Todd Friel simultaneously struck out and hit a grand slam the other day. The strikeout was by putting 2 and 2 together and getting 13.72349; the home run was in crystallizing one of the biggest flaws of ADM thinking in just a couple minutes.

On his TV show, Friel joined the OCRPIJNGWHTDHTFSTC* Society to dump on Rick Warren’s prayer at President Obama’s inauguration. Early in his prayer, Warren said:

And You are the compassionate and merciful one

Friel then said, “In fairness, [I] wanna take a look at Psalm 145:8″ and the verse was put up on the screen:

The LORD is gracious and merciful; Slow to anger and great in lovingkindness.

He then said, “In fairness, that may have been Psalm 145:8, although it’s not quite Psalm 145:8; it was different.”

(Gee, that’s twice that he’s said “in fairness”.  Methinks the TV host doth protest too much.)

How, according to Friel, was it different?  It turns out that most of the chapters in the Koran start by saying:

You are compassionate and merciful

Friel then states that this is “the exact phrase that Rick Warren used”.  Um no, Todd it isn’t.  To paraphrase you, “it’s not quite the Koran; it was different.”  The words “And”, “the” and “one” do not appear in the Koran.  Now I realize that this is nit-picking, but not any more than what Friel was doing by saying it wasn’t “quite Psalm 145:8″.

But hey, just because Friel picks nits, let’s not sink to that level.  What seems not to occur to him is that maybe Warren was simply stating a fact that happens to be similar to a Scripture verse and also happens to be similar to something in the Koran.

At least, I would hope that Friel would agree that God is compassionate and merciful.

In other words, maybe Warren wasn’t quoting anything.  See Todd, there’s this thing that some Christians do, where their speech is infused with references and allusions to things found in Scripture, but they’re not quoting it.  This is what happens to some people when their faith constitutes their entire life and isn’t relegated to a few hours a week.  (I’m not saying that none of that is applicable to you, but it does strike me as odd that the concept is so incredibly foreign to you.)

Friel went on to state that Warren twisted two other Scriptures when he prayed:

and we know today that Dr King and a great cloud of witnesses are shouting in heaven

Yeah, “cloud of witnesses” is a familiar phrase.  But Friel states that Warren was quoting (and twisting) Hebrews 12:1 and Luke 15:10 (a major stretch) to come up with that sentence.  While I am personally unclear regarding the dead’s cognizance of human activity on earth, again we go back to the fact that maybe Warren wasn’t quoting anything.

But here’s the kicker, and how it’s indicative of ADM thinking.  In just a few minutes of video, Friel says the following phrases (some emphases are mine, but many are actually his):

  • that may have been
  • I don’t think
  • I guess only Rick Warren knows
  • seems to be quoting
  • I guess we’ll find out in eternity
  • I think what he’s doing there
  • I also think
  • maybe that’s what he meant
  • I think he basically

That’s a whole bucketload of uncertainty.  In fact, so much so that I have to question the point of even discussing it.  Yet he presents this information with so much certainty and pseudo-authority that it’s clear that he, personally, is uncertain of nothing, and the viewer shouldn’t be either.  He takes some coincidences, mixes in a lot of assumptions, and gives the viewer an (allegedly) undeniable conclusion.  This is the very foundation upon which “discernment” (as practiced by ADMs — not to be confused with actual discernment) is built.

A few other issues of note:

  1. In criticizing Warren’s reference to praying “in the name of the One Who changed my life”, Friel certainly holds in significant derision the concept of salvation being a life-changing experience.  Was it not that way for you, Todd?
  2. Don’t even get me started on Friel’s condescending laughs and sighs.
  3. Most error contains a good bit of truth; “a little leaven” and all that.  So to state that someone who said something that appears in the Koran is quoting (or even referencing) the Koran is ludicrous.
    • “This was more than I could understand.” — There, I’ve just “quoted” Mein Kampf at greater length than Warren allegedly quoted the Koran.
  4. In trying to bolster his “argument” of Warren being spiritually inclusive by (allegedly) quoting the Koran, Friel refers to the “Jewish shema”.  Funny, but every Christian Bible that I’ve seen has Deuteronomy in it.  By referring to the shema as Jewish, Friel denies the constancy and consistency of God.  I doubt that he actually believes that the God of the Old Testament is different from the God of the New Testament; but that’s the misinformation that he purports by that allegation.

There is one thing to credit to Friel, though.  The link to this video was on Slice and it opened by saying “As only he can” (referring to Friel).  And apparently that is so.  In contrast to the ADMs, when Friel starts retrieving certainties and conclusions from bodily orifices, at least he admits to his uncertainty.  Sorta.

* OCRPIJNGWHTDHTFSTC = “Oh, crap; Rick prayed in Jesus’ name; guess we’ll have to dig harder to find something to criticize”

  • Share/Bookmark
This entry was posted on Wednesday, January 28th, 2009 at 11:24 pm and is filed under In Tone and Character, Misuse of Scripture, ODM Policies, What Can You Say?. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. Both comments and pings are currently closed.
+/- Collapse/Expand All

159 Comments(+Add)

1   Pastorboy    http://crninfo.wordpress.com
January 29th, 2009 at 12:00 am

To be exact, the Koran starts 113 chapters out of 114 with that quote that Warren used.

just sayin…

Oh, the 114th one? The same chapter that endorses the slaughter of Jews and Christians.

2   Neil    
January 29th, 2009 at 12:12 am

Who watches that tripe? The silliness of his logic was surpassed only by the annoyance of his arrogance.

3   john b    
January 29th, 2009 at 1:15 am

Spot in Brendt!

4   john b    
January 29th, 2009 at 1:15 am

oops…..that should be “Spot ON”.

5   iggy    http://wordofmouthministries.blogspot.com/
January 29th, 2009 at 1:54 am

http://www.geocities.com/Hollywood/Chateau/7296/everyoneisnowdumber.wav

Just change “Mr. Madison” for Todd Friel…

6   Rick Frueh    http://http?//followingjudahslion.com
January 29th, 2009 at 8:30 am

There is nothing that so misrepresents Christ and His church than programs like Todd Friel’s. The style of dissecting brothers in Christ in a self amusing way is decidedly unchristian and only continues to deconstruct the life of Christ and reduce it to an entertaining self righteous doctrinal idolatry. These type of people many times admire Rush Limbaugh and Ann Coulter and other abrasive politicos who have been awarded Christian status purely on their conservative politics and surely not their outward Christlikeness. The camels have been swallowed by the gnat strainers.

Many times “conservative” and “orthodox” Christianity has the stone tablets in order but neglects the weightier issues of the spirit, namely grace, love, and mercy. There is no fairness or forbearance, and when one of the objects of their derision is called to offer a token prayer at the inauguration, and when he sincerely attempts to reach everyone’s ears, he is castigated and not afforded even the smallest benefit of the doubt from those who shout about the “doctrines of grace”. And the parsing of Biblical words like the Scriptures were a math book rather than an exquisite revelation of the redemptive plan of God is worthless.

And why do men in Friel’s camp insist on the overall context of a verse, but never view something in the overall context of the entire Bible? Why must every verse be analyzed like it alone is the key that will unlock all the mysteries? And the endless arguments over original languages has become tedious decades ago. Greek and Hebrew scholars disagree on issues, so “poof”, there goes our reliable measuring stick.

The pretentious format is a direct violation to the written warning about vainglory. This sin has been refined since the days of Calvin and Finney and others whose hubris contradicted their discipleship. This sin is one of the most spectacular accomplishments in the New Testament church since the Day of Pentecost. To have been able to project a colossal verbal defense of Christ and His Word while denying it simultaneously in the method of the defense itself is diabolically brilliant.

The end justifies the means live on.

7   Jerry    http://www.dangoldfinch.wordpress.com
January 29th, 2009 at 8:35 am

I still can’t listen to Friels voice.

His voice freaks me out.

8   ianmcn    
January 29th, 2009 at 9:11 am

That’s one of the most shameful things I’ve ever seen done in the name of Christianity. Pathetic (the video that is, not the post!)

9   Brendt    http://csaproductions.com/blog/
January 29th, 2009 at 9:31 am

Rick, I read your comment and thought of the last few seconds of this video.

Dude, this was awesome. Some of what you said is stuff that I’ve thought, but not so well put.

I’m officially handing over john b’s “spot on” (and his “spot in”) to you.

10   Nathanael    http://borrowedbreath.com/
January 29th, 2009 at 9:55 am

Spot in, Brendt.

I say we switch to “spot in” from here on out.
I like the ring.

These types of diatribes grieve my spirit. It is actually painful to me.

Why, in the name of God, must we constantly find fault and compare ourselves to one another? Why?

And we wonder why people think we are egotistical and arrogant and unteachable. Wonder no longer.

:(

11   Biblically Sound    
January 29th, 2009 at 9:58 am

Does the writer of that article even read the Bible? Does he even know what it takes to be saved?

Friel does and was right to criticize Warren’s lame, ecumenical, so-called prayer, which he ended with his fear of praying in Jesus’s name.

It’s a sad state of the church when tripe such as Warren’s is held in high regard and a biblically sound commentary on it is called arrogant.

What do you people think of Paul? Never mind… he’s too sound to cut it with you.

12   Neil    
January 29th, 2009 at 10:12 am

Biblically Sound,

How do you jump so quickly to insults about salvific knowledge and Pauline thought? That aside, I am amazed that you call someone fearful of praying in Jesus’ name when he used the very name repeatedly… perhaps the use of linguistic variants confused you…

13   Rick Frueh    http://http?//followingjudahslion.com
January 29th, 2009 at 10:13 am

“Does the writer of that article even read the Bible? Does he even know what it takes to be saved?”

Sometimes evidence of my previous comment appears like magic!

By the way, what “sound” does Biblically sound make? Let me guess, a sounding brass and a tinkling cymbal?

14   Rick Frueh    http://http?//followingjudahslion.com
January 29th, 2009 at 10:18 am

“What do you people think of Paul? “

You must be new here. :)

15   Pastorboy    http://crninfo.wordpress.com
January 29th, 2009 at 10:30 am

I think Bibically Sound has a point….

the more I listen to that prayer, and realize that Isa is the name for a false Jesus and that he crafted these words so well makes me truly wonder if he wasn’t trying to be very ecumenical.

Food for thought; though I initially liked the prayer because He did pray in the name of Jesus-

It was all the add ons that really bug me now.

16   Brendt    http://csaproductions.com/blog/
January 29th, 2009 at 10:34 am

Does the writer of that article even read the Bible?

Does the commenter even read the post?

Does he even know what it takes to be saved?

Wow — you got questioning of my salvation from that? Thanks for illustrating my point by taking one thing and making wild assumptions based on it.

Friel does and was right to criticize Warren’s … prayer

Never said he wasn’t. There are issues in Warren’s prayer of which I am critical, too. But the issues that I have are not based on assumptions of what I think he meant.

which he ended with his fear of praying in Jesus’s name

Wow — you actually know Rick Warren’s heart? I’m gonna go out on a limb here and assume that you don’t, that you were just assuming God’s role and merely being blasphemous.

17   Phil Miller    http://pmwords.blogspot.com
January 29th, 2009 at 10:40 am

Does anyone else think that Todd Friel and Hal Sparks may have been separated at birth? They’re both about equally annoying…

18   Rick Frueh    http://http?//followingjudahslion.com
January 29th, 2009 at 10:44 am

I love how the Calvinists chase their own tails. THIS JUST IN FROM THE CALVIN INSTITUTES:

Warren cannot stop God from saving who He wants. Why is it that some who are so rabid about God’s sovereignty are such hand wringers? They act as if people are standing in God’s way but they teach that no one can.

I used to think that type of microjudgment was hyperintellectualism. I now believe the opposite.

(I crack myself up sometimes :lol: )

19   Biblically Sound    
January 29th, 2009 at 10:44 am

Rick, yes, I’m new, and I won’t be back. (I see you all think Todd is arrogant, so I can only imagine what you think of Paul.)

You see, I spend my time on sites that are obviously Christian. This one is not. The name does not make it so.

The Bible tells us we will be known by our love for each other and by our demonstration of the fruits of the Spirit. The writer of the article shows none of it. (He even goes so far as to end it on a vulgar, ungodly note.) Neither do nearly all who have so far posted comments under his article. That includes you, Rick.

When you tear apart a biblically sound brother, you show your true colors, failing to follow Christ’s command to love that brother. Rebuke is not equal to insult and expressing your opinion does not need to be nasty.

Take a lesson from Todd and keep it biblical, folks.

20   Phil Miller    http://pmwords.blogspot.com
January 29th, 2009 at 10:52 am

The Bible tells us we will be known by our love for each other and by our demonstration of the fruits of the Spirit. The writer of the article shows none of it. (He even goes so far as to end it on a vulgar, ungodly note.) Neither do nearly all who have so far posted comments under his article. That includes you, Rick.

When you tear apart a biblically sound brother, you show your true colors, failing to follow Christ’s command to love that brother. Rebuke is not equal to insult and expressing your opinion does not need to be nasty.

Take a lesson from Todd and keep it biblical, folks.

Stop it, you’re killin’ me here… Seriously, I can’t stop laughing!

You’re accusing Brendt of tearing down people? Friel’s whole show seems to be nothing more than the National Enquirer for Christians. It seems he spends a lot of energy tearing down people.

21   Rick Frueh    http://http?//followingjudahslion.com
January 29th, 2009 at 10:53 am

Sometimes I think aliens have invaded my mind…again. Is it possible I am existing in another reality? I refer you to one of my previous observations:

“I used to think that type of microjudgment was hyperintellectualism. I now believe the opposite.”

Question: Is there a difference between “discernment” and “dismemberment”?

22   Brendt    http://csaproductions.com/blog/
January 29th, 2009 at 11:09 am

The Bible tells us we will be known by our love for each other…

Take a lesson from Todd and keep it biblical, folks.

Excuse me. I laughed so hard at that, I have to go change my underwear.

23   Brendt    http://csaproductions.com/blog/
January 29th, 2009 at 11:12 am

BiblicallySound (#18):

I can only imagine

Oh, and thanks for making my point about deriving certainty from uncertainty yet again.

Chris L, can we get this person on staff? She keeps backing me up.

24   Neil    
January 29th, 2009 at 11:13 am

When you tear apart a biblically sound brother, you show your true colors, failing to follow Christ’s command to love that brother. Rebuke is not equal to insult and expressing your opinion does not need to be nasty.

Oh the irony… making this complaint against Brendt’s article which addressed Friel’s rant against Warren.

I’m trying to see what was so nasty about Brendt’s comments – particularly compared to Friel’s mocking tone and how he assigns motives.

I agree when Friel (et. al) tear apart a brother such as Warren they do show their true colors.

I agree that Friel has failed to love his brother as Christ commanded.

One of us should really copy and paste this whole paragraph over on Friel’s site.

25   Neil    
January 29th, 2009 at 11:15 am

Take a lesson from Todd and keep it biblical, folks. – Biblically Sound

I invite you to be specific on what we have said that is not biblical. If you get past your need to criticize and demean, you will find us willing to engage in a discussion.

26   Neil    
January 29th, 2009 at 11:17 am

Biblically Sound,

I’ll start by asking you a question:

Warren prayed in the name of Jesus – how can you say he fears to do what he publicly did?

27   nc    
January 29th, 2009 at 11:20 am

Here’s the real question:

Who cares if even did quote from the Koran or used a familiar muslim idiomatic expression?

If it’s true.

It’s true.

God isn’t compassionate?

God isn’t merciful?

Despite all the other baggage with an Islamic view of God they didn’t get this one right?

28   Brendt    http://csaproductions.com/blog/
January 29th, 2009 at 11:21 am

Back on Rick’s #6 comment:

I have friends and family who are big fans of Limbaugh and his ilk; I even listen to those hosts on occasion. In the political arena, they can sometimes be quite entertaining.

But when you lift the entire template and change the topic to faith, it goes off the rails in a heartbeat.

I used to think that there was nothing more nauseating than treating the church like a business. But treating Christianity like a political game is far worse.

29   nc    
January 29th, 2009 at 11:21 am

another question:

I’ve asked it before…

Who is Todd Friel and why should I or anyone else care what he thinks?

Seriously.

How is it that he became “an expert” on these things? Where did he come from?

30   Brendt    http://csaproductions.com/blog/
January 29th, 2009 at 11:23 am

nc (#27), that’s exactly what I was thinking when I wrote about “Most error contains a good bit of truth”.

31   nc    
January 29th, 2009 at 11:24 am

BS (how fitting an abbreviation):

How is it that when someone makes a “ministry” out of having a critical spirit and finding problems in every “possible” meaning does that square with the Biblical description of love that calls us to bear all things and believe and hope? In other words, believe the best about those we love?

How does that square with keeping it biblical? Really?

32   nc    
January 29th, 2009 at 11:26 am

I ask because you, BS, are setting the standard of evaluation…so how is Todd Friel and you really living up to it?

Just wonderin’….

33   Eugene Roberts    http://eugeneroberts.wordpress.com
January 29th, 2009 at 11:26 am

… , which he ended with his fear of praying in Jesus’s name.

How many times does a lie needs to be repeated before it becomes an accepted fact?

34   nc    
January 29th, 2009 at 11:27 am

or the lie that “isa” always means some false Jesus over and against the witness of converts from Islam or Messianic muslims…

35   Eugene Roberts    http://eugeneroberts.wordpress.com
January 29th, 2009 at 11:27 am

… , which he ended with his fear of praying in Jesus’s name.

How many times does a lie need to be repeated before it becomes an accepted fact?

36   Eugene Roberts    http://eugeneroberts.wordpress.com
January 29th, 2009 at 11:29 am

Oops! Please delete the one with the most spelling errors.

37   nc    
January 29th, 2009 at 11:31 am

#19:

another question:

You’re implicitly equating Todd and Paul.

I can assure you Todd Friel is no Apostle Paul or even something approaching him.

38   Neil    
January 29th, 2009 at 11:34 am

I think Bibically Sound has a point….

the more I listen to that prayer, and realize that Isa is the name for a false Jesus and that he crafted these words so well makes me truly wonder if he wasn’t trying to be very ecumenical. – PB

First off, “ecumenical” refers to the collection of various churches around the world – those who claim to be Christian… so complaining about “Isa” is not ecumenical if you think it is Islamic.

Secondly, as we have shown, Isa is used in the Qur’an as the name of Jesus. But this does not fix the meaning as a false Christ anymore than the Book of Mormon using the name “Jesus” fixes it as a false Jesus.

This whole “Isa” thing is nothing more than a deep seated need to find something wrong with Warren no matter what he does.

39   Neil    
January 29th, 2009 at 11:37 am

Food for thought; though I initially liked the prayer because He did pray in the name of Jesus-

It was all the add ons that really bug me now.

By “add ons that really bug” you I assume you mean using Spanish and Arabic translations…

40   Phil Miller    http://pmwords.blogspot.com
January 29th, 2009 at 11:41 am

The whole “ecumenical” thing is such a straw man. Even if you look at the World Council of Churches, which is decidedly more “liberal” in its bent, they straight out say in their mission statement:

The World Council of Churches is a fellowship of churches which confess the Lord Jesus Christ as God and Saviour according to the scriptures, and therefore seek to fulfil together their common calling to the glory of the one God, Father, Son and Holy Spirit.

So it’s not as if Warren was saying it’s OK to say Jesus isn’t the Savior, or making some sort of backdoor interspiritual move that says I’m OK, you’re OK.

41   Jerry    http://www.dangoldfinch.wordpress.com
January 29th, 2009 at 11:43 am

Rick, yes, I’m new, and I won’t be back. (I see you all think Todd is arrogant, so I can only imagine what you think of Paul.)

You see, I spend my time on sites that are obviously Christian. This one is not. The name does not make it so.

Maybe you should spend your time in Scripture instead of ‘on sites.’ It might help you understand this site a little better.

42   Christian P    http://www.churchvoices.com
January 29th, 2009 at 11:56 am

Classic.

There are some things we keep forgetting:

Paul used the King James Bible.
Jesus spoke English.
God only loves white Americans.

Am I missing anything?

43   Joe    http://www.joemartino.name
January 29th, 2009 at 12:00 pm

Ok, I call Foul! I need a warning before I have to read comments like this:

(I see you all think Todd is arrogant, so I can only imagine what you think of Paul.)

and then there’s this beauty:

Take a lesson from Todd and keep it biblical, folks.

Biblicallysound please change your anonymous name to Biblically illiterate if you believe this stuff or at least to bad hermeneutical principles, or justtryingtohangontoinconsistantprinciples, or maybe justdon’tlikerickwarrensowe’llattackanythignhesaysordoesandevenbewillingtodefendliarstodoit

at least they’d be honest

Come on, if I had been sipping my coffee before I read this crap I could have ruined my computer or tie, or something!

44   Brendt    http://csaproductions.com/blog/
January 29th, 2009 at 12:01 pm

Christian P,

That’s “God only loves Republican white Americans”

You obviously need some lessons in “discernment”

45   Phil Miller    http://pmwords.blogspot.com
January 29th, 2009 at 12:02 pm

Am I missing anything?

God loves hymns (especially ones written prior to 1800). Oh and He really likes when they’re played on organs.
Three piece suits are the only acceptable uniform for a pastor.
When Jesus told us to love our enemies, He forgot to mention a few exceptions.

46   Brendt    http://csaproductions.com/blog/
January 29th, 2009 at 12:02 pm

Joe’s wearing a tie?

47   Neil    
January 29th, 2009 at 12:08 pm

Joe,

Calling BS (that is an unfortunate set of initials) Biblically Illiterate may be a bit escalating… for all we know she is very literate in the Bible.

Unfortunately she has chosen to apply it to attack her brother in Christ,

48   Joe    http://joemartino.name
January 29th, 2009 at 12:14 pm

Neil,
I’m sorry. I don’t see how someone can be literate in the Bible and make some of those leaps of logic. It probably is escalating.

49   Chris    http://agendalesslove.wordpress.com
January 29th, 2009 at 12:20 pm

It was all the add ons that really bug me now.

We need to shut down the Jesus Film project.
They have it in Arabic and the film says Eesa for Christ. So “SHUT HER DOWN”

50   Joe    http://joemartino.name
January 29th, 2009 at 12:28 pm

#47.
You know I was only suggesting new monikers

51   Neil    
January 29th, 2009 at 12:30 pm

Think about Jesus and the Pharisees, or even Saul, they really knew their Bibles… but their application was rather lacking.

52   Neil    
January 29th, 2009 at 12:33 pm

We need to shut down the Jesus Film project.
They have it in Arabic and the film says Eesa for Christ. So “SHUT HER DOWN”

The JESUS Film uses “Isa”? Using ADM logic that means Campus Crusade is now preaching a false Christ.

53   Rick Frueh    http://http?//followingjudahslion.com
January 29th, 2009 at 12:34 pm

There are different forms of literacy in the colloquial sense. One can be literate in English and illiterate in logic. I guess a better word would be blind.

The Ann Coulteresque brand on Christianity is not Christianity at all. Placing a brother in Christ, one that God has used to lead many to Christ, under a microscope of scrutinized discernment judgment is unchristian. And men like Friel use inside sarcasm to demean and dismiss anyone who tresspasses on their systematic turf.

What kind of humble and gracious interaction have we constructed, and what in God’s name would draw an unsaved person to follow Jesus if this is what you’re in for?

54   Joe    http://joemartino.name
January 29th, 2009 at 12:37 pm

Think about Jesus and the Pharisees, or even Saul, they really knew their Bibles… but their application was rather lacking.

So they were illiterate. Literacy has more to do with being able to read, it has to do with understanding. I can phonetically sound out certain words and not tell you what they mean, I am not literate in my understanding of those terms.
For instance, I can read a technical book about something and correctly sound out each word but when I get done, I’m probably going to say, “What the heck was that saying.”

55   Joe    http://joemartino.name
January 29th, 2009 at 12:38 pm

Think about Jesus and the Pharisees, or even Saul, they really knew their Bibles… but their application was rather lacking.

Wonderful point, Jesus often escalated with these people who were so willing to say who was in and who was out, or critique how others did the work of the cross and prayed. Thank you for affirming me Neil.

56   Neil    
January 29th, 2009 at 12:40 pm

Chris,

Where does it say which translation of “Jesus” is used in Arabic Jesus Films?

Neil

57   Rick Frueh    http://http?//followingjudahslion.com
January 29th, 2009 at 12:47 pm

Joe – If you have any problem with big words e-mail me, I have the gift of helps. :cool:

58   Neil    
January 29th, 2009 at 12:51 pm

Wonderful point, Jesus often escalated with these people who were so willing to say who was in and who was out, or critique how others did the work of the cross and prayed. Thank you for affirming me Neil.

No problem Joe… :)

59   Pastorboy    http://crninfo.wordpress.com
January 29th, 2009 at 12:59 pm

A different Jesus by any name is demonic.

If he was praying in the name of Isa and the name of the compassionate and merciful one to bring glory to the God of the Bible, great.

If he was doing it (like he has in the past) to be ecumenical (see the ‘Word between you and us), and in doing so speaking about the god of the Quuran, and the Jesus of the Quran then he is wrong, and the prayer is messed up.

I do not know which to believe. At first blush, I liked the prayer, and I thought it appropriate. Looking at Rick Warrens past, and knowing the name Isa is used for a false Jesus (as well as a true one by Arab Christians) I am concerned.

BTW, Arab Christians also use Yesu…more frequently so as not to confuse. Just sayin’

60   Chris    http://agendalesslove.wordpress.com
January 29th, 2009 at 1:05 pm

Where does it say which translation of “Jesus” is used in Arabic Jesus Films

My father in law speaks Arabic, has taught me enough to be somewhat conversational in it. We watched the films together.

If you search ???? ?????? translated is literally Jesus Christ in Arabic or Eesa Yesu The Jesus Film is the first link that comes up. If it is broken down. Eesa is Jesus and Yesu is Christ. Arabic is read/written right to left. It is no different than us saying “I pray in the name of Jesus” as opposed to saying “I pray in the name of Jesus Christ”. We often in our venacular leave off the Christ and simple say Jesus.

So as we all know ADM’s are working really hard to work their base up into a lather over something that is non essential.

61   Chris    http://agendalesslove.wordpress.com
January 29th, 2009 at 1:08 pm

Okay so the script didn’t come up when I posted.

Anyway I could really break it down further for you. A simple search on google would explain it all but the ADM’s have to much invested in shooting down anything and everything Rick Warren.

62   Chris    http://agendalesslove.wordpress.com
January 29th, 2009 at 1:10 pm

This page has the best explanation.

http://www.threeq.com/faq/faq238.html

63   Chris    http://agendalesslove.wordpress.com
January 29th, 2009 at 1:12 pm

Eesa is Jesus and Yesu is Christ.

Correction Yesu is Jesus Eesa is Christ. Sorry about that.

64   nc    
January 29th, 2009 at 2:15 pm

Just for the record:

I have no respect for people who put passive aggressive messages in the “name” slot of the comment function.

It’s manipulative, high-minded, cowardly and dishonest.

65   I'veforgottenmorethanyoueverknew    
January 29th, 2009 at 2:28 pm

NC. You mean like that?

66   John B    
January 29th, 2009 at 3:22 pm

Pastorboy Says:

A different Jesus by any name is demonic.

If he was praying in the name of Isa and the name of the compassionate and merciful one to bring glory to the God of the Bible, great.

If he was doing it (like he has in the past) to be ecumenical (see the ‘Word between you and us), and in doing so speaking about the god of the Quuran, and the Jesus of the Quran then he is wrong, and the prayer is messed up.

I do not know which to believe. At first blush, I liked the prayer, and I thought it appropriate. Looking at Rick Warrens past, and knowing the name Isa is used for a false Jesus (as well as a true one by Arab Christians) I am concerned.

BTW, Arab Christians also use Yesu…more frequently so as not to confuse. Just sayin’

Methinks you were ok with the prayer until some of your ADM buddies found something they thought they could be critical of.

Your first sentence really has nothing to do with the discussion other than to cast a negative light as far as I can see.

I went to Liberty University. The Dean of the School of Religion there is a former Muslim named Ergun Caner. I have heard Caner mention the name “Isa” several times in talking about the “Christian Jesus”. For anyone to ascribe Warren’s motives for doing the same is at best case ridiculous. For which I am “concerned”.

Just sayin’.

Spot in. :)

67   Neil    
January 29th, 2009 at 3:31 pm

it is obvious from reading and hearing the prayer that Warren’s point was to be inclusive… not theologically so as the misguided have said, but culturally.

I suppose the Spanish pronounciation also indicates something evil as well?

Some people need to get z new hobby

68   Neil    
January 29th, 2009 at 3:35 pm

Thanks Chris… I too have known Arab Believers who used the name ISa to reference Jesus – yeah the biblical Jesus… just wondered if I was the only one.

69   Bo Diaz    
January 29th, 2009 at 3:52 pm

. Looking at Rick Warrens past

Bwahahaha. Like you have the discernment to make these types of statement anything more than a laughable joke. Just a few weeks ago you were still peddling the false news report that had years ago been corrected and withdrawn.

70   Christian P    http://www.churchvoices.com
January 29th, 2009 at 3:52 pm

This post just became appropriate.

71   Jerry    http://www.dangoldfinch.wordpress.com
January 29th, 2009 at 4:06 pm

The whole ‘Jesus’ thing has me concerned because the angel who spoke to Joseph specifically said his name was ‘Emmanuel.’

Then John said in Revelation his name was a Alpha and Omega.

Then he said his name is the “Word of God” and also ‘Faithful and True.’

Paul said his name was the “Name above all names.”

John also said he had a tattoo (Rev 9:16): “On his robe and on his thigh he has this name written, King of kings and Lord of lords.”

He also has a ‘name written on him that no one knows but he himself.’ (Rev 19:12)

Oh, I could go on and on with this, but the whole Name thing.

To the point, who really knows what we ought to call Him?

72   Jerry    http://www.dangoldfinch.wordpress.com
January 29th, 2009 at 4:15 pm

How did Todd F get his own television program.

I caved. I watched 3 minutes and 22 seconds. He said not a single constructive word in three minutes. I heard more Rick Warren than Todd F.

What is sad is that Warren was praying to God. To God. And some pathetic know it all felt it was his scriptural duty to exegete prayer.

Friel is a small, very small, man.

Man, his voice freaks me out a lot.

73   Rick Frueh    http://http?//followingjudahslion.com
January 29th, 2009 at 4:17 pm

Jerry – it is also disrespectful to call him animals like Lamb and Lion and give Him wings like angels or like a chicken (hen). I also might object to the metaphors door, wheel, seed, shepherd, vine, and some other inatimate objects.

I think the most repugnant of all is the son of man. Only heaven knows what would have happened if Warren had called Him that! I read the Lord’s prayer and say no mention of Jesus name, I must reject that prayer as an attempt to compromise! :cool:

74   Rick Frueh    http://http?//followingjudahslion.com
January 29th, 2009 at 4:22 pm

Not to pile on, but it is rumored that Rick Warren did not witness once in the grocery store today. I’ll try and get confirmation.

75   Jerry    http://www.dangoldfinch.wordpress.com
January 29th, 2009 at 5:08 pm

I didn’t notice, but did Friel open or close his show with prayer in Jesus’ name, with any prayer, in anyone’s name?

So, Obama (the anti-) invites prayer for his presidency, but Friel is so powerful that he doesn’t open his show with prayer?

Hmmmmmm…..Now I’m getting suspicious.

76   nc    
January 29th, 2009 at 5:23 pm

65:

Yep.

Just like that.

:)

77   Brendt    http://csaproductions.com/blog/
January 29th, 2009 at 6:05 pm

Jerry (#72)

How did Todd F get his own television program.

How did Pauly Shore ever make more than one movie?

78   Rick Frueh    http://http?//followingjudahslion.com
January 29th, 2009 at 6:11 pm

I call them:

“Clown Radio Programs”. :)

79   wilson    
January 29th, 2009 at 6:29 pm

OP: “In contrast to the ADMs, when Friel starts retrieving certainties and conclusions from bodily orifices, at least he admits to his uncertainty. Sorta.”

#24. ” (He even goes so far as to end it on a vulgar, ungodly note.)”

Yeah, this is the point that I was trying to make the other day. It’s not necessary to resort to this kind of crudity…. is it?

The thing with the Warren prayer, when all the muslims hear “Issa” they would think – oh yeah, the prophet of God who didn’t die:

from wiki: Although Muslims believe that Jesus was a prophet, they reject the Christian doctrine of the Trinity, comparing it to polytheism. In Islamic theology, Jesus was just a man and not the son of God; God is described in a chapter (sura) of the Qur’an as “…God, the One and Only; God, the Eternal, Absolute; He begetteth not, nor is He begotten; And there is none like unto Him.”

read more here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jesus#Islamic_views
and here:
http://answering-christianity.com/crucified.htm

Different God/Jesus or heresy? Maybe he was thinking that by casting it this way, people might consider what it means to pray in Jesus’ name or that they can just add Jesus to the end of the prayer and they’ll be fine. (but like the OP says there is too much speculation going on around here!)

I have a Sikh friend at work and he was trying to tell me that the Sikh God is the same as the Christian God, and I had to say “are they the same? my God sent Jesus” and he said “well apart from that they are the same”. Again, different God?

“Changed my life” – This is not a biggy, this is Warren, this is how he talks, and he sounded sincere.

But still I’m sure if I became a Jew or Muslim or any other religion my life would be changed too. See, I may hear “Jesus changed my life”, but I don’t know how or why or what’s so special about Jesus, and I may just end up thinking “good for you, Rick. I’m glad it works for you.”

It’s just a bit vague (like the “cloud of witnesses” line), and it presupposes that people these days know who Jesus is and how Jesus changes lives.

80   wilson    
January 29th, 2009 at 6:32 pm

“different God/Jesus or heresy” – that’s not really a choice is it?

It should read “Same God/Jesus, different God/Jesus or heresy? ”

You get my point, right?

81   Rick Frueh    http://http?//followingjudahslion.com
January 29th, 2009 at 6:40 pm

Warren was just speaking a name of understanding, that which would be identified. The unfolding of who He was outside the Muslim understanding can come later.

Christian to a Muslim: Do you know who Issa is?

Muslim: Yes.

Christian: Well let me explain to you who Issa says that He is.

Muslim: OK

Not rocket science when you do not have an axe to grind. This “Issa” thing is boring, it’s the epitome of a straw man beating a dead horse. HEY – I wonder of Chris L. can photo shop a straw man beating a dead horse??

82   Chris    
January 29th, 2009 at 6:43 pm

Wilson,

Come on it was a prayer. If I could print all of the things that I’ve heard in prayer meetings, congregational prayers, confession prayers, etc…I could write a book on all the unbiblical language. Why must Warren be held to an unreasonable and unreachable standard?

83   Rick Frueh    http://http?//followingjudahslion.com
January 29th, 2009 at 6:52 pm

“it’s the epitome of a straw man beating a dead horse.”

From now on I will refer to it as a “straw horse”. :cool:

It will be defined as a strawman that continues to be presented. The “Issa” thing?

A strawhorse!

84   Chris L    http://www.fishingtheabyss.com/
January 29th, 2009 at 7:00 pm

Who knew that True ChristianityTM was all about Fisking the prayers of your self-declared enemies.

85   wilson    
January 29th, 2009 at 7:02 pm

#81 Rick

I don’t have big issues with the prayer itself, and when I first heard that I thought yeah he’s just using the arabic name for Jesus, just as he used the Spanish name for Jesus and the Hebrew name for Jesus.

The question is whether, by using the name Issa which appears in the Koran, is he implying that this Issa is the same as the Jesus revealed in the gospels? I personally don’t think he is, and it is as you say in #81.

Still people might get the message ‘hey we believe the same Jesus’, particularly n this age of religious pluralism.

86   wilson    
January 29th, 2009 at 7:05 pm

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jesus_(prophet_in_Islam)

87   Neil    
January 29th, 2009 at 7:07 pm

You get my point, right? – Wilson

Yeah we get your point… even though he also invoked the name of the Savior in English and Spanish… since he did it in that particular Arabic he’s all about a false Jesus…

88   Neil    
January 29th, 2009 at 7:09 pm

Wilson,

No one is denying that a) “Issa”/”Isa” is the Arabic of the Qur’an for Jesus, nor b) that Islam has a false view of Jesus.

89   Neil    
January 29th, 2009 at 7:10 pm

Who knew that True ChristianityTM was all about Fisking the prayers of your self-declared enemies.

Who could have guessed that saying “Jesus changed my life” would cause retribution from other people who were changed as well…

90   wilson    
January 29th, 2009 at 7:11 pm

Neil, I agree that no one here is denying that.

91   Neil    
January 29th, 2009 at 7:12 pm

Rick,

Straw-man beating a dead horse – BRILLIANT!

92   Rick Frueh    http://http?//followingjudahslion.com
January 29th, 2009 at 7:12 pm

“Still people might get the message ‘hey we believe the same Jesus’, particularly n this age of religious pluralism.”

Many probably did, but that is not the point. When the pharamicist gives you a bottle of pills do you take the whole bottle at one time? Warren had no opportunity to right all wrongs and correct all theological errors in the space of one token prayer.

He did fine with what he was limited to.

93   wilson    
January 29th, 2009 at 7:13 pm

comment #90 was in response to comment #88

94   Neil    
January 29th, 2009 at 7:13 pm

The question is whether, by using the name Issa which appears in the Koran, is he implying that this Issa is the same as the Jesus revealed in the gospels? I personally don’t think he is, and it is as you say in #81.

My apologies, then…

95   Neil    
January 29th, 2009 at 7:15 pm

Still people might get the message ‘hey we believe the same Jesus’, particularly n this age of religious pluralism.

That very well may be true… I think the message most ADM’s got, though, was… RATS! he prayed in Jesus name -WAIT… (insert straw man and horse)

96   Neil    
January 29th, 2009 at 7:17 pm

I found the video more vulgar than Brendt’s reference to an orifice from which the thing was pulled and his use of “crap.”

97   Rick Frueh    http://http?//followingjudahslion.com
January 29th, 2009 at 7:36 pm

On a show called “The Wretched” the comic and bombastic (showing no reverence to God) host walks out from a dungeon and dissects a prayer complete with electronic screen and snippets of the prayer like we were examining the Zapruder assassination film. With a quiz show ambiance, he gleefully sets out to prove that Rick Warren is a compromising heretic and he uses sound effects, visual effects, and a robust and effervescence of Bert Convey on the game show Pyramid -

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jzHF5tUcMIg&feature=related

Clown TV!

98   Rick Frueh    http://http?//followingjudahslion.com
January 29th, 2009 at 7:38 pm

Where is my last comment? Am I on moderation for language?

99   Phil Miller    http://pmwords.blogspot.com
January 29th, 2009 at 7:49 pm

Still people might get the message ‘hey we believe the same Jesus’, particularly n this age of religious pluralism.

I just cannot imagine any Muslim not realizing that when Rick Warren says this name for Jesus, that he is talking about the Jesus of the Bible. It’s not as if people do not know that Warren is a Christian pastor.

It’s ridiculous, really.

100   Rick Frueh    http://http?//followingjudahslion.com
January 29th, 2009 at 7:52 pm

Neil – especially in America.

101   wilson    
January 29th, 2009 at 8:51 pm

Phil #99: “I just cannot imagine any Muslim not realizing that when Rick Warren says this name for Jesus, that he is talking about the Jesus of the Bible. It’s not as if people do not know that Warren is a Christian pastor. ”

Not everyone in the world knows who Rick Warren is.

Especially not everyone in the Muslim/Buddhist/Hindu/Shinto/Sikh etc world, throughout the Middle East, Malaysia, Indonesia, UK, Africa, Asia Minor, India, nor those in Israel who are fighting Muslims over holy ground, who may have watched the broadcast…

…and considering the numerous references to ‘Isa in Islam and the content thereof

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jesus_(prophet_in_Islam)#References_to_Jesus_in_the_Qur.27an

(you will have to copy the whole link rather than merely click on it, I would encourage you to look over it though)

Again it comes down to the question raised in #85. Is the Isa of Islam the Jesus of Christianity? The ‘Isa of Islam did not give us what we know as “the Lord’s prayer”. Nor did ‘Isa die for sinners.

Warren did identify the right Jesus when he said he was praying in the name of the one who taught us to pray what we know as the Lord’s Prayer :-) but whether you would hear many Muslims around the world agreeing with him is a different matter.

Those who say “they’re all blind people holding a different part of the elephant” or “all paths lead to God” or “they all worship the same God/Jesus” probably wouldn’t care one way or the other about this discussion.

102   Phil Miller    http://pmwords.blogspot.com
January 29th, 2009 at 9:00 pm

Especially not everyone in the Muslim/Buddhist/Hindu/Shinto/Sikh etc world, throughout the Middle East, Malaysia, Indonesia, UK, Africa, Asia Minor, India, nor those in Israel who are fighting Muslims over holy ground, who may have watched the broadcast…

And here I thought he was praying for the American Presidential inauguration…

The thing is, anyone can interpret anything to mean whatever they want. An American Muslim who speaks English may assume that the English translation of Jesus is the same name as the person mentioned in the English translation of the Koran. A Jehova’s Witness assumes Jesus was a created being. The issue isn’t with the person speaking – it’s with the person hearing and drawing the wrong conclusion.

103   iggy    http://wordofmouthministries.blogspot.com/
January 29th, 2009 at 9:18 pm

The Bible tells us we will be known by our love for each other and by our demonstration of the fruits of the Spirit. The writer of the article shows none of it. (He even goes so far as to end it on a vulgar, ungodly note.) Neither do nearly all who have so far posted comments under his article. That includes you, Rick.

This made me laugh and if I had been drinking coffee it would have been all over my pc screen.

I find it insane that someone will come and accuse Brendt of not knowing the bible and not even being saved and then consider them self “loving”… judgemental/condemning… yes that… but that kind of judging and condemning is far from loving.

Also I love the part where they say, “I will never come back” and state this site is not biblical… humorous… I have listened to Todd Friel and often I even wonder if he understands his own biblical view. Really there is more strong biblical teaching on this site than anything I have heard on WoTMR…

Most often I hear straw-men and misrepresentations of the people they talk about… they love to take statements out of context and twist it to fit their own agenda of attacking the other person… typical ODM agenda… hurt others and then claim how righteous you yourself is and then strut around in a fair land of make believe enemies who are your brothers and sisters in Christ.

Really it goes to show that often these people claim love and grace but in no way show it… and think judging others and condemning them is showing biblical “love”…

iggy

104   iggy    http://wordofmouthministries.blogspot.com/
January 29th, 2009 at 9:31 pm

Again this whole argument over “Isa” is like the JW’ argument that Jehovah is the only name to be used of God… it is simply… stupid as the Bible uses many names to relay who God is.

Again also… if we are to be this legalistic over a name… then we who say, “Jesus” are also following a false Messiah as the Biblical name was Hebrew and was Y’shua… or a form of Joshua… In fact as strict as these people are being unless you use
?????? then we are all lost

So really I see a bunch of modernist Pharisees squawking about a “name” when if held by their own standard are in the same boat as RW…

In ?????? Name,

iggy

105   iggy    http://wordofmouthministries.blogspot.com/
January 29th, 2009 at 9:31 pm

the ????? should have been the Hebrew word for Jesus… it seemed to not come across.

106   Rick Frueh    http://http?//followingjudahslion.com
January 29th, 2009 at 9:58 pm

Would it have been wrong to include “Joshua” since that would be how Jews would understand Jesus?

107   Brendt    http://csaproductions.com/blog/
January 29th, 2009 at 10:01 pm

wilson (#79):

when all the muslims hear “Issa” they would think – oh yeah, the prophet of God who didn’t die

Who cares what they think? When the Catholics heard the Lord’s prayer, many would probably think, “Oh yeah, that thing that the priest has me say after confessional.”

(And no, I’m not equating Muslims and Catholics.)

