Update: (08/09) This post from early 2008 was written with the assumption that Tim Keller was an ardent defender and proponent of the Reformed Faith. It wasn’t until after this post was written that I learned that he endorses, encourages, and practices contemplative meditation i.e. Eastern Mysticism (see his endorsement/back cover blurb of female pastor Adele Calhoun’s book on “spiritual disciplines”). Had I been more familiar with Keller’s background and frequent appeal to Roman Catholic authors (including Romanist G.K. Chesterton, one of the most vicious anti-Protestant antagonists of history, as one who has truly understood grace), this post would not have been written as it was. With this understanding now, it comes as no surprise to learn of Keller’s defense of female leadership in his church and his approval of the workshops they teach such as The Way of the Monk (page has been removed by Redeemer NYC). In comparison to this, my post below concerning the “potential” implementation of Roman Catholic doctrine in the Reformed churches pales.
Ignatius of Loyola, first superior-general of the Jesuits, ordained by Pope Paul III, was confident that he could stop the spread of Protestantism with the strategic revivication of ancient Eastern Hesychasm – what has been called the Ignatian retreat: The Spiritual Exercises. Ignatius would have been pleased to learn that Keller has hired his own Retreat Lady to lead his sheep to the pastures of monasteries where they too can embrace their “inner monk,” honeymoon with Jesus, and learn how to use the prayer rope (similar to the Rosary). The prayer rope replaces Scripture as the sword of the Spirit and is held in the left hand leaving the right hand free to make the sign of the cross.
Regarding the Roman Catholic Church, Ignatius is said to have said: “if she shall have defined anything to be black which appears to our eyes to be white, we ought in like manner to pronounce it to be black.” The comments at the end of this post reveal that many in our time say the same thing, but replace the church with Tim Keller. Whatever he says is true in spite of any and all biblical arguments that oppose, and whoever opposes him is automatically and without question, guilty of schism. This, the Reformers never dreamed of…
—–end update and begin OP—–
I really wish I didn’t have to do this. Many of you will be disappointed, shocked, and angry. I won’t blame you. But in the New Reformation we must be quick to act since the electronic methods of communication these days will always be quicker. We must also not let our emotions stop us from doing right. Most of you are aware of Tim Keller’s new book The Reason for God. When I first saw it on the shelf, I almost bought it until I realized two things. One was the price. The other was the endorsement on the back cover by none other than Billy Graham.
The book has been marketed and advertised as the modern day version of C.S. Lewis’ Mere Christianity, and is supposed to be a “rational” apologetic for Christianity. Now, I have not read the book, and this is not a review. Besides, I’m sure Frank Fusion will have one ready for us soon anyway. But since we can’t wait, we need to do this now.
This is a warning to all Tim Keller fans to raise their discernment levels and be extra cautious in appraising Keller from here on out. If Billy Graham could fall away before our eyes and deny the Gospel, then it could happen to Keller, and that just might be what is happening.
In an interview this week with Anthony Sacramone, managing editor of First Things, Keller was asked several questions regarding his new book. One of the first uneasy moments for me came when I read this:
Q: In The Reason for God, you make a very brief argument for the validity of evolution within a limited sphere.
A: Oh, it’s a little confusing, but actually I’m just in the same place where the Catholics are, as far as I can tell. The Catholic Church has always been able to hold on to a belief in a historical Fall-it really happened, it’s not just representative of the fact that the human race has kind of gone bad in various ways.
Keller’s answer sounds like he’s honored to be aligned with the enemies of the Gospel, the RCC. He goes on to admit his rejection of a literal six 24-hour day Young Earth position on Creation, preferring that there “was a very long process probably, you know, that the earth probably is very old, and there was some kind of process of natural selection that God guided and used, and maybe intervened in.” His argument for accepting so many different views is because “the fact is that real orthodox believers with a high view of Scripture are all over the map on this.” It makes one wonder, is he saying that Catholics are real orthodox believers?
It would be too presumptuous to attempt to answer that off of such a small bit of information, and giving him the benefit of the doubt, being Reformed and all, maybe he meant something else. This must have caught the attention of the interviewer because immediately after this, Keller was asked:
Q: You talk about significant differences between Christian denominations. In the book, you’re coy about your own affiliation, except to say that you’re a Protestant. Why didn’t you come out and say, “Look, I’m coming at this from a Reformed, Presbyterian, Calvinist perspective, because I think that best explains who Jesus is, what Jesus did for us, what the Church is.”
A: Because I’d like to be understood, Anthony. Now I know that the average reader in a Barnes & Noble, picking up the book and reading it, will know the difference between Catholic and Protestant, but I don’t think they’re going to know what [Reformed Presbyterian, Calvinist] is. Unless I want to take a page or two to explain the differences between all the Protestant denominations, I don’t want to go there.
Now, I don’t want to be splitting hairs here, but it sounds like Tim Keller has strategically devised a way to market his book to the masses by excluding some of the communication barriers that some of those terms create. I have no direct complaints with that. The inconsistency I see here is that he is almost universally known among the Reformed as the pastor that has melded Reformed doctrine and culture together to build one of the more successful church-growth stories ever, isn’t he? I mean, whenever I hear him mentioned in conversation, something along those lines comes up, right? I guess what I’m saying is, it doesn’t sound very “Tim Keller.”
While speaking in the context of “all Christians,” Keller says: “…as soon as you ask “How do I get the grace of God?”-you’re a Catholic or a Protestant. Is it the sacraments primarily, or are the sacraments just a symbol of how you get it? As soon as you start talking about how do we relate to the Church, you know, or how does God open your eyes-then you’re Arminian or a Calvinist.” This seems to indicate that Keller is including Catholics under the category of “all Christians,” just different from Protestants based on their answer of how grace is obtained – i.e. they both receive it, just answer differently; reducing the difference between the two to the Arminian/Calvinist distinction. But rather than draw a conclusion on a statement as unclear as this, we need to read more.
“This puts me in a position where I don’t want to defend just one kind of Christianity. I think I want to defend the Apostles Creed. And I want you, as a nonbeliever, to buy the Apostles’ Creed, and then after that figure out where you want to go. I really think I can do that. But, at the same time, I don’t believe I can possibly speak to a lot of these things without [doing so from] within my particularity. So I actually say that there are certain chapters in which I’m going to be speaking as a Protestant because there’s no way not to speak as a Protestant or a Catholic.”
I’m going to need some help from all of you in the comments section because maybe I’m reading too much into this. But it does sound like Keller is not making any distinction between Protestant Christianity and Roman Catholicism, they’re both Christian. He also said he wants nonbelievers to “buy” the Apostles Creed, the after that figure out where they want to go. I wonder if Tim Keller would truly object to one of his converts joining the Romanists or the Eastern Orthodox. Keller must not view the differences to be all that great, as if they’re simply minor doctrinal side-issues. The Council of Trent didn’t think so. Keller went on to say:
“Here’s what so misleading. If I say I’m speaking as a Reformed Protestant and I’m just going to defend Reformed Protestantism, 80 percent of what I’m going to say in that book will be defending a Catholic Christian’s faith, too. So why not admit that?”
Here we see Keller call the Catholic a Christian and attribute faith to them that is 80% the same as his. Maybe my math isn’t as good as my sister’s, but it would seem that justification, regeneration, baptism, God’s sovereignty, the afterlife, God’s decrees, the atonement of Jesus Christ, Sola Scriptura, authority, hermeneutics, communion, ordo salutis, election, predestination, the Fall, etc., would add up to a lot more than 20% of the faith. It sounds more accurate to say that 20% would represent a “Catholic Christian’s” faith too.
Tim Keller’s views on the Roman Catholic Church are progressively revealed in this interview. It started out somewhat vague and I didn’t want to draw any sudden conclusions, nor did I want you to, but as we move along, it starts to become very clear that Tim Keller is an ecumenical pluralist and views Roman Catholicism as true Christians. Here’s another quote from later in the interview:
“I’ve got some really strong friends who are strong Catholics, and they love the book, but I’m sure when they get to certain places they say, “Yeah, there we go . . .” But they don’t mind it, because they’re really happy to have a book that’s basically defending the whole Faith”
I know that people are split over whether the New Covenant Church should have “strong friends” that are Catholic, and I’m not going to make that a major issue right now (personally, I am against it 2 Cor. 6:14-18), but to include them as part of the whole Faith is blurring the line in the sand. We are commanded to earnestly contend for the faith, not whore it out.
“And if I was just running up the flag saying, “I’m a Protestant, I’m Reformed, I’m Presbyterian, I’m Reformed, not Arminian”-I don’t know. This is my best guess, my best guess at how I can model the unity of the Church.”
If he did say that (I’m Reformed etc.), he’d probably not sell as many books. But hey, rather than get John Piper, D.A. Carson, R.C Sproul, Mark Dever, et al. to endorse the book, just get the apostate wide-mercy universalist Billy Graham to kick in a back-cover blurb – on an apologetic work for the 21st century skeptic! Unbelievable. Sorry, back to business. Tim Keller continues by saying:
“One of the things that non-Christians hate about us is how much we don’t like each other. How am I going to overcome their prejudices unless I show a certain breadth of spirit and generosity toward people with different views? And the best way to do that is not to be always talking about the fact that I’m Reformed.”
Sure, that’s the solution. This sounds like he has bought-in to the unbeliever’s red-herring: “I’m not a Christian because you Christians don’t like each other.” I mean, wake up Tim. They hate the fact that King Jesus demands repentance, obedience, and holiness. For crying out loud, what if they start to be honest and give the real reasons why they aren’t Christian? Are you going to start to feed them the same load of crap that Rick Warren is doing to his groupies?
Then there’s this excellent question and very strange answer. See if you can decipher it:
Q: Don’t you run a risk, though? If they pick up the three authors you reference most frequently in the book-Lewis, Jonathan Edwards, and Flannery O’Connor-and investigate their backgrounds, and start getting into limited atonement and election and a sacramental notion of the church and the Anglican broad way, don’t you run the risk of someone saying, “It’s all relative: It all depends on where I’m going to be most comfortable,” as opposed to “Christ founded a Church-and this is it.”
A: I know there’s a danger. I thought there were other ways of writing that book, and I decided that there were more disadvantages to those than this one. But I see huge disadvantages, and you’re pointing them out perfectly-you’re pointing them out perfectly. Listen, I could probably do a better job than you, because you’re being nicer to me. But I could be meaner, and I could say, “This fits in with the spirit of the age,” which is, I’m coming to you as an individual. I’m asking you to make up your own mind, and then you can sort of walk around with this kind of relationship with God now, and it doesn’t stress enough that you’ve got to be a part of a church.
Now part of that is why I am Protestant. In other words, I think if I was Catholic I’d probably write this differently. You can’t help it.
Tim Keller has sold out, or is selling out. It’s too early to tell. But let me ask you this, does this sound like a solid Reformed minister of the Gospel?
Q: The Church would play a much bigger role.
A: A much bigger role. But I know that Catholics reading the book-I also know that Catholics are right about the importance of the Church. So, there we go. In other words, I tried to write a nonsectarian book which still admits that it’s got sectarian roots to it and tells people, when you’re done, you’re going to have to be a part of a particular church. That’s the best I can do. My best job. I mean, there are a lot of judgment calls, and I just made them.
The Tim Keller you see here is the Tim Keller who has abandoned what he has been charged with as a Presbyterian Elder, and has exchanged his duty as God’s servant to the local body of believers with the “Leadership” conference celebrity speaker who specializes in “how to reach the culture.” He’s obviously listened to too much U2. You can remove the hymnal and replace it with a jazz band, you can place classified ads for lesbian Bible studies, you can write your sermons to appeal to NYC intellectuals, but the moment that you undo all that the Magisterial Reformers fought and died for re-enter into fellowship with Rome – you are apostate. Tim Keller has no conviction of using his book to fill and populate Roman Catholic Churches.
Here’s what he says about his own church:
“We’re trying to speak in a way that doesn’t confuse or turn off nonbelievers.”
Imagine if Jesus had taken that approach in John 6. It almost sounds like Tim Keller desires to build a church full of unbelievers. Since he has Federal Vision proponents on staff, I guess that makes sense, but it isn’t biblical. Does Tim Keller desire to build a church full of unbelievers? He said:
“We want nonbelievers to be there. I think that a lot of ministers would never say, “We expect nonbelievers to be constantly there, lots of them there, incubating in the services.” And we do. We do expect that.”
Although Keller’s church is a Presbyterian church, with confession of faith and all (WCF condemns RC doctrine), he donates money to other church planting organizations “outside” the PCA. He said:
“I don’t believe you can reach New York with the gospel if you only plant Presbyterian churches. There are all kinds of people who’ll never be Presbyterians. It just doesn’t appeal to them. Some people are going to be Pentecostals, some people are going to be Catholics. I mean, I know that sounds-I’m not talking about that certain cultures reach certain people. It’s much more complicated than that. Even though there’s something to that. We all know that certain cultures seem to have more of an affinity toward a certain kind of Christian tradition than others, but I wouldn’t want to reduce it to that at all. I would just say that I only know that God seems to use all these kinds of churches to reach the whole breadth of humanity, and so that’s why we give money to start churches of other denominations, and give free training to it. And we’ve done about a hundred in the New York area, where we’ve helped people. It’s very important to us.”
This is bad. But it gets worse. When asked which book besides the Bible (and his) he would recommend to someone questioning Christianity, Tim Keller answered:
Mere Christianity by C.S. Lewis
Read these quotes from Mere Christianity, and while you’re reading, ask yourself if you agree with Keller’s choice.
“Now before I became a Christian I was under the impression that the first thing Christians had to believe was one particular theory as to what the point of [Jesus'] dying was. According to that theory God wanted to punish men for having deserted and joined the Great Rebel, but Christ volunteered to be punished instead, and so God let us off. Now I admit that even this theory does not seem to me quite so immoral and silly as it used to; but that is not the point I want to make.
“What I came to see later on was that neither this theory nor any other is Christianity. The central Christian belief is that Christ’s death has somehow put us right with God and given us a fresh start. Theories as to how it did this are another matter. A good many different theories have been held as to how it works; what all Christians are agreed on is that it does work…
“We believe that the death of Christ is just that point in history at which something absolutely unimaginable from outside shows through into our own world. And if we cannot picture even the atoms of which our own world is built, of course we are not going to be able to picture this.”
Send the warning to everyone you love. Tell them to beware. The counter-reformation has advanced while we were sleeping!
See related posts:
Testing Tim Keller’s Gospel Forms
{ 432 comments… read them below or add one }
Thanks for the shout out Stephen. What can I say? I read the interview as well and am wondering if people are going to take him to task. He’s certainly said too many statements that can’t be denied. I am reading the book and will have a full review soon. I will say, he does keep his reformed views to a minimum. I can understad why, Schaeffer to a certain extent did the same. However, what he said about the RCC makes me wonder if Monergism will have the sad duty of removing him from the Hall of Modern Reformers?
Maybe we can start a new phenomenon: the hall of Contemorary Counter-Reformers. We can stick Keller (if he continues the slide), Moreland, Craig, etc…
Thanks Frank. Hit me up when that review is done.
I’ve dealt with Keller at another blog and I will get that exchange for you shortly. Untill then, I have to say that I saw Keller’s problems two years ago based on that exchange and his endorsement of an unbiblical book which he was unwilling to explain why he’d support such nonsense.
I can’t tell you how angry it makes me to see Reformers DENYING the Literal Six Day Creation, because they “claim” to be so Scriptural (Keller isn’t the only one). The problem is that men like this (and believe me when I say, STAND BY for John Piper) is that they are FAR more man-centered than they are willing to admit. They did NOT move away from RCC—just changed things up a bit.
To deny the Creation Account as GOD told it is to Deny His authority and will automatically lead one to deny other doctrines as well. It is merely only a half-step to denying a literal Fall, a literal Adam and Eve, etc. To try to marry Truth and error is to say that there really IS something in common between Christ and Belial, Christians and unbelievers, darkness and Light. This IS unbelief. Science to Keller trumps Scripture and this is heretical to its CORE.
I hate saying this, but as a Sovereign Grace believer, I believe the reason why Keller WILL get a free pass is because like Mark Driscoll, he touts the name “Reformed”. This label is the new “Evangelical” label. Its used by everyone and allows them to stay under the radar.
Tim Kellor endorsed Adele Calhoun’s book “Spiritual Disciplines Handbook: Practices That Transform Us” back in 2006. This book promotes Eastern Mystic breath prayers and mediation. Adele Ahlberg Calhoun has worked in Christian ministry for over thirty years and is currently pastor of spiritual formation at Christ Church in Oak Brook, Illinois.He excuses it away saying that just because someone not a believer uses such techniques that doesn’t make them bad.
Not only is Adele an illegitament pastor, but she’s also into the “spiritual formation” practices which originated in the pagan religions.
The “practices” she teaches:
* practice visualization techniques (eastern mysticism)
* assume the physical position of meditation (eastern mysticism)
* follow the breathing techniques of meditation (eastern mysticism)
* focus on the message received in the solitude (more eastern mysticism)
God calls us to worship Him in spirit and in truth. Blending pagan rituals and practices with the name of “Jesus” can’t christianize them. They are what they are: godless acts of idol worship. Remember the anger of the Lord when the Jews did not remove all practices and artifacts of the pagan religions but instead kept some of them? The Lord taught us how to pray and worship. Shouldn’t that be good enough?
Ruth Haley-Barton, who also endorsed the book, and trained at the Shalem institute:”Shalem programs are grounded in the Christian contemplative tradition, with its emphasis on being present to God and all that is, and are also graced by the contemplative wisdom from other faith traditions.”
Read more on contemplative spirituality and its pagan roots and dangers and remove yourself from them completely: http://www.lighthousetrailsresearch.com/spiritualformation.htm
Gene Cook did a good program on this over at tnma.blogspot.com.
Peace be with you Stephen.
The time has come, the harvest is ripe.
I am here to bring judgment to the living
and the dead.
The Faithful Witness
This is saddening. I saw Keller speak at an EPC church in town once and I thouroughly enjoyed it as I remember. The PCA is scaring me with the amount of unorthodox heresey floating around in her midst.
Denise,
I can appreciate where you’re coming from. However, many Reformed Men and Women have held to different views of Genesis 1. From Francis Schaeffer to Gleason Archer. And from reading Wayne Grudem and from e-mail exchanges with John Frame, I know they are still on the fence. I doubt you’re about to say they deny the historic fall. Having said that, to bring accusations on John Piper ( a man whose writings played a role in many people becoming Reformed) is a bit unfair. He deserves little more than that. I will say, Keller has made some very concerning statements. and we should deal with them. And if those other issues should come up, let us deal with them at the appropriate time.
I was wondering if someone has confronted him, maybe an elder of his or a teacher that he had respected. It sounds like this has been a steady decline in thought, but I like what Stephan said, (if he continues the slide), there is still hope of repentance and we know church disipline works, and pressure from the whole reformed community, works to.
im still doing a lot of studying so I dont know a whole lot about the RCC but I do know that if people deny or talk around essential doctrines of scripture they need to be confronted.
Tim seems to be bringing the Emerging and Warren Ideals in his methodology and his theology.
Fusion,
Actually there is no other way to read Genesis, regardless of what man claims. God said He created the universe in six days. Its so simple a child can understand it. And to deny the simplicity of HIS proclamation is to deny His authority and His Word.
John Piper is going liberal and its too bad. He is a big hand-holder of foul-mouthed Emergent Mark Driscoll and unashamedly so. I’ve known this for two years at least. When a person is loved by EVERYONE, that’s a red flag too. Just like everyone loves Billy Graham or Rick Warren. The masses will choose the broad road, but those in Christ are on the narrow road. When we speak the Truth boldly, we will not be popular nor liked by many.
I don’t have much respect for people who cast doubt on the clear Word of God nor those who play footsies with the ungodly, giving them a free pass to have words that aren’t fit for print much less a congregation.
Eph 5:11 Take no part in the unfruitful works of darkness, but instead expose them.
::speechless::
::saddened::
::confused::
::thankful::
::hopeful::
::awake::
Maybe this is a rabbit-trail, but I’m a little concerned that we may “throw out the baby with the bath water” as Denise does in her comment:
“foul-mouthed Emergent Mark Driscoll…”
In my 15-minute research of Mark, he seems to consider himself ‘emergent’ but he distances himself from liberal insiders, seeming to maintain doctrinal purity. He honesty is also very refreshing in our PC age, and I believe my pastor (who I respect greatly) would fall under some of the same criticisms.
Summary: let’s not be too quick to disqualify the body of a man’s work for peripheral (not doctrinal or moral issues). If we progress down this path we may eventually find ourselves arguing with we consider the last other possibly ‘reformed’ person on the planet because we are the only ‘pure’ reformer remaining.
It seems to me that Christians who argue against literal six day creation do so because they want to be liked by the world. When you look at the evidence for an against evolution, evolution comes out so very weak.
Keller’s answers smack of the same thing: trying to be liked by the world by watering down the message. It the whole seeker mentality. Water down the truth so much that people can’t taste it, then hope they drink in enough of it that eventually they get the same amount.
Great article and one that sounds a warning – the devil always comes as a friend, looks good, sounds good, acts great but is devious in his perversions of the objective truth of scripture. I agree with Denise on John Piper, the pied piper who leads many astray with his unique and gospel destroying message of “Faith in future Faith”. There has never been a time when in the west we should be more vigilant and discriminating about the ‘Christian Reformed’ culture around us. Read http://www.trinityfoundation.org/journal.php?id=113
Denise,
In respose, I might add, that I was never defending evolution. You never did respond to the fact that many Godly reformed people have not settled on the days of Genesis. I challenge you to read what E.J. Young in The Days of Genesis (published by Westminster Classics) concludes. The point being, godly reformed people haven’t seen eye to eye on the Days of Genesis. I would also refer you to Wayne Grudmens’ Systematic Theology or Gleason Archer’s A Survey of Old Testament Introduction and No FInal Conflict by Francis Schaeffer. If you are a serious Bible student, you can read it and even disagree. I would hope that you could be a bit more charitable with those of us who don’t see eye to eye with you. We can agree however, that neo-darwinian evolution runs counter to the gospel message.
As to what you said about Driscoll, there’s at least one person who’s got no love for him (hint hint). But would you include D.A Carson, Mark Dever, Bruce Ware-people who have written on his Resurgence website and have taught at his church-with John Piper. We could add C.J Mahaney as well. Having said that, I think the anti-Driscoll sentiment i a but much. How is he liberal? I say that because Piper is liberal for associating with Mark-as you say. I get that his humor is a bit much, but Tim Challies wrote something worth thinking about:
But [D.A.] Carson said he finds it helpful to look not just at where Driscoll is, but at the trajectory he is on. I took that to mean that if we look at where he has come from and then plot a course by where he is now, we’ll see that he is growing and maturing as a Christian and that he is continually emphasizing better and more biblical theology. We are all works in progress. This is not to say that we should hope that Mark Driscoll grows up to become John MacArthur or R.C. Sproul. Rather, it simply means that it is sometimes wise to look at the wider picture.
Not sure that this will end the whole debate, but I have been saddened that I have seen people be charitable more at Starbucks, than at Church. I will take a wait and see approach-much like Stephen seems to be taking with Keller. Though going back to that, it’s not looking good.
Great insight Jon, not a rabbit trail at all.
Denise,
I appreciate your zeal and passion for truth. Your information about Keller’s approval of Calhoun’s book on spiritual disciplines is devastating if it is in fact true (all I really know about it is from your post). With that being said I hope you can here my criticism. If you are going to make comments about men like Piper and Driscoll you should include objective moral and or doctrinal evidences that back up your animosity toward them. Stephen’s article is a great example of asking serious questions about a persons doctrinal beliefs.
I enjoy Piper (from what I have heard and listened to), and Piper has teamed with Driscoll for conferences and is involved in ministry with him. Does that make me a man on my way to apostasy? I hope you can see the absurdity.
Driscoll is not a supporter and or proponent of the emergent church; in fact he is critical of it (search YouTube, Driscoll’s website, and Desiring God ministries for examples). He used to be very much involved in it and has matured as fusion pointed out and his doctrinal beliefs have changed and are headed in the right direction from what I have observed thus far. If you know something that I don’t about Piper and Driscoll it would be more appropriate for you to point out legitimate errors as we have seen Stephen do in this article. Your information on Keller was helpful but if you’re going to rant about others give us something objective so we can agree or disagree with you about the specifics. Imagine if Luther said in his day that the Pope and Roman Catholics were apostate and left it at that, without exegesis, debate, or objective examples pointing out their false teachings. There would be no reformation, or at least he would not be apart of it.
Thank you Mr. Hard to pronounce your last name (Pelichowski)
I have to say that yes, Tim has endorsed this book. My school uses it, and I thought I’d peruse through it and sad to say his name was on there. I might also add that I too am giving Driscoll the benefit of the doubt. Thanks for that Luther example. You can go to my blog to see my review of Tim’s book in a few days. Stephen linked to it in the article.
Denise:
Stick to your guns there. You are on the right track – you are not attacking the man but what he teaches and I noted an earlier comment about claiming being reformed is the new evangelical appellation to pass under the radar screen of scrutiny. Contending earnestly for the faith means just that; contending and it is not always as pretty as we would like. Just want to encourage you in the midst of others who wish to quiet you a little.
Maybe Fusion’s hint hint was for me; I don’t know. I’m not crazy about Driscoll myself, but I haven’t numbered him among the apostates – yet. The reason I put it like that is because I have noticed some particularities that have warranted some concern about his perceived role as a “leader.”
There is no doubt that Driscoll is a gifted communicator able to captivate his listeners’ heart and mind. There is also no question regarding his doctrinal stand on various essentials of the faith that are currently being challenged, namely, penal-substitutionary atonement (PSA). He found himself in some controversy regarding his position and made it very clear that he holds to PSA and went out of his way to articulate it for the record. On other essentials such as justification by faith, inerrancy, etc., he seems to be within the pale of orthodoxy.
So, the concern is with his maturity, wisdom, and reverence. What comes to mind is when he compared Jesus to Jack Bauer (spelling?) from the television show 24. To me, this was immature, stupid, and irreverent. It may not be that big a deal to some, but the Bible makes statements about Jesus that would absolutely blow the mind and imagination far beyond anything that any television show could ever do. Here’s one of them:
“He is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of all creation. For by him all things were created, in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or dominions or rulers or authorities—all things were created through him and for him. And he is before all things, and in him all things hold together. And he is the head of the body, the church. He is the beginning, the firstborn from the dead, that in everything he might be preeminent. For in him all the fullness of God was pleased to dwell…”
Now, what is it about that statement that needs any help from 24 to make an impact? I’ve never watched 24, but from what I have heard about it from those that have, Jack Bauer didn’t do any of the stuff Paul wrote in this passage to the Colossians. Why downgrade Jesus to the relational level of his congregation? Wouldn’t it be better to upgrade his congregation to the level of Christ? After all, a few verses later, Paul said:
“Him we proclaim, warning everyone and teaching everyone with all wisdom, that we may present everyone mature in Christ. For this I toil, struggling with all his energy that he powerfully works within me.”
See, Mark sort of missed it on this one. Jack Bauer ain’t like Christ in type, form, style, or anything. Preach this and trust God to grow the congregation “into” this. He doesn’t need JB’s help.
Then there’s Mark’s unlimited limited atonement view that I don’t see as exegetically defensible. This is where he (and others) are saying that the atonement had benefits for all people, but was only efficient to save believers. I can’t remember if he uses “elect” or not, but this is pretty much the position in summary. We attribute those benefits of all mankind to God’s common grace, not the atonement. Mark subscribes to the trendy term “Moderate Calvinist,” and said that he and the MH elders don’t believe anything different than Arminians. He also said they believe the same and more. Clearly not Reformed. I don’t call him Reformed and I don’t think he should either. He needs to read “Studies in the Atonement” by Morey. In fact, we all do!
Another example of Driscoll’s lack of maturity, wisdom, and reverence is when he was attempting to explain penal substitutionary atonement, which I have already said is commendable. Driscoll was once again trying to find a way to connect with his hearers and used the words “I murdered God!” Obviously Mark was trying to say that as our substitute, Jesus dies for the sins that we were guilty of and should have doed for ourselves. This is just an irresponsible theological mouthing-off of an immature pastor that really shouldn’t be in the spotlight as an “evangelical leader” on the cutting-edge of doing church, or whatever they call him.
Anyhow, Driscoll isn’t a heretic or an apostate – yet. These few examples are, however, signs to be concerned about the boundary lines that Drisoll sees himself within. After all, aren’t God’s boundary lines the only one’s that count? Even if it yield a congrgation of 37 rather than 3700?
Another “Luther” example could be that until his death he held some very anti-Biblical beliefs such as the high exaltation of Mary and her ever-virginity. Inspite of this we admire what men such as Luther did for us Reformers just as we admire our modern day Reformers/writers/teachers. But…6 days is 6 days and I think that is one of Denise’s main points.
Thanks Stephen. My hint meant to to say that at least one person has no love for Mark-Denise! However, I do hope we can continue with a charitable spirit as I have seen you extend to Mark. I still am surprise John Piper was thrown into the mix. And as for the 6 days, I guess we’ll have to agree to disagree.
Back to the blog article.
Mere Christianity is a book that falls far short of its title. You don’t have to be a Christian for long before you here Mere Christianity quoted in a sermon, chapel, or a graduation ceremony. Although it’s high on creativity, it’s very short on scripture and misleading especially to an unbeliever. I cannot believe Keller has it at the top of his list for unbelievers. If his book is anything like mere Christianity I will not waste my time or money.
This was one of the first books I was required to read in a class entitled Foundations of Christianity at Biola University. Although I read many other great books during my theological education at Biola I have to say Mere Christianity was a big letdown. Despite all of the hype and praise by many respected Christian leaders I couldn’t figure out while reading it why a book that teaches inclusivism, and just plain sloppy doctrine could be so popular to Christians. Here are some more quotes that I was able to find that should make us all question Keller’s judgment about recommending Mere Christianity to an unbeliever.
“If there was a controlling power outside the universe, it could not show itself to us as one of the facts inside the universe-no more than the architect of a house could actually be a wall or staircase or fireplace in that house. The only way in which we could expect it to show itself would be inside ourselves as an influence or command trying to get us to behave in a certain way. And that is just what we do find in ourselves.” P. 24 Mere Christianity Zondervan Publishing House
“A man can accept what Christ has done without knowing how it works: indeed, he certainly would not know how it works until he has accepted it.” P. 55
–I know that when we first believe we do not know the depths of the work of Christ that we now know as a more mature Christian, but is that what Lewis is saying?
“Here is another thing that used to puzzle me. Is it not frightfully unfair that this new life should be confined to people who have heard of Christ and been able to believe in Him? But the truth is God has not told us what His arrangements about the other people are. We do know that no man can be saved except through Christ; we do not know that only those who know Him can be saved through Him.” P. 64
-This is clearly inclusivism. This is clearly heretical.
“And that, by the way, is perhaps the most important difference between Christianity and all other religions: That in Christianity God is not a static thing-not even a person-but a dynamic, pulsating activity, a life, almost a kind of drama. Almost, if you will not think me irreverent, a kind of dance. The union between Father and the Son is such a live concrete thing that this union itself is a person……What Grows out of the joint life of the Father and Son is a real Person, is in fact the Third of the three Persons who are God. P. 174
-ahhh! I am reading Morey book on the Trinity and I am learning a lot. I am no scholar so correct me if I’m wrong but I’m pretty sure this is nonsense. Its just so confusing, its probably where the evangelifish church gets its worship song that I used to sing that goes like this: and I kid you not “You are my strong melody, You are my dancing rhythm, You are my perfect rhyme, and I want to sing forever. You are beautiful my sweet sweet song. (What does that mean?). Maybe we should ask Lewis.
“Humanity is already ‘saved’ in principle. We individuals have to appropriate that salvation. But the really tough work-the bit we could not have done for ourselves- has been done for us.” P. 181
-This is a universal atonement. Yeah I know a lot of evangelical arminians believe this but isn’t Keller a reformed Presbyterian?
‘There are people in other religions who are being led by God’s secret influence to concentrate on those parts of their religion which are in agreement with Christianity, and who thus belong to Christ without knowing it.” P.209
-I cannot take this anymore. This is the second time I found inclusivistic teaching in Mere Christianity and I read it three years ago. Who knows what more I would find if I read it again today.
There are so many other issues with this book that it would take a lot more than simply browsing through the underlines and frustrated comments I wrote three years ago. Mere Christianity should not be a book that Keller would recommend to non Christians. I think the title Mere Heresy would be more appropriate for Lewis’ book.
P.S.
Danny, I’m really looking forward to fellowshipping with you and your wife when you come to California. Your request for objective moral or doctrinal support was well taken, I hope. Denise has a really good blog with good documentation. I expect her to return with what you’ve rightly asked for. You’re a good seminary student!
