10 April 2010

Live Radio, Tape Delay

by Phil Johnson



arlier this week, before writing Friday's post, I consented to a couple of live radio interviews with Chris Arnzen, host of Iron Sharpens Iron, a daily, live discussion of biblical and theological issues. The broadcast covers New York and Connecticut and is streamed live over the Internet. Recordings are usually posted for the benefit of those who can't listen live.

The recordings are made automatically, I believe, because they usually begin with several minutes of Spanish programing before "Iron Sharpens Iron" actually starts. They are unedited as well and include two long commercial breaks. I've edited the two broadcasts from this week to remove the salsa music and commercial breaks. (Those are the only edits I made; the live interview itself is complete and undoctored.) You can either stream or download the .mp3 files (formatted for iTunes) here (day 1) and here (day 2).

Since I've carved out the commercials, it's only fair to note that Chris's sponsors include Buttafuoco & Associates, batterydepot.com, and The Lockman Foundation. A more complete list of sponsors may be found at the "Iron Sharpens Iron" website.

Bear in mind that these interviews were live and unrehearsed. Friday's post represents my official statement (and most carefully-worded thoughts) on the matter. But these interviews may be helpful to those who think that post wasn't clear or thorough enough.

The Piper-Warren Connection (part 1)
The Piper-Warren Connection (part 2)


Phil's signature

39 comments:

bp said...

Phil,
Has John MacArthur has commented on this publicly? Or R.C. Sproul?

Pastor Pants said...

bp - I haven't seen any comment yet. I would be very surprised, on past record, if Johnny Mac doesn't say anything to John Piper, but I am fairly sure it will be privately. At least initially. I am certainly praying for the "behind the scenes" at T4G as much as for the "platform".

I wonder if multiple respected leaders and friends have the courage to speak humbly, but clearly, to John whether he will change his mind. The weight of godly counsel causing him to rethink, perhaps.

I think of him as a humble man, so I guess it is possible. But yet I am not expecting it. How often has anyone of similar position changed their mind publically on such things? I don't recall.

It is when I think of things like this, like the criticism of Driscoll; when I look at the care that Phil, Dan and Frank take over the precise words they use; when I then glance at James 3:1, the more I wonder what on earth I am doing pastoring... I feel inadequate for the task and it fills me with dread.

bp said...

yes, I think Phil has done a great job of being gracious, yet unbudging on truth (almost done listening to the radio interview).

One other thing...I remember hearing that Piper invited Warren way back in August. How is it that this was unknown until now? Is it possible that he and Warren were the only ones who knew about this all that time?

THE OLD GEEZER said...

I enjoyed looking over your blog. I found your profile on another blog I follow and I added myself to follow you. You are more than welcome to visit my blog and become a follower if you want to.

God Bless You, Ron

Phil Johnson said...

bp: "Has John MacArthur has commented on this publicly? Or R.C. Sproul?"

Not to my knowledge. But does anyone seriously doubt whether they think publicly endorsing Rick Warren is a good idea?

My guess is that most of the guys who would typically speak or write for T4G, Ligonier, Shepherds' Conference, White Horse Inn, or ACE probably feel they have spoken clearly enough against pragmatism, seeker-sensitive church growth methodology, the church as a hub of entertainment, and watered down gospels so that no one should have to wonder whether they approve of Rick Warren as a keynote speaker in an ostensibly Reformed conference. I can't speak for them, of course, but I wouldn't be surprised if most of them are a little bit frustrated with John Piper for raising an issue like this in their midst in the first place. It will be interesting to see how they deal with it.

Personally, I hope charitable candor trumps over-cautious diplomacy as they reply to people's questions about this.

DJP said...

...most of the guys who would typically speak or write for T4G, Ligonier, Shepherds' Conference, White Horse Inn, or ACE probably feel they have spoken clearly enough against pragmatism, seeker-sensitive church growth methodology, the church as a hub of entertainment, and watered down gospels....

An ironic thought, as I read that. To wit:

We could have said the same about Piper, couldn't we — if it weren't Piper himself giving the platform to Warren?

Therein lies the disconnect/irony.

bp said...

So true DJP. I have given up trying to get inside his head to figure out how this all makes sense to him. God knows. And He will use this whole mess for His ultimate glory, no doubt. But I know that doesn't excuse it and I pray that God would use the overwelming consensus of those in his circle of influence to help him see the error of his decision.

Robert Warren said...

