Purpose Driven Covenant

[Scott]

Anthony: Many of the types of criticisms you make could be made against the passage from Moses I cited. You wrote: "The God it presents sits on the sidelines and gives us a list of good deeds. And at the end of the race, he gives you rewards for doing the good deeds."

After Moses told the Israelites to obey the entire law, he says, "Now what I am commanding you today is not too difficult for you or beyond your reach." Deut. 30:11. Your statement I quoted above could characterize Moses' directive as much as Warren's pledge. Indeed, the "rewards" promised by Moses are more extensive than those promised by the Warren pledge.

In any event, I think we all agree on a lot:

> perfectionism is wrong
> the Holy Spirit, and not the remnants of the natural man, is the source of any obedience we have
> Man is not justified by his works

But there is no duty to expressly refer to these every time one talks of obedience. Moses did not. Christ did not. We don't need to either (although if we want to, it is fine).

 

[Civbert]

Originally posted by Scott
Anthony: Many of the types of criticisms you make could be made against the passage from Moses I cited. You wrote: "The God it presents sits on the sidelines and gives us a list of good deeds. And at the end of the race, he gives you rewards for doing the good deeds."

After Moses told the Israelites to obey the entire law, he says, "Now what I am commanding you today is not too difficult for you or beyond your reach." Deut. 30:11. Your statement I quoted above could characterize Moses' directive as much as Warren's pledge. Indeed, the "rewards" promised by Moses are more extensive than those promised by the Warren pledge.

So it's a good thing we have the rest of Scripture to see how is God who gathers us to him, and turns us to him. For if we just take one section of Scripture and not consider the rest, we could misunderstand the nature of God and his sovereignty over us and all things. And Due 30 is focused on what God does and what God commands - not what he requests and that we might.

In any event, I think we all agree on a lot:

> perfectionism is wrong
> the Holy Spirit, and not the remnants of the natural man, is the source of any obedience we have
> Man is not justified by his works

But there is no duty to expressly refer to these every time one talks of obedience. Moses did not. Christ did not. We don't need to either (although if we want to, it is fine).

We have a duty to avoid any expressions that would give people a false understanding of who God is. If we go around simply saying "God is love", we are sinning by failing to explain what that means (and doesn't mean) and what else one needs to know about God, and also Christ, and the Gospel.

The Warren pledge presents a false impression of character of the triune God and our relationship to God. Just as tacking a portion of Scripture can misrepresent God if not taken into consideration with the whole of Scripture.

 

[Scott]

So it's a good thing we have the rest of Scripture to see how is God who gathers us to him, and turns us to him. For if we just take one section of Scripture and not consider the rest, we could misunderstand the nature of God and his sovereignty over us and all things.

We have the rest of Rick Warren's writings to judge his views. Maybe he is right and maybe he is wrong, but we can't judge from this pledge alone.

In addition, Moses' audience was in an even more need of a fuller explanation than Warren's audience. The audience did not have access to scriptures, as God's revelation was in the process of being put in written form and most people could not read. Moses did not believe it necessary to fill his general statement with provisos and cross-references to other doctrines. If Moses could do this in a situation in which people did not have easy access to scriptures, it does not seem like Warren is acting imporperly if he does so in a context where scriptures are readily available.

And Due 30 is focused on what God does and what God commands - not what he requests and that we might.

Moses says that the people are capable of obeying.

We have a duty to avoid any expressions that would give people a false understanding of who God is. If we go around simply saying "God is love", we are sinning by failing to explain what that means (and doesn't mean) and what else one needs to know about God, and also Christ, and the Gospel.

The Warren pledge presents a false impression of character of the triune God and our relationship to God. Just as tacking a portion of Scripture can misrepresent God if not taken into consideration with the whole of Scripture.

That would mean that Moses would have been guilty of giving a false impression. I don't agree with that. In any event, I did not get the impression you did from Warren's pledge.

[Edited on 9-21-2006 by Scott]

 

[Civbert]

Originally posted by Scott
....
In addition, Moses' audience was in an even more need of a fuller explanation than Warren's audience. The audience did not have access to scriptures, as God's revelation was in the process of being put in written form and most people could not read. Moses did not believe it necessary to fill his general statement with provisos and cross-references to other doctrines. If Moses could do this in a situation in which people did not have easy access to scriptures, it does not seem like Warren is acting imporperly if he does so in a context where scriptures are readily available.
...
That would mean that Moses would have been guilty of giving a false impression. I don't agree with that. In any event, I did not get the impression you did from Warren's pledge.

