A Purpose-Driven Nation? (Rick Warren goes to Rwanda)

Opinion Journal ^ | August 26, 2005 | ALAN WOLFE

[TomSmedley]

If your goal is to evangelize it should be noted in the article that 95% of all Rwandans consider themselves Christians-higher than the US.

Food for thought. Much of the evangelization of Africa in the 19th century was arminian in flavor, and superficial in effect. People grafted a "born-again" experience onto an underlying tribal operating system. During the genocide, Christian clerics frequently led the bloody mobs against their own parishioners, who happened to belong to the "bad" tribe.

Apartheid, according to an Afrikaaner I spoke with, was an honest attempt to deal with the on-the-ground reality of implacable tribalism. "Before God, sir, we intended no malice," Iedie explained to me. Nurses trained in the healing arts still yank IVs out of the arms of patients from the "bad" tribes.

Reformed theology faces the facts of human depravity, and invites the redeemed to spend years dealing with that fact.

[HarleyD]

"Come on Harley, I don't throw stones."

I know you don't. It was just a bit of tongue-in-cheek to some of the other responders. I thought of posting this one to ME as well...

"HarleyD, I find your lack of faith disturbing"

But thought better of it. ;O)

I think we are in agreement. There has to be an element of moving forward and God's will will be done. God just wants us to be faithful to His service and let Him handle the details.

That being said I don't believe in "a leap of faith" type of giving. I do think there is some accountability as good stewarts.

[blue-duncan]

Thank you, thank you, thank you. I'm glad someone is up late at night keeping us straight.

[Alamo-Girl]

LOLOL! You are quite welcome! Thank you so much for the encouragement!

[blue-duncan]

" I do think there is some accountability as good stewards."

That's why He say, "As iron sharpeneth iron so a man sharpeneth the countenance of is friend."

Someone has to keep visionaries within the realm of God's possibilities so as not to outrun the vision. There is a balance.

[zimdog]

Muslims were able to protect themselves and others because they were not enmeshed in the Hutu-Tutsi rivalry that was promoted by political extremists in Rwanda. As had been the case on the Indian subcontinent and more recently in Rwanda's neighbor, Burundi, those who converted to Islam abandoned distinctions of caste. Because of this (and their small numbers, about 1% or 2% of the population) Rwandan muslims not primary targets in the genocide, either as victims or killers.

To suggest that the people resposible for saving themselves and thousands of others from certain death is despicable. To talk about going to fight the "evil Muslim hordes" during the Rwandan genocide when hundreds of thousands of people were systematically, raped, tortured, terrorized, killed and butchered by professing Christians is at best an example of your religious bigotry leading you astray and at worst an example of your desire to participate in the largest mass muder since the Holoocaust.

[blue-duncan]

My gift was not spelling.

[bahblahbah]

"A 2001 study conducted by a foreign university reported that 49.6 percent of the population were Catholic, 43.9 percent Protestant19.9 percent increase in the number of Protestants, a 7.6 percent drop in the number of Catholics, and a 3.5 percent increase in the number of Muslims from the U.N. Population Fund survey in 1996." Rwanda will be a protestant majority nation by 2015 if not 2010.

[bahblahbah]

http://www.state.gov/g/drl/rls/irf/2003/23746.htm

[bahblahbah]

I screwed up that quote.

"A 2001 study conducted by a foreign university reported that 49.6 percent of the population were Catholic, 43.9 percent Protestant, 4.6 percent Muslim, 1.7 claimed no religious beliefs, and 0.1 percent practiced traditional indigenous beliefs. This study indicated a 19.9 percent increase in the number of Protestants, a 7.6 percent drop in the number of Catholics, and a 3.5 percent increase in the number of Muslims from the U.N. Population Fund survey in 1996. "

[Frumanchu]

Sort of like the Synod of Dort's "If the Remonstrants are for it, we are against it" attitude?

That's rather misleading, given that the whole point of the Articles of the Remonstrance was to voice disagreements with orthodox Reformed positions. The Synod's subsequent defense of its own position against the errant views of the Remonstrants and the refutation of the Articles is hardly a "we're against whatever their for" attitude. If anything it would be the other way around.

If you read what the Remonstrants actually spelled out rather that the Calvinist stereotypes of it, you'd find it to be quite Biblical. The biggest contention of Calvinists is that the Remonstrants rejected eternal security, when it is obvious the majority position amongst the Remonstrants clearly supported eternal security.

If you read what the Remonstrants actually spelled out you'd realize that what you claim here is just as false an assertion in this thread as it was in the last thread you brought it up. The majority position stated by the Remonstrants was that the issue required further investigation. This is clearly evident from even a superficial reading of the articles.

Why you continue to put words in their mouths is beyond me.

