Rick Warren At Desiring "God" Conference

Discerning the Times has two videos that deal with the problem of Rick Warren's recent prostylitzing at DIDKWKOG Conference.

Warren says that too much knowledge is bad, you need to dream, and you need to buy his book on how to self-feed. This Scripture-twisting pelagianist dares to say he can teach people about studying Scripture when he consistantly teaches against ...it?

Case in point:

Quote:

Nothing happens till somebody starts dreaming. What we need today are great
dreamers."Where there is no vision, the people perish. (Proverbs 29:8)In the
last days, God says, I will pour out my Spirit on all people. Your sons and
daughters will prophesy, your young men will see visions, and your old men will
dream dreams. (Acts 2:17, NIV)

End quote.

The guy just twisted these two passages yet dares to say people are given too much knowledge and then says we need to learn from his book on how to study the Bible? The guy doesn't know how to himself! He's a SELF-feeder alright.

Christians And Politics: How Do You View Politics?

John MacArthur on Christians and Politics (part 3) excerpts:

Quote:

My point is not that Christians should remain totally uninvolved in politics or civic activities and causes. They ought to express their political beliefs in the voting booth, and it is appropriate to support legitimate measures designed to correct a glaring social or political wrong. Complete noninvolvement would be contrary to what God's Word says about doing good in society: "Therefore, as we have opportunity, let us do good to all, especially to those who are of the household of faith" (Gal. 6:10; cf. Titus 3:1-2). It would also display a lack of gratitude for whatever amount of religious freedom the government allows us to enjoy. Furthermore, such pious apathy toward government and politics would reveal a lack of appreciation for the many appropriate legal remedies believers in democracies have for maintaining or improving the civil order. A certain amount of healthy and balanced concern with current trends in government and the community is acceptable, as long as we realize that that interest is not vital to our spiritual growth, our righteous testimony, or the advancement of the kingdom of Christ. Above all, the believer's political involvement should never displace the priority of preaching and teaching the gospel.

...The issue again is one of priority. The greatest temporal good we can accomplish through political involvement cannot compare to what the Lord can accomplish through us in the eternal work of His kingdom. Just as God called ancient Israel (Ex. 19:6), He has called the church to be a kingdom of priests, not a kingdom of political activists. The apostle Peter instructs us, "But you are a chosen generation, a royal priesthood, a holy nation, His own special people, that you may proclaim the praises of Him who called you out of darkness into His marvelous light" (1 Pet. 2:9).....

Christ, however, was not devoid of care and concern for the daily pain and hardships people endured in their personal lives....

...Jesus' earthly ministry took place right in the midst of that difficult social and political atmosphere.Many of His followers, including the Twelve, to varying degrees expected Him to free them from Rome's oppressive rule. But our Lord did not come as a political deliverer or social reformer. He never issued a call for such changes, even by peaceful means. Unlike many late twentieth-century evangelicals, Jesus did not rally supporters to some grandiose attempt to "capture the culture" for biblical morality or greater political and religious freedoms.

Still, as beneficial and appreciated as His ministry to others' physical needs was, it was not Jesus' first priority. His divine calling was to speak to the hearts and souls of individual men and women. He proclaimed the good news of redemption that could reconcile them to the Father and grant them eternal life. That message far surpasses any agenda for political, social, or economic reform that can preoccupy us. Christ did not come to promote some new social agenda or establish a new moral order. He did come to establish a new spiritual order, the body of believers from throughout the ages that constitutes His church. He did not come to earth to make the old creation moral through social and governmental reform, but to make new creatures holy through the saving power of the gospel and the transforming work of the Holy Spirit. And our Lord and Savior has commanded us to continue His ministry, with His supreme priorities in view, with the goal that we might advance His kingdom: "All authority has been given to Me in heaven and on earth. Go therefore and make disciples of all the nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, teaching them to observe all things that I have commanded you; and lo, I am with you always, even to the end of the age" (Matt. 28:18-20).

In the truest sense, the moral, social, and political state of a people is irrelevant to the advance of the gospel. Jesus said that His kingdom was not of this world (John 18:36).

End quote.

For the full article go here.

