The Amazon Fires Aren't A Crisis

Like so many of the environmental scare stories which grip the world’s media periodically, it is a panic which has been deliberately and cynically stoked by left-leaning eco-activist groups for a number of purposes:

To generate public hysteria in order to precipitate expensive and unnecessary government action which no sober cost benefit analysis could ever justify

To raise ‘awareness’ — and, by extension, money — for the green cause

To discredit conservatives, especially those who are properly sceptical of the green agenda, such as President Trump and his Brazilian counterpart Jair Bolsonaro

To reinforce in the popular imagination the notion that economic growth and expressions of national sovereignty — in this case the interests of Brazilian farmers — are intrinsically bad for the environment

To promulgate the common received idea that the Amazon is the ‘lungs of the planet’ and therefore sacrosanct and inviolable in much the same manner as polar bears, glaciers, Pacific islands, the Great Barrier Reef, etc.

To lend false credibility to the global left’s claim that the planet is experiencing a #ClimateEmergency

To invoke the spectre of the Green New Deal and, by extension, to rain on the parade of Trump 2020

To exploit the mainstream media’s insatiable demand for environmental scare stories, especially in the August “silly season” when there’s a shortage of real news

Here is the truth about the Amazon fires:

The fires are mainly on agricultural land – not virgin rain forest…

It wasn’t always rainforest…

There is nothing abnormal about this fire season

Even NASA admits this…

Deforestation is getting better, not worse

The Amazon rainforest does NOT produce 20 per cent of the world’s oxygen

From a 2008 article ‘Brazil: Ancient Amazon Actually Highly Urbanised’

~Breitbart article

A quote from NYT of all places:

From a 2014 New York Times article by Nadine Unger, Assistant Professor of Atmospheric Chemistry at Yale:

Moreover, it is a myth that photosynthesis controls the amount of oxygen in the atmosphere.

Even if all photosynthesis on the planet were shut down, the atmosphere’s oxygen content would change by less than 1 percent.

The Amazon rain forest is often perceived as the lungs of the planet.

In fact, almost all the oxygen the Amazon produces during the day remains there and is reabsorbed by the forest at night.

In other words, the Amazon rain forest is a closed system that uses all its own oxygen and carbon dioxide.

End quote. (bold, my emphasis)

It shows graphs, tweets, NASA stuff.

Watch Out For The Bait of Fake Hypotheticals

Here's an excerpt from a very good short article I read recently in ICR's "Acts & Facts" by Dr. James S. Johnson. He uses a skeptic's question at an ICR event in Massachusetts back in February 2019 to demonstrate that not all questions are legitimate. Moreover, many questions, particularly by skeptics, I believe are just veiled accussations and definitely not sincere questions. He quotes the "question" by the accusors:

 “Some say that minor errors in the Bible are okay because they don’t hurt the Bible’s main message—but how do you deal with the Bible’s errors?” The scoffer added, “How do you fix your theology when new scientific discoveries prove that your literal belief in the Bible doesn’t work?”

Notice how the critic’s leading questions included built-in assumptions: “The Bible contains errors. Your theology is broken. Science disproves the Bible. A literal belief in the Bible is unreasonable.” They are similar to this unfair question: “Yes or no, have you stopped beating your wife?”

Beware! Before you let a critic’s question put your faith on trial, put the question itself on trial. Judge it for legitimacy—it might be deceptively illegitimate....

At a recent ICR event in Massachusetts, an attendee asked a trap-loaded question: “Some say that minor errors in the Bible are okay because they don’t hurt the Bible’s main message—but how do you deal with the Bible’s errors?” The scoffer added, “How do you fix your theology when new scientific discoveries prove that your literal belief in the Bible doesn’t work?”

Notice how the critic’s leading questions included built-in assumptions: “The Bible contains errors. Your theology is broken. Science disproves the Bible. A literal belief in the Bible is unreasonable.” They are similar to this unfair question: “Yes or no, have you stopped beating your wife?”

