tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21212024.post2992711603050219535..comments2024-03-10T10:40:32.319-07:00Comments on Pyromaniacs: [another] Open Letter to John PiperPhil Johnsonhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00649092052031518426noreply@blogger.comBlogger198125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21212024.post-41851216058144344062011-06-10T15:35:18.811-07:002011-06-10T15:35:18.811-07:00"I have learned so much from John Piper's..."I have learned so much from John Piper's sermons and books."<br /><br />Amen to that. "Let the Nations be Glad", is an especially fine book.<br /><br />have a terrific Lord's day, and may we all be filled with His joy; the joy that no one can take from us, His beloved children.donsandshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03665794015011057098noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21212024.post-44929656278523696252011-06-09T14:34:04.553-07:002011-06-09T14:34:04.553-07:00jmb:
It seems we are the last breathing souls lef...jmb:<br /><br />It seems we are the last breathing souls left on this thread. It is awfully quiet down here. I think I will batten down the hatches, as we had some horrific winds come through Lake Orion, MI last night, and it may happen yet again today, and I do not want to end up in Topeka, Kansas. :) <br /><br />Btw, I have learned so much from John Piper's sermons and books. He has done so much to help all of us grasp, love and appreciate the glory of God, and to that I say, "Job well done, Dr. Piper."<br /><br />Well, I guess we are not the only ones left on this thread. I hear what you are saying, Tar. I just saw your comment. I think all of us can fall victim to thinking that we can make someone see Jesus, when we know that only the Holy Spirit can open a person's eyes.Mary Elizabeth Tylerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08915438088186414796noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21212024.post-22960505559733356252011-06-09T13:52:09.931-07:002011-06-09T13:52:09.931-07:00This comment has been removed by the author.Mary Elizabeth Tylerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08915438088186414796noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21212024.post-16832649225859852582011-06-09T13:46:52.670-07:002011-06-09T13:46:52.670-07:00Thank you for saying what I could not put in words...Thank you for saying what I could not put in words .<br /><br />I just fear that Pastor Piper might be demonstrating the very human sin of pride.. believing that he can gently nudge Warren in the correct direction..<br /><br />I fear it is Pipers pride up against Warrens pride..there is no question who's pride is more deeply embedded and unmovable.. and just trying might do much harm to Pastor Piper .TARhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17978325588611965241noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21212024.post-23962508020216867392011-06-09T13:10:53.398-07:002011-06-09T13:10:53.398-07:00Mary Elizabeth Tyler,
That's a favorite passa...Mary Elizabeth Tyler,<br /><br />That's a favorite passage. I love that Paul writes, "As I said before..." so soon after he has said it the first time. It shows how important he thinks it is, and wants to make sure they've read/heard it. <br /><br />I think Dr. Piper would be critical of Warren if he saw how the latter compromises the gospel. It seems that somehow he doesn't see it. Since the elect can be led astray (Mt 24:24; Mk 13:22), we all need to be diligent.jmbhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07164857192077648887noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21212024.post-78771940268923602772011-06-09T06:02:36.036-07:002011-06-09T06:02:36.036-07:00jmb:
You said: "The whole situation reminds ...jmb:<br /><br />You said: "The whole situation reminds us yet again that even the best of us are flawed."<br /><br />I agree with this statement 100%. Absolutely!!! What I have trouble with, is the issue of compromise. I still see Galatians 1:6-10 as being extremely relevant.<br /><br />"I marvel that ye are so soon removed from him that called you into the grace of Christ unto another gospel: Which is not another; but there be some that trouble you, and would pervert the gospel of Christ. But though we, or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel unto you than that which we have preached unto you, let him be accursed. As we said before, so say I now again, If any man preach any other gospel unto you than that ye have received, let him be accursed. For do I now persuade men, or God? or do I seek to please men? for if I yet pleased men, I should not be the servant of Christ."Mary Elizabeth Tylerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08915438088186414796noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21212024.post-61562398660603366672011-06-09T05:43:34.449-07:002011-06-09T05:43:34.449-07:00"And since the fabric of truth is seamless, P..."And since the fabric of truth is seamless, Paul knows that letting minor strands continue to unravel can eventually rend the whole garment."<br /><br />Amen to this statement!<br /><br />I did a study years ago, on how many times "It is written, as it written, for it is written" is used throughout Scripture, but cannot remember the exact number of times these phrases were used. It was amazingly high, though. <br /><br />This to say, that every single God-breathed word is capable of being twisted by Satan. He does not just attack the essential doctrines, but all of God's precious Words: the entire fabric, which is so seamless.Mary Elizabeth Tylerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08915438088186414796noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21212024.post-26425935475389841902011-06-08T19:32:26.916-07:002011-06-08T19:32:26.916-07:00Why True Unity Flows from Truth
The reason for th...Why True Unity Flows from Truth<br /><br />The reason for this is that truth frees us from the control of Satan, the great deceiver and destroyer of unity: “you will know the truth, and the truth will set you free” (John 8:32; cf. 2 Tim. 2:24–26). Truth serves love, the bond of perfection. Paul prays for the Philippians that their “love [may] abound more and more, with knowledge and all discernment” (Phil. 1:9). Truth sanctifies, and so yields the righteousness whose fruit is peace: “Sanctify them in the truth; your word is truth” (John 17:17; cf. 2 Pet. 1:3, 5, 12).<br /><br />For the sake of unity and peace, therefore, Paul labors to set the churches straight on numerous <br />issues—including quite a few that do not in themselves involve heresy. He does not exclude <br />controversy from his pastoral writing. And he does not limit his engagement in controversy to <br />first-order doctrines, where heresy threatens. He is like a parent to his churches. Parents do not correct and discipline their children only for felonies. Good parents long for their children to grow up into all the kindness and courtesy of mature adulthood. And since the fabric of truth is seamless, Paul knows that letting minor strands continue to unravel can eventually rend the whole garment.<br /><br />Thus Paul teaches that elders serve the church, on the one hand, by caring for the church without <br />being pugnacious (1 Tim. 3:3, 5), and, on the other hand, by rebuking and correcting false teaching. <br /><br />“He must hold firm to the trustworthy word as taught, so that he may be able to give instruction in sound doctrine and also to rebuke those who contradict it” (Titus 1:9; cf. 1:13; 2:15; 1 Tim. 5:20). <br /><br />This is one of the main reasons we have the Scriptures: they are “profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness” (2 Tim. 3:16).<br /><br />[END]Michael Lawmasterhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03919034430085510082noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21212024.post-6624046938296732572011-06-08T19:32:03.779-07:002011-06-08T19:32:03.779-07:004. Finally, I will leave you with some comments I...4. Finally, I will leave you with some comments I thought were good in John Piper's book: "The <br />Future of Justification."<br /><br />In his essay called “Polemic Theology: How to Deal with Those Who Differ from Us,” Roger Nicole <br />begins, "We are called upon by the Lord to contend earnestly for the faith (Jude 3). That does not <br />necessarily involve being contentious; but it involves avoiding compromise, standing forth for what we believe, standing forth for the truth of God—without welching at any particular moment."<br /><br />But is it really necessary? Must we contend? Cannot we not simply be positive, rather than trying to <br />show that others are wrong? On June 17, 1932, J. Gresham Machen delivered an address before the <br />Bible League of Great Britain in London titled “Christian Scholarship and the Defense of the Faith.” In it he said, <br /><br />"Men tell us that our preaching should be positive and not negative, that we can preach the truth without attacking error. But if we follow that advice we shall have to close our Bible and desert its teachings. The New Testament is a polemic book almost from beginning to end.<br /><br />Some years ago I was in a company of teachers of the Bible in the colleges and other educational <br />institutions of America. One of the most eminent theological professors in the country made an <br />address. In it he admitted that there are unfortunate controversies about doctrine in the Epistles of Paul; but, said he in effect, the real essence of Paul’s teaching is found in the hymn to Christian love in the thirteenth chapter of I Corinthians; and we can avoid controversy today, if we will only devote the chief attention to that inspiring hymn.<br /><br />In reply, I am bound to say that the example was singularly ill-chosen. That hymn to Christian love is in the midst of a great polemic passage; it would never have been written if Paul had been opposed to controversy with error in the Church. It was because his soul was stirred within him by a wrong use of the spiritual gifts that he was able to write that glorious hymn. So it is always in the Church. Every really great Christian utterance, it may almost be said, is born in controversy. It is when men have felt compelled to take a stand against error that they have risen to the really great heights in the celebration of truth."<br /><br />Machen also reminds us that not just the heights of celebration in the truth but also the salvation of souls may well come through controversy for the cause of the gospel:<br /><br />"During the academic year, 1924–25, there has been something like an awakening. Youth has begun <br />to think for itself; the evil of compromising associations has been discovered; Christian heroism in the face of opposition has come again to its rights; a new interest has been aroused in the historical and philosophical questions that underlie the Christian religion; true and independent convictions have <br />been formed. Controversy, in other words, has resulted in a striking intellectual and spiritual advance. <br /><br />Some of us discern in all this the work of the Spirit of God. . . . Controversy of the right sort is good; for out of such controversy, as Church history and Scripture alike teach, there comes the salvation of souls."<br /><br />[more]Michael Lawmasterhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03919034430085510082noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21212024.post-42415785413926799302011-06-08T19:28:42.894-07:002011-06-08T19:28:42.894-07:003. Regarding #9:
Again you assume too much and c...3. Regarding #9:<br /><br />Again you assume too much and confuse the issue. Perhaps the question was phrased poorly so I <br />apologize. Nevertheless, I will deal with two parts of your statement in (a) and (b).<br /><br />(a) I think Dr. James White on the Dividing Line today made a good point about brothers in Christ. <br /><br />Dr. White stated that he has debated his paedo-baptist brethren many times on the paedo-baptism <br />issue and he thinks they are wrong; however, they are still brothers in Christ." So we see that there can be differences of opinion and we can still be called brothers in Jesus Christ. However, it makes all the difference in the world what one does with Jesus Christ and the Gospel. <br /><br />(b) By "fully-systematic theology" I take to mean everying from A to Z not solely the Gospel. If one is talking about the Gospel then one should know it; otherwise, how could one be a brother if one did not know it, right? We are all growing in the grace and the knowledge of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ and each of us is at a different stage on the path in their life. Whether one is a newbie or a <br />mature father in the faith...we are brothers in Christ and should be treated as such.<br /><br />(c) God takes His truth seriously and it is abundantly clear how He desires errant and false teaching <br />to be dealt with. If one has tested the evidence of a person's teaching and if Holy Scripture finds it errant or false then this would be considered harmful and there are ways to deal with that as outlined within Holy Scripture not the least of which are found in the Pastoral Epistles. If there is an individual who has error and/or false teaching and they have been confronted with it in light of Holy Scripture <br />and they do not change nor conform to Holy Scripture then there is an issue. I, personally, would not <br />think it wise to affirm this individual nor give such an individual access to all of the people who have been entrusted to my care.<br /><br />(d) I would not equate misusing Holy Scripture with people who are divise or leave churches due to <br />lousy music. These are not even close in my opinion. There are those who are religious and cause <br />strife and I agree that this is wrong. May God open their eyes. There are pastors; however, who <br />change their worship style/format which can be physically harmful to people's hearing or some other <br />area due to sound waves. In this case, if the members have discussed it with the pastor and the church decides to continue to follow the new course then I do not see an issue with the people <br />leaving to attend another church. It may say more about the pastor and his heart regarding caring for <br />the entire flock under his care than about the indiviual(s) leaving.<br /><br />I think Martin Luther made a good statement: "The office of justification belongs to Christ alone." My question did not cast doubt on the finished work of Jesus Christ as if you, I, or someone else could do that. Such would be an absurdity. This does not negate the fact that there are brethen and there are false brethren as Holy Scripture attests to. <br /><br />[more]Michael Lawmasterhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03919034430085510082noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21212024.post-9542551124361484142011-06-08T19:23:48.932-07:002011-06-08T19:23:48.932-07:00Hi Frank!
