# Purpose Driven Covenant



## Robin (Sep 17, 2006)

Today I am stepping across the line. I´m tired of waffling and I´m finished with wavering, I´ve made my choice, the verdict is in, and my decision is irrevocable. I´m going God´s way. There´s no turning back now!

I will live the rest of my life serving God´s purposes with God´s people on God´s planet for God´s glory. I will use my life to celebrate his presence, cultivate his character, participate in his family, demonstrate his love, and communicate his word.

Since my past has been forgiven, and I have a purpose for living, and a home awaiting in heaven, I refuse to waste any more time or energy on shallow living, petty thinking, trivial talking, thoughtless doing, useless regretting, hurtful resenting, or faithless worrying. Instead I will magnify God, grow to maturity, serve in ministry, and fulfill my mission in the membership of his family.

Because this life is preparation for the next, I will value worship over wealth, "œwe" over "œme", character over comfort, service over status, and people over possessions, position, and pleasures. I know what matters most and I´ll give it all I´ve got. I´ll do the best I can with what I have for Jesus Christ today.

I won´t be captivated by culture, manipulated by critics, motivated by praise, frustrated by problems, debilitated by temptation, or intimidated by the devil. I´ll keep running my race with my eyes on the goal, not the sidelines or those running by me. When times get tough, and I get tired, I won´t back up, back off, back down, back out or backslide. I´ll just keep moving forward by God´s grace. I´m Spirit-led, purpose-driven and mission-focused so I cannot be bought, I will not be compromised, and I shall not quit until I finish the race.

I´m a trophy of God´s amazing grace so I will be gracious to everyone, grateful for everyday, and generous with everything that God entrusts to me.

To my Lord and Savior Jesus Christ, I say: However, Whenever, Wherever, and Whatever you ask me to do, my answer in advance is yes! Wherever you lead and whatever the cost, I´m ready. Anytime. Anywhere. Anyway. Whatever it takes Lord; Whatever it takes! I want to be used by you in such a way, that on that final day I´ll hear you say, "œWell done, thou good and faithful one. Come on in, and let the eternal party begin!"

http://saddleback.com/flash/default.htm

So...what's wrong with this picture?


----------



## rjlynam (Sep 17, 2006)

Wow, instant sanctification ! Just name it and claim it. Reading this, it sounds like it's all about self.

My response would be

"It ain't all about you, it ain't all about me, it's all about Jesus"!


----------



## jaybird0827 (Sep 17, 2006)

Where is the grace of God in all this?

This reminds me of one of the "hymns" that God used to drive me to Psalmody, "Jesus, I Am Resting, Resting". In other words, has anyone counted the number of occurrances of the first person singular (I, me, mine) in this monstrosity?


----------



## turmeric (Sep 17, 2006)

Keswick for the 21st Century! 

He seems to make the usual Evanjellyfish mistake. WE did not make any covenant with God, HE made a covenant with us, anc Christ carried out the demands and suffered the penalties of the covenant in our stead. Therefore, with His help, we will live a life that reflects trust and gratitude.

[Edited on 9-17-2006 by turmeric]


----------



## Scott Bushey (Sep 17, 2006)

> _Originally posted by turmeric_
> Keswick for the 21st Century!
> 
> He seems to make the usual Evanjellyfish mistake. WE did not make any covenant with God, HE made a covenant with us, anc Christ carried out the demands and suffered the penalties of the covenant in our stead. Therefore, with His help, we will live a life that reflects trust and gratitude.
> ...



Exactly! Stupid is as stupid does. This is more like a _vow_ at best.


----------



## panta dokimazete (Sep 17, 2006)

2 Kings 11:17
And *Jehoiada made* a covenant between the LORD and the king and people, that they should be the LORD's people, and also between the king and the people.

2 Kings 23:3
And *the king* stood by the pillar and *made* a covenant before the LORD, to walk after the LORD and to keep his commandments and his testimonies and his statutes with all his heart and all his soul, to perform the words of this covenant that were written in this book. And all the people joined in the covenant.

2 Chronicles 29:10
Now it is in my heart to *make a covenant with the LORD*, the God of Israel, in order that his fierce anger may turn away from us.

Ezra 10:3
Therefore *let us make a covenant with our God* to put away all these wives and their children, according to the counsel of my lord and of those who tremble at the commandment of our God, and let it be done according to the Law.

...not without precedent. Particularly if the *intent* is to glorify God.

-JD

[Edited on 9-17-2006 by jdlongmire]


----------



## VirginiaHuguenot (Sep 17, 2006)

The Principle of Covenanting is Biblical. The PDL version, however, is sorely spiritually deficient. Compare with another example: Thomas Boston's Personal Covenants.

[Edited on 9-17-2006 by VirginiaHuguenot]


----------



## WrittenFromUtopia (Sep 17, 2006)

> _Originally posted by jdlongmire_
> 2 Kings 11:17
> And *Jehoiada made* a covenant between the LORD and the king and people, that they should be the LORD's people, and also between the king and the people.
> 
> ...



God made a covenant with those people first, though.


----------



## panta dokimazete (Sep 17, 2006)

just as Christ did with us...look - not going to get tit for tat, here - just wonder why we are so unecessarily critical...

-JD


----------



## turmeric (Sep 17, 2006)

It's not un-necessary. This kind of thing is an example of what most modern "Evangelical" churches teach; that WE are seeking God. It's true that some of us would pick on anything Warren does, but the problem is that so much of what he teaches is either feel-good itching ear remedy or works-driven sanctification, or the two mixed together; and that doesn't help anyone.


----------



## ef (Sep 17, 2006)

Check out Horton's article from MR "The Promise Driven Life." He refutes this Roman Catholicism in Evangelical clothing so fast it'll make Rick Warren... uh... 

Ok, I don't know what it'll make him do. But its great for a person who really cares about what the Bible has to say about salvation.


----------



## Scott (Sep 18, 2006)

I am not a Warren fan, but this is not typical of evangelicalism. It is a denial of self, cultural fads, inappropriate preoccupation with wealth, etc. I just skimmed it, but it looks like every affirmation would be consistent with reformed ethics and is certainly better than wordly ethics or the ethics of the evangelical world generally. Also, there is nothing wrong with the focus on "I" in terms of someone making a personal declaration. God's sovereignty does not mean that people have not natural liberty. This is just an expanded way of saying "As for me and my house, we will follow the Lord." The psalms of full of "I" statements and self-referential declarations.


----------



## Civbert (Sep 18, 2006)

> _Originally posted by Robin_
> .... Whatever it takes! I want to be used by you in such a way, that on that final day I´ll hear you say, "œWell done, thou good and faithful one. Come on in, and let the eternal party begin!"
> 
> http://saddleback.com/flash/default.htm
> ...



Works based righteousness. Our rightousness can only be secured through faith in Christ, not through our obedience.


----------



## jaybird0827 (Sep 18, 2006)

There is a big difference between "I" in the Psalms and "I" in most evanjellyfish hymns.


----------



## Scott (Sep 18, 2006)

> There is a big difference between "I" in the Psalms and "I" in most evanjellyfish hymns.


Let's take an excerpt from the Saddleback delcaration (not a hymn, but it is what the thread is about):

"I will live the rest of my life serving God´s purposes with God´s people on God´s planet for God´s glory."

What is objectionable with that sentence?


----------



## Scott (Sep 18, 2006)

> Works based righteousness. Our rightousness can only be secured through faith in Christ, not through our obedience.


Can you point to the specific parts of the declaration that suggest works-based righteousness?


----------



## Civbert (Sep 18, 2006)

*works righteousness*



> _Originally posted by Scott_
> 
> 
> > Works based righteousness. Our righteousness can only be secured through faith in Christ, not through our obedience.
> ...



Yes, the part I quoted.



> _Originally posted by Robin_
> .... Whatever it takes! I want to be used by you _in such a way, that_ on that final day I´ll hear you say, "œWell done, thou good and faithful one. Come on in, and let the eternal party begin!"



This easily gives the impression that the righteousness we are credited with ("good and faithful") is _based_ on our works ("_ in such a waythat"_ ). 

