position of skepticism but willing to have him proven good... you have done more than anyone to move me from skeptic toward passive opposition. At this point, I would be inclined to deem Warren and Hyles two sides of the same coin. Each give the audience what they want, play to their emotions, promote a brand of easy believism, and add their own style to the mix.

The "straw man" you accuse me of comes from the text of his statement. It says man possesses the potential for good, he is just marred by a bad attitude. When something is marred you re-form it. When something is irreparably broken and corrupt, you make something new.

Maybe Warren wouldn't argue these distinctions. Maybe the statement does not accurately or fully represent what he believes. If not then as his defender why haven't you shown where he believes something different? As it stands, this statement is either so weak that it is ineffectual or it is the tip of an iceberg of bad theology. Since I admit my ignorance, you have an opportunity to convince me... so far you've chosen to argue semantics.

 

First, I must admit that I am not an expert on Rick Warren's theology. It is conservative, evangelical at its root. As far as the details of what he believes about depravity, I cannot say for sure. I can declare that he is not a 5-point Calvinist.

Second, I must emphasize that PDC is not a theology book. It is a methodology book. Therefore Warren does not articulate his theological beliefs in the book.

Third, I can give you in a brief form what Warren says about salvation and eternal security, which does address some of your concerns.

You can see clearly here that Warren is not telling people that they are basically good and just need a proper guide to channel the good.

Sorry to laugh. Having come out of the Hyles movement several years ago, this is just hilarious to me.

I do want to defend Warren's overall methodology with a proper spirit. But I admit I get edgy when people start accusing someone God is using in a tremendous way of distorting the gospel or not believing in the sufficiency of Scripture or either questioning the motives of someone they do not know simply because they disagree with their methodology or approach.

Again I would challenge you to show where I have evaded issues regarding Warren's methodology. I am more than willing and able to deal with any matter of substance that may be raised in this discussion. I am just waiting for it to happen.

 

SBC,It is very difficult to discuss this with someone who is not willing to even see what is being said...you don't argue with scripture or Truth,you simply put down the person with the statements. Totally denying that there is anything of importance in what they are saying.(Like Scott J,for example)

I was open to The Purpose Driven Church 5 years ago when I first read it,I was thinking the purposes were good(they are) and biblical,that it was simply methodology,too. But,as I searched the scriptures and saw the ministry of Christ,I realized very quickly there was something wrong with this church idea....Christ preached and taught,the crowds followed...he had no need of giving a ploy or new gimmick to attract those who came. He taught using scripture,parables,and His word(he is the Word)....and with the early church,many heard the gospel through preaching and from believers spreading the good news...I see no eveidence that there were goat races,sports events,or games involved,even as the fellowship part of the church. The apostles gave time to preaching and teaching,and then the deacons came into play to serve in other needed areas....I see that church was about God's business-the preaching and teaching of the Word. I think that proper fellowship is important to a body,but fellowship based on the Truth and the love of the brethren....not on secular activities. Now,please don't misunderstand,I am not opposed to a church having an evangelsitic evening or an activity for those purposes,it is when that becomes all the church is doing,that the Word gets a back seat. People don't grow in spiritual ways,they remain babes in Christ,if they are truly saved to begin with.

Also,In Rick W book,he states that traditional churches are not working anymore,so not only is he marketing the gospel,but he is presenting HIS WAY to other churches and leaders and greatly influencing them. If it is simply methodology and he is totally dependent on scripture and the power of God through His word,then why is he saying churches need to be the way his church is to be successful and blessed by God. I have a problem with that. If he wants to be that way in Cal and do church that way,fine,but he has turned it into big business to highly influence christians everywhere to jump on this new way of doing things. That is what I am opposed to. I believe there is more harm being done to God's word in this,than good.

I'm sorry if I insulted you....I was really just asking an honest question,because I can not tell by some of the things you say. Please forgive me,if it was offensive to you.

[ November 19, 2002, 06:14 PM: Message edited by: Molly ]

 

</font>[/QUOTE] I like this answer. Still, I wonder why his website would be so oblique when this statement is so direct. New agers and cultists could buy the statement that started this thread. This last statement sounds properly divisive of the wheat and the chaff.

That's an interesting tidbit. I find it interesting that you laugh at me for suggesting that they have things in common while you are/have been an admirer of the two.

Sidenote: I have heard and seen very similar statements used to defend Hyles, Ruckman, women pastors, tongue speakers, faith healers, and Bill Clinton.

All I know of Warren is what I have learned from you and the others here. If he is using anything other than the gospel of Christ to attract people then I am opposed to his methods... and care not what his motives are. But then again, that is the subject of these several threads regarding him.

Does he attempt to bait people with touchy feely stuff then slide in the gospel or is the gospel central in his ministry?

Here's one for you: Does Warren approach sinners from the perspective of the quote that started this thread or the one you quoted above? Is he calling sinners to repentance or promising them that their "needs" will be met?

A sinners needs are met by Christ. But the avg. lost person thinks their need is anything but Christ. It would be dishonest if a ministry emphasized programs for what people think their problems/desires/needs were to create a later opportunity to evangelize them. This is the overall impression of Warren that I have gotten from you and the other posters.

 

I am willing to deal with any Scripture that has been raised. It is just not happening.

I would say the miracles were not ordinary and attracted people to hear the message. Remember John refers to the miracles as signs. What is the purpose of a sign? It is to point to something. The miracles affirmed who Jesus is and demanded a response to his message. The miracles were not what converted unbelieving hearts. They merely pointed people to the message (and the messenger in this case). Could we define the miracles as methods? That is a matter of discussion.

I would even argue that Jesus' teaching style was a method. He taught in a manner that attracted the attention of the crowd. Employing identifiable symbols of the truth (lost sheep, seeds, farmers, water, etc.) seems to have been a method that was relative to the hearer.

Did Jesus stand in the temple and simply exposit the OT? Yes. Did Jesus teach among the people using everyday analogies that they could understand? Yes. Did Jesus teach in a relevant fashion? Yes. Did Jesus meet people's needs? Yes. Did Jesus attract people's attention through the signs? Yes.

Again, the key is balance. I will not try to paint a picture of Jesus only using a single method to attract a crowd. But neither should you attempt to paint a picture of a Jesus who only preached expository sermons. Jesus most definitely utilized methods (even if it was simply a method of teaching).

We don't know what methods the church was or was not employing to reach people. We cannot argue from silence.

"Secular activities" are not all that Saddleback is doing. Again, they focus on balancing the five purposes. They are not all about fellowship or evangelism or discipleship, etc. They are all about doing all five purposes properly.

Take time to examine their 101-401 class system and then you will discover that there is intense discipleship transpiring. Spiritual growth is steady and consistent b/c it is one of their purposes. Did you know you have to take a 26-week course in Systematic Theology to be considered for ANY staff position? How many churches of your persuasion do you know that make a similar demand? Again, you are working from straw men.

Actually Warren maintains that traditionalism just for the sake of maintaining a tradition is faulty. He is not saying throw out anything traditional. He is saying don't be guilty of maintaining a tradition simply b/c it is a tradition. To be honest with you, we should always be looking for fresh ways to do ministry. Innovation is not a bad thing.

I believe you misinterpret Warren again. He does not suggest every church needs to become like Saddleback. He acknowledges repeatedly in his seminars that each church is different and will employ the purpose-driven model differently. What works in Southern CA will not work in Southern IN. What he stresses are the purposes of the church. Each church should be about worship, evangelism, discipleship, fellowship, and ministry. I simply tend to agree with him.