# Rick Warren - a Kuyper-Calvinist?



## panta dokimazete (Jun 21, 2008)

I have seen this quoted several times - what do ya'll make of this?


----------



## toddpedlar (Jun 21, 2008)

panta dokimazete said:


> I have seen this quoted several times - what do ya'll make of this?



You may have to expand on this for those of us who've never heard of this. For my part, I can't see (whatever his claims) Warren as any kind of Calvinist, and certainly I think Kuyper would recoil at much of what Warren panders to in culture.


----------



## panta dokimazete (Jun 21, 2008)

This is a comment from the thread about the SBC membership resolution on the Founder's blog



> FROM RICK WARREN
> 
> Hi Tom!
> I have been personally urging the adoption of a resolution on Membership like your's for over 20 years. I hope it passes. The restoration of the integrity of membership is an absolute foundation to the spiritual health of a congretion.
> ...


----------



## calgal (Jun 21, 2008)

Kuyper is turning over in his grave!


----------



## Ivan (Jun 21, 2008)

I still wonder if that was really Warren.


----------



## panta dokimazete (Jun 21, 2008)

so did Steve Camp - did you see his response? whew!


----------



## Barnpreacher (Jun 21, 2008)

Ivan said:


> I still wonder if that was really Warren.



Exactly! Call me a skeptic, but I wouldn't be putting money on it.


----------



## jogri17 (Jun 21, 2008)

I could believe it. That would just mean simply that he has right theoloy and is horrible when it comes to the application in his books and tv interviews.


----------



## Hippo (Jun 21, 2008)

And remember that Geisler claims to be a "moderate calvinist".


----------



## Pilgrim (Jun 21, 2008)

In an interview with Michael Horton several years ago for _Modern Reformation_ he claimed to be a Calvinist. It used to be online but I don't think it is anymore.


----------



## Pilgrim (Jun 21, 2008)

> Most people have no idea- sero- of what is Saddleback Church is really like. They have bought into all the stupid misinformation that circuluates on the internet, and in books by people who aren't even believers and have never even talked to me.



Is he saying what I think he is--that his critics aren't believers? 

Edit: He did note that he typed out the comment quickly, so I think he deserves the benefit of the doubt here.


----------



## Pilgrim (Jun 21, 2008)

This is apparently a phrase that Warren has used several times lately. I knew I had seen it before. See here. 

BTW a lot of the WSCAL radical two kingdomers are probably happy with the association Warren made since they seem to dump on Kuyper and Kuyperianism every chance they get.


----------



## Stephen (Jun 21, 2008)

panta dokimazete said:


> This is a comment from the thread about the SBC membership resolution on the Founder's blog
> 
> 
> 
> ...



If Warren is a Kuyper Calvinist I am a neo-Pagan. Yeah, right. He would not know what one was if it bit him on his Arminianian backside. I certainly will not be reading or listening to his Arminianism no matter how he tries to dress it.


----------



## Ivan (Jun 21, 2008)

Stephen said:


> panta dokimazete said:
> 
> 
> > This is a comment from the thread about the SBC membership resolution on the Founder's blog
> ...


----------



## toddpedlar (Jun 21, 2008)

panta dokimazete said:


> This is a comment from the thread about the SBC membership resolution on the Founder's blog



Whether that comment was actually penned by Warren or not doesn't change the fact that it only takes listening to 10 minutes of his tripe to determine that he's neither anywhere near being either Calvinist or Kuyperian.


----------



## toddpedlar (Jun 21, 2008)

Stephen said:


> If Warren is a Kuyper Calvinist I am a neo-Pagan. Yeah, right. He would not know what one was if it bit him on his Arminianian backside. I certainly will not be reading or listening to his Arminianism no matter how he tries to dress it.



One of the better quips I've read in a long time


----------



## Reformed Covenanter (Jun 21, 2008)

Pilgrim said:


> This is apparently a phrase that Warren has used several times lately. I knew I had seen it before. See here.
> 
> BTW a lot of the WSCAL two kingdomers are probably happy with the association Warren made since they seem to dump on Kuyper and Kuyperianism every chance they get.



Yes, I often think to myself that WSC must be so happy that the FV has emerged, so that they can link anyone who believes in societal reformation (who is not a pietist) as being similar to the FV.


----------



## danmpem (Jun 21, 2008)

jogri17 said:


> I could believe it. That would just mean simply that he has right theoloy and is horrible when it comes to the application in his books and tv interviews.



That's the way it is with many of the seeker sensitive and emerging church leaders (and I don't just mean the published ones either; I mean local pastors in various places). They don't want to teach the doctrines of grace for fear of causing confusion and division over something that isn't really THAT important. Some pastors I've asked about this are 5-pointers all the way, they just only want to preach evangelistic messages, and not offend anyone.


----------



## panta dokimazete (Jun 21, 2008)

I think perhaps Calvinistic doctrine may be taught in terms of discipleship and probably not explicitly, and not as the "bully pulpit" or as a public platform.


----------



## danmpem (Jun 21, 2008)

Stephen said:


> If Warren is a Kuyper Calvinist I am a neo-Pagan. Yeah, right. He would not know what one was if it bit him on his Arminianian backside. I certainly will not be reading or listening to his Arminianism no matter how he tries to dress it.



I have a very short fuse when it comes to false teachers, but I'm not sold on the fact that Warren is Arminian. I think we tend to associate too much a preacher being a Calvinist with him preaching Calvinism. If he says he's one, then I'm going to give him the benefit of the doubt that he's telling the truth that he knows all these facts about God and how God works. It makes it all the worse that he's not telling the truth in his books - claiming that in P.D.L. there are all the keys to spirituality to be found there, and then he never mentions the resurrection of Christ.


----------



## toddpedlar (Jun 21, 2008)

panta dokimazete said:


> I think perhaps Calvinistic doctrine may be taught in terms of discipleship and probably not explicitly, and not as the "bully pulpit" or as a public platform.



One need not mention the name "Calvin" in order to be an authentic Calvinist who preaches the whole counsel of God. However, in order to make a legitimate, believable claim that you are a Calvinist, you'd better teach something that resembles, at least loosely, the teaching of John Calvin. Unfortunately for this claim of Warren's (or whomever was writing in his guise in that blog comment), when one's teachings are as man-centered as Warren's are, and when free-will decisionism is as plain as it is in his teaching (and/or that of Saddleback Church) it's hard to accept his claims to be a Calvinist.


----------



## Semper Fidelis (Jun 21, 2008)

Daniel Ritchie said:


> Pilgrim said:
> 
> 
> > This is apparently a phrase that Warren has used several times lately. I knew I had seen it before. See here.
> ...



This kind of quote is un-called for. Whether or not you agree with some of the theological inclinations of the men at WSC, they are a group of thoughtful men that can hardly be painted with such a large brush. This is irresponsible and a violation of the 9th Commandment. It will not be tolerated here.


----------



## Semper Fidelis (Jun 21, 2008)

I read that quote yesterday, J.D. and I find a disconnect between his writings (doctrine) and his claim that he is a "Calvinist". Where else would we expect to find a man's Confessional understanding on a thing except in his writings. What would be worse is if he actually taught his folks one thing and then confessed an entirely different thing to the world that is utilizing his books. 

I've seen the fruit in Churches around the country that have adopted the Purpose Driven Life/Church approach. It doesn't ground them in the Gospel of Grace but in activity. It assumes that Pastors and congregants understand this Gospel to begin with and moves on to the love and good works that should be flowing out of a grounding in the Gospel. In this it assumes it away and calls to my mind whether it is really understood by Warren when he does so.

Without a proper grounding in the nature of the Gospel itself, "transformational" activities are simply pietism. They have all the appearance of true pious activity. In fact, you _can_ get great results from focusing on pious activity but Warren is at the fore of a bow wave of leaving the Gospel in a subtle neglect that ends up starving out people's understanding of it and leaves a dead Church in its wake.


----------



## aleksanderpolo (Jun 21, 2008)

Semper Fidelis said:


> Daniel Ritchie said:
> 
> 
> > Pilgrim said:
> ...



