James White on Rick Warren's latest compromise

So for anyone who thinks that Rick Warren knows the Gospel:

Mark Driscoll: A Pile of Dead Bodies behind the Mars Hill Bus

Chris Rosebrough in his latest radio podcast has exposed *Pope* Mark Driscoll's tactic of "blessed subtraction." One wonders why anyone think that Driscoll is even called a pastor since his conduct here is more like a hired hand.

Rick Warren the Anabaptist, on Twitter

Some time ago, Rick Warren tweeted the following:

I replied with the following tweets, following which it seems Rick Warren decided to block me from following him.

The Schleitheim Confession was the confession of faith of Anabaptists connected with Michael Slatter. As with many Anabaptists and their related documents, it is thoroughly moralistic in tone.

While Anabaptism is varied and diverse such that one should speak of AnabaptismS, yet a common motif is one of moralistic change. As opposed to the Magisterial Reformation, Anabaptists focus greatly on visible reform of practice and morals. Doctrine generally takes second place to that of moral reform, with the idea of "separation" from the world running amok in the Hutterites establishing communes distinct from the "evil secular" world around them. That is why I do not like the nomenclature of the Anabaptists as being part of the "Radical Reformation." It is radical alright, radical Medieval spiritualist revival that is.

The Schleitheim Confession is one such moralistic document. Looking at it one understands why Rick Warren loves it, because both of them are basically Semi-Pelagian legalists in orientation. Rick Warren, unless the Spirit works repentance in his heart, does not treasure sound doctrine. Rather, everything is all about having an immediate (i.e. without mediation) encounter with Jesus through "spiritual disciplines" and "40 Days of _____ (Purpose, Community, Vision etc)."

Those who wonder why Warren loves the Medieval mystics should not be surprised. In fact, I would be surprised if he does not identify with his spiritual forebears. Warren as a practical Semi-Pelagian share the same soteriology as the Medieval mystics. As the Reformation rejected the Medieval mystics (together with the trappings of Roman piety) and the Anabaptists, so also those of us who truly follow Christ according to the dictates of His Word should likewise reject Rick Warren.

Rick Warren denies the Gospel, on tweet

Imputation is 1sided but fellowship with Christ is 2sided.Koinonia means PARTICIPATION! God want your passion,not passivity — Rick Warren via Twitter

[Source]

I guess I should not be surprised, but when a supposed pastor think that the doctrine of imputation is (1)one-sided, (2)unimportant, then you know that the Gospel message is not believed by him. The focus on fellowship more than the Gospel sounds more like the unbiblical Eastern Orthodox teaching of theosis than the biblical doctrine of Justification by Faith Alone.

The part about passion seems more in line with the enthusiasm of radical Anabaptism. There is nothing wrong with passion per se, but there is everything wrong when passion is the goal. Even worse, Warren thinks that God wants our passion, as if God desires our good works and high emotions.

Warren does not believe in the biblical Gospel, no matter how much "paint" Piper uses in an attempt to whitewash him. His religion is American revivalist moral therapeutic deism, and should be treated as such.

Rick Warren and John Piper: A Video

It has been said that a picture is worth a thousand words. Well, here is a video contrasting the teachings of John Piper and Rick Warren, which makes Piper's compromise of the Gospel even more astonishing

[HT: Apprising Ministries]

F4F: Chris Rosebrough's Interview of Phil Johnson

Chris Rosebrough has done an interesting inteview with Phil Johnson over John Piper's interview of Rick Warren here.

Satire: Why I like T.D. Jakes

Satire is based upon this dated post by Tullian Tchividjian.

---

The Bible makes it clear that God’s people face three enemies: the world, the flesh, and the Devil. This means that T.D. Jakes is NOT our enemy. For those of you who proudly bash Jakes, you should be ashamed of yourselves. I used to take pride in my critique of T.D. Jakes. His books, Woman, Thou Art Loosed and Why? Because You are Anointed have some glaring weaknesses. But they have some strengths too; they are not wholly devoid of truth. Let me be very clear: It is NOT Reformed (much less Christian) to glean truth, beauty, and goodness only from Christians who are Reformed. In fact, because of the Reformers (Luther, Calvin, Knox, etc) firm belief that “all truth is God’s truth” we should glory in truth wherever it is found–yes even when it is found in books written by T.D. Jakes

But it’s not T.D. Jakes' books or T.D. Jakes’ church that impress me. It’s T.D. Jakes. I’ve met him and he is a genuinely humble guy (it’s easy to critique a person that you’ve never spent time with). In an Evangelical world where financial and moral integrity are becoming increasingly hard to find amongst its leaders, T.D. Jakes is above reproach. He doesn’t take himself too seriously (we could all learn from him on this point) and he’s actually getting his hands dirty serving the common good of humanity. I’m not bad at theologizing about cultural transformation. But I have a long way to go to catch Jakes when it comes to actually transforming this present world into the world to come. T.D. Jakes is doing more to bring God’s Kingdom “on earth as it is in heaven” than most of us. He may not be a Calvinist theologically, but he certainly puts many of us Calvinists to shame when it comes to being a Calvinist practically: caring for widows and orphans, helping the poor and sick, and humbly serving those in need. He’s doing more good than harm for the Kingdom and if you love the King, that should make you happy.

I hope that you will be more inclined to pray for Jakes than you are to critique him. Critiquing him (or anybody else, for that matter) is beneficial where and when he misses the mark (either personally or theologically). But if you find more joy and satisfaction in critiquing him where he is wrong than you do in praising God where he is right, than you need to repent. I know, because I had to. Enjoy this helpful article.

---

Just a small comment: I have no idea that being a Calvinist practically means "caring for widows and orphans, helping the poor and sick, and humbly serving those in need." All the while, I thought being a Calvinist practically means believing in the Gospel of free grace and trusting Christ alone for salvation, and desiring to serve Christ in this world through good works.

