You Might Be A False Teacher If...

1. You might be a false teacher if your website is not blocked by the Chinese government.

2. You might be a false teacher if you think choosing the base model demonstrates modesty and good stewardship every time you purchase a private jet.

3. You might be a false teacher if your last name is also a monetary currency.

4. You might be a false teacher if you think having a Bible Mantra is an alternative to reading it.

5. You might be a false teacher if Oprah invites you onto her show.

6. You are a false teacher if you appear on Oprah's show and she never objects to anything you say.

7. You might be a false teacher if you don't know what an elephant looks like.

8. You might be a false teacher if Brian McLaren endorsed your book.

9. You might be a false teacher if you think you are the one who has finally figured out what the Apostle Paul was on about.

10. You might be a false teacher if you think tithing puts Satan in a cage.

11. You might be a false teacher if you think "Thou shalt not criticize" is the 11th Commandment.

12. You might be a false teacher if you think "Thou shalt tithe" is the 12th Commandment.

13. You might be a false teacher if you think that when Jesus said, "On these two commandments depend all the Law and the Prophets," He was referring to the 11th and 12th Commandments.

14. You might be a false teacher if Barack Obama finds your spiritual advice to be helpful.

15. You might be a false teacher if you think firing an elder is a form of church discipline.

16. You might be a false teacher if you believe it is the sheep's job to protect the shepherd.

17. You might be a false teacher if you wear a suit when you're in the White House and an Hawaiian shirt when you're in the Lord's House.

18. You might be a false teacher if you agree with Rob Bell about anything.

19. You might be a false teacher if you use the Council of Trent to defend your theological position.

20. You might be a false teacher if you think that Herman Newtix is the guy who keeps telling John MacArthur to be mean to Charismatics.

21. You might be a false teacher if you think that "The Message" is a Bible translation.

22. You might be a false teacher if you think the Bible is subject to your editorial process.

23. You might be a false teacher if you think that the Reformation was a speed bump on the highway of church history.

24. You might be a false teacher if you think church history refers to the different phases of your building project.

25. You might be a false teacher if the promise of the forgiveness of sins found in Jesus Christ underwhelms you.

A Great Christmas Gift Idea For Emergents

A Cavalcade Of Heretics - The Wild Goose Festival

The emergent movement still seems to think that there is plenty more life left in that rotting carcass. The movement may live on in the form of the heresies they propagated that have now infiltrated modern evangelical churches. But old liberalism continues to die the death of a thousand attempts at repackaging.



In the words of the "organizers":

The Wild Goose is a Celtic metaphor for the Holy Spirit. We are followers of Jesus creating a festival of justice, spirituality, music and the arts. The festival is rooted in the Christian tradition and therefore open to all regardless of belief, ethnicity, gender, sexuality, denomination or religious affiliation.

In adopting the image of the Wild Goose we recognize that in the current climate of religious, social and political cynicism, embracing the creative and open nature of our faith is perhaps our greatest asset for re-building and strengthening our relationships with each other, with our enemies, with our stories, our texts, and the earth. In that spirit, in a festive setting, and in the context of meaningful, respectful, and sustained relationships, we invite you to create with us!

As a child my favorite cartoon was the "League of Justice". It was the transcendent superhero cartoon where Superman, Batman, Aquaman, Spiderman, and Wonder Woman (yes, even then PC demanded a token woman and, let's face it, her invisible jet was a tremendous innovation in cutting costs). All these superheros were able to combine their superpowers for the ultimate force against all evil in the world.

The Wild Goose Festival is just like "League of Justice" except for the fighting evil part . . . and the superhero part . . . and the enjoyable part . . . Anyway, Wild Goose festival is what you get when you combine the apostate false teaching superpowers of Tony Jones, Jim Wallis, Jay Bakker, Brian McLaren, Shane Claiborne, Tony Campolo, Lynne Hybels, Frank Schaeffer, Phyliss Tickle, Richard Rohr etc into one giant potpourri of every imaginable religious idea apart from the Gospel of Jesus Christ. They may even try to outdo each other - maybe some new heresy might be birthed at Wild Goose.

(Sidenote: if the name Lynne Hybels (wife of Bill Hybels and "Willow Creek Advocate For Global Engagement") surprises you - don't be surprised. This woman is full of liberal kookiness so beware all you Willow Creek'ers who think that your fellowship is a safe haven. Lynne Hybels is not only seeker sensitive, she is very liberal on a lot of fronts - and very influential as well. Just check out her role as an inner circle counsellor to Barack Obama, her troubling association with radical leftist ministries like Sojourners and Red Letter Christians, and her ridiculous apologies to Islam.

The Wild Goose festival website carries the following bold prediction:

Wild Goose is going to grow into the largest, best run, most dynamic religious happening in the USA!

Here is a video highlight from the festival that lends so much credence to that bold prediction of a "dynamic", well organized, religious "happening" with teeming crowds. I would say that the word "religious" does apply to the Wild Goose festival . . . it's just that I can't quite make out what religion that would be!



Newsflash emergent gurus - whether your movement is dead or on life-support, Woodstock 2 is not the solution!

Rob Bell - Out Of The Closet

Rob Bell's new book, Love Wins, has caused a firestorm of controversy among the wider evangelical community. Though it has already provoked a lot of discussion within this forum alone, I am not willing to put it out of its misery just yet. There are far wider ramifications than the obvious heresy of "Pastor Bell". This is fast becoming a watershed moment of a false teacher who finally managed to cross the evangelical line in the sand. False teachers have generally tended to thrive over the last few decades in a prevailing climate of "civility", tolerance, and the good old benefit of the doubt. But notice has now been served that an evangelical community that has tolerated too much for too long still has a threshold - a threshold that took Rob Bell by surprise. Bell's surprise at the outrage over his book may well have more to do with overplaying his hand than a genuine belief in his own orthodoxy.

But has Bell actually done us all a great service by turning our discernment radars on and being increasingly overt in his attacks on the historic Christian faith? I do hope this will become the shockwave that causes much needed climate change in the evangelical world - because that line in the sand took six years too long to cross.

Even back in 2005 Bell was peddling his wares:

When people use the word hell, what do they mean? They mean a place, an event, a situation absent of how God desires things to be. Famine, debt, oppression, loneliness, despair, death, slaughter--they are all hell on earth. Jesus' desire for his followers is that they live in such a way that they bring heaven to earth . . . What's disturbing is when people talk more about hell after this life than they do about Hell here and now. As a Christian, I want to do what I can to resist hell coming to earth (Rob Bell - Velvet Elvis p148).

Rob Bell may say he isn't a universalist, but it's kind of like Bill Clinton giving a sworn testimony:

This reality, this forgiveness, this reconciliation, is true for everybody. Paul insisted that when Jesus died on the cross he was reconciling ‘all things, in heaven and on earth, to God. This reality then isn’t something we make true about ourselves by doing something. It is already true. Our choice is to live in this new reality or cling to a reality of our own making (p83).

We also learned early on that Bell's copy of the Bible is a "Robert Schuller severely abridged" version:

I can’t find one place in the teachings of Jesus, or the Bible for that matter, where we are to identify ourselves first and foremost as sinners (p130).

He also did away with that tired notion of differentiating between believers and unbelievers:

If the gospel isn’t good news for everybody, then it isn’t good news for anybody (p167).

Bell realized that many problems of the historic Christian faith could be solved by humanizing God and elevating man:

Who does Peter lose faith in? Not Jesus; he is doing fine. Peter loses faith in himself. Peter loses faith that he can do what his rabbi is doing. If the rabbi calls you to be his disciple, then he believes that you can actually be like him. As we read the stories of Jesus’ life with his talmidim, his disciples, what do we find frustrates him to no end? When his disciples lose faith in themselves…. God has an amazingly high view of people. God believes that people are capable of amazing things. I’ve been told I need to believe in Jesus. Which is a good thing. But what I’m learning is that Jesus believes in me. I have been told that I need to have faith in God. Which is a good thing. But what I am learning is that God has faith in me (p124-125).

And none of this is a problem if you think that Sola Scriptura was a foreign exchange student you met in the 80's:

It wasn’t until the 300s that what we know as the sixty-six books of the Bible were actually agreed upon as the ‘Bible’. This is part of the problem with continually insisting that one of the absolutes of the Christian faith must be a belief that “Scripture alone” is our guide. It sounds nice, but it is not true. In reaction to abuses by the church, a group of believers during a time called the Reformation claimed that we only need the authority of the Bible. But the problem is that we got the Bible from the church voting on what the Bible even is. So when I affirm the Bible as God’s Word, in the same breath I have to affirm that when those people voted, God was somehow present, guiding them to do what they did. When people say that all we need is the Bible, it is simply not true. In affirming the Bible as inspired, I also have to affirm the Spirit who I believe was inspiring those people to choose those books (p67-68).