Not sure if this is relevant :

Theonomy and Federal Vision: Separated at Birth? « Heidelblog


----------



## Semper Fidelis (Jun 21, 2008)

aleksanderpolo said:


> Semper Fidelis said:
> 
> 
> > Daniel Ritchie said:
> ...



It's neither relevant to the thread nor the broad brush with which an entire faculty was painted. I personally know some of these men and consider them friends and highly respect them. I don't share every conclusion but the characterization above was a caricature.


----------



## Archlute (Jun 21, 2008)

Semper Fidelis said:


> aleksanderpolo said:
> 
> 
> > Semper Fidelis said:
> ...




Very true. Kuyper is not at all a "bad guy" at WSC, but the profs do attempt to distinguish between the actual thought and practice of Kuyper, and the less thoughtful acquisition of this by the neo-Kuyperian movement. Some of my more enjoyable class readings were in the writings of Kuyper.

I know that Dr. Godfrey, the president of the seminary and lecturer in the history of the Modern Church, is a supporter of much of his thought and gave a favorable presentation of him during our lectures. In fact, if you can believe it, he and another visiting prof got into a surprising bit of a tussle during a Warfield seminar because the un-named prof was a bit too dismissive of Kuyper and the application of his theology in the life of the Church today. It was about as knock-down, drag-out as you can get in an academic setting! Which is to say that not only is Kuyper given a voice in the curriculum at WSC, but there is some passion in defending his thought by at least several of the ministers whom I know there.


----------



## DMcFadden (Jun 21, 2008)

danmpem said:


> Stephen said:
> 
> 
> > If Warren is a Kuyper Calvinist I am a neo-Pagan. Yeah, right. He would not know what one was if it bit him on his Arminianian backside. I certainly will not be reading or listening to his Arminianism no matter how he tries to dress it.
> ...



I suppose that just as one who is against abuses of the Fed government might call himself a "Jacksonian" without holding to all of the views of the historical Andrew Jackson, one who believed in impacting society as a Christian might dub himself a "Kuyperian." That is not the same thing as accepting all of the particularities of belief that go along with the view. 

In the case of Warren, his writings do NOT suggest a Calvinist of any stripe, at least none who might be accepted on the PB. If he wants to call himself a Kuyperian, so what? One of my high school history teachers called himself a Druid. We just shouldn't attribute to that quote what some of the theologs on the PB know about either Calvinism or a Calvinist of Kuyperian stripe.

Having listened to Warren explain how he prepares his sermons, it would surprise me greatly if he is using the words "Kuyper Calvinist" in their technical referential sense.


----------



## Stephen (Jun 21, 2008)

My youngest brother, who was raised a papist, but never practices his Roman faith, went to Warren's congregation last year with a friend. He asked me what I thought about him and I told him. As a non-believer he admitted to me that it did not seem like a church to him. He lives in Houston and recently attended a service at Joel Olsteen's empire and came to the same conclusion on his own. I am amazed that a non-believer has more wisdom in this area then most believers. If you think about it pray that the Lord would open my brother's heart to the gospel. He seems to be searching. His name is Jeff. Thank you.


----------



## ChristianTrader (Jun 21, 2008)

Daniel Ritchie said:


> Pilgrim said:
> 
> 
> > This is apparently a phrase that Warren has used several times lately. I knew I had seen it before. See here.
> ...



Just stick to what is clear and call their law gospel distinction antinomian. Do not be overly ambitious against theological opponents.

CT


----------



## Archlute (Jun 21, 2008)

ChristianTrader said:


> Daniel Ritchie said:
> 
> 
> > Pilgrim said:
> ...





Are you serious, or are you just making a stupid statement for kicks?


Wait, you're that guy who is more theologically well-read than any of the profs there, right? 

No, all of them put together, right? 

No, wait, you're that guy who went to some seminary somewhere, right? 

No, wait, you're that guy who is a minister or a professor of Scripture or theology somewhere, right?

No, wait, wait! You're that guy who has caught something that every single denominational committee and board of supporters from various Reformed churches and bodies who lend their aid and give approbation to the institution of WSC has missed, right? 



