# Michael Horton @ Saddleback



## SolaSaint (Jun 7, 2010)

I don't know if this subject has been raised yet, but does anyone know what this global conversation tour that Dr. Horton is doing is all about? I see he's heading for Rick Warrens church this week to speak. It just seemed like an odd pairing; Warren and Horton.


----------



## Ivan (Jun 8, 2010)

And here we go again.


----------



## raekwon (Jun 8, 2010)

Ivan said:


> And here we go again.


 
My thoughts exactly.


----------



## kvanlaan (Jun 8, 2010)

Funny, but I was one to beat up on Piper for Warren's attendance at Piper's conference. Now I just caught myself thinking "wow, the congregation at Saddleback will actually hear the unadulterated gospel!"

Throw what you have. Me and my hypocrisy are ready.


----------



## Theoretical (Jun 8, 2010)

kvanlaan said:


> Funny, but I was one to beat up on Piper for Warren's attendance at Piper's conference. Now I just caught myself thinking "wow, the congregation at Saddleback will actually hear the unadulterated gospel!"
> 
> Throw what you have. Me and my hypocrisy are ready.



I'm totally on board with Horton preaching there. Warren at a Reformed Church, no thank you. 

A more doctrinally conservative and confessional man preaching in a less confessional, questionable, or even bad church is a great opportunity as long as he's not barred from preaching the Gospel. Not that it'd ever happen, I'd be ecstatic if a guy like Horton were invited to my old mainline church to preach.


----------



## kvanlaan (Jun 8, 2010)

> A more doctrinally conservative and confessional man preaching in a less confessional, questionable, or even bad church is a great opportunity as long as he's not barred from preaching the Gospel. Not that it'd ever happen, I'd be ecstatic if a guy like Horton were invited to my old mainline church to preach.



Yep, I see it as night and day difference (but I know not all will!)


----------



## Willem van Oranje (Jun 8, 2010)

Theoretical said:


> kvanlaan said:
> 
> 
> > Funny, but I was one to beat up on Piper for Warren's attendance at Piper's conference. Now I just caught myself thinking "wow, the congregation at Saddleback will actually hear the unadulterated gospel!"
> ...



Bar or no-bar, you figure he could get a few minutes in at least before they bring out the hook. 

This is great. Reminds me of what David F. Wells told me at lunch a couple weeks ago, that he is being invited to preach at Mark Driscoll's church. He said there is a movement among what he has called the "church-marketers," (among some of them, that is) toward Reformed Theology. Bill Hybels and his ilk are seeing the error of their ways, and some of them are looking for solid meat to correct course. Praise God for what he is doing!


----------



## Whitefield (Jun 8, 2010)

I don't see the problem here.


----------



## SolaSaint (Jun 8, 2010)

I hope you don't think I feel this is a problem, I think it is great that Horton has the pulpit at such a liberal church. I was just wondering at what this global conversation was all about. Too many in here jump to conclusions, please don't read into a post what isn't there. Thanks!


----------



## Scott1 (Jun 8, 2010)

If Mr. Horton has an unfettered ability to present some aspect of reformed theology to the doctrinally starved communion, it can be a good thing.

God will likely have receptive people there calling out from the morass of shallowness characteristic of this communion. 

Now, if somehow this becomes an ecumenical acceptance of Arminian influenced, dispensational, lack of confession, low view of church and sacraments, theology and practice, then not.


----------



## Whitefield (Jun 8, 2010)

Scott1 said:


> If Mr. Horton has an unfettered ability to present some aspect of reformed theology to the doctrinally starved communion, it can be a good thing.
> 
> God will likely have receptive people there calling out from the morass of shallowness characteristic of this communion.
> 
> Now, if somehow this becomes an ecumenical acceptance of Arminian influenced, dispensational, lack of confession, low view of church and sacraments, theology and practice, then not.


 
Given my read of Horton, I doubt he will kowtow to Arminianism at Saddleback. Maybe some at Saddleback will read some of Horton's writings.


----------



## christiana (Jun 8, 2010)

Ivan said:


> And here we go again.


 
Exactly, Piper and Driscoll, Horton and Warren! Disappointing!


----------



## Semper Fidelis (Jun 8, 2010)

SolaSaint said:


> I don't know if this subject has been raised yet, but does anyone know what this global conversation tour that Dr. Horton is doing is all about? I see he's heading for Rick Warrens church this week to speak. It just seemed like an odd pairing; Warren and Horton.


