The Purpose Driven Life by Rick Warren

[All about Grace]

I hope you do not base someone's theology upon a website.

Of course evangelism is process. It can also be instantaneous. There is no either/or approach to one coming to Christ. For some, they hear it for the first time and respond. For others, it is a process of events that culminate in salvation. I would suggest that the latter is more common in our modern culture.

 

[All about Grace]

Maybe you should read from the link below Warren himself on preaching/repentance. Then we can begin a meaningful discussion based on what he actually believes (instead of what others suggest).

Warren on preaching

 

[bjonson]

SBCbyGRACE,

If Warren believes in the importance of repentance, then why would he withhold that information on his website?

Also,

Why can I not examine his theology based on his website, especially given the fact that he uses his website to introduce what his church believes?

You are giving him a pass. I say this exchange proves my point. He is "watering" down his message on his website, which thousands can visit anytime, and then giving the "rest" of the message after you are in his church, or home fellowship group. It's a Trojan Horse. Why "hide" the full gospel?

 

[Johnv]

Originally posted by BornBaptist:
a better book to read:

The Next Step - By Jack T. Chick

Now, that's a good book to read.

Jack Chick is a selfrighteous holier-than-thou scripture-twister, who is more interested in hearing himself talk than spreading the love of Christ. And that's being mild.

 

[BornBaptist]

Originally posted by Johnv:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by BornBaptist:
a better book to read:

The Next Step - By Jack T. Chick

Now, that's a good book to read.

Jack Chick is a selfrighteous holier-than-thou scripture-twister, who is more interested in hearing himself talk than spreading the love of Christ. And that's being mild. </font>[/QUOTE]Hmm... Let me guess. you must be an evangelical Baptist, right?

Jack Chick prints the truth.. too bad you evangelical types, who make alliences with the Children of Satan, Aka Pentecostals, Catholic's, and any others than Bible-Believing Baptists, cannot see this.

I live by Thus Saith the Lord, anything else is Junk, and should be tossed in the trash, rick warren's work is trash, pure trash and ANY Bible-Believing Baptist ought to know that. it's infuenced by Robert Shouller (or however you spell the guys name...he's going to hell anyhow, so who cares?)

The Bible IS the final authority, Period, I don't need any MAN's book to tell me what my purpose is... I have the Word of God.

Blessed Be the Name of Lord, For his Word!

Born Baptist

 

[LarryN]

BornBaptist wrote:

it's infuenced by Robert Shouller (or however you spell the guys name...he's going to hell anyhow, so who cares?)

NICE.

It makes me proud to call myself a Baptist when I see another Baptist express his belief that a precious human soul is "going to hell anyhow, so who cares?".

 

[All about Grace]

If Warren believes in the importance of repentance, then why would he withhold that information on his website?

There are many important doctrines that I believe that are not explained on my website.

Again discussing what is missing from someone's website is absurd.

Why can I not examine his theology based on his website, especially given the fact that he uses his website to introduce what his church believes?

The same reason you cannot judge someone's overall theology based upon one sermon or element of their ministry -- it is an incomplete picture.

He is "watering" down his message on his website, which thousands can visit anytime, and then giving the "rest" of the message after you are in his church, or home fellowship group. It's a Trojan Horse. Why "hide" the full gospel?

I can take you to a number of websites sponsored by strong evangelicals, Calvinists, and fundies who do not explain repentance or the full picture of salvation. This line of reasoning is ridiculous.

Did you read the article I posted?

 

[All about Grace]

BornBaptist: your words reflect someone who may have been born baptist but has yet to be born again.

Sometimes we even have to put up with the rantings of the lunatic uncle within the family of God.

 

[superdave]

The Bible IS the final authority, Period, I don't need any MAN's book to tell me what my purpose is... I have the Word of God.

So why do you encourage me to read jack chick's trash, BTW, I don't even associate with other IFB's if I can help it, because this is the *expletive deleted* that I have to deal with. So Evangelical or otherwise, I am not ecumenical in any way.

 

[superdave]

Hmm... Let me guess. you must be an pseudo-fundamentalist Baptist, right?

Rick Warren prints the truth.. too bad you cultural fundamentalist types, who make alliences with the Children of Satan, Aka Pensacola, Jack Hyles, and any others than only Bible-Believing Baptists, cannot see this.

I live by Thus Saith the Lord, anything else is Junk, and should be tossed in the trash, Jack Chick's work is trash, pure trash and ANY Bible-Believing Baptist ought to know that. it's infuenced by Born Baptist (...clearly since he thinks you can be Born Baptist he's going to hell anyhow, so who cares?)

The Bible IS the final authority, Period, I don't need any MAN's book to tell me what my purpose is... I have the Word of God.

Blessed Be the Name of Lord, For his Word!

Superdave

 

[Johnv]

Originally posted by BornBaptist:
Let me guess. you must be an evangelical Baptist, right?

Uhhh, I'm SBC. I fail to see why it matters.

... too bad you evangelical types, who make alliences with the Children of Satan, Aka Pentecostals, Catholic's, and any others than Bible-Believing Baptists, cannot see this.

