Tuesday, August 19, 2008

RICK WARREN AND THE SADDLEBACK FAITH FORUM - POWERFUL AND REVEALING
...Obama was Postmodern; McCain was Presidential

In some past posts I have been very critical of Rick Warren for aspects of his Purpose Driven Life campaign; his environmental climate initiative, thinking he can cure world hunger, his convoluted 2006 conference on AIDS, and his more pragmatic approach to evangelism. BUT, when he gets it right I am not afraid to say so; and this past Saturday night he really got it right!

Rick Warren was absolutely brilliant. He was lucid, inviting and incisive in how he worded the questions; probed in follow up inquiries; and he kept the evening civil, uniform, and on point. I agree with Charles Krauthammer that this was the best political forum of two Presidential candidates that I have ever witnessed in any venue in recent American politics. The voters on both sides of the aisle were given an honest view of each candidate. I also appreciated that Warren allowed each candidate the freedom to express their convictions without he as the moderator coloring their respective ideological platforms to suit his own political views on the same issues he was asking. IOW, Warren purposely kept himself out of the way and let the candidates have their say. (PMSNBC, CNN, FOXNEWS, CBS, NBC, ABC and PBS were you going to school?)

My conclusion of the faith forum outcome? McCain knocked it out of the park (which I wasn't prepared for) and Obama was more the empty suit than I ever could have imagined. This was a clear case of truth over nuance. McCain was commanding, Obama was conversational; McCain was Presidential, Obama was post-modern; McCain knew the issues, Obama needed his TelePrompTer.

This post could be one of the longest I have ever written. But for the sake of time and thoughtfulness for you the loyal and discerning reader at COT, I have chosen instead to feature below two video segments from the faith forum - one from each candidate. And if you missed this forum, here is the transcript for your further perusal.

Be sure to VOTE; but then accept the results from the only true Sovereign God who is the One who will set men in places of power and leadership over the affairs of men for His own purpose and glory. Amen?

The Cross Waves Higher Than the Flag
Steve
Romans 13:1-7; 1 Tim. 2:1-4; 1 Peter 2:13-17


Obama was nuanced, postmodern and charming




McCain was straightforward, commanding and Presidential

174 comments:

Stan McCullars said...

This was a clear case of truth over nuance. McCain was commanding, Obama was conversational; McCain was Presidential, Obama was post-modern.

It sounds like Obama was trying to emulate today's evangelical pastors.

Deb_B said...

Obama was aestival; McCain was Presidential

Agreed ... absolutely. We were very pleasantly surprised by McCain's commanding responses.

"Be sure to VOTE; but then accept the results from the only true Sovereign God who is the One who will set men in places of power and leadership over the affairs of men for His own purpose and glory. Amen?"

AMEN!

Ed Trefzger said...

Right on, Steve! So many people have knee-jerk reactions to anything people whom they disagree with do. I respect your discernment and candor on this greatly.

I think the moderators for this fall's debates could learn a lot from the very direct questions Rick Warren posed.

donsands said...

Funny, but i don't like a pastor of Christ doing this. To have politics in the Church this way seems wrong, and feels wrong.
Having said that, I may be wrong.

I don't see Rick Warren as a pastor so much anyway. he's a brother in Christ, whom I would love to see run for Congress, and serve the Lord there.

I know some friends who are simply not going to vote, because they dislike both candidates. I resepct that. I was leaning that way, but now I favor McCain abit. he is pro-life, and wants to see Roe vs Wade overturned. He does see abortion as an option for rape victums and incest. Those are the difficult subjects aren't they. Not the millions of conveinence abortions that Obama says are difficult.

Thanks for the good post Campi.

Only Look said...

I agree...and McCain did very well.

SJ Camp said...

stan
It sounds like Obama was trying to emulate today's evangelical pastors.

It just could be true...

SJ Camp said...

deb_b
I was also pleasantly surprised.

Initially, I was planning on voting against Obama, but now I am more than voting FOR McCain. He did an amazing job.

SJ Camp said...

ed
I think the moderators for this fall's debates could learn a lot from the very direct questions Rick Warren posed.

I fully agree. Warren was in his wheelhouse. He was civil, courteous, well read, totally in control, forthright and penetrating. Not many softballs thrown that evening.

I also appreciated how he asked the questions. On abortion he didn't ask, "At what point does life occur to the unborn fetus." Instead he asks, "at what point does a baby get human rights?" Brilliant. He manages to address the abortion issue, but squarely places it within a political framework that obviously has faith and moral implications.

Same wisdom when addressing Supreme Court judges.

SJ Camp said...

donsends
Good to have you post here brother. Thank you.

Funny, but i don't like a pastor of Christ doing this. To have politics in the Church this way seems wrong, and feels wrong.

I understand your thoughts here. Let me offer another side of this interesting coin.

When Justice Sunday came out a few years ago featuring several well respected evangelical leaders, not many said much against it--in fact, for awhile, I was the lone critic. They cancelled Sunday Evening Worship, partnered with Roman Catholics, and drove the focus of the evenings to democrat filibusters and supreme court nominees.

What I liked about this format: it was on a Saturday; it was not ecumenical; it was a pastor asking pointed and incisive questions from a biblical worldview; it was not a vicious debate, but an honest informative dialogue about the issues of the hour. No treating the body of Christ like a religious PAC. Just good straight on meaningful discourse.

I think it was appropriate that this forum took place in a church setting for a couple of reasons: 1. both candidates say they are Christians; 2. both candidates have taken moral and religious stances on political issues; 3. and both candidates were clearly trying to shore up their footing within the broader evangelical community.

I may be wrong too. But I thought THIS kind of during the week political discourse in the most civil tones possible was very revealing and disarming at the same time.

I so appreciate your encouraging words here and thank you for sharing your point of view on this.

Campi

SJ Camp said...

only look
I agree.

rosemarie said...

Steve,

I couldn't agree more. I was very pleasantly surprised and I hope that Warren will continue such forums. He certainly put the modern journalists to shame.

Well said, bro!

SJ Camp said...

rosemarie
I couldn't agree more. I was very pleasantly surprised and I hope that Warren will continue such forums. He certainly put the modern journalists to shame.

Bingo!

Rick Frueh said...

Good for you, Steve. I think many will appreciate the way you are not afraid to applaud someone when they do well, even when you disagree strongly on other issues.

SJ Camp said...

rick
Thanks for your encouragement on this. I wasn't expecting to like the forum nor embrace it. I was pleasantly surprised. What a great venue to vet out the convictions of candidates in today's world.

Campi

littlegal_66 said...

There it is....finally! I've been waiting for you to weigh in on this for three days, young man. :-) I'm not sure which was more of a welcome surprise for me....how well McCain did, or how proud I was of Rick Warren and how well he did. He asked pointed questions, he remained fair and unbalanced (do I hear a Fox News producer calling?), and seemed to lead the forum in a professional, steady, measured manner. (Admittedly, I was a bit skeptical before the forum began, knowing that Barack had appeared previously on that same platform with Rick Warren, and given their previous acquaintance, but I think it turned out well & Rick Warren remained objective).

As far as a "winner" Saturday is concerned, I told a friend yesterday that in my humble (but biased) opinion, Senator McCain "cleaned Obama's clock." As you know, that's Southern slang for "he knocked it out of the park; the 'other guy' struck out." Without his electronic ventriloquist, or direct access to his trusty speechwriters, Barack seemed to be reduced to quite a few "uhs" & "uhms"....kind of reminds me of Ted Turner (sans the mustache and accent, of course).

"This post could be one of the longest I have ever written." (I’m sure it could be, LOL).
"But for the sake of time and thoughtfulness for you the loyal and discerning reader at COT....."
Campi, you're cracking me up this afternoon...yeah, we all appreciate your concern there, brother. :- )

Douglas said...

Steve and others, what do you think of this audio, the second segment?

Mortuary Ministries and Analysis of Saddleback's Civil Forum

Is this of grave concern or not?

Did Rick Warren give all the praise and glory to God alone for his civil/faith forum? Who does get all the praise and glory? Who benefits the most from the forum? Who has the most to gain and nothing to lose? Rick Warren did use the church in this whole event didn't he. Is that what pastors are called to do?

I believe Rick Warren does not see how exceedingly sinful sin is, in all of its manifestations, including the sin in his own life. I believe he does not truly see how the heart is deceitful above all things,and desperately sick; who can understand it? Even his own. When I look into the mirror of God's Holy Word I see how exceedingly sinful, deceitful and desperately sick my heart is and God knows it and God's Word reveals it to me.

Was it just mere coincidence that Time Magazines' front cover of Rick Warren, and the article The Global Ambition of Rick Warren came out in the same week Rick Warren hosted his faith/civil forum and who gets the maximum coverage from all this? Did Rick Warren plan it this way? A brilliant stroke of genius? Or clever and crafty? Totally innocent? No ulterior motives? Does Rick Warren want not only Purpose Driven countries but does he want to see the WHOLE world Purpose Driven? Then he will be able to dictate whatever he wants? No one will be able to stop him? Resisters will have to leave or die? And Rick Warren will continue on twisting Scripture because he is a law unto himself? Frightening.

"The Purpose Driven Pastor
Rick Warren
America's most powerful religious leader takes on the world"

By DAVID VAN BIEMA

"Power tends to corrupt, and absolute power corrupts absolutely." - Lord Acton, Letter to Bishop Mandell Creighton, 1887

donsands said...

"What I liked about this format: it was on a Saturday; ....

I think it was appropriate that this forum took place in a church setting for a couple of reasons: 1. both candidates say they are Christians" _Steve


Good thoughts for me to take to heart.

Warren is such a people-cenetered pastor, that he drives me crazy, but in this setting I see where the lord can use him.

Thanks for your response brother.

jen elslager said...

Great post -- thanks for the clips. I wasn't able to watch the original broadcast, but I was curious how such a forum would turn out. I'm glad to hear that Warren did well. Perhaps his true calling is this sort of thing?

I've been listening to various opinions on this, and it seems that Al Mohler also thought he did a good job. However, on CrossTalk, it seems that Brannon Howse had more than a few choice words against Warren.

I'd love to see this thing in its entirety.

Arthur Sido said...

Obama answered the questions by scrabling to plug in a pre-programmed sound bite. I wasn't expecting much from this forum either, but I was pleasantly surprised by McCain's commanding presence and how poorly Obama performed.

John said...

Obama wants to take care of the least of these and all the while do all that he can to make sure we keep on killing the least of these.

SJ Camp said...

John
Obama wants to take care of the least of these and all the while do all that he can to make sure we keep on killing the least of these.

Bingo!

This is the crossroads issue for Obama. His position on "live abortions" has been on record for several years though these days his spin doctors are out in full force to deny such barbarism.

He has a real problem on this issue. Barack is rated 100% by NARAL on pro-choice votes in 2005, 2006 & 2007. (Jan 2008). Do you know how radical your position has to be on all stages of abortion to receive a 100% rating from the National Association for the Repeal of Abortion Laws?

I would challenge Barack's claim to b being saved based upon this issue alone. No true believer in the Lord Jesus Christ could ever approve the slaughter of fully developed healthy babies through partial birth abortion or live abortion for those children who survive a failed abortion attempt.

I am not trying to be uncharitable to this man, but THIS is a profound stance to take and still claim to know the Giver of Life.

SJ Camp said...

Jen
Thanks Jen.

I've been listening to various opinions on this, and it seems that Al Mohler also thought he did a good job.

He did and I agree with Dr. Mohler on his analysis as well.

SJ Camp said...

littlegal
Admittedly, I was a bit skeptical before the forum began, knowing that Barack had appeared previously on that same platform with Rick Warren, and given their previous acquaintance, but I think it turned out well & Rick Warren remained objective.

I was as well. But what a pleasant surprise to see Warren stay objective and on message with each candidate.

My only question for Rick would be: how can you say you have admiration for one who supports the infanticide of unborn children? I can understand giving a reason for the hope that is within us with respect for those of grave differing opinions (1 Peter 3:15-16). But it does need to be qualified.

This was my primary objection of Warren including Barack in his 2006 AIDS Summit.

Thanks for your comment.
Steve

littlegal_66 said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Steven & Faith Long said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Steven & Faith Long said...

Steve, I was also surprised at the way he handled it, but when I read this article about his inter-faith conference with Jews, Muslims, and Christian leaders to try to "socially reform" the world's problems, I was a bit disturbed. I also found his comment on Mt 10 a bit out of context since Jesus was sending the disciples out to evangelize, not to take on poverty, aids, or war. Anyway, what are your thoughts? I totally disagree with Warren on this and really think that he has WAY over stepped the boundaries.

melissa said...

John
"Obama wants to take care of the least of these and all the while do all that he can to make sure we keep on killing the least of these."


That was the SAME thing going through my mind. Obama is the very definition of duplicity. Reminds me of that scene from Gone With The Wind when Scarlet tells Melany, "Your such a cool liar Mellie". (Add southern accent)

The Spokesman said...

I totally disagree and do not believe that Rick Warren got anything right with his Saddleback Faith Forum other than more power and undue credibility to further his ecumenical agenda - and that at the expense of sound ecclesiology.

"The church is being redefined before our very eyes. Soon it will be just a faint memory of what God had truly designed it to be; like an old faded picture on a wall." -Author Unknown

gigantor1231 said...

S.J.

Jim Jones did some good things prior to exposing himself as the evil tool that he truly was! In all honesty I do not see Warren as being any different, he chooses to collude with the world in order to achieve his goals. He seeks to promote himself and his purpose driven movement along with the false gospel that he preaches, sorry God is not happy with you if you, as a non Christian, are doing what He made you to do, you will still suffer His wrath and go to hell!
Rick Warren may have asked some good questions but he is still a pragmatic wolf in sheep's clothing. It is quite amazing that folks choose to be blind to this and call him a brother in Christ. Although Warren has accepted the title as 'America's Pastor', as well as other worldly accolades, Fox News's 'Can Rick Warren Save/Change the World', does not mean that we need to fall in line and seek unity with this preacher of tripe! Read 1 John 4: 1-3 and obey it!

donsands said...

I believe Rick is a brother in Christ, yes.
Is he a genuine pastor of the Lord Jesus Christ? I don't think he is.

Could I be wrong? Yes. On both counts.

God's children can be, and are, sometimes off track.
Surely Satan comes as an angel of light. And we need to be wise as snakes, but harmless as doves.

The tares will be many in the wheat field, but we need not pluck them up, the Father will uproot every plant He has not planted.

Though Rick looks very strong to so many, I believe he is weak in the Word. I see his theology as very people-centered, and not Christ-centered.
This is the grand scheme of the world, the devil, and our flesh, to make US HUMANS, as God's highest priority, and not His own glory.

I appreciate your heart gigantor. Keep on.

Jay said...

The big winner was......Rick Warren. Once again Warren has manipulated the media to ensure that all of America gets to see HIM at the middle of something big.

Warren opens his mouth to speak and all I hear is the hiss of a serpent.

gigantor1231 said...

donsands

I appreciate you as a brother too. The question I have is this; How could Rick Warren be a Christian and propagate so many lies in such a natural manner? The fruit that Warren bares is not that of one who holds to Christ. Could I be wrong? Not with regards to the fruit that Warren has so profusely produced. With respect to his heart? Only God knows the state of a man's heart. That being said, I would not want to lead anyone to seek out Rick Warren for a explanation of the truth because he neither equips of trains in God's truth. Warren holds to his own worldly and false teaching and his teaching is absolutely not of Christ.

SJ Camp said...

To All
Let us be very careful not to call a professing brother in the Lord Jesus Christ a nonbeliever when he has not denied the true gospel or embraced a false one.

PDL material aside and Rick's pragmatic obsession with ministry, let us stay on topic here about the Faith Forum.

I have written very strongly in the past where I disagree with Warren on several issues more than most bloggers, but we must be careful not to assume we know the state or condition of his soul or his motives pertaining to this forum. I do think some Christian charity would be in order here.

However, if anyone can produce concrete evidence that Warren has denied the Lord Jesus Christ and His gospel and is a hissing snake, false teacher and nonbeliever - then don't do a drive-by here - produce the accurate quotes from his own words, source them accurately, and keep them in proper context so we all can see them and evaluate them plainly and biblically.

I may strongly disagree with Rick on some of his methods and tactics; his ECB practices, PDL, etc. BUT, he is our brother in the Lord until proven otherwise according to Gal. 1:6-9 by his own confession.

Say what you mean to say - but let us do so with care.

Grace and peace,
Steve
Col. 3:23-24

Carla said...

When I first heard of this format I sort of groaned like many other Christians, I'm sure.

Steve just commented however:

"I do think some Christian charity would be in order here."

I couldn't agree more. Warren has well earned the criticism he receives, but if the man did a good job with this (and I have still not seen it) then he did a good job with this, whether anyone likes it or not.

It shouldn't be too much to ask for a little grace from those who have received MUCH grace. Amen?

gigantor1231 said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
gigantor1231 said...

S.J.

You have got to be kidding me! No proof. What is it you want? Look at all of his scripture twisting in P.D.L., listen to the countless times that he has spoken at multiple venues and proclaimed to non believers that 'God is pleased with you if you are doing what He designed you for.' What Gospel have you ever heard him proclaim? His naming of Christ is only in token at best and he obviously proclaims a gospel of works. He willingly accepts the title of America's pastor and proclaims that he will make nations his purpose driven nations. Are you blind to all of this Steve? By the way, all of this is obvious fruit that you yourself have addressed! Are you denying this or are you saying you are wrong? Are you going to be saying that he is correct in his promotion of unity with those who are idolatrous and obvious enemies of the cross and the gospel? As I said before I do not know the condition of his heart but the fruit he has bore is undeniable. That being said, I would caution you as to being loose in who you encourage others to look to as brothers when what they proclaim is another gospel!
Here is a link to Warren's gospel that he proclaimed T.E.D. in Monterey, California, I could produce more but you yourself know that this is consistent with the entirety of Warren's gospel presentation. If you want examples of his scripture twisting just open your personal copy of P.D.L., look Steve, if you call Rick a brother then you need to apologize to all the Catholics that you have said they preach a different gospel. I have to be honest Steve your lack of discernment is very disappointing. This is not about who is right or wrong this is about truth and Rick Warren does not proclaim the truth, he uses it and twists it to his own benefit. I would never risk leaning toward what Warren teaches as truth because it is certain to lead others astray! I have never posted a drive by here Steve, so I hope that you are not referring to me.

P.S. As for graciousness in asking good questions and holding a great forum, I am not critical of that and I am sure he did well. I do however question all of his bent little motives, those motive that came from 'the most powerful religious figure in America' and you know that he is just reveling in that title!

SJ Camp said...

G-Man
Thank you for your post.

1. The link didn't come through or wasn't included.

2. I believe passionately all that I have written here before about Warren and his tangents that he has been very vocal about.

3. Where has he ever denied the gospel of the Lord Jesus Christ? That is what I am asking for. I am not talking about secondary issues here - i.e. him being called America's Pastor. That is not the issue here and doesn't prove anything.

4. I have heard Rick present a weak gospel as he did in the PDL material (Jesus I believe you; Jesus I receive you; say a sinner's prayer, etc.) as I have most SBC men throughout their pastoral ministries. That does not mean though that they are unequivocally not saved.

5. I don't think I have ever written an article here about Warren where i have declared him to be unregenerate. Correct me if I am wrong.

6. So I ask again, where has he denied the essentials of the gospel: the Virgin birth, the sinless mediatorial life of Christ, penal substitutionary atonement, His bodily resurrection, the doctrine of the Trinity, sola fide, etc. THAT is the issue here. I don't know of any place he has done this.

7. I am not a fan of Rick's PDL material nor his style or approach to ministry - just like with Mark Driscoll - but I have never said that Mark isn't a brother in Christ. That would be going too far.

I remember MacArthur telling me one time about John Wimber. I was asking John similar questions of him that we are asking of Rick. His reply to me was simple: "I don't agree with Wimber's theology, his view of spiritual gifts, etc. - but he does believe the gospel and has not denied Christ. Therefore we must treat him as our brother."

I apply that here to Rick. Not even Mac has come out to say that Rick is unregenerate; nor has any of his staff that has written on the PDL material.

So I ask again: where has Rick himself rejected first hand the essentials of the gospel? Point me there if that assertion exists. Otherwise, let's keep this discussion on this issue of this forum.

I appreciate you brother.
Steve

The Spokesman said...

Brother Steve,

I know that others have applauded you here for your ability to agree with someone with whom you usually disagree. But now the shoe is on the other foot for me because here I am disagreeing with someone with whom I usually agree (you). It takes just as much grace to do one as the other. You have called the Saddleback Faith Forum a success and with this assessment I totally and whole-heartedly disagree. What did he do that even hints at being in line with the biblical purpose of the church?

If Rick Warren really did do a good job then we should acknowledge that. But doing a good job must be defined biblically. So before we can ever put the stamp of "good job" on someone's actions then it must pass the test of biblical fidelity. If the Antichrist were to solve the world's economic problems should we sing his praises as having done a good job? Not according the the Word of God - "It is a trap for a man to say rashly, 'It is holy!" And after the vows to make inquiry" (Proverbs 20:25).

The truth is that we ought to know for sure whether or not Rick Warren is a false prophet or not through testing the spirits. I have and he fails. Just the other day over at Teampyro this question was asked in the comment box: Which false doctrines is he teaching that concern you?

To which I answered:

1. He is interested in quantity and not quality (as per his own words in his books and interviews) which according to the Lord Jesus in Matthew 7:13-27 characterizes lawless and foolish false prophets.
2. He fails the test of 1 John 4:5-6, not only speaking as from the world and the world listening to him, but also instructing others that if they want to market their church to the un-churched then they must learn to “think like and speak like they do.”
3. He violates the clear teaching of Scripture against God commanded separation from unbelieving and opposing religions through his ecumenical religious pluralism for the sake of so-called peace (see 2 Corinthians 6:14-18).
4. He teaches a strange and unbiblical ecclesiology and thereby perverts the God-given purpose and sound doctrine of the church. His five functions of the church are actually an outflow of being saved and do not have to be taught. No one taught the new believers to desire these things because it is an outflow of being Spirit-led rather than being purpose-driven. For the Scriptural purpose of the church see Ephesians and 1 and 2 Timothy and Titus.
5. He teaches a strange and unbiblical soteriology perverting the sound doctrine of salvation with a God who isn’t so holy and a man who isn’t so bad resulting in a miasma of man-centered methods as the power of God unto salvation.


He actually fails the whole test of 1 John 4:1-6 - see here and you will actually see where it is possible to profess Christ but not confess Christ and thereby "deny Him by their deeds!"

Sorry if this seems uncharitable.

Grace and peace,
Olan

littlegal_66 said...

At the risk of continuing this snowball down the wrong ski slope, I wanted to point out that I don’t see a mad rush from anyone here to purchase “The Purpose Driven Life Rattan Framed Covenant,” (on sale now at Saddlebackresources.com) :-).

I didn't interpret this post as a sudden endorsement of PDL or RW’s ECB endeavors & methodology; rather, recognition of something positive coming out of Lake Forest. Perhaps a positive reaction from those who have been somewhat critical in the past would prove to be of encouragement to RW and used by the Lord to cause him to reevaluate some things? Or maybe not—but it's certainly not up to me to determine the outcome.

littlegal_66 said...

Question: If we are not to “look the other way” when someone we normally agree with (the majority of the time) suddenly develops a “blind spot,” does that give us the liberty to “look the other way” when someone we don’t always agree with suddenly develops a “bright spot?”

Even if it was someone like Joel Osteen who had held this forum, but he'd moderated it in the manner that RW did, (I hope that) I would still be able to be complimentary of that aspect, although I definitely would not be embracing or in any way endorsing the feel-good angles of his theology.

If I'm off-base or out of order in any way here, please reprove me, Steven.

Ed Trefzger said...

Rick Warren did not have to be the one to condemn Obama's politics. By exposing the world views of each candidate, he allowed all of us to discern for ourselves.

Warren's soteriology and ecclesiology aside, he did provide a service for all Christians by laying bare the views of each candidate.

It seems to me that Warren has been far more effective in his approach than he would have been with an outright attack and certainly more effective than a cadre of shrill bloggers would have been.

SJ Camp said...

Olan
I always appreciate your contributions here and thank you for sharing again in very pointed and thorough words. Your passion on this issue is to be applauded.

I have just a minute and will address the fullness of your comment later. But one quick thing:

1. The test of 1 John 4 is actually in verses 2-3: "By this you know the Spirit of God: every spirit that confesses that Jesus Christ has come in the flesh is from God, 3 and every spirit that does not confess Jesus is not from God. This is the spirit of the antichrist, which you heard was coming and now is in the world already.

Warren has not made a confession against Jesus Christ coming in the flesh: meaning, denying Him as Lord; as the only way to salvation; as the only true Christ as our divine substitute in salvation; as Jesus the perfect sinless Lamb of God who takes away the sin of the world.

On this issue he is historically Baptist and is on record in an interview with reformed theologian, Michael Horton, as being monergistic. Here is the quote: "Theologically, I am a monergist and firmly hold to the five solas of the Reformation. It's pretty obvious from the book that I believe in foreknowledge, predestination, (see chapter two, "You Are Not An Accident") and, especially, concurrence -- that God works in and through every detail of our lives, even our sinful choices, to cause his purposes to prevail. Proverbs 19:21 (NIV) is one of my life verses."

Sola Gratia,
Steve

The Spokesman said...

Steve,

The link that I supplied about 1 John 4:1-6 describes how it is possible to profess that Jesus has come in the flesh and not confess that Jesus has come in the flesh. And I do so appreciate the quote that you have supplied but Rick Warren also said this: "Now the word "fundamentalist" actually comes from a document in the 1920s called the Five Fundamentals of the Faith. And it is a very
legalistic, narrow view of Christianity"
(Source).

As a pastor and guardian of the flock, my main concern is: Does the Saddleback Faith Forum pass the test of biblical fidelity? If so, then by all means endorse it and call it what it is - right and good! If not, then reject it for what it is - a highjacking of sound ecclesiology!

Grace and peace,
Olan

SJ Camp said...

Ed
Rick Warren did not have to be the one to condemn Obama's politics. By exposing the world views of each candidate, he allowed all of us to discern for ourselves...

...It seems to me that Warren has been far more effective in his approach than he would have been with an outright attack and certainly more effective than a cadre of shrill bloggers would have been.


On this issue of the forum that is eactly correct. The brilliance of what Warren as moderator did caused the onus and burden of the candidates to fall squarely on them. The after math talk of this forum has been all about Obama's skewed worldview - especially on abortion - and not on Warren. Rick could have made this event all about him, but that didn't happen. He remained in the background and allowed the candidates and their respective platforms - for better or worse - be center stage.

That was unique to this forum. AND, let's not forget here, the tone of this event was civiland respectful in its discourse. That in and of itself has been a testimony to many in the secular media.

SJ Camp said...

Olan
I have been labeled a fundamentalist by several in the blogosphere as well. :-). I forgive them.

The movement of fundamentalism has been associated with a form of legalism in the past that have little to do with the five orthodox distinctives. Historically, this is true.

I am certain you have heard someone refer to someone else as an "old fundy"? They are not speaking about someone who they think has denied "the five distinctives", but one who was more of a stick in the mud legalist.

That is probably what Warren is referring to here... don't you think?

Campi

gigantor1231 said...

S.J.

There is more than one way to deny Christ, generally by commission or omission. Warren is the master of omission! He crafts his sermons and his teachings in such a way as to offend no one. Mentioning the name of Christ in a definitive and commanding fashion is definitely offensive to the the world and the flesh. Warren's presentation at T.E.D.s is just one example of many of Warren's proclamations of his new gospel and his denial via omission of Christ.

http://www.ted.com/index.php/talks/rick_warren_on_a_life_of_purpose.html

In reference to the link above;
As I said before this is consistent with what I have heard him say from other venues as well, Larry King, Hannity, Fox News, CNN, the list could go on. I do not point these things out with relish as many may assume, rather it pains me greatly to see a man with such God given talent waist it on the accolades of the world!
On the heals of this you have posted "The Gospel According to Satan" and if Warren does not fit all of the characteristics you present he certainly represents most of them.
In reply to one of your points you left me;

6. So I ask again, where has he denied the essentials of the gospel: the Virgin birth, the sinless mediatorial life of Christ, penal substitutionary atonement, His bodily resurrection, the doctrine of the Trinity, sola fide, etc. THAT is the issue here. I don't know of any place he has done this.

Please look at not only the things that Warren says, although there is plenty out there that unveils Warren's true motives and displays his denial of the truth, Olan leaves some great references, but look at his actions and his chosen associations. Even if Warren has a great statement of faith or doctrinal statement it is meaningless to me if he chooses to do things according to the flesh, link arms with idolaters and the enemies of Christ, the Cross and the Gospel! I obviously do not know the condition of Warren's heart but my eyes are certainly open to the fruit that he has bore and is baring and that is why I distance myself from him as a brother in Christ, he is dangerous, he is fleshly and he is crafty. If you want to call Rick your brother in Christ then that is up to you.
As far as Mac's quote on Wimber, I think that has bore out for what it really is and was and it has been on display in Lakeland Florida now in the name of Todd 'Fraud' Bentley. Do you associate with Fraud as a brother too, obviously he is extreme and he is way beyond the truth far into Satanic deception, but, since I was involved in the Wimber Toronto blessing I can say that it is almost identical to Lakeland now and Bentley. How could a brother produce something so demonic? How could Warren produce what he has produced and still be a brother in Christ, even if he says some right things? Is this the same horse painted another color? In what I see in the word of God if the fruit is not good then the root is not good either. Not speaking of the heart condition, or what could come of Warren in the future, I still hold that he is apostate in his teachings, as Mac does in his series on apostates title 'Apostates Beware'.
Steve, many people listen to what you say and I think that it is a big thing to give credibility to Warren in any area because he is in such error with respect to his teachings. That being said, as gracious a person that I see you as being, I would still caution you on your kudos to Warren as well as brotherly association.
God Bless

Robert

gigantor1231 said...

S.J.

As far as Warren not being center stage, that is exactly where he was, center stage, his mug with both candidates, nice little passive association there Rick! Then Rick hits the cover of time as 'Americas Most Powerful Religious Figure', wow, what orchestral timing. As for civility being a testimony, uh OK, but so what, its still all about Rick!

Lisa said...

Good thing for McCain evangelicals only know of two sins (and loosely at that)... abortion and sodomite marriage. Had they done a little research they would know McCain voted for all the pro-abortion judges that he claimed he would not nominate. It's also good for McCain that evangelicals have all but given up on proclaiming ADULTERY, FORNICATION, LYING, GREED, COVETOUSNESS, GOSSIP, SLANDER, BLASPHEMY of the Lord as sins.

Yup, I'd say McCain hit it out of the park and was the clear winner of who could con the evangelicals again. He beat George Bush at pulling the wool over the eyes of "evangelical Christendom" (which isn't hard to do it appears.

The Spokesman said...

I am certain you have heard someone refer to someone else as an "old fundy"? They are not speaking about someone who they think has denied "the five distinctives", but one who was more of a stick in the mud legalist.

That is probably what Warren is referring to here... don't you think?


I believe that Warren would be quick to hide behind that definition but in reality he is preparing the masses to view orthodox Christianity as an enemy to the ecumenical movement which is falsely being called "a new reformation."

As to the trust of this thread, I would have much rather given Warren compliments for wanting to endorse a regenerate church membership (which is probably as close as he has ever come to a sound doctrine of the church) than to give him compliments concerning his faith forum which has nothing whatsoever to do with the real purpose of the church.

I hope that you can understand what I see and believe to be the real issue here.

Grace and peace,
Olan

Tony Guerrero said...

"I know some friends who are simply not going to vote, because they dislike both candidates. I resepct that. "

What a slap in the face to all those who died for that right. Vote for SOMEONE...

"Was it just mere coincidence that Time Magazines' front cover of Rick Warren... came out in the same week Rick Warren hosted his faith/civil forum ...? Did Rick Warren plan it this way? ...clever and crafty? Totally innocent? [paraphrased]"

For the record, The Time article had been planned for months and the Forum was largely dependent on the candidate's schedules.

Deb_B said...

Let me be absolutely clear: I'm NO fan of Rick Warren and his ministry. However, my focus in this thread is not on Warren himself or whether such a forum should even have been hosted by a Protestant pastor. I have very strong thoughts about both.

Rather, my focus here has been on what the respective answers to the questions reveal about each of the candidates. My personal views about Warren and his ministry aside, I credit him with devising and asking some very revealing questions to the Presidential candidates.

Frankly, I questioned whether Warren would even broach the abortion issue and I'll credit him with raising - and following it up - extremely well.

It's simply an observation that Rick Warren, the man, posed some very revealing questions to the primary candidates for President of these United States. Period.

I'm sitting on a beaut of an analogy regarding much of PoMo preaching, but methinks the thrust of this particular thread isn't the place for it.

Sola Gratia indeed! Amen?

gigantor1231 said...

T.G.

Yeah, Rick is such a humble guy, he is decreasing that Christ might increase... right?
By the way, as for speaking for those who died for the right to vote, sorry but they died and served for freedom and that means the right to choose either to vote or not vote! You are the one who insults them by using them as a manipulative tool.
Personally I choose to vote, knowing full well that our system is corrupt and a joke. I get to participate in the trump though, regardless of who you vote for it will be God's choice, He will place the one He chooses in the position of leadership, and it is Him who will turn every decision of their hearts as a water course in His hands.

donsands said...

"Vote for SOMEONE..."

That's your conviction. It's not in God's Word.

Keep your strong convictions. I'll keep mine.

Winslowlady said...

Steve, I too think the interview was great and Rick Warren did such a good job. He gave each candidate the rope and allowed them to do what they will-hang themselves or make a pretty bow.

This was not Warren's time to be in the spotlight, but the candidates. His questions were brilliant and provided no wiggle room. I think Warren allowed Obama to hang himself several times making Mccain's solid answers stand out even more.

Warren, whatever his religious beliefs and persuasions are, asked some important questions in keeping with what we Christians would want to know as well. And we got to hear the candidates speak, not Warren.

When anyone does something right they should be thanked, even if we disagree on other things. It keeps the critical spirit in check! winslowlady

littlegal_66 said...

Rick Warren, from Saddleback's office press release prior to the event:
"The primaries proved that Americans care deeply about the faith, values, character and leadership convictions of candidates as much as they do about the issues. While I know both men as friends and they recognize I will be frank, but fair, they also know I will be raising questions in these four areas beyond what political reporters typically ask." (Emphasis mine).

That is what distinguishes a presidential forum such as this being moderated by a minister rather than being moderated by someone like...oh, Matt Lauer, for example.
Rick Warren asked the candidates questions similar in content to what I would have liked to ask the candidates, given an opportunity. IOW, His perspective and position allowed him to ask questions I as an informed Christian voter wanted answers to, not politically correct, non-offensive, "taboo" questions that had to be pre-approved by a panel of network censors.

(Wow, I must confess that I'm relatively certain I just saw the three little pigs, [in addition to Porky, Babe, and Wilbur], fly by my dining room window, because I can't believe I am here on CampOnThis, compelled to type in defense of Rick Warren).

"When anyone does something right they should be thanked, even if we disagree on other things."
One would think so......;-)

Sigh….okay, I’m going to have to get off this thread…(The Boss is playing in town, and I have tons to do….) :-)

Grace and peace to y'all,

--littlegal

P.S. And didn't Senator McCain do well? :-D

Susan said...

Thanks, this was great!!

I can't begin to tell you how much I enjoy visiting your blog.

I still enjoy your music.

So blessed I found your blog♥

Jay said...

Sorry, I meant to say when OBAMA opens his mouth to speak I hear the hiss of a serpent.

Why is it necessary for detractors of Rick Warren to "produce the accurate quotes from his own words, source them accurately, and keep them in proper context" when Warren himself doesn't handle the Scripture in that manner?

Can you produce some biblical text to justify Pastor Warren interjecting himself into the presidential process? Perhaps some obscure interpretation of Paul's letters to Timothy where young Timothy is instructed to put himself into the middle of the political processes of the first century?

I'll give you this, yes, what was accomplished at this was beneficial in illuminating the candidates positions on topics that the mainstream media and political party machines would never directly ask them.

However, how can a Pastor welcome a man who professes Christ yet so openly supports the murder of children - both unborn and born, into his pulpit to speak?

Rick Warren has gone on national television many times with the golden opportunity to clearly proclaim the true gospel, yet has failed to do so. That's why he is such a media darling.

So call me when Rick Warren has taken a public forum like that with a huge international audience and "brillantly" proclaimed the true whole gospel of Jesus Christ.

gigantor1231 said...

S.J.

I have to be honest with you, I am concerned. Are you becoming weary while in the heat of battle, is the agony of contending for the faith to much of a burden for you? While I agree that Warren put on a fair forum, to be honest with you there was nothing that was said in this thing that I did not already know or at least I had a really good idea as to what McCain and Obama's stands were, other than that it was just three stuffed suits on stage. I have to be honest though, I question the integrity of all three men that were on that stage and as much as I hate to say it I think that the most sincere of all three was probably John McCain, not that I am a fan of his it is just the way that I see it. So, while I hear you on your kudos to Warren I am not gonna dance and shout about it, maybe a nod and a yawn.
As for what I was asking about you being weary, it just seems to me that you are more willing to compromise and let things slide. As I said before in a prior post, on the heals of this blog article and your kudos to Warren you posted 'The Gospel According to Satan' which portrays many of the methods and things that R.W. holds to, a false gospel message, twisting of scriptures, self exaltation because the world needs Rick and P.D.L.. I could go on with about Rick but I would really appreciate you addressing this.
What is happening? Are you okay? Have you been out rubbing shoulders with guys that teach some of this false doctrine, but they are so civil and uniform, just as sweet as can be that you feel that it is gracious to not confront them with the truth that opposes their errors? Please do not get me wrong here, I am not saying this to get your goat or chastise you, I am genuinely concerned.
Just a few weeks ago you were trying to defend and say that somehow Rush was a Christian, and that would be really nice if we knew he is but the fact is that he is one of the most fleshly, hedonistic guys that is on the air. Yes, he is a genuine and seemingly kind guy but I have not seen any fruit that would indicate that he is a born again believer! It seems to me that should be apparent.
So, whats up Steve? I love ya like a brother, and you are one. Even though we are three thousand miles apart I would come and encourage you any way that I could. Maybe I could talk Olan into bringing some hot eggs and grits, some good smokehouse ham and some nice home made biscuits with fresh butter and honey, I am beginning to drool, lets have a pot luck at camponthis, just joking but it really sounds like fun and I would love to come encourage you.
Contending, agonizing with you my friend.
Robert

SJ Camp said...

G-Man
Not becoming weary at all - even though the breakfast items sound really great!

Just was trying to say an encouraging word about another brother in Christ who did an excellent job as a moderator for a faith forum.

And let's not forget, in the aftermath of all this, Barack has been exposed as to lying about his pro-abortion voting record AND Warren is not the one being blamed for this nor is he the primary topic of discussion in the mainstream media about this issue. IOW, the weight of the concern has not been deflected to Warren, but has fallen squarely where it should be... on Obama.

Listen, I don't agree with Rick on many aspects of ministry (it is all documented on this blog and have even received a few upset emails from Rick personally concerning them). But it is arrogant for anyone here to suggest that he is not our brother in the Lord Jesus Christ when Rick himself has not denied any essential doctrine of the faith in respect to the gospel.

That is my concern with some on this thread.

But I thank all who have contributed here and voiced their opinions. The discussion is an important one.

Grace and peace to you,
Campi
2 Cor. 4:5-7

gigantor1231 said...

S.J.

Thanks, always appreciate what you have to say, even though, at times, there is disagreement! I still think the camponthis potluck would be good, hit all the food groups, breakfast, lunch and dinner. How about a topical potluck or perhaps open blog Fridays, of course things are good the way they are too.

The Spokesman said...

