• Welcome to Baptist Board, a friendly forum to discuss the Baptist Faith in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to all the features that our community has to offer.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!

Sally Quinn on Rick Warren

Status
Not open for further replies.

windcatcher

New Member
dcorbett said:
I see nothing about marriage on his website(rickwarren.com) ....and I don't see the plan of salvation there either.

I went to his church website and see a plan of sorts....no where in the plan is a mention of a need to repent. If a person doesn't repent of sin, how can he or she be "saved" ??????

Warren is not a Baptist at all.
Honestly, I'm less concerned whether he is Baptist than I am whether he is a Christian in compromise. (But many Baptist churches and other denominations..... for that matter.... are using his 'Purpose Driven' resources and, in effect, looking to him for authoritive leadership and example....... which not only promotes his fame, but also his position of influence.)

When there's a lack of evidence currently available re: RW showing an active conviction, then there appears to be enough assertions by others which give evidence to compromise. I'm hoping and preferring that this is not the case..... but, as I responded in a thread regarding "The Purpose Driven Life", I felt there were many opportunities in the context of the book to make Christians aware of the authority and guidance of the God who bought our salvation, and to call all to repentance..... and those of the body of Christ to renewal..... but were lacking in the text.

The Bible, which is the foundation and the first and the last word, says far more than any 'self-help book' can ever say about our need and deprivitey and dependance on God, and how God can help us; but he (RW) paraphrases and uses so many various translations, which he explains is to make the familiar clear..... says the opposite to me as it causes a confusion when I must occupy my library with more copywrite Bibles just to verify the authenticity of his quotes and he doesn't present enough consistancy of usage to make one translation as sufficient for memory work. And familiarity and memory is the strength of the Word when we must depend upon knowledge and memory and the spirit for discerning in times when we are without a Bible to consult.

Oh, dear Lord! I understand that these people who have difficulties with their lifestyle, which they've choosen but deny that they had a choice, differ little in their excuses from the rest of us in the way we excuse our desires and excessive appetites, instead of conforming to the discipline required to bring us more into conforming to the image of Christ: However dispicable we behold their lifestyle, however abdominable it is to Almighty God; as humans in need of stable relationships in our own lives, it is too easy to understand the difficulty of those who chose a lifestyle which offers no permanance, no stability, no recognition, no security, no recourse for breech of promise.......... BUT................ WE MUST REMEMBER ALWAYS,.... that this was a choice they exercised to sin and these problems are the result of their choice and continuance to sin. Altering these conditions which are the product of their sin is not our problem, nor that which will bring them closer to God. We can have compassion and understanding but WE OWE NO COMPROMISE to the unrepentant regarding that which God has concluded as abdominable.

I stand by my earlier post:
Pray for Rick Warren. The more he is given, the more will be required. The world will require its due for what it perceives as its recognition and God has his expectations for the conduct of the servant to whom he's bestowed with opportunity.

As Christians, we have a foremost obligation, more than that of being critical, and that is to love one another and to pray for one another: The more so when we realize one is entering the arena.

Indeed, we need more Daniels!
May God show RW the possibility of being a Daniel! May God raise up a holy boldnest in both the pulpits and the pews of churches across the nation! We need many Daniels. There are too many fronts for one person to fight the spiritual battles ...... and one person who becomes a spokesman for the people of God, who may feel he stands alone, is too easy for others to accept to follow instead of accept their own leadership and servanthood.... and too easy to topple, compromise, or give the appearance of compromise.:praying:
 

gb93433

Active Member
Site Supporter
Aaron said:
Classic double-speak. "I'm for equal rights (meaning giving all the rights and privileges reserved for a legitimate spouse to ones homosexual lover), but the right to civil unions is not in the Constitution."

He's just trying to back peddle. Too late, Rick. The cat's out of the bag.
Why do you buy gas and support Islam?
 

rbell

Active Member
dcorbett said:
I see nothing about marriage on his website(rickwarren.com) ....and I don't see the plan of salvation there either.

I went to his church website and see a plan of sorts....no where in the plan is a mention of a need to repent. If a person doesn't repent of sin, how can he or she be "saved" ??????

Warren is not a Baptist at all.

pssst...satan called. You were aware he had the accuser job locked up, right?
 

tinytim

<img src =/tim2.jpg>
Homosexuals already have rights.. they are citizens...

And accusers of the brethren is just as bad a sin as homosexuality...

Playing God and pretending you are God's answer to all us non fundies is just as bad as homos...

Sin is sin.. and some baptists need to repent.
 

tinytim

<img src =/tim2.jpg>
Aaron said:
Classic double-speak. "I'm for equal rights (meaning giving all the rights and privileges reserved for a legitimate spouse to ones homosexual lover), but the right to civil unions is not in the Constitution."

He's just trying to back peddle. Too late, Rick. The cat's out of the bag.

YOU lied about RW... either repent or I am reporting it...
Show where he endorsed Civil Unions.

YOU sir are lying.
 

gb93433

Active Member
Site Supporter
dcorbett said:
I see nothing about marriage on his website(rickwarren.com) ....and I don't see the plan of salvation there either.

I went to his church website and see a plan of sorts....no where in the plan is a mention of a need to repent. If a person doesn't repent of sin, how can he or she be "saved" ??????

Warren is not a Baptist at all.
What do you expect, a treatise for the Christian to read?

If you want a longer version so you read more words then take a look at http://www.sbc.net/bfm/bfm2000.asp
 

tinytim

<img src =/tim2.jpg>
Aaron said:
I know Warren came out if favor of civil unions, but as I don't frequent his website I was wondering if the former is true.

BTW, I'm not surprised.

Aaron, Where is your source for this?

Show he is in favor or civil unions.. you said you "know"... now show us how you know.
 

Aaron

Member
Site Supporter
My question in this thread was regarding columnist's assertion that Warren "removed anti-gay material from his website." Now there is one post that says none can be found, but that doesn't answer my question. Was it removed? In other words, was it there before and now is it gone?

As the columnist stated, he has essentially come out in favor of civil unions. That's obvious from the transcript of the interview posted by Marcia. You can swallow his double-speak and wrest his words to mean something else if you wish. I don't particularly care in this thread.

But MY question remains unanswered. If the answer is yes, and I believe the columnist to be accurate, it's just another nail in his coffin. You will find Warren to be losing standing among evangelicals as he panders to Sodom.

And what really bites you is, we had him pegged when he was belching his subterfuge concerning worship.
 

rbell

Active Member
Aaron said:
My question in this thread was regarding columnist's assertion that Warren "removed anti-gay material from his website." Now there is one post that says none can be found, but that doesn't answer my question. Was it removed? In other words, was it there before and now is it gone?

As the columnist stated, he has essentially come out in favor of civil unions. That's obvious from the transcript of the interview posted by Marcia. You can swallow his double-speak and wrest his words to mean something else if you wish. I don't particularly care in this thread.

But MY question remains unanswered. If the answer is yes, and I believe the columnist to be accurate, it's just another nail in his coffin. You will find Warren to be losing standing among evangelicals as he panders to Sodom.

And what really bites you is, we had him pegged when he was belching his subterfuge concerning worship.

Aaron, how's that career in writing fiction going?

Man, it's amazing to see that much hate for a man of God.
 

webdog

Active Member
Site Supporter
Aaron said:
No I didn't. His words are right there easily comprehended by anyone at a third grade reading level.
Man up and provide the source so us "third graders" can read this material. If not, repent of being a liar.
 

tinytim

<img src =/tim2.jpg>
Aaron said:
My question in this thread was regarding columnist's assertion that Warren "removed anti-gay material from his website." Now there is one post that says none can be found, but that doesn't answer my question. Was it removed? In other words, was it there before and now is it gone?

As the columnist stated, he has essentially come out in favor of civil unions. That's obvious from the transcript of the interview posted by Marcia. You can swallow his double-speak and wrest his words to mean something else if you wish. I don't particularly care in this thread.

But MY question remains unanswered. If the answer is yes, and I believe the columnist to be accurate, it's just another nail in his coffin. You will find Warren to be losing standing among evangelicals as he panders to Sodom.

And what really bites you is, we had him pegged when he was belching his subterfuge concerning worship.

I bolded the part where I think you were directing us 3rd graders to look at...

Again, since you are smarter than us 3rd graders, please show us in the OP where RW said he was in favor of Civil Unions.. If not, you are bearing False Witness.. Especially since RW is quoted as saying in post 18 of this thread...
But a civil union is not a civil right. Nowhere in the constitution can you find the “right” to claim that any loving relationship identical to marriage. It’s just not there. ]

The closest I can see it the way you do, is that Melissa Etheridge said something to someone else that RW was supposed to have said..
That someone, 'the reporter', doesn't even mention "Civil Unions"

You are reading into the article more than is there.. and taking a lesbian's word at that! Hmmmm... Imagine, a lesbian telling a lie.. on a man of God.. .to stir trouble...

Nah.. couldn't be!

Aaron, your hate for your brothers and sisters is very telling.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

webdog

Active Member
Site Supporter
Amy.G said:
Watch this.

Sounds to me like RW is in favor of civil unions.
How? From your link...

BOTTOM LINE:
1. God, who always acts out of love and does what is best for us, thought up sex. Sex was God's idea, not ours. Like fire, and many other things God gave us, sex can be used for good, or abused in ways that harm. The Designer of sex has clearly and repeatedly said that he created sex exclusively for husbands and wives in marriage. Whenever God's parameters are violated, it causes broken hearts, broken families, emotional hurt and shame, painful memories, and many other destructive consequences. There would be so STDs in our world if we all played by the rules.

2. God gives me the free choice to follow his commands or willfully disobey them so I must allow others to have that same free choice. Loving, trusting, and obeying God cannot be forced. In America, people already have the civil right to live as they wish.

3. If anyone, whether unfaithful spouses, or unmarried couples, or homosexuals or anyone else think they are smarter than God and chooses to disobey God's sexual instructions, it is not the US government's role to take away their choice. But neither is it the government's role to classify just any "loving" relationship as a marriage. A committed boyfriend-girlfriend relationship is not a marriage. Two lovers living together is a not a marriage. Incest is not marriage. A domestic partnership or even a civil union is still not marriage.

4. Much of this debate is not really about civil rights, but a desire for approval. The fact that 70% of blacks supported Prop 8 shows they don't believe it is a civil rights issue. Gays in California already have their rights. What they desire is approval and validation from those who disagree with them, and they are willing to force it by law if necessary. Any disapproval is quickly labeled "hate speech. Imagine if we held that standard in every other disagreement Americans have? There would be no free speech. That's why, on the traditional marriage side, many saw Prop 8 as a free speech issue: Don't force me to validate a lifestyle I disagree with. It is not the same as marriage." And many saw the Teacher's Union contribution of $3 million against Prop 8, as a effort to insure that children would be taught to approve what most parents disapprove of.]
 

rbell

Active Member
dcorbett said:
What are you implying in your sarcasm this time?

You called this pastor a "compromising fool." You are aware of what Jesus said regarding calling people fools...right?

Or are there special rules for non-IFB targets?
 

webdog

Active Member
Site Supporter
Amy.G said:
Did you watch the video?

RW says plainly that he does not "have a problem" with civil unions.
Yes, did you read the transcript below it? He edited on 12-15 to add that he thought they were talking about civil RIGHTS not civil UNION.
 

Amy.G

New Member
webdog said:
Yes, did you read the transcript below it? He edited on 12-15 to add that he thought they were talking about civil RIGHTS not civil UNION.
That's where he did the back peddling. It's clear from the video that he knew the interviewer said "civil unions".
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top