Let's hope that this controversy causes the "evangelical line in the sand" to have a seismic shift towards the Apostle Paul:

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 (Galatians 1:8-9).

Rob Bell - Al Mohler's Verdict

Rob Bell's new book "Love Wins" is a case of a book that you can judge by its cover. Bell certainly removes his sheepsuit for the promotional video. But I thought I might step aside today and let someone way smarter and more articulate than myself comment on this current controversy swirling around Rob Bell's newest book/assault on biblical Christianity. When it comes to theological heavyweights they don't come much bigger than Al Mohler who is the president of Southern Baptist Theological Seminary. With Mohler you get careful, well thought out critique, through a sharp biblical lens. Mohler undertook the aggravating task of reading "Love Wins" and here is what he found . . .

This brings us to the controversy over Rob Bell’s new book, Love Wins. As its cover announces, the book is “about heaven, hell, and the fate of every person who ever lived.” Reading the book is a heart-breaking experience. We have read this book before. Not the exact words, and never so artfully presented, but the same book, the same argument, the same attempt to rescue Christianity from the Bible.

As a communicator, Rob Bell is a genius. He is the master of the pungent question, the turn-the-picture-upside-down story, and the personal anecdote. Like Harry Emerson Fosdick, the paladin of pulpit liberalism, Rob Bell is a master communicator. Had he set out to defend the biblical doctrine of hell, he could have done so marvelously. He would have done the church a great service. But that is not what he set out to do.

Like Fosdick, Rob Bell cares deeply for people. It comes through in his writings. There is no reason to doubt that Bell wrote this book out of his own personal concern for people who are put off by the doctrine of hell. Had that concern been turned toward a presentation of how the biblical doctrine of hell fits within the larger context of God’s love and justice and the Gospel of Jesus Christ, that would have been a help to untold thousands of Christians and others seeking to understand the Christian faith. But that is not what Bell does in this new book.

Instead, Rob Bell uses his incredible power of literary skill and communication to unravel the Bible’s message and to cast doubt on its teachings.

He states his concern clearly: A staggering number of people have been taught that a select few Christians will spend forever in a peaceful, joyous place called heaven, while the rest of humanity spends forever in torment and punishment in hell with no chance for anything better. It’s been clearly communicated to many that this belief is a central truth of the Christian faith and to reject it is, in essence, to reject Jesus. This is misguided and toxic and ultimately subverts the contagious spread of Jesus’ message of love, peace, forgiveness, and joy that our world desperately needs to hear.

That is a huge statement, and it is clear enough. Rob Bell believes that the doctrine of the eternal punishment of unrepentant sinners in hell is keeping people from coming to Jesus. That is an unsettling thought, but on closer look, it falls in upon itself. In the first place, Jesus spoke very clearly about hell, using language that can only be described as explicit. He warned of “him who can destroy both soul and body in hell.” [Matthew 10:28]

In Love Wins, Bell does his best to argue that the church has allowed the story of Jesus’ love to be perverted by other stories. The story of an eternal hell is not, he believes, a good story. He suggests that a better story would involve the possibility of a sinner coming to faith in Christ after death, or hell being a cessation of being, or hell being eventually emptied of all its inhabitants. The problem, of course, is that the Bible provides no hint whatsoever of any possibility of a sinner’s salvation after death. Instead, “it is appointed for man to die once, and after that comes judgment.” [Hebrews 9:27]

He also argues for a form of universal salvation. Once again, his statements are more suggestive than declarative, but he clearly intends his reader to be persuaded that it is possible — even probable — that those who resist, reject, or never hear of Christ may be saved through Christ nonetheless. That means no conscious faith in Christ is necessary for salvation. He knows that he must deal with a text like Romans 10 in making this argument, “How are they to hear without someone preaching?” [Romans 10:14] Bell says that he wholeheartedly agrees with that argument from the Apostle Paul, but then he dumps the entire argument overboard and suggests that this cannot be God’s plan. He completely avoids Paul’s conclusion that “faith comes from hearing, and hearing through the word of Christ.” [Romans 10:17] He rejects the idea that a person must come to a personal knowledge of Christ in this life in order to be saved. “What if the missionary gets a flat tire?” he asks.

But this is how Rob Bell deals with the Bible. He argues that the gates that never shut in the New Jerusalem [Revelation 21:25] mean that the opportunity for salvation is never closed, but he just avoids dealing with the preceding chapter, which includes this clear statement of God’s justice: “And if anyone’s name was not found written in the book of life, he was thrown into the lake of fire.” [Revelation 20:15] The eternally open gates of the New Jerusalem come only after that judgment.