Oh no, there's no unrighteous judgement in that statement at all.

...he's going to hell anyhow, so who cares?)

Two for two. Man, when you're on a roll, you certainly roll.

The Bible IS the final authority, Period, I don't need any MAN's book to tell me what my purpose is...

Yet you make an exception for Jack Chick's writings.

 

[bjonson]

Originally posted by SBCbyGRACE:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr /> If Warren believes in the importance of repentance, then why would he withhold that information on his website?

There are many important doctrines that I believe that are not explained on my website.

Again discussing what is missing from someone's website is absurd.

Why can I not examine his theology based on his website, especially given the fact that he uses his website to introduce what his church believes?

The same reason you cannot judge someone's overall theology based upon one sermon or element of their ministry -- it is an incomplete picture.

He is "watering" down his message on his website, which thousands can visit anytime, and then giving the "rest" of the message after you are in his church, or home fellowship group. It's a Trojan Horse. Why "hide" the full gospel?

I can take you to a number of websites sponsored by strong evangelicals, Calvinists, and fundies who do not explain repentance or the full picture of salvation. This line of reasoning is ridiculous.

Did you read the article I posted? </font>[/QUOTE]Yes, I read the article. It wasn't bad - pretty solid.

That doesn't surprise me. He isn't a heretic, after all!

My point has never been that everything he says is wrong, or even bad. My point is that the PDL concept is unnecessary and his books on this subject demonstrate very poor exegesis.

Now, I've admitted that the article was ok - how about you admitting that Warren has some exegetical problems? This seems fair enough.

 

[WallyGator]

To draw an analogy, the Law was the training wheels, until Jesus offered grace. So, if Rick Warren's PDL is just training wheels, why don't some of you more mature cyclists offer some alternatives to shedding the training wheels. One reason being that 85-90% of pew sitting Baptists can't even drink milk without a straw. If Warren has done anything, he has shown just howglaringly inadequate we are. So don't rant on Warren, who is as least trying to do something.
Just as an alternative for some and a supplement for others, should we consider Pink, MacArthur, Spurgeon, Edwards, et al? What say you?
Is it better to light one little candle than to curse the darknes?
WallyGator

 

[All about Grace]

Now, I've admitted that the article was ok - how about you admitting that Warren has some exegetical problems? This seems fair enough.

I said on page 2 of this thread.

Actually he probably does miss the actual interpretation of a text on occasion. Guess what? You do as well. I do too.

My point is that the PDL concept is unnecessary

It may be unnecessary for you, but rest assured there are thousands who would vehemently disagree with you regarding its necessity in their own life.

 

[BornBaptist]

Originally posted by SBCbyGRACE:
BornBaptist: your words reflect someone who may have been born baptist but has yet to be born again.

Sometimes we even have to put up with the rantings of the lunatic uncle within the family of God.

Point taken, also taken in to account is the source, a southern baptist, who's denomintion support slavery as well. further more, you're another evanglical Christian, that makes treaties with the infidels.

 

[Dr. Bob]

Let's be very careful about questioning salvation of one another or "flaming". It will earn you a 10-day suspension.

 

[All about Grace]

I will no longer waste the little bit of energy required to respond to BornBaptist. His own words set his ship ablaze.

burning .... sinking .... sunk

 

[TomVols]

Originally posted by Dr. Bob:
Let's be very careful about questioning salvation of one another or "flaming". It will earn you a 10-day suspension.

Your fellow moderator concurs. Let this be a warning to all.

 

[bjonson]

Originally posted by SBCbyGRACE:
Now, I've admitted that the article was ok - how about you admitting that Warren has some exegetical problems? This seems fair enough.

I said on page 2 of this thread.

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr /> Actually he probably does miss the actual interpretation of a text on occasion. Guess what? You do as well. I do too.

My point is that the PDL concept is unnecessary

It may be unnecessary for you, but rest assured there are thousands who would vehemently disagree with you regarding its necessity in their own life. </font>[/QUOTE]No, it's more than "on occasion." The book is full of exegetical errors. For whatever reason, you are unwilling to see that this is a serious issue. I don't get it.

As for the PDL being a "necessity" in thousands of lives - hmmm, I certainly hope folks don't "need" this book to live as effective Christians.

 

[All about Grace]

The book is full of exegetical errors. For whatever reason, you are unwilling to see that this is a serious issue. I don't get it.

Because it is your opinion.

If you want to discuss the errors, list them. The one time you attempted to do this with the exponential thinking video, you refused to answer the simple rebuttal given. Warren is applying a principle based on faith as a means for God's growth and blessing.

As I have said before, Warren's exegesis is not flawless. Neither is yours.

Another point to be made here is that you try and fit Warren into a box in which he does not belong. He is not a straight expository preacher. Thus it is unfair to apply that grid to his style. If you want to discuss the validity of his method, that is fine. But you cannot judge his use of Scripture based upon your own preferred method of explanation.

In reality, his method is closer to the example of Jesus and the apostles than the average expository preacher.

By the way, Warren does offer verse-by-verse expositional teaching for believers. However that is not the purpose of the PDL.