Brother Steve,

With all due respect and Christian love, what ever happened to - "They profess to know God, but by their deeds they deny Him..." (Titus 1:16)?

And what is so confusing is how you could be so duplicitous by taking Tim Brister to task for praising Rick Warren for wanting to endorse Tom Ascol's excellent resolution on regenerate church membership (which is in line with sound ecclesiology) for these reasons:
CAN YOU HANDLE THE TRUTH?
...here is why you really don't want "America's Pastor" endorsing a resolution for regenerate church membership
"America's Pastor" thinks that "the preaching of God's Word isn't the way to produce spiritual maturity" (compare his words with the Apostle Paul's). He goes on to say, "[you think] if you just pray, love people, and preach the Word your church will grow; that's just not true." Ex-squeeze me? (This is what happens when you read The Message). Only the Lord can grow the true church; and Warren can't do that on his best day using his culturally irrelevant methods; his PDL gimmicks; his P.E.A.C.E. plan initiatives; his save the planet global warming environmental Mr. Green -Jeans fear tactics; or his ONE - make poverty history demagoguery any time or any where. The Lord has prescribed some basic things for His faithful under-shepherds to give themselves to: prayer and the preaching of God's Word (Acts 6:4). Mr. Warren should stay with those things; but it's unfortunate that he doesn't recognize their reality.

Here is what is further perplexing: Rick Warren is "the pastor" that pastors like Tim Keller and Mark Driscoll find solidarity with in ministry and will run to anytime he calls to participate in one of his conferences. Why is that? Why do men who claim to be reformed adhere to this kind of ridiculousness? Reason: the gospel of pragmatism. It is the new unity; it is the church-growth-construct that foundationally defines emerging, missional, ecumenical contemporary evangelicalism today to a tee. And, make no mistake about it - they love it and they embrace it as their "biblical model" for ministry (which it is not)... that's why.

And I am far from being alone on this issue. Check this out from Jason at FIDE-O. Simply awesome!

Listen to this online streaming Q and A with Mr. Warren. To quote some friends of mine from Boston "it is just wicked strange."
(emphasis mine)

And, SJ Camp said...
steven & faith long
My head is still spinning from his comment that preaching and prayer doesn't grow a church. And then the, "Adopt to the culture comment" almost had me gagging. Man, that is so sickening.

Bingo!

This is why it is so confusing why Tim Brister last week was praising Warren for his support of Tom Ascol's excellent resolution after hearing this kind of tripe done in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ. (emphasis mine)

Preach the Word we must... Warren would do well to hide himself away for a season and feast upon the book of Acts and the Pastoral Epistles and become reacquainted with what it means to be a pastor again and what his heavenly charge is for those who occupy such an office.


And then not to reject this faith forum (which has nothing to do with sound ecclesiology and the heavenly charge for those who occupy such an office) for the same reasons doesn't make any sense.

With tears - "The church is being redefined before our very eyes. Soon it will be just a faint memory of what God had truly designed it to be; like an old faded picture on a wall." -Author Unknown

Grace and peace
Olan

P.S. If you really believe that Rick Warren is a brother in Christ you ought to be more careful about the words you choose to describe him. I reserve those for those the Lord through His Word has revealed as counterfeits.

Deb_B said...

"The church is being redefined before our very eyes. Soon it will be just a faint memory of what God had truly designed it to be; like an old faded picture on a wall." -Author Unknown

=============================

To which the late JC Ryle would probably respond, were he still here with us today:

“Fear not for the Church of Christ, my brethren ... Christ can ever maintain His own cause, He will raise up better and brighter stars. The stars are all in His right hand. Leave off all anxious thought about the future. Cease to be cast down by the measures of statesmen, or the plots of wolves in sheep's clothing.

"Christ will ever provide for His Own Church. Christ will take care that the gates of hell shall not prevail against it. All is going on well, though our eyes may not see it. The kingdoms of this world shall yet become the kingdoms of our God and of His Christ.”
- JC RYLE, Warnings to the Churches

The Spokesman said...

Yes Deb_b! And "Blessed are those who mourn, for they shall be comforted." And those who sigh and groan over all the abominations which are being committed in its midst are marked out for God - see Ezekiel 9:4.

gigantor1231 said...

Olan

God has blessed you with some good words on this my friend, I really appreciate your input!

S.J.

While Warren's media event may have been OK, he is not! What say you to Olan's comments? Do actually believe that Rick holds to the Gospel of Christ, the Gospel of grace apart from works? How can he proclaim to the unsaved that God is actually pleased with them?
Don't mean to beat the dead horse but these are some of the questions that I would love to hear you address when you have the time. Perhaps you could put something together offering a defense as to why you see Rick as a genuine brother in Christ. I know that he names the name of Christ but it certainly seems that the fruit that he bares and produces is antithetical to that profession.

BlueDeacon said...

I offer a different view. I didn't watch the proceedings, but based on what I've read afterwards Obama was more detailed and honest; McCain, on the other hand, quite literally gave a stump speech that he knew would go over with most of that audience. I have to admit that, since most of the people posting just can't stand Obama, they may have read into it just what they wanted to.

Douglas said...

"Just was trying to say an encouraging word about another brother in Christ who did an excellent job as a moderator for a faith forum."

Yes, he sure did an excellent job there, that is for sure. Superb.

Sir, how do you know Rick Warren is actually a Christian let alone a brother in Christ? He constantly tortures God's, do Christian's constantly torture God's Holy Word? He has never repented of the sins of twisting God's Word. Not publicly that I have seen. When was Rick Warren born again? He never mentions it?

I think you have been chit-chatting with your mate Ed Stetzer too much, he is one avid defender of Rick Warren and all things Purpose Driven isn't he? Many Southern Baptists think Rick Warren is just it and can basically do no wrong. Adrian Warnock is an avid defender of Rick Warren and all things Purpose Driven too, isn't he? Adrian is all for the gifts so he should be able to see clearly shouldn't he? Reformed Charismatics are into the gifts aren't they? Tongues, words of knowledge, prophecy, seeing into the future, discernment, spotting false teachers and false doctrines, recognizing Scripture twisting and distortions and so forth?

Rick Warren is deceived and has millions upon millions of people around the world deceived and he will keep on deceiving. Until he dies?

I think Al Mohler is blind to Rick Warren's open and blatant Scripture twisting as well. Sad.

Rick Warren is a "MASTER" at what he does. He will not stop until the whole world is PURPOSE DRIVEN! Even if it means setting up civil/faith forums (without calls to repentance) that ultimately suits his purposes. He is an expert at making friends and influencing people.

Sometimes I'd like another Harley Davidson and then you could accuse me of a "ride by," eh mate?

It is like there is a great dense fog of delusion over the church and the winds of sound doctrine need to blow it away.

As he snuffs the gale of popular applause!

(J. A. James, "Ministerial Duties Stated and Enforced")

"In all things approving ourselves as the ministers
of God.
" 2 Corinthians 6:4.

This verse implies that ministers are to labor for God—surely not for the preacher's fame. SELF is an idol which has been worshiped by far greater multitudes than any other deity of either ancient or modern heathenism. A minister is the last man in the world who should be seen at the altar of this vile abomination—SELF. And yet without great care he is likely to be the first one there, to linger there the longest, to bow the lowest, and to express his devotion by the costliest sacrifices!

Many become ministers merely to acquire popular applause. 'Fame' is their motive and their aim. To commend themselves, is the secret but powerful spring of all they do. SELF is with them in the study directing their reading, selecting their texts, arranging their thoughts, forming their illustrations—and all with a view to 'shine in public'.Thus prepared, they ascend the pulpit with the same object which conducts the actor to the stage—to secure the applause of approving spectators. Every tone is modulated, every emphasis laid, every attitude regulated—to please the audience, rather than to profit their souls; to commend themselves, and not Jesus Christ. The service ended, this bosom idol returns with them to their own abode, and renders them restless and uneasy to know how they have succeeded. If they are admired, they receive their reward; if not, the first prize is lost!

It is nothing in abatement of the sin, that all this while evangelical sentiments are uttered. Orthodoxy is the most direct road to popularity. Christ may be the text—when SELF is the sermon! And dreadful as it seems, it is to be feared that many have elevated the cross only to suspend upon the 'sacred tree' their own honors! and have employed all the glories of redemption—merely to emblazon their own name!

The ministry is not intended to be a platform, where the petty manufacturer of 'tinsel eloquence' and 'rhetorical flowers' shall display to a gaping crowd his gaudy wares!

When carried to this height, this is the direst, deepest tragedy that was ever performed by man, since it ends in the actual and eternal death of the performer, who forgets, as he snuffs the gale of popular applause, that it bears the vapors of damnation!

"The Spirit took me to the north gate of the temple's inner courtyard, where there was an idol that
disgusted the Lord and made Him furious!
"

gigantor1231 said...

Blue

Uh yeah, of course... right. Now, explain why all these folks don't like Barrach, since you are all knowing.

BlueDeacon said...

Douglas' comment had me shaking my head. Though I have a copy of "The Purpose-Driven Life," I'm not a fan of Rick Warren; that said, I wonder if his very popularity is turning some folks green with envy, especially since the people with "good theology" weren't consulted -- "how DARE he!" Frankly, I find the attitude of his critics more problematic then his alleged apostasy.

Sometimes I think we in the Reformed camp are so critical of every move that doesn't come from an "approved" source that we have a hard time hearing even Biblical truth from anyone else who isn't entirely Reformed. For that reason we've become largely irrelevant when it comes to such things -- and that saddens me.

Now, explain why all these folks don't like Barrach, since you are all knowing.

They've always been deeply threatened by anyone who's not like them. In fact, we've seen this before -- 16 years ago with Bill Clinton, when some of the same things were said and done for the same reasons, only the conservative propaganda machine began to be exposed as such about a decade ago so it won't have that much effect. And even if McCain does win the presidency he won't get much done because the Democratic Party is likely to increase its clout in both houses of Congress and will thus likely thwart his efforts to promote a socially conservative program.

littlegal_66 said...

Gig--

Have there been any new developments in the situation you requested prayer for a couple of weeks ago? I have not forgotten, and have been praying for your family.

Robert, I want you to know that I consider you a dear brother in Christ who I appreciate, just from the few exchanges we've had here on COT. But I have to tell you, personally, I just don't see the necessity of Campi offering any further defense (in the form of a future article), of the fact that he considers Rick Warren a brother. Obviously I could be wrong, but Steve already seems to have done that pretty thoroughly, that is, I'm not sure what he could add beyond what he's already stated. Quick question to think about...do you consider me a sister in the Lord? If so, what do you base that belief on?

Again, just something to consider;
Please don't take offense.

In His Love,

Steff

Deb_B said...

Spokesman, back at you a bit later tonight in a separate comment here, thank you for your reply to my JC Ryle quote.

BlueDeacon,

"They've always been deeply threatened by anyone who's not like them. ..."

Blue, you're absolutely right I'm "threatened" by men [and women] who sanction the slaughter/murder of the most helpless among us: the unborn innocents.

I take umbrage with Barack Hussein Obama's - just as I did "16 years ago" with Bill Clinton's - stand on the abject murder of babes in the womb.

My God, as He has revealed Himself through the canon of Scripture, finds the shedding of innocent blood an abomination.

"Pro-choice" is nothing more than a fancy euphemism for "Pro-Murder".

You're right, I wouldn't vote for Barack Hussein Obama, just as I wouldn't vote for Bill Clinton ... precisely because both ARE "not like me" ... they're both pro-murder and that's not a bit like me and the standard God has set forth in the contextual, accumulative evidence of Scripture.

The sacrifice of unborn innocents - or, as Obama refers to them, "mistakes" - on the altars of convenience across this land, from sea to shining sea, across our amber waves of grain, is as much an abomination and as repugnant to me, I trust, as it is to the almighty Jehovah God Who condescended Himself to apprehend and save a miserable, wretched, sinful cretin like me.

gigantor1231 said...

littlegal

You are not a outspoken public figure who has spewed her false teaching and proclaimed that you will have your 'whatever driven nation!' While I do not know you personally, you have given me no reason to doubt that you hold to Christ as your Lord and savior, in your case your words are the only fruit that I can go by and so in your situation I take your word that you are my sister in Christ. In the case of Rick Warren who has been tremendously outspoken, in print, spoken word, televised broadcasts and public appearances, he has bore so much fruit that is antithetical to Christ and the Gospel itself that the only safe direction to go is away from him as fast and aggressively as possible. I mean if you cannot see his apostate teaching, self exultation and blatant omission of Christ from what he says then there is nothing that I will be able to say or do to influence you or Steve.
Warren is obviously pragmatic in his methods, ecumenical in his beliefs to the point of willingly linking arms with those who openly hate Christ, the Cross and the Gospel. I have left many examples here before and I am sure that you have seen many examples your self of the direction Warren has chosen to go and lead those that would follow him, it is not to Christ! P.D.L. ought to be enough to stand as a warning to everyone by itself, Warren's lack of trust in the sovereignty of God is just blatant, it is marketing, slick presentation that is non threatening and speaks to the felt needs of the individual. Warren blatantly seeks ways to eisegete the Word of God and spin it to his own and his ministries advantage, his teaching is sincratistic in every way and by his mixture of worldly techniques with the word of God he makes it void by his own methods and traditions!
As for Steve in justifying his stand with Rick, if he does not want to do that, that is fine. If you and he feel justified in where you stand on this then that is good enough for me. Warren himself has said that doctrine is not as important as unity, and perhaps that is what you have chosen as well, or perhaps you feel that it is a gracious thing to allow him and others to live within the pale of heresy they have chosen and not say anything because they are just confused, I do not know. I will pursue Christ and trust Him as sovereign alone!
Rick Warren is not God's chosen man for the hour with respect to his bride, it is most likely that he is chosen to lead a whole nation of people astray, which is what he is doing. Please refute anything and all of what I have said, I would love to be proven wrong here, it is not with relish that I say any of this! I will humbly and gladly repent if I am in sin here.

B.D.

I do not feel good about Obama or McCain to be honest with you, neither seem to exhibit anything that would say they are Godly men that I can see and a God fearing Godly man is who I would ultimately want to see in the seat of power in any nation. McCain is more seasoned and more experienced from what I have seen and Obama is a green child in comparison, not that any of this makes me feel any better about either one. As for our jilted congress, both Democrats and Republicans, they are all a bunch of non God fearing individuals from what I see and they have no desire to take this nation in the direction it should go, and that is to Christ the one and only living God. I am just not into your worldly political games but try to call it the way I see it when asked or inspired. So, as far as either candidate goes in their association with Warren, they all are tainted. Granted Warren may have done a great job in his questions and presentation, but so what!

BlueDeacon said...

Blue, you're absolutely right I'm "threatened" by men [and women] who sanction the slaughter/murder of the most helpless among us: the unborn innocents.

That's a joke. For openers, secular conservatives for 30 years have used the abortion issue as a battering ram for the sake of votes, keeping most evangelical
Christians but ignoring other legitimate Biblical issues. On top of that, one of the biggest behind-the-scenes conservative figures (who is local to me) is one of the country's biggest financial backers of Planned Parenthood! Besides, it doesn't ultimately matter whatever stance on abortion a candidate has if the person doesn't know how to govern properly. That's why the GOP is basically through.

I am just not into your worldly political games but try to call it the way I see it when asked or inspired.

Well, politics has always been an interest and calling of mine and I try to stay as informed as well as I can. It thus pains me to hear people -- especially fellow Christians -- make inane and uninformed comments based on ideologically-driven innuendo and rumors and not on the facts on the ground; doing so actually sabotages our Christian witness in the world. No commitment to ending legal abortion, stopping homosexual marriage or focusing on other "cultural" issues can make up for making the Savior look bad.

Douglas said...

"Quick question to think about...do you consider me a sister in the Lord? If so, what do you base that belief on?"

I for one have not seen you constantly and openly and blatantly twists the Scriptures like Rick Warren does. I haven't seen you distort the Scriptures at all. I have always seen you handle the Scriptures very carefully and as accurately as you can. Does that make me your brother in Christ, sister? I base what I believe upon you not torturing the Scriptures. I do not trust anyone who tortures God's Holy Word, no matter how popular they are.

Quite frankly, I am getting more and more disillusioned with Christianity because of all the false teaching that has infiltrated and welcomed into the church in these days. It is scary. I am being discouraged by certain ones every day, including Rick Warren. I do not trust Rick Warren at all, not one bit.

Rick Warren is a wolf in sheep's clothing and because he is in sheep's clothing most cannot recognize him for what he is. A false teacher and a torturer of God's Holy Word. A good man? Many say he is. Does heaps of good deeds? He boasts in them often. How can one combat that?

I remember when Steve Camp first put up an article about Rick Warren and Purpose Driven (three or so years ago? more? less? I can't quite remember when) and I posted a comment with a link to Monergism.com's section on Rick Warren and his teachings which is now in here: Seeker Sensitive I remember Steve taking down what he had posted more or less straight away. Then he got himself an online (I think) copy of Warren's Purpose Driven Life book, read it and then re-posted another glowing report on Rick Warren and his teachings. Then he took that down as well????? I have searched for them both but have been unable to find those two posts by Steve Camp on Rick Warren and Purpose Driven. Imo, Steve has been double minded when it comes to Rick Warren and all things Purpose Driven. I have a difficult time trusting Steve's assessment when it comes to Rick Warren and Purpose Drivenism and some other things. Goes to show none of us are perfect,eh?

Where is the "true-truth" to be found.

I come from a Roman Catholic and a Pentecostal background as far as Christianity goes and what a load of rubbish I experienced there at diverse times, the commands and traditions and trickery of man. Every one who is born again of the Holy Spirit of God is truly reformed and are being truly reformed on a moment by moment basis, laying aside the sins and weights that so easily beset us.

Because I write with not very good grammar and so forth my writings come across rather sharp, rough, harsh, hard even, but I do not mean to come across like that. I would dearly love to know how to write properly and that everything I wrote came across as warm, loving, kind, gentle, all the fruits of the spirit that I seem to be lacking. It is all there in my heart and mind but it seems so difficult to express with pen and paper.

Doubly severe!

(J. W. Alexander, "Letters to Young Ministers
on The Cultivation of Personal Piety")

Every preacher of the gospel should earnestly
strive to attain the experience of the truths
which he communicates, and to have every
doctrine which he utters turned into vital
exercises of his heart; so that when he stands
up to speak in the name of God, there may be
that indescribable freshness and penetrativeness.

That a man is a minister is no guarantee that
he shall not be cast into hell-fire! The hell of
apostate ministers must be doubly severe!

Deb_B said...

" It thus pains me to hear
people -- especially fellow Christians -- make inane and uninformed comments based on ideologically-driven innuendo and rumors and not on the facts on the ground; doing so actually sabotages our Christian witness in the world. No commitment to ending legal abortion, stopping homosexual marriage or focusing on other 'cultural' issues can make up
for making the Savior look bad."


Interesting ... and quite presumptive, methinks.

Deb_B said...

Spokesman,

Aye, and Malachi 3:16, too:

"Then those who feared the Lord spoke with one another. The Lord paid attention and heard them, and a book of remembrance was written before him of those who feared the Lord and esteemed his name."

I think we - especially myself included - have a tendency upon occasion to look around at all of the evil, the heretical teachings arising from within the Church, etc., and sometimes "forget to remember" our magnificent, sovereign God is in control.

I wander a bit OT hereafter, methinks...

Here's food for thought:

Is it a "another Gospel" if a pastor/teacher waters down and "soft pedals" the Gospel truth ... but doesn't deny the Lordship/Deity of Christ, the Triune Godhead and the other non-negotiable foundational tenets of our Biblical faith?

I've put the query to my beloved, who is consulting our pastor and elders about it. I'd never considered Galations 1 that way before. Where someone holds that Jesus is Messiah, God, the Son, and affirms belief in the foundational tenets of our Biblical Christianity, but yet espouses a watered down version thereof.

It's something to prayerfully think on, for sure.

Godspeed, brother mine by grace.

In Christ Alone,
Deb

gigantor1231 said...

B.D.

"Well, politics has always been an interest and calling of mine and I try to stay as informed as well as I can. It thus pains me to hear people -- especially fellow Christians -- make inane and uninformed comments based on ideologically-driven innuendo and rumors and not on the facts on the ground; doing so actually sabotages our Christian witness in the world. No commitment to ending legal abortion, stopping homosexual marriage or focusing on other "cultural" issues can make up for making the Savior look bad."

Mind providing some specifics instead of being idologically-driven and resorting to inuendo yourself B.D.. Practice what you preach!

Michele Rayburn said...

Hi Douglas,

You said:

Quite frankly, I am getting more and more disillusioned with Christianity because of all the false teaching that has infiltrated and welcomed into the church in these days. It is scary. I am being discouraged by certain ones every day, including Rick Warren. I do not trust Rick Warren at all, not one bit.

I just wanted to remind you to keep your eyes on Jesus and Him alone, rather than on men...even Christian men (or women).

Jeremiah 17:5 says:

"Thus says the Lord: 'Cursed is the man who trusts in man...' "

but

Jeremiah 17:7-8 says:

"Blessed is the man who trusts in the Lord, and whose hope is the Lord. For he shall be like a tree planted by the waters..."

Isaiah 26:3 says:

"You will keep him in perfect peace, whose mind is stayed on You, because he trusts in You."

And also remember that God has a purpose and a plan even in the face of false teachings and false teachers. He knew it would be this way. That's why He warned us about it. We just have to trust Him through it. Our faith is in Him, not in teachers.

That's why it's so important that we ourselves are reading and meditating on the Scriptures...so that we are not led astray by false teachings. We'll have discernment.

Discernment is lacking among Christians, and I think it may be because they have become too dependent on teachers instead of going to the Scriptures themselves.

In His Love,
Michele

gigantor1231 said...

littlegal

thanks for your prayers towards my family in regards to my nephew and his wife's murder, he was 26 and she was 23. Your prayers are sorely needed and appreciated. To this point there have been no substantial developments, or leads.
I sit and wonder at times if my intervention, as unwelcome as it was, would have helped earlier in Tony's life. Now I can only trust God that my decision to protect my girls from the form of evil Tony chose, drug dealer, was not just me being like the pharisee and thanking God that I was not like him. I did not do that but I have to be honest with you those thoughts enter my mind.
At any rate, the whole thing is tragic and sad, especially the fact that his decision to deal drugs has impacted so many people not involved in the whole affair, primarily his innocent wife! Please pray that there is some closure to this, the murderer is caught and that my brother, Tony's dad and his mom and immediate family comes to know Christ, there truly is no other satisfactory ending. To God be the Glory.

BlueDeacon said...

Interesting ... and quite presumptive, methinks.

I wish I were being presumptuous -- but after this amount of time it's the only conclusion I can come up with.

Mind providing some specifics instead of being idologically-driven and resorting to inuendo yourself

Here's the real story about Obama's supposed "lies" on the abortion issue:

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/08/20/us/politics/20checkpoint.html?scp=4&sq=Barack%20and%20abortion&st=cse

BlueDeacon said...

Let's try this again:

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/08/20/us/politics/20checkpoint.html?scp=4&sq=Barack%20and%20abortion&st=cse

The Spokesman said...

deb_b: Is it a "another Gospel" if a pastor/teacher waters down and "soft pedals" the Gospel truth ... but doesn't deny the Lordship/Deity of Christ, the Triune Godhead and the other non-negotiable foundational tenets of our Biblical faith?

Very good question Deb! Actually the Bible does teach that a person can have an orthodox profession of faith and still be a false prophet/teacher/Christian. It is possible to honor the Lord with your lips and your heart be far from Him (Matthew 15:8-9); it is possible to profess Jesus' Lordship and minister in His name and still be a false prophet (Matthew 7:15-23); it is possible to believe that God is one (the Shema - see Deuteronomy 6:4) and still be lost (see James 2:19); and it is possible to profess to know God, and still deny Him by deeds (see Titus 1:16).

Now as to you question on watering down the Gospel - “We have renounced the things hidden because of shame, not walking in craftiness or adulterating the word of God, but by the manifestation of the truth commending ourselves to every man’s conscience in the sight of God.” (2 Corinthians 4:2 NASB). The word “adulterating” is the Greek verb doloo, from dolos, which means deceit (to catch with bait), to ensnare, to corrupt with error. Used of adulterating gold or wine (A. T. Robertson, Word Pictures in the New Testament, pg. 436). Wine would be adulterated, corrupted with error, by “cutting” it with water. It was the “crafty” businessman who “deceitfully handled” his clients by “watering down” the wine that he sold them.

So watering down the Gospel according to God's Word would be crafty and deceitful. Also the person who would dare water down the Gospel has actually changed its form by either adding to it or taking from it, therefore a watered down gospel isn't the gospel once for all delivered to the saints.

There is far more to discerning and testing the spirits than just an orthodox profession of faith and I contend that "confessing" that Jesus Christ has come in the flesh is more than "professing." After all, there are and have been many heretics who would profess that Jesus Christ has come in the flesh and yet deny Him with their deeds and their scripture twisting interpretations. For instance, Charles Finney wouldn't have denied the Lordship/deity of Christ but he would twist the atonement and deny the biblical doctrine of imputation thereby denying the real work of Christ and therefore actually denying Christ - even while professing Him.

I pray that this helps!

Grace and peace,
Olan

donsands said...

"most cannot recognize him [Rick Warren] for what he is."-douglas

I'm glad you can douglas. Most of us are blind.

I don't know if Warren is a brother in Christ or not. I will believe he is, and that he is very weak in his theology, and yet, perhaps, on the day of judgment, the King of glory will say to him, and hopefully us, "When I was hungry you fed Me, and when I was in prison you visited Me, and when I was without clothes you covered Me."

There are wolves, and Campi names names, and we all know how false teachers, prophets, and even christs, shall arise and if possible deceive even the elect. Is rick Warren one of these? I don't know.
Go to his church's doctrine, and see what he believes about the Bible, and about Christ. he is certainly people-centered, and very weak in the Word, and even shallow, but his declaration of the Gospel is the Gospel of the Scriptures, as far as I can see.

If he, or you, or anyone, including myself ever perverts the Gospel, then let us be accursed. Amen.

Terry Rayburn said...

bluedeacon,

Just curious...

Do YOU personally consider the killing of 40,000,000 (that's MILLION) unborn children in America since Roe v. Wade as a Holocaust?

Or is it OK, as long as our leaders are effective in other areas?

Consider carefully the Third Reich before you answer, since it's leaders were extremely effective in general, having even given us the wonderful Volkswagen Beetle.

In my [admittedly slanted] question, I'm not advocating a one-issue voting stance in general, but there ought to be SOME standard of decency in a political platform, don't you think?

McCain is no more the Messiah than Obama is, but he offers the best chance of a Supreme Court that might recognize the rights of unborn children.

It might be too late anyway, but surely if Obama were elected we would have a Pro-Holocaust Supreme Court for perhaps the next 30 or 40 years ("if the Lord tarries", as we used to say before the Dominionists like Rick Warren convinced us that we could turn the world into a paradise if we just poured enough money and ecumenism into it -- that's sarcasm, for those in Rio Linda).

Michele,

Great comment, Sweetheart!

Blessings,
Terry

gigantor1231 said...

donsands

How is Rick Warren not perverting the Gospel when he tells the unsaved God is pleased with them? How is it not a perversion when he does not show people their dire need and utter depravity? He actually changes the definition of what sin is. In P.D.L. he says that sin is a result of men not having their needs met, forgive me that I do not have chapter and page or exact quote on this but I saw it in both the book and the video series. Anyway, as I asked before, how has he not perverted and preached a different Gospel?

Douglas said...

Thanks Michele.

agape

Douglas

What a treasure!

from Thomas Reade's, "Christian Experience"

What a treasure is the Word of God!

Here we have....
Light, to dissipate our darkness;
Truth, to guide us amid the mazes of error;
Consolations, to gladden us in a world of misery.

The Bible is....
the Revelation of our Father's love;
the Expression of Jehovah's grace to sinners;
the Depository of heavenly blessings;
the Charter of our highest privileges;
the Religion of true Christians;
the Glory of our churches;
the Poor Man's Friend.

Everything sublime in conception, and tender in
expression, it is to be found in the sacred Scriptures.

The Eternal Jehovah has there revealed Himself as....
clothed with majesty and honor;
glorious in holiness, fearful in praises, doing wonders;
of purer eyes than to behold iniquity;
in whose sight the heavens are not clean.

In the sacred Scriptures, he has manifested forth his glory,
as mighty to save; forgiving iniquity, transgression, and sin.

In that blessed volume, Mercy is seen to arrest the
arm of Justice, and all the tenderness of the Father
is displayed in the person of the Son.

Love breathes throughout its sacred pages.

Terry Rayburn said...

1. We ought to expose false teachings, and if a teacher persists in those false teachings, then he should likewise be exposed.

2. As to whether that false teacher is unregenerate, we waste our time speculating. We will have our own opinion, but we won't KNOW.

3. "The Lord KNOWS those who are His" - 2 Tim. 2:19.

4 Jesus said that in gathering up the tares, you might also might uproot the wheat, so don't do it. Let them both grow until the harvest (Matt. 13:27-30).

5. "A servant of the Lord must not quarrel but be gentle to all, able to teach, patient, in humility correcting those who are in opposition, if God perhaps will grant them repentance, so that they may know the truth..." -- 2 Tim. 2:24-25.

6. There is a point at which someone who may very well be a brother in the Lord, is neverthless unrepentant to the point where it only makes sense to TREAT HIM as if he were an unbeliever.

This concept comes, not directly, but in principle, from Matt. 18:17b.

To apply these points, I think Rick Warren is clearly a false teacher. And moreover, anyone who does't agree is prima facie undiscerning.

But I would love to sit down with him, as a professed brother, and discuss the Truth with him, if pehaps the Lord might grant him repentance.

I often wonder if someone in his position has any such opportunity, or if he's just surrounded by his own agreeable posse?

BlueDeacon said...

Consider carefully the Third Reich before you answer, since its leaders were extremely effective in general, having even given us the wonderful Volkswagen Beetle.

A false analogy, because Hitler had actually banned abortion for German women. He was also staunchly anti-Communist, which meant that, had he been around in the 1980s, just about all major conservative Christian media figures would have supported him wholeheartedly.

In my [admittedly slanted] question, I'm not advocating a one-issue voting stance in general, but there ought to be SOME standard of decency in a political platform, don't you think?

Let me answer that with another question: If you agreed -- or disagreed -- with a candidate on every stance except abortion, how does that affect your vote for him/her?

Deb_B said...

SJC, I'll respond to Blue's apologia on Obama's behalf with the understanding I'm wandering from the original thrust of the thread. I do so, Campi, to provide direct Illinois Senate transcript quotes, and the citation location in full, for those who wish to read it in its entirety in context. In so doing, to put to bed the allegation of mere unsubstantiated "ineundo" [sic].

Moreover, I do so to provide contextual documentation, in Obama's own words, for anyone reading along here who may not be aware of exactly how far Obama has shown he is willing to go regarding the abortion of babies in the womb and subsequent infanticide for those innocent babes who have the temerity to actually survive the abortion attempt, having emerged from the womb moving and breathing with a heartbeat.

Aforementioned post follows this one shortly...

Deb_B said...

PART 1 of 2...

Blue: "Mind providing some specifics instead of being idologically-driven and resorting to inuendo yourself..."

Obama apologist, eh? Even more interesting. The New York Times? There's a bastion of truth and objectivity in reporting. Surely you jest? Why don't we just let Obama speak for himself via his own comments in the matter, as certified in the April 4, 2002, Illinois Senate transcript? Obama put it rather indelicately, did he not? [Link to Illinois Senate transcript in its entirety follows below]

Obama [in reference to born babies following unsuccessful abortions]: "...movement or some indication that, in fact, they’re not just coming out limp and dead.”

Obama: "...that fetus, or child — however you want to describe it.” There's evidence of the milk of human kindness and caring for the most helpless and innocent of our society [sarcasm]: "that fetus, or child - however you want to describe it."

Bottom line: Barry Obama reveals in his own words in that transcript a far greater concern for ensuring the abortion doctors were protected from any kind of legal liability, than he did for protecting born alive babies. Or, to use Obama's own words, you know, "they’re not just coming out limp and dead.” To wit:

Obama: "I expressed some concern about, was what impact this would have with respect to the relationship between the doctor and the patient and what liabilities the doctor might have in this situation."

Obama: "I think it’s important to understand that this issue ultimately is about abortion and not live births."

Here's the link so anyone reading along here can read the comments in their entirety, in context, in the transcript and thus draw their own conclusions as to Obama's stand on both abortion and infanticide:

***LINK to State of Illinios 92nd General Assembly Regular Session Senate Transcript, April 4, 2002. Quotes above taken from pp.31-34, in particular:

http://www.ilga.gov/senate/transcripts/strans92/ST040402.pdf

Deb_B said...

PART 2 of 2...

Blue
Back to what you glibly refer to as my "idologically-driven [sic] ... ineundo [sic]"...

I consider it my Scripture-based worldview. In the entirety of the canon of Scripture, Jehovah God makes it quite clear the shedding of innocent blood is an abomination, a personal and corporate sin of the highest order ... and one which brings judgment upon upon entire nations.

You call it a joke, mere cultural ideology. God condemns the shedding of innocent blood; it is an abomination in the eyes of Jehovah God. That's that insomuch as Biblical truth is concerned, whether you, Barack Hussein Obama, or anyone else - no matter which political banner they fall under - chooses to believe it or not.

You also unwisely presume everyone here is an apologist for the GOP. Strange. You seem disinclined to credit any of us here in thread with a capacity for independent thought and fact-finding inclination and abilities as well. Stranger yet. But I digress, back to Scripture and God's very dim view of the shedding of the blood of innocents, which of course does indeed shape my worldview...

Manasseh's reign is a very interesting, and equally sad and grievous, systematic, inductive Biblical study insomuch as "Manasseh shed very much innocent blood, till he had filled Jerusalem from one end to another, besides the sin that he made Judah to sin so that they did what was evil in the sight of the Lord."
[2 King 21:16]

"...and sent them against Judah to destroy it, according to the word of the Lord that he spoke by his servants the prophets. Surely this came upon Judah at the command of the Lord, to remove them out of his sight, for the sins of Manasseh, according to all that he had done, and also for the innocent blood that he had shed. For he filled Jerusalem with innocent blood, and the Lord would not pardon." [2 Kings 24]

If you believe that's a "joke", so be it. Do, however, provide your own contextual Biblical substantiation for how we dishonor my Lord and Savior, Jesus Christ, God, the Son, by advocating against the slaughter/murder of innocent little babies?

Terry Rayburn said...

bluedeacon,

You didn't answer my very simple question.

Do you consider the killing of 40 million unborn children a Holocaust?

You preferred to question my analogy, which you either missed (I doubt it), or twisted (my impression).

My "analogy" wasn't regarding Hitler's stance on abortion for German women. My analogy was regarding a regime that was "effective" in most areas but SANCTIONED AN ONGOING HOLOCAUST.

And I'm not talking about Conservatism, I'm talking about biblical Christianity which asserts the simple moral truth that we shouldn't murder.

So I repeat my simple question:

Do you consider the killing of 40,000,000 unborn children a Holocaust?

You also didn't answer my second implied question:

Should there be NO mininum standards of decency in a party platform? (I consider the protection of life, born and unborn as a MINIMUM standard. You apparently don't).

Sidenote: I have a real love for African Americans. I would love to see a Pro-Life Non-Socialist African American ascend to the Presidency.

Abortion is not only a horrible Holocaust, it is particularly a "genocidal" Holocaust in regard to African Americans, part of the Agenda of Margaret Sanger, founder of Planned Parenthood.

donsands said...

Here's Rick's faith statement. And I do not want to debunk it for what he says else where.
I'm thinking this is what Rick believes in his heart.

ABOUT SALVATION
Salvation is a gift from God to man. Man can never make up for his sin by self-improvement or good works. Only by trusting in Jesus Christ as God´s offer of forgiveness can man be saved from sin´s penalty. Eternal life begins the moment one receives Jesus Christ into his life by faith.
Romans 6:23; Ephesians 2:8,9; John 14:6, 1:12; Titus 3:5; Galatians 3:26; Romans 5:1

ABOUT ETERNAL SECURITY
Because God gives man eternal life through Jesus Christ, the believer is secure in salvation for eternity. Salvation is maintained by the grace and power of God, not by the self-effort of the Christian. It is the grace and keeping power of God that gives this security.
John 10:29; 2 Timothy 1:12; Hebrews 7:25; 10:10,14; 1 Peter 1:3-5

And like Terry said,
"2. As to whether that false teacher is unregenerate, we waste our time speculating. We will have our own opinion, but we won't KNOW."

Have a great Lord's Day with His people in worshiping the Father in Spirit and in truth. It's a privilege, and a joyous command from our Savior and Lord, Jesus Christ.

Terry Rayburn said...

bluedeacon,

To clarify, you DID answer my question about a minimum moral standard in a party platform.

But you answered it with a question of your own.

In doing so, you've not really answered it, but have descended into that dark abyss of post-modernism in which a 3rd grade student is asked by her teacher,

"If you were stranded with another person in a liferaft in the ocean, and were starving, should one of you eat the other in order to live longer, and how would you decide who eats who?"

These kind of dumb questions veer from reality, just to prove a silly post-modern point of some kind.

Since it is virtually impossible that there would be a candidate whom I agree with in everything except their Pro-Holocaust position, such an event will not likely ever happen.

But for me to vote for a Pro-Holocaust candidate under any foreseeable circumstances would be a sin.

If two Pro-Holocaust candidates ran against each other for President, I might likely "write in" my dog.

He has never advocated the murder of anything, with the possible exception of a bird in the yard once, and we didn't even catch him red-pawed at that.

BlueDeacon said...

Obama apologist, eh? Even more interesting. The New York Times? There's a bastion of truth and objectivity in reporting. Surely you jest?

No, I'm not jesting -- as someone who has spent his entire adult life in the media, I would trust the Times before any "Christian" publication because the latter is more likely to leave out pertinent stuff that doesn't support the conservative agenda (I've personally witnessed that).

You call it a joke, mere cultural ideology. God condemns the shedding of innocent blood; it is an abomination in the eyes of Jehovah God. That's that insomuch as Biblical truth is concerned, whether you, Barack Hussein Obama, or anyone else - no matter which political banner they fall under - chooses to believe it or not.

What I consider a joke is the concept that people support candidates based only on their abortion stance, irrespective for their personal character or fitness to govern. And, frankly, the joke is on us.

That's because the Bible also refers to such things as greed, bribery and abuse of the economically poor and politically powerless as "abominations" -- it's in there, look it up -- but, somehow, these other issues just don't raise passion or money the way abortion does.

You also unwisely presume everyone here is an apologist for the GOP. Strange. You seem disinclined to credit any of us here in thread with a capacity for independent thought and fact-finding inclination and abilities as well.

Please -- you wouldn't be arguing with me here if that were truly the case. Nor, for that matter, would this blog entry have been posted.

My "analogy" wasn't regarding Hitler's stance on abortion for German women. My analogy was regarding a regime that was "effective" in most areas but SANCTIONED AN ONGOING HOLOCAUST.

You can't separate them, no matter how hard you try.

I have a real love for African Americans. I would love to see a Pro-Life Non-Socialist African American ascend to the Presidency.

Then heed the words of Micah 6:8: Do justice, love mercy and walk humbly with God. Work for racial reconciliation, including with those people who don't think like you. Most African-Americans actually are "pro-life" but refuse to separate abortion from the above issues that I've already raised, which is why they despise conservatism.

SJ Camp said...

Good Morning to All
Wow. I take off for a day to watch my oldest son play (about three hours away) in his first college football scrimmage with my youngest daughter Mary; then we drive back home, celebrate another son's birthday at a bowling party we had for him last evening.

I got up this morning to see if there was any more activity on this thread. What an understatement!

I do appreciate this discussion here and the many forthright and bold statements being made. No middle ground on this one.

But let's make certain what "this one" I am referring to. This post is about the faith forum from one week ago. That's all.

It is not about the state of Warren's soul (which to my surprise and sadness many have already determined here). It is also not about everything Warren has ever written or stood for or not stood for. That would be like me doing a brief article about my friend John MacArthur's views on amillennialism and then people commenting - wanting to make an issue over everything from his past views on sonship, Lordship salvation, charismatic gifts, to his appearing on TBN a few years ago. I know there are not a few voices in evangelicalism who believe that John is not regenerate too. You can imagine trying to direct the meta in that kind of intensified rabbit trailed discussion.

That is what I am facing here in no small measure. In light of that, I will try and answer the main issues of concern represented here. But, I will do so in brief, biblically, and succinctly to the best of my ability.

The one thing I would ask of you is that the constant judgments of Warren's eternal life be stopped. It is beyond your scope to do so, it is unbiblical to do so, but also it is unprofitable to do so.

Give me some time to wade through and ponder these comments and then post accordingly.

And again, I do thank you for contributing on this thread.

Grace and peace,
Steve
Col. 3:23-24

gigantor1231 said...

Donsands & Trayburn

Just to set the record straight, as I have said in my prior posts, I do not pretend to know the condition of Warren's heart before the Lord, whether he is saved and deceived of unregenerate. I have however taken the stand that by his fruit he denies Christ in spite of any written doctrine, his words and actions betray him. I would not look to him as a brother lest that give him the slightest bit of credibility and I may send someone to follow his teaching and be deceived!
As for sitting with him and talking as brother to brother, hoping to encourage him to repent from his error, it has been done a number of times and from what I have seen and heard there has never been even a iota of change or repentance from his self exalting stand. If turning a blind eye to his ecumenical teaching and works centered humanistic gospel is graciousness, then there is a big problem with respect to our call to contend earnestly for the faith. It is your prerogative to call him brother if you choose but it may be that you do that to your own peril and the peril of others, I hope I am wrong.

B.D.

Sounds like you hold to some black liberation theology, which is not liberating at all. Is that the case?
I personally do not hold abortion as the test as to who I will choose for a leader, I look at the whole person involved and understand that all men are bent towards evil, some more so than others. Many times it is a choice between the lesser of two evils. As I have said before though, if you understand and believe the sovereignty of God, God will have his man of choosing and it is He who will direct his heart in every decision. As far as the color of ones skin being a determining factor, I could care less!
There is only one real answer to this nations problems and that is Jesus Christ, believing in Him and only Him and his atoning sacrifice on the cross. I have heard neither Obama or McCain call this nation to turn to him and until that is done and we obey, we as a nation will spiral to our destruction. Interesting thing, in any conversation I have had with you B.D., you never hold out Christ as the answer in any way shape or form that I can remember. All that you have ever called for is some kind of social reform with your personal definition of reformation being that the victims be compensated by those who make them victims. It's all predictable from here!

SJ Camp said...

In the meantime, here is a quote about the event by Al Mohler:

With the press pushing the event as a "new face" for American evangelicals, I was not overly hopeful. Given the hype, I was positively unhopeful. But . . . the event turned to be quite worthwhile after all. I still have deep reservations about identifying the event so closely with a church, but the conversations really did get to urgently important and controversial issues, and Pastor Rick Warren handled the conversations with aplomb, demonstrating both civility and candor.

I agree.
Campi

Deb_B said...

Blue
"What I consider a joke is the concept that people support candidates based only on their abortion stance, irrespective for their personal character or fitness to govern. And, frankly, the joke is on us.

No, you are presuming I, and others here, support candidates based only on their stance on the sanctity of human life ... without regard for personal character or fitness to otherwise govern.

First of all, if one has zero regard for the sanctity of human life, which Scripture makes abundantly clear begins at conception, it's a lock that is going to affect how such an individual would govern. So, nope, given the strong Biblical mandate about the shedding of innocent blood, I'm not voting for a pro-murder candidate.

The fact that a given candidate has no regard for the sanctity of the most helpless of human life - innocent babies in the womb - whether by simply looking the other way by proclaiming oneself "pro-choice" or whether doing as Obama's record repeatedly indicates he has, actively supporting and pursuing legal protections for the murder of innocents, is an immediate dis-qualifier for my vote from the get-go.

Why do you proceed with the assumption I, and others here, look past the following passages (and others similar in tone and instruction) as we do our best to evaluate political candidates and vote responsibly, in a manner in keeping with our/my Biblical world view?:

"There are six things that the Lord hates, seven that are an abomination to him:
17 haughty eyes, a lying tongue,
and hands that shed innocent blood,
18 a heart that devises wicked plans, feet that make haste to run to evil,
19 a false witness who breathes out lies, and one who sows discord among brothers.
[Prov 6:16-19]

Moreover, Blue, you stated:

"No, I'm not jesting -- as someone who has spent his entire adult life in the media, I would trust the Times before any "Christian" publication because the latter is more likely to leave out pertinent stuff that doesn't support the conservative agenda (I've personally witnessed that)."

My citation of, and link to the certified Illinois State Senate transcript is scarcely a recommendation of a "Christian" publication. However, with all due respect, you don't cite any specific sources to support your allegations quoted above.

You cite the New York Times. I cite the certified State Senate transcript containing Obama's own statements in the matter - about which he has been blatantly untruthful, I might add.

I am inviting - encouraging - others to read his comments in their entirety in context, to reach their own conclusions. No proof-texting or leaving out "pertinent stuff that doesn't support" my "conservative agenda", as you put it. Therefore, I can put no credence your allegations.

There are literally innumerable "conservative agenda" and/or Christian websites and publications which have cited, both all and in part, Obama's comments taken from that Illinois State Senate transcript ... and I have read [and in some cases, listened to] many of them. However, I again note and reiterate, I did NOT refer the readers here to ANY of those. I referred them directly to the source in its entirety.

Inherent in your comments is yet another presumption - that we would swallow hook, line and sinker, without question or subsequent investigation/verification, any publication so long as it suits what you deem to be our "conservative agenda".

(If by "conservative agenda", you are referring to an agenda gleaned from and based solely on the contextual, accumulative evidences of Scripture, then, yes, my worldview is based solely on the canon of Scripture. However, you do err if you presume I don't ascertain facts in a given matter for myself just because a publication is conservative and/or Christian. I prefer to do my own analytical thinking, actually. This would include searching the Scriptures in context to see if what is being taught/alleged is "so", where applicable, as well, of course.)

I suspect SJC is perhaps traveling and temporarily out of pocket away from his Mac ... and this thread has likely wandered far afield from its original intent and thrust. Here I'll leave off my end in this vein unless and until Campi indicates he wishes to allow expansion of the original scope of the thread to encompass further discussion of these issues.

gigantor1231 said...

S.J.

Yes, this thread has wandered and it has lost it's way. I will shoulder my portion of the blame in that I see giving kudos to Warren as a possible recommendation for those less fortunate and weak in the faith to look to him as a viable option to come to a understanding of the truth. I have addressed the issue of his asking sound legitimate questions towards the candidates and guiding things in a civil and forthright manner and for his venture into mediating the forum he did well, perhaps he even deserves a atta boy.
I will drop my hammering on him as to who he is among the brethren for now in hopes that this lost little thread will come home.

SJ Camp said...

the spokesman
With all due respect and Christian love, what ever happened to - "They profess to know God, but by their deeds they deny Him..." (Titus 1:16)?

As you know, Paul is not speaking here of professing believers in the Lord Jesus Christ; these "professors" for all practical purposes were practical atheists as John Gill describes. They flaunted a knowledge of God; but that knowledge was merely notional and hypocritical for there was no fruit associated with genuine conversion whatsoever.

This verse, rightly divided, does not apply to Rick Warren at all.

And what is so confusing is how you could be so duplicitous by taking Tim Brister to task for praising Rick Warren for wanting to endorse Tom Ascol's excellent resolution on regenerate church membership...

The two things are completely different. I am only addressing Warren as a moderator of this event where he asked very good, incisive and biblical worldview questions. Dr. Mohler has affirmed this and other well respected evangelical leaders as well.

This other arena of a regenerate church membership from a reformed baptist perspective is something entirely different. Brister is young, and for whatever reason, was like a kid in a candy store thinking Warren was a great endorsement for this (if you read his meta, you know that I was not alone in this concern). Saddleback doesn't embrace an RB view of ecclessiology (and I am not speaking of Presbyterianism here).

So to associate Warren with THAT issue, IMHO, was one that lacked wisdom. It is not duplicitous, my brother, to appreciate the excellent work Warren did last Saturday in moderating the faith forum with these candidates and still not support his views of vetting a regenerate church membership and the pragmatism associated with his views of evangelism.

When MacArthur's staff reviewed the PDL material, they essentially said that the five purposes Rick lists were good. BUT, the way in which he unfolded them were troublesome - I fully agree. At no time has John, or any other pastor at GCC to my knowledge, ever condemned wholeheartedly every aspect of the PDL material or declared that Warren is not a brother in the Lord.

I appreciate their collective and applied wisdom.

IOW, it's not all or northing on every issue with everyone. If that were the case, for example, I could not support R.C. Sproul on his excellent teachings on justification by faith alone because I strongly disagree with him on partial preterism and paedobaptism.

Grace and peace,
Steve
Eph. 4:12-16

gigantor1231 said...

S.J.

You completely over simplify MaCarthur's assessment of P.D.L., he really gives it little or no credibility. Listen to what he says, specifically with regards to the lack of Gospel message held in it, he calls it fantasy;

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nI9EzMWZoag

P.D.L. is scripture twisting and syncretism to the extreme and has little if any redeemable value. How could you even give it a centilla of credibility?
Sorry to be off thread but you brought it up and I felt the need to respond!

BlueDeacon said...

Sounds like you hold to some black liberation theology, which is not liberating at all. Is that the case?

I'm not even exactly sure what black liberation theology teaches and have read virtually nothing about it, so I will not comment on it. I have read, however, the "Black Value System" of Trinity United Church of Christ, Obama's former church in Chicago, and virtually all followers of the Savior would agree with almost all of it if they understood the context.

As far as the color of ones skin being a determining factor, I could care less!

But if you think race is a non-issue in this presidential campaign, think again. The Democratic governor of my state, who two years ago ran for reelection against a black conservative Republican who is a bit of a national celebrity, said people told him that they were voting for him only because he was white -- and was roundly criticized for bringing that up.

Interesting thing, in any conversation I have had with you B.D., you never hold out Christ as the answer in any way shape or form that I can remember.

Because individual transformation isn't, never was and never will be the whole answer -- other folks need to change as well. In the South in the 1950s probably most African-Americans were serious Christians who knew their Bible and whom Christ had clearly changed but who were still being enslaved by an unjust legal system -- that, ironically, was supported by other Christians. Thus, that system had to go, and thank God that, thanks to the civil-rights movement -- that started in black churches -- it eventually did so.

And besides, that completely conflicts with our stated approach to abortion. We don't just go around converting abortionists and encouraging young women not to terminate pregnancies (not that there's anything wrong with those) -- we also seek to make abortion illegal. And for the record, I do support that. What I will never support is the name-calling that anti-abortionists have consistently engaged in toward their opponents because doing so turns people from the cause and (I hope more sobering) away from Christ. Martin Luther King Jr. almost never did that, which is why he's now a household name and a historical figure.

First of all, if one has zero regard for the sanctity of human life, which Scripture makes abundantly clear begins at conception, it's a lock that is going to affect how such an individual would govern.

Now who's being presumptuous? Truth be told, many anti-abortion activists in the 1980s, and especially those connected with such groups as Operation Rescue, were extremely nasty toward anyone who didn't agree with their approach, and that attitude alienated people. At the same time, legislators who readily voted to restrict abortion also voted to take from the needy and give to the greedy -- which certainly isn't "life-affirming" (and in the process called their opponents "socialists").

littlegal_66 said...

Gig--

It is an honor to continue in prayer for your brother and his family. Thank you for the update, and please don't chastise yourself over what happened to your nephew and his wife. Sounds as though you were being a Godly father to your girls.

Trust in His Sovereignty...

Blessings,

LG66

P.S. Campi: I know that my above comment is OT; my apologies. (And since I'm OT anyway, I may as well add that I hope your Max got some quality time on the field).

gigantor1231 said...

B.D.

'Because individual transformation isn't, never was and never will be the whole answer'

And this sums up what I see in your defense of your faith, you do not have hope in the sovereignty of God to change the hearts of men one heart at a time. That being said, as Christians we know that many are called and few are chosen, and along with being one of those few chosen the world will hate anyone who stands with Christ because it hates him, they love darkness and hate light!
So, unless change starts with Christ, unless man is saved by grace through faith in Christ there will never be any meaningful change. Unless one believes in Christ and they abide in him, all that they will do will be and is meaningless. There will never be any genuine, credible and meaningful change in ones life or in society at all apart from Christ.
In your pursuit of social reform you have completely missed Christ B.D.. Jesus did not come to reform culture, he came to save his people from their sins, he came to restore man's relationship to the one and only living God! Apart from this salvation in Christ all is marked for destruction.

BlueDeacon said...

And this sums up what I see in your defense of your faith, you do not have hope in the sovereignty of God to change the hearts of men one heart at a time. That being said, as Christians we know that many are called and few are chosen, and along with being one of those few chosen the world will hate anyone who stands with Christ because it hates him, they love darkness and hate light!

I do believe in the sovereignty of God; however, it's very clear from His word that He generally uses people -- specifically, His "called out ones" -- to do His work; thus, we are obliged to await orders from Him. If we understand that God wants to work through us and gives us the privilege of doing so, that should motivate us to do as well as we can.

Furthermore, I have never subscribed to a "salvation" that costs nothing, especially considering how much it cost God; if there's a real problem with contemporary evangelicalism it's the concept that "you're in if you say a few prayers." Ironically, many "conservatives" still desire cultural authority -- an attitude that is still of the "world" -- and thus get sucked into the same tit-for-tat game that everyone else plays.

Anyway, by your own reasoning we should abandon fighting against abortion.

gigantor1231 said...

B.D.

And what did your salvation cost you B.D., what part do you have in it? Did you pay something? If you read the word you will see that there was nothing you could give that Christ did not already own. Your salvation is a free gift to you, a salvation of grace simply according to His own good pleasure and He was and is obligated to you in no way. Your works apart from Him are all filthy rags and there is nothing that you can claim glory in!
As for defending the innocent, you are desperate and ridiculous in your assertion. As Christians we are called to defend the innocent but that does not detract from the fact that apart from Christ all social reform is a failure, all defense is failure apart from Him and the end of any defense should be us proclaiming the Gospel, as a matter of fact the Gospel needs to be proclaimed at any and all points!

gigantor1231 said...

I think this thread should come home! LOL

BlueDeacon said...

And what did your salvation cost you B.D., what part do you have in it? Did you pay something? If you read the word you will see that there was nothing you could give that Christ did not already own. Your salvation is a free gift to you, a salvation of grace simply according to His own good pleasure and He was and is obligated to you in no way.

That's true on its face. However, He saved me not for my sake but for His, because He wants to do things through me to glorify Himself. Scripture simply doesn't support the idea that we can be "saved" and just astroplane through life; He has "chores," as I heard a talk-show host call them years ago, for all of us. As for what it "cost me," remember that we're all spiritually bankrupt, so the Christian owes Him his very life, and nothing less.

As for defending the innocent, you are desperate and ridiculous in your assertion. As Christians we are called to defend the innocent but that does not detract from the fact that apart from Christ all social reform is a failure, all defense is failure apart from Him and the end of any defense should be us proclaiming the Gospel, as a matter of fact the Gospel needs to be proclaimed at any and all points!

With all due respect, you're talking out of both sides of your mouth and making zero sense in the process. Based on your posts I know that you do indeed support social reform -- if it doesn't cost you anything, that is. However, it's one thing to make strident speeches against abortion and the politicians who support such a right; it's another to live out the Gospel, taking the bull by the horns and putting in the hard work to foster cultural change that even they can appreciate. It's true that no "reform" will last until Jesus returns; however, our primary purpose as the Church is to show the world God's intent -- in essence, give it a taste of heaven, of how things should be. That would explain the bumper sticker "Jesus is coming -- look busy."

Deb_B said...

Blue

I originally wrote:
"First of all, if one has zero regard for the sanctity of human life, which Scripture makes abundantly clear begins at conception, it's a lock that is going to affect how such an individual would govern."

To which you [Blue] responded:
"Now who's being presumptuous? Truth be told, many anti-abortion
activists in the 1980s, and specially those connected with such groups as Operation Rescue, were extremely nasty toward anyone who didn't agree with their approach, and that attitude alienated people...."


WHAT??? With all due respect - and I do mean to be respectful in all of my comments here - what in the WORLD does Operation Rescue have to do with me and our present discussion in this thread?

Blue, this has become somewhat akin to trying to catch the wind, in a bizarre manner of speaking. I'd prefer not to sow to the wind and reap the whirlwind ... so, methinks we've reached the point of Reductio ad absurdum, the Latin phrase which translates to “reduction to the absurd”.

Further elaborated on thusly:
"The 'reductio' describes an argumentative tactic where the benefit of the doubt is given to the argument. From there it is demonstrated that it leads to an absurd conclusion.

"This type of argument can be used both constructively and fallaciously. The fallacious side of it assumes that the absurd conclusion is truly absurd in that it must be wrong."


First, we are GOP apologists, then either gullible dupes, or simply close-minded enough to indulge ourselves in only those publications which cater to our Scripture-based worldviews, otherwise alleged to be the conspiratorial "conservative agenda".

NOW, we are somehow responsible for those who chose to allow the 1980's ruminations of Randy and Operation Rescue to alienate them from Christ and Him crucified, resurrected, ascended and seated at the right hand of God, the Father?

Unfortunately, there are nasty, unkind and very un-Christlike individuals all around us. When it is given to man to die once and then face the judgment, I don't think Jehovah God will be accepting those arguments and excuses on THAT day.

So we best quit indulging and pandering to self and making and using those excuses in this present age ... before we step off into all eternity and the age to come.

Come, come and die to self daily. Lay down all the arguments and excuses, take up the cross...

"And calling the crowd to him with his disciples, he said to them, 'If anyone would come after me, let him deny himself and take up his cross and follow me. For whoever would save his life will lose it, but whoever loses his life for my sake and the gospel’s will save it. For what does it profit a man to gain the whole world and forfeit his soul? For what can a man give in return for his soul? For whoever is ashamed of me and of my words in this adulterous and sinful generation, of him will the Son of Man also be ashamed when he comes in the glory of his Father with the holy angels.'” [Mark 8:34-38]

The Spokesman said...

Steve,

I appreciate your ministry and I didn't intend to derail this thread topic. I am glad that LG66 in her response to Gig sent you a P.S. and said, "I know that my above comment is OT" because deb_b said to me after referencing Malachi 3:16, "I wander a bit OT hereafter, methinks... and I honestly thought she meant "Old Testament." :)

So I will attempt to elucidate my position concerning this topic as briefly as possible and address a few more issues that have cropped up.

1. I wouldn't have agreed with a "faith forum" even if either John MacArthur or Albert Mohler had been its moderator because that is not the purpose of the church and it fails the test of biblical fidelity to sound ecclesiology and pastoral responsibility.

2. In reference to my interpretation of Titus 1:16 you said, "As you know, Paul is not speaking here of professing believers in the Lord Jesus Christ; these "professors" for all practical purposes were practical atheists as John Gill describes. They flaunted a knowledge of God; but that knowledge was merely notional and hypocritical for there was no fruit associated with genuine conversion whatsoever.

This verse, rightly divided, does not apply to Rick Warren at all.


Both Warren Wiersbe and John MacArthur see this verse as referring to false teachers inside the church who through their disobedience to God's Word betray their false profession of faith (see their commentaries on Titus). The immediate context of this passage will not allow for any other interpretation and the overall context of Scripture establishes and affirms this biblical principle (see my response to deb_b at 08:54 for a further explanation).

3. You said, "The one thing I would ask of you is that the constant judgments of Warren's eternal life be stopped. It is beyond your scope to do so, it is unbiblical to do so, but also it is unprofitable to do so.

Is it possible to discern someone as a false prophet without at the same time implying that the person in his or her current condition is lost?