No, wait, you're that guy who hasn't even taken a single page of lecture notes from that institution, and couldn't coherently articulate the position of a single professor on a single point of anything, because all that you have is hearsay. _That's_ right.

Sometimes the boldness with which statements made in ignorance are set forth on this board astounds me.


----------



## Semper Fidelis (Jun 21, 2008)

BTW, one of the applicants for our pastorate here went to Seminary with Warren. He agreed with his teaching, etc and agreed with him in the main.

The applicant withdrew his application because he had received faulty information that we were not interested in applications that were not Reformed. There are some other details not worth sharing but this applicant even claimed that we were interested only in a Reformed man and not a man who was conservative and used exegetical preaching. In other words, he contrasted the two as being polar opposites.

Suffice to say, I find it odd that a man who has been friends with Warren for a few decades would openly repudiate all things Reformed but embrace Warren's teaching.


----------



## Semper Fidelis (Jun 21, 2008)

Let's move off the WSC kick. This has nothing to do with the substance of whether or not Warren can be considered a Kuyperian Calvinist.


----------



## ColdSilverMoon (Jun 21, 2008)

panta dokimazete said:


> This is a comment from the thread about the SBC membership resolution on the Founder's blog
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Having recently read the _Purpose Driven Life_, I don't see how he can make this claim, whether or not it was actually Warren who wrote this post. It is very clear that he is Arminian throughout the book - it practically leaps off the page. Sure, he mentions here and there that God has a plan for us, that He loved us before the beginning of the universe, etc. All true, but if Warren is truly a Calvinist, his application is completely off target. The thrust of much of the book is that we must choose God, we must make the decision to serve God, we are responsible for our own lives, etc. It is mostly man-centered and only mildly Christ-centered. 

I'm not as anti-Warren and anti-Saddleback as many people on PB, and actually think there are some very good points and very valid concepts in the book, but to say Kuyper and Calvinism has a heavy influence on the book is ridiculous...


----------



## Poimen (Jun 23, 2008)

MODERATOR VOICE ON

Okay guys. Stick to the thread title or stop posting. Or feel free to duke it out somewhere else. 

MODERATOR VOICE OFF


----------



## jogri17 (Jun 23, 2008)

Well, I don't see anything that is arminian in the purpose driven life it just is really really man centered. One could in theory be a calvinist and write it but in application just ignore his own theology. But Kuyper was a supralasparian who believed in presumptional regeneration. And Waren being the most gracious would be the lowest calvinst since baxter (who denied sola fide). but until he says he believes the canons of dordt I will be hesitant


----------



## danmpem (Jun 23, 2008)

If Rick Warren were an astronaut, he'd fly through the Kuyper Belt.


----------



## Jared (Jun 23, 2008)

I read The Purpose Driven Life five years ago. I have to admit that some of the things that he said in the book were helpful. However, Warren is too liberal politically in my opinion.

I recently read Tim Keller's new book The Reason For God and he uses a quote from Rick Warren where Warren stood up for his belief in hell as an eternal place of conscious punishment for the wicked.

The Purpose Driven Life is basically the only way that I know anything about Rick Warren, other than the fact that he seems to be very ecumenical.

Anyway, those are my thoughts.


----------



## Semper Fidelis (Jun 24, 2008)

Adam (ChristusRegnat),

I moved your post to the 9th Commandment thread: http://www.puritanboard.com/f54/nin...-heart-gesture-right-word-james-durham-34418/


----------



## jogri17 (Jun 24, 2008)

Jonathan Edwards= America's real Pastor


----------



## toddpedlar (Jun 24, 2008)

jogri17 said:


> Well, I don't see anything that is arminian in the purpose driven life it just is really really man centered. One could in theory be a calvinist and write it but in application just ignore his own theology. But Kuyper was a supralasparian who believed in presumptional regeneration. And Waren being the most gracious would be the lowest calvinst since baxter (who denied sola fide). but until he says he believes the canons of dordt I will be hesitant



Poor application of theology does not turn Calvinist belief into Arminian practice and promotion of Arminian ideas about God and man. Based on what one sees in PDL, I dont' see any reason to believe anything Warren might say about being a Calvinist.


----------

