• Welcome to Baptist Board, a friendly forum to discuss the Baptist Faith in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to all the features that our community has to offer.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!

The Purpose Driven Life by Rick Warren

Bob Colgan

New Member
Bob not true that all I do is critique the opinions of others. I shared my problems with the book. The direction I believe alot of churches are going ie Baptist Southern I have great problems with it not only me but many others not only from KJVO camp (I'm not KJVO but true I am a Calvinist.) but all over the Christian Camp. But every one has a diffrent view. So praise the Lord for He is worthy of are praise. We see through a glass dimley but one day we will see clearly and understand it all. Enof for me on this thread


Bob
 

bjonson

New Member
Bob Colgan,

You are correct. This is my frustration as well. I provided direct quotes and examples of incorrect exegesis and Dr. Bob doesn't address it, nor does SBCbyGrace or Johnv. They simply defend Warren without discussing the details.

For the record - I am not saying Rick Warren is a heretic in any way. I do not believe he has impure motives because I don't see evidence of that. I do believe he is caught up in a major philosophical shift in evangelicalism that, utimately, will not help the church endure the doctrinal errors of these last days.

I would like to discuss the specific errors that I've found, but can't get any interest from some folks. And, that's fine. I'll simply visit some other threads and let it go.
 

Baptist in Richmond

Active Member
Originally posted by bjonson:
For the record - I am not saying Rick Warren is a heretic in any way.
:eek: :eek:

That depends upon your definition of the word "heretic."
If you define the word to mean "a person who holds religious beliefs in conflict with the dogma of the Roman Catholic Church," then you definitely did not say that Rick Warren "is a heretic in any way." HOWEVER, if you define the word to mean "somebody who adheres to an opinion or belief that contradicts established religious teaching," then yes you did. One needs only to look at the statements made the link provided on the previous page to see that.
Hey: that is your opinion. I don't have a problem with that - I simply do not agree with you, and you did not convince me.
 

Dr. Bob

Administrator
Administrator
Originally posted by bjonson:
I would like to discuss the specific errors that I've found, but can't get any interest from some folks.
Please start a thread on a specific error. You need not attach PDL to it, as error is error and its application to PDL etc will be evident.

Use a rifle and aim at a direct-enough target, rather than a shotgun approach. There ARE errors in PDL and you will prolly find uniform agreement in condemning them.
 

bjonson

New Member
Originally posted by Baptist in Richmond:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by bjonson:
For the record - I am not saying Rick Warren is a heretic in any way.
:eek: :eek:

That depends upon your definition of the word "heretic."
If you define the word to mean "a person who holds religious beliefs in conflict with the dogma of the Roman Catholic Church," then you definitely did not say that Rick Warren "is a heretic in any way." HOWEVER, if you define the word to mean "somebody who adheres to an opinion or belief that contradicts established religious teaching," then yes you did. One needs only to look at the statements made the link provided on the previous page to see that.
Hey: that is your opinion. I don't have a problem with that - I simply do not agree with you, and you did not convince me.
</font>[/QUOTE]A heretic is one who denies the foundational doctrines of Christianity. I do not have evidence that Rick Warren does that. I am accusing him of interpretation and hermeneutical errors, but not heresy. I've made this clear.
 

Bob Colgan

New Member
Why don't we agree to disagree any proof that Bjohnson are myself show you. You say its not proof. That artical that Bjohnson linked to is a good arguement the way he uses those so called Bible translations is enof for me. There probley is no one I can agree with 100%. As Dr Bob said there are errors, if the way he uses scripture is not enof of a warning than I don't know what is I can disagree with someone and still respect them but as soon as they start messing with and twisting Gods word that is where I must draw the line. The New Evangelical movement to me is very very dangerous. You guys don't agree you have many who agree with you who are very popular people.
You can call me a KJVO (I'm not) are what ever names you want. I'll stick with the guys I look up to Johnny Mac, Spurgen, Bridges, Ryle, Sproul ect... The doctrine you seem to hold onto is libarel garbage I relize its very populare but still is garbage. And waters down the Word of God and is a feel good message. It seems to not want to offend any one are hurt there feelings.

Bob

Bob
 

superdave

New Member
My doctrinal statement is based on the Word of God, I would appreciate it if you would refrain from calling it "libarel garbage" especially since its not real popular. Clearly you have no interest in discussing the actual topic we attempted to address.
 

Marcia

Active Member
Is the only clear critique of PDL that anyone here can articulate for themselves (not from an article) that Warren uses non-KJV scripture quotes? That is not a problem for me (though his use of the Message is).

I can come up with some specific things in PDL that I don't like but it's not enough to call the book a bad book. I've been waiting for some kind of specific criticism from someone here who has read the book but so far nothing except Warren uses MV's.
 

Marcia

Active Member
Bob, you have said this before. In 3 or 4 sentences, please describe what you mean by "the new evangelical movement" and how PDL supports that?
 

bjonson

New Member
Originally posted by Marcia:
Is the only clear critique of PDL that anyone here can articulate for themselves (not from an article) that Warren uses non-KJV scripture quotes? That is not a problem for me (though his use of the Message is).

I can come up with some specific things in PDL that I don't like but it's not enough to call the book a bad book. I've been waiting for some kind of specific criticism from someone here who has read the book but so far nothing except Warren uses MV's.
Marcia,

I answered this by showing one example of many where Warren misinterprets Matthew 16:25. Did you read that post?
 

Marcia

Active Member
bjonson, I was talking to Bob C because he has made many general statements without explaining or giving examples from PDL.