The whole document speaks of living righteously. That's fine. We should strive to live a life for God's glory. But the reason we do is gratitude that God promised not to give us the reward we deserve (damnation for our sins), and we are only enabled to live righteousness by the power of the Holy Spirit. 

When we stand before God, if we are one of the elect, then because of Christ's obedience will we be declared righteous, not because of our own good deeds. We will be rewarded for our good deeds, but the only way we can be considered "good and faithful" is because we believed in Christ's perfect life and sacrifice for our salvation.


----------



## turmeric (Sep 18, 2006)

> _Originally posted by Robin_
> Today I am stepping across the line. I´m tired of waffling and I´m finished with wavering, I´ve made my choice, the verdict is in, and my *decision* is irrevocable. I´m going God´s way. There´s no turning back now!



There's your first problem, in bold.



> I will live the rest of my life serving God´s purposes with God´s people on God´s planet for God´s glory. I will use my life to celebrate his presence, cultivate his character, participate in his family, demonstrate his love, and communicate his word.
> 
> Since my past has been forgiven, and I have a purpose for living, and a home awaiting in heaven, I refuse to waste any more time or energy on shallow living, petty thinking, trivial talking, thoughtless doing, useless regretting, hurtful resenting, or faithless worrying. Instead I will magnify God, grow to maturity, serve in ministry, and fulfill my mission in the membership of his family.



These are good things, and we should try to do them, but the notion that I can decide, on day X, that I'm going to do this, to be 'sold-out" as they used to say when I was growing up, is a hold-over from Keswick or Wesleyanism or some other kind of perfectionism. _I can't make myself into a mdel Christian by deciding to do so at some point in time._ I can, and must, make every attempt to obey God's will revealed in Scripture; knowing that I am *never* doing so adequately or acceptably. In the end, we are unprofitable servants, but we are objects of God's grace, as this document affirms.





> Because this life is preparation for the next, I will value worship over wealth, "œwe" over "œme", character over comfort, service over status, and people over possessions, position, and pleasures. I know what matters most and I´ll give it all I´ve got. I´ll do the best I can with what I have for Jesus Christ today.



Yes, this is good, we should attempt it.



> I won´t be captivated by culture, manipulated by critics, motivated by praise, frustrated by problems, debilitated by temptation, or intimidated by the devil. I´ll keep running my race with my eyes on the goal, not the sidelines or those running by me. When times get tough, and I get tired, I won´t back up, back off, back down, back out or backslide. I´ll just keep moving forward by God´s grace. I´m Spirit-led, purpose-driven and mission-focused so I cannot be bought, I will not be compromised, and I shall not quit until I finish the race.
> 
> I´m a trophy of God´s amazing grace so I will be gracious to everyone, grateful for everyday, and generous with everything that God entrusts to me.



This still sounds like perfectionism to me.



> To my Lord and Savior Jesus Christ, I say: However, Whenever, Wherever, and Whatever you ask me to do, my answer in advance is yes! Wherever you lead and whatever the cost, I´m ready. Anytime. Anywhere. Anyway. Whatever it takes Lord; Whatever it takes! I want to be used by you in such a way, that on that final day I´ll hear you say, "œWell done, thou good and faithful one. Come on in, and let the eternal party begin!"



This formula, with the underlying assumption that God cannot and will not use one unless, *at a point in time* after salvation, one "surrenders" to Jesus is classic Keswick - and ubiquitous to modern evangelicalism.

What's wrong with it? If we could do it, there wouldn't be anything wrong with it - it's a paraphrase of the Law, which is holy, just and good, and which I prefer as it is recorded in Scripture. But I still can't keep it, even if I take the whole Class series by Rick Warren, or go to the Keswick Convention, or even sit under the ministry of Sproul or MacArthur.

I rest my case.


----------



## ef (Sep 18, 2006)

> _Originally posted by Scott_
> 
> 
> > There is a big difference between "I" in the Psalms and "I" in most evanjellyfish hymns.
> ...



It is a fundamental confusion of Law & Gospel here. Are the things that Pastor Warren suggests wicked or according to the values of the world? No. Were the things that the Pharisees were trying to do wicked in and of themselves? No.

