Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: scripter
Thanks, again, scripter.

I agree with you about context but I certainly see those who cause dissensions and pitfalls contrary to the doctrine that you have learned as a description of what can only be a false teacher. Who else would be causing dissensions and pitfalls contrary to biblical doctrine (certainly not true teachers)?

And it is important to avoid these dissenters and pitfall makers...So why doesn't Warren avoid them? Why does he endorse them in his writings and on his website?

Remember...along with those two questions, I gave you other documented specifics.

As for Manning and Nouwen, they are Catholic mystics.

As for Cho and his teaching, it "is nothing short of occultism..." and "a departure from historic Christian theology..." (p. 353 Christianity in Crisis by Hank Hanegraaff). Also, Cho's teachings are "rooted in Buddhist and occultic teachings" (p. 149 Charismatic Chaos by Dr. John F. MacArthur).

Have a good one.

318 posted on 11/17/2006 9:33:34 AM PST by pby
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 316 | View Replies ]


To: pby
On those pages, Warren states: "Whenever God wanted to prepare someone for his purposes, he took 40 days." This statement is not true...Look at Saul/Apostle Paul and many others.

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.

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.

370 posted on 11/17/2006 7:40:49 PM PST by scripter ("If it is possible, as far as it depends on you, live at peace with everyone." Romans 12:18)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 318 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson