# Dr.Piper invites Rick Warren to Desiring God (2010) conference?



## awretchsavedbygrace (Mar 30, 2010)

Um. This must be an early April fools joke. 

Desiring God 2010 National Conference to Feature Rick Warren | SharperIron


----------



## Romans922 (Mar 30, 2010)

For another example, see Redeemer NYC inviting NT Wright for conference.


----------



## Andrew P.C. (Mar 31, 2010)

*John Piper invites Rick Warren to speak at 2010 Conference.*

How sad.

Here is the audio tape: Download To Host Rick Warren - MP3 Ringtone To Host Rick Warren by Piper - Free Music Hosting

Here is Lane Chaplain on the matter(the first person I found to write about this):
Wednesday, March 31, 2010

This is a sad day. I'm a little shocked but not much, honestly. It's sort of like the person you knew who was in the hospital for the past three years or so. You knew the end was coming soon as you slowly watched them deteriorate, but you just didn't know when. That's how I feel about John Piper's discernment after it has now been confirmed that John Piper has invited Rick Warren to speak at the Fall 2010 Desiring God Conference.

Here's your confirmation from Piper, himself. In it, he shares this thought:
"At root I think (Rick Warren) is theological and doctrinal and sound.”


----------



## Jared (Mar 31, 2010)

*John Piper and Rick Warren*

I'm surprised that no one has said anything about this yet. John Piper has invited Rick Warren to the Desiring God National Conference and he has agreed to come.

Here's the link:

From Justin Taylor's blog:

John Piper and Rick Warren – Justin Taylor


----------



## Herald (Mar 31, 2010)

We are trying to determine the veracity of this claim. Please, no more threads until the moderators have determined Rick Warren's invitation to the Desiring God Conference is accurate.


----------



## greenbaggins (Mar 31, 2010)

Moderator's Note: We have agreed that the claim is substantiated, especially by its being announced on Justin Taylor's blog. We encourage moderation in discussion of John Piper's actions. We do not wish to hear that John Piper is the devil's own best buddy, nor that this action is ushering in the millennium. Also, we have merged the two threads announcing this.


----------



## py3ak (Mar 31, 2010)

[Moderator]In addition to what Lane said let me encourage everyone to check out the audio, linked among other places at this post, *before* commenting.[/Moderator]


----------



## PuritanCovenanter (Mar 31, 2010)

Something Rich posted in another thread might be very applicable here so I am stealing it from one place to add it here. I really appreciated what Rich said in this post. It was in another thread concerning Pastor Driscoll. I think I can pull application from this post and apply it here also. JHMO.



Semper Fidelis said:


> Interestingly, we were reflecting upon the issue of ministry last evening with the men of my Church during some training.
> 
> I have never really found it very fruitful to "stalk" the movements of other ministries and what they're doing wrong. I certainly want to pay attention to general trends emerging from them but I look at it like this:
> 
> ...


----------



## LawrenceU (Mar 31, 2010)

The audio link should be required listening before any posts are made. It is very enlightening.


----------



## awretchsavedbygrace (Mar 31, 2010)

LawrenceU said:


> The audio link should be required listening before any posts are made. It is very enlightening.


 
I am unable to listen at this time. Can you please state some reasons Dr.Piper gives as to why he invited Rick Warren?


----------



## Romans922 (Mar 31, 2010)

LISTEN TO THE REASON PIPER IS INVITING RICK WARREN: John Piper Invites Rick Warren | Ben Terry


----------



## VictorBravo (Mar 31, 2010)

For some reason, I go to the post Ruben linked and cannot find a link to the audio. It says "listen to it here:" but there is nothing to click.


----------



## PuritanCovenanter (Mar 31, 2010)

John Piper Invites Rick Warren | Ben Terry

The link works for me.


----------



## Romans922 (Mar 31, 2010)

Every other post, I believe, should be a link. That should keep this thread on track!


----------



## Andrew P.C. (Mar 31, 2010)

For anyone who wants to listen to piper live right now go to his site and he is talking about rick warren now...


----------



## Grace Alone (Mar 31, 2010)

VictorBravo said:


> For some reason, I go to the post Ruben linked and cannot find a link to the audio. It says "listen to it here:" but there is nothing to click.


 
You have to click on "back in February" and it will bring up a page dated March 4th and the audio is on that page. You have to listen for a long time to get to the topic at hand. You might want to start about halfway through unless you have extra time.


----------



## LawrenceU (Mar 31, 2010)

Ruben's link goes directly to 31March. The little player is on the lower left of the blog entry. Really simple.


----------



## AThornquist (Mar 31, 2010)

So, the audio lessened the sting. Only a little though. This still troubles me deeply. "Hey, you are a key leader in unbiblical pragmatic evangelicalism. What makes you tick? I _think_ you are more theological than what you say or do." That's just what it sounds like to me.


----------



## awretchsavedbygrace (Mar 31, 2010)

No audio at the computer in my office. Would someone be so kind and please place a quote from the audio as to the reason why he invited Rick Warren. If not, Ill listen when I get home in 2 hours.


----------



## Simply_Nikki (Mar 31, 2010)

I was hearing about this a bit yesterday, but was very cautious as I know many don't like piper. I was waiting for it to be confirmed by Piper himself before I could concede to it. Nevertheless, I still love that man and could not have grown spiritually without God using his ministry to do so.


----------



## AThornquist (Mar 31, 2010)

brother Julio. I'll do the honors of typing the relevant portion out for you. 

