Influence,Position, Truth, Separation: pragmatism is the compromise

"That argument I have heard hundreds of times when people have been urged to come out of false positions and do the right. But what have you and I to do with maintaining our influence and position at the expense of truth? It is never right to do a little wrong to obtain the greatest possible good . . . You duty is to do the right; consequences are with God." 

~C.H.S., 1868, Sermon at Metropolitan Tabernacle.

"One thing is clear to us, we cannot be expected to meet in any union which comprehends those whose teachings on fundamental points is exactly the reverse of that which we hold dear. Cost what it may to separate ourselves from those who separate themselves from the truth of God is not alone our liberty but our duty."

~C.H.S.,The Sword and the Trowel

Hoaxes

photo source

Video of Eric Sparkes who is a Democrat for life and an anti-Trumper.

Let's not forget Rachel Dolezal and Sean King who faked being black. There's also the hoax crimes just in 2018.

Josh Harris, Author, Is Now Separated From His Wife

Josh Harris, author of "I kissed Dating Goodbye" is now separated from his wife.  He made the announcement on Instagram :

"We’re writing to share the news that we are separating and will continue our life together as friends. In recent years, some significant changes have taken place in both of us. It is with sincere love for one another and understanding of our unique story as a couple that we are moving forward with this decision. We hope to create a generous and supportive future for each other and for our three amazing children in the years ahead. Thank you for your understanding and for respecting our privacy during a difficult time."


The changes seem likely to have occurred perhaps in part, while he's been at Regent College. Besides having women teaching men things like the New Testament and also being Dean of Students, Regent College has one mighty heretic, N.T. Wright, on faculty there part-time. Wright is part of the unbiblical Anglican/Church of  England and teaches the heresy of works (which is in line with the COE) which is called New Perspective On Paul. Go here for the problems with both him and his heresy.

Additionally, they have Mark Noll as a part time professor there. He's a graduate of RCC's Notre Dame University. Noll is endorsed by John Piper.

That they have such men there proves they don't hold to sound doctrine (their Statement of Faith is pretty vague and for good reason).

While he's not currently a pastor because of his studies at Regent, he can never take the role of elder because of his violation of Scripture's requirements.

Upon looking at his wife Shannon's Instagram, it appears she's been in a dark place for a while, and she's heading into liberalism. It seems she's against "conservative churches" and is using #deconversion and #exevangelical. She's writing a musical about her break out of bondage of ...? Conservative churches? Biblical gender roles? Furher churches/marrriages? What? Cloak and dagger style nonsense on social media doesn't help especially when both Josh and Shannon claim to want to help others.   Also, why would anyone film a song in San Francisco--it's literally a dung dumping ground of human feces and the modern Sodom and Gomorrah.  Interesting what she says about church leaders and bullies here, here, here. 

It is something many of us have come out of--a church with illegitimate elders who are often overlords and/or do-nothings (yes they can be both--quiet those rocking the boat, pacify those in serious error) and who hold to doctrinal triage (which pushes their action/inaction). But there's a difference between coming out of that and thus finding a sound church that truly holds to all sound doctrine (not doctrinal triaging), and going down the road of liberalism and the world. In other words, the reason for leaving and how one deals with it is quite telling. This has to be part of the "changes in recent years" that the communication expert, Josh Harris, hinted at (he's also the one that said pastors should admit when they're wrong). Before trying to write about something that's lead one down a dark path while they're still very confused, is immature (some might say premature).

And now the world laughs even harder at Christians who hold to biblical purity and marriage.

Well done guys.

Review of John Piper's "Christian Hedonism" - some key things to keep in mind and that reveal his sources

***UPDATE***

Piper continues his false gospel and false love and false God at Passion 2020:



****

Very good review of Piper's "Christian Hedonism" by Michael Butler reprinted by The Real John Piper website.  If you only read two of the six articles, I would suggest the first and the third.

Here is where you can read all six:

Part 1: how Piper wrote his book and how to evaluate it; things to keep in mind. 

