Rick Warren

[paidagogos]

Originally posted by All about Grace:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr /> Al Mohler has written an excellent article along the lines that I have been arguing. I recommend for your reading.

A few observations about the Mohler article. I know Al Mohler personally and have heard him speak many, many times, so I feel I am "knowledgable" of his opinions and beliefs.

- While Mohler is a giant in certain arenas of church life (99% which have to do with theology), he has a tendency, like some others who speak on this subject occasionally, to attack extremes and straw men. This is vivid in his attack upon the "majority" of evangelicals who do not embrace absolute truth. I know of very few major evangelical "spokesmen" who do not embrace absolute truth. Many of the unnamed victims in these articles are people who embrace the same view of truth as Mohler.

- While I respect Al Mohler as a theologian and seminary prez, he has never pastored a day in his life. My personal experience is that ivory tower theories about local church ministry often fall short of reality.

- Mohler has created a paradigm that sets up expository preaching as the ONLY right model. This paradigm is built solely on personal opinion and conclusion. It is not a method prescribed or even largely practiced in Scripture. Again this is one of the difficulties in being a theorist -- theories promoted behind a lecturn or a study door may or may not be reality in everyday ministry.

Again -- I appreciate Al Mohler. Anyone who knows him knows his passion to defend the truth. That does not make him the authority across the board on all subject matters related to church life. </font>[/QUOTE]I recommended Al Mohler's article, not Al Mohler! However, you did not address a single issue in the article but you tried to negate the points by neutralizing Al Mohler. If the points are valid and true, then it doesn't matter who wrote it. It is ironic that you have taken others, including me, to task for criticizing RW but you have done the same to to Al Mohler in a nice, polite, pious way. What did Christ say about those who condemn the thing they do themselves? Instead of discussing substantive issues regarding RW's ministry, this thread has degenerated into a partisan defense of RW and PDL. RW has become a sacred cow.

 

[All about Grace]

I recommended Al Mohler's article, not Al Mohler!

Fair enough.

There is very little in the article with which I disagree. I have no problems with what he has to say about the objectivity of truth. My only disagreement with anything he said is the implication that expository preaching is the only model by which doctrine can be taught and biblical preaching is done.

Doctrine is caught as well as taught and doctrine that does not translate into obedience is mere head knowledge. One does not have to preach expositionally in order to communicate doctrine and preach the Bible.

Notice how I answered your objections. I will continue to wait for answers to my questions raised above.

 

[Paul33]

Man, RA, all of the above abuse to find out you didn't ask him why he used the Scriptures in the manner he did.

--------------------

P: Did you not ask him about this criticism? Did he not discuss this with you?
RA: NO, we had to deal with so much other #@%^&*
that we filled about 12-14 pages worth of interview material as it was. I asked several pointed questions, but not this particular one. There, despite all of the other information I cover, you can ignore all of it and just focus on my not discussing this one issue with him. Way ahead of you Paul.

----------------------------

For a guy who wined about how he was treated when he first came on the BB, you sure have a knack for not letting go and dishing it out yourself.

Bitter to the very end, aren't you?

 

[Paul33]

RA,

I've got to laugh at your responses.

I apologized to you for taking a hike, if your intentions were to discuss Warren and not SPAM the board.

You obviously are confusing me with someone else, because I didn't share any misinformation about Warren. I freely admitted I didn't know, that's why I was asking questions.

I asked several questions for the purpose of hearing from you the facts.

But in the process, you did nothing but throw around accusations and guess at what my motives were for asking the questions.

And then, in the end, the one burning question that I had about Warren you couldn't answer. And even in that, I'm to blame!

And this is how you treat me because I told you to take a hike?

 

[richard abanes]

PAUL: And then, in the end, the one burning question that I had about Warren you couldn't answer.

RA: Again, like Mormons, you refer to answers as non-answers because you don't like the answers. ah well.

RA

 

[USN2Pulpit]

Originally posted by paidagogos:
Al Mohler has written an excellent article along the lines that I have been arguing. I recommend for your reading.

http://www.albertmohler.com/commentary_read.php?cdate=2005-07-01

Compromise and Confusion in the Churches
Friday, July 01, 2005

The church today finds itself assaulted without--and even within--by a culture and worldview of untruth, anti-truth, and postmodern irrationality. In fact, researchers increasingly report that a majority of evangelicals themselves reject the notion of absolute or objective truth. The seductive lure of postmodern relativism has pervaded many evangelical pulpits and countless evangelical pews, often couched as humility, sensitivity, or sophistication. The culture has us in its grip, and many feel no discomfort.