If Warren had ensured that every listener understood his every intention, the prayer would have been, “Almighty God — and by ‘God’ I mean …” and 10 minutes later, they would have been dragging him off the stage in mid-explanation. Trying to accommodate the understanding of every listener is not only pointless, but show a very dim view of God’s sovereignty.

It’s not necessary to resort to this kind of crudity…. is it?

What’s crude about pulling something out of your ear? Oh, you were thinking a different orifice. See previous comment regarding accommodating the understanding of every listener.

108   wilson    
January 30th, 2009 at 1:31 am

If all Warren was doing was using a different language – the arabic ‘Isa, the hebrew Yeshua and the Spanish, to identify Jesus, then all well and good. Then it’s simply a question of language, as iggy rightly says.

And don’t worry, I agree – Warren is not responsible for the understanding as Phil says in #102, and you Brendt suggest in #107. I agree with that.

re: #107. Brendt, all I’m saying is that those in other religions will interpret the prayer differently, in accordance with their view, whether that is their own making or is the view of a particular recognized religion. They may only know their own religion’s view on Jesus, without knowing what the Christian belief about Jesus is. To observe Warren praying in the name of the Islamic ‘Isa, Jewish (?) Yeshua, the Christian Jesus, they may assume in some way they are all the same -or the differences don’t matter and I suspect this is the view of much of the West – when the reality is that the particular beliefs of all 3 of the ‘abrahamic’ religions are vastly vastly different.

Discussion of motives tends to be largely speculative as this thread undoubtedly proves, and in the context of the excitement of the inauguration it probably would have gotten past most people without a second thought. Still it’s an interesting exercise to consider some of the implications of these very public addresses. Much like Obama’s “all our dreams are really one.” statement – sounds like a nice and fluffy ideal in a speech – but that’s another discussion :-)

109   iggy    http://wordofmouthministries.blogspot.com/
January 30th, 2009 at 2:43 am

Wilson…

I agree… Here is a case and point…

My mother in law is very much into the New Age movement… and prays in the Name of Jesus using “Christian” words….

Yet, here is her Jesus…

He was a reincarnate man who became perfect and is one of the ascended masters with Gandhi, Abe Lincoln, Francis Bacon, and on and on… We have in us a “Christ Self” which is trapped in our earthly being and we need to use the powers of light and become as Jesus and be light.

And all that is using “in Jesus Name”….

So the point is using the right words mean nothing in relation to the perspective of the listener… if they are a Mormon…. then it is also in “Jesus Name” and Jesus was a man like us who became a god and is the brother of Lucifer…

So this is all just nonsense and stupidity and anyone falling for this rubbish in my mind is truly a weak minded fool.

iggy

110   Brendt    http://csaproductions.com/blog/
January 30th, 2009 at 10:28 am

wilson, I owe you an apology (seriously, not being a smart aleck).

When you raise the speculation of impure motives or incorrect interpretations, you are doing exactly that — speculating. Unfortunately, you are in the VAST minority. Most who would raise the issue of impure motives do so with absolute certainty, usually misappropriating Matthew 7:16 as some kind of crystal ball that gives them omniscience.

As a TV personality, Friel is more open to lawsuits for defamation than some random guy with a blog. And so Friel is intelligent enough to couch his terminology without words of certainty. But his presentation is dripping with it. Meanwhile, the ADMs don’t even bother with this couching, but go straight for the jugular (in a Christian way, of course) and assume the worst with absolute certainty.

I (incorrectly) assumed that you were falling in with such idiocy, and responded thusly. By making a false assumption, I have been hoisted on my own petard. To the degree that it hurt you, I am truly sorry.

Now please excuse me while I wipe this egg off my face.

111   iggy    http://wordofmouthministries.blogspot.com/
January 30th, 2009 at 10:56 am

Brendt,

There was a point that Ken Silva went from “research” to “opinion”…

I found that funny as it seemed that once he stood behind his “research” as being undeniable truth… then with pressure his “truth” began to crumble and became opinion…

To me if his blog was just that and it was stated as just that…who really would care? I don’t give a hoot or a toot about Ken Silva’s opinion any more than I do John MacArthur’s or anyone else who I don’t agree with or who does not agree with me.

The problem is as you stated… when they present it as undenialable truth and that it is all well researched out when it is not… and really their shows or books or blogs would not sell if it was just their opinion.

As far as TF being intelligent… I would say he is more crafty than intelligent… intelligent implies he knows what he is talking about… crafty is that he knows how to manipulate things as to not get in trouble in case he happens to lie about someone.

iggy

112   Rick Frueh    http://http?//followingjudahslion.com
January 30th, 2009 at 11:05 am

THINGS THAT BAFFLE ME

* How anyone can take a show like Friel’s seriously
* Condemning unsaved sinners
* Intelligent people using bad language
* Christians listening to Limbaugh
* Christians not forgiving
* Calvinism
* Dead, dry, and algebraic Christianity
* People not giving me the accolades I so richly deserve
* What Zan ever saw in Chris

These are just a few…

113   Brendt    http://csaproductions.com/blog/
January 30th, 2009 at 11:13 am

iggy, yeah, my computer crashed the first time that I wrote that Friel was intel….

(dang, there it goes again)

Your word is probably more accurate. Or maybe “savvy” — that doesn’t even have any negative connotations.

114   Neil    
January 30th, 2009 at 11:15 am

Brendt,

I too assumed Wilson was just taking up the mantel of judgmentalism as the ADM’s have done, as “Biblically Sound” defensed, and as Pastorboy has started leaning toward. I too had to apologize when I saw that was not his intention.

115   iggy    http://wordofmouthministries.blogspot.com/
January 30th, 2009 at 11:36 am

Rick,

* Condemning unsaved sinners

This is what I find fascinating… here we have people “already condemned” being further condemned by someone who was redeemed….. BY GRACE!

I makes me think of those who point out the sins of others so that they feel more righteous about themselves and in the end… only have deceived themselves.

Really makes me think of the unforgiving servant… forgiven of a great debt but unwilling to forgive someone of a lesser one.

116   Rick Frueh    http://http?//followingjudahslion.com
January 30th, 2009 at 11:45 am

Uncovering and reporting on the sins of others is unchristian and reveals an addiction which needs deliverance.

117   Sandman    
January 30th, 2009 at 2:10 pm

116: But Rick, you have to remember some comments we shared a long time ago about this: My sin, God’s okay with; it’s yours He can’t stand.

I’m not a big Rick Warren fan, but I’m amazed at the lengths some will go to keep him in the frame of reference they put him in. And while Todd sometimes grates on me with his attitude and delivery, I can still listen to what he has to say and make up my own mind without bashing him.

Having said that, I have to wonder how many anti-Warren Christians came away pleased that he prayed the way he did and how many went from eager anticipation to NOT hear Jesus’ name to disappointment (accompanied by some internal mouthing of semi-curse words) at the mention of Jesus’ name (irony), to quickly looking for something else to file their teeth on.

Maybe it’s time to stop examining Rick Warren and time to start examining oneself.

118   Rick Frueh    http://http?//followingjudahslion.com
January 31st, 2009 at 5:27 pm

Since it is wrong to pray for a pro-choice president according to some, I want to ask a question:

Why is it acceptable to kill Al Qaeda to prevent them from killing Americans, but it isn’t OK to kill abortion doctors to prevent them from killing Americans?

119   Christian P    http://www.churchvoices.com
January 31st, 2009 at 5:36 pm

Rick, that question is a non-sequitur to your statement.

I think it’s right to pray for Obama and acceptable for Americans to kill Al Qaeda.

I understand that many Christians disagree on the war thing, but there is a difference between soldiers fighting and individuals murdering. A soldier is enacting justice on behalf of the government (interestingly Paul makes the same argument for praying for those in power as they enact justice as ordained by God), whereas an individual killing a doctor would be a vigilante. Now as much as Americans celebrate vigilantes, our legal system doesn’t tolerate them.

Apples and oranges.

120   Rick Frueh    http://http?//followingjudahslion.com
January 31st, 2009 at 5:43 pm

Apples = Americans

Oranges = Christians

We kill individuals not wholesale armies. There is no Biblical answer to my question, except that the answer is not ours to provide, just as the actions of a government are not ours to judge.

Since, as you say, Paul laid out obedience to the government, would that abrogate the “obey God rather than man” principle? It is wrong to kill, but if it good to kill those who would kill, than it is good to kill abortion doctors.I find it culturally antiseptic to hide behing the laws of the government as did the Lutheran church in Germany.

121   Christian P    http://www.churchvoices.com
January 31st, 2009 at 5:53 pm

Oh, I see now, so we force only non-Christians to fight wars on our behalf and on behalf of the weak so that they die in our stead.

Our government has a responsibility. Do you expect them to fulfill that responsibility without the aid of people? What would have happened if America and American Christians hadn’t joined WWII? Was it wrong for them to fight that war because it’s wrong to murder? Scripture says that we are not to take another life. It does not say that governments shouldn’t.

