Please do some research before spouting off about somebody. The heretic label is one that is vastly ignored in an effort to be nice in modern Christianity. However, that does not mean that one should run around labeling people with it willy nilly simply to make up for the lack of it. Please do some research and make loving conjectures.

I think he is now worried that we will no longer buy his books etc.

Well, he lost me a while back anyway. But how sad to see him defend RW’s take on what Piper glosses over concerning major, central issues.

It’s like when one is talking to a cultist, you have to first realize that you each have very different meanings to the major words you will use in an exchange.

Doesn’t Piper know that WE know that?

Repentance to Rick Warren could be very different than what Piper (supposedly) believes.

From my reading of Purpose Driven Life and hearing Warren speak a number of times, I believe he is way off the Biblical mark and more on the Catholic mark.

Does Piper truly NOT see that? I don’t know.But I do think I know this.

This is a stage in the deception of the sheep that Piper thinks will go over the heads of those who are part of the Baptist GC, (CONVERGE).

Since some of the Converge other deceptions have been embraced.
Those who have been listeners of Piper and read his books may also not be thinkers and can be persuaded to accept Warren simply because Piper is backing him.

This is not going to work with those who have such an appreciation for the work of the Savior in their lives that they are willing to go against the herd at their own church if necessary and be considered an opposer.

I still say though that God will deal with Piper. If he is HIs.
But it’s important to warn people about Pipers deceptions in the mean time.
I didn’t leave the Catholic church and get other family out just so 30 years later I would return and bring my family with. very sad.

I just watched that snippet you linked to, wherein Warren told folks to give Jesus a 60 day trial run.

sigh

Not only does he come across as a used car salesman (as noted on A Little Leaven), he displayed his belief in a universal atonement.

Of course, the Jew and the Roman Catholic sitting on either side of him loved the message.

I have no words to describe my disgust with Warren’s influence in our society.

Why John Piper Invited Rick Warren to the 2010 Desiring God National Conference

Thanks for the info. Well, Piper says Warren is “theological”, “sound”, “not Emergent”, and is “reading the works of Jonathan Edwards”. And so that’s supposed to make me ignore all of Warren’s grossly unbiblical teachings? And “not Emergent”? Are you kidding me? The really tragic thing is all the untold thousands of gullible people who are going to accept Warren’s teachings now that Piper says he’s OK. The more I hear Piper and his outrageous, bold endorsements of rank heretics, the more I can see where his protege Driscoll got some of his errors.

This is a good example of just why it’s so dangerous to follow men, and why it’s so critical to stand firm, not on what any man says, but on what God has said in His word.

“and from among your own selves men will arise, speaking perverse things, to draw away the disciples after them. Therefore be on the alert…” Acts 20:30 – 31a

Many of us are aware of Rick Warren’s another gospel and another Jesus, but this video will take his blasphemy to new depths.

WARNING: Do not watch this video during or immediately following a large meal.

http://www.alittleleaven.com/2008/12/rick-warren-give-jesus-a-60-day-trial.html

Here is one more snippet into Mr. Warren’s theological priorities.

GRAB BIBLE & LISTEN TO GOD ALMIGHTY!

DavidW, just another reason why I won’t listen to or read anything by John Piper now. He’s going down that slippery slope faster and faster now.

LIE WITH DOGS , WAKE WITH FLEAS-

MRWBBIII

Thanks for the video. Here is one confused man, cooing over his “spiritual son”, a prominent Emergent leader.

Now there’s an interesting statement Piper makes in a YouTube video on the Emerging Church. Piper tells us he believes the Emerging Church is a “fading reality” and that he thinks “it has seen its best days.” He goes on to say:”Its leadership is in shambles; and I could give you horrible specifics from personal lives; that I know about, that aren’t public yet. Um, and that’s not surprising concerning how low their view of truth, and doctrine is.”

If Piper truly believes Emergent leaders have a low view of truth and doctrine, why is he so supportive of Driscoll, who was a member of the Leadership Network, which was largely responsible for bringing about Emergent Christianity? And if Driscoll’s Emergent leadership isn’t clear enough, let’s look at what he has said in his “Radical Reformission”: “Now that the time has come to write, I am presenting this book as a contribution toward the furtherance of the emerging church…” (p. 17)

This irony would be very amusing, if it weren’t for the tragic, mutually misguided loyalties of the two deceived men. All the more reason to follow God and His word alone!

http://www.discernthetime.com/messageboard/showthread.php?t=6686

There is a morphed group of reformed now who have called themselves, New Calvinists.

The above posts are even more concerning when one can trace the roots of these men to Leadership Network

‘bear in mind that in Acts 29 Network there is promotion of the false teachings of spiritual disciplines. (Mark Driscoll and Piper and Keller and Chandler connected.. and more..)

There is the popular language of missional, plus these men see no wrong in “contexualization” of scripture. (which IMO declare it insufficient!–very very bad)

You hear “meeting the culture”, “engaging the culture”, Planting, planting..

Is not the Gospel and the Word of God not the SWORD? ‘piercing the soul asunder?

Who builds the house? The planter? Or God?

I believe this is an invasion of a very deceptive heresy which sadly many men who have been held in regard are adhering to.

Oh.. and of course don’t forget the sex talk on Driscoll’s website and link for sextools.

Driscll has got to go.

Praying the Lord would handle this and also that He would cause greater concern within the church body to what is going on here.

If you are only finding a “LOT of generalizations” here, then you are either reading with your mind made up or have not read far enough in regards to Mark Driscoll. There is more than enough evidence that we have posted on this website to show without a shadow of a doubt that Driscoll is disqualified from ministry and to also show that Driscoll’s enjoyment of certain things reveals a far different Christianity than claimed by the New Testament church. A true believer does not relish and wallow in his vulgarities and sexual problems like Driscoll has AND continues to do til this day. Driscoll has NEVER openly and publicly repented of vulgarities and sexual innuendos that continue to flow from his pen and lips. If he has, it has been concealed very well.

As for Piper endorsing Driscoll with “no known retractions”, my statement still stands. The reference was in regards to Piper. Piper continues to endorse Driscoll, continues to share the pulpit with him, etc. Piper has NEVER openly retracted his endorsements of Driscoll. Instead, he continues to circumnavigate the demands of Scripture about giving public rebuke and admonition to a person who is in open sin before God and bringing shame to the church and the testimony of Jesus Christ.

By the way, there is a HUGE difference between “readjusting his sails” because he has a few people get their feathers ruffled versus truly repenting of his “errors” sins! Having theology that is “spot on” means nothing when your heart is far from God. I don’t care whether every “big-name” preacher ends up endorsing the coarse jesting, vulgar talk, high-school locker room sexual talks, etc. — IT WILL NEVER MAKE IT OR DRISCOLL OR PIPER RIGHT BEFORE GOD!

One more point, you stated that you do not find our “arguments against Driscoll overly theo centric (sic)”. I guess it truly depends on your perspective of Scripture. If your perspective is based on man-made wisdom and feel-good theology then I can understand your point. In fact, I can very easily see why you would not consider the demeaning of the testimony and gospel of Jesus Christ and the clear warnings of Scripture to not be in accord with what you think you should expect here at DefCon.

The Desert Pastor

You said:
2) Openly endorsing Mark Driscoll (the vulgar, sewer-mouthed talker) with no known retractions

Mark Driscoll has had at least 2 retractions when confronted directly by Piper that I am completely aware of and has publically been stated on Pipers and Driscoll BLOGs. One item was a complete retraction of something off of driscolls BLOGs.

Mark Driscoll has also openly and publically repented of his vugarities.

I am finding a LOT of generalizations on this BLOG…. but still looking to decide for myself on Driscoll.

excuse the late reply, I didn’t ‘CONFIRM’ the follow-up comment email and so I didn’t think anything was responded to. I appreciate the spirit of your reply.

You do make some good points, and I certainly don’t believe well-known men are to be excluded from the application of discernment. Of course there are many who simply won’t investigate this matter because they equate ‘the blessing of GOd’ and ‘fame’ as one. I wouldn’t want people NOT to look into this matter or keep a close eye on these things, yet at the same time there are those who have a weird fetish with being a remnant among th remnant and they are those who rejoice to see such things because they are convinced that ‘success’ is equal to the ‘curse of God’, so I hope both extremes may be avoided.
If more information comes available, I do hope you will write more. I totally disagree with some of his associations and recommendations, and I likewise cringe at the thought of babes in Christ (even those saved fro 30+yrs) receiving material based on a recommendation or association.

As concerns the gospel, Piper is fluent in preaching the gospel and unless things have changed I believe he’s solid on that, even if his wording is too (intentionally I assume) novel.
Blessings brother

Praise God for men not ashamed to take a stand,
no matter how “unpopular”.

I agree with many of your criticisms of these criticisms (as I elaborated in my first comment here). However, when you say “THe article by TRINITY.. stinks, it’s more of a rant over Covenant theology then anything else” – can you honestly say that Piper’s declaration that our “final salvation” is conditioned upon our meeting various conditions (at least 11 of them) is anything short of heretical? That declaration is saying that God will accept us into heaven on the basis of what we do. Christ’s atonement may be necessary, but it’s not sufficient, for we all have to do various things in addition. If the article is a rant, do any parts have value, or are they just angry rhetorical flourishes? Robbins quotes from Piper on several occasions – either Piper is misrepresented in these quotes, or undue theological significance is placed upon them. Which is it? I have Piper’s Future Grace, and from my estimation, Robbins did justice to what Piper was saying there. So, the issue is – is this simply a matter of academic dispute, or is this a serious issue that affects the nature of the Gospel? I don’t see it being any other way than the latter. Jesus calls us to come to Him, and He says that He will give us rest (Matt. 11:29), not 11 conditions that we have to meet to obtain our final salvation.

Grace and peace,
Vox

Thanks for stopping by again. I have read some of your posts and found several to be insightful. I understand the frustration of finding an article questioning the doctrine or associations of people we have long appreciated.

You are correct that speaking the truth in love must be from both sides. This is why I have tried to be very careful in all that I have said. I do not put any posts on here that I have not given long and serious consideration about what I share. I fully realize that several are reading here and it is not the intention to unduly influence anybody. However, we believe that we must share the truth no matter what others may think.

Our apologies for any comments that have been included that were written in an angry spirit. We will seek to be more careful in what is written and what is permitted to be left on this site. Thank you for pointing out your concerns.

To conclude, each person has to make their own decisions. If a person feels they can associate with Piper or recommend his books, that is their decision. However, I am firmly convinced that far too many associations and recommendations take place for the wrong reasons when it comes to preachers who are well-known. If a little known person were to make some of the comments made by Piper or were to endorse somebody like Wilson of FV, they would removed from their places. However, a well-known person can do the above and people begin to come out of the woodwork to defend them. Why is that?

So what about those who associate with John Piper and those who recommend his books? Are they heretics? I’d erase this post or at least provide some concrete claims (rather then ‘here’s a one pager with a couple links showing Piper is heretical).

I do hope people will honestly test the things that have been said, by applying the same standards they would use concerning ‘normal’ preachers.

Though I don’t listen to Macarthur much and though I don’t agree with some of his systems, I am extremely grateful that he isn’t quick to endorse anyone and is willing to point out the errors/heresies of the popular in a pastoral/watchmen way (not as a super-critical ‘burn-em-at-the-stake’ railer) this is quite rare!

Blessings

Thank you for those links {even though they were not directed at me} :)

I had been breifly looking for some resources on that, Wikipedia just is not trustworthy.

Cheers!
_________________________________________________________
Desert Pastors wife,

Hello. I dont think I have ever engaged in dialogue with you before :) Lovely to ‘meet’ you.

I think it a huge call to say that Piper believes the ONLY way to glorify God is to enjoy Him.

DavidW,

Your right. We’ll leave it at that :)
Pleasure to discuss this with you.

~Much Christian love.

Here is a short piece that highlights the main problems with the Federal Vision:

http://www.trinityfoundation.org/PDF/251_FederalVision.pdf

Here is another essay, which is interesting in that it attempts to trace the Federal Vision heresy back to Norman Shepherd (who taught justification by faith and works, which FV’ers do today), and ultimately back to defective views of Scripture espoused by Dutch theologians. At the very least, it’s good food for thought on the matter:

http://www.trinityfoundation.org/PDF/242-JustControversyGuide4Perplexed.pdf

If this is just one of them then why make it the whole statement of the book? Piper has made that his whole premise for the Christian life and by doing that he has left out all the other things that is included which brings us to a point that it is a caricature of the Lord if, according to Piper, the only way of glorifying God is by enjoying Him. By obedience to the Lord, we have enjoyment in Christ but how can one say that the only way to glorify God is BY enjoying Him. If we take the statement, "The chief end of man is to glorify God AND enjoy Him forever," we see that we can glorify God in many different ways. Take the new statement, "The chief end of man is to glorify God BY enjoying Him forever," you now have a brand new statement that tells us the only way to glorify God is by enjoying Him. You have just stated that it is one of them but Piper is stating that is the only way to glorify God when he changed his 'and' to make it a 'by'. Can't have it both ways! Either you glorify God and enjoy Him or you glorify God by enjoying Him!

Rhology:
I don’t get the joke. And I don’t think this is the place for jokes about what is or isn’t heretical. Scripture tells us to test all things by God’s word. We don’t judge anyone or any teaching to be guilty until proven innocent.

Hi brother. You say ” can glorify God BY obedience, BY repentance, BY sacrificial love for another, BY lots of different expressions. ” [emph.added.]

Then how on earth can’t you glorify God BY enjoying Him.

You know, we can get all out of balance.

Having a right view of man; that he is depraved and dead in sin, can have us Reformed guys walking around all miserable like….

“I am no sinful, my heart is so decietful, “oh wretched man that I am”, oh I am wicked”, we say. [rightly so]

BUT, what about the joy! what about the victory! what about the hagiosmos! ?

A Christian glorifies God by being a number of things and one of them is enjoying Him for all that He is.

I just finished this short book and found it most excellent in explaining “Calvinism” – http://shop.churchandfamilyreformation.org/Doctrines-of-Grace-Rediscovering-the-Evangelical-Gospel-BKDOGJBPR.htm

It’s a great place to start in one’s quest to understand the pillars of Reformed theology.