The absence of doctrinal precision and biblical preaching marks the current evangelical age. Doctrine is considered outdated by some and divisive by others. The confessional heritage of the church is neglected and, in some cases, seems even to be an embarrassment to updated evangelicals. Expository preaching--once the hallmark and distinction of the evangelical pulpit--has been replaced in many churches by motivational messages, therapeutic massaging of the self, and formulas for health, prosperity, personal integration, and celestial harmony.

Almost a century ago, J.C. Ryle, the great evangelical bishop, warned of such diversions from truth: "I am afraid of an inward disease which appears to be growing and spreading in all the Churches of Christ throughout the world. That disease is a disposition on the part of ministers to abstain from all sharply-cut doctrine, and a distaste on the part of professing Christians for all distinct statements of dogmatic truth."

A century later, Ryle's diagnosis is seen as prophetic, and the disease is assuredly terminal. The various strains of the truth-relativizing virus are indicated by different symptoms and diverse signs, but the end is the same. Among the strains now threatening the evangelical churches is the temptation to find a halfway house between modernity and biblical truth. Another is the call for an "evangelical mega-shift," which would transform orthodox evangelical conviction into the categories of modern process thought. This is a road that leads to disaster and away from the faith once for all delivered to the saints.

What is our proper response to all this? Should we devote our attention and energies to epistemology and metaphysics? Must we spend ourselves in arguments concerning foundationalism and non-foundationalism? While these issues are not unimportant, they cannot be our central concern. Again, the words of Ryle speak to our age: "Let no scorn of the world, let no ridicule of smart writers, let no sneers of liberal critics, let no secret desire to please and conciliate the public, tempt us for one moment to leave the old paths, and drop the old practice of enunciating doctrine--clear, distinct, well-defined, and sharply-cut doctrine--in all utterances and teachings."

We contend for the objectivity of truth, and we must insist that all persons do actually believe in the objectivity of Truth. The fact is that even the relativists objectivize their own positions. The difference for us is that we know that truth exists in God, who is Truth, and whose Word is truth. Our knowledge is true only in so far as it corresponds with God's revealed truth. We are dependent upon the Word, the Word is not dependent upon us. As Martin Luther stated so clearly, "The objectivity and certainty of the Word remain even if it isn't believed." We have no right to seek refuge in a halfway house of false epistemological humility. To deny the truthfulness of God's Word is not an act of humility, but of unspeakable arrogance.

This is our proper epistemological humility - not that it is not possible for us to know, but that the truth is not our own. We are dependent upon the Word of God. Indeed, we submit ourselves to the Word of God, as believers, teachers, and preachers. And this is genuine knowledge, revealed knowledge. It is knowledge of which we are not ashamed. As Gordon Clark warned: "If man can know nothing truly, man can truly know nothing. We cannot know that the Bible is the Word of God, that Christ died for our sin, or that Christ is alive today at the right hand of the Father. Unless knowledge is possible, Christianity is non-sensical, for it claims to be knowledge. What is at stake in the twentieth century is not simply a single doctrine, such as the Virgin Birth, or the existence of Hell, as important as those doctrines may be, but the whole of Christianity itself. If knowledge is not possible to man, it is worse than silly to argue points of doctrine--it is insane."

We confess that knowledge is possible, but knowledge of spiritual things is revealed. Without the Word of God we would know nothing of redemption, of Christ, of God's sovereign provision for us. We would have no true knowledge of ourselves, of our sin, of our hopelessness but for the mercy of Christ. As Professor R. B. Kuiper reminded his students, the most direct, the simplest, and most honest answer to the question, "How do you know?" is this: "The Bible tells us so."

As Jesus reminded Peter, immediately after Peter's majestic confession, "Flesh and blood did not reveal this to you, but My Father who is in heaven" (Matt. 16:17). So it is with us: Our true knowledge was not revealed to us by flesh and blood, and certainly was not discovered on our own by the power of our own rationality and insight; it is revealed to us in the Word of God.

This is our proper humility. But we must be on guard against an improper and faithless humility. Wilfred Cantwell Smith has asserted that "it is morally not possible to actually go out into the world and say to devout, intelligent fellow human beings: We believe that we know God and we are right; you believe that you know God, and you are totally wrong." Of course, Smith is correct; we have no right to assert such a statement, in and of ourselves and of our own knowledge. But we have no right not to bear witness to the truth of God's Word, and on that basis to proclaim the truth revealed in God's Word.

For this reason, our defense of biblical inerrancy is never a diversion or distraction from our proper task. This is why those who affirm biblical inerrancy and those who deny inerrancy are divided, not by a minor distinction, but by an immense epistemological and theological chasm.

Every aspect of the theological task and every doctrinal issue are affected by the answer to this fundamental question: Is the Bible the authentic, authoritative, inspired, and inerrant Word of God in written form, and thus God's faithful witness to himself? For the believing church, the answer must be yes. With the framers of the Chicago Statement on Biblical Inerrancy, we affirm that "The authority of Scripture is inescapably impaired if this total divine inerrancy is in any way limited or disregarded, or made relative to a view of truth contrary to the Bible's own; and such lapses bring serious loss to both the individual and the Church. We confess and affirm the truthfulness of Scripture in every respect, and we stand under the authority of the Word of God, never over the Word. In other words, we come to the Scriptures, not with a postmodern hermeneutic of suspicion, but with a faithful hermeneutic of submission."

As our Lord stated concerning the Scriptures, "Thy Word is Truth" (John 17:17). And, as Paul wrote to Timothy, "All Scripture is inspired by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, for training in righteousness" (2 Tim. 3:16). Made clear in this text is the inescapable truth that our task is to teach and to preach this Word; to reprove, to correct, and to train in righteousness. Should our churches return in faithfulness to this fundamental charge, the secular worldview would lose its grip on the believing church.


This article originally appeared on March 10, 2005. New daily columns will resume on August 1, 2005. Until then, please keep watching Dr. Mohler's Blog, which will continue to be updated periodically through July.

wow...(just doing my part to get this thread to the 10-page limit)

 

[shannonL]

RA it does seem a little strange that the one criticism directed towards RW that would raisethe most concern would be the one concerning the misuse of Scripture. The other criticisms are really obscure compared to that one.
It is, I believe the one critique that you agree with yourself to a point. According to some of your posts.
It would seem that you would want to clear that one up the most? If it was my home church pastor and folk would want to try and discredit his ministry the one thing I would despise the most is someone, or a group of people claiming my pastor didn't know his Bible or mishandled it.

I think it was both you and All about Grace who admitted that RW doesnt get it right all the time.
Its almost sounds like this if you read between the lines: Well, ole RW is doing so much good in other areas we will cut him some slack on his exegesis.
In the beginning of PDL RW stretches the 40 days thing just a bit. You even admit this RA. Now while it wasn't much of a stretch it was still a stretch. Now I'm not calling RW a heretic,false teacher etc... However; when those little exaggerations pop up in the introduction of a man's book he opens himself up to scrutiny from other bible students. It causes red flags to pop up in people's minds who know a little bit about their bible. It will not make one bit of difference to someone who picks up PDL at Wal-mart or at a Sam's Club who has never read the Bible but was attracted to the catchy name of the book. Which is not fair to that person.
I'm not trying to be a nitpicker but simply saying RW set himself up to be nitpicked by playing a little loose with Scripture.
If you want to cut him some slack because RW is human and "doesn't always get it right". Cut that slack somewherelse other than how he handled the text in his book. Cut him some slack over his methodology or his views on worship. Those issues are debatable. Saying the 12 spies were transformed by their 40 day experience is almost laughable. Even my 9 and 11 year old daughters had a easy time with that one. Why did RW try to fit that into the central message of his book when there is no way it will fit?
How could a guy with so much preaching experience etc... make such a obvious blunder with Scripture? I personally just think its because it went well with the theme of his book and he just let it go. ???
RA, I have a wonderful pastor. Folk can pick on him about everything but I'll go to bat for him everytime when it comes to how he handles the Word of God. Yet, out of all your interview you missed that one. Maybe its because your friends or maybe because he is your a mentor in some ways you felt a little sheepish about confronting him with that kind of question? It would be understandable.
I'm not gonna go off the deep end about the book alot of good stuff in there. Yet, according to one major magazine RW is quite possibly considered "America's Pastor" therefore; he above all else should be extremely careful on how he handles the Text when writing best-sellers that everyone the world over is being exposed to instead of trying to squeeze portions of it into his books. You should have asked him that question. I believe you gave him a pass.

