Rick Warren

[Hagios17]

RICK WARREN’S BOOK “THE PURPOSE DRIVEN LIFE”
​

The X- 40 year Catholic Dominican Preist, Richard Bennet now converted to Jesus identifies shocking errors contained in Rick Warren's book: "The Purpose Driven Life". So please do read what this X-Catholic has to say about Rick's book​

​

Richard Bennets site

Click: BereanBeacon

ARTICLES
​

Click: The alignment of New Evangelical with Apostasy (something extra)

Click: The adulation of man in Purpose Driven Llife

Click: The Purpose Driven Llife demeans the very Nature of God


Hoping that you will read the articles


Hagios17​

 

[SPALATIN]

RICK WARREN’S BOOK “THE PURPOSE DRIVEN LIFE”​

The X- 40 year Catholic Dominican Preist, Richard Bennet now converted to Jesus identifies shocking errors contained in Rick Warren's book: "The Purpose Driven Life". So please do read what this X-Catholic has to say about Rick's book​

Richard Bennets site​

Click: BereanBeacon​

ARTICLES​

Click: The alignment of New Evangelical with Apostasy (something extra)​

Click: The adulation of man in Purpose Driven Llife​

Click: The Purpose Driven Llife demeans the very Nature of God​

Hoping that you will read the articles​

Hagios17​

I don't need an x-catholic telling me that Rick Warren's book is pure fire kindling. We had Lutheran scholars doing that 2-years ago when the book became popular.

What took him so long.

 

[BigNorsk]

Instead of posting stuff on Rick Warren, I think it would be more interesting if you posted your theology and let us discuss it together.

Marv

 

[KagomeShuko]

This is no surprise. I agree with the others. . .

Stein Auf!
Bridget

 

[guitarplayer_101]

This is no surprise. I agree with the others. . .

Same here

 

[C.F.W. Walther]

RICK WARREN’S BOOK “THE PURPOSE DRIVEN LIFE”​

The X- 40 year Catholic Dominican Preist, Richard Bennet now converted to Jesus identifies shocking errors contained in Rick Warren's book: "The Purpose Driven Life". So please do read what this X-Catholic has to say about Rick's book​

Richard Bennets site​

Click: BereanBeacon​

ARTICLES​

Click: The alignment of New Evangelical with Apostasy (something extra)​

Click: The adulation of man in Purpose Driven Llife​

Click: The Purpose Driven Llife demeans the very Nature of God​

Hoping that you will read the articles​

Hagios17​

Hey ---thanks anyway-----we know you were just trying to be informative

 

[BalaamsAss51]

Hello all.

FWIW, in the latest Issues, Etc. Journal Todd Wilken has an article called "A Listener's Guide to the Pulpit". He mentions Warren while talking about different types of sermons. Wilken has one part called "bad preaching" and another called "Worse preaching". Any surprise that Warren is mentioned under "worse"?

Here's the quote -
"The Life-Application Sermon. This is the classic example of preach8ing the Christian instead of the Christ. Promoted by Rick Warren and others, these sermons are by far the most common kind of worse preaching. In this case, the preacher is convinced that the ultimate goal of preaching is to teach people how to LIVE. The Bible is presented as the owners manual for life, the ultimate how-to book or honey-do list. The Bible is mined for examples, principles, and paradigms relevant to our everyday lives. Jesus' words, "These are the Scriptures that testify about me" are amended to read, "These are the Scriptures that testify about you."

Pax

 

[Hagios17]

At the moment I am very busy with Homework, etc. but I would love to talk about this on the weekend...


All atribute to the Lord


Hagios: -- My screen name might reveal a little about my theology

 

[Protoevangel]

The X- 40 year Catholic Dominican Preist, Richard Bennet now converted to Jesus

And, what exactly is this supposed to mean?​

 

[LilLamb219]

It began to dawn on me that in Biblical terms,
the Bishops I knew in the Catholic Church were not Biblical believers. They were for the most part
pious men taken up with devotion to Mary and the Rosary and loyal to Rome, but not one had any idea
of the finished work of salvation, that Christ's work is done, that salvation is personal and complete.​

The above quote is taken from that guy's "testimony" on how he "accepted" Christ to be born-again. He obviously is in the camp of thinking that Roman Catholics aren't Christian, sad to say.

 

[LilLamb219]

Oh, how nice. Further investigation shows a page where he's hawking his literature. Another money-making converted soul?

