Posted on 11/16/2006 5:33:58 AM PST by Mr. Brightside
WASHINGTON -- Like many fellow Democratic politicians, Sen. Barack Obama is no stranger to the pulpit.
But in December, Obama will go where few progressive Democrats usually venture--to a large, conservative evangelical church that boasts a Sunday attendance of more than 20,000 people.
Even more unusual is that he'll attend at the invitation of megachurch Pastor Rick Warren, evangelical icon and author of the popular Christian book "The Purpose-Driven Life."
Aides to Obama say he will appear at Saddleback Church in Lake Forest, Calif., on Dec. 1, World AIDS Day.
"Sen. Obama has a deep respect for Mr. Warren's commitment to fighting AIDS and poverty," said Obama spokesman Tommy Vietor.
While he was working on his latest book, "The Audacity of Hope," Obama asked Warren to help by reading one of his draft chapters. Warren issued the invitation to Obama to speak at the church next month.
The messages that Friday will focus on AIDS and HIV, a key area of ministry for Saddleback Church. While many conservative Christians have shied away from AIDS because of their discomfort with its connections to premarital sex and homosexuality, Warren and his wife, church co-founder Kay Warren, have been vocal advocates for patients living with the disease.
Shortly before the release of his latest book, Obama issued a call to progressives to shed bias against religious people and to recognize "overlapping values."
(Excerpt) Read more at chicagotribune.com ...
Jesus' main enemies were the religious fakers, known as Pharisees and Sadducees. In fact, they ultimately killed him.
Christ saved his strongest condemnatory language for them. Called them "snakes" and "whitewashed tombs"...pretty on the outside, full of dead men's bones on the inside.
Barack Hussein Obama comes from a branch of "Christianity" which supported the Soviet Union, and wanted the US to unilaterally disarm in the Cold War. They support the killing of millions of unborn citizens, the mainstreaming of abominations, and ultimately driving God completely out of America. They're the enemies of real Christians and of our Constitution and our free republic.
If you insist on playing apologist for people like this, I have to wonder why you're hanging out on a conservative website.
Only if let the "social conservatives" succeed in thier effort to claim exclusive rights to the term. The political conservatives - the old school constitutionalists - know better.
Also note that many of the moral concerns Republicans claim they have, I know I have. But I also know that none of them were intended to be legislated at the national level.
I know. I'm still looking for a republican Republican.
Courting. I see. Never mind that he and Obama have some of the same concerns about AIDS and HIV. I don't think I know a single person with the disease but I also know it's not always limited to those who may have lifestyles we disagree with. Are we supposed to just forget about them, write off the casualties and keep pushing the 'conservative' cause? I suppose that's verboten to agree with a Democrat on anything. That about the gist of it?
Let's just say that a healthy skepticism is one of the characteristics of political conservativism. While Obama may have the same concerns about AIDS and HIV, if I was focused on those issues he wouldn't be near the top of my list of people I would be looking to for anything other than access to political influence and the public treausury.
My opinion of Rick Warren always has been that he is a fraud; one of the "itching ears" teachers spoken of in Scripture. The fact that he has watered down Scripture to "appeal to the masses" destroys any credibility he may have ever had as a "pastor".
I'm not a bit surprised that he is cavorting with God-rejecting, one-world Socialists. Eventually, anybody who is putting on an act shows his true colors.
Saddleback may be "officially" Southern Baptist, but Rick Warren claims to be a Southern Baptist when he is with the Baptists, and disclaims that fact when is with denominations OTHER than Baptists. Call him Chameleon.
Many people have only read her expurgated diaries (as I have), and have no idea that the unexpurgated diaries even exist. I only just recently found out that she committed incest with her father, committed bigamy, etc. It was a great lie perpetrated by her publishers to deliberately leave out all the sordid details. We may have thought the details were left out only for the sake of space. I mean, condensing decades of material into 7 volumes. What we didn't know was that they were entirely crafting the image of Anais Nin that they presented to the public. I will never again read an abbreviated or expurgated diary. I have no way of knowing whether Rick Warren has read the expurgated or unexpurgated version of her diary, or which others books of hers he has read, or how he happened to find the quote he used. At this point, I don't even know which quote he used.
I am pleased to say I never read "Purpose Driven Life"
OR "The Prayer of Jabez".
We should be leading a Christ centered life, then we will
pursue our purpose.
Having been raised in a cult, I recognized right away that
the "Prayer of Jabez" ignored the context, which made me
nervous. Don't like the idea of telling God how rich He
should make me.
To be a 'RINO' one has to be registered Republican. I'm not and haven't been for close to 10 years
The Dems hardly had to lift a finger. And you and Pastor Warren are exactly the type who will help elect him POTUS, if we don't stop you.
I see. It's our fault the Republicans have no plausible conservative agenda to sell to the general public
The above is definitely stated in Warren's Purpose Driven Life on pages 9-10. While the above is correct (Warren's statement isn't literally true), it seems more of a bad example than anything else. It doesn't have any theological significance as Warren is, as I see it, merely using a bad example.
Would you have any issues with his statement if he instead wrote?:
Sometimes God would use a 40 day period to accomplish some task or prepare somebody for his purposes.
Read the examples that Warren gives (pp. 9-10) for transformation in 40 days - Noah, Moses, David, Elijah and Jesus. They are inaccurate, incorrect examples.
I'm sure you would agree God uses 40 day examples through-out the Bible. While no analogy is perfect, writers should try to use the best example possible. In what way are the examples inaccurate/incorrect? What do you see as the theological issue with the above?
I agree with you that Romans 16:17-18 can indeed be talking about false teachers. It just seems out of left field with the rest of chapter 16.
On these same pages, Warren also uses a badly distorted version of Romans 12:2 (The NLT). Compare the NIV, KJV, NASB, and NKJV with the NLT. The distortion is obvious and the meaning that Warren carries through his writing is incorrect.
Here is what Warren writes on Page 10 where he quotes a portion of Romans 12:2.
The Bible says:I don't see a badly distorted version of Romans 12:2 from his example. From what I can tell, Warren is doing what he thinks is right in trying to reach the unregenerate when he uses language they're more likely to understand. He is using the common language of the time, much like the language of the Bible.
- Let God transform you into a new person by changing the way you think. Then you will know what God wants you to do. [NLT used by Warren]
- Do not conform any longer to the pattern of this world, but be transformed by the renewing of your mind. Then you will be able to test and approve what God's will is his good, pleasing and perfect will. [NIV]
- Do not be conformed to this age, but be transformed by the renewing of your mind, so that you may discern what is the good, pleasing, and perfect will of God. [Holman]
- And do not be conformed to this world, but be transformed by the renewing of your mind, so that you may prove what the will of God is, that which is good and acceptable and perfect. [NASB]
Unless you can explain why the above has some theological significance, the issues I've seen so far appear to be non-essential issues or issues of no theological significance. More than anything else they seem to be issues of style.
On that we agree. But I would argue that the 'social conservatives' who would use the national government to forward their agenda can be as much of a danger if allowed to act unfettered from our Constitution
ph
Those are bold claims! Is The PDL a guide to a 40 day Spiritual Journey? What is a Spiritual Journey? And given the boldness of Warren's above-referenced claim, should it contain any bad examples? Shouldn't it be held to a higher standard due to the fact that Warren claims that it is more than just a book?
And yes...there is theological significance. Should we be attributing facts to God about how He relates to us, and how he works in saving and sanctifying us, that are innaccurate?
Before Warren makes that statement, he states that "The Bible is clear that God considers 40 days a spiritually significant time period. Whenever God wanted to prepare someone for his purposes, he took 40 days:"
As you said, you are all about context. Is the context accurate here?
Warren says that "Noah's life was transformed by 40 days of rain." Wait a minute! Warren just said that whenever (which means always, btw) God wanted to prepare someone for his purposes, he took 40 days. How and why does Warren change from preparing someone to transforming someone?
What is the context here...preparation or transformation?
So in the example of Noah, how was Noah individually prepared and/or transformed by the 40 days and nights of rain?
Also, Noah and his family were on the ark for a year. The 40 days reference more relates to the time it took for the rain and waters to cover to the highest peaks, which was a time of judgement (not preparartion or transformation). How does the Bible say tha Noah was prepared or transformed in the 40 days of rain?
The other examples listed are similar in nature to this one...out of context (Jesus wasn't empowered in the desert, He was tempted).
And Warren has previously claimed that The PDL has been read by the Whitehouse, a Cuban dictator, professional sports teams, NASCAR teams, and tens of millions more...Given that it is not just a book, but a Spiritual Journey; How many testimonies have you heard to the fact that: all the pieces of life fit together, stress is reduced, decisions are simplified, satisfaction is increased and eternity is prepared?
