Laurie goes Purpose Driven
Posted by Nathan on Jun 23rd, 2008
2008
Jun 23
what happens when your poster boys for truth, doctrine and all that is good in the world begin to live a purpose driven life? Well, you have “no choice but to issue this warning to the body of Christ” [link added] Looks like Greg Laurie is joining forces with Rick Warren, and the ODMs are not too happy. This is one crazy case of guilt by association.
story submitted on our submissions page by Richard Abanes
June 23rd, 2008 at 11:25 am
And here I was expecting to find some great expose on Rick Warren only to discover that the link was Lighthouse Trails.
Lighthouse Trails: Sensationalism, fear mongering, GBA, and staunch traditionalism wrapped in a tight veneer of self-righteousness.
June 23rd, 2008 at 11:46 am
wow! I see you judge them right on.
And I though they were a credible source.
June 23rd, 2008 at 11:51 am
isnt Richard Abanes the mouthpiece for Rick warren
cause I have never seen Abanes criticize anything Rick has said
June 23rd, 2008 at 11:53 am
Who cares about Greg Laurie? Let him defend himself.
I don’t watch or listen to any of these men, and I encourage no one to do so.
Abanes is Warren’s lapdog, so who cares what he has to say?
You are a testimony to the non-redemption of the time.
June 23rd, 2008 at 11:53 am
caaaaaw, caaaaaaaw, caaaaaaw
June 23rd, 2008 at 12:05 pm
J: cause I have never seen Abanes criticize anything Rick has said….
RA: You need to search the internet more. Lol.
_________
Chris P. Says: Abanes is Warren’s lapdog, so who cares what he has to say?
ROFL. Right. I can’t remember the last time I actually even spoke to Rick personally. It’s been months and months and months. LoL.
RAbanes
June 23rd, 2008 at 12:29 pm
“I can’t remember the last time I actually even spoke to Rick personally. It’s been months and months and months. LoL.”
O, but of course that doesn’t stop him from definitively telling us what Warren believes. Please.
June 23rd, 2008 at 1:47 pm
I saw an ad in the latest version of Relevant Magazine about this conference. Apparantly, John MacArthur is teaming up with Greg Laurie. That must mean Johnnie Mac is in cahoots with Rick Warren as well.
Now what are the ODMs gonna do?!?
June 23rd, 2008 at 1:53 pm
All,
AND SPEAKING OF ROGER OAKLAND . . . . here is an audio clip of Roger Oakland basically implying that SATAN himself is driving Rick Warren. I kid you not — listen for yourself.
ROGER OAKLAND at CC Greenville.
He recommends James Sundquist’s book, which also points to Satan as the driving force behind Rick Warren, Saddleback, and all things Purpose Drive. And of course, Sundquist is supported by Lighthouse, Oakland, Warren Smith et al.
So, shall we now assume that Greg Laurie and other CC pastors (as well as John MacArthur, too) are being drawn in by Satan!??
R. Aabanes
June 23rd, 2008 at 2:07 pm
That article is full of assumptions, lies and some very long shots.
Bill Hybels and Rick Warren supporting contemplative and emergent?
Leonard Sweet and Brian Mc Laren New Age?
These people who wrote that article have no clue what they are talking about!
June 23rd, 2008 at 2:08 pm
Ken: O, but of course that doesn’t stop him from definitively telling us what Warren believes. Please.
RA: “In the world of live church webcasts, book publishers, websites and so on, it is no longer necessary to travel to see a church to understand what it is all about. Your pastor’s copious writings, speeches and sermons are online and available for everyone to see and analyze in the light of God’s Word.” (INGRID SCHLUETER, refusal to meet Rick Warren at conference.)
So, which is it Ken? Do I have to actually meet with someone personally to know what they preach/teach? Or, is the information available publicly adequate for knowing what someone believes?
This is a perfect illustration of your inconsistency and flip-flopping on arguments, in order to just suit your own needs. Besides, Rick Warren is a friend and he is my pastor. I do hear him every week at church. And have interaction with many Saddleback people, including other pastors all the time.
RAbanes
June 23rd, 2008 at 2:26 pm
1…2…3…4…5…6…7…8…standing 8 count! No wait Rich gets a TKO!
LOL
June 23rd, 2008 at 2:34 pm
Ken,
Address the conversation and the blatent GBA Lighthouse trails is using, or don’t comment with drive-by’s that don’t add anything to the coversation but sarcasm and insult to Rich…
What’s the point of doing that anyways?
Joe
June 23rd, 2008 at 5:34 pm
RA: “This is a perfect illustration of your inconsistency and flip-flopping on arguments, in order to just suit your own needs.”
KS: Sorry Richard, no flip-flopping there. And Chris, I mean to burst your bubble but no punch hit me. I simply stated a fact concerning Abanes and I didn’t offer an opinion about it.
The fact is, good, bad or indifferent, not speaking to Warren in months has not stopped Abanes from definitively telling us what Warren believes. Pay attention there boys.
And as far as Lighthouse Trails, I am not affiliated with them in any way whatsoever and I have not read their website.
June 24th, 2008 at 8:44 am
Ken: The fact is, good, bad or indifferent, not speaking to Warren in months has not stopped Abanes from definitively telling us what Warren believes. Pay attention there boys.
RA: And Silva here shows us another tactic of ODMs — i.e., when an initial argument is gutted, switch the argument to something else entirely, and pretend like your first argument was not actually your first argument at all.
Notice how Ken is now saying he “simply stated a fact” and that he “didn’t offer an opinion about it.” Then he paraphrases himself to apparently try to remind us of what he REALLY said.
But Silva not only dismisses the syntax of his sentence that clearly expressed his feelings, but also conveniently deleted the one word addition that noted his opinion even more forcefully about my not having spoken to Warren. His initial remark was: “O, but of course that doesn’t stop him from definitively telling us what Warren believes. PLEASE.”
The sentence structure as well as the added “Please” infer a clear message. But it was a message that ended up turning around, grew teeth, and bit him on the. . . . torso (assistance appreciated, Ingrid).
Hence, we have this new response wherein Ken actually takes himself out of context and changes his own message! LoL. That’s quite a feat. Thank you, Ken. Each post is another lesson for us all.
Brother, in all seriousness — repent.
R. Abanes
June 24th, 2008 at 8:54 am
RA: “the syntax of his sentence that clearly expressed his feelings…The sentence structure…infers a clear message.”
KS: Thank you Richard for stating why it is that ODMs have every right to listen to and read materials by preachers and teachers of counterfeit Christianity and then tell people what they mean by their words.
If Richard Abanes as the well known apologist (just ask him) can do it, then so can we.
RA: “But it was a message that ended up turning around, grew teeth, and bit him…”
KS: Yeah Richard, I’ll lose a lot of sleep worrying abiut what you think of me. So instead of standing in the spiritual cesspool you’re in take your own advice: “in all seriousness — repent.”
June 24th, 2008 at 9:02 am
Richard A,
When truth is “relevant” to your own doctrine and you cannot recognize it, that is then the ODM fails in being truthful. It becomes more about “winning” the argument than truth… as well as “being right” being more important than being truthful.
Ken is the supreme example of this. He seemed to learn very well the art of double speak, as he can say what he means, change it to mean something else then state he originally stated the other thing as you pointed out. Ken and other ODMs, (Pastorboy does this but is not as “good” at it) do this on a regular basis and do not miss a beat.
I am glad you are here and that you see these “techniques” of truth twisting that is done on a regular basis by Ken and other ODM’s.
iggy
June 24th, 2008 at 9:09 am
KEN: And as far as Lighthouse Trails, I am not affiliated with them in any way whatsoever and I have not read their website.
______________
RA: Oh, really? Hmmm, you’ve not read their website? Okay, well…I am just a bit confused here, Ken. Can you explain the following, if you’ve not read their website, and if you are not affiliated with them in “any way whatsoever”:
– “During my research I came across an article on the blog of Lighthouse Trails Research called Lifeway Stores Says OK to New Age Sympathizing Authors” (Ken Silva, A Southern Baptist Pastor Investigates Emergent and Contemplative Within the SBC).
– “I now share what I have currently from my personal dialogue with Lynda Graybeal who is “Personal Assistant to Richard Foster” at Renovare. I have made her aware that from the April 8, 2006 newsletter from Lighthouse Trails Research, as well as from personal contact with Deborah Dombrowski, I have been informed ‘you personally are aware that Foster’s name may be removed if he so desires’” (Ken Silva, RICHARD FOSTER AND THE LSTP
– SLICE OF LAODICEA - Posted by Rev. Ken Silva on June 6, 2006 - “Those who think that exposing the kinds of issues within the evangelical community that we do here at Slice brings us pleasure are sadly mistaken. . . . Our friends at Lighthouse Trails Research will fill you in a bit more about Henri Nouwen, who was a Roman Catholic priest and essentially a universalist who believed that men could be saved apart from Jesus Christ. Today I strongly admonish you in the Lord to stay away from contemplative spirituality” (Ken Silva, Contemplative Is Impacting Radio Bible Class)
Hmmm, “PERSONAL CONTACT WITH DEBORAH DOMBROWSKI”? And yet now you say you are not “affiliated with them in any way whatsoever and I have not read their website”?
Hmmm, “OUR FRIENDS AT LIGHTHOUSE TRAILS RESEARCH”? And yet now you say you are not “affiliated with them in any way whatsoever and I have not read their website”?
Oh, Ken. Really, again, I say, you need to repent. You are the deceiver here — not the people you criticize.
R. Abanes
June 24th, 2008 at 9:46 am
1…2…3…4…5…6… Ah…nevermind!
Liars shall inherit what?
June 24th, 2008 at 10:04 am
Again a supreme example of Ken Silva’s “relative” truth and revisionist history… LOL! And I bet it took less than ten minutes to find that info on Ken’s site! LOL!
When one habitually lies, it is hard to remember all of them to keep the story consistent… that is why one should try to strive for truth… not make it up on the sly to “get” the other guy! LOL!
That was the best…
iggy
June 24th, 2008 at 10:07 am
Iggy,
Yeah, I find this all very very very sad. And, just fyi, it took about 5 minutes. And there is sooo much more. sigh. Mormons are a lot more difficult.
RAbanes
June 24th, 2008 at 10:12 am
RA,
Believe me as I laugh I also weep… though it is “funny” it is tradgic that Satan has blinded some so severely.
Once again I call for prayer for Ken and other ODM’s.
Maybe it is time for another day of prayer and fasting for Ken Silva?
iggy
June 24th, 2008 at 10:19 am
RA ““In the world of live church webcasts, book publishers, websites and so on, it is no longer necessary to travel to see a church to understand what it is all about”.
Kent: Thank You and how well said! This is precisely what so many have been trying to say for so many years!! You don’t have to meet Warren, talk to him, or go to his church to witness and understand what he’s all about! I’m so glad you said it Richard!!
June 24th, 2008 at 10:30 am
Kent,
You kind of missed the whole point didn’t you? And here we have yet our third and fourth lessons of the thread - SELECTIVE READING.
Many of Warren critics and these ODM people/supporters are able to read a novel-length article that utterly destroys one or more of their points, and all they will come away with is some sentence, taken out context, and turned around by them to somehow support one of their notions that has nothing to do with what was being discussed. Once more, sad. But I thank you for the illustration.
As for the fourth lesson, this falls under the category of - FREE PASS CARD.
Above we have a clear example of an ODM not only being inconsistent/unfair in his arguments, but then lying flat-out. But Kent ignores it to try, rather feebly I might add, to level another shot at me — the enemy of choice. As I’ve said before, this is no longer about truth for these people, or defending the faith, it is about: 1) being right; 2) winning a fight at all costs; 3) rooting out the chosen heretic, despite the facts.
R.Abanes
For ease - ODM tactics displayed so far in this thread:
1. INCONSISTENT ARGUMENTATION (DOUBLE STANDARD)
2. CHANGE ARGUMENT
3. SELECTIVE READING
4. FREE PASS CARD
June 24th, 2008 at 10:40 am
O my gentlemen; a feeding frenzy? Wherever is your superior brand of Christianity with its charitable reading?
With my comment about Lighthouse Trails I was staying on point of this particular post, which is based on what LT says about Greg Laurie.
You see, my dearest brother Joe C admonished me: “Address the conversation and the blatent GBA Lighthouse trails is using…” I was assuming my loving brother meant re. Greg Laurie.
And so, concerning Laurie, whom I know next to zero about anyway, I said I have not read their website. Better luck next time.
June 24th, 2008 at 10:47 am
Ken gets the irony award for the year. This could easily be directed becak to Ken
June 24th, 2008 at 11:11 am
Goodness Richard, It sounds like I offended you by agreeing with you.
June 24th, 2008 at 11:27 am
Kent,
Not offended at all! LoL. Just gave a word of enlightenment since you seemed to completely misunderstand my point.
And you weren’t actually agreeing with me since I never said that I agreed with Ingrid in her statement. Did I say somewhere that I actually AGREED with Ingrid’s observation? Let me answer: No.
Here’s what I said after quoting Schlueter: “So, which is it Ken? Do I have to actually meet with someone personally to know what they preach/teach? Or, is the information available publicly adequate for knowing what someone believes?”
Did you understand this time? I submitted the remark, and asked ken view he believed since he cannot have it both ways — that’s a double standard.
RAbanes
June 24th, 2008 at 11:29 am
KEN: ….. I’ll lose a lot of sleep worrying about what you think of me.
RA: You should indeed be losing a lot of sleep — but not over what I think of you, but over what God thinks of you for slandering, and now, as the above post shows, clearly revealing your willingness to lie. (see #18, June 24th, 2008 at 9:09 am).
R. Abanes
June 24th, 2008 at 11:55 am
RA - Any chance you could start using the blockquote tag (click the little ‘>>’ symbol if you want to use the buttons)? - it would make reading your posts much easier by visually delineating the quoted text from the responses…
June 24th, 2008 at 11:58 am
Oh, there they are. Lol. clicking
June 24th, 2008 at 12:03 pm
Richard, you obviously quoted Ingrid in defense of your statement, “I can’t remember the last time I actually even spoke to Rick personally. It’s been months and months and months. LoL.” even if it was out of smug sarcasm in an attempt to try to trap Ken in his words. None the less you WERE quoting it as a defense of your statement.
June 24th, 2008 at 12:13 pm
Richard,
I’m afraid my interpretation is that you completely missed the point, not Kent. His point, as I understand it, is that you have pointed out that one need not be an attendee of a church to be able to learn how far from Biblical their teachings have become what with online services, archives and websites that reveal so much about churches today to the outsider. One of the most often posted contentions of defenders of Warren and others is that you need to go there to experienceit and then you can have the authority or right or ability to point out problems. By what you’ve said, that Kent quoted, that isn’t your position at all. Am I also mistaken? Are we all unable to properly interpret your comments and thus we are the problem or could you submit that you really are a confused/confusing individual?
As to what you warned Ken about, I’d have to say his fear of God is far far far more apparent than yours or many of those who post in here. Consider Is. 66:1-2 Richard.
In Christ,
Bill
June 24th, 2008 at 12:14 pm
Kent - go back and read again. are you seriously not understanding this? let me help deconstruct it for you.
1. I was accused of being Warren’s lapdog - i.e., someone who serves at his demand.
2. I scoffed at that statement because, “I can’t remember the last time I actually even spoke to Rick personally. It’s been months and months and months.”
3. Ken Silva pursued a new direction, using my comment to indicate that I was somehow misrepresenting my connection to Warren: “O, but of course that doesn’t stop him from definitively telling us what Warren believes. Please.”
4. I responded by quoting Ingrid to show KEN’S inconsistency.
There. I was not quoting Ingrid to support anything of I said. It was all to direct the attention to what Ken said and ask him which way he wants it: either a) you CAN accurately describe someone’s beliefs without meeting with them; or b) you CAN’T accurately describe someone’s beliefs without meeting with them.
Oh, and BTW, are you going to correct Ken for brazenly lying about his connection to Lighthouse Trails? Still waiting for that one.
R Abanes
June 24th, 2008 at 12:17 pm
Bill,
Are you going to correct Ken for lying as I showed above, or keep playing semantic word games in an attempt to keep going at me? How much can Ken fear God if he is so willing to easily lie about his own connections to a fellow “discerner”? You provide us with yet another ODM tactic — just keep attacking and making new accusations, despite what has been said, and despite your failure to deal with what has already been stated.
R. Abanes
June 24th, 2008 at 12:18 pm
“I was accused of being Warren’s lapdog”
A obvious lie! It should read “guard dog”!
June 24th, 2008 at 12:24 pm
Ken are you and Don Imus friends?
June 24th, 2008 at 12:43 pm
KS: *ROFL* O my, Richard’s comment #18 is about as clear an example of GBA as Lightouse Trails ever dreamed of! Hoo wee, this is *ahem* rich–”Mr. Pot.; Mr. Kettle is on line 2 with a complaint.
Isn’t it you of the superior erudition who keep telling us low-brow ODMs that quoting someone in “research” does not mean said person endorses everything that the quoted does/says?
Forget the rules to your own game did you? “Our friends” is a greeting of common courtesy in our, well, culture. You show me the link to Apprising Ministries at Lighthouse or a reciprocal one at AM or even CRN. O that’s right, you can’t; there aren’t any.
Give it up Richard and go repent for accusing me, one sent by God as a pastor-teacher, of lying. After-all, here at CRN.Info we’ve just had a lecture concerning criticism of Tim Reed and why his calling as a pastor must be respected.
Not looking too good there Richard.
June 24th, 2008 at 12:49 pm
RA: “I responded by quoting Ingrid to show KEN’S inconsistency”.
Kent: OK, and where in all of these comments did Ken quote or make that statement from Ingrid that made it “KEN’S inconsistency”?
June 24th, 2008 at 1:04 pm
Kent: sigh. Nevermind. But nice way to complete keep avoiding Ken’s lies.
I’ll tell you what, though, let’s see how you react to this one. For the sake of discussion ONLY, let’s say that I used Ingrid’s quote incorrectly. Poor me. I also misunderstood how Ken has been positively been viewing Schlueter’s reasoning behind why she would not attend Warren at Saddleback (btw Ken, would you for the record care to tell us exactly whether or not you DID agree with Ingrid’s reason to trun down the invitation — warning: your answer will have implications). So, okay. Darn it — you done got me. I just plumb got confused.
Now, on to more important things — what do you have to say to ken about LYING with regard to himself and Lighthouse Trails.
R. Abanes
June 24th, 2008 at 1:11 pm
Ken,
You’re ability to lie and twist truth is frightening.
