Rick Warren to market the Puritans
- Thread starter Bandguy
- Start date
- Status
Bladestunner316
Puritan Board Doctor
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!
Good point Trevor!
Larry Hughes
Puritan Board Sophomore
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.
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.
..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.
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
Puritan Board Sophomore
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
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
Puritan Board Doctor
Exscuse me Bandguy. This was uncalled for.
Let your speech always be gracious, seasoned with salt (Col. 4:6)
In Christ,
Blade
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.
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.
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.
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¤tPage=2
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¤tPage=2
elnwood
Puritan Board Junior
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.
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
Puritan Board Doctor
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.
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.
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
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
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.
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.
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
Puritan Board Sophomore
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
Puritan Board Junior
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
Puritan Board Sophomore
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
Puritan Board Doctor
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
Puritan Board Junior
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
Puritan Board Sophomore
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.
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.
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
Puritan Board Junior
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:
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
Puritan Board Sophomore
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.
He is a man of sin, yes.
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.
Last edited:
elnwood
Puritan Board Junior
Noted: the Westminster Assembly spoke for Christ.
That's not what I asked. I asked if he is the man of sin.
Westminster Confession Chapter XXV said:
[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
Puritan Board Sophomore
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.
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
Puritan Board Junior
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.
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.
- Status