Is it beyond our scope to know whether or not a person is either a true or a false prophet/teacher? No! It is commanded in the Bible (see 1 John 4:1).

Is it unbiblical to do so? No! It is commended in the Bible (see Revelation 2:2).

Is it unprofitable to do so? No! (see Acts 20:28-31 and 2 John 7-11)

Maybe on another thread we could discuss this in more detail.

Grace and peace,
Olan

gigantor1231 said...

B.D.

I never said that there was not work to do or fruit to bare, evidence of true salvation. I said that it costs you nothing and your works do nothing to obtain or maintain your salvation. Once saved you are completely saved. Your works should be a labor of love and appreciation of what Christ did for you, working out your salvation. In so doing these works and baring these fruits you understand that there is no glory and or recognition to you all the glory goes to Him, you decrease that He might increase.

I have not sat here and harped on the defense of the innocent as you have asserted, you seem to want to put words in my mouth that have never been there so you can have your due. Give me a break, talking out of both sides of my mouth. Do you understand the forked tongue? It is a forgone conclusion that we defend the innocent and that defense is absolutely no guarantee of social reform. As I said before there is no reform apart from Christ.

BlueDeacon said...

With all due respect - and I do mean to be respectful in all of my comments here - what in the WORLD does Operation Rescue have to do with me and our present discussion in this thread?

More than you might believe. The attitude is exactly the same in that the only issue is abortion being so bad that "those who oppose our righteous efforts to get rid of it are the lowest of scum." And how does that bring glory to God?

First, we are GOP apologists, then either gullible dupes, or simply close-minded enough to indulge ourselves in only those publications which cater to our Scripture-based worldviews, otherwise alleged to be the conspiratorial "conservative agenda".

If you knew what I knew, you might come to the very same conclusions. Much of the "world," BTW, has already done so -- it's a case of our being as gentle as serpents and as wise as doves. And BTW, much of that worldview is ideological, not Scripture-based.

NOW, we are somehow responsible for those who chose to allow the 1980's ruminations of Randy and Operation Rescue to alienate them from Christ and Him crucified, resurrected, ascended and seated at the right hand of God, the Father?

You best believe we are, at least to some extent, by not holding them accountable for their actions -- after all, they claimed to be fellow believers but were misrepreseting the Gospel. Because I've always understood that I jump on people right quick when I see something I know to be wrong. After all, that's what some of us claimed in denouncing Rick Warren earlier on this thread (even though I would question the motives of some).

It is a forgone conclusion that we defend the innocent and that defense is absolutely no guarantee of social reform. As I said before there is no reform apart from Christ.

You're still not making any sense. Defending the innocent isn't social reform?

littlegal_66 said...

From gigantor: "I think this thread should come home! LOL."

Now that was pretty funny. Unless we dropped a couple of loaves of bread crumbs along the way, I think we've taken enough turns and twists, I'm afraid that I'm not sure this prodigal thread can even find its way home!! :-)

It's been a good journey, though.

gigantor1231 said...

B.D.

Defending the innocent is "no guarantee of social reform" many times it is defense against reform, not all reform is right reform. Many times those that defend the innocent stand alone and they stand against societies deformed and sick reforms. Perhaps that stand against the wrongs of society can inspire reform but usually it is met with persecution because of it's lack of popularity with society.
Knowing Christ is the only true reform that there is, being known by Christ is the only reform that can change the hearts of men and influence society. If one is not known by or does not know Christ then any reform is simply false reform!

BlueDeacon said...

Perhaps that stand against the wrongs of society can inspire reform but usually it is met with persecution because of its lack of popularity with society.

Would you say that about the civil-rights movement, which by your definition WAS true reform (because, in its day, was very unpopular) because it was Biblically-based? Would you call that a waste of time?

gigantor1231 said...

B.D.

Obviously the Civil rights movement was not as unpopular as you make it out to be. It was in it's time when it came and because of that it was successful in many ways. However, it has been far from perfect or just, because it has been primarily driven by man's selfish desires and used to attain rights far above and beyond what is available to all people in society. In essence, while one of it's original intents was to tare down racial barriers and social class separation, it has further stratified and classified society. As I have said before, until all men know and trust Christ there will be no true reform, it will be like putting a band aid on a cancerous lesion, it will cover it for a while, maybe it will help with the rotten smell but soon it will be back in all of it's ugliness.

BlueDeacon said...

Obviously the Civil rights movement was not as unpopular as you make it out to be.

Do you realize that people died fighting for the rights of others? Murdered in cold blood? And that King is still despised in some precints?

In essence, while one of it's original intents was to tare down racial barriers and social class separation, it has further stratified and classified society.

How?

SJ Camp said...

To All:
Getting this thread back on track :-); let's begin here with a few questions:

1. Do you think that Warren's questions were incisive and relevant to the coming election and fair to each candidate?

2. Do you think they represented a biblical worldview?

3. If not, why not?

4. Did it trouble you this was held in a church?

5. If so, would you be equally as troubled if the church building were used for a conference or concert?

Grace and peace,
Steve
2 Cor. 4:5-7

gigantor1231 said...

D.B.

"Do you realize that people died fighting for the rights of others? Murdered in cold blood? And that King is still despised in some precints?"

And this happens in pretty much every reform movement! What is your point? This is not a characteristic of the Civil Rights movement in the United States. Do anything and someone, somewhere will hate you for it.

How has the Civil Rights movement helped or made things better? The answer is that it has just made the resistance to it less popular and many times against the law. Resist and we will accuse you of discrimination. The Civil Rights movement has actually created it's own class of wealthy poor, they are called welfare recipients that have learned how to abuse the system and it is more common than not. Blacks still hate whites in ever increasing numbers and white supremacist and race groups are as strong as ever, they are just not above ground. I agree that it has changed things and some things for the apparent better but over all we have the same old problems, they are just dressed up differently

Here is the question that I have for you; You said that the Civil Rights movement of the 60's was biblical in it's basis. Please give me chapter and verse on that and explain to me how this was a God ordained mandate. Please show me the Godly fruit that has been bore from it and the souls that have come to Christ. Please show me how it has brought God glory with respect to drawing men to Christ.
I do not think that the civil rights was necessarily a waste of time I just do not believe that it was done with the glory of God in mind. I think it was simply a man centered social movement. Not that there were not Godly men with Godly intent, the things they did may have been blessed of
God but for the most part the movement was man centered.
I look forward to hearing you answer the questions that I have asked. I am more than willing to be educated more in depth on this topic.

littlegal_66 said...

Well, where'd everybody go?
The captain returns to the vessel to inspect the deckhands and get us back to our original task of swabbing the deck, and most of the crew jumps ship?
:-) Just teasing.

I probably won't do very well, but I'll try to answer the questions as best I can from my perspective.

1. I think I probably gave my answer above to this one, but since finding it in the sea of comments would be like nailing jell-o to the wall, I'll just re-post it here, with a bit of elaboration: "Rick Warren asked the candidates questions similar in content to what I would have liked to ask the candidates, given an opportunity. IOW, his unique positioning/notoriety actually allowed him the opportunity, from a Christian's perspective, to ask questions I as an informed Christian voter wanted answers to--questions that otherwise may have gone unanswered--not politically correct, non-offensive, "taboo" questions that had to be pre-approved by a panel of network censors. "

2. For the most part.

3. N/A

4. It would trouble me if he had held it at another church, or in a secular forum. Personally, I feel that by holding it at Saddleback, he was a better steward of what his fellowship of believers has been blessed with than if he had rented a public facility and held it there. (My understanding is that as it was, Saddleback ponied up 3 figures a couple of times over to host the event, and that the exorbitant ticket prices were mainly to offset the expenses). He has immediate access to a 5,000 seat facility, and he may as well use it, instead of holding it at another church or venue. However, I would have been troubled had it been held on the Lord's Day.

5. Not really applicable based on my response to #4.

BlueDeacon said...

The Civil Rights movement has actually created it's own class of wealthy poor, they are called welfare recipients that have learned how to abuse the system and it is more common than not. Blacks still hate whites in ever increasing numbers and white supremacist and race groups are as strong as ever, they are just not above ground.

The civil-rights movement was the result of revival meetings in conservative black churches, so any "evangelistic" work had already taken place by the time things got started. King regularly preached against the kind of anti-white resentment and personal irresponsibility you mentioned -- I have many of his sermons, so I know this is the case. Sure, there's still racial hatred out there but it's now recognized as sin. What you're complaining about had nothing to do with the movement, and in fact race groups (especially the Ku Klux Klan) don't have anywhere near the power they once did.

You said that the Civil Rights movement of the 60's was biblical in it's basis. Please give me chapter and verse on that and explain to me how this was a God ordained mandate. Please show me the Godly fruit that has been bore from it and the souls that have come to Christ.

Matthew 5 should suffice. And BTW, I am one person who was won to Christ because of that example (a conservative white church went "nonviolent" on me, just as he did in the South), and King is used as an evangelism tool at my church. I suggest you investigate him yourself, and you will find nothing in his methodology that contradicts the Word of God. In fact, Billy Graham was one of his early supporters and about the only evangelical of that day who did.

thenextreformation said...

Be sure to VOTE; but then accept the results from the only true Sovereign God who is the One who will set men in places of power and leadership over the affairs of men for His own purpose and glory. Amen?


Steve
What would you say to someone who does not see that either candidate is qualified, and prefers to vote for someone else? DO you think we as believers can pick someone we believe more qualified, or should we submit to the two options presented to us?

Paul C. Quillman

littlegal_66 said...

BTW, without the Saddleback forum, we wouldn't have this amazing video montage, which I, upon viewing, wanted to nickname, "Speechless in the Saddle."

gigantor1231 said...

B.D.

Read Mt. 5, I assume that you are referring to the Beatitudes primarily? I have to be honest, I am disappointed if that is all you have! You do not even bother to give a simple explanation. I think that perhaps you are grasping as straws. I know that Dr. King spoke from this passage and I am certain that he understood the spiritual application as well as the fact that it only applies to Christ's redeemed! It definitely is no mandate for social reform and I think that you will really have to twist God's word in order to come to fit what you want, I am not surprised though. As I said the Civil rights movement while it did good in some aspects was simply a event driven and designed by man.

As for Dr. Kings methods, I will look more in depth into that. From what I have studied of him he seems to have been a man that did not share the exclusivity of the movement that is portrayed today by many of it's proponents. I do not know for certain but I do hope that he truly held to what he said in his I have a dream speech on the steps of the Lincoln memorial and that is that he looked forward to the day that his children and all children were not judged by the color of their skin but by the content of their character! I do not see this in those who say the espouse what Dr. King stood for.

jen elslager said...

Littlegal_66:

ROTFLOL!!

SJ Camp said...

littlegal
I agree with Jen. Obama has never been more clear :-).

See I told you all Warren did a good job as moderator!

Campius

SJ Camp said...

Paul
Steve
What would you say to someone who does not see that either candidate is qualified, and prefers to vote for someone else?


Great question.

Be mindful that casting your vote elsewhere than behind one of the candidates of party affiliation usually ends up splitting the support of your party's primary candidate even thought you may not be completely convinced of all his positions. The end result could benefit the opposing party's candidate to a greater degree.

But the important thing is to stay informed, vote, be involved, and leave the results to God. To not vote is to remain undecided - something a Christian should never be.

DO you think we as believers can pick someone we believe more qualified, or should we submit to the two options presented to us?

The many primaries prior to presumptive nominees being chosen vet out the candidates through very specific forums and debates for this precise reason.

Do you mind sharing with us here an example in this election cycle you might be thinking of?

This is what the faith forum did for me: it clearly demonstrated a stark contrast between the two candidates and caused me to think afresh about my candidate of choice. I am a conservative, always have been, and my family has deep ties to the Republican Party. But I personally benefited from hearing McCain first hand in direct comparison to Barack. It confirmed much to me.

Thanks for staying on topic here Paul. It is appreciated.

Steve

SJ Camp said...

And we must remember, that our right to vote was purchased by the blood of former generations. It should not be treated lightly or with a casual attitude.

This is a way in which we can love our neighbor and as citizens voice our convictions. But always keeping in view that which is eternal first as citizens of heaven.

BlueDeacon said...

gigantor123 -- From your posts I can tell you know absolutely nothing about the spiritual connection to the civil-rights movement, so I won't go any further with it. For openers, the South was mostly "Christian," so it would have been very appropriate for him to use Scripture to do what it did. And God did get the glory in the end. (However, most conservatives with "good theology" still don't get it.)

Anyway, we got off-track with this discussion, which of course was comparing McCain to Obama at Rick Warren's church last week. My point is and was that we ought not to place too much weight on the words of a politician, especially one we might agree with, because there's a tendency, especially in Christian circles, to become attached to candidates and officeholders as "ours," as if our goal is to wield worldly power. The New Yorker magazine in May ran a long article about the demise of the conservative movement in which one of the Republicans interviewed suggested that the GOP start up something like the Democratic Leadership Council to tell a number of its most passionate constituencies to "dial it down" so that it can win elections -- which of course won't go over too well with evangelicals. Even Warren himself has broadened his concerns from the "hot-button issues" that evangelicals have traditionally championed. (I wonder if some of the resentment toward him is based on that.)

The Spokesman said...

SJ CAMP: See I told you all Warren did a good job as moderator!

But you never have established it as having biblical fidelity - and you can't!

SJ CAMP: To not vote is to remain undecided - something a Christian should never be.

To not vote may be far more "decided" and based on someone's biblical convictions than you care to admit and then would you go on to counsel your opinion as though it is biblically supported? What I see coming out of this has more to do with American patriotism than it does with biblical Christianity. We're more concerned with treading on the blood of our soldiers than we are with treading on the blood of our Savior.

Steve I have a couple of questions:
1. Is someone unchristian because he or she doesn't vote?
2. If someone who is Christian doesn't vote, based on his or her convictions, is he or she "undecided" and somehow not up to par as to what a Christian ought to be?

SJ Camp said...

the spokesman
Steve I have a couple of questions: 1. Is someone unchristian because he or she doesn't vote?

Of course not; but it doesn't reflect informed, valued citizenship (love of neighbor) to just "sit this election cycle out because there is not a candidate that I really like..."

2. If someone who is Christian doesn't vote, based on his or her convictions, is he or she "undecided" and somehow not up to par as to what a Christian ought to be?

I can't think in this election this year of a scenario where a Christian shouldn't vote because of convictions. There are many candidates listed on the ballot though only the two primary candidates receive the lionshare of the votes - one from each party.

Not voting usually reflects apathy - not conviction.

Lastly, as to biblical fidelity about the faith forum, we could apply the principles of Scripture here. I am not one to have championed political events throughout the years. In fact, I think in the classic religious right/Christian coalition mentality it demeans the church and turns the body of Christ into a religious PAC - trying to organize Christians to muscle politicians to pass family values legislation.

I have opposed that vigorously and written about that very strongly here for almost four years. Political remedy for moral malady falls short on spiritual issues.

I see this faith forum differently. It was not an organized Christian coalition type event to overthrow a certain political suasion that affects our perceived religious rights. It was not held on the Lord's Day and therefore did not supplant the worship of God's people or turn the worship service into a political rally.

It was a fair, civil, gracious event that was asking key questions - the same questions - of both candidates from a biblical worldview. Dr. Mohler recognized this point as well. It was a very good demonstration of Christians being salt and light in culture; of applying the truth of Scripture to important issues in community (abortion, war, marriage, etc.), and reflects what we support of the veracity and sufficiency of Scripture - that it is "sufficient for all matters of life and godliness."

When a Christian leader appears on Larry King (and many have that you and I would both admire) and is asked about political issues, social issues, educational issues, etc. and can answer from a biblical worldview - we applaud it and thank the Lord for it.

I believe this event, though absolutely unique, was such an event. It was a "mid week event" - not a worship service; it was a pastor of a local church applying biblical principles to pressing issues of the day in his probing questions; and it was done with great civility of spirit.

I agree with Dr.Mohler as well that the questions were asked in a way that reflected a biblical worldview, but asked in a different way then maybe how these candidates had been asked in the past.

It was informative; helpful to community; respectful to each candidate; from a biblical worldview, and it didn't have to be politically correct in order to have a voice.

Grace and peace,
Steve

The Spokesman said...

2. If someone who is Christian doesn't vote, based on his or her convictions, is he or she "undecided" and somehow not up to par as to what a Christian ought to be?

SJ CAMP: Not voting usually reflects apathy - not conviction.

So the Christian who doesn't vote is not up to par as to what a Christian ought to be and is apathetic.

Steve, never has the Word of God instructed us that exercising some form of collective and informative political vote is what Jesus meant by, and how we are to be, the salt of the earth and how we are to show our expression of "loving our neighbor."

Here are my convictions on this subject from what I believe the believe the Bible teaches and its application:

(1) Morality is not obtained by legislation or demonstration but wherever the Gospel is preached in power and disciples are made who in turn witness to the lost in society. In Ephesus, people didn't stop purchasing idols because Paul picketed the temple of Diana or staged anti-idolatry rallies or lobbied Rome for legislation against it - many stopped purchasing idols because Paul taught the truth, people got saved, they in turn shared the Gospel, more and more people got converted, and fewer and fewer customers were available (see Acts 19:23-27).

(2)Today's church seems to be more interested in imposing God's standards in the courthouse than they are in the church-house. When churches will not operate by the guidelines that God has given in His Word for their government (biblically qualified leaders), for their discipline (biblically maintained purity), and for their exemplary conduct in society (biblically adorned doctrine), then they have no right to impose God's standards on others - or else it is hypocrisy and the world takes note of it!

I believe that being the salt of the earth and the light of the world has more to do with moral character based on sanctification flowing from justification in the Lord than moral principles based on legislation. Are we the salt of the earth and the light of the world because we legislate morality or because we live it?

I propose that living morally has a far greater impact than legislating morality. It is the State's God-given responsibility to legislate morality. It is the Church's God-given responsibility to live morally. Therefore even the Church is called to be subject to the State (Romans 13:1-7) and is not to usurp the God-given authority of the State. Likewise God has called the Church to live morally (Romans 13:8-14) and the State is not to undermine the responsibility of the Church by legislating immoral laws.

SJ Camp said...

Olan
Steve, never has the Word of God instructed us that exercising some form of collective and informative political vote is what Jesus meant by, and how we are to be, the salt of the earth

I didn't say that nor do I believe that. But applying biblical principles to everyday life, including forums such as this one, and addressing subjects that do effect us all can be a way to express love of neighbor. Samuel Rutherford is a great case in point on this.

(1) Morality is not obtained by legislation or demonstration but wherever the Gospel is preached in power and disciples are made who in turn witness to the lost in society.

I agree with this and have not in any manner affirmed the contrary. BUT, the laws of this land are meant to restrain evil (Roms. 13:1-7) and those who enforce them. As Sproul points out, "this is a form of legislating morality."

I believe that being the salt of the earth and the light of the world has more to do with moral character based on sanctification flowing from justification in the Lord than moral principles based on legislation.

Again, I fully agree and have never represented the contrary here. I have defended this against the ECB's of our day.

One expression of that moral living flowing from the sanctified life as a result of justification by faith can be applying a biblical worldview on the issues facing our families today in culture in the marketplace. We should stand for what is honoring to God...

I agree with most of your comment here brother. I think you may have misunderstood my previous post. Warren was applying biblical principles to the issues of the day, clearly within the scope of the local church. He was not legislating morality nor conducting an election nor was he amassing believers in some sort of values voter assembly against any one candidate.

Grace and peace to you,
Steve
Col. 3:23-24

gigantor1231 said...

B.D.

You said

'gigantor1231 -- From your posts I can tell you know absolutely nothing about the spiritual connection to the civil-rights movement, so I won't go any further with it. For openers, the South was mostly "Christian," so it would have been very appropriate for him to use Scripture to do what it did. And God did get the glory in the end. (However, most conservatives with "good theology" still don't get it.)'

I asked you, encouraged you to teach me what you know and this is how you respond. My conclusion is that either you have some bitter seed in yourself, or this event is not really all that important to you. You have done nothing to support what you have claimed, nor have you shown me that their is any spiritual significance to the civil rights movement, so my ignorance is most likely not ignorance at all but it is accurate. I will continue to educate myself on the things that come into my life and I will willingly learn from others who have the knowledge that they can share and support intelligently. I guess I must remain ignorant to your little interpretation of history.

So, lets get back on topic!

BlueDeacon said...

My conclusion is that either you have some bitter seed in yourself, or this event is not really all that important to you. You have done nothing to support what you have claimed, nor have you shown me that their is any spiritual significance to the civil rights movement, so my ignorance is most likely not ignorance at all but it is accurate.

There is nothing I can do to change your mind; you've made that perfectly clear by a number of your comments -- that it "has been primarily driven by man's selfish desires and used to attain rights far above and beyond what is available to all people in society" and "further stratified and classified society," both of which are just plain false, especially when you consider the South of that day. That attitude itself represents not only resentment but a form of entitlement that conservative ideologues have demonstrated when they began taking aim at the movement in the mid-1960s. It is also totally unbiblical, as I read in Scripture that we should show as much concern for others as we do for ourselves (Philippians 2:4).

This is ultimately the issue we're looking at with this or any election -- are we concerned only with getting "ours," or do we want to bless others and, in the process, make the Kingdom attractive to non-believers? We can talk all we want about "Biblical truth," but unless it is acted upon it becomes dead religion that blasphemes a holy and living God.

littlegal_66 said...

"It was a very good demonstration of Christians being salt and light in culture; of applying the truth of Scripture to important issues in community (abortion, war, marriage, etc.), and reflects what we support of the veracity and sufficiency of Scripture - that it is "sufficient for all matters of life and godliness.
One expression of that moral living flowing from the sanctified life as a result of justification by faith can be applying a biblical worldview on the issues facing our families today in culture in the marketplace. We should stand for what is honoring to God..."

Exactly, Stephanus.

This may have been posted previously on an alternate COT thread, but could I allow Charles Spurgeon to weigh in on this through my keyboard today?
"I long for the day when the precepts of the Christian religion shall be the rule among all classes of men, in all transactions. I often hear it said, 'Do not bring religion into politics.' This is precisely where it ought to be brought and set there in the face of all men as on a candlestick. I would have the Cabinet and the members of Parliament do the work of the nation as before the Lord, and I would have the nation, either in making war or peace, consider the matter by the light of righteousness."
---Charles H. Spurgeon, "Metropolitan Tabernacle Pulpit Sermons -Volume 27," Sermon 1594 ("The Candle"); Copyright 1973, Pilgrim Publishers

littlegal_66 said...

That should read, "Pilgrim Publications," not "Publishers."

Deb_B said...

littlegal_66
"...but could I allow Charles Spurgeon to weigh in on this through my keyboard today?"

Yet another of Spurgeon's excellent little nuggets!

We do indeed "stand upon the shoulders of spiritual giants".

Thank you, m'dear.

Back to answering the questions Campi posed...

The Spokesman said...

Steve, I want to address a few things in your last response to mine but I want to take them one at a time so that we can work through the issues starting with one issue in my previous post that hasn't been resolved:

Spokesman: 2. If someone who is Christian doesn't vote, based on his or her convictions, is he or she "undecided" and somehow not up to par as to what a Christian ought to be?

SJ CAMP: Not voting usually reflects apathy - not conviction.

So the Christian who doesn't vote is not up to par as to what a Christian ought to be and is apathetic.

thenextreformation said...

Steve:

Do you mind sharing with us here an example in this election cycle you might be thinking of?


Paul
I jokingly refer to politics as ine of my addictions. For proof of this, I have seen every convention from both parties since 1984, when I was 8. I have seen most of the debates. One of the things I have noticed in 25 years of watching politics is that by the time someone runs for POTUS, anything they say that is inconsistant with their history is pandering.

Like you, I have been a Republican all of my life. I find that political conservativism is far closer to Biblical thinking than liberalism. At one time, my politics informed my faith, but the Lord was longsuffering, and because of His chasening, Scripture informs my politics now.

This political has been abnormally early and long. I evaluated each candidate on both sides. Another anomily this cycle was that I only found one candidate with whom I was ideologically compatable, where in previous cycles, I could find at least two. John Mc Cain was not that candidate. His history over the last 10 years has been marked by legislation that I believe are anti-thetical to the Constitution. He has espoused positions that have ripple effects into other issues that are connected to core principles in the Constitution. Some of these positions include "Campaign Finance Reform", immigration, andironmentalism (as opposed to Biblical stewardship). These and more make it very difficult to support him as a candidate.

I did not see the Saddleback Forum. When I heard about the forum, I believed that, if handled properly, Warren ould be the right man to pull this off, and hearing from many who did watch it, I believe he was. I suspeted that Obama would pander for evangellical votes, and fool some (Jim Wallis, Brian M Laren). I also suspeted that Mc Cain was looking to put evangellicals at ease with his candidacy. The audio I have heard from both men seems to confirm that, although that evaluation may be above my pay grade. What I heard from Mc Cain sounded presidential and commanding, and um...Obama, er...um...well I...you know...weak.

I believe that the concerns I have about Mc Cain are great enough to pass him by when it comes time in November. At this point, I still will vote for Republicans, although they will not be the nominees for POTUS and VPOTUS. I do understand that in doing so, Obama has an easier time of winning, however, voting for the lesser of two evils simply is not intellectually satisfying.

I find the fact that the Lord sets up and brings downs kings and rulers so very comforting, escicially this cycle. My hope is that my motivations for voting for a different candidate are not selfish, rather that they are the product of much prayer, research, and thinking.

I do understand why most Republicans will vote for Mc Cain, and truely do not hold anyone in judgement for such a vote. The likely alternative is not a happy one. However, there comes a point where a line must be drawn, and we must say "No further", and I think that Mc Cain is further than I can go.

Grace and Peace
Paul C. Quillman

BlueDeacon said...

Paul -- I remember you from the Sojourners blog.

What I heard from McCain sounded presidential and commanding, and um...Obama, er...um...well I...you know...weak.

As can be expected -- I didn't see it either, but I understand that McCain basically gave a stump speech to a sympathetic audience. And that worries me -- just say the right words with the right strength and they'll eat out of your hand. But that happens when Christians focus only on a handful of issues, none of them concerning what's good for as many people as possible (which they conveniently but inaccurately call "socialism").

I find the fact that the Lord sets up and brings downs kings and rulers so very comforting, especially this cycle. My hope is that my motivations for voting for a different candidate are not selfish, rather that they are the product of much prayer, research, and thinking.

Here's the problem: You'll find no "perfect" candidate, ever. The closest I've ever found personally proved to be one of the biggest liars in modern political history, both on the state (mine) and national levels, and today I truly regret voting for him.

Furthermore, depending on how he/she was raised, everyone has a different lens through which he/she views Scripture, so the idea that it informs our politics doesn't say that much. Though I've been a Christian for nearly 30 years and grew up in a good strong church, I have never seen modern conservative ideology in the Bible and thus have never voted for a conservative Republican candidate. I just hope that we can come to some kind of understanding that we "see through a glass darkly" and have at least sufficient discernment that, perhaps, our pet ideologies are deficient in the light of Scripture.

thenextreformation said...

Blue Deacon: Paul -- I remember you from the Sojourners blog.

Paul: I use to post there, but they kicked me off when I acused Wallis of preaching a different gospel. I tried to build the case, but beliefnet is so buggy. Several times I tried to post, and it would multi-post for me, which also probably led to the excommunication as well. I have tried to resolve this with beliefnet, but have not been successful yet.


BD: And that worries me -- just say the right words with the right strength and they'll eat out of your hand.

Paul: That is what I call pandering. Not sure of Mc Cain was doing it, but Obama was on full display. I suspect that to some extend Mc Cain did a bit as well, but in that arena the temptation to do so must be great.

BD: But that happens when Christians focus only on a handful of issues, none of them concerning what's good for as many people as possible

Paul: Perhaps we should not look at what is "good for as many as possible". That too, is another form of pandering. Rather we should look to Sripture for how we should govern, and not the demands of the masses.


BD: Here's the problem: You'll find no "perfect" candidate, ever.

Paul: And the candidate I voted for in the primary is not perfect. There are a couple of issues I disagree with him on. However, one of those he repented of, and the other issue is not a deal breaker.

BD: Furthermore, depending on how he/she was raised, everyone has a different lens through which he/she views Scripture, so the idea that it informs our politics doesn't say that much.

Paul: I do not hold to the same lens that I was raised with. I am still conservative, probably more now than ever, but I no longer look for a political messiah. If we confess thatScripture is God's Word, and the only rule of faith and life, then we should have no problem looking to Scripture before we go to the voting booth. To do otherwise, is to compartmentalize the Gospel, which should never happen. The Gospel should affect every aspect of our lives, including our politics.

BD: I've been a Christian for nearly 30 years and grew up in a good strong church, I have never seen modern conservative ideology in the Bible and thus have never voted for a conservative Republican candidate.

Paul: I could make the case, but it would be far more lengthy than is appropriate here. Perhaps on my blog someday.


BD: I just hope that we can come to some kind of understanding that we "see through a glass darkly" and have at least sufficient discernment that, perhaps, our pet ideologies are deficient in the light of Scripture.


Paul: I do agree that we only see a dim reflection now, but that should never be an excuse to give up the pursuit of conforming our pet ideologies to that of Scripture. Let God be true and every man a liar. We should always be examining our thinking against Scripture, and tossing what is not congruent with Scripture.

Douglas said...

Was that video put together by a Christian? If so, shame on them. Are Christians spreading that video around the Internet? If so, shame on them. It is not funny at all. It is a mockery of Mr. Obama and Christians do not mock and scoff at other people do they? Sick? Sinful? Sad!!!

I think Mr. Obama will become the next president of the United States of America. God will give America what she needs. Judgment. I believe Rick Warren will become Mr. Obama's official theologian and the nations official pastor. God help America. God help us all. Christian's voting will not stop what God intends to do. Fiery tribulation, trials and persecution are heading America's way, don't you think?

Is America a nation that has been abandoned by God?

John MacArthur - USA Abandoned by God - Part 1 of 3 (You Tube)

John MacArthur - USA Abandoned by God - Part 2 of 3 (You Tube)

John MacArthur - USA Abandoned by God - Part 3 of 3 (You Tube)

Transcript of the above.

The Gospel According to Warren

Which, of course, is no gospel at all. Rick Warren does not preach and proclaim the full-orbed, doctrinally sound, biblical Gospel on a regular and consistent basis. He preaches and proclaims his version of the Gospel, he has redefined the gospel to tickle the ears of his hearers. Yes, he does proclaim bits and pieces of the Gospel but the truth he proclaims is so mixed with error that it deceives. The truth that it does contain can and will be used by God to save His people not because of Rick Warren's message and methods but in spite of them. After all is said and done God is sovereign isn't He? Only those that can see will see these facts. In the meantime, Rick Warren will continue on being deceived and deceiving others.

Check out Warren's preaching for last Sunday morning, his first message after his civil/faith forum:

The Kind of Leader America Needs
Taught By: Rick Warren
Date: Sunday, August 17, 2008

I thought when watching and listening to the so called praise and worship led by Rick Muchow that I was at a rock and roll concert or something, it was pure entertainment I reckon. Mr. Muchow was really grooving to the music, like some jazz, blues rocker or something rather than a worshiper of God? How old is he? The camera pans around and showed a woman not very modestly dress, thankfully it did not focus on her for too long other wise lust would have been a problem. More than a problem, sin. That's at about the 6 second mark into the video.

No Gospel in there I am afraid to say. Rick Warren uses the Scriptures as a textbook on leadership and the Bible is not a textbook on leadership. He goes on about pride but pride is evident in him in the opening statments he makes about his friends "Barak and John" after the roaring applause that greets him when he appears on stage. He is quick to cover it up though. Why preach on leadership to those people there on Sunday morning straight after his forum? Look at his notes and all the things he suggests people do. Legalistic "how to" stuff. Laying unnecessary burdens upon peoples back. Rick Warren wants total control. It is as plain as day that Rick Warren used John McCain and Barack Obama for his Purpose Driven Purposes. It is Rick Warren who has the most to gain and nothing to lose from all that. Brilliant. But Judgment Day is coming. Then there will be much trembling and quaking and undoing at God's Holy Word. True? I think there is not much fear of and holiness of God in many professing churches these days. The whole seeker sensitive/purpose driven movement goes on and on about leadership. The thing is, we are all sheep and we follow the Only Leader, The LORD Jesus Christ. The pastor's main role is to feed the sheep.

How many hundreds of thousands of dollars a year does it cost Rick Warren to retain the services of his Public Relations people, A. Larry Ross Communications? They are experts at painting Rick & Kay Warren in the best and brightest light possible. Did the LORD Jesus Christ need to retain the services of a Public Relations Company or did the LORD Jesus Christ rely solely upon the preaching of the gospel? People have to make special appointments with A. Larry Ross Communications for interview requests with Rick Warren. After all is said and done, Rick Warren is one very busy pastor, setting up his Purpose Driven Empire all around the globe. True?

1 Corinthians 13:1If I speak in the tongues of men and of angels, but have not love, I am a noisy gong or a clanging cymbal.

BlueDeacon said...

I use to post there, but they kicked me off when I accused Wallis of preaching a different gospel.

And it was completely inappropriate for you to do so.

Perhaps we should not look at what is "good for as many as possible". That too, is another form of pandering. Rather we should look to Scripture for how we should govern, and not the demands of the masses.

That is what the Scripture calls for -- I've always considered "law" the right ordering of relationships; without that understanding law has no practical meaning. But when you point that out people call you a socialist -- current conservative ideology calls for an extreme individualism coupled with a ghastly form of authoritarianism, which simply is not congruent with the Gospel.

We should always be examining our thinking against Scripture, and tossing what is not congruent with Scripture.

Well, would you accept someone like me, whose conscience will not let him vote conservative?

I think Mr. Obama will become the next president of the United States of America. God will give America what she needs. Judgment.

And Jeremiah Wright was pilloried for saying the exact same thing -- only in reverse.

Fiery tribulation, trials and persecution are heading America's way, don't you think?

At some point I would hope so, for the Christians' sake, that we be purified. Remember, God will not allow us to opt out of spiritual warfare, which is what the conservative agenda is all about.

Jim said...

I caught part of the Rick Warren / McCain / Obama broadcast live on the radio. I wasn’t too thrilled with the whole concept from when I first heard about it. And even though it’s hard to look at the transcripts and pinpoint exactly what it is, overall it left me with a bad taste in my mouth.

I think we have gotten a little “star struck” with the notion that an “evangelical leader” (if I may use the term very loosely) has become a “king maker” and that we Christians have a seat at the big table.

I think we need to step back and look at the gestalten effect of this entire event. After everything is said and done, it lends credence to the idea that we can (or should try to) change the world and that it is not a conflict of interests for Christians to rely heavily on the political process to make that change happen.

As we all know, Jesus completely ignored the political realm while physically here on earth (except for a brief “render unto Caesar”) even though His people were under the heel of one of the most brutal regimes to ever walk the earth: the Roman Empire.

And we are NOT called to change the world or even the United States…the world will always be antithetical to the things of God and its fate is set. What we are called to do is preach the “whole counsel of God” and let the Holy Spirit call whom He may to become citizens of a “better country.”

Of course, as with everything else, let your vote be guided by sound Biblical principles and a comprehensive understanding of the character of God. But don’t get distracted from your primary calling or subtly seduced into the political process.

The whole of idea “culture change” being the goal and buying into political ecumenicalism doesn’t happen all at once, but as with the frog in boiling water, a little at a time. And this was just one more step in that direction made to make the idea a little more palatable to “even the elect of God.”

BlueDeacon said...

And we are NOT called to change the world or even the United States…the world will always be antithetical to the things of God and its fate is set. What we are called to do is preach the “whole counsel of God” and let the Holy Spirit call whom He may to become citizens of a “better country.”

I hear what you're saying. That said, Christians did eventually bring down even the Roman Empire by not so much preaching the Word but living it out in their daily lives, which was in such contrast to the world about them that everyone had to notice. Doing so inevitably causes cultural change, albeit passively.

Unforunately, in our day and especially in America, being a "Christian" is a sign of respectability, what with churches being everywhere -- following Christ just doesn't have the adverse consequences here as in, say, mainland China. The Protestant Reformation was every bit about power politics as it was about recapturing historic Biblical faith, evidenced by the (literal) wars that took place in Europe in the 16th and 17th centuries, and the fallout even came to these shores in the 18th Century.

That's why I have a hard time with people being denounced as heretics, especially here, for not following a certain prescribed ideological process which confirms the "righteousness" of a certain theological viewpoint but blocks the work of the Holy Spirit in the sanctification process -- often I detect a lack of humility, an attitide which sabotages God's work. And if that be the case, our "witness" is threatened.

Bottom line, we Christians shouldn't cater to the world; that said, the world literally cannot cater to us.

The Spokesman said...

Steve,

I have been gone most of the day and it is late, but in order not to derail your thread on the DNC and Donald Miller I want to come back to this thread because in it you state that the Saddleback Forum was "right" and I believe it was wrong. If you genuinely feel that you have really established the rightness of it then so be it. But if you have you did it by sidestepping some points and issues that myself and others have raised. Is this thread closed or are you willing to take these issues one by one and really see what God's Word has to say? I am teachable whether you believe it or not, but I'm only persuaded by sound doctrine and sound logic - neither of which have you established on this subject.

Grace and peace,
Olan

Stan McCullars said...

The Spokesman,

What type of sound doctrine and sound logic are you looking for?

The Spokesman said...

Stan: What type of sound doctrine and sound logic are you looking for?

Fair question Stan, after all, one can call his or her interpretation of Scripture sound when it is not and their logic sound when it is not.

So to answer your question, I am looking for sound doctrine that does not violate either the passage's immediate context or the overall context of the Bible. And I am looking for sound arguments which do not violate the laws of logic and does not confuse categories.

For instance, it is neither sound doctrine nor sound logic to state in one place that someone cannot be a genuine believer based on his or her deeds and then contradict that by stating in another place that someone cannot be considered an unbeliever based on his or her deeds.

SJ CAMP@8:06: Barack is rated 100% by NARAL on pro-choice votes in 2005, 2006 & 2007. (Jan 2008). Do you know how radical your position has to be on all stages of abortion to receive a 100% rating from the National Association for the Repeal of Abortion Laws?

I would challenge Barack's claim to b being saved based upon this issue alone. No true believer in the Lord Jesus Christ could ever approve the slaughter of fully developed healthy babies through partial birth abortion or live abortion for those children who survive a failed abortion attempt.

I am not trying to be uncharitable to this man, but THIS is a profound stance to take and still claim to know the Giver of Life.


SJ CAMP @23:14: Let us be very careful not to call a professing brother in the Lord Jesus Christ a nonbeliever when he has not denied the true gospel or embraced a false one.

You see, there's a double standard going on here and we can determine and discern that Obama is not a true Christian based on his stance on abortion (and I totally agree) but we cannot determine and discern that Rick Warren isn't a false teacher unless he comes right out and clearly states that he denies Jesus Christ - SJ CAMP @8:29: So I ask again, where has he denied the essentials of the gospel: the Virgin birth, the sinless mediatorial life of Christ, penal substitutionary atonement, His bodily resurrection, the doctrine of the Trinity, sola fide, etc. THAT is the issue here. I don't know of any place he has done this.

Rick Warren is a deceived Southern Baptist preacher/false teacher, but he isn't stupid. And the Bible has much more to say in the area of discernment regarding counterfeits than just denying Christ by words - but also by works! 1 John is full of people who say the right things but don't do the right things and tells us that they are not children of God.

There are plenty more issues on this thread that have been side-stepped, but the example above violates both sound doctrine and sound logic.

SJ Camp said...

Olan
Good to have you still here discussing this and yes, I am willing to walk through your points of concern.

I don't believe in closing threads as a general principle. They usually have a shelf life of their own. If there is still interest on an issue and the discussion can be profitable from a biblical worldview - I will keep any thread open for as many days as necessary.

I appreciate you brother. May wrestling through this bring us closer as colaborers for Christ and His gospel.

Your for the Master's use,
Steve
Col. 3:23-24

Deb_B said...

" If there is still interest on an issue and the discussion can be profitable from a biblical worldview - I will keep any thread open for as many days as necessary."

Activity had died down and I wasn't certain the thread would be continued. I'd gone back to re-read/study how most of the Puritan pastors handled the times leading up to our own Revolution ... from the pulpit.

Very interesting, I must say. Still reading cross-references in that regard this morning. More later here on that if the thread continues.

SJ Camp said...

deb b
Please post some quotes and thoughts from the Puritans as you discover their views on this. That will be most helpful.

I also appreciate Hayden's comment from the other thread where he said: As far as the Warren forum, I agree with you. I heard Dr. Mohler (who is no fan of Warren) talk about it on his radio show and he also commended Warren without commending some of the trite that is taught at Saddleback. You struck a good balance.

Grace and peace,
Steve

BlueDeacon said...

And the Bible has much more to say in the area of discernment regarding counterfeits than just denying Christ by words - but also by works! 1 John is full of people who say the right things but don't do the right things and tells us that they are not children of God.

Not to beat a dead horse, but I don't understand what the theological beliefs of either Rick Warren or Barack Obama have to do with the topic, which was about the Saddleback forum a week-and-a-half ago. We should never forget that the Pharisees had their "theology" just right but completely missed the point -- which is why the LORD Incarnate Himself was consistently jumping down their throats. A former pastor of mine who left the "conservative" school decades ago said, very presciently, that a lot of people were focusing on heresy when the real problem was idolatry -- and, for that reason, even good "theology" can become a way to justify avoiding the clear commands of Scripture.

Besides, Scripture says that the way to determine whether someone truly believes is to look at his/her life. Is that person faithful to his/her spouse? Does he/she have a special love for the "the brethren"? Will he/she accept correction if needed? And so on, and so on ... The text for last Sunday's sermon at my church was Micah 6:8, which tells us "[T]o act justly and to love mercy and to walk humbly with [our] God." Also, from the parable of the wheat and the tares it should be clear that it's God's job, not ours, to root out false believers; He will expose them in due time. I for one am willing to let Him do what only He has the authorization to do because perhaps He has a greater purpose in mind by allowing them into the church in the first place.

The Spokesman said...

SJ CAMP: I appreciate you brother. May wrestling through this bring us closer as colaborers for Christ and His gospel.

Ditto and Amen!

More later!

littlegal_66 said...

deb b said: "I'd gone back to re-read/study how most of the Puritan pastors handled the times leading up to our own Revolution ... from the pulpit."

Exactly!

(How do you think I produced that Spurgeon quote way up yonder in this thread, LOL? Oh, I'd love to be able to quote the gifted theologian and others [of the Puritan era] from memory, but alas, 'tis not the case. I usually have to do a lot of digging around to find an appropriate quip).

I did read, but have not been able to validate it as yet, that he never endorsed candidates from the pulpit, but that he did expose (from the pulpit) the candidates that were less than "upstanding."

littlegal_66 said...

Of course, his (Spurgeon's) view was from across the big pond. :-)

The Spokesman said...

Steve,

As we begin this process of resolving these issues about the Saddleback Faith Forum, I genuinely want to deal with them biblically as per rule # 5. Titus 1:9 says, "instruct in sound doctrine and refute those who contradict." Though I allow diverse and vigorous discussion to take place here, unsound doctrine can assuage both orthopraxy and orthodoxy, and therefore, will be confronted fearlessly and refuted relentlessly when it is expressed.

Issue #1: There seems to be no room in what you see as a biblical world-view for non-participation in the political process based on the believer’s conviction from the Word of God that in so doing he or she is serving and loving the Lord (see Romans 14:5-12)

So again I ask: If someone who is Christian doesn't vote, based on his or her convictions, is he or she "undecided" and somehow not up to par as to what a Christian ought to be?

Deb_B said...

"Please post some quotes and thoughts from the Puritans as you discover their views on this."

I'm working on it and will do so shortly, with proper source citations for fellow "bibliomaniacs". ;-)

Those colonial Puritan views held and expressed by committed Christian leaders and pastors (who were often active political leaders as well), running all the way on down through most of the 1800's, certainly do not parallel the views being foisted off on the American public today.

Robert Charles Winthrop [1809-1894], US Congressman (excerpt from an address given while he was still the Speaker of the House of Representatives - source citation specifics follow):

"The voice of experience and the voice of our own reason speak but one language. … Both united in teaching us, that men may as well build their houses upon the sand and expect to see them stand, when the rains fall, and the winds blow, and the floods come, as to found free institutions upon any other basis than that of morality and virtue, of which the Word of God is the only authoritative rule, and the only adequate sanction.

"All societies of men must be governed in some way or other. The less they have of stringent State Government, the more they must have of individual self-government. The less they rely on public law or physical force, the more they must rely on private moral restraint.

"Men, in a word, must necessarily be controlled either by a power within them, or a power without them; either by the word of God, or by the strong arm of man; either by the Bible or by the bayonet.

"It may do for other countries, and other governments to talk about the State supporting religion. Here, under our own free institutions, it is Religion which must support the State."

[Winthrop, Robert Charles. May 28, 1849, in an address, entitled “Either by the Bible or the Bayonet,” at the Annual Meeting of the Massachusetts Bible Society in Boston. Addresses and Speeches on Various Occasions (Boston: Little, Brown & Company, 1852), p. 172]

Deb_B said...

littlegal...
"I usually have to do a lot of digging around to find an
appropriate quip...."


Aye, it was an excellent CHS gem you uncovered!

If I ever read it - and I am a voracious reader - I can generally remember the gist of a particular quote ... it's going back and locating the specific book or manuscript copy I originally read the "quotable quote" I'm trying to find again in!

SJ Camp said...

the spokesman
Let's begin here.

Q1: What is your biblical reasoning for prohibiting a pastor of a church from engaging leaders within community from a biblical worldview on the issues of the day when that engagement does not prohibit or substitute the worship of God on the Lord's Day or violate the command of Scripture?

Thank you,
Steve
Col. 3:23-24

gigantor1231 said...

S.J.

Don't you think that it would be courteous to answer the question that Olan re posed at the end of his last post, before you ask him your question?

Deb_B said...

(Source citations always follow at the bottom, FYI.)

As I continue re-reading, re-visting our American history from shortly before the American Revolution forward, I'm always stunned at how little time has really elapsed from then, the founding of America Constitutionally, to where we, as a nation, are today.

In an 'Election Sermon' given at Charleston, Massachusetts, April 25, 1799, Jedediah Morse stated:

"To the kindly influence of Christianity we owe that degree of civil freedom, and political and social happiness which mankind now enjoys. In proportion as the genuine effects of Christianity are diminished in any nation, either through unbelief, or the corruption of its doctrines, or the neglect of its institutions; in the same proportion will the people of that nation recede from the blessings of genuine freedom, and approximate the miseries of complete despotism.

"I hold this to be a truth confirmed by experience. If so, it follows, that all efforts to destroy the foundations of our holy religion, ultimately tend to the subversion also of our political freedom and happiness.

"Whenever the pillars of Christianity shall be overthrown, our present republican forms of government, and all the blessings which flow from them, must fall with them."

Who was Jedediah Morse? [1761–1826] He was a pioneer American educator and geographer, referred to as the “Father of American Geography.” His son, Samuel, invented the telegraph and the Morse Code. Jedediah Morse taught in the New Haven schools and set a standard for American Geography. He authored numerous books and founded the New England Tract Society in 1814 and The American Bible Society in 1816. He was a member of the American Board of Commissioners for Foreign Missions from 1811–19 as well.

[April 25, 1799, in Jedediah Morse’s Election Sermon given at Charleston, Mass., taken from an original in the Evans collection compiled by the American Antiquarian Society. Verna M. Hall, Christian History of the Constitution of the United States of America (San Francisco: Foundation for America Christian Education, 1975), pp. v, 145.]

SJ Camp said...

G-Man
Don't you think that it would be courteous to answer the question that Olan re posed at the end of his last post, before you ask him your question?

No.

This is my blog brother and I will set the order of this issue. We will begin with my question above.

Steve

gigantor1231 said...

S.J.

I see! I did not realize that it was a issue of control. I apologize.

Deb_B said...

Having temporarily given up searching for this particular quote [follows], it popped up unexpectedly where I least expected to find it ... in one of those delightfully serendipitous moments.

This is probably one of the single most insightful peeks into the beginnings and prosecution of our American Revolution ... and leaves little doubt who the King and many in England's Parliament viewed as the instigators/facilitators thereof.

To wit:

"...Let it be especially remembered that the Puritans, who formed the great bulk of the settlers in New England, brought with them a Calvinistic Protestantism, that they were truly devoted to the doctrines of the great Reformers, that they had an aversion for formalism and oppression whether in the Church or in the State, and that in New England Calvinism remained the ruling theology throughout the entire Colonial period.

"With this background we shall not be surprised to find that the Presbyterians took a very prominent part in the American Revolution. Our own historian Bancroft says: 'The Revolution of 1776, so far as it was affected by religion, was a Presbyterian measure. It was the natural outgrowth of the principles which the Presbyterianism of the Old World planted in her sons, the English Puritans, the Scotch Covenanters, the French Huguenots, the Dutch Calvinists, and the Presbyterians of Ulster.'

"So intense, universal, and aggressive were the Presbyterians in their zeal for liberty that the war was spoken of in England as 'The Presbyterian Rebellion.'

"An ardent colonial supporter of King George III wrote home: 'I fix all the blame for these extraordinary proceedings upon the Presbyterians. They have been the chief and principal instruments in all these flaming measures. They always do and ever will act against government from that restless and turbulent anti-monarchial spirit which has always distinguished them everywhere.'

"When the news of 'these extraordinary proceedings' reached England, Prime Minister Horace Walpole said in Parliament, 'Cousin America has run off with a Presbyterian parson.'"

"...History is eloquent in declaring that American democracy was born of Christianity and that that [sic] Christianity was Calvinism. The great Revolutionary conflict which resulted in the formation of the American nation, was carried out mainly by Calvinists, many of whom had been trained in the rigidly Presbyterian College at Princeton, and this nation is their gift to all liberty loving people."

[Loraine Boettner, DD, The Reformed Doctrine Of Predestination, page 223-4 (Joseph Kreifels), c1932, expired.]

The Spokesman said...

Steve,

Thank you for the opportunity to truly examine these issues and for not closing this thread - there is absolutely no duplicity here and you have much integrity in this area.

I pray that both sound doctrine and sound logic will be established on this subject so that all can be fully convinced in their own minds and thereby properly serve our Lord.

So with no further delay:

SJ CAMP: Q1: What is your biblical reasoning for prohibiting a pastor of a church from engaging leaders within community from a biblical worldview on the issues of the day when that engagement does not prohibit or substitute the worship of God on the Lord's Day or violate the command of Scripture?

Through biblical reasoning I want to show that this was not an engagement from a biblical worldview but an engagement from a moralist worldview and there is a difference.

Biblically, any culture's moral decline is a spiritual problem, not a political one, and its solution is the gospel, not partisan politics. The Bible is replete with evidence that none of God’s servants ever once resorted to political means or channels to address the immorality of their time – a truth to which you yourself succinctly testify, “- I can and do demonstrate biblically where the Lord, the Apostles, the O.T. prophets etc. never once resorted to political means or channels to address the moral ills and cultural deprivation of their time. They did the “unthinkable” - compared to what several evangelical leaders are doing today---they preached the gospel and saw lives actually changed; even those among Caesar’s household. The issue is simple: either you believe in the power of the gospel and the sufficiency of Scripture for all matters of life and godliness or you don’t. (cp, 2 Peter 1:3-4; 1 Peter 2:11-17; 4:10-16; 1 Cor. 2:2; Jer. 29:1-7; 1 Cor. 9:8-18; 2 Tim. 4:1-5; 2 Tim. 3:16-17; Psalm 19:7-11; Rom. 13:1-7, etc.). Source

Also, scripturally, a biblical worldview does not necessitate political engagement. Nowhere do the Scriptures make “a one-to-one corollary [sic] that for His church to "love their neighbor" means political involvement; societal reform; or cultural confrontation to restore family values in a moral declining world.Source
To begin to equate political disengagement with scriptural disobedience disallows for personal conviction and principles of conscience regarding this subject (see Romans 14:5-13) and moves into the realm of teaching as doctrines the precepts of men (see Matthew 15:9). You asked, “Where does the Bible create that standard - that for His people to turn away from political engagement is "disobedience?Source Which is also why I asked in this thread, “If someone who is Christian doesn't vote, based on his or her convictions, is he or she "undecided" and somehow not up to par as to what a Christian ought to be?

You see, the issue here is not that this faith forum was held on a day other than the Lord’s Day but that it wasn’t of any value for a biblical worldview therefore it wasn’t right no matter what day it was held or who moderated it.

littlegal_66 said...

Gig,

Dear brother, was that last comment really prudent or necessary? I'm well aware that Steve Camp does not need an inadequate debater such as myself to come to his defense, but he is my friend, and I must say that your increasingly harsh tone is beginning to bother me, (although his thick skin may remain unaffected). I have had much experience with "control freaks," and believe me, Campi is not one of them.

With all due respect, this is not something a minister should have to deal with in the midst of (likely) preparation for a weekend of ministry. Disagreeing amicably and sharpening iron is one thing, over-the-top comments are another thing altogether. If your comment came across more severely than you intended, I apologize for misinterpreting.

However, in 3 years of posting here, I don't think I've previously felt the urgency to respond in this manner. Sigh. Maybe I just need to step back, take a break, and be "silent" for a bit.

--LG66
1 Peter 3:4

gigantor1231 said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
gigantor1231 said...

littegal66

Why was my apology for my misunderstanding a offense to you? Perhaps control was the wrong word to use, and if so 'I apologize' again and please forgive me. Maybe I should have phrased it, with regards to what I responded to this way;

Steve, I did not know that you, not answering Olan's question with regards to those that are Christians choosing not to vote, prior to you asking your question would be a problem. I just thought it was a matter of politeness rather than a issue of protocol due to ownership. My bad Steve, I was in the wrong, please forgive me!

Thanks for the kind words though, I will be sure to remember how things work in the future.

littlegal_66 said...

gig--
Again: If your comment came across more severely than you intended, I apologize for misinterpreting.

Robert, have a safe and enjoyable holiday weekend with your girls.

To all: Y'all take care, and "take hold"......
--Steff
1 Tim. 6:12

SJ Camp said...

Olan
You seem to be having trouble following this discussion and confusing a few important details.

Let me humbly help you with this:

1. You see, the issue here is not that this faith forum was held on a day other than the Lord’s Day but that it wasn’t of any value for a biblical worldview therefore it wasn’t right no matter what day it was held or who moderated it.

This is a false conclusion as I read it and your statement seems a bit confusing. Are you suggesting that a biblical worldview wasn't offered in the questions that Warren asked the participants?; or are you suggesting that the subject itself didn't have any value worthy of a biblical worldview - therefore, it didn't matter what day of the week it was being held on?

Your wording was awkward so I thought I would give you a chance to help me understand what you were trying to say more clearly.

2. As to the rest of your comment, you are confused. You say, Biblically, any culture's moral decline is a spiritual problem, not a political one, and its solution is the gospel, not partisan politics.

I have never asserted the contrary and that is not the issue at hand here. You are building a false positive in your logic.

3. Also, scripturally, a biblical worldview does not necessitate political engagement.

But neither does it negate it. You are trying to justify someone's right not to vote. You may do so politically; but in a free society to be "undecided" lacks spiritual and moral clarity and courage. One's vote or even the process by which one comes to their vote in our time has most definitely spiritual foundations to it considering the abortion issue alone. I have entered into many discussion surrounding this and used them all in some way as an opportunity to direct the conversation from my belief in the gospel of the Lord Jesus Christ. Again, the sanctity of life issue alone demands not indecision, but a clear vote for life. I don't believe a Christian should remain "undecided" nor amoral when it comes to the lives of the unborn.

If you want to quote Roms. 14 on this - fine... But allow others the same courtesy to exercise their preferences and conscience on engaging the culture from a biblical worldview whether they be a pastor, doctor, teacher, housewife, businessman, Christian singer, student, etc.

You can't have it both ways.

4. Now, back to THIS post - lest we forget the rules of this blog. Warren asked very probing questions from a biblical worldview (which even secular commenters have acknowledged as well as several other pastors with no less as one as Dr. Al Mohler). The questions would not have had the same tone or truth content to them if they were only humanistic, moralist questions.

5. You have proof-text your points here; not proven them biblically.

So I will ask again in a different way, where did Warren act outside the purview of God's Word by hosting this faith forum and asking the questions as he did?

You have yet to shed any biblical light on this.

BTW, if you still do not think that the Lord moves through the political process, you have just denied the authority of Roms. 13 and most of the OT. The book of Esther is a powerful testimony of the providence of God moving in the political realm even though God is not mentioned one time in the entire book.

Must retire. Still recovering from being ill these past three days.

Grace,
Steve

SJ Camp said...

Also:

The other thing also about Pastor Warren's demeanor and temperament was very gracious to both; fair; balanced; kind; yet he did not dodge the tough questions; addressed the issues clearly from a Christian worldview; and in his civility in THAT arena was a witness for the Lord.

I heard two testimonies to that effect on TV earlier today by those of vastly differing political ideologies who were deeply surprised at this.

The Spokesman said...

Steve,

You said, “You seem to be having trouble following this discussion and confusing a few important details.”

I sincerely apologize for my awkward wording and my unclear and confusing statements. I will do my best to clear things up and help you understand what I am trying to say.

At the very heart of this issue is whether or not the faith forum was “right” and what establishes it as being right. You have been saying that it was “right” based on Warren’s ability to moderate the forum and remain neutral during the process – “In some past posts I have been very critical of Rick Warren for aspects of his Purpose Driven Life campaign; his environmental climate initiative, thinking he can cure world hunger, his convoluted 2006 conference on AIDS, and his more pragmatic approach to evangelism. BUT, when he gets it right I am not afraid to say so; and this past Saturday night he really got it right!

Rick Warren was absolutely brilliant. He was lucid, inviting and incisive in how he worded the questions; probed in follow up inquiries; and he kept the evening civil, uniform, and on point. I agree with Charles Krauthammer that this was the best political forum of two Presidential candidates that I have ever witnessed in any venue in recent American politics. The voters on both sides of the aisle were given an honest view of each candidate. I also appreciated that Warren allowed each candidate the freedom to express their convictions without he as the moderator coloring their respective ideological platforms to suit his own political views on the same issues he was asking. IOW, Warren purposely kept himself out of the way and let the candidates have their say. (PMSNBC, CNN, FOXNEWS, CBS, NBC, ABC and PBS were you going to school?)


So to begin with you attempted to establish the faith forum as being right based solely on Warren’s ability as a moderator which is why I wanted you to give proof of biblical fidelity in this matter. After all, these issues while very important (especially the issue of abortion) do not necessarily constitute a genuine biblical worldview. For instance, the Catholic Church takes a strong moral stand against abortion and so do other religions and cults. So if the Pope or the leader of a cult had moderated this event exactly as Warren did, would we be calling it right and good based solely on the moral issues addressed or would we see it as the enemy of souls using the sanctity of life issue as bait to hide his hook of destructive heresy?

So I will ask again in a different way, if the Pope or a Catholic cardinal or priest had moderated this event exactly as Warren did, would you still call it right and good based solely on the moral issues addressed?

Grace and peace,
Olan

Tartanarmy said...

Getting in late here, but I just watched the video...

Here are my thoughts.

After McCain made his comments about abortion there are the cheers, and then Warren has the obvious relief to say that the question has been well and truly answered and hence let us move on.

Wait a second Mr Warren. Have not these kinds of answers been given before? Do not the unborn deserve a bit more pressure given this opportunity? I think so.

Have you not the special platform to ask this man exactly what he will exactly and specifically do to put meat on his views?

Why simply retort the abortion issue here has been well and truly answered by this man and then move on?

Not good enough for me.

Mark