Posted on 11/16/2006 5:33:58 AM PST by Mr. Brightside
..this is reminiscent of Bill Hybels of Willow Creek embracing Bill Clinton during the Lewinsky scandal--to a standing ovation of his congregation
The man has taken to using politics and politicians to advance his cause. After the last election, he's suddenly courting a prominent Democratic politician. Go figure.
I was leafing through Obama's book at the store the other night. Very well written (Obama is obviously a man of keen intellect, much more so than vitually any other politician out there.) However, in discussing homosexuality, he says that there is no way that an obscure verse in the book of Romans (he means Romans 1 I think) can possibly outweigh the Sermon on the Mount.
This is really disturbing to me, because it points to an old liberal fallacy that the Gospels are somehow "more Bible" because they have the words of Jesus on earth, while the words of the Apostles (also the words of Christ)are relegated to second class, especially where they skewer a sacred liberal cow. (In this case a strong denunciation of homosexual conduct.)
Barak Obama may be a Christian, and we may all see him in heaven. But for the reason listed above, he has some serious doctrinal problems and I would not allow him in my pulpit. The spiritual safety of the sheep must come first. This is only my opinion.
As I indicated in my post, I have reviewed both of his Purpose Driven book. My critical reviews can be found here - http://brogdensmuse.menofhonorministry.org/Apologetics.htm
Check out the "Useful Links" on that site to find some sites that offer other critical reviews of Warren's teaching.
You are correct about my church using some of Warren's stuff. I have fought this for several years. Our church has never disclosed the source of this material, bolstering Warren's stated aim at being a 'stealth network' that penetrates the churches "beneath the radar".
We use less and less of this man's stuff and have abandoned much, but not all of it. I am far from satisfied that we have expunged all the false teaching that Warren's marketing organization infects churches with.
You might look at my post #303. Obama may very well be a Christian, but I have concerns about his theology.
So your standard for reading/studying materials is that the author provide error free information and if he/she does not, then you disregard all other included information?
If that is your standard, then I would have to assume that you could not get past pp. 9-10 of The Purpose Driven Life.
On those pages, Warren states: "Whenever God wanted to prepare someone for his purposes, he took 40 days." This statement is not true...Look at Saul/Apostle Paul and many others.
On these same pages, Warren also uses a badly distorted version of Romans 12:2 (The NLT). Compare the NIV, KJV, NASB, and NKJV with the NLT. The distortion is obvious and the meaning that Warren carries through his writing is incorrect.
From some of the very first pages, The PDL premise is flawed relative to 40 days and relative to transformation.
Read the examples that Warren gives (pp. 9-10) for transformation in 40 days - Noah, Moses, David, Elijah and Jesus. They are inaccurate, incorrect examples.
If you could get past the flaws on those pages and continue in The PDL, I would assume that you could look at CDL's link relative to the distortion of Scripture regardless of the p. 58 issue.
My question about Romans 16:17-18 is stand alone and you are right this passage contains very important instruction!
If we agree that it is very important instruction, then it is important that it is followed...right?
Is it an issue for you that Rick Warren does not heed this instruction?
The documentation of Warren not keeping away from false teachers can specifically be found at:
- I already provided you with the specific Cho reference
- www.pastors.com, Issue #54, June 5, 2002. Warren provides endorsement of Henri Nouwen's book, In the Name of Jesus.
- www.pastors.com, Issue #32, December 19, 2001. Warren endorses Brennan Mannings, Abba's Child.
The list of false teachers that he references and/or does not keep away from are extensive. For sake of time, these are just a few with documentation via one of your acceptable sources.
Did you feel the same way when Billy Graham went to the Soviet Union?
Did Billy Graham have the video of his statements relative to the Soviet Union visit removed from public view?
How about abortionists? Does the Bible say to let them speak in your church? That shows extremely poor judgment on the part of Rick Warren. It makes it appear he endorses Barack Hussein Obama.
OK, time out!
Nobody here is advocating the death or injury of Rick Warren. That would be abhorrent to Christians. Your analogy is therefore flawed. You have also made accusations of the motives of the critics of Warren on this thread that are not based on any evidentual value. The zeal to proclaim doctrine as incorrect does not equal hatred. Another flawed analogy.
You have made your position clear, namely that you are NOT looking at doctrine in respect to this matter, and in respect to Rick Warren in general. Well and good.
We however, ARE looking at doctrinal matters. It is furthermore our contention that erronious doctrine will always manifest itself in erronious practise, except possibly for the situation where the logic in applying the erronious doctrine is also flawed (sometimes that CAN result in a true conclusion).
Being that this is a doctrinal matter to us that we are at present examining, you are talking past others on this thread. If you wish to examine the 'good works' of Rick Warren, i would suggest that you should probably start another thread for that purpose. The present acribing of motives to posters who do not agree with you to 'hatred' is more reminiscent of the tactics of Dr. Phill than they are to a Freerepublic poster.
Whoops. Sorry I missed the obvious there.
So your standard for reading/studying materials is that the author provide error free information and if he/she does not, then you disregard all other included information?
No, but I can see why you're asking. For me, that one link contained a blatant mispresentation of what Warren wrote. I say that because the author quoted from page 58 and then denied Warren ever says anything about sin and the cross. When in reality, two sentences later and on the same page, Warren is talking about sin and the cross. To me that appears really blatant and I cannot see how he missed what Warren actually wrote just two sentences later.
If that is your standard, then I would have to assume that you could not get past pp. 9-10 of The Purpose Driven Life.
I'll take a look at pages 9-10 tonight when I get home.
...
The documentation of Warren not keeping away from false teachers can specifically be found at
Okay, now I understand from where you're coming. I don't read Romans 16:17-18 as warning against false teachers so I missed your inference. For me, the passage is specifc to: "those who cause dissensions and pitfalls contrary to the doctrine you have learned." Now, I'm really big on context. If I had a personal motto it would be: "Context is everything."
In chapter 16 Paul seems to be going through his mind as to who is at the church in Rome, and he sends greetings to those there (1-15) In trying to follow his thought process, it seems while remembering who is at the church in Rome he remembers some who cause dissentions and pitfalls, and says to avoid them (17-18). Now, maybe Paul is referring to false teachers and maybe not, but in trying to follow this thought processes it isn't clear. We can disagree on what is meant here and I may come to agree with you, but I wanted to explain why I didn't catch your inference.
For me, better references to false teachers would be 2 Peter 2, Matthew 7:13-23 and others. I hope that makes sense.
I don't really have to time to lookup the position of Cho, Nouwen and Mannings. For now I'm going to stick with pages 9-10 of the Purpose Driven Life and get back to you on what you've said in this regard.
The idea that he would use a quote by Anais Nin would give one pause. She was a bigamist, a committer of incest, an adulterer, etc. The quote was probably selected by his publisher, not him - simply as a blurb to put on the back of the book - which doesn't say much for the publisher. However, the Obama decision is all Warren's, and you can definitely fault him for that.
I agree with you about context but I certainly see those who cause dissensions and pitfalls contrary to the doctrine that you have learned as a description of what can only be a false teacher. Who else would be causing dissensions and pitfalls contrary to biblical doctrine (certainly not true teachers)?
And it is important to avoid these dissenters and pitfall makers...So why doesn't Warren avoid them? Why does he endorse them in his writings and on his website?
Remember...along with those two questions, I gave you other documented specifics.
As for Manning and Nouwen, they are Catholic mystics.
As for Cho and his teaching, it "is nothing short of occultism..." and "a departure from historic Christian theology..." (p. 353 Christianity in Crisis by Hank Hanegraaff). Also, Cho's teachings are "rooted in Buddhist and occultic teachings" (p. 149 Charismatic Chaos by Dr. John F. MacArthur).
Have a good one.
Actually, Rick Warren has been asked specifically about this quote. His response is that he stands behind it. So it wasn't the publisher, it was Warren that chose to use it. Imagine your church using this book, and a visitor who has a problem with pornography was attending, looking for salvation. He sees this quote, and thinks "Wow, these people accept Anais Nin!" That alone is enough to remove it from his book, but Warren refuses.
We however, ARE looking at doctrinal matters.
Here's the problem with your reasoning. You all are choosing to write posts to me and so you are asking for my opinion. I have indeed made it clear that I am not interested in discussing dogma with you. And yet, what continues to happen? Posts addressed to me discussing dogma.
What that means is that you will get my opinion. If you want to start a hate and condemn Rick Warren thread I suggest that you start a new thread.
My view is that you all are more like Islamists than Christians. That is how I see you. You are obsessed with purity and miss the point of love and forgiveness and good works.
There is the joke of the self-righteous group of Christians in a walled off room in heaven and others smiling and quietly walking by that room so as not to disturb their sense that they are the only ones there. I would suggest that those who are so quick to condemn others spend twenty minutes or so deeply refelcting on that joke.
While those here pat one another on the back about how great their understanding of scripture is - others stop and help a person in need and Mr. Warren is reaching millions. Again, I say the irony is probably lost on you.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.