biblicalthought.com

Avatar

Biblical Christianity

Feb 29, 2008

Apostasy Warning: Tim Keller

Stephen Macasil

keller_tim.jpgI 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.

photo-tim_keller.jpgNow, 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!

219 Comments, Comment or Ping

  1. Fusion!

    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?

    Mar 1st, 2008

  2. Stephen Macasil

    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.

    Mar 1st, 2008

  3. Denise

    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.

    Mar 1st, 2008

  4. Denise

    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

    Mar 1st, 2008

  5. Bob

    Gene Cook did a good program on this over at tnma.blogspot.com.

    Mar 1st, 2008

  6. Duke

    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

    Mar 1st, 2008

  7. Zenas

    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.

    Mar 1st, 2008

  8. Fusion!

    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.

    Mar 1st, 2008

  9. Travis

    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.

    Mar 1st, 2008

  10. Denise

    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.

    Mar 1st, 2008

  11. Hebba

    ::speechless::
    ::saddened::
    ::confused::
    ::thankful::
    ::hopeful::
    ::awake::

    Mar 1st, 2008

  12. Jon Powell

    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. :-)

    Mar 1st, 2008

  13. agogley

    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.

    Mar 1st, 2008

  14. Greg Francis

    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

    Mar 1st, 2008

  15. Fusion!

    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.

    Mar 1st, 2008

  16. Danny Pelichowski

    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.

    Mar 1st, 2008

  17. Fusion!

    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.

    Mar 1st, 2008

  18. Greg Francis

    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.

    Mar 1st, 2008

  19. Stephen Macasil

    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?

    Mar 1st, 2008

  20. Reformed Mama

    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.

    Mar 1st, 2008

  21. Fusion!

    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.

    Mar 1st, 2008

  22. Danny Pelichowski

    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.

    Mar 1st, 2008

  23. Stephen Macasil

    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.

    Mar 2nd, 2008

  24. Travis

    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.

    Mar 2nd, 2008

  25. Reformed Mama

    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

    Mar 2nd, 2008

  26. Stephen Macasil

    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?

    Mar 2nd, 2008

  27. Reformed Mama

    So we’re good then…see you tomorrow??

    Mar 2nd, 2008

  28. Denise

    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**

    Mar 2nd, 2008

  29. Denise

    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)

    Mar 2nd, 2008

  30. Denise

    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).

    Mar 2nd, 2008

  31. Denise

    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

    Mar 2nd, 2008

  32. Fusion!

    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.

    Mar 2nd, 2008

  33. Denise

    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.

    Mar 2nd, 2008

  34. Fusion!

    Please show me where John Frame denies believing in the resurrection.

    Mar 2nd, 2008

  35. Fusion!

    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.

    Mar 2nd, 2008

  36. Stephen Macasil

    You need to show exegetical proof that I’d vouch for you!

    :)

    J/K

    I VOUCH FOR FRANK FUSION!

    And I love that brother!

    Mar 2nd, 2008

  37. Fusion!

    Thanks Steve-o!

    Mar 2nd, 2008

  38. Firstperson i

    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.

    Mar 2nd, 2008

  39. Danny Pelichowski

    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.

    Mar 2nd, 2008

  40. Stephen Macasil

    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.

    Mar 2nd, 2008

  41. Danny Pelichowski

    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

    Mar 2nd, 2008

  42. John

    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

    Mar 2nd, 2008

  43. Fusion!

    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.

    Mar 2nd, 2008

  44. Travis

    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?

    Mar 2nd, 2008

  45. Stephen Macasil

    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

    Mar 2nd, 2008

  46. Stephen Macasil

    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.

    :)

    Mar 2nd, 2008

  47. Danny Pelichowski

    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!

    Mar 2nd, 2008

  48. Stephen Macasil

    Danny, I get you every time with that Focus joke, don’t I?

    Mar 2nd, 2008

  49. Danny Pelichowski

    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.

    Mar 2nd, 2008

  50. Fusion!

    I think that model’s been discontinued. It’s a crime against nature.

    Mar 2nd, 2008

  51. Stephen Macasil

    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.

    Mar 2nd, 2008

  52. Travis

    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.

    Mar 2nd, 2008

  53. Fusion!

    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.

    Mar 2nd, 2008

  54. Travis

    maybe it just sounded like you said it

    my bad

    Danny that was for you

    Mar 2nd, 2008

  55. Travis

    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.

    Mar 2nd, 2008

  56. Travis

    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).

    Mar 2nd, 2008

  57. Travis

    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?

    Mar 2nd, 2008

  58. Stephen Macasil

    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.

    Mar 2nd, 2008

  59. Fusion!

    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.

    Mar 2nd, 2008

  60. Fusion!

    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.

    Mar 2nd, 2008

  61. Reformed Mama

    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

    Mar 3rd, 2008

  62. Denise

    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 (a