Beware! Before you let a critic’s question put your faith on trial, put the question itself on trial. Judge it for legitimacy—it might be deceptively illegitimate.

End quote. 

~Dr. Johnson, ICR

He went on to demonstrate how Jesus Himself did not consider all questions as legitimiate when dealing with the Saduccees for example in Matt. 22:23-29 regarding "serial marriages". Footnote #4 is also worth quoting:

"Nevertheless, the skeptic argued that his question deserved an answer, because maybe “modern science” would/could/might somehow disprove some Scripture details. Obviously, Christ Himself disagreed with that attitude—and Christ’s knowledge outranks any skeptic’s speculations—so accommodating and endorsing skeptics’ speculations are both needless and unwise (Matthew 5:18; John 5:44-47; Luke 16:31). Also, notice in 1 Timothy 6:20-21 that careless attention to so-called science causes many to err from the biblical faith."

The Earth's Age Is Knowable Both Biblically and Scientifically

I found a good article on knowing the age of the earth by using the genealogies in Scripture, from ICR. Here's an excerpt and chart from the article:

Quote:

When Abraham was born, how old (or young) was the earth? Can we know the answer with confidence? Yes, if God has given us the information we need in Genesis. And He has. But to recognize it requires reading, writing, and 'rithmetic--and one more critical ingredient: avoiding the irrelevant issue of whether Genesis genealogies are "open" or "closed."

Read that last sentence again; it is the key to avoiding confusion. Some people assume that the historical events related in the early chapters of Genesis cannot be precisely dated because we cannot be certain whether the genealogical lists are complete ("closed") or whether they skip generations and have gaps (and are thus "open"). The issue is irrelevant because the timeframes given in Genesis are measured by the number of years between one event and another event, regardless of how many generations occurred between those "bookend" events...

Go here for the rest of the article which explains by examples in Scripture.

Scientifically, here's a list of 14 evidences for a young creation.

John Cooper of Skillet

When someone admonishes Christians about not elevating popular "Christians" too high,  ("We must STOP making worship leaders and thought leaders or influencers or cool people or 'relevant' people the most influential people in Christendom," he said, adding, that "yes, that includes people like me!"" but he's attached to the world and the subculture of grunge/alternate/heavy metal rock and looks like this for a magazine...

I'm thinking he has nothing that I need to hear. It's quite hypocritical too, since he's doing the very thing he's rebuking: wanting to be front and center, an "influencer" himself (yup he's been nominated for awards for his "rock").

Evangelicals looking to a heavy mental rock band member for spiritual truth is like asking an actress for wisdom in economics.  

Skillet has opened for Creed, Nickleback, Korn and other Grunge, post-Grunge, hard metal rock--so both "Christian" and secular.

Quote:

Cooper said art can speak religiously to him, even if it wasn’t intended that way. The vice versa is how Skillet has reached so many listeners, especially those outside of the Christian community.

Without having bible-verse lyrics, the band’s faith does come through in Skillet’s music. In fact, the Christianity in Skillet’s music is so broad, that some Christians are offended about the band’s lack of the “wholesome look.” The band’s faith thematically shines through Skillet’s lyrics. Principally, through the theme of hope.

“Even when we sing about dark things or struggles in life, there is always a bit of hope, and it can hopefully inspire people to see the brighter side of life, and see their worth as a person,” Cooper said.

“You can listen to Skillet and never have any idea that it was Christian music..."

However, Cooper said Skillet doesn’t feel out of place touring with bands who do behave in the “typical” rock and roll light.

“I’ve been lucky to have a lot of friends that paint me with the same respect of, ‘hey we’re not a Christian band, but we don’t care what you guys believe, we’re going to bring you on tour anyways’,” Cooper said. “I don’t expect other people to live the way that I live, and I don’t judge people for what they do. But I always respected the people that took a bit of a risk on Skillet like that.”

For Cooper, it’s about the music. “That is why we go out with other bands even though they think something different than what we think. It doesn’t matter. They get to sing what they want to sing and we get to sing what we want to sing,” Cooper said. “Music should bring people together, really.”

...Cooper’s new metal side-project, Fight the Fury. Fight the Fury isn’t a Christian band... The band has recently released its debut EP and is touring Russia.

Cooper started Fight the Fury to stick to his metal influences. Fight the Fury explores the darker side Cooper’s music, and reverberates metal powerhouses like Iron Maiden, Metallica, and Korn.

~ https://www.inkedmag.com/.../john-cooper-skillet-interview.

Quote:

In an interview with STLtoday, front man of the band Skillet, John Cooper, went into greater detail about why he and his band prefer to avoid using the word "Christian."

"I just tell people I'm in a hard-rock band. I leave 'Christian' out," he told STLtoday. "A lot of people don't know what Christian rock is, or they think it's only for Christian people. We're not a band that only sings to Christian people. I meet tons of fans, and I've had fans that said, 'I'm an atheist and I love your message.' "

The rocker stated he does not however want anyone to think he is hiding his faith.

"I want to make it clear Skillet is never embarrassed about the fact we're in the Christian music industry or that we're a Christian band," he explained. "Everywhere we play, I talk about my faith. I leave the 'Christian' off because I don't want to alienate."

Cooper told the publication that attracting the mainstream is key for the group, and he stated Skillet is the most openly crossover Christian rock band since Stryper. Although he does not want to use the label "Christian," Cooper believes the Lord called him to tell people about Jesus.

~breathcast

So how can he "led" people to Christ if he doesn't speak of the biblical Jesus? He admits to wanting to blend in with the world and not offend them. He in fact is ashamed. And instead he loves to identify with the world. And Evangelicals are hailing this guy as a someone who's telling the truth and should be lauded?

1Pe 4:15 By no means let any of you suffer as a murderer, or thief, or evildoer, or a troublesome meddler; 16 but if anyone suffers as a Christian, let him not feel ashamed, but in that name let him glorify God.

Then on the one hand Cooper says:

"And will your ideas of what is “good” be different from year to year based on your experience, culture trends, poplular opinion etc and furthermore will you continue year by year to lead others into your idea of goodness even though it is not absolute?

We need to value truth over feeling. Truth over emotion. And what we are seeing now is the result of the church raising up influencers who did not supremely value truth who have led a generation who also do not believe in the supremacy of truth. And now those disavowed leaders are proudly still leading and influencing boldly AWAY from the truth." - August 2019

Yet to People Magazine he said in July 2019 (Note "metaphysical" and "transcendental" and the words to describe FEELINGS and EMOTIONS:

“This has a certain metaphysical element to it — that we are living in the ‘right here right now,’ but then our lives will be over and all that’s left is what we stood for,” he shares. “That’s why I wanted the video to have a transcendental quality and tons of lighting effects to give being a supernatural quality to the song. And tons and tons of energy!”

“‘Legendary’ felt like the right first single because it’s so high energy. It feels like a song that should be played in a stadium while your favorite team is winning,” Cooper says. “It’s energetic, positive, and inspiring. It’s what the world needs to hear right now.”

https://people.com/music/skillet-legendary-music-video-premiere/ 

His supposed church doesn't seem sound as it has multiple sights including overseas, and promotes Alpha Course (mystic heresy) and social justice works.

Jas 4:4 You adulteresses, do you not know that friendship with the world is hostility toward God? Therefore whoever wishes to be a friend of the world makes himself an enemy of God.

Joh 15:18 "If the world hates you, know that it has hated me before it hated you.

Joh 15:19 If you were of the world, the world would love you as its own; but because you are not of the world, but I chose you out of the world, therefore the world hates you.

Joh 15:20 Remember the word that I said to you: 'A servant is not greater than his master.' If they persecuted me, they will also persecute you. If they kept my word, they will also keep yours.