More importantly, how many testimonies have you heard that stated that after reading The PDL that the person is no longer conformed to the pattern of this world but transformed by the renewing of their mind able to test and approve what God's will is-his good and pleasing will?
That is the content and transformation of Romans 12:2.
The greek text related to Romans 12:2 includes the words "Do not be conform any longer to the pattern of this world"...Don't you think that this is an important part of the verse that the NLT leaves out?
This is more than style related...this has doctrinal and theological implications.
Since the text you provided goes back to the first page of The Purpose Driven Life where Warren lays the foundation for his book, it's really best we start there or we'll probably talk right past each other as so often happens on these threads.
Also, I think it's important to read the statement of faith at Warren's church. You can read it here. I've pointed that link out to others who share your concerns and as best I could tell, they believed it was solid. Please check it out and see for yourself.
Those are bold claims! Is The PDL a guide to a 40 day Spiritual Journey? What is a Spiritual Journey?
When studying Scripture it's imperative to undererstand the culture of the times, the audience, it's history, etc. The Bible studies I lead help the students to better understand the text by understanding the times, culture, customs and audience to whom the text was written. In the same way we need to realize the times, culture and audience to whom Warren is writing.
We're living in those times and culture, but who is Warren's target audience? If his target is the unsaved, the non-Christian, the unchurched, the unregenerate as it seems to be, would that audience critique his book with such questions? I don't believe so and that may be where we differ.
This is part of what I mean by style. Before we move on, and we will cover each point you listed in the post to which I'm responding, let's try to come to some agreement as to Warren's audience. To whom do you think Warren is writing?
"You discover your identity and purpose through a relationship with Jesus Christ. If you don't have such a relationship, I will later explain how to begin one."
Given the above statement, and given the fact that churches world-wide have done The PDL congregation wide, I would assume that it is written to the believer and unbeliever.
Regards,
Mat 18:15 is often abused by those who are pushing for ecumenical fellowship and union. They claim that this verse forbids men to expose the error of Christian leaders publicly unless one has first gone to that man and dealt with him privately. This is a misuse of the passage. Matthew 18 gives instructions for dealing with personal problems between Christians. It is not addressing how to deal with public teachings and actions by Christian leaders. The Apostle Paul, in the Pastoral Epistles, mentioned the names of compromisers and false teachers TEN times. Those letters obviously were not intended merely for Timothy and Titus. They were a part of the divine record and were intended for circulation to every preacher and church as a matter of public public record. Paul's motive was not slandering those men. He was not malicious. His motive was protecting godly preachers and sound churches.
Further, Matthew 18 is in the context of church discipline. Such can only be adhered to by members of one's own church. Those outside of their own assembly are not under its authoity and discipline and cannot, therefore, can not be dealt with after the manner of Matthew 18:15-17.
To warn of the error and compromise of men who are ministering publicly is Scriptural. If they are teaching error publicly, they should be exposed publicly.
Your dismissal of Neckar's commentary is essentially a second fallacial error known as Ignoratio Elenchi, which translated out of the Latin becomes "ignorance of refutation", and is a fallacy of ignorance where the ignorance involved is either ignorance of the conclusion to be refuted - even deliberately ignoring it - or ignorance of what constitutes a refutation, so that the attempt misses the mark.
[I]t is not what the man of science believes that distinguishes him, but how and why he believes it. His beliefs are tentative, not dogmatic; they are based on evidence, not on authority or intuition. - Bertrand RusselRebut Neckar on the merits of his argument (or lack thereof), not ad Hominem according to a perceived lack of expertise. Spiritual maturity and physical maturity are not congruent. I know many middle-aged individuals who can act like children. And in the converse I can cite Paul's exhortation of Timothy "let no one despise your youth" (1 Tim. 4:12), which was given some fifteen years after he joined Paul.
From the account in Acts and the allusions in the Pauline letters, Timothy seems to have been one of the most constant companions of the Apostle Paul. The first reference to Timothy is found in Acts 16:1-3 at the beginning of Paul's second missionary journey when he revisited Derbe and Lystra in Lycaonia. It seems probable that Paul had met Timothy earlier during his visit to this area on his first missionary journey (Acts 14). This young man made a good impression upon Paul and had a good reputation in Lystra and Iconium (16:2), suggesting that he was a resident of Lystra, rather than Derbe. Later Paul suggests that certain prophetic utterances confirmed Timothy's appointment (I Tim. 1:18; cf. 4:14). Concerning his parentage it is recorded that his father was a Greek and his mother a devout Christian Jewess (Acts 16:1) whose name was Eunice, and his grandmother was named Lois (2 Tim. 1:5), both having faithfully instructed their offspring (plural) in the Scriptures. Jewish boys formally began studying the scriptures when they reach five years of age. This is significant because from a Jewish perspective one's father can never be known with certitude, but one's mother is beyond doubt. And so, Timothy was considered to be a Jew (despite a pagan Greek father) and had been taught the Scriptures beginning at this age (cf Mar 9:21). Clearly, Tim 3:15 indicates that the Scriptures alone are sufficient to provide the necessary wisdom that leads to salvation through faith in Christ. Neither formal instruction, nor lettered tutors are implied, nor can be inferred.
Two points should necessarily be addressed at this time respecting II Tim 3:15, first, the apostle can ONLY be referring to scriptures of the Old Testament, as they would've been the only scriptures which Timothy had known from childhood (as the NT hadn't been written yet), and secondly, the apostle does not say that the scriptures were in and of themselves sufficient to make Timothy wise unto salvation (the Scriptures was not magical), but only that with faith that is in Christ Jesus were they sufficient for that end; how much more efficacious (and sufficient) must the scriptures be now with Old and New Testament together, when both testaments are accompanied with a faith that is in Jesus Christ, for that end? What faith in Jesus Christ could a Jew possibly have? What is it that saved the OT Jews in the first place? It is their faith in God's promise of a Messiah. And who is the Messiah? Of course that the Messiah was Jesus Christ was revealed by the time of Paul's ministry, but the Jews knew that a Messiah was coming (and it is this faith that saved them prior to Christ's crucifixion). When John the Baptist said, "Behold the Lamb of God" the Jews present knew exactly what he was talking about. And Jesus' discourse with Nicodemus in Jno 3 is emphatic that Nicodemus is utterly without excuse.
Furthermore, scriptures are a perfect rule (the writers of them were inspired, and consequently their writings are infallible), i.e. measure or guide (not as a law), and that they are a plain rule; otherwise they would be no rule at all, of no more use to direct our faith and practice than a sun-dial in a dark room is to tell us the hour of the day. A rule that is not plain, whatever it may be in itself, is of no use to us till it is made plain.
Acts 17:10-14 records Paul leaving Timothy at Berea with Silas (~ c. 51 A.D.), about a year after picking him up in Lystra, shouldering an incredible responsibility. At the time of Paul's first Pastoral Epistle, Timothy was at Ephesus, a city given over largely to the worship of a heathen goddess, Diana (also called Artemis), the love-goddess of the Greek world. It was Timothy's task to minister to the church that was opposing the blind idolatry, and pagan superstition of this darkened, heathen city -- a formidable task indeed. How formidible of a task was it? Well lets put it this way, in Revelation it is imputed to the Church at Ephasus that it would lose its candlestick. Now just what Church is there today? Oh, myh bad, there ISN'T one. But there is one in Corinth, and all the other Churches addressed in Revelations. That's how formidable of a task that young Timothy was give. Oh, sure you can argue that when you send a boy to do a man's job look what happens. Sure, you could argue that...
Neither physical (or spiritual) age, nor degree of formal training are qualitative benchmarks in ascertaining credibility concerning matters of doctrine. There's only one way to guage that: that which the Bereans did in Acts 17:11 (search the scripures to see if the things being taught are indeed true).
In Gustavus S. Paine's book, he documents an anecdote in Tynsdale's life where after proving a "learned" Roman Catholic scholar wrong, the papist cried out, "It were better for us to be without God's laws, than without the Pope's!" To which Tyndale prophetically replied,
"I defy the Pope, and all his laws; and if God spare my life, ere many years, I will cause a boy that driveth the plough to know more of the Scripture than you do!"What interest would this seminary graduate have in risking his life to bring the Word of God to the hoi polloi? After all, only he is capable of interpreting and knowing what its all about, right? Why should he risk his neck in that regard. And risk his neck indeed he did. For his efforts he was simultaneously immolated and strangled. Wycliff subsequently suffered even a worse fate than he (albeit after he'd died of natural causes).
The fact of the matter is that New Testament doesn't teach that a separate caste of church leaders designated as 'clergy' who are over the 'laity'. Truth of the matter is that an institutionalized "clergy" system does more to undermine the canonical authority of the New Testament than many other doctrinal heresies?
The English word "clergy" is related to the Greek word cleros. It means "a lot or inheritance". I Pet 5:3 exhorts the elders not to lord it over "the lots" (Greek: ton cleron), which refers to the entire flock of God's people. A.T. Robertson says the following about that verse:
Lording it over (katakurieuontes), present active participle of katakurieuô, late compound (kata, kurios) as in Mat 20:25. The charge allotted to you (tôn klêrôn). "The charges," "the lots" or "the allotments." (see Act 1:17,25 in this sense). The old word meant a die (Mt 27:25), a portion (Col 1:12; I Pet 1:4), and here "the charges assigned" (cf. Ac 17:4). From the adjective klêrikos come the words cleric, clerical, clerk. Wycliff translated it here "neither as having lordship in the clergie." Making yourselves ensamples (tupoi ginomenoi), present active participle of ginomai and predicate nominative tupoi, i.e. types, models, for which phrase see I Ths 1:7. Continually becoming - see I Pet 2:21 for hupogrammos (writing-copy). To the flock (tou poimniou). Objective genitive.Nowhere in the New Testament is any form of cleros used as designation of a separate class of "ordained" leaders. Instead, it refers to the "inheritance" (clerou, #2819) laid up for all the saints (Col. 1:12; Acts 26:18). The saints as a collective whole are conceived of in the New Testament as God's "inheritance". The doctrine of the New Testament has utterly been perverted and turned upside-down by using the term "clergy: to refer to a special elite group of church leaders.
Laity is an English word related to the Greek word laos (#2992), meaning "people". The Greek word laikos, which means "laity", is not found in all of the New Testament. All in the body of Christ, whether "saints, bishops, or deacons" (Phil. 1:1), are the "people" (laos) of God. "People of God" is a title of honor bestowed upon all who believe in the Lord Jesus Christ (2 Cor. 6:16; 1 Pet. 2:9-10).
Because NT teaches nothing respecting a "clergy", the fact that a separate caste of the "ordained" permeated our vocabulary and practice illustrates rather forcefully that in general the New Testament is not taken very seriously. The "clergy" practice is a heresy that must be renounced, striking at the very heart of NT doctrine of a "priesthood of all believers" that Jesus purchased on the cross. It contradicts the shape Jesus' kingdom was to take when He said, "You are all brethren". Since it is a tradition of men, it nullifies the Word of God (Mark 7:13).
Insistance upon such "clergy" role dictates a requirement of virtual omni-competence from those standing behind the pulpit. The expectations are very high for those who wear the many hats this profession demands. The deadly problem with this unscriptural system is that it eats up those within its pale: burnout, moral lapse, divorce, and suicide are very high among the "clergy". Is it any wonder such repeated tragedies occur in light of what is expected of one person? Christ never intended anyone to fill such an ecclesiastical role. In light of Paul's remark in I Cor 12:14 that "the body is not one part but many", we should be able to discern that the "clergy" position is neither healthy for those in it, nor is it beneficial for the body of Christ.
In fact adherence to such distinction would belie God's Word wherein it is stated that He is no respecter of persons. IF He was a respecter of persons, then the whole Cain-Able thing would be a non-starter.
Sons of Aaron punished. Lev. 10:1-3
Sister of Moses punished. Num. 12:14-16
Anannias and Sapphira punished. Acts 5:1-11
All alike in Christ. Rom. 2:11; Gal 3:28; Eph. 6:9; Col. 3:25
Not only is God not a respecter of persons, he has no respect for a person's works (Cain was offended at God's lack of respect of his works). The priests themselves being admonished to refrain from labor in fashioning an altar to be used for worship (Exo 20:25; Deu 27:5; Jos 8:31). "Except that the Lord built thy house, thy labor be in vain - Psa 127:1"
While many religions rely on priests acting as mediators between God and people (who minister according to God's instruction and offering sacrifices to God on behalf of the people), Scripture tells us there is only one mediator between us and God, i.e., Jesus Christ (1 Timothy 2:5). The writer of Hebrews calls Jesus the supreme "high priest," who offered himself as a perfect sacrifice (Hebrews 7:23-28). The believer in the efficacy of Christ's attoning work upon the cross, having died in Him, and are now in Him, it is through Christ that all believers have been given direct access to God, just like a priest. God is equally accessible to all the faithful, and every Christian has equal potential to minister for God. Furthermore, not only are all Christians priests in that regard, they are members of a Royal priesthood (I Pt 2:9).
One gains no credibility with the Lord by being a learned scholar either. It is true that but for scholars, would we'd not have Bible dictionaries, Bible commentaries, Bible translations, Bible concordances and the many, many works on interpretation, application, inspiration and background that enrich our understanding and Christian walk. There is no end of learning and one cannot read everything. But it helps to be aware that there is so much to learn. Such a perspective might caution us against narrow minded and dogmatic pronouncements like "this is what the Scripture means" when we haven’t put the effort into discovering if that is really what the Scripture means. A Strong’s Concordance and a patchwork string of cherry-picked Bible verses do not necessarily a doctrine make.
The standard drill for "doing theology," to use the crude but common phrase in the profession, is to ask of the text several key questions:
Academic qualifications means very little in that regard to God. Whether or not a particular scholar or specialist shares one's doctrinal position should matter little. The question emminently boils down to how well does one know the material and would presentation of such give cause to reevaluate one's own doctrinal position? II Tit 3:7 tells us about academic scholarship. I'm aware of scholars that have the Bible committed to memory and yet reject the Gospel. Indeed scripture is replete with commentary concerning how the Lord confounds the wise, and His use of "foolishness in the eyes of the wise" for His purposes.
O Timothy, guard what has been entrusted to you. Avoid the godless chatter and contradictions of what is falsely called knowledge, for by professing it some have missed the mark as regards the faith. {1 Tim 6:20-21 RSV} Paul charges Timothy with a command in II Tim 2:14-19. "Rightly dividing" in v15 is rendered from the Greek orthotomeo (#3718, compound of #3717 and base of #5114), which according to Strong has the connotations "to make a straight cut", i.e. (figuratively) to dissect (expound) correctly (the divine message). A.T. Roberts translates orthotomounta as:
Handling aright, present active participle of orthotomeô, late and rare compound (orthotomos), "cutting straight", orthos and temnô), here only in N.T although it occurs in Pro 3:6; 11:5 for making straight paths (hodous) with which compare Heb 12:13 and "the Way" in Act 9:2. Theodoret explains it to mean ploughing a straight furrow. Parry argues that the metaphor is the stone mason cutting the stones straight since temnô and orthos are so used. Since Paul was a tent-maker and knew how to cut straight the rough camel-hair cloth, why not let that be the metaphor? Certainly plenty of exegesis is crooked enough (crazy-quilt patterns) to call for careful cutting to set it straight.The salient point here nevertheless is to whom is Paul refering doing the "rightly dividing"? William Burkitt's Notes on the New Testament elucidates the meaning of this passage quite eloquently:
Observe here, The excellent advice which St. Paul gives to Timothy, to all the ministers of the church, and to all the Christian churches far and near, that they spend not their time in disputes, that they contend not about words, which have no tendency to make men either wiser or better, but serve only to violate the laws of charity, and cause men to wrangle eternally, and persecute one another with hard names and characters of reproach. Here note, 1. What those things are which ought not to be matters of contention among Christians; namely,Adam Clarke's Commentary says, that by rightly dividing the word of truth, we are to understand to continuing in the true doctrine, and teaching that to every person; and, according to our Lord's simile, giving each his portion of meat in due season-milk to babes, strong meat to the full grown, comfort to the disconsolate, reproof to the irregular and careless; in a word, finding out the necessities of his hearers, and preaching so as to meet those necessities.
- Such things in which we differ from each other, rather in words, than in sense; ofttimes opponents mean the same things, but differ only in the way and manner of expression.
- Such things as tend to little or no profit, either as to edification in faith, in love, or in practical godliness.
Observe, 2. The apostle's argument, why we should not contend about these things; because they tend to beget strife and contention among Christians, by dividing them into factions and parties, and also tend to the subversion of the hearers, causing them to doubt of the truth of the faith, about which the contending parties cannot agree; "Charge them therefore, that they strive not about words to no profit, but to the subverting of the hearers."
Observe, 3. The solemn charge given to Timothy, as to the matter, manner, and method of his preaching; that the matter of it be the word of truth, the pure word of God, that it be divided rightly, to every one his portion, to every hearer his due, methodizing and distributing truth, as God would have it; terror to whom terror is due, comfort to whom comfort belongs.
The original word rendered rightly to divide, some think a sacrifical word, alluding to the right dividing of the sacrifice; which was laid upon the altar, separating the precious from the vile, and severing the parts which were not to be offered from them that were, and cutting out the sacrifice in such a manner as all had their share in them. As if St. Paul had said, "Study not for the applause of men, but for the approbation of God, as becometh a good workman, who needeth not to be ashamed of his work, whoever looks upon it; but let thy preaching and living be strait and conformable to the gospel, and thus study to shew thyself approved of God"
Hence learn, That although curious and unprofitable trifling with words in a pulpit be vain and sinful, yet it is the part of a skillful teacher, to order, methodize, and distribute truth in its proper place, and give every hearer his part and portion.
Do we need scholars? You bet. Respect for the Word of God demands we treat it with care, honesty, and a desire to understand its truth. Ideally, the role of scholars is to educate the ministry of the Christian church. Just who comprises the "ministry" of the Christian Church though? Does that mean that only graduates of theological universities, divinity schools, or seminary colleges are qualified to expound and preach the Word of God, or to criticize, confront or rebuke doctrinal error and faulty dogma? Whomever undertakes the hard work and heavy lifting of actually studying in depth the book they preach from, digesting available scholarship and presenting it as practically and effectively as they can are qualified to do God's work. All Christians have a duty to teach, expound, inspire, and model the truth of Scripture and not just seminary graduates. Think of it thisly: while a tax-preparers signature merely implies a responsibility concerning the proper filling out of a tax form, the ultimate accountability before the IRS remains that of for whom the tax return is filed for. The same it will be before the Lord: no amount of theological academic accredidation finger-pointing will absolve personal accountability before the Lord for the destiny of one's eternal soul.
i suggest that you re-read the post that i made to you. You will discover the following things to be true:
What that means is that you will get my opinion. If you want to start a hate and condemn Rick Warren thread I suggest that you start a new thread.
Here you go again with ascribing disagreement=hatred. No basis for that. You disagree with me, does that mean that you hate me? i could easily hoist you on your own petard, and acribe your comments on this thread to hatred for Rick Warren critics.
My view is that you all are more like Islamists than Christians. That is how I see you. You are obsessed with purity and miss the point of love and forgiveness and good works.
There is the joke of the self-righteous group of Christians in a walled off room in heaven and others smiling and quietly walking by that room so as not to disturb their sense that they are the only ones there. I would suggest that those who are so quick to condemn others spend twenty minutes or so deeply refelcting on that joke.
Interesting. Now we're getting somewhere.
Love? Forgiveness? Good Works? Every one of those terms are matters of dogmatics. Even to define the terms leads you to arguing dogma. In short, you've embarked on a fool's errand if you think you can ignore dogma. Indeed, you appeal to it throughout your posts with words such as "Good works", "Love", "Forgiveness", "Hatred", et al.
Makes me wonder if your demonstrable hostility to Christianity, as demonstrated in the quote above, is your real motivation for posting to this thread.
While those here pat one another on the back about how great their understanding of scripture is - others stop and help a person in need and Mr. Warren is reaching millions. Again, I say the irony is probably lost on you.
What good works? It seems as if you're assuming what you're trying to prove. Let's look at the fruits of Warren's ministry. This is a piece that is critical of Rick Warren's ministry. You might find it to be a relief in that it does not discuss theology to any great extent, rather it discusses The Raw Numbers. If "good works" was a measure of God's blessing, then i contend that we should all be Mormons, or Scientologists. Of course, that may appeal to some on this board.
Think about that. I find your reasoning faulty. If you write a post to me I consider that an invitation for me to give you my opinion.
The rest of your post is uninteresting. I find the trashing of Rick Warren on this thread to be gratuitous and unkind. I see no reason why people on this thread couldn't have been gracious and said something like: I don't agree with Rick Warren's dogma but I applaud the good work that he is doing."
You all are choosing to write posts to me and so you are asking for my opinion.This is the guy whom y'all are advocatin' should be back in school, eh?
I'm saying: EVEN THAT GUY will find hiself useful.
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.