Hillsong Pastor Brian Houston's Continual Abuse Of Scripture

Brian Houston, senior pastor of Hillsong Church in Australia (and it's rapidly expanding global empire) has just visited Saddleback Church in California which is just a couple of hours down the road from my current address. I became immediately interested when I found out that Houston would be preaching from 2 Corinthians 7:8-10. I had to ask myself how Brian Houston would preach from a passage explicitly about repentance:

For even if I made you grieve with my letter, I do not regret it - though I did regret it, for I see that that letter grieved you, though only for a while. As it is, I rejoice, not because you were grieved, but because you were grieved into repenting. For you felt a godly grief, so that you suffered no loss through us. For godly grief produces a repentance that leads to salvation without regret, whereas worldly grief produces death. (2 Corinthians 7:8-10).

Those who know me or are regular readers here know of the years I have spent pursuing Hillsong Church and its leaders over their relentless failure to preach the core salvation doctrine of repentance. Not only is this doctrine historically recognized as the necessary corresponding reality of true saving faith, it is also a core element of Hillsong Church's very own doctrine statement (which is somewhat difficult to find, although this may be due to my severe lack of nerd capabilities). To quote from their "What We Believe" page:

We believe that in order to receive forgiveness and the 'new birth' we must repent of our sins, believe in the Lord Jesus Christ, and submit to His will for our lives.

Time and time again I have cited example after example of this violation of their own doctrine statement (several of the videos previously cited have since been removed). In fact, of the services I and others have attended, the books we have read, the CDs we have heard, and the videos we have downloaded or streamed, none of us have ever heard anything about repentance coming from any Hillsong source. Even if it has been preached on an occasion that I am not aware of (and I gave an open invitation to my many critics to prove me wrong with nothing ever forthcoming), such a core doctrine essential to salvation should be strongly evident in all their outreach arms. Hillsong even had the audacity to edit the Bible verse on the back cover of their "Mighty to Save" CD to sanitize repentance out of it (yes, they REMOVED the line from 2 Chronicles 7:14 that says "turn from their wicked ways"). Can anybody else smell a rat?

Fast forward to Pastor Brian Houston's sermon at Saddleback. I polled several friends and colleagues of mine at the Master's Seminary (where I am a student) and asked them if they thought it was possible to preach a sermon out of 2 Corinthians 7:8-10 without mentioning the word repentance. None of them thought this to be possible but Brian Houston proved them all wrong. That's right, he preached directly out of a passage that explicitly and obviously centers on repentance without even once talking about it. How did he get out of even mentioning repentance when reading the text itself? By switching to a very liberal translation (The Message) when he got to verse 9! Preachers are called to submit to the biblical text, not submit the biblical text to their own agenda. If you don't believe me then you can see it for yourself (the translation switch happens at the 15:30 mark). Chris Rosebrough's brutal review of the sermon can be heard here (start listening to the program at the 93 minute mark).

I cannot put into words my personal grief at seeing Houston butcher and pervert a passage of such immense beauty that describes the godly sorrow over sin that leads to repentance and salvation. Furthermore, he twisted the passage into something completely irrelevant to its obvious meaning from a plain reading. Brian Houston believes that the problems at Corinth were caused by Paul's angry letter and that the Corinthians needed to make the decision to stop being bitter and wounded about it so that their pain would be "only for a while". Earth to Brian! Houston we have a problem! Hello!!!!! Paul's angry letter was written because of the incest (1 Corinthians 5:1), immorality (1 Corinthians 6:12-20), lawsuits between brethren (1 Corinthians 6:1-8), idolatry (1 Corinthians 10:1-14), and turning the communion table into a place of drunkenness and gluttony (1 Corinthians 11:17-22). The Corinthians grieved "only for a while" because Paul's rebuke had brought about deep conviction and saving repentance in their lives. As I watched Houston's sermon I was left wondering if he had even read Paul's letters to the Corinthians. My criticism is not the deep theological insight of a Seminary student. It is the obvious conclusions of anyone who would take the time to read these letters in the same way that they read their own mail. It's just not that difficult . . . unless you are determined to avoid the subject of repentance.

Oh how tragic that a church would pay a lot of money for a man to fly a long way and then obscure the glorious truth that is so obvious to anyone who would read that passage. It is perhaps almost as tragic that Brian Houston's continual avoidance of the subject of repentance makes him oblivious to his own need to repent. And repentance of the unbiblical nonsense he is preaching is the single greatest contribution he could presently make to the Body of Christ.

When Only Undiscerning Elephants Are Allowed In The Room - ER Saga (Part 5)

Elephant Room 2 - the Sequel - was announced with a lot of macho bravado and swagger. It was promoted like a take no prisoners theological cage fight. James MacDonald's PR machine heralded that:

The rules are simple:
7 PASTORS. 1 ROOM.
NO WAVERING.
NO SIDESTEPPING.
NO EXCUSES.

This was supposed to be a place where theologians can come together and talk manfully face to face about their differences . . . or so they said!!! It would seem that the only stipulation is that all differences must be approved by the "Elephant People" before you can enter the room! Chris Rosebrough, who has been highly critical of this conference, paid to attend the conference and drove all the way from Indianapolis to Chicago to find a "welcoming committee" waiting for him at the registration table:

Today, I traveled to Rowling Meadows, Illinois to attend James MacDonald's Elephant Room 2 conversations. Upon entering the event venue I was met by a security guard and Jim Rowan, an elder at Harvest Bible Chapel and was promptly told that my entrance to the Elephant Room had been revoked and that I had to immediately leave the premises or I would be arrested for trespassing.

This is truly ODD, because the Purpose Statement of the Elephant Room states:

"The Elephant Room is more than an event. It is the outgrowth of an idea. The idea that the best way forward for the followers of Jesus lies not in crouching behind walls of disagreement but in conversation among all kinds of leaders about what the scriptures actually teach. We must insist on the biblical Gospel, right doctrine and practice but not isolate ourselves from relationship even with those who believe much differently."

So, I ask the very logical question how is threatening to arrest me if I didn't leave the premises of the Elephant Room an example of NOT "crouching behind walls of disagreement"?

Seems to me that the Elephant in the Room is the fact that the ONLY voices that James MacDonald and company are willing to hear are those that agree with them.

I questioned James MacDonald's phrase "ringside seat" when I realized that this prize fight had already been pre-arranged and scripted. But then I remembered WWF wrestling and have to concede that "ringside seat" is perhaps appropriate after all. Here is Chris Rosebrough talking about what went down on his radio show:



Go On To Part 6
Go Back To Part 4
Go Back To Part 1

Entering The Arena

Blogging can lend itself to voyeurism. And people like Rick Warren and Perry Noble have latched onto this stereotype as a great way of deflecting legitimate biblical critiques of their ministries. Chris Rosebrough had this to say on the subject:

You can't let bloggers look like they have any credibility at all. And remember, whenever somebody talks about bloggers - and by the way I'm one of them - they don't ever address the content of the bloggers' points, they always instead go to an ad hominem argument where they basically say 'Listen, these bloggers, they're a bunch of people in their 40's who live in their mom's basement and probably sit on bean bag chairs in their underwear eating Cheatos all day . . . these are people who are malcontents and really mentally unstable.'

Undoubtedly there are bloggers who fall into this stereotyped category, but I like to think that The Bottom Line defies that stereotype (except for the 40's part). I'm not anonymous, my ministry activities are publicly known and accessible, I offer biblical critique that is Gospel centered, and I counter what is false with something that is true. Having said that, I am now faced with several years of seminary education and a heavy academic workload. With that in mind, I will try to continue this blog but post less frequently. I hope you, the reader, will continue to check in, contend, discuss, and pray for me in this coming season. I am so thankful for the many readers who have been such an encouragement, to those who have been genuinely helped by content in this blog, and to those who come on here and argue for an opposing viewpoint - to all of you I ask you to join me for this ride I am embarking on (with my family!!!!) at The Master's Seminary in California.

I need to tread carefully now and manage my responsibilities well as a husband, father, student, provider, and priest in my home. So the servings might get a little smaller but the content should remain as spicy as ever!

The Piper Warren Interview (Part 5)

Today, I have decided to add one last post to this series on the tragically bizarre interview between John Piper and Rick Warren. This is because a lot of new information that exposes Rick Warren, as even more fraudulent, came to light in this sensational online radio discussion between Chris Rosebrough of Pirate Christian Radio and Phil Johnson from Grace To You. This entire discussion is very long (all three parts add up to about five hours) because it is a piece by piece dissection of the interview between Piper and Warren. This is not the sort of thing we should listen to on a regular basis but these particular programs are very much worth listening to for educational purposes in the art of practicing discernment in the cryptic world of mainstream modern evangelicalism. Also, Warren's MASSIVE prominence as a "spokesman" for Christianity gets a much needed expose for what it is - a total sham! Many of us who find ourselves in churches who either embrace or consider the "Purpose Driven" propaganda need to be aware of Warren's modus operandi.

Chris Rosebrough is seen by many as a bit of a "shock jock" but his hermeneutics are generally very good. Furthermore, Phil Johnson is a true and godly heavyweight in the world of Christian discernment. Phil continually weighs in during the program with excellent insights that are constantly Gospel centered and exceedingly helpful in decoding Warrenisms. But what makes these programs a "must listen" is the many audio files that Rosebrough digs up from Warren's archives that completely expose him for the chameleon (or liar) that he is. I knew Rick Warren was bad news but I had no idea how bad until I heard these shocking revelations from his own mouth! I am deeply saddened by the fact that I consider Piper's approach to this interview is a major low point in a ministry that has profoundly impacted me for the positive. I am done with this, if you really want to get to the bottom of the misleading, self contradictory, delusional, dishonest, and damaging ministry of Rick Warren then listen to these programs because everything that needs to be said is spoken with acute clarity. As a personal footnote, I would add, pay particular attention to the frequency with which Rick Warren prefaces his comments with the words "to me" or "for me" - this, I would contend, is a strong indicative of his hermeneutical approach that is born out as the interview progresses.

Here are links to all three parts of the interview: Part 1, Part 2, Part 3

Go Back To Part 4
Go Back To Part 1

The Piper Warren Interview (Part 3)

An Open Letter To John Piper

(Courtesy of Frank Turk at Pyromaniacs)

Dear Dr. Piper

First of all, I am personally still grateful that you are back in public ministry. I am personally still edified by you, and am grateful for your spirit and your mission to make Christ known. I would in no way retract my original open letter to you as I believe that you have been mightily used by God for his work to make Christ known in the English-speaking world, and I credit you for it.

I am also on-record to say that you were right, back when Rick Warren spoke by video at the DG conference, to point out that we allegedly-reformed people have something to learn from Warren when it comes to being intentional about people and not just about doctrine. I wouldn't retract one word of that post either.

While I can't speak for my fellow bloggers here at PyroManiacs, I can say that I am probably the least-unimpressed with Pastor Warren. Without naming names or trying to line out who would say what about whom, it's enough to say that the consensus here is that Rick Warren harms the church in general. His books have done more of a dis-service for local churches than they have served to improve them, and his own methods and writings are frankly a bad example for others.

Personally, I'm not a fan of Rick Warren. I can't get excited about his approach to Scripture and Ministry because I see all his writing and sermons as glib, simplistic, mediocre, and often muddled in his broad endorsements of people in interfaith settings -- something I know you disagree with. This was the major stunner from last year's conference: you see Pastor Warren as a great communicator -- which I think is startling because you are yourself a great communicator, and I would think you personally would know better than this. From my perspective, Pastor Warren has done what so many Southern Baptist pastors have done: he has created a local civic institution which has come into national prominence because so many people have come to it. And on that platform his shortcomings are simply magnified, so that the kinds of criticisms he receives are at least warranted because they have such a wide-reaching effect.

But at the same time, I also cannot bring myself to brand Rick Warren, as Chris Rosebrough would say, a rank heretic of a pelagian stripe [a view Phil Johnson has a lot of sympathy for]. I can't do it because I know where he comes from denominationally and ecclesiastically, and I simply can't write off the standard vocabulary of the average SBC pastor as inherently-pelagian. It may be populist in intention, and anti-intellectual in spirit, and simply and finally guided by the view that the number of people who agree with you and will follow you defines the success of your work, but I honestly don't see Rick Warren as anti-Christian. He's just mediocre, and popular, and most of his critics cannot evaluate him from that perspective because, frankly, they cannot muster a generous or balanced approach to discernment in general.

That, I think, is what guided your interview of Pastor Warren: a reaction against his most-unfair critics. As you see him as your friend, I credit you for wanting to defend a friend against injustice. But here's the thing: it seems to me that you thereby missed the point of all the fair criticism of Rick Warren and the PDC/PDL approach to local church life. In seeking to overcome the unfair criticism, you brushed over the concerns legitimate people have about your friend.

There were great opportunities to address those problems during this interview. For example, when pastor Warren boasted that he'd put any 500 members of Saddleback up against any 500 members of any other church with regard to doctrinal knowledge (cf. pg 36 of the transcript), this was a great opportunity to consider his consistency. If the members of his church are deeply educated in systematic doctrine, why does he preach without using the language of the Bible for the doctrines of the Bible -- let alone the common language of systematic theology (cf. pg 37)? Isn't this kind of latently anti-intellectual approach to doctrine and the Bible the most serious cause for concern about what Pastor Warren has advocated for 25 years?

To that charge, it's also interesting that he offered the claim that he has read the "complete sets of Jonathan Edwards ... 22 volumes, 800 pages each" (pg 4), and it had a significant influence on PDL. PDL was published in Nov 2002, and written presumably in the previous year -- and through that time, only volume 18 of the Yale "Works" series had been published. Perhaps he forgot how much he had read prior to writing that book; we are all getting older and are not the Grad students we once were. But more to the point, if Edwards was such a profound influence on PDL, why is his name so conspicuously-absent from it? Others are plainly mentioned in the book: Brother Lawrence is mentioned 5 times; Dr. Hugh Moorehead is quoted 3 times; Mother Teresa is cited twice; Hudson Taylor is mentioned once; Billy Graham is mentioned once; George Bernard Shaw was mentioned; Lane Adams [an author with fewer readers than this blog can claim] is quoted; there are others. [Thx, Kindle Edition search, since the book lacks a subject index] Plainly, these influenced Pastor Warren's writing of this book. Why not mention Jonathan Edwards if he had, as Warren said in the video, greatly influenced PDL?

To point this out and to ask Pastor Warren how he can substantiate this statement when factually it seems, at best, unsupported by the text, would not have been a hard item to come up with. I had not read PDL in almost 10 years, and this bit of emendation to the text seemed obvious -- an interesting and challenging point to investigate; it's unfortunate you missed the opportunity.

The enduring legacy of PDL, though, is Warren's use of any and every translation of a passage to allegedly make a point. For example, in Chpt 8 of PDL, Pastor Warren cites Ps 147:11 as "The LORD is pleased only with those who worship him and trust his love." This theological point is certainly true enough, but this is the CEV translation of a passage which reads "the LORD takes pleasure in those who fear him, in those who hope in his steadfast love," (ESV) or "The LORD taketh pleasure in them that fear him, in those that hope in his mercy," (KJV) -- a phrase which, in the context of the Psalm in question, as you know, is a contrast of God's will to do good over and against the normal hope of man that one's own strength or accomplishments will carry the day. This example is a rather-mild incident in PDL, but it is by no means the only one. For your reference, Tim Challies shares this concern, as does Mike Oppenheimer of "Let Us Reason" Ministries. Monergism.com points out that PDL is not the only source of data regarding Pastor Warren's misuse of Scripture.

This practice of cherry-picking the loosest and most-imprecise translations of passages to make a point in PDL is probably the most-pervasive criticism of the text, and you never arrive there. Of all the things you are from the pulpit and in your ministry, you are a man of God's word, and the misuse of Scripture is not something you usually lay hands on lightly. From my desk, it seems to me you can't possibly have missed this. Let's admit this: you didn't ignore the issue of hermeneutics. You opened up the question of how one uses Scripture (pp. 5, 14, 34). You simply didn't pursue it. You allowed Pastor Warren to simply say that he doesn't believe in contradictions in the word of God, and let that be enough. It's a casual approach to the man and his philosophy, not a deep consideration.

And in the end, this is why I have written to you. I am your fan, and deeply indebted to you for your lifetime of faithful ministry. I'm not a quack blogger who is now emptying my library of anything you may have written or edited because you are endorsing a dubious partner in ministry. I'm a guy who has grown because of your engagement with the glory of God, and have felt the weight of the divine act of the incarnation and crucifixion because of your meditation on and exhortation of God's Grace. I am a better man, and a better father, and a better husband, because you have put the Gospel to me in serious and sober and joyful terms. I believe completely that the greatest cause in the world is joyfully rescuing people from hell, meeting their earthly needs, making them glad in God, and doing that with a kind and serious pleasure that makes CHRIST look like the treasure He is.

I believe in your faith, and in your good judgment. While I cannot and will not question the former, I ask you to reconsider the latter as you are now campaigning for a broader and deeper acceptance of Rick Warren among those in broader "reformed", "T4G", and "Gospel Coalition" circles. He is, after all, a pastor and not merely a blogger. He's a shepherd and not merely a popular author. He's sending missionaries and not merely encouraging middle-class values. And as you seek to leverage the good name and good faith relationships you have among your partners in the groups listed above, remember that part of fellowship among brothers is honoring the concerns and objections your fellow workmen have expressed throughout the years about Rick Warren. He only has something to gain from their acceptance -- while they clearly would tell you there is something to lose by uncritically allowing him in as a teacher and leader.

In closing, I have a great empathy for your efforts to seek to be inclusive for the sake of Christ toward those who are in Christ but not in our basic theological camp. As I close in on a decade of internet punditry as a blogger and advocate for the Christian faith, I am deeply sensitive to the dark and unrestrained excesses of those who count themselves as defenders of the faith but are unaccountable for their strident pronouncements. As someone who is often lumped in with those sort, I think it's important to say plainly that I don't think it's an easy or uncomplicated thing to write you, a seasoned pastor, a critical open letter. I think you are right that some have treated Rick Warren with injustice -- but he is not hardly the man your interview with him paints him to be. He's not hardly someone deeply concerned with a robust declaration of the Gospel and its consequences. His weekly preaching does not reflect this, and his books do not reflect this. After 40 years of demonstrating pastoral care for real people and careful, weekly expository preaching, you must be able to see the deficiencies in what he has done, is doing, and will continue to do if accepted without asking the serious questions his writing and actions create.

Please: for the sake of your own continued credibility, and for the sake of the partnerships in the Gospel which you have forged with other men of good faith, reconsider the broad and uncritical endorsement you are giving to Rick Warren. Underscore your differences with him clearly and cogently, and ask him to respond seriously for the sake of his commitment to your integrity and his own.

For that reason, I leave you with a blessing. As the apostle charged, it is always our purpose to give a reason for the hope that is in us -- to put to shame those who would revile us for Christ's sake -- with gentleness and reverence. As you have spent your adult life doing this, I ask God our Father, through the Holy Spirit, and in Christ's name, to bless you for it now with these things: love for your friend beyond mere bonhomie; courage to speak prophetically and evangelistically; and humility to see the limits of your own approach to what you believe is addressing injustice.

My thanks for your time.

And my thanks to Frank Turk for some excellent perspective on an issue that has huge damage potential!

Go On To Part 4
Go Back To Part 2
Go Back To Part 1

Human Decisions v Divine Renovations - Rick Warren's Sermon At Desiring God (Part 11)

The following commentary corresponds to the following video from 37:35 to 41:18



Rick Warren starts out in this video segment by suggesting that godly convictions lead to godly habits. And these habits are what form our character. Once again, he tries to drag the horse by the cart. And his confusion is verified when he says "put on the fruit of the Spirit". This may be a slip of the tongue but it really brings us to the heart of the problem with moralistic preaching. Chris Rosebrough suggested in an earlier post that Rick Warren is a Pelagian and perhaps that accusation is over the top (maybe not) but I must say that I am certainly smelling a very strong aroma of Pelagianism here.

Pelagius was a monk from Britain, whose reputation and theology came into prominence after he went to Rome sometime in the 380's A.D. The historic Pelagian theological controversy involved the nature of man and the doctrine of original sin.

Pelagius believed that the consequences of Adam and Eve’s sin (the Fall) were restricted to themselves only; and thereby denied the belief that original sin was passed on (or transferred) to the children of Adam and thus to the human race. Adam's sin merely "set a bad example" for his progeny and Jesus "set a good example" for mankind (thus counteracting Adam's bad example). Pelagianism teaches that human beings are born in a state of innocence with a nature that is as pure as that which Adam was given at his creation.

As a result of his basic assumption, Pelagius taught that man has an unimpaired moral ability to choose that which is spiritually good and possesses the free will, ability, and capacity to do that which is spiritually good. This resulted in a gospel of salvation based on human works. Man could choose to follow the precepts of God and then follow those precepts because he had the power within himself to do so.

The controversy came to a head when Pelagian teaching came into contact with Augustine. Augustine did not deny that man had a will and that he could make choices. But, Augustine recognized that man did not have a free will in moral issues related to God, asserting that the effects original sin were passed to the children of Adam and Eve and that mankind’s nature was thereby corrupted. Man could choose what he desired, but those desires were influenced by his sinful nature and he was unable to refrain from sinning. (courtesy of Theopedia)

Now, back to Warren's quote "put on the fruit of the Spirit". A logical think through of this sentence may help us to catch a whiff of this Pelagianism. Trees bear fruit as a natural extension of their true nature. Apples on the branches don't make it an apple tree but the apples do testify to the authenticity of the apple tree. But what would you think if you found a tree with apples hanging off it attached by sticky tape? The fruit of the Spirit is an indicative of the indwelling presence of the Holy Spirit - not an imperative that we add to our lives to make our Christianity authentic. As usual, Rick Warren, like Pelagius, is more interested in the how to do and the what to do, than the Who has done - the "Who" being Christ and the "done" being His finished atoning work that makes it possible for us to become new creatures in Him. This is the elephant that Rick Warren does not see in his own living room - but I am hopeful that you, the reader, can spot an elephant at ten feet.

I think the 70's band "Police" summed up the transcendent theme of Rick Warren's sermon when they said those immortal philosophical words "do do do do da da da da that's all I'm gonna say to you" (wow I feel so relevant and cutting edge in a seeker sensitive kinda way). And that's what we get as Warren continues - plenty of do do do. Some of the things he points out are beneficial but it always revolves around human decisions rather than Divine renovations.

Oh oh, in the midst of all this I couldn't help noticing that Rick Warren's mention that he has a "life verse". This is modern-evangelicaleze for picking a Bible verse that you like and deciding that it will apply to your life. Life verses are for people who think that Scripture is really a smorgasbord from which we can pick and choose verses to create a reality to our liking. If you ever visit that smorgasbord you'll find that there is nothing left on the Jeremiah 29:11 plate while poor old Jeremiah 29:17 and Jeremiah 29:18 have been left out in the cold with no takers. This is all building up towards "Rick Warren's Desiring God infomercial" where he will tell his audience that they need to get a copy of "Rick Warren's Bible Study Methods" (no this is not a joke - just wait and see . . .). Rick, based on what I've heard thus far, your Bible study methods are right up there with "Joel Osteen's Scripture Memorization Strategies" (ok that was a joke).

And another thing, I really would like to meet all these pastors who are "godly and love the Lord and preach the word" but lack the "skill" to have a successful church. What exactly is he saying here? Define success? What skill? The only skill you will find listed in 1 Timothy 3 and Titus 1 (which list the requirements for church leadership) is to "be able to give instruction in sound doctrine and also to rebuke those who contradict it". What a shame Rick Warren didn't choose that as his "life verse" nor develop it as a skill!

More to come . . .

Go On To Part 12
Go Back To Part 10
Go Back To Part 1

Rick Warren's Punishment For Gluttons

Rick Warren's sermon at Desiring God has huge ramifications for those of us who call ourselves reformed. Have we blurred the lines on what we are willing to tolerate? In our zealous efforts to be civil and amicable do we throw all combativeness out the window? If it is tolerated at the epicenter will it be embraced at the outer reaches of the fall out zone? Exactly where are the lines and what does one have to do to cross them? Where will those of us who live in the land of apostasy go for a discernment benchmark? Does this mean that we may see a growing tendency not to witness to people who say they are Christians but preach a different Gospel?

What are we to do with Bible verses like:

Romans 16:17 Now I beseech you, brethren, mark them which cause divisions and offences contrary to the doctrine which ye have learned; and avoid them.

Galatians 1:8-9 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. 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.

Ephesians 5:11 Take no part in the unfruitful works of darkness, but instead expose them.

1 Timothy 5:20 Them that sin rebuke before all, that others also may fear.

2 Timothy 4:2 Preach the word; be instant in season, out of season; reprove, rebuke, exhort with all long suffering and doctrine.

Titus 3:10 A man that is an heretic after thefirst and second admonition reject;

Titus 1:13 This witness is true. Wherefore rebuke them sharply, that they may be sound in the faith;

Jude 1:3-4 Beloved, when I gave all diligence to write unto you of the common salvation, it was needful for me to write unto you, and exhort you that ye should earnestly contend for the faith which was once delivered unto the saints. For there are certain men crept in unawares, who were before of old ordained to this condemnation, ungodly men, turning the grace of our God into lasciviousness, and denying the only Lord God, and our Lord Jesus Christ.

Does Rick Warren preach another gospel and, if so, what response does that warrant from true shepherds like Dr. Piper?

Starting in the new year (January 3) we will launch straight into some more in-depth analysis of Rick Warren's "message" preached at the 2010 Desiring God conference. I believe there is much that is beneficial to be learnt from Warren - particularly what not to preach. We will learn about the pervasive seductiveness of moralism, how a wrong view of conversion perverts your preaching, and how to listen with discernment so we can detect whether a message is gospel-centered or man-centered.

Christmas is upon us and I plan to repost my Christmas evangelism series from two years ago that will run each day for the next 9 days up until Christmas. Christmas is a great time to evangelize and if you don't have any good tools then I want to offer this series as a interesting and thought provoking Gospel presentation for unbelievers.

But because there are some readers who are truly gluttons for punishment, I will leave you all with this entree for my upcoming series starting January 3rd 2010. Chris Rosebrough is not everybody's cup of tea but he was more than willing to dive into this debate and offer 2 hours of blow by blow analysis. For the punishment gluttons, feast on this:

How To Defeat Calvinism

This blog has rarely touched on the Calvinism v Arminianism debate that has raged for centuries with no clear cut resolution in sight. I'm just not delusional enough to think that I can weigh into it with any new insight. Truth be known my background is Arminian but I now lean very much in favor of Calvinism with a few remaining question marks and I also think that the epidemic of decisionism that we now see has strong connections to the "ugly side" of Arminianism. To be sure there are some intelligent and articulate arguments from Scripture on both sides and I don't doubt for one minute that there are many genuinely born again people on each side of the fence.

But what does warrant a response is the many ridiculous ill-informed strawman attacks that have been launched against Calvinism in recent times. They are attacks that misrepresent and do great harm to many true servants of God. Monica Dennington who has a fairly prominent youtube channel (with some decent content as far as I can see) is a good example. She recently posted a video calling all Calvinists to repentance. Her critique is so laughable and absurd that there was even a non-calvinist radio station that took her to task. Her argument shows a complete and total ignorance of the issues that are up for debate. Lane Chaplin posted this video courtesy of Chris Rosebrough as a necessary response. It is long but a helpful voice of clarity amidst the confused and damaging rhetoric of many of the ill-founded attacks floating around right now - whichever side you find yourself on . . .

Foxes Book of Emergents With Hurt Feelings - Rob Bell (Part 7)

THE BOTTOM LINE IRONY AWARD - ROB BELL'S ATTEMPT TO EXPOSE FALSE TEACHERS
This would be laughable if it wasn't true. Rob Bell recently preached a self serving message to his congregation called "Beware of Dogs" in which he slams biblically sound discernment ministries for questioning his heretical teachings. Well, the gloves are now off and it's time to call a spade a shovel.

Maybe the net is closing in Rob but why are you so surprised when sincere Christians call you to task for your hermeneutical hack jobs and disgusting manipulation of Scripture you continually do. There are people out there who love God's Word and love the purity of the blood bought once for all delivered Gospel and won't sit by and let you continually preach humanism and try and disguise it as Christianity. By all means sell your wares in a New Age bookstore or on Oprah but stop calling it Christianity. Sure you use the Bible and that is the problem. You USE the Bible to redefine its plain meaning into a postmodern haze.

The following youtube video/audio is a critique of the "Beware of Dogs" message. Warning - it is three hours long so bunker down with supplies if you want to hear it through. Normally I wouldn't post something so lengthy but I beleive this is actually a very helpful experience for many of us who try to practice biblical discernment in a marketplace full of ideas. Chris Rosebrough, who hosts the podcast, is not everybody's cup of tea but he does an excellent job of cutting through the emergent smokescreens to decipher what Rob Bell is actually teaching and how he cleverly twists biblical texts to say something other than their plain meaning.

Some of the staggering things to "emerge" from this critique include:
1.Rob Bell likes to try and lend credibility to himself by quoting Greek and Hebrew words much in the same way as the certificate of authenticity I have on my five dollar Rolex.
2.Rob Bell marvels as to why any Christian would be critical of a conference that tries to unite Christianity with different religions.
3.Rob Bell thinks that when people from other religions love him it is an endorsement of his message.
4.Rob Bell seems to approach Scripture willing to explore all interpretive options except for the one that leaps off the page and slaps you in the face.
5.The whole premise for the "Beware of Dogs" message, taken from Philippians 3, has absolutely nothing to do with what Philippians 3 is all about.
6.When Rob Bell talks about no place on earth he'd rather be he is not talking about the true fellowship of believers. He is talking about hanging out with buddhist monks, muslim nuns, universalists, hindus and people from other false religions.



A Note for Erica - Rob Bell's Cyber Bodyguard
There is a woman out there called Erica who seems to think her calling in life is to defend Rob Bell from all the people out there who practice biblical discenment. I like to think of her as Rob Bell's cyber bodyguard. I don't know what she looks like but I imagine she gets around in a dark suit with dark glasses, has an earpiece with a wire running under her collar, and talks into her watch.

Erica has posted a lot of times on this blog. Initially, I appreciated Erica's warm tone and engaged in friendly dialogue. But in time some themes "emerged" that shortened my patience. I noticed her name appearing and defending Rob Bell on other places where he was criticised. I noticed that her interest seemed to be confined to Rob Bell and that she seemed to have little interest in discussing the purity of the Gospel or reasoning from Scripture (no Erica, quoting bible verses out of context does not qualify as reasoning from Scripture). She started to sound like a scratched record and would not even consider the many biblical objections brought forward by people who questioned her. When I started to cut to the chase Erica's husband wrote in calling me a jerk. Read earlier posts concerning Rob Bell and you'll see our "conversation".

So Erica, if you're out there and want to post. Say things that are biblically supportable and in context. Also show a willingness to reason from Scripture rather than just defending Rob Bell for the sake of defending him.