Posted on 05/04/2005 7:58:31 AM PDT by pro610
Rick warren is gearing up to train a billion people,unbeknownst to many he has also been teamed up with New Age and contemplative promoter,Ken Blanchard,for some time now. According to a new biography on Rick Warren,A Life With A Purpose wrtten by George Mair,Rick Warren has solicited the services of Ken Blanchard to aid him to train leaders:"Rick taps the best and the most famous to help train church leaders to be like Jesus. he has hired Ken Blanchard...to come to saddleback to help train people how to be effective leaders."p.193
In light of knowing who Ken Blanchard is,this is shocking and devatating news for the Church!
There is countless evidence to show that Ken Blanchard sits on the New age/mystical/contemplative bandwagon.Blanchard believes in the benefits and use of mantra meditation,yoga and has no trouble borrowing from Buddism... http://lighthousetrailsresearch.com/Pressreleasekenblanchard.htm
(Excerpt) Read more at lighthousetrailsresearch.com ...
Lets read some quotes from some of those links, shall we?
Let's see if our pro610 is in agreement with all the Warren critics who claim that Warren is just too Catholic in his theology. Quite frankly that is an acceptable criticism if it can be proven. What is not acceptable is the use of such logical fallacies as guilt by assosiation (i.e, Zondervan; Drucker; Jung; Blanchard), which appears to the the principle argument of our resident Closet-Catholic Warren-basher, pro610. Somehow I think that pro610 has ulterior motives in his incessant bashing of Rick Warren, and preserving Protestant principles is obviously not one of them.
***i am considering posting an article on the subject of the diaprax that Lord_Calvinus has made reference to in his(?) post. It is a slightly different application of what is called the Delphi Technique, a method used to manipulate people.***
I look forward to the article. Hopefully, it will be illuminating, and not contain the overt bitterness and hostility of a thread such as this.
***There are examples of the diaprax in the method which PDC/PDL congregations conduct their activities, particularly bible studies. i don't wish to paint with too broad a brush, but it has been my experience that most (but definately NOT all) PDC/PDL congregations use the technique.***
I would say that, whether or not Warren intend it, in practice, the PDC seems to play out with the diaprax method. I have been in many a Bible study that revolves around "I think" about this verse and "I feel" and "this verse means to me" kinds of stuff. To respons with "thus saith the Word" is generally frowned upon.
I really don't know very much about this method and am very curious about whatever you might post for a discussion.
Yikes! You describe the cult leadership that is encouraged in the "Transitioning" which immediately follows "Purpose Driven" training. Pastors start "taking control" and try to dictate who the young people should date, sometimes even who should be married to whom -- even if they are already married to others.
I know because I have a relative that fell into this.
If that were unique to PDL inspired congregations, then that might be a legitimate criticism. However, in nearly all bible studys in every church in every denomination you are going to find students and teachers who often approach biblical subjects or biblical interpretations by starting their sentences with "I think" or I feel". This is nothing unique to Rick Warren. Frankly, If someone starts their bible study sentences with "I know" then that, IMO, would be a much more dangerous position. Those who stand at the pulpit and insist that theirs is the only way of thinking on a subject are far closer to a cult mentality than those who preface their sentences with "I think".
Chuck Missler (flame suit on) always prefaces his Bible Study Messages with the proviso that nothing he says ought to be considered "truth" and that everything he says must be tested against Scripture as the Bereans did to everything that the Disciples taught.
BTW have you actually been to any bible studies at PDC congregations?
I would also like to see that article. Please ping me.
You mean like, "I know that Jesus Christ is the Son of God who came to die for the sins of His people, and that no one can be saved by coming before God in their own righteousness. I know that one must trust in Christ alone for eternal life."
Obviously? Obvious to whom?
Do you agree with your fellow Warren Bashers that Catholics cannot be born again Christians?
Do you agree with your fellow Warren Bashers that the Catholic Church was destined to be Hitler's One World Church?
Do you agree with your fellow Warren bashers that Protestants ought not to join hands with Catholics?
But I think you know what I mean.
I can't figure out if he thinks that's a good thing or a bad thing.
***BTW have you actually been to any bible studies at PDC congregations?***
I'm a credoBaptist who has attended Southern Baptist churches. And, though Warren only speaks about his affiliation with the SBC when it suits him, I think he is still "officially" Southern Baptist.
My last several churches were all practicing PDC congregations.
And, yes, I can testify that there are a great many churches who practice what I have called "Solo Scriptura," that doctrine of which it always seems to be identified in Bible studies with phrases like "I think," "I feel," & "this verse means to me." Whether or not this approach is limited to PDC congregations is irrelevant to the proposition that PDC seems to play out with the diaprax method. Even those who defend Warren on this thread seem to be using this method to defend him.
Of course, there is a possibility I may be wrong and I have requested Calvinist Dark Lord to post something on the subject so that we may discuss it. I have also recently bookmarked a free book on the subject which comes hightly recommended.
BTW, I don't happen to share the view that Rick Warren is the antichrist. I find that his material, while not perfect, is very suitable for Bible studies and introducing people to the faith if handled carefully by a qualified teacher. Of course I would say the same thing about the works of John Calvin. While there are faddish elements to PDL/PDC, overall the material is fairly good for what it purports to teach.
Could you freepmail me that link? Thanks.
Personally for better or worse I do not believe that the PDL phenomenon will have any lasting effect on Christianity except where the emphasis on evangelizing the lost may have the effect of bringing the number of elect which God has determined/foreseen to a more rapid conclusion.
In many ways the Jesus Movement (of which I am a product -- for good or for bad) was somewhat of a fad. Nevertheless, the movement produced many new congregations and converts and excellent Bible Expositors. Admittedly it also spawned a number of very bizzare cults.
There would clearly be some danger in following the PDL/PDC as a substitute for the Bible, but then most of what I have read of Warren suggests that he intended his books to be a guide to methodology rather than a substitute for the scriptures. Some of the criticism seems to come from the same people who brought us the Proctor & Gamble style urban legends, so if Warren can be tagged as "new age guru" using guilt by association, then I dare say many of his critics could be tagged with being kooks by association.
But then that would not be fair, would it?
I see you are being coy again.
No surprise there.
I don't know the book L-C is referring to, but I'll give another plug for that great website:
http://www.freebooks.com
Absolutely. However, unlike you, I define a true Christian not by being able to spout x. y. and z creeds correctly, but by their living relationship with our Lord. Thus, a Catholic may be wrong about any number of issues, but still be saved by trusting in Yeshua alone despite the false teachings of the Magisterium. In the same manner, a Calvinist may be saved by faith in Yeshua alone, despite their overemphasis of God's sovereignty over His character and their dismissive attitude towards the faith's Jewish roots and the promises of God to the natural descendants of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob.
I define a false Christian on the same basis: What--or rather, whom--are they trusting that they might be forgiven their sins and saved? Are they trusting spouting the right creeds and words as if they were some kind of magical formula? Are they trusting the Pope or Mary? Are they trusting "being a good Christian"?
Justin Martyr, as far as we can tell, was a true Christian. He was also a product of his anti-Semetic times (remember that in his day, the Jews were official Enemies of the State because of their two failed revolts).
Luther was a true Christian. He was also a product of his anti-Semetic times, and there's no doubt that he came to hate the Jews in any historian's mind. He also persecuted those who read the Scriptures and saw in them the command to keep Torah.
But you tell me, topcat: If the great doctrines and essays of the Church were written by anti-Semetic men raised in anti-Semetic times, how do you think that that anti-Semetism would not taint their theology and lead to misunderstanding a collection of Jewish writings?
Just take on example, sabbath observance. You say that "gentile Christians" worship on Sunday by their traditions, not by command of God.
Absolutely correct. And you've never endeavored to show otherwise, I might add.
It seems to me that this is a serious breech of God's prescription for how to approach Him. Does this not constitute a false religion?
*chuckle* You seem to be doing a fine job of putting yourself in a corner. If your "religion" is based on having all theology 100% correct, then yes--but I've never claimed that, and that's why I'm not nearly so quick to cry out, "Heretic!" as you.
If, on the other hand, your religion is based on a relationship with the Messiah, then no, it would not be a false religion, because the relationship would still be true. It would, however, be a wrong understanding of God's teachings, and I think He holds us responsible to following His teachings and commands according to the light which we have been given--doubly so for those to whom it is given to teach others (Mt. 5:19, Jas. 3:1).
For further clarification: There's nothing wrong with worshipping on Sunday, any more than there's something wrong with having a Wednesday night worship service. We should worship every day. So the question is not whether it is wrong to have a Sunday morning worship service. The question is whether Sunday is the Sabbath. It is not.
Have I really misinterpreted all that you have said?
Just enough.
BTW, my position is not anti-Hebrew, it's anti-Judaizer.
If your definition of a "Judaizer" is one who encourages others to be both a hearer and a doer of the Torah, properly divided--for I have been clear from the first that not all of the 613 commandments are binding upon all people--and to understand the Jewish culture of Yeshua and the Apostles in order to better understand the Scriptures, not as a matter of salvation, but for edification and learning, then I'm a Judaizer.
But that's not the Biblical defintion.
A "Judaizer" is one who says that one must circumcize and be a Jew as a prerequisite for salvation. I have been very clear that I don't think it is--indeed, I am not circumcized myself. I'm just consistant enough to believe that when God makes an eternal command or covenant, that it really is eternal, and that if one culture produced the entire Bible, then understanding that culture will help you to better understand the Bible.
Like Paul I have no problem with Jews continuing to to follow their social customs.
Actually, you do. You've on multiple occassions dismissed those customs, even those mandated in God's Word itself, as being "old" and "shadows" to be done away with. If you didn't have a problem with Jewish believers continuing to keep the Torah that God Himself gave them on Sinai, you certainly wouldn't have a problem with those of us who are led by the Spirit (both internally and by the Scriptures) to join them.
That is the error I oppose, for it divides God'a people along racial lines.
Do you demand that a Chinese Christian worship God in a Western manner so as to not "divide God's people along racial lines," or do you recognize their right to remain culturally distinct while still being full and united members of the greater Body of Christ? What about an African Christian? Or an Indian Christian? And if you were going to evangelize any of those groups, would you insist that they learn Western culture as a part of accepting Christ, or would you contextualize it into their own culture.
What you do not understand is that for you too Christianity was contextualized, removed from its Jewish culture and given in a Hellenized/Western form. You instead think that the culturally contextualized Christianity is the original, and because of that, and because of an unwillingness to learn about the Messiah and the Apostles within their original cultural context, you misunderstand their writings.
You've never been able to give me a Scriptural answer to these issues that did not fall apart under closer examination, because there is none. That is why you have to continually fall back on cliched responses, traditional creeds, and accusations of heresy.
Strangely enough, I see the same pattern in your attacks on Rick Warren. None of these threads to date has ever actually presented PDL in his own words and given a Scriptural answer to them--you and your group have instead relied completely upon cliched strawman attacks, guilt by association, and acuations of heresy that are never quite specific enough to actually prove or disprove them.
When you guys manage to post a thread that provides a reasoned, Scriptural response to Warren, let me know. Until then, it is you, not I, who are engaged in legalism.
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.