# Rick Warren to market the Puritans



## Bandguy (Jan 7, 2007)

I thought this was rather humorous:

Link


----------



## turmeric (Jan 7, 2007)




----------



## Pergamum (Jan 7, 2007)

When does Rick Warren bashing become sinful?




A serious question.






Often we make fun of him and speak generalizations about him. How often do we quote his words directly and attack them instead of insult the man?


----------



## Bladestunner316 (Jan 7, 2007)

That's a good point often my personal target is mormons and catholics. As cliche as this may sound if you dont have anything good to say dont say it all. As humorous as this can be I dont think making fun of him or anyone is profitable to winning them over. The most important point is bringout correction to these false teachers/doctrines so that they repent and correct themselves. 

Good point Trevor!


----------



## Bandguy (Jan 7, 2007)

I will attack his words and false theology in time. This is the "Entertainment and HUMOR" forum. If you don't like these things, don't come here.


----------



## Larry Hughes (Jan 7, 2007)

It's a false dilemma to say one is "bashing" Rick Warren by pointing out that he is preaching another gospel. His message is not just a little problematic but deadly right down to the soul and very hell itself. That’s why Paul used the warning language he used “another gospel”. He didn’t say, “Beware of another religion”, he said beware of “another gospel”. The devil is more clever than to rope in people by overt false religions, though that too is part of his machinery. But he is called an angel of light for a reason. Luther warned that the “white” devil is more dangerous than the “black” devil for that very purpose. The more often than not lays hidden snares rather than up front combat. His first deception was one of keen craftiness and all subsequent ones are not at all different. And the mere fact that Rick Warren uses scripture is pointless, the devil is a master at using the Scriptures.

Does Warren know he’s a deceiver. Probably not, nobody really ever does. When I was an atheist I didn’t think of myself as a deceiver or persecutor of Christianity. I really thought genuinely from “the heart” (the seat of sin) that I was good and doing good by directing away from religion. I did not say to myself in the morning, “Now, how can I deceive people into going to hell”. That’s how deception works, you think you are following God or the “higher power”, you really think you are on the road of right. You are serving the devil but to you he is the good god/God, you really think you serve God how ever you formulate that god. But that’s the whole problem, you have formulated that god, which is how idols begin.

Rick Warren might be a swell fellow, but so are a lot of false religion’s leaders.


----------



## Pergamum (Jan 7, 2007)

..and they will know that we are Christians by our.........ad hominem attacks....





Colossians...
Let your speech be always with grace, seasoned with salt, that ye may know how ye ought to answer every man." 






Some of you might be surprised if you end up meeting Rick Waren in heaven. 


Give me some empirical proof..some heretical statements that are taken in their contexts. 


Rather than merely a well -intentioned pastor who wears shirts that I think are goofy and employing some inapropriate methodologies...has Rick Warren spoken theological heresy? Is he a heretic? Has he denied any of the basic essentials? 

If so, when and where? This is a real question.



Is he preaching another Gospel? To make this accusation is not the burden of proof on you to give us some statements? He might be falsely reassuring some that they may be saved when they are not..but is this another Gospel? He may have a lot of corny baggage attached, but does ill taste make one a heretic?


If he is..I want to avoid him. But I rarely hear him quoted directly here. If he is anything like he is painted on the PB - then he must be a hell bound heretic, but I read the 40 day book and besides it being light and fluffy, I did not read any heresy.




I realize this is the humor section, but humor at another's expense - especially if much of what is being made fun of is a straw man - is not Christian.


To say that Rick Warren is a leader of a false religion is a rather bold statement that needs some notes and quotes to follow - wouldn't you think?






Please.....make your case! Use his words. I am waiting. This is a real question and not mere rhetoric.


----------



## Larry Hughes (Jan 7, 2007)

His goofy T shirts don't bother me. They are neither here nor there.

Due to space and copy right laws I can only refer you to two books, PDL and PDC, point blank another gospel. Entire WHOLE context self enclosed books. For surely if I pull a quote out you will shout, "out of context". So I offer you the entire book as a whole self contained circumscribed other gospel.

If one just spends a few minutes reading Warren’s biblical substitute you’ll find that the entire book(s) with the exception of the first sentence is all about you; your purpose, your happiness, your ministry, your S.H.A.P.E., your time, your mission - Christ and the Cross is utterly missing. That’s how we make idols of God, seeking what we need/want rather than God revealed on the Cross.

There are two ways to hide the Cross, 1. Out right denying it and 2. Bury it under a plethora of religious even biblicaleske/christianese language.

And let me give you a real world example that JUST happened this week at work in my hearing. In fact Thursday 830 am outside my desk. A close friend and co-worker whom I have spoken to about Christ crucified who is a Muslim, who presently hates the Gospel entirely and finds it folly. Came in shockingly saying he’d been reading Rick Warren’s new books. He liked them better than “those other Christians” because Rick was all about doing good and giving money to the poor. He found absolutely nothing offensive about Warren’s clear clarion message in those books, in fact he liked and said, “I’m getting religion now.”

So true what Luther said if justification by faith alone is not CLEARLY and distinctly held up one cannot tell a christian, Jew, heathen or Turk apart for all teach, preach and look the same. It is as Luther said, “The Law of God is the most salutary doctrine of life but it cannot help a man onto eternal life, rather it hinders him.”

That’s what Warren’s message is and it is crystal clear. I use to attend a Saddleback twin, and I mean TWIN right to the bone, large and progressive. I know what that message over time does to a man/woman and I’ve seen first hand the rotating back door it creates. And its insidiousness lies within its friendliness. Does Rick know he’s deceiving. No, I think he’s as nice a guy, as nice as you can be. But nice didn’t die for me on a bloody Cross.

So, I do not come at this "out of context" or by way of false accusation - I LIVED IT, BREATHED, DRANK DEEPLY FROM IT. I know exactly what it is.

Ldh


----------



## Bladestunner316 (Jan 7, 2007)

Bandguy said:


> I will attack his words and false theology in time. This is the "Entertainment and HUMOR" forum. If you don't like these things, don't come here.



Exscuse me Bandguy. This was uncalled for. 

Let your speech always be gracious, seasoned with salt (Col. 4:6)

In Christ,
Blade


----------



## Blue Tick (Jan 8, 2007)

Saddleback's Statement of Faith 

You decide.


----------



## Blue Tick (Jan 8, 2007)

trevorjohnson said:


> When does Rick Warren bashing become sinful?
> 
> 
> 
> ...




A sobering question. We need to pray for those in error. I am to often quick to be sarcastic towards those in error. This does not mean that I am not willing to reveal or confront their error. But that I should think about the implications of those who are in error. That they are hell bound. This should sober us to pray.


----------



## Pergamum (Jan 8, 2007)

Hello:

Here is a snippet of Saddleback's statement of faith (at the link above provided):

_ABOUT Jesus Christ
Jesus Christ is the Son of God. He is co-equal with the Father. Jesus lived a sinless human life and offered Himself as the perfect sacrifice for the sins of all men by dying on a cross. He arose from the dead after three days to demonstrate His power over sin and death. He ascended to Heaven´s glory and will return again to earth to reign as King of kings, and Lord of lords.
Matthew 1:22,23; Isaiah 9:6; John 1:1-5, 14:10-30; Hebrews 4:14,15; 1 Corinthians 15:3,4; Romans 1:3,4; Acts 1:9-11; 1 Timothy 6:14,15; Titus 2:13

ABOUT SALVATION
Salvation is a gift from God to man. Man can never make up for his sin by self-improvement or good works. Only by trusting in Jesus Christ as God´s offer of forgiveness can man be saved from sin´s penalty. Eternal life begins the moment one receives Jesus Christ into his life by faith.
Romans 6:23; Ephesians 2:8,9; John 14:6, 1:12; Titus 3:5; Galatians 3:26; Romans 5:1 

ABOUT ETERNAL SECURITY
Because God gives man eternal life through Jesus Christ, the believer is secure in salvation for eternity. Salvation is maintained by the grace and power of God, not by the self-effort of the Christian. It is the grace and keeping power of God that gives this security.
John 10:29; 2 Timothy 1:12; Hebrews 7:25; 10:10,14; 1 Peter 1:3-5 _




Yes, John, there seems to be some light there..and also some errors. 




Would you say that the above is true enough to qualify as the Gospel and that one who believes this is saved?




It appears that there is no heresy taught. Some wrong phraseology and some displeasing error. But if Saddleback communicates this message, if some are brought to believe and commit themselves to the truth as taught in that message - wouldn't you say that a basic Gospel is being preached?




You stated that "error leads to hell.." that is a broad statement.

All error does not lead to hell, does it? 

If so, I am sorry to all you Paedo-baptists! (just kidding...insert credo in here too...the principle applies). It seems that Rick Warren's errors are not heresy but "only" sub-biblical.


But, yes, you are right brother, all error IS serious and we should pray for these BROTHERS so that their doctrine becomes more pure.


----------



## Robin (Jan 8, 2007)

Trevor,

I understand your point...

However, you appear to be out-of-the-loop on the ever increasing Warrenism that is emerging! (No ad hominum.) 

It is Scripturally right to evaluate, critique and warn the sheep:

Here is a link to the Riddleblog (scroll down) on the latest:

http://kimriddlebarger.squarespace.com/display/ShowJournal?moduleId=366117&currentPage=2


----------



## elnwood (Jan 8, 2007)

I do think that Rick Warren is in error on some important issues, but I consider him a brother in Christ and not a false teacher or hell-bound.

Christ is present in his books. The gospel is present in his books. Maybe not in the depth or the manner that you would like, but it is there.

The statement of faith at his church is clear on the gospel. There is nothing objectionable aside from terms such as Christ dying for "all men," which is a term the bible uses, so we ought not protest too much.

His church contributes a lot of money and effort to foreign missions for the spread of the gospel.

His church consistently exercises church discipline, putting out hundreds of members a year.

He is exemplary in his finances, not taking a salary from church (and has actually given back all his previous salary earned) and puts 90% of his book sales income back into the ministry.

I'm not saying that we should not look critically at other aspects of his ministry, but there is a lot to commend, and Reformed churches could learn a lot from Rick Warren. Unfortunately, my experience is that Reformed churches spend more time nitpicking and pointing fingers at other brothers in Christ instead of taking the time of learning from one another.

If we call ourselves "Reformed," we have to be willing to continue to look at the good in other ministries and critically at ourselves as well, and be shaped and molded instead of thinking that we have been doing it perfectly for the last five hundred years.


----------



## Augusta (Jan 8, 2007)

Trevor I am sure you know that very often, as in the case of Doug Wilson, people mind their p's and q'a on paper and then prove different in there actions. 

Have you ever attended a Saddleback type church? I was raised in one and like Larry said it is insidious. God providentially reached in out of nowhere and pulled me out of it. I was so insulated and deceived that only He could have done it. 

On the surface they seem very benign and on paper what my old church would call the gospel looks similar to the true biblical gospel. The insidious part is that they are worlds apart in practice, and they don't feed their sheep. They starve them to death. And leave them in a vicious cycle of works righteousness and rededications of their life to God. There is no resting on Christ and his finished work. 

I don't say this to rationalize mocking him, I agree that we should pray for him. I just know exactly what Larry is talking about and those kind of churches are deadly to true faith. The super-majority of my social circle still attends these type of churches and I have daily proof of the stagnation and death of Christians in them.


----------



## Robin (Jan 8, 2007)

Btw, with the recent events in the last two months (Warren caught lying about Syria, Etc.) unfortunately, it does appear he is lying.

Check-out the exchange between Joseph Farrah at WorldNet Daily on the "Damascus Road trip."

http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=53372


----------



## Pergamum (Jan 8, 2007)

Robin:

The Riddleblog that you linked I don't think directly quotes Warren even once.


Just another string of generalizations and interpretations of what Warren's intentions were (we make many bold statements about the state of his heart and his intentions many times, too)...


My whole point is that there exists a vast difference between bad taste or kitsch and heresy. 

We drop the H bomb quite alot, don't we!




Absolutely, we should evaluate, critique and warn the sheep. But we should warn them based on real quotes and real teachings rather than beating up straw men. 



He is not a teacher of a false religion. To say this might be akin to slander. It is a serious charge.



He is a well intentioned Christian, it seems, who is trying to do the best he can with the light given. Let us pray that the Lord gives him more light.


----------



## Blue Tick (Jan 8, 2007)

trevorjohnson said:


> Hello:
> 
> Here is a snippet of Saddleback's statement of faith (at the link above provided):
> 
> ...



Trevor, 

You're correct I did paint a large spectrum of what error is. I should word it differently or should be more specific. In regard to Warren, yes, their statement of faith is simplistic. I guess the issue that I would have would be with their understanding of sin.

ABOUT MAN
Man is made in the spiritual image of God, to be like Him in character. He is the supreme object of God´s creation. Although man has tremendous potential for good, he is marred by an attitude of disobedience toward God called "sin". This attitude separates man from God.


Sin is not a bad attitude. This is what I would question. Man is not marred by sin, but is dead in sin, lifeless, under the wrath of God. It seems that if I change my attitude toward's God then I could be reconciled to God. 

There is no mention of God's law. It leaves a vary vague idea of what a "bad attitude" is.

I would say there is not enough information given in order for someone to understand the gospel. Therefore, they are presenting a false gospel.


----------



## non dignus (Jan 8, 2007)

trevorjohnson said:


> My whole point is that there exists a vast difference between bad taste or kitsch and heresy.
> 
> We drop the H bomb quite alot, don't we!
> 
> ...



Trevor,
I must disagree with you on this one. Warren holds to a synergistic Arminian model of salvation. That is heresy. It doesn't matter what their creed says, it matters what they teach bottom line.

I appreciate your compassion but the true religion is exclusive not inclusive.


----------



## elnwood (Jan 8, 2007)

non dignus said:


> Trevor,
> I must disagree with you on this one. Warren holds to a synergistic Arminian model of salvation. That is heresy. It doesn't matter what their creed says, it matters what they teach bottom line.
> 
> I appreciate your compassion but the true religion is exclusive not inclusive.



Mr. Cronkhite, I must respectfully disagree with you. I disagree with the Canons of Dort in that I think synergistic Arminianism is error, but not damnable heresy. This doctrine is important, but I do not consider monergism such an essential to the gospel that we should consider Arminianism a different gospel and Arminians anathema (Galatians 1:6ff).


----------



## non dignus (Jan 8, 2007)

elnwood said:


> Mr. Cronkhite, I must respectfully disagree with you. I disagree with the Canons of Dort in that I think synergistic Arminianism is error, but not damnable heresy. This doctrine is important, but I do not consider monergism such an essential to the gospel that we should consider Arminianism a different gospel and Arminians anathema (Galatians 1:6ff).



Thank you Mr. Lowe,
Please call me David!

God will not share His glory with another. Any room for boasting on man's part detracts from trust in Christ alone. This is a very bad error indeed.

The real problem here though is that Warren has actually rejected a standard given by the church in the canons of Dort. Dort _excluded_ Arminianism from the field. (Arminianism speaks to how one is saved, and thus is crucial to whether one is in or out.) The fact that Warren has knowingly rejected the decision of the church excludes him from it.

However, new Arminians are of a different class. Christ's sheep hear His voice and follow Him. Some of Warren's sheep will come out, given the opportunity as they grow in grace. This is my opinion.


----------



## Augusta (Jan 8, 2007)

non dignus said:


> However, new Arminians are of a different class. Christ's sheep hear His voice and follow Him. Some of Warren's sheep will come out, given the opportunity as they grow in grace. This is my opinion.



This was my experience. I was drawn out of that type of church. I did not grow in grace until I sat under sound gospel teaching. Christ cares for his sheep, he will not leave them to starve in that type of church. Since that church is not fullfilling it's office of feeding and caring for Christ's church can they indeed be a true church?


----------



## elnwood (Jan 8, 2007)

non dignus said:


> Thank you Mr. Lowe,
> Please call me David!
> 
> God will not share His glory with another. Any room for boasting on man's part detracts from trust in Christ alone. This is a very bad error indeed.
> ...



David,

I don't consider the assembly at Dort "the church" in the sense that they speak for God, so I don't think modern churches ought to bind their consciences with church declarations but solely by the Word of God. To do so seems almost Roman Catholic.

Modern Presbyterian churches have recognized this. They have modified the Westminster Confession in small ways (such as identifying the Pope with the man of lawlessness in 2 Thessalonians) which reflect their disagreement with previous generations.

As far as considering Arminianism a heresy, most Presbyterian denominations do not. If a denomination considered Arminianism a heresy, they would not partner with them, but in fact, both the PCA and the RPCNA are members of the National Association of Evangelicals, which consists of predominantly Arminian denominations. In fact, your denomination, the URC, used to be part of the CRC, which has been a member of NAE since 1947, long before the split.


----------



## non dignus (Jan 8, 2007)

elnwood said:


> David,
> 
> I don't consider the assembly at Dort "the church" in the sense that they speak for God, so I don't think modern churches ought to bind their consciences with church declarations but solely by the Word of God. To do so seems almost Roman Catholic.


Even if Warren has no knowledge of Dort he is still bound by the word of God. I'm certain he knows what Calvinism is and has rejected it. The Roman Catholic church is not all bad. To reject her position on the trinity is damning.


> Modern Presbyterian churches have recognized this. They have modified the Westminster Confession in small ways (such as identifying the Pope with the man of lawlessness in 2 Thessalonians) which reflect their disagreement with previous generations.
> 
> As far as considering Arminianism a heresy, most Presbyterian denominations do not. If a denomination considered Arminianism a heresy, they would not partner with them, but in fact, both the PCA and the RPCNA are members of the National Association of Evangelicals, which consists of predominantly Arminian denominations. In fact, your denomination, the URC, used to be part of the CRC, which has been a member of NAE since 1947, long before the split.



I'm sure most PCAs and RPCNAs do not swap pulpits with Arminian churches. However, I don't know the nature of their partnership.
The Arminians were excluded from a synod duly constituted by the true protestant church; what else can I say? Their error militates against the fundamentals of being saved. That's damnable in my book.


----------



## Robin (Jan 8, 2007)

trevorjohnson said:


> Robin:
> The Riddleblog that you linked I don't think directly quotes Warren even once.
> Let us pray that the Lord gives him more light.



Here is the Saddleback website. There message this weekend is called "DO-ABLE FAITH"

http://www.saddlebackfamily.com/home/today.asp 

Trevor, fish through the truckload of back posts here at PB to collect the big picture of RW. However, as I said earlier, he is really coming _out of the closet._I just discovered that the former statement of what Saddleback believes about baptising a couple living together (unmarried) to which they answered "Yes, we DO" baptise them, has been removed from the webpage. Curious. 

Having done some solid RW research for the past 3 years, I've noticed that (like Doug Wilson) Rick Warren is on a "journey." He has changed (and continues to change) important statements about big-ticket items like the Gospel, Baptism, Worship on the site and in the teaching curriculum.

Trevor..."give him more light"....??

That's the claim of Jehovah Witnesses! God does not reveal His truth in gradual steps via changing main doctrines.

Scripture teaches clear warnings on what false teaching looks and sounds like.

 
Take the care and time to consider what the Bible says about this.


----------



## elnwood (Jan 8, 2007)

non dignus said:


> I'm sure most PCAs and RPCNAs do not swap pulpits with Arminian churches. However, I don't know the nature of their partnership.
> The Arminians were excluded from a synod duly constituted by the true protestant church; what else can I say? Their error militates against the fundamentals of being saved. That's damnable in my book.



"*The* true protestant church"? Could you elaborate this? How do you know that the Synod of Dort is the true protestant church? Was the Westminster Assembly a true protestant church? If so, do you hold that the Pope is the Man of Sin in 1 Thessalonians?

I have been to your sermon web site at start.urclearning.org.

It says:


> But you got all that, and you are asking: what is one supposed to do when there is simply no “true” church around?
> 
> a) Contact us and we’ll see if we can help you find one. If we can’t, we’ll put you in our database which we are developing as a strategic church-planting planning tool.
> 
> b) In the meantime, some places that don’t meet the criteria will be better for you than others, but only temporarily. Maybe a confessional Lutheran congregation, or a confessional Presbyterian congregation would work for a time (and although they have important differences from our confessional continental Reformed churches, some of these may bear the three marks). Get in touch with us and we’ll help you look and discern.



Would you say, then, that confessional Presbyterian churches are not part of the true Protestant church? Is the United Reformed Church the only true Protestant Church in the United States?


----------



## non dignus (Jan 8, 2007)

elnwood said:


> "*The* true protestant church"? Could you elaborate this? How do you know that the Synod of Dort is the true protestant church? Was the Westminster Assembly a true protestant church?


 If you believe Christ is building His church (Mt 16:18) then you know there is a true church. I believe confessional Presbyterian and Reformed churches are the best conformers to scripture. Yes, the Westminster Assembly spoke for Christ, the head of the church. 


> If so, do you hold that the Pope is the Man of Sin in 1 Thessalonians?


He is a man of sin, yes.



> I have been to your sermon web site at start.urclearning.org.
> .....
> Would you say, then, that confessional Presbyterian churches are not part of the true Protestant church? Is the United Reformed Church the only true Protestant Church in the United States?



There is one Church composed of confessional Presbyterian and Reformed churches bearing the three marks. The URCNA is a component of the true church. 

Saddleback church is not a true church because they teach and practice very bad doctrine. I don't believe you can have an experienced bible teacher who rejects the doctrines of grace be a partaker of that grace. How could that possibly be? What goes for the Pope goes for Mr. Warren.


----------



## elnwood (Jan 8, 2007)

non dignus said:


> If you believe Christ is building His church (Mt 16:18) then you know there is a true church. I believe confessional Presbyterian and Reformed churches conform best to scripture. Yes, the Westminster Assembly spoke for Christ, the head of the church.



Noted: the Westminster Assembly spoke for Christ.



non dignus said:


> He is a man of sin, yes.



That's not what I asked. I asked if he is _the_ man of sin.



Westminster Confession Chapter XXV said:


> There is no other head of the Church but the Lord Jesus Christ. Nor can the Pope of Rome, in any sense, be head thereof; but is *that* Antichrist, *that* man of sin, and son of perdition, that exalts himself, in the Church, against Christ and all that is called God.



[BIBLE]2 Thessalonians 2:3-4[/BIBLE]

Do you believe that to be the true interpretation of 2 Thessalonians 2:3-4?

Further, you wrote that "The fact that Warren has knowingly rejected the decision of the church excludes him from it." Do you believe that if someone rejects this decision of the church regarding the anti-Christ, that this excludes that person from the Church?


----------



## non dignus (Jan 8, 2007)

elnwood said:


> That's not what I asked. I asked if he is _the_ man of sin.


 Which pope? Was it true for John Paul as it is for Benedict? Is THE man of sin a succession of men? I don't know. Is it a cardinal doctrine who the man of sin is? 
Rather, heresy would involve crucial mechanics of salvation.



> Further, you wrote that "The fact that Warren has knowingly rejected the decision of the church excludes him from it." Do you believe that if someone rejects this decision of the church regarding the anti-Christ, that this excludes that person from the Church?



No. Why would pinning the tail on the antichrist bear on salvation? The assembly was making a very strong and appropriate point that Rome was in deep error.


----------



## elnwood (Jan 8, 2007)

The original WCF clearly teaches that "the temple of God" in this passage is the church, and that the man of sin is the succession of men leading this false church.

You say that Warren is a heretic because he rejects the proclamations of the true church in the Canons of Dort. And yet, the majority of Reformed Christendom rejects that part in the WCF such that most Presbyterian denominations have removed it.

My concern is that you may be binding men's consciences not by scripture but by church edicts. If you wish to declare Warren a heresy based on a rejection of fundamentals of the gospel, that's fine (but I do not agree). But I cringe when you argue that he is a heretic based on the rejection of doctrines formulated by fallible church declarations.


----------



## non dignus (Jan 8, 2007)

elnwood said:


> My concern is that you may be binding men's consciences not by scripture but by church edicts. If you wish to declare Warren a heresy based on a rejection of fundamentals of the gospel, that's fine (but I do not agree). But I cringe when you argue that he is a heretic based on the rejection of doctrines formulated by fallible church declarations.




Do you believe you can only be saved by grace alone, through faith alone, because of Christ alone? Can you find that verse, or is it a good summary of scripture? My guess is that Rick Warren would probably affirm those three _solas_ while not using the protestant definitions for them. And so we need to review the confessions in order to have unity; in order to discern whom is approved. 

Everyone uses the Bible as their sole authority! So why are there so many differences of opinion? The church has codified doctrine for unity. 

If the confession divides people, that is a good thing.


----------



## Larry Hughes (Jan 8, 2007)

With Warren here’s what ALWAYS happens when he’s questioned: If you quote him, it’s “out of context”, but then if you give whole entire books the defenders will then themselves “pull out quotes” to defend the thrust of the other errors. In short and in reality if anyone is taking Rick Warren quotes out of context it is his defenders who find the occasional “sounds like” the Gospel statements ignoring the entire thrust of his teachings to the contrary. It’s kind of like this; you can ask ANY “church” group if they believe in the bible and they will say yes. But that doesn’t mean a thing!

In Kentucky I’ve seen first hand multiple times the devastation that Warren’s bible, PDL and PDC, destroying, yes, destroying entire congregations. Particularly in the SB community to which I formerly belonged. You either get on board with the program or get out, never question it if you do you are not defending doctrine but trying to cause trouble in the church. The rich irony of that is that PDL/PDC CAUSED split and divisiveness in the church. Slowly over time what you see happen is that the believers are exiled to find other churches that have not been infected with this poison, while the present church becomes increasingly a gathering of unbelievers. That’s how it slips in for who is going to argue against a good guy doing good things, it forbids the Gospel. Yet, the Cross of Christ strikes most deeply at man’s self righteousness which is another way to say unrighteousness that’s outwardly pretty. And never forget that Rome too officially speaks of the grace of Christ but then turns around and curses the REAL Gospel. E.g. CANON XI.-If any one saith, that men are justified, either by the sole imputation of the justice of Christ, or by the sole remission of sins, to the exclusion of the grace and the charity which is poured forth in their hearts by the Holy Ghost, and is inherent in them; or even that the grace, whereby we are justified, is only the favour of God; let him be anathema. 

Warren’s road back to the Papacy and a cursed gospel: Rick Warren said, “You know, 500 years ago, the first Reformation with Luther and then Calvin, was about beliefs. I think a new reformation is going to be about behavior. The first Reformation was about creeds; I think this one will be about deeds. ... The first Reformation actually split Christianity into dozens and then hundreds of different segments. I think this one is actually going to bring them together. Now, you’re never going to get Christians, of all their stripes and varieties, to agree on all of the different doctrinal disputes and things like that, but what I am seeing them agree on are the purposes of the church. ... Last week I spoke to 4,000 pastors at my church who came from over 100 denominations in over 50 countries. Now, that’s wide spread. We had Catholic priests, we had Pentecostal ministers, we had Lutheran bishops, we had Anglican bishops, we had Baptist preachers. They’re all there together and you know what? I’d never get them to agree on communion or baptism or a bunch of stuff like that, but I could get them to agree on what the church should be doing in the world”

--Pew Forum May 2005

Rick Warren on evil: “In fact, I don't think evil and sin are the same... We don't know the answers...we really don't...none of us are going to come out at the end of the day and say 'got that one figured out.' If you do please write the book on it and I will buy it.....I don't think it [evil] is the same thing as sin...I don't consider myself an evil person because I sin...I think you have to reserve the word 'evil' for 'evil'....I haven't yet found a good definition of it...maybe Peter has. I was the one who suggested this topic by the way because I wanted to hear what Alan and Peter had to say about it because these are two men I have respected for years read all their stuff and I really came to take notes....We can become an evil person by making bad choices....I think evil is metastization where it just takes over....”