This is called worship at Saddleback Church

This is a part of Saddleback Church's worship. I really wonder who is being worshipped here, plus what biblical basis do any of the lyrics have.

James White on Rick Warren at DG2010

Dr. James White has recently been "forced" to listen to and evaluate Rick Warren's DG2010 "sermon" on the recent No Compromise radio talk show here with Mike Abendroth. Together with Chris Rosebrough's evaluation, Warren's message has been shown to be totally unbiblical, or perhaps since Warren defines sin as mental illness, he is being particularly insane while giving that "sermon".

Rick Warren: The use of psychoanalysis and the violation of Mt. 7:1

@RickWarren: Some people only feel close to God when they're angry & attacking. It's caused by fear & deep disappointment. Just love them.

(Source)

One characteristic seen in the twitter feed during DG2010 after Warren's "message", for example in Ed Stetzer's tweet, is the judgmental attitude of these leaders and/or followers towards their critics. A recent Rick Warren tweet perfectly illustrates the issue at hand.

I know a brother in Christ whom I shall not name who I would place in the New Calvinist camp. One of the conflicts we previously have had was over something akin to this. It amazes me constantly how much information they think they can infer from, in this case my actions on the blogosphere, and from there psychoanalyze me. I have heard it myself that in his view, the critics who have the same view as me and encourage me on many of these issues (ie being against Rick Warren) are most probably men who hide in their mothers' basements in some house in Grand Rapids, Michigan, typing away on their computers.

My intention here is not to attack my friend who has since apologized, especially because he is indeed genuinely concerned for me (although the concern was misplaced), but to use this episode as an example of what it seems is epidemic within the so-called Evangelical and New [Evangelical] Calvinist mindset. I am astonished where all these stereotypes come from, and am sad that those who are termed "critics" are pigeonholed into these categories and judged as such.

Warren's latest tweet, as I have mentioned, perfectly illustrates the problem. The question is: How does Warren (or anyone else for that matter except for God) knows that the critics are critics because of "fear and deep disappointment"? I can grant that some critics may be such, but upon what basis does Warren judged the motives of any and every particular person of whom some he has never even meet or converse in person (not that such would excuse Warren anyway)?

Mt. 7:1-5 state:

“Judge not, that you be not judged. For with the judgment you pronounce you will be judged, and with the measure you use it will be measured to you. Why do you see the speck that is in your brother's eye, but do not notice the log that is in your own eye? Or how can you say to your brother, ‘Let me take the speck out of your eye,’ when there is the log in your own eye? You hypocrite, first take the log out of your own eye, and then you will see clearly to take the speck out of your brother's eye. (Mt. 7:1-5)

As Matthew Henry exposited this passage:

The prohibition; Judge not. We must judge ourselves, and judge our own acts, but we must not judge our brother, not magisterially assume such an authority over others, as we allow not them over us: since our rule is, to be subject to one another. Be not many masters, Jam. iii. 1. ... We must not judge rashly, nor pass such a judgment upon our brother as has no ground, but is only the product of our own jealousy and ill nature. We must not make the worst of people, nor infer such invidious things from their words and actions as they will not bear. We must not judge uncharitably, unmercifully, nor with a spirit of revenge, and a desire to do mischief. We must not judge of a man's state by a single act, nor of what he is in himself by what he is to us, because in our own cause we are apt to be partial. We must not judge the hearts of others, nor their intentions, for it is God's prerogative to try the heart, and we must not step into his throne; ...

— Matthew Henry's Commentary on the Whole Bible (Source). Bold added

Warren stands in blatant violation of Mt. 7:1 in its original meaning of the verse. As Matthew Henry later points out, this passage is not against judging per se but hypocritical judging (and judging of motives). In the same way that we judge we will be judged (cf Mt. 7:2). The Warren critics that I know of use the standard of the Word of God, and therefore we will be held to the same standard of orthodoxy that we use with regards to the application of Mt. 7. Warren however judges intentions based upon his bias interpretation of the actions of others, and his own standard of judging will automatically condemn him. The last command by Warren "Just love them" is so condescending it is insulting and demeaning to anyone it applies to, as if critics are to be treated like insane relatives who are to be loved and their insane actions are to be tolerated because they can't make themselves behave properly.

Is this how the New Calvinists are going to treat critics? If so, they stand in violation of Mt. 7:1 and in fact violate the ninth commandment in bearing false witness against the brethren.

Chris Rosebrough's analysis of Warren's sermon at DG2010

Chris Rosebrough has recently analyzed Rick Warren's DG2010 conference message on his Fighting for the Faith podcast. Hearing Warren's sermon myself and not just reading the notes, I am astonished how unorthodox it is, to say the least; it was worse than I thought from reading the notes. Warren's message is truly Christless Christian Moral Therapeutic Deism as its "best". Half truths and twisting of Scripture are ubiquitous throughout the message, showing Warren's seeming inability NOT to twist Scripture.

It is indeed sad to see the New Calvinists vigorously defending John Piper and now Rick Warren. It seems to me that a significant portion of the New Calvinist movement is engaging in hero worship of the prominent leaders within the movement, and whatever these leaders do and say are always correct. Ironically, the theme of the DG2010 conference is "Think", but it seems that the New Calvinists just checked in their brains when it comes to the actions and teachings of their leaders.

One of the prominent New Calvinists, Ed Stetzer, had tweeted:

Disappointed to see the trolls out during the @RickWarren #DGNC message. Get a new "ministry." #TiredOfAngryCalvinists (Source)

It seems to me that a significant proportion of the New Calvinist movement have taken on the characteristics of the world in her rebellion against God. The [political] Liberals tend to label those who disagree with them on issues such as "homosexual marriage" as "bigots". Similarly, it seems that a lot of Christians are ready to slap labels and infer motives of those who disagree with them on whatever topic. So those who are against Warren and Piper's invitation to Warren are judged to be "haters", "trolls" and "fundamentalists" ad infinitum ad nauseum.

If there is one time Mt. 7:1 really does have a proper application instead of being normally misquoted, it is here. It is simply astonishing to me how the motives of those who disagree with Warren, and Piper and the New Calvinists, have been inferred and attacked. One wonders what basis are such ad-hominem attacks based upon. Where are the biblical counter-arguments disputing our disagreements with Warren or Piper's invitation to Warren? If there is (besides Richard Abanes' terrible booklet which I have refuted in my book), I have yet to see any of them.

I will wait for the New Calvinist biblical counter-arguments to defend such blatant compromise, but I am not holding my breath for that to happen. If personal experience is anything to go by, the demand for biblical counter argumentation will be ignored together with our warnings, and the New Calvinists will continue their "ministries" while moving along the downgrade.

After all, wasn't it said that "The road to hell is marked with good intentions"? Experience, intuition and motives are never reliable indicators of truth and faithfulness to God's Word, and this applies to those of the New Calvinists too.

Rick Warren and more twisting of Scripture

Over at BetterThanSacrifice.Org, Rick Warren's twisting of Scripture in his DG2010 conference message is exposed as can be seen here.

Much of modern evangelicalism seems to be fixated upon the idea that we can only progress as individual Christians and the church if we are pursing a dream or vision. This tendency is epitomized in these two claims:

Nothing happens till somebody starts dreaming. What we need today are great dreamers.

Those words occur not on the website of some ‘best-life-now’ life coach, but, rather surprisingly, in a post over at the Desiring God website:

• The Battle for Your Mind (Desiring God 2010 National Conference)

There we are given the command to ‘Let God stretch your imagination’ and told that ‘Nothing happens till somebody starts dreaming. What we need today are great dreamers.’

Now, where exactly does the Bible teach any of this?

[more]

It seems that twisting of Scripture is a pathological condition for Rick Warren; sadly he just can't stop doing it.

Rick Warren's recent challenge (revised)

Rick Warren recently tweeted:

I challenge any church in America to match the spiritual maturity, godliness & commitment of any 500 members of Saddleback

Besides the sheer arrogance of it all, one thing which struck out the most was the utter man-centeredness of this tweet. The best of Christians are always struggling with sin, and they come to realize how far they fall short as they grow in godliness. Warren's tweet seeks to compare the supposed "maturity" of his members with others. When one compares with other men, one can always look good. After all, "I am not as bad as this or that guy". But when we compare ourselves to the objective standard of Christ and his holiness, things start to look different. The holy prophet Isaiah was undone before the most holy presence of God (Is. 6), and I'm sure none of Warren's flock or even Warren himself can compare to that holy prophet.

Warren's tweet continues to reveal how man-centered he is indeed. After all, this is the type of fruit we should sadly expect from a man-centered "gospel" (Mt. 7:15-20).

P.S: Rick Warren it seems has taken his tweet down. Here is a snapshot of the tweet as linked from Facebook:

PPS: Rick Warren's latest tweet states:

I delete tweets when people misjudge motive. It's a waste of time to blog a full explanation to those who want to argue

So yes, that was Rick Warren and not a hacker who tweeted that.

Rick Warren, church discipline and the idea of membership covenants

Practically, and here I just think he could put me to shame with his aggressively, in-your-life, transformative discipling of his church. Uh, they have a membership covenant that you have to sign, and it is really rigorous and there are no inactive members and he said, “We discipline people in this church. They don’t fulfill their covenant? They’re gonna be disciplined.” And on and on.

— John Piper, 09:44-10:19

In the video placed by the DG team on their website of Pastor John Piper attempting to defend his invitation of Rick Warren, the following reasons were offered by Pastor John Piper:

1. Rick Warren is orthodox and believes in sound doctrine (addressed here)
2. Rick Warren is reading through Jonathan Edwards (utterly irrelevant; I am reading Richard Dawkins now which according to this reasoning means... )
3. Rick Warren is a Baptist (Baptists are not exempted from heresy — think of the infamous Anabaptist Munsterites)
4. Rick Warren has a high view of ecclesiology and practices church discipline

The last supposed reason offered by Piper is very troubling indeed to those of us who have seen and even experience the fruit of Warren's philosophy of ministry. There is a difference between biblical church discipline, and the supposed "church discipline" exercised in the Purpose Driven paradigm. "Church discipline"and "membership covenants" in the Purpose Driven paradigms function as tools for the leaders of PD churches to control their flocks and remove resistors who oppose their visions. Like the Charismatic Shepherding Movement, such "church discipline" and "membership covenants" are tools for the control of members.

In the book Transitioning (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 2000) by Purpose-Driven hireling Dan Southerland of Church Transitions Inc., Southerland states

[In the process of transitioning a church] Nothing shoots vision in the foot quicker than it being leaked before it is fully formed or before the time is right for it to be shared with the entire church (p. 77)

Let me put it plainer than that. Sanballat is a leader from hell. I have not looked it up, but I am convinced that the Hebrew word for Sanballat means leader from hell.

We [PD leaders] all have some Sanballats in our churches. This is the guy who opposes whatever your propose. The guy who hates whatever you like. The guy who wants to back up every time you want to move forward. You cannot call this guy a leader from hell to his face — but you could call him Sanballat. (p. 115)

Southerland in his book, based upon a terrible eisegesis of the book of Nehemiah, teaches the process of transitioning a church to become a "Purpose-Driven church". The PD pastor of the church is to start by forming a vision team to slowly "cast" the vision without informing the members, wooing the "power brokers" in the church to the PD pastor's side (pp. 68-69), and then slowly implement the changes such that the members would not notice the transitionings the Church has undergone until it is too late. Those who remain steadfast in their opposition of the takeover of their church are to be demonized as "Sanballat" and ultimately kicked out of the church.

This then is the "church discipline" that Warren alludes to. As for "church covenants", such are made to ensure that all members follow the PD vision for the church, which is not at all biblical.

“Woe to the shepherds who destroy and scatter the sheep of my pasture!” declares the Lord. Therefore thus says the Lord, the God of Israel, concerning the shepherds who care for my people: “You have scattered my flock and have driven them away, and you have not attended to them. Behold, I will attend to you for your evil deeds, declares the Lord. (Jer. 23:1-2)

The word of the Lord came to me: “Son of man, prophesy against the shepherds of Israel; prophesy, and say to them, even to the shepherds, Thus says the Lord God: Ah, shepherds of Israel who have been feeding yourselves! Should not shepherds feed the sheep? You eat the fat, you clothe yourselves with the wool, you slaughter the fat ones, but you do not feed the sheep. The weak you have not strengthened, the sick you have not healed, the injured you have not bound up, the strayed you have not brought back, the lost you have not sought, and with force and harshness you have ruled them. So they were scattered, because there was no shepherd, and they became food for all the wild beasts. My sheep were scattered; they wandered over all the mountains and on every high hill. My sheep were scattered over all the face of the earth, with none to search or seek for them.

“Therefore, you shepherds, hear the word of the Lord: As I live, declares the Lord God, surely because my sheep have become a prey, and my sheep have become food for all the wild beasts, since there was no shepherd, and because my shepherds have not searched for my sheep, but the shepherds have fed themselves, and have not fed my sheep, therefore, you shepherds, hear the word of the Lord: Thus says the Lord God, Behold, I am against the shepherds, and I will require my sheep at their hand and put a stop to their feeding the sheep. No longer shall the shepherds feed themselves. I will rescue my sheep from their mouths, that they may not be food for them. (Eze. 34:1-10)

The terrible abuse of the flock for their own personal gain in building their own empires is judged by the Word of God severely. The PD pastors do not feed the flock, but instead feed on them, scattering them everywhere for them to become food for the enemy.

How different is biblical church discipline from the travesty of the PD paradigm! Biblical church discipline is always about the good of the flock and based upon the standards of Scripture. It is not done because the member opposed some so-called "vision" concocted out of the minds of strategists and not from the teachings of Scripture.

It is truly sad that people including Piper do not understand the PD redefinition of "church discipline" and the use of a "membership covenant" to bind the consciences of men to whatever the Church does even when it is not biblical. The ruthless and heartless PD enterprise of kicking out resistors and the biblical doctrine of church discipline are poles apart, and to equate them show the grossest ignorance on this issue.

Rick Warren and Orthodoxy

In the recent controversy involving John Piper inviting heretic Rick Warren for the DG2010 conference, Piper has posted a video whereby he posed doctrinal questions to Rick Warren to answer. Not surprisingly, Warren gave solid and reasonably orthodox answers to the questions posed to him. On the basis of such answers, Piper pronounced Warren as being essentially sound in doctrine.

So what's the problem here? The problem can be glimpsed at perhaps in this quote from the White Horse Inn blog here:

His best-selling book, The Purpose-Driven Life, begins by announcing that it’s not about you, but about God, and then the rest of the book is about you. There seems to be a contradiction between the God-centered theology that is professed and the basically human-centered orientation that dominates much of his message and methods. ...

Pastor Warren tailors his appeals to his audience. To Calvinists, he stresses his support for the “solas” of the Reformation. Yet he tells prosperity evangelist David Yonggi Cho, “I’ve read your books on Vision and Dreams - speak to pastors about how you hear the voice of the Holy Spirit?… What advice would you give to a brand new minister?… Do you think American churches should be more open to the prayer for miracles?” (“Breakfast With David Yonggi Cho And Rick Warren,” Pastors.com). In a June 2006 article in JewishJournal.com, editor-in-chief Rob Eshman reported on a speech that Warren gave for Synagogue 3000, after Rabbi Ron Wolfson became involved in the Purpose-Driven pastoral training seminars. “Warren managed to speak for the entire evening without once mentioning Jesus — a testament to his savvy message-tailoring.” When USA Today asked him why Mormon and Jewish leaders are involved in his pastoral training programs, Rick Warren reportedly said, “I’m not going to get into a debate over the non-essentials. I won’t try to change other denominations. Why be divisive?” (USA Today, July 21, 2003). Rick Warren endorses a host of books, from New Age authors to Emergent writers to conservative evangelicals. So why not include Calvinists?

The issue of orthodoxy for Warren is that doctrine for Warren is purely intellectual. This is precisely why in the Purpose Driven Life, Rick Warren on page 213 can state that

The last things many believers need today is to go to another Bible study. They already know far more than they are putting into practice. What they need are serving experiences in which they can exercise their spiritual muscles

Doctrine in Warren's mind is purely academic. The problem with Rick Warren is NOT that he does not know what is orthodox truth. After all, Warren has a doctorate, albeit from the liberal Fulller Seminary, thus he can give all the orthodox answers. The problem with Rick Warren is that he does not believe the doctrines that he knows. For if he does, his practices will not be what they now are.

For example, if Warren actually believes that pastors are meant to be shepherds who are entrusted with the Gospel message, then he would not be involved with all the seeker-sensitive nonsense. There would be no need to do surveys of the unreached and no need to tailor the message to them. If Warren actually believes that we are Christ's ambassadors who are supposed to represent Christ, and that salvation is totally of God, then he wouldn't be too bothered with attempting to get into the good books of men by spinning the Gospel in order to do what he thinks is God's Will in the area of social service. (Contrary to what some may believe, I do not think it is necessarily wrong for a church to get involved in social service. But such is not the primary business of the church.) There would probably not be an outcry if Warren was orthodox and practice the theology he professed, quietly laboring in his church without disturbing other churches (think Church Transitions Inc.) and then decide to start programs to help the poor and needy etc.

This disturbing feature in Rick Warren is sad in and of itself. Faith consists of Knowledge, Assent, and Trust (as understood classically). In the classical sense, Warren does not have trust. In the Clarkian sense, Warren's assent is false. In what I think is the Witsian sense, Warren's "faith" does not have substance and no confidence on the reality of the object of that faith. In each sense, Warren does not have true faith in the doctrines he profess to believe in.

So the mere fact that Warren professes orthodoxy means nothing much at all in and of itself. Even the Devil can pass a theological exam with flying colors, but that does not mean that he has suddenly come to believe the truths of God (cf Jas. 2:19). Rather, as the book of James in chapter 2 verses 14-26 remind us, our profession of faith is meaningless apart from our showing that we actually have faith by our actions. In the context of doctrine, being able to give orthodox answers to a list of doctrinal questions is meaningless apart from our showing that we actually do believe in these doctrines by our practice. As it is written:

But someone will say, “You have faith and I have works.” Show me your faith apart from your works, and I will show you my faith by my works. You believe that God is one; you do well. Even the demons believe—and shudder! Do you want to be shown, you foolish person, that faith apart from works is useless? ... You see that a person is justified by works and not by faith alone. (Jas. 2:18-20, 24)

Customized for Rick Warren, it will state

But you will say, “You have orthodoxy and I have orthopraxy.” Show me your orthodoxy apart from practicing what you claim to believe, and I will show you my orthodoxy by practicing what I do in fact believe. You know all the correct doctrines; you do well. Even the demons know them — and shudder! Do you want to be shown, Pastor Warren, that professing orthodox doctrines without practicing them is useless? ... You see that a person's standing as one who is truly orthodox is manifested by his putting them into practice and not by mere profession alone.

May we not be fooled by professed orthodoxy and instead insist that the doctrinal practices of preachers such as Rick Warren match up to what they profess to believe.

Peter Masters on the dangers of not practicing secondary separation

In his booklet Stand for the Truth, Rev. Dr. Peter Masters of the Metropolitan Tabernacle informs us of the dangers of not practicing secondary separation. In his own words:

... When professing evangelicals (especially leaders) disobey the command of God to maintain a distinctive testimony, unassociated with false teachers, they participate in the evil deeds of the latter in at least four different ways:

(1) Non-separators deal a terrible blow to the exclusive nature of the message of the Gospel. When evangelicals are seen to accommodate the viewpoint of non-evangelicals and to accept their claims to spiritual life, the clear teaching of the Word is undermined. The line between Truth and error becomes blurred, and also the distinction between saved and unsaved. Believers who look on are liable to stop thinking of 'conversion' in precise, evangelical terms.

(2) Non-separators help the devil to achieve one of his main objectives — to cause such confusion that the world no longer sees a distinctive, biblical Christian community standing clearly apart from Catholic and liberal error. Non-separating evangelicals communicate to the world the idea that all so-called Christian churches are the same. Nothing is more crippling to the true testimony of evangelicalism. In the nineteenth century even unsaved people knew the Protestant arguments against Catholic dogma. But today (through compromise) evangelicals have long since surrendered any distinctive place in the general knowledge of the public.

(3) Non-separators lower the guard of the people of God, exposing them to infiltration by false believers and false doctrine. Once the people follow the example of their non-separating ministers, learning to tolerate and accept 'other views', then the way is prepared for a major doctrinal collapse. Non-evangelicals could never penetrate evangelical churches without 'inside help'. They need a 'pass' into the household of God, which only an evangelical 'collaborator' can give them, as he extends to them credibility, recognition and opportunity

(4) Non-separators encourage false teachers in their infidelity and sin, and so strengthen in their work. The rise of theological liberalism in the denominations, and its take-over of them, was funded almost entirely by evangelicals. When these opponents of the Gospel first infiltrated colleges and publishing institutes, non-separating evangelicals continued to pay the bills and support them. Almost all the present-day liberal theological colleges and churches in the historic denominations were originally built by the blood, sweat and toil of evangelicals. Then, a subsequent generation of non-separating evangelicals gave them away! This continues today in denominations where evangelicals give their money to support hoe and overseas missions mainly staffed and run by non-evangelicals. Non only do non-separating evangelicals support false teachers at a practical level, but they also seal them in their spiritual delusion by failing to challenge them about their lost spiritual condition.

There are the tragic consequences of disobedience to God. Satan rejoices, the Holy Spirit is grieved, and the cause of Christ is seriously wounded. If the non-separators are ministers, their flocks see a major area of biblical teaching set aside by their spiritual leaders, and thus the authority of the Bible is further undermined. The words of 2 John 11 condemn compromise. They indicate that the person who places himself on the side of the enemy must be regarded as guilty of a grievous sin against the Lord and His work. The non-separator makes himself a sharer of the damage done by the false teacher. Without doubt there is guilt by association. (pp. 16-18)

It is ridiculous for some to use the example of Charles Simeon in his interaction with John Wesley, in the case of John Piper. Wesley was an evangelical who affirmed and practiced evangelical doctrine. Warren on the other hand professes to be an evangelical but does not practice any of it. His ministry is a mishmash of Pelagianism/Market-drivenness, Pragmatism, Moralism, "Doctrine as mere knowledge" doctrinal minimalism, and the practice of kicking out resistors who oppose his unbiblical vision. The Gospel is mangled beyond recognition, the Church is treated like a corporation, members as slaves of said corporation etc. There is simply no comparison possible.

Piper, Warren and the Doctrine of Separation

I'm not going to draw the circle there. And supposed you disagree with me on that. Now, you're faced with the question: "OK, I'm with John Piper theologically, I'm not with Rick Warren on a bunch of things, John Piper has just chosen to hang out with Rick Warren. What do I do with John Piper?" That's called secondary separation issues. There you are.

I hope, I hope, we can disagree about who we hang out with, ok? Because a lot of traditional fundamentalists have said: "No, if you hang out with somebody that I believe I should separate from, then I'm gonna separate from you." And I want to say: Look. Let's ... Can we disagree about whether he would come to your conference, and you'd still willing to ... eat with me? Talk with me? So I would encourage you to think through that issue of secondary separation.

( - John Piper, 10:20- 11:14 on a clip on the Desiring God blog here)

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. If anyone comes to you and does not bring this teaching, do not receive him into your house or give him any greeting, for whoever greets him takes part in his wicked works. (2 Jn. 1:9-11. Bold added)

Amidst the shock that accompanied Piper's invitation to heretic Rick Warren for the Desiring God conference 2010, Piper's apologetic for such an invitation involved an implicit attack on the doctrine of separation. In light of this, there is a necessity to clarify the doctrine of separation and how it is supposed to work out in this case.

I have previously written an article on the doctrine of separation, which is indeed commanded biblically as per 2 Jn. 9-11. Those who refuse to separate from heretics are reckoned as being partakers of their evil deeds. As I have said on the issue of secondary separation:

Now, since these errant believers are not immoral, nor do they hold on to serious doctrinal error, such separation seemed strange and even sinful. After all, we as the body of Christ ought to be united, since Jesus did prayed for unity among believers, and that this unity is a testimony to the world that they may believe that Jesus is of God (Jn. 17:21). However, unity is not an absolute good, since unity with the world is an anathema before God. We are told in Rom. 12:18 to live peacefully with all, so far as it depends on us; or in other words, as much as we are able to. Unity is good, but unity is not something that we should work for, but something which we are to work towards. Put simply, unity is found in Christ, and we must be united to Christ, THEN united with each other, not the other way around.

The question is to be asked as to the rationale behind second-degree separation from compromisers of the faith. The rationale behind second-degree separation is the same behind that of first degree separation — holiness. Second degree separation is done because of holiness. As much as we should want unity within the body of Christ, unity is not to be purchased by compromising our obedience to God in holiness. When we collaborate with unbelievers in ministry, our witness for God is compromised, and that's why it is wrong to do so. Similarly, when we collaborate with compromisers in ministry instead of reproving them, we are sharing in their sins. Our witness for God is sullied, as we are then associated with the heretics they work with. Furthermore, by not rebuking them for their sins, we actually hate them rather than love these compromisers (Prov. 27:5-6).

Now, there are a few concerns with regards to this doctrine. The first is the example of the present-day group of Fundamentalists, who have embraced the doctrine of separation with an unnatural zeal, to the extant of distortion into separatism What, then is the difference between separation and separatism? Separatism is the promotion of the doctrine of separation to the extant that we are to cut ourselves off and isolate ourselves off from any taint of evil and/or compromise. In other words, for the separatist, the principle stated in Jn. 17: 11-16 should read "Be not of this world nor in this world " instead of "Be not of this world though in the world". Yes, to a certain extent, we should 'isolate' ourselves from the world (Jude 1:20-23), but such isolation is only with regards to holiness, not that we are to 'let the world go to hell'. What is the difference, then? We are to be holy in the sense that we do not compromise our own walk with God nor our witness before God, but we should be actively reaching out to others for God (Mt. 28:18-20; Jude 1:22-23), and the latter makes the difference between the two. Another thing distinctive of separatism is the fact that the doctrine of unity is neglected. Unity is important, and we are told to be united as much as we can (Jn. 17:21 ; Rom. 12:18). The working principle for all Christians is that we should be as united as much as it is possible to be so; not a unity at all costs, but we should desire unity if possible without compromise. Somehow, separatism neglects this and in fact may even promote schism, instead of asking us to preserve the unity of the church where possible.

The second legitimate concern is with regards to its implementation. If second-degree separation is practiced, then wouldn't this cascade into third-degree, fourth-degree, or higher degree separation, and if such, there would be no end and then wouldn't we have to separate ourselves from almost all Christians? This question, however, betrays a misunderstanding of the doctrine of separation in its implementation, which would be addressed here.

Remember earlier that the doctrine of second-degree separation is due to a need for holiness and the need for an unsullied witness before God and the world. Therefore, conversely, if something does not cause one to sully his/her witness for Christ, then there is no need to separate from the other person. How this works out is that we may need not separate from compromising believers in every situation, only in a situation whereby the compromise is made. For example, if a person compromise in the area of working with heretics in i.e. preaching ministry, then we should separate from the person in all forms of public ministry. However, this does not preclude that we could not meet up privately and we should definitely urge the person to repent of his/her behavior. If a person compromise in the area of collaborating with an organization which allows heretics in, then we should separate from the event itself, as joining it would link our witness with it and the compromise that is associated with it. However, that does not mean that we separate from them in other forms of ministry.

In all these things, it must be noted that our primary motive must be the glory of God in our witness for Him. This is what second degree separation is about, not a separation for separation's sake but for the glory and honor of our Lord Jesus Christ. Note also that all these is related to compromising leaders, since they are the ones who are publicly related to the act of compromise. For ordinary followers, since they are not publicly related to the act of compromise, we should not separate from them as there is no need to. If they are in error, following the stand of their errant leaders, we should all the more desire that they also turn away and reject such compromise as a blemish on the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, and thus teach and correct their errant ways, as obedience to Christ our Lord (Mt. 28:20; 2 Tim. 2:24-26), as an act of love for our brethren (Prov. 27:5-6), and all for the glory of God as His bride is edified and build up (Eph. 4:12-16).

Therefore, the question of third of higher degree separation is a red herring which misses the entire focus of the doctrine of separation We should not focus on how many degrees of separation is correct, but whether by being part of the event or by working together with a compromiser in this particular ministry, that our witness for Christ would be sullied. If so, we should separate; otherwise, we should not. When we embrace such a principle, the name of Christ would be exalted through our actions, and our testimony would not be dragged through the mud by deluded ministers who have an unbiblical view of unity and work for it at all costs.

Being a promoter of the doctrine of separation as biblically defined, we are strive to be biblical are caught between a rock and a hard place. On the one hand, we would need to insist on this biblical doctrine against the attacks of the New Evangelicals and, as it seems to be the case now, John Piper. On the other hand, the error of separatISM worked out by capital 'F' Fundamentalists is an horror to be avoided at all costs.

First, with regards to the extreme of Fundamentalism, as I have mentioned on this doctrine, the issue of "degrees of separation" is the wrong question to ask. While rightly speaking secondary separation is correct, yet its implementation is to be done in a certain way. The error of separatism lies in its confusion of the doctrine of separation as a means in itself, thus they need refer to the idea of "degrees of separation". Separation is to be done unto holiness, not unto separation.

Therefore, the biblical view of Piper's actions in light of 2 Jn. 9-11 is to view Piper's actions as making him partakers of Warren's evil deeds. In this light, Piper is to be rebuked for this decision of his. Separation from Piper in this light would be along the lines of refusing to participate in the DG2010 conference, and a reticence in promoting Piper as a person of godliness and especially discernment.

Yet as contra Fundamentalism, we do not and should not treat Piper as our enemy. Piper after all is our brother in Christ. As 2 Thess. 3:15 states, we are to treat those who do not follow God's commands on such non-salvific issues as erring brothers who we are to take note of him and make him ashamed, but not treat him as our enemy. We are to grieve for his error and petition the throne of God with tears that our Lord will have mercy and grant to Piper repentance for his error. In this light, we are to continue to be willing to eat and talk with Piper. On this, Piper would have his wish.

Secondly, as contrary New Evangelicalism, "secondary separation" IS biblically mandated. There is simply no way to parse Scripture and spin it to avoid the conclusion of the plain teaching of 2 John 9-11. While we do not treat Piper as an enemy, we are to disengage with him on issues of ministry. Knowing as it is that the DG2010 conference is a Christian conference, NOT an academic forum, such an invitation is tantamount to giving Warren space at the pulpit to preach. The other DG2010 speakers should withdraw from speaking at the conference in this light. I would therefore also second Lane Chaplin's stance that "I cannot, in good conscience, endorse John Piper again". While Piper's books can still be recommended from an academic/ knowledge perspective, the person of John Piper cannot be endorsed after this episode unless he repents.

So, let us come before God in tears and ask him to grant Piper repentance for this terrible decision that he has made. Do not treat him as an enemy but as a brother in sin. Amen.

See also: Charles Spurgeon on fratenizing with heretics

Piper, Warren and Dr. Mike Horton's response to Piper's moment of madness

It has come to my attention that Dr. John Piper has decided to invite heretic emeritus Rick Warren over to his Desiring God conference 2010. I am currently still in a state of shock over this piece of news, which has been confirmed over at the Desiring God website.

I will respond to this mess in due time. For the moment, here is Dr. Michael Horton's response to Piper's invitation to Warren to speak at the DG2010 conference. An excerpt:

His best-selling book, The Purpose-Driven Life, begins by announcing that it’s not about you, but about God, and then the rest of the book is about you. There seems to be a contradiction between the God-centered theology that is professed and the basically human-centered orientation that dominates much of his message and methods. ...

Pastor Warren tailors his appeals to his audience. To Calvinists, he stresses his support for the “solas” of the Reformation. Yet he tells prosperity evangelist David Yonggi Cho, “I’ve read your books on Vision and Dreams - speak to pastors about how you hear the voice of the Holy Spirit?… What advice would you give to a brand new minister?… Do you think American churches should be more open to the prayer for miracles?” (“Breakfast With David Yonggi Cho And Rick Warren,” Pastors.com). In a June 2006 article in JewishJournal.com, editor-in-chief Rob Eshman reported on a speech that Warren gave for Synagogue 3000, after Rabbi Ron Wolfson became involved in the Purpose-Driven pastoral training seminars. “Warren managed to speak for the entire evening without once mentioning Jesus — a testament to his savvy message-tailoring.” When USA Today asked him why Mormon and Jewish leaders are involved in his pastoral training programs, Rick Warren reportedly said, “I’m not going to get into a debate over the non-essentials. I won’t try to change other denominations. Why be divisive?” (USA Today, July 21, 2003). Rick Warren endorses a host of books, from New Age authors to Emergent writers to conservative evangelicals. So why not include Calvinists?

It's a sad day for those of us who have come to appreciate the ministry of Dr. Piper to some extent. A crisis point for the New Evangelical Calvinism has arrived. Choose this day whom you will serve.

Chris Gordon road-tripping at a PD/SS church

Chris Gordon, WSC grad and pastor of United Reformed Church at Lynden, WA, has recently done some road-tripping in visiting a modern seeker sensitive/purpose driven church North County Christ the King Church in Lynden itself. As he begins:

It's a challenge today to take a stand for anything. This is no less true in the church of Jesus Christ, especially as we think through the implications of the Biblical warning that in the latter times some will depart from the faith giving heed to deceiving spirits and doctrines of demons (1 Tim. 4:1). Part of our responsibility as Christians is to defend the truth, and to contend earnestly for the faith once delivered to the saints (Jude 1:3).

As as pastor, I recognize that one of my responsibilities is to protect those whom I serve from influences and practices that have a form of godliness but deny its power (2 Tim. 3:5). At times, this requires critical reflection of what others are doing and saying in the Christian world, especially when, as Paul said, there are savage wolves among us who do not spare the flock, but draw away disciples after themselves (Acts 20:29). There is just too much at stake if we remain silent, we are called to pull souls out of the fire (Jude 1:22).

Many well-meaning Christians, however, don't take well to any kind of constructive criticism or warning against what particular churches are doing contrary to the received doctrine. We have come to a point in the Christian world that if we say anything by way of exposing error, we are labeled as unloving or schismatic. But such pressures, as strong as they are, do not remove our responsibility to expose error and false doctrines as we speak the truth in love.

With these things in mind, I have been challenged on more than one occasion that I do not have the right to critique any other local church if I have never attended the one in question. In the past, my answer has always been, "I don't have to slam my hand in a trunk to know it's going to hurt." But, fair enough, although I think such a charge is a diversionary tactic, it is important to "know" exactly what you are critiquing. So, to honor the challenge of others, last Saturday night I decided to attend North County Christ the King Church here in Lynden.

In this light, Gordon has posted his interesting and revealing reports with regards to his road trip on his blog here, here and here. The last report especially was a good critique of the typical modern wishy-washy sermonettes that have a low view of God and a too high view of Man. In Gordon's words:

There are two very serious errors here that were evident throughout the service, especially in the message itself—a wrong view of God and a wrong view of man. The first error, a wrong view of God, was a denial of the Creator/creature distinction. In this denial, God's revelation of himself in his distinctness from his creatures is rejected as he is refashioned into those things that make us feel comfortable about him. Simply stated, if God created us his image, we have returned the favor and created him back into a fallen image that we feel comfortable with.

...

If you take the subtitle of the sermon, Satisfaction Guaranteed, what is the assumption being made here? The basic assumption here is that if you try out God, he will work for you. Now I am used to this “guarantee” language when I buy a product at the grocery store and expect that the money I have invested in the product will earn me some positive result in my life. For instance, the other day I saw this very claim advertised on a teeth whitening product, satisfaction guaranteed. I was interested because prolonged coffee drinking has darkened my teeth. So the first thing I did was check the price. That stuff is expensive. If they really want to sell me the product, the prices have to be slashed; I’m looking for the Safeway card discount. Further, I expect it to work for what I have determined is my need. As a consumer, I reign sovereign over my need and my purchase.

Now since this marketing strategy is so common in the church, we should ask what happens when God himself is marketed this way? What are the consequences of this? And what does this presume is my greatest need? Think about the suggestion: you go off-roading with God, we guarantee satisfaction. How do you guarantee satisfaction? As the marketer, you have to please the customer. And if God and his church are being marketed like a product, you have to sell both. As stated above, you cannot identify them with any of those things that the consumer might find offensive or unattractive; both have to packaged for their use — because, well, that is how products sell.

...

So what happens? If the customer is sovereign over what he is “buying” with regard to God he certainly will not select a view of God that emphasizes His justice, holiness, or righteousness. The attribute(s) that is most pleasing to the customer will drown out all the rest, and in today’s church market, it is the single attribute of love by which God is defined to the demise of all the rest, especially his justice.

...

So where does this lead us? If you have ridded God of those attributes that you dislike, what happens to your view of what you need and who you are? To be certain, we will never be in pursuit of the gospel. Why? Because the only way the Christian gospel has any real meaning is when there is a proper appreciation for God’s holiness and justice. The Bible tells us that all have sinned and fallen short of the glory of God, and, therefore, are under his just wrath (Rom. 3:23). The only way anyone escapes the wrath to come is by faith alone in Christ, whose righteousness is freely imputed to all who heartily trust in him for salvation. But it is only when we are properly confronted with our misery in the face of God’s justice that we are prepared to submit ourselves to what he says is our greatest need.

...

Do you see what has happened? There is no “life-giving” power in this because Christ as a savior from sin is absent. As Michael Horton has stated, “the cure is only as radical as the disease." If our greatest problem is just getting derailed from life's path, all we need is a new moral compass. But this does not reconcile needy sinners to God. I heard nothing of Christ and him crucified in the message, and yet this message is God's expressed chosen power to save. The apostle was clear about this to the Corinthians when he said “that his speech and preaching were not with persuasive words of human wisdom, but in demonstration of the Spirit and of power, that their faith should not be in the wisdom of men but in the power of God.” Couldn’t we paraphrase this by saying, when I came to you I did not use Suzuki 4wds, love videos, espresso bars, dramas, bands, liturgical dances, et al; and I did not use these things purposely so that your faith should not be in the marketing of men, but in the power of God?

It is God who identifies for us in his Word who he is, who we are, and what we need. God is not product to be used, nor is his gospel. No one has ever been manipulated into the kingdom by gimmicks. As David Wells states, “the gospel calls us not to use it but submit to the God of the universe through his son…when we accept Christ he is not there for our use but we are there for his service.” It's tragic to state that we are in desperate need of going back to the basics, understanding and submitting to what God has revealed of himself, and of us. As Hosea lamented in his day, "My people are destroyed for a lack of knowledge (Hos. 4:6)." Whose people? It’s my prayer that all Christians today would appeal to the Lord's mercies and remember what he prayed: “And this is eternal life, that they may know You, the only true God, and Jesus Christ whom You have sent.”

It is heartening to see Reformed folks and especially pastors start to utilize the medium of the Internet for outreach. The world is perishing and there is a shortage of biblical teaching and discernment in the land (Is. 5:13, Hos. 4:6), and we need (forth-telling) prophets to proclaim the Word of God in the power of the Holy Spirit and apply the living Word in the world (2 Tim. 3:16-17).

[HT: Heidelblog]

On the Cult-Like Hostile Takeover Tactics of the Purpose-Driven Church Transitioning Seminar

Over at the Fighting for the Faith radio archive page, fellow CRN contributor Christ Roseborough has done and posted a special edition program with regards to the horrendous scheming, manipulative and absolutely unchristian tactics employed by the Purpose Driven paradigm and implemented by Church Transitions Inc., headed by Purpose-driven CEO-"pastor" Dan Southerland. As Roseborough said:

The list of cult-like tactics employed by Southerland is LONG. They include:

1. Flat out lies and manipulative double speak
2. Blatant Scripture Twisting
3. New & Direct Extra Biblical Revelation and Visions from God
4. Flat out intolerance for anyone who questions or challenges these "new" Extra Biblical Revelations and Visions that are supposedly from God

All of these despicable tactics have been revealed already to the world in Dan Southerland's book Transitioning, which I have previously reviewed here.