122   Rick Frueh    http://http?//followingjudahslion.com
January 31st, 2009 at 6:01 pm

The governments are in God’s hands, not ours. I have no quarrel with believers who fight, but the church should take no position either way. Your questions provide earthly quandries, but only Scripture, however inconvenient and illogical, can provide the basis for answers.

If indeed it is spiritually right to kill people premptively to avoid them murdering others, it is right to kill doctors who kill unborn babies. But I have problems with both because the Scriptures seem to as well.

The admonition to obey the government must be in keeping with the overall teaching of Scripture concerning moral issues as well. My provocative question was meant to elicit deeper thought and not reveal I have all the answers. I will not have all the answers until next month. :cool:

123   Neil    
January 31st, 2009 at 6:26 pm

The church is free to take a stand against sin whether that sin is committed by individuals, corporations, or governments.

124   Rick Frueh    http://http?//followingjudahslion.com
January 31st, 2009 at 8:40 pm

And here is something that you need to see, especially the video link.

http://www.sliceoflaodicea.com/true-church/uw-madison-hospitals-meet-the-resistance/

Could there be anything more counter productive to the gospel? Wise as serpents – harmless as doves has gone out the window. Why am I pro-life? Because I saw people walking in the midst of a screaming match? No, I heard the gospel and was changed. And then in Ingrid’s typical way of projecting venom against sinners and martyrdom about herself she adds this:

“The ugly chanting you hear on the video is from the death enthusiasts. Yes, UW-Madison’s finest showed up, and you can hear the anger in their voices at seeing the Christians.”

Ahh.. the anger in their voices, such a shame. Death enthusiasts and Madison’s finest again reveal the compassionless disdain she has for lost people. She is a textbook case of how you can be on the right side of moral issues and the wrong side of Jesus.

And we wonder how people get whipped up in such a frenzy that they murder doctors. No wonder.

“Father, don’t forgive them for they know what they are doing”. (original Greek)

125   Bo Diaz    
January 31st, 2009 at 9:08 pm

From that same article Rick quoted:

God is not dead and neither are His people.

The more she writes the less I’m convinced she knows either the character of God or His people.

126   Rick Frueh    http://http?//followingjudahslion.com
January 31st, 2009 at 9:24 pm

The man that took the video graduated from Bob Jones University. Connect the dots.

127   Rick Frueh    http://http?//followingjudahslion.com
January 31st, 2009 at 9:30 pm

Read the narrative of the life of Jesus. All of you know how I feel about the epistles of Paul, but when we desire to see a template for our lives we must look at the life of Christ.

He was filled with grace, forgiving, and He allowed Himself to be minimized and mocked and eventually became obedient unto death. His teachings on loving your enemies and turning the other cheek are priceless. He even attended the parties of moral sinners.

Like Bo said – “The more she writes the less I’m convinced she knows either the character of God or His people.”

128   John Hughes    
February 3rd, 2009 at 2:12 pm

Rick: He even attended the parties of moral sinners.

This gets thrown out A LOT to confront the ODM’s self righteousness, but can we look at this in context?

Matt: 9, Mark 2 – Calling of Matthew sinners came as guests to eat with Jesus and His disciples at Levi’s house. Jesus was not “partying” with sinners at an immoral gathering. Jesus associated with sinners, but had His own agenda i.e, to call sinners to repentance (e.g, for there were many who were following Him, Mark 2-15), not “hanging out” for the party.

Luke 7 – a Pharisee invites Jesus to dine with him. The Pharisee had an agenda and Jesus had an agenda. It wasn’t just to go to party.

So the phrase “Jesus partied with sinners” misses the point that these “parties” (actually meals) were not just some heathen ho-downs (c) Jesus just happened to stop by at for a good time, but were agenda driven by both parties.

I understand most anti-ODM’s intent when they say “Jesus partied with sinners”, but think in the final analysis the examples are being mis-reported, mis-interpreted and do not make the point they think they are making. It’s like the phrase has taken on a life of its own and no-one is taking a real look at the material in context.

129   Phil Miller    http://pmwords.blogspot.com
February 3rd, 2009 at 2:21 pm

John,
I think the point is that the Pharisees accused Jesus of fellowshipping with the sinners, and that outraged them. The fact that He would associate at all with those people offended their moral sensibilities. Actually, this passage in Matthew 11 reveals the “damned if you do, damned if you don’t” attitude of many of the ADM crowd today.

For John came neither eating nor drinking, and they say, ‘He has a demon.’ The Son of Man came eating and drinking, and they say, ‘Here is a glutton and a drunkard, a friend of tax collectors and “sinners.” ‘ But wisdom is proved right by her actions.”

Gee, sounds like some people today…

130   nc    
February 3rd, 2009 at 2:28 pm

Yeah, I mean…Jesus facilitated the alcohol consumption at his very first public act of ministry.

Can you imagine the kind of tantrum some would have if I started my ministry by going to a wedding and out of my own pocket went and purchased some good champagne because it had run out?

That fleshly, compromised Jesus.

131   nc    
February 3rd, 2009 at 2:29 pm

I write that because the argument about Jesus “partying” with sinners is precisely raised against clear cut legalism about things like “Christians never consume alcohol ever ever ever”.

132   John Hughes    
February 3rd, 2009 at 2:37 pm

Phil: I think the point is that the Pharisees accused Jesus of fellowshipping with the sinners, and that outraged them. The fact that He would associate at all with those people offended their moral sensibilities.

Phil, I agree 100% with your assessment. I think that is sound exegesis and the easily observed point of these narratives. My point is that this phrase “Jesus partied with sinners” has taken on a life of its own outside of its rightful context and has come to mean more than the biblical text intended. I have seen it argued that it is OK for Christians to hang out in bars to witness and it may indeed **be** OK for Christians to hang out in bars to witness, but one cannot use these particular Biblical narratives to prove that point. These were dinners, the host had a specific agenda, i.e., to meet with this man Jesus who was getting a lot of buzz and learn more about Him and Jesus had a specific agenda, i.e., to call sinners to repentance, not just to hang out. It’s all very clear and unambiguous if one goes to the text, but it seems both sides of the issue don’t want to let the facts get in the way of a good story.

133   John Hughes    
February 3rd, 2009 at 2:47 pm

NC: I write that because the argument about Jesus “partying” with sinners is precisely raised against clear cut legalism about things like “Christians never consume alcohol ever ever ever”.

But my point is the “partying” connotation does not legitamately support this come-back when read in context. These were dinners and not raucous “parties” in the 21st Century context. However, they could be use as a proof text that obviously alcohol was consumed by Jesus as His attendance resulted in Him being called a wine-bibber.

BTW – My personal view on alcohol is that consumption in moderation is not forbidden, but drunkeness is.

134   John Hughes    
February 3rd, 2009 at 2:50 pm

BTW the next Heathen Ho-Down will be at Rick’s place this Saturday at 9:00, till – - – -. BYOB.

Bring your own Bible. Shame! You thought I meant something else didn’t you!

135   John Hughes    
February 3rd, 2009 at 3:01 pm

This was an interesting quote from Wikipedia’s article on wine:

Wine was used in the Eucharist by all Protestant groups until an alternative arose in 1869. Methodist minister-turned-dentist Thomas Bramwell Welch applied new pasteurization techniques to stop the natural fermentation process of grape juice. Some Christians who were part of the growing temperance movement pressed for a switch from wine to grape juice, and the substitution spread quickly over much of the United States.

Side note: “Methodist-turned-dentist” — so many possibilities, so little time.

136   Pastorboy    http://crninfo.wordpress.com
February 3rd, 2009 at 3:29 pm

Who could have guessed that saying “Jesus changed my life” would cause retribution from other people who were changed as well…

Neil
He said the one who changed my life…

As Christians, we assume that is Jesus.

But he didn’t say Jesus- he said Yeshua, Hayzeus, and Isa.

I think some might have heard that the Jewish version of Yeshua- who the Jews deny was God or the Messiah..and the Arabic Isa- who the Muslims say was but a prophet, not the Son of God, disn’t die for sins.

That is the concern. Why can’t he just say ‘In Jesus’ name’

He was trying to be ecumenical, cast a broad net..etc. I understand why he did it. I just think it is disengenuous to deny what he did, and that was to craft a broad based ecumenical prayer that didn’t leave anyone out!

137   Rick Frueh    http://http?//followingjudahslion.com
February 3rd, 2009 at 3:31 pm

My parties only have diabetic friendly alcohol!

138   John B    
February 3rd, 2009 at 3:38 pm

John Hughes Says:

…..So the phrase “Jesus partied with sinners” misses the point that these “parties” (actually meals) were not just some heathen ho-downs (c) Jesus just happened to stop by at for a good time, but were agenda driven by both parties.

I agree John. Jesus had an agenda, a purpose if you will, for everything He did. You could even call Him, well, “purpose-driven”.