 
Do you have a link announcing this?


----------



## Jared (Jun 8, 2010)

Theoretical said:


> kvanlaan said:
> 
> 
> > Funny, but I was one to beat up on Piper for Warren's attendance at Piper's conference. Now I just caught myself thinking "wow, the congregation at Saddleback will actually hear the unadulterated gospel!"
> ...




What if someone like Piper, Horton, Keller, anyone like that was preaching at Joel Osteen's church? Would you have a problem with that?

---------- Post added at 03:57 PM ---------- Previous post was at 03:54 PM ----------

Also, it seems to me that maybe Rick Warren could actually be opening up a bit to more truth. Speaking at Piper's conference and now having Horton speak at his church, it seems that he is becoming quite friendly toward the reformed crowd.


----------



## Sgt Grit (Jun 8, 2010)

As long as they could preach the Gospel I don't think anyone should have a problem with it. The only problem would be if it were reversed.


----------



## Semper Fidelis (Jun 8, 2010)

Jared,

I don't think Rick Warren has ever been unfriendly to the Reformed. I read him state that he subscribes to Modern Reformation a few years ago.

I think he is friendly to many camps.

It's sort of the modern phenomena to be friendly and open to many differing ideas and then integrating them all into your own. In other words having Mike speak at his Church does not imply that he's embracing Reformed soteriology and ecclesiology at the exclusion of all other views.


----------



## Jared (Jun 8, 2010)

There was a rumor a while back that Rick Warren sent an email to the Founders ministry and told them that he was reformed. I don't know anything about the veracity of that, but I could see him being an Amyraldian. He told Piper that limited atonement was the only part of the TULIP that he had a problem with.


----------



## DMcFadden (Jun 8, 2010)

In some circles it is chic to be soteriologically Calvinist (leaning). I would never confuse that with being confessional, however. Nor should it be expected to bring a change in philosophy of ministry. This is America! Burger King Theology rules. If you don't want the theological dish like everyone else, mix and match, and "have it your way."


----------



## dannyhyde (Jun 8, 2010)

This is a part of the Laussane Movement for Global Evangelization, begun in 1974.


----------



## Willem van Oranje (Jun 8, 2010)

DMcFadden said:


> In some circles it is chic to be soteriologically Calvinist (leaning). I would never confuse that with being confessional, however. Nor should it be expected to bring a change in philosophy of ministry. This is America! Burger King Theology rules. If you don't want the theological dish like everyone else, mix and match, and "have it your way."


 
But when the Burger King crowd gets tired of junk food, and wants something solid, where else would they have to turn in this day and age, but to the Reformed steakhouse? Let's pray that this becomes an abiding trend of evanjellycals being attracted to the Reformation, even once they've tried everything else and nearly starved themselves to death.


----------



## SolaSaint (Jun 8, 2010)

I read this on the Whitehorse Inn website for those who want a link.


----------



## Theoretical (Jun 9, 2010)

> What if someone like Piper, Horton, Keller, anyone like that was preaching at Joel Osteen's church? Would you have a problem with that?


 
It'd be one of the greatest opportunities to teach the Gospel clearly and plainly from a single pulpit in one sitting in history. Last I heard something like 7 million people listen to or watch Osteen preach each Sunday. If even half that number tuned into the guest, that's a lot of seed-sowing.

Caveat, as long as the pastor was given the freedom to preach and did not have to compromise his message for the forum or embrace one like Osteen as his brother in Christ. Horton's very irenic and passionate about the Gospel in a way that may open a lot of eyes. We should pray that this happen.


----------



## Jared (Jun 9, 2010)

Theoretical said:


> > What if someone like Piper, Horton, Keller, anyone like that was preaching at Joel Osteen's church? Would you have a problem with that?
> 
> 
> 
> ...


 
That reminds me of when Mark Driscoll was on Robert Schuller's program, "The Hour Of Power". His message was really solid. He was talking about the historical Jesus. Did anyone else get to see that?


----------



## Jack K (Jun 9, 2010)

> What if someone like Piper, Horton, Keller, anyone like that was preaching at Joel Osteen's church? Would you have a problem with that?


In fact, I remember when Keller was invited to give a mini-sermon at the inter-faith dedication of the Ground Zero memorial. He might have turned it down, not wanting to be lumped in with liberals, Catholics, Muslims and Jews. But instead he accepted the stage that was handed to him and preached one of the best sermons I've ever heard from him, probably to his biggest audience.