 

[richard abanes]

S: RA it does seem a little strange that the one criticism directed towards RW that would raisethe most concern would be the one concerning the misuse of Scripture.
RA: It's also the one that consumed the most amount of room. I actually wrote about 20-25 pages on the issue, but it was cut in favor of ebing able to address several points as opposed to just one. I answer this very question in an interview I am doing for Tim Challies that will appear on his site.


S: The other criticisms are really obscure compared to that one.
RA: The others are NOT obscure. They address several issuse being raised in two books against Warren that have become VERY popular.


S: It is, I believe the one critique that you agree with yourself to a point.
RA: See the Challies interview when it is posted.


S: I think it was both you and All about Grace who admitted that RW doesnt get it right all the time.
RA: True. I think you'll enjoy my CHallies interview answer. I don't want to steal his thunder from that interview.

RA

 

[All about Grace]

ShannonL:

Does your pastor get it right every time?

And I know you seem very hung up on the 40 days intro. I am not sure why. There are a number of scholars who point to the uniqueness of the time period 40 days that God often uses to prepare someone or do something. This is not a new idea promoted solely by RW.

 

[webdog]

Hasn't it been proven that a habit is formed or broken around 40 days, also? Hmmm....

 

[shannonL]

I'm not really hung up on it. I just used that point to point out the fact that because he missed it on some of the 40 day scenarios at the beginning it just makes one a little leary of other passages he uses in the book. Personally, I'm not a big fan of using partial verses in the setting that RW did. It is just a little careless.
Also, his appendix concerning the translations comes across like he is having to justify his use of all of them. All that being said there are still valuable tools, examples to gain from going through the book.
BTW, I attend a good,growing baptist church in Ohio, we run about 300. Our pastor uses the KJV and nothingelse. Yet, he took us through the PDL while all the while he makes it plain that he thinks the KJV is the best version for english speaking people. We utilized the workbook that came with the 40 days of purpose. Ours was all KJV scripture in the workbook.
It was kinda funny reading the book with all the translations then going through the workbook with just the KJV. It was kind of confusing.
Maybe we are in somekind of transition at my church.
I'm just posting for fun. This PDL horse needs to be put out to pasture. God is in control of his church. Not the fundamentalists, evangelicals, contempary folk, traditionalist. etc....

 

[paidagogos]

Originally posted by All about Grace:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr /> I recommended Al Mohler's article, not Al Mohler!

Fair enough.

There is very little in the article with which I disagree. I have no problems with what he has to say about the objectivity of truth. My only disagreement with anything he said is the implication that expository preaching is the only model by which doctrine can be taught and biblical preaching is done.

Doctrine is caught as well as taught and doctrine that does not translate into obedience is mere head knowledge. One does not have to preach expositionally in order to communicate doctrine and preach the Bible.

Notice how I answered your objections. I will continue to wait for answers to my questions raised above. </font>[/QUOTE]Thank you. At last, there is someone with whom I can debate this issue rationally. You are very perceptive in cutting to the basics here. IMHO, Mohler’s view of truth naturally leads to his preference of expository preaching. (I don’t know that he accepts expository preaching as the ONLY method but you are close.) The only objective truth is the revealed truth of God’s Word. All other knowledge is subjective content open to question, debate and refutation. We preach God’s truth through careful exegesis and cautious exposition. (We don’t make a point just because it preaches well.)

Allegorical preaching, on the other hand, is generally the fanciful product of a man’s mind. It is not based necessarily on objective truth. Due to the extensive use of the allegorical method, the man in the pew has come to believe that “the Bible can mean whatever you want it to mean.” Every preach has a different sermon and meaning from the same text. Thus, the objectivity of truth, although professed in dogma, is lost in practice. Scripture, according to our understanding of truth, has one and only one meaning although many applications. In expositional preaching, we must preach the meaning and purpose of the text and then apply it to life situations.