As far as the Matt 16.25 comment, I found your post -- I think I had to go back to page 3 or 4 -- and it seems the problem was that Warren used The Message. I have already stated several times that that is one of my problems with PDL. I also believe that Warren sometimes uses scripture to back up what he says but the scripture he uses doesn't do that (I even noted these in the book). But this is the exception. He does say some good things.

What I was asking for was criticism from those making general statements besides
1. PDL quotes from MV's
2. PDL quotes from The Message

As I said, I have disagreements with some things Warren says but some of the posters here have made comments about PDL being horrible without any evidence or without even sounding like they read the book.

I do not think PDL is a great book. I would say that it has good parts in it and has some good things to say, but I have disagreement on other things he says (besides the fact that he uses The Message which is one of my bigger problems with the book).
 

Bob Colgan

New Member
Originally posted by Marcia:
Bob, you have said this before. In 3 or 4 sentences, please describe what you mean by "the new evangelical movement" and how PDL supports that?
Marcia,
I think I'll start a thread on this subject. I am interestided to know how people define New Evangelical movement. And what there openion is of it. As you can tell i"m not a fan of it. My guess is most will be in favor of it from what I have read around here.

Bob
 

superdave

New Member
Bob, yes, by your definition of fundamentalism, many here who are historic IFB will be labelled neo by your apparent preconceived notions.

Here is a quote from another of the threads on new-evangelicalism that I thought was telling
It is from Dan Davey,

Fundamentalism is viewed today through the eyes of not just the younger generation, but many in the evangelical movement, as a group of small thinkers, loud talkers, and silly teachers. Yet, what they really see is not, I repeat, not, those who identify themselves as "historic fundamentalists" but a loud, dominate, vocal group of "cultural fundamentalists." This narrow subset of fundamentalists equate any change or moderation from the past as synonymous with spiritual compromise and worldliness. They are suspicious of anyone in their movement who reads from a different English translation, sings from a different hymnbook, embraces a different methodological principle for church visitation or church worship, or reaches out to someone of a different ethnicity. They are quick to denounce, and they emphasize a militant separation from those who do not see eye-to-eye with them on the external issues of culture. These have little regard for the significance of Spirit baptism-which is the judicious placement of all
believers into the Body of Christ-and all its attendant blessings; rather, they quickly write off good brothers without personal investigation, personal contact, and personal prayer. In short, cultural fundamentalists treat anyone whq does not agree with them on their cultural issues as an enemy of the faith. Therefore, they may be found immersed in their own form of Galatianism, or pure legalism; hence, they are identified by what they abrasively emphasize. Their self-created brand of fundamentalism is less than true to their historic roots, and they operate in an exegetical vacuum. They talk of Scripture, but they most often speak around the text or above the text, and not the full and accurate exposition of the text in its context. These non-exegetical, issue-orientated men have boldly, but wrongly hijacked our beloved term. They speak vociferously, but they do not speak for us.
 

bjonson

New Member
Originally posted by Marcia:
bjonson, I was talking to Bob C because he has made many general statements without explaining or giving examples from PDL.

As far as the Matt 16.25 comment, I found your post -- I think I had to go back to page 3 or 4 -- and it seems the problem was that Warren used The Message. I have already stated several times that that is one of my problems with PDL. I also believe that Warren sometimes uses scripture to back up what he says but the scripture he uses doesn't do that (I even noted these in the book). But this is the exception. He does say some good things.

What I was asking for was criticism from those making general statements besides
1. PDL quotes from MV's
2. PDL quotes from The Message

As I said, I have disagreements with some things Warren says but some of the posters here have made comments about PDL being horrible without any evidence or without even sounding like they read the book.

I do not think PDL is a great book. I would say that it has good parts in it and has some good things to say, but I have disagreement on other things he says (besides the fact that he uses The Message which is one of my bigger problems with the book).
Marcia,

Got it. Thank you for your reply. I agree. His books aren't "bad", they just aren't "great." There is so much out there that is solid in its exegesis that I don't know why we need Warren's PD books. No heresy there, but too many errors such as you acknowledged for me to comfortably recommend.
 

BornBaptist

<img src =/9147.jpg>
I too, read a few chapters of PDL and quite frankly, I hated it.

Bottom line, PDL is "ecumenical movement" book. right straight from the pill of hell, designed to decieve baby christians.

a better book to read:

The Next Step - By Jack T. Chick

Now, that's a good book to read.
 

All about Grace

New Member
Bottom line, PDL is "ecumenical movement" book. right straight from the pill of hell, designed to decieve baby christians.
Where can I find one of these Hell pills?

I think a few of my members might have taken it
laugh.gif



I can see RW now sitting in his study thinking: "what can I do to deceive baby Christians .... hmmm .... I know, I will write a book on discovering your purpose in life ... that will deceive straight into Hell."

:rolleyes:
 

bjonson

New Member
SBCbyGRACE,

While I agree that "BornBaptist"'s post was less than charitable, I do think it is interesting that if you click on Warren's video "welcome" on the Saddleback website, you'll hear this man give his version of an invitation, which, and correct me if I'm wrong, mentions nothing of repentance.

I asked a Warren supporter friend of mine about this and he replied "Warren believes in process evangelism". I assume this means you give "seekers" a little truth at a time and then reel them in.

Personally, if my friend is right, I find no support in scripture. The "responses" that we see in Acts were pretty immediate.

Anyway, check out Warren's "invitation" and let me know what you think.

Brian
 
Top