My point about your bout of lying had NOTHING to do with you simply quoting Lighthouse, but not agreeing with everything they say. MY goodness, man. Wake up for Christ’s sake.
“…. quoting someone in ‘research’ does not mean said person endorses everything that the quoted does/says?” has NOTHING to do with your lie, which is, I will remind you and others is as follows:
“And as far as Lighthouse Trails, I am not affiliated with them in any way whatsoever and I have not read their website.”
That, sir, is a lie, as evidenced by your own website articles that clearly show you are indeed affiliated with them, and you have indeed read their website, and in fact, you have even spoken personally to Deborah.
And as for you being sent by God? …….I had a whole paragraph typed on this one, but for your sake, and mine, and God’s….deleted it. You shall receive your just rewards.
RAbanes
June 24th, 2008 at 2:13 pm
Richard,
Quoting me, and ooh, I’m so honored:
Speaking with someone over a year ago equals affiliation? Oops, Lighthouse hasn’t dreamed of being this far into GBA-ha! What’s the matter, is the log in your eye preventing you from being able to read Richard? From comment 25, I repeat: With my comment about Lighthouse Trails I was staying on point of this particular post, which is based on what LT says about Greg Laurie.
You see, my dearest brother Joe C admonished me: “Address the conversation and the blatent GBA Lighthouse trails is using…” I was assuming my loving brother meant re. Greg Laurie.
I leave this issue now beaten to glue with a little bit of warning just for you. Richard, the more you attack me the more you’re getting yourself deeper toward judgment from the Lord. So I now consider this issue closed for me.
You and God can work it out from here.
June 24th, 2008 at 2:40 pm
Richard,
I wasn’t aware of the rule that one must clean everything up before commenting in this forum. I guess it is easier for you to jump away from what I said than to respond to it, eh?
June 24th, 2008 at 2:53 pm
Ken said his reference to LT was in the context of this particular post/issue. Charitable reading takes him at his word for this. Let’s refrain from escalating the issue by calling someone a liar after they have clarified their point.
Neil
June 24th, 2008 at 2:54 pm
Bill,
No, you misunderstood my point entirely. Your entire June 24th, 2008 at 12:13 pm post is moot since it has nothing to do with anything I actually wrote — as I have tried to point out. My use of Ingrid’s remark has NOTHING to do with any position I take on anything, but everything to do with how Ken Silva views the situation in light of his comment to me. If you can’t understand that — sorry.
_________
BILL: One of the most often posted contentions of defenders of Warren and others is that you need to go there to experience it and then you can have the authority or right or ability to point out problems.
RA: I’ve never said this.
_______
BILL: Are we all unable to properly interpret your comments and thus we are the problem or could you submit that you really are a confused/confusing individual?
RA: Not all of you. No one else seemed to have a problem understanding what I said. For example, as Chris said after my post: “1… 2… 3… 4… 5… 6… 7… 8… standing 8 count! No wait Rich gets a TKO!”
My point was apparently rather obvious.
But you and other Warren-haters and “discerners” can’t seem to discern basic points being made if they don’t fit into what you’re focused on trying to prove — or if they contradict a set preconceived idea.
It causes, I believe, a disconnect in your minds. I’ve seen it, tbh, in cultists who’s minds are so fixated onproving one thing that everything they hear is filtered through that obsession, rather thant trhough basic routes of communication.
RAbanes
June 24th, 2008 at 2:57 pm
Ken, you are outright lying now! We have clearly shown articles of your where you say
“During my research I came across an article on the blog of Lighthouse Trails Research”
and
“Our friends at Lighthouse Trails Research will fill you in a bit more about Henri Nouwen”
we aren’t making a guilt by association argument here, or that you endorse everything they say. You said that you have not read their website, but clearly have. I guess you will not have to do what you often do best. Back peddle.
June 24th, 2008 at 3:04 pm
Nathan,
As I said to Richard above, I think calling Ken a liar on this one is unnecessary escalation. Ken has said that he meant that comment in the context of this particular post and that particular article on LT.
I agree in one thing though, while Ken may not be affiliated with LT, their tone and methodology are very similar… and calling them “Our friends at…” implies agreement.
Neil
June 24th, 2008 at 3:09 pm
Nathan,
I shall let it go. The info is here for peeps to make their own decision about what he did or did not mean.
RAbanes
June 24th, 2008 at 3:13 pm
What is a peep?
June 24th, 2008 at 3:15 pm
God say “let every man be a liar” so that includes Ken.
Uh-oh…that mean me too. Never mind.
June 24th, 2008 at 3:16 pm
If LT finds Warren guilty because he invites Sweet and Blanchard, if Hybels is guilty for similar reasons, if Laurie is now to be warned against because of his affiliation with Warren et. al. — Why do they not question the likes of MacArthur and Begg for appearing at one of Laurie’s conferences? Why doesn’t the GBA continue to them as well?
Me sees a double standard afoot…
June 24th, 2008 at 3:27 pm
RA: “For the sake of discussion ONLY, let’s say that I used Ingrid’s quote incorrectly”.
Kent: Richard, your humility makes me misty eyed.
RA: “btw Ken, would you for the record care to tell us exactly whether or not you DID agree with Ingrid’s reason to trun down the invitation — warning: your answer will have implications). So, okay. Darn it — you done got me. I just plumb got confused”.
Kent: How sad. You qouted “Ingrid” to show “Ken’s” inconsistancy, without any comments on this thread from Ken saying that was his position. Regardless of Ken’s stand on that statement, (I hope he does agree with it), but he didn’t state it before your wreckless comment, then you call it “his” inconsistancy and go on a rant against those who question such careless statement.
RA: Now, on to more important things — what do you have to say to ken about LYING with regard to himself and Lighthouse Trails.
Kent: I don’t have any idea what ties Ken has or doesn’t have with LT. Are you suggesting something along the lines of what Rick Warren did when he claimed there were no recording was made on his Syrian trip?
June 24th, 2008 at 3:37 pm
Great!
The right side has now effectively proved that the left side is as inconsistent and hypocritical as they are. Game over!
June 24th, 2008 at 3:38 pm
Kent: I don’t have any idea what ties Ken has or doesn’t have with LT. Are you suggesting something along the lines of what Rick Warren did when he claimed there were no recording was made on his Syrian trip?
RA: Sigh. Are you all getting this on film?
RAbanes
June 24th, 2008 at 3:39 pm
peep = people.
RA
June 24th, 2008 at 4:20 pm
Seems easier to say… oh I have misspoken, yet as I read this thread, I see that Ken does not seem to have that ability.
Rules to be a good ODM.
1. Never admit mistakes cuz you never make them.
2. Cannot comprehend satire.
3. Make Truth look like a pretzel.
4. defend the pretzel until death.
5. deny the pretzel and say it was a cookie.
6. Make truth cookie into a doughy lie.
7. Never say sorry or that you misspoke.
8. Remember rule #1
and on and on…
So Ken is Steve Camp, Pastorboy or Chris Rosebrough right about regeneration… this is an important doctrine concerning salvation… which one has the truth? All disagree… so get back to me when you can… which truth is The Truth?
When you can reconcile all their differences get back to me…
iggy
June 24th, 2008 at 4:27 pm
Iggy: So Ken is Steve Camp, Pastorboy or Chris Rosebrough right about regeneration… this is an important doctrine concerning salvation… which one has the truth? All disagree… so get back to me when you can… which truth is The Truth?
RA: Dear friend, those things don’t matter — it’s whether or not they hate Rick Warren. Excatly why peeps fixate on him is still beyond me. I guess now they can tear up greg Laurie for a while. Sad.
RA
June 24th, 2008 at 4:39 pm
“it’s whether or not they hate Rick Warren”
I guess you would have to say Hank Hanegraaff hates Joel Osteen as well. I’ve heard him say a lot of negative things about him.
June 24th, 2008 at 4:45 pm
Ken I know, and Chris P. I know, who is Kent?
June 24th, 2008 at 6:53 pm
True enough, but I don’t think anyone has pointed out how Hank selectively edits or assigns motives like ODM’s oft do.
Neil
June 24th, 2008 at 7:03 pm
Hank Hanegraaff is right on the Word of Faith Prosperity Gospel garbage
the only people he hates is anyone who believes in a Pre-trib or post-trib rapture
Hank believes Jesus 2nd coming happened in 70 a.d. (preterism)
June 24th, 2008 at 8:11 pm
J - HH is actually Partial-preterist (he believes in an eventual, final return of Jesus, as well)…
June 24th, 2008 at 8:49 pm
The ODM tangled web will soon be hard to maneuver. J MAc will be connected to Warren, Bell will be connected to Piper, and the movement of God will be closer to the emerging church than they think.
June 24th, 2008 at 9:03 pm
The Piper thing has always confounded me. He invites Driscoll to his “Desiring God” conference, and you get a light ripple in ODM land. Then Piper’s son leans emergent and I haven’t seen even an article (except here) about it.
If Rick Warren’s son had an emergent sympathizing blog he would have already been roasted on a verbal spit! Even if we disagree, let us be consistent across the board.
I believe the repulsion that was shown when Chris Rosebrough actually praised Warren for his hospitality told the story.
I think MacArthur’s warmth to LarryKing is just a sinister attempt to win Larry to his side!
June 24th, 2008 at 9:50 pm
RA: Dear friend, those things don’t matter — it’s whether or not they hate Rick Warren. Excatly why peeps fixate on him is still beyond me. I guess now they can tear up greg Laurie for a while. Sad.
iggy: Like dogs fighting over a scrap of meat. The ODM misses what Jesus stated about a house divided…
Jesus seems to imply here that Satan understands how important unity is… sad that the ODM fails to see what even Satan understands.
iggy
June 25th, 2008 at 7:46 am
Richard said:
RA: Dear friend, those things don’t matter — it’s whether or not they hate Rick Warren. Excatly (sic) why peeps fixate on him is still beyond me.
The fixation is that he, by his promises of eternal life or “being in the family of God” is nothing less than declaring “Peace, peace, where there is no peace.” Declaring to someone on page 58 in PDL and many times outside of the books thru messages in SCC that they have peace with God and are eternally secure is anti-Biblical, anti-apostolic and in light of Christ’s extraordinarily fearsome message in Matthew 7:21-23 which is immediately following a solemn warning about false prophets in sheep’s clothing aka pastors/evangelists/etc… in the name of Christianity who inwardly are ravenous wolves which is echoed in Paul’s similar warning in Acts 20:28-31, well it is the most loving and compassionate thing a person can do to shed light on the false teachings that those who are persuaded by such a leader might escape their blindness and come to know the truth by the Spirit of God.
Iggy, have you read Acts 20 mentioned above or Jesus words in Matt. 7 also mentioned above - it is not a matter of a house divided as you might infer because Christ in His high priestly prayer affirmed there would be unity among those of the same Spirit in Him - a unity of surpassing glory and power - but Satan has planted tares to sow discord and seeks to pluck up seed or weed out planted seedlings or crowd out sprouted plants by the cares of this world. IOW - there is a God honoring unity among those in whom the Spirit of God resides whereas much of what seems to clutter this blog and the writings of it’s authors is man-centered, man exalting, anti-biblical, proud, and contentious.
A humble opinion.
BTW - Rick Frueh, still waiting for the biblical foundation upon which your Arminianism is based - a link to a sound teaching on it would be sufficient as Google has not yet provided me with an impressive effort in that regard.
http://www.burke.urbanreformer.com/
June 25th, 2008 at 7:57 am
Well, there you go, Rick… Your Arminianism couldn’t possibly be based on the Bible. Why don’t you shape up and see that Calvin figured everything out. LOL!
Gosh, isn’t it too early in the morning for this level of sanctimony.
June 25th, 2008 at 7:59 am
Perhaps, Bill, Warren is simply a Christian and not a systematic Calvinist…
Your exegesis on Matthew 7 is rather anti-contextual in its application to RW/PD - It is the connection between faith and action being dealt with in the passage, tying it back to the Kingdom of God/Heaven - which began with Jesus’ resurrection and continues to eternity…
June 25th, 2008 at 8:08 am
Phil,
Sorry I brought that into this forum, unfortunately Rick chose to ignore my simple request to genuinely investigate why people contend Arminianism is based in Scripture. To date I have not seen a convincing effort to address this in the manner that those who eschew a Calvinistic interpretation of salvation have been gracious to provide.
Chris,
Sorry you are very unclear in your comment - what exactly are you talking about?
http://www.burke.urbanreformer.com/
June 25th, 2008 at 8:10 am
yada, yada, yada, Bill. Same old illusions. Every single thing has been answered for those who have ears to hear. Been there, done that. Not gonna waste time explaining it all again. Sigh. The truth is out there. Those who want it, will find it.
RA
June 25th, 2008 at 8:49 am
Dear Bill,
I looked at your website. Interesting. I also found most interesting, and troubling, your support for Ron Paul.
This is interesting. Given your support of Ron Paul, are a White Supremacist of some stripe?
It is a well-known fact that Paul is a friend of White Supremacist, assorted racists, and neo-Nazis. Moreover, he has made numerous racist statements in his various interviews, newsletters, and speeches.
Paul has been courting White Supremacists so closely that the Anti-Defamation League actually contacted Paul and asked him to distance himself from such groups! (See ADL Concerns to Ron Paul). Specifically, they expressed concerns over contributions from infamous racist and all-around trouble-maker Don Black, a KKK-man and owner of the hate website STORMFRONT. As the ADL article states: “Paul, a U.S. congressman from Texas, has come under fire for the support his campaign has enjoyed from leading white supremacist and neo-Nazi groups.”
This got David Duke — former high-ranking Klansman, and leading racist in politics — to defend Paul in an article: “Ron Paul versus The Haters.” Duke, like so many other white supremacists, have been looking to Paul as their Golden (White) boy, who will save the country from Jews and people of color. I will NOT give a link to this article because he, and it, are so offensive.
It’s not surprising that Duke rushed to Paul’s defense, as a 2007 Houston Chronicle on Ron Paul pointed out. Paul, as far back as the 1980s-1990s was referring to Blacks (as a whole race) as crime-prone, and “fleet-footed” and saying things like about Jews like: “By far the most powerful lobby in Washington of the bad sort is the Israeli government” and that the goal of the Zionist movement is to stifle criticism” (I refer you to the White Supremacist belief that America is now being run by a secret, behind-the-scenes, Zionist Occupational Government - ZOG).
“As early as December 1989, a section of his Investment Letter, titled ‘What To Expect for the 1990s,’ predicted that ‘Racial Violence Will Fill Our Cities’ because ‘mostly black welfare recipients will feel justified in stealing from mostly white ‘haves.’ Two months later, a newsletter warned of ‘The Coming Race War,’ and, in November 1990, an item advised readers, ‘If you live in a major city, and can leave, do so. If not, but you can have a rural retreat, for investment and refuge, buy it.’ In June 1991, an entry on racial disturbances in Washington, DC’s Adams Morgan neighborhood was titled, ‘Animals Take Over the D.C. Zoo.’ ‘This is only the first skirmish in the race war of the 1990s,’ the newsletter predicted.” (Excerpt from James Kirkpatrick, Angry White Man, The New Republic).
The above sentiments coming from Paul follows down the line the white supremacist beliefs of persons involved in the perverse Christian Identity religion, which is a twisting of Christianity into an ugly religion that blends the Bible with prejudice, racism, and hate.
So, are you Christian Identity, Bill? Just curious. Not making an accusation, just asking. If you’re not a racist, or shall I say, racialist, then I have a question: Why in the world should we not just call you a racist anyway since that would be guilt by association — which is something Warren’s critics use against Warren all the time?
RAbanes
June 25th, 2008 at 8:55 am
Richard,
Pardon me if I am not convinced by your demeanor which is highly un-Christian in that you lack humility, patience, sound-mindedness, submission to the Word of God and the Spirit of God.
I will readily admit I am not the most gracious or patient person and at times I make comments that may be better left unsaid. But when I am faced with the word of God that in clarity deals me a blow to the heart and addresses where I have been wrong in action or in teaching - I am swift to humble myself and confess and repent of my errors. I wish I could say that is reflected in those I see here, in those who defend Warren, Hybels, etc…, but I do not see that. Someone said they wondered why Piper invited Driscoll to his conference yet they ignore the counsel Piper and CJ Mahaney had with Mark Driscoll in which he humbled himself and appears to have received the rebuke of brethren which might very well have been the purpose in it all. Lord only knows.
I wil close my comments with this simple and clear passage from Isaiah 66:1-2:
1Thus says the LORD,
“Heaven is My throne and the earth is My footstool
Where then is a house you could build for Me?
And where is a place that I may rest?
2″For My hand made all these things,
Thus all these things came into being,” declares the LORD
“But to this one I will look,
To him who is humble and contrite of spirit, and who trembles at My word.
To God be the glory, wholly and alone.
June 25th, 2008 at 8:58 am
Bill,
Are you Christian Identity?
RA
June 25th, 2008 at 9:54 am
Richard Richard Richard,
How quick you are to cast labels on a man and ignore the reality of his life’s devotion to defending the Constitution, so much so that he has been compared to Thomas Jefferson and other founders, is iconic in his integrity in an era where the winds of change control the minds of most politicians.
How quick you are to jump to the lowest form of trashing someone when further investigation would quickly and convincingly correct your error, but you are unwilling to humble yourself and admit you were wrong as history has shown is your manner of life.
You might read more of what an educated Pastor has written about Ron Paul rather than what the mainstream media and political opponents would have one believe about Ron Paul. His manner of life is neither White Supremacist nor racist - and as Christ said “by their fruits you will know them”. I submit to you Chuck Baldwin’s articles: http://www.chuckbaldwinlive.com/election2008/reps/RonPaul.html, specifically these should be a first read by you Richard to bring you out of the darkness and into the light of truth about him - http://www.prisonplanet.com/articles/january2008/011308_not_racist.htm http://christians4paul.wordpress.com/2007/11/21/ten-reasons-for-christian-to-vote-for-ron-paul-for-president/ http://www.lewrockwell.com/barnwell/barnwell85.html
As to your attempts to identify me as a racist or having racist leaning you could not be further from the truth Richard. Anyone who knows me and my history and family (which I realize few here do, but nonetheless) knows I have no racial bias as there is only one race, the human race. You ought to spend more time diligently investigating prior to making wild accusations Richard - for one who prides himself on his position in the field of discernment for you to so foolishly go off the rails in accusations and slander is beyond explanation.
Finally, not knowing how you define “Christian Identity” it would be foolish of me to answer your question for you would likely twist it to in some way soil my reputation as you all too freely are accustomed to do to those with whom you are contentious.
Do some research Richard and get grounded.
June 25th, 2008 at 10:31 am
Bill,
I suspect that Richard was utilizing your support of Ron Paul (who is certifiable, BtW, but that’s beside the point) to make a point that your criticisms of Warren as as specious as calling you a racist because you support Paul.
As for Calvinism, I think I’ll just stick with Christianity as taught by Jesus and supported by his Apostles, sans the extra-biblical, classically modernist systems created in the last 4-500 years…
June 25th, 2008 at 10:56 am
Chris,
Not really buying your interpretation of Richards comments and calling Ron Paul a racist and all that, but I guess that’s to be expected. So be it.
As to what Jesus taught, consider:
o John 3:5-7
o John 1:12-13
o John 3:19o
o John 8:34o
o Matthew 7:16-18
o Matthew 12:33
o John 6:44
o John 6:65
And those are just a few passages on man’s total depravity/inability from Jesus teaching about Christianity.
June 25th, 2008 at 10:58 am
OOPS! Should be:
John 3:19, 8:34 not vss 190 and 340.
Wow, that’d be some long chapters, huh? Sorry.
June 25th, 2008 at 11:09 am
Bill,
That goes to my earlier point of you pulling scripture completely out of its context. Just taking the John 6 passages, for instance, you have to rip them out of their context (a discussion in which Jesus makes known his rejection of a military messiahship) and then systematically piece them together in a patchwork quilt that ignores other parts of scripture.
Additionally, you have to make some fundamental assumptions (such as God being trapped within the bounds of time).
I’ll tell you what - I’ll stick with the entire set of Jesus’ teachings - in their original context - and you stick with what John Calvin cobbled together in his fiefdom of Geneva. God makes it rather clear that he offers a choice to follow Him, which he enables through Jesus’ work…
June 25th, 2008 at 11:25 am
Bill: How quick you are to cast labels on a man and ignore the reality of his life’s devotion to defending the Constitution….
RA: I suppose a racist could defend the constitution. You read the material I gave you. Care to comment on that, rather than on me?
Bill: . . . . so much so that he has been compared to Thomas Jefferson and other founders, is iconic in his integrity in an era where the winds of change control the minds of most politicians.
RA: Interesting. Thomas Jefferson had slaves, too.
Bill: How quick you are to jump to the lowest form of trashing someone when further investigation would quickly and convincingly correct your error, but you are unwilling to humble yourself and admit you were wrong as history has shown is your manner of life.
RA: Hmm, mmm.
Bill: You might read more of what an educated Pastor has written about Ron Paul rather than what the mainstream media and political opponents would have one believe about Ron Paul.
RA: Yes. God knows nothing that comes from mainstream media is true, but EVERYTHING that comes from a “pastor” is true — no matter what.
Bill: His manner of life is neither White Supremacist nor racist . . ..
RA: I’ve read his newsletters, and seen the company he keeps. If he’s not racist, he’s putting on a good show, imho. But that’s just my opinion. And it’s politics, after all.
Last I checked, we have the freedom to have our opinions of our politicians. You like Paul and think he’s a fine upstanding Christian. I don’t like him, and think his attitude smacks of extremism and prejudice. So, there it is. Vote your conscience.
Bill: As to your attempts to identify me as a racist or having racist leaning you could not be further from the truth Richard.
RA: Good. Glad to hear it. And, well, truth be told, I DID ask. Right? I mean, how is someone going to know if they don’t ask, especially when it comes to the kind of people who endorse Ron Paul?
Bill: Anyone who knows me and my history and family (which I realize few here do, but nonetheless) knows I have no racial bias as there is only one race, the human race.
RA: Awesome. Glad to hear it.
Bill: You ought to spend more time diligently investigating prior to making wild accusations Richard - for one who prides himself on his position in the field of discernment for you to so foolishly go off the rails in accusations and slander is beyond explanation.
RA: Sorry, where is a wild accusation against you? I thought I asked. If you could quote where I actually ACCUSE you of being a racist, that would be great. And I will apologize. As for Ron Paul, I think he is indeed prejudice, and I gave documentation to show why.
Bill: Finally, not knowing how you define “Christian Identity” it would be foolish of me to answer your question for you would likely twist it to in some way soil my reputation as you all too freely are accustomed to do to those with whom you are contentious. Do some research Richard and get grounded.
RA: Okay, so here — Do you or do you not subscribe to the belief that the white race is Gods chosen people, and that white people are actually Israel? Christian Identity is a loosely affiliated network of “churches” made up of those who believe such things based on the idea that Europeans are the actual descendants of the Old Testament Israelites — who were NOT Jews. Do you believe that?
RAbanes
June 25th, 2008 at 11:37 am
Strong words Chris - seems that you too are suffering from investigation-phobia to see the real vs. the outragious. As if an effort to slander Calvin’s name is determinative in whether or not the 5 points of refutal that dismissed the Remonstrance in the Canons of Dort in 1619 have any scriptural grounding or not. What you infer in such an effort is to convince one that all the remarkable movements throughout history in Christianity which were spearheaded by the Spirit of God’s working through preachers of God’s Sovereignty in Salvation were spearheaded by aberrant theologians (Luther, Calvin, Knox, Edwards, Whitefield, Bunyan, Spurgeon, Lloyd-Jones, Tyndale, Carey, M’Cheyne, Owen, Henry, Gill, Manton, Pink, etc… http://www.pilgrimpublications.com/calvhist.htm
I never made an assumption even in any way related to God being trapped within the bounds of time so I fail to see how that has anything at all to do with me. The only assumptions Chris appear to be in your interpretation of my comments, for which I am saddened as it works to destroy any ability to communicate effectively.
I would encourage the following:
http://www.monergism.com/thethreshold/articles/onsite/histtheocalvin.html If you are a listener, or:
http://www.gracemessenger.org/files/Daniel_Curt_History_and_Theology_of_Calvinism.pdf if you are a reader.
Sorry to go so far off topic - I will attempt to refrain from further distraction from the threads original topic.
June 25th, 2008 at 12:10 pm
RA: I suppose a racist could defend the constitution. You read the material I gave you. Care to comment on that, rather than on me?