Thanks for your comments. Here are a f...Hi Frank!<br /><br />Thanks for your comments. Here are a few responses.<br /><br />1. Regarding #7: <br /><br />(a) I don't care about RW's celebrity. <br /><br />(b) Not all people who criticize RW jump to the conclusion that "he's the theological equivalent of a supervillain with an evil plan for world domination." Some people may have this perception, which you take acception to, but it's not a good thing to have that be the lens through which you view all <br />criticism of RW. <br /><br />(c) If pragmatism is what drives a person...then RW would not change. The ends don't justify the means though. If the means are incorrect theologically (which one would have to objectively test against Holy Scripture) then numbers don't equate to vindication regardless of one's point of view. <br /><br />(d) 'in his view' I think is key. A man can be right in his own eyes, and yet be led astray. I think what really matters is what God has declared within Holy Scripture and our views should line up with it. Growth is up to God as He is building His church and gives the increase.<br /><br />(e) "So Rick Warren has made a nice life for himself by being a nice guy in hawaiian shirts -- that makes him a pelagian?" This is bad logic and an unnecessary statement.<br /><br />(f) Again you assume too much. You assume that people find your approach wanting because they <br />want you to call RW a liar and a deceiver. This would be incorrect. What is most important is the truth. Jesus Christ is the truth and His Word is truth...the entirety of it is truth. It is Divinely inspired, infallible, inerrant and the absolute final authority for the Christian. So, really one needs to look at <br />the body of evidence that RW has produced in the light of Holy Scripture, test it against Holy <br />Scripture, and Holy Scripture will determine where RW stands. Jesus Christ is sufficient enough to <br />state where a person is based on what He has revealed within Holy Scripture.<br /><br />2. Regardin #8:<br /><br />I'm not sure what you mean by your comment. I've already stated that I don't agree with anonymous <br />blog comments, semi or total. If one believes in biblical accountability then a pastor's/elder's ideas can and should be looked at objectively in light of Holy Scripture. If a pastor would object to this and <br />he is challenged on that and nothing changes then I would suggest the individual leave the church because the pastor and/or elders are knowingly, willfully, continually, consistently acting against Holy Scripture and sinning against God. <br /><br />[more]Michael Lawmasterhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03919034430085510082noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21212024.post-82993649857450757232011-06-07T11:34:23.563-07:002011-06-07T11:34:23.563-07:00Mary Elizabeth Tyler -
Thank you. From your comm...Mary Elizabeth Tyler -<br /><br />Thank you. From your comments, I sense in you a kindred spirit, at least where Rick Warren is concerned. <br /><br />I wonder how I would react if I suddenly became very successful and famous. I would hope that I wouldn't further compromise the truth in order to continue to be well-liked, which is my guess about Warren, but who knows? (Well, Someone does.)<br /><br />I suspect that Dr. Piper is over-impressed by the sheer numbers that Warren draws, so he, maybe unwittingly, cuts him some slack. I doubt that he would react the same way if Warren were just another pastor who wrote a moderately-selling book. I still respect Piper greatly. The whole situation reminds us yet again that even the best of us are flawed.jmbhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07164857192077648887noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21212024.post-24978483892543585672011-06-07T03:38:19.169-07:002011-06-07T03:38:19.169-07:00Ms. Tyler --
What I did not say was that "re...Ms. Tyler --<br /><br />What I did not say was that "refusing to declare" wasn't itself dereliction of duty. It's simply not the same thing as overt denial.<br /><br />There is a difference between a captain who is worried about how much Ice Cream there was eaten out of the mess hall rather than the operation of his ship, and the man or men who use that to call out mutiny against him. The former is a sluggard or an incompetent who ought to be dealt with by the proper authorities; the latter are disobedient lawbreakers, mutineers who intend to overthrow the right order of things.<br /><br />The latter are guilty of something different than the former, and should be treated differently. That is my point -- not that Warren is guilty of nothing.FX Turkhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16798420127955373559noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21212024.post-7256391959697053072011-06-07T03:31:57.813-07:002011-06-07T03:31:57.813-07:00Lawmaster --
I like it that the right things in m...Lawmaster --<br /><br />I like it that the right things in my responses offend you. The problem is that the wrong things also offend you.<br /><br />To your point 7: Rick Warren does what works for him. In fact, I would say that Rick Warren sees himself as vindicated by what works for him. So why would he change if he was a novice with a great track record? That is: why would be fix what ain't, in his view, broke? What astonishes me about the analyses of Rick Warren is that people cannot avoid the conclusion that he's the theological equivalent of a supervillain with an evil plan for world domination - when he has all the earmarks of a guy who accidentally got famous for being a nice guy.<br /><br />Let me say this clearly: While Robert Schuller was more serious about undermining the confessions he was literally ordained to uphold, we can see here plainly the trajectory of a guy like Rick Warren, and the real extent of the damage someone like him can cause. That is: in the end, his life's work will wind up bankrupt if it stays on the same path it is on now. If Schuller could;t make it work, why do we thing Warren will be some much more successful -- especially when we're talking about the Gospel here, against which the gates of hell cannot stand?<br /><br />So Rick Warren has made a nice life for himself by being a nice guy in hawaiian shirts -- that makes him a pelagian? I have already said he's a lousy pastor -- but because I attribute it to his disposition and glib approach and not to a commitment to lying and deception, many people (You included, Lawmaster, but the content of your questions and responses) find my approach wanting.<br /><br />Regarding you #8: Well, I think there's a difference between criticizing a pastor publicly for the kind of pastor he is and responding to semi-anonymous blog comments. Your opinion may differ.<br /><br />Regarding #9: You could clarify, then, what you mean. I suggest that when you find a non-Calvinist whom you admire, you'll suddenly discover the biases in the question you asked.<br /><br />The rest can stand as they are.FX Turkhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16798420127955373559noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21212024.post-13335001418355845272011-06-07T00:13:34.492-07:002011-06-07T00:13:34.492-07:00Sorry, I am not going back and fixing my mistakes....Sorry, I am not going back and fixing my mistakes. "(for you and for me, and the entire human race (sounds like a Michael Jackson song)."<br /><br />It is way too late. <br /><br />JMB:<br /><br />Absolutely loved this comment of yours. "I admire Warren for the way he has used his fortune and for his practical service. But, in his public utterances, it seems that he has too often furthered the social gospel that Niebuhr described as "A God without wrath brought men without sin into a kingdom without judgment through the ministrations of a Christ without a cross."Mary Elizabeth Tylerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08915438088186414796noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21212024.post-20157830769548359392011-06-06T23:58:27.767-07:002011-06-06T23:58:27.767-07:00Dear Frank:
I only want to focus on one comment y...Dear Frank:<br /><br />I only want to focus on one comment you made, as this could become very lengthy. You said, “See my response to Ms. Tyler. I deny that "refusing to declare" is the same as "explicitly denying". It's a category mistake. "refusing to declare" makes him a lousy pastor, not a heretic.”<br /><br />I politely take exception to this, Frank. In my estimation it is dereliction of duty. As you well know, that is when an individual willfully refuses to perform his or her duties or a *given order* (in the case of the pastor extraordinaire, Rick Warren, who is no young fledgling, “Preach the Word” comes to mind for some strange reason). <br /><br />And for dereliction of duty, many in all branches of the military have been subject to court-marshal and even been dishonorably discharged. <br /><br />Outside the pulpit (specifically in interviews) Rick Warren will appease his critics and claim to know and preach the gospel message, but given the *actual venue* of a pulpit, he floats around like a butterfly and treats God’s Word is a very loose, pejorative way.<br /><br />It is not the gospel he preaches, but his “God loves it when you be you”, and God wants you to use the talents he gives you, hopefully to make the world a better place (for you and for me, and the entire human race (sounds like a Michael Jackson song).