The thing that is missing here is an understanding of our inability to do this apart from the active and passive obedience of Christ. It isn't so much what is said as it is what isn't said.


----------



## Puritan Sailor (Sep 19, 2006)

> _Originally posted by Scott_
> I am not a Warren fan, but this is not typical of evangelicalism. It is a denial of self, cultural fads, inappropriate preoccupation with wealth, etc. I just skimmed it, but it looks like every affirmation would be consistent with reformed ethics and is certainly better than wordly ethics or the ethics of the evangelical world generally. Also, there is nothing wrong with the focus on "I" in terms of someone making a personal declaration. God's sovereignty does not mean that people have not natural liberty. This is just an expanded way of saying "As for me and my house, we will follow the Lord." The psalms of full of "I" statements and self-referential declarations.



I have to agree with Scott here. I think you guys are overreacting. Really, what is objectionable in this statement? I see nothing. I'm not a Warren fan either, but there is nothing wrong with devoting your whole life to God and His glory. It's the attitude we all should have every day. We would obviously qualify and fortify this vow with good theology. But I find it perfectly consistent with our response to God's sovereign grace to us. Just because Warren may get some things wrong doesn't mean he gets everything wrong.


----------



## Scott (Sep 19, 2006)

> It is a fundamental confusion of Law & Gospel here. Are the things that Pastor Warren suggests wicked or according to the values of the world? No. Were the things that the Pharisees were trying to do wicked in and of themselves? No.
> 
> The thing that is missing here is an understanding of our inability to do this apart from the active and passive obedience of Christ. It isn't so much what is said as it is what isn't said.


There is no fundamental confusion of the law and gospel. If, as you say, it is what he did not say, then give him the benefit of the doubt. He had no duty to refer to one set of theological truths when explaining a second.


----------



## Scott (Sep 19, 2006)

> This formula, with the underlying assumption that God cannot and will not use one unless, at a point in time after salvation, one "surrenders" to Jesus is classic Keswick - and ubiquitous to modern evangelicalism.
> 
> What's wrong with it? If we could do it, there wouldn't be anything wrong with it - it's a paraphrase of the Law, which is holy, just and good, and which I prefer as it is recorded in Scripture. But I still can't keep it, even if I take the whole Class series by Rick Warren, or go to the Keswick Convention, or even sit under the ministry of Sproul or MacArthur.


The pledge is aspirational. It does not say we will succeed. I don't see the Keswick thought in there.


----------



## Robin (Sep 20, 2006)

> _Originally posted by Scott_
> 
> 
> > Works based righteousness. Our rightousness can only be secured through faith in Christ, not through our obedience.
> ...



Just before the Golden Calf incident:

Exodus 19:8 All the people answered together and said, "All that the LORD has spoken we will do."



Robin


----------



## Robin (Sep 20, 2006)

The upshot of a very long story....

Scripture has two types of language throughout: Law and Gospel.

Law language always is denoted by man declaring what he will do.

Gospel language is always denoted by God declaring what He does and will do.

Keeping these distinct and clear as they travel through Redemptive history is vital.

r.


----------



## Robin (Sep 20, 2006)

Throwing gasoline on the fire, perhaps....

The Law is written on the hearts of men (as we know)...so there is absolutely NO problem with leaning towards the bent of either idolatry or legalism in efforts to gain merit from God. The human story is always about this struggle/issue.

The Gospel (language) is utterly foreign - outside of the heart of natural man. Even the Christian, to his/her dying day, struggles with hatred towards God (sin)...so we need the Gospel constantly preached to our ears - to meditate on it; cling to it. Etc. (Sin has maimed the imago Dei so seriously.)

As Calvin reminds us, we can never forget our weakness in this regard.

On a more light-hearted note....why do you suppose Horton's book "Too Good to be True" has a cofffee cup with a leak on it?



r.


----------



## Puritan Sailor (Sep 20, 2006)

> _Originally posted by Robin_
> Law language always is denoted by man declaring what he will do.



Is that so? 

