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?
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."
***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.
I have, P-M. I went through the "40 Days of Purpose" with my local congregation, both the Sunday teachings and the mid-week "Bible study" follow-up lessons. I wouldn't say it was unbiblical, but each lesson in the "40 Days of Purpose" was even shallower (if that's possible) than a "Four Spiritual Laws" pamphlet. Any criticism of Warren re out-of-context scripture quoting is dead-on-accurate. Any criticism that it's milk (or Similac, in a nod to Frumanchu) and not meat is IMO accurate as well. Maybe I'm just not the target audience. I'd like to believe that the average churchgoer is more spiritually mature and Biblically rooted than what PDL offers. Perhaps it's popularity is a sign that they're not?
The most enlightening aspect of the whole experience was how rapidly my church began discarding the material once the 41st Day of Purpose arrived.
i would say that it is a legitimate criticism whether it is exclusive to PDC/PDL congregations or not.
That said, Marlowe is quite correct on this point: The Diaprax/Delphi Technique is NOT exclusive to PDC/PDL congregations. It has permeated the contemporary American Church (Catholic, Protestant, and Orthodox: Calvinist, Aquinian, and Arminian).
Fact is that this diabolical system must be opposed Wherever it is manifested. It certainly predated the ministry of Rick Warren, so he is not at fault for inventing the system...that distinction goes back to the Garden of Eden, and more recently to Hegel.
i believe that you will find the article i am working on to be interesting. i will ping all of you to it (as well as some others) when i get it prepared. Be aware, there is much to address in this particular thread, so i may be a bit busy.