Many preachers, IMHO, have found a looser, allegorical approach appeals more easily to people. Allegorical preaching may be encouraging and inspiring but the intended purpose and meaning of the text is lost. This applies in varying degrees across the spectrum from Joel Osteen to Rick Warren to Bill Hybels to Jack Hyles (deceased). Although theologically diverse and from different camps, RW and JH are comparable in their approach to Scripture and preaching in many ways. Both made Scripture fit their points more than preserving the original intent and purpose of the passage. Once one minimizes doctrine or fails to preach doctrine, regardless of theological persuasion, he is prone to preaching error and to promoting theological illiteracy among his following.

I say preach the text expositionally and make the application to life. Holding to a high view of truth and only one Scriptural meaning, we cannot and dare not make the content fit the point, even if the point may be good or even true. This is what I call the fixity of Scripture. It does not lend itself to various meanings, even though we may not always understand the correct interpretation. This is mandated by a high view of Scripture as objective truth—the only objective truth.

My point is that professing belief in objective truth is not sufficient. One must also work out his beliefs and principles by the methods he employs. Two men may both profess the standard of objective truth and mean different things. What they mean is further defined by how they apply their credo. This dovetails nicely with your point that “[d]octrine is caught as well as taught and doctrine that does not translate into obedience is mere head knowledge.”

I heartily agree with you. I like the old Jewish idea that a thought or principle does not belong to you unless you apply it and put it into practice. IMHO, one does not believe what he claims if he doesn’t practice it. Of course, none of us can be 100% consistent with our principles—such is the human condition. However, principles and practice are irrevocable connected.

I’m sorry but I’m not sure what other questions you are asking me to address. I will review the previous posts. The sheer volume has caused me to pick and choose.

Again, your post was refreshingly straightforward. Thank you.

 

[paidagogos]

Originally posted by webdog:
Hasn't it been proven that a habit is formed or broken around 40 days, also? Hmmm....

Nope, some say 30 days. Naturally, it greatly varies from individual to individual depending on how rapidly the neurons form new receptors. The time is also affected by other competing neural pathways (i.e. bad habits). Nothing here. Look elsewhere. You would probably be just as well off asking, "Why did it rain 40 days and 40 nights in the Noachian Flood?"

 

[USN2Pulpit]

Originally posted by shannonL:
RA it does seem a little strange that the one criticism directed towards RW that would raisethe most concern would be the one concerning the misuse of Scripture. The other criticisms are really obscure compared to that one.
It is, I believe the one critique that you agree with yourself to a point. According to some of your posts.
It would seem that you would want to clear that one up the most? If it was my home church pastor and folk would want to try and discredit his ministry the one thing I would despise the most is someone, or a group of people claiming my pastor didn't know his Bible or mishandled it.

I think it was both you and All about Grace who admitted that RW doesnt get it right all the time.
Its almost sounds like this if you read between the lines: Well, ole RW is doing so much good in other areas we will cut him some slack on his exegesis.
In the beginning of PDL RW stretches the 40 days thing just a bit. You even admit this RA. Now while it wasn't much of a stretch it was still a stretch. Now I'm not calling RW a heretic,false teacher etc... However; when those little exaggerations pop up in the introduction of a man's book he opens himself up to scrutiny from other bible students. It causes red flags to pop up in people's minds who know a little bit about their bible. It will not make one bit of difference to someone who picks up PDL at Wal-mart or at a Sam's Club who has never read the Bible but was attracted to the catchy name of the book. Which is not fair to that person.
I'm not trying to be a nitpicker but simply saying RW set himself up to be nitpicked by playing a little loose with Scripture.
If you want to cut him some slack because RW is human and "doesn't always get it right". Cut that slack somewherelse other than how he handled the text in his book. Cut him some slack over his methodology or his views on worship. Those issues are debatable. Saying the 12 spies were transformed by their 40 day experience is almost laughable. Even my 9 and 11 year old daughters had a easy time with that one. Why did RW try to fit that into the central message of his book when there is no way it will fit?
How could a guy with so much preaching experience etc... make such a obvious blunder with Scripture? I personally just think its because it went well with the theme of his book and he just let it go. ???
RA, I have a wonderful pastor. Folk can pick on him about everything but I'll go to bat for him everytime when it comes to how he handles the Word of God. Yet, out of all your interview you missed that one. Maybe its because your friends or maybe because he is your a mentor in some ways you felt a little sheepish about confronting him with that kind of question? It would be understandable.
I'm not gonna go off the deep end about the book alot of good stuff in there. Yet, according to one major magazine RW is quite possibly considered "America's Pastor" therefore; he above all else should be extremely careful on how he handles the Text when writing best-sellers that everyone the world over is being exposed to instead of trying to squeeze portions of it into his books. You should have asked him that question. I believe you gave him a pass.