Did Paul turn down the offer to speak at Mars Hill because he was standing in the shadow of pagan temples and might be seen as capitulating to Athenian sensibilities? No, he took the opportunity given him and proclaimed the gospel.


----------



## AThornquist (Jun 10, 2010)

The preachers and teachers we see in the New Testament _never_ preached in a congregation of pagans or spiritually weak churches. 

Seriously, what's the issue here? If Horton is going to preach the truth, this is a blessed opportunity! The reason it is stupid for Warren to preach at a Desiring God conference is because he _does not have a history of preaching the truth_. The two circumstances are very different.


----------



## Wannabee (Jun 10, 2010)

AThornquist said:


> The preachers and teachers we see in the New Testament _never_ preached in a congregation of pagans or spiritually weak churches.


 
That'll preach. Run with it.


----------



## BlackCalvinist (Jun 12, 2010)

AThornquist said:


> The preachers and teachers we see in the New Testament _never_ preached in a congregation of pagans or spiritually weak churches.


 
I hope that was sarcasm and not serious.


----------



## Ivan (Jun 12, 2010)

BlackCalvinist said:


> AThornquist said:
> 
> 
> > The preachers and teachers we see in the New Testament _never_ preached in a congregation of pagans or spiritually weak churches.
> ...



Pagans notwithstanding, there is the church in Corinth


----------



## AThornquist (Jun 12, 2010)

BlackCalvinist said:


> AThornquist said:
> 
> 
> > The preachers and teachers we see in the New Testament _never_ preached in a congregation of pagans or spiritually weak churches.
> ...


 
I would _never_, *ever* be sarcastic. 

Really now - I was specifically thinking of Paul preaching to pagan Greeks and unbelieving Jews (if one cares to be so strong in his or her judgment against Saddleback), or in this case the church at Corinth (if one cares to concur that Saddleback is a church that is weak and struggling on a spiritual level, which in a lot of ways is the result of the leadership).


----------



## JonathanHunt (Jun 12, 2010)

I would preach anywhere that would have me. They mostly would probably never have me again. But I'd preach nonetheless. I see nothing wrong with what Horton is doing. I take a different view of the Piper/Warren thing. The two do not compare. Would I preach the gospel in the Vatican? Yes. Would I let the Pope in my pulpit? No.


----------



## TomVols (Jun 12, 2010)

The premise is that Warren should not be at Piper's conference because Piper would invite someone of questionable doctrine by inviting Warren. I reject the premise.

And now we're comparing Warren with the Pope. Jeepers.


----------



## Grillsy (Jun 12, 2010)

TomVols said:


> The premise is that Warren should not be at Piper's conference because Piper would invite someone of questionable doctrine by inviting Warren. I reject the premise.
> 
> And now we're comparing Warren with the Pope. Yikes.



Why do you reject the premise? On what grounds?


----------



## JonathanHunt (Jun 12, 2010)

TomVols said:


> The premise is that Warren should not be at Piper's conference because Piper would invite someone of questionable doctrine by inviting Warren. I reject the premise.
> 
> And now we're comparing Warren with the Pope. Yikes.



Precisely why do you reject our duty to protect our people from hearing from false teachers?

And precisely what does 'Yikes' mean? Because over here it is only short for 'Jesus'. Does it have some other US cultural meaning?

And no, I wasn't comparing Warren to the Pope, I was using the Pope as an example to illustrate the principle. Just calm down a little. The reason I made ANY comment was because some were saying that Horton to Saddleback is the same as Warren to Desiring God - I say they are two very different cases.


----------



## BlackCalvinist (Jun 12, 2010)

AThornquist said:


> BlackCalvinist said:
> 
> 
> > AThornquist said:
> ...


 I wouldn't compare Saddleback to pagan Greeks and unbelieving Jews....but Paul did speak to men at Mars Hill.


----------



## Wannabee (Jun 12, 2010)

No Jonathan, it does not have some other cultural meaning here. I was thinking the same thing.


----------



## TomVols (Jun 12, 2010)

> Why do you reject the premise? On what grounds?


I believe Piper to be of theological integrity, that he would not compromise truth of the Word. 

Why do you (apparently) and others who hold to this view hold that he would? No one has objected to my contention. 



> Precisely why do you reject our duty to protect our people from hearing from false teachers?


_Non-sequitur._ I do not reject this duty. I am saying there is another possibility here, that those who castigate Piper for having Warren there may not in fact have fidelity to Jude 3-4 rightly applied.


