Thursday, October 14, 2010

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

From the Lighthouse Trails Research group:


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.

No comments: