John Piper and Oral Sex Questions: absolutely inappropriate

Well now it's published, not merely in audio form. This is absolutely inappropriate to be speaking about in a public setting that bears NO edification. And this is occuring in large part because Piper's friend Mark Driscoll, the uncouth, disgraced pastor over at Mars Hill and Acts 29, is all about sex. Piper was supposed to be mentoring Driscoll but the reality was that Driscoll has taught Piper much more---impurity. The reality is that bad company really does corrupt good character, as Scripture states. Moreover, I believe that Piper has found a door through which he can learn to be hedonistic.

This is not fruit of a mature, wise, sober minded, discerning Christian "leader". Quite the opposite. Please excuse the topic--I don't even like posting it, but I do so in order to show the increasing apostasy of this man the older and more rebellious he gets. Some just won't believe it unless, I guess, they are shocked out of their complacency. 

"We get a lot of questions about relationships, dating, marriage, and of course sex. And that leads to episodes that may not be suitable for all listeners and are really designed to be listened to by married couples. Such is the case today. In the last month ten questions have arrived on the question of oral sex. The question is always the same: Pastor John, is this practice permissible in a Christian marriage, or is it always sinful?"

~Desiring "God"

This also shows why the LOCAL church is the biblical way to deal with issues--not by a paper pope who is a renegade yet has a hold over millions of minds of professing Christians.

Piper's The Bethlehem Institute Promoting Roman Catholic CS Lewis and Federal Vision Heretic Doug Wilson

The Bethlehem Institute:


New Course: Live Like An Narnian (starts Feb. 9)

The Chronicles of Narnia are some of the most beloved children's books of all time. But are they really just for children? Or is there more in Narnia than meets the eye? This twelve-week course will examine the Chronicles book by book as powerful stories designed to shape the hearts and minds of their readers. In the process, we will explore C.S. Lewis' motivation for writing The Chronicles, as well as probe the connections between The Chronicles and Lewis' other writings. From characters to plot, from symbolism to structure, we will seek to 'breathe the air' of Narnia in hopes of both contemplating and enjoying the Christ-saturated world conceived by Lewis. Our goal will be to heed the words of Aslan:"This was the very reason you were brought into Narnia, that by knowing me here for a little, you might know me better there."Live Like a Narnian: Christian Discipleship in C.S. Lewis' The Chronicles of Narnia isbeing offered. . .

Wednesday evenings,6:50-8:15 PM (Downtown Campus)February 9-May 11, 2011 (no class on March 23 or April 20)

Instructor: Joe Rigney (Instructor, Bethlehem College & Seminary)
Tuition: $60.00/person ($90.00/married couple)
Required Text (available for purchase from BCS's online store:http://astore.amazon.com/bcsbookstore-20):

The Narnia Code: C. S. Lewis and the Secret of the Seven Heavens by Michael Ward

Recommended Text:

What I Learned in Narnia by Douglas Wilson

End quote.

CS Lewis was not a Christian, but rather a Roman Catholic Anglican.

Doug Wilson, a past teacher at Desiring "God" Conference, is a heretic. He teaches the Federal Vision heresy.

And yet here we go again, Piper's church is promoting two heretics.

Summary of Piper Endorsing Rick Warren Before And After His Teaching at DGC

Piper defends why he invited Warren to teach at DGC: Here Warren tells Piper what he knows Piper needs to hear in order to keep the speaking engagement. What Piper says Warren told him is actually untrue (I have evidence to the contrary for many of the claims made in this video: ).

Mike Ratliff correctly identifies Warren as a heretic who taught pelagianism at DGC.


Q&A from DGC after Warren taught: :

Quote:

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."

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?

End quote.

After the whole conference in "'Christianity'Today" interview:

Quote:

You invited Rick Warren; would you say he exemplifies "thinking"?

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."

You received some negative feedback for inviting him.

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.

End quote.

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.

The Atonement: John Piper vs Scripture

John Piper's view of the atonement is not biblical (though he claims to be a Calvinist and shows he's not holding to the doctrines of Grace as he claims. The term is Amyraldianism, aka Hypothetical Universalism. 

John Piper's view rings similar to Amyraldianism--he says Jesus did in fact die for all in some way, just not in the "same way" as for the elect. He is not very clear nor does he correctly exegete the passages to make his point (as you will see in several articles I've quoted and linked to). In fact he sounds quite Post-Modern to me . Here are examples:

If you say that he died for every human being in the same way

For if Christ died for all men in the same way

In other words if you believe that Christ died for all men in the same way

In order to say that Christ died for all men in the same way

"We do not deny that all men are the intended beneficiaries of the cross in some sense. 1 Timothy 4:10 says that Christ is "the Savior of all men, especially of those who believe." What we deny is that all men are intended as the beneficiaries of the death of Christ in the same way. All of God's mercy toward unbelievers -- from the rising sun (Matthew 5:45) to the worldwide preaching of the gospel (John 3:16) -- is made possible because of the cross."

"Whence does this mercy flow to sinners? How is God just to withhold judgment from sinners who deserve to be immediately cast into hell? The answer is that Christ's death so clearly demonstrates God's just abhorrence of sin that he is free to treat the world with mercy without compromising his righteousness. In this sense Christ is the savior of all men."

"But he is especially the Savior of those who believe. He did not die for all men in the same sense. The intention of the death of Christ for the children of God was that it purchase far more than the rising sun and the opportunity to be saved. The death of Christ actually saves from ALL evil those for whom Christ died "especially.""

"Therefore if Christ is the propitiation for all the sins of every individual in the world, they cannot be punished, and must be saved. But John does not believe in such universalism (John 5:29). Therefore it is very unlikely that 1 John 2:2 teaches that Jesus is the propitiation of every person in the world."

More of the "Jesus died for everyone but not in the same way" argumentation:

There are lots of reasons why this answer (that Jesus tasted death for everyone) is a sign of spiritual health. One of the most obvious reasons is right here in our text, Hebrews 2:9:

But we do see Him who has been made for a little while lower than the angels, namely, Jesus, because of the suffering of death crowned with glory and honor, that by the grace of God He might taste death for everyone.

The answer that 95% of evangelicals would give is a healthy sign of desire to say what the Bible says.

But to say what the Bible says and to mean what the Bible means are not necessarily the same thing. Which is why I said that there is something unhealthy about answering the question "For whom did Jesus taste death?" by simply saying "everybody." What's unhealthy about it is not, first, that it's wrong. It might not be wrong. It depends on what you mean by saying that. What's unhealthy is that it stops short of asking what Jesus really accomplished when he died. It assumes that we all know what he accomplished and that this he accomplished for everybody in the same way. That is not healthy, because it is not true. My guess is that most of those 95% who say Jesus died for everybody would have a hard time explaining just what it is that the death of Jesus really, actually accomplished for everybody—especially what it accomplished for those who refuse to believe and go to hell.

The death of Jesus is for the bride of Christ in a different way than it is for those who perish. Here's the problem with saying Christ died for all the same way he died for his bride...

So, we go back to the problem: in what sense did Christ taste death for their sins? If they are still guilty for their sins and still suffer punishment for their sins, what happened on the cross for their sins? Perhaps someone would use an analogy. You might say, Christ purchased their ticket to heaven, and offered it to them freely, but they refused to take it, and that is why they went to hell. And you would be partly right: Christ does offer his forgiveness freely to all, and any who receives it as the treasure it is will be saved by the death of Jesus.
I don't think that the Bible commands us or, in fact, lets us say that Christ died for everybody in the same way. And the context of Hebrews 2:9 is a good place to show that the death of Christ had a special design or aim for God's chosen people that it did not have for others.

End quote.

And more of the same thinking here:

"My aim here is to show from Scripture that the simultaneous existence of God's will for "all persons to be saved" (1 Tim. 2:4) and his will to elect unconditionally those who will actually be saved is not a sign of divine schizophrenia or exegetical confusion. A corresponding aim is to show that unconditional election therefore does not contradict biblical expressions of God's compassion for all people, and does not nullify sincere offers of salvation to everyone who is lost among all the peoples of the world.

To avoid all misconceptions it should be made clear at the outset that the fact that God wishes or wills that all people should be saved does not necessarily imply that all will respond to the gospel and be saved. We must certainly distinguish between what God would like to see happen and what he actually does will to happen, and both of these things can be spoken of as God's will."


However clearly Scripture says Jesus died for ONLY the elect, therefore His atonement is totally efficacious and is not wasted in any way, because He accomplished all that the Father had intended (John 4:34; 5:36;John 17:4; Luke 18:31). John 17 stands out as a glaring example that Jesus came for a particular people, the elect. Other examples:

Eph 1:4 even as He chose us in Him before the foundation of the world, that we should be holy and blameless before Him. In love 5 He predestined us for adoption through Jesus Christ, according to the purpose of His will,

Eph 1:11 In Him we have obtained an inheritance, having been predestined according to the purpose of Him who works all things according to the counsel of His will,

Joh 10:11 I am the good shepherd. The good shepherd LAYS DOWN HIS LIFE FOR THE SHEEP.

Joh 10:14 I am the good shepherd. I know my own and my own know me, 15 just as the Father knows me and I know the Father; and I LAY DOWN MY LIFE FOR THE SHEEP. 16 And I have other sheep that are not of this fold. I must bring them also, and they will listen to my voice. So there will be ONE FLOCK, one shepherd.

Heb 13:20 Now may the God of peace who brought again from the dead our Lord Jesus, the great shepherd of THE SHEEP, by the THE BLOOD OF THE ETERNAL COVENANT,


Act 20:28 Pay careful attention to yourselves and to all the flock, in which the Holy Spirit has made you overseers, to care for THE CHURCH OF GOD, WHICH HE OBTAINED WITH HIS OWN BLOOD.

Eph 5:25 Husbands, love your wives, as CHRIST LOVED THE CHURCH and GAVE HIMSELF UP FOR HER,

Moreover, Jesus in His High Priestly prayer did NOT interceded on behalf of all the world, but ONLY for His elect:

Joh 17:9  I am praying for them. I am not praying for the world but for those whom you have given me, for they are yours. 

Joh 17:20  “I do not ask for these only, but also for those who will believe in me through their word

1Pe 1:1  Peter, an apostle of Jesus Christ, To those who are elect exiles of the Dispersion in Pontus, Galatia, Cappadocia, Asia, and Bithynia, 

1Pe 1:2  according to the foreknowledge of God the Father, in the sanctification of the Spirit, for obedience to Jesus Christ and for sprinkling with his blood: May grace and peace be multiplied to you.  

The blood of Christ is precious. It bought a people for Himself. His blood actually atoned for and redeemed the elect. It's too precious to not buy what God desires. It covers all the sins of all the elect forever. His blood is THAT efficacious: 

1Pe 1:18  knowing that you were ransomed from the futile ways inherited from your forefathers, not with perishable things such as silver or gold, 

1Pe 1:19  but with the precious blood of Christ, like that of a lamb without blemish or spot. 

Biblical Christ Research Fellowship has a very in-depth article on this very subject here. Charles Spurgeon also taught on the sound doctrine of Limited Atonement.

Piper's Gap Theory: more fruit of his "Christian" hedonism

Ps. 138:2… You have exalted above all things Your name and Your word.

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.

Apprising Ministries reports on how Piper continues his unbiblical views; here is an excerpt from the transcript of the video:

Or he might take another view that these days are ages.

Or he might take Sailhamer's view, which is where I feel at home. His view is that what's going on here is that all of creation happened to prepare the land for man.

In verse 1, "In the beginning he made the heavens and the earth," he makes everything. And then you go day by day and he's preparing the land. He's not bringing new things into existence; he's preparing the land and causing things to grow and separating out water and earth. And then, when it's all set and prepared, he creates and puts man there.

So that has the advantage of saying that the earth is billions of years old if it wants to be—whatever science says it is, it is—but man is young, and he was good and he sinned. He was a real historical person, because Romans 5 says so, and so does the rest of the Bible.

That's where I am, and I think every pastor should go ahead and say what he believes. But how do you define who gets on your eldership, for example? Who gets a teaching office in your church? I'm inclined to not draw that too narrowly.

But I could be wrong about that, you know. I'm 63 years old, and I've never preached through Genesis yet. And I'd like to! I'm going to finish John, and then maybe the next thing I'll turn to, if the elders let me stay around that long, would be Genesis.

We need to give our people help in this.

End quote.

As More Books And Things reports, Sailhamer’s book, which Piper refers to, is about selling an old idea as “new” and “provocative”, when its neither new nor provocative. Its damnable doctrine, sitting in the seat of scoffers and especially that of the Serpent, proclaiming, “Hath God Said?” According to Answers in Genesis, this Hebrew "scholar" “has ‘unbound’ are the rules of grammar, the semantic fields of words and the laws of logic.” ~Source

Scripture, however warns: 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.

Nevermind being biblical...Piper's view is anti-Biblical, but is this even Reformed? Is this view one of the Puritans? Afterall, Piper is hailed as the Reformer everyone loves. But is he really Reformed? Just because he says he is, doesn't mean he is. Clearly, Scripture Alone (Sola Scriptura) and Faith Alone (Sola Fide) don't apply in his thinking on the very FIRST and foremost important doctrine of all. So why is he hailed as a Reformer, I wonder?

Recently our family was listening to a series on Creation by John MacArthur, where he speaks very authoritatively on Genesis. What a total contrast to Piper’s pathetic view of the Beginning….apparently its yet another biblical truth that is of mere opinion. (The "I feel at home" comment regarding the Gap Theory is emotionalism. How one feels about anything regarding Creation is irrelevent. Feelings aren't facts. Feelings don't give truth. Emotionalism is definitely part of his Charismaticism, though.)

Anyway, the time period was given in Genesis: 6 -24 hour days. This isn't a matter of opinion, or a feeling. This is FOUNDATIONAL. Either God was truthful and clear when He spoke the very first issues in all of Scripture or not. And we know He did.

