Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'Other Christian Denominations' started by Alex Quackenbush, Nov 4, 2007.
Who said this controversial statement and what is your view of it?
Don't know who said it. Sounds Arminian semiplagian to me.
Was it Rick Warren? http://www.lighthousetrailsresearch.com/warrenquotes.htm
It was Rick Warren.
And I disagree with him.
IMO, there is nothing you can do greater than share Jesus Christ with somebody (other than accept Him yourself).
Wouldn't you rather accept him? :wavey:
Why, whatever are you talking about, Salty? :laugh: :wavey:
"There is one thing you can do greater than share Jesus Christ with somebody, and it is to help start a church."
Compare with this poor delusioned soul, William Tyndale, who said may his part in Christ be taken away were he ever to start a church!
Here is a quote from the link attributed to Rick Warren:
Wow. Remarkable! The sad thing is that as the "Prayer of Jabez" now collects dust, soon "The Purpose Driven" movement (already in decline) will become a warranted dust collector only to be REPLACED by more sad megalomania passed off as sound Bible Doctrine and the plan of God.
What's so sad is each time there are so many dissappointed left in the lurch simpletons as were their souls worth no more than a penny a dozen.
Who made this controversial comment?
Being all in agreement on this sad statement may I challenge all of us (me included) with this: are you spending more time and energy sharing the glorious gospel of Jesus Christ out in the real world than you are typing on this innocuous website?
I would also add that which is the greatest: love.
I John 3:18 "My little children, let us not love in word, neither in tongue; but in deed and in truth."
I Peter 1:22 Seeing ye have purified your souls in obeying the truth through the Spirit unto unfeigned love of the brethren, see that ye love one another with a pure heart fervently:
I do not see it as necessarily controversial. It is merely one man's opinion. I do not think he is saying to start a church to the exclusion of confrontational evangelism. I don't know how he believes on that issue. I do not read his material.
I, for one, do not believe that if a man goes out and rents a building that he has started a church. A church must be birthed from another church. We, as Baptists, believe in the perpetuity of the church.
I agree. I believe RW is using church plants as a way of reaching more lost, not putting it's importance over sharing the Gospel with one individual. That quote is taken out of context, IMO.
It also depends on where this quote is from. If it's from Purpose Driven Church or his 40 days group study material, that is written to believers. The point behind a statement like this is it is more fruitful to disciple 100 people to be what God wants them to be and spread the Gospel, commission them to make disciples of others, who continue to the same. What is more fruitful, bringing one person to Christ at a time, or training multitudes to do the same thing?
Many people don't like RW. This is a given. I have YET to see someone refute from Scripture the five purposes he outlines. Some believers who are meat eaters only see milk or meat. I consider RW more of a mashed potatos and mac-and-cheese, the step taken between the milk and meat.
What he is doing in America is no different than what many missionaries are doing throughout the world...only he is doing it here, abiding by the Great Commission. I don't consider him an "easy believism" preacher, either. If you want to see easy believism...watch Joel Osteen. I really wish people would quit the hating of an instrument God is using to reach many. To me doctrine is more of a reason to rebuke someone, and millions of Americans tune in daily to Macarthur and his "other Gospel" and gobble up his study Bibles. Out of the six people in my small group, 4 use his Bible solely...and someone at my church bought us one as a gift. I hardly hear anyone point out his front loaded sanctification justification "gospel", but they are quick to pounce on RW.
That seems to be the New Testament pattern. I wonder if you and I are the only Baptists left who believe in church perpetuity.
It's innocuous to you because it does go your way smoothly enough for you.
Have a look at how many times references are made to these threads, and never underestimate the power of the pen, as a fool would. Witness for Christ are being made on these pages, and benefit obtained thereby. It sounds to me you think you are the only honest ('unfeigned') person in the company.
I want to thank Babbtist Board again for the instrument of this forum wherein nobody must think he will escape reproval. Especially not those better and holier than the other ones.
Because here, we, despite ourselves, at least attempt, to get to God's Word in the Scriptures.
It's all very far from me, here in South Africa. Maybe it gives me a little advantage in perspective. This bloke who is so popular despite his (assumed) wrongs - has he started a new church? To me starting a new church is doctrine turned undesirable dogma. One Church one Doctrine one Lord should it be as far as possible - new churches condemn the whole effort, and always works contraproductive; it only spells one's own and soon doom.
The "Church" is the Body of Christ, not a building or a single group of worshipers. The inability of this Body to understand the Gospel rightly divided, is the reason for the hundreds of different Christian sects in play today. If we'd all let go of our particular brand of Kingdom gospel, and embrace the unity of the Body church, we'd have a united body.
Paul himself recognized this abandonment of "his" revealed gospel at the end of his ministry. The religious leaders of the day effectively diluted his message, by insisting on keeping their law. It has only been "rediscovered" prominently in the 20th century.
"The "Church" is the Body of Christ" firstly; thereafter the individual yet of no identity other than member of this Body. The Church is Congregation of the Elect out of the many and faceless and nameless masses, to BE, 'Body' - 'Body of Christ's Own' within it and as witness against it the world of the masses - Col2:17, even while being made outlaw for Christ midst a wayward society - verses 14-15 - but notwithstanding "feasting Sabbaths' Feast perpetually ("month in month out, Sabbaths") - verse 16.
Colossians 2:16-19 is the best description and best definition of the Church of Christ in the world but not of the world, yea in fact this odd Society of non-individuals despite the world, in the face of the world and against the world.
I think that should solve this problem: "The inability of this Body to understand the Gospel rightly divided, is the reason for the hundreds of different Christian sects in play today. If we'd all let go of our particular brand of Kingdom gospel, and embrace the unity of the Body church, we'd have a united body."