Rick Warren opposes fundamentalism

I probably have more respect for him after reading that article than I did from reading his books.

I'm not thrilled with the statement about fundamentalists, but articles and reports rarely if ever quote everything in complete context.

Instead of assuming he's an enemy of the basics of Christianity, I will give him the benefit of the doubt until he says otherwise. Judging from what he's said and written so far, there's no reason to believe he's against the basics of Christianity. There IS reason to believe he's against the radical, legalistic groups that call themselves fundamentalists, and are present in every group.

The term fundamentalist has pretty much been taken over by radical idiots and there are a whole lot of people who have no idea of what it really means. Go ahead and ask members of your church what the term means.
Actually, you don't even have to go that far. Click on over to the Fundamental Baptist section of the Baptist Board, where the "fundamentalists" hang out.
It isn't a group of people expounding on the truth of the virgin birth and the belief of one God. It's people arguing whether to use the KJV or whether women should wear pants, drinking alcohol, trying to figure out if people who do big sins can be in church, whether or not people should shake hands while a hymn plays, and railing against a number of evangelists.

Go ahead, go look through the threads, and decide for yourself if the term "fundamentalist" is being abused or not, and if people do not have the right, maybe even a duty, to begin disassociating themselves from the term.

 

Respected by who?

Probably the same folks that gave Mohler the right to speak for all Southern Baptists

Crediability with who?

 

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.

 

I am not sure this was the same article, but reading through this one, I did a double take:

quote:
NW: What can the church do on a global scale to fight AIDS and help those who are affected by it?

RW:We built the conference around six things that churches can do, and we called it CHURCH.


NW: You like those acronyms. What does it stand for?

RW:[Providing] care and comfort, handling testing and counseling, unleashing a volunteer workforce of compassion, removing the stigma, championing good health habits (like reminding people to wash their hands) and handing out nutritional food—and, eventually we hope, medications, too. We are going to test this in Rwanda next year. [end quote]

I guess the Gospel is no longer needed as long as we have PDL

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/10495711/site/newsweek/

 

here's another real eye opener:

http://www.sacredsandwich.com/purposelie.htm

 

Sure, quote humor and parody sites as your sources of information.

[ January 16, 2006, 04:27 PM: Message edited by: Gina L ]

 

Sure, quote humor and parody sites as your sources of information. </font>[/QUOTE]quote:

“…your faith should not rest on the wisdom of men, but on the power of God.” I Corinthians 2:5


As committed Christians, we shouldn't be so cavalier about the way our popular church leaders and teachers dissect and disseminate God's word for our edification. Best-selling or not, Christian authors cannot indiscriminately recast verses to fit their inventive teachings or mix God's truth with the fanciful notions of the world. By buying into this evangelical herd mentality, today's Christians are abandoning the pure word of God for a poor imitation where deception is the likely result. Whether sincere or not, Christian teachers like Rick Warren must be held to a biblical standard. But until the evangelical community stands up for God's truth and stops placing their faith in the "next big thing" in Christian consumerism, the Bible will continue to lag behind these bestsellers in influencing postmodern Christian thought and practice. Case in point: Rick Warren's Purpose Driven Life... [end quote]

http://www.sacredsandwich.com/purposelie.htm

I think if you read the article, you won't find any humor or parody . . . it's as serious as a heart attack.

 

Go to church,

Maybe your a moderate southern baptist i don't know. Regardless if you like Al or not most would agree within SBC circles that he has integrity.
Other than just plain folk, pastors, lay people etc.. He is one of few people with some national exposure that would dare speak against something
"america's pastor" commented on.

For those of you who follow RW just as tight as those who oppose him you have to admit his postion on R catholic Church is very, very weak.
Maybe in a class or discipleship program somewhere in his church he points out the false teaching of the "church" but I doubt it.

Also, the BWA is a organization that is accepting of anybody. I don't want to work with any denomination that denies the inerrancy of Scripture to do anything. The BWA has plenty of individuals and groups that hold that position.

Roman Catholic docrtrine was drawn up by the devil himself down in the dungeons of hell. Many people will go to spend eternity in the lake of fire due to this false doctrine.
Fine,if RW doesn't want to overkill in pointing out the error of RC doctrine. But his statements in the FAQs section of Saddleback gives you the idea that to him we don't need to worry to much about Catholics. Fact of the matter is this. If RW came out to clearly against RCism it would throw a wrench in his ecumenical PEACE plan plain and simple.
I guess in any big operation though your gonna have collateral damage that can't be avoided. In RW's view evidently its more important to accomplish the objectives of the peace plan than to warn people of the damning heresy of RCism.
For the life of me I cannot understand how for hundreds of years protestants from every denomination,group, fellowship etc...understood that RC doctrine is damning to and individual's soul. It is alarming to say the least that the RC doctrine hasn't changed since the days the church was burning men and women and children at the stake. Yet, all of a sudden in the last 10yrs. Alot of evangelicals have been revisiting their historical position of opposing RCism.
The RC church has robbed people spiritually and monetarily in South America for 100's of years. They continue to do so until this very moment.

Funny thing. Charles Spurgeon used to preach inbetween 10 and 20 thousand weekly yet he had no problem in condemning the heresy of RCism. It didn't effect his #'s at all.

Why do should american missionaries continue to go to predominately catholic countries to share the True Gospel when our own evangelical churches back home are going to stop trying to convert RC followers.
God have mercy on those who are falling for this lie of the devil. Woe be it to the pastors who fail to warn their flocks of this damning doctrine of RCism. I don't care what kind of brush you want to paint it with if a person is relying soley on the doctrine of RC ism for their salvation that individual is going burn in hell forever.
ECT, evangelicals and catholics together. Together on what issues. Purgatory? Mary Worship?Sacraments? Pope infallible? Tradition above Scripture? confessing to a priest? Works salvation? Indulgences? (still practiced in poor countries) shall I go on?
Jesus has got to be coming back sooner than later when people start believing RCism is sound doctrine. I hope He does come sooner. The longer this kind of philosophy is fostered in evangelical circles that is just more people going to hell because some lazy preacher who hasn't had an orginal thought since PDL came out won't tell some lost catholic about Jesus all because the baptist pope, RW advised them that is not the way to build a church.

 

Actually my methodology and theology have both evolved with time. There was a time when I was a critic of Warren and others like him. My conclusions have been reached through time and development.

No one claims Warren gets it right every time. Now go back and address the direct questions you have been asked and refused to answer.

And by admitting that your church has developed its purpose statements and paradigm in recent years might just be admitting the influence of the PDC in your own church's ministry.

And let's not pretend these two things are mutually exclusive.

I think anyone trusting in Jesus alone for their salvation is a Christian regardless of their stripe.

 

Sure you may be a RC and be saved. Your as lost as a goose though if you think you are saved because you are catholic. The former is not the majority the latter is. Which is another reason why RCism is flawed from the foundation up.

Better question for you AAG,

If one follows RC doctrine alone can that individual come to Christ or will that doctrine lead them astray?

Also, do I need to go to Spain as a missionary. The country is the least evangelized, spanish speaking country in the world.It is almost 97% RC. If RC doctrine can lead you to Christ. If it is biblical then other than the nominal catholics in Spain the majority of the people in that country are heaven bound because they trust "the Church".

IF RC doctrine alone cannot lead you to Christ why does RW not staunchly stand against it rather than making his views sort of vague since he has such a passion for souls? I can think of no greater tragedy than thinking I was going to heaven but really going to hell because my doctrine was false.

IF RC doctrine is not a clear rep. of the "true Gospel" then it is a "false gospel" Paul says let a man be accursed who preaches another Gospel. Why pray tell should a man such as RW with such influence come out with such a vanilla view of RCism?

Funny thing how RC creeds state plainly that anyone who does not adhere to their doctrine of the gospel is considered to be anathema. Funny, Paul said the same thing about his Gospel which was delivered to him not by man like RCism but directly from God.

Can both Paul and the RCC be right? Can they both be preaching the same Gospel? Paul's Gospel is a Gospel of grace by faith alone. RC gospel is grace by faith plus works plus the church. Is it not? Which is right?

RW states the Gospel pretty plainly in his Doc.statement of Saddleback yet when he has no problems agreeing with the BWA. He has no problem with RC's doing his PDL in their churches.
How can the RCC congregations enlist the PDL curriculum into their churches or groups and still hold true to their churche's teaching if RW does such a fine job of presenting the Gospel?