Luke 19
5 And when Jesus came to the place, he looked up and said to him, "Zacchaeus, hurry and come down, for I must stay at your house today." 6 So he hurried and came down and received him joyfully. 7 And when they saw it, they all grumbled, "He has gone in to be the guest of a man who is a sinner." 8 *And Zacchaeus stood and said to the Lord, "Behold, Lord, the half of my goods I give to the poor. And if I have defrauded anyone of anything, I restore it fourfold."* 9 And Jesus said to him, *"Today salvation has come to this house*, since he also is a son of Abraham. 10 For the Son of Man came to seek and to save the lost." 

I guess Zak is still under law here? 

Perhaps Joshua is being legalistic when he declares "But as for me and my house, we will serve the LORD" (Joshua 24:15).


----------



## Robin (Sep 20, 2006)

> _Originally posted by Puritan Sailor_
> 
> 
> > _Originally posted by Robin_
> ...



An unworthy response...Zak is portraying evidence of a regenerate heart after Christ invites himself to visit him. Note verse 5. (The 3 Forms call it "gratitude".)

A more useful question might be: "did the children of Israel declare their devotion in Exodus 19 in the spirit of gratitude stemming from already regenerate hearts?" 

Let's read larger portions of text and keep things in context, please.



r.


----------



## Puritan Sailor (Sep 21, 2006)

> _Originally posted by Robin_
> 
> 
> > _Originally posted by Puritan Sailor_
> ...



I am fully aware that Zak's response is gratitude. But you made no mention of gratitude in your pithy little summary of human endeavor above. 



> Law language *always* is denoted by *man declaring what he will do.*



According to your little dichotomy, Zak is using law language. Any response of gratitude is law language according to your post above. It sounds antinomian. That was my point.


----------



## Scott (Sep 21, 2006)

I don't see anything in Rick Warren's pledge that indicates that people are trying to be justified by the law, or that their obedience is out of anything but gratitude (in fact, it indicates the opposite). 

Speaking of the Law, here is a relevant passage from the inspired Moses after the lengthy declaration of the blessings and curses of the covenant in Deut. 28-30:




> . . . *if you obey the LORD your God and keep his commands and decrees that are written in this Book of the Law and turn to the LORD your God with all your heart and with all your soul*.
> 11 *Now what I am commanding you today is not too difficult for you or beyond your reach*. 12 It is not up in heaven, so that you have to ask, "Who will ascend into heaven to get it and proclaim it to us so we may obey it?" 13 Nor is it beyond the sea, so that you have to ask, "Who will cross the sea to get it and proclaim it to us so we may obey it?" 14 No, the word is very near you; it is in your mouth and in your heart so you may obey it.
> 
> Deut. 30:10b-13.


Moses commands the people to obey all the law. He also says, "what I am commanding you today is not too difficult for you or beyond your reach." 

Moses' instructions were much more detailed than the Warren pledge and yet Moses, inspired by the Holy Spirit, did not have a problem with speaking about the people actually obeying the Law. So, there is biblical precedent for declaring that people can and should obey the law, and should certainly make efforts to do so.

[Edited on 9-21-2006 by Scott]


----------



## Civbert (Sep 21, 2006)

> _Originally posted by Robin_
> Today I am stepping across the line. I´m tired of waffling and I´m finished with wavering, I´ve made my choice, the verdict is in, and my decision is irrevocable. I´m going God´s way. There´s no turning back now!


Motivation? Self disgust maybe? Frustration? Who knows.




> I will live the rest of my life serving God´s purposes with God´s people on God´s planet for God´s glory. I will use my life to celebrate his presence, cultivate his character, participate in his family, demonstrate his love, and communicate his word.


Seems OK, but does not give God much credit or acknowledgment as the power and reason we can do these things.




> Since my past has been forgiven, and I have a purpose for living, and a home awaiting in heaven, I refuse to waste any more time or energy on shallow living, petty thinking, trivial talking, thoughtless doing, useless regretting, hurtful resenting, or faithless worrying. Instead I will magnify God, grow to maturity, serve in ministry, and fulfill my mission in the membership of his family.


Still very man driven. It's up to me alone. "I refuse". Not a humble "God lead me not into temptation and delivery me from the evil one". Not a "forgive my sins as I forgive others". Not a "gives us our daily bread". No a submission to God's will for our lives. No a petition to God to serve him for his glory.



