What is the Purpose Driven Life?

Seems like a rather emotional defense. Are we justified in comparing ourselves among ourselves with ourselves? If numbers count (pun intended), then the JW's and Mormons seem to be doing a great job for God. Let's talk about Scriptural teaching, not emotional justifications. What is the longevity of these conversions at Saddleback? Are they around serving the Lord five years later? Ten years?

 

ShannoL put forth reasons and reasoning. You have done neither. Appears that you're flunking the test.

[ June 01, 2005, 08:56 PM: Message edited by: paidagogos ]

 

Please allow me to apply a slight corrective. Post-modernism is dead--it died on 9/11. We are moving into an interfaith world. A positive, mystical, feel good, humanistic religion is the wave of the future merging all people of faith into one big happy, loving family. PDL, although unwittingly, is a preparatory step in that direction by the minimization of doctrine. After all, it is doctrine that divides—truth from heresy. By de-emphasizing doctrine, one makes it easier for people to be deceived and accept heretical teaching. It paves the way for accepting all faiths as equal. After all, there are no doctrinal issues to divide people. Posts on this thread indicate how little importance people attach to doctrinal issues. When you are preaching and teaching fluff, there is little difference between your fluff and others’ fluff—just different color and flavor.

BTW, ShannonL, you have done well in debunking RW & PDL. No one has offered a reasoned refutation. It's all emotional rant. Kudos.

 

thank you paidagogos! I may have gotten a little personal myself. However; I was just being a little testy to try and get some answers. What bothers me in the replies I have recieved to my own little diatribes has been the fact that I've pointed out a few things that should be kind of alarming to us as evangelicals. (Man thats a broad term today). I've been to Bible College and a litte bit of seminary. I'm no scholar in the sense of knowing the greek extroidinarily well.I kinda have a blue collar way of looing at things. Still what I have noticed in some of the remarks pertaining to this book is the fact that nobody is all that upset at some of the misuse of Scripture. Its just "man its getting results" that disturbs me. It just serves as a microcosm of what is going on out there in mainstream evangelicalism. Pragmatism rules the day. In the very intro of the book Warren states plainly that Jesus was "impowered by his 40 days in the wilderness"? Should I take that remark just to be a choice of words? Merely semantics? David was transformed during the 40 days goliath taunted the philistines? David was transformed while tending sheep. There are other 40 day transformations mentioned in that same part of the book that make no sense whatsoever in light of Scripture. Furthermore: "transformation" is a big buzz word among those who are into Dominion Theology". Again, my main objection with the book is the fact that Warren takes Scripture out of context more than several times to make the passage fit his thesis.

 

ShannonL,

If you want to write legibly so that we can dialogue then I will be happy to address any question you raise. It is hard to respond to your diatribes b/c they are simply bunched together in a way that it is virtually impossible to read it all in one sitting.

If you want to ask me some point blank questions regarding my theology, philosophy, etc., go ahead.

I will start with this one I did gather from your endless paragraph:

The answer to each of these is YES.

And yes I do believe as much as you do in the authority, inspiration, and inerrancy of Scripture. As a matter of fact, I have a PhD in NT from the most respected of the Southern Baptist seminaries.

Oranges and apples simply will not apply in this discussion.

Any more direct questions you would like to ask?

I will ask you one -- can you provide a quote from Rick Warren that is unbiblical or contrary to Scripture?

 

Sorry this is not how it works. Those who are making the false assertions must provide accurate data as to what they claim is true. When someone offers a reasonable and sound accusation, I will respond to it.

Do I "like" Rick Warren? Are we in grade school here? Rick Warren is a man God has used in a powerful way. I appreciate his ministry and I can learn from him (as I can any other evangelical with whom I may or may not wholly agree).

Yes we are justified in using numbers as a criterion for God's blessing. The Bible is full of numbers. Are numbers the only criterion? No. But are they important? Yes.

As far as the JWs or Mormons comment, give me a break. This argument has been driven in the ground so far that I cannot believe when I see people try and resurrect it.

We are talking about an evangelical here, not a cult.

Do you think numbers are irrelevant?

You are kidding right?

Ready when you are.

 

all about grace:
Fair enough. My wife always has to correct my writing.I have always had a problem with run on sentences. It was kind of you to point that out.
Now, what does Warren mean when he says on page 10 of his book that Jesus was "empowered" by 40 days in the wilderness? Was Warren refering to Christ in his humanity. Christ in His deity is all powerful. Heb.1:3 says refering to Christ: "upholding all things by the word of his power. Did Christ need more power than He already had throughout all eternity in order to go to the cross? Did the 40 days of temptation increase His power? If Warren says Christ was empowered,doesn'that indicate Christ lacked power? I appreciate anyone who has put forth the effort to obtain a Ph.d especially in NT. It takes alot of work. I'm not being sarcastic. I'm sure you might have a better handle on the original language than I ever would. Just tell me your thoughts on Jesus needing to be "empowered".
I can't find it in the NT. I appreciate your response.

 

It's obvious in your statement that you don't seem to catch the point Mr. Warren was trying to make on pages 88 and 89. Was he saying that we should NOT pray long prayers? No. He was trying to explain that when we pray long prayers our minds tend to wander and we lose our focus on the Lord. However, if we learn to pray simple prayers~~those we can say in one breath, we are "practicing the presence of God" (in his words).

Here's an example: I am forever trying to get my husband to exercise, especially since his father and grandfather have history of diabetes and stroke. I know my husband would rather have control of his weight now than be told later he has diabetes and HAS to lose weight. So, what does he do? He pulls out the treadmill/expensive-coat-hanger and does a 45 minute to 1 and half hour routine. By the time he's done, he's worn out, sweaty, smelly, breathless and feeling pretty good about himself. But then the next day, he feels that "yesterday was enough...I must rest today". The next day, same thing. Then he forgets the following day. Three months later, I'm back to begging him to get on the treadmill. I try to encourage him to ONLY use the treadmill 10 minutes the first few days and work his way up....15 minutes...20 minutes, etc but NOT to exert himself.

We are all like this with many daily practices if we are honest with ourselves. Goodness! If food tasted horrible and was a chore to accomplish a meal we'd all die of starvation! Why do you think the Lord made food and other things enjoyable? He knew we wouldn't do them and mankind would die out.

But, he expects us to maintain a fellowship with Him without His forcing or manipulating us to do so. The short prayers are exercises, if you may, that help us maintain a constant relationship with Him. After saying them for a while, the "breath prayers" become as normal to us as breathing. Yes, we still have to make sure we don't become so ritualistic that we daydream while praying.

I have respect for men of God who have calluses on their knees from praying for hours. But, honestly, when was the last time any of us knelt down and prayed for several hours? Before you answer that, keep in mind we can track the times of your postings.

I really never meant for you to answer that question. I just thought I'd drop a little humor into the mix. But, I can honestly say that I don't have callouses on my knees or anywhere else. I like this idea that Mr. Warren has in his book. As for the "monk" mentioned, he was giving the monk the credit for the idea, making certain that we didn't give the credit of this idea to him.

As for the monk having this idea, how many things in our lives do we use for the Lord's work that were invented by people who were not saved? Ford Motor Company, Edison and his lightbulb (yeah, I heard a Brittish guy invented it), the pencil, the pen, the copier, the computer (are you saved, Mr. Gates?), and on and on and on. God allows us to use things that originated from ideas of the unsaved (not that I'm saying these people are unsaved...I really don't know). Just because a monk came up with this idea, doesn't mean we as Christians can't use it, also.

Earlier you mentioned that "Paul was talking about being in an "attitude" of prayer in that passage." Exactly. On page 88 in the second full paragraph, it says (referring to "practicing the Presence of God", "The key to friendship with God, he said, is not changing what you do, but changing your attitude toward what you do. What you normally do for yourself you begin doing for God, whether it is eating, bathing, working, relaxing, or taking out the trash."

If we are in a constant attitude of prayer (breath prayers, if you will), then how will our attitude be when someone cuts us off in traffic, or is rude toward us in the store or bank? If we are in a constant attitude of prayer, it will show toward others. The Lord will begin to shine through us. The entire book, from what I have read so far, seems to be that we are to get smaller and smaller as the Lord shines through us more and more. How can we witness to someone in their home if they recognize us as the "mean lady who called the manager on me at the store"?

 

I see what you're saying. What Warren is saying, of course is that the number 40 has some significance and the book has 40 chapters that will transform our lives. I tried looking up the verse where Jesus spent 40 days in the wilderness and failed to find it (I'm tired and ready for bed, though).

I personally do not like this part of the book. The Bible can transform our lives, but it hits me wrong...sort of pompous...for him to believe his book is going to change our lives. It makes me want to read the book and NOT be transformed just to feed the rebellious streak in me.

However, keep in mind this book is just a tool. It's not the Bread of Life, it's just a supplement to what we should already be reading and applying to our lives. If we forget to read this book, then who cares? But, I have read a couple of chaptes so far and there are some pretty good nuggets in there. It seems more like a buffet where you take what you want and leave the rest for others to read.

I also don't like the part where you sign your name to a covenant on page 13, along with a friend's name and Warren's name is on the third line. Unless he's willing to come to my house personally and read the book with me, does he think I'm going to fall for this one? He doesn't know I even exist. I can't put my finger on it, but something about that makes me want to rip that page out with my teeth.

But, the book is not a waste. I don't think there's any principal so far that I didn't already know, so I think it's more of a compilation of reminders. But I've managed to glean a few nuggets that I hope I can apply to my life.

 

A commendable attitude for sure. That is exactly what I took from the book.

Two other points. Go ahead and condemn those who recommend short prayers. Spurgeon said he never prayed more than 5 minutes, and never went more than 5 minutes between prayers. There is some practical advice there that is good, especially for the spiritually young believers that this book it targeted at. Long focused prayer is a discipline that requires a bit of practice.

As far as Shannon's "Facts" the only way to respond to ad hominim is with ad hominim. I know you turn a blind eye to such attacks when they agree with you paidagogos, but when actual truth is used to denounce Warren or the PDL, I am sure we would be happy to admit defeat. Biblical would be nice, but I'll settle for plain old historical truth as well, not just the six degrees of Rick Warren. Oh, his cousin's sister's, hairstylist once cut Joyce Meyer's hair or some other such ridiculous attack on his character and ministry. What in the world does T.D. Jakes have to do with Rick Warren, I mean come on, its not like Shannon has put together some strong position on Warren that hasn't already been shown to be false on this board. Warren may well be new evangelical, he might have associations that I would not choose to have, but he is Baptist, he is not a heretic like many of the folks shannon lumps him in with, and he does have a ministry that is at least in some aspects worthy of note.

 

Obviously as a human being Jesus was strengthened and empowered by the Father & Spirit while on earth. This has nothing to do with his deity. Remember Jesus was fully human.

Most biblical scholars maintain that the temptation period in the wilderness was a time of preparation before Jesus entered public ministry.

It is obvious from the gospels that Jesus was "ministered to" by the angels following this period (does this imply weakness or lack of deity?) and Luke makes it clear that following the temptation, Jesus returned to Galilee "in the POWER of the Spirit."

Warren's point regarding the 40 days is simply that 40 days seems to have a prominent place in some significant events in the Bible. The 40 days of purpose is simply a good number to remind us "why we are here".

I can tell you from experience that the 40 days of purpose have revolutionized some people and for others it was less meaningful. But should we disparage it for that reason? No. God is using it in a tremendous way despite its weaknesses.

Now answer one of my questions:
Can you point me to anything Rick Warren has ever said that is contrary to orthodox teaching?

 

I don't believe he has said anything that is contrary to orthodoxy. I do think he uses a variety of translations because some fit the theme of his book better than others. Yet, he says at the end the reason he does this is to give us a fresh look at old passages. I think he is being a litte disingenuous when he makes that comment. He also says at the end of the book that he just gives us little phrases of scripture like Jesus did. I think he uses little phrases instead of whole verses because if he did some of the complete verses would not wholly substanciate the point he is trying to make.
On page 65 Warren says "Worship has nothing to do with the style or volume or speed of a song. God loves all kinds of music because he invented it all-fast and slow, loud and soft old and new. You probably don't like it all but God does"! How does Warren know God likes all kinds of music that are offered up to Him. I just think that is a little bit over the top for him to assume that God likes all kinds of music. I just don't believe that its anything goes when it comes to music. I understand that is my opinion.
This book has its good points I will own up to that. You may think it is a good thing because it is so broad in its appeal accross denominational lines. I think that is not so good. This is because the more broad the appeal the more minimized doctrine will become. Warren may not do that in his book but his book is just one more of the 100's that are out there that are of that flavor. I suppose I just think alot of what comes out of mega churches and the Church growth movement is not all that wonderful. These guys often times intertwine psychology with Scripture so on an so forth.
In America we have to build cafe's in our churches along with bookstores. We have to have 10 different kinds of "worship venues" so we can persuade people to come. Its ridiculous. There are people all over the world who would be happy for someone just to open the Bible and bring a simple message. Here in the states we have to have everything but a flying circus to get attention. (That has probably been done). I wonder how much more could be done to reach those who have never heard if so much wasn't spent here at home trying to meet everybody's felt
needs?
Warren's book is just another self help book in a long line of many others. I still think his style of preaching is light n fluffy. I still think some of his ideas questionable. I still think is more dangerous for the Church to be so influenced by one man. So many of you will be glad when I tell you I'm out of here. This posting stuff is not my thing anyway. Maybe I'll put a shout out again sometime I don't know. I have enjoyed it.

 

Good point. Another thought: For some their prayers only reach ceiling height and for others it is quite different. Does that mean we should stop praying?

 

Well, Doc, I guess that I oughta be impressed but I ain’t. I jist hopes youse got a scent of humus. ShannonL probably ain’t no scholar fer sure but he’s got some commonsense. Give me a workingman (ShannonL claimed blue-collar status) with a little knowledge and a bit of sense any day over the petrified Dr. Diddle and his colleague Dr. Piddle who haven’t had an original thought since their undergraduate days.

BTW, Doc, did you know that pointing another’s typos, grammatical and stylistic shortcomings is a breach of netiquette? Tsk, tsk, tsk……..you naughty boy!

Another thing, do you want to compare degrees? It might be fun. Let’s see, I graduated from kindergarten (Nope, I’m lying…….I never did go to kindergarten and only repeated first grade twice……..so how many years did I spend in first grade?), and I …………………. Well, perhaps we ought not do this because flaunting your capital letters may violate netiquette. Regardless, it is rather gauche, IMHO. There is something in the Bible about humility, I think.

Doc, please excuse my typos, bad manners, poor taste, and ignorance. And I don’t like to be made fun of. (Oops, ended in one of them perspirations or is it that okay now?)

 

Hey, Doc, you posted this but you haven't lived up to it! You have posted to ShannonL since making this post. Caught ya out, HUH? All a person has to do is read this thread and see what you have posted since making this boast.

So, instead of proving your piety, you have shown your true colors; this was just a sneaky way of calling ShannonL a fool without yourself appearing in a bad light.

I have been coming back at ya because I decided to apply Proverbs 26:5. I am an iconoclastic.

 

Here is an interesting review of Warren's book. I think it address the dangers of book pretty well.

http://www.fundamentalbiblechurch.org/Foundation/fbcsdlbk.htm

 

Sorry this is not how it works. Those who are making the false assertions must provide accurate data as to what they claim is true. When someone offers a reasonable and sound accusation, I will respond to it. (snip) </font>[/QUOTE]