Interesting, considering both Warnock and Piper are Charismatic Reformers (they deny Sola Scriptura):
"The
reason for saying, “when consistently worked out,” is because I think it is
possible to inconsistently deny the truth of imputation while embracing other
aspects of the gospel (blood bought forgiveness, and propitiation, for example),
through which God mercifully saves.
I am thankful that God is willing to save us even when our grasp of the gospel may be partial or defective. None of us has a comprehensive or perfect grasp of it."
~ John Piper
I am thankful that God is willing to save us even when our grasp of the gospel may be partial or defective. None of us has a comprehensive or perfect grasp of it."
~ John Piper
Adrian Warnock says:
Quote:
"In some circles it is fashionable to knock N.T. Wright. I do have some significant concerns about his views on justification. But as this clip will show you, even if he is indeed wrong about the cross, he sure is “wright” about the resurrection!
I found his “big green book” incredibly helpful as I wrote my own. I would commend it to anyone. The only possible draw back is that it is very long. But the investment of time to read it is worthwhile for sure.Wright defends the historicity of the resurrection in such a way that if unbelief was merely a rational problem, everyone would be convinced."
End quote.
What? And that's worth promoting as true? Sorry, but if someone is wrong on the Gospel, then it doesn't matter what they think about the resurrection.
Quote:
"In some circles it is fashionable to knock N.T. Wright. I do have some significant concerns about his views on justification. But as this clip will show you, even if he is indeed wrong about the cross, he sure is “wright” about the resurrection!
I found his “big green book” incredibly helpful as I wrote my own. I would commend it to anyone. The only possible draw back is that it is very long. But the investment of time to read it is worthwhile for sure.Wright defends the historicity of the resurrection in such a way that if unbelief was merely a rational problem, everyone would be convinced."
End quote.
What? And that's worth promoting as true? Sorry, but if someone is wrong on the Gospel, then it doesn't matter what they think about the resurrection.
Typically, any dogmatic rejection of a false teacher is heralded as "knocking" the man down, bashing him, or what have you. "Balance" is when you, like these men, accept, befriend, love, and promote false teachers. That's not what Jesus did nor the Apostle Paul, Peter, or Jude for that matter! These men are more tolerant than God Himself.
Spurgeon speaks to this very damnable tide of "anythingarianism":
"You may believe anything, everything, or nothing, and yet be enrolled in the "Evangelical" army—so they say. Will there arise no honest, out-spoken evangelicals among Dissenters to expose and repudiate this latitudinarianism? Are all the watchmen asleep? Are all the churches indifferent?" - Spurgeon
Excerpts from Progressive Theology by Charles Spurgeon, Sword and Trowel, April 1888:
The idea of a progressive gospel seems to have fascinated many. To us that notion is a sort of cross-breed between nonsense and blasphemy. After the gospel has been found effectual in the eternal salvation of untold multitudes, it seems rather late in the day to alter it; and, since it is the revelation of the all-wise and unchanging God, it appears somewhat audacious to attempt its improvement. When we call up before our mind's eye the gentlemen who have set themselves this presumptuous task, we feel half inclined to laugh; the case is so much like the proposal of moles to improve the light of the sun. Their gigantic intellects are to hatch out the meanings of the Infinite! We think we see them brooding over hidden truths to which they lend the aid of their superior genius to accomplish their development!
Do men really believe that there is a gospel for each century? Or a religion for each fifty years? Will there be in heaven saints saved according to a score sorts of gospel? Will these agree together to sing the same song? And what will the song be? Saved on different footings, and believing different doctrines, will they enjoy eternal concord, or will heaven itself be only a new arena for disputation between varieties of faiths?
It is thought to be mere bigotry to protest against the mad spirit which is now loose among us. Pan-indifferentism is rising like the tide; who can hinder it? We are all to be as one, even though we agree in next to nothing. It is a breach of brotherly love to denounce error. Hail, holy charity! Black is white; and white is black. The false is true; the true is false; the true and the false are one. Let us join hands, and never again mention those barbarous, old-fashioned doctrines about which we are sure to differ. Let the good and sound men for liberty's sake shield their "advanced brethren"; or, at least, gently blame them in a tone which means approval. After all, there is no difference, except in the point of view from which we look at things: it is all in the eye, or, as the vulgar say, "it is all my eye"! In order to maintain an open union, let us fight as for dear life against any form of sound words, since it might restrain our liberty to deny the doctrines of the Word of God!
End quote.
Spurgeon speaks to this very damnable tide of "anythingarianism":
"You may believe anything, everything, or nothing, and yet be enrolled in the "Evangelical" army—so they say. Will there arise no honest, out-spoken evangelicals among Dissenters to expose and repudiate this latitudinarianism? Are all the watchmen asleep? Are all the churches indifferent?" - Spurgeon
Excerpts from Progressive Theology by Charles Spurgeon, Sword and Trowel, April 1888:
The idea of a progressive gospel seems to have fascinated many. To us that notion is a sort of cross-breed between nonsense and blasphemy. After the gospel has been found effectual in the eternal salvation of untold multitudes, it seems rather late in the day to alter it; and, since it is the revelation of the all-wise and unchanging God, it appears somewhat audacious to attempt its improvement. When we call up before our mind's eye the gentlemen who have set themselves this presumptuous task, we feel half inclined to laugh; the case is so much like the proposal of moles to improve the light of the sun. Their gigantic intellects are to hatch out the meanings of the Infinite! We think we see them brooding over hidden truths to which they lend the aid of their superior genius to accomplish their development!
Do men really believe that there is a gospel for each century? Or a religion for each fifty years? Will there be in heaven saints saved according to a score sorts of gospel? Will these agree together to sing the same song? And what will the song be? Saved on different footings, and believing different doctrines, will they enjoy eternal concord, or will heaven itself be only a new arena for disputation between varieties of faiths?
It is thought to be mere bigotry to protest against the mad spirit which is now loose among us. Pan-indifferentism is rising like the tide; who can hinder it? We are all to be as one, even though we agree in next to nothing. It is a breach of brotherly love to denounce error. Hail, holy charity! Black is white; and white is black. The false is true; the true is false; the true and the false are one. Let us join hands, and never again mention those barbarous, old-fashioned doctrines about which we are sure to differ. Let the good and sound men for liberty's sake shield their "advanced brethren"; or, at least, gently blame them in a tone which means approval. After all, there is no difference, except in the point of view from which we look at things: it is all in the eye, or, as the vulgar say, "it is all my eye"! In order to maintain an open union, let us fight as for dear life against any form of sound words, since it might restrain our liberty to deny the doctrines of the Word of God!
End quote.
No comments:
Post a Comment