When you go to vote this election, consider your loyalty. It is to Christ or Man? Where do you place your hope? Whom do you fear? What do you really believe? What makes you truly a Christian and Conservative? Because you say you are or because your actions, including how you vote (or don't vote) makes it clear?

Are you willing to compromise biblical principles just to save a little cash? Are you willing to trample over the blood of unborn babies so you get to keep more of your money through lower taxes? What are you willing to give up? Why?

As I see it, politics are not to be conducted pragmatically. We are to vote (and run) by principles. You cannot be a Christian and a pragmatist. Sorry. To be pragmatic is to deny the authority and commands of Scripture, which aren't optional. Pragmatism says God's commands are optional. Scripture goes against pragmatism which says "the ends justify the means" or "the ends are the lesser evil". God calls us to not compromise His standards. Politics will reveal if you do.

Fear God.

Vote Biblically.

Don't Compromise.

John Piper Says We Slandered Warren: this AFTER Warren's Pelagian Teaching at DGC

From the Lighthouse Trails Research group:

Quote:

In a Christianity Today interview with popular evangelical teacher John Piper, Piper is questioned for his recent invitation of Rick Warren to his Desiring God conference, which brought criticism to Piper. In the interview, Piper states the following:

CT: You invited Rick Warren; would you say he exemplifies [your] “thinking”?

Piper: No, I don’t think he exactly exemplifies what I’m after. But he is biblical. He quoted 50 Scriptures from memory. Unbelievable, his mind is Vesuvius. So I asked him what impact reading Jonathan Edwards had on him. What these authors like Karl Barth and Edwards do for him is give him a surge of theological energy that then comes through his wiring. What I wanted to do with Rick is force him to talk about thinking so pragmatists out there can say, “A lot of thinking goes into what he does.” (emphasis added)

CT: You received some negative feedback for inviting him.

Piper: It was real risky. I don’t even know if I did the right thing. If somebody said, “Are you sure you should have invited him?” “No.” I think the first thing I’d say—maybe the only thing—is I think he’s been slandered. I think we probably need to work harder at getting him right. (emphasis added)

Lighthouse Trails authors and editors have written extensively on the teachings and promotions of Rick Warren. Our question, after reading this interview is, in what way have we slandered Rick Warren? What has been said from this ministry that is not true about Rick Warren? Has Rick Warren really been slandered, or is John Piper just another evangelical leader who gives credibility to another leader who is leading millions toward a mystical/emerging/ecumenical spirituality?

End quote.

I agree with Lighthouse. How have we slandered Warren when we've proven with facts that Warren is a false teacher and the epitome of an unbiblical teacher?

Just yesterday Warren proved me (us) right again by Tweeting that his "ministry" is ALL about him.

Interesting the man-centeredness of Piper the "Reformer". He doesn't worry about Scripture being the tool to correct theology and thinking. Theologians are seen to give men "theological energy". Whatever that is. All theology, all doctrine should be from Scripture. Period. Not dead men. Not a council. Not a book. Truth is from the Word of Truth, that is, Scripture, which alone is God-breathed and sufficent for all things pertaining to life and godliness, "that the man of God may be competent, equipped for every good work." (2Tim. 3:16-17).

Joh 6:68 Simon Peter answered him, "Lord, to whom shall we go? You have the words of eternal life,

Joh 8:31 So Jesus said to the Jews who had believed in him, "If you abide in my word, you are truly my disciples, 32 and you will know the truth, and the truth will set you free."

Piper is bearing false witness against us and needs to repent. He also needs to stop being a silly man and mindlessly believe what Warren tells him. He can start here. I've rarely seen anything so ridiculous in my life: a grown man, a pastor, a teacher, a "mature Christian" so easily be swayed by a snake like Warren. Its as if Piper wants to be taken in, be mesmerized, be swayed by Warren. Its very strange indeed, and not biblical by any means whatsoever.

I also find it funny how Piper keeps showing up in the media when he's supposed to be on a sabbatical. I mean, the man just can't help himself.

You might notice, too, the false humility of "I just don't know". Piper continues to use that phrase which is mock humility. He SHOULD know that it was sinful and treasonous to invite Warren to DIDKWKOG Conference; He SHOULD know that Warren is a liar and deceiver. He SHOULD know what language is acceptable or not (recall last year's X-rated parading of Driscoll at the same conference...and Piper's promo video of "not knowing" how far to go with language). "I don't know" is UNEXCUSEABLE. Its what Joel Osteen claimed over 45 times on Larry King's show a few years ago.

What's with pastors not knowing? Not being decisive? Thinking ignorance is a virtue? Its not! Ignorance and immaturity in a pastor especially, is an utter shame. And its cancerous.

1Ki 18:21 And Elijah came near to all the people and said, "How long will you go limping between two different opinions? If the LORD is God, follow him; but if Baal, then follow him." And the people did not answer him a word.

Eph 5:15 Look carefully then how you walk, not as unwise but as wise, 16 making the best use of the time, because the days are evil. 17 Therefore do not be foolish, but understand what the will of the Lord is.

Jas 1:5 If any of you lacks wisdom, let him ask God, who gives generously to all without reproach, and it will be given him. 6 But let him ask in faith, with no doubting, for the one who doubts is like a wave of the sea that is driven and tossed by the wind. 7 For that person must not suppose that he will receive anything from the Lord; 8 he is a double-minded man, unstable in all his ways.

Spurgeon, in regard to his leaving the Baptist Union said, in "An Attempt At The Impossible" in the Sword and Trowel:

My course has been of another kind. As soon as I saw, or thought I saw, that error had become firmly established, I did not deliberate, but quitted the body at once. Since then my one counsel has been, "Come ye out from among them." If I have rejoiced in the loyalty to Christ's truth which has been shown in other courses of action, yet I have felt that no protest could be equal to that of distinct separation from known evil.

I may, however, venture to express the opinion, that the evangelical brethren in the Association have acted with much kindness, and have shown a strong desire to abide in union with others, if such union could he compassed without the sacrifice of truth.

The points mentioned were certainly elementary enough, and we did not wonder that one of the brethren exclaimed, "May God help those who do not believe these things! Where must they be?" Indeed, little objection was taken to the statements which were tabulated, but the objection was to a belief in these being made indispensable to membership. It was as though it had been said, "Yes, we believe in the Godhead of the Lord Jesus; but we would not keep a man out of our fellowship because he thought our Lord to be a mere man. We believe in the atonement; but if another man rejects it, he must not, therefore, be excluded from our number."

To this hour, I must confess that I do not understand the action of either side in this dispute, if viewed in the white light of logic. Why should they wish to be together? Those who wish for the illimitable fellowship of men of every shade of belief or doubt would be all the freer for the absence of those stubborn evangelicals who have cost them so many battles. The brethren, on the other hand, who have a doctrinal faith, and prize it, must have learned by this time that whatever terms may be patched up, there is no spiritual oneness between themselves and the new religionists. They must also have felt that the very endeavor to make a compact which will tacitly be understood in two senses, is far from being an ennobling and purifying exercise to either party.The brethren in the middle are the source of this clinging together of discordant elements. These who are for peace at any price, who persuade themselves that there is very little wrong, who care chiefly to maintain existing institutions, these are the good people who induce the weary combatants to repeat the futile attempt at a coalition, which, in the nature of things, must break down. If both sides could be unfaithful to conscience, or if the glorious gospel could be thrust altogether out of the question, there might be a league of amity established; but as neither of these things can be, there would seem to be no reason for persevering in the-attempt to maintain a confederacy for which there is no justification in fact, and from which there can be no worthy result, seeing it does not embody a living truth. A desire for unity is commendable. Blessed are they who can promote it and preserve it! But there are other matters to be considered as well as unity, and sometimes these may even demand the first place. When union becomes a moral impossibility, it may almost drop out of calculation in arranging plans and methods of working. If it is clear as the sun at noonday that no real union can exist, it is idle to strive after the impossible, and it is wise to go about other and more practicable business.

End quote.

Rick Warren Tweets: Its all about ME!

Joh 3:30 He must increase, but I must decrease." 31 He who comes from above is above all. He who is of the earth belongs to the earth and speaks in an earthly way. He who comes from heaven is above all.