Actually Richard the first link you provided about the ADL is quite unimpressive in it’s insinuation that a candidate should not accept any money from someone who has an outlandish position on some issue - such a requirement of a candidacy would be all consuming and require omniscience. The response of the campaign which stated:
In response to a question from a reporter for Reason magazine, a campaign spokesperson said, “If people who hold views that the candidate doesn’t agree with, and they give to us, that’s their loss.”
All you have to do is to look at the consistency of Ron Paul’s record, which is unmatched in Congress by anyone over the length of time he has been in Congress, to know that he is not swayed by contributions or PAC’s but by adherence to the Constitution.
The rest of your comment seemed to dig into more vaccuous regions of fruitless accusation that they are really unworthy of attention here.
June 25th, 2008 at 12:12 pm
Gotta work on that blockquote thing. OOPS!
June 25th, 2008 at 12:31 pm
Do you or do you not subscribe to the belief that the white race is Gods chosen people, and that white people are actually Israel? Christian Identity is a loosely affiliated network of “churches” made up of those who believe such things based on the idea that Europeans are the actual descendants of the Old Testament Israelites — who were NOT Jews. Do you believe that?
June 25th, 2008 at 12:39 pm
Richard,
Read my response - I unequivocally reject that idea - going so far as to proclaim that I believe there is one race and one race alone that IS the human race including ALL COLORS. (Read the 2nd paragraph of the last block above which stated as much:
“As to the Christian Identity question - certainly not as again there is but one “human” race including all colors of men and women and children.”)
Are we clear on that one?
June 25th, 2008 at 1:01 pm
Excellent. We are clear. Awesome!!!!!! Glad to hear it. Too bad you still like Ron Paul.
We shall agree to disagree on Paul and go our separate ways on politics.
Sadly, despite what I have said so often about what I believe theologically, I can’t seem to get the same break you and others are willing to give Ron Paul. Hmmmm.
RAbanes
June 25th, 2008 at 1:26 pm
Richard,
Is it important for a politician to honor the Constitution? Much as you would expect a pastor to honor the Biblie by proper interpretation of it and adherence to it, my belief is grounded in integrity and consistency, it is unfortunate people are unwilling to demand that out of politicians today. But then again what are we to expect from a predominantly lost people? Can we expect them to act righteously when they are by nature slaves to unrighteousness and dead in trespasses and sins?
Glad we’re clear on that point now. Thanks.
Bill
June 25th, 2008 at 1:29 pm
Let’s try that again, with editing for clarity.</i)
Richard,
Is it important for a politician to honor the Constitution? Much as you would expect a pastor to honor the Bible by proper interpretation of it and adherence to it. My belief is grounded in seeking integrity and consistency. It is unfortunate people are unwilling to demand that out of politicians today. But then again what are we to expect from a predominantly lost people? Can we expect them to act righteously when they are by nature slaves to unrighteousness and dead in trespasses and sins?
Glad we’re clear on that point now. Thanks.
Bill
June 25th, 2008 at 1:30 pm
Wow, I’m a mess with my tags today. Close italics
June 25th, 2008 at 1:48 pm
Bill,
I’ve been through the whole Calvin thing enough times that I’m probably far too impatient to do so yet again, and in a rather disorganized mood today. Investigation-phobia would be the wrong way to put it. Apathy (toward getting into debates on how many angels can dance on the head of a pin) would be more accurate, since the likelihood of either of us changing our mind is about the same (I’m guessing) as you accepting partial-preterist views of Revelation and Daniel, even if you were able to speak first-hand with Josephus…
To be terse, Calvinism and Arminianism are both full of holes because they try to shove God into a man-made ’system’ to explain how He works. I say just let Him work and stop trying to contain Him, because He cannot be contained.
Simply put, contenting for Calvinism is often (as you seem to be doing with Warren) treated the same way as contending for your own faith (which is not the same as defending, but that’s another issue altogether). You, specifically, seem to also have a penchant for pulling verses out of their basic context to try and prove something that can be disproven using the exact same methodologies (I’m too lazy to do it right now, but a simple Biblegateway search for the word ‘choose’ and ’seek’ usually do the trick.)
Rick Frueh usually has much more to say on the subject than me, and I’m hoping that he’s not fallen ill again, but that he’s just out today, as he pretty much runs circles around folks like yourself who seem to conflate contending for Christian faith with contending for Canvinist theology, despite the obvious differences between the two.
There was no slander of Calvin - everything in the link I included in the last post is historically documented. He wasn’t all that brilliant, he was just born at the right time, where the technology of printing had just surpassed oral transmission, and where ‘reason’ reached a point where God had to be explained instead of just being…
First off, it should probably be pointed out that this is completely based on the faulty logic of ‘proof by assertion’ or argumentum ad populum, and an assumption that the men you named were innerant in their systematic theology, despite significant theological and personal failings on other fronts (like Luther’s rabid antisemitism). While the Reformation achieved many things that needed to be done, to ascribe the Spirit of God to the preponderance of its workings and outcomes is highly questionable and presumptive, indeed.
Rather, if you go back to the first century and the spread of the gospel, no speculative ’systems’ were needed, and more likely would fit under the umbrella of gnosticism than Christian theology.
And so it is, rather than take such musings as (hyper)Calvinist theology as something to be taken seriously, I’ll chuckle when I read things like the Calvinist Bible.
June 25th, 2008 at 1:51 pm
“Luther, Calvin, Knox, Edwards, Whitefield, Bunyan, Spurgeon, Lloyd-Jones, Tyndale, Carey, M’Cheyne, Owen, Henry, Gill, Manton, Pink, etc… ”
Not one of them wrote a book in the Bible. I follow no man but Christ Jesus. BTW - you must not know how to use google. In fact, you are looking for an argument all of which have been agrued ad infinitum.
Where did Cain get his wife?
June 25th, 2008 at 1:53 pm
Rick’s back!
Sorry, Rick, I tried to pick up the mantle of Calvin-slayer in your brief absence, but I just wasn’t predestined to have the heart or gumption for it today (or perhaps God desired that I do so, but I resisted Him…)
June 25th, 2008 at 1:59 pm
The Nephilim?
June 25th, 2008 at 2:02 pm
Haha!
Greg Boyd actually had a few posts on his blog concerning the Nephilim recently. They were actually pretty interesting.