Is Warren an ecumenicalist?

This is so true.

Isnt one decision truely to follow Jesus worth more than 1000 decisions to follow an evangelist?

AJ

 

There is no place for easy believism in the Gospel of Christ. However, do you have proof of RW proclaiming an easybelivism message? From what understand he does not. I could be wrong.

I think this will be my last post on this thread unless someone has a question for me. I think it is clear that the answer to the OP about RW being ecuminical is no he is not.

 

It depends. Certainly the ecumenical force has strengthened to a great degree in the past decade.

That's because there's a very real spiritual battle going on in the world and especially in this country, and certainly there is a real spiritual force behind Rick Warren and his movement. The same was true of the Obama campaign in the political sector, in case anyone noticed. And finally, the same is true of the multinational corporate sector, where in a recent instance, elite world bankers succeeded in a scam that transferred more than a trillion dollars of wealth from American taxpayers in order to spread it out among themselves. And did it openly right in front of the people, and were so successful, that they're going to do it again.

These are recent examples of spiritual forces at work behind the scenes and of the global-management three-legged stool at work, consisting of a political/governmental leg, a corporate/economical leg, and a religious/spiritual leg. It is the global building mechanism that Warren has talked about over the years, that he learned from one of his close mentors, the corporate-diaprax and human-capital expert Peter Drucker, and the mechanism, and real secret, other than brute spiritual force and the cooperation of the corporate sector, behind the success of the purpose-driven movement and the so-called P.E.A.C.E plan.

Whether Warren's movement will continue to be successful or not we will have to wait and see. Movements in the past half-century have almost always been stepping stones, which served their purpose and then sort of dried-up. Personally, I think Warren's movement has legs, as I've suspected for some years that Warren is a bridge from conservative Christianity to a tolerant new-age form of spirituality.

It is indeed pretty amazing that so many Believers fail to see through the tapestry that cloaks Warren and his movement (and a few other movements, as well). Then again, it's understandable. For it is a beautiful tapestry, cloaked with what looks to be the beauty of the LORD Himself. Pastors and church leaders all over the world have fallen for it. You wonder how that could be, until you consider what's been going on in the seminaries of Western Civilization for more than a century, and then the deceptive brilliance of our enemy. And what on earth do you think one of his well-cloaked movements is supposed to look like? Something you can easily see right through??

As far as ecumenism goes, whether or not Warren is ecumenical depends on what you mean by ecumenical. You can define the answer in this case. But what Warren is for sure is a globalist who is working, wittingly or unwittingly, hand in hand with those who are carrying out the plan of our enemy, and fighting the plan of God. To them, it is a dream that has inspired them most of their lives, their dream of a global community, of a world government, a dream that also inspired previous generations of families and secular leaders. And it is so close now, so very close, that they can actually taste it.

And we can also be sure that dream does not include spreading the Gospel of Jesus Christ to the uttermost parts of the earth. They will tolerate a global religion, in fact many of them welcome it (provided it is an organized outcome of a consensus process) as a preparatory step for their coming world leader. In fact, anything remotely religious or spiritual will be tolerated with one glaring exception - simple, non-legalistic, old-fashioned, Biblical, New Testament Christianity, which will be, as has already begun, marginalized as hateful and too extreme to be tolerated.

:jesus:

 

IveyLeaguer,

That's a very well written post. It appears you put some time and thought into your response. However, you make accusations without offering any evidence to substantiate them. For example;

Can you show me any evidence that Warren believes salvation is through Christ alone? Is there something in print? What about video? Do you know the brother in-law of RW's houscleaners cousin who overheard the butler tell the gardner that this is RW's evil plan? What leads you to this conclusion?

How can we be sure of this? Is this not what the PD Church is written for? have you read the book? It clearly states that the purpose for the Church is just this. maybe subliminal suggestions are in the text? What if I read it backwards? What does it say?

Do not mistake this as me being pro RW or anyone else except pro Christ. It just seams to me that any Church/Evangelist/pastor that makes a public stance for Jesus is crucified by the very people who claim Christ. Are we so jealous over one success that we must tear them down. I pastored a small church of 10 or so folks. I heard them make acusations against any church that was larger. "I'm so glad that we don't compromise the Gospel just to get numbers", they would say. Underneath was the assumption that any success had to be compromise. When we wouls start to grow and get 30 - 40 in a service, they would tear it all apart.

Maybe this is not what you are doing and I am in error. If you can provide evidence of your charges against RW, I will support you in every way. But if you can not, why not accept that God is using him to reach people that I can not for the Gospel of Jesus Christ? Either way he should be in our prayers that God use him and Mr. Obama to bring Glory to the name of Jesus Christ.

Love and God Bless,
keith

 

I stopped reading after this, because this is such a slanderous, outlandish claim, I'm sure the rest of the post was also pure trash. I definately see a "spiritual force" behind some of these posts attacking the man, that's for sure.

 

You can deny there's a spiritual battle going on in the world, that's fine. If you don't know, you just don't know.

I see you haven't changed much since you first got here 3 or 4 years ago. Then certainly don't read it, or even think about it. Just take your shot. The post is not intended for close-minded Warren defenders.


:saint:

 

Oh, I don't deny it...I see it in your posts.

Non sequitur and ad hominem...talented...but this is not about me.

I know. The post was intended to slander and tear down a man God is using to fulfill the GC.

Your posts remind me of a quote I just read from John Ortberg "The religious leaders had a kind of differentness that pushed people away. Jesus had a kind of differentness that drew people to Him."

and...

"The strongest argument for Christianity is Christians when they are drawing life from God, and the strongest argument against Christianity is Christians when they become exclusive, self-righteous and complacent."

If the shoe fits...

 

The fact you agree with his outright lies (because what he stated in his post was just that, slanderous lies) doesn't surprise me.

 

FINE.

:jesus:

 

The lies stated are not reality, something you are blinded to.

 

I have heard the man preach in person twice and seldom have I ever heard such potent messages anywhere. More is required of members in his church than most require of their deacons.

 

So you're claiming that Warren believes in ecumenism in the sense of working to combine Christian and non-Christian believers into one "global" religion? Saying things like "Christians and Muslims worship the same god?" I don't see it. I believe he probably does support ecumenism in the less extreme sense that of working with other Christian denominations.

You say:

As far as ecumenism goes, whether or not Warren is ecumenical depends on what you mean by ecumenical.

Then you don't define ecumenical. You must define something before you can claim someone is guilty of it. That's just rhetorical slight of hand.

 

No, that's just it.

Look again, and you'll see I don't claim one way or the other whether or not RW is ecumenical. As I said, and others have made the same point in this very thread, you can define the answer, depending on the definition. Ecumenism means different things to different people, so whether RW qualifies as ecumenical depends, first, on what definition you may use.

Some of my points go hand in hand with ecumenism, but are nevertheless issues that stand on their own.

:saint: