Warren & PDC In The News

[paidagogos]

Show us

If you don't believe RW preaches the Gospel...maybe it is you that needs a better understanding of what the Gospel is...

Instead of questioning the person's knowledge and understanding, which you cannot possibly know, perhaps you could just post a clear account of RW presenting the Gospel in straightforward form. If RW is consistently preaching the Gospel, then it ought not be very hard for you to find one instance to post.

 

[webdog]

Instead of questioning the person's knowledge and understanding, which you cannot possibly know, perhaps you could just post a clear account of RW presenting the Gospel in straightforward form. If RW is consistently preaching the Gospel, then it ought not be very hard for you to find one instance to post.

...or rather those who accuse RW of preaching "another" or "false" Gospel should provide unquestionable proof that he does.

 

[webdog]

What if.............what if................what if........................
This is pure meaningless supposition.

My statement was intended to be tongue in cheek, but the reality isn't. John 3:16 and numerous passages prove that God created mankind to love. Please show my why He sent His only Son to the cross if He didn't. It does pleasure God to love us as our Father in the same sense it pleasures me to love my son. I knew the hate RW crowd would respond...

 

[Diggin in da Word]

God is love, that is His nature. But He did not create us to love us. He only showed His love toward us.

 

[Brice]

Instead of questioning the person's knowledge and understanding, which you cannot possibly know, perhaps you could just post a clear account of RW presenting the Gospel in straightforward form. If RW is consistently preaching the Gospel, then it ought not be very hard for you to find one instance to post.

FROM WARREN -
9. I believe the deepest kind of preaching - bar none - is preaching for repentance. So, ‘life application' preaching, instead of being ‘shallow' – as some critics charge – is, in my opinion, the deepest kind of preaching. Shallow preaching, to me, is doctrinal application or interpretation with no application — biblical background with no application. For 21 years now, the secret of Saddleback is that every week we get up and we try to take the Word and apply it so that it changes the way the congregation thinks about life, about God, about the devil, about the future, about the past, about themselves, about their mission in life.
If you go through the New Testament, you'll find that repentance is the central theme in the New Testament. For instance, in Matthew 3:2, John the Baptist says, ‘Repent for the kingdom of heaven is near.' ‘Jesus began to preach repent,' Matthew 4:17. The disciples went out and preached that people should repent. Peter says, ‘Repent and be baptized every one of you.' Paul says, ‘Now he commands all men to repent everywhere.' John in Revelation says, ‘Repent.' You just go through the New Testament and you'll find the need for repentance.

http://www.pastors.com/article.asp?ArtID=3419

 

[Brice]

Instead of questioning the person's knowledge and understanding, which you cannot possibly know, perhaps you could just post a clear account of RW presenting the Gospel in straightforward form. If RW is consistently preaching the Gospel, then it ought not be very hard for you to find one instance to post.

Now it's your turn or concede. I'm not a big Warren fan, but he does teach the Gospel.

 

[webdog]

God is love, that is His nature. But He did not create us to love us. He only showed His love toward us.

Why do we have kids? Is it to love and have intimate, personal relationships with them...or because we can exercise our power and superiority over them? God is not called Father for no reason.

 

[paidagogos]

Concede?

Now it's your turn or concede. I'm not a big Warren fan, but he does teach the Gospel.

Concede? Concede what? What did I say that you have refuted? Quote me! You're reading into my post something that I didn't say. Evidently, you are reading that I said RW didn't preach the Gospel. Where did I say that? I merely challenged Webdog to give substance instead of spouting inane generalities and questioning the person's understanding. Furthermore, we could probably debate whether your quote was a clear presentation of the Gospel or not but it's probably not worth the effort. I don't concede anything.

 

[paidagogos]

Scriptural basis?

My statement was intended to be tongue in cheek, but the reality isn't.

Really?

John 3:16 and numerous passages prove that God created mankind to love.

How so? It doesn't say this was God's purpose in creating man. You are drawing your own conclusion presuppositionally.

Please show my why He sent His only Son to the cross if He didn't.

There's no question that God chose to love mankind but it does not necessarily follow that this was God's purpose in creating man. There's no logical connection. You must show the connection.

It does pleasure God to love us as our Father in the same sense it pleasures me to love my son.

How do you know? So, you say but where do you find this in Scripture? You are articulating your opinion, which carries no more weight than my opinion. You have decided this presuppositionally and it may fit with your scheme of understanding but it has no Scriptural basis. It is a serious thing to claim Biblical authority for something that one cannot support from the Scriptures but one utilizes his own rationalizations to raise his own ideas to the level of Scripture.

I knew the hate RW crowd would respond...

Well, how did you know this? A word of knowledge?

 

[paidagogos]

Father relationship?

Why do we have kids? Is it to love and have intimate, personal relationships with them...or because we can exercise our power and superiority over them? God is not called Father for no reason.

In making an analogy, you must realize that there is not a one-to-one correspondence in every aspect of the analogy. How do you know that our heavenly Father and our earthly father relationships are comparible in this aspect? Other than the idea appealing to you, how do you know this? Furthermore, you have not considered all the permutations (i.e. possibilities). In fact, you have articulated a very narrow and personal view that probably exists for you in your culture but it is not true in other venues. In some cultures (e.g. Mexico), many offspring are a kind of "social security" benefit for the parents who depend on their children to support them in their old age. In the Orient, male children are more highly valued than female children because of their economic value. Can you establish that the desire for love and relationship is the universal motivation for producing offspring? Otherwise, your analogy falls on its face.

 

[webdog]

You are drawing your own conclusion presuppositionally.

God so loved the world that He gave...is a presupposition? Interesting....

There's no question that God chose to love mankind but it does not necessarily follow that this was God's purpose in creating man. There's no logical connection. You must show the connection.

Start at Genesis 1...

How do you know? So, you say but where do you find this in Scripture?

Can you tell me what the purpose of marriage is? What was it created for?

Well, how did you know this? A word of knowledge?

All they need to see is Rick Warren...and they come crawling out of the woodwork.

How do you know that our heavenly Father and our earthly father relationships are comparible in this aspect? Other than the idea appealing to you, how do you know this?

Are we not created in the image of God? You mean to tell me our earthly, humanly love for our children supercedes that of God? Are we...as humans...more like God than God? Why is God called our Heavenly Father?

 

[Brice]

Concede? Concede what? What did I say that you have refuted? Quote me! You're reading into my post something that I didn't say. Evidently, you are reading that I said RW didn't preach the Gospel. Where did I say that? I merely challenged Webdog to give substance instead of spouting inane generalities and questioning the person's understanding. Furthermore, we could probably debate whether your quote was a clear presentation of the Gospel or not but it's probably not worth the effort. I don't concede anything.

Fair enough, if you were not infering what I thought, I apologize. I'm not so sure that repentance is debatable, but I agree it's probably not worth it in this case. God bless and have a great day.

 

[gb93433]

Have not listened to the whole video on youtube yet, but noticed an error straight off the bat.

Rick Warren: The Bible tells us that God created you to love you.

Sorry folks, that is not what the Word of God says.

Oh, sure God loves His children and cares for them, but He did not create us to love us, but rather for His pleasure.

1 Jn 3:14, “We know that we have passed out of death into life, because we love the brethren. He who does not love abides in death.”

1 Jn 4:8, “The one who does not love does not know God, for God is love.”

1 Jn 4:20, “If someone says, "I love God," and hates his brother, he is a liar; for the one who does not love his brother whom he has seen, cannot love God whom he has not seen.”

 

[thjplgvp]

I read the article Brice posted and would like to express some concerns that struck me as potentially dangerous.

The first concern is the passage quoted on repentance, while I agree that repentance is a change of mind I would add that repentance is a change of mind under the conviction of Holy spirit. I might go to a classroom and have the teacher explain a matter that I had a misunderstanding on and as the facts were presented I would change my mind. But that does not mean that the Holy Spirit was involved in that change.

Change apart from the authority of the word of God is deism or a form of humanism. Salvation is an acknowledgement of personal sin against God (confession or agreement with God) and repentance is turning from a life that was lived apart from God because our mind has been changed and we see that our current direction leads one to eternal damnation in hell there fore we repent we turn our back on the direction we were going and take a new direction toward sancitification.

Which brings me to my next point, RW states, “Now, what I love to do is to teach theology to non-believers without ever telling them it is theology and without ever using theological terms. For instance, I once did an eight-week series on sanctification and never used the term. I did a four-week series on the incarnation and never used the term. I did a twelve-week series on the attributes of God — omniscience, omnipresence, omnipotence — and never used the terms. I just called it "Getting to Know God."”

Unless our terms are defined by the word of God people are left to interpret meanings within their culture. For instance in Mr. Warrens PDL he uses the terms ‘as above and so below’ as appropriate for heaven and hell, whether he knows it or not those terms are New Age in their meaning and refer to mans actions on earth being parralel to God’s actions in heaven. As you can see those terms have nothing to do with heaven and hell but instead refer to the deism of man.

How can we “get to know God” when we remove his meaning of words and assign ours in its place?

Finally in his reference to 2 Timothy 3:16-17 Mr. Warren states and I quote, “The purpose of the Bible is not for doctrine, not for reproof, correction, and instruction in righteousness.” Can one be more blatantly at odds with what scripture says of its self?

Just my concerns.