<br /><br />If the world needs a group hug, Rick Warren would be the guru of choice, because it is simply not in his makeup to **offend** anyone with the gospel message, whether they are Jews, Muslims, Jehovah Witness’, or Roman Catholics. He is simply a people pleaser. <br /><br />As for his quasi acknowledgment of the gospel, well, remember all cults use Christ as a window dressing to draw in the curious seekers, but once the door closes behind these seekers, it then becomes a pure diet of watered-down gospel, which will only bring a famine to the soul. <br /><br />I still like you, Frank, we are just reading him and his book PDL from a different POV. God help us all to read between the lines more effectively. <br /><br />And thank you for taking the time to respond so thoroughly. Much appreciated!!!Mary Elizabeth Tylerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08915438088186414796noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21212024.post-718059448063013712011-06-06T19:18:48.443-07:002011-06-06T19:18:48.443-07:00Frank -
Thank you for your detailed reply to my c...Frank -<br /><br />Thank you for your detailed reply to my comment.<br /><br />Concerning 1 Cor 15:1-4: Yes, the "Gospel is rightly summarized," but, of all ministries, White Horse Inn does not stop at summarizations, and "simple" is not a word I'd associate with Michael Horton or WHI. This is an observation, not a criticism. I would think their position is very close to Sproul's in his book, "Getting The Gospel Right," which Horton has endorsed.<br /><br />But, more to the point, what Horton wrote in April, 2010, is a concern about Warren echoed by others:<br /><br />"Obviously, Rick Warren believes that he is simply translating the gospel in terms that the unchurched can understand. However, the radical condition of sin is reduced to negative attitudes and behaviors and the radical redemption secured by Christ’s propitiatory death and resurrection are reduced to general and vague statements about God giving us another chance." <br /><br />"[T]he radical condition of sin is reduced to negative attitudes and behaviors..." This, to me, is the most dangerous of Warren's teachings, especially, of course, for non-believers. It is close to what Joel Osteen preaches; maybe the same. When sin is watered down to bad attitudes and behaviors, Christianity makes no sense, and people are repenting for not what they SHOULD be repenting for. <br /><br />Yes, I know that Warren said something different to Piper, but, for just one example, on TED.com in 2006 he said "God smiles when you be you." He also said that, in Ex 4:1-4, Moses' staff represented his "identity, income, and influence!" So much for it being proof that God had appeared to him. In an issue of Ladies Home Journal in 2005, he wrote an article called "Learn To Love Yourself." As usual with false teaching, man is elevated in importance and God is lowered.<br /><br />I think this is what results when the radical nature of sin is discounted and the worst you can do is make decisions or have attitudes that aren't the best for you.<br /><br />I admire Warren for the way he has used his fortune and for his practical service. But, in his public utterances, it seems that he has too often furthered the social gospel that Niebuhr described as "A God without wrath brought men without sin into a kingdom without judgment through the ministrations of a Christ without a cross."jmbhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07164857192077648887noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21212024.post-36446191921239363962011-06-06T18:35:51.104-07:002011-06-06T18:35:51.104-07:005. I never stated Saddleback did not do good work...5. I never stated Saddleback did not do good works. So do Mormons, atheists, muslims, hindus, catholics, etc. You missed the two questions entirely.<br /><br />6. I did read your post and I saw the reference you made to Challies and Monergism in your portion <br />regarding the misuse of Scripture. The other three I was unaware of and for that I apologize. I had already seen the GTY article previous to your post and I did read the other two. Those would generate some questions but I do not think you are open to it at all based upon your responses thus far. <br /><br />7. You do make some logical leaps. First, I would state that Warren is not a novice nor is he an idiot. RW has been preaching for quite some time and he has heard many of the criticisms by <br />multiple leaders in the evangelical world regarding certain methods, teachings, and practices. I don't think this qualifies him as a novice with some shortcomings or one who lacks knowledge. I have not stated that RW could not be reformed. If one has breath in their body then there is hope. At the <br />same time, leaders should use wisdom in whom they allow to influence those under their care.<br /><br />8. For all the effort you put into stating a person doesn't deserve the 'axe';...you sure do leap to that assumption quickly for others in a discussion. Biblically, the 'axe' is not the first step. I have not stated the 'axe' is the first step nor that people do not need help.<br /><br />9. Suffice it to say that you missed the question entirely when you stated: "It seems to me the <br />basis of your question is whether or not someone has to have a fully-systematic theology in order to <br />be treated like a brother in Christ. I think that's a work-based theology."<br /><br />10. The Gospel should be proclaimed to all. I never said that it did not. We have a command from the Lord Jesus Christ to go into all the world and if someone is not doing it then repent, move on and go do it. I don't think you need to invite an RW in for that. It comes down to what Gospel are you preaching. It is important to get it right. You certainly twisted this one around thoroughly; however, I guess that would be the 'generous' approach.<br /><br />Thanks again for your time Frank.Michael Lawmasterhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03919034430085510082noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21212024.post-81231367793421156792011-06-06T18:32:29.605-07:002011-06-06T18:32:29.605-07:00Hi Frank!
I will say, in all sincerity, that I do...Hi Frank!<br /><br />I will say, in all sincerity, that I do thank you for taking the time out to answer some of my questions <br />although not necessarily in the manner in which you communicated it. <br /><br />I was asking you questions to better understand what you had written. I was unaware that you would be so easily offended and highly agitated. I have seen questions posed after quoting from the source (interacting with the post) so I thought that was the protocol. The intent was not to be unfair to you nor was it a quantitative goal. It would have been nice to have a meaningful dialogue; however, it appears that you have some history which you have been carrying around that you decided to unload. If my asking questions annoyed you, please accept my apologies.<br /><br />I do have to say that your assumptions are pretty astounding. In one case, you think by asking questions that I am looking for the conspiratorial instead of the obvious and that I am acting like you cannot name names. Huh? Unless you are claiming omniscience, you cannot possible make such a statement.<br /><br />Also, if that is your idea of ample evidence, then you have an extremely low level for burden of proof especially when you did not even make an attempt to ask me anything in order to clarify any <br />misunderstandings. Sounds to me like you are superimposing actions of some other people you have had issues with onto me.<br /><br /><br />1. Thank you for providing an answer for the first question.<br /><br />2. I appreciate you outlining the "dark and unrestrained excesses". Two wrongs or sins do not make a write. Slander and libel are not good.<br /><br />3. I personally do not like the images, fake names, etc. If you're going to be on-line then put your face out there, stand by what you say and defend it. If you are wrong then admit it and apologize.<br /><br />4. Thanks for clarifying when you would not recommend Piper (or anyone else for that matter) if he <br />remained on the same path. As I stated previously, there is no reason to burn books so that is an <br />odd qualifier. I have two books by Piper that I am reading now but you did not know that nor did you <br />ask. Also, I hardly think that anyone who has a criticism of Piper would advocate his books being burned let alone "because Piper doesn't think Warren is Satan's Stepdad." That statement is irrational but it does not stop people from trying to utilize such statements.<br /><br />[more]Michael Lawmasterhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03919034430085510082noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21212024.post-58333247141635873962011-06-06T16:42:01.546-07:002011-06-06T16:42:01.546-07:00donsands -
Sorry. I mistakenly thought that you w...donsands -<br /><br />Sorry. I mistakenly thought that you were implying that the size of his church gave it more validity than it would have if it were small. Should have recalled (or re-read) your other comments.jmbhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07164857192077648887noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21212024.post-75060588818432691762011-06-06T16:37:03.401-07:002011-06-06T16:37:03.401-07:00Hi Morris!
Thanks for the answering my question i...Hi Morris!<br /><br />Thanks for the answering my question in a generous manner. It is appreciated.Michael Lawmasterhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03919034430085510082noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21212024.post-49023705702171923442011-06-06T14:30:08.974-07:002011-06-06T14:30:08.974-07:00I don't know how valuable it is, it's just...I don't know how valuable it is, it's just big. Rick knows how to make big. I lean toward it being a bloated church with shallow understanding of God, and His truth, and basically moral.donsandshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03665794015011057098noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21212024.post-84879693271164631362011-06-06T13:16:07.541-07:002011-06-06T13:16:07.541-07:00"Today, it [Saddleback] is one of America’s m..."Today, it [Saddleback] is one of America’s most influential churches, with approximately 20,000 people attending the weekend services."<br /><br />Joel Osteen's church has 38,000 attendees. Does that make it valuable?jmbhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07164857192077648887noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21212024.post-6950206540983765902011-06-06T10:39:52.929-07:002011-06-06T10:39:52.929-07:00"Warren is a classic big-church guy."
A..."Warren is a classic big-church guy."<br /><br />Amen.<br /><br />Today, it [Saddleback] is one of America’s most influential churches, with approximately 20,000 people attending the weekend services.<br /><br />This has been a very good comment and answer session. Well done Cent. I pray Pastor Piper will one day call you. Amen.donsandshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03665794015011057098noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21212024.post-9989496984718174822011-06-06T09:01:52.515-07:002011-06-06T09:01:52.515-07:00JMB --
Great question. Great! Question.
Let'...JMB --<br /><br />Great question. Great! Question.<br /><br />Let's assume for a second that the Gospel is rightly summarized by 1 Cor 15:1-4 -- a White Horse Inn-esque assumption.<br /><br />If the Gospel is that -simple-, then it is difficult to call Rick Warren a guy who doesn't say that. As I understand the WHI/Horton complaint against Warren it is that his preaching is essentially Arminian preaching combined with a social justice emphasis. That is: it's not that he's soft on the need for Christ to save, but that he makes too much of social justice as a vindicator of faith.<br /><br />Chris Rosebrough calls Warren a flat-out Pelagian for this -- which is to say that man just needs to obey the law to be accepted by God. "Try harder" is the Pelagian Gospel. I think it's difficult to pin that on Rick Warren.<br /><br />Now, that said, "expansive" does not mean "inclusive". "inclusive" means that the Muslims might mistakenly believe the Gospel, using other terms (note: no one has brought up that part of this video yet, either, which is a stunner; there's a place I was completely soft on Dr. Piper). "expansive" means that it's going to get bigger and bigger; it means there's a victory in Jesus which is God-sized and not merely symbollic. It is the reason Baptists like big churches: the Gospel is winning souls.<br /><br />Warren is a classic big-church guy. Think about the challenge: I'll stack 500 of mine against 500 of yours. Hey: most churches /do not have 500 people in them/. The charge is such a clever and subtle undoing of the average pastor that there's no one who will respond to him, and goes back to Warren's actual pedigree.<br /><br />He brings many people in. Our concern has to be whether or not they are moving from the 2% milk he's peddling to the meat and potatoes Paul wanted for the Corinthians.FX Turkhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16798420127955373559noreply@blogger.com