Genesis 1-3 sets God as Supreme Ruler, Sovereign King, Creator, Owner of all the universe HE made. It demonstrates His awesome power and control. It shows who and what is far inferior to HIM. That is to say, all creation is inferior to its Creator. Furthermore, we see throughout Scripture that He also sustains His creation by that same word, and at His will and in His time, He will destroy it because of Man’s sin. To be honest and consistant, to deny the Beginning as recorded, is really to deny the End too. Switching hermenutics is also wrong, not to mention self-serving and deceptive.

Here are some excerpts from John MacArthur's excellent series on Creation:

Quote:

The debate gets to questions about man's dignity, about man's nature in the image of the heavenly pattern, the image of God. It asks questions about the issue of control, who is sovereign in the universe, who is in control. It asks, "Is there a universal judge? Is there a universal moral law? Is there a lawgiver? Are to people to live according to God's standard? Will there be a final assessment of how men and women live? Is there a final judgment?"

Now, folks, let me tell you something. Which of those views you take is not a secondary issue, it is a primary issue not only for science but for theology. How in the world can Christianity view those as secondary issues? This is the foundation of all truth....

Francis Schaeffer the apologist said, "If he had an hour to spend with a person on an airplane, a person who didn't know the Lord, he would spend the first 55 minutes talking about man being created in the image of God. And the last five minutes on the presentation of the gospel of salvation that could restore man to that original intended image."

Christianity does not begin with accepting Jesus Christ as Savior. Christianity begins in Genesis 1:1, God created the heavens and the earth for purpose and destiny which He Himself had determined. Understanding and believing the doctrine of creation in the book of Genesis is foundational in accepting, listen carefully, that the Holy Bible is to be taken seriously when it speaks to the real world.

Now, let's just get the record straight here. This is all about getting rid of God...the God of the Bible, the authority of Scripture with its moral implications. And even Christian people who want to go to Genesis I don't believe have the liberty to tell us that Genesis 1 doesn't mean what it says. Why would we want to join forces with those whose effort is directly against the authority of the God of Scripture? Just...I just need to put that in perspective.
... In the end the evolutionist, the naturalistic evolutionist says, and even the theistic evolutionist says that things happen by chance...chance. We get rid of the God of the Bible, we get rid of the God of Genesis, we get rid of the Creator and then we've got chance. Now this is a pretty interesting thing to think about. I have read this word "chance" over and over and over again in reading the writings of these people and the myth that drives the whole evolutionary process, this entire unbiblical, irrational, immoral idea of evolution, the myth that drives it is the myth of chance...chance. Chance is the cause. In contemporary science, chance takes on new meaning. They don't want God to be the cause, but something has to be the cause so the cause is chance.

If chance as a force exists even in the frailest form, God is ungoded...if there's such a word. The two are mutually exclusive. Either there is a God who created the universe, who sovereignly rules and sovereignly controls, or there's not. If chance exists, it destroys God's sovereignty. If God is not sovereign, then He's not God. If He's not God, then there is no God and chance rules. That's frightening.

End quote. ~Source

You can clearly see how Freewillism and Evolution fit together...its all about chance and their god is sitting by powerlessly, waiting to see what happens.

Here's the thing: either God is clear or He isn't. Either Biblical doctrine is true or its not. There's no mixing truth with error and ending up with truth. Old Earth denies Creation in six literal days, which is nothing less than unbelief and echoing the voice of the Serpent: hath God said?

Begin to doubt literal six day creation by God's speaking forth creation, then there's no reason to really believe a historical Adam and Eve, a Fall, the devil, the Second Adam who is Redeemer, a need for the Redeemer, Heaven, Helletc. It ALL starts with the Beginning. And NO CHRISTIAN DENIES the Genesis account AS WRITTEN. This is vital.

In the same Creation Series, in another sermon, MacArthur says in part [excerpts]:

Quote:

Science is not a hermeneutic for interpreting Genesis...or for that matter for interpreting any other portion of Scripture. Science is not a hermeneutic. It is not a principle of interpretation. The Bible does not bow to science. The accuracy of the Genesis text is no different than the accuracy of any other portion of Scripture. All Scripture is given by inspiration of God. All Scripture is God-breathed. All Scripture comes not by any private interpretation but holy men of God spoke as they were moved by the Holy Spirit.

Jesus summed it up when He said, "Thy Word is truth." The Bible is true whether you're talking about revelation and eschatological prophecy or whether you're talking about Genesis and historic origins. The Bible is true whether you're talking about the history of Israel or the history of the Canaanites. The Bible is true whether you're talking about salvation or sanctification, whether you're talking about the life of Jesus or the theology of Jesus. Whatever the Bible says is absolutely true. And the Bible is as true in Genesis as it is anywhere else, and everywhere else.
Now in spite of that very clear-cut approach to the Word of God, many people, including Christians, have turned to science, turned to scientists who speak authoritatively on Genesis. In fact, there are theologians, many of them, Bible commentators, pastors, well-known popular pastors and preachers, some of whom you would even know who deny the Genesis account. They flatly deny the Genesis account because they accept evolutionary science to one degree or another. I've said this to you all the way along and I'll repeat it again without going in to all the verification...science has proven nothing that negates the Genesis record. In fact, the Genesis record is what answers the mysteries of science. But sadly Christians and Christian theologians, Bible commentators, Christian college professors as well as pastors and teachers have denied the Genesis account, being intimidated by science.

…And an unwavering faith in the accuracy and truthfulness of the Bible is at the heart of all sound theology. And it starts with believing the Genesis account.

Excerpts from Day Six in MacArthur's series :

The bottom line, the Bible ends with a warning that you better not tamper with Scripture. And anyone who tampers with Scripture, to add to it or take away from it, brings himself under divine judgment.

So we could readily conclude that altering the Scripture, tampering the Scripture or just flatly not believing the Scripture is unthinkable for a faithful, wise believer. It's unthinkable. It is only reasonable that an ungodly and foolish unbeliever would attack the testimony of Scripture, and they do that all the time. That's just a way of life with them. For a believer to assault the veracity of Scripture is an unimaginable thing. And yet there are many so-called Christians who do that. They wouldn't deny the morality of the Ten Commandments in Exodus 20, they wouldn't deny the...they wouldn't deny the prophetic testimony of the coming suffering Messiah in Isaiah 53. They wouldn't deny the virgin birth of Jesus Christ. They wouldn't deny the gospel of grace and the need for the new birth. They wouldn't deny other things in Scripture, but they do deny the clear teaching of Genesis chapter 1.

End quote.

Pro 30:6 Do not add to His words, lest He rebuke you and you be found a liar.

Sadly, I must say, many “Christians” who deny the Literal 6 Day Creation have come to deny many other biblical truths. But out-right deny them? In the beginning anyway? No. The enemy is subtle. They "secretly creep in among you". Piper wouldn’t proclaim an unbelief in say, the Ten Commandments. Yet. But he does teach “Christian” hedonism and we see the fallout of that with his involvment in the ecumenical Lausanne Congress. Its also seen in his defiant defense of X-rated Goat Herder Mark Drisoll, or Cussing Paul Tripp, or Wolf Rick Warren. Piper offered Doug Wilson, who denies Justification by Faith alone—that is a denial of the ONLY Gospel that can save.

A Christian believes the Words of Scripture. When God said He created all things in six literal days, defining it by “there was evening and there was morning, the first day”, then we KNOW it’s a 24 hour period. This also supported by the rest of Scripture, especially about the seventh day becoming the Sabbath Day of rest for Jews. This wasn’t a Sabbath rest period of millions of years. Jesus did not stay in the ground for eons. He rose again on the third DAY (the Lord’s Day), according to Scripture.

To deny or even doubt the Six Literal Day of creation view, is then to deny or doubt: historical Adam and Eve, actual Fall, the Serpent who is the Devil, the Second Adam (Jesus Christ), the need for Redemption, instantaneous rebirth/new Creation in Christ (spiritual), literal Heaven and Hell, eternal torment.

To wrongly misinterpret Genesis 1-2 means one will also be wrong on many other important doctrines proclaimed throughout Scripture, not to mention the application of such doctrine.

Cause doubt on the opening three chapters of Genesis, and you’ve just destroyed faith in the rest of Scripture, which IS the sole authority for the biblical Christian. As Spurgeon said: "The case is mournful. Certain ministers are making infidels. Avowed atheists are not a tenth as dangerous as those preachers who scatter doubt and stab at faith."

I believe that this attack on the Word is an attack on God Himself, and its being done by pastors and echoed by their flocks who call Jesus Christ their Lord!

Dr. Henry Morris of The Institute for Creation Research says in an excellent article, "Dangerous Turn Ahead: Traveling Down the road to compromise":

“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.”

Rather than evolution of any variation (and "Theistic Evolution" is merely religiously veiled evolution), Scripture states:

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: 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.

We see this repeated in the miracles of Jesus as well. When Jesus healed and thus creating, as it were, a new limb, new eyesight, or raising someone from the dead, He did it instantaneously and completely.

“A chasm is opening between the men who believe their Bibles and the men who are prepared for an advance upon Scripture. Inspiration and speculation cannot long abide in peace. Compromise there can be none. We cannot hold the inspiration of the Word, and yet reject it; we cannot believe in the atonement and deny it; we cannot hold the doctrine of the fall and yet talk of the evolution of spiritual life from human nature; we cannot recognize the punishment of the impenitent and yet indulge the "larger hope." One way or the other we must go. Decision is the virtue of the hour.Neither when we have chosen our way can we keep company with those who go the other way. There must come with decision for truth a corresponding protest against error. Let those who will keep the narrow way keep it, and suffer for their choice; but to hope to follow the broad road at the same time is an absurdity. What communion hath Christ with Belial?”- Spurgeon

I wrote about this very issue and quote from ICR’s excellent articles on the matter. Bottom line is this: Did God speak or did He not? This is not a matter of opinion, but of Truth. Science NEVER determines doctrinal truth. Science is always in subjection to the Creator and HIS Word.

So, is it any wonder that Piper is ecumenical, denies the literal Six Day Creation, unapologetically and pridefully defends and offers wolves to his followers like Driscoll, Warren, Tripp, and Doug Wilson? No. Piper continues on his pathetic Hedonistic Broad Road under the guise of being “Christian”. This is not only spiritual harlotry, its TREASON against the King-Creator Who has already spoken clearly. And as I have stated before, more will be revealed. The fruit of this spiritual adultery is being revealed. God will NOT be mocked by those who claim to speak on His behalf, to teach His sheep. No man can serve two masters. Truth is knowable and we must, as Christians, be dogmatic on this issue. There is no room for wavering, doubt, reconsideration. God spoke everything into existance in six actual days. Period. Lightly veiled Post-modern "I'm not sure...its just my opinion" cowardice has no place in the mind and heart of a shepherd much less a sheep...if he belongs to Christ.

Do not listen to John Piper, folks. He doesn't offer the pure milk of the Word, but rather, like many hierlings and wolves today, he gives rotten food, poisoned water. Be brave enough...LOYAL enough to Christ, to throw away totally that which is not from Him.

Consider these excerpts of AW Pink:

Quote:

If the God of creation has given us natural palates for the purpose of distinguishing between wholesome and unwholesome food, the God of grace has furnished His people with a capacity, a spiritual sense, to distinguish between nutritious and unwholesome soul food.

"Just as the mouth tastes food—the ear tests the words it hears" (Job 34:3). Does yours, my reader? Are you as careful about what you take into your mind—as what you take into your stomach? You certainly ought to be, for the former is even more important than the latter.

How many of God's dear children listen to the automaton "letter" preachers of today, and yet find nothing suited to the needs of their poor souls!

"Take heed what you hear" and read! More than forty years ago the saintly Adolph Saphir wrote, "I think the fewer books we read—the better. It is like times of cholera, when we should only drink filtered water." What would he say if he were on earth today and glanced over the deadly poison sent forth by the heterodox, and the lifeless rubbish put out by the orthodox? Christian reader, if you value the health of your soul, cease hearing and quit reading all that is lifeless, unctionless, powerless, no matter what prominent or popular name be attached thereto. Life is too short to waste valuable time on that which does not profit. Ninety-nine out of every hundred of the religious books, booklets, and magazines now being published, are not worth the paper on which they are printed!

To turn away from the lifeless preachers and publishers of the day—may involve a real cross. Your motives will be misconstrued, your words perverted, and your actions misinterpreted. The sharp arrows of false report will be directed against you. You will be called proud and self-righteous, because you refuse to fellowship empty professors. You will be termed censorious and bitter—if you condemn in plain speech—the subtle delusions of Satan. You will be dubbed narrow-minded and uncharitable, because you refuse to join in singing the praises of the "great" and "popular" men of the day. More and more, you will be made to painfully realize—that the path which leads unto eternal life is "narrow" and that FEW there are who find it. May the Lord be pleased to grant unto each of us—the hearing ear and obedient heart! "Take heed what you hear" and read!

End quote.

2Co 11:3 But I am afraid that as the serpent deceived Eve by his cunning, your thoughts will be led astray from a sincere and pure devotion to Christ.

Piper and Contemplative Prayer: Rome Had It Right

Piper embraces Contemplative praying even from Romanists (despite his excepting of its mere "bad theology") as reported by Apprising Ministries.

Here we have Contemplative prayer redefined (slaps on "Christian" and "Puritan" and says its the same thing) by Piper just as he redefines hedonism by slapping on "Christian".

This is what I mean when I say many like Piper find "truth in everything", even if it is in Rome. Piper is charismatic which is another reason why he is attracted to the mysticism and is so man-centered. Touchy, feely, emotionally driven is not biblically based. And Rome has nothing right: their practices stem from their damnable doctrines of hell. But I guess that's merely "bad theology".

What does God say about mixing the old with the new?

In salvation:

Mar 2:21 No one sews a piece of unshrunk cloth on an old garment. If he does, the patch tears away from it, the new from the old, and a worse tear is made. 22 And no one puts new wine into old wineskins. If he does, the wine will burst the skins--and the wine is destroyed, and so are the skins. But new wine is for fresh wineskins."

In worship:

Unleaven bread for the Passover and the Lord's Table
Unmixed fabric for the priests (Ex. 28)

In relationships:

No inter-marrying with other nations (Deut. 7)

In all three:

No fellowship between Jesus and Baal; unbeliever and believer; light and darkness (2Cor. 6:14-18)

How did God instruct Israel to conduct their lives and worship toward God? Was God ok with mixing truth with error?

Deu 7:2 and when the LORD your God delivers them before you and you defeat them, then you shall utterly destroy them. You shall make no covenant with them and show no favor to them.
Deu 7:3 "Furthermore, you shall not intermarry with them; you shall not give your daughters to their sons, nor shall you take their daughters for your sons.
Deu 7:4 "For they will turn your sons away from following Me to serve other gods; then the anger of the LORD will be kindled against you and He will quickly destroy you. Deu 7:5 "But thus you shall do to them: you shall tear down their altars, and smash their sacred pillars, and hew down their Asherim, and burn their graven images with fire.
Deu 7:6 "For you are a holy people to the LORD your God; the LORD your God has chosen you to be a people for His own possession out of all the peoples who are on the face of the earth.

So did they obey God?

Psa 106:34 They did not destroy the peoples, As the LORD commanded them,
Psa 106:35 But they mingled with the nations And learned their practices,
Psa 106:36 And served their idols, Which became a snare to them.
Psa 106:37 They even sacrificed their sons and their daughters to the demons,
Psa 106:38 And shed innocent blood, The blood of their sons and their daughters, Whom they sacrificed to the idols of Canaan; And the land was polluted with the blood.
Psa 106:39 Thus they became unclean in their practices, And played the harlot in their deeds.
Psa 106:40 Therefore the anger of the LORD was kindled against His people And He abhorred His inheritance.
Psa 106:41 Then He gave them into the hand of the nations, And those who hated them ruled over them.
Psa 106:42 Their enemies also oppressed them, And they were subdued under their power.
Psa 106:43 Many times He would deliver them; They, however, were rebellious in their counsel, And so sank down in their iniquity.

Roman Catholicism has many pagan practices because it is not of Christ. So why would Piper and Keller and Warren go to pagans and idolators to find spiritual truth?

Practice DOES matter. If its not ordained by God according to Scripture and rather comes from pagans, it stirs His anger, for He is a jealous and holy holy holy God. Only those in Christ have the Light of Truth in them for the Spirit of Truth, the Holy Spirit abides in them. Lest you think "that was the OT times, its ok to find truth in error; we can borrow from unbelievers in our worship of God", you better reconsider:

2Co 6:14 Do not be bound together with unbelievers; for what partnership have righteousness and lawlessness, or what fellowship has light with darkness?
2Co 6:15 Or what harmony has Christ with Belial, or what has a believer in common with an unbeliever?2Co 6:16 Or what agreement has the temple of God with idols? For we are the temple of the living God; just as God said, "I WILL DWELL IN THEM AND WALK AMONG THEM; AND I WILL BE THEIR GOD, AND THEY SHALL BE MY PEOPLE.
2Co 6:17 "Therefore, COME OUT FROM THEIR MIDST AND BE SEPARATE," says the Lord. "AND DO NOT TOUCH WHAT IS UNCLEAN; And I will welcome you.
2Co 6:18 "And I will be a father to you, And you shall be sons and daughters to Me," Says the Lord Almighty.

God's standard hasn't change, because HE hasn't changed.

Mal 3:5 "Then I will draw near to you for judgment; and I will be a swift witness against the sorcerers and against the adulterers and against those who swear falsely, and against those who oppress the wage earner in his wages, the widow and the orphan, and those who turn aside the alien and do not fear Me," says the LORD of hosts. 6 "For I, the LORD, do not change; therefore you, O sons of Jacob, are not consumed.7 "From the days of your fathers you have turned aside from My statutes and have not kept them. Return to Me, and I will return to you," says the LORD of hosts. "But you say, 'How shall we return?'

Heb 12:28 Therefore, since we receive a kingdom which cannot be shaken, let us show gratitude, by which we may offer to God an acceptable service with reverence and awe; 29 for our God is a consuming fire.

Heb 13:8 Jesus Christ is the same yesterday and today and forever. 9 Do not be carried away by varied and strange teachings; for it is good for the heart to be strengthened by grace, not by foods, through which those who were so occupied were not benefited.

Remember Romans 12:1-2?

God is Holy and expects those who follow Him to grow in holiness by His Grace. Just as God struck down Achan and his family for stealing and then lying about it (Joshua 7:1-26), so God destroyed Ananias and Sapphira for the same thing (Acts 5:1-13).

To go to Rome or the New Age mystics in any form is to commit treason against the King of Kings and Lord of lords.

Isa 55:6 "Seek the LORD while he may be found; call upon him while he is near;
Isa 55:7 let the wicked forsake his way, and the unrighteous man his thoughts; let him return to the LORD, that he may have compassion on him, and to our God, for he will abundantly pardon.
Isa 55:8 For my thoughts are not your thoughts, neither are your ways my ways, declares the LORD.Isa 55:9 For as the heavens are higher than the earth, so are my ways higher than your ways and my thoughts than your thoughts.
Isa 55:10 "For as the rain and the snow come down from heaven and do not return there but water the earth, making it bring forth and sprout, giving seed to the sower and bread to the eater, 11 so shall my word be that goes out from my mouth; it shall not return to me empty, but it shall accomplish that which I purpose, and shall succeed in the thing for which I sent it.

"Evangelicalism", MacArthur, Spurgeon and Piper

2Pe 2:1 But false prophets also arose among the people, just as there will be false teachers among you, who will secretly bring in destructive heresies, even denying the Master who bought them, bringing upon themselves swift destruction.


I was finishing John MacArthur's updated "Ashamed of the Gospel" book and he said something that is very applicable to Piper's defiant endorsement of Rick Warren, Doug Wilson, Paul Tripp, and Driscoll. MacArthur says what many of us have observed ourselves.

Here's what MacArthur says in his book (remember this was before Piper came out defiantly promoting Rick Warren):

"..that liberals arose from within evangelical ranks, used evangelical vocabulary, and gained acceptance through relentless appeals for peace and tolerance. The new modernism is following precisely the same course, and that tactice seems likely to take evangelicals by surprise once again.

Most of the market-driven megachurches insist they would never compromise doctrine. They are attractive to evangelicals precisely became they claim to be as orthodox in their doctrine as they are unorthodox in their methodology. Multitudes are sufficiently reassured by such promises and simply abandon their critical faculties, thus increasing their vulnerability. Unfortunately, real discernment is in short supply among modern evangelicals.

– John MacArthur, Ashamed of the Gospel, p. 200

This is absolutely true and what I've been saying about Piper and the Warren/Piper/Driscoll defenders. Maybe hearing MacArthur say it, they'll actually consider it this time.

"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

Spurgeon said:

"We would like to agree with one who says that the bulk of our church-members love the old gospel; but we are not quite sure of it. If there were so general a soundness in the rank and file, would they quietly endure the abounding errors of the pulpits, and the babyish amusements with which congregations are being drenched? We fear the plague is among the people as well as among the priests. Yet, surely, there must be some who will fling aside the dastard love of peace, and speak out for our Lord, and for his truth. A craven spirit is upon many, and their tongues are paralyzed. Oh, for an outburst of true faith and holy zeal!"


Act 20:29 I know that after my departure fierce wolves will come in among you, not sparing the flock; 30 and from among your own selves will arise men speaking twisted things, to draw away the disciples after them. 31 Therefore be alert, remembering that for three years I did not cease night or day to admonish everyone with tears.

Driscoll's Spokesman Slams Christian, Defends Islam

2Co 11:4 For if someone comes and proclaims another Jesus than the one we proclaimed, or if you receive a different spirit from the one you received, or if you accept a different gospel from the one you accepted, you put up with it readily enough.

Slice of Laodicea reports:

“In any case, Bogardus then breaks ranks, calling Schlueter an “extremely anti-muslim right-wing fanatic with a bone to pick with Mars Hill.” Interfaith dialogue between Muslims and evangelical Christians is a good thing, he adds. As for CAIR’s alleged ties to Hamas, Bogardus says he doesn’t know enough to say. Mars Hill, he says, “doesn’t currently keep up with extremist groups and their ties.”

–quote from Nick Bogardus, spokesman for Mark Driscoll, that appeared in a post today in the Seattle Weekly. The post was in regard to the Harambee (Acts 29 Network) Church’s interfaith service, co-sponsored with Muslim Hamas front group, CAIR.

My response: Well, Mark, Nick, if you “currently don’t keep up with extremist groups and their ties,” now would be a good time to start, particularly in light of your support for “Interfaith” meetings with Islamic groups that are so tied to terrorism that the FBI won’t even work with them. Evangelicals are the useful idiots Islamists are using to promote their Islam-lite in America. It will come back to bite.

End quote.

Well said.

Ah, Piper's circle of friends. So loving of error and hateful of Truth. They rather defend Islam and slam a Christian woman. How typical.

Acts 29 and Driscoll's minions are nothing more than adolescent liberals who don't want anyone to "be the boss of me"--always trying to be rebellious and cool, but in reality they are shameful, foolish, and prideful, speaking perverse things and are in impediment to the Gospel. In a word: they aren't Christians.

Rom 16:17 I appeal to you, brothers, to watch out for those who cause divisions and create obstacles contrary to the doctrine that you have been taught; avoid them. 18 For such persons do not serve our Lord Christ, but their own appetites, and by smooth talk and flattery they deceive the hearts of the naive.

Michael Horton to Share Pulpit With Kay and Rick Warren

Look who's holding hands now: Rick Warren, Michael Horton, Kay Warren, and others.

Apparently the big pow-wow is about the "Global church" future.



Dr. Soong Chan Rah from North Park Theolgoical Seminary will be speaking. Northpark Theological Seminary is liberal and feministic as well as Emergent.


Kay Warren will be teaching men. As I have shown before, Ricky IS a feminist and DOES believe women can teach men in the pulpit. He merely played word games with Piper when he said women should not hold the "office" of elder. Warren never said and will never say, that women can't teach men, simply because he believes they can and should. This has been his belief for years. Yet Piper is either ignoring what has been widely known, or he himself is a feminist. Then again, he shares the platform with feminist and false teacher Beth Moore as well as promotes her at his church. Apparently Michael Horton doesn't have a problem with this either. Neither does John Frame and Keller!





Reformer/Presbyterian Michael Horton will be speaking at Warren's "church" and share the pulpit with Kay Warren. This is what I mean when I say Reformers believe there is Truth in everything. There's not a heretic alive according to these Reformers. Then again Horton and the Whitehorse Inn see RCC as a valid church just with differing views (Presybeterians have to because by their own admission Presbyterian founders came out of the RCC--they also see the RCC's view of history and its "church fathers" as valid as well). So why not join hands with Rick Warren and Lausanne Congress leaders?

Lausanne Congress is where Piper will be speaking this October. Its VERY ecumenical. Piper is on the board along with Warren for Lausanne. I have info on the Lausanne conference.


These "Reformer" types are extremely man-centered and liberal. Horton, Piper, Keller---they are CANCER to Christianity because they embrace and promote error and false teachers. They believe there is truth in everything, so they don't reject an entire ministry, man, college, book, church, or movement. To them, biblical doctrine is all optional. Its a matter of one's views and methods. That's all it is for these public figures. Its absolutely a disgrace!
*Update*
More speakers at this Ecumenical Conference Series (hosted by Lusanne):

Darrin Patrick
Joni Erickson Tada - also signed the Manhattan Declaration
Ligon Duncon
Matt Chandler
Os Guiness
Michael Horton
Richard Mouw
Tim Keller - also signed the Manhattan Declaration

Piper: Promoting "Evangelical" Fads

"I do think he’s deeply theological. He’s a brilliant man. He wouldn’t have the church he does or the Peace Plan, or all the influence he does and of course the greatest sentence in the Purpose Driven Life is the first one isn’t it? It’s not about you, it’s about God. The Glory of God. So I don’t think he’s emergent. At root I think he is theological and doctrinal and sound.” ~Piper from the audio

It seems inconsistant with what Johnson himself said a few years ago about Rick Warren:

Excerpts:

But let’s set the critiques aside for a moment. Even if we had no bone to pick with the content or the underlying philosophy of The Purpose Driven Life—is this a really the kind of book that deserves to be the best-selling evangelical work of all time? Is there anything profound or original or exceptionally brilliant about the content of this book? Is it great literature, or especially superb Bible teaching, or excellent theology made understandable in simple terms? It’s none of those things. The extraordinary success of this book stems from a very clever marketing scheme that targeted a specific market at the most opportune time. It hit the shelves at a moment when the evangelical culture was ripe for fads and stampedes.

In The Purpose Driven Church, he says this:
At Saddleback Church we’ve . . . tried to recognize the waves God was sending our way, and we’ve learned to catch them. We’ve learned to use the right equipment to ride those waves, and we’ve learned the importance of balance. We’ve also learned to get off dying waves whenever we sensed God wanted to do something new. The amazing thing is this: The more skilled we become in riding waves of growth, the more God sends!

Ah! so that’s why we have this proliferation of fads. Evangelicals have gotten so skilled at surfing the latest fashions that God just sends more and more of them. And they get bigger every time.
Today’s fad may seem benign enough if you don’t care much about biblical discernment. Rick Warren says he just wants to meet people’s “felt needs” and insists he wants to remain biblical at the same time. Where’s the harm in that? But that philosophy is wrong and unbiblical, because it’s contrary to Paul’s clear command in 2 Timothy 4, to preach the word and refuse to cater to the itch of people’s “felt needs.” Meanwhile, all these fads are moving us further from our evangelical commitment to the principles of sola fide and sola Scriptura.

End quote.

Its ok that Piper promotes the very fad and anti-biblical philosophy he just repudiated some years back? Is it right to defend a man behind a pulpit who consistantly, repeatedly, and defiantly offers false teachers? Does this not show a lack of biblical doctrine and practice, wisdom and discernment?

Perhaps its all mere opinion, including unfaithfully preaching the word and parading around a false teacher. So its not so much unbiblical or wrong, but just different?

Is Biblical Doctrine Optional?

2Co 11:3 But I am afraid that as the serpent deceived Eve by his cunning, your thoughts will be led astray from a sincere and pure devotion to Christ. 4 For if someone comes and proclaims another Jesus than the one we proclaimed, or if you receive a different spirit from the one you received, or if you accept a different gospel from the one you accepted, you put up with it readily enough.

As Apprising Ministries is reporting, Reformed Blogger Adrian Warnock is fully supporting Piper in his invitation of Rick Warren to the Desiring I Don't Know What Kind Of God Conference.

What has Piper done to merrit such uncritical, unrelenting, full support of such destructive teachers and doctrine?

The rejection of the Doctrine of Separation is yet ONE MORE DOCTRINE DEEMED AS OPTIONAL.

Is there a man these Reformed bloggers and pastors would be willing to wholy and completely separate from? On what basis?

The claim of Piper having a "unique gifting and authority" is odd. I don't see anything unique here (he might as well say (or does he?) about Warren or Hinn or Graham?), except that he has a wide audience that crosses denominational lines. When someone is so widely popular without hardly any criticism, that should be a red flag. Why? Because it means that compromise is going on.

Don't believe me? Then ask yourself this:


Is Justification by faith alone an optional doctrine?

Is foul-mouth language and sexually explict talk an optional way to preach and live?

Is a different gospel an option?

Is finding common ground with those in darkness possible?

If you believe Scripture, the answer to all the above should be: NO. This is based on multitude of biblical passages throughout Scripture.

Justification can ONLY be by faith alone apart from works:

Rom 4:5 And to the one who does not work but believes in him who justifies the ungodly, his faith is counted as righteousness, 6 just as David also speaks of the blessing of the one to whom God counts righteousness apart from works…

Gal 2:16 yet we know that a person NOT JUSTIFIED BY WORKS of the law but through faith in Jesus Christ, so we also have believed in Christ Jesus, in order to be justified by faith in Christ and NOT BY WORKS of the law, because by works of the law no one will be justified.

Foul mouths and sexually charged language:

Eph. 4: 29 Do not let any unwholesome talk come out of your mouths, but only what is helpful for building others up according to their needs, that it may benefit those who listen.

Eph 5:3 But sexual immorality and all impurity or covetousness must not even be named among you, as is proper among saints. 4 Nor should there be obscenity, foolish talk or coarse joking, which are out of place, but rather thanksgiving.

A different gospel isn’t optional:

Joh 8:24 I told you that you would die in your sins, for unless you believe that I am he you will die in your sins."

Gal 1:6 I am astonished that you are so quickly deserting him who called you in the grace of Christ and are turning to A DIFFERENT GOSPEL-- 7 NOT THAT THERE IS ANOTHER ONE, but there are some who trouble you and want to DISTORT THE GOSPEL OF CHRIST. 8 But even if we or an angel from heaven should preach to you A GOSPEL CONTRARY to the one we preached to you LET HIM BE ACCURSED.

Eph 2:8 For by grace you have been saved through faith. And this is not your own doing; it is the gift of God, 9 not a result of works, so that no one may boast.

Rom 11:6 But if it is by grace, it is no longer on the basis of works; otherwise grace would no longer be grace.

Titus 2: 1 You must teach what is in accord with sound doctrine.

False Teachers and the Doctrine of Separation:

Mat 7:15 "Beware of false prophets, who come to you in sheep's clothing but inwardly are ravenous wolves.

Mar 13:22 For false christs and false prophets will arise and perform signs and wonders, to lead astray, if possible, the elect.

Mat 24:11 And many false prophets will arise and lead many astray. 12 And because lawlessness will be increased, the love of many will grow cold.

Rom 16:17 I appeal to you, brothers, to watch out for those who cause divisions and create obstacles contrary to the doctrine that you have been taught; AVOID THEM. 18 For such people are not serving our Lord Christ, but their own appetites. By smooth talk and flattery they deceive the minds of naive people. 

2Co 11:12 And what I do I will continue to do, in order to undermine the claim of those who would like to claim that in their boasted mission they work on the same terms as we do. 13 For such men are false apostles, deceitful workmen, disguising themselves as apostles of Christ. 14 And no wonder, for even Satan disguises himself as an angel of light. 15 So it is no surprise if his servants, also, disguise themselves as servants of righteousness. Their end will correspond to their deeds.

2Jo 1:7 For many deceivers have gone out into the world, those who do not confess the coming of Jesus Christ in the flesh. Such a one is the deceiver and the antichrist. 8 Watch yourselves, so that you may not lose what we have worked for, but may win a full reward.

1Co 5:11 But now I am writing to you NOT TO ASSOCIATE with anyone who bears the name of brother if he is guilty of sexual immorality or greed, or is an idolater, reviler, drunkard, or swindler--not even to eat with such a one.

Do not be deceived: "Bad company ruins good morals." (1Co 15:33)

Tit 1:9 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.

2Jo 1:9 Everyone who goes on ahead and does not abide in the teaching of Christ, does not have God. Whoever abides in the teaching has both the Father and the Son. 10 If anyone comes to you and does not bring this teaching, do not receive him into your house or give him any greeting, 11 for whoever greets him takes part in his wicked works.

1Jo 4:1 Beloved, do not believe every spirit, but test the spirits to see whether they are from God, for many false prophets have gone out into the world.

2Tim. 4: 14 Alexander the metalworker did me a great deal of harm. The Lord will repay him for what he has done. 15 You too should be on your guard against him, because he strongly opposed our message.

3 John 9 I wrote to the church, but Diotrephes, who loves to be first, will have nothing to do with us. 10 So if I come, I will call attention to what he is doing, gossiping maliciously about us. Not satisfied with that, he refuses to welcome the brothers. He also stops those who want to do so and puts them out of the church. 11 Dear friend, do not imitate what is evil but what is good.

2 Tim. 2: 16 Avoid godless chatter, because those who indulge in it will become more and more ungodly.17 Their teaching will spread like gangrene. Among them are Hymenaeus and Philetus, 18 who have wandered away from the truth. They say that the resurrection has already taken place, and they destroy the faith of some.

Are you willing to say that despite all that God has said in the above passages, its still ok to strutt a false teacher in front of the sheep?

Common Ground with Those Outside Jesus Christ:

2Co 6:14 Do not be unequally yoked with unbelievers. For what partnership has righteousness with lawlessness? Or what fellowship has light with darkness? 15 What accord has Christ with Belial? Or what portion does a believer share with an unbeliever? 16 What agreement has the temple of God with idols? For we are the temple of the living God; as God said, "I will make my dwelling among them and walk among them, and I will be their God, and they shall be my people. 17 Therefore go out from their midst, and be separate from them, says the Lord, and touch no unclean thing; then I will welcome you, 18 and I will be a father to you, and you shall be sons and daughters to me, says the Lord Almighty."

3Jn 1:7 For they have gone out for the sake of the name, accepting nothing from the Gentiles.

Jesus calls for whole churches to repent of the tolerance of false teaching among their midst. He certainly did not say just to ignore the bad parts. His rebuke was widespread:

Rev 2:2 "'I know your works, your toil and your patient endurance, and how you cannot bear with those who are evil, but have tested those who call themselves apostles and are not, and found them to be false.

Rev 2:14 But I have a few things against you: you have some there who hold the teaching of Balaam, who taught Balak to put a stumbling block before the sons of Israel, so that they might eat food sacrificed to idols and practice sexual immorality. 15 So also you have some who hold the teaching of the Nicolaitans. 16 Therefore repent. If not, I will come to you soon and war against them with the sword of my mouth.

Rev 2:20 But I have this against you, that you tolerate that woman Jezebel, who calls herself a prophetess and is teaching and seducing my servants to practice sexual immorality and to eat food sacrificed to idols. 24 But to the rest of you in Thyatira, who do not hold this teaching, who have not learned what some call the deep things of Satan, to you I say, I do not lay on you any other burden. 25 Only hold fast what you have until I come.

The myth of “fair and balanced” (offering truth alongside falsehood; false teachers and true teachers) as biblical is repudiated by Christ Himself.

Rev 3:14 "And to the angel of the church in Laodicea write: 'The words of the Amen, the faithful and true witness, the beginning of God's creation. 15 "'I know your works: you are neither cold nor hot. Would that you were either cold or hot! 16 So, because you are lukewarm, and neither hot nor cold, I will spit you out of my mouth. 17 For you say, I am rich, I have prospered, and I need nothing, not realizing that you are wretched, pitiable, poor, blind, and naked.

Mat 16:6 Jesus said to them, "Watch and beware of the leaven of the Pharisees and Sadducees."

1Co 5:8 Let us therefore celebrate the festival, not with the old leaven, the leaven of malice and evil, but with the unleavened bread of sincerity and truth.

1Co 5:6 Your boasting is not good. Do you not know that a little leaven leavens the whole lump?

Gal 5:7 You were running well. Who hindered you from obeying the truth? 8 This persuasion is not from him who calls you. 9 A little leaven leavens the whole lump.
Mat 7:21 "Not everyone who says to me, 'Lord, Lord,' will enter the kingdom of heaven, but the one who does the will of my Father who is in heaven. 22 On that day many will say to me, 'Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in your name, and cast out demons in your name, and do many mighty works in your name?' 23 And then will I declare to them, 'I never knew you; depart from me, you workers of lawlessness.'

Luk 6:46 "Why do you call me 'Lord, Lord,' and not do what I tell you?

Piper: its all about Me

Watcher's Lamp blog pegs Pipergate well:

"What John Piper conveys is his confidence in his personal ability to qualify Warren's theology by asking theological questions. John Piper apparently believes that he is immune to deception because of his theological brilliance.

Smugness is revealed when John Piper laughs when he says "I’m gonna need help to know why I should feel bad about this decision." It seems pride may be blinding John Piper's discernment. "

He goes on to say:

It seems pride may be blinding John Piper's discernment.

"So I made a list"

"I think Rick Warren meant it when he began the Purpose Driven life with “It’s not about you."

"I could even tell you other things he said he’s not but that… that might offend uh… too many people."

"I… I’m uh… I’m uh… I need … I’m gonna need help to know why I should feel bad about this decision. (Laughs)"

Read more here.

(Does anyone else think he's sounding a lot like Warren here?)

I wonder, if Piper was shown how horrific the PDL book is and Warren's myriad of quotes of heresy, would he still promote him as a friend, Reformed, and "theologically deep"? I say yes, because there's never enough evidence for a skeptic. Note that he put the burden of proof on everyone else. The thing is we've already proven the heresies of Rick Warren and PIPER HAS NOT LISTENED ALL THESE YEARS!

Other lesser known pastors have done their research and came to a completely opposite conclusion than Piper regarding Warren: he is not only NOT theologically "deep", but he gives a false gospel. What does Scripture say about such a person? Welcome them to the pulpit? Warmly greet them? Defend them as brothers? It says such a man is ANATHEMA. It says DON'T EVEN GREET such a man, for to do so is to partake in his wicked deeds. (Gal. 1:8-9; 2John 9-11).

When Phil Johnson gets snarky and calls us "shrill" and "hysterical" its godly (and then he quotes a HERETIC, Doug Wilson, about needing to calm down so we don't have to "breath into a paper bag"! A heretic telling the sheep to simmer down, that there's nothing to worry about? The Serpent Speaketh!), but when we rightly deal with his pal Piper, he calls us "insulting" and that we need to be respectful toward Piper. I guess we aren't worthy of respect from Johnson. Its ok for him to insult us---we're nobodies in his eyes. I'm so glad God uses the weak, the insignificant, the uneducated, the feeble, to display HIS glory and power.

This is the sin of favoritism James talks about which God condemns without qualification:

Jas 2:1 My brothers, show no partiality as you hold the faith in our Lord Jesus Christ, the Lord of glory... 3 and if you pay attention to the one who wears the fine clothing and say, "You sit here in a good place," while you say to the poor man, "You stand over there," or, "Sit down at my feet," 4 have you not then made distinctions among yourselves and become judges with evil thoughts?Jas 2:8 If you really fulfill the royal law according to the Scripture, "You shall love your neighbor as yourself," you are doing well. 9 But if you show partiality, you are committing sin and are convicted by the law as transgressors.

Insert "the one who has a seminary degree" or "the one who is a famous pastor" for "the one who wears fine clothing" and you see the issue is just as relevant today as it was back then.

See what it would look like:

Jas 2:1 My brothers, show no partiality as you hold the faith in our Lord Jesus Christ, the Lord of glory... 3 and if you pay attention to the one who is famous and a seminary graduate and say, "You sit here in a good place," while you say to the unknow and uneducated man, "You stand over there," or, "Sit down at my feet," 4 have you not then made distinctions among yourselves and become judges with evil thoughts?8 If you really fulfill the royal law according to the Scripture, "You shall love your neighbor as yourself," you are doing well. 9 But if you show partiality, you are committing sin and are convicted by the law as transgressors.

I don't like inserting words into Scripture, but I do it to visually demonstrate the issue of the sin of favoritism. Its easier to write off if one thinks its merely about the rich vs. the poor. But its MORE than that. Its about favoring a group or person over another, which is evil according to God.

Rom 2:11 For God shows no partiality.

Gal 2:6 And from those who seemed to be influential (what they were makes no difference to me; God shows no partiality)--those, I say, who seemed influential added nothing to me.

And of elders: 1Ti 5:20 As for those who persist in sin, rebuke them in the presence of all, so that the rest may stand in fear. 21 In the presence of God and of Christ Jesus and of the elect angels I charge you to keep these rules without prejudging, doing nothing from partiality.

Partiality or favoritism is the issue of sin here--no matter if you are talking about rich vs. poor, educated vs. uneducated, inner circle of the elite vs. outside the circle and not of the elite.