"How often has anyone of similar position changed their mind publically on such things?"

I remember that Alistair Begg pulled out of some Emergent/navel-gazer conference a couple of years ago,but I supposed that's a little different that uninviting someone else.

Frank Turk said...

As I Tweeted today, I'll be flying for 14 hours on Sunday without leaving North America, so I'll enjoy the MP3s.

However, I am somewhat put out that the Buttafuoco & Associates ads are pulled out as they make me homesick for NY. It would be wrong to say they are my favorite part of Chris Arnzen's show when I listen, so let me instead say they enhance my pleasure in listening for reasons completely unrelated to theology and apologetics.

Mike Riccardi said...

You know... speaking of the T4G guys...

What if Piper went to them with his reasoning for why he wants to invite Warren to the DG conference, and said, "Guys, he's fundamentally sound. Maybe we should let him do a break-out session on the relationship between pragmatism and Biblical Christianity?" Safe bet they'd decline, right? Better yet, I think it's a safe bet Piper wouldn't even bring it up.

So here's the question. Why doesn't what -- in the minds of Piper's best buds (and perhaps Piper's own himself) -- disqualifies Warren from speaking at T4G disqualify him from speaking at DG?

If they can't stand "Together for the Gospel," what can they stand together on?

I love John Piper, and long for him with all the affection of Christ Jesus (Phil 1:8), but he's really left me perplexed on this one.

Lisa said...

So, uh, I called in, uh, on part 2, uh, and thankfully, uh, I don't write, uh, like a speak on the the radio. uh. :-D
Thank you for handling my questions so well. I have been quite flabbergasted by the grace-less, 'untempered', emotionally-driven responses to this whole thing... and then the accusations against the big-name, Christians bloggers for not having responded quick enough within the apparent blogosphere time-line, without considering where the focus should have been that week... on preparing to celebrate the fact that Jesus rose from the dead.

I will say that I am still utterly confused and disappointed by Piper's decision but I pray earnestly that GRACE and uncompromising truth outflanks the grace-less, 'untempered', slanderous, emotionally-driven responses I have witnessed.

Our words do matter as much as doctrine matters, truth matters, grace matters, honoring our Lord above all matters. I have failed, more often than I'd like to admit, to make this the prevailing filter before I hit "publish"

God help us and again, thank you for, uh, answering my questions so well.

Eric Kaminsky said...

I have a question for Phil specifically, but anyone can chime in. Do you think that Christians that belong to a church comitted to expository preaching and biblical proclamation of the gospel should focus on fellowship, and sitting under the teaching of God's word and leave most of this discussion and worry to more qualified and influential people like yourself. It is easy to become overwhelmed with thinking of the significance of all this. I'd love some insight for this somewhat immature believer.

bp said...

I think most people see Rick Warren as the poster boy for pragmatism, but I don't think many understand the more dangerous new age (new spirituality) undertones of his teachings. He was a graduate of the Robert H. Schuller Institute for Successful Church Leadership, and has actually taught there. He often quotes New Age teachers in his books and many of Warren's teachings in PDL are very similar to Robert Schullers.

Robert Schuller quote, Hour of Power, April 4, 2004:

"And there's Rick Warren, a pastor who today is phenomenal. He came to our institute time after time. And in 'Christianity Today,' his wife was quoted as saying, 'When we came to that institute, we were blown way.'"

And if you're not familiar with Robert Schuller, here's a quote from page 14 of his book, "Self-Esteem: The New Reformation":

"Sin is any act or thought that robs myself or another human being of his or her self-esteem."

Warren Smith is a Christian who was formerly heavily into New Age. You can read chapter 5 of his book, "Deceived on Purpose" on-line:

http://www.crossroad.to/articles2/04/smith-deceived_on_purpose-5.htm

PreacherBill said...

no weekly dose of Spurgeon?

Couldn't resist.

Phil Johnson said...

Lisa:

I don't like the way I sound on live radio, either--always groping for the right phrase and stuttering while I try to choose a specific word from five synonyms. It was painful to re-listen to parts of these broadcasts.

I think we notice that kind of thing more in ourselves than we do in others. After all, we don't sound that way when we think, so we sound stupider to ourselves than we sound to anyone else. It's good for me to be humbled anyway.

I once transcribed a paragraph from one of the iMonk's audio podcasts and replied to it on the blog. I was disagreeing with him, so I was careful to transcribe him accurately, syllable by syllable--including a couple of "um"s and sentence fragments. He mistakenly thought I was mocking his speech pattern (the thought never occurred to me) so instead of dealing with the point I was arguing against, he spent a segment of his next podcast defending his manner of talking.

When I listen to myself in anything I've done live without notes or prompting, I'm inclined to make all kinds of disclaimers. The fact is, few listeners notice or are critical of that. Unless you REALLY mess up, when you're speaking in informal contexts, people generally pay more attention to what you say than how you say it.

Eric Kaminsky: "Do you think that Christians that belong to a church comitted to expository preaching and biblical proclamation of the gospel should focus on fellowship, and sitting under the teaching of God's word and leave most of this discussion and worry to more qualified and influential people[?]"

Some degree of discernment is the duty of all Christians; it's the expected result of spiritual maturity (Hebrews 5:14). It's dangerous to think because it's hard work to be a Berean we ought to leave the work to specialists.

Too much of that attitude has dominated the evangelical movement for more than 50 years, and that's why the shrill and emotionally-driven style of "discernment" is becoming a cottage industry dominated by people who have learned the skill of carping criticism and whose chief qualification is a lack of normal social and diplomatic inhibitions.

Jacob said...

Phil: Did anyone at TeamPyro post thoughts on Al Mohler's reasoning for signing the Manhattan Declaration? If this is too far off topic, I apologize.
I was just reading some of Dan's posts from December on the ManDec and noticed Mohler had signed it and searched Al's blog for his reasoning, which he posted on his blog (just search for "Manhattan Declaration" on his website and it's the first result). Curious for TeamPyro's thoughts on his reasoning (which seems solid).
Thanks in advance!

David said...

It seems that not only do folks not believe that Warren is reformed in any way, they also seem to think that he is beyond reforming as well. If I was Warren and I saw the behavior of all these 'reformed' Christians, I'm not sure I'd want to be a part of it either. Can we be winsome and love the guy at least?

bp said...

Phil,
I hope you'll permit me to say one more thing on the Rick Warren - New Age (new spirituality) connection because as awful as we reformed Christians think Warren's pragmatism is, his underlining New Age connections seems so much more dangerous, and I don't think the average Christian is aware of this. This may be long, but I hope that you'll read it in its entirety and that others can be informed of Rick Warren's connections to New Age teachers and their teachings. To briefly explain:

Robert Schuller wrote a book that I mentioned above called, "Self-Esteem: The New Reformation. In it he talks about "dreaming a great dream." Here are a few quotes:

"I must accept the dream God gives me and develop its inherent possibilites."

"When God's dream is accepted, we must be prepared to pay a high price...But the path will lead us through the valley of potential humiliation before the crown of godly pride is placed upon our heads."

"Tremendous human energy is needed to walk God's walk, work God's work, fulfill God's will, and complete his dream for our self-esteem."


In another book Schuller wrote called, "My Journey: From an Iowa Farm to a Cathedral of Dreams" he writes:

"And I'm dreaming a bold impossible dream: that positive-thinking believers in God will rise above the illusions that our sectarian religions have imposed on the world, and that leaders of the major faiths will rise above doctrinal idiosyncrasies, choosing not to focus on disagreements, but rather to transcend divisiove dogmas to work together to bring peace and prosperity and hope to the world."

In Oct of 2003, Bruce Wilkinson appeared on Schuller's Hour of Power and spoke about his book, "The Dream Giver", which was all about dreaming big dreams On Hour of Power Wilkinson said:

"I want to talk about dreams. Of all places in the world to talk about dreams this is the place...because I think Dr. Schuller is the patriarch, in the work about living your dream."

The same day that Bruce Wilkinson was televised on the Hour of Power, he spoke at Warren's Saddleback Church where he again spoke about dreaming big dreams and said that Saddleback Church was in the midst of an historic moment. And he said:

bp said...

(cont)
"The platform that God has given to Saddleback Church in Orange County is large. But whether or not you know this or not, the platform that God is giving to this church is far larger in the world than it is here. And you are at an historic moment because you are at the front of the wedge of the Spirit of Almighty God. And what Pastor Rick is going to share next week about the Saddleback global vision is right from heaven's heart. I promise. I know what it is. It's like that. And I want you to understand something. I've never said this to any other church and I never would 'cause it's the only church I believe it's true of. History is being made here...And I'm here to say to you as a fellow believer, you must rise up. You must fulfill the destiny that God has for this church. 'Cause I want to say something to you - it will revolutionize the world. And that is not an overstatement. Will you therefore open your heart? Will you prepare for the Dream that's coming?"

The very next day Rick Warren anounced his P.E.A.C.E plan in an email announcing "GOD'S DREAM FOR YOU --AND THE WORLD." He stated that the Purpose Driven Church had arrived at its "moment of destiny." He said God was preparing their church for "a great dream to change the world" and said it would "change history."

Incidentally, New Age leader Neale Donald Walsch created his own 5 step PEACE plan before Warren. Here's a couple quotes from him:

"The New Revolutions also contains a five-step plan for peace in the world. We call it the Five Steps to Peace.... We are suggesting that people become modern day Martin Luther's and take the five steps to peace and tack them up on church house doors, as Martin Luther did with his 95 theses in 1517 in Wittenburg, Germany, which started of course, the first Reformation. Our intention is to stimulate the second great Reformation of world religion. That is our intention, our goal and our purpose. We intend to, in fact, inspire the second great Reformation of world religion.... It is now time for a call to action.—Living the New Spirituality" (in an interview with Neale Donald Walsch by Debbie Smoker).

"The New Spirituality is a global movement to create the space for humanity to experience its natural impulse toward the divine in a way which makes no one else wrong for the way in which they are doing it." Neale Donald Walsch, from the Group of 1000 website.


I'll end with a quote from Rick Warren:

"Who's the man of peace in any village - or it might be a woman of peace - who has the most respect, they're open and they're influential? They don't have to be a Christian. In fact, they could be a Muslim, but they're open and they're influential and you work with them to attack the five giants. And that's going to bring the second Reformation." (Rick Warren, May 2005, Pew Forum on Religion)

Mike Riccardi said...

It seems that not only do folks not believe that Warren is reformed in any way, they also seem to think that he is beyond reforming as well.

I'm not sure why you think that. I've read Phil's post, the thread here and over at JT's blog last week, the posts by Challies and Mike Horton, and I don't get the idea that people think that Warren is "beyond reforming." They just think the way to "reforming" him isn't to call him sound when he isn't, and invite him to a conference which implicitly gives a stamp of approval on his ministry, a ministry which has been based on unbiblical principles from the beginning.

If I was Warren and I saw the behavior of all these 'reformed' Christians, I'm not sure I'd want to be a part of it either.

Really? Then I hope there'd be someone in your life whom you trust who would love you enough to confront you with your pride.

If I were Warren, and I saw the response that this is getting, I'd take a long, hard look at myself, my doctrine, and my ministry and ask if there's any reason that thousands of Christians think I shouldn't be invited to speak at a conference like this.

These responses (excluding the over-the-top ones that Phil decries in his original post) are the responses of those seeking to be Biblically faithful.

What else would you suggest? Oh, that's right:

Can we be winsome and love the guy at least?

What would that look like? Free pass? Sweep it under the rug? A pat on the head? Whatever we can do to encourage a guy to be complacent about his error, I'm sure.

No, "loving the guy" would be to present him with how his ministry has been founded and operated on unbiblical principles, and seeking to get him to understand and confess that.

Shrugging our shoulders and looking the other way only perpetuates the deception that everything's OK. It's not.

Eccl 7:5 - It is better to listen to the rebuke of a wise man than for one to listen to the song of fools.

Prov 27:5-6 - Better is open rebuke than love that is concealed. Faithful are the wounds of a friend, but deceitful are the kisses of an enemy.

Pastor Pants said...

@Jacob

I don't recall anything in Al's statement that was not covered by Dan's posts.

Recheck Dan's 19 questions and then if there is anything in Al's statement not covered by it, then post up the specifics.

Lou Martuneac said...

Phil:

From Part 1 of the interview you gave, “I can’t explain or defend a bad decision on Piper’s part. People will see this as Piper’s endorsement of Rick Warren if it is bad or dangerous. Nullifies the whole message of T4G. RW is poster boy for opposite approach. If he (JP) has a sounder theology than his practice that is deplorable. Of all the people he could have possibly chosen it is really hard to think of anyone who would cause more confusion.”



These things are reasonable responses. IMO, however, the high profile men at T4G would really like to see this controversy go away and are highly unlikely to have anything public to say about it.


LM

Lou Martuneac said...

Phil:

In this thread you wrote, “But does anyone seriously doubt whether they [MacArthur, Sproul] think publicly endorsing Rick Warren is a good idea?”

The problem as I see it is that just like with Piper’s charismatic theology nothing will be said because, and I think Dr. Peter Masters said it best in this article

“A final sad spectacle reported with enthusiasm…is the Together for the Gospel conference, running from 2006. A more adult affair convened by respected Calvinists, this nevertheless brings together cessationists and non-cessationists, traditional and contemporary worship exponents, and while maintaining sound preaching, it conditions all who attend to relax on these controversial matters, and learn to accept every point of view. In other words, the ministry of warning is killed off, so that every error of the new scene may race ahead unchecked.”

IMO, T4G and TGC alliances are fragile enough as is, even before the Piper invite of Rick Warren and Mohler/Duncan signing the Manhattan Declaration. IMO, the silence on this one from the other T4G leaders is for the sake of unity, but at what cost?

Just where does our first loyalty lie; to the Word of God or to our friends and fellowships?


LM

Caleb Kolstad said...

Phil,

Great helps here! Thanks so much.

Keep an eye out for my Associate Pastor at T4G (Steve Rios)...He'll be looking for you so don't forget to wear your Pyro shirt. :)

Jacob said...

@PastorPants: I thought Al made a decent point that it's about a specific set of legal issues that as Christians in a democracy it would be beneficial for us to contribute our voices to the right side of the issue, as doing say in turn helps us to maintain freedoms that allow the proclamation of the gospel. And the document isn't -about- evangelism or the gospel itself (though Dan points out that it falsely ties all signers together as believing the same gospel), nor does signing it prevent someone from evangelizing, etc. (Btw, I would think it would work both ways - Catholics and Orthodox would be seen as signing to agree that they believe our gospel and yet they don't, so it'd be equally as unsignable for them as us, no?)
Anyway, I see honest, good thoughts on both Dan and Al's sides of the argument as to whether to sign it or not. I had read Dan's 19 questions before I read Al's reasoning, and find both compelling. I wish there could be unity on the matter. Perhaps that would take a rewording of the ManDoc, though.

@Mike Riccardi - excellent rebuttal post!

Jacob said...

@ Lou M:
I see the Manhattan Declaration as different in at least one significant way: It is a document not a conference where people are directly exposed to teaching. I don't see signing it, if indeed it's a bad thing to do so, as the same level of issue as inviting a disputed person to come speak to an audience you are in a sense responsible for shepherding.

Also, my understanding is that the ManDec is in essence a political document focused on legal/moral issues in our culture and the more people signing it, the greater the voice against those troubling issues that left unchecked can directly prevent the religious freedom to share the gospel. It's not even really joining in a partnership with unbelievers if it's a document and not a business/organization/conference/church/whatever. There's no ongoing partnership to it that I'm aware of.

I don't think that comes anywhere close to the lack of discernment that is involved in inviting a pragmatic/emergent/postmodernist to speak in a religious context to your evangelical conference audience, or inviting a Charismatic/ThirdWave/Pentecostal to speak on the subject of spiritual gifts to your local church.

DJP said...

Jacob, did you think Mohler's post dealt with the cumulative point of the 19 questions? I did not — unless you saw a post that I didn't see.

Lou Martuneac said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Lou Martuneac said...

Jacob:

I appreciate the concerns you raise in regard to the Manhattan Declaration. To avoid straying off subject in this thread to any more degree and that I have very little time for this morning, I will submit the following from another pastor for your consideration. I trust you’ll find it helpful.

For the sake of the purity of the gospel, believers and churches must separate from those who deny essential doctrines of the faith (Jude 3; 2 John 9-11; Rom 16:17).

For the sake of the clarity of the gospel, believers and churches must separate from those who compromise the faith by granting Christian recognition and fellowship to those who have denied essential doctrines of the faith (Rom 16:17; Phil 3:17-19; cf. 2 Thess 3:6-15).

The irony is that those statements were written just days prior to the revelation that Mohler and Duncan signing the Manhattan Declaration. The ultimate resolution from the same the man who wrote the above was that signing the MD was merely, “a wrong decision based on bad judgment.”


LM

Phil Johnson said...

Lou (did I mention my book?) Matuneac: "the high profile men at T4G would really like to see this controversy go away and are highly unlikely to have anything public to say about it."

Thanks for the insight into the hearts of men whom I doubt you have ever even talked to.

Can you tell what I'm thinking right now? Hint #1: It has to do with exercising my authority as an administrator to deal with someone who has asked me neither to e-mail him privately nor comment on his blog but who keeps spamming my blog with his pompous pronouncements. Hint #2: he's an author who is a legend in his own mind.