Either those catholics that participate in PDL are denying the teachings of their own church or RW doesn't state the Gospel plain enough.

Or the reformation was a hoax just like the holocost. Either that or all those people burned at the stake for grace by faith alone by the RCC died in vain because "HEY RC's and protestants , baptists have been believing the same all alone it has all been a big misunderstanding. Simply semantics, miscommunication that is all. Lets not discuss the things we disagree on like Mary worship, works salvation etc... Lets find some common ground and build on that.
Here is some common ground. It is even biblical.
When Paul was still named Saul he was a pharisee of pharisees. He was so zealous he tortured and killed christians. Why he even held the coat of one of the fellows that stoned Steven to death for believing Jesus Christ alone was his Savior.
There you have it the RCC church used to stone christians and so did Paul. Funny though Paul got saved and changed his ways. The RCC hasn't changed since they burned Martin Luther.

AAG you used to be a critic of RW but time and developement have changed your mind? So I suppose "results" are the gauge by which your methods are proven sound instead of the Bible? Smells pragmatic to me? (Not saying your not biblical) just pointing out what your quote sounds like. Your own post is evidence to some of the problems of the "seeker" philosophy. You state that your methods have evolved. Nothing wrong with that to a point. Until they evolve past the perimeters of Scripture. Which is where alot of people have taken this new philosophy. Maybe not yourself but others sure have.

 

==You still have not proven your other statement. How do you know what his motives in giving are? How do you know? Are you not aware of the Biblical fact that a person can be sincere, and be doing things for the "right" reasons, and still be wrong and in error?

Martin.

 

==You still have not proven your other statement. How do you know what his motives in giving are? How do you know? Are you not aware of the Biblical fact that a person can be sincere, and be doing things for the "right" reasons, and still be wrong and in error?

Martin. [/QB]</font>[/QUOTE]persistant, aren't you? perhaps you cannot grasp that a false teacher cannot have "good motives". when Jesus said that a corrupt tree cannot bring forth good fruit, but only evil, the motives are impure = evil.

Jesus said this about giving:

Matt 6:1-4 Take heed that all of you do not your alms before men, to be seen of them: otherwise all of you have no reward of your Father which is in heaven. Therefore when you do yours alms, do not sound a trumpet before you, as the hypocrites do in the synagogues and in the streets, that they may have glory of men. Verily I say unto you, They have their reward. But when you do alms, let not your left hand know what your right hand does: That yours alms may be in secret: and your Father which sees in secret himself shall reward you openly.

If we look at this particular issue about rick - it is abundantly obvious that he has blown his own horn. He has held up his good works before men and that is all the glory he will get. Do you understand that if man gets the glory - God gets none, zilch, nada, zip?

 

The site eloidalmanutha linked IS a parody site.

Eloidalmanutha, I've never read anything positive or uplifting from you, it's always you taking something, calling it evil, and supporting it with junk. Are you just looking for reactions?

 

==A false teacher can do things for what they believe to be proper, or good, motives (see Matt 21-23).

_____________________________________

==That is not the issue. The issue here is your claiming that you can read his motives when Scripture forbids that (1Cor 4:5). You still have not dealt with that point. Now does Rick Warren parade around his "good deeds"? Yes, as do many in the "popular evangelical" world. And you are 100% correct in showing how their actions are unBiblical. However I am not sure that they think it is wrong. I imagine they don't see themselves as boasting. That is my point: we can't know their motives. A person may look, to us, that they are parading around their charity and in fact not be doing that at all. We have to be careful before we abscribe motives to someone else. That is why we should not do it. We are perfectly correct to say that those who parade around their charity are wrong (even if they don't think they are) but we can't ascribe motives to them. God will judge their actions, words, and motives. We can only point out where their actions are unBiblical.

In Christ,
Martin.

 

Or I have a better idea ...

Let's attack and criticize other evangelicals or anyone else who is different than I am. Let's focus all of our attention on those inside the fold instead of those outside the fam.

And God forbid anyone use a text out of context, right Berean?

[ January 16, 2006, 09:40 PM: Message edited by: blackbird ]