Rick Warren & "Resisters", Those Believers Who Refuse To Change

Wait....what is wrong with that? Doing what they have always done is only bad IF what they have always done is bad.

Sounds simple I know.

Growth is NOT the end all of our problems.
Getting unregenerate people into the church is NOT progress.

 

According to the Bible, which we do not agree on.
You think the Bible says man has some good, or at least ability on his own to choose God. I say, as do many others that the Bible says nothing of the sort.

As long as we disagree on that point, we will not agree on others.

 

I pray the same thing for you and those who continue to demean RW, that you guys will drop the flower based theology, and see what he is trying to accomplish.

If this is in regards to Warren, that is a flat out lie, and you know it.

Maybe not fundamentalist, but extremist cannot be discounted.

 

Strawman III

 

Doing what is Scriptural is always good whether the lost world likes it or not.

Joseph Botwinick

 

You said it well...

 

*lightbulb* You are starting to get it...

You are preaching to the choir.

Getting unregenerate people to hear the Gospel IS progress, regardless where!

 

I know, you just don't know what it is, and continue to attack his methods.

 

Which means what?

Responding to a post with "strawman" is not dealing with what i said. It is AVOIDING what I said. If I am so clearly wrong, then it should be quite easy to discount what I have said.

 

Do not kid yourself and think you are the all knowing and I know nothing. I'm not the smartest guy in the world..and yes you may have a few more smarts then me. But I do UNDERSTAND what HE...yes HE is doing...and see "what he is trying to accomplish" not God...and this is why i disagree.

 

James, don't belittle me. I never claimed to be "all knowing", but I am quite aware of the PDL, PDC and Saddleback, so I do UNDERSTAND what HE...yes HE is doing, and quite frankly, you do not, or refuse to support it because of what the five purposes do to the five petals of your flower. I have yet to meet a calvinist who agrees with Warren, as is evident from this thread.

 

And I have yet to meet a Warrenite who agrees with the Bible as is evident in this thread. As we are now throwing insults back and forth and not discussing issues, I am now finished with the conversation.

Joseph Botwinick:wavey:

 

I'm not a "warrenite", but I do agree with the Bible. What is really evident to me is the self righteous attitudes of those who disagree with RW. Is RW perfect? Of course not, but neither are you and I.

 

webdog....i do. I know you think I do not. But I do. I really do know. I understand. I disagree. Becuase I disagree, this is the 2nd time you have said.."I do not understand". Believe me..i know 1st hand. It is clear..that you have fallen for the very idea he puts forth. If they do not agree with me...they are wrong..and must be removed.

Believe it or not..there are other ways to run a church. I know this may shock you...and just because I do not agree with rick....please do not remove me. OK?
please do not say.."I don't understand". OK?


Thanks..

 

I haven't "fallen" for anything, and do not see the terminator approach you are taking.

Never said there wasn't, and if you really did know what was in PDC, you wouldnt' have made this comment.

It probably shocks you to think that maybe...just maybe you might be wrong about something, and you just can't bring yourself to admit it. Back on page 1 or 2 I asked for Scripture that disproves RW's ministry, his church, and his doctrine. I'm still waiting...

OK. Your "understanding is flawed".

 

As I have posted, if you believe that Man chooses God, you are likely to think more highly of Warren.
If you believe that it is God that Chooses man, then you are very likely to resist warrens teachings.
Quite simple. That is where our paths diverge.

WebDog, as long as we differ on this issue, we are not likely to ever agree on PDL.

 

May God Bless you webdog

 

This discussion is all over the map. It can harldy be said if the topic at hand is PDL or PDC and I'm willing to bet there are some that don't see a difference.

Having been on staff at a PD church, I have a few opinions. I also have a friend on staff at Saddleback (don't get too excited, that's a big staff...he doesn't share an office with Rick or anything) so I know a little of the actual implementation of PDC.

I've read and heard a fair bit on transitioning a church to PD. This is usually something Rick tends to advise against. Forgive me for not having the exact reference, but I blieve that in PDC he actually says that transitioning to PD from a church with more than 50 people is a bad idea. Now, those skeptical of Warren's methods are usually on the lookout for someone to attempt a transition. Furthermore, regardless of most of Warren's warnings about trying copy him lockstep, or transition, there are a lot of pastors who do. I served as a youth minister under a pastor who attempted to take a small, traditional SBC church and move it toward a Saddleback model. It wasn't pretty. So I guess when I read the original article about "move or die" I see it as a warning. Its letting pastors know that such a change will take a very long time. Its not a statment that we should hope they die but that we might have to wait that long.

That being said, I have noticed that many ideas, methods, systems, etc once passed on to the masses tend to evolve beyond their original intent. I am not convinced at all that Warren wishes resistors would die. In fact, I don't think he meets this issue personally. He has never transitioned a church to this model. He started a church with this model. Why would Saddleback expereince resistors? The problem comes when a well-intentioned pastor picks us this system and model and implements it. It takes on a life of its own at that point. And yes, I have met pastors who have prayed "take them on or take them home" when resistent to PD.

Calvinism does the same in a lot of ways. I've met many Calvinist preachers who do not lead their congregations away from evangelism but rather evangelize out of a biblical command to do so. Yet, as the theology is passed down, it gets picked up as an excuse not to evangelize. Its unfortunate, but it does happen. Its the nature of trying to package up any set of ideas (biblical or otherwise) and pass on the package.

I'm rambling a bit, but this discussion has me weary. Rick Warren does not teach a false gospel. He teaches the gospel of Jesus Christ. I often tune in to watch Christians when they are on Larry King. Larry likes to be antagonistic and ask everyone one of them: Do you believe that people will go to hell if they do not follow Jesus? One rather famous and well respected evangelist simply said it was not his calling to preach judgment. Easy way out there. So how would Rick respond? Interestingly enough, he stuck to the truth. Larry was taken aback at Rick's "yes' so he returned with "so you think Jews will go to hell?" Rick replied, "Larry, I would go to hell if I had not followed Jesus" and went on to explain that the issue was not that only a certain group would go to heaven but that everyone was condemned to Hell and has the opportunity to recieve the grace of Christ. Granted, I'm giving you this from the best of my recolection, so its really not worth getting all theo-nit picky with. I just like the fact that Rick was one of the few that would stand up and preach the gospel on the Larry King show.

Anyway, enough of my rambling. How much energy have we wasted on this today?

 

Jarthur.... er uh.... I mean IveyLeaguer-

Sorry, you reminded me of someone else there. Someone who doesn't really make a point. Someone who seems rather good at the art of attacking the person instead of offering a counter point.

Romans 12:2 was it? I agree 100%, great scripture verse.

Paul did write more than that however:

Philippians 1:18 What then? notwithstanding, every way, whether in pretence, or in truth, Christ is preached; and I therein do rejoice, yea, and will rejoice.