Fusion, thanks for the insight from Carson on Driscoll’s trajectory. You know how crazy I am about Don! But consider the trajectory in light of these “fairly recent” items of concern. Also see Steve Camp’s highly critical posts on Driscoll. I don’t side with Steve 100%, but I fall in line with about 90% of his criticism. And, we need to talk about your Creation views. When did this happen? Am I going to have to put you in a theological headlock? Just kidding. BTW, I’ve lost alot of steam for Piper. I just can’t believe that he affirms Tom Wright!
Hebba,
::I know::
::sorry::
::good news::
::Morey::
::SOLID!::
Bob, I couldn’t find the source you referenced. Try again with a link.
Jon, thanks for pointing out that he’s (MD) not an emergent liberal. I’m sure that many will see his conservative theological roots and adherance from that context. I see what you mean by refreshing. I felt like that for a short while too. But there comes a time when the attempt to be shocking and cutting edge can obscure the overarching goal of a famous popular pastor like MD, to the point where refreshing becomes something one turns to look for – only somewhere else. I think this happened with me. I was gung-ho for a couple of weeks, then it got old because there was no “meat.”
Zenas and Travis, the PCA is suffering greatly from many sicknesses; you’re right on! But from the interview, I don’t hear Keller worrying about what the PCA thinks. In fact, when asked about whether he thought the PCA would restrict his ministry goals, he finished his answer by saying that he basically puts up with it. He also has Federal Visionists on staff, although it’s unclear if Keller himself is FV.
Denise, my wife and I have been reading your blog. You have got quite a little nich carved out for yourself. Thanks for the diligent work. Great content! I would like to hear more about the “exchange” you mentioned from a couple of years ago. Don’t leave us hanging!
Reformed Mama, you’ve made an excellent point. It makes me think of the neccesity of the “essentials.” This is why I sent out the BTAW (Biblical Thought Apostasy Warning) on Keller and not on Driscoll – yet. I think “intramural” debates are healthy. I just don’t think “intramural” includes the Catholics.
As far as Marks theology its something to look into but i enjoy his methodology mainly his presentation of the scripture I think a lot of pastors can learn from that part of him, he is very relevant, now if he just taught like Dr. Bob.
Stephen…if you’re still awake…I hope I did not imply “intramural includes Catholics”…I think you know what I think on that subject! My point was that wonderful, godly men (and women) sometimes have wrong views.
Fusion…seriously…is it the 6 or the days you want to “agree to disagree” on??? God’s Word from the very first verse my friend!
Hebba…::Zephaniah 3:17::xo
Of course not, Reformed Mama! I see your point. You were responding to Fusion’s appeal to godly saints and their non-literal six 24 hour-day position on creation, to justify the validity of his non-literal six 24 hour-day position on creation, rather than providing exegetical arguments, or pointing out errors in the literal six 24-hour day position, – or something like that, right?
So we’re good then…see you tomorrow??
Ok, Stephen asked for it so now you’ll get it. LOL. I’ll divide my exchange with Tim Keller into a few parts b/c its a bit lengthy. This took place in the comment section of a Reformed blog in March 2006:
Blog Owner: Tim: …Many people commented on both of those threads linked above, but what I really wanted more than anything was a response from you as per your endorsement which reads:
“I have long profited from Adele Ahlberg Calhoun’s gifts in the field of spiritual development, and I am delighted that she has compiled her experience with spiritual disciplines into book form. I highly recommend it and I look forward to using it as a resource at our church.”
So I just wonder if you’d mind explaining what it is about this book and it’s content that you’re recommending?
Tim: “I like Adele’s book as a practical encyclopedia of spiritual disciplines. No one will like or use all of the approaches equally. But it is a good survey. I did read both of your posts about the book and while they had many general assertions that Adele’s book promoted eastern mysticism, they didn’t have any real specific arguments about why that would be the case. Just claiming that breathing exercises are eastern mysticism does not make them so. I’ve done a lot of thinking about the differences between eastern mysticism and Christian meditation over the years. There are major differences, but I think Adele honors those differences. I know the emerging church likes meditation and contemplation stuff but it also likes liturgy. Does that make all people who love liturgy emergent? I don’t think so. Just because I have profited from ancient Christian practices of meditation and spirituality doesn’t mean I’m emergent. That is ‘guilt by association.’ I know you were criticized for that on the post and I thought it was partly justified.
Francis Schaeffer used to talk about the mistake that evangelicals made 80 years ago in the U.S. They not only left the mainline denominations–they not only separated from unbelief–but they also separated from those real believers who didn’t themselves come out and separate. He called this ’secondary separation’–not from unbelief but from those believers who aren’t as separated from unbelief as you are. I thought there was some of this mistake in your posts. I hate to criticize because I am also deeply concerned about the doctrinal waffling and erosion in so much of the church. I’m glad that you are doing what you can to promote the truth. But I also think sometime you over-reach along the lines of ’secondary seperation.’ I hope this doesn’t sound harsh. “
Me: Tim,So we can now pick and choose which pagan practices we accept and because we’re professing Christians, now that practice is deemed “Christian”?Where’s the discernment here? Where’s the protection of the sheep?… Joh 4:24 God is spirit, and those who worship him must worship in spirit and truth.”
Tim responsed: “Surphing–That is unkind and unfair. I have worked with every fibre of my being for thirty years to exercise discernment and give protection to my sheep. I’m doing it the best I know how. I weep over my sheep if they stray; I stay up nights seeking the best way to protect and guide them. I want more than anything in the world to be guided by the Word of God. Are you saying that I am none of these things are true of me–because we disagree over the contents of a book? Please, please be more circumspect with your language.”
After yet another explanation and enumeration of why the book was so anti-Biblical (as I posted previously here at this blog), he responded:
Tim: “ Surphing–I have looked at all of the reading and viewpoints you suggest and more. I have spent a lot of time over the years looking at these things, thinking them out Scripturally, remembering my responsibility as a shepherd before God–and I have come to different conclusions than you. What do you propose I do now? Are you suggesting I jettison my own conscience and beliefs and simply adopt yours? Are you suggesting that if I wanted to please God more that I would come to see things the way you do? Your questioning of the motives of the people who disagree with you is hurtful, really.”
**End of Part 1**
Me: Tim,What makes those “ancient Christian practices” Christian? Because professing Christians do them? Because professing Christians sanatize them by slapping on the name of Jesus? You’ve yet to deal with the reasons of this being unbiblical. You haven’t dealt with specifically anything I’ve brought to the table. Why?
Here they are again, and I really hope you do address them this time.
This alone should cause the biblical Christian to pass on gleaning anything from this book. Not only is Adele an illegitament pastor (which causes one to think if she’s disobedient in the clear command of women to not have authority over men, then what else is she rejecting in Scripture?), but she’s also into the “spiritual formation” practices which originated in the pagan religions. Remember you said:”"I have long profited from Adele Ahlberg Calhoun’s gifts in the field of spiritual development…I highly recommend it and I look forward to using it as a resource at our church.” This sure gives this woman “pastor” influence over the men and women in your church.
[I then list some of the pagan practices Calhoun teaches in her book.]
I’m hoping you’ll deal with these issues. Thanks Tim.
Tim: Surphing–I couldn’t possibly respond adequately to your assertions in something as short as a comment-thread on a weblog. The internet is not an appropriate vehicle for giving the kind of thorough Biblical/exegetical reasoning that is required.
What I can assure you of (and I hope you don’t think I’m lying to you) is that I believe in sola Scriptura, I’m happily and unapologetically Reformed, I don’t believe in women’s ordination at all. Nevertheless, after years of study and examination of my heart before God, I’ve come to different positions on these matters than you have. Now I only see two possibilities: A) Either it is possible for you and I to be equally committed to Sola Scriptura and equally desirous to please God not men and still come to a different position on contemplative spirituality or B) the only reason I have come to a different position is that I am less committed to Scripture and more desirious to please men than God than you are. Which is it? Is it A? If so, then why keep pushing me? Is it B? If so, then you may be in danger of pride.”
Me: Tim, again you haven’t even dealt with any of the issues I’ve brought up (two issues—that doesn’t seem complicated here). I don’t see how the internet can’t be a place to discuss this. I find it interesting, however, that you continue to take this personally and try to flip the arguement back on me, while the issues is about you and your endorsement of a pagan book. This isn’t complicated whatsoever. You aren’t making any sense at all. If you are sola Scriptura, then why delve into pagan practices? Why endorse a book and desire to use it as a resource at your own church by a woman who’s an illegitamate pastor who’s also into this Eastern mysticism? That’s giving credibility to someone who isn’t called of God and its giving her influence over your congregation. Where in the Bible is this promoted (women pastors, contemplatiive spirituality?) This should be simple to answer if you are Sola Scriptura , eh?”
**End Part 2** (and I am aka “Surphing” btw)
Tim: I’m not taking this personally at all, Surphing. I am pointing out that you tend to use ad hominem arguments on the people you disagree with. You use pejorative language, you question their motives, and you assume that those who disagree with you are guilty of being less committed to God than you are. That is the subtext to nearly all your posts. I am calling you on it. I am challenging you (as a pastor) on the spirit in which you communicate. As I said above, I won’t debate you on your terms because you make your arguments with soundbytes and prooftexting. (For example these things aren’t pagan practices just because you say they are. You have to show that breathing practices, for example, preclude the worshipper from conceiving and praying to God in a Biblical way. Do they? How so? The burden is on you.)
Me: Tim, again, I find that you continue to make this personal. You endorsed the book, you said you want to make it a resource for your church, and you say you hold to Sola Scriptura. The burden of evidence is on you: show me HOW this is biblical, please. If you really hold to Sola Scriptura, then this should be a simple thing to do: show me in Scripture where breathing techniques, prayer labyrinths, etc. are done in conjunction with worshiping Christ our Lord.
Tim: Surphing was the one who made it personal. [The blog owner] simply disagreed with me strongly. That was fine. Surphing, however, questioned a)my commitment to the sheep and therefore my integrity, b)my discernment and therefore my maturity of character. That is not a ’style’ thing–that is a very substantial thing. A charge like that is serious (particularly against an elder.) [The blog owner] didn’t do that. I asked Surphing what warrant she had not for just disagreeing with my position but for going after my character as a shepherd, and she never answered. When I looked around the website and saw that Surphing does this routinely, I thought it would be at least fair and maybe spiritually useful to call her on it. I don’t know Surphing personally, and maybe she doesn’t interact like this habitually. But there was some evidence of self-righteousness, I thought. So I’ve pointed it out. I’ve done this with a pretty measured tone of voice. If that is ’shooting the messenger’ (as Nina calls it) I don’t know in what better form you would want your criticism to come.
I know you think this is ‘misdirection’ and just a ploy for avoiding a defense of my position, but if you’d go back and see how [The blog owner] invited me to post–she didn’t ask me for a full defense of my views on contemplative spirituality. She just wanted me to explain what I thought was commendable about the book. I did. I won’t be goaded into doing something I wasn’t asked originally to do. Nor is this the place to do it.
Since [another commentor] is now asking me to defend or denounce Karen Mains (!)it is time to respectfully leave this thread. God bless you all. (I mean that. No irony intended at all!)
Me: So that’s it? Show the connection between Karen Mains and Adele Calhoun and end of discussion? I wonder why?
Tim: Because if you endorse a book that doesn’t mean you endorse every other book that that author endorses! Do you like David Wells as an author? Have you checked out every other author that he endorses? You can be held responsible for the contents of the book you recommend, but not for the entire life of the author!
Me: A “conservative” “reformed” pastor who enthusiastically endorses a woman “pastor”? I’m still scratching my head over this, since there’s no such thing as a woman pastor in Scripture. This is one of the most clearest issues in Scripture and Adele Calhoun doesn’t obey it. So why endorse her at all? Not to mention the eastern mystical new age practices.
**End of Part 3 and end of the discussion**
Notice Keller tries three times to use his position as an “elder” and a “pastor” to out-rank me. This is unbiblical since he’s neither my elder nor pastor of my church. Using the position of authority card is a logical fallacy (I hate logic but it seems these types LOVE the logic rules even while breaking them, themselves).
Phil Johnson once said:
“Friendly dialogue and mutual acceptance are not always the right strategy—especially when someone challenges our central biblical convictions. See Nehemiah 6:1-3 for one very practical example of this principle. In fact, accepting an invitation to “dialogue” about patently unbiblical ideas is probably the worst possible answer in an era when the promise of genial “conversation” is the very tool certain phony “ministers of righteousness” have employed to undermine resistance to an amalgamation of worldly ideas and out-and-out heresies that actually attack the authority of Scripture and the assurance of faith.
So while I am concerned about proper, Christlike and Pauline “tone,” and I do (believe it or not) try not to be needlessly sarcastic or over-the-top harsh, I am much more concerned to speak truthfully and with clarity.”
For the context: http://teampyro.blogspot.com/200…- authentic.html
Who says I’m, justifying anything? I’m saying that this isn’t necessarily an essential doctrine, but something that even in reformed circles is open to debate. I might add, I appreciated John Frame’s forthrightness with me when he wrote to me that he was still on the fence on the issue. I originally posted that because Denise said that anyone that denied the literal 6 day creation approach would soon deny the fall. I doubt John Frame or Gleason Archer or Francis Schaeffer (he at least seems open to it in Genesis in Space and Time) or E.J. Young ever did. Likewise, I’m still on the fence on this one. And no, I don’t believe in evolution-like Keller seems to be open to in his book.
It astounds me that people even doubt God’s clear Word on Creation. It is so simple a child can believe it:
Gen 1:1 In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth.
Gen 1:2 The earth was without form and void, and darkness was over the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God was hovering over the face of the waters.
Gen 1:3 And God said, “Let there be light,” and there was light.
Gen 1:4 And God saw that the light was good. And God separated the light from the darkness.
Gen 1:5 God called the light Day, and the darkness he called Night. And there was evening and there was morning, the first day.
Gen 1:6 And God said, “Let there be an expanse in the midst of the waters, and let it separate the waters from the waters.”
Gen 1:7 And God made the expanse and separated the waters that were under the expanse from the waters that were above the expanse. And it was so.
Gen 1:8 And God called the expanse Heaven. And there was evening and there was morning, the second day.
And so forth. This isn’t complicated. And to doubt Genesis 1 as God has given us is to doubt His Word and Authority: Hath God said?
As far as John Frame is concerned, he also denies the necessity of trusting in the Resurrection of Jesus Christ to be saved, as Romans 10 says:
Rom 10:9 because, if you confess with your mouth that Jesus is Lord and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved. 10 For with the heart one believes and is justified, and with the mouth one confesses and is saved.
1Co 15:1 Now I would remind you, brothers, of the gospel I preached to you, which you received, in which you stand, 2 and by which you are being saved, if you hold fast to the word I preached to you–unless you believed in vain. 3 For I delivered to you as of first importance what I also received: that Christ died for our sins in accordance with the Scriptures, 4 that he was buried, that he was raised on the third day in accordance with the Scriptures,
The problem is that it seems many folks have this Magisterium Mentalty, that if people of “note” believe something, it must be true. This is not biblical. Scripture says we are to test all things including all people, and if even Paul himself gives a gospel that is false, he is eternall condemned (Gal. 1:7-9). Just because the Scholar Herd holds to something (or in the above case, doesn’t know something when Scripture is CLEAR on the issue), doesn’t mean we too shall follow. Truth isn’t measured or confirmed by numbers, seminaries, theologians, or authors, but by Scripture and Scripture alone.
Please show me where John Frame denies believing in the resurrection.
I might add, I should have said, please show me where he denies the idea of trusting in the resurrection.
On another note, it is because the bible was originally written in Greek and Hebrew, that I would be foolish to ignore the insights of Greek and Hebrew Scholars. Indeed God has given us teachers, as Paul wrote in Ehpesians, and while I may not always agree with them (like I said, I’m still on the fence) I would listen to both sides of the issue. When it comes to who Christ is, what he has done and the message of the gospel, i know where I stand and where Scripture stands. And Mr. Macasil can vouch for me. Unless you think it improper for me to appeal to Stephen.
You need to show exegetical proof that I’d vouch for you!
J/K
I VOUCH FOR FRANK FUSION!
And I love that brother!
Thanks Steve-o!
I’m growing, searching the scriptures, and trying to mature in Christ. I just started reading some works of Tim Keller today and a friend directed me to this blog. So far, in all of my readings, I have liked Tim Keller, John Piper, and most of all Mark Driscoll. I visit this site and read all of these comments etc. and it seems as though people are saying these men are trying to deceive people or something of that nature. Do you HAVE to believe that Calvin and Luther got it 100% correct in order to be truly saved and mature in Christ? Must we all line up what we believe with everything they taught? All 5 points? I’m asking because it is a little discouraging reading all these mens works and then coming here and seeing that maybe I’m missing the mark all together, and these men who’s works I have been encouraged by may be the very people keeping me from ever hitting that mark.
Denise,
Interesting blog dialog, Tim was not answering your questions and he seemed a little uneasy. However, there is little weight that comes from a supposed dialog that you had with him on some blog. I don’t have any reason to believe you made the whole thing up but I think that lecture references or books that he has written that he openly stands by is far more helpful. I do think that Keller has a lot of explaining to do from what Stephen showed in the public interview. Also, because of the endorsement of Mere Christianity as a must read for non believers and for his endorsement of the book that you brought up about spiritual disciplines.
With that being said my earlier challenge to you was to give proof of your animosity and apostasy comments made towards toward John Piper and Driscoll. Stephen brought up some things to be critical about when it comes to Driscoll, but as Stephen said himself these issues don’t make him a heretic. Someone else brought the charge on Piper’s book Future Grace, I have not read the Trinity Foundation article yet, I am planning on it but if the person who left that comment would point out the meat of the article and show the page numbers and quotes of the supposed heresy of John Piper like I did with Lewis’ book I would greatly appreciate it. Denise, if you are going to publicly write about men and say that they are on their way to apostasy your going to have to give me a little more than the statement “they wear the reformed badge and think they can get away with anything they want.” That might be true but I haven’t seen, heard, or read anything that would convince me that these guys are on their way to apostasy. Tim Keller is on the ropes but Piper and Driscoll, although we might not agree with every little detail of their theology or methodology, last I checked they aren’t using ecumenical language towards Roman Catholics or endorsing bogus books.
Denise thanks for your time and efforts in defending the faith. I would love it if you would clear up your earlier remarks and let me know what you think.
Firstperson, you asked:
“Do you HAVE to believe that Calvin and Luther got it 100% correct in order to be truly saved and mature in Christ? Must we all line up what we believe with everything they taught? All 5 points?”
The answer is no.
you also said:
“I’m asking because it is a little discouraging reading all these mens works and then coming here and seeing that maybe I’m missing the mark all together, and these men who’s works I have been encouraged by may be the very people keeping me from ever hitting that mark.”
Just remember that the Bible is the final authority and that none of these men are any different than the most wicked and vile sinner ever to live in all of history. That way you won’t be so disappointed or discouraged. Any good in them or done through them is by grace from God alone. They can lie, cheat, steal, etc., just like all of us can – left to ourselves. As for hitting the mark, you’ll never do it. That’s what Jesus did – for us – that we may have eternal life as if we did. Place your faith in Christ alone as your only hope of heaven, not those cats.
Steve,
You already know how I feel about the limited/unlimited four point Calvinist position that Driscoll seems to be parroting. And as for Driscoll using Jack Bauer as a type of Christ, although I like the show, I think you were right in pointing out his immaturity. I read the article and although Driscoll isn’t saying that Bauer is just like Jesus and should be worshiped, the whole thing is just unnecessary as you pointed out and could be very misleading for new Christians. I think Driscoll should spend more time blogging bout the doctrine of God in a clear biblical way instead of trying so hard to find clever ways to engage our modern culture by drawing doctrinal and biographical links of biblical characters to TV shows, music, and or movies. With that being said I think Driscoll is on a lot better trajectory than many and is in a better place than he was years ago. I also, like you would not call him a heretic or even on his way to apostasy. I think that we should pray for him and challenge him personally in the areas we disagree and thus edify the church by correcting a man who is laboring night and day for the glory of God. And that much is true from what I have observed from Driscoll thus far. He is in a position of great influence and who better to send him an email to sharpen him than you or any other Christian that can make him more effective in his ministry. You were right on when you said that he should read Morey’s book Studies in the Atonement. I think he would be greatly benefited. Driscoll’s atonement views are being influence by Ware when as we both agree they should be influenced by Morey and other scholars who hold to more exegetically appealing views of the atonement.
As for Piper affirming N.T. Wright, what is that all about? Didn’t he write a book against him?
And on a personal note, my wife and I are also exited to see you your wife and everyone else at Faith Community Church in April. God bless brother and keep up the good work here at Biblical Thought.
P.S. What did you think about the quotes I posted from Lewis’ Mere Christianity? I was reading the passages that deliberately show his inclusivistic beliefs to a friends out here in Louisville and they pointed out that these are exactly the kinds of statements that Billy Graham has been making in recent years. I don’t know a lot about Graham but I’m sure he like many other prominent evangelicals are very influenced and enamored by C.S. Lewis. How can so many be impressed with a guy who believes that a Buddhist or a Muslim can be saved by Christ’s atoning work without converting and turning away from their false religions. In Lewis’ view they will get to heaven without even knowing the savior who is sending them their. This is nonsense!
C.S. Lewis- The evangelical hero:
There are people in other religions who are being led by God’s secret influence to concentrate on those parts of their religion which are in agreement with Christianity, and who thus belong to Christ without knowing it.” P.209 Mere Christianity Zondervan publishing
“Here is another thing that used to puzzle me. Is it not frightfully unfair that this new life should be confined to people who have heard of Christ and been able to believe in Him? But the truth is God has not told us what His arrangements about the other people are. We do know that no man can be saved except through Christ; we do not know that only those who know Him can be saved through Him.” P. 64 Mere Christianity Zondervan publishing
In reading the postings about Tim Keller, I am convinced that not only him but some of his detractors have some maturing in the faith that needs accomplished. Let this scripture be your guide.
2Ki 14:1 In the second year of Joash son of Jehoahaz king of Israel reigned Amaziah the son of Joash king of Judah.
2Ki 14:2 He was twenty and five years old when he began to reign, and reigned twenty and nine years in Jerusalem. And his mother’s name was Jehoaddan of Jerusalem.
2Ki 14:3 And he did that which was right in the sight of the LORD, yet not like David his father: he did according to all things as Joash his father did.
2Ki 14:4 Howbeit the high places were not taken away: as yet the people did sacrifice and burnt incense on the high places.
We can say this of many of our best leaders down through the centuries. “He was a good leader but didnt do like so-and-so did”
Even when we come before God to be judged our own lives will be wieghed according to the scale of Jesus Christ, not Pastor So and so.
Its the Spirit of the Lord that draws us ever nearer to Christ-likeness, we cannot take credit for zeal or passion. If we draw the sword of the Spirit against error we do so because God himself has created in us the love of the truth. I would have rather read “Joash removed all the high places and burned the bones of the priests” such as did Josiah and for that it is said ” 2Ch 34:33 And Josiah took away all the abominations out of all the countries that pertained to the children of Israel, and made all that were present in Israel to serve, even to serve the LORD their God. And all his days they departed not from following the LORD, the God of their fathers. 2Ki 23:25 And like unto him was there no king before him, that turned to the LORD with all his heart, and with all his soul, and with all his might, according to all the law of Moses; neither after him arose there any like him.
We all want to be Josiah, but, we sometime end up like Joash.
Yet even some end up like this. 1Ki 14:7 Go, tell Jeroboam, Thus saith the LORD God of Israel, Forasmuch as I exalted thee from among the people, and made thee prince over my people Israel,
1Ki 14:8 And rent the kingdom away from the house of David, and gave it thee: and yet thou hast not been as my servant David, who kept my commandments, and who followed me with all his heart, to do that only which was right in mine eyes;
1Ki 14:9 But hast done evil above all that were before thee: for thou hast gone and made thee other gods, and molten images, to provoke me to anger, and hast cast me behind thy back:
1Ki 14:10 Therefore behold, I will bring evil upon the house of Jeroboam, and will cut off from Jeroboam him that pisseth against the wall, and him that is shut up and left in Israel, and will take away the remnant of the house of Jeroboam, as a man taketh away dung, till it be all gone.
We all fall somewhere between Josiah and Jeroboam. We should be careful not to write the final sentence over someone until Gods own providence reveals what a man really was.
John
Danny and John,
Thanks for your comments. I hope Stephen introduces us when you come Danny. I trust Steve’s judgment of people. I’m happy to report he had no need to put me in a theological headlock-yet. I am however waiting for proof that Driscoll, Piper, and John Frame are heretical. Have a great day.
I have to say this is a loving blog, it warns me about teachers that I respect, and what I need to watch out for, I dont think anyway that people are casting Driscoll, Piper, and John Frame out of the church, and do agree that we need to be watchful, with all men. I know Steve wouldnt want people to say well theres Steve he has it all together. But when it come to the essential doctrines, and clear cut teachings of our faith, we must stand firm.
Some one who knows each of these men should invite them to the blog, or make a phone call and ask them to explain.
on another not, Ive been thinking about the salvation and if you believe man has something to do with it prior to repentance you are mistaken can we cast all arminian or persons that hold to the limited and unlimited atonement. Maybe they havent read Dr. Bobs work.
Heres one last question. Who keeps these men accoutable to scripture: Morey, Driscoll, Piper, Frame? Do the have men and women around them that check them. I know Dr. Bob does how about the others?
Danny, Piper affirmed Wright as a Christian and not a heretic in spite of Wright’s continual attack on justification by faith, penal substitution, and orthodox Christology, and in spite of Wright’s continual lead and support of the new perspective on Paul, final judgment according to works, preterism, and more. Piper considered Wright to be merely unclear in certain areas that need clarity. Piper said that he’s too close to glory to be trying to win debates, and so he’d rather treat Wright graciously.
Here are some doctrines that N.T. Wright tirelessly denies and writes against ad nauseum:
Justification by faith – Wright denies that “justification” is salvation, rather a declaration in the present of what can be at the future judgment, which is according to works.
Penal substitutionary atonement – Wright considers it only a theory of the atonement, yet a caricature of the cross.
Orthodox Christology as described in the creeds – Wright says that he can still quote all of the historic creeds of the church, but he means something entirely different when he does.
It is only in this politically-correct day in age that a stone-cold heretic like Tom Wright can escape the charge of heresy. He is as vicious as they come. If he isn’t a heretic, then neither was Pelagius, Origen, Marcion, and all the rest of the diaper rash heretics of the infant church. How gracious does one have to finally be when he graciously warns the world against hellbound doctrines and their teachers. Such an awful mess has been created now that Piper has sided with Wright. He had the chance, and like Keller, made the call to go one way and not the other.
As for your quotes from Lewis, they were barely scratching the surface. C.S. Lewis should not be recommended to anyone because he was a heretic, as you have pointed out. In case that doesn’t put the nail in Lewis’ coffin, take a look at how inclusivistic he really was to the point that LDS apologists use his works to justify their doctrines:
“… the claim is made that certain LDS doctrines are so bizarre, so totally foreign to biblical or historical Christianity, that they simply cannot be tolerated. In terms of the LDS doctrines most often criticized on these grounds, however –the doctrine of deification and its corollary, the plurality of gods–this claim does not hold up to historical scrutiny. Early Christian saints and theologians, later Greek Orthodoxy, modern Protestant evangelists, and even C. S. Lewis have all professed their belief in a doctrine of deification. The scriptures themselves talk of many “gods” and use the term god in a limited sense for beings other than the Father, the Son, or the Holy Ghost. If this language is to be tolerated in scripture and in ancient and modern orthodox Christians without cries of “polytheism!” then it must be similarly tolerated in the Latter-day Saints. If scripture can use the term gods for nonultimate beings, if the early Church could, if Christ himself could, then Latter-day Saints cannot conceivably be accused of being outside the Christian tradition for using the same term in the same way.
Again, I am not arguing that the doctrine is true, although I certainly believe it is. I am only arguing that other Christians of unimpeachable orthodoxy have believed in deification long before the Latter-day Saints came along, and that it has been accepted and tolerated in them as part of their genuine Christianity. Fair play demands the same treatment for the Latter-day Saints.” – The Doctrinal Exclusion by Stephen E. Robinson Article
Robinson is talking about C.S. Lewis’s doctrine of deification that says man becomes god. Here’s a quote from lewis affirming this:
“It is a serious thing to live in a society of possible gods and goddesses, to remember that the dullest and most uninteresting person you talk to may one day be a creature which, if you saw it now, you would be strongly tempted to worship. . .” —C. S. Lewis, The Weight of Glory
There are plenty of others. Notice that Robinson includes C.S. Lewis among those of “unimpeachable orthodoxy.” Unimpeachable my arse!
As for Billy Graham, remember, Tim Keller’s book is endorsed by Billy Graham and inspired by C.S. Lewis. This is not a conspiracy theory, it’s for real. For a quick short audio clip on this, listen to John MacArthur on Rome, Natural Theology, Billy Graham, and Clark Pinnock
I’m happy to report that I gave Fusion! a big ole hug when I saw him at the assembly this morning! And yes, Danny is all that. Maybe you’ve seen him before, he’s the guy with the dark colored Ford Focus with Mark Driscoll stickers all over it and an Acts 29 antenna flag.
No Stephen, you’ve got me all wrong, its a black Toyota Matrix with dozens of Morey audio lectures scattered around the front and back seat. And it’s not an Acts 29 flag it’s a Faith Defenders black coffee mug in the cup holder!
Danny, I get you every time with that Focus joke, don’t I?
Steve, I’m trying to figure out something clever to say about your car but I forget the make and model. I was thinking that next time you teach you should wear one of those wrist bans that Driscoll has, It would make you more relevant.
I think that model’s been discontinued. It’s a crime against nature.
It violates my conscience to drive such an old vehicle that contributes to global warming. Not very emergent of me. My superb exegetical skills and my mastery of hermeneutics have landed me on a verse: Blessed are the poor.
Fusion,
nice hit on Driscolls wrist band, that was good
but on the flip side do we not consider relevence to society in fashion, though if you think about the statement I just made, you will have to ask which part of society do we relate to? To add to that does anyone wear some of the clothing you see some orthodox churches wear? seriously, do we have to wear a tie? or Robe? or just sing a certain way (sytle and instruments not lyrics). I like the fact that Mark is trying be “relational” but I know seattle has a huge rock scene, Id like to see him show up in some spikes and make up.
Wear what you want to wear(not contrary to scripture). If you wear a tie during your life, then wear a tie, if you wear a robe then wear a robe.
What the french toast Trav? I didn’t make the wrist band statement. However, what kind are they? And have you seen that giant (broken!) time keeper Macasil keeps on his wrist? Cultural relevance side, I think we should have a social conscience. I wouldn’t walk out there in rags (if I can avoid it). I once heard that Jesus didn’t come to wear an Izod shirt and drive an SUV. But then again, wouldn’t he have? And yes Stephen I may have to take you to task for polluting out air. I know this is a crazy aside from what the post is about, but meh. I’m glad we can laugh at ourselves. I might also add, do you think Paul wore a toga in Macedonia? What did Daniel wear in the court of Nebuchadnezzer? Probably not what was found on the cover of Jewish GQ at the time.
maybe it just sounded like you said it
my bad
Danny that was for you
Fusion,
you are probubly right about the toga etc, but I can say the same thing about Joseph and what he wore when he was in power under pharoh, even when he was with his father, im sure he looked good when he had to probubly not when he was running back and forth to his brothers in the field.
come on dont you look at the paintings it shows what the wore, Jesus had style also, with long flowing hair and nice trimmed beard.
So to stay with in the contents of this blog, we can say that Tims methodology and theology are contrary to scripture, we should look back at his attier to see if that changed with his theology change LOL
Can we say the same about Driscoll, I think he just did a sermon on his methodology it should be interesting.
And we all know John Frame cant dress, but is it a reflection of his Theology (just Kidding).
You know this blog made me realize..
We as believers need to stick together, even if we do not agree on a lot of the methods or doctrines not essential to being a Christian,
now that i think about what I just said all our doctrines are essential to being a Christian (if you deny one you usally will deny another) its our methodology and other practices we do that arnt directly explained, that grace needs to be given to.
What do you think about that? How can I better say this?
I would love it if all we had to worry about was what each other were wearing. The problem is what comes out of the mouth (extra points for Jesus quote!), not what we’re wearing.
A perfect example is Paul Washer. NOBODY is out-preaching Paul Washer these days and NOBODY would ask him for his wardrobe designer’s business card.
I must admit, he does have style. It would be nice to see more style in our preachers. I did learn in my speech class that you must dress a little better than your audience. Of course Stephen has violated this rule on many occasions! Having said that, to go back to the parameters of said blog, I’m still waiting for the evidence against Driscoll, Piper and Frame.
I might add Stephen, go to my blog, and look at what I added at the top corner. I hope to see a more legit version from you guys soon.
Stephen
…”diaper rash heretics of the infant church”…lol
The Eastern Orthodox luuuvvv CSLewis…this site has some annoying theosis quotes on the front page:
http://www.frimmin.com/faith/theosis.html
Re: CS Lewis–I have looked up all the quotes and indeed “Mere Christianity” is nothing but Mere Roman Catholocism.
http://www.takeheed.net/Lewisavoid.htm
Later on page 59 of ‘Mere Christianity’ Mr Lewis writes ‘There are three things that spread the Christ life to us: baptism, belief, and that mysterious action which different Christians call by different names – Holy Communion, the Mass, the Lord’s supper’
‘There are people in other religions who are being led by God’s secret influence to concentrate on those parts of their religion which are in agreement with Christianity and who thus belong to Christ without knowing it. For example, a Buddhist of good will may be led to concentrate more and more on the Buddhist teaching about mercy and to leave in the background (although he might still say he believed) the Buddhist teaching on certain other points. Many of the good Pagans long before Christ’s birth may have been in this position…Consequently it is not much use trying to make judgments about Christians and non-Christians in the mass’. On page 173 of ‘Mere Christianity’ C S Lewis.
In his book ‘Prayer: Letters to Malcolm’ C S Lewis wrote [p 109-111]– Of course I pray for the dead. The action is so spontaneous, so all but inevitable, that only the most compulsive theological case against it would deter men. And I hardly know how the rest of my prayers would survive if those for the dead were forbidden. At our age the majority of those we love best are dead. What sort of intercourse with God could I have if what I love best were unmentionable to Him? On the traditional Protestant view, all the dead are damned or saved. If they are damned, prayer for them is useless. If they are saved, it is equally useless…To pray for them presupposes that progress and difficulty are still possible. In fact you are bringing in something like Purgatory. Well, I suppose I am…I believe in Purgatory
Tim Keller has proven himself to endorse a New Age Feminist and sees nothing wrong with that. If people here can’t see that’s a problem, I really don’t know what else to say. Not only does he heartily endorse Adele Calhoun, but he can’t biblically explain how her New Age Mysticism is worshiping God in Spirit and in Truth. Anyone who endorses a mystic feminist has no discernment and has crossed the line into heresy. He (or she) has endorsed paganism and call it Truth.
As to Piper, my caution still stands. He is going down the road of liberalism. His continual endorsement and offering of Driscoll shows this. And if folks here can’t see the problems with Driscoll, then I can’t help you. Steve Camp had two excellent blog entries on him which I think folks should take a look at. Driscoll pushes the Emergent Church Movement which is poison, his language violates clear Scripture, and his trivializing Christ is a disgrace.
There is never enough evidence for a skeptic.
Fusion, as to John Frame you apparenly misunderstood. John Frame rejects the biblical teaching that one MUST believe in the resurrection of Christ in order to be saved. He doesn’t reject the Resurrection of Jesus. He says not all need to believe it in order to be saved. Romans 10:9-10 says otherwise.
How do I know his stand? Like you: emails.
Denise,
I stand with Stephen and a few other commentators here who are taking a wait and see approach to Driscoll. I’m not ready to call him a liberal or a heretic. It will tkaae more than guilt by association to seriously attack John Piper. I doubt Diriscoll has pushed the EC on reformed people. He’s since repudiated many of the liberal strands of the EC. He’s far from Emergent. Hos methodology may bug many of us, but all Pastors grow and change over the years. Like I said, wait and see. The moment he denies the true Lordship and Divinity of Jesus Christ and his gospel (something he is defending in his latest book) I will join anyone in decrying him. As for Frame, let us wait and see. But still, no documentation I fear.
Denise,
Could you help me out on this? You said “John Frame rejects the biblical teaching that one MUST believe in the resurrection of Christ in order to be saved.” This doesn’t sound like Frame, to me. Can you provide some additional context for us to better understand?
Denise think you have Driscoll confused, listen to his recent sermon on the emergent church 2 sundays ago, from what i remember he denounces it, there is a differnce in being emergent in a sense of fashion and style of your church and theology/methodology. I dont see any herisies with him, concerns yes, he also did a sermon on his methodology last sunday I havnt heard it yet. These men are concerned about the Gospel and until they violate the Gospel and comprimise it, I will listen to them \, but with caution. I hope they continue and preach truth.
Send them an email ask him to verify what you are saying, i think he does it in his sermons.
I take the caution you made seriously
Let me ask this. Because someone becomes an apostate or heritic, do we stop reading thier books that WERE good and reccomended highly?
FOR EXAMPLE, if John Frame or Dr. Bob denounced the the atonment should we stop reading there books on the atonment or hermanuticcs?
I think the bigger issue here is knowing when we seriously want to question someone’s state. If someone renounced the gospel or something just as serious, it would be something to definitely use as the means by which we can count tham apostate or in serious danger. In the case of Driscol, Piper et al. allegations of their being liberal have been made and we are still want of evidence. On another note, good call on the whole doctrine/methodology distinction. Much like the best approach to Genesis 1, infant salvation, did Judas have communion etc.. these are issues that I hope we can have differing opinions on without calling into question someone’s salvation or other “street cred”. Granted, these would be non-essentials and not related to salvation per se and within Biblical parameters.
Travis, you asked:
“Because someone becomes an apostate or heritic, do we stop reading thier books that WERE good and reccomended highly?”
…and
“FOR EXAMPLE, if John Frame or Dr. Bob denounced the the atonment should we stop reading there books on the atonment or hermanuticcs?”
No and no. If you only knew what I’m currently reading. First of all, I’m working through about 15 different books right now. Included are N.T. Wright (Evil and the Justice of God), and Scot McKnight (A Community Called Atonement), both of which are extremely dangerous heretics. But I read them and benefit tremendously from them. It’s no secret that I love to read N.T. Wright although he is apostate. And I am really enjoying Scot McKnight, an apostate as well. The warnings that we send out is so that you “know” they are apostate or on their way. Like with Keller, I made readers aware that he is drifting towards, if not already there, inclusivism/ecumenism. By knowing, then you are less likely to be caught off guard.
As I read Wright and McKnight, I can only imagine what kind of damage can be done had I not known they were Christ’s enemies. They are so seductive and fluid that even I sometimes get drawn in to the snakecharmers spell. But I’ll tell you, my discernment and overall understanding of the atonement and justification has been strengthened by reading these evil beasts. Their false views and the methods they use to convey their heresy is enlightening for me, making me better equipped not only to minister to those in need – but to refute those who attack as I defend the faith!
Like I said at the end of one of my N.T. Wright articles: “Thank God for heretics!”
But if in the future, Keller doesn’t explain his statements and continues the slide to outright undeniable apostasy, then that would only put a minor asterick on his past works – one that indicates that the book was written by a heathen who never believed. That would be something to watch out for.
Stephen…
I think we are going to need that “headlock”…
Fusion…your’re killin’ me…”differing opinions” on some issues are appropriate but, the “best approach to Genesis 1″ is to take God at His Word! The other “issues” you mentioned are not clear but the Genesis passages are super clear…do I sense a spirit of rebellion (imagine a Kenneth Copeland accent)???
I’m sorry to Mama, but this is one issue where I would say there has been an ongoing dialogue. Included in this would be Francis Schaefer’s book “genesis in space and time” where he is open to a different use of the word “Day” than a strict 24. E.J. Young of Westminster (whom Dr. Bob used as his basis for his lectures on Isaiah) and even John Frame who has told me that he’s still on the fence. Having said that I’m happy to report that I still subscribe to a historico-grammatical hermeneutic and am still on the fence on the issue. I think many reformed people are.
For the record, since Dr. Morey has been named, he is not at all even remotely close to the slightest possibility that any other position other than the literal six 24-hour days is exegetically valid. I am proof reading his upcoming book on natural theology and in it he is absolutely clear – spotless! He considers the opposing view as natural theology and makes “strong” arguments for the L624HD position (hopefully y’all caught that).
He also accepts E.J Young’s scholarship as seen in many of his works, both positive (Isaiah series) and negative (Ecclesiastes series – intro).
I wanted to clear it up just in case anyone thinks Dr. Morey may not hold to a literal six…wait, why am I doing this? In case anyone thinks he may not hold to a “L624HD” Creation.
I never intimated that he did Stephen. Sorry if it came off that way. I only wanted to show that people in the reformed movement are at differing opinions on this.
Yes, I know Fusion! It was for just for the record. He makes a pretty big deal about it so I wanted to clear up *any* assumptions. While we’re cleaning it up, we might also want to note that it is not a “Reformed” issue, seeing that many Arminians, Roman Catholics, and Arminian Roman Catholics (Moreland) deny the L624HD Creation too. I’m digging these abbreviations!
I’ve been searching to see if Keller has responded to the criticism of his First Things interview. In doing so, I found no other criticism but this one. I wonder if nobody cares that one of our most prominent Reformed “leaders” has included Catholics in “the faith.”
Great. But are you implying that denying L624HD is bad?
I might add that what I meant to say was that much like with infant baptism, covenant theology and a few other ideas in the Reformed movement, not everyone is fully agreed. Including on the days of Genesis.
“But are you implying that denying L624HD is bad?”
Well, I was making it clear that Dr. Morey did not reject L624hDC. I didn’t offer my personal view, and wasn’t implying that denying it was “bad.”
As for my personal view, I hold to a L624hDC with full conviction. I believe that the position I hold is right and good, ipso facto denying it is wrong and bad.
Then again, you are the guy who uses a broken watch. (How do you keep time?) As for my conviction, I am on the fence. But I still deny theistic evolution.
I used to be puzzled on the whole issue of the age of the earth and didn’t have a strong conviction on any side or think it was a doctrine that determined orthodoxy. I have recently spent more time studying the issue, listening to Dr. Bob and reading what he has written on the topic. I am more convinced now that the biblical evidence implies a young earth and 6 literal 24 hour days of creation. The text is clear just as Dr. Bob has taught that the Hebrew language leaves no room for any other interpretation than literal 24 hour days. I believe in a young earth and am interested in learning more and growing in my confidence and apologetic defense on the issue. If Stephen and or Dr. Bob could lead us to some other recourses that deal with the young earth doctrine of creation we would all be benefited.
With all that being said I now believe that this doctrine is a lot more important than I used to think because of all the doctrinal baggage that usually accompanies people who hold to interpretations other than what the text clearly implies; a ( L624HDC, thanks Steve). However, I am still confident that believing in a young earth is not an essential doctrine that needs to be dogmatically held in order to be a true child of God. That is not in anyway to say that this doctrine is without utmost importance. I think that Reformed Mama, Stephen, Dr. Bob, and now myself due to the reforming and renewing of my mind and doctrine, am rightfully and biblically warranted to take a strong stance and conviction on the topic with the confidence that we would persuade others from scripture to see that a L624HD is the true interpretation of the creation account.
Fusion, I understand what you are saying and take the humble approach that I still accept you (as long as you hold to the essentials of the Christian faith as it seems you do) as a brother in Christ even if we disagree on this issue. Lastly, it seems that you are taking all this a little too personal based on your above sarcastic and seemingly disrespectful post about a Steve’s broken watch (whatever you mean by that). We should all attempt to keep our cool while discussing these important issues. Reformation happens when people are growing in their conviction of what the Bible teaches. After they are convinced in the truth they go out and teach others in order to be helpful to their fellow man. We need to take a humble approach and leave our tantrums behind in the immature, seeker, arminian, mega churches.
Danny,
thank you for your concern. I assure you, Stephen knows exactly what I’m talking about. Given the fact that he has claimed some sort of infallibility (for himself!) I’d figure I’d knock him down a peg or two! Honestly, he’s a pal and we joke around about his watch. It’s a thing. And if you read one of the previous posts, he has vouched for me. And I am more than happy to vouch for him. I love the guy. You can visit my page to get a feel for where I’m coming from. Letmypeopleread.blogspot.com As for the position on the age of the earth, I’m glad we can all agree to disagree. I kind of see myself as a gadfly. Every now and again, I will throw out a few things that may not be where everyone is at. I do it in love, and in order to keep us grounded. If i do it terribly, I’m glad Stephen as moderating this thing.
On another note, I am still waiting for Denise’s documentation for some of the statements she made. I agree with Stephen: it would be nice to get some context for what she says Frame said. Who knows, he may be reading!
I have asked Denise multiple times in this blog to give us something on Driscoll, and Piper that would prove as she is implying that they are A.) Heretical, or B.) on their way to apostasy. She has claimed that Driscoll is an emergent liberal which is nonsense and anyone with any sense that has done current research on Driscoll’s position will see that she is wrongfully misrepresenting him. She also claims that Piper is a liberal because Driscoll is an “emergent liberal” and Piper has a ministry relationship with him. This is all a little immature and irrational. I asked her to give us something with substance and frustratingly, she has given us nothing on this topic. Not to mention her more current claims about Frame that are still standing alone on the written word of Denise. Who’s next? Morey, Macasil, Carson and so on and so on.
We should not allow empty ranting about people without any evidence. I think that would be defined as gossip.
Fusion, I also look forward to meeting you. Lord willing ill see you in April.
Me too Danny. I wanted to wait to talk about this but thus far I hear crickets. But, I did email John Frame and he has told me the closest thing he would have to making a statement like that is in regards to children who die in childbirth and it would seem the developmentally disabled. This is part of the Westminster Confession. I might add, many people in church history (even people today) have held some kind of view. He also told me that he affirms belief in needing to believe in the resurrection. To take him to task for having conviction about a non-essential doctrine and making it mean something else is poor research and bad form.
Hi Dr. Frame! Good to have you here.
A literal day interpretation is from the Hebrew word “yom” preceded by the numeral (echad – one, sheni – two, etc.). This indicates a literal day and cannot be “age” or “period of time” longer than what we know as a day (there is no reference to 24 hours – that is implied in “literal day”). If it were the author’s intention to express an age or period of time other than a literal day, there is a word that he would have used other than “yom.”
Grudem has gone on record as stating that although the exegetical evidence clearly points to the young earth position, the determining factor for him is the “overwhelming” scientific evidence.
But there has been really good defenses for YEC. Reformed Mama and I would recommend our friend Kenny Ham over at AIG along with Dr’s. Mortenson and Wieland.
The nail will be Morey’s next book, which I cannot, or will not leak here on BT.
P.S. Danny, Frank and I have a running joke about my broken watch, sort of like the running joke you and I have about your Ford Focus. Sometimes, the day/age debate can be a red-herring. Always ask, before you get too deep in dialogue, about the interlocutor’s position on the Fall, the Flood, the vurgin birth, the resurrection, the return, etc.
Good thing I hold to the historic position on all those ultimate issues! I might add, thanks for standing by me Steve-o. I’m sure this won’t end here. However, if you’re going to recommend AIG, I will recommend monergism’s creation page found at
http://www.monergism.com/directory/link_category/Creation/Creation/
It has many articles
Oh and were you calling ME an interlocutor?
Thanks Steve and Frank for the recourses. Sorry for misunderstanding your joke. Adios.
Not in my comment to Danny. You are one, in the sense that you have been taking oart in the conversation, but I was just giving Danny some tips for future dialogues at Southern Seminary.
I c. Very well then. Cause I’d hate to school you on proper netiquette! Interlocutor is so passe. I think the new term the kids are using is “dude you’re whacked!”.
I only talk like that when I wear my big leather Driscoll wristband.
So i listened to Driscolls sermon on the Regulative and Normative principles. He lables them greee/red light principles. go until you hit a red light from scripture or dont do anything until scripture says you can.
He started out explaining the topics and who was for each one. Luther was Norm. and Calvin was Reg. along with a few other names.
He made mention of DA Carson being the best theologian out there and reccomended any book of his. other names mentioned were Harold Best, Bob Coffman, John Frame and Gary Bershears (i probubly butchered all the names)
He next talked about worship which sounded extremely like Dr. Bobs book on worship. How all of life is worship. He labels it as gathered and scattered worship.
He then talked about each principles advantages, starting with the Norm. he listed 3. and negitives he listed two, with one being false teaching able to creep in easily.
then he spoke on the regulative. and closed service.
He made it know that there are teachings which church gathered, has to abide by, but as for other things that scripture doesnt speak about there is freedom.
He made know his positionon sola scriptura not solo scriptura. Scripture is our final authority.
And said Jesus is the only one that can reconcile us to God,
he is regulative and Normative, I dont see fault in this sermon, as of yet.
Are you all for real? I hope these exchange are tongue-in-cheek. If not, many of you really ought to consider reading (rereading) 1 Corinthians 1:10-17, and then seek the bigger picture. You all remind me of the graduate students I used to see arguing over what this or that philosopher “really” meant and how wrong everyone else was. It’s always pathetic and embarrassing when ideologues and sycophants behave like this, but it’s acutely pathetic and embarrassing when Christians do it. The goal isn’t to see who can be more Reformed than others. It’s unlikely Luther or Calvin would have ever encouraged people to follow them and their particular teachings. They encouraged people to think for themselves and reacquaint themselves with the core of the Gospel (see Rob Bell’s argument about repainting the Christian Faith in Velvet Elvis…I know that by mentioning this I’m already written off as a heretic and apostate…gladly accepted). Elder brothers and pharisees never see their own hypocrisy and narrowness; that’s why they’re pharisees and elder brothers viz a vi their prodigal younger brothers. Always lost, arrogant, pedantic and stubborn to the point of infuriating Christ Himself.
Dear Ben,
First off this two-stroke carburetor was easy to take off since it is gravity fed and no other accessories like pollution control stuff. I removed the throttle cable, two bolts, and the gas line and it came right off. Next I had to take it apart. I built a box to take it apart in so I wouldn’t lose any of the little screws or pieces. I also had to make sure to put on older clothes so I didn’t get gas on us. First thing I had to do was take the air cleaner off of the carburetor. The screws that held the air cleaner on had safety wire on them so they wouldn’t fall off and down into the engine, the safety wire was also hard to remove. Next I removed the gas line from the carburetor making sure to wipe off excess gas. When I took the carburetor off of the motorcycle, I took it off, intake manifold and all because it was easier. So next I took the intake manifold off. The next thing to come off was the needle jet adjustment screws. First, before removed them I checked to see how they were set. The high speed was set at 1.5 turns and rounded on the end. The low speed was set at 1.25 turns and pointed on the end. So from here on out basically all I did was remove every single screw in the carburetor to dismantle it completely and separate all the metal parts from the non-metal parts for cleaning. Once I separated then, I put all the metal parts into the strainer and had dad put them into a can of carburetor cleaner. This cleaner is very strong and if we would have tried to clean the carburetor assembled the cleaner would have eaten all the rubber and gaskets out of the carburetor.
Ben, it would seem that you think we follow Luther and Calvin’s teachings. I think I can say we only go as far as they do. The moment they go beyond scripture (sola scriptura) we say good day to them. In what way has it come across that one of us is trying to be “more” reformed than someone else? The most I’ve pointed put are places where Reformed people see room for disagreement. I might add, you’re right, mentioning Rob Bell is already not looking good for you. It would be helpful for you to explain what he says (given that probably no one here owns his book). And really, in what way are we being pharasaical (doubt I spelled that right!) or narrow? I think we’ve had serious debate and a bit of humor to lighten things up. I will say, if someone makes a claim they can’t back up we’ll call them on it (on that note: still waiting for documentation Denise).
On another point, the verses you mentioned may not fit here. None of us have really claimed Calvin (and Luther has never been mentioned that I know of!) and made that the litmus test for what we consider biblical. We all appeal to scripture. However, a few others have appealed to godly Christian scholars who have had differing opinions on non-essential issues (same way as you have mentioned Bell-though I would be far from calling him a Christian scholar). That doesn’t necessarily fall under what Paul is talking about.
And Steve-o: that’s the weirdest joke I’ve ever read. I think you’re only who’s laughing. Please explain.
Ben,
Some of the best advice I ever got was on hermanutics and reading the scripture with out any presuppositions, but read it grammaticaly, historicaly and each verse in contect of the chapter, chater in the book, book in relation to where it is at in the svriptures and what the purpose is for it.
I say this because most od the errors with the people talked about in this disscusion labled as apostates or heritics for get these simple principles.
my next question would be, does the scripture (notice I ask that first) command us to reject false teaching? If so, what is false teaching, and how will i know it when I see it?
One more thing….I’m sure we’ve gone way off from what this post is really about (come on Stephen give us another one!) but in defense of Mark Driscoll, Acts 29 had as a recommended book Celebration of Discipline by Richard Foster. Many people have noted that Foster has many bad ideas in it, and when this was brought up, the book was removed. Today the book they now offer is the one by Donald Whitney Spiritual Disciplines for the Christian life. A very good book by a Prof. at Southern Baptist Seminary. On that note, still waiting……
Travis, I love your last question. Christians so often forget the rebuke and correction for the sake of encouragement. Frankly, I often think Parents adopt the same encouragement only policy with their children…I have often been tempted to tell frustrated parents (as they chase their wild animals through Lowes) that I could solve their child’s behavior problem in about 30 seconds.
What’s with this Acts 29 reference? I don’t know anything about that organization.
O Stephen…
My family is probably wondering why I am dying laughing here in the office while you are “answering a fool according to his folly”…sorry Ben…really…we are a nice bunch…no really…come back…
Regarding L624HD…you know me so well…AIG is my sweet spot minus a couple of tiny disagreements…Danny do check them out…they are really embracing the Reformers these days and are one of the few ministries out there who have addressed Eastern Orthodox teachings…who incidentally have some strange Creation ideas…what a surprise!
On another note, I’m still waiting for documentation on Frame Piper et. al….thus far nada…..
Oh and Acts 29 is a church planting organization Mark Driscoll started. I’ve gone to the websites of churches they’ve started. Their statements of faith seem pretty solid. Then again I’ve gone to Kaleo’s site and one in West LA. They seem Reformed compatible.
This is going to be fun and sad at the same time but i need honesty from ALL.
What do you think about this comment made by a pastor recently, I leave out his name until I talk to him, or the pastor that let him speak.
Concerning John MacAurther and Brian McLearen.
“They both do Christianity a great service”
this is in context and he is approving both men
I can understand where they may be coming from, but in the long run, Mclearen is leading people into a dangerous place. At least MacArthur is pointing them to scripture.
Did anyone read the Tony Jones Interview that’s at appraising ministries? It’s very frustrating to see this guy talk.
Fusion!,
This may be cold, dead issue, but just a question and please don’t respond with opinions differ, or agree to disagree, etc. or I may ask Stephen to inflict an electronic wedgie on you.
When you read Genesis, what in the text leads you to believe the days could be anything other than L624HD?
I never said I didn’t think they were. All this got started because Denise (from whom I’m still waiting to see any documentation for her statements against Driscoll et al) said that because Keller belived in some sort of evolution, and denied the literal 6 days of Genesis, he would soon deny the fall-or words to that effect. As someone who believes in being fair, I pointed out that godly people (named in my response) have had differing views, and have always upheld creation and the fall and all the other key christian doctrines. I’m still on the fence. As to why….that would take a bit since I don’t have all the research I had gone through at the time. I will say I’ve seen good exegesis for both views. If you want a full response on what I think, go to my blog.
I’ll have something up in a few days. I’m a bit busy with other projects-so be patient. Hope that doens’t bring Stev-o’s super wedgie. He lookslike he gave out a few of those in High School.
Travis
So who was it?
Im getting clerifacation on what he meant, and asked him to repent for backing heretical views of scripture. I want to give him a chance to repent and I have told the pastor about it, he told me to confront him first.
Now that i am thinking about it, the pastor should have been the first one to confront him, HUH!
I will only say he is apart of Acts29 network, but is not anyone in Seattle.
Ill keep you updated.
This isn’t a wedgie, but when you say that you never said that you didn’t think they were L624hD’s, aren’t you saying that in a sense, you do think that they aren’t, since you’re on “the fence?”
How could you be on the fence, in other words, undecided, and at the same time believe that they are L624hD’s? It seems that the only way someone could be on the fence is to believe that the days “could” be something other than L624hD’s.
So when OT2TW asked: “When you read Genesis, what in the text leads you to believe the days could be anything other than L624HD?”
I think he’s asking why you aren’t “sure” that they “are” L624hD’s. So, from the text, what leads you to believe that the days “could” reasonably be interpreted as anything other than L624hD’s?
I may have written it down wrong. (Note: you should give us the option of erasing posts!) I think I meant to say I never said anything about them one way or another. And yeah, check my blog, it’s coming.
here is a couple more quotes about Brian McLaran’ beliefs
“He ask’s the questions that the church needs to be asking.”
“the meaning of scripture is the scripture.”
He also says “there is something about the guy that hangs on to the pole so tightly but also uses his free hand to reach out to the community around us”
I agree with the latter statement if he is talking about theology and methodology. Hang on to the doctrines of scripture as tight as we can and reach out in evangelism, and apologetics as commanded by scripture, with any method not contrary to scripture.
I should have put these post over at the Brian McLaran section is there anyway to move them to there they dont fit here.
Mclaren is a bit tricky. I attempted to write a review of A New Kind of Christian and will ahve a full one at some pointhtis year(!). Suffice it to say his character in the book (reflecting his own life) focuses more on his experience, than on scripture to guide him. I have always wondered what “new” means anyway. Are the rest of us “old” and outdated?
I began to write on MacLaren the heretic as well, but a friend of mine who’s 100 times smarter than I am, has done such a good job here that I humbly bowed out and refer all MacLaren inquiries to him. I’ve asked him to be a guest speaker at our apologetics class, but he’s a full-tim PCA elder, RTS adjunct professor, WTS adjunct, etc. So he’s got quite a full schedule. But for all things MacLaren, Dr. Gleason has the ticket!
I should have wrote, this is a pastor talking about Brian McLaran,
They make a lot of affirmations with out examples from scripture,
and that is a problem I have with the pastor I am talking about. He says John MacAurther and Brian McLaran come to the same conclusions of scripture, but if you read Stephans blog on McLaran you will know that is far from reality, im not a fan of dispensationalism but i can think of one doctrine they dont agree on and I think it is the most important doctrine in scripture, the Atonment.
For those who are concerned about Brian McLaren’s books or maybe even Tim Keller’s new book, how about the following suggestion: Why not write your own book, have it published, and engage these discussions in print? I think it would foster a greater sense of humility and respect for diversity of opinions. It’s easy to critique someone’s positions on a blog and take issue with this or that author’s point. It’s a lot harder to create something new and expose it to widespread scrutiny. Yes, scrutiny is still good and valuable, but it has more legitimacy and credibility when it comes from someone who has managed to do something similar: publish a book, start a large church, etc.
Ben,
So that we better understand you, please define “humility.”
Ben,
If thats how we measure things, by publishing a book or having a big church or “start something new”, then Ill start quoting only pastors, lets start with Dr. Bob, then maybe we will Move to DA Carson, Mark Driscoll, John Piper, Dr. Gleason, we can keep going.
We are in part using these men that have legitimacy and credibility, but we also can read scripture and clearly see thier false teaching
Ben-
If we agreed with you, wouldn’t we have less diversity of opinions? Where does Scripture esteem diversity of opinion, I’d like to take a look at that?
What does respect for diversity in opinion mean? I don’t recall Jesus, Paul, or Peter encouraging diversity in opinion.
Keep in mind, these men are publishing work for people to ponder think about and yes even citique. Except when it comes to church maters we take things much more serious. We aren’t the local PTA.
On another note, Tim Challies has just released some interesting audio on his blog from Mark Driscoll himself. You can go to his page and hear what he has to say. Like I said, I take a wait and see approach to people. You can read more about it at my blog.
still waiting for documentation……..
::Still can’t believe Tim Keller::
BTW, is this a BT record for responses?
Agogley,
I think it is. Not that we’re keeping score, but it sho looks like it!
This was the previous record.
Steve-O I knew this was some kind of record when we got to about 110. Keep up the good work and bring us something new! I might add, I update my page every now and again invite anyone to come and visit.
“Tim Keller has sold out, or is selling out. It’s too early to tell. But let me ask you this, does this sound like a solid Reformed minister of the Gospel?”
I would conclude from this account that the action is past tense. The young/old earth debate can be easily separated from the creation account of man (the confusion to the two treatments has blurred the later account and caused many to stumble). When you give up the creation of man–in one day as is recorded in the Bible–you give up the store: that’s sold-out.
David
TheNewsBeats.com
So do any of you actually try to contact Tim Keller as a brother in Christ and speak the truth in love? Or do you just bomb him from afar? I’m thankful Jesus did not stand at a distance, not read my book, and then proceed to criticize me behind my back. It seems like your fancy pants theology may have gone to your head more than your heart.
Nate, do you endorse the Roman Catholic Church?
Time Keller
says it right here he doesnt believe Genisis 1 is literal, but is a song.
this is short 2-3 minutes long from his web page
http://download.redeemer.com/rpcsermons/QandA/How_do_Genesis_1_and_Genesis_2_relate.mp3
Denise said a while back that denying the L624hD’s would be denying the scripture.
If this is so than anything outside of essential doctrines would also qualify someone to deny the word of God, because they dont believe what we interpret as truth. Is this correct?
Im trying to figuer out how denying this doctrine would be denying scripture, I believe in L624hD’s but its because I cant see of reading it any other way. But Tim says in my previous quote, that its a poem based on comments made in chapter 2.
What questions should I be asking myself about L624hD’s?
Should I ask:
How it changes the word of God
Does it change the character of God?
Stephen,
Do you have any Roman Catholic friends? Before believing you have the right to label any and everyone you meet as either “heretic” or “just like me,” why don’t you spend less time blogging about them and more time actually getting to know them, demonstrating true love, and working through things in the context of actual relationship? Dare I say become a friend of sinners. I’m personally thankful Jesus died to rescue me rather than debate whether he could endorse me.
Travis~
Go to Answers in Genesis with Ken Ham…they have a ton of info…L624HD is their specialty!!!
Nate~
Jesus did not “debate whether he could endorse” you…He knew before the foundation of the world was laid whether He would save you or not.
He did “debate” others while on earth (Mark 12:24). We are taught in Scripture to look for fruit (Matt.7:15-16), to judge rightly (John 7:24) and to defend the Faith (Jude3)…that is what this blog is about!
This ministry is reaching out to the lost…having been their ourselves…warning them of the “wolves” Scripture speaks about…
Nate, the question was “do you endorse the Roman Catholic Church?”
Nate
I agree with Mama. I might add, these guys have public ministries and publicly published books that are meant to be discussed, pondered and yes even disagreed with. If they call themselves a Christian and don’t act like it, (or are acting in a way that is troublesome) we should call them on it and talk about it as publicly as their ministries and ideas are. Granted, with a bit of charity.
I emailed Tim and his assistant was very helpful, I havnt read this yet but he said this should explain everything about these issues along with the link I provided a few post ago.
http://confessionalouthouse.wordpress.com/2008/02/28/keller-and-the-pca/#comment-1717
here is the article
brothers,
i took the time to ask tim keller a couple of questions on this interview in order to clarify his comments… the following are HIS words:
Dear Solomon:
Hi! Yes I’ve seen the conversations at a couple of websites about the interview. I hope the following is helpful.
1. First, keep in mind I did not write these statements. They were taken down by an interviewer over an hour-long conversation. Then they were transcribed and abridged. This must be borne in mind. Anyone who has ever done interviews knows that the interviewer has to edit and splice the words into paragraphs. You always have to ask the person who was interviewed–”did you say it just like that? Did you mean that?” When I read the interview afterwards I did not think he had at any point twisted my words–but I knew at a few points he strung statements together in a way that might raise questions. I thought people would ask the questions (like you) rather than jumping to conclusions. I don’t want to criticize the interviewer here. I think he did a fairly good job of representing a whole lot of conversation. But it wasn’t perfect.
2. I love the PCA and have no intention of leaving. Everyone who knows me knows that. The PCA is a confessional Presbyterian denomination and I love that. I never said I was ‘putting up’ with Presbyterianism. In fact–if you look–when I was asked if I was hampered by being in a denomination, my point was ‘only a little.’ I explained that in some minor ways being in a denomination is always an inconvenience, because no constitution fits all sizes of churches equally well. But ‘we put up’ with those minor inconveniences (I said originally) because of our commitment to being in a connectional, confessional body.
3. We have never, ever financed or planted Roman Catholic churches. And we never will nor would want to. I didn’t say that in the interview, of course. But my sentence–that I’ve seen God bring people to Christian faith in prosperity-gospel churches and in Catholic churches–came close to my sentences about how we give money to plant non-Presbyterian churches. If you already are suspicious of me, I suppose you might want to believe we plant Catholic churches, but of course we don’t. And we never would. (I don’t know of anyone who has preached the Luther-Calvin doctrine of justification of faith alone more often over the years. ) We do, however, support churches that are Reformed but charismatic (e.g. like C.J. Mahaney’s churches or other similar churches) and other non-Presbyterian churches that we train and we feel are on the same page with us about gospel theology. There are plenty of Baptist, charismatic, churches etc etc that are similar to us in soteriology–are moving toward us. But we put far, far more money into Presbyterian church plants. That keeps us from on the one hand, being sectarian and thinking God only blesses Presbyterian government, but it means on the other hand we give pride of place to our own tradition, which we love. We’ve always identified as ‘Presbyterian’ in our name, as one example.
… so there you have it folks. rev. tim keller has NEVER funded roman catholics and never will. the basis for distribution in funds is based on the church’s view on soteriology…. and HE WILL NEVER LEAVE the PCA because he believes in the confession, but confesses there are difficulties in doing ministry at his size (which i take it to be an honest confession).
personally, i don’t think it’s sub-par if he is being faithful to the call as best as he can. if we were basing things on a standard of excellence then no man will ever fulfill that. all they can do is try to hit that mark and be faithful. plus, as i have said before, in terms of getting a quorum, all any man can do is call it… give notice of it… and pray to God his quorum actually shows up. nominating officers for the church is a difficulty regardless of the size of the church.
-solomon
Just for an aside… I have been thinking about what it means to gossip in a world that offers the internet. I have found that it is very easy to do so in chat rooms, on blogs etc. I don’t want to say that this has happened on this blog and I understand that there is a fine definition between “the press” and a blog and I think there are a number of issues that need to be thought about seriously with regard to a difference between both forms of communications, however I encourage every poster here and on other blogs to seriously consider whether he or she is gossiping. All the best to all of you. Lau
Piper a liberal…I’ve heard some pretty ridiculous things in my life but I doubt anything to top that.
Piper preaching a man centered gospel…that is up there too. (Sigh) Christians.
CH
You say this about Piper but what about a man that is just as respected like Tim Kellar, could he preach liberalism? If Tim could why couldnt Mr. Piper.
**No one except Denise is say Piper is a liberal, or preaches liberalism but if Tim can be persuaded so can anyone thats why we need blogs like this.
what do you think about Tim not rejecting the PCA and the confession, and ultimatly the scripture, in the the post i just put up, because we seem to have conflicting sources:
1-this blog
2-the writer of the aritcale
3-Tim himself
If Tim says he has not rejected the scripture and gone to liberalism the only thing we can do is wait and listen to his sermons, the truth will be brought out and that. But I hope and give him the benifit of the doubt just like most of us on this blog. We dont want to lose any one to heresy.
Travis,
I agree. I’ve stated here and at my blog that I try to take a wait and see approach with people. And yes, only one person has made statements about Piper, Driscoll et al (and am still waiting for documentation). If Tim has repudiated those Roman Catholic statements good for him. I know a lot of people still take issue with his approval (seemingly i think i haven’t finished his book) of evolution. I will have to check but it may be a misunderstanding as well. He may take to an Old Earth (which I have said previously many reformed people take to, as well as young earth).
letmypeopleread.blogspot.com
Travis,
“Could” and “are” are two completely different things. Without the grace of God we all could do horribly sinful things.
Sitting around suggesting that Piper “could” become liberal when the whole of his ministry suggests otherwise is ungodly gossip. You might as well sit around and speculate whether or not he “could” cheat on Noel. Either way this type of thinking and talking should be strongly rebuked. I, like Denise, attend a Soverign Grace church, and for the life of me cannot figure out how sitting under a Soverign Grace pastor would breed such thinking.
As for Keller, I don’t have any problem with his view on evolution (I believe in a literal six-day creation). He has not said anything that denies a literal Adam and Eve or a literal fall. Many Christians have differering views on the creation account and one does not have to adhere to a literal six-day creation to view scripture as inspired and authoratative. I believe those who don’t have some interpretive problems to get through, but I don’t scream liberal at them. This labeling of Christians who don’t adhere to a six-day creation as liberal, or even worse, heretic, stinks of legalism.
Furthermore, look at the fruit of Keller’s ministry. Gospel centered preaching and a passion for evangelism, discipleship, and church planting. Not exactly the marks of a heretic. If his views on evolution bug you that is perfectly fine, but seek clarification and understanding and realize that this is an issue orthodox Christians can disagree on. Stop with the speculation and “Heresy Alert” headings. It’s far to disengenous.
Correction: the heading is “Apostasy Warning” stop with those too.
I agree CH (I am still waiting for Denise’s proof) however, the one thing he still may have to deal with is his endorsement of a book with spiritual formation exercises that are not biblical. Having said that, I did read though his book, and the stance he takes on evolution is that you can be a Christian and believe in it (though God was involved). The reason being that evolution for some people is an all encompassing world view/interpretive scheme. This is why there are journals of evolutionary psychology, sociology, medicine, ethics etc. For him, this would not be the case. Specifically he takes Genesis 1 and 2 the way Judges 4 and 5 and Exodus 14 and 15 go together. While I must admit I’ve never heard of that approach, he doesn’t deny the literal Adam and Eve. I am a bit hesitant to go this far in my thinking, I don’ think evolution is compatible with Genesis 1 and 2. He does however show that naturalism alone does not explain the world.
letmypeopleread.blogspot.com
CH,
Keller isn’t being labeled as a heretic. The Apostasy Warning, as stated in the OP, is regarding his apparent inclusive view of Catholics, and his full-blown endorsement of “Mere Christianity” by C.S. Lewis.
Apostasy is the term for the reality that professing believers can and do fall away. The term “falling away” indicates an objective reference point, IOW, where the falling away was “from.” In this case, the Westminster Confession of Faith (WCF) is the document that best summarizes biblical doctrine for those that profess the true reformed faith. The WCF states both explicitly and implicitly that Roman Catholics are idolaters, blasphemers, impious members of a synagogue of Satan, unregenerate, and in need of the salvation that is available solely through faith in Christ alone.
This is quite a different view from a faith that is 80% the same, or merely a different tradition in the “whole faith.” It is also incompatible with the contents of “Mere Christianity” by Lewis. Lewis was a blatant heretic, and from many places in his writings one will find highly questionable statements that are fatally damning should they be believed. To internationally vouch for, and recommend that God-fearing Christians put this book full of Satan’s doctrine into the hands of persons questioning Christianity, is appalling to me.
This is why I’ve issued the warning. At the beginning of the post I wrote: “This is a warning to all Tim Keller fans to raise their discernment levels and be extra cautious in appraising Keller from here on out. If Billy Graham could fall away before our eyes and deny the Gospel, then it could happen to Keller, and that just might be what is happening.”
The warning stands. Take heed.
Agreed Stephen.
And that’s why your the moderator of this blog. Thank you Stephen for bringing us back to the main issues you originally posted. The rabbit trails have been entering this discussion and you wiped them out. I would suggest that anyone that wants to post a response to Stephen’s article should actually read it before posting a comment. Its quite obvious that many who have been leaving recent remarks have not read the article completely.
I think we all have have some major repenting to do here especially Denise.
To label people like Keller and Piper liberals and in danger of apostasy….goodness!
End of the day we all stand before God. We are examined by our FRUITS. Do you have better fruits than Piper or Keller?
If not I suggest we all take a closer look at our own lives rather than putting a magnifying glass over God’s servants all the time as if they’re some insect specimens… waiting for them to make a wrong step… and maybe exclaiming “ah hah! Got you! I guess the Lord must be pleased I’m exercising my ‘discerment’, that I warn so many others. ”
We need discerment alright, especially in this day and age where crazy prosperity gospel preachers are just everywhere.
But to claim that people like Piper and Keller are more ‘liberal’ or ‘in danger of falling into apostasy’… it just totally blows my mind and sickens me.
Darren and Danny,
Agreed. I will say that I’m dissappointed, rather than sickened. i do like to give people the benefit of the doubt. Much like with Keller, i think Stephen was right in sounding the alarm. Let us hope we see Mr. Keller do the right thing.
I agree
sometimes its hard to hear that a man you loved and highly respected could be falling away from the faith, but at the same time I pray that he would not, and be strengthen by all that are bringing these questions to him, that he might repent.
What Darren is appealing to is his subjective state of psychological satisfaction. Since he has not found himself to be in a state of emotional satisfaction, he has judged that it *must* be wrong. The problem is that some people *do* find themselves in a state of psychological satisfaction. IOW, they *are* pleased with the warning and *do* find themselves compelled by the article. Which of the two are justified? Aren’t both equally authoritative?
I submit to you that rather than abstracting an aspect of man, absolutizing it, making *it* the origin of truth, justice, morals, meaning, and beauty, that we submit to the Lordship of Christ in our heart/mind and measure all things by Scripture, the Origin of truth, justice, morals, meaning, and beauty.
This eliminates man’s subjectivity from becoming the controlling factor in determining such things. The Apostle Paul said: “Let no one deceive himself. If anyone among you thinks that he is wise in this age, let him become a fool that he may become wise. For the wisdom of this world is folly with God. For it is written, “He catches the wise in their craftiness,” and again, “The Lord knows the thoughts of the wise, that they are futile.” So let no one boast in men.”
Humanism will always result in the exaltation of man.
Authentic biblical Christianity is for the tough-minded. It advances violently, and the forceful take it with force (Matt. 11:12).
Hendriksen (commenting on Matt. 11:12) said it well when he said: “Therefore it takes vigorous men, men who are eager to fight and to conquer, to overcome Satan and thus to take possession of the kingdom, of all the blessings of salvation. The kingdom then, is not for weaklings, waverers, or compromisers.”
Thanks Stephen. I would add, that for many of us here, we aren’t trying to have a witch hunt. (I certainly am not) What we are trying to do is get a examine where this brother is going and comparing it with scripture. I’ve said it before, these aren’t private individuals. They are taking their ideas, publishing them for people to discuss and even debate. As I learned about film reviews (and apply to book reviews) we must take a look at the total work of an individual as well as their specific work and who they are. And WHEN we do it, Jesus tells us to be careful how we judge. My own reservations have been about allegations made without substantiation. My caveat: let’s keep it civil and be able to back up our statements as best as possible.
Darren,
You wrote:
“I think we all have some major repenting to do here especially Denise. To label people like Keller and Piper liberals and in danger of apostasy….goodness!”
Who needs to repent and for what? I agree with you that Denise has made some groundless accusations about Piper and Driscoll however she did have some helpful objective information about Keller that shouldn’t be taken lightly just because Keller is Keller. And did you read through the blog article? You know the one where Stephen points out some statements that Tim Keller made in an interview about his book. Keller implied that RC’s and Protestants agreed 80% of the time when it comes to their doctrinal understanding. 80% seems more like a Baptist and a Presbyterian not a Protestant and a Catholic. If this is so then what made Luther, Calvin, and all the other reformers take such drastic measures to separate themselves from the Roman Catholic Church. Stephen also pointed out in his article that Keller’s top book other than scripture to recommend to a non Christian would be C.S. Lewis’ book Mere Christianity. If you read the article and the comments following about Mere Christianity you will understand our discontent with Keller’s endorsement. As far as Piper is concerned, I have already documented my disagreement towards Denise’ comments about him being liberal without backing them up.
You wrote:
“End of the day we all stand before God. We are examined by our FRUITS. Do you have better fruits than Piper or Keller?”
I stand before God justified by the person and work of Jesus Christ. At the end of the day, or at the end of my life when I stand before the judgment of God I am only getting a well done due to Christ’s righteousness, and Christ’s fruit.
Now if you are talking about how a mere human being can judge other humans as to whether they are in the faith, I recommend listening to Dr. Morey’s 13 lectures on apostasy. It is wrong to say that we are only judged by our fruits because every professing Christian can be judged both by their moral actions and their doctrinal beliefs. We are not calling into question Keller’s morality, our concern is with his teaching. Keller’s inclusivistic language towards RC’s and his endorsement of a heretical book is the objective ground that this whole discussion is based upon. Not to say that he is an apostate or that he is a heretic, just to warn people like you to be cautious and questioning about some of the discomforting statements that Keller has made. This is not saying that Keller hasn’t done good things and taught good things. Just because Keller has preached a lot of great messages and wrote good books doesn’t elevate him to a level where he cannot be questioned or disagreed with.
I hope you will in fact tell us who needs to repent and for what. Also if at the end of the day we are judged by our works then I would agree with you in saying that Piper and Keller are miles ahead of most of us as far as their work is involved. They have done a lot of great things for the Kingdom of God that most of us are just scratching the surface in our process of sanctification. Their books written, sermons preached, equipping of the saints, and evangelism all outweighs what I, at the age of 23 and only a Christian for 5 years have accomplished thus far in my life. However, I would like to think of all professing Christians published or not as either justified by God or under His just condemnation. Once we’ve got that straight we can all, pastor or layman, judge with a righteous judgment, the words (doctrine) and actions (morals) of other professing Christian whether they are John Piper, Tim Keller et all, or they are average unpublished, unpolished Christians like me and you.
I found the evidence John Piper is bad…I cant believe it
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6-GxkAJ1OBU
Very funny. I might add, for those of you who don’t know it’s prank video. Very funny though.
Darren,
I’ve been observing Piper for quite some time now, and I merely warned of Piper going liberal. The problem with Piper is that he has consistantly endorsed ECM leader/founder Potty-Mouth-Driscoll for years now, with not only no apology, but a hearty defense, as if the fruit of Dricsoll’s gutter-mouth has no offense (violating Eph.5:4-15). 1Tim 3:2 says that an elder is to be above reproach and self-controlled, neither of which Driscoll has displayed. In addition, Driscoll is very rebellious (the heart that drives ECM). The other day, in addition to what I’ve known about Driscoll for years, I learned that he fired two pastors and has quelched any and all questioning, taking his rod to the sheep in his sermons (you can see this on You Tube and learn of the elder’s view online as well). Why would Piper endorse this unqualified man so much? One has to truly wonder.
As to Tim Keller, why did he endorse a New Age book written by a Feminist? He couldn’t biblical explain his endorsement, because there is no biblical reason for doing so;rather Scripture abhors such a thing.
Darren you make my point: your view is: “Don’t touch God’s seminary anointed and do my reformed prophets no harm.” I’m not saying this in a sarcastic way, but I think this pretty much sums up the notion of giving a free pass to those folks hold in high esteem. I’ve touched a magisterum it seems, and instead of standing for Truth you are defending men who are clearly going the unbiblical way.
Here’s one article that might help you see what I am saying about Piper: http://www.lighthousetrailsresearch.com/blog/index.php?c=1&more=1&p=199 and http://lighthousetrailsresearch.com/blog/index.php?p=170&more=1&c=1
And for Tim Keller’s endorsement go here: http://www.ivpress.com/cgi-ivpress/book.pl/review/code=3330
To mention again (because it seems to be completely ignored by some folks here), this is what Keller endorses and offers to his sheep:
from Calhoun’s Spiritual Discipline handbook:
* practice visualization techniques (eastern mysticism)
* assume the physical position of meditation (eastern mysticism)
* follow the breathing techniques of meditation (eastern mysticism)
* focus on the message received in the solitude (more eastern mysticism)
Is this not anti-biblical? If so, why would any Christian offer it to his sheep? This is in addition to Keller’s denial of a literal six day creation which God clearly proclaims in Genesis 1-2. Is it ok to endorse and promote New Age Mysticism and evolution as long as a person claims the TULIP? I truly worry about this.
God’s standard by which we judge all fruit is Scripture. It is Scripture that tests me and it is Scripture by which I test all who claim to speak “for” God (teachers, pastors, seminarians, theologians, song writers, authors, etc). That IS the highest standardard, NOT Keller nor Piper. I’m saddened that you are comparing man to man, Darren. Your standard is way too low. Nor are you looking at the facts, it seems.
I thought that would be an appropriate post just need to laugh about somethings
potty mouth driscoll, come on
there is reality outside of our gathering on sundays, where people wear t shirts or hawwaiian shirts and sandles, and we have to live in this world, we have to preach in this world, we have to Love and apologize in this world. We have liberty, not that we should take advantage of all our liberty but we do have it.
Can you show me where we are not allowed to preach on sex and use words like crap and ass in context, why can Dr. Bob say some one is being foolish or stupid but we cant say they are being an ass or full of crap?
But one who looks intently at the perfect law, the {law} of liberty, and abides by it, not having become a forgetful hearer but an effectual doer, this man will be blessed in what he does. If anyone thinks himself to be religious, and yet does not bridle his tongue but deceives his {own} heart, this man’s religion is worthless.
What decieves my Heart? Sin from the tounge: back bitting, gossip, slander….
Neither filthiness, nor foolish talking, nor jesting, which are not convenient: but rather giving of thanks.
How are these words or preaching filthy, when Christ and Paul use equivalent words in thier time. How would a Jew in Christ time take offence at someone calling him or her, Satan, or a hypocrit, or a Snake?
To clear it up he is not affiliated with Brian McLaran or Doug Paggit or Rob Bell, and speaks against them, so why do you have a problem with the word Emergant,( where is he emerging from?) this would be the question. I think its based on methodology, he is emerging on the way way we do church, not emerging on what scripture says. Would it be better for your ears to say Reforming, because Driscoll also uses Sempra Reformanda as part of his “ECM” How about we test his theology not only his methodology. I see a man that has made mistakes but cares for his flock, and I think that is what Piper sees, along with his theology and ability to communicate the gospel and teach the saints.
Denise,
Again I would say PLEASE stop using guilt through association or quoting people out of context. The links you have provided have sloppy research. I’ve been to Acts 29’s book page. The afformetioned books have been taken down. Under Spiritual Disciplines the only book offered is Spiritual Disciplines for the Christian Life by Donald Whitney ( a solid Southern Baptist Seminary Prof). Also the articles weren’t written recently as their info is all wrong. Piper can endorse whomever he wants. And as a matter of fact, you can go to Tim Challies blog where he talks about Driscoll’s recent comments about his church. He is showing maturity and growth because of people like John Piper and C J Mahaney. And here is the disclaimer put onthe book page at Acts 29
Disclaimer: The following books comprise a brief list of resources that we have found helpful for our church planters. In endorsing each of these books we are not saying that we agree on every point, but rather find the book as a whole helpful. Some of the authors that our planters gravitate toward include members of our Acts 29 board such as Mark Driscoll and Ed Stetzer, along with current writers such as Ravi Zacharias, Tim Keller, John Piper, DA Carson, Wayne Grudem, Bruce Ware, Leon Morris, Alister McGrath, and John Frame. A previous generation of writers we like includes Francis Schaeffer, JI Packer, and John Stott. We also like a lot of dead guys, including the Puritans.
Driscoll has formally distanced himself from the liberal branch of the EMC and has publically said so. If he really held the views of MacLaren, Piagitt etc.. we would know. And for the record he calls his side ministry The Resurgence. The reason being because there is a resurgence in young believers who are conservative in their theology and can find no home in traditional evangellyfish churches. If you want more info feel free to go to CARM.com’s new emergent page. Matt Slick himself went to his church and has some positive things to say.
Luther said, “Your Imperial Majesty and Your Lordships demand a simple answer. Here it is, plain and unvarnished. Unless I am convicted [convinced] of error by the testimony of Scripture or (since I put no trust in the unsupported authority of Pope or councils, since it is plain that they have often erred and often contradicted themselves) by manifest reasoning, I stand convicted [convinced] by the Scriptures to which I have appealed, and my conscience is taken captive by God’s word, I cannot and will not recant anything, for to act against our conscience is neither safe for us, nor open to us. On this I take my stand. I can do no other. God help me.”
Thank you so very much for holding the line with Keller. I just blindly bought his new book not knowing the path of destruction I was embarking on for following his pluralistic leanings in defending Theistic Christianity. I am ashamed that I spent money supporting such a heretic. I hope he does not use my money to give to any of his Catholic charities that help the poor or worse yet support Samaritan’s purse, cause you know that Franklin Graham has probably given in to the dark side, I mean his dad is none other than the Billy the anti-Christ.
Thanks to your comments I can now burn my newly purchased book, Hide in my basement, because if you can’t trust Keller the Apostate, who can you trust, and read all the volumes of Calvin’s Institutes. God bless you for your wonderful ministry. I am changed.
I’d like to know who on Keller’s staff you think is Federal Vision.
And if you think the FV favored unbelievers in church, you’ve got it backwards. Jordan and others have explicitly said that the church service and liturgy should be for building up baptized and professing believers, with evangelism minimized, and saved for other days that Sunday AM worship.
Someone is misinformed about the FV here.
“I’d like to know who on Keller’s staff you think is Federal Vision.”
Rev. Matthew Paul Buccheri is the FV proponent staff member I referenced. I didn’t say he “was” FV, just that he’s pro-FV – something that we are very concerned about.
“And if you think the FV favored unbelievers in church, you’ve got it backwards…Someone is misinformed about the FV here.”
The unbeliever’s union with the (visible) church automatically implies union with Christ in the Federal Vision/Auburn Avenue teaching (theopedia). This “objective” view of the covenant says that “all covenant members are part of God’s family whether or not they are decretally elect(Wilkins).”
Zwingly,
You are an EXCELLENT reader! Which hermeneutical principles do you use?
The unbelievers Keller wants in church aren’t covenant members (i.e. people who make profession of faith and join the church). He wants unbelievers to come to church to be evangelized.
And the FV talks more about the possibility of temporary faith creating a form of union with Christ rather than unbelievers having union with Christ.
the theopedia article is not 100% accurate.
Zwingly said: “Thank you so very much for holding the line with Keller. I just blindly bought his new book not knowing the path of destruction I was embarking on for following his pluralistic leanings in defending Theistic Christianity. I am ashamed that I spent money supporting such a heretic”
Are you serious? This post and the responses following it are for the most part extremely disappointing. I am a member of the PCA and certainly consider myself to be “reformed” in theology and I find Tim Keller to be intelectually stimulating and refreshing, while theologically remaining under the umbrella of reformed thought. He spoke at an event at the University of Pennsylvania this past week, which was hosted by Westminster Seminary (Tim’s alma mater). If Tim is the “heretic” that some are suggesting and a few are openly asserting, I’m quite confident that Westminster would have had some serious reservations with so stongly associating themselves with Tim. I think the deeper issue here is the self righteous, condemning attitude that is evident in many responses to the post. I believe a little HUMILITY is in order in this case. Clearly Biblical texts can be interpreted in a number of different ways and a number of interpretations can still fall under the heading of “orthodox evangelicalism” or “reformed thought”. As the apostle Paul teaches, we currently see as though through a glass, dimly. We should be a little slower to condemn other (orthodox evangelical) interpretations of the Bible, and claim ourselves to have an ABSOLUTE understanding of how to interpret each text of the Bible.
Awesome, awesome, awesome post, Stephen. Just awesome.
Thanks Echo_ohcE,
Your comments on the Outhouse post were some of the most refreshing words I’ve read on this whole Keller situation thus far, even better than my own! So, right back at you my brother!
Um…Ben…read Zwingly a little closer…it was sarcasm my friend!
Check out the latest post on the Emergent Villlage blog about Keller
http://www.emergentvillage.com/weblog/
Keller at UC Berkeley http://stevenjcamp.blogspot.com/2008/03/paul-on-mars-hill-and-keller-at-uc.html
First I want to give Keller kudos for the forum he attended, he steps onto the “devils playground” ie UC Berkeley. Something Christians should be doing more.
However his being nervous, and not having a lot of time and not answering in full extent was disappointing. Im not sure what to believe as far as his usage of CS Lewis and Dante, when answering the question of “why a loving God would send someone to hell” with everyone in hell wants to be in hell, and everyone in heaven wants to serve the living God.
Christ and Culture Revisited
D. A. Carson $24.00 $15.84 (34% off!)
Tim Keller says:
“There is no more crucial issue facing us today than the relationship of the church and the gospel to contemporary culture. Don Carson’s treatment of this issue is IS THE MOST BALENCED ONE OUT THERE. Rather than grinding an ax or pushing his own paradigm, he listens carefully to the Scripture and brings us in the end to a sophisticated simplicity about these matters. I highly recommend this book.”
This seems like a jab at Keller, what do you guys think? This blurb is from Westminister Book store, who promotes Kellers work. Isnt this what Keller just finnished writing about? (I cant remember)
Did any of you hear Tim Keller on the Laura Ingraham Show?
Just curious of your thoughts.
Mark
I heard about five minutes of it while driving to work. Orange County BT correspondant “OverCommitTAD2theWord” informed me in an email that he (Keller) praised the Pope as an intellectual or something like that. I heard the segment when LI asked Keller about George W’s faith. To my surprise (well, not really), Keller said he believed that Bush’s faith was genuine on the basis that “to Keller” it seemed “hear-felt.” When did we stop testing all things by Scripture and start testing all things by how things seem to us?
If you (Mark) can provide some highlights and commentary, that would be helpful!
I have rarely heard Mr. Keller give warnings from Scripture. He is kind, and congenial, but lacks a prophetic punch. I believe, also, he wants a ‘kindler gentler’ Scripture, and then a kindler gentler apologetic. In our present perverse generation, we preach shalom — but even Christ rebuked his disciples for their lack of faith at the end of the Book of Mark. Popularity, congeniality, is NOT what we are seeking. The relevance of the Bible, is to be ’salt and light,’ NOT to speak with ‘wise and persuasive word.’ Paul ended up in prison, imitating Christ — who spoke out, and challenged the authorities of his day. I don’t hear Mr. Keller doing that — or people from his congregation. They would LOVE to have their ‘cake’ and eat it too? Wall Street, Hampton’s ministries, jazz, entertainment, and Star-Bucks after church? My, who doesn’t want that? Whatever happened to the cross — and the sufferings of Christ? Looking at the ‘chick’ publications, that are being given out in the 42nd Street Times Square Station — I prefer that ’saltiness,’ to the lightweight intellectualism that Mr. Keller is appealing to
Wow, I don’t know how many theology degrees we all have between us here but I would guess lots, given the amount of bold assertions being made!
I would like to say from the start I am a huge Keller fan. I take the warning for what it is, anyone can stumble if they rely on themselves and not the grace of God (a fact Keller refers to very frequently in his sermons).
I hope we remember the scripture “If anyone is never at fault in what he says, he is a perfect man.” So I fully anticipate and indeed expect that Keller said some incorrect things in the course of the many interviews he did to promote his book.
Some of the criticism leveled here has been dealt with, some of it is fair, he does not preach a lot of judgement, nor does he do “conventional expository preaching.” However he preaches the grace of the gospel, and salvation by faith (key protestant and reformed doctrines) more frequently and clearly than the vast majority of even “conservative evangelical/reformed” pastors. If you doubt this I encourage you to listen to him on “reformissionary or Mongerism”
I think there are only a couple of points of issue still left that I would want to examine.
First 6d creationism. Here we need to have a debate about genre. What is literal and what do we mean by the infallibility of scripture?
In the Psalms David talks about being “poured out like a drink offering” however this is poetry and I don’t think we are meant to say “oh David’s body became liquid” it is a symbolic image of what David was feeling. Another good example is our Lord saying “This IS my body” but a key tennant of protestant faith is that we do NOT take this literally.
So the context and genre of the text is all important in how we interpret it. As far as I can see Genesis 1 is not history. There are no eyewitnesses mentioned and not specific times or dates given (as there are alluded to in Genesis 2 which bears the marks of an historical text). In fact there are no characters in Genesis 1 apart from an anonymous “man” and God. All the hallmarks of the four Gospels which identify them clearly as history (like eyewitness testimony) are missing from Genesis 1. Perhaps it is not the writers intent that we take it as history but rather it is written to tell us certain immutable truths about the character of God. (like his power and sovreignty and care over creation)
Second the eastern mysticism attack. I fail to see how breathing is a mystic act. (I am being slightly facetious here) The endorsement did not say that Keller endorsed everything in the book. Meditating is not exclusively eastern and I think we perhaps need to be careful about being hyper-critical re: James 3 quoted above. I think the main argument against Christians partaking in these practices is that it can lead to them being influenced by things other than the word of God. If however what you meditate on IS the word of God then whatever posture you assume to do that is probably not of the utmost importance.
As for endorsing women “pastors”. I would agree with Tim that women should not be ordained. However in 1 Corinthians 11 it appears Paul expects them to make a contribution to gatherings and in the Bible (and life generally) we can find helpful instruction and correction from the most unlikely sources.
Shanks,
You said: “…he [Keller] preaches the grace of the gospel, and salvation by faith (key protestant and reformed doctrines) more frequently and clearly than the vast majority of even “conservative evangelical/reformed” pastors.”
One little letter makes all the difference. You say “preache[s],” I say “preache[d],” thus the apostasy warning. As excited as we were about Keller’s ministry, our bubble busted quickly once he sided with Rome and openly reversed the Reformation by smudging the lines.
I’d like to see how much Catholic support he’d have if he evangelized them. But the real issues here have not been resolved:
1) His affirmation of Roman Catholicism
2) His goal of “selling” the Apostle’s Creed and having “buyers” decide which church to go to from there (Rome or wherever)
3) His open endorsement of Mere Christianity by Lewis
Since there are many good and faithful Christian resources for us, those we witness to, and those we disciple, we no longer endorse Keller due to his recent shift, be it publicity and marketing or whatever. Rome is an apostate church, and they need to know that rather than have their idolatry affirmed by popular protestant authors. Mere Christianity contains an ideology that denies biblical truth that is necessary for salvation, and needs to be denounced as such rather than heralded as the number one book outside the Bible to recommend.
If we are really going to do justice to discerning anything, a person’s ministry — his sermons, we need first of all to depend totally on Scripture, and the discernment which comes from the Holy Spirit. Even Paul says, that the ’spiritual man,’ judges all things, but he himself is not judged by anyone. Also, in Corinthians, Paul talked about contending with the ’superapostles,’ and the Scriptures do warn us of ‘cult-like’ false-apostles claiming ‘another Christ.’ We need –especially here in America — to not be preaching an ‘American Jesus.’ While many, trained in theology, doctrine, creeds, confessions, etc. etc. — even at Reformed seminaries, i.e., Westminster, Reformed, etc. etc., we need to be especially careful, that in our contextualism, that the ‘culture’ that use, is NOT above Christ himself. In the need of ‘culturally relevant,’ however, we need to take especially the warnings to the Letter to the 7 churches. While Redeemer and the ministry of Tim Keller has much –only by God’s grace — we need to evaluate it soley from Scripture. It is NOT a question of personal taste. When we are warned to imitate the Bereans, then we need to do so. However, in the name of the whole gospel — we are not to delete, nor add to Scripture..and those who will be greatest in heaven are those who teach the law, and obedience to it. Therefore, let’s give credit to God himself, for whatever good comes out of man, even Tim Keller — but also be free to look at Scripture, and to use Scripture to help us discern what is truly the gospel — what is American, what is being left out, and what is being added. Then we can truly grow in grace and the truth — and be tossed to and fro — and INSIST fervently on what Scripture requires and demands of us. Otherwise, ‘religion’ is just a man-made thing, and we can make it up as we go along. This is a peculiar American phenomenon — as there are so many abuses to freedom — even in the church.
“He [the position Keller has assumed] must hold firm to the trustworthy word as taught, so that he may be able to give instruction in sound doctrine and also to rebuke those who contradict it.” Titus 1:9
By not doing this to his Roman Catholic friends, he is violating this biblical command.
P.S. being tossed to and fro is something to prevented. Perhaps a typo?
Stephen…
Just to make you laugh…
“I do not think I should care to go on worshipping the Madonna even if she did wink. One cannot make much out of a wink. We want something more than that from the object of our adoration”.-Charles H. Spurgeon
HAHAHA! You know me well! Sounds like we need another visit to the Oasis!
Anytime…there are two bottles of wine with your name on them…
Interesting Spurgeon quote, since he himself was non-commital on 6d creationism (I have all the written transcripts of his sermons if you would like me to back that up, but it involves going upstairs and finding the quote and I can’t really be bothered!)
As for endorsing RCC I think that might be a little harsh on Keller.
He has stated that Redeemer’s church planting center has never and will never plant or fund a Roman Catholic church. (that statement is quoted somewhere in the enormity that is this thread)
“Selling” and “Buying” may be unhelpful language but maybe we should understand that in giving an interview to a secular journalist you sometimes might try and explain things by using a form of language you would not use in a Christian gathering.
When I say he “preaches” the gospel, rather than “preached” the gospel that is because I have heard recent sermons by him and sermons from 10 years ago and in both he is “preaching” the gospel. I think it is a lot fairer to judge someone on their thought out and reasoned statements (sermons) rather than their spontaneous and perhaps less well thought out statements (interviews). The entire context of this thread is based on interview responses that are always going to be less clear and less helpful than a sermon that has been in preparation for 10-12 hours minimum! I know in conversation I have said things about theology I would be embarrassed about, things which are not “sound” and if I had thought them through more clearly, I would never have said them. If you are honest I am sure you can come up with similar memories for yourselves, just be thankful that you are not scrutinized in such detail (as Bible teachers of course should be) and maybe be a little more charitable to a guy who clearly (by your own admission) has had many years of good Bible teaching that many have benefited from.
The Spurgeon quote is meant to ridicule the silliness of Rome having “adoration” for the “Madonna”…”even if she did wink”…
I was only pointing out that people are keen on using Spurgeon as an ally when it suits, yet for much of this post Keller has been heavily criticized for being opposed to 6d creationism. Maybe we are all good at using past “heroes of faith” when it suits and for specific purposes. I would not agree wholeheartedly with C.S. Lewis on every issue (indeed I would disagree strongly on some), but I have known people who have been converted to Christ after reading “Mere Christianity” and would lend it to any non Christian friend without hesitation.
Shanks, by qualifying your endorsement of MC, you have done much more than Keller has. But when you say “without hesitation,” do you mean “without warning or qualification?” I mentioned this earlier:
“He [the position Keller has assumed] must hold firm to the trustworthy word as taught, so that he may be able to give instruction in sound doctrine and also to rebuke those who contradict it. Titus 1:9
By not doing this to his Roman Catholic friends, he is violating this biblical command.”
I don’t know if you are a pastor or not, but I’m sure Keller is. In order for Keller or any pastor to remain “qualified,” as Paul writes to Titus, HE MUST HOLD FIRM TO THE TRUSTWORTHY WORD AS TAUGHT, SO THAT HE MAY BE ABLE TO:
a) GIVE INSTRUCTION IN SOUND DOCTRINE
and also,
b) TO REBUKE THOSE WHO CONTRADICT IT
What is the “it?”
“It” is the trustworthy word as taught. Now, I’ll skip all the arguments for now and take you straight to the issue. In order to do a & b, one must “hold firm.” If a & b do not flow, it is an indication of not holding firm. I don’t have much time to deal with this right now, but give me your thoughts on this and we’ll work through it later today, or ???
As for these quotes by C.S. Lewis….
“Now before I became a Christian I was under the impression that the first thing Christians had to believe was one particular theory as to what the point of [Jesus’] dying was. According to that theory God wanted to punish men for having deserted and joined the Great Rebel, but Christ volunteered to be punished instead, and so God let us off. Now I admit that even this theory does not seem to me quite so immoral and silly as it used to; but that is not the point I want to make.
“What I came to see later on was that neither this theory nor any other is Christianity. The central Christian belief is that Christ’s death has somehow put us right with God and given us a fresh start. Theories as to how it did this are another matter. A good many different theories have been held as to how it works; what all Christians are agreed on is that it does work…
“We believe that the death of Christ is just that point in history at which something absolutely unimaginable from outside shows through into our own world. And if we cannot picture even the atoms of which our own world is built, of course we are not going to be able to picture this.”
….as usual, he is 100% right. Good for Keller.
Shanks…I am new to loving Spurgeon and don’t pretend to know all of his teachings.
The quote was meant to lighten Stephen’s burden if even for a moment…to make him smile…Mama tries to take care of her boys!
I will say I am hardcore on literal 6 day Creation…but will give allowance to Spurgeon’s day/times…we now know SO much more about our amazing world and our creative God that point us toward a L6dC…thanks to ministries such as Answers in Genesis!
God’s grace…
MCUMC,
Sing it with me, “Heretics of the world united! O, Heretics of the world united!”
Stephen,
I’d rather not sing that tune along with you. It seems you have the sole rights to that song.
As an aside, when you quote from someone’s book it is customary to cite the page numbers where you quote from.
Nothing in C.S. Lewis’ words there are heresy. Unless you wish to assign the definition of “heresy” to only that which doesn’t conform to the Synod of Dort. Sorry to burst your bubble, but that is not how heresy is defined by Orthodox standards.
I would simply give my friend the book. Most of my friends are self styled “intellectuals” from Cambridge doing PhDs in all manner of things such as Cancer research. I wouldn’t be arrogant enough to tell them that any book has lots of individualized input. They would know that I thought that across the board I liked what was said but also they would know that wouldn’t mean I liked everything that was said.
I have good friends and partners in the gospel who don’t like Lewis and good friends and partners in the gospel who find him helpful. God doesn’t care about what we do with C.S. Lewis half as much as what we do with Jesus. If Lewis helps point people toward the true Biblical Jesus (and I am confident he has) then I rejoice that the book was written!
As for the Catholic thing. I don’t know for sure what Keller’s thoughts are (I don’t have a window into his mind). I would agree that R. Catholics are not preaching the gospel (at least not the ones I have met or heard about) and that they are in a dead works based cult. However I would still say I agree with them on 80% of what they believe, I would simply say the 20% we disagree on is VERY IMPORTANT! Consider how many things we believe and I think 80% might be an understatement. I probably agree with many Muslims with 50% of what they believe that doesn’t mean I am an ecumenical Islamic sympathizer.
Having read Keller’s book, I would say he very much defends an orthodox, evangelical, yes even reformed, theology. Much of that is quite general (things like the Trinity which Catholics also believe) so what Keller has done in interviews is not put people off based upon a possible inherited second generation Catholic faith who might have been put off by an Ian Paisley style “All Catholics burn in the fires of damnation!” feel. So yes he is probably trying to increase the number of people who will read his book. But if a skeptic (which is who the book is aimed at) read it and was in any way convinced to look further at Christianity, I am confident that given the theological grounding in the book the church they would be looking for would be in the reformed tradition.
Having heard and read Keller I am more than convinced he is a brother working to the glory of our Lord Jesus…that doesn’t mean he won’t get things wrong. Think of John Stott, he has had a wonderfully faithful ministry, yet he slipped up on his consideration of annihilationism, or Martin Luther, brought Biblical Christianity back from the brink of extermination, yet he was an anti-Semite. We all get things wrong, that doesn’t mean we are false apostate teachers. The word of truth we are to stick to in the New Testament, seems to be the historical person and teachings of the Lord Jesus as revealed in the Bible, I think Keller sticks to those faithfully and if you listen to his sermons and read his book I think you can see that.
Of course you can feel free to disagree if you wish, but God will have the final say.
If Keller has compromised the gospel, God will call him to account
If you have slander a faithful minister, God will call you to account
If I have defended a false teacher, God will call me to account.
Everything needs to be considered in context.
Some heresy hunters are so sure they have the truth in a box that they would almost be tempted to label Jesus a heretic for what he says in Luke 18:18-30. In fact the Pharisees labeled Jesus a heretic,a false teacher, and a blasphemer. What was Jesus really saying? Jesus seems to be teaching that one can inherit eternal life by simply obeying several of the commandments, selling your house and then giving everything to the poor. (We know that Jesus said it, so we also know that we have to consider the whole message of Jesus Christ in all 4 Gospels and message about the Lord Jesus Christ in Romans and Hebrews, etc.)
If Tim Keller, or C.S. Lewis said it (Luke 18) — the heresy hunters would definitely label it heresy, but since Jesus said it, I guess we need to consider the context and see what Jesus was talking about.
Why don’t we apply the same hermeneutic and try to understand the message in a larger context? e.g. Let’s consider the context of every action, prayer, lecture, sermon and book for the past 30 years.
I have not yet seen the public debate on Youtube between Stephen Macasil and Richard Dawkins (the famous atheist), but I will remember to be very charitable towards Stephen — even after people all over the Internet rip everything he says out of context.
To be fair in understanding the teachings of Stephen Macasil (who I never heard of before today), I must also consider his teachings in the context of every action, prayer, lecture, paper, blog article, sermon and book he has for the past 30 years.
Hi Douglas,
Heresy Hunters? You must be a fan of the TBN garbage? Kenneth Copeland and Benny Hinn I truly believe are demonized or possessed by demons.
Jean Cauvin
@ Jean_Cauvin
I would never listen to antinomian, arminian, apostates. I’ve barely watched any TV in the past 30 years, although it may be a matter of adiaphora. Still I would not waste my time on TBN garbage, but neither do I have much time for fake Jean Cauvin’s.
Or if you are the real Jean Cauvin, perhaps you should shut off the TV and the computer and go preach the gospel in Geneva again, or become a teacher at Calvin College and bring some good doctrine into the classroom.
Douglas~
You said: “To be fair in understanding the teachings of Stephen Macasil (who I never heard of before today), I must also consider his teachings in the context of every action, prayer, lecture, blog article, sermon and book he has for the past 30 years.”
Have you done so sir? Have heard Stephen pray or lecture? Have you read his writings…asked him any questions? Did you know he sought counsel before he even posted this because it grieved his heart to do so?
It is very ungodly to drive by our blog and throw darts at our writers!!
Sorry if I over-reacted. I read at the beginning of Stephen’s article: “Now, I have not read the book, and this is not a review.” That kind of threw me off. It is a book review? No. Is it a complete examination of Tim Keller’s doctrine and life? No. It’s a warning to be discerning. And I agree that we should all be careful and discerning.
As for my statements about “Heresy Hunters”. I was warning people to be discerning about false prophets and people with fake identities commenting on blogs.
“Beware of false prophets, who come to you in sheep’s clothing but inwardly are ravenous wolves.” Matt 7:15
There are various types of “heresy hunters”. Some are like theological puppies in the doctrine den. They bite at each other’s ears and try arguing about a few doctrines, just to sharpen their grasp of good doctrine. (Silly analogy… I know) It’s the puppies that grow up into ravenous wolves that Christ warns us about.
Sorry to be a blog-reading-drive-by-dart-thrower. I’ve contacted Stephen by email and we will continue to sort things out.
Like I said before: To be fair (and loving) in understanding the teachings of Stephen Macasil, I must also consider his teachings in the context of every action, prayer, lecture, blog article, sermon and book he has written preached about since he began his ministry.
Jude 21-25
Hi Douglas,
I appreciate your puppy analogy. I agree that wolves begin as pups, so it is a fitting one too.
If your point is basically to be fair to someone by taking all of their virtues into account and having that established as the context for all future actions to be interpreted within, then I must push back a little, especially when the actions are doctrinal or moral.
I believe in apostasy – the biblical truth that professing believers can and do fall away. Although apostasy is relative (can be for a period of time or permanent, can be doctrinal or moral, etc.), the warnings are absolute. Since there is an objective reference point for the biblical Christian to which we should appeal, which is Scripture, a falling away is revealed as a reality that Christians must deal with, warn against, and call to repentance – the apostate. If the apostasy appears to be the permanent sort, or as John calls it, the sin that leads to death, then we are told to not even pray for such a one (1 Jn. 5:16c).
The judgment call I had to make was regarding my responsibility as one to whom others look to as an example and for advice. It is no secret that I have *this hurts* “whole-heartedly” endorsed Keller in the past. But his recent bent toward Rome is one that is all too familiar and when I was sure of it, I released the warning.
You can see that I haven’t written him off. What I found so shocking is that there are so many that don’t give a hoot about his inclusivism. So when I warn about his potential apostasy which is also a warning to future Kellerites in my circle, I am doing so both regarding his inclusion of Roman Catholicism and Eastern Orthodoxy as “Christian” as well as his apparent denial of the issues that formed Protestantism, the principles of the Reformation. Rome has (up until V2 it seems) always been viewed as idolaters and antichrists by the Reformers and their Stepchildren. Keller seems to be part of a larger Road to Rome campaign and is no longer viewed as solid and grounded, thus the warning.
Lastly, I received a Facebook message from you, but there wasn’t anything besides 3 youtube links (Morey, Washer, Keller).
Douglas~
Thank you for your clairifications! I’m glad you got in touch with Stephen…he serves Messiah with his whole heart.
God’s grace to you…
Hi Douglas,
In the words of a wierd Christian apologist over a spaghetti dinener (Eric Pement), “investigation without cognitation is a sloppy refutation.”
I would call myself a heresy hunter. I not only like to rock the boat but at times blow it up with a figher jet. We need more heresy hunters in the Body of Christ.
It appears that our new Douglas Fir is not a Cauvinist. Assuming that you are not a hot-head, I’m sure we would get along fine if we were neighbors.
Welcome to the discussion(s).
Jean Cauvin
Stephen,
I am giving you an excerpt from Keller’s How Can I Know God paper:
In order to form a personal relationship with God, you must know three things:
1. Who we are:
a. God’s creation
God created us and built us for a relationship with Him. We belong to Him, and we owe Him gratitude for every breath, every moment, everything. Because humans were built to live for Him (to worship), we will always try to worship something. If not God, we will choose some other object of ultimate devotion to give our lives meaning.
b. Sinners
We have all chosen (and re-affirm that choice daily) to reject God and make our own joy and happiness our highest priority. We do not want to worship God and surrender our self-mastery, yet we were built to worship. We, therefore, cling to idols, centering our lives on things that promise to give us meaning: success, relationships, influence, love, comfort, and so on.
c. In spiritual bondage
When a fish leaves water, which he was built for, he is not free, but dead. Worshiping other things besides God leads to a loss of meaning. Should we achieve the things we live for, we discover that they cannot deliver satisfaction, because they were never meant to be gods. They were never meant to replace God.
Worshiping other things besides God also leads to self-image problems. We end up defining ourselves in terms of our achievement in these things. We must have them or all is lost. Thus, they drive us to work too hard, or they fill us with terror if they are jeopardized.
2. Who God is:
a. Love and Justice.
His active concern is for our joy and well-being. Most people love those who love them, yet God seeks the good even of people who are His enemies. But because God is good and loving, He cannot tolerate evil. The opposite of love is not anger but indifference.
To imagine God’s situation, imagine a judge who also is a father, who sits at the trial of his guilty son. A judge knows that he cannot let his son go, for without justice no society can survive. How much less can a loving God merely ignore or suspend justice for us who are loved, yet guilty of rebellion against His loving authority?
b. Jesus Christ.
Jesus is God Himself come to Earth. He first lived a perfect life, loving God with all His heart, soul and mind. He fulfilled all human obligation to God. He lived the life we owed — a perfect record. Then, instead of receiving his deserved reward (eternal life), Jesus gave his life as a sacrifice for our sins, taking the punishment and death each of us owed.
When we believe in Him:
(1) Our sins are paid for by his death, and
(2) His perfect record is transferred to our account. God accepts and regards us as if we have done all Christ has done.
3. What you need to do:
a. Repent. There first must be an admission that you have been living as your own master, worshipping the wrong things, violating Gods loving laws. Repentance means you ask for forgiveness, and turn from that stance with a willingness to live for and center on Him.
b. Believe. Faith is transferring trust from your own efforts to the efforts of Christ. You were relying on other things to make you acceptable before God, but now you consciously rely on what Jesus did. All you need is nothing. If you think: “God owes me something for all my efforts,” you are still on the outside.
Pray after this fashion: “Lord God, I now see that I am more flawed and sinful than I ever dared to believe, but that I am more loved and accepted than I ever dared hope. I turn from my old life of living for myself. I have nothing to merit you’re approval, but I now rest in what Jesus did and I ask to be accepted into God’s family for His sake.”
This may not be the way you or I “present” the gospel to someone, but surely these are not the words of someone who is “apostate” or anything less than absolutely Evangelical. Surely, if these weren’t Keller’s words you would have no problem with them.
Dumbledorelives,
Thanks, this reminds me of why I was drawn to Tim Keller in the first place. It certainly is not indicitave of an “apostate,” and certainly is very evangelical. If only this were the standard approach in evangelism from which we were to better and sharpen from.
However, if Tim Keller really believes that this is true (what you’ve cited above), then he would believe that a denial of it would place one outside the Christian faith, right? And if he gave indication that he himself has affirmed those that deny it as Christians, it would point to an implicit denial of it himself, would it not? And if Keller’s most recent media activity confirms the reality that he is affirming Papists as true Christians and not informing them of their own idolatry etc, but rather promoting the Roman Catholic system of false religion (which opposes the Reformed/Evangelical faith), then am I not warranted in issuing a “Warning of potential Apostasy” informing those people with whom I have influence with and for whom I am accountabile to God for?
To answer “no” is to bind my conscience to unbiblical principles that result in direct disobedience of Scriptural commands. Jesus said that “IF” we love him, we’ll keep his commands.
Stephen,
In reading Reasons for Faith, I find Keller arguing for things such as the exclusive claims of Christ, that God sends people to a literal hell, that the Bible is to be taken literally, that there is no hope outside of the cross, that it is not about being good, but trusting in Christ. I have listened to dozens of his sermons (including recent ones) in which he argues the same. Again, one cannot be “apostate” AND hold to these truths.
D.~
You are in a strange and sad place in this Evangelical world of ours in that you are watching a beloved Bible teacher begin to lose his way. Ever read “Pilgrim’s Progress”? It happens.
Again…Stephen has been a great fan of Kellers…writing these articles is not fun nor pleasant. If we truly believe that “All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, REBUKING, CORRECTING and training in righteousness, so that the man of God may be thoroughly equipped for every good work” (2 Tim 3:16-17)…if we truly believe that then we will act on it. Stephen has.
Not long ago Keller was a guest on Laura Ingraham’s morning radio show. I was dismayed that while he had her ear for those few moments, not to mention thousands of other Romists, he did not give her the word of truth nor speak truth in love to her regarding the hell-bound road her soul is on. I love Laura and have written to her myself but I am nobody. Keller was given that moment to introduce Messiah and he did not. We must ask…why not?
well, you have no idea what he said before or after the show.
RM
Have you listened to Keller PREACH recently? He is as doctrinally sound as ever.
Agogley~
True, obviously I don’t know what was said in private. However, at least two things would have been accomplished with public correction: one, Laura would have received the truth of Messiah from a well educated and beloved preacher and two, we could see his “cards” on the Roman Catholic church whereas now it is fuzzy at best.
D.~
No, I have not heard him preach recently. It could be perfectly sound. However, I cannot seperate a man’s preaching from his writing and public actions.
Reformed Mama
The Apostle Paul would disagree: “The important thing is that in every way, whether from false motives or true, Christ is preached. And because of this I rejoice.”
That Keller’s preaching is sound, and that he clearly presents the gospel is THE most important thing. And from what I have heard and continue to hear, it is most definitely being preached by Keller week after week.
Dumbledorelives,
Please evaluate Keller’s “gospel for the uncircumcised” and then provide some commentary here to substantiate your claim that “he clearly presents the gospel.” In doing so, please do not obscure the issue at hand by appealing to some other facet of his past ministry efforts. The objections raised here are specific, not general. Therefore, please deal with the specific objections if you desire to continue posting here.
You are being given an open door. Walk through it, or it will soon close.
Stephen.
Sure, I’ll “walk through”.
Keller says: “Here’s what so misleading. If I say I’m speaking as a Reformed Protestant and I’m just going to defend Reformed Protestantism, 80 percent of what I’m going to say in that book will be defending a Catholic Christian’s faith, too. So why not admit that?”
You respond by saying: “Here we see Keller call the Catholic a Christian and attribute faith to them that is 80% the same as his. Maybe my math isn’t as good as my sister’s, but it would seem that justification, regeneration, baptism, God’s sovereignty, the afterlife, God’s decrees, the atonement of Jesus Christ, Sola Scriptura, authority, hermeneutics, communion, ordo salutis, election, predestination, the Fall, etc., would add up to a lot more than 20% of the faith. It sounds more accurate to say that 20% would represent a ‘Catholic Christian’s’ faith too.”
I think you are misreading Keller. Contrary to what you say, Keller, does not claim that the Roman Catholic’s faith has an 80% overlap with his. I understand him to be simply saying that that what he says in his book will find such an overlap with Roman Catholicism. A BIG difference!
You say that you haven’t even read Reason for Faith. Too bad, for Keller makes a pretty clear statement regarding his view of Catholicism on p. 117: “Yet when I come to describe the Christian gospel of sin and grace, I will necessarily be doing it as a Protestant Christian, and I won’t be sounding notes that a Catholic author would sound.” (page 117) This sounds like Keller in fact does distance himself from Roman Catholics on the gospel.
Dumbledorelives,
Just as a quick correction, you’ve referred to the book a few times as “Reason[s] for Faith,” and it’s “The Reason for God.”
Based on the “Intermission,” do you really believe that I’ve misread Keller as bad as you’ve said? I’m willing to concede this point, even in light of his denotative definition of the Christian faith on p. 116.
But the page you’ve referenced actually says more to support my point than it does yours.
You’ve said: “This sounds like Keller in fact does distance himself from Roman Catholics on the gospel.”
Yes, it does. And he has. But in affirming this it can’t be overlooked that he has reduced Protestantism to a mere “strand” of the whole, a slice of the pie (so to speak), one of the “churches” or “traditions” among the Roman Catholic and Eastern Orthodox “churches” and “traditions.” It’s there on p. 116 of the intermission.
Reformed:
I’m just a little hesistant to criticize somebody else when there are plenty of opportunities I missed or bungled.
Am I understanding scripture correctly?
As I was reading through Collosians I saw that the gospel was “previously heard ” so I decided to go through the the rest of the epistles and see if the same thing was true. Sure enough, the Gospel is what was preached to them, It was what the believed.
I see Paul is very wise, he reasons with people in Acts, but it does not bring forth a church that I know about. But the Gospel did.
I think reasoning and debating are prophitable but it doesnt bring about Believers.
1Cr 1:17For Christ did not send me to baptize, but to preach the gospel, not in cleverness of speech, so that the cross of Christ would not be made void.
1Cr 1:18 For the word of the cross is foolishness to those who are perishing, but to us who are being saved it is the power of God.
1Cr 1:19 For it is written, “I WILL DESTROY THE WISDOM OF THE WISE, AND THE CLEVERNESS OF THE CLEVER I WILL SET ASIDE.”
1Cr 1:20 Where is the wise man? Where is the scribe? Where is the debater of this age? Has not God made foolish the wisdom of the world?
No where close. Come on.
Jason,
No where close to what, Scripture? That is my point…
Jason are you refering to my comment or stephens post, or are you just doing a “post by”
Do you want to talk about it or just wanted to get that blurb off your chest, we are more than willing to discuss this post I have talk to Tim on the Phone and asked him the question that we talk about on the post.
Stephen,
I when i talked to Tim about the two gosples he made it clear that there was only on gosple, but I wonder why he doesnt reword it because the written word (in his gosple for the uncircumsised) is unbiblical.
on a similiar note, does anyone know anything about CJ Mahaney, and Soverign Grace Ministries? Is there anything to be aware of with that camp.
Travis,
CJ is solid on the Doctrine of Grace and the Gospel. He and his ministry is on the charismatic side which I would disagree with. You can know friends by those who call them friends and Dr MacArthur, Dr Mohler, Dr Dever, Dr Duncan all work with and have endorsed books by CJ and the new pastor of his church since his retirement Josh Harris.
“I didn’t want to draw any sudden conclusions, nor did I want you to, but as we move along, it starts to become very clear that Tim Keller is an ecumenical pluralist and views Roman Catholicism as true Christians.”
It became very clear to you? In an interview? I cannot even imagine writing something cautionary or negative about a book that I had not even taken the time to read. I’m not sure how you could have drawn more sudden conclusions, frankly. Not only do you make the rather dangerous move of passing judgment (while saying that you’re not) on material that you have not read, but you extend those sweepings judgments beyond the book to the man himself. By drawing solely on one interview and some misgivings about publishing decisions (from which Keller was no doubt completely excluded) you fail to provide an adequate context for conclusions as alarmist as those that you make.
I cannot remark on the book at all as I have not read it, but since you are questioning Keller as well as the book, I can meet and respond to you there. I attended Redeemer (where Keller preached ) in NYC for years. Ever since I moved away, I have longed to hear sermons that put the Gospel and Jesus at the heart of every sermon the way that Keller does. Nothing in his sermons gives any indication of “selling out.” His reluctance in this interview to criticize the Catholic Church does not reflect some secret alliance with it. Rather, I believe he is instead cautioning against the dangers of the the built-in righteousness that comes from talking about why one’s practice is better than another’s. In a tiny interview, he can’t possibly develop a complete argument for this stance, but you might want to check out Luke 18 (9-14). Or you could listen to his sermon on the topic (Inside-Out Living), where he takes us deep into the Gospel to make an enormously compelling argument against comparing ourselves to others.
I’m curious what you have to gain from scaring Christians away from a man that has inspired so many non-believers to accept Jesus. A man who has not only challenged Christians to deepen their relationship with Christ but has also taught them how to do that by relentlessly pointing us to the Gospel? Keller seems to understand that walking in faith is a journey. He didn’t say that Mere Christianity was the best book of theology ever written. He said that it was a good choice for someone who is tentatively approaching Christianity. The book may have sentences that may not suit you–it is an imperfect book written by an imperfect man–but it very often resonates profoundly with non-believers and offers a way into the Church. Again, I’m confused what you have against a book that has helped bring so many people to Jesus. You’ve taken a few offending sentences out of context and acted as if they could represent the book as a whole. Even when a book is perfect (hint: there’s only one), this tactic doesn’t work. Imagine if someone suggested that the Bible was just like the Koran because it supports and encourages Jihads based on sentences like “And whoever blashphemes the name of the Lord shall surely be put to death. All the congregation shall certainly stone him, the stranger as well as him who is born in the land.” (Lev 25:16) Or maybe we can pull sentences out of 1 Corinthians to prove that the Bible is opposed to marriage. You can see that randomly pulling quotations without considering the entire context and content can make for some ridiculously flawed exegesis.
I read your post and I am just confused. I simply can’t see the motivation for your dire warnings. Are the warnings to help people save money just in case your concerns about the book are founded? Are you worried that without your intervention, readers might be too naive to pick up on what you perceived to be pro-Catholic ramblings? Are you trying to join the ranks of those who spend their time judging and condemning the worship of others rather than advancing the cause of the Church? You say don’t want to rush to judgment, but you do. You say you don’t want to have to share such news, but i see no evidence of that reluctance. Your last sentence is a clarion call to all who hear to spread the word of Tim Keller’s defection. Do you know that to be true? Bearing false witness is such a serious offense that I’m really surprised that you’ve risked committing it so cavalierly and on the basis of such flimsy support. I wonder indeed if you are not the man standing at the wall thanking God that he is so much better than the killers and murderers and that miserable pro-Catholic pastor standing over there.
Read the book, listen to his sermons, and then if you still feel strongly, write an informed critique, but save your analysis for the book and the sermons, and leave the man out of it. I recognize that, like you, I have been unable to do that. I’m sharing out of concern and confusion because I perceive your remarks to be so mean-spirited and i can’t or don’t want to believe that that’s what you intended. please forgive me if you feel I’m out of line.
Argh. When I first found this page through a cached page from Google, none of the comments loaded with the post. I wrote my comments then after I clicked submit, all of the many many comments suddenly became visible.
i see i’ve joined the argument much too late and without all the necessary information.
my apologies.
Hi Heather!
The post really has nothing to do with the book. But thanks for such a thoughtful reply. You sound like a nice woman.
For more posts that I wrote on Keller, click here.
I see that you commented prior to viewing the comments. If you want to discuss anything, just let me know!
Grace and Peace.
Loved Tim Keller’s book. Reading it through for the 2nd time. I’d recommned Stephen Macasil reading it sometime … and contacting Tim Keller regarding clarification on the statements made in any previous interviews. God bless – David in Los Angeles
David,
We have already contacted Tim Keller and talked to him, read the comments it might clear up your concerns.
Stephen is just giving a Warning, he is not labeling him an Apostate.
tell us a little about your self, where do you go to church, how long have you been a christian.
Thanks for the post, keep posting tell us why you liked the book and what you dont like about it.
Re: Keller, he is pro-ECM. I’ve posted regarding him and his church. He has endosed a book by a New Age feminist, “Spiritual Disciplines Handbook Practices That Transform Us” by Adele Ahlberg Calhoun.
Re: CJ Mahaney, he’s pentecostal (or at least pro-pent) which is very problematic for those who are consistant with TULIP:
http://www.sovereigngraceministries.org/Reference/holy_spirit.pdf Read this. This is where Sovereign Grace Ministries embraces Pentcostals and Third Wavers. This is antithetical to the Doctrines of Grace, because at its base level, its Man-centered and fleshly, not Christ-centered and of the Spirit. The two theologies contradict each other, and worse, the Third Wave Movement is heretical.
Some info on Third Wave:
*Prophecy and hearing the voice of God. The Third Wave movement affirms the ongoing communication of God. Not only does God still speak to people today, we are able to hear God’s voice (sometimes referred to as receiving a “word of knowledge” or “word of wisdom” from God).
*Powerful prayer. The Third Wave movement emphasizes the mysterious but undeniable ways in which God’s will is affected by the prayers of believers. The power of prayer lies in its ability to create new realities, ones which would otherwise not have been called into existence. The faithful prayers of God’s people are the power to move the hands of God.
*Healing ministries. The Third Wave affirms the ongoing power of God to provide physical and mental healing. The experience of healing often occurs in the context of prayer, which provides an avenue for the power of God to restore broken lives.
*Spiritual warfare and deliverance ministries. The Third Wave movement emphasizes the ongoing battle between good and evil, recognizing that both holy and demonic forces struggle to gain influence in our lives at every level of our experience.
The Third Wave, which began in the 1980s, is a little more difficult to pinpoint. In 1983 Peter Wagner, professor of World Missions at Fuller Seminary, observed in an interview for Pastoral Renewal magazine: “I see the third wave of the eighties as an opening of the straight-line evangelicals and other Christians to the supernatural work of the Holy Spirit that the Pentecostals and charismatics have experienced, but without becoming either charismatic or Pentecostal.”
For more on the Third Wave: http://www.deceptioninthechurch.com/thirdwaveteachings.html
P.S. The Third Wave and Pentecostal movements (also connected is the Word of Faith movement) are heretical in that they all believe God is still giving revelation today, healing miraculously, 5-fold ministry which includes prophets and apostles who hold authority over all Christians, etc.
Teachers include Benny Hinn, John Wimber, Paul Cain, and your basic TBN teachers.
Why would someone who holds to the Docs of Grace embrace such unbiblical notions and movements?
Denise, you don’t believe God performs miracles any longer? Why not? When someone is sick, we pray at our church that God will either have the doctors find a cure or for God to take it away, if it’s in his will. I’m not speaking Benny Hinn style, which is just ridiculous. I read about a woman who was a witch and paralized for three years. A missionary came and prayed for her and she was healed. She was jumping for joy and gaev her life to Jesus. She was very influential in her village, so many others came to Christ through this, in a village that otherwise was trying to appease numerous gods previously. If God’s hand is over doctors and other things to heal “normally” (it’s not even really man that does it) then why can’t He go even further and heal miraculously in instances necessary. In modern, western civilizations, it would be in vain for the most part, but it can happen. I think it would be insulting of God’s power to deem otherwise. I just don’t think it’s a common occurance, otherwise it wouldn’t be a miracle. It definitely doesn’t happen in front of cameras. TBN is just blasphemous and opens the doors for mockery of the Lord’s True Power.
Redeemer Presbyterian Church where Tim Keller is senior pastor:
Offers pagan wisdom to professing Christians as their “Partner Ministries”:
“Every month or so Socrates In The City sponsors an event in which people can begin a dialogue on “Life, God, and other small topics” by hearing a notable thinker and writer such as Os Guinness or Peter Kreeft. Topics have included “Making Sense Out of Suffering,” “The Concept of Evil after 9-11,” and “Can a Scientist Pray?” No question is too big — in fact, the bigger the better. These events are meant to be both thought-provoking and entertaining, because nowhere is it written that finding answers to life’s biggest questions shouldn’t be exciting and even, perhaps, fun.” – http://www.redeemer.com/learn/partner_ministries/
Socrates In the City also offers liberal N.T. Wright: http://www.socratesinthecity.com/Bio_Wright.html and inter-faith compromiser Chuck Coleson.
Peter Kreeft: was a Protestant and has gone home to Rome. He is now Roman Catholic and wants to merge Christianity with Romanism. See why he’s a problem: http://www.biblebb.com/files/gr952.htm
So why would a “Reformer” like Keller not only endorse a New Age feminist write like Calhoun (See the back cover and inside: http://books.google.com/books?id=8M02unYlkQcC&pg=PA34&lpg=PA34&dq=tim+keller+calhoun&source=bl&ots=JE0zaaYQrq&sig=CESNCN6fyo9wOAycGSnUnXUrncw&hl=en&sa=X&oi=book_result&resnum=5&ct=result#PPT1,M1), but his own church offers Kreft and Wright to its sheep too?
This is precisely what I mean when I say that Reformers will accept all manner of heresy as long as their favorite author or pastor or teacher claims to hold to TULIP.
City Seminary New York is also a ministry partner of Redeemer and Keller is on its Board of Directors along with some women: http://www.cityseminaryny.org/about_board_of_directors.php.
It is very ecumenical and feministic: http://www.cityseminaryny.org/about_mission_and_calling.php & http://www.cityseminaryny.org/news_csnyfall08_Speakers.php
“City Seminary of New York’s Center for World Christianity and the City is intended to bring into view changes at the intersection of the city and religion. With New York City as a classroom, our research seeks to break boundaries between urban, sociological, theological, religious and other disciplines.” – http://www.cityseminaryny.org/center_for_world_christianity_and_the_city.php
Redeemer Presbyterian Church is following the ECM agenda re: community formation, spiritual formation and social justice; racial reconciliation. They also have the Dance Network where fellowship happens through dancing at a studio for a fun time: http://www.redeemer.com/connect/congregational_life/dance_network/
Redeemer also offers the Emergent Church Movement’s embracing of Eastern Mystic practice of Lectio Divina:
http://www.redeemer.com/connect/prayer/lectio_divina.html
This is very man-centered and mystical (inner experience) and subjective (what does this mean to you?). If you go to the link above for the Calhoun book Keller heartily endorses, you will see that it too, teaches the mystic Lectio Divina.
See the history (Eastern Mystic Roman Catholic) and danger here: http://www.lighthousetrailsresearch.com/lectiodivina.htm and http://apprising.org/2008/09/dr-gary-gilley-on-lectio-divina-in-contemplative-spiritualitymysticism-csm/
Redeemer on Fasting:
“ Fasting fosters concentration on God and his will.
Oswald Chambers once said that fasting means “concentration,” because when you’re fasting, you have a heightened sense of attentiveness. Food or any physical sensation can satisfy, fill you up, and dull your senses and spiritual ears. In contrast, a hungry stomach makes you more aware and alert to what God is trying to say to you.” — http://www.redeemer.com/connect/prayer/fasting.html
That quote is from this book: http://www.amazon.com/gp/reader/0764544829/ref=sib_dp_pt#reader-link which is NOT biblical on many levels., mainly because it is Roman Catholic friendly
Becky it seems you’ve decided my view without me answering.
Sorry it seems that way as it is not the case. I opened with a question and continued as if you would answer yes (based on your comment that Pentecostals are heretical for believing God performs miraculous healings). I did not, however, decide your view. Only you can do that. I tried to leave it open, just with my comments in case your answer time exceeded my memory.
Denise,
I would have to agree with Becky, God does miracles, my son is evidence of that, he was not suppose to live, he had a sever liver problem and we had our friends come over and we all asked the Lord to heal them, and the next day he went in for his final x-ray before surgery and the problem was gone, no evidences that he even had an issue, and the Doctors looked at us in shock they were speechless.
BUT…..
the rest of the stuff with Keller really concerns me, my pastor recommends Keller to our congergation, i didnt care to much because I didnt know about this stuff, though I have not seen the evidence in our church that we have gone in the direction of Kellers church, I’m am going to present this to the Elders tomorrow at our meeting and see what they say, ill let you guys know how it goes
I didn’t say what my view was Travis.
Now here’s my view: God does heal today but through everyday means most of the time. Its rare for Him to heal in a miraculous way today.
The problem with the Third Wave is that they hold to miracles being normative (they are part of the Charismatic movement, just the Third wave as opposed to the Second Wave). TBN is an example of the Third Wave/Charismatic/Pentecostal teachings.
Travis….yeah I understand about Keller. He’s sneaky. And by claiming to be Reformed, he CAN sneak in. Please see the book by Adele Calhoun he endorsed (his endorsement is on the back cover). I’ll pray your elders will see the error too and steer clear of him. There are definitly better authors to chose from.
I never said you did, I was just agreeing with Becky
I agree with your statement about the holy rollers, they make a mockery of Christ, I noticed that you came from a pentecostal back ground, is that why you are passionate about this?
Im going to print off your post and bring it along with the evidence to them, I have confronted them about Tim Kellers view of Gal. 2:7 and they agreed he misused it to say what he said, we shall see, Im going to attend Tim’s church in Feb. (possibly)
Thank you for your prayers, the Elders have a sensitive spirit and are obedient to scripture so I will pray with you that they see the errors
Travis,
The reason for my passion is a bit more broad than the Charismatic issue. Let me see if I can explaian and make sense.
The larger issue for me is that because I was caught up in error and I lived through its repercussions (sp) (it was truly bondage), I want to help others to earnestly contend for the faith that was once for all given to the saints.
So while that would include the Charismatic movement, my concern is far wider. For a while, that area was more of a emphasis for me, but as I’ve run into other circles (namely higher education , political , and Reformed ), I have a broader scope of burden, if that makes sense.
I’m seeing a compromise across the spectrum, but because Reformers generally see themselves as more solid and more educated (well-read, at least) than most, one would hope they would hold to Truth dearly. However, Keller (and Mahaney/Sovereign Grace Ministries, and if you know CARM, Matt Slick who runs CARM), all accept Charismaticism alongside TULIP. Charismaticism is Arminian to its core and is anti-thetical to TULIP, so trying to accept both views means someone’s compromising Truth.
I hope that makes sense.
I see a difference between charasmatic capital C and lower-case c. How is charasmatic as Sovereign Grace ministries is, bad? It seems they just get more outwardly passionate.
Or if you see Mahaney as Charismatic, how so?
Tim Keller will join Emergents and feminists at Exponential ‘08 conference:
http://www.exponentialconference.org/speakers/
Becky, have you read Sovereign Grace Ministries’ addendum on the Holy Spirit I posted? They accept Pentecostals and Third Wavers as members. They want unity at any cost. Did you read the info on Third Wave?
Charismaticism is diametrically opposed to Doctrines of Grace and the Sovereignty of God. At the heart of Charismaticism/Pentecostalism/Third Wave movements is man-centeredness.
What I’m saying is that one can’t be Reformed AND Charismatic/ Third Wave b/c the two oppose each other. Because Sov. Grace Min. wants a wider audience, they have lowered the bar of Truth to include heresy such as found in Pentecostalism and Third Wave stuff.
Travis,
How did it go with your elders? Did you see the link I posted yesterday? Keller is speaking at an Emergent Conference (by video I believe). =(
Yes Keller has been less than clear, yes he has seemigly advocated (at least not completly denounced) RC so let’s label him apostate and kick him out of out “sound” group…..while we are at it let’s get rid of everyine else who has let their heart’s desire for respect admiration and wider acceptance, lead them into not being as strong and forceful as our Lord would have….heaven will be great for the three of you who are there, but Peter won’t be, after all he distanced himself from gentile believers a clearly apostate act!!
You know as well as I that all of us will be called to account, and all of us will be ashamed of things we have said and written (hey maybe even this post!). However the redeemed are know by the fact they confess with their mouth Christ Jesus is Lord and believe God raised him from the dead….it is simple, not about theological nuances if it were then it would be a pretty select club rather than a vast multitude from every tribe and nation….
Keller confesses Jesus is Lord and there is a hardly a more persusive and convincing writer on the historicity of the resurrection (it leaps out at you in that chapter)…it comes from a heart knowledge of the resurrection life of Christ, because he is part of the elect and not an apostate!
I know I am going to get 10 responses that will make me want to bang my head against a wall so now I am making a covenant with my eyes to not look at this page again!
If the covenant he’s made with his eyes is anything similar to the covenant he’s made with ignorance, then he won’t be back for sure. So if anyone knows how to get a hold of him, let him know he’s an idiot.
Wickham provides false assurance of salvation to Mormons and other cults. His view should be a good example of what “what to reject” looks like. Until he discontinues the use of certain theological nuances and exchanges Tom Wright for the Bible, he should be dismissed with the wave of the hand like Miss America.
“It is simple, not about theological nuances,” said Wickham
Why make such a ridiculous theological nuance then?
Wickham has some serious issues!
Wait, i’m confused…how is
“However the redeemed are know by the fact they confess with their mouth Christ Jesus is Lord and believe God raised him from the dead….”
providing a false assurance of salvation to Mormons and other cults who don’t believe Jesus is Lord?
Stephen~
If Wickham is anything like BOC maybe he will have his 13 year old son who probably does not “have a covenant with his eyes” take a peek at what others are saying about him and then report back!! Lol…
Hi Becky,
Mormons and other cults “do” believe that, along with many other things, and that’s my point. According to Wickham’s logic, the theological nuances only get in the way of the simplicity of things, so hey, Mormons confess XYZ, they’re REDEEMED!
Stephen,
You yourself might be an apostate. Who can know the depths of self-deception?
But, knowledge, even that will all pass away …
…and your point is?
JAY G,
Are you saying God’s revealed knowledge is going to pass away? Please explain…..
Lol i think he meant man’s knowledge…how the top theologian will be on the same level as a poverty-stricken believer once they get to Heaven.
If not…he’s got some problems……
No, I know exactly what he means. There’s no need to guess. He is quoting 1 Cor. 13:8 where Paul says that prophecy, tongues, and knowledge will all pass away one day when the “perfect” comes. Paul goes on to say, “So now faith, hope, and love abide, these three; but the greatest of these is love. (13:13)”
If we’re to guess at anything, it’s in what he’s trying to communicate. My guess is that he’s saying that I just need to “love” and nothing else. This is typical from biblical illiterates easily influenced by liberals. In this case, he’s probably a Tim Keller fan that doesn’t like my criticism and that’s all he could say in the 56 seconds he was on BT, he’s on to another site since he found us in a search, and won’t be back for a while.
Hello,
Morey has gotten many of you on here to refer to a “New Reformation.” Perhaps it was defined at some point, but I cannot recall.
What is meant (connotative definition) in the mind of Morey and Friends:
1) When referring to this “New Reformation?”
2) What are we Reforming?
3) And by what means does one accomplish the goal of a “New Reformation?”
Are are discussing a new disputation of indulgences or simply scratching the word “Redrum” in red via Morey’s son?
Thanks for the clarity,
Jean Cauvin
“Keller confesses Jesus is Lord and there is a hardly a more persusive and convincing writer on the historicity of the resurrection (it leaps out at you in that chapter)…” –Wickham
Which Jesus does he profess? The New Age one that feminist and New Ager Adele Calhoun professes and whom he supports? He’s already mixed up on the basic issues of doctrine.
That too…i just meant i didn’t think he meant God’s knowledge will pass away. That wouldn’t fit in with the verse, because God wouldn’t need prohpecy/tongues, seeing as how he’s omniscient.
Jean, what do you mean by that redrum comment? And it would be undermining the Reformation to say it was only about disputing indulgences. It was so much more, a bringing back the Truth and uncovering the lies that had become so popular and accepted.
http://biblicalthought.com/blog/semper-reformanda-a-plea-to-reformed-american-christians
Becky,
“…i just meant i didn’t think he meant God’s knowledge will pass away.”
Agreed.
I’ve probably heard the “emergentistic” comment over a dozen times where, when confronted with a biblical refutation of their sinful deeds and doctrines they try to discredit the importance of knowledge by claiming that it will pass away, but love will remain.
This, of course, is a serious abuse of Scripture. But as soon as they see that they are wrong they either find some other issue to distract (red herring), or like in Jay G’s case – disappear. All they’re doing in most cases is repeating something they read, thinking that everyone else will be as floored by its supposed profundity as they were.
Splitting hairs over things that are not central. It’s like what Paul said in Philippians. What does it matter if people are coming to know God, whether in pretense or in truth? These are all hotly debated topics that you mention even in theological seminaries and great theologians! Would you be so closed minded as to disregard everything he says because of a few things that have been problematic for the Christian church for centuries?
As Tozer said, sometimes, it is theology that keeps us from following hard after God. Yes, I agree, that right thinking and right theology leads to a better worship. On the flip side, I wish you could see some of the people at this man’s church who have come to know the LORD as Saviour. Sometimes, I feel like we are the new Pharisees and I am equally guilty at times. That makes me sad. I hope that as we try to seek the heart and mind of God, we do it humbly knowing that we are deeply sinful, in need of a perfect Saviour and that our lives would reflect the same love and humility that Jesus had.
M,
Which God are “they coming to know”? The feminist New Age god of Adele Calhoun which Keller endorses? This isn’t splitting hairs. This is of eternal consequence.
Paul was referring to motive of the proclaimer, not content–preaching a false Jesus or a false gospel condemns a person—Gal. 1:6-9. He was very much concerned about doctrine.
Php 1:15 Some indeed preach Christ from envy and rivalry, but others from good will.
Php 1:16 The latter do it out of love, knowing that I am put here for the defense of the gospel.
Php 1:17 The former proclaim Christ out of rivalry, NOT SINCERELY but thinking to afflict me in my imprisonment.
Php 1:18 What then? Only that in every way, whether in pretense or in truth, Christ is proclaimed, and in that I rejoice. Yes, and I will rejoice,
Tit 1:9 He MUST hold firm to the trustworthy WORD AS TAUGHT, so that he may be able to give instruction in SOUND DOCTRINE and ALSO TO REBUKE THOSE WHO THOSE WHO CONTRADICT IT.
1Ti 6:3 If anyone teaches A DIFFERENT DOCTRINE AND does not agree with the SOUND WORDS of our Lord Jesus Christ and THE TEACHING THAT ACCORDS WITH GODLINESS, 1Ti 6:4 he is puffed up with conceit and understands nothing. He has an unhealthy craving for controversy and for quarrels about words, which produce envy, dissension, slander, evil suspicions,5 and constant friction among people who are depraved in mind and DEPRIVED OF THE TRUTH, imagining that godliness is a means of gain.
Denise is right on. A lot of people use certain language from Scripture that makes it sound like we are talking about the same thing when in fact, we couldn’t be farther apart.
This is ridiculous! I almost resorted to an ad hominem attack on you & your character but, i don’t know you…oh and guess what you likely don’t know Tim Keller? (discernment is important but i think many ‘reformed’ folks go overboard and this leads to a ‘deformation’ in my view. Adele Calhoun is a godly, wonderful pastor—even if you are a complementarian (traditionalist) when it comes to the ‘women’s issue’, you can still be gracious and appreciate her gifts.
such uncharitable remarks on one of the godliest, passionate preachers we have of today are misguided and harmful at best.
it’s because of such a sectarian, fault-finding, need i say, pharasaical spirit which led me to leave the Churches of Christ years ago–but that legalistic, uncharitable spirit is alive and well in many churches and in possibly in each human heart. i encourage you and any other reader here to read Tim Keller’s incredible, biblical document on “The Centrality of the Gospel” at the redeemer website.
Read and rejoice in the gospel! may it humble us all.
Doug,
It might be helpful if you mentioned who you were specifically talking too. There have been numerous posts and many posters have disagreed on the issues contained within this thread.
Sir Aaron,
good point. i was referring to the original post above by Mr. Macasil above. thank you.
Doug,
It’s interesting to hear that your post was directed to me since I didn’t bring Adele Calhoun into the discussion, yet the thrust of your comment begins with a defense of her pastoral prowess.
Perhaps you can explain how it is that you know the difference between what is and what isn’t sectarian.
Doug,
You seem to ignore major portions of Scripture that prohibit women from being leaders over men, especially in marriage and in the churches. A woman who is in direct rebellion to clear Scripture is neither “godly” nor a “wonderful pastor” (1Peter 3:1-6 and Titus 2 are good instructions for women to learn how to be godly). Calhoune is a New Age mystic which also is against Scripture. Given she is a false teacher, she has nothing to offer a Christian. She is already deceived according to Scripture.
1Tim. 2: 11 A woman should learn in quietness and full submission.
1Tim2: 12 I DO NOT PERMIT A WOMAN TO TEACH OR HAVE AUTHORITY OVER A MAN; she must be silent. 13 For Adam was formed first, then Eve. 14 And Adam was not the one deceived; IT WAS THE WOMAN WHO WAS DECEIVED and became a sinner. 15 But women will be saved through childbearing—if they continue in faith, love and holiness with propriety.
There’s no such thing as a female pastor according to God (Titus gives the commands of an elder being a MALE five times in four verses).
God doesn’t approve mysticism to be mixed in with Truth (2Cor. 6: 14-16—and there are many OT examples as well). His standards have not changed. HE is Master and as such HE dictates what shall and shall not happen in His churches. Isa 45:19 “ …I the LORD speak the truth; I declare what is right.” 1John 2:21… no lie is of the truth.
Titus 1 6 An elder must be blameless, the HUSBAND of but one wife, A MAN whose children believe and are not open to the charge of being wild and disobedient…. 9 HE must hold firmly to the trustworthy message AS IT HAS BEEN TAUGHT, so that HE can encourage others by sound doctrine and refute those who oppose it.
Someone truly humbled by God will not argue with the above passages of Scripture and HIS ordained roles of men and women, as well as staying faithful to the Truth (James 1:17-22).
Anyone who rejects the role of women as being in subjection to men, Scripture says, 1Cor. 14: 37” If anybody thinks he is a prophet or SPIRITUALLY GIFTED, let him acknowledge that what I am writing to you IS THE LORD’S COMMAND. 38 IF HE IGNORES THIS, HE HIMSELF WILL BE IGNORED.”
Does anyone know anything about these books, im working on researching them, just on my basic knowladge I stay away from the top two, but any more information would be helpful to explain to my church, the want to go through one of these.
Surprised by Hope – NT Wright
Mere Christianity – CS Lewis
Culture-Making: Recovering Our Creative Calling – Crouch
Depending on your faith level, it wouldn’t be harmful to read at least the Lewis book. I heard it’s okay, just not something you’d want to pull doctrine from. If you are a new believer, or going through a weak season right now, i’d say don’t read. But if you know what you believe and why and are equipped for battle, then read with discernment so you don’t have to go to outside sources, but research and refute firsthand. Of course, that’s not saying to rule out other research. Any advice given here can only streghthen your case.
It’s a wonderful exercise to refutre something yourself even if you try on your own first and compare notes with other books/blogs/sites that have already done so. You can see how well you did and learn more to.
Oh, and my last comment was directed to Travis…
Good advice, Becky! I’d echo that for Wright’s book too. I have heard that he gives some helpful explanations of “heaven,” and I have heard that he argues well to prove the pagan influences on the Eastern church due to hellenization (also see Morey: Is Eastern Orthodoxy Christian?).
Wright and Lewis both deny penal-substitution and justification solely through faith. They both also deny the Reformed doctrine of Scripture, and Wright is a leading New Perspective on Paul proponent.
Both are/were ridiculously smart, but smart don’t always mean saved!
I’m clueless on the third (Crouch).
I came to this site researching Tim Keller. I am shocked at how harshly Mere Christianity has been judged.
I was a hardened skeptic of Jesus before reading Mere Christianity and less than halfway through God made the truth known to me: the truth of Jesus Christ and my desperate need for salvation. My life changed forever that day.
Please consider that we are all in different degrees of Christian maturity. Even Peter and Barnabas made mistakes. I don’t agree with everything Lewis said, but you’d have a very hard time finding any 2 people who constantly agree. His books have been a great help to me and many others. I think he was growing throughout his writings and went through ups and downs like everyone.
I’d be very alarmed if I read someone (outside of Jesus) who said that they were right about EVERYTHING and never recanted an idea. I might think that person wasn’t humble and was possibly an unrepentant liar.
God bless!
Denise – are you teaching a man (Doug)?
again, to Denise – if God doesn’t want women to teach, what in the world are you doing?
SW,
“I am shocked at how harshly Mere Christianity has been judged.”
It has been judged against the only objective reference point known to humanity: Scripture.
I am joyful to hear your testimony of God making known the truth of Jesus Christ to you and your desperate need for salvation. Praise the Lord that He saves and He alone!
“Please consider that we are all in different degrees of Christian maturity.”
Amen, and those of higher degree are accountable to those of lower degree to teach and disciple, just as those of lower degree are accountable to those of higher degree to learn and submit. Of course, all of this must be done in accordance to God’s Word.
My main point in making the warning of Lewis’ book in the first place is because Tim Keller was asked which book outside of the Scriptures would he recommend to someone questioning Christianity, and his answer was MC.
Based on the pull quotes from MC in the OP, it is beyond the shadow of a doubt that Lewis’ book contains vile, damnable heresy. Although many say it is a great book, the question becomes: how did the devil get in such a great book?
Hi Stephen,
It should be pointed out that Morey (correct me if I’m wrong) has questioned C.S. Lewis’ Christianity. I would agree with his reluctance.
Though it is logical and thus possible for a non-Christian pagan to speak of the truth. The fact that Lewis was probably not a Christian should give us presuppositional “caution” when reading “Mere Christianity.”
This is due to the fact that Lewis’ mere Christianity, is probably not Mere Biblical Christianity. Though he spoke of truths at times.
This is probably why it has been given “heat.” Especially if the heat has been among those who study Dr. Morey’s theology.
Respectfully,
Jean Cauvin (Jude 3).
Jean Cauvin,
Unless he made the reference to Lewis as a minor passing statement in some sermon or lecture, I’m not aware at the moment of any hard proof that he questioned his salvation.
He’s actually quoted him in the positive both in person and in print (Death and the Afterlife, I think), and he’s also assigned “The Problem of Pain” for us to read and discuss, but I can’t recall him ever questioning his mere unbiblical Christianity, or, Xianity! I think he likes Lewis. But I don’t know. I’ll ask him.
If he finds out about my position on this he’ll probably kick me off of his blog. And if he ever finds out that I have criticized his close buddy Tim Keller’s gospel for the uncircumcised, he just may kick me off of the janitorial squad that I head up at the Faith Defenders East wing apologetics tower (9th floor). Those Westminster boys stick together.
However, I certainly recall John Robbins’ article questioning whether Lewis was even saved. Maybe that’s what you’re thinking of.
It’s a really good article by one of the greats!
SW,
I have no doubts that God has used Lewis’ “Mere Christianity” for much good. God can and does use all things for His benefit. Praise God that He used it for your salvation! I know how you feel, SW. When the Lord uses a book or a man to lead you to Christ, you have a certain reverance towards that person. But eventually you realize that the person is just an instrument of God, and often a flawed instrument.
I don’t question Lewis’ salvation. First, I’d leave that to God and second, I just don’t have enough information about his background. That Lewis cames from the Church of England probably explains a lot about his Theology. After all, it was that Church after all, that is responsible for the Pilgrims journey to America. But I digress. Let’s assume that Lewis was a Christian. Does that mean however, that he should necessarily be a teacher? Or does that mean that he hasn’t written books that contain poor, bad, or even heretical theology? Obviously, if I think that Lewis wrote a book that contains some bad theology, i’m certainly NOT going to recommend that as a book for believers or anybody else to use when they are “questioning” their faith. I’d recommend a book that contains sound, practical theology.
You who sit in judgement of Lewis:
What are you doing to build the Kingdom of God? Are you uniting or tearing it apart member by member. Remember what Paul says about members of the church biting at each other. They will destroy each other.
Its easy to critique someone after their death because they can’t defend themselves. Find a perfect person outside of Christ. You will be judged how you judge. Questioning another person’s salvation sends a chill through me. Only God knows the heart and where a person’s heart is upon their death. Lewis’ fruits show that he was TRYING to point people to Christ. Will you judge another man’s servant? Where is speaking the truth in love? I see much bitterness and aloofness in these posts.
Why is Lewis ridiculed here so much? Regardless of what you’ve gotten from his books, many, many more people have grasped the positive (the truths) and followed after Christ. Some people perceive evil in the Bible. We know that’s not true, but that doesn’t change their minds.
I think you find what you’ve looking for. If you go looking for evil, you’ll find it. Same goes for goodness and the truth. God’s not far from ANY of us.
Sir Aaron – Lewis was a layperson in the Anglican church, just a regular Joe, not a priest. Churchly speaking, he was not a teacher or elder then. His profession was teaching literature and other nontheistic subjects. He just talking about God a lot and tried to convince people to come to Christ.
You want harsh views of C.S. Lewis? Stephen mentioned John Robbins…here is his article.
http://www.trinityfoundation.org/journal.php?id=103
I know people hate Lewis for reasons that are beyond me. Hating anyone is beyond my understanding. We are told to pray for our enemies. In any case, the hardened atheists I know really don’t like him either. He was flawed as we all are, but his reasoning has been useful to many of us who are trying to relate the reality of Christ to intellectuals.
Lewis made popular the old question about Jesus: is He God, liar, or lunatic. Once a person comes to grips with that question they see He is neither liar nor lunatic and therefore has to be God. Many pastors use this logic today. The atheists I know won’t consider the question at all. Jesus said “who do you say I am?” That’s one of the most important things, in my opinion. A step on the way to salvation…
“Sir Aaron – Lewis was a layperson in the Anglican church, just a regular Joe, not a priest. Churchly speaking, he was not a teacher or elder then. His profession was teaching literature and other nontheistic subjects. He just talking about God a lot and tried to convince people to come to Christ.”
That’s not the background to which I was referring.
“I know people hate Lewis for reasons that are beyond me. ”
Nobody hates Lewis. But we may hate some of his theology. I notice you throw out the word hate much like the liberals love to. Just because somebody questions Lewis’ doctrine and therefore, his salvation, does not equivocate hatred. In fact, it’s love for you that anybody would say anything at all. Better to be criticized for being overly harsh then to allow one of the sheep to be carried off by the enemy through heretical doctrine.
“but his reasoning has been useful to many of us who are trying to relate the reality of Christ to intellectuals.”
His reasoning may have led you to Christ, but his reasoning can also do a lot of harm by stunting your growth in proper doctrine. You also assume that you and others would not be better helped by somebody else’s writings who does hold to sound Biblical doctrine.
“Once a person comes to grips with that question they see He is neither liar nor lunatic and therefore has to be God. Many pastors use this logic today.”
Although I question this statement, I would tell you that just because God chose to make lemonade out of lemons doesn’t mean that you ought not to use something more appropriate when making a defense of the faith. The danger in using C.S. Lewis is that you may get some things that are helpful, but you will also get a whole lot more that is harmful. It’s like eating ice cream for the vitamins. Yeah, you may get some Vitamin C out of it, but you’ll also get saturated fat, etc. Therefore, you don’t recommend ice cream as a source of nutrients. You recommend fruits and vegetables.
You guys need to give Lewis a break. He was an English teacher not a theologian. To call him a heretic is ridiculous. We all have some sort of faulty theology. Even those of us with the highest views of scripture interpret the Bible with the taint of sin. In response to the comment, “how did the devil get in his book?” the answer is pretty clear. Check out Romans 7. We aren’t immune to the battle between flesh and Spirit even when interpreting scripture. The Holy Spirit opens our eyes but the devil makes every attempt to blur our sight. Every book ever written by man has the devil present to some extent.
Hello,
The very fact that Lewis was of the Church of England is a question as to whether he was saved or not. If he was saved, it would have been DESPITE his Anglicanism, not BECAUSE of it.
Lewis held to the view of Transubstantiation, and this is enough (I argue) to say that he denied Christianity. By redefining the Person AND work of Jesus Christ, he thus denies a central tenant of the faith and is thus a non-Christian.
Ergo, the more consistent and Anglican is, the more pagan/non-Christian a person is. I would argue that Lewis was very consistent in his “religion.”
Though this is not what you’re talking about directly. There are some points that he made which raises the question in a proper mode. The very means to phrase the question directly and correctly is the very means to read/study an author’s point.
His natural theology is good to study. His concept of miracles ALWAYS within the means of natural causes is also interesting to study in light of 19th century REACTION to Hoarce Bushnell and higher critical liberalism.
Instead of ACTING, Lewis REACTED to form his “apologetic” type response regarding miracles. This is horrible, and I would say most “apologetists” today REACT vs. ACT on Biblical soundness.
I too would encourage C.S. Lewis’ writings to be read. But of course, with great discernment. He has done much for the Body of Christ, even though he probably is not of the Body of Christ.
However, the same could be said of Billy Graham (who is also a pagan/non-Christian).
Jean Cauvin
Hello MLJN,
When we discuss Lewis being a heretic, we are not discussing non-essential heresy (like natural theology) but rather essential heresy that would place him outside of the Christian faith.
This is the concern of my argument and I believe this is the concern of Morey’s argument as well.
Respectfully,
Jean Cauvin (Jude 3).
Jean,
Wherever I find you contributing something I see that you get your facts wrong. Lewis did not believe in Transubstantiation, nor did he hold to the Calvinist View of the Lord’s Supper, but I’m compelled to correct your factual errors, because you seem to make them an insidious habit. Please do your research before you make accusations. It’s sort of like checking your sights to see if your target is in view, rather than blasting away with a machine gun style approach. I’m not defending Lewis’ inclusivist claims or his ambiguous remarks about the atonement, but let’s be factual about what the man believes. Have you read anything he’s written other than Mere Christianity?
Here is his view regarding the subject at hand:
“Some people seem able to discuss different theories of this act as if they understood them all and needed only evidence as to which was best. This light has been withheld from me. I do not know and can’t imagine what the disciples understood Our Lord to mean when, His body still unbroken and His blood unshed, He handed them the bread and wine, saying they were His body and blood. I can find within the forms of my human understanding no connection between eating a man–and it is as Man that the Lord has flesh–and entering into any kind of spiritual oneness or community or koinonia with him. And I find “substance” (in Aristotle’s sense), when stripped of its own accidents and endowed with the accidents of some other substance, an object I cannot think. My effort to do so produces mere nursery-thinking–a picture of something like very rarefied plasticine. On the other hand, I get on no better with those who tell me that the elements are mere bread and mere wine, used symbolically to remind me of the death of Christ. They are, on the natural level, such a very odd symbol of that. But it would be profane to suppose that they are as arbitrary as they seem to me. I well believe there is in reality an appropriateness, even a necessity, in their selection. But it remains, for me, hidden. Again, if they are, if the whole act is, simply memorial, it would seem to follow that its value must be purely psychological, and dependent on the recipient’s sensibility at the moment of reception. And I cannot see why this particular reminder–a hundred other things may, psychologically, remind me of Christ’s death, equally, or perhaps more–should be so uniquely important as all Christendom (and my own heart) unhesitatingly declare. (Malcolm, 102)”
He’s hardly endorsing the Catholic View of the Lord’s Supper. Also, just because he’s an Anglican does not rule him out as a Christian a priori. Enter John Stott and J.I. Packer, or Bishop J.C. Ryle. All these men are incredible Christians, and a part of the Anglican Church. Lewis had his problems, no doubt about it, but if you’ve read through all his writings you will see some rare gems of theological knowledge. There is a reason why Morey assigns his book “The Problem of Pain,” and your hero Walter Martin (who I like as well) recommended reading “The Screwtape Letters” once a year.
Just the facts, man, just the facts.
Hi Peter,
I never claimed Lewis held to a Calvinistic view of the “Lord’s Supper.” You seem to be an extremely promiscuous “John” towards the ladies of logical fallacies.
Regarding Transubstantiation, your 100% wrong. Lewis did believe in Transubstantiation and he also believed in Purgatory. Are you receiving passing grades at Biola or H grades?
“If Scripture permits one to believe in the Real Presence, and Cardinal Wiseman’s lectures on the Holy Eucharist convince me that it does, then I cannot see that there is anything in the doctrine of Transubstantiation that is incongruous, although, again, it cannot be naturally proved like a mathematical proposition.” (Published letter between Lewis and Stebbins).
Lewis struggles with many issues. That fact that he came to adhere to Transubstantiation is without question. Virtually all Roman Catholic “apologists” would agree.
More could be said as to why Morey for example has questioned his salvation, but this is the crux of the issue. And thus this is the foundation of the issue against Roman Catholicism as well.
The Primacy of the Intellect and Original sin would also be “questioned” as to Lewis’ orthodoxy.
Stephen did a good job on this thread OP. There are symptoms of a disease and the diagnosis itself. That fact that Stephen has pointed out the symptoms of apostasy without giving Keller the full diagnosis is enough to congratulate him.
Though the symptoms, usually and eventually lead to heresy.
Jean Cauvin
Nice to see you take your cues from RC apologists. Sounds legit.
Also, I was giving you information about what Lewis actually believed and wrote. I read that you said that he believed only Transubstantiaton, and I was only speaking to that with respect to my critique, and giving you additional info, as well. You’ll live. Also, you need to take a basic course in Logic and research, it might help you a bit.
How about this, most protestant scholars would disagree with your RC scholars on this issue. Read Walter Hooper, Jerry Root, and few other people on our side of the discussion.
Also, “Real presence” is a Lutheran view of Consubstantiation, which I believe he may have held to.
Check this out, “Transubstantiation and the Eucharist
Another Catholic “hot-button” that Seddon accuses Lewis of pushing is the doctrine of transubstantiation. He quotes Lewis as saying that
I find “substance” (in Aristotle’s sense), when stripped of its own accidents and endowed with the accidents of some other substance, an object I cannot think. My efforts to do so produces mere nursery-thinking [...]. (Malcolm 102)
“For Tolkien,” Seddon writes, “the condescension would have been palpable.” Seddon sees Lewis here as leveling an accusation of childishness at the Catholic doctrine, something Tolkien would’ve regarded as a slap in the face. But I think the passage as a whole gives a very different picture of what Lewis is up to.
What Lewis is discussing here is his inability to accept a “theory” of the Eucharist, whether it’s the Catholic doctrine of transubstantiation or the “memorialist” views associated with some Protestant churches:
Some people seem able to discuss different theories of this act as if they understood them all and needed only evidence as to which was best. This light has been withheld from me. I do not know and can’t imagine what the disciples understood Our Lord to mean when, His body still unbroken and His blood unshed, He handed them the bread and wine, saying they were His body and blood. I can find within the forms of my human understanding no connection between eating a man–and it is as Man that the Lord has flesh–and entering into any kind of spiritual oneness or community or koinonia with him. And I find “substance” (in Aristotle’s sense), when stripped of its own accidents and endowed with the accidents of some other substance, an object I cannot think. My effort to do so produces mere nursery-thinking–a picture of something like very rarefied plasticine. On the other hand, I get on no better with those who tell me that the elements are mere bread and mere wine, used symbolically to remind me of the death of Christ. They are, on the natural level, such a very odd symbol of that. But it would be profane to suppose that they are as arbitrary as they seem to me. I well believe there is in reality an appropriateness, even a necessity, in their selection. But it remains, for me, hidden. Again, if they are, if the whole act is, simply memorial, it would seem to follow that its value must be purely psychological, and dependent on the recipient’s sensibility at the moment of reception. And I cannot see why this particular reminder–a hundred other things may, psychologically, remind me of Christ’s death, equally, or perhaps more–should be so uniquely important as all Christendom (and my own heart) unhesitatingly declare. (Malcolm, 102)
Seddon reads this as little more than anti-Catholic polemic, but on a more charitable reading it seems clear that Lewis is grappling with the same issue that the magisterial Protestants grappled with: finding a middle way between transubstantiation and sheerly subjective or memorialist views of the Eucharist. Luther and Calvin both had “high” views of the Eucharist, even though they rejected the Catholic doctrine as it was formulated in their time. Lewis himself writes that the Eucharist (along with baptism) is the very means by which the new life of Christ is transmitted to us (see, e.g. the discussion in Mere Christianity) and that the Blessed Sacrament is the most holy object ever presented to our senses in this life (in the Weight of Glory). Nowhere that I’m aware of does he deny the Real Presence and he is probably best characterized as a High Church Anglican in his view of the sacraments.
Jean,
The last post was addressed to you. opps.
Im wondering where Billy Graham is now a non-Christian? I know he is not of the mold from which some are cut, but that mold is of human origin and not divine.
I wonder if there are not a great many of the past saints that would declare this generation of believers to be nothing more than attenders at the church of Sardis?
John
Jean,
You said: (part of this is your Lewis quote)
“If Scripture permits one to believe in the Real Presence, and Cardinal Wiseman’s lectures on the Holy Eucharist convince me that it does, then I cannot see that there is anything in the doctrine of Transubstantiation that is incongruous, although, again, it cannot be naturally proved like a mathematical proposition.” (Published letter between Lewis and Stebbins).
Lewis struggles with many issues. That fact that he came to adhere to Transubstantiation is without question. Virtually all Roman Catholic “apologists” would agree.”
Once again here you’ve shown that you have foot in mouth disease. Lewis does not hold to Transubstantiation (see above quote from my prior post “Letters to Malcolm”pg. 102). If you read the quote you cite again, then you will notice Lewis does not take the position, but gives slight commentary on how he thinks a “Real Presence” view is not incongruent with the Catholic view (news flash, it’s not, the Lutherans believed in a real presence of Christ in the Eucharist, and Catholics have taken the real presence idea a step further and said that the bread and wine become the actual body and blood. As reformed folk we disagree with both of them, and for good reason). Lewis did not wish to take a strong position on the Lord’s supper, and he thought it was shrouded in mystery.
By the way, what book is that quote taken out of? There are several compilations of letters that have been published of Lewis’ dialogue with others. Which do you refer to: page number, title, publisher, etc?
Also, telling us RC apologists are claiming Lewis held this position does not hold much water with this crowd. I could see why they would want to assert that, but it is not clear why you would believe them over protestant scholars, or the man’s own words. I won’t consider your quote as legitimate until you provide documentation. That’s what this whole thing is about. Anybody can look up the quote I gave you and see I cited it accurately, but your documentation is what has been in question on this blog website, and it’s not the first time either.
Lastly, Stephen already told you that he is unaware of any statement (in print or in sermon) that Morey has made stating he doubts Lewis’ salvation. Again, give us documentation. Starting to see a pattern.
Jean,
I want to apologize for coming off rude towards you in my comments. I read through the thread, and I was a bit strong on that front. Sincerely, I apologize for that. Smack talk is usually not my style. Oh, I’m a logic tutor at Biola.
My concerns are:
1. That you have made allegations in the past without documentation.
2. You definitely have a bug for Morey in quite a few posts on this site
3. Sometimes it seems like you want to stir up controversy.
4. I still think your wrong about Lewis’ position on the Lord’s Supper.
Hopefully, there is no hard feelings
Of course CS Lewis was outside biblical Christianity. Its well documented what he held to. Unless you want to compromise Truth and include unbelievers into the fold of Christ, then you have to divide from Lewis. I’ve looked at “Mere Christianity” to verify the quotes and it is accurate, sadly.
I’ve posted this information before, but here it goes again:
Later on page 59 of ‘Mere Christianity’ Mr Lewis writes ‘There are three things that spread the Christ life to us: baptism, belief, and that mysterious action which different Christians call by different names – Holy Communion, the Mass, the Lord’s supper’
‘There are people in other religions who are being led by God’s secret influence to concentrate on those parts of their religion which are in agreement with Christianity and who thus belong to Christ without knowing it. For example, a Buddhist of good will may be led to concentrate more and more on the Buddhist teaching about mercy and to leave in the background (although he might still say he believed) the Buddhist teaching on certain other points. Many of the good Pagans long before Christ’s birth may have been in this position…Consequently it is not much use trying to make judgments about Christians and non-Christians in the mass’. On page 173 of ‘Mere Christianity’ C S Lewis.
In his book ‘Prayer: Letters to Malcolm’ C S Lewis wrote [p 109-111]– Of course I pray for the dead. The action is so spontaneous, so all but inevitable, that only the most compulsive theological case against it would deter men. And I hardly know how the rest of my prayers would survive if those for the dead were forbidden. At our age the majority of those we love best are dead. What sort of intercourse with God could I have if what I love best were unmentionable to Him? On the traditional Protestant view, all the dead are damned or saved. If they are damned, prayer for them is useless. If they are saved, it is equally useless…To pray for them presupposes that progress and difficulty are still possible. In fact you are bringing in something like Purgatory. Well, I suppose I am…I believe in Purgatory
~from http://www.takeheed.net/Lewisavoid.htm
More:
Lewis allowed that “all Holy Scripture is in some sense – though not all parts of it in the same sense – the word of God.”5
In a letter Lewis wrote to Clyde Kilby on May 7, 1959, he argued, “If every good and perfect gift comes from the Father of Lights, then all true and edifying writings, whether in Scripture or not, must in some sense be inspired.”6
When in Christian Reflections Lewis lists his assumptions for his arguments, he lists them as “the divinity of Christ, the truth of the creeds, and the authority of the Christian tradition,” a rejection of the Biblical and Reformational principle of sola Scriptura. Not only is Scripture alone not the assumption or basis of his arguments, Scripture is not even mentioned as an assumption or basis.
~ from http://www.trinityfoundation.org/PDF/205a-DidCS.LewisGotoHeaven.pdf
SW we are to test ALL things, especially those who proclaim Christ. Using your line of reasoning, we should accept Mormons like Glenn Beck ( http://www.sliceoflaodicea.com/uncategorized/focus-on-the-family-embraces-mormonism/ ) because he claims “Christ” and uses words like “atonement”, even though his Jesus is a false Jesus, and thus his notion of the atonement is anti-biblical.
Because there are many who “creep in among you”, we are commanded to test everything. How else do you suppose error and heretics get into Christian circles? Certainly not by announcing themselves as such, but by cloaking themselves as the real deal, gathering people around them and moving them away from Truth.
Heb 5:14 But solid food is for the mature, for those who have their powers of discernment trained by constant practice TO DISTINGUISH good from evil.
Gal 1:8 But even if we or an angel from heaven should preach to you a gospel contrary to the one we preached to you, let him be accursed.
Gal 1:9 As we have said before, so now I say again: If anyone is preaching to you a gospel contrary to the one you received, let him be accursed.
Gal 1:10 For am I now seeking the approval of man, or of God? Or am I trying to please man? If I were still trying to please man, I would not be a servant of Christ.
1Co 5:11 But now I am writing to you NOT TO ASSOCIATE with anyone who bears the name of brother if he is guilty of sexual immorality or greed, or is an idolater, reviler, drunkard, or swindler–not even to eat with such a one.
Mat 7:15 “Beware of false prophets, who come to you in sheep’s clothing but inwardly are ravenous wolves. 16 You will recognize them by their fruits. Are grapes gathered from thornbushes, or figs from thistles? Mat 7:17 So, every healthy tree bears good fruit, but the diseased tree bears bad fruit.
2Jo 1:7 For many deceivers have gone out into the world, those who do not confess the coming of Jesus Christ in the flesh. Such a one is the deceiver and the antichrist. 8 Watch yourselves, so that you may not lose what we have worked for, but may win a full reward.
Then there are all the verses that names name of men to stay away from precisely because they are teaching against sound doctrine.
SW said, “He was flawed as we all are, but his reasoning has been useful to many of us who are trying to relate the reality of Christ to intellectuals.”
The problem is that lies do not lead people to Christ. Scripture says “no lie is of the truth.”
We are saved in Truth and by Truth.
We are sanctified by Truth.
Scripture is Truth.
Jesus is Truth.
God is called “The God of Truth”.
Human reasoning is not the power of God unto salvation.
Rom 1:16 For I am not ashamed of THE GOSPEL, FOR IT IS THE POWER OF GOD FOR SALVATION to everyone who believes, to the Jew first and also to the Greek.
1Co 1:21 For since, in the wisdom of God, THE WORLD DID NOT KNOW GOD THROUGH WISDOM, it pleased God THROUGH THE FOLLY of what we preach to save those who believe.
1Co 1:23 BUT WE PREACH CHRIST CRUCIFIED, a stumbling block to Jews and folly to Gentiles, 24 but to those who are called, both Jews and Greeks, CHRIST THE POWER of God and THE WISDOM of God.
1Co 1:25 For the foolishness of God is wiser than men, and the weakness of God is stronger than men.
1Co 2:14 The natural person DOES NOT ACCEPT the things of the Spirit of God, for they are folly to him, and he is NOT ABLE TO UNDERSTAND THEM because they ARE SPIRITUALLY discerned.
Salvation is not a matter of intellect; its a matter of the spirit. It is always a heart problem, a hating-God problem, and unbelief problem, not an intellectual one (recall Jesus said we are to be “like” children in faith–children are hardly “intellectuals” filled with cynicism, doubt, and a need for proof).
Salvation comes by way of the preaching of Christ Jesus (1Cor. 1-2; 15), not trying to fit HIM into an unbeliever’s standard of reasoning. HE will not bow to man’s arrogance. It is man that MUST bow to God’s ways…His sovereignty. And there’s one more thing: there is never enough evidence for the skeptic. God must regenerate his heart before he accepts the Truth of the Person and Work of Jesus Christ, and fully trusts in Him alone, not in the power of one’s intellect (1Cor. 1:17-31).
Stick with Scripture. It really is sufficient.
Dear all that are discussing Lewis,
From the OP I pulled three quotes and labeled them A, B, & C. Below them I have provided some brief commentary so that folks can sort of understand my view of CS Lewis and why for the most part I don’t consider him reliable enough to be on my list of reliable “Christian” authors. This isn’t a comprehensive analysis, just some basic observations and what I’ve deduced from them while measuring them by Scripture. I’ve tried (very hard) not to repeat VanTil here, although I hold his critique of Lewis as extremely helpful in my own understanding of the dangers that lie beneath the waters loved so much to sail on by evangelicals known as “Sea” S. Lewis. (see CVT, Essays on Christian Education, 2.B & 3A, P&R, 1979)
***** (from the OP)
Read these quotes from Mere Christianity, and while you’re reading, ask yourself if you agree with Keller’s choice.
A) “Now before I became a Christian I was under the impression that the first thing Christians had to believe was one particular theory as to what the point of [Jesus'] dying was. According to that theory God wanted to punish men for having deserted and joined the Great Rebel, but Christ volunteered to be punished instead, and so God let us off. Now I admit that even this theory does not seem to me quite so immoral and silly as it used to; but that is not the point I want to make.
B) “What I came to see later on was that neither this theory nor any other is Christianity. The central Christian belief is that Christ’s death has somehow put us right with God and given us a fresh start. Theories as to how it did this are another matter. A good many different theories have been held as to how it works; what all Christians are agreed on is that it does work…
C) “We believe that the death of Christ is just that point in history at which something absolutely unimaginable from outside shows through into our own world. And if we cannot picture even the atoms of which our own world is built, of course we are not going to be able to picture this.”
***** (end of quote from OP)
A implies that whatever “impression” he “was” under, he is no longer under.
A assumes the validity of the proposition that the vicarious death and penal substitution doctrine taught in Scripture is only one of several/many valid “theories.”
A implies that penal substitutionary atonement is viewed as immoral and silly in the mind of CS Lewis, just not as immoral and silly as it used to as far as degrees of absurdity is concerned. Notice that he does not deal with whether or not it is biblical.
A implies (or reveals) that Lewis’ soteriology (or ordo salutis) involves something (contributed by humans) chronologically prior to faith in the finished work of Christ for salvation (conversion).
B is simply illogical on many grounds. He begins with a denial of any “theory” of Christianity as Christianity, then goes on to give us his theory of Christianity. He attempts to draw a distinction between various theories of Christianity and his own correct theory while fallaciously implementing the inductive method to define what Christianity “is.”
B excludes Protestants from Lewis’ inductive definition of Christianity by not leaving room for those that deny that Christ’s death “merely” gives us a fresh start and “somehow” makes us right with God. It excludes Protestants because we proclaim the gospel of grace that “definitely” saves dead sinners and gives new life to a new creation. I realize that this is one of my “radical” views that is seen as divisive, but if pressed I can validate my position from Scripture whereas others cannot. Logically, my belief cannot be true and others true too. Due to the exclusive nature of my position it does not leave open the door of possibility that Eastern Orthodoxy, Roman Catholicism, etc., can also be true. And only over my dead body will those opposing doctrines be advanced silently and without contention from me.
B includes the cults such as Campbellism, Mormonism, JW’s, etc. These all agree that “Christ’s death has somehow put us right with God and given us a fresh start.” Christianity revealed in Scripture is not vague and ambiguous. It clearly articulates the doctrines that ought to be believed, one example being that Christ Jesus died for the sins of the elect according to the Scriptures, was buried and raised for our justification, all according to the Scriptures. In this act God’s wrath was satisfied and Christ’s earned righteousness credited to him and all his elect the moment they are brought to believe.
C contains statements that reflect Lewis’ pagan philosophic views of the universe (metaphysics), views that are not even held today by most pagans. The Greek pagan idea that the metaphysical “make-up” of the universe at it’s micro level is atoms, has long been refuted and abandoned by scientists and philosophers. Quantum physics and other related fields of study have looked and looked, and they have never found an “atom” and have therefore “moved on” to other “theories.” Of course, the biblical worldview has never affirmed such silly ideas and has even warned and commanded against believing in such stupid folly. But it illustrates Lewis’ irrational “blind” faith in the testimony of other people’s irrational testimonies and either ignores or is without awareness of the biblical metaphysics revealed in Scripture. The danger is in the unguarded methods of Lewis that allow pagan ideas to enter into Christian thought and be praised to the point that they are considered “bricks” laid in the foundation of a worldview. This mixture of some truth and some falsehood in the “foundation” of a worldview forever leaves the worldview susceptible to the “possibility” of any belief or proposition contained therein to be false at any time – with no way of knowing which is which.
We are therefore justified in always being reluctant to embrace statements made by Lewis as they pertain and relate to truth and spiritual matters. I personally consider him to be unreliable in such things…
Stephen,
I’m curious, so I have to ask you. Do you think Lewis was a regenerate Christian? Its clear that he has some poor theology, but would you go so far as to say he’s not a Christian?
Hi Peter,
I think it’s a moot point if he was or wasn’t, but let me say this:
If he *was* a truly regenerate Christian then he either a) received a very low level of sanctification and spiritual illumination during his lifetime, or b) was so off base due to unrepentant ongoing sin of some grievous sort and God used his intellectual and spiritual chastisement for his glory anyway, or c) ???
But,
If he *was not* a truly regenerate Christian then it is no surprise as to why he so violently damaged and distorted the true Christian religion and its doctrines revealed in the Holy Scriptures.
For me it is easier to accept the *was not* explanation, but rather than going around saying he wasn’t a Christian when there’s no infallible way for me to know, I just stick to what he said and wrote and point out the anti-Christian messages espoused by him and his followers. That is an easy task; a possible task, but a task nevertheless!
The more burdensome challenge lies upon the shoulders of the person having to explain why he wrote such horrible and awful things if he *was* a truly regenerate Christian.
Some may rebuke me for not considering him damned and argue:
We can infallibly *know* a false teacher by their fruits.
Lectures and writings are considered one’s fruits.
C.S. Lewis’ fruits are unChristian and sometimes completely antithetical to Scriptural propositions.
Therefore C.S. Lewis was a false teacher.
False teachers are not Christians.
Therefore C.S. Lewis was not a Christian.
Or something like that.
And this may be true. It’s certainly logical.
The determining factor is whether all these propositions in the syllogism above are true. At this point an exegesis of Matthew 7:15-20 would help. But I don’t have one already completed. If someone else wants to exegete the passage or provide commentaries on it, then I suppose that would work too.
That is why I told “SW” in this thread that I was joyful that God saved her. Although it may have happened while reading a CS Lewis book she acknowledged that God revealed her sin to her and his savior for her. So many times all I hear is that CS Lewis’ books helped people along the way in “”becoming convinced that Christianity was true.”" That’s not a testimony of God’s grace.
Good points Stephen. You have shown that these issues are not as cut and dry as some might think. It takes much pastoral care and wisdom to work through these issues without getting so emotionally caught up in our own opinions that the truth becomes blurred. I know that you are not interested in the “popular” answer either way. For those who want to condemn Lewis off hand you may say, “hold on a minute, we cannot be 100% certain…” For those who praise him as an evangelical hero you say, “hold on a minute, have you actually read what he wrote?”
Lewis is not a clear cut reprobate on his way to hell because he did have a profession of faith and even produced good and Biblical material in his lifetime. We might be able to better determine his spiritual state if we knew him at the end of his life. I mean I have even heard many respectable theologians give a glimmer of hope for people who have passed away due to the fact that they may have in some unlikely but possible way repented late in life prior to death without it being specifically documented. If a person was presented with the Gospel in their lifetime then who is to say that they did not repent prior to their death. I mean, if there is hope, as dim and unlikely as it may be for say a persons unbelieving family member who has heard the true Gospel and passed away without a clear profession of faith then can there not be hope for Lewis who was a professing Christian? The truth is that people throughout their ministry may make claims at one point that they may publicly reject later in their life. If there is not a public denial of certain heretical claims written in like say “Mere Christianity” then who is to say that he did not have a personal conviction and change of heart late in his ministry that he never was able to express in writing? Let’s have a little charity.
Clarification: I said “a little” charity. C.S. Lewis is also far from being one of our hero’s because he clearly taught heretical things throughout his ministry. Sad, but true. The facts are there, they have been documented and we should not close our ears and shut our eyes just because we have heard Lewis quoted, praised, and lifted up in the evangelical community. It was right for you to question Keller for his high esteem for Lewis’ book. It teaches inclusivism for crying out loud. The teaching that Jesus’ death was efficient for those who did not know it like Muslims who live a “good” life is a damnable heresy! The question is, “did Lewis hold this and other major heresies to the grave?”
In conclusion, Lewis was not a cult leader or some clear cut reprobate. He was also not a hero of the faith as many claim. Where does he fit? Let God sort that out and let us pray that Lewis repented at the end of his life for the foolishness that he taught throughout his lifetime.
For those of you drive by blogger’s who Googled Keller or C.S. Lewis and did not bother to read the original article by Stephen or the some 295 posts that followed. This is one of those earlier posts I wrote regarding Mere Christianity documenting some major issues in Lewis’ book Mere Christianity.
March 1st 2008-
Mere Christianity is a book that falls far short of its title. You don’t have to be a Christian for long before you here Mere Christianity quoted in a sermon, chapel, or a graduation ceremony. Although it’s high on creativity, it’s very short on scripture and misleading especially to an unbeliever. I cannot believe Keller has it at the top of his list for unbelievers. If his book is anything like mere Christianity I will not waste my time or money.
This was one of the first books I was required to read in a class entitled Foundations of Christianity at Biola University. Although I read many other great books during my theological education at Biola I have to say Mere Christianity was a big letdown. Despite all of the hype and praise by many respected Christian leaders I couldn’t figure out while reading it why a book that teaches inclusivism, and just plain sloppy doctrine could be so popular to Christians. Here are some more quotes that I was able to find that should make us all question Keller’s judgment about recommending Mere Christianity to an unbeliever.
“If there was a controlling power outside the universe, it could not show itself to us as one of the facts inside the universe-no more than the architect of a house could actually be a wall or staircase or fireplace in that house. The only way in which we could expect it to show itself would be inside ourselves as an influence or command trying to get us to behave in a certain way. And that is just what we do find in ourselves.” P. 24 Mere Christianity Zondervan Publishing House
“A man can accept what Christ has done without knowing how it works: indeed, he certainly would not know how it works until he has accepted it.” P. 55
–I know that when we first believe we do not know the depths of the work of Christ that we now know as a more mature Christian, but is that what Lewis is saying?
“Here is another thing that used to puzzle me. Is it not frightfully unfair that this new life should be confined to people who have heard of Christ and been able to believe in Him? But the truth is God has not told us what His arrangements about the other people are. We do know that no man can be saved except through Christ; we do not know that only those who know Him can be saved through Him.” P. 64
-This is clearly inclusivism. This is clearly heretical.
“And that, by the way, is perhaps the most important difference between Christianity and all other religions: That in Christianity God is not a static thing-not even a person-but a dynamic, pulsating activity, a life, almost a kind of drama. Almost, if you will not think me irreverent, a kind of dance. The union between Father and the Son is such a live concrete thing that this union itself is a person……What Grows out of the joint life of the Father and Son is a real Person, is in fact the Third of the three Persons who are God. P. 174
-ahhh! I am reading Morey book on the Trinity and I am learning a lot. I am no scholar so correct me if I’m wrong but I’m pretty sure this is nonsense. Its just so confusing, its probably where the evangelifish church gets its worship song that I used to sing that goes like this: and I kid you not “You are my strong melody, You are my dancing rhythm, You are my perfect rhyme, and I want to sing forever. You are beautiful my sweet sweet song. (What does that mean?). Maybe we should ask Lewis.
“Humanity is already ‘saved’ in principle. We individuals have to appropriate that salvation. But the really tough work-the bit we could not have done for ourselves- has been done for us.” P. 181
-This is a universal atonement. Yeah I know a lot of evangelical arminians believe this but isn’t Keller a reformed Presbyterian?
‘There are people in other religions who are being led by God’s secret influence to concentrate on those parts of their religion which are in agreement with Christianity, and who thus belong to Christ without knowing it.” P.209
-I cannot take this anymore. This is the second time I found inclusivistic teaching in Mere Christianity and I read it three years ago. Who knows what more I would find if I read it again today.
There are so many other issues with this book that it would take a lot more than simply browsing through the underlines and frustrated comments I wrote three years ago. Mere Christianity should not be a book that Keller would recommend to non Christians. I think the title Mere Heresy would be more appropriate for Lewis’ book.
John:
You said: “Im wondering where Billy Graham is now a non-Christian? I know he is not of the mold from which some are cut, but that mold is of human origin and not divine.”
My reply: Billy Graham has in the past few years made some statements that at a minimum infer that he thinks there are other paths to heaven other than through the true Jesus Christ.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rAE5yagnadM&feature=related
I personally do not judge him to be a non-Christian, but I have serious questions about his faith at this point. At a minimum he should be encouraged to be bolder in proclaiming that Jesus, the true Jesus, is the one and only way.
SW: You can see there is some slight disagreement here, although everyone here has pretty much asserted that “Mere Christianity” is not a good recommendation for an unbeliever or a questioning Christian no matter how beneficial it might have been to you.
MLJN: “you guys?” Not all of us have been so harsh on C.S. Lewis. But, the point still remains…Is Mere Christianity Biblical? and if not, why would you recommend it to anybody that is not of mature faith?
Hi Peter,
There’s no hard feelings. It is difficult to offend me in the area of theology/philosophy, etc.
I have no “bug” for Morey. This is his site (though perhaps he delegates it to others). Since he has written and lectured on so much, I find it appropriate to bring it up here. I do not bring Morey up on another blog that is not related (e.g. hannity.com). But I would bring up points that Sean Hannity perhaps has made on the Hannity blog.
Is this difficult to understand? Why can’t I tie in Morey’s theology on theological subjects on the blog/forum in which he asked his daughter to create?
I have asserted some things without documentation. This is true. I at times thought that most on here would have already heard/understand some of the points that Morey has made in the past.
Since this is a blog, and not an official discourse, I viewed this as a “light” conversation similar to having a person in my living room. When discussing things in your living room, you don’t pull out documentation when speaking over a glass of wine.
If this was a formal discussion/debate, I would be documentation crazy. I have files upon files of personal research and documentation via the public rhetoric.
I don’t stir up controversy just because. I believe Walter Martin hit it on the head when he said:
“Controversy for the sake of Controversy is sin, but controversy for the sake of truth is a divine command.”
I don’t have documentation where he said it, but I could find it if you’d like. I read a lot and very fast. Nevertheless, this is my philosophy when it comes to issues of “controversy.”
C.S. Lewis, as a devout Angelo-Catholic, did believe in Transubstantiation. He did have struggle on everything related to Christianity (specifically towards the end of his life where he may have (POSSIBLY denounced it all together indirectly).
It is impossible to be an Angelo-Catholic when one denies the doctrine of transubstantiation. Since that is a core tenant of that “system,” to deny it would logically make one not of that system since it is a core doctrine.
If I join the Rifle Club down the street, but believe rifle’s our evil and should be destroyed, since the very appreciation of Rifles is a core tenant of the Rifle Club, then this would disqualify me from that “system” of Rifle Club.
If you would like to dispute his Angelo-Catholic passion, that would be the root of solving this problem.
If you would like me to pull out more documenation during our living room discussions, I can do so if asked. Otherwise, pass the gravy and enjoy your meal.
Again, no hard feelings.
Respectfully,
Jean Cauvin (Jude 3).
Jean Cauvin,
You wrote,
“Why can’t I tie in Morey’s theology on theological subjects on the blog/forum in [[which he asked his daughter to create?]]”
Out of (living room) curiosity, where did you get this [[ ]] idea?
Someone mentioned Billy Graham earlier, I forget who at the moment. Ok, I just looked and it was Jean, then John, then Aaron posted a video.
Well, on Aaron’s video, if you look at the related videos about Graham’s denial of Christ as the only way (there are a few, the one by MacArthur reads a quote from Graham that makes it indisputable). Well, if you listen to what he is saying, then if you read Mere Christianity by CS Lewis, you will find that Billy Graham quotes CS Lewis almost verbatim. It’s a fun exercise. Do it.
Compare Billy Graham’s words to C.S. Lewis’ words:
“There are people in other religions who are being led by God’s secret influence to concentrate on those parts of their religion which are in agreement with Christianity, and who thus belong to Christ without knowing it… For example a Buddhist of good will may be led to concentrate more and more on the Buddhist teaching about mercy and to leave in the background (though he might still say he believed) the Buddhist teaching on certain points. Many of the good Pagans long before Christ’s birth may have been in this position” (Mere Christianity, pp. 176-177).
Hello,
She was listed as the web-master on the old website which allowed you to click and e-mail her. At one time here name was mentioned, and since the name is feminine with the last name of Morey, I deduced. Am I wrong?
Billy Graham is not only a Pluralists, he is also a democrat, That alone disqualifies him from the faith.
He also denies the existence of hell via an interview I possess in my library. This is where he denies hell as well. You’ve only seen the MacArthur document, but there is more.
The women at the Library of Congress told Morey that Billy was a Mason as documented in a file cabinet she pointed at.
But, the more consistent a democrat (liberal) is, the more they are stepping away from orthodox Christianity. This is an unofficial law that I have deduced (I haven’t heard of anybody arguing this basic law of logic).
Only an inconsistent democrat can be a Christian. Though logically, inconsistent democrat would make an inconsistent Christian. By the same logic, if a person is a consistent democrat, then they are consistently a pagan and thus a non-Christian.
The democratic politics is 100% non-Christian. Thus, those who are democrat and possibly regenerate, are in sin and should repent.
Despite profession, possession is what matters.
I argue that Billy is very consistent in his politics as a Democratical liberal. And since politics is subordinate to the normative of ethics, while ethics is subordinate to the normative of epistemology and eventually epistemology to metaphysics and theology proper, then we can say that Billy’s heresy coincides to the manifestations of his political behavior.
The all the categories as some know are major categories, we see politics as simply a connotational type element within the major category of ethics.
This can be seen virtually 100% of the time. Since everything is integrated as a whole (for knowledge to be, subjects must connect to something always), then my theory is valid and I would argue sound as well in light of 2 Corinthians 2:14; 16, and Acts 20:17.
Thus, Billy Graham will soon believe in hell when he experiences it. This will be very soon since death is knocking on his door.
Respectfully,
Jean Cauvin
Stephen,
You said to Jean Cauvin, “Out of (living room) curiosity, where did you get this [[ ]] idea?”
That’s a vintage Stephen quote. LOL.
Peter,
Just striving for some consistency –
Jean Cauvin, you asked, “Am I wrong?”
Answer: Yes.
Other than that, most of what you said about Billy was pretty good.
“Billy Graham is not only a Pluralists, he is also a democrat, That alone disqualifies him from the faith.”
You’re straying too far from the barn. Being a Democrat does not necessarily disqualify you from being a Christian.
“Only an inconsistent democrat can be a Christian. Though logically, inconsistent democrat would make an inconsistent Christian. By the same logic, if a person is a consistent democrat, then they are consistently a pagan and thus a non-Christian.”
What the heck is an inconsistent Democrat? Do you know very many people who stick 100% to the party line in either party?
“The democratic politics is 100% non-Christian. Thus, those who are democrat and possibly regenerate, are in sin and should repent.”
100%, huh? Every single plank in the party platform is inconsistent with Christianity exactly as stated?
I agree that Billy Graham gives us reason to question his salvation. But that’s not because he is a Democrat. It’s because of his statements that are the antithesis of the essentials of Christianity.
I also agree that many of the Democratic platform policies are anti-Biblical, namely abortion and homosexual “rights.” Anybody who is a Democrat and calls themselves a Christian is either extremely ignorant both theologically but also politically, or simply naive, or just not a Christian. I’m just willing to say that 100% of Democrats are not true Chrsitians and that being a Democrat necessarily means you are not a Christian.
Hi Sir Aaron,
In order for you to make these comments, you must abandon ambiguity and define what you are talking about:
1) What are the essential tenants (doctrines) of the Democratic Party?
2) Do any of the core tenants correspond to Christianity?
3) Can one be of a system while they abandon an essential tenant of that system?
An inconsistent democrat is one that does not follow all of the essential or non-essential traits of a given system that are part of.
A consistent democrat is one that adheres to ALL the essential tenants (and non-essential is secondary, but still important) of that democratic system.
Thus a consistent democrat can NEVER by a Christian, while an inconsistent democrat, can possibly be an inconsistent Christian (not denying any of the essentials).
Though the two systems are magnetic polars. Thus, Billy’s democratic liberalism as being consistent, is a logical deduction of correspondance (what must be, in order for what is to be what it is) to his pagan and non-Christian status.
Jean Cauvin (Jude 3).
Hello Sir Aaron:
After viewing the youtube and several others about Billy Graham my heart was broken. I felt really saddened. I dont know what to say. The first impression is that he is being interviewed with a much weaker mind and stays away from something that looks judgmental. Billy has a hundred times spoken of Christ being the “Only way to God”. I dont believe that he has been lying to us this whole time about what he really believes, but I do think after listening to his softened message now that he is suffering from Alzheimers or something. My father in law has this and it shows up similarly in two fashions, stubbornness and in soft-mindedness.
Im just not buying that Billy Graham is an apostate, I do think he should stay clear of interviews where his work done in the past is compromised by softening the gospel in his aged state.
Im more inclined to offer him grace and some latitude, not on the message but on his person.
John
Jean Cauvin:
I know that you can tie me in knots with your very effective argumentative style and with your intelligence that far surpasses mine.
But I disagree with the whole democrat=unregenerate thing.
There are no doubt hundreds of thousands of communist Chinese praying for the blessing of God upon their Communist government, they are praying to be good communists and honorable to their nation as we do. They are seeking to honor God by being faithful and true to their own peoples in being a good citizen. In spite of their afflictions, their tortures and living conditions their faithfulness to Jesus Christ is maintained. Their lives depict in many ways the work of the Spirit of God displaying loyalty and faith towards Jesus Christ.
I will not suffer these communists to be slandered for a moment, they prove themselves to abide in the faith. In the same way, those Christians who are democratic do not deserve such broad-brushed anathemas from you.
John
John:
I had the same response when I read transcripts of his interviews a couple years ago. I’m also inclined to allow him some grace and latitude in that I don’t question his salvation. However, we have to continue to make people aware that he and his ministry have, at a bare minimum, missed a turn somewhere. We need to hold his organization accountable for making it clear that Jesus, the true Jesus, is the only answer.
Jean:
1.) Answer to your question #1, “What are the essential tenants (doctrines) of the Democratic Party?”
Jumpstart the Economy and Provide Middle Class Americans Immediate Relief
Empowering Families for a New Era
· Affordable, Quality Health Care Coverage for All Americans
· Retirement
· Good Jobs with Good Pay
· Work and Family
· Poverty
· Opportunity for Women
Investing in American Competitiveness
· New American Energy
· A World Class Education for Every Child
o Early Childhood
o K-12
· Higher Education
· Science, Technology, and Innovation
· Invest in Manufacturing and Our Manufacturing Communities
· Creating New Jobs by Rebuilding American Infrastructure
· A Connected America
· Support Small Business and Entrepreneurship
· Real Leadership for Rural America
Economic Stewardship
· Restoring Fairness to our Tax Code
· Housing
· Reforming Financial Regulation and Corporate Governance
· Consumer Protection
· Savings
· Smart, Strong, and Fair Trade Policies
· Fiscal Responsibility
ii
II. Renewing American Leadership
Introduction
Ending the War in Iraq
Defeating Al Qaeda and Combating Terrorism
· Win in Afghanistan
· Seek a New Partnership with Pakistan
· Combat Terrorism
· Secure the Homeland
· Pursue Intelligence Reform
Preventing the Spread and Use of Weapons of Mass Destruction
· A World without Nuclear Weapons
· Secure Nuclear Weapons and the Materials to Make Them
· End the Production of Fissile Material
· End Cold War Nuclear Postures
· Prevent Iran from Acquiring Nuclear Weapons
· De-Nuclearize North Korea
· Biological and Chemical Weapons
· Stronger Cyber-Security
Revitalizing and Supporting Our Military, Keeping Faith with Veterans
· Expand the Armed Forces
· Recruit and Retain
· Rebuild the Military for 21st-Century Tasks
· Develop Civilian Capacity to Promote Global Stability and Improve Emergency
Response
· Do Right by Our Veterans
· Lift Burdens on Our Troops and Their Families
· Restore the Readiness of the Guard and Reserve
· Allow All Americans to Serve
· Reform Contracting Practices and Make Contractors Accountable
Working for Our Common Security
· Support Africa’s Democratic Development
· Recommit to an Alliance of the Americas
· Lead in Asia
· Strengthen Transatlantic Relations
iii
· Stand with Allies and Pursue Diplomacy in the Middle East
· Deepen Ties With Emerging Powers
· Revitalize Global Institutions
Advancing Democracy, Development, and Respect for Human Rights
· Build Democratic Institutions
· Invest in Our Common Humanity
· Global Health
· Human Trafficking
Protecting our Security and Saving our Planet
· Establish Energy Security
· Lead to Combat Climate Change
Seizing the Opportunity
III. Renewing the American Community
Service
Immigration
Hurricane Katrina
Preventing and Responding to Future Catastrophes
Stewardship of Our Planet and Natural Resources
Metropolitan and Urban Policy
Firearms
Faith
The Arts
Americans with Disabilities
Children and Families
Fatherhood
Seniors
Choice
Criminal Justice
A More Perfect Un ion
IV. Renewing American Democracy
Open, Accountable and Ethical Government
Reclaiming Our Constitution and Our Liberties
Voting Rights
Partnerships with States
Invest in Social Innovation and Ideas that Work
District of Columbia
iv
Tribal Sovereignty
Puerto Rico, Guam, American Samoa, the Northern Mariana Islands and the U.S. Virgin
2.) Answer to your question #2, “Do any of the core tenants correspond to Christianity?” As I peruse the list above, the answer is Yes.
3.) Answer to your question #3, “Can one be of a system while they abandon an essential tenant of that system?” Of course they can. I’m technically a member of the Republican party, and yet I don’t hold to all of their “essential tenants.” Secondarily, I doubt you would find anybody in the Democratic party who would say that you must adhere to all of their “essential tenants” in order to be a member of the Democratic party.
Your last post is a bunch of gobbly gook. You like to use lofty language to disguise your lack of knowledge. The problem with the Democrats is not their stated goals. It’s about how they ACT to accomplish those goals. They engage in actions that have the opposite effect of the goals they espouse. The Republicans have the same problem to a lesser effect.
Hi Sir Aaron,
So Firearms are essential to the democrat party. So anybody who gives the NRA any slack are not abiding by an essential democratic tenant?
So the “Brady Bill” was not a democratic/liberal notion?
This is absurd and somewhat of an emotional response.
Is this list offiical via National Democratic Association? All these are essential?
I would encourage you to place the joint on the table, and slowly walk away.
You need to get the official core beliefs of the party by Party officials with the authority to state them. You have not done this.
I would guess that some universal tenant in the democratic party is BIG Government (aka Socialism/Communism). Along with Pro-Death, High Taxes, Pluralistic Education, along with antithetical values from Scripture (anythings goes), Pro-homosexuality/aka “tolerance, No prayers in School, Don’t celebrate Christmas, and allow the atheists to put a plaque on the steps of the Washington State’s Capital.
Consistent liberal democrats will always pave the path to hell along with spiritual destruction.
The reason why you have a mental handicap regarding this is due to your ignorance regarding the means of knowing.
Since knowledge can only exist if subjects relate to something ALL of the time, then we can see a pattern of a logical chain as to where point A would go, if followed along various logical “lines.”
Since ethics is the major category in which politics is subordinate to. then we see a connection via politics and ethics. And in reference to Scripture, we see the anti-thetical nature of the two “systems.”
The democrates don’t see knowledge or things as an integrated whole. They only see unattached particulars with nothing to relate anything to. Though this is not possible (unless you never speak or think), this is the claim and thus their choppy implications follow.
So as an integrated whole of knowledge in which subjects must always relate to subjects, and via the logical liberal “chain” of consistent (consistent in the essentials) democratic traits, we can DEDUCE that Billy Graham’s theology correlated to his theology without ever looking at his theology.
Though we can look at his theology and find what we would expect to find.
Morey speaks of my method of reasoning though he may disagree with my conclusions (probably not though):
“What must be, in order for what is to be what it is.”
By working on your “knowledge” of logic and knowledge itself via a Biblical framework, your headache, towards this issue, should go away and thus you can resume the pleasures of your joint.
Respectfully,
Jean Cauvin (Jude 3).
Hi John,
The Communistic Party is non-Christian since it is designed to eliminate theology and replace it with theocracy of the State.
Chinease Christians are forced to remain Communist. Most don’t want to remain that way.
That is why their government murders and tortures them, because they are completely opposite points of view.
Remember, profession does not equate posession. Just Because somebody in China is communist via birth/profession, does not mean they possess agreement with those traits.
However, if somebody was completely “free” (loosely worded) from constraint, and could believe any system of politics, a Christian would NEVER choose communism, since communism is the enemy of the gospel.
Thus, Bill Ayers, without even looking at his theology, since he is a communist, it would deductively follow that his thoelogy is extremely pagan.
I have never looked at Ayers theology, but via logic and integration of Biblical epistemology, I “know” his theology is pagan.
We see this with Billy. He’s a liberal politician, and thus via the whole of things, a liberal non-Christian on his way to hell.
Hopefully this clarifies my position.
Respectfully,
Jean Cauivn (Jude 3).
Jean Cauvin: “I would encourage you to place the joint on the table, and slowly walk away.”
Sir Aaron: Illustrative of your attitude towards myself and others throughout this thread. I do, however, appreciate your willingness to accede to one of my primary arguments.
Jean Cauvin: “You need to get the official core beliefs of the party by Party officials with the authority to state them. You have not done this.” “I would guess that some universal tenant in the democratic party is BIG Government”
Sir Aaron: ROFL. This is vintage Jean Cauvin. I need to bottle this up and keep it in my wine cellar. Only you could instruct me to “get the official core beliefs” erstwhile guessing yourself as to what their tenants are. I have a suggestion. Instead of telling me that “I would guess that some universal tenant” is such and such, why don’t you get them so you actually know. After all, you are the one that is using them as the foundational pillar of your argument. Don’t you worry…as usual, somebody else (namely, me) has done the work for you. FYI, the list I gave you is the preamble from the 59 page document that explains the Democratic Party Platform that is posted on the official Democratic Party website. LOL, so who has the mental handicap? (BTW, that’s rhetorical, just in case your faulty logic leads you to make another erroneous deduction).
Jean Cauvin: “So as an integrated whole of knowledge in which subjects must always relate to subjects, and via the logical liberal “chain” of consistent (consistent in the essentials) democratic traits, we can DEDUCE that Billy Graham’s theology correlated to his theology without ever looking at his theology.”
Sir Aaron: First, I’m no defender of Democrats, liberalism or Billy Graham. I think the Democrats, while they don’t say it, certainly by their actions stand for everything evil. However, you don’t even know what their stated tenants are so how can you possible accurately deduce anything based on those beliefs? Second, your logic would still be faulty because it is filled with assumptions. You wrongfully assume that somebody who identifies with the Democrat party understands the parties’ beliefs, much less ascribes to all of them. You don’t know what their stated beliefs are so why should you assume that anybody else does? This, of course, leads you to wrongfully deduce that a democrat cannot be a Christian by definition. (Is it here that I’m supposed to demonstrate my intellectual superiority and display my vast vocabulary of various logical fallacies? I just thought I’d inquire since you are obviously a master.)
Jean Cauvin: “By working on your “knowledge” of logic and knowledge itself via a Biblical framework, your headache, towards this issue, should go away and thus you can resume the pleasures of your joint.”
Sir Aaron: Actually, my headache has subsided. It seems that handing out a wallop has eased my pain.
I like this passage for helping on the politics issue… “Democrats are doomed to hell while Republicans walk by faith” (II Opinions 2:11)
Jean,
Nowhere in the Bible does God ever say anything about a political party. Did you know that it is possible for a person to register as a Democrat and not hold to any of their teachings? Did you also know that there are many Republicans that hold to almost all of the Democrat teachings/beliefs as well?
My point here is USA political party affiliation has absolutely no bearing on salvation. If it did then we need to rewrite the Bible.
I do agree with Sir Aaron that most (if not all) of the beliefs that the Democrat party upholds are evil and for the most part (if not entirely) are anti-Biblical. So we draw a logical conclusion that if you hold to the tenants of the Democrat party wholeheartedly and truly believe them then you do not believe what the Bible teaches. If you do not believe what the Bible teaches then there is no saving faith. Just be careful not to condemn all Democrats to hell.
Glen : you and I are on the same wavelength, brother.
Sir Aaron: Your quote below….
I had the same response when I read transcripts of his interviews a couple years ago. I’m also inclined to allow him some grace and latitude in that I don’t question his salvation. However, we have to continue to make people aware that he and his ministry have, at a bare minimum, missed a turn somewhere. We need to hold his organization accountable for making it clear that Jesus, the true Jesus, is the only answer
You said in a short paragraph what would have taken me a book. Thanks, I believe this really nails it on the head. BG’s ministry needs to abide by what Billy preached in his younger years and stop subjecting him to interviews that cloud the gospel preaching already done.
On a side note, Billy could have very easily been interpreting Larry King’s remarks about “Strong preachers telling folks that dont believe in Jesus theyre going to hell” as a spirit of judgmentalism. That he was distancing himself from that kind of spirit. I do not interpret this as a denial of the judgment of God upon sin. Jesus himself distanced himself from the accusations and spirit of the men who brought the woman “caught in the act of adultery”. Im not going to pretend to read Billies mind, but I believe his response could have taken into account this truth.
John
Hi Glen,
One could say that Scripture never discusses psychology, anthropology, or even mathematics.
However, as Christians we need to have an answer for the WHOLE Counsel of God (Acts 20:27). The liberal parasites have robbed the Church of all subjects in which the Church has no answer since it is not directly in Scripture as some have said.
This started with Aquinas via his Faith and Reason dichotomy. While faith is via emotion or “non-nonsensical means” Reason is all that is contained in the “sciences.” Practical useful things to understand.
It should be noted, however, that the term “Science” did not have empirical assumptions attached to it until 1725. The enemy has redefined the term and has poured new meaning into the objective understanding of the term Biblical speaking.
This then lead to the British Empiricists which influenced Hegel, Kant, and then the three men who started Modernism: Marx, Nietzsche, and Freud. This then led to the hopelessness of today, which can be seen in many “Christians” as well (e.g. Glen) which is now called Post-Modernism.
This then led to Russel and then the logical positivists, in which Karl Popper took a bite. And finally, you are the presuppositional victim of absurdity via Public School Brain-Washing. I am assuming you attended the Public School system?
The arguments against the enemy should be adhominem, NOT the gritting of teeth for us to worry that they may “disproof” our faith.
We need to take back ALL subject under the authority of the Almighty God. This includes but not exhaustive of:
Philosophy
Mathematics
Psychology
Anthropology
Zoology
Music (and the arts)
Physics
Geology
Paleontology
Astronomy
POLITICS
etc, etc, etc.
All these subjects can only be consistently viewed within a Christian system of KNOWING via faith and faith alone. But Faith is not opposite of Reason, but rather faith is that which is reason and where reason comes from.
And of course, that infinite reference point is Scripture as an axiomatical first principle with the conclusions of these various subjects as their implications.
Since Politics is briefly understood under the categories of Justice and Ethics, then all of political function can be understood via Scripture. While a few loose elements could be a liberty (speed limits) the logical implications can be substantiated with Scripture.
So yes, Scripture does speak on Politics within the proper definition.
But because the Church has been full of mostly “Glens,” the liberal enemies have snuck in to hit us while we were not looking (dominately between the 1930s -1950s, though the origin of American political fighing between liberalism and Conservatism was during the 19th century via Hoarce Bushnell (Yale) and Charles Hodge.
It should also be noted that Yale was one of the first ( as a whole) to deny the inerrancy and substance of Scripture. Then Cornell via the Draper White Controversies and eventually Princeton with Gresham Machen in 1929.
The only way we will enter into a “New Reformation,” is to TAKE BACK all areas of knowledge from the secular boot-leggers, and to give an answer from a BIblical standpoint to every one who asks (I Peter 3:15).
Via your comment on politics. The war of American politics started with theology (via the epistemological “chain” of its logical conclusion) and it must end with theology if we are to pull the Church out of the mud and into the proper function that it should be by the Grace of God.
You may be having a paradigm shift at this point. But that is a good thing. If Christians don’t reshape their thinking, the debt of the “Unpaid Bills of the Church” will eventually have to file spiritual bankruptcy.
Respectfully,
Jean Cauvin (Jude 3).
Jean,
I am probably about as far away from post-modernism as you can get. I think you misunderstood my comments.
The Bible has nothing to say about politics as it relates to salvation. In fact the NT has nothing to say about being involved in politics other than “render unto Caesar what is Caesar’s” (Mt 22:21) and to obey our government when we are not commanded to violate Scripture (Rom 13:1-4).
This does not mean that I believe that we as Christians should not be involved in politics. I am very active politically and think that when areas of politics cross over into areas of spirituality we should speak from the pulpit, even to the point of telling people from the pulpit how we as Christians should vote. A good example is Prop 8 in CA. I believe that pastors should have been telling people what the Bible has to say about homosexuality and that Prop 8 was a violation of Scripture. I believe that the Church has been too silent about issues that are Biblical and for that reason we are in danger of losing our voice completely in America. But this does not mean that just because you have a “D” next to your name that you are not saved.
I would agree that if you hold complete to the belief/doctrine of the Democrat party then you are either not saved, you are saved and are simply not living the scriptural life God demands, or you are saved and have a lot to learn about the Bible. This is because much if not all of the beliefs of the Democrat party go against what the Bible teaches, but that does not mean that every person who is registered Democrat is not saved. You say we cannot add anything to Scripture, and party affiliation is included in “adding.”
As far as me being “post-modern” you would only consider me post-modern if you would also consider John MacArthur, R.C. Sproul, Ligon Duncan, and others like them post-modern.
I am convinced that the only consistent reformed view of Genesis, the Fall, and Gods Sovereignty is seen in understanding ‘Yom’ as an indefinate long period of time, when it comes to the creation days.
God did not ‘change His plan’, He did not come up with Plan B because Adam used his free will to screw things up; rather God in His Sovereignty ordained all things.
If Denise is to question the Christianity of reformers based their view of the age of the earth, she must throw Sproal, JI Packer, Archer, Warfield and many many others into the realm of ‘apostate’. Even Edwards comments do not lend themselves to a 24/12 hr ‘yom’ in Genesis 1.
This entire blog seems concerned with statements that Keller holds related to the earths age, and his agreement with the Catholic Church on these grounds. Wow….talk about making a mountain out of a mole hill!!
PS The YEC movement espouses evolution post flood in a big way. Read Morris’s comments on speciation post flood…you will be shocked.
“I am convinced that the only consistent reformed view of Genesis, the Fall, and Gods Sovereignty is seen in understanding ‘Yom’ as an indefinate long period of time, when it comes to the creation days.”
Dane, please explain this more. Also, can you give an illustration of yom preceded by a numeral where a literal 24-hour day is not in view?
P.S. you should knock Sproul off your list. He recently repented and now holds to a literal six (24-hour) day creation.
Stephen—that’s great news re: Sproul. Would you happen to have a link I could bookmark on that?
Dane,
I already threw out JI Packer since he’s a liberal ecumenical Episcopalian. =)
To deny the clear proclamation of six literal days (“Gen 1:5 God called the light Day, and the darkness he called Night. And there was evening and there was morning, the first day.”) is to deny the authority of Scripture and is to sit in the seat of scoffers, saying with the serpent, “Has God said?”. Deny a six literal day Creation, and you deny other doctrine as well, guaranteed. Its to hold to humanistic thinking rather than biblical thinking.
P.S. Deny literal six days, then you have issues with a literal Sabbath day of rest.
Hi Denise!
RC Sproul has recently published a three-volume layman’s guide to the Westminster Confession of Faith entitled Truths We Confess (P & R, 2006, 2007). In this commentary, Sproul wrote:
“According to the Reformation hermeneutic, the first option is to follow the plain sense of the text. One must do a great deal of hermeneutical gymnastics to escape the plain meaning of Genesis 1 to 2. The confession makes it a point of faith that God created the world in the space of six days.”
More info is available all over the web (easily found via google search), but since we should depend on reliable sources when available, let the link below be your starting point.
http://www.banneroftruth.org/pages/articles/article_detail.php?1443
Thanks Stephen=)
I got something from Grace Gems by AW Pink today that is excellent, but if you can, read the whole article, folks. Its very good!
http://www.gracegems.org/Pink2/take_heed_what_you_read.htm
Quote:
Just as it is harmful to listen to the rubbish and poison which is being served from the great majority of present-day pulpits—so it is exceedingly injurious to the soul to read most of what is now being published. “Take heed what you hear” and read! But let us seek to be more specific.
The only thing which is really worth calling “religion” is the life of God in the soul-commenced, carried on, and consummated solely by the Holy Spirit. Hence, whatever does not bear the impress of the Spirit’s unction, should be rejected by the Christian: for not only can unctionless messages do us no good—but what proceeds not from the Spirit—is of the flesh.
“Those who are partakers of this Divine power (and they are few in number) can never be satisfied with a powerless ministry, either oral or written.
“Those who live according to the flesh—have their minds set on what the flesh desires,” (Romans 8:5). They are charmed with oratorical eloquence, catchy sayings, witty allusions, and amusing illustrations. On just such “husks”, do the religious “swine” feed!
But the penitent prodigal can find no nutriment therein! Men “of the world”—and they may be graduates from some “Bible Institute” or possessors of a diploma from some Bible Seminary, now styling themselves “preachers of the Gospel”—will speak of the things of the world and “the world hears them” (1 John 4:5). But those who are seeking to “work out their own salvation with fear and trembling” obtain no help therefrom, yes, they perceive clearly that such sermons and periodicals are “broken cisterns, which can hold no water” (Jer. 2:13).
To turn away from the lifeless preachers and publishers of the day—may involve a real cross. Your motives will be misconstrued, your words perverted, and your actions misinterpreted. The sharp arrows of false report will be directed against you. You will be called proud and self-righteous, because you refuse to fellowship empty professors. You will be termed censorious and bitter—if you condemn in plain speech—the subtle delusions of Satan. You will be dubbed narrow-minded and uncharitable, because you refuse to join in singing the praises of the “great” and “popular” men of the day. More and more, you will be made to painfully realize—that the path which leads unto eternal life is “narrow” and that FEW there are who find it. May the Lord be pleased to grant unto each of us—the hearing ear and obedient heart! “Take heed what you hear” and read!
End quote.
Stephen
Sorry I do not frequent blogs nor have much time, but I will respond to your question. I have come across 2 examples in the OT where Yom is proceeded by a number and you clearly is not 24 hrs in the context. Unfortunately, I do not have the reference handy. However, there are a number of commentaries from the Old Earth prospective (Rodney Whitefield is one:”Interpreting Genesis 1″) that deals directly with this question of the ‘number proceeding Yom. In fact, Rodney and others have listed the verses in their books, so if you want the examples, that would be a good place to find them. Gleason Archer also directly addresses this question in his works, and catagorically denies any such ‘rule’ in ancient Hebrew linguistics applies.
In essence what you will read in rebuttal to that argument is this:
To decide the ‘best’ translation, ancient linguists use a variety of manuscipts to determine common use and patters of grammer. No where in Ancient Hebrew do any scholars find this idea of a number preceeding the word to be indicative of a 24 hr meaning. This is an imposition by the YEarth camp.
Next, I am aware that Sproal removed his endorsement of an ‘old earth view’. Are you aware that his reversal of opinion was coincidentally timed with strong threats to cut off donations to his ministry due to his position and endorsement of the old earth view? Maybe politics and money had something to do with this reversal, more than the academic position?
Denise:
Your post above indicates an old earth view necessitates a problem with a literal sabbath day of rest. How so? Could you explain?
Thanks
Dane
Dane,
You have to be consistant in understanding Genesis 1-2. It clearly states that God created in six literal days, and defines it there in the text as “evening and morning the first day”. Since each day is literally a 24 hour period, so must be the Sabbath day:
Gen 2:2 And on the seventh day God finished his work that he had done, and he rested on the seventh day from all his work that he had done. 3 So God blessed the seventh day and made it holy, because on it God rested from all his work that he had done in creation.
Exo 20:10 but the seventh day is a Sabbath to the LORD your God. On it you shall not do any work, you, or your son, or your daughter, your male servant, or your female servant, or your livestock, or the sojourner who is within your gates. 11 For in six days the LORD made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that is in them, and rested on the seventh day. Therefore the LORD blessed the Sabbath day and made it holy.
Its a huge inconsistancy to say that “day” means different things in its own context where the biblical definition (“morning and evening, the first (or second or third…) is given. If these are not literal days then the Sabbath is not either and no one could rest on the Sabbath day because it means something other than a day.
Denise
I greatly respect your high view of scripture, and am convinced my view is equally ‘high’ in its regard. We just disagree on some simple non-salvation hermeneutics. For example ‘Ereb’ and ‘Boqur’ are the nouns for the bounding of ‘day’ by morning and evening. These terms are equally applied for ‘the beginning of a time frame’ or ‘the closing of a time’. They are not required to be ‘the rising or setting of the Sun’.
Next; Its interesting that you pick the Sabbath, since the seventh day is not bounded like the others. In fact, both OT and NT passages (see Hebrews 4) indicate God continues in His Sabbath Rest to this time or to this day. Hence, the Sabbath rest is a pattern of 1 in 7 but Gods day 7 began at the end of His creation activity and continues on even now.
God gives the Sabbath to us for our benefit. We are nourished spiritually, and renewed physically by the Sabbath. However, the pattern for fields is also 1 in 7, but its years, not ‘days’. God does not need rest for renewal in any way, however, His rest is from His work of ‘creating’. We know that scripture says He will once again go about his work of Creation when He returns and gives us a new heaven and Earth. At this point, Gods sabbath rest will end, and He will once again engage in His work of Creation. The clear or logical understanding of Gen 1 then, is to see each period as complete when its bounded (by morning and evening), and not complete when it is not bounded, as we see in the seventh day of Creation. Clearly this day is not 24hrs. The other days work are completed, and so bounded.
I think you read the ‘plain’ meaning into Gen 1 by a presupposition that long periods are bad and denigrade scripture. In this light the plain meaning is clouded by bias. Good scholarship would not demand the 24 hr interpretation in any way. By corrolating all creation accounts, and looking at the context of the words, a long period of time is a more logical and literal interpretation. It also upholds God as truthful and not deceiptful. He tells us his creation declares His glory, and by studying it His glory is revealed. This is only true if science gives us reliable data, not the ‘appearance’ of something false.
Just my humble take.
Dane
Dane,
I don’t see science has having anything to do with interpretation of Scripture, to be honest. Its hardly reliable, as we’ve seen over the years.
Because God defines “day” as “morning and night”, we know its a 24 hour period.
Moreover, God reiterates this again in Ex.:
Exo 20:10 but the seventh day is a Sabbath to the LORD your God. On it you shall not do any work, you, or your son, or your daughter, your male servant, or your female servant, or your livestock, or the sojourner who is within your gates. 11 For in six days the LORD made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that is in them, and rested on the seventh day. Therefore the LORD blessed the Sabbath day and made it holy.
This isn’t a some sort of God-day vs. Man-day. It is all one thing: 24 hour period. Its all from His view and He gives us the limit/definition of “day” re: Creation day and Sabbath (same word is used for “day” and is all within the same context—reiterated again in Ex. 20) That is why the only consistant view of creation is the literal view. This is supported with Scripture as I have shown.
I hope you reconsider your view, but I do appreciate your respectful approach.
Hello Mr. Dane,
It makes “sense” if Sproul “caved” on his positions of old earth due to donations. He’s somewhat of a sucker in this area. Not to mention his alcoholic son in which he defended despite photos of “ministers gone wild.”
I enjoy Sproul’s labors in the ministry for the most part, but his character of integrity has been questionable to say the least during his last days of conduct.
We should note that the concept of an old earth is not a new idea. In fact, it’s thousands of years old. We should both agree and acknowledge that the origin of this concept can be dated back to the Stoics in Greek Philosophy (e.g. Epicurean – “On the Nature of Things”,..etc).
So, your agreement of an old earth is in line with the Stoic’s view that the earth was old as well. Do we agree?
We must also note that a few of the Church Fathers compromised their 6 day view via their attempt to combine Christianity with platonic and/or Stoic thinking. Their means of synchronism caused heresy (as far as history tells us). Examples of these are found in Justin Martyr among others. By combining pagan philosophy with Christianity they infiltrated old earth concepts into the text.
Eusebius’ text demonstrates the reality that several of the fathers DID view a 6 day Creation. It should be noted that MOST of these men were those who did NOT allow synchronism to effect their theology (at least within a time frame of their life work).
Since Augustine, the Church has predominately held to a literal view of Genesis. This is when Reason and Logic were Revelational and NOT empirical of Rationalistic.
The presupposition of this pagan origin for an old earth has to do with the cosmogony which believes matter and/or energy is eternal. While some “Christians” tend to lean this way, it allows the burden of proof to fall on them since Christianity is not allowing this with the plain text.
Dane, from a historical position, the burden of proof is on YOU.
1)Were the pagans correct in their understanding of eternal matter/energy in their cosmogony
2) Were the pagans right about a very old earth?
3) Was the method of reasoning in which the Stoics arrived at their conclusion similar to your method or Dr. Hugh Ross’ method?
4) Where in Scripture does the text discuss the earth being made within millions of years?
5) How could the text discuss millions of years if the concept of million did NOT exist during the times of Moses? Now of course God knew of this concept, but this leads to the discussion of dictation or superintending of the Written Word.
6) Are you using another “Kind” of reasoning to determine an old earth or is sola fide (Scripture alone) your method?
So while you are approaching this via a pagan synchronism of empiricism and Rationalism, Christianity and Stoic philosophy, Biblical Christians approach the text with an axiomatic presupposition of Revelation in which the conclusions of the text are the result of the implications of the science of Scripture.
By Science, I mean the knowledge in which we can know anything at all. This is one reason as to why Morey picked on Dr. Hugh Ross (by calling him Dr. Huge Loss). He tends to use his own humanistic philosophy to conclude about subjects within Scripture.
Within the text itself, you must know the arguments.? Paul confronted your kind on Mars Hill in Acts 17. Since the above could have been at the assembly it is interesting to note this concept during his discourse.
Not to mention the similar experience Paul had with Barnabas when they were viewed as gods (Hermes and Jupiter). As a parallel to Ovid’s poetry in Chapter 8 in which a progressive type punishment transpired. This shows the pagan fight Paul dealt with somewhat.
Not to mention the cliche verse of Exodus 20:11. Jesus here tells us about creation in which he was there (John 1:3). We are to believe the words of Moses lest we perish (John 5:45-47, Luke 13:14).
In terms of recent development. The pagan synchronism of “modern” (post-critical era) “science” with Christianity started around the era of the Enlightenment. 1725 was the first time in history where the term “Science” meant empirical, and this is the subject we are talking about.
Since the topic of super-position of Steensen SEEING a progressive means within the strata. We see the first attempt to steer away from catastrophe and into progressive analysis.
And from their of course we find Cuvier’s Uniformitarianism in which Lyell got the credit for it. This was mainly due to Lyell being a non-Christian. The others professed Christianity and allowed pagan synchronic reasoning to interpolate their conclusions towards the text of Scripture.
The issue with literal 6 days opens up other subjects like a logic chain of connection. This is why ICR is correct in stating that when the literal 6 days are denied, then Genesis 1-11 are viewed differently then orthodox understanding.
So Dane, my pagan/Christian synchronic friend, please provide the answers. The burden is on you from a historical understanding and a Biblical understanding and thus the greater blesses the lesser (Hebrews 7:7).
Looking forwards to your answers. As you answer, the way you answer will either bleed sola Scriptura, or bi-ratione.
Respectfully,
Jean Cauvin (Jude 3).
Btw, Dane, one of the biggest problems Keller has is that he has endorsed a book written by a femal pastor who is also a New Age Mystic. He said himself he would offer it to his congregation because he thought it was so great re: “spiritual disciplines”. And when called to account for it, not only did he not retract it, he got personally insulting.
This is anti-thetical to Scripture :
2Co 6:14 Do not be unequally yoked with unbelievers. For what partnership has righteousness with lawlessness? Or what fellowship has light with darkness?
2Co 6:15 What accord has Christ with Belial? Or what portion does a believer share with an unbeliever?
2Co 6:16 What agreement has the temple of God with idols? For we are the temple of the living God; as God said, “I will make my dwelling among them and walk among them, and I will be their God, and they shall be my people.
2Co 6:17 Therefore go out from their midst, and be separate from them, says the Lord, and touch no unclean thing; then I will welcome you,
2Co 6:18 and I will be a father to you, and you shall be sons and daughters to me, says the Lord Almighty.”
Eastern mysticism is not spiritual: its death and cannot lead anyone to the Master. “No lie is of the Truth.” Rather, it is the Broad Road the leads to destruction. So to offer poison to his flock in the name of Christ is offensive to Him.
Denise,
Your view of science is completely off the radar. Ask Morey to explain the concept of science in it’s application of interpretation. This will help you in your thinking.
Respectfully,
Jean Cauvin (Jude 3).
Opps, forgot to add the following passages to show that there is no such thing as a female pastor. Another glaring problem with Keller in his glowing endorsement of Calhoun:
1Tim. 2: 11 A woman should learn in quietness and full submission. 1Tim2: 12 I DO NOT PERMIT A WOMAN TO TEACH OR TO HAVE AUTHORITY OVER A MAN; she must be silent. 13 For Adam was formed first, then Eve. 14 And Adam was not the one deceived; it was the woman who was deceived and became a sinner. 15 But women will be saved through childbearing—if they continue in faith, love and holiness with propriety.
Titus 1 6 AN ELDER MUST BE blameless, THE HUSBAND of but one wife, A MAN whose children believe and are not open to the charge of being wild and disobedient.
1Cor. 14: 33 For God is not a God of disorder but of peace. As in all the congregations of the saints, 34 women should remain silent in the churches. They are not allowed to speak, but must be in submission, as the Law says.
1Cor. 14:35 If they want to inquire about something, they should ask their own husbands at home; for it is disgraceful for a woman to speak in the church. 36 Did the word of God originate with you? Or are you the only people it has reached? 37 If anybody thinks he is a prophet or spiritually gifted, let him acknowledge that what I am writing to you is the Lord’s command. 38 If he ignores this, he himself will be ignored.
Hi Dane,
I brushed on Cuvier’s uniformitarianism briefly. Do you deny that this is the presupposition of your philosophy to conclude that the earth is old. If so, then was there a world wide flood during the time of Noah or a partial flood? Was the flood a catastrophe or was the flood a progressive super-position in relation to its after effects?
Where in Scripture do we find the concept of uniformitarianism. If this is the presupposition against the 6 day view (the issue of the text itself related to a philological means of snytopical analysis is another issue so take the arguments in order of category) and uniformitarianism is NOT found in Scripture, then is not the means to interpret a non 6 day by your