> And precisely what does 'Yikes' mean?


It's an expression of "gee," a corruption thereof. It is used to denote frustration or exasperation, particularly in the Southern US. 


You weren't? Let's look at your quote:


> And no, I wasn't comparing Warren to the Pope





> I take a different view of the Piper/Warren thing. The two do not compare. Would I preach the gospel in the Vatican? Yes. Would I let the Pope in my pulpit? No.



Now, you say:


> I was using the Pope as an example to illustrate the principle.


Fair enough. I've actually been in this position. I have accepted invites to preach at churches and refused to allow a reciprocity due to a difference on a major doctrine.


> Just calm down a little.


I'm calm. Pulse rate is about 58 right now. How's yours? 


> The reason I made ANY comment was because some were saying that Horton to Saddleback is the same as Warren to Desiring God - I say they are two very different cases.


This is indeed possible. However, that does not mean that we should assume balefulness on the part of Piper. 

In case you are wondering about my opinion of Warren (which it seems a couple aren't...they've already deemed it without knowing it), I deem him to be a "less-pure" teacher and not necessarily a false one (borrowing Grudem's terminology). Depending upon what he would speak to, maybe there's a place for him in a reformed conference. I wouldn't want him speaking to certain things in a conference I hosted just as I wouldn't want some in Reformed circles who hold to dispensationalism come to my eschatology conference or others who are Reformed and are KJVO, as another example. But that doesn't mean that there aren't limited circumstances where someone doesn't have to have a Reformed decoder ring to speak to an issue. 

Thanks, friend! Hope you're not sore over the draw today  We got lucky 

---------- Post added at 07:57 PM ---------- Previous post was at 07:51 PM ----------

Wannabe, I just spoke with three people via chat and asked them if "Yikes" was in any way a reference to Jesus. They thought I'd lost my mind. So apparently there are corruptions and usages that vary from place to place even here in the US.


----------



## Wannabee (Jun 12, 2010)

TomVols said:


> [/COLOR]Wannabe, I just spoke with three people via chat and asked them if "Yikes" was in any way a reference to Jesus. They thought I'd lost my mind. So apparently there are corruptions and usages that vary from place to place even here in the US.


 
Tom,
As you are well aware, consensus does not determine truth. A simple definition look up on line will reveal the verity of it. Yes, it's come to mean nothing, but this is exactly where it comes from. I used to use it often with no ill intent toward Christ, until a little girl pointed out to me that she knew exactly what I had said when I said that. To this child I had dishonored Christ. May it never be so again.


----------



## Grillsy (Jun 12, 2010)

TomVols said:


> > Why do you reject the premise? On what grounds?
> 
> 
> I believe Piper to be of theological integrity, that he would not compromise truth of the Word.


 
No one is saying the Piper is compromising the truth of the Word....However, he is is giving publicity and exposure to one who does. We must be careful to guard our pulpits (and by extent media outreach) from "less-pure" teachers as you call them.


----------



## TomVols (Jun 12, 2010)

Wannabee said:


> TomVols said:
> 
> 
> > [/COLOR]Wannabe, I just spoke with three people via chat and asked them if "Yikes" was in any way a reference to Jesus. They thought I'd lost my mind. So apparently there are corruptions and usages that vary from place to place even here in the US.
> ...


 
Upon looking at a couple of dictionaries (I'm not much for the online ones), turns out you're right. I'm not arguing consensus = truth. I guess I was speaking out of ignorance...the common parlance, if you will.

I will banish the word from my vocabulary immediately and will humbly admonish others to do the same.

---------- Post added at 09:22 PM ---------- Previous post was at 09:17 PM ----------




Grillsy said:


> TomVols said:
> 
> 
> > > Why do you reject the premise? On what grounds?
> ...


 Just for kicks...how is Piper _not_ compromising the truth of the word by giving publicity and exposure to one who does. Would he not be guilty of passive-aggressive compromise?

Let me flip this around a bit: should R.C. Sproul share the stage with Al Mohler? Should Grudem share the stage with MacArthur, and should MacArthur share the stage with Horton? 

Where we may respectfully disagree is that (1) Piper has screened Warren to the extent that no doctrine of significance will be jeopardized by Warren's appearance; (2) That Bethlehem is discerning enough to handle it; (3) that one of us is right and one of us is wrong and that the one in the wrong _may_ be me.


----------