Part 3: where Piper got his notion of "love" and is it biblical? **

Part 2, Part 4, Part 5, Part 6


Of interest regarding Part 3 and Piper's source and definition of love:

Quote:

First, Piper seeks to gain his reader’s acceptance of his idea by way of philosophy. Piper states that Agape and Eros love are both actively involved in the Godhead. Eros is the Greek word from which the English word ‘Erotic’ originated. Erotic love is sexually driven, man-centred, and Eros contains the same self-centred motives. Rather than citing the Bible as proof for the existence of Eros within the activity of God, Piper cites our human weakness as the reason why we cannot understand that God possesses Eros. In other words, Piper is saying, the reason why we do not ascribe Eros to God is because our weakness as fallen human beings gets in the way of imagining and understanding God’s love. Therefore, the argument goes, Eros must exist in God because we possess some form of Eros in our fallen nature, whether good or bad, and all of this must have come from God.

Second, once Piper has captured the mind of the audience, he denounces the biblical understanding of Agape and replaces it with a perverted love; namely, an Agape mixed with the human concept Eros. Once again, Piper cites his fallen human capability as his authority when he says about the biblical notion of pure Agape, ‘I do not think that such disinterested love exists’ (ibid). Piper’s authority comes strictly from the bedrock of his own thoughts, which are isolated in the sinful psyche processes of the human mind in a fallen world.

Third, in the footnotes on page 124 of Piper’s book Desiring God, Piper makes plain that his concept of love is an admixture of Eros with Agape that forms ‘one kind of love at the root’. Once again, Piper does not turn to the Bible as his sole authority on what he calls ‘a holy Eros’. Instead, Piper tears down the literal-grammatical understanding of Agape in Scripture by saying there is ‘no linguistic basis for such a distinction’ between Eros and Agape in the Bible (DG, p124, endnote).

Fourth, if Piper’s statement is true that there is no linguistic basis to make a distinction between Eros and Agape love, then the doctrine of the perspicuity of Scripture is at risk of being lost. The Bible only speaks of God as having Agape love. In order for Piper to insert any idea of Eros into the love of God, he must philosophically develop it and then read it into the text (eisegesis). On the other hand, since the Bible only identifies God’s love as Agape, then the clarity of Scripture makes the point that there is no other love known in the Godhead other than Agape.

The Big Deal

Piper’s view of Agape love as a love united with a so-called heavenly Eros is nothing new. In its most refined form, a heavenly Eros is a Platonic idea. In other words, Piper is headed down the path of resurrecting Christian Platonism and bringing it into mainstream Evangelical Christianity....

The point is that the idea of a heavenly Eros is completely philosophical, not theological or biblical. In other words, Piper is using philosophy to prove the existence of his so-called ‘one kind of love at the root’. Piper is not at all interested in a biblical understanding of Agape love. The Eros love Piper promotes is, as Nygren states, ‘man’s way to God [whereas biblical] Agape is God’s way to man. Eros is egocentric, Agape is theocentric fellowship with God.’ (see footnote) Piper is interested in promoting a philosophy that has its roots in Christian Platonism, which is also the foundation of Catholicism and Arminianism.

John Piper’s ‘Christianized’ Eros is an old philosophical idea that originated with Augustine of Hippo. Augustine’s version of Agape love was also united with a heavenly Eros. The union eventually developed into what is called the Caritas synthesis (Nygren). Piper’s heavenly Eros is the same formulation as Augustine’s Caritas synthesis. During the Reformation, Martin Luther considered the Caritas synthesis to be one of the most important doctrines to correct in the Church.

End quote.

You can see the Neo-Platonic Augustinianism being resurrected. Piper is demonstrating Post-Modernism by redefining words and distinctions, thereby creating confusion and concealment of error by reusing biblical words to mask literal pagan ideas and practices. It is also worth noting that Snedes was a professor at Piper's seminary, Fuller Theological Seminary at the same time he was there.

** My only issue so far is that Butler's view is that God's love is not His "highest" attribute. All His perfections work simultaneously together and full capacity at all times (Ps 136 has examples). Not one is less than another. So God's wrath and love and justice for example, all work together in full capacity. We cannot triage God's attributes any more than we can triage doctrine or the Trinity. So just keep that in mind.

Hey Nike

The Political Scale