Thjplgvp

 

[webdog]

Finally in his reference to 2 Timothy 3:16-17 Mr. Warren states and I quote, “The purpose of the Bible is not for doctrine, not for reproof, correction, and instruction in righteousness.” Can one be more blatantly at odds with what scripture says of its self?

Do you have a source or link to this statement?

 

[thjplgvp]

Webdog,

The quote was taken from the article that Brice posted.

thjplgvp

 

[webdog]

Webdog,

The quote was taken from the article that Brice posted.

thjplgvp

So why not post it in the context given instead of making him out to deny the Bible?

Now, what is the purpose of the Bible? Well, it says in 2 Timothy 3:16-17, "All scripture is given by inspiration of God and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness, that the man of God may be thoroughly furnished unto every good work."
But people misread that verse most of the time. The purpose of the Bible is not for doctrine, not for reproof, correction, and instruction in righteousness. Those are all "for this" in the Greek. ‘For this ... for this ... for this ... in order that.' The purpose is in order that. So doctrine in itself is not the purpose of the Bible. Reproof in itself is not the purpose – correction or training is not the purpose. The bottom line is to change lives: "That the man of God may be thoroughly furnished unto every good work." So every message must be preaching for life change.

 

[thjplgvp]

Webdog,

Let us look at his statement for I do not believe I took it out of context.

Mr. Warren clearly says that the “purpose of the bible is not for”, and while the actual verse reads “is profitable for” Mr. Warren clearly says these things are “not the purpose for the bible”

In his own words “Those (doctrine, reproof, correction and instruction in righteousness) are all in the Greek for this, for this, for this.” By his own words he is saying that the bible is not profitable for this, for this, for this.

I ask you is the bible for doctrine is it or is it not.
I ask you is the bible for reproof yes or no.
I ask you is the bible for correction yes or no.
I ask you is the bible for instruction in righteousness yes or know.

If the bible is not for these things then pray tell what is the bible for? Words can change people, false repentance can change people, a good cause can change people but there is nothing that is said to be the living, piercing, changing word of God except the bible.

My brother personally I believe that Mr. Warren has accomplished more than I ever could in three or four life times none the less his position places him in a position of extreme personal inspection. I am not judging him I am saying these things I have written about give me cause to be wary and concerned.

Thjplgvp

 

[paidagogos]

Have a nice day.....................

God so loved the world that He gave...is a presupposition? Interesting....

Yes, it is because the text doesn't say what you claim. It does not say that God created man for this purpose. The Bible says God loved and God gave. It does not say or imply this was His purpose; it is a straighforward statement of what He did. You are reading your own ideas into the text. Do you know what love is? Could you please define it for us?

Start at Genesis 1...

Yet, you still are not making any connection. This is simply childish repartee.

Can you tell me what the purpose of marriage is? What was it created for?

Suppose you tell me. Procreation? Prevent fornication? Legitimatize the sexual relationship? What? Are you proposing that marriage was created for love? Where do you find a Scriptural basis for this?

You can ask inane questions faster than I can keyboard. I won't play this ridiculous game.

All they need to see is Rick Warren...and they come crawling out of the woodwork.

I suppose this was intended as a cute retort but it appears to be a childish yah..yah..yah...yah. What do you mean? It doesn't make good sense. Is RW a prophet? Who comes out of the woodwork? His followers? Your antecedents are confusing. You seem to imply a lot but say nothing.

Are we not created in the image of God? You mean to tell me our earthly, humanly love for our children supercedes that of God? Are we...as humans...more like God than God? Why is God called our Heavenly Father?

Wow! This is a jumble. I don't know what you are saying. It's rather confused and mixed up. You've injected a lot of problems for your point, whatever it may be. Human love for offspring is often a selfish affair. I would not define God's love by appealing to human love as an example. We only know love because God loved us and gave Christ Jesus to die on the cross for our sin. He loved us first.

Furthermore, perhaps you could tell me what it means to be created in God's image. Are we little gods? Is it physical? Was the image marred in the Fall? Do the unbelievers also bear God's image? Are sinners like God? Also, please tell me why you think God is called our Heavenly Father? I don't see your connection here.

What do you think I said? Do you understand my points? Can you restate them? Huh?

Honestly, I cannot refute you because there are no points or logical argument to refute. It's rather like nailing jello to a tree. I can drive the nail into the tree but there's not enough substance in the jello to hold it there. I'm wasting my time and bandwidth. Auf Wiedersehen!

 

[thjplgvp]

Auf Wiedersehen

:applause:

Auf wiedersehen

Auf wiedersehen
We'll meet again,
Sweetheart
This lovely day
Has flown away
The time has come
To part
We'll kiss again,
Like this again
Don't let the teardrops
Start
With love that's true,
I'll wait for you
Auf wiedersehen,
Sweetheart

I am not suggesting anything immoral here just a laugh or two.

:laugh: