What is the Purpose Driven Life?

[paidagogos]

Originally posted by All about Grace:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr /> (snip)

ShannoL put forth reasons and reasoning.

You are kidding right?

</font>

Well, he may not be as scholarly, erudite and polished as you are but in a card game it doesn’t matter if the backs are a little plain as long as they’re not marked. So, here they are—read ‘em and weep!

1. The main problems I have with the book is the fact that it takes alot of Scripture out of context in order to fit the theme of the book.
a. In the intro of the book he sites several occasions in which he (Rick) claims that God used 40 days to transform certain people in the Bible.
2. Rick Warren is highly influenced by Robert Schuller…. He is a preacher of the "positive only" stuff. Still, if you do a little research on where He gets his some of his philosophy for ministry, he has some weird bedfellows. He states himself that Robert Schuller is one of his mentors.
3. Me personally, I would never attend Robert Schuller's church leadership conf. much less speak at it like R.Warren. Schuller IS A HERETIC plain and simple. He preaches a false Gospel. Any Baptist preacher of any stripe worth his salt ought to point that out instead giving the impression that,that dude is on the level because he isn't. I noticed you failed or chose not to comment on some of the asscoiations Rick keeps. Maybe that doesnt' bother you.
4. I think we need to be very,leary of 2 or 3 fellows peddling their wares to thousands of churches. What people need today is men of God that preach verse by verse instead of topic by topic. especially some topic they downloaded from some big time preacher then dress it up and call it their own. The best thing a preacher can do (I'm talking about myself as well) is get alone with God and His book and not get up until he has a Word from the Almighty. I never will forget what Holmer Lindsey the great pastor of First Baptist Jacksonville said in Chapel at Southeastern Baptist Theological Seminary He said men "Don't hop the first train that comes to town" He was talking about fads that come along in the ministry. So I'm just saying just alot of people are swallowing this PDL stuff hook,line and sinker.
5. Even Catholic parrishes are using the PDL book. Does that tell you how vague the book is? Warren said the first reformation was about doctrine now he thinks he is going to be leading the church into the second reformation only this reformation is going to be about how the church does ministry or something to that effect.
6. Why does Warren reccomend "breath prayers" in his book?
7. I ask myself why is R. Warren a S.Baptist have to reccomend something written by some kind of french monk? It seems like these days the only people who understand that the Catholic church is an heretical cult that hasn't changed one bit since its conception are the people who have been delivered by God's grace from its deception.
8. The world is full of people dying and going to an eternal hell and all some can do is just "BE positive" don't be "offensive". I just think alot of what the Church Growth guru's impart to us is what Dr. Jerry Vines calls "church Lite" you know its not the Ten Commandments its eight and you get to pick them that sort of thing.
9. Also, being big isnt' a chief attribute of being successful in God's eyes. Being faithful is. Dude as far as alot of baptistms are concerned being baptized doesn't mean nothing but getting wet.
10. Also, I think it was pretty Cheesy for such a visible,pastor such as Rick Warren to get up in front of 30,000 of his people,while being on TV and sing his rendition of Jimi Hendrix's "Purple Haze". He said "I've always wanted to do that"

Ole ShannonL had a lot more objections too but you have to dig them out yourself. I would have thought a Ph. D., especially if you ever taught, could comprehend and understand even though some things were a little rambling.

Please allow me to succinctly articulate these objections for you:
1. RW routinely takes Scripture out of context to make his points. This ought to be particularly abhorrent for anyone valuing good Biblical exegesis.
2. RW praises, credits influence and cooperates with individuals who are not orthodox in their theology. In effect, he has given tacit endorsement to Schuller and others. This creates confusion for his followers.
3. RW fails to practice ecclesiastical separation from heresy as commanded by Scripture.
4. RW has succumbed to commercialism and big-business tendencies of modern ministries. (Similar but not identical to #10) Intentionally or not, PDL has become a part of Christian faddism. One does ministry differently from business.
5. RW is very weak in teaching doctrine. (This precisely my point in another post.) The evidence is that RC’s accept his books and materials without any problem.
6. RW is teaching fluff that has no significance or real spiritual edification. This methodology is comparable, although not in degree but in kind, to charismatics seeking a tongues experience by babbling nonsense syllables or mystics pursuing connection with God by deep breathing.
7. RW abdicates his claim as a Baptist by endorsing a RC monk. Again, this is the result of no doctrinal boundaries. He endorses by quoting a man who teaches RC cultic falsehood.
8. RW preaches a non-confrontational gospel that fails to warn people of their eternal destiny without repentance. I don’t think he preaches repentance or an obedient, surrendered life. Once again, this is fluff without doctrine.
9. Human success is more important than faithfulness. It’s megalomania that afflicts many big Christian ministries, so-called.
10. By trying to be relevant, RW is tainting his message, such as it is, with the wrong ideas. Don’t mix drug culture motifs with the gospel. As we have intimated previously, there are no clear boundaries. It’s one big blob.

You may not agree or you may find them contemptible from your intellectual heights but these are real objections to RW and the PDL. One cannot honestly sweep them under the rug as you have tried to do. So, put on the gloves and knock ‘em out or we’ll taunt you as a coward.

 

[shannonL]

Well paidagogos thanks for streamlining my points of view. Maybe I'll change my forum name to "the rambler" not to be confused with Kenny Rogers hit country song "the gambler" tee hee! Hey if you can't laugh at yourself who can you laugh at?
Thanks for realizing some of the issues I brought to light. I had the sense to realize that ole All about Grace was avoiding answering my questions by making light of me. I just really don't care.
Have you ever been around folk who came into money real quick like? Well alot of times they spend in in real gaudy kind of ways. There always flaunting it around all obnoxious like.
Well some guys who get their PH.d s are like that. You can tell because its kinda like those people who come into money quick. They just don't know how to handle it without waving it in everybody's face. tee hee!

 

[shannonL]

I'am not against higher learning. I wish I had more than an undergrad degree myself. It is hard work. I commend anyone that has followed through with a Ph.D. as long as it doesnt' make them a
Pig Headed Dude. That wasn't right. Somebody stop me.

 

[Victory in Jesus]

Stop

 

[All about Grace]

I will address some of the real issues you raised and ignore your other childishness.

This is one of the major criticisms of RW and PDL. The experiential is valued over doctrine.

Can you direct my attention to a place where RW/PD emphasizes experience over doctrine???

Accusations mean nothing without substance.

Also can you provide an example where Jesus emphasized doctrine over the practical or experiential?

No, he is not guilty of aberrant doctrine because he emphasizes no doctrine. This is the problem (I have briefly addressed this elsewhere on this thread). The Christian faith is not about what is pleasing to me but it is all about what is pleasing to God. RW is big and successful because his brand of Christianity is pleasing to people. He has castrated the faith of troublesome (and divisive) doctrine to offer an impotent pleasing Christianity that makes no demands and pleases everyone.

RW is dangerous but his danger is insidious because it is so hard to nail down and define, especially for the less discerning Christian. This could be the greater danger than blatant heresy because there are no red warning flags.

Again we need examples here. You can accuse RW of anything you desire but we need evidence to refute.

How many times have you heard RW speak? Do you feel you have heard him enough to imply he ignores doctrine?

I happen to know for a fact that Saddleback offers 52 weeks of systematic theology teaching. Would you say that is ignoring doctrine?

Please do not misconstrue my words

I ask for the same respect. You seem to know my motives simply b/c I indicated to SL that I believe the Bible strongly enough to dedicate myself to studying the NT to the point I received a doctorate. Nothing prideful about that fact.

And I might add, is it any less prideful to be boastful of one's lack of education? Do not criticize or judge the motives of those who have given themselves to the discipline, time, and energy necessary to receive higher education. As a matter of fact, you stand on their shoulders.

 

[All about Grace]

I will briefly address the 10 issues you raise and will anticipate answers to the questions I have raised.

1. RW routinely takes Scripture out of context to make his points. This ought to be particularly abhorrent for anyone valuing good Biblical exegesis.

Can you provide examples of this? Again accusations carry no weight.

Does RW get it right every time? No. Do you? No. Do I? No. Give me a break.

2. RW praises, credits influence and cooperates with individuals who are not orthodox in their theology. In effect, he has given tacit endorsement to Schuller and others. This creates confusion for his followers.

Examples??? (I can tell this will be a continual theme -- after all it is easier to simply repeat what others have said or to make accusations than to present the facts)

We need you to provide examples of those whom RW has praised, credited, etc. and how these individuals are unorthodox (in theology not methodology).

3. RW fails to practice ecclesiastical separation from heresy as commanded by Scripture.

Heresy examples?

By the way, RW has recently released a statement refuting the accusations of his relationship with Schuller. So you will need to take an alternate route since he has blatantly refuted this falsehood.

4. RW has succumbed to commercialism and big-business tendencies of modern ministries. (Similar but not identical to #10) Intentionally or not, PDL has become a part of Christian faddism. One does ministry differently from business.

Examples? Actually RW has driven the church back to the basics -- God's purposes.

There are definite similarities between how any organization functions. If not, you have complete chaos. Paul created structure in his churches. Did he succomb to the accusation of which you accuse Warren?

Calling PDL Christian faddism means nothing b/c it carries no weight. Just b/c something gains popularity among believers does not make it a fad. If so we could write the Reformation itself off as a fad.

5. RW is very weak in teaching doctrine. (This precisely my point in another post.) The evidence is that RC’s accept his books and materials without any problem.

As I stated above, this simply shows your lack of knowledge regarding RW and Saddleback. 52 weeks of theology, 2 1/2 years thru Romans, etc, this proof contradicts your accusations.

As far as RC acceptance, you just eliminated the Bible as teaching doctrine. RCs accept the Bible as well. Your logic is flawed.

6. RW is teaching fluff that has no significance or real spiritual edification. This methodology is comparable, although not in degree but in kind, to charismatics seeking a tongues experience by babbling nonsense syllables or mystics pursuing connection with God by deep breathing.

Simply opinion here. I know believers whose lives have been radically changed as a result of PDL. You will have a hard time convincing them it is fluff with "NO" significance or real spiritual edification.

It is simply opinion b/c you are not the determiner of what is significant and what is not.

7. RW abdicates his claim as a Baptist by endorsing a RC monk. Again, this is the result of no doctrinal boundaries. He endorses by quoting a man who teaches RC cultic falsehood.

You just abdicated Paul, who often quoted pagans.

As far as doctrinal bounds, his are clear. Agree or disagree with them, you cannot actually claim there are none.

8. RW preaches a non-confrontational gospel that fails to warn people of their eternal destiny without repentance. I don’t think he preaches repentance or an obedient, surrendered life. Once again, this is fluff without doctrine.

Again this simply reveals your lack of familiarity with RW. I have heard him preach on repentance and hell many times. As a matter of fact, he has said publicly many times that what drives him is his belief in hell and that people actually go there.

Here is a great point that I will address briefly. You harp about doctrine, and I want to suggest that doctrine w/o practice is void. People want to accuse RW and others like him of a lack of doctrine when in reality it is their beliefs that drive them to be evangelistic. Show me a person who has all their doctrinal ducks in a row but has failed to lead a person to Christ in recent days/months and I will show you a person who has a real doctrinal problem, viz., their doctrine is so weak it fails to influence how they live life.

9. Human success is more important than faithfulness. It’s megalomania that afflicts many big Christian ministries, so-called.

Again this shows a lack of knowledge regarding RW and PDC. Warren states repeatedly that PD has nothing to do with size but everything to do with faithfulness to God's purposes. Most of the churches they recognized this year at their annual PDC conference were NOT megas.

10. By trying to be relevant, RW is tainting his message, such as it is, with the wrong ideas. Don’t mix drug culture motifs with the gospel. As we have intimated previously, there are no clear boundaries. It’s one big blob.

Your opinion. Did Paul taint his message by quoting pagans?


As demonstrated again and again in this response, your accusations hold no weight. I will be anxious to read your proof and corrections to the blatant falsehoods that your propose above.

However I will not hold my breath.

All is fun and games on the Baptist Board.

 

[shannonL]

Hey All About Grace,
On more than one post I've have given you credit for working hard to get the doctorate. I have never once boasted for my lack of education. I wish I was able to continue on with a masters degree. Raising three kids has put a damper on that right now.
That being said, I've met some very dedicated men of God who didn't have any degree and were fine preachers etc...

Education is a great thing. It has its place. However; It is not an essential to be able to understand the deep things of God. The Holy Spirit can illuminate the plowboy just like He can the intellectual, acadamian.
I like what ole Doc. Patterson said to me one time sitting in his office. I had just resigned from my first pastorate. I was discouraged because at that time I had 2 kids. I was back in school with no money wanting to finish my masters degree but couldn't afford it. He said " Son its just the nature of the beast these days people want their pastor to have his degrees. However; God doesn't have a degree and He does just fine".
Now this is coming from a man that reads the Greek text like I read the newspaper.
Do we "stand on the shoulders" of those who have their Ph.ds. I suppose we do in a sense as far as benefiting from what they might write etc...
The fact that you make the self proclamation of having some stand on your shoulders just proves that your not ready to handle the responsiblity.
As Yoda would say: "Still wet behind the ears you are". So your one of those whose shoulders we stand on? Well thank you. I'm so glad I know that now. How did the body of Christ ever make it without you? You must be God's gift to the ministry. You may have a Ph.d. That is commendable. I'm sure you earned it. Now go out an learn about humilty before God has to teach you about it through the school of hard knocks.

 

[All about Grace]

I understand. As I completed my degrees, I fathered 3 children & pastored 2 of the fastest growing churches in the area. I understand your struggle.

I also know and love Dr Patterson. He is a great man who had a tremendous influence on me during a certain stage of my life. I appreciate his wisdom and insight as well. His closest mentoree Danny Akin is one of my closest friends and mentors. They are great men. (Although we do disagree on some methodological issues)

Please do not misread my post to suggest that you are standing on my shoulders. I was simply referring to the scholars who have gone before us with whom we owe a great respect. They paved the way for what we believe today.

Those that know me best know that I could care less about my Phd. The only time I have been officially called "Dr" is when I walked across the stage and Dr Mohler said congratulations "Dr ???" I almost laughed.

I am sorry if you misunderstood my words and trust me I understand God uses people with all educational backgrounds. My only point is that a person should not be accused of being proud or arrogant based on their education (or lack thereof). I could honestly care less what your educational background is. I simply raised my educational experience b/c you indicated that I did not believe the Bible as I should.

Now if you would like to deal with any of the other issues, I will be happy to respond to those.

 

[shannonL]

Not really, I concede. I was getting petty anyway.
Thanks for being transparent on your last post.
Dr. Akin was Dean of Men when I attended Southeastern. I'am very pleased that Dr.Akin is now President. I enjoy Dr. Mohler as well. That dude is very bright to say the least.
I was over the top on my last post. God calls us all to where He wants us to be. I'm a missionary /evangelist kinda guy. I suppose your a pastor / teacher kinda guy?
We each have a (mission) to fulfill. A little R.Warren lingo for ya!
Like Larry the cable guy says: we need to
GIT ER DONE"!

 

[shannonL]

For the record though I still disagree with Warren's approach to ministry. There are some very smart men out there who are leary of the PDL movement along with the CGM. Check out John MacArthur's book "Fools Gold" there are some good arguments in that book.

 

[All about Grace]

Originally posted by shannonL:
For the record though I still disagree with Warren's approach to ministry. There are some very smart men out there who are leary of the PDL movement along with the CGM. Check out John MacArthur's book "Fools Gold" there are some good arguments in that book.

I concur there are concerns with any approach to ministry. That is not the point. My point is that Rick Warren, Bill Hybels, et. al. are on our team. They are not the opposition. So let's stop treating them as such. Do I agree with everything they say and do? Of course not. I am not sure I agree with everything I say and do

MacArthur and others are known for attacking straw men. IMHO they are fighting the wrong battle in this instance. And I respect John Mac. I have over 50 of his books. I just think he is wrong here. And as MacArthur is prone to do, he attacks the extreme.

Let's just remember -- methodologies are not the issue. Let's not equate methods with theology. They are not the same. My methods are far different than many of my mentors, but my theology is equally as strong.

 

[shannonL]

For all the stuff I've said about RW. I will have to say I make a distinction between him and Bill H. He has some views about women in leadership that I will never agree to. He is way to ecumenical for my taste. I have a brother in law whose a pastor in Va. He loves Bill. Makes a pilgrimage to Willowcreek at least twice a year. Yet, even he admits they have some serious issues.
Bill invites Catholics to speak at his church at times. I know their doctrinal statement is orthodox but its border line. They are into some "different" stuff up there.

 

[All about Grace]

Originally posted by shannonL:
For all the stuff I've said about RW. I will have to say I make a distinction between him and Bill H. He has some views about women in leadership that I will never agree to. He is way to ecumenical for my taste. I have a brother in law whose a pastor in Va. He loves Bill. Makes a pilgrimage to Willowcreek at least twice a year. Yet, even he admits they have some serious issues.
Bill invites Catholics to speak at his church at times. I know their doctrinal statement is orthodox but its border line. They are into some "different" stuff up there.

As I said, I do not agree with everything they say or do. Hybels included. Yet I also know Hybels is a) evangelical and b) passionate about winning lost people to faith in Christ. We can agree over the bottom line ~ people need Christ. It does not mean I have to emulate him.

I just think it is time we were known for what we are for instead of what we are against (which is the model Jesus encouraged).

 

[shannonL]

I don't know Grace,
In this age of plurality of religions, tolerance,postmodern thinking etc... We might be doing lost folk a disservice if we don't make certain distinctions. If we don't it might lead us to forget just where we stood to begin with.
I agree evangelism should highly motivate us. I just think doctrine ought to govern our evangelistic endeavors and associations not vice-versa. I believe there is plenty of room for different methodology but not to the point that "anything goes" Remember in OT days they had to be careful how they carried the ark or God would kill them. I think we can apply that do our opinions on methodology today in the NT church.
For example, have you looked into the Emergent Church Movement? I've not done a whole lot of reading about it. It seems that it is comprised of people that have gotten bored with the Church Growth Movement. The more we minimize doctrinal differences for the sake of evangelical purposes the greater the opportunity for the experiential to override the doctrinal. It is being evidenced in this Emergent Church movement. I'm not rambling I genuinly believe there are some loose connections.

 

[All about Grace]

In this age of plurality of religions, tolerance,postmodern thinking etc... We might be doing lost folk a disservice if we don't make certain distinctions. If we don't it might lead us to forget just where we stood to begin with.

I guess my point centers around what those distinctions should be. For me, it is primarily salvation thru Jesus Christ (and the basics of what that entails). I believe the core elements of the message are what distinguishes Christianity in an age of pluralism, etc. The disservice comes when we divide, argue, and fight over nonessentials.

I just think doctrine ought to govern our evangelistic endeavors and associations not vice-versa.

Agreed ~ but not non-essential doctrines. The key doctrine that governs our evangelism is the reality that Heaven and Hell are real and those who die w/o Christ will spend an eternity in one of those places. That is the doctrine that must drive us. Other doctrinal issues, that many of our own divide over, pale in comparison to that essential truth.

I believe there is plenty of room for different methodology but not to the point that "anything goes"

No one is arguing for "anything goes." Anything that taints or distorts the essential message is off limits. As far as I am concerned, most churches do not have to worry about the "anything goes." They need to be concerned about just doing the "anything."

have you looked into the Emergent Church Movement?

I have been involved in several EC dialogues and have been asked my opinion about it by different leaders. Emerging Church is a huge term right now that cannot be clearly defined. What I do believe is that there is an emerging generation to whom the gospel must be communicated in a manner that connects to their questions, concerns, and beliefs. The church can ignore them (which many have done), keep packaging things the same as they did 30 years ago (which more have done), or recognize the fluidity of how the message is presented and seek to address the needs of this emerging generation with the unchanging message of Jesus Christ.

I think the EC is causing us to re-think some issues that should be re-considered in a different light. Take the good ~ leave the bad.

 

[shannonL]

Have you taken a look at that guy who wrote that book..."A Generous Orthodoxy"? Is it Larsen? I don't know but I skimmed through that thing one day in Barnes and Noble. He is anything but orthodox. He is liberal. He is one of the main players in the EC movement. I may have missed a few things in the book. I just couldn't find one thing grab on to. I admit to a point the methodology may fluxuate from generation to generation.Doctrine cannot.
I do believe Fundamentalism pushed some people into these more pragmatic ways of doing things by some of the requirements they tacked onto fundamentalism through the years. People can get confused between what is to be considered "essentials" or "preferences"
That being said centering our fellowship around the least common denominator doctrinally has led to evangelicalism becoming ridicuosly shallow.
Spurgeon once said "A good captain doesnt guide his ship through the channel trying to get as close to the rocks as he can. No, he stays straight ahead."
I believe there is a tendancy in evangelicalism to see how close we can get without ripping a hole in the hull of the ship.
If you've ever read some of the stuff concerning the "downgrade controversy" in Spurgeon's day you will pick up on some striking simularities between those days and the state of evangelicalism today.
If you think evangelicalism is not shallow just look at the NAE. I just started a thread about how they could not dismiss open theist from the association. Didn't have enough votes. The spectrum is broad. Too broad.

 

[All about Grace]

Have you taken a look at that guy who wrote that book..."A Generous Orthodoxy"? Is it Larsen? I don't know but I skimmed through that thing one day in Barnes and Noble. He is anything but orthodox. He is liberal. He is one of the main players in the EC movement. I may have missed a few things in the book. I just couldn't find one thing grab on to. I admit to a point the methodology may fluxuate from generation to generation.Doctrine cannot.

I have read most of Brian McClaren's works. He does not land on purpose. He wants to make you think. He paints close to the lines in order to challenge his readers. It is a common tactic among those who are writing controversial subject matter. McClaren makes me think on some matters. I definitely differ from him, but he is influencing an entire generation. So again, we can ignore him or take what he says to heart and balance it within our own framework.

Only a few basic core doctrines are concrete. Others have more to do with distinction (denominations) and less to do with orthodoxy. Doctrine that defines what it means to be a Christian (resurrection, substitutionary death, etc.) are concrete. Other doctrines vary and are not worth dividing over (mill views, women in ministry, etc.). That does not mean you embrace everyone who varies from you. It simply means you recognize someone can hold a different position than I do in nonessential matters and still be equally evangelical.

That being said centering our fellowship around the least common denominator doctrinally has led to evangelicalism becoming ridicuosly shallow.

Jesus seemed to emphasize the least common denominator to me. He summarized the entire Mosaic law into two simple command. As a matter of fact we never find him defining a code of doctrine with which to abide.

If you've ever read some of the stuff concerning the "downgrade controversy" in Spurgeon's day you will pick up on some striking simularities between those days and the state of evangelicalism today.

The funny thing is that Spurgeon was criticized vehemently by the "conservatives" of his day and would probably not be allowed to speak in most conservative pulpits today if he were alive.

 

[shannonL]

I'm aware of the fact that he may write to stir up controversy.
Don't try to flip the script on Spurgeon. You didn't answer my question which was the shallowness of evangelicalism today and the direction the church was heading in Spurgeon's day. There are simularities.
Please don't try and tell me Spurgeon would identify with those who consider themselves "cutting edge" today.For starters go read "Feeding Sheep or Amusing Goats"
Even in Spurgeon's time the church was becoming intrigued with gimmicks and sideshows. I know those things are not essential but, you know what I mean.
Why did Paul write pastoral epistles at all if none of it was essential?
I benefit from reading guys like McClaren too.
I get to find out what the liberal theologians are up too. Just by skimming the book I thought about when the serpent said to Eve : "Is that really what God said"? How can one teach "sound doctrine" if one is forever trying to discover what that is which seems to be vibe you get from McClaren's book. I admit I did just speed read it but that dude is way off in the high weeds.

I disagree with you on your opinion concerning one's view on the mill. It isn't essential on whether or not your going to heaven. It does shape your view of the Church.

There are those even Baptist circles that believe the Church is going to bring the kingdom in for Christ before He returns. Its the driving force behind some of the teachings of John Wimber and others. (I admit I don't know everything about dominion theology I'm just trying to get a handle on it.)

I hold to a pre-trib, pre-mill position myself. I'm a dispensationalist in the sense that I believe in the Chrurch age. I also believe the promises to Israel in the OT. I truly believe Israel will physically be restored. God promised them a land, a seed and a blessing.

I'am rambling but to a degree your eschatology shapes your ecclesiology which in turn trickles down to your views on evangelization.

 

[Gold Dragon]

Originally posted by All about Grace:
I have been involved in several EC dialogues and have been asked my opinion about it by different leaders. Emerging Church is a huge term right now that cannot be clearly defined. What I do believe is that there is an emerging generation to whom the gospel must be communicated in a manner that connects to their questions, concerns, and beliefs. The church can ignore them (which many have done), keep packaging things the same as they did 30 years ago (which more have done), or recognize the fluidity of how the message is presented and seek to address the needs of this emerging generation with the unchanging message of Jesus Christ.

I think the EC is causing us to re-think some issues that should be re-considered in a different light. Take the good ~ leave the bad.

Hi All about Grace. Just wanted to prop almost all you posts in this thread and especially your view on the EC, being one of the few around these parts that is more sympathetic to the EC.

 

[paidagogos]

Superdave wrote:
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.

"But whereunto shall I liken this generation? It is like unto children sitting in the markets, and calling unto their fellows, And saying, We have piped unto you, and ye have not danced; we have mourned unto you, and ye have not lamented. For John came neither eating nor drinking, and they say, He hath a devil. The Son of man came eating and drinking, and they say, Behold a man gluttonous, and a winebibber, a friend of publicans and sinners. But wisdom is justified of her children." (Matthew 11:16-19)