Rick Warren

He didn't identify the paraphrases. He would put in quotations what the Bible said, and then when one would look them up in the NIV, NASU, KJV, etc., one would discover that the Bible didn't say that!

It's a weakness. I think it's a major weekness and can lead to an undermining of the Bible's authority.

Jesus and the Apostles when referencing Scripture didn't do anything close to what RW did. They summarized or paraphrased or quoted from Vorlage or LXX. But when you look up their quotes in the MT, the essence of the quote is the same.

Warren's use of paraphrases as Scripture was misleading. The Bible doesn't say what Warren said it did. At least not with the references he was citing.

Anyway, enough said. I hope he does better next time.

 

Richard,

I am glad you came back. Perhaps, you would like to take me up on my original offer and go discuss this issue about Rick Warren and the Purpose Driven Life here.

If you will do this, then I will apologize.

Welcome back, By the way.

Joseph Botwinick

 

Apologies should not be based on the other person's actions.

We cannot control another's actions - only our reactions...

 

Looks to me, Joseph, that you need to apologize and then begin a thread concerning your perception of Rick Warren or PDL.

By the way, yesterday a new member posted the same post/ question (regarding a cult leader) on numerous threads. I deleted all but one and sent him a note.

 

Diane: Joseph has already started another thread and it's six pages long.

http://www.baptistboard.com/ubb/ultimatebb.php/topic/10/5220.html

 

Jumping in on page six, with approx. 60 persons needing a response is quite unfair to Richard. He's going to get a lot of 'you ignored me' , 'why didn't you answer MY remarks!'

Is it a full moon?

 

I agree, Diane. He has pretty much answered all the questions that were asked of him and if he prefers to answer them on the thread HE started, that is his right...

As a matter of fact, there WAS a full moon last night.

 

RW continues to be a great source of discussion. I think RW has said some things worth saying. PDC is a good book for the most part, in that it focuses on what the church should be doing. His applications of that PDC philosophy are questionable in many cases.

Here are a few concerns I have.

1. He says that we should never criticize what God is blessing. However, RW has given no criteria to determine whether or not God is blessing something. That is a key failure of the book.

2. He says that his music philosophy and style is determined by listening to the radio during the week. In other words, the music used to worship God is based what the world uses to worship its god. That should be troubling even to the most uncritical thinker. I am not making a direct statement about RW's musical choices, but rather about the means by which he arrives at them. The church is not to be copying the world, yet that is exactly what he professes to do.

3. His use of Scripture borders between questionable and horrible. For instance, he says that a church needs to reminded of its purpose about every 30 days or so. That would be fine if he had stopped there. But his reasoning? Nehemiah encouraged the people building the wall after 26 days. That is a classic case of RW's bad exegesis. He went in search of a point and found it ... by distorting the text to mean something it was never intended to mean. He did exactly the same thingin the "40 days" argument. Are we really to believe that 40 days is a significant period of time, as opposed to other numbers of days, like three (Jesus in teh grave), or 6 (the days of creation), or __ (fill in your own example)? Why not 50 days? That was the number of days the church waited in the upper room for power from God. That seems like the most sensible number, were one to go down that route. This kind of reasoning that survives only because the church has not been taught to think critically. Warren should have said 40 days was the amount of time it took him to say what he wanted to say. That would have been easier, and exegetically defensible.

4. In PDL, the oft (and rightly) criticized use of multiple translations shows just how weak his use of Scripture is. It was unnecessary to do that. Why he did it we will probably never know.

5. PDL is being used by denominations and churches of all sorts. While I have no problem with a person using something for ministry, shouldn't it give pause to wonder why such a wide divergence of theological positions are comfortable using the same book? It should. It leads me to believe that the book is so inoffensive and untheological that people with directly divergent views can use it. I will admit to having read only about seven chapters. I really labored through the first seven and found it totally unconvincing and unappealing. (I have read PDC at least three times for exactly the opposite reason: It makes me think and work through issues).

I konw people who have been greatly encouraged and challenged by PDL. If someone asks, I tell them a few things about it. I don't discourage them from reading it. I think PDC is a very good book, a must read, if one is discerning about the issues involved in application.

In the end, we should be thankful for RW's positive contributions and discerning about the rest.

 

Pastor Larry,

I agree.

Joseph Botwinick

 

Any of you people trashing RW for PDL ever read Joyce Meyer? Kay Arthur? Do you own that stupid little book, The Prayer of Jabez... you know, Gimme, Gimme, Gimme?

Want to jump on someone. Compare Spurgeon's sermon on Jabez and Wilkinson's book.
http://www.seegod.org/prayer_of_jabez.htm

 

No, no, and no. Next question? Yes, I do think there is a full moon out tonight, Diane. Just look at your last post again and think about it.

Joseph Botwinick

 

Yes, I remember Wilkerson's book!! Like PDL---Jabez was the SBC's book version of the Hula Hoop!! Every church "had to have" one!!

I got my hands on a Hal Lindsey "Late Great Planet Earth"----remember that one from the '70's!!! Pastors were so "hip" if they got their members involved in that study.

These "Self Help" study books are nothing new---PDL ain't nothin' new----but it blows my mind that these type books can be so "faddish"---and catch on like wildfire over the convention---nothing but a fad---just like SUV's----everybody's got to have one!!!

Joyce Myer is about the only person who can write a 250 page book----and go on and on---and never "say" anything!!!

 

Yep, and didn’t think much of her.

Heard her on the radio and wasn’t impressed.

Yes, I bought it for twenty-five cents at a Goodwill store. Thought I should have a copy to criticize.

Now, it seems open season on everyone else but you, my dear lady, were taking some good ole boys to task a short while ago for being so hard on poor Richard and RW. Now, now…………is it fair for you to ridicule The Prayer of Jabaz and blast others who are applying a little heat to PDL? You must live by the same rules that you seek to impose on others. Shame on you.

No comparison. You can’t raise your standard higher by trashing everyone else. It’s rather like the kid caught smoking. He says, “Well, everyone else is doing it and after all, I don’t drink, do drugs or have sex.”

 

</font>[/QUOTE]It is probably overstating the case to claim that RW never preaches the gospel. Undoubtedly, there are allusions to it in various forms or one may point to a certain statement and call it a reference to the gospel. Rather, the point of contention is whether RW consistently preaches the gospel message as opposed a watered down culture friendly kind of message. It is a matter of philosophy and emphasis upon which we disagree.

My question concerns RW’s view of sin. Of course, you can cite references of his referring to a generic kind of sin. I would like to hear RA answer the following questions:
1. Does RW preach a consistent emphasis against sin and sinning?
2. What does RW preach as the penalty of sin?
3. Does he specifically and clearly state that men are sinners who are on their way to Hell?
4. Does he name sin and call specific actions and thoughts (i.e. lust, covetousness, drunkenness, adultery, homosexuality, lying, stealing, hatred, etc.) sinful?
5. Specifically, what is the gospel that RW preaches? Define it.
6. What does he teach about salvation? Repentance? Belief only? Pray and ask Jesus into your heart? What?

 

RA certainly added some excitement to this thread. He writes quite well but it is pure pabulum. He is smooth and convincing. However, there are no persuasive arguments—just a well-written, urbane style that soothes away the doubts. He has everyone salivating all over him. I didn’t count them but the apologies probably outnumbered the insults. And the ladies were positively swooning. After reading poor Richard’s web site, [uncalled for remark edited].

Richard, I trust you will stay and fence awhile. I ain’t sorry for anything I said.

At your pleasure.

[ July 23, 2005, 08:35 AM: Message edited by: dianetavegia ]

 

One of my issues with RW is his treatment of Scripture. Whereas I am fairly certain that he would profess a high regard for Scripture, his handling and use of Scriptures belies this. One can detect certain post-modern influences. The post-modern view of truth is experiential and relative. It would seem that RW and RA (Richard Abane) hold similar beliefs. A careful reading of Abane’s own view taken from his web site (http://www.abanes.com/abanespurpose.html) supports the supposition:

One cannot fail to note the lack of reference to Scripture. When one really believes Sola Scriptura, his source of truth is Scripture, not his own experiences or his inner self. We do not recognize or discover truth; an omniscient God reveals it to us. I challenge anyone to state a single TRUTH (i.e. timeless, universal, absolute) that man has discovered. (Some ingenious fellow will say, “Ah, the Law of Gravity!” Okay, perhaps I would begin to believe you if you can explain the three body problem.) We all have ideas, suppositions, insights, beliefs, conjectures, theories, ad infinitum but truth as TRUTH is only received from God.

Five observations from the quote, I think, point out poor Richard’s view of truth:
1. Truth is experiential.
2. Truth is all around us.
3. We can discover truth (i.e. not revealed).
4. Truth is relative to me.
5. Truth is personal (i.e. about me).
If most of my above five observations are anywhere near accurate, I would say these are a pretty good post-modern perception of truth.

 

How insulting! I wasn't swooning, nor did I see anyone else doing it.

I have not read PDL so I made no comments one way or the other about the book or its premise.

I have neither validated or denigrated RW as I know very little about him.

I was disgusted with the treatment of a new member of this board.

Anyone who has accepted the blood of Jesus as atonement for their sins, and acknowledged Jesus is Lord, is my brother/sister in Christ.

I'm just one of those 'foolish' people who still believe in the Golden Rule...

 

I've not read any of Rick Warren's books either, Sue. I don't know what we'd be 'swooning' about and am also very ashamed of how badly treated this brother in Christ has been since his first day. He's shown much restraint.

I think the quote below speaks volumes.