Mary Elizabeth Tyler said...

I would be interested to know if any "cult leader)", who loves the approval of men, and seeks it to the exclusion of the true Word of God, has ever walked away from his high powered position and followed the real gospel/Jesus Christ?

Does anyone know of any conversions like this?

Mary Elizabeth Tyler said...

I hope by asking the above question, people do not think that I am limiting God? God works in surprising ways, but who really (cult leader(s)) would want to be preceived as a "little man" over a small congregation, once he tasted the benefits of being a "big man" over large stadiums of people?

It is kind of like this: "And again I say unto you, It is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle, than for a rich man to enter into the kingdom of God (Mat 19:24)."

Frank Turk said...

Lou Martuniac wrote a book?

Lisa said...

Lou who???

David said...

Phil,

You were more than correct in your comments in your Piper-Warren Connection post of 4-9-10 when you said: “The problem is that Rick Warren doesn't PREACH the gospel without watering it down or changing it into a message designed to boost the sinner's self-esteem rather than convict of sin.” I was made very aware of this when in the fall of 2003 I saw the first session of the video “40 Days of Purpose” at our church. That particular presentation was clearly – without any doubt whatsoever – a public proclamation of a different gospel.

This is the way thousands upon thousands of true saints of Jesus Christ across the globe were first introduced to Rick Warren. If those saints stood on gospel ground at their church they usually got into tons of trouble! Unfortunately, untold millions of non-Christians and invited non-churched guests were also first introduced to Rick Warren through the 40 days as well. In the first session of that video he grabs minds and hearts – takes them through the door of what is clearly a different gospel – then HE publicly welcomes them to be members of the family of God. Such incredible deception – in a church no less – is beyond any words I can express.

Your recent post on 3-27-10 by Spurgeon could not have come at a better time. “Shall We Fraternize with Those Who Bury the Gospel under Wagon Loads of Trash?” In that sermon he states: “He who does not hate the false does not love the true;” If we are passionate for the truth of the gospel we will be equally passionate against a false gospel as if it were true. We will embrace Philippians 1:29 when it says that we who believe in Christ will also suffer for Him.

Thank you for your kind attention to the Piper-Warren issue. The public proclamation of “gospel preached” versus “different gospel preached” is at stake – first and foremost - and you have stood firm as have many – some with not as much grace. And of course we are simply concurring with Paul in Galatians 1:6-10 and taking the appropriate Scriptural obedience of 2 John 7-11. And I suppose some will think our obedience to be cold and narrow.

But on that day – it will not seem that someone had a “big-heart” as millions of people who were told that they were now prepared for eternity with God via some “gospel” – still suffer the eternal consequences of their sin.

David Sheldon

Solameanie said...

Phil,

If it's any consolation, you rarely said "uh" during any of the interviews Kevin and I have done with you. You came across very well -- knowledgeable, smooth and articulate.

Maybe the subject matter makes a difference, or perhaps how "wound up" your interviewers are. When you get me wound up on unsettling trends in the church, I can go a long time without coming up for air. ;)

When I catch myself saying "uh" too much on the air, I just think of something that incenses me -- like Brian McLaren -- and I'm off to the races.

Jacob said...

Dan: I thought Mohler made a decent case why the ManDec is not about the gospel and thus isn't an issue where separation comes into play. He also provided the context in which he's signing it. Of course that context is not available to anyone simply viewing the ManDec and seeing his signature on it. And apparently the ManDec contains wording that makes it sound like everyone signing it is in agreement on the gospel.

Thus, I think you made valid points in your 19 questions, and I don't understand how two brothers I appreciate (you and Mohler) can see two completely different perspectives in the ManDec. I guess I just wish to see you two directly address the issue with one another and come to a conclusion because I don't like you guys being on opposite sides of an issue that should be pretty clear cut (and from what I've seen so far, you're probably the one who's right).

Regards.

DJP said...

All:

Subsequent to his 7:06am post, Lou Martuneac was notified that he has been banned from this blog.

Every time you see his name after that, you see attempted gate-crashing; you see a guest who has been asked to leave putting his shoulder to the door. Ask yourself what fruits of the Spirit, or what works of the flesh, such behavior manifests.

But don't answer here, please.

bp said...

oops, sorry DJP, I see your request. I was posting in regards to Phil at 8:07. My bad. :o(