The Purpose Driven Life

No. I can see why you do, however. The book is geared around man being made for God's pleasure (5 purposes), and calvinism teaches that some were made for the sole purpose of destruction, making God either...
A)taking pleasure in man's destruction (which goes against His Word), or
B)meaning man was made for God's pleasure, and the basis of RW's book is correct.

 

npetreley,

Your remarks to me, made just 11 minutes after
I posted a new topic (The Third Woe) and only
24 minutes after you posted the above question about RW's Purpose Driven Life, IMO constitutes another set of "feel-good trendy fluff":

Your Quote:
_______________________________________________
" I confess that "the third woe" just conjured up images of the three stooges. All I could think of was the first and only Moe, and the third being at least two Curlies and Shemp".
_______________________________________________

I'll give you credit for at least recognizing
the subject could be one of a serious nature.

Mel Miller www.lastday.net

 

I question Rick Warren's methodology, although I do not know enough about him to question his intent. Of course Warren's theology would not jive with Reformed theology. That goes without saying. A Calvinist can only pray that the Lord uses this too as a means of proclaiming the gospel of repentance to those whom He has called.

 

npetrely, I'm with you on this. RW's materials are so effective in deceiving because they contain so much truth, but mixed with error nevertheless.

Now someone is probably going to ask me for specifics, but I don't have time. There's tons of info on this issue on the inet. I have several books on it.

I will throw in this one thought - I would think that churches that practice the "regulative" priciple would be able to see right through his inventions.

 

Please cite your proof for this being what calvinism teaches.

Or "C", an over-zealous anti-calvinist has once again engaged in straw man construction and the fallacy of limited alternatives.

I choose "C".

 

Please cite your proof for this being what calvinism teaches.

Or "C", an over-zealous anti-calvinist has once again engaged in straw man construction and the fallacy of limited alternatives.

I choose "C". </font>[/QUOTE]Bravo Scott for challenging an accusation without support. That is a lesson for all of us...Arminians and Calvinists.

 

Your kidding, right? The misapplication of Romans 9 ring a bell?

There is either man was created (predestined) for destruction, or for God's pleasure according to calvinism...no strawman here, as it can't be both.

 

Please cite your proof for this being what calvinism teaches.

Or "C", an over-zealous anti-calvinist has once again engaged in straw man construction and the fallacy of limited alternatives.

I choose "C". </font>[/QUOTE]Bravo Scott for challenging an accusation without support. That is a lesson for all of us...Arminians and Calvinists. </font>[/QUOTE]The same support you guys' use is the same support I use.

 

Scott, Bill, watch out, webdog will drag you into the mud real fast.

 

This is good. "Limited Alternatives"? I'm not the one who limit's God's love to "all" and the "world", not to mention the atonement.

You can choose?!?

 

Given that calvinists like to change meanings of words and phrases...care to share what "drag into the mud" means?

 

J.D., scroll up. Do you notice the "empty" post I put up? Originally I responded to webdog with a rejoinder that I am sure would get a passionate reply. But upon further reflection I went back and deleted my comments. I covenant to keep my comments on the thread and keep my feelings under control. I may have to let a few zingers that are directed at me go unchallenged but that is alright. It's not about me anyway...right?

Soli Deo Gloria

 

You mean those little snack cake Zingers?

Seriously, you claimed I made an accusation without support, to which I responded I use the same support you guys use. If you call this a "zinger", or something personal that doesn't "keep your feelings under control", man, you need to get a little thicker skin.

 

You mean those little snack cake Zingers?

Seriously, you claimed I made an accusation without support, to which I responded I use the same support you guys use. If you call this a "zinger", or something personal that doesn't "keep your feelings under control", man, you need to get a little thicker skin. </font>[/QUOTE]Yeah..but it is appropriate for us to deal in generalizations when scipture is being discussed? Maybe I am just too sensitive (which is entirely possible). When I make a point or an accusation on a point of theology, I feel compelled to back it up with contextual scriptural support. That is if the thread is dealing with theology. I try not to allow the actions of others dictate what I do. webdog, I would be most interested in your scriptural reasons why you believe what you believe as opposed to a blanket statement. I would hope you would want the same from me. That is all I was getting at.

 

You mean those little snack cake Zingers?

Seriously, you claimed I made an accusation without support, to which I responded I use the same support you guys use. If you call this a "zinger", or something personal that doesn't "keep your feelings under control", man, you need to get a little thicker skin. </font>[/QUOTE]Oh, and I love those Zinger snack cakes. The Raspberry ones are the best.

 

I didn't feel Romans 9 was a generalization, as it is brought up a lot here, but this is what I was getting at...

Rom 9:20 But who are you--anyone who talks back to God? Will what is formed say to the one who formed it, "Why did you make me like this?"
Rom 9:21 Or has the potter no right over His clay, to make from the same lump one piece of pottery for honor and another for dishonor?
Rom 9:22 And what if God, desiring to display His wrath and to make His power known, endured with much patience objects of wrath ready for destruction?

This same Scripture has been shot at me that man has been created for destruction. Whether you believe that or not, I don't know, but this is the "proof text" thrown at me, the same "proof text" I used to support my claim.

 

God created mankind in order to glorify Himself through the human race. Everything points to God's glory...everthing. Sinful man that ends up in hell and redeemed man that will wind up in glory...both glorify God.

 

God created mankind in order to glorify Himself through the human race. Everything points to God's glory...everthing. Sinful man that ends up in hell and redeemed man that will wind up in glory...both glorify God. </font>[/QUOTE]this we are in perfect agreement on. The original point I was trying to make, that Scott said "prove calvinism teaches this" was in regards to reformed theology pointing at this text as a "proof" that God creates people for the sole purpose of destruction.

 

Another "drive by" posting, I see...

Add to the discussion and don't character assasinate.