Saddleback Debate

Originally Posted by Joshua2415

Anyway, no one seems to have commented about McCain, other than the one who made a good point about his rich/middle class answer. Any thoughts on him?

Well, my youngest son and I watched the interview with RW and McCain and tonite it was THE topic of a rousing dinner hour conversation. It was interesting to watch the play between interviewer/interviewee and the body language/facial expressions going on. Don't know if anyone else here noticed, but McCain frequently swiveled back and forth between answering RW and looking/including the audience; Obama on the other hand, seemed to zero in on RW and rarely looked at the audience. I must say I was quite surprised how well McCain came off in his responses. He seemed decisive, authoritative and surprisingly a charming man with a quick wit. If Obama doesn't watch himself, Mr. McCain could come up on his blindside and steal it when he's least expecting it!

 

.

Hit me with your rhythm stick, hit me, hit me, hit me.......

No, actually, my Bible also says we must be IN the world and not OF it, and that's exactly the point I was trying to get across, pity you missed it, eh? So then how come the church is buddy buddying itself with the world (politics), because my Bible tells me the church should be winning souls for Christ instead, not aligning with politicians. And no, don't try and pull the "Rick Warren wants to save John McCain and Barack Obama" line on me, because it's as clear as daylight that that's not what is happening here, simply for the reason that you don't have to have a politician (who is pro-abortion, among a few other things) come and speak at your church to get him saved, all you have to do is simply preach the true Gospel to him.

What's very clear to me is that Obama and McCain are footsie footsing up to Saddleback because it means thousands of additional votes. It's a win-win situation for both parties (politicians and church), as I see it. It's anyone's guess who will win the election, so it would be best to be in the good books of both candidates then.

Rick Warren got his doctorate from Fuller Theological Seminary under the tutelage of C. Peter Wagner who is a spiritual warfare dominionist, who's aim is to gain control of government (state), business (corporations) and partner with other churches so they can create a "healthy society" worldwide. The "new apostles" will eventually move into government, just give it some time, eh.

Matthew 4:8 - Again, the Devil taketh him up into an exceeding high mountain, and sheweth him all the kingdoms of the world, and the glory of them;

John 18:36 - Jesus answered, My kingdom is not of this world: if my kingdom were of this world, then would my servants fight, that I should not be delivered to the Jews: but now is my kingdom not from hence.

And believe me, there wasn't any effort on my part "to bring another believer down" as you put it - and that you did without even asking one question, but automatically jumped to conclusions, and so what you accused me of doing, you did yourself - you brought me down. Congratulations.

All I di was take Rick Warren's teachings and doctrine and test them against the Holy Bible, as we are commanded to do (by the same Holy Bible):

1) At the back of the "Purpose Driven Life", Rick Warren states:

Wow! And I always thought the blue-print for Christians living in the 21st century was the Bible. Silly me. :tonofbricks: "wrong again". Aw no!

2) Nowhere in that so-called "blueprint for christian living" of his does he mention repentance, sin, guilt, hellfire, damnation or judgment. Now wait for it - get ready - here comes the scripture........ Go and take a peak at Acts 20:21. I'm afraid that no method (whether it be Warren's or anyone else's), nor their level of religious commitment can be a substitute for true repentance towards God Almighty. My train of thought here is - it's the gospel according to Rick Warren, not Jesus Christ.

3) He perverts the Gospel. This can be seen in the fact that he speaks of the "Great Commision", but never ever defines it. He states in his book:

Show me where it says that in the Bible. In fact it clearly says: But to him that worketh not, but believeth on him that justifieth the ungodly, his faith is counted for righteousness. Which means this: Life really begins when you come to Jesus Christ as a guilty and condemned sinner and repent.

4) And my all time "favourite", oh yes:

Well whaddaya know, Mr Warren is a Lordship Salvationist to boot. I'm not impressed.

5) Then looking at the title of his "blueprint for christian living" - PURPOSE DRIVEN LIFE - are we in fact Spirit led or Purpose-driven? What does God's Holy Word say: In Romans 8:14 it emphatically states - For as many as are led by the Spirit of God, they are the sons of God.

Christians' purpose on earth is to please God, but it is impossible to please God without any faith. Faith is what causes God to do things, like answer prayers. The truth is - the Christian life is a FAITH DRIVEN LIFE, not a purpose-driven one.

Rick Warren's doctrine falls at first base when compared to Holy Scripture, whether you like it or not. What's important here is what God's Word says, not what Rick Warren says. I find it rather fascinating how Christians (a) don't test all things as clearly commanded in the Bible, and (b) don't know to discern a wolf (in sheep's clothing) and (c) don't know their Bibles all that well, cos if they did it would be clear to them that Mr Warren isn't altogether "kosher".

Just a note : I wasn't being sarcastic in this post, but humorous, because I feel I have to interject some humour to ease the pain of what clearly is a person who is deceived, and I find his teachings/doctrine incredibly hard to swallow.

Peace.

 

Move over Dobson,Robertson, and TBN

Rick Warren showed some great leadership skills in my book both candidates helped themselves, Warren was very fair. There is some controversy coming out about McCain not playing by the rules and plagiarizing a story but overall I would not let that cloud the good job Warren did.

 

So who are the nutballs and just where is this supposed controversy?

 

I am stunned that you think this.

Despite widespread and mistaken views to the contrary, Jesus' central emphasis on the Kingdom of God was precisely about politics - about how this very world should be run now that Jesus has been installed as its King.

We need to integrate faith with politics, not separate them. These two elements were seperated by the enlightenment and they need to be properly merged back together to do justice to the gospel.

Let's pay attention to the Jesus' last words before his ascension:

Then Jesus came to them and said, "All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me. 19Therefore go and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, 20and teaching them to obey everything I have commanded you.

To suggest that the Kingdom of God values do not need to be integrated into "the world and its systems" is to flat out reject Jesus' own statement that He has been given all authority on earth.

 

For the record, I have heard that Piper gives all of his book income back to the church. I don't know if that is true or not; nor do I think it's really any of our concern how much Warren, Piper or whoever gives to what and of what amount.

 

To say that one cannot do it is simply misguided and misinformed about church history. The truth is that very few in church history have concluded this from the NT for a very simple reason: It's not there.

 

Listen to the words of Jesus just before his ascension:

Then Jesus came to them and said, "All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me

If you are correct in your assertion that God does not want us to advocate for political enshrinement of His Kingdom of God values, the foregoing should be rewritten as:

Then Jesus came to them and said, "Some authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me - My authority on earth does not include the structures and institutions that govern the way the world is run.

Jesus also said that some standing in his presence will see the Kingdom of God before they die. This absolutely rules out the possibilty that the Kingdom of God has not yet made its appearance. I know that you have argued that this is about the transfiguration. I am more than happy to discuss such a view if you wish to pursue.

And, of course, there is Paul's clear statement about the content of the gospel declaring that Jesus is Lord:

2the gospel he promised beforehand through his prophets in the Holy Scriptures 3regarding his Son, who as to his human nature was a descendant of David, 4and who through the Spirit of holiness was declared with power to be the Son of God by his resurrection from the dead: Jesus Christ our Lord.

A little awareness of the historical context demonstrates that Paul is really setting up Jesus as a replacement for Caesar. The term "gospel" in Paul's day was sometimes used to declare the ascendence of a new emperor to the throne in Rome. Paul is leveraging off that sense here. In addition, the emperor who had died was often deified - declared to be a god. And so his son was understood to be a "son of god". Paul knows exactly what he is doing here.

He is declaring that Jesus has supplanted Ceasar as lord of this present world and all it institutions.

The scriptural case seems pretty convincing - Jesus is indeed a king and not just of private interior spiritual world. He is indeed lord of all and the job of the church is to work for that.

 

Andre,

In case you forgot, you tried this line of reasoning several weeks ago and it was thoroughly debunked then exegetically, showing how you are misinterpreting and thus misusing the Scriptures. Rehashing now won't help it.

The Bible says "All authority" and means it. It doesn't need to be rewritten, or reinterpreted. That verse has nothing to do with "advocating for the kingdom of God," and the NT is absent of any such advocacy. If you would read it, you would know that.

More time with Paul, Peter, John, and Jesus and less time with NT Wright would be better.

 

I am happy to allow both my and your arguments to be aired once again so that the reader can decide which position is better supported by the Scriptures.

Perhaps less patronizing on your part and more engagement of the texts I provided in the recent posts will be more helpful to enable the reader to see your point of view. I will leave it to the reader to judge who is more conversant with the scriptures on this and related matters.

When Jesus says "all authority", He indeed means it. It is you who is suggesting otherwise when you claim that His authority is to be somehow excluded from the domain of politics. Do you think that Jesus' kingship authority does not apply to the political institutions that govern our world? Why would a Christian not work for a world where the Kingdom of God values are not integrated into the very structures that determine how our world is to be run?

 

It has already been said. I was merely reminding you that the NT does not support what you say, and reminding people that it was thoroughly debunked previously.

I interacted very thoroughly previously and am not patronizing in the least.

I am claiming no such thing. I am pointing out that Jesus never says to establish a political kingdom. He rather calls his church to submit to the authorities that do exist. With all the NT writing, there is nothing that calls on teh church to do as you say.

Of course not.

Because that is not the NT mandate. We do what God says to do. We don't get to make it up on our own. God does not call his church to integrate church and state. He calls us to make disciples and plant and build churches.

 

Well, I am going to air those same arguments again and I will let the reader decide. Unlike yourself, I will will not "tell" the reader that my position has prevailed - I will make the case and let them decide.

This statement from your recent post is most patronizing:

The above statement could not be more patronizing - suggesting that I do not read the scriptures and need to be educated by the likes of you as to their meaning.

But, such issues aside, I intend to provide the reader with a wealth of scriptural arguments in favour of the position that Jesus is indeed a "political" King.

Why not respond to my arguments about Paul's declaration of the gospel as per a post of earlier today - that he is effectively saying Jesus has supplanted Ceasar as Lord. The reader knows my argument. Please feel free to provide a counterargument.

Was the word "gospel" not, in fact, used to announce a new emperor in Rome?

Was Paul not intending the reference to "Son of God" in Romans 1:2-4 to be understood as being set in contrast to the practice of referring to an emperor as the "son of god", in the sense that his deceased father has been promoted to the state of god-hood?

 

This idea is so deeply ingrained in modern western Christianity that people are unable to see how deepy odd and schizophrenic it really is. This notion - that the church is not to advocate for the enshrinement of kingdom values into the political structures of our world- really amounts to saying "Jesus is not Lord of all after all - He is Lord of my private value system and the kingdom values Jesus espoused must be carefully encapsulated and never allowed to "leak out" and influence the way we run the world."

I am astonished that anyone really believes this.

Even if the scriptures did not clearly establish Jesus' kingship over the political institutions of this world, what kind of sense is there to the position that there is this set of values that are to govern our "personal" lives, but that we should not pursue in respect to our public life - the way we order and run our society? Such a "split" really makes no sense at all.

If it is good to care for the poor as individuals, that same value should advocated for in the public domain.

Jesus preached "good news for the poor" - do you really think that He means that we are to be generous as "private" persons, yet also allow our society to be structured by unrestrained capitalism where the weak inevitably go to the wall?

 

I have never heard a definition of patronizing that would include that. The fact is that it doesn't seem like you have read the NT much, particularly with an eye out for this topic.

JEsus is a political king. But not now. The Scriptures teach that throughout.

The argument is in the text itself. REad the text and read your comments, and you will see that there is nothing in common. There is nothing "IN" the text to support your point. YOu get there only by starting outside the text and then going to the text. Even at that, your point is weak ... It is not supported by the text.

Not in the NT. However, the word gospel is used a number of different ways to describe different gospels, or different "good news."

No. There is nothing whatsoever in the text that would lead to that conclusion. Again, our focus is on the text of Scripture and what it says. You want to refute you from the text, but the point is that your point has nothing to do with the text. Romans 1:2-4 cannot in any measure by used to argue that we should advocate for kingdom values in political circles.

And you call me patronizing while calling me and my view "deepy odd and schizophrenic"? Come on, now, Andre.

This is very deeply flawed. To say that we are not mandated to work for the enshrinement of kingdom values in the political structures of this world is not to say that Jesus is not Lord of all, nor is it to say that we are not to allow Jesus' lordship to "leak out" and influence the way we run the world.

I think Jesus' lordship should not "leak out." I think it should overflow. And newsflash for you ... we don't run the world.

But here's a bigger question: Why should we advocate for kingdom values? The kingdom is for believers, not for unbelievers. If we advocate for kingdom values then we end up with a social thing that has no transforming power. I don't want people living "kingdom values" without the king because it leads to false assurance, a moralistic damnation. Therefore, we make disciples with the gospel of Jesus Christ, and expect people to live kingdom values, not advocate them for unbelievers. That is the unanimous testimony of the NT.

It has been a dominant position of the Christian church for many centuries. It shouldn't be surprising, particularly given the wealth of biblical data that supports it compared to the paucity of biblical data for your position.

I wouldn't make that split.

Sure, but how? Again, as I poitned out last time, you have some serious category confusion going on. You think that because we say something should not be done by the government that we are saying it should not be done at all.

Yes. For evidence, I point to what Jesus himself said and advocated, and what he through the Spirit revealed to his apostles to write down for us.

Again, at the risk of being accused of patronizing, read the NT and look for references to public advocacy of kingdom values. They are not there. We are told to make disciples, not to bring in a particular form of government.

 

You do it yet again - the reader is probably not interested in your opinion about how much I have read the New Testament. How is a suggestion that I am unqualified in respect to the New Testament a constructive contribution to a discussion of the matter at issue? Am I making similar dismissive comments about your scriptural literacy? No I am not.

This is a statement with no support - please feel free to present supporting arguments. I have done so, at least to a degree, already in this thread.

This is just a statement of the form "read the text and you will agree with me". Do you not see how this really avoids engaging the issues? You simply ignore my arguments which, by the way, are not simple statements of my position - they are support for that position.

This is not a good argument. The fact that the word "gospel" is not specifically used in the NT to refer to the accession of a new emperor does not mean that Paul was not aware of its use in that mode, and is leveraging this to make a subversive political point - which is exactly what he is, in fact, doing.

 

I never said or implied anything of the kind and you will, of course, not be able to substantiate this statement.

But I will again take this occasion to point out the inchoherence of ordering one's "private" life according to one set of values - the kingdom of God values - and refusing to participate in trying to enshrine those very same values in the political sphere. It is this that is so odd and arguably "schizophrenic".

Why wouldn't a Christian work to enshrine the kingdom of God values into the political structures of our world? What possible reason is there not to do so?

 

As a member of The Tony Blair Foundation, Rick Warren is now an advocate for the uniting of the "Abrahamic Faiths" (Christianity, Judaism and Islam). As a member of this elite group he can get the attention of any political party and command any political forum he pleases.

Story Here.

 

I am not writing that for the sake of the reader, but for your sake. It is a constructive contribution because we are discussing the responsibilities of a Christian, which are laid down in the NT. IMO, we should be familiar with the NT in order to talk about what it says. I am saying that your interaction here does not seem to indicate that you are familiar with it.

You haven't presented any arguments that I have seen that Jesus is a political king. Matth 28:18 and Rom 1:2-4 do not address that point at all. On the other hand, a passage like Isa 9:6-7 is explicit, as are many other passages in the prophets. Acts 1:6 shows that the disciples understood this when they asked Jesus if it was the time for his kingdom and he said it wasn't for them to know the time. Interesting that he did not tell them they misunderstood the kingdom. He allowed them to continue to believe what they believed, and simply told them it wasn't time for them to know.

No it's not at all. It is the argument "read the text and you will see that it doesn't agree with you."

The problem is that you are using a text for support that has nothing to do with the issue at hand. I can't "avoid" it; it isn't even there.

If what you have offered is actually "support," then you are far worse off then it would appear. You have yet to make a serious argument, and by that I mean an argument that can stand any scrutiny. If I make the statement, "The sky is blue and therefore, I am here," you would very quickly point out that the two statements have nothing to do with each other. And you should. And that is exactly the kind of "support" you are offering.

If we are going to talk about what the NT says about the gospel, it is a very good argument. Let's look at how the NT uses the word.

First, the fact that I am aware of multiple uses of many words does not mean that I am using the words in that way. Paul may have been aware of such a usage; that doesn't mean he is using it that way here.

Second, there is no textual indication that Paul was making a subversive political point, much less one that would be contradicted in the same letter. There is nothing subversive about the gospel of Jesus Christ.

So again, your argument simply fails from a textual basis because the texts you use are talking about something you are not talking about and they are not talking about what you are talking about. You can't just get an idea and then go to the text to try to find a place to support it. Proper scriptural exegesis is reading out of the text what is in there, not bringing into the text something else.