:)

139   Rick Frueh    http://http?//followingjudahslion.com
February 3rd, 2009 at 3:47 pm

Jesus never sinned, however he hung around many who did, even to the extent that he Himself was called a winebibber and glutton. (a party goer)

140   Rick Frueh    http://http?//followingjudahslion.com
February 3rd, 2009 at 3:55 pm

John B. – you are correct. Redemptive pragmatism must always be rejected by the reformed crowd since it assumes a greater scope of atonement than fits with that theology, and according to them it includes too much human effort which abrogates God’s sovereign working.

You see, less human effort is better, except when it comes to false teachers and compromisers and moral failures. In those cases more human effort is necessary to plug the cracks in God’s sovereignty. :cool:

141   Phil Miller    http://pmwords.blogspot.com
February 3rd, 2009 at 3:58 pm

The thing I’ve always found interesting about Jesus turning the water into wine is that narrative certainly implies that there were people there who had had enough to start getting drunk. Especially since someone says, “Everyone brings out the choice wine first and then the cheaper wine after the guests have had too much to drink; but you have saved the best till now”. He’s essentially saying, “everyone is sloshed now, why are you bothering to put out the good stuff?”

So you can certainly understand why Jesus was accused of condoning drunkenness to some extent. I find it interesting that Jesus did this miracle and didn’t try to force people to decide a certain way on whether or not they sinned or not. It’s much different than the way Christians try to coerce people today.

142   nc    
February 3rd, 2009 at 3:58 pm

John,

I see your point. What I’m saying is that I’ve never been in a situation where it’s been used to justify sinful drunknenness….but that’s been my experience.

PB,

He did say Jesus. “Hayzeus” (yikes) is just the spanish pronunciation of Jesus. But that might mean “Roman Catholic”…so much for all the hispanic pentecostals I know….

And all those bad Messianic Jews apparently shouldn’t refer to him as Yeshua.

143   Pastorboy    http://crninfo.wordpress.com
February 3rd, 2009 at 4:15 pm

The Messianic Jews do refer to Him as Yeshua. Not the point.

Who saved Rick?

Who saves us?

Why not pray and use the name above all other names?

BTW, I know it is Jesus in spanish, I wrote Hayzeus to get the pronunciation across.

144   John Hughes    
February 3rd, 2009 at 4:41 pm

Rick: Jesus never sinned, however he hung around many who did

Very true, but with the agenda to call sinners to repentance (quoting the narrative ver batim). The scandal of the day (and perhaps ever our day too) was that He would stoop to associate with known sinners.

The scandal that Jesus “hung” with sinners (and by inference so should we) is housed in the context/premeditated intent of redemption, not pleasure for the sake of pleasure. That is how such usage can easily come across.

“Jesus hung out with sinners” is balanced by “bad company corrupts good morals” and “don’t even have the appearance of evil”. To dismiss a legalist with this proof text is not being true to the context IMO. We should all have un-saved friends but with the redemptive purpose of pointing the way to Christ, not to participate in or condone their sin de jure and thus corrupt/defile ourselves for the sake of “friendship”.

Jesus was invited to a sinner’s banquet and went (in order to redeem). He was not invited to or attend a Baccusian orgy (not that anyone here has suggested this). The difference is real and significant, however in the context of “Jesus hung with sinner”. “Hung out with” has a specific connotation in our society.

145   Rick Frueh    http://http?//followingjudahslion.com
February 3rd, 2009 at 4:45 pm

God’s motivation in everything is always redemptive. Exactly.

146   John B    
February 3rd, 2009 at 5:37 pm

John (#143)

I can’t imagine having a friend who is not a Christian that I would not want to see come to the saving grace of Christ. My friendship with him would always have that in my mind. Always. And it would reflect on the way I act around him. It doesn’t mean I won’t have a drink with him, or go to a sporting event, or a concert or anything that is not immoral.

Truth is, rightly or wrongly, I let my guard down much more around fellow believers than the unsaved.

147   Neil    
February 3rd, 2009 at 6:19 pm

He was trying to be ecumenical, cast a broad net..etc. I understand why he did it. I just think it is disengenuous to deny what he did, and that was to craft a broad based ecumenical prayer that didn’t leave anyone out! – Pastorboy

There you go again… assigning motives and using catch phrases. Ecumenical is code among the ADM’s so I can only assume it is for you too (unless you say otherwise).

Even if he had prayed “…in Jesus name.” it could have been ecumenical – since all the players in “ecumenical” pray in Jesus name.

So it is not disingenuous to say he was not being ecumenical, because that’s not what he did.

What he did was to pray in Jesus name… just not in English!

148   Neil    
February 3rd, 2009 at 6:20 pm

But he didn’t say Jesus- he said Yeshua, Hayzeus, and Isa. – Pastorboy

So his sin was not say’n it in English – NBD!

149   Neil    
February 3rd, 2009 at 6:22 pm

I think some might have heard that the Jewish version of Yeshua- who the Jews deny was God or the Messiah..and the Arabic Isa- who the Muslims say was but a prophet, not the Son of God, disn’t die for sins. – Pastorboy

Are you sure ya wanna go down this road… do you want people judging what you say based on how others may misinterpret it?

That would be fun… unfair, but fun!

150   Neil    
February 3rd, 2009 at 6:26 pm

Why not pray and use the name above all other names? – Pastorboy

He did!

Move along…

151   John Hughes    
February 3rd, 2009 at 7:08 pm

John B: It doesn’t mean I won’t have a drink with him, or go to a sporting event, or a concert or anything that is not immoral.

I agree 100% and that is in perfect harmony with the context of the sinner’s banquet narratives. My contention is the phrase “Jesus hung out with sinners” is misleading on several levels.

For example:

Wrong Application: I have a friend who is a “serious partier” and he invites me to his next booze-a-palooza. I use the sinner’s banquet narrative as my justification to go.

Correct Application: Same friend invites me over for dinner and I go.

1st application: friend invites me to his party with the intention to have me participate in said improper behavior. Little or no opportunity to “witness” to anyone. Has undeniable “appearance of evil”. Opens one up to unecessary and avoidable temptation.

2nd application: friend invites me over in order to spend time with me and fellowship, i.e., to hear what I have to say on various subjects. Ample opportunity to witness and be a general friend.

This is just my take.

152   Rick Frueh    http://http?//followingjudahslion.com
February 3rd, 2009 at 7:14 pm

I accept the invitation regardless of my friends perceptions about my participation. There will always be opportunities to witness, many times just by my friendly attitude while not particpating being a source of curiousity. It has happened to me in reality.

153   Phil Miller    http://pmwords.blogspot.com
February 3rd, 2009 at 7:38 pm

Wrong Application: I have a friend who is a “serious partier” and he invites me to his next booze-a-palooza. I use the sinner’s banquet narrative as my justification to go.

Wasn’t the wedding at Cana a sort of “booze-a-palooza”?

I certainly understand your point, and I’ve said the same thing many times myself, but lately I’ve been second guessing myself. I’ve said no to so many people so many times, that they simply don’t ask anymore. It’s almost like I’ve shut myself off from really knowing them. I’ve tried to be more open about going to some places I wouldn’t go before.

Now of course there’s limits, and I don’t think we can justify everything. I just think sometimes we’re too quick to shoot things down.

154   Rick Frueh    http://http?//followingjudahslion.com
February 3rd, 2009 at 8:00 pm

I have been in the midst of some serious partying and believe me when I tell you at some point I become a center of attention and in the midst of humor and goofiness I get to share my testimony. I have done every drug imagineable in my lifetime, said every curse word, been pervasively promiscuous, sold drugs in high schools, and planned the murder of a bank guard, so I am not uncomfortable in the midst of sinners who used to be me.

Am I worried what the church people might think? Are you new here? :cool:

155   nc    
February 3rd, 2009 at 9:05 pm

I humbly ask this in the name of the one who changed my life, Yeshua, Isa, Jesus [Spanish pronunciation], Jesus, who taught us to pray…

From here:
http://www.clipsandcomment.com/2009/01/20/text-pastor-rick-warren-inauguration-invocation-january-20-2009/

So he DID pray in Jesus’ name.

This is a fake issue.

156   nc    
February 3rd, 2009 at 9:06 pm

If anyone keeps saying he didn’t use the name of Jesus…they’re a liar.

157   John Hughes    
February 4th, 2009 at 9:14 am

#154. Oye. I give up. :-) Party on dudes! Just be careful, please.

Therefore let him who thinks he stands take heed that he does not fall. (1 Cor 1o:12)

158   nc    
February 4th, 2009 at 10:54 am

157:

John,

Your heart shines through. Thank you.

159   Phil Miller    http://pmwords.blogspot.com
February 4th, 2009 at 11:02 am

John,
I appreciate where you’re coming from, honestly. I’m really pretty much an introvert myself, so personally, the bigger temptation for me is to withdraw from people – it’s never been hard for me to be separate from the world – it comes naturally! So I think for me the Gospel challenges me to get out of my comfort zone and be with people. For more extroverted people, it may be more of a challenge to resist the flow of the crowd.

I think the thing is the Gospel doesn’t allow anyone to stay the way they are.