"What people SAY with their mouths SHOWS what's in the hearts & THOSE are the things that make people unclean"'Jesus Mt5:18 about 5 hours ago via web Retweeted by 72 people

RickWarren
Rick Warren

So, when he says:

"Everytime haters attack me ,I get 2,000 new followers! Free PR! "They mean it for bad but God means it for good"Gen50:20"

RickWarren
Rick Warren

7:13 AM Oct 11th via web Retweeted by 57 people

...we can see what's in his heart: idol worship of himself! Where he gets that number can only be found in one place: his dark egotistical imagination. But he proves he's nothing more than a self-promoter, in love with himself, and set on numbers. He doesn't know Christ nor His gospel, therefore he can only talk about himself and his followers that are increasing by the thousands. Where's Christ Jesus in all of this? There's no room with all that pride. And by the way, the Road to Eternal life is NARROW and few that find it, Warren. A heart is already unclean because of the sin nature. But this Pelagian doesn't even understand the basic Gospel. Romans 1-7 bears this out clearly. Yet he's "theologically sound"??

I wonder if Piper and PiperFans get it yet?

The Doctrine of Creation Is Inseparable To The Doctrine of The Fall And Of Redeption

Heb 11:1 Now faith is the assurance of things hoped for, the conviction of things not seen. 2 For by it the people of old received their commendation. 3 By faith we understand that the universe was created by the word of God, so that what is seen was not made out of things that are visible.
The reason so many theologians end up rejecting biblical Christianity to one level or another, is because they don't really believe God's Word is inspired by Him, inerrant,living, active, and clear. Therefore every wayward "Christian leader" has denied the Genesis account of Creation as it is written, mouthing the words of the ancient serpent, the Devil, "Has God said?"

If you find a man off on any major doctrine of Scripture, most assuredly he will be off with the Beginning.

For example:

John Piper, purveyor of cussing x-rated, justification-by-works, universalist and pelagian preachers, denies the Genesis account as written and holds to the damnable Evoultion theory of the Gap Theory.

John Stott, Anglican and denier of a literal Hell , denies the creation of Adam from dust by God's hand.

Peter Enns, suspended then forced to exit from Westminster Theological Seminary for his heretical book that denies of the the innerancy of Scripture , flat out denies the Adam of Scripture as the first man created and our head (Romans 5).

Mike Huckabee, ex-pastor and former presidential candidate refused to declare faith in the Genesis account; leaving it open to either six literal days or the evolution Gap theory.

Tim Keller, Reformergent and endorser/writer for the evolutionistic Biologos, also doesn't know how God created; denies the sufficiency of Scripture. ; denies a literal Genesis account (p. 4-5 "Creation, Evolution, and Lay People")

Justin Taylor of The "Gospel" Coalition and Reformation 21 denies a literal six 24 hour day creation.

J.I. Packer endorses a book on evolution and wrote the forward to another book on evolution. Answers In Genesis has written critiques on these two books here and here.
Are you seeing a pattern?

If you have a problem with faith in Genesis 1-3 as written, that is to say, as declared by God and understood in its clear, simple proclamation, you WILL have doctrinal heresy elsewhere. Guaranteed. Why? Because True faith, given by God to His elect at regeneration, has as its first object the Creator God. Heb. 11:1-3 states this boldly. After defining true faith, the first object of our faith is "we understand that the universe was created by the word of God, so that what is seen was not made out of things that are visible." If you deny this, deny God created this universe as HE SAID, by His word instantly, then you have no real faith.

None.

Five times in Genesis 1 it says, "God said....and it was so."

Gen 1:3 And God said, "Let there be light," and there was light.

Psa 33:6 By the word of the LORD the heavens were made, and by the breath of his mouth all their host.

Psa 148:4 Praise him, you highest heavens, and you waters above the heavens! 5 Let them praise the name of the LORD! For he commanded and they were created.

Heb 1:2 but in these last days he has spoken to us by his Son, whom he appointed the heir of all things, through whom also he created the world. 3 He is the radiance of the glory of God and the exact imprint of his nature, and he upholds the universe by the word of his power. After making purification for sins, he sat down at the right hand of the Majesty on high,

Isa 45:12 I made the earth and created man on it; it was my hands that stretched out the heavens, and I commanded all their host.

Al Mohler said recently:

"The biblical record of creation is more than just a statement of fact. It is a purposeful account of why the universe was created by a sovereign, holy, and benevolent God as the theater of His own glory. It reveals purpose not only in creation, but also as part of redemptive history. The doctrine of creation is absolutely inseparable from the doctrine of redemption."

Lawrence Ford, Executive Editor of ICR's "Acts And Facts" correctly states:

"Genesis 1:1 states, "In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth." This is the first and foremost apologetic. If a person stumbles on this one profound truth, a lifetime of doubt and confusion lies ahead for him, full of uncertainty about the ultimate purpose for being alive. But when a Christian attempts to alter this ultimate statement of reality to fit the compromising philosophies of men--even scientifically-trained professionals--then woe to him for his unbelief and, even graver still, for teaching others that unbelief."

John MacArthur states:

Quote:

Now as we have already learned in our study of origins in the study of the first Chapter of Genesis, it is sheer foolishness scientifically and it is utter unbelief Biblically to impose on creation any kind of evolution. Evolution is not a reasonable explanation for the universe or life on earth in any sense whatsoever. It is scientifically impossible, and it is Biblically rejected. If we look closely at the issue of Genesis 1 and creation, we find no evidence of evolution whatsoever in the text of scripture; nor is there any indication by any kind of reasonable science that any form of evolution from species to species could at all take place. And I've suggested to you a number of times, and I do it again, that as you look more closely at the issue of unbelief and denial of the clearly revealed account of creation in the book of Genesis, it is fair to say that anyone who rejects the Genesis creation account, anyone who rejects that God created the universe in six literal 24-hour days, makes an assault on scripture; makes an assault on the historicity of scripture, the accuracy of scripture, the inspiration of scripture, the inerrancy of scripture and the authenticity of scripture.

It is no small thing to deny the straightforward creation account of Genesis Chapter 1. And we could go so far as to say that in actuality, the Bible itself stands or falls with the historical accuracy of Genesis 1. If we cannot trust the creation account, then why should we trust anything else on the pages of scripture? It is sad to say that even the secular world has through the years better understood this than many Christians.

End quote.

If someone believes in Evolution on any level, they will also believe in a man-centered gospel and think they have some good in them and not only that, they can loose their salvation. Their evolution of creation extends to their evolution of a Christian. This is not the way of Scripture. Just as God created this universe by His mere word and it instantly came into being, so too is our New Creation in Christ, just as instantaneous. Both are held by the power of HIS Word:

Col 1:13 He has delivered us from the domain of darkness and transferred us to the kingdom of his beloved Son, 14 in whom we have redemption, the forgiveness of sins. 15 He is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of all creation. 16 For by him all things were created, in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or dominions or rulers or authorities--all things were created through him and for him. 17 And he is before all things, and in him all things hold together. 18 And he is the head of the body, the church. He is the beginning, the firstborn from the dead, that in everything he might be preeminent.
Psa 1:1 Blessed is the man who walks not in the counsel of the wicked, nor stands in the way of sinners, nor sits in the seat of scoffers;2 but his delight is in the law of the LORD, and on his law he meditates day and night.3 He is like a tree planted by streams of water that yields its fruit in its season, and its leaf does not wither. In all that he does, he prospers.

Loyalty To Piper While Disloyal to Christ

I find it so sad to see people be so loyal to a man who promotes heretics and damnable gospels, and therefore be so disloyal to Christ Jesus and His Word. I think he's become an idol to them. Wolves like Warren are counting on this. He knows this better than these blind followers of Piper who are impotant to reject him for some reason.

“Error is like leaven, of which we read, ‘A little leaven leaveneth the whole lump.’ Truth mixed with error is equivalent to all error, except that it is more innocent looking and, therefore, more dangerous. God hates such a mixture! Any error, or any truth-and-error mixture, calls for definite exposure and repudiation. To condone such is to be unfaithful to God and His Word and treacherous to imperiled souls for whom Christ died.” - Dr. Harry Ironside, pastor of Chicago’s Moody Memorial Church from 1930-1948


The Gospel of Satan by AW Pink--excerpts

The gospel of Satan is not a system of revolutionary principles, nor yet a program of anarchy. It does not promote strife and war, but aims at peace and unity. It seeks not to set the mother against her daughter nor the father against his son, but fosters the fraternal, spirit whereby the human race is regarded as one great "brotherhood". It does not seek to drag down the natural man, but to improve and uplift him. It advocates education and cultivation and appeals to "the best that is within us". It aims to make this world such a congenial and comfortable habitat that Christ’s absence from it will not be felt and God will not be needed. It endeavors to occupy man so much with this world that he has no time or inclination to think of the world to come. It propagates the principles of self-sacrifice, charity and benevolence, and teaches us to live for the good of others, and to be kind to all. It appeals strongly to the carnal mind and is popular with the masses, because it ignores the solemn facts that by nature man is a fallen creature, alienated from the life of God, and dead in trespasses and sins, and that his only hope lies in being born again.

In contradistinction to the Gospel of Christ, the gospel of Satan teaches salvation by works. It inculcates justification before God on the ground of human merits. Its sacramental phrase is "Be good and do good"; but it fails to recognize that in the flesh there dwelleth no good thing. It announces salvation by character, which reverses the order of God’s Word—character by, as the fruit of, salvation. Its various ramifications and organizations are manifold. Temperance, Reform movements, "Christian Socialist Leagues", ethical culture societies, "Peace Congresses" are all employed (perhaps unconsciously) in proclaiming this gospel of Satan—salvation by works. The pledge-card is substituted for Christ; social purity for individual regeneration, and politics and philosophy for doctrine and godliness. The cultivation of the old man is considered more practical" than the creation of a new man in Christ Jesus; whilst universal peace is looked for apart from the interposition and return of the Prince of Peace.

LDS Leader Softens Speech and Stance on Homosexuality--Like Is Son Glenn Beck

LDS Leader Softens Speech and Stance on Homosexuality:

Well, interesting in the timing, considering Glenn Beck is soft on homosexuality himself---especially since the LDS was a large backer in one way or another for Prop 8 here in CA on the ballot some months ago, which was passed and then rejected by one judge--that's the bill that would keep marriage to one man and one woman. Perhaps Beck was readying the LDS followers for the upcoming speech....whether deliberate or not. Timing is everything.

Then again, LDS's foundation is based on control and sexual immorality (polygamy) anyway. Like Islam. They can't promise freedom because they themselves are enslaved to sin, dead in their sins and trespasses, and can only violate God's commands.

LuvFest over Rick Warren's message at Desiring-I-Don't-Know-What-Kind-of-God Conference

The panel discussion of the speakers at DIDKWKOG Conference 2010 on Rick Warren's message is as puddle deep as the man and the man's message itself:

1. Can you give us your initial reflections on the message we just heard from Rick Warren?

Burk Parsons: I saw a man with character and with simple, childlike dependence on Christ.

John Piper: "An unbelievable communicator with incredible application. Be encouraged and relax with who you are, and give it all to Jesus while learning all you can from Rick."

He's certainly picking up the PDL "its all about you" lingo. It certainly isn't about Christ. I mean, why bother speaking about how in love you are with the wolf? Why sit there in a pow-wow and drool over the wolf? Why even talk about Warren?

After 8 questions and responses, they finally get to Jesus, thus proving again, its not about Jesus Christ, its about YOU. Warren got all these men to focus on man, not God, even in their discussion afterwards, at least according to the notes given; notes that presumably are the highlights or the most important issues discussed by the panel for folks to get the salient points of that discussion. Jesus bearly made into their discussion, and then I found this interesting that yet again Piper has to bring in Warren and himself (which could have been avoided if he saw the error in doing so)....someone continues to be highly defensive for a person who is convinced it was a good choice:

8. What would you say to our "non-thinkers" who are here tonight? Surely the
conference isn’t made up completely of those who consider themselves "thinkers,"
right?

Piper: There are people in here who love to think and there are others who don’t like to think. This conference is a pain in the rear end to them. They’re just here to see Warren and Piper fight. Here’s how I would say the question: What do you have to say to people who don’t want to think?

Ok, and how is this relevent to the question of thinking (what's a non-thinker?)?

What's Warren and Piper got to do with it?

And why is Piper, who is overwhelmingly generous toward Warren since at least, his announcement of Warren speaking at the conference, yet Piper attacks and presumes upon the motives of certain people?

Where's his generosity toward them? And why does he then bring in "people who don't want to think"?

Ironically, those who have publicly rebuked Piper are the ones with the "mind of Christ", thinking biblically, and its Piper who isn't at all. He's thinking according to the flesh, and still is focused on himself and his new comrade. How is his response, which ends in a question (more POMO chaotic thinking), even beneficial to the audience?

Last question in the notes:

9. Would you connect this conference theme of the life of the mind with the person of Jesus?

Very quick answers, which given the PERSON OF THE LORD JESUS CHRIST and the HOLY SPIRIT, should have been the bulk of the discussion in relation to how that affects one's mind.

Its truly sad.

Puddle deep thinking after being fed pelagian poison.

This, folks, is Christian Hedonism in all its YOU-Glory.

Matt Chandler Endorses Emergent New Ager Leonard Sweet

"Today I'm sharing an interview with Leonard Sweet and Frank Viola about their recently published book, Jesus Manifesto. I think the response to the book has been fascinating to watch. For example, you don't often see a book endorsed by Ed Young, Matt Chandler, Jack Hayford, and Steve Brown. And, since Len and Frank are willing to dialogue today, I wanted to bring it to you attention. (By the way, Frank has been here at the blog before. See this interview.)" - Ed Stetzer

For helpful information on Leonard Sweet go here

Our Sympathetic High Priest: rest for the weary soul

The problem of suffering has ever been a perplexing one. Why should suffering be necessary in a world that is governed by a perfect God? A God who not only has the power to prevent evil, but who is love. Why should there be pain and wretchedness, sickness and death? As we look out on the world and take cognizance of its countless sufferers, we are bewildered. This world is but a vale of tears. A thin veneer of gaiety scarcely succeeds in hiding the drab facts of life. Philosophizing about the problem of suffering brings scant relief. After all our reasonings we ask, Does God see? Is there knowledge with the Most High? Does he really care? Like all questions, these must be taken to the cross. While they do not find there a complete answer, nevertheless they do meet that which satisfies the anxious heart. While the problem of suffering is not fully solved there, yet the cross does throw sufficient light upon it to relieve the tension. The cross shows us that God is not ignorant of our sorrows, for in the person of his Son he has himself "borne our griefs and carried our sorrows" (Isa. 53:4)! The cross shows us God is not unmindful of our distress and anguish, for becoming incarnate, he suffered himself! The cross tells us God is not indifferent to pain for in the Saviour he experienced it!

What then is the value of these facts? This: "For we have not an high priest which cannot be touched with the feeling of our infirmities; but was in all points tempted (or tried) like as we are, yet without sin" (Heb. 4:15). Our Redeemer is not one so removed from us that he is unable to enter, sympathetically, into our sorrows, for he was himself "the Man of Sorrows". Here then is comfort for the aching heart. No matter how despondent you maybe, no matter how rugged your path and sad your lot, you are invited to spread it all before the Lord Jesus and cast all your care upon him, knowing that "he careth for you" (1 Peter 5:7). Is your body wracked with pain? So was his! Are you misunderstood, misjudged, misrepresented? So was he! Have those who are nearest and dearest turned away from you? They did from him! Are you in the darkness? So was he for three hours! "Wherefore in all things it behooved him to be made like unto his brethren, that he might be a merciful and faithful high priest" (Heb. 2:17).

~ A.W. Pink, "The Seven Sayings Of the Savior On the Cross"

Extinct Species Were Not Extinct, Only Hard To Find

Like I have said, scientists can't prove an animal is extinct, unless they cover every area of the world, look under every bush, etc. But they will, in their elitist mentality, deem all kinds of species near extinct, thus making their habitate hands off. Putting an animal on the "extinct list" is cause for mourning by these pagans. Turns out, they are wrong. Again.

As The Mail reports:

"A study has found that a third of all mammal species declared extinct in the past few centuries have turned up alive and well.

Some of the more reclusive creatures managed to hide from sight for 80 years only to reappear within four years of being officially named extinct in the wild."

You might consider that these "scientists" prove they don't believe in Evolution's most fundamental theory: survival of the fittest. Maybe they will now.

Naw.