Luk 6:26 "Woe to you when all men speak well of you, for in the same way their fathers used to treat the false prophets.

There's no such thing as a "silent" witness for Christ. That's not evangelism.

Rom 10:14 How then shall they call upon Him in whom they have not believed? And how shall they believe in Him whom they have not heard? And how shall they hear without a preacher?
Rom 10:15 And how shall they preach unless they are sent? Just as it is written, "HOW BEAUTIFUL ARE THE FEET OF THOSE WHO BRING GLAD TIDINGS OF GOOD THINGS!"
Rom 10:16 However, they did not all heed the glad tidings; for Isaiah says, "LORD, WHO HAS BELIEVED OUR REPORT?"
Rom 10:17 So faith comes from hearing, and hearing by the word of Christ.

The Problem With Thinking Evangelical Leaders Are Entrusted To "Safeguard the church"

Saw this quote today: "We are in the middle of a war for the soul of the visible church. We are in a civil war, going up against the Evangelical Leaders who’ve been entrusted to safeguard the church, but have betrayed each and everyone of us by allowing Social Justice & Cultural Marxism to infiltrate the church without putting up any resistance."

Who made these men the leaders of "the church"? Who? By what authority? An institution? A consensus? A popular teacher? This is one of the most corrupting influences of the local churches today next to the biggest problem of doctrinal triage. There is no such thing as elders of other churches having authority over anyone else's church--that notion is straight out of Roman Catholicism. 1 Peter 5 makes it clear that elders are to shepherd the sheep of the local flock God gives them. The epistles lay out the structure and function of the local church and it's leadership--and nowhere in Scripture does it give some sort of universal power, leadership, or authority over multiple flocks. Also one cannot test up close and personally men who claim to be elders--the requirements necessitate the testing of their private lives by observation, for example. This is impossible to do when the teacher is not part of the local flock, miles and miles away. Biblcal elders live among the sheep, they don't jet in, give a speech, get paid, and then jet out. There is accountability to be had by the elders to the local assembly. WE test THEM. WE observe them up close. WE discern and vigorously test them. This is impossible for anyone who floats around running from church to church, conference to conference, seminary to seminary (neither conferences nor seminaries are part of the local assembly and won't be found anywhere in Scripture).

1Pe 5:2  shepherd the flock of God among you, exercising oversight not under compulsion, but voluntarily, according to the will of God; and not for sordid gain, but with eagerness; 3  nor yet as lording it over those allotted to your charge, but proving to be examples to the flock. 

2Ti 2:2  And the things which you have heard from me in the presence of many witnesses, these entrust to faithful men, who will be able to teach others also. 

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

Joh 10:1  "Truly, truly, I say to you, he who does not enter by the door into the fold of the sheep, but climbs up some other way, he is a thief and a robber. 

Joh 10:2  "But he who enters by the door is a shepherd of the sheep. 

Joh 10:3  "To him the doorkeeper opens, and the sheep hear his voice, and he calls his own sheep by name, and leads them out. 

Joh 10:4  "When he puts forth all his own, he goes before them, and the sheep follow him because they know his voice. 

Joh 10:5  "And a stranger they simply will not follow, but will flee from him, because they do not know the voice of strangers." 

Joh 10:6  This figure of speech Jesus spoke to them, but they did not understand what those things were which He had been saying to them. 

Joh 10:7  Jesus therefore said to them again, "Truly, truly, I say to you, I am the door of the sheep. 

Joh 10:8  "All who came before Me are thieves and robbers, but the sheep did not hear them. 

Joh 10:9  "I am the door; if anyone enters through Me, he shall be saved, and shall go in and out, and find pasture. 

Joh 10:10  "The thief comes only to steal, and kill, and destroy; I came that they might have life, and might have it abundantly. 

Joh 10:11  "I am the good shepherd; the good shepherd lays down His life for the sheep. 

Joh 10:12  "He who is a hireling, and not a shepherd, who is not the owner of the sheep, beholds the wolf coming, and leaves the sheep, and flees, and the wolf snatches them, and scatters them. 

Joh 10:13  "He flees because he is a hireling, and is not concerned about the sheep. 

Joh 10:14  "I am the good shepherd; and I know My own, and My own know Me, 

"The Calling To The Ministry"

The Evangelical's sin of partiality is shown in the way they raise elders above other Christians by how they describe their position (career): "the calling to the ministry".

There is one faith, one calling, one Lord, one body of doctrine, one baptism. Yet "pastors" and those wanting to be "pastors" talk about THE calling to THE ministry, as if it's of special distinction.

Jas 2:1 My brethren, do not hold your faith in our glorious Lord Jesus Christ with an attitude of personal favoritism.

1Co 12:22 On the contrary, it is much truer that the members of the body which seem to be weaker are necessary;

1Co 12:23 and those members of the body, which we deem less honorable, on these we bestow more abundant honor, and our unseemly members come to have more abundant seemliness,

1Co 12:24 whereas our seemly members have no need of it. But God has so composed the body, giving more abundant honor to that member which lacked,

1Co 12:25 that there should be no division in the body, but that the members should have the same care for one another.

Mar 10:42 And calling them to Himself, Jesus *said to them, "You know that those who are recognized as rulers of the Gentiles lord it over them; and their great men exercise authority over them.

Mar 10:43 "But it is not so among you, but whoever wishes to become great among you shall be your servant;

Mar 10:44 and whoever wishes to be first among you shall be slave of all. We don't see that in Evangelicalism. We see elders flying around in first class, given posh houses, cars, offices. We see them get the best seats in the *house*; get free sporting events tickets, Disneyland tickets (nearly $150 per ticket now), kitchen remodels, houses bought, loans given (never to be repaid); conferences, meals (called "ministry") all paid for by the church.

They are considered the only ones who really know the Word and can interpret it correctly--everyone else is held in low regard and patronized at best (which is derision). They are believed over and above non-seminary, non-network Christians. When shown their sin, there is at attempt at justifying,cover up, slander, gossip, threats and the casting away of those who brought it to their attention--even removing them from their jobs ("ministry") (or attempting to), using family members against them, or using family members to shield them. They double dip: salary pay plus "honorariums" when feeding everyone else's flock while away from their own. They get all of this tax-free, while the sheep don't. They are shielded from true persecution while their pack of elders circle around a true sheep of Christ as they plan their attack on him or her and assault them. Yet none of them live lives of true suffering and persecution (being confronted is twisted into "persecution" which then is more sin). They want the benefits of being a shepherd but none of the true hardships and vigorous testing that true ones welcome.

The Ends Justify The Means Is Not Biblical

1 Sam 15:22b Behold, to obey is better than sacrifice, And to heed than the fat of rams.

1Ti 3:2 An overseer, then, must be above reproach, the husband of one wife, temperate, prudent, respectable, hospitable, able to teach..7 And he must have a good reputation with those outside the church, so that he may not fall into reproach and the snare of the devil.

The opposite of the self-serving "It's better to ask forgiveness later than to get permission now", which was used to justify not submitting to WASC (which said "no" to adding the seminary as MacArthur admitted) in creating TMS. Go here for the audio (first portion, starting at time mark 4:50) (I don't endorse The WartburgWatch website.).

"The ends justify the means" Post-Modern pragmatism is not biblical--it's secular humanism and therefore can't honor the King of kings and Lord of lords.

MacArthur's Rejection of WASC's Rejection Of Adding A Seminary: do it anyway and hope for forgiveness

John MacArthur speaks to The Master's Seminary students in August 21, 2018 and talks about the WASC issue. Big PR stunt. It's very disturbing to hear his anger and belief of his own PR.  At time mark 5:03 is where he talks about hoping for forgiveness later because they had already told them no to a seminary.

**I don't endorse The WartburgWatch website, but they're the ones with the audio which is what is of interest. **

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