--July 2005 Aspen Institute

But yet Jesus Christ certainly endured the destitute wrath of God for this light and minor thing called sin. His blood was shed for sin, yet according to St. Warren sin is not evil. We must conclude from the untouchable St. Warren that Jesus didn’t die for the real thing, evil, but this trifling little peccadillo called sin. And then we must conclude from Warren’s diatribe on sin and evil that man is left to finish the heavy job of dealing with real evil, being Jesus only died for this inconsequential little thing called sin.

Next Rick Warren sets himself up to unquestionable. Who are the ‘fundamentalist Christians’ he is setting up for future persecutions if they should oppose? Those who hold to imputed righteousness? Jesus didn’t come to bring the peace men love, but peace with God. And this peace with God call the Cross of Christ indeed causes war among men for men hate the Cross of Christ. So, what is Warren setting Christians up for who dare point out his deceptions?

“'I would trust any man or priest or rabbi to know what is going on in a community before I would any government agency.'
But, powerful as churches can be in working for the powerless, they can't succeed without governments and nongovernmental organizations, Warren said.
Warren predicts that fundamentalism, of all varieties, will be 'one of the big enemies of the 21st century...Muslim fundamentalism, Christian fundamentalism, Jewish fundamentalism, secular fundamentalism - they're all motivated by fear. Fear of each other.'"

Beware, the devil rarely announces, “I’m the devil come to deceive you.”

L


----------



## BobVigneault (Jan 9, 2007)

trevorjohnson said:


> When does Rick Warren bashing become sinful?
> 
> A serious question.
> 
> Often we make fun of him and speak generalizations about him. How often do we quote his words directly and attack them instead of insult the man?




Trevor, I see your question as a good 'caution' but perhaps the wrong question. The question should be, "at what point ARE we justified in bashing Rick Warren?".

If we examine Rick Warren with a microscope and criticize what we see then we will learn more about ourselves then we will of Rick Warren. We represent all the ideas and convictions that made up the roots of the Reformation. We don't agree on the fine points any more than the 40 to 50 groups that made up the roots of reform back in the 16th century. 

What we DO agree on, as did our fore fathers, is that the church needs to be reformed and needs to return to a biblical standard. We all agree that reformation is imperative but until Christ returns we will not agree completely on how reformation should look.

This is the one great characterization of the Reformation that gets overlooked - that no two groups of reformers could agree, from Marburg to Muenster.

Rick Warren is not a reformer. We don't need a microscope to see that. Rick Warren is moving the church in a direction that should be repugnant to anyone who believes in the synthesis of doctrines that came out of western Europe in the 16th century. We, as 'puritan' minds, as the 'R'eformed and the 'r'eformed are justified in 'bashing' Rick Warren and any church leader who is robbing the church of it's relevancy. Rick Warren is a worldling, a compromiser, a man pleaser. Mr. Warren grows the church through syncretism much as the Roman Catholic Church was doing in Luther's day.

So I believe that we are justified in bashing Mr. Warren, however we will disagree on how much patience and gentility should be manifested while we are bashing him according to the gifts we have been given.

Listen to Dr. Clarks intro to his Crosstalk programs. He speaks so clearly about this dichotomy between the reformed folk and churches like Warrens. Listen to volume 1 here.


----------



## caddy (Jan 9, 2007)

This was a Refreshing Post ! Thanks for taking the time to point out some obvious truths here.  




elnwood said:


> I do think that Rick Warren is in error on some important issues, but I consider him a brother in Christ and not a false teacher or hell-bound.
> 
> Christ is present in his books. The gospel is present in his books. Maybe not in the depth or the manner that you would like, but it is there.
> 
> ...


----------



## non dignus (Jan 9, 2007)

Steven,

Great quote from Martin Luther in your signature!


----------



## caddy (Jan 9, 2007)

Thanks David...  



non dignus said:


> Steven,
> 
> Great quote from Martin Luther in your signature!


----------



## Blue Tick (Jan 9, 2007)

When did the church stop using the word heresy?


----------



## caddy (Jan 9, 2007)

From Monergism:

http://www.modernreformation.org/mh05promise.htm

http://timbayly.worldmagblog.com/timbayly/archives/019764.html

http://www.challies.com/archives/001039.php

http://www.9marks.org/partner/Article_Display_Page/0,,PTID314526%7CCHID598014%7CCIID1917906,00.html


----------



## Pergamum (Jan 10, 2007)

Robin wrote:
_Trevor, fish through the truckload of back posts here at PB to collect the big picture of RW._

Fishing would do no good if all I encounter are straw men. If we assert something enough times it still does not make it so. There are many generalizations and opinions given about RW but very few direct quotations. I don't like the guy myself, but I want to deal with the truth and not a straw man.

Also, Robin, I would not put RW in the same class as a Jehovah's Witness. To do so is almost slander - or maybe is a lie against his character. He would assert the basic Christian doctrines. I am surprised that you have done "research" for 3 years on RW. If you have, give me some direct quotes that prove he is a hell bound heretic.



John wrote:_When did the church stop using the word heresy?_
I am glad that we are not quick to jump to use this term anymore. A heretic is going to hell. Those who err are not nccessarily heretics. To jump to a reactionary name calling approach does not glorify Christ.



Bob...thanks so much for your post. It was, indeed, refreshing.



Larry Hughes: Thanks for providing direct quotations. Rick Warren is at least entitled to a fair trial.


----------



## Robin (Jan 12, 2007)

Some thoughts...

Exposing the darkness of Rick Warren IS NOT slander. I have always spoken to what I have directly learned and always in reponse to Warren's public teachings or actions. (How does _bashing_ comport with Scripture's mandate to judge rightly and expose false teachings?) 

What Christian pastor would have hula dancers in front of the pulpit ("hula" is a pagan dance to the god Pele) and claim they're dancing for "Jesus"? 

Explain how a Protestant pastor can write a curriculum that is used in Roman Catholic churches?

http://www.purposedriven.com/en-US/40DayCampaigns/PurposeDrivenChurches/Catholics/PDCatholics.htm

Curiously and odd is Warren "missionaries" promoting the PDL books instead of the Bible:

http://www.extremetheology.com/2006/12/missionaries_fo.html

There's much more. Warren's teachings continue to go way beyond small matters.


----------



## Pergamum (Jan 12, 2007)

Thanks Robin for giving specific examples. 


Yes, he does many things I would disagree with.


----------



## caddy (Jan 12, 2007)

Error and Heresy needs to be exposed. It does not need to be exposed in an Entertainment and Humor forum In my humble opinion. As believers who have "nothing good that we did not receive" from the father, how can we make light of another brother's error? We should not exhibit a hawdy sense of pride and arrogance at another brother's error, but pray for him. We do need to expose errors, but we need to remember to do it with the spirit of Christ. Each one of us has lived and walked in sin. Each one of us has lived in error. Each one of us, at some point in our life, has held an incorrect doctrine. All things to keep in mind.


----------



## LadyFlynt (Jan 12, 2007)

Personally, I didn't see it poking fun at the gent other than the redone book cover. It merely pointed out 1) the difference between a present day Christian writer and a historical one (and I do believe the historical one would roll over in his grave...course, I also think several historical women would likewise roll over for anything I would write) 2) showed that historical Christians and their writings have been forgotten and ignored by much of the church today.


----------



## Robin (Jan 12, 2007)

OK, someone needs to help me learn how to put images on our posts...for now, see here - what Jesus has to do with the Purpose Driven Life!!

http://lh3.google.com/_76xmvgQ16O4/RX9BPa7GevI/AAAAAAAAABo/RWdu6ZLBsVQ/s1600/pdl_cover.jpg


----------



## LadyFlynt (Jan 12, 2007)

Robin said:


> OK, someone needs to help me learn how to put images on our posts...for now, see here - what Jesus has to do with the Purpose Driven Life!!
> 
> http://lh3.google.com/_76xmvgQ16O4/RX9BPa7GevI/AAAAAAAAABo/RWdu6ZLBsVQ/s1600/pdl_cover.jpg



Okay, feel really dumb here...but I got a FORBIDDEN...your client doesn't have permission to access this whatever...message.


----------



## SRoper (Jan 12, 2007)

As do I. We're you trying to link to Jesus Christ Lived the Purpose Driven Life for You?


----------



## MrMerlin777 (Jan 12, 2007)

Humorous, but sad, very sad....


----------



## Robin (Jan 13, 2007)

SRoper said:


> As do I. We're you trying to link to Jesus Christ Lived the Purpose Driven Life for You?



Yep, Scott,

How did you get the picture to work?

r.

PS. You must admit, that's a good rebutt for PDL! ??


----------



## SRoper (Jan 13, 2007)

You made a mistake in copying the link. Yours pointed to the google servers. I'm actually not sure how you got the link you did as everything past the server name appears to be correct!


----------