> Because this life is preparation for the next, I will value worship over wealth, "œwe" over "œme", character over comfort, service over status, and people over possessions, position, and pleasures. I know what matters most and I´ll give it all I´ve got. I´ll do the best I can with what I have for Jesus Christ today.


"I'll give", "I'll do", "I know", "I will". Not "God use me". Not "God give me wisdom and knowledge". Not "God renew my mind and heart so that I may better serve and glorify you and love my neighbor".




> I won´t be captivated by culture, manipulated by critics, motivated by praise, frustrated by problems, debilitated by temptation, or intimidated by the devil. I´ll keep running my race with my eyes on the goal, not the sidelines or those running by me. When times get tough, and I get tired, I won´t back up, back off, back down, back out or backslide. I´ll just keep moving forward by God´s grace. I´m Spirit-led, purpose-driven and mission-focused so I cannot be bought, I will not be compromised, and I shall not quit until I finish the race.


Very much like a rah rah motivational speech. It's the concept of pumping your self-esteem with exaggerated positive statements (not necessarily true statements) so that you feel motivated and good about yourself. 

This is one of the things to bothers me about this kind of psychology - we tell ourselves things that are not necessarily true in order to psyche ourselves into the kind of emotional state where we feel good and positive. We do it all. We take charge and nothing can stop us! 

Is this scriptural? Did Christ give motivation speeches to pump up his followers? Did he say "you can do it!, it's all up to you! You are the captain of your own ship. You decided how far you can sail and where you are gong to go". 




> I´m a trophy of God´s amazing grace so I will be gracious to everyone, grateful for everyday, and generous with everything that God entrusts to me.
> 
> To my Lord and Savior Jesus Christ, I say: However, Whenever, Wherever, and Whatever you ask me to do, my answer in advance is yes! Wherever you lead and whatever the cost, I´m ready. Anytime. Anywhere. Anyway. Whatever it takes Lord; Whatever it takes! I want to be used by you in such a way, that on that final day I´ll hear you say, "œWell done, thou good and faithful one. Come on in, and let the eternal party begin!"


Here God asks, and the Spirit leads. It's up to us to follow and do what is asked. But does God ask? No, He commands! He doesn't say "this is what I want but it's up to you". 

This whole message is about glorying "me". It's about man's autonomy, free will, and ability to determine his own fate. And it is motivated by the reward - not out of humble gratitude.

It is very liberal in ideology. To humble oneself is to be insecure. Instead, we need to build up the self-esteem with positive lies and self praise. It does not submit to God's sovereignty over all things, or our total dependence on God for the ability to do good works and glorify God because _that_ kind of "attitude" does not "motivate" and "energize" a person to go out and win one for the coach!

There's nothing wrong with what it seeks to do - it's wrong in it's view of our relationship to God. The God it presents sits on the sidelines and gives us a list of good deeds. And at the end of the race, he gives you rewards for doing the good deeds. The Holy Spirit is there to lead you with tips and advice. But what gets done is all up to the man and really all to the mans glory because man has determined to do these good deeds. And Christ has no active roll. He's just one of the goals - a target of sorts. He is not our head or brother or reprentitive before God. 

See the who things sounds fine if you give it a superfical read through the lenses of modern sensibilties. Postive thinking. Postiive self-esteem. "You can do it baby!" Everyone is a winner! Your OK, I'm OK. Yes, even Jesus is alright with me. He's a cool dude!


----------



## Scott (Sep 21, 2006)

Anthony: Many of the types of criticisms you make could be made against the passage from Moses I cited. You wrote: "The God it presents sits on the sidelines and gives us a list of good deeds. And at the end of the race, he gives you rewards for doing the good deeds."

After Moses told the Israelites to obey the entire law, he says, "Now what I am commanding you today is not too difficult for you or beyond your reach." Deut. 30:11. Your statement I quoted above could characterize Moses' directive as much as Warren's pledge. Indeed, the "rewards" promised by Moses are more extensive than those promised by the Warren pledge.

In any event, I think we all agree on a lot:

> perfectionism is wrong
> the Holy Spirit, and not the remnants of the natural man, is the source of any obedience we have
> Man is not justified by his works

But there is no duty to expressly refer to these every time one talks of obedience. Moses did not. Christ did not. We don't need to either (although if we want to, it is fine).


----------



## Civbert (Sep 21, 2006)

> _Originally posted by Scott_
> Anthony: Many of the types of criticisms you make could be made against the passage from Moses I cited. You wrote: "The God it presents sits on the sidelines and gives us a list of good deeds. And at the end of the race, he gives you rewards for doing the good deeds."
> 
> After Moses told the Israelites to obey the entire law, he says, "Now what I am commanding you today is not too difficult for you or beyond your reach." Deut. 30:11. Your statement I quoted above could characterize Moses' directive as much as Warren's pledge. Indeed, the "rewards" promised by Moses are more extensive than those promised by the Warren pledge.



So it's a good thing we have the rest of Scripture to see how is God who gathers us to him, and turns us to him. For if we just take one section of Scripture and not consider the rest, we could misunderstand the nature of God and his sovereignty over us and all things. And Due 30 is focused on what God does and what God commands - not what he requests and that we might. 



> In any event, I think we all agree on a lot:
> 
> > perfectionism is wrong
> > the Holy Spirit, and not the remnants of the natural man, is the source of any obedience we have
> ...



We have a duty to avoid any expressions that would give people a false understanding of who God is. If we go around simply saying "God is love", we are sinning by failing to explain what that means (and doesn't mean) and what else one needs to know about God, and also Christ, and the Gospel. 

The Warren pledge presents a false impression of character of the triune God and our relationship to God. Just as tacking a portion of Scripture can misrepresent God if not taken into consideration with the whole of Scripture.


----------



## Scott (Sep 21, 2006)

> So it's a good thing we have the rest of Scripture to see how is God who gathers us to him, and turns us to him. For if we just take one section of Scripture and not consider the rest, we could misunderstand the nature of God and his sovereignty over us and all things.


We have the rest of Rick Warren's writings to judge his views. Maybe he is right and maybe he is wrong, but we can't judge from this pledge alone.

In addition, Moses' audience was in an even more need of a fuller explanation than Warren's audience. The audience did not have access to scriptures, as God's revelation was in the process of being put in written form and most people could not read. Moses did not believe it necessary to fill his general statement with provisos and cross-references to other doctrines. If Moses could do this in a situation in which people did not have easy access to scriptures, it does not seem like Warren is acting imporperly if he does so in a context where scriptures are readily available.



> And Due 30 is focused on what God does and what God commands - not what he requests and that we might.


Moses says that the people are capable of obeying. 




> We have a duty to avoid any expressions that would give people a false understanding of who God is. If we go around simply saying "God is love", we are sinning by failing to explain what that means (and doesn't mean) and what else one needs to know about God, and also Christ, and the Gospel.
> 
> The Warren pledge presents a false impression of character of the triune God and our relationship to God. Just as tacking a portion of Scripture can misrepresent God if not taken into consideration with the whole of Scripture.


That would mean that Moses would have been guilty of giving a false impression. I don't agree with that. In any event, I did not get the impression you did from Warren's pledge.

[Edited on 9-21-2006 by Scott]


----------



## Civbert (Sep 21, 2006)

> _Originally posted by Scott_
> ....
> In addition, Moses' audience was in an even more need of a fuller explanation than Warren's audience. The audience did not have access to scriptures, as God's revelation was in the process of being put in written form and most people could not read. Moses did not believe it necessary to fill his general statement with provisos and cross-references to other doctrines. If Moses could do this in a situation in which people did not have easy access to scriptures, it does not seem like Warren is acting imporperly if he does so in a context where scriptures are readily available.
> ...
> That would mean that Moses would have been guilty of giving a false impression. I don't agree with that. In any event, I did not get the impression you did from Warren's pledge.



You have limited your scope to a small section of Deut. to come to that conclusion. Also, you'd have to assume that the people's knowledge was limited to what Moses recorded in Duet. and that he never explained God's nature beyond the text. And reading was not an issue for the people - they would have the text read to them in full. 