I'm not sure I agree, but your post provokes thought.

 

[USN2Pulpit]

Originally posted by paidagogos:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by All about Grace:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr /> I recommended Al Mohler's article, not Al Mohler!

Fair enough.

There is very little in the article with which I disagree. I have no problems with what he has to say about the objectivity of truth. My only disagreement with anything he said is the implication that expository preaching is the only model by which doctrine can be taught and biblical preaching is done.

Doctrine is caught as well as taught and doctrine that does not translate into obedience is mere head knowledge. One does not have to preach expositionally in order to communicate doctrine and preach the Bible.

Notice how I answered your objections. I will continue to wait for answers to my questions raised above. </font>[/QUOTE]Thank you. At last, there is someone with whom I can debate this issue rationally. You are very perceptive in cutting to the basics here. IMHO, Mohler’s view of truth naturally leads to his preference of expository preaching. (I don’t know that he accepts expository preaching as the ONLY method but you are close.) The only objective truth is the revealed truth of God’s Word. All other knowledge is subjective content open to question, debate and refutation. We preach God’s truth through careful exegesis and cautious exposition. (We don’t make a point just because it preaches well.)

Allegorical preaching, on the other hand, is generally the fanciful product of a man’s mind. It is not based necessarily on objective truth. Due to the extensive use of the allegorical method, the man in the pew has come to believe that “the Bible can mean whatever you want it to mean.” Every preach has a different sermon and meaning from the same text. Thus, the objectivity of truth, although professed in dogma, is lost in practice. Scripture, according to our understanding of truth, has one and only one meaning although many applications. In expositional preaching, we must preach the meaning and purpose of the text and then apply it to life situations.

Many preachers, IMHO, have found a looser, allegorical approach appeals more easily to people. Allegorical preaching may be encouraging and inspiring but the intended purpose and meaning of the text is lost. This applies in varying degrees across the spectrum from Joel Osteen to Rick Warren to Bill Hybels to Jack Hyles (deceased). Although theologically diverse and from different camps, RW and JH are comparable in their approach to Scripture and preaching in many ways. Both made Scripture fit their points more than preserving the original intent and purpose of the passage. Once one minimizes doctrine or fails to preach doctrine, regardless of theological persuasion, he is prone to preaching error and to promoting theological illiteracy among his following.

I say preach the text expositionally and make the application to life. Holding to a high view of truth and only one Scriptural meaning, we cannot and dare not make the content fit the point, even if the point may be good or even true. This is what I call the fixity of Scripture. It does not lend itself to various meanings, even though we may not always understand the correct interpretation. This is mandated by a high view of Scripture as objective truth—the only objective truth.

My point is that professing belief in objective truth is not sufficient. One must also work out his beliefs and principles by the methods he employs. Two men may both profess the standard of objective truth and mean different things. What they mean is further defined by how they apply their credo. This dovetails nicely with your point that “[d]octrine is caught as well as taught and doctrine that does not translate into obedience is mere head knowledge.”

I heartily agree with you. I like the old Jewish idea that a thought or principle does not belong to you unless you apply it and put it into practice. IMHO, one does not believe what he claims if he doesn’t practice it. Of course, none of us can be 100% consistent with our principles—such is the human condition. However, principles and practice are irrevocable connected.

I’m sorry but I’m not sure what other questions you are asking me to address. I will review the previous posts. The sheer volume has caused me to pick and choose.

Again, your post was refreshingly straightforward. Thank you. </font>[/QUOTE]I also appreciate the to-the-point post.

 

[webdog]

Originally posted by paidagogos:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by webdog:
Hasn't it been proven that a habit is formed or broken around 40 days, also? Hmmm....

Nope, some say 30 days. Naturally, it greatly varies from individual to individual depending on how rapidly the neurons form new receptors. The time is also affected by other competing neural pathways (i.e. bad habits). Nothing here. Look elsewhere. You would probably be just as well off asking, "Why did it rain 40 days and 40 nights in the Noachian Flood?" </font>[/QUOTE]I believe you are wrong. The time to make or break a habit, according to extensive scientific study, is roughly 6 weeks, not the 4 you claim.
Why did it rain for 40 days and nights? I don't know. Why, in your opinion, do you think 40 days is mentioned so often in the Bible if there is no significant meaning?