 

[Protoevangel]

I found the same thread posted:

• The Voice In The Desert - Oriental Orthodox
• Theologia Crucis - Lutherans
• Fundamentalist Churches
• Seventh-day Adventists
• Semper Reformanda - Reformed
• Wesley's Parish - Methodist/ Nazarene
• Spirit-Filled - Pentecostal/ Charismatic

And all the Vikings sing:

"Spam spam spam spam. Lovely spam! Wonderful spam! Spam spa-a-a-a-a-am spam spa-a-a-a-a-am spam. Lovely spam! Lovely spam! Lovely spam! Lovely spam! Lovely spam! Spam spam spam spam!"

 

[Tetzel]

Dan, I just noticed your sigline and other changes. Are you converting?

 

[Protoevangel]

Dan, I just noticed your sigline and other changes. Are you converting?

I'm... Investigating...

I have been growing steadily disenchanted with the modernized Lutheran Church for quite a while now. Recently, I am beginning to suspect that the Lutheran Church, as described in the Confessions, and envisioned by the Lutheran Fathers (save perhaps Melanchthon), no longer exists. Instead of the continuation of the Visible Church in the West, we are but another denomination, one opinion among many.

As I mention in my latest blog entry, schism and apostasy is bound to happen in the Church, but the responsibility of each Christian is to ensure that they are in line with True orthodox, catholic, apostolic and Scriptural teaching, and to avoid the fracturalization of the Church. My suspicion is that the Bishop of Rome rebelled and attempted a kind of ecclesiastical coup, which resulted in a schism around 1054, and the entire mess we find ourselves in today is the fruit of that schism. The Lutheran Fathers knew there was a problem, and did the best they could in a bad situation, and indeed, corrected many of the abuses that Rome invented, but in doing so, allowed for the invention of many new and novel doctrines, and the rejection of much of the faith that has been handed down to us from Apostolic times. But the One True Church has, throughout this entire time, been waiting patiently for the prodigals to come home.

So, yes, I think that I will most likely convert to Orthodoxy eventually. But even if I do not, and this is just a "phase" or "mid-life-crisis" or something, I do not want to lie to you all by using the Lutheran icon, when I know that my statements may very well not reflect the Lutheran understanding of any particular issue I am discussing.


But about my sig line: I've had that for months. I think that it is entirely in line with the historic Lutheran understanding of tradition... Luther, Chemnitz, et al, strongly appealed to the Fathers and tradition in their writings.

 

[RedneckAnglican]

This is no surprise. I agree with the others. . .

Stein Auf!
Bridget

ditto...

 

[Hagios17]

<<BigNorsk>>

Instead of posting stuff on Rick Warren, I think it would be more interesting if you posted your theology and let us discuss it together.
Marv

O.K.

 

[Hagios17]

A while back I wrote an SA that reflects a bit on my Theology entitled:

“What we should treasure”​

-Argument​

Treasures are usually viewed as materialistic objects that appeal to the senses in such a pleasurable way as to be rendered according to the judgement of the reasoning faculty as precious. And because I view the sensations as subordinate to the mind, being mere mediums to a source of knowledge, the focus of this composition shall be upon mind-orientated treasures, indeed known as ideas. Furthermore this composition shall cover negating ideas relating to the nature of man and God.

Views on this subject that are highly liberated amongst men is that man can by some process achieve a God like status, is in fact a god or is God. The founder of these ideas in their root form was the devil, as revealed in the Scriptures. And he first applied the idea in its rawest form to himself, as conveyed in a proclamation aimed at God, saying, “I will exalt my throne above the stars of God: I will sit also upon the mount of the congregation, in the sides of the north: I will ascend above the heights of the clouds; I will be like the most High.” He then applied the idea to the first Scriptural woman, Eve, saying that she would be as God if she only but ate of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, which was essentially to braking God’s law. This idea has later been adopted and systematically formed into religions such as Humanism, Atheistic Evolutionism, Mormonism, Free Masonry, and Pantheism, etc. Where Humanism teaches that man is the measure of all things, Atheistic Evolutionism that man is the closest to perfection, especially the Caucasian man (Arianism and Hinduism, as taught by Hitler), Mormonism that man can become a god, Free Masonry that man achieves a higher state of being as a god through secret knowledge (Gnosticism), and Pantheism that everything comprised in the universe is God, therefore man is God.

The doctrine of the Father God, of which I favour, argues a resounding refutation against these sorts of Polytheistic ideas, as God declares in His revealed Computation that He is one God, who is by nature omnipotent, omnipresent and omniscient. And therefore God is the measure of all things instead of man. The Scriptures also argue that God is divinely sovereign over all things and the only one who is good, but that man is by nature evil, enslaved to his master sin so that he is totally incapable of any act of free will, due to the inheritance of Adam’s sin. And a man cannot be autonomous if he is the servant of sin. Man wills only for evil continually and is in a state of total depravity so that freedom is solely dependent on God’s gift of unmerited favour (grace), imputed according to his good pleasure, which truly reflects on the majesty of God.

Due to prolonged dispute over the matter of the nature of God and man, Calvinism in light of Augustinianism and Arminianism in light of Pelagianism were formed. Calvinism is explained under the doctrines of ‘Total inability’ which holds that man is unable to will for any spiritual good because he is dead in sin, ‘Unconditional Election’ which holds that God has predestined men and angels to either everlasting death or life, ‘Limited Atonement’ which holds that none other than the elect have been redeemed by Christ, effectually called, justified, adopted, sanctified, and saved, but the elect, ‘Efficacious Grace’ which holds that it is the work of God that we embrace Christ, and ‘The preservation of the saints’ which holds that those who God has called and sanctified cannot fall away from grace, being eternally saved. And these doctrines are commonly referred to as the ‘TULIP’, which builds so well around the Augustinian premise that man is spiritually dead at birth, and therefore strictly predestinarian. Whereas Arminianism argues to the contrary on every doctrine of the TULIP, as it corresponds with Semi-pelagianism. And I presume that Pelagianism was inspired of the devil.

Pelagianism argues that man is born spiritually well and chooses his own destiny whereas Semi-pelagianism argues that man is born spiritually sick and needs God's grace to be saved, but that man has the ability within himself to accept or reject that grace. Pelagius’ doctrines were rooted in the ideas of the Stoics and other Pagan philosophies of his time. He was not a Christian Apologetic

So one’s theology is either in essence a prized idea concise with a focus on God, man and God, or man. But a focus on man and God as the variant of a focus on man or God can be rendered as a focus on man, if one adheres to the principle of contradiction. And the sixty-six books of the Scriptures teach a focus on God.




A Hagios / Saint / qadowsh in the before time finished work of God, that his elect might believe in him who He hath sent

 

[Jim47]

A while back I wrote an SA that reflects a bit on my Theology... doctrine... philosophy, entitled:

“What we should treasure”​

-Argument​

Treasures are usually viewed as materialistic objects that appeal to the senses in such a pleasurable way as to be rendered according to the judgement of the reasoning faculty as precious. And because I view the sensations as subordinate to the mind, being mere mediums to a source of knowledge, the focus of this composition shall be upon mind-orientated treasures, indeed known as ideas. Furthermore this composition shall cover negating ideas relating to the nature of man and God.

Views on this subject that are highly liberated amongst men is that man can by some process achieve a God like status, is in fact a god or is God. The founder of these ideas in their root form was the devil, as revealed in the Scriptures. And he first applied the idea in its rawest form to himself, as conveyed in a proclamation aimed at God, saying, “I will exalt my throne above the stars of God: I will sit also upon the mount of the congregation, in the sides of the north: I will ascend above the heights of the clouds; I will be like the most High.” He then applied the idea to the first Scriptural woman, Eve, saying that she would be as God if she only but ate of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, which was essentially to braking God’s law. This idea has later been adopted and systematically formed into religions such as Humanism, Atheistic Evolutionism, Mormonism, Free Masonry, and Pantheism, etc. Where Humanism teaches that man is the measure of all things, Atheistic Evolutionism that man is the closest to perfection, especially the Caucasian man (Arianism and Hinduism, as taught by Hitler), Mormonism that man can become a god, Free Masonry that man achieves a higher state of being as a god through secret knowledge (Gnosticism), and Pantheism that everything comprised in the universe is God, therefore man is God.

The doctrine of the Father God, of which I favour, argues a resounding refutation against these sorts of Polytheistic ideas, as God declares in His revealed Computation that He is one God, who is by nature omnipotent, omnipresent and omniscient. And therefore God is the measure of all things instead of man. The Scriptures also argue that God is divinely sovereign over all things and the only one who is good, but that man is by nature evil, enslaved to his master sin so that he is totally incapable of any act of free will, due to the inheritance of Adam’s sin. And a man cannot be autonomous if he is the servant of sin. Man wills only for evil continually and is in a state of total depravity so that freedom is solely dependent on God’s gift of unmerited favour (grace), imputed according to his good pleasure, which truly reflects on the majesty of God.

Due to prolonged dispute over the matter of the nature of God and man, Calvinism in light of Augustinianism and Arminianism in light of Pelagianism were formed. Calvinism is explained under the doctrines of ‘Total inability’ which holds that man is unable to will for any spiritual good because he is dead in sin, ‘Unconditional Election’ which holds that God has predestined men and angels to either everlasting death or life, ‘Limited Atonement’ which holds that none other than the elect have been redeemed by Christ, effectually called, justified, adopted, sanctified, and saved, but the elect, ‘Efficacious Grace’ which holds that it is the work of God that we embrace Christ, and ‘The preservation of the saints’ which holds that those who God has called and sanctified cannot fall away from grace, being eternally saved. And these doctrines are commonly referred to as the ‘TULIP’, which builds so well around the Augustinian premise that man is spiritually dead at birth, and therefore strictly predestinarian. Whereas Arminianism argues to the contrary on every doctrine of the TULIP, as it corresponds with Semi-pelagianism. And I presume that Pelagianism was inspired of the devil.

Pelagianism argues that man is born spiritually well and chooses his own destiny whereas Semi-pelagianism argues that man is born spiritually sick and needs God's grace to be saved, but that man has the ability within himself to accept or reject that grace. Pelagius’ doctrines were rooted in the ideas of the Stoics and other Pagan philosophies of his time. He was not a Christian Apologetic

So one’s theology is either in essence a prized idea concise with a focus on God, man and God, or man. But a focus on man and God as the variant of a focus on man or God can be rendered as a focus on man, if one adheres to the principle of contradiction. And the sixty-six books of the Scriptures teach a focus on God.

A Hagios / Saint / qadowsh in the before time finished work of God, that his elect might believe in him who He hath sent

Hi

I'm wondering if you could edit this post and make it another color and bigger print. My eyes aren't strong enuf to read it.

Signed

almost blind

 

[BigNorsk]

A while back I wrote an SA that reflects a bit on my Theology... doctrine... philosophy, entitled:

“What we should treasure”

-Argument

​

Treasures are usually viewed as materialistic objects that appeal to the senses in such a pleasurable way as to be rendered according to the judgement of the reasoning faculty as precious. And because I view the sensations as subordinate to the mind, being mere mediums to a source of knowledge, the focus of this composition shall be upon mind-orientated treasures, indeed known as ideas. Furthermore this composition shall cover negating ideas relating to the nature of man and God.

Views on this subject that are highly liberated amongst men is that man can by some process achieve a God like status, is in fact a god or is God. The founder of these ideas in their root form was the devil, as revealed in the Scriptures. And he first applied the idea in its rawest form to himself, as conveyed in a proclamation aimed at God, saying, “I will exalt my throne above the stars of God: I will sit also upon the mount of the congregation, in the sides of the north: I will ascend above the heights of the clouds; I will be like the most High.” He then applied the idea to the first Scriptural woman, Eve, saying that she would be as God if she only but ate of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, which was essentially to braking God’s law. This idea has later been adopted and systematically formed into religions such as Humanism, Atheistic Evolutionism, Mormonism, Free Masonry, and Pantheism, etc. Where Humanism teaches that man is the measure of all things, Atheistic Evolutionism that man is the closest to perfection, especially the Caucasian man (Arianism and Hinduism, as taught by Hitler), Mormonism that man can become a god, Free Masonry that man achieves a higher state of being as a god through secret knowledge (Gnosticism), and Pantheism that everything comprised in the universe is God, therefore man is God.

The doctrine of the Father God, of which I favour, argues a resounding refutation against these sorts of Polytheistic ideas, as God declares in His revealed Computation that He is one God, who is by nature omnipotent, omnipresent and omniscient. And therefore God is the measure of all things instead of man. The Scriptures also argue that God is divinely sovereign over all things and the only one who is good, but that man is by nature evil, enslaved to his master sin so that he is totally incapable of any act of free will, due to the inheritance of Adam’s sin. And a man cannot be autonomous if he is the servant of sin. Man wills only for evil continually and is in a state of total depravity so that freedom is solely dependent on God’s gift of unmerited favour (grace), imputed according to his good pleasure, which truly reflects on the majesty of God.

Due to prolonged dispute over the matter of the nature of God and man, Calvinism in light of Augustinianism and Arminianism in light of Pelagianism were formed. Calvinism is explained under the doctrines of ‘Total inability’ which holds that man is unable to will for any spiritual good because he is dead in sin, ‘Unconditional Election’ which holds that God has predestined men and angels to either everlasting death or life, ‘Limited Atonement’ which holds that none other than the elect have been redeemed by Christ, effectually called, justified, adopted, sanctified, and saved, but the elect, ‘Efficacious Grace’ which holds that it is the work of God that we embrace Christ, and ‘The preservation of the saints’ which holds that those who God has called and sanctified cannot fall away from grace, being eternally saved. And these doctrines are commonly referred to as the ‘TULIP’, which builds so well around the Augustinian premise that man is spiritually dead at birth, and therefore strictly predestinarian. Whereas Arminianism argues to the contrary on every doctrine of the TULIP, as it corresponds with Semi-pelagianism. And I presume that Pelagianism was inspired of the devil.

Pelagianism argues that man is born spiritually well and chooses his own destiny whereas Semi-pelagianism argues that man is born spiritually sick and needs God's grace to be saved, but that man has the ability within himself to accept or reject that grace. Pelagius’ doctrines were rooted in the ideas of the Stoics and other Pagan philosophies of his time. He was not a Christian Apologetic

So one’s theology is either in essence a prized idea concise with a focus on God, man and God, or man. But a focus on man and God as the variant of a focus on man or God can be rendered as a focus on man, if one adheres to the principle of contradiction. And the sixty-six books of the Scriptures teach a focus on God.

A Hagios / Saint / qadowsh in the before time finished work of God, that his elect might believe in him who He hath sent

 

[SPALATIN]

I'm... Investigating...

I have been growing steadily disenchanted with the modernized Lutheran Church for quite a while now. Recently, I am beginning to suspect that the Lutheran Church, as described in the Confessions, and envisioned by the Lutheran Fathers (save perhaps Melanchthon), no longer exists. Instead of the continuation of the Visible Church in the West, we are but another denomination, one opinion among many.

As I mention in my latest blog entry, schism and apostasy is bound to happen in the Church, but the responsibility of each Christian is to ensure that they are in line with True orthodox, catholic, apostolic and Scriptural teaching, and to avoid the fracturalization of the Church. My suspicion is that the Bishop of Rome rebelled and attempted a kind of ecclesiastical coup, which resulted in a schism around 1054, and the entire mess we find ourselves in today is the fruit of that schism. The Lutheran Fathers knew there was a problem, and did the best they could in a bad situation, and indeed, corrected many of the abuses that Rome invented, but in doing so, allowed for the invention of many new and novel doctrines, and the rejection of much of the faith that has been handed down to us from Apostolic times. But the One True Church has, throughout this entire time, been waiting patiently for the prodigals to come home.

So, yes, I think that I will most likely convert to Orthodoxy eventually. But even if I do not, and this is just a "phase" or "mid-life-crisis" or something, I do not want to lie to you all by using the Lutheran icon, when I know that my statements may very well not reflect the Lutheran understanding of any particular issue I am discussing.


But about my sig line: I've had that for months. I think that it is entirely in line with the historic Lutheran understanding of tradition... Luther, Chemnitz, et al, strongly appealed to the Fathers and tradition in their writings.

Dan,

I pray that you do not leave the Lutheran church altogether. I understand your recent disdain with the ELCA and I think that the thread we were in a couple of months ago regarding the LCMS may have soured you on that as well. I hope not too soured because though I disagree with the synod leadership doesn't mean that I think the LCMS is totally heterodox. If I did I wouldn't be planning the move I am making to attend the seminary in Fort Wayne.

I hope that this for you is just a phase and that you elect to stay and become part of the LCMS or ELS. We need people like yourself to help keep the rest of the people understand the Lutheran Confessions better. So please be slow in making whatever decision regarding leaving the Lutheran Church.

Seeing Lotar and then Dixie depart for the Bosphorous was difficult and I don't want to see any more defections. While I love them both as fellow Brothers and sisters in Christ, I can't help but feel they have made a mistake.

Scott Strohkirch