Regardless of your impression or mine - we need to read what Warren says carefully considering that some who read his text will not have the benefit of understanding reformed good biblical doctrine. If you give the text a light reading - it's easy to overlook the problems Warrens text presents - and those who are ignorant may be mislead by Warrens pledge into believing in a works-based righteousness. I think I showed that pretty clearly in my earlier posts. If you disagree with my analysis, please be more specific.


----------



## Robin (Sep 22, 2006)

Just to clarify....

Do we do good works to become justified before God? NO

Must we do good works to demonstrate that we are already justified? YES


These are the categories.



r.

[Edited on 9-22-2006 by Robin]


----------



## Robin (Sep 22, 2006)

BTW....

The reality for the Purpose theology and Saddleback is:

If a disciple of the teaching and/or member of the church doesn't keep in step with the list of "to do's" (which are ever increasing) they are considered backslidden or lost.

You might as well get the beads...this is the Church of Rome system dressed up in Hawaiian shirts!


----------



## ef (Sep 22, 2006)

> There is no fundamental confusion of the law and gospel. If, as you say, it is what he did not say, then give him the benefit of the doubt. He had no duty to refer to one set of theological truths when explaining a second.



It is not a case of one over the other. The imperative of salvation through faith alone by grace alone because of Christ alone leads to the indicative of good works motivated by the HS's indwelling.

You hit the nail on the head dear undershepherd; Rev. Warren doesn't understand the difference between justification and sanctification, so you gave him the benefit of the doubt. Under your reformed rubric you were right to do so, but if you know Rev. Warren's other writings and thought you'd not have stepped into that little terd so quickly (sorry... I responded to your comment before reading on to your other interactions... I see that you're familiar with his writings... my bad...).

Our URC brother nailed this stuff in his interactions as well. We cannot allow such confused understanding of the difference between justification and grace to go forth. It is essentially the salvation of Trent with Evangelical language.

Check out _On Being A Theologian Of The Cross: Reflections on Luther's Heidelberg Disputation, 1518_ by Gerhard O. Forde for more on this stuff. Luther was right on in his assessment of the Law/Gospel distinction and we could learn a lot from that man.


[Edited on 9-22-2006 by ef]


----------



## Ken S. (Sep 25, 2006)

i think whoever declare this Purpose Driven Covenant has undoubtedly a passion for Christ, but they have missed an important truth about sanctification and that is---grace and the absolute preservation of God. God is the ultimate force inside our heart when we feel like to do good and the ultimate source of our faith. We ourselve have nothing good come out from our ownself. Even to people sincerely making this PDC statement, it is God motivating their will to do so, though they don't realize.
People making this statement need love and others to preach the precise gospel to them. Otherwise, their passion will cool down, and they live in greater fear and worry because of the future full of uncertainty as well as their own spirit full of uncertainty and weaknesses.

*Rom3:12 ....there is none that doeth good, no, not one. 

Phi2:13 For it is God which worketh in you both to will and to do of his good pleasure.*

[Edited on 25-9-2006 by Ken S.]


----------



## Scott (Sep 25, 2006)

> BTW....
> 
> The reality for the Purpose theology and Saddleback is:
> 
> ...


Not sure what their list of to-dos is, but in reformed churches if one does not keep up with a list of to-dos, he is excommunicated, or at least he is supposed to be. Discipline is one mark of a true church.


----------



## Scott (Sep 25, 2006)

Eric: I am actually not familiar with Warren's theology. What I will say is that we should not criticize something of his that is ok. If other writings of his indicates that his understanding of sanctification is deficient, it would be better to focus on those.


----------



## turmeric (Sep 25, 2006)

I was in a Purpose-Driven Church. One of the "to-do's" was physical exercise and a good diet. I'm all for that, but not for making it a church-discipline issue. Fortunately for me, I left that church before taking the particular class where we would sign that particular agreement. These little "covenants" are a staple feature of this system and there's one for each class. The membership one I agree with, that is, I agree there should be a covenant of membership in a church congregation. They end up stipulating a lot which seems extra-Scriptural. I agree w/Mike Horton; let's get bact to the 10 Commandments as a standard of conduct and quit inventing our own.


----------