You have limited your scope to a small section of Deut. to come to that conclusion. Also, you'd have to assume that the people's knowledge was limited to what Moses recorded in Duet. and that he never explained God's nature beyond the text. And reading was not an issue for the people - they would have the text read to them in full.

Regardless of your impression or mine - we need to read what Warren says carefully considering that some who read his text will not have the benefit of understanding reformed good biblical doctrine. If you give the text a light reading - it's easy to overlook the problems Warrens text presents - and those who are ignorant may be mislead by Warrens pledge into believing in a works-based righteousness. I think I showed that pretty clearly in my earlier posts. If you disagree with my analysis, please be more specific.

 

[Robin]

Just to clarify....

Do we do good works to become justified before God? NO

Must we do good works to demonstrate that we are already justified? YES


These are the categories.



r.

[Edited on 9-22-2006 by Robin]

 

[Robin]

BTW....

The reality for the Purpose theology and Saddleback is:

If a disciple of the teaching and/or member of the church doesn't keep in step with the list of "to do's" (which are ever increasing) they are considered backslidden or lost.

You might as well get the beads...this is the Church of Rome system dressed up in Hawaiian shirts!

 

[ef]

There is no fundamental confusion of the law and gospel. If, as you say, it is what he did not say, then give him the benefit of the doubt. He had no duty to refer to one set of theological truths when explaining a second.

It is not a case of one over the other. The imperative of salvation through faith alone by grace alone because of Christ alone leads to the indicative of good works motivated by the HS's indwelling.

You hit the nail on the head dear undershepherd; Rev. Warren doesn't understand the difference between justification and sanctification, so you gave him the benefit of the doubt. Under your reformed rubric you were right to do so, but if you know Rev. Warren's other writings and thought you'd not have stepped into that little terd so quickly (sorry... I responded to your comment before reading on to your other interactions... I see that you're familiar with his writings... my bad...).

Our URC brother nailed this stuff in his interactions as well. We cannot allow such confused understanding of the difference between justification and grace to go forth. It is essentially the salvation of Trent with Evangelical language.

Check out On Being A Theologian Of The Cross: Reflections on Luther's Heidelberg Disputation, 1518 by Gerhard O. Forde for more on this stuff. Luther was right on in his assessment of the Law/Gospel distinction and we could learn a lot from that man.


[Edited on 9-22-2006 by ef]

 

[Ken S.]

i think whoever declare this Purpose Driven Covenant has undoubtedly a passion for Christ, but they have missed an important truth about sanctification and that is---grace and the absolute preservation of God. God is the ultimate force inside our heart when we feel like to do good and the ultimate source of our faith. We ourselve have nothing good come out from our ownself. Even to people sincerely making this PDC statement, it is God motivating their will to do so, though they don't realize.
People making this statement need love and others to preach the precise gospel to them. Otherwise, their passion will cool down, and they live in greater fear and worry because of the future full of uncertainty as well as their own spirit full of uncertainty and weaknesses.

Rom3:12 ....there is none that doeth good, no, not one.

Phi2:13 For it is God which worketh in you both to will and to do of his good pleasure.

[Edited on 25-9-2006 by Ken S.]

 

[Scott]

BTW....

The reality for the Purpose theology and Saddleback is:

If a disciple of the teaching and/or member of the church doesn't keep in step with the list of "to do's" (which are ever increasing) they are considered backslidden or lost.

You might as well get the beads...this is the Church of Rome system dressed up in Hawaiian shirts!

Not sure what their list of to-dos is, but in reformed churches if one does not keep up with a list of to-dos, he is excommunicated, or at least he is supposed to be. Discipline is one mark of a true church.

 

[Scott]

Eric: I am actually not familiar with Warren's theology. What I will say is that we should not criticize something of his that is ok. If other writings of his indicates that his understanding of sanctification is deficient, it would be better to focus on those.

 

[turmeric]

I was in a Purpose-Driven Church. One of the "to-do's" was physical exercise and a good diet. I'm all for that, but not for making it a church-discipline issue. Fortunately for me, I left that church before taking the particular class where we would sign that particular agreement. These little "covenants" are a staple feature of this system and there's one for each class. The membership one I agree with, that is, I agree there should be a covenant of membership in a church congregation. They end up stipulating a lot which seems extra-Scriptural. I agree w/Mike Horton; let's get bact to the 10 Commandments as a standard of conduct and quit inventing our own.