Piper said that Warren was invited to speak and that he was going to do so; he said he would get flack for that decision. Then after saying that he believes Warren is closer to him than an Arminian, Piper said this starting at about 1:35:

When I wrote him, here's what I said. And he'll probably watch this video too. I said, "The conference is called 'THINK: The Life of the Mind and the Love of God. I want you to come. You are the most well-known pragmatist pastor in the world. I don't think you are a pragmatist at root. Come and tell us why thinking biblically matters to you in your amazingly pragmatic approach to ministry." I want him to lay his cards on the table. I want him to tell us what makes him tick, because he does come across in much of what he says and does as very results oriented and pragmatic and not theologically driven. And yet, I met him for the first time last year at Ralph Winter's funeral in Pasadena. And we sat beside each other on the platform for three hours. I like him because he sings. And he sings badly. And anybody who's willing to sing and sings badly -- I like him. And we were talkin' beforehand and he said to me, "I'm reading all the works of Jonathan Edwards this year. I pick a great theologian every year and I read all of his collected works. I'm on volume 17 of the Yale series of Jonathan Edward's works." You've got to be kidding me. Nothin' you have ever said would incline me to think . . . *CROWD LAUGHTER - TEE HEE!* So, these guys are gonna go interview him tomorrow, I think. So you can quote some of these things. I do think he is deeply theological. He is a brilliant man. He wouldn't have the church he does or the PEACE plan or, uh, all the influence he does and of course the greatest sentence in the Purpose Driven Life is the first one, isn't it? "It's not about you; it's about God." The glory of God. So, I don't think he's emergent. At root I believe he is theological, and doctrinal, and sound. And, what makes him tick? Actively in doing church? Uh, I intend to find out. So, I like him. And I'm frustrated by some of his stuff." [END OF CLIP]


----------



## awretchsavedbygrace (Mar 31, 2010)

I have not much patience with a certain class of Christians nowadays who will hear anybody preach so long as they can say, “He is very clever, a fine preacher, a man of genius, a born orator.” Is cleverness to make false doctrine palatable? Why, sirs, to me the ability of a man who preaches error is my sorrow rather than my admiration.

I cannot endure false doctrine, however neatly it may be put before me. Would you have me eat poisoned meat because the dish is of the choicest ware? It makes me indignant when I hear another gospel put before the people with enticing words, by men who would fain make merchandise of souls; and I marvel at those who have soft words for such deceivers.

“That is your bigotry,” says one. Call it so if you like, but it is the bigotry of the loving John who wrote—”If there come any unto you, and bring not this doctrine, receive him not into your house, neither bid him God speed: for he that biddeth him God speed is partaker of his evil deeds.”

—C.H. Spurgeon


----------



## Jared (Mar 31, 2010)

Does this mean that Rick Warren is reformed. I heard a rumor about an email that he wrote to the founders where he said that he was reformed. Then, he mentioned being friends with John Stott in the book, "The Purpose of Christmas". Now this. Is he reformed? Or is he, as many reformed people say, a heretic?


----------



## buggy (Mar 31, 2010)

Whether Rick Warren is really reformed or not, many conservative Christians dislike him for various reasons: 
These reasons include: quasi-Arminian soteriology (in-spite of his claims of being reformed), pragmaticism in ministry, adhering to the seeker-friendly model rather than the regulative principle of worship, and eagerness to cooperate and act as a bridge-builder with political liberals, whom many conservative Christians detest. 

I would say that Warren like most broad evangelicals today have a good intention to build a church that glorifies God, but even a good intention, when not guided scripturally, is harmful. In my opinion it would have been better he wasn't invited to the conference, but since that happened anyway, I hope he can learn a lot from this conference (as what Piper probably intended), and come to a better understanding (and application) of the truth.


----------



## raekwon (Mar 31, 2010)

WOW. The backlash I've seen against this tonight on Twitter (and now, here on the PB) is seriously disheartening. Sheesh.


----------



## Jared (Mar 31, 2010)

> WOW. The backlash I've seen against this tonight on Twitter (and now, here on the PB) is seriously disheartening. Sheesh.



I agree.


----------



## awretchsavedbygrace (Mar 31, 2010)

raekwon said:


> WOW. The backlash I've seen against this tonight on Twitter (and now, here on the PB) is seriously disheartening. Sheesh.


 
Rae, the only thing that is disheartening is John Piper's invitation to Rick Warren.


----------



## JOwen (Mar 31, 2010)

awretchsavedbygrace said:


> raekwon said:
> 
> 
> > WOW. The backlash I've seen against this tonight on Twitter (and now, here on the PB) is seriously disheartening. Sheesh.
> ...



Amen!


----------



## Jared (Mar 31, 2010)

> This is a sad day. I'm a little shocked but not much, honestly. It's sort of like the person you knew who was in the hospital for the past three years or so. You knew the end was coming soon as you slowly watched them deteriorate, but you just didn't know when. That's how I feel about John Piper's discernment after it has now been confirmed that John Piper has invited Rick Warren to speak at the Fall 2010 Desiring God Conference.



Could you explain this a little bit further?


----------



## raekwon (Apr 1, 2010)

awretchsavedbygrace said:


> raekwon said:
> 
> 
> > WOW. The backlash I've seen against this tonight on Twitter (and now, here on the PB) is seriously disheartening. Sheesh.
> ...


 
Why, exactly?


----------



## AThornquist (Apr 1, 2010)

raekwon said:


> awretchsavedbygrace said:
> 
> 
> > raekwon said:
> ...


 
A key leader in easy, unbiblical "American Christianity" appears to be condoned by more orthodox Christians who constantly must correct their culture about what is the true Gospel because of the damage caused by people such as the leader initially mentioned, thus substantiating to a degree the claim that the seeker-friendly's doctrine is biblical. You don't see a problem with this? That is . . . uh.

I hope this isn't demonstrative of the standards you have for preachers. It'd make a denomination become liberal in no time.


----------



## awretchsavedbygrace (Apr 1, 2010)

raekwon said:


> awretchsavedbygrace said:
> 
> 
> > raekwon said:
> ...


 
Rae, below is a link that critiques the purpose driven movement and above it is a blog by Rick Warren himself. I LOVE John Piper, Rae. He has helped me much in regards to sexual purity( I thank God for using him), but I think we would be doing more harm than good by turning our backs to this. 

http://www.saddleback.com/blogs/newsandviews/index.html?contentid=2085
Extreme Theology: Purpose Driven Critique


----------



## raekwon (Apr 1, 2010)

AThornquist said:


> raekwon said:
> 
> 
> > awretchsavedbygrace said:
> ...


 
Heh.  Okay.

Anyway. I'm not convinced that Warren is as much of an "easy-believism" proponent as many of us Reformed types want to think. Sure, I don't think that the "seeker-sensitive" approach is the best, but everything I've ever heard him preach (along with what I've read, including the "Purpose-Driven Life", which wasn't great) points to his holding to a Gospel consistent with ours -- Christ saves sinners and then sends the Holy Spirit to empower them to live Christlike lives. Maybe I missed something.


----------



## AThornquist (Apr 1, 2010)

Blah, you quoted me before I felt convicted and tried to be less stabbing. Hehe, it's okay though.


----------



## raekwon (Apr 1, 2010)

AThornquist said:


> Blah, you quoted me before I felt convicted and tried to be less stabbing. Hehe, it's okay though.


----------



## DMcFadden (Apr 1, 2010)

Interesting circles Dr. Warren travels in these days. He also wrote the forward to McGrath's recent volume on "Heresy." I thought that it was a curious selection for the forward to such a book by a theological heavyweight of McGrath's stature. But, reading Warren (not one of my favorites) supporting the importance of McGrath's book and insisting on a distinction between truth and error was more than a little satisfying.

(I'm not saying that Warren is any different from my past uninformed and somewhat informed critique of him as a So. Cal. guy who has watched his ministry and even attended one of his seminars. Still, if he can win plaudits from Piper and McGrath, that says that there may be more to him than I was willing to admit.)


----------



## nnatew24 (Apr 1, 2010)

This is the third year in a row Piper has stirred things up. Driscoll, Doug Wilson, and now Warren. Personally, Piper has never been much for discernment anyway (his dabbling in the Toronto blessing is one fine example), so I don't find it surprising. It's just more confirmation that no man is perfect, no man is as well-balanced as we'd like to think, and no man is without his blind spots. 

Funny, though, considering Piper's words on why he invited Warren, his reason for doing so is very pragmatic


----------



## raekwon (Apr 1, 2010)

(Driscoll was 4 years ago. I was there for that one.)


----------



## nnatew24 (Apr 1, 2010)

raekwon said:


> (Driscoll was 4 years ago. I was there for that one.)


 
Yep- you're right. My error there. 

I do remember, however, that Driscoll was far less accepted in evangelical/reformed circles then as he is now. It was a pretty big deal.


----------



## Jared (Apr 1, 2010)

> dabbling in the Toronto blessing is one fine example



Are you referring to him taking some people from his church to the Anaheim Vineyard in the early nineties?


----------



## nnatew24 (Apr 1, 2010)

Jared104 said:


> > dabbling in the Toronto blessing is one fine example
> 
> 
> 
> Are you referring to him taking some people from his church to the Anaheim Vineyard in the early nineties?


 
I'm not sure that we're thinking of the same event. I searched for the link in my archives where Piper talks about this, but it has been taken down. Basically, Piper talks about the time he took his staff to the Toronto blessing conference when they were in Minnesota.


----------



## heartoflesh (Apr 1, 2010)

Piper does intentionally go out of his way to include others who do not walk lock-in-step with himself or with the world of "reformed" things. He goes out of his way to break through the Us vs. Them mentality. I think he's been probably the most intrumental in introducing warm-hearted Calvinism to thousands who would have otherwise rejected it. 

For those who already disagree with Piper about Christian Hedonism, the regulative principle, cessationism and who knows what else-- of course they won't like this recent development. To me it's a big yawn. The history of the church is full of God's servants who didn't see eye to eye on every jot and tittle and yet maintained fellowship. Do we benefit from Richard Baxter, John Wesley, A.W. Tozer (and I could go on) ? Of course we do. Do we agree with every theological point or ministerial method? Of course not.


----------



## Jared (Apr 1, 2010)

> Basically, Piper talks about the time he took his staff to the Toronto blessing conference when they were in Minnesota.



I'm not trying to support the Toronto Blessing here. But, there is at least a small amount of Calvinism in it. RT Kendall especially. As well as Jack Deere who was a former Dallas Theological Seminary professor and to some degree Sam Storms who is friends with Mike Bickle. Mike was a strong supporter of the Toronto Blessing. Sam says (because he is an Edwardsean scholar) that Edwards would not have supported everything that happened in Toronto, but I don't think he would say that God didn't do anything there. And for what it's worth many of the worship songs that we sing today came out of the Toronto Blessing. Including in my opinion "In Christ Alone". 

Don't get me wrong, there's much more doctrine in the song "In Christ Alone" than in many of the other songs. But Stuart Townend is with Newfrontiers International and that song was written at a time when NFI had embraced the Toronto Blessing. Also, the Song "How Deep The Father's Love For Us" was written around this time. And the Father's love was a major theme in the Toronto revival.

Just some food for thought. I'm not trying to encourage anyone to embrace the Toronto revival. I also have some difficulties with it.


----------



## Oecolampadius (Apr 1, 2010)

Watch the video that appears on the following link:
John Piper on Our National Conference Theme & Speakers :: Desiring God

Listen carefully as Piper, at 1:57, referring to Rick Warren, says, "I am persuaded that he is rock solid biblically."


----------



## LeeJUk (Apr 1, 2010)

raekwon said:


> WOW. The backlash I've seen against this tonight on Twitter (and now, here on the PB) is seriously disheartening. Sheesh.


 
I agree brother. I cannot believe the amount of mud that flies against good men like John Piper and Mark Driscoll and others because they align themselves with arminians or people who don't do regulated worship. Would we condemn George Whitfield for being associated with Wesley? These people are our BROTHERS IN Christ incl. Rick Warren and NT Wright.


----------



## Oecolampadius (Apr 1, 2010)

LeeJUk said:


> raekwon said:
> 
> 
> > WOW. The backlash I've seen against this tonight on Twitter (and now, here on the PB) is seriously disheartening. Sheesh.
> ...



By "amount of mud that flies against good men like John Piper," are you referring to the statements that were made by your brothers here on PB or are you referring to what is taking place generally (i.e. not necessarily PB)?


----------



## awretchsavedbygrace (Apr 1, 2010)

LeeJUk said:


> raekwon said:
> 
> 
> > WOW. The backlash I've seen against this tonight on Twitter (and now, here on the PB) is seriously disheartening. Sheesh.
> ...


 
This is not about Arminianism vs. Calvinism, its about the GOSPEL of Jesus Christ. As far as I know lee, Wesley was not seeker sensitive and did not endorse decisionism. 

I dont know much about N.T Wright, ill let others answer you on that one.


----------



## py3ak (Apr 1, 2010)

raekwon said:


> WOW. The backlash I've seen against this tonight on Twitter (and now, here on the PB) is seriously disheartening. Sheesh.


 
Rae (and sympathisers), I would like to suggest that _reasons_ rather than laments might be the better way. No doubt there are some critics who may simply need a dose of repentance or perhaps therapy; but the audio revealed that Piper expected criticism for this move, so surely those who support it might be expected to not only anticipate that criticism but to think of a way to reply to the substance of it.


----------



## raekwon (Apr 1, 2010)

py3ak said:


> raekwon said:
> 
> 
> > WOW. The backlash I've seen against this tonight on Twitter (and now, here on the PB) is seriously disheartening. Sheesh.
> ...


 
I think I replied to (at least some of) the substance in one of my later replies to this thread.


----------



## LeeJUk (Apr 1, 2010)

Oecolampadius said:


> LeeJUk said:
> 
> 
> > raekwon said:
> ...


 
Brothers here at PB.

I shouldn't have to provide reasons for not opposing John Piper. It's fairly obvious why people shouldn't be trampling all over him because he invited a brother in Christ to one of HIS conferences.


----------



## Andres (Apr 1, 2010)

Here is Dr. Michael Horton's  on the issue. After reading the article, I don't see how anybody sincerely committed to true, biblical Christianity could endorse Warren. 

Michael Horton on Rick Warren, Modern Reformation, and Desiring God


----------



## C. M. Sheffield (Apr 1, 2010)

*Your Opinion of Piper's Invitation to Warren*

What is your opinion of Piper's invitation to Rick Warren to speak at the coming DG Conference?


----------



## Gage Browning (Apr 1, 2010)

After watching the you tube explanation...I was baffled. Here it is- [video=youtube;ShxvN8YWTlA]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ShxvN8YWTlA&feature=player_embedded[/video]

Just because he has a “huge church” and a “huge” ministry like the “Peace Plan” doesn’t mean he’s a brilliant man. Has anyone seen brother joel osteen’s church? brilliant? uh uh.

While were at it, why doesn’t JP get Joel…and let’s find out what makes him tick? 

cmon brother John!


----------



## LeeJUk (Apr 1, 2010)

Andres said:


> Here is Dr. Michael Horton's  on the issue. After reading the article, I don't see how anybody sincerely committed to true, biblical Christianity could endorse Warren.
> 
> Michael Horton on Rick Warren, Modern Reformation, and Desiring God



So your saying John Piper is not seriously committed to "true, biblical Christianity"?


----------



## ChristianTrader (Apr 1, 2010)

LeeJUk said:


> Andres said:
> 
> 
> > Here is Dr. Michael Horton's  on the issue. After reading the article, I don't see how anybody sincerely committed to true, biblical Christianity could endorse Warren.
> ...


 
I think the point is the belief that Piper's decision cannot be defended. Another way of looking at it is that True Christians fail in doing everything right on this side of the heaven.

CT


----------



## Andres (Apr 1, 2010)

Joshua said:


> LeeJUk said:
> 
> 
> > Andres said:
> ...


 
 thank you Josh. This was precisely what I meant by my comment.
I do have to add however that, while maybe not explicitly spoken, by inviting Warren to a conference hosted by Piper at his home church that this constitutes an endorsement of some sorts.


----------



## heartoflesh (Apr 1, 2010)

I have no idea who this guy is, but I really like his perspective on this...


Christians in Context: from orthodoxy to orthopraxy.: Regarding Unity, Piper, Warren, and Blogging


----------



## Gage Browning (Apr 1, 2010)

> by inviting Warren to a conference hosted by Piper at his home church that this constitutes an endorsement of some sorts.


----------



## Andres (Apr 1, 2010)

C. M. Sheffield said:


> What is your opinion of Piper's invitation to Rick Warren to speak at the coming DG Conference?


 
umm...see the 51 posts above yours.


----------



## Eoghan (Apr 1, 2010)

as part of the congregation yes!


----------



## Gage Browning (Apr 1, 2010)

Eoghan said:


> as part of the congregation yes!


----------



## py3ak (Apr 1, 2010)

Rae, yes, your post number 33 does state in effect, "Warren isn't as bad as all that, based on my exposure to him." That's not exactly a positive _rationale_ for inviting him, but is better than dismissing the critics.

I'm not up in arms about it because I don't much care about conferences or movements or stars. But I would like to remind people who think that the critics are uncharitable that _even if you're right, that doesn't give you an excuse for being uncharitable yourself_.


----------



## jogri17 (Apr 1, 2010)

I see no problem with this. 
1. Piper is an evangelical Baptist and HE IS NOT REFORMED in any sense of the term except for agreeing with Dort. He grew up fundamentalist and is a mainstream strongly evangelical baptist with calvinistic solteriology. He has no confessional subscription (and even if he did no confessions talk about issues of separation). 
2. Waren is many things, a heretic is not one. I think he compromises the gospel, I do not think he preaches a false one. There is a difference there. He is giving a conference on how he sees things. The reason why many churches have conferences is to get a new take or view on things. Let Waren defend his beliefs and logic in person and get grilled in a panel or discussion and Q&A. I think thats great. 
3. If you want to see churches reformed (of all sorts), you don't do it by leaving and joinging a tiny NAPARC or ARBCA church with represents a TINY MINORITY of all that consists in conservative evangelical circles, you stay in and make your difference that way. That's the example of 9 marks and they have been proven right that slow change over time in small strides is the best way to go. 
4. You can call it UNWISE, but biblically it is wrong to call it a sin. There is no transgression of the Law. 
5. He is not a good theologian. He is a great NT creds are unquestionable but when it comes to systematic theology his knowledge of historical theology seems to be very weak and at the end of the day he makes it clear that ''it's just him and his bible'' that determines what he believes and has a low view of tradition of the Church. 
6. Speaking at a conference is not an endorsement of everything about them. Westminster hosted a debate between CHristopher hitchens and Douglas wilson. Westminster Seminary clearly endorses neither person's views. The goal of these kinds of conferences is not to feed the sheep but to debate and get discussions going


----------



## AThornquist (Apr 1, 2010)

jogri17 said:


> The goal of these kinds of conferences is not to feed the sheep but to debate and get discussions going



"The Desiring God National Conference is an annual gathering for worship, teaching, prayer, and fellowship centered on the person and work of Jesus Christ. While the conference theme is unique each year, the overarching aims remain the same:

* Doctrine: to see as clearly as we can the whole counsel of God centered in the glory of Christ revealed in the Bible.
* Worship: to savor the sharp contour of his countenance and his accomplishment.
* Mission: to spread a passion for his supremacy in all things for the joy of all peoples."


Sounds more like feeding than debating to me.


----------



## heartoflesh (Apr 1, 2010)

AThornquist said:


> jogri17 said:
> 
> 
> > The goal of these kinds of conferences is not to feed the sheep but to debate and get discussions going
> ...


 
I'd say he's got points 1-4 right.


----------



## Rich Koster (Apr 1, 2010)

Let's all pray that Rick Warren dumps Saddleback Sam and becomes Jonathan Edwards advocate. God still does miracles !!!! There was this guy Saul, trained by Gamaliel.......


----------



## AThornquist (Apr 1, 2010)

Rick Larson said:


> I'd say he's got points 1-4 right.



Certainly may be. On number 4 though, I haven't yet seen someone claim that it is a sinful decision for Warren to speak. No doubt someone has said so, I just haven't seen it. Most people I know who are troubled by the decision are troubled because it is considered very unwise.


----------



## Rich Koster (Apr 1, 2010)

If Warren doesn't change, and starts to promote some "garbage" , I hope John Piper would do as I would, and swiftly bump him out of front and center, and put someone who promotes good doctrine in.


----------



## christianyouth (Apr 1, 2010)

After seeing the quotes from Michael Horton's blog on John Piper, I CANNOT believe that Piper is familiar with Warren's teaching. Hopefully the Q&A session will reveal how heretical Warren is.


Yes, when someone says, "And of course, that purpose now becomes greater — and in fact, I think that’s really what the message this week of Easter is, is that God can bring good out of bad. That he turns crucifixions into resurrections. That he takes the mess of our life, and when we give him all the pieces, he can — God can put it together in a new way”, they are a heretic. They are saying that the purpose of the Gospel is personal enrichment, not redemption.

Andrew pc, good to see you brother.


----------



## DeborahtheJudge (Apr 1, 2010)

I think he is extending Christian friendship. Maybe he will grow in grace and truth like Mark Driscoll is. This isn't a church -its just a conference. 

And wouldn't it be great that if instead of ostracizing someone, we told them the truth in love? Its not like leaving Warren to talk to his seeker-sensitive buddies is helping anyone. John Piper knows what hes doing.


----------



## Ivan (Apr 1, 2010)

I think it will make for an interesting conference and since I'm not terribly far away from its location I may consider going.


----------



## Rich Koster (Apr 1, 2010)

Ivan said:


> I think it will make for an interesting conference and since I'm not terribly far away from its location I may consider going.


 
Pray for RW that *he does get it right*, and bring your paint ball gun (just in case........it says to "mark" heretics)


----------



## PuritanCovenanter (Apr 1, 2010)

I think I would go if I could Ivan. I am not scared of Warren. I am more scared of the likes of those who claim to be something they are not like Doug Wilson. He is not Reformed. Just my humble opinion. No one is considering Rick Warren as Reformed. He did get my family to read the bible a bit more for a period as Billy Graham has done. Albeit Billy has gone off the deep end a few times. Maybe Rick will also and has. Well, he has in my opinion. And not just mine. He has been unbiblical. But maybe this might pull him back a bit and I am most willing to bet that that is what is being prayed for. NO COMPROMISE. It would do no good for me call him to repent. It is up to another on his level. He wouldn't give me the time of day if he won't give it to Michael Horton. Just my humble opinion.


----------



## Sgt Grit (Apr 1, 2010)

I was in a seeker sensitive Rick Warren influenced church when I became a Christian, and it wasn’t a message from the pulpit that changed me, but one from John Macarthur preaching about what it meant to be a true Christian. As I listened to his sermon I realized I was not a true Christian, and went outside underneath a redwood tree and repented of my hypocritical life.

What happened next was the hardest test of my faith that I have ever encountered, and at first even my wife rejected what I had found in Christ. As I began to grow my In-laws saw me as a heretic and my church as terribly misguided, and I was completely alone except for God (I didn’t see it at the time), my Bible and books from every reformed author I could find. I spent many hours in tears begging God to help me find just one fellow reformed believer, or better yet a church, and after year he led me to where I am now.

I am very disappointed with Pipers decision.


----------



## Ivan (Apr 1, 2010)

Rich Koster said:


> Ivan said:
> 
> 
> > I think it will make for an interesting conference and since I'm not terribly far away from its location I may consider going.
> ...



No paint gun for me. Just an open heart to the Lord and a curious mind as to what will happen at the conference.


----------



## Clay7926 (Apr 1, 2010)

There are a few ways to look at this:

A). It's a chance for Pastor Warren explain himself to us. In that regard, I think that should be worth the cost of admission alone. I have no doubt that Dr. Piper and some of the other folks at the conference will respectfully call him to task on some of his words and actions in the public square. 

B). Dr. Piper could've invited T.D. Jakes (a man who denies the Trinity). It could be a lot worse, folks. 

I disagree with Dr. Piper's decision. If Dr. Piper wants Pastor Warren to "lay his cards out on the table," why not sit and talk with him one on one, or invite him for coffee at Dunkin' Donuts or Starbucks? The problem is that Pastor Warren's actions, words, and appearance at certain events (i.e. the Azuza anniversary thingamabob back in 2001) have not endeared him to a number of folks in the Christian community worldwide, let alone Reformed folks. Letting him speak at the conference only gives Pastor Warren a bigger stage to peddle his pragmatism. 

On the other side of the coin, I don't think Dr. Piper is a heretic, or that he's lost and going to hell for the invitation. 

If anything, I pray that God will be glorified in this.


----------



## PuritanCovenanter (Apr 1, 2010)

Me too Rae. And I have been no fan of Dr. Piper for the last few years. I am thoroughly a Covenant guy which he is not. Maybe his time away will help him see the importance of a Confessional Christianity. I hope so. I am ever hopeful.


----------



## kvanlaan (Apr 2, 2010)

I still don't understand this discussion. Has Arminianism ceased to be heresy? If not, then why is this even an issue? This is not a confessionally out-of-bounds question, it is well _within_ bounds (and then some). We are not talking about some poor misguided congregant, we are talking about a man who does the misguiding. I am all for restoring this man to orthodoxy, but that's not the purpose in inviting him. He has "laid his cards on the table" time and time again; there is no reason to elevate his message/theology/methodology in giving it credibility by an invite to this conference.


----------



## SemperEruditio (Apr 2, 2010)

I have not attended a conference which was a debate on the speaker's ideas. There were sessions where this may occur but the questions were prearranged and none of the questions got to the heart of any isses. On the other had at GA last year a large majority flocked to listen to Duncan and Keller discuss the deaconess issue but at conferences this has not been my experience.

After reading Horton's post and the articles in periodicals about the "New Calvinist" or how Calvinism is "resurging" I just see Calvinists as another audience Warren will cater to. He speaks out of both sides of his mouth and I'm pretty sure Warren is not going to attend if he knows that he is going to be blasted for his beliefs. Like the other poster I'm not sure what cards are left to put on the table. We have Warren's books and are probably able to download his sermons. Unless Warren is "coming out" and talking about how he believes in the sovereignty of God over man's decisions this invitation is questionable to me. I give Piper the benefit of the doubt that there is a reason for this but I would not invite Warren to speak. I would invite him and give him "backstage access" to the other speakers but Warren would not be more than an attendee.


----------



## jogri17 (Apr 2, 2010)

Never was one. There is a difference between ''heresy'' for a Reformed Church (that is what Dort was saying in our English translations) and ''heresy'' for Christianity in general that would include arianism, pelegianism, etc...à

Also, if you look at Dort at Dort in the various english translations (URC, Canadian Reformed, CRC, the French translation used by the ÉRQ, The Heritage reformed congregations, etc...) it doesn't call arminians heretics. In fact it call it the «Arminian error» in several places. The only time heresy is mentioned is when there is a reference to pelegius and if you read the context it is clear that they are not being called pelegians rather the accusation is that of pushing in that direction. 

I truely hope you don't honestly believe that only 5 point calvinists will be in Heaven. If so, that's going to be a rather small and lonely place filled with mostly white guys from Holland and North America.


----------



## py3ak (Apr 2, 2010)

jogri17 said:


> I truely hope you don't honestly believe that only 5 point calvinists will be in Heaven. If so, that's going to be a rather small and lonely place filled with mostly white guys from Holland and North America.


 
You're forgetting Scotland.


----------



## travstar (Apr 2, 2010)

I pray Warren's message is a 180-degree turn from his speech to the Islamic Society of North America (ISNA) conference last year: [video=youtube;qQak4l60Dt4]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qQak4l60Dt4[/video]


----------



## Skyler (Apr 2, 2010)

jogri17 said:


> I truely hope you don't honestly believe that only 5 point calvinists will be in Heaven. If so, that's going to be a rather small and lonely place filled with mostly white guys from Holland and North America.


 
I believe that only 5-point Calvinists will be in heaven. 

Some of them might have been Arminian before, but they won't be by the time God's through with glorifying them.


----------



## kvanlaan (Apr 2, 2010)

> I truely hope you don't honestly believe that only 5 point calvinists will be in Heaven. If so, that's going to be a rather small and lonely place filled with mostly white guys from Holland and North America.



Not at all. But Arminianism _is_ heresy. It is not a cultural thing, it is a biblical thing.

Arminianism: The system of doctrine known as Arminianism is heresy.

Thus you may have a point, if Rick Warren doesn't know enough about his own theology to truly know what it is that he's preaching. That is very possible. But then he should be corrected, and not be in a teaching capacity until he is properly instructed.



> If so, that's going to be a rather small and lonely place filled with mostly white guys from Holland and North America.



Actually, we're a lot of fun, and the beer's great!


----------



## christianyouth (Apr 2, 2010)

jogri17 said:


> Never was one. There is a difference between ''heresy'' for a Reformed Church (that is what Dort was saying in our English translations) and ''heresy'' for Christianity in general that would include arianism, pelegianism, etc...à
> 
> Also, if you look at Dort at Dort in the various english translations (URC, Canadian Reformed, CRC, the French translation used by the ÉRQ, The Heritage reformed congregations, etc...) it doesn't call arminians heretics. In fact it call it the «Arminian error» in several places. The only time heresy is mentioned is when there is a reference to pelegius and if you read the context it is clear that they are not being called pelegians rather the accusation is that of pushing in that direction.
> 
> I truely hope you don't honestly believe that only 5 point calvinists will be in Heaven. If so, that's going to be a rather small and lonely place filled with mostly white guys from Holland and North America.


 
Jogri, what about other aspects of his doctrine? He seems to be saying that the Christian message isn't about freedom from God's wrath but is about freedom from the temporary effects of sin(estrangement from God, lack of life purpose, general 'angst'). That's heretical, dude.


----------



## Particular Baptist (Apr 2, 2010)

kvanlaan said:


> I still don't understand this discussion. Has Arminianism ceased to be heresy? If not, then why is this even an issue? This is not a confessionally out-of-bounds question, it is well _within_ bounds (and then some). We are not talking about some poor misguided congregant, we are talking about a man who does the misguiding. I am all for restoring this man to orthodoxy, but that's not the purpose in inviting him. He has "laid his cards on the table" time and time again; there is no reason to elevate his message/theology/methodology in giving it credibility by an invite to this conference.



Arminianism is not heresy, though it can lead to that. I would not believe that John Wesley and Charles Wesley were heretics, nor are more modern day ministers such as Adrian Rogers was.

Is Arminianism more heretical than baptismal regeneration which is what Augustine believed? (http://www.puritanboard.com/f18/baptismal-regeneration-ecf-9228/ ) Surely you would not say that Augustine was a heretic, though he was wrong on this point. Was Richard Baxter a heretic because of his peculiar soteriological views? Are Baptists heretics because we don't subscribe to paedobaptism as contained in the Westminster Confession or the Belgic Confession? Are Grace Brethren churches heretical because they still subscribe to Chrisitian non-violence?

