Michael Horton @ Saddleback

[TomVols]

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]

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]

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]

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.

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).

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

 

[Wannabee]

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

 

[TomVols]

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]

[/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]

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]

[/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.

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 ----------

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.

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.