[Frumanchu]

...is hardly a "we're against whatever their for" attitude

That should be "we're against whatever they're for"

[connectthedots]

The majority position stated by the Remonstrants was that the issue required further investigation. This is clearly evident from even a superficial reading of the articles.

Maybe you should try to do more than a 'superficial reading'. The sentence to which you are referring is nothing than a throw-away insertion to appease a minority of the Remonstrants for the sake of some harmony. That this statement came at the end of that paragraph is significant. if what you claim to be the majority position, the earlier statements in that section would have simply not been included.

[Frumanchu]

OK, time for Remedial Remonstrants 101:

5. That those who are grafted into Christ by a true faith, and have thereby been made partakers of his life giving Spirit, are abundantly endowed with power to strive against Satan, sin, the world and their own flesh, and to win the victory; always, be it understood, with the help of the grace of the Holy Spirit, with Jesus Christ assisting them in all temptations, through his Spirit; stretching out his hand to them and (providing only that they are themselves prepared for the fight, that they entreat his aid and do not fail to help themselves) propping and upbuilding them so that by no guile or violence of Satan can they be led astray or plucked from Christ’s hands (John 10:28). But for the question whether they are not able through sloth or negligence to forsake the beginning of their life in Christ, to embrace again this present world, to depart from the holy doctrine once delivered to them, to lose their good conscience and to neglect grace, this must be the subject of more exact inquiry in the Holy Scriptures, before we can teach it with full confidence of our mind.

It's divided into two sentences. The first sentence says that believers are endowed with power to overcome the world, the flesh and the Devil, always with the grace of God, providing that they are prepared to fight, entreat His aid, and help themselves, so that Satan may not lead them astray and pluck them from His hand. The second sentence has a big BUT at the beginning and goes on to state that as for the question of whether they can through sloth or negligence forsake their faith, embrace the world, depart from the truth, and neglect grace it must be a matter of further study.

In other words, nobody can snatch us from His hand, but we can snatch ourselves. Plain as day, CTD.

[connectthedots]

And your source is? A link would be nice.

[Alamo-Girl]

Thank you so much for sharing your insights!

[Frumanchu]

I beleive I originally copied that specific version from here (can't remember for sure...what I posted was from a plain text version I keep on my computer). A similar version can be found in The New Schaff-Herzog Encyclopedia of Religious Knowledge, Vol. IX: Petri - Reuchlin by Philip Schaff.

Since you obviously voiced a disagreement with the language, would you care to cite your source lest we be confused over some difference in translations?

[connectthedots]

This is from the The New Schaff-Herzog Encyclopedia of Religious Knowledge site: "ART. V. ? That those who an incorporated into Christ by a true faith, and have thereby become partakers of his lifegiving spirit, have thereby full power to strive against Satan, sin, the world, and their own flesh, and to win the victory, it being well understood that it is ever through the assisting grace of the Holy Ghost; and that Jesus Christ assists them through his Spirit in all temptations, extends to them his hand; and if only they are ready for the conflict. and desire his help, and are not inactive, keeps them from falling, so that they, by no craft or power of Satan, can be misled, nor plucked out of Christ's hands, according to the word of Christ, John x. 28: "Neither shall any man pluck them out of my hand." But whether they are capable, through negligence, of forsaking again the first beginnings of their life in Christ, of again returning to this present evil world, of turning away from the holy doctrine which was delivered them, of losing a good conscience, of becoming devoid of grace, that must be more particularly determined out of the Holy Scriptures before we ourselves can teach it with the full persuasion of our minds."

The version you cited earlier was from the other site, which has some subtle, but significant differences.

The The New Schaff-Herzog Encyclopedia of Religious Knowledge site reflects more my understanding of the Remonstrant position on eternal security. That 'version', at worse, seems to indicate that there is no solid Biblical support for the position that one could lose his/her salvation; although it does imply that there might be the possibility that one could lose their Salvation through a later rejection of the faith.

In reality, this is hardly different that a Reformed church's proceeding to excommunicate wayward members. then there is the argument that maybe those who reject their faith were never 'Saved' to begin with. Such a question is limited to either the Reformed position or a more arminian one.

A Reformed person might say that such a person was never really 'Saved,. An Arminian might say the same thing; and some Arminians may or may not claim that another possibility is that one can lose their Salvation.

[Zack Nguyen]

Missionary work is the key to transformation and kingdom work. It is truly a shame that politicians and leftist activists don't understand this, instead assuming that throwing government money at a problem will make it better. Thus we have President Bush tossing $15 billion at Africa at Bono's urging. (Both of them are Christians, and both should know better.) Give me 10,000 Spirit-filled missionaries operating on a shoestring over the government's $15 billion any day.

[Jonathon Edwards]

"...an example of your desire to participate in the largest mass muder since the Holoocaust."

Wat!?

EZ dude!

I'm neither Hootie nor Tootie.