 

[paidagogos]

Noachian

Originally posted by richard abanes:
PAUL33: . . . talks . . .
RA: Talks?? What talks??? I believe I posted two relevant statements:

1) "I myself criticized Warren in my various posts." And I have. he has not commented on them.
2) . . . people are correcting Rick all of the time. [They are—I, however, am not on staff]. Clearly, I am saying it publicly so I have no problem telling Rick anything to his face. [This is true, but I have not seen Rick since my interview with him since May 4—except once in passing at church]. In my book I actually say Warren is not perfect, and that he has not always said or written everything perfectly."

I don't believer I ever said that i have had talks with Rick. I mean, it's not like he and I have lunch everyday. Again, I have not even seem him for 2 1/2 months!


PAUL33: "Can you shed any light on his reasons for doing so, and has he indicated any regret for doing so?"
RA: I don't speak for Rick or make my private conversations with him (or anyone else) public. I have only quoted and continue to quote what Warren has stated publicly, and also my thoughts on what he has stated publicly in print and in his sermons.

And besides, I have not met with him to go through his book verse by verse and say, "Good here, Rickie; bad here Rickie; naughty in this one dear pastor; but good job on this one."

Goodness, the man is not a child. He is probably the most powerful/influential evangelical in the Christian world. He has people whose position it is to discuss such things with him—it's not me. Of course, if he said, "Hey, Rich, what do you think of this verse, or this argument"—then, I'd tell him.

I never implied anywhere that I have had "talks" with him. I'm sure how you got that impression. It was not intended. Did anyone else pick up such an implication from anything I wrote????

RAbanes

PS What I find most interetsing here in the posts of PAUL33 and PAID is that instead of resolving one issue by saying, "Ok, I see that, sure I was wrong there, now how about this," they just keep rushing forward with more and miore accusations, implied accusations, leading questions, and attempts to keep pinning stuff on Warren. There is no stopping to clean up the mess they have left. Interesting. There is already a plethora of accusations that PAUL and PAID should be saying, "oops, I was wrong about that," but we see no such remarks.

There’s no reason for me to retract or apologize.

 

[rc]

PDC is the Downgrade Controversy all over again.
If we do not learn from history, we are bound to repeat it.

 

[paidagogos]

Originally posted by webdog:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by paidagogos:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by webdog:
Hasn't it been proven that a habit is formed or broken around 40 days, also? Hmmm....

Nope, some say 30 days. Naturally, it greatly varies from individual to individual depending on how rapidly the neurons form new receptors. The time is also affected by other competing neural pathways (i.e. bad habits). Nothing here. Look elsewhere. You would probably be just as well off asking, "Why did it rain 40 days and 40 nights in the Noachian Flood?" </font>[/QUOTE]I believe you are wrong. The time to make or break a habit, according to extensive scientific study, is roughly 6 weeks, not the 4 you claim. </font>[/QUOTE]I don’t think so. Did you read the published research or is this hearsay? Can you give me the references so I can look up and read the study for myself? I’d be interested in the research design. Except for a few esoteric guys, such as me, no one is doing anything much with habituation and I’m not doing hands on research now, just theory. Everyone else is on the genetic binge.

Why did it rain for 40 days and nights? I don't know. Why, in your opinion, do you think 40 days is mentioned so often in the Bible if there is no significant meaning?

I don’t know either. Perhaps it took 40 days to cover the mountain peaks. There is no necessary causal relationship by the frequency of a number appearing in unrelated phenomena. What does the length of a flood have to do with Christ’s fasting? People try to find special significance and hidden meaning in numbers. Whereas there is some symbolic meaning to certain numbers, I really don’t think God tried to obscure His revelation in some spiritual number scheme. This was the work of Jewish mystics. Methinks we are reading into Scripture when we begin to search for implication in things where the Scripture indicates no undertone.

 

[paidagogos]

Originally posted by rc:
PDC is the Downgrade Controversy all over again.
If we do not learn from history, we are bound to repeat it.

Good observation! Yet, how many realize the outcome of the Downgrade Controversy?