Posted on 07/26/2004 1:57:27 PM PDT by Lasher
Would like to know if there are any other Christians out there that have not swallowed Rick Warren's version of the Gospel. I left my "seeker-friendly" Church after much prayer and ponder, and it took several months to make the split. I still must speak with my former pastor about this, so until I do, I will not name my former Church. I have noticed that most who follow the "Purpose Driven" material are emotionally attached to it, much like true Christians are emotionally tied to the Gospel of Jesus Christ.
SO have you ever considered growing up? Or are you content to sit in your church and enjoy your emotional ecstasies of the "Spirit?"
Eph 4:11-24 It was he who gave some to be apostles, some to be prophets, some to be evangelists, and some to be pastors and teachers, to prepare God's people for works of service, so that the body of Christ may be built up until we all reach unity in the faith and in the knowledge of the Son of God and become mature, attaining to the whole measure of the fullness of Christ.
Then we will no longer be infants, tossed back and forth by the waves,(Interesting that Warren actually uses ridgin WAVES as something GOOD) and blown here and there by every wind of teaching and by the cunning and craftiness of men in their deceitful scheming. Instead, speaking the truth in love, we will in all things grow up into him who is the Head, that is, Christ. From him the whole body, joined and held together by every supporting ligament, grows and builds itself up in love, as each part does its work. Living as Children of Light
So I tell you this, and insist on it in the Lord, that you must no longer live as the Gentiles do, in the futility of their thinking. (but Rick Warren says we should!) They are darkened in their understanding and separated from the life of God because of the ignorance that is in them due to the hardening of their hearts. Having lost all sensitivity, they have given themselves over to sensuality so as to indulge in every kind of impurity, with a continual lust for more. You, however, did not come to know Christ that way. Surely you heard of him and were taught in him in accordance with the truth that is in Jesus. You were taught, with regard to your former way of life, to put off your old self, which is being corrupted by its deceitful desires; to be made new in the attitude of your minds; and to put on the new self, created to be like God in true righteousness and holiness.
It reads a whole lot different from "(It's not about you but...) God is passionately in love with you! God created YOU for HIS pleasure! He greatly desires a relationship with YOU!"
I wonder how the Jews would have responded if Peter came out at Pentecost and said THAT instead of (acts 2:22ff)
“Men of Israel, listen to this: Jesus of Nazareth was a man accredited by God to you by miracles, wonders and signs, which God did among you through him, as you yourselves know. This man was handed over to you by God's set purpose and foreknowledge; and you, with the help of wicked men,[d] put him to death by nailing him to the cross. But God raised him from the dead, freeing him from the agony of death, because it was impossible for death to keep its hold on him.
It's a whole lot different than Rick Warren and Bill Hybels' 'gospel of self esteem' a la heretic Robert Schuller.
yep I agree totally. That's why I'm confused as to why Quix thinks it supports him. Wacky.
I'm not KJVonly but I do think the KJV only bunch have some great points. I actually would rather the original translations. My next purchase is going to be a good interlinear. But there are so many out there I don't know where to start.
Why?
>>I'm not KJVonly but I do think the KJV only bunch have some great points. <<
Keep in mind, even Nazis and Communists have some great points. A reasonable man can learn lessons from the mistakes and successes of all sorts of men. But sometimes he is ahead of the game by not revealing to others who his source is...
Regarding bible versions, I do most of my Bible reading off the internet these days. I do so much studying as opposed to "reading" that it is lots more convenient. Having a laptop in my house with wifi doesn't hurt. 8^>
My "take to church" bible is the ol' standard Zondervan NIV study Bible from my old Assembly of God days. My favorite is at Bible.org. It is a tremendous study source and you can quote it without strings attached.
It gives the BOM credibility. It is a nineteenth century book written in 16th century english. It is a work of fiction designed to "look" religious, and there is ample evidence to make a case that it was a work of fiction that was actually stolen and then turned into a religious book. I have lots of relatives and friends that fall into the Mormon as well as "ex Mormon" categories. I almost became one myself in 1980, in my late 20's.
I could go on and on, but if too much comes out in this thread about mormonism, the thread will be either pulled or locked. It NEVER fails.
Disagreeing on pragmatic things is one thing -- disagreeing on major doctrines is another. That is why there are denominations. I found a great article (written from a Lutheran perspective however, so keep that in mind) at Truth on the Scaffold
That talks about hidden doctrines in 'neutral' methods. Excellent point. There is almost nothing totally neutral.
D. Denial of the Efficacy of the WordClearly the LCMS and WELS leaders do not trust in the Means of Grace, adopting instead the position of the Reformed, as will be detailed later. Even more importantly, they deny the doctrine of the efficacy of the Word, which is foundational for all Lutheran doctrine. There are only two positions possible about the Holy Spirit. One is clearly taught in the Bible, the Church Fathers, the Lutheran Reformation, Lutheran hymns, and the old Synodical Conference: the Spirit never works apart from the Word, the Word never works apart from the Spirit. (Isaiah 55:8-11) The other position, which Lutherans call Enthusiasm, separates the work of the Holy Spirit from the Word.
1. Pietism, Enthusiasm, Revivalism
Historically, the denial of the efficacy of the Word in Lutheranism has one primary starting point - a movement called Lutheran Pietism, started by Philip Spener and August Francke. It surfaced again in American Lutheranism in the 19th century, under the name of revivalism or New Measures. Enthusiasm has had its most recent and destructive impact in the Church Growth Movement, which has been adopted wholesale by the LCMS and WELS, as well as ELCA. Pietism, revivalism, and the Church Growth Movement have so much in common because all three deny the same doctrine of the efficacy of the Word.
2. Hidden Doctrines in Neutral Methods
All three movements (Pietism, revivalism, Church Growth) pretend to be non-doctrinal and therefore pose the greatest danger to Lutheranism. Lutheran doctrine will defeat any false doctrine, but Lutherans have trouble with a-doctrinal positions. When a false teacher says, "We are only giving you methods for helping your denomination grow," he is lying. The actual doctrines are deeply hidden and must be brought to light, just as anaerobic infections need air to be cured. If an anaerobic infection is not cut open and drained, blood poisoning will soon kill the hapless victim.
Those who claim to promote methods and not doctrines are secret unionists. Either they want all denominations in one visible church, or they have no love at all for pure doctrine. They slip away from any discussion about doctrine by flattering potential critics. One pastor said about a Church Growth leader, "It's easier to pick up soap in a shower than it is to find out what he really thinks." One unionist, who organized the ELCA/WELS/LCMS evangelism program, simply agrees with anyone who disagrees, leaving everyone confused.
like...?
It's secret. Sometimes I don't reveal my sources of particular segments of my world view. I will say this though, according to the Bible, some of the worlds first Communists were the early church.
Yes - they ignore a lot of Scripture to come up with those "good points." - most of KJV only boils down to 'you have to go back to the original languages' anyway. That's why I said they have good points.
Yes, I agree with you. Defenders of ALL versions make good points. It is when someone says one version is the "only one" that I mentally bristle. After all, the sign of a cult is when you think your group/organization has the complete truth and everyone else is deluded.
Christianity has split into many different organizations, effectively dodging that bullet/label.
I'd have to concur there.
You have to learn the original languages if you are going to read in the original languages, there are no shortcuts.
And that doesn't resolve your problem since you have to be able to read well enough to grasp the subtile idioms in each language.
There is also the issue of differences between texts, even among the Receptus text there are slight differences.
God has given you a Bible in English, so you would not have to deal with these issues which are distractions from living a Christian life.
God raised up men to translate the King James Bible who had all the ablilities to make those decisions and gave us a perfect work that we can trust is God's words in our own language.
I understand your point - but what then is there to say he didn't raise up men to do the NASB or NIV (I prefer NASB btw over the NIV...)
Check out the results of their work.
The NASB states in Heb.9:16, For where a covenant is, there must be of necessity be the death of the one who made it .
That is simply an outright error (refusing to translate the Greek word for Testament, hence you have a bible that says Old and New Testament, but the NASB translators do not believe an old and new testament exist).
To see how incorrect NASB is on Heb.9:16 check out Gen.21:27 where no one dies after making a covenant.
The fact of the matter is, the NASB, like the rest of the modern translations, do not even use the correct Greek/Hebrew texts, so they are DOA.
No, brother, sometimes it doesn't.
But sometimes it does! (Gal.2:11-13)
That is the problem, you are suppose to check out these things.
The Roman Catholics have a different bible then the Reformation bibles.
Even they admit this, yet the modern versions will use the same texts (edited by a Catholic Cardinal who may become Pope) and come to the same readings, but then wonder why all the ecumenicalism is going on!
The King James is the Model T. It isn't better, it's just first. And I have grown accustomed to power windows, 17" wheels and 300 horsepower, thank you very much.
Actually, the King James wasn't first,it is in a line of Reformation Bibles, which was perfected with the King James.
The modern versions are not 'modern' they go back to the old Roman Catholic readings.
Jer.6:16!
Where did you post this?
I must have missed it.
As for flaws, you haven't shown me one yet!
Frankly, I have no idea what this post meant.
Could you explain it?
Interesting you would recommend Bonhoffer, a neo-orthodox minister.
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.