Honestly, this is something that has bothered me about "Reformed" believers. We believe that all the reforming is done and if you don't conform to a set of confessions you must be heretical. I'm not saying that Arminians are right, but I am saying that there are many, many brothers and sisters in Christ who are saved and are children of God who don't subscribe to everything we believe. There are things that we can learn from our Arminian brothers and sisters if we would only listen.


----------



## kvanlaan (Apr 2, 2010)

Did you read the article?



> Honestly, this is something that has bothered me about "Reformed" believers. *We believe that all the reforming is done and if you don't conform to a set of confessions you must be heretical.* I'm not saying that Arminians are right, but I am saying that there are many, many brothers and sisters in Christ who are saved and are children of God who don't subscribe to everything we believe. There are things that we can learn from our Arminian brothers and sisters if we would only listen.



You must remember that this is a confessional board. Arguing against the confessions is quite simply out of bounds.

http://www.apuritansmind.com/Creeds/TheRemonstrants.htm

Again, I am not talking about gunning Rick Warren down in effigy. But I would hope that he would not be allowed to spread his theology at such an event. He needs correction.


----------



## DMcFadden (Apr 2, 2010)

I think some of you are evaluating this from the standpoint of your confessional subscriptionism and missing the reason for Piper's actions.
As a Westmont grad (pretty similar to Wheaton where Piper graduated) and Fuller grad (like Piper), I swear that the corporate culture of broad evangelicalism is OPENmindedness. I only half in jest say that a typical Fuller grad preaches "on the one hand, but on the other hand." Piper is a darling of some Reformed folks for the same reason MacArthur is: he boldly proclaims soteriological Calvinism and defends the sovereignty of God. He does not claim to be a Presbyterian, paedo baptist, amillenniarian, or adherent of a NAPARC or ARBCA church. He does not see the sabbath or "2nd Commandment violations" the way PBers do. Inviting a fellow evangelical preacher with zeal to his conference should surprise nobody. Evangelicals pride themselves on being so open that they could share their platform with a Pentecostal, Confessional Calvinist, Methodist, or any other variety of "evangelical." After more than 50 years as a card carying evangelical, Piper's action makes complete sense to me (when thinking like an evangelical) while my time in the PB has left me horrified to see him do it for all of the many reasons identified in this thread.


----------



## kvanlaan (Apr 2, 2010)

> I think some of you are evaluating this from the standpoint of your confessional subscriptionism and missing the reason for Piper's actions.
> As a Westmont grad (pretty similar to Wheaton where Piper graduated) and Fuller grad (like Piper), I swear that the corporate culture of broad evangelicalism is OPENmindedness. I only half in jest say that a typical Fuller grad preaches "on the one hand, but on the other hand." Piper is a darling of some Reformed folks for the same reason MacArthur is: he boldly proclaims soteriological Calvinism and defends the sovereignty of God. He does not claim to be a Presbyterian, paedo baptist, amillenniarian, or adherent of a NAPARC or ARBCA church. He does not see the sabbath or "2nd Commandment violations" the way PBers do. Inviting a fellow evangelical preacher with zeal to his conference should surprise nobody. Evangelicals pride themselves on being so open that they could share their platform with a Pentecostal, Confessional Calvinist, Methodist, or any other variety of "evangelical." After more than 50 years as a card carying evangelical, Piper's action makes complete sense to me (when thinking like an evangelical) while my time in the PB has left me horrified to see him do it for all of the many reasons identified in this thread.



Fair enough, but here's a HUGE problem:


> Here's your confirmation from Piper, himself. In it, he shares this thought:
> "At root I think (Rick Warren) is theological and doctrinal and sound.”



Maybe what you're saying is that we shouldn't have had such high hopes for Piper's "filter" in who he invites and who he does not. (?)

Warren endorses a strategy, the seeker sensitive model, that is simply incorrect and leads to unbelief (in the words of RC Sproul). He is _not_ doctrinally sound. In that light, I find it odd to see the previous statement coming from Piper...

I think Todd Friel said it well: No one doubts what he (Rick Warren) believes in private, it's what he says in public that's the problem. Also: "John Piper has him coming to his conference, he must be OK."

This was a nice measured response:
http://www.whitehorseinn.org/archives/425.html

But Horton includes this: "I believe that (Warren's) message distorts the gospel and that he is contributing to the human-centered pragmatism that is eroding the proper ministry and mission of the church."


----------



## Ivan (Apr 2, 2010)

I'm not feeling at home here.


----------



## BlackCalvinist (Apr 2, 2010)

Gage Browning said:


> After watching the you tube explanation...I was baffled. Here it is- [video=youtube;ShxvN8YWTlA]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ShxvN8YWTlA&feature=player_embedded[/video]
> 
> Just because he has a “huge church” and a “huge” ministry like the “Peace Plan” doesn’t mean he’s a brilliant man. Has anyone seen brother joel osteen’s church? brilliant? uh uh.
> 
> ...


 
Actually, if everyone who is currently upset would stop running around like ants whose anthill has been stomped on and use your brains for a few seconds....

Think about it.

*If* Warren answers those questions consistently with what he says he believes privately, he will *repudiate everything he's ever written on church growth* and probably *2/3* of what he wrote in PDL. It's a brilliant move.

John Piper has written probably the best standing exegetical discussion on Romans 9:1-23. He's not stupid. He wouldn't invite a Joel Osteen, for example.  Anyone who's actually LISTENED to Piper (not just what other people say about him) should've figured that out by now. 

It's still uttlery amazing how some of you around here are acting like the world is ending. This is the same mess I saw at the end of the last election. Some of you are only convenient Calvinists - happy to proclaim the Sovereignty of God when things go your way, but when something other than that comes up, you react just like your Arminian and semi-pelagian counterparts do (worry, fear and lament). Some of you are well content to boast on confessional subscription, how you wouldn't associate with this person, that person, etc.... but you do nothing more than spit at the darkness and curse it. Piper has decided to light a candle. Let's see if it sets a fire under Warren.


----------



## kvanlaan (Apr 2, 2010)

> It's still uttlery amazing how some of you around here are acting like the world is ending. This is the same mess I saw at the end of the last election. Some of you are only convenient Calvinists - happy to proclaim the Sovereignty of God when things go your way, but when something other than that comes up, you react just like your Arminian and semi-pelagian counterparts do (worry, fear and lament). Some of you are well content to boast on confessional subscription, how you wouldn't associate with this person, that person, etc.... but you do nothing more than spit at the darkness and curse it. Piper has decided to light a candle. Let's see if it sets a fire under Warren.




There is no worry here. God is sovereign. It is that some are concerned that they are watching the fall of someone who was so influential but seems like they are now going into a downward spiral. It is sadness, not despair. 

As Lane Chaplin says:



> "If this is true, I cannot, in good conscience, endorse @JohnPiper again." You may now change that "If" to a "Since." At this point, I'm sure that many of you will write me off as "fundamentalist" or whatever else, but I really don't care. I believe that God is sovereign and all things work together for the good of those who are called and love Him, but, frankly, I can't help but feel a little discouraged today. John Piper has wonderful, wonderful things to say, but I honestly feel like I would if I were to find out that my Dad was having an affair. I can't imagine the two feelings being that much different. Piper is looked to as an authority on Reformed Theology (which I hold to passionately as I believe it's true), and he just brought in the camp the town prostitute to "meet Mom and the family" under the guise that "he's trying to help her by inviting her into our household to stay and mingle with the family." Yeah, right; let your Dad try that with your Mom and see how well that goes over. If your Dad were to stay with the prostitute at the expense of the well being of the rest of his family because it's "in her best interest," it would say a lot about his priorities and character, would it not? It's one thing to hold to God's sovereignty while things are going well, but it's quite another to hold to it and still see people you have respected as people with Godly discernment discredit themselves with decisions that undermine the Gospel like it's been revealed about John Piper today.



This is also why I have pulled from so many sources. I've always liked what I read by Piper. But this really concerns me. I hope it is just unwise and not a major turn in his beliefs. I dunno, the whole "Rick Warren is doctrinally solid" really knocked my socks off, when I can find any number of threads on this board attesting to the opposite.


----------



## Ivan (Apr 2, 2010)

I'm going to the conference.


----------



## Herald (Apr 2, 2010)

Ivan said:


> I'm going to the conference.



Heathen. I want your "I will go to huger-Reformed conferences" card. No more discounts for you at Re4ormed-R-Us stores.


----------



## kvanlaan (Apr 2, 2010)

> I'm going to the conference.



Then please promise to give us a _very_ detailed report, if you'd be so kind (I'm very curious). It would be wonderful if it was some sort of theological masterstroke to bring in America's Pastor and watch him recant everything he's spewed out previously, but I just don't know...



> Heathen. I want your "I will go to huger-Reformed conferences" card. No more discounts for you at Re4ormed-R-Us stores.



We'll see if we can't get Pastor Schoen in to a Dutch Reformed conference (FRC or stricter only). Whoa, buddy.


----------



## Ivan (Apr 2, 2010)

Herald said:


> Ivan said:
> 
> 
> > I'm going to the conference.
> ...



Ah, the sacrifices I make. I'll have to see if the Twins end their season at home. Might go to game while there too. I know, heathen.

As to going to lectures, etc. I've went to hear Jurgen Moltmann, William Sloane Coffin, William Willimon, James Forbes and Hans Kung.

I know, heathen. Of course, the list of reformed and conservative evangelicals is much longer, but I'm sure that doesn't make up for attending meetings where the aforementioned gentleman spoke. Being the radical Baptist that I am, I stand unrepentant.


----------



## py3ak (Apr 2, 2010)

OK, I think people need to simmer down a little.


----------



## Semper Fidelis (Apr 3, 2010)

I generally stayed away from this thread and only read most of it this AM because I heard it was getting out of control. On the issue of who does/does not attend a conference I guess I've never really considered it to be much of something to get tied up into knots over. I think it's the thought of some that an invitation to a conference that's entitle "Together for the Gospel" will have profound impact on the Church of Christ. I've been to a few local Ligonier conferences and was edified by them but I don't think Conferences are the place where the Church ultimately advances or retreats. They exist para-Church and have either good or not so good to offer Pastors and other persons as they do the work of ministry in a Church.

The bottom line for me is that it really doesn't make too much difference who John Piper invites or does not invite to a Conference. Personally, I think a more profound question is who is allowed into the pulpit of a Church but that doesn't have the "flash bang" effect of public leaders.

That all said, I do find John Piper's and Mike Horton's responses to Rick Warren's ministry to be interesting and want to briefly comment upon them. If you haven't read Mike's note on this invitation then you can read it here: Michael Horton on Rick Warren, Modern Reformation, and Desiring God .

I don't doubt that John Piper has good reasons to want to broaden the perspective of the T4G and finds Warren's study and approach interesting. I find what makes Warren "interesting" is even more interesting when I read what Mike has written over the years. Is it possible that the reason that John Piper finds Rick Warren to be both remarkably broad in his interest and also a pragmatist in his theology because he is just that? Whether he reads all of Edwards' volumes on theology this year, I wonder if that will be filed away in many other interesting theologians he has read and continues to read over the years.

Of course Rick Warren is brilliant and accomplished but I'm also left with the same reservations that Mike has about what teaching actually proceeds from his pen and his pulpit. He can, at once, be comfortable with Charismatics and Mormons and Jews and the Reformed. Are these, in the final analysis, merely "denominations" in Rick Warren's thinking? Are the creeds, after all, merely interesting but deeds are what interest Rick the most as he has stated? I think this is the case.

Thus, my response to the Poll was "Not sure" but could have also been "Not my conference and John Piper doesn't need my opinion anyway". Part of me hopes that Rick Warren might be exposed to a theology of the Gospel that uncovers some deeper things for him but I believe he's probably already read that and much more and integrates it all into a pragmatic framework that "gets the job done". In other words, I'm convinced that Warren understands everything that makes Reformed theology distinctive as well as many other theologies of salvation, ecclesiology, and mission. I suspect he'll even be able to say some things that reveal some Reformed understanding but will it just be the same kind of "I really want to learn from you guys" that he pulls from all the other diverse theologies he studies and integrates?


----------