Like so many others, Bell wants to separate the message of Jesus from other voices even in the New Testament, particularly the voice of the Apostle Paul. Here we face the inescapable question of biblical authority. We will either affirm that every word of the Bible is true, trustworthy, and authoritative, or we will create our own Bible according to our own preferences. Put bluntly, if Jesus and Paul are not telling the same story, we have no idea what the true story is.

Bell clearly prefers inclusivism, the belief that Christ is saving humanity through means other than the Gospel, including other religions. But he mixes up his story along the way, appearing to argue for outright universalism on some pages, but backing off of a full affirmation. He rejects the belief that conscious faith in Christ is necessary for salvation, but he never clearly lands on a specific account of what he does believe.

Tellingly, Bell attempts to reduce all of the Bible and the entirety of the Gospel to story, and he believes it is his right and duty to determine which story is better than another — which version of Christianity is going to be compelling and attractive to unbelievers. He has, after all, set that as his aim — to replace the received story with something he sees as better.

The first problem with this is obvious. We have no right to determine which “story” of the Gospel we prefer or think is most compelling. We must deal with the Gospel that we received from Christ and the Apostles, the faith once for all delivered to the church. Suggesting that some other story is better or more attractive than that story is an audacity of breathtaking proportions. The church is bound to the story revealed in the Bible — and in all of the Bible … every word of it.

But there is a second problem, and it is one we might think would have been learned by now. Liberalism just does not work. Bell wants to argue that the love of God is so powerful that “God gets what God wants.” So, God desires the salvation of all, he argues, so all will eventually be saved — some even after death, even long after death. But he cannot maintain that account for long because of his absolute affirmation of human autonomy. Even God cannot or will not prevent someone from going to hell who is determined to go there. So, if Bell is taken on his own terms, even he does not believe that “God gets what God wants.”

Similarly, Bell’s argument is centered in his affirmation of God’s loving character, but he alienates love from justice and holiness. This is the traditional liberal line. Love is divorced from holiness and becomes mere sentimentality. Bell wants to rescue God from any teaching that his wrath is poured out upon sin and sinners, certainly in any eternally conscious sense. But Bell also wants God to vindicate the victims of murder, rape, child abuse, and similar evil. He seems not to recognize that he has undercut his own story, leaving God unable or unwilling to bring true justice.

In truth, any human effort to offer the world a story superior to the comprehensive story of the Bible fails on all fronts. It is an abdication of biblical authority, a denial of biblical truth, and a false Gospel. It misleads sinners and fails to save. It also fails in its central aim — to convince sinners to think better of God. The real Gospel is the Gospel that saves — the Gospel that must be heard and believed if sinners are to be saved.

But this is where Rob Bell’s book goes most off-course. He describes the Gospel in these words:

It begins in the sure and certain truth that we are loved. That in spite of whatever has gone horribly wrong deep in our hearts and has spread to every corner of the world, in spite of our sins, failures, rebellion, and hard hearts, in spite of what has been done to us or what we’ve done, God has made peace with us.

Missing from his Gospel is any clear reference to Christ, any adequate understanding of our sin, any affirmation of the holiness of God and his pledge to punish sin, any reference to the shed blood of Christ, his death on the cross, his substitutionary atonement, and his resurrection, and, so tellingly, any reference to faith as the sinners response to the Good News of the Gospel. There is no genuine Gospel here. This is just a reissue of the powerless message of theological liberalism.

H. Richard Niebuhr famously once distilled liberal theology into this sentence: “A God without wrath brought men without sin into a kingdom without judgment through the ministrations of a Christ without a cross.”

Yes, we have read this book before. With Love Wins, Rob Bell moves solidly within the world of Protestant Liberalism. His message is a liberalism arriving late on the scene. Tragically, his message will confuse many believers as well as countless unbelievers.

We dare not retreat from all that the Bible says about hell. We must never confuse the Gospel, nor offer suggestions that there may be any way of salvation outside of conscious faith in Jesus Christ. We must never believe that we can do a public relations job on the Gospel or on the character of God. We must never be unclear and subversively suggestive about what the Bible teaches.

In the opening pages of Love Wins, Rob Bell assures his readers that “nothing in this book hasn’t been taught, suggested, or celebrated by many before me.” That is true enough. But the tragedy is that those who did teach, suggest, or celebrate such things were those with whom no friend of the Gospel should want company. In this new book, Rob Bell takes his stand with those who have tried to rescue Christianity from itself. This is a massive tragedy by any measure.

The problem begins even with the book’s title. The message of the Gospel is not merely that love wins — it is that Jesus saves.

Rob Bell Takes Off His Sheep Suit - And John Piper Bids Him "Farewell"

If it walks like a universalist, and talks like a universalist, then it's probably Rob Bell:

LOVE WINS. - Available March 15th from Rob Bell on Vimeo.

Rob Bell is an enemy of the true biblical Gospel and if that is not apparent in this video then may I recommend a book called Romans written by a guy called Paul.

But if our unrighteousness serves to show the righteousness of God, what shall we say? That God is unrighteous to inflict wrath on us? I speak in a human way. By no means! For then how could God judge the world? (Romans 3:5-6)

And it might help if Bell took the time to read all the verses in John chapter three and not just verse sixteen.

Jesus answered him, "Truly, truly, I say to you, unless one is born again he cannot see the kingdom of God. (John 3:3 and for the record the word "cannot" is actually translated "no chance" in the original Greek)

For God did not send his Son into the world to condemn the world, but in order that the world might be saved through him. Whoever believes in him is not condemned, but whoever does not believe is condemned already, because he has not believed in the name of the only Son of God. (John 3:17-18)

So the note concerning Ghandi, while perhaps inappropriate, is not based upon some guy who wants to assert his omniscience Rob! It's based upon an elementary understanding of the clear teaching of the Bible. You know - the Bible - that big old book that you spend most of your time perverting and confusing it's plain meaning! Ghandi, as a professing Hindu, is almost certainly in hell. This is not because I think so but because the Bible tells me so (the "almost certainly" disclaimer is in the genuine hope that Ghandi repented of his sin and put his trust in Jesus Christ prior to his death, in which case God would have saved him). And Rob, are you biblically incompetent or deliberately deceiving people? Which one is it? What do you do with verses like Romans 5:9 which directly refute what you assert in this video:

Since, therefore, we have now been justified by his blood, much more shall we be saved by him from the wrath of God. (Romans 9:5)

When we deny an attribute of God, such as His wrath, we are breaking the second commandment (idolatry) by making a god in our own image. In this video, Bell just cannot conceal his utter disdain for the doctrine of Penal Substitutionary Atonement, and for those who defend it. I certainly didn't feel the love from "Mr Love Wins" in this video. Can you feel the love tonight?

This is the video that was the cause of the entire internet melting down a couple of weeks ago (in case you didn't notice). Partly because Bell is becoming more and more overt in his long established heretical views, and also in part because of John Piper's legendary tweet in response to this video which simply said "farewell Rob Bell". It is quite right that John Piper and the Gospel Coalition have put Bell outside of the camp, but I still have to ask the question why did it take so long? The contrast between the Gospel Piper preaches and the gospel Bell invented could not be more stark. Piper says "God is the Gospel" whereas Bell says that "you are the gospel". More than five years ago Bell wrote these words in his book Velvet Elvis in a sneaky affirmation of his universalism:

So this reality, this forgiveness, this reconciliation, is true for everybody. Paul insisted that when Jesus died on the cross he was reconciling ‘all things, in heaven and on earth, to God. This reality then isn’t something we make true about ourselves by doing something. It is already true. Our choice is to live in this new reality or cling to a reality of our own making.” (Velvet Elvis p146)

What is staggering is how much of a sacred cow Rob Bell has become, and the number of professing Christians (and also unbelievers - which is telling) who are willing to relentlessly defend Bell (hence melting down the entire internet in their flurry of protest). Guys, how hard is this? I know that in his latest video (shown above) Bell does his usual schtick of asking provocative questions and never answering them. I also know that Bell has made an art form out of pretending to be a Christian for many years now. He trades on the evangelical world's willingness to always give the benefit of the doubt to vague, obscure, and foggy theology. But Bell's obvious disdain and resentment for the historic orthodox Christian faith, coupled with his continual propensity to cloud crystal clear doctrines of first importance is despicable to say the least.

This has been the MO within the emergent movement from the very beginning. Have leaders like Rob Bell, Brian McLaren, Doug Pagitt, and Tony Jones grown more and more heretical over the last decade or has it been a planned gradual release of false teaching to an evangelical landscape as it gradually grows more tolerant. These guys are all non-Christian theological liberals who have held their views for a long time but had a vested interest in concealing much of their heresy until the modern evangelical climate was deemed ready to receive each incremental attack on the historic Christian faith. Tony Jones obviously didn't get that memo because by 2008 he had already run out of things to deny.

And now Bell is spending more and more time without his sheep suit on. If you meet Rob Bell, please share the Gospel with him. Like Ghandi, he also needs to repent of his sins and trust in Jesus Christ to save him from the wrath to come.

Dear Graeme, UnkleE, And Everyone Else Who Is Silent About The Gospel

I am finding a common tendency among most people who are critical of my adherence to Scripture or my "narrow" view of the Gospel. The tendency is that these people, when asked, almost always refuse to explain the Gospel in their own words. Two particular people spring to mind in recent weeks.

The first is a guy called Graeme who is an old friend from my early Christian life when I lived in Ipswich, Australia. Though I would still consider Graeme as a friend, I'm not so sure he would reciprocate after the hard words I spoke to him in the comments section of one of my posts. These hard words were, however, entirely called for due to Graeme's disgraceful cheap shot at the Creation Science community with his outrageous claim that:

Lets face it, Creationists don't don't really care about Christ. But they do care about the literal meaning of creationism (yes that is a direct quote).

It becomes even more outrageous when you consider the fact that Graeme has commented numerous times on this blog without having anything to say about the Person and work of Christ. Graeme's comment is equally insulting to ministries like Answers in Genesis who produce excellent Gospel tracts and invest heavily in evangelistic outreaches. Some of these people are people who I have met personally and found to be very Christ centered. I wouldn't have a clue about where Graeme stands with Christ because he has never said anything about it. When Graeme was asked several times to articulate the Gospel and how much He esteems Christ, he had this to say . . . . deafening silence.

"UnkleE" is another Aussie, as best as I can tell, who felt the need to comment on a recent post about Rob Bell and defend Rob Bell's heretical theology. In fairness to "UnkleE", he initially responded because he misunderstood some of my commentary (which I should have been clearer on). But as the conversation progressed, it turned out that "UnkleE" had read one of Bell's books (Velvet Elvis if I recall) and found nothing problematic or heretical in a book that is very heretical and probelematic (paging universalism). Since "UnkleE" considered Bell to be sound enough that we should just leave him alone I challenged him to explain the Gospel in his own words - in the hope of understanding where "UnkleE" was at. I was genuinely concerned about "UnkleE" due to his handling of Scripture and relaxed attitude about universalism. What was UnkleE's response:

Further discussion would be unproductive.

Well Graeme and "UnkleE" and everyone else who is unwilling to discuss this with me - please watch this video and answer my question underneath!



Obviously the woman's advice is as useful as an ashtray on a motorcycle . . . unless you WANT to go to hell! But what would you say to this man in this situation? I really want to know. Graeme and "UnkleE", hard as it might be to believe, right now I am being your best friend. This is where the rubber meets the road. And whether you respond or not (please do), you can be sure about this: one day you will either meet the man in this video or be the man in this video.

Behold The Great Humility Of Rick Warren - Rick Warren's Sermon At Desiring God (Part 6)

The following commentary corresponds to the following video from 21:45 to 23:30



Here we see a small sampling of a lot that lies ahead. Rick Warren admonishes his audience that the one necessary quality they need to be learners, and hence disciples, and hence leaders (you know, that vast biblical doctrine of "leadership") is humility. Within the space of less than two minutes Warren makes both a clarion call to humility and a brazen statement about how he is so much smarter than his enemies. Arrogant and jerk are strong words but I can't think of anything stronger so they will have to suffice for now. I just cannot believe that Rick Warren can continually act like an arrogant jerk in these large forums and not get taken to task.

Most likely, the enemies Warren is referring to are those who have been critical of his theology and practice. Not only did Warren give an apt demonstration of his staggering humility by pronouncing himself "smarter than" his "enemies", he also dumped on his many discerning critics saying that they are people "who only learn from themselves" - lacking the clear Yoda like qualities Warren has gained through his advanced learning abilities. Unbelievable - is he that delusional that he cannot hear what he is saying? Four of Warren's strongest critics who immediately spring to mind are Michael Horton, John Macarthur, Tim Challies, and James White. So is Rick Warren saying that these guys are dumber than he is? Is he saying that they are unlearned and only read their own work? Is he saying that he is way more humble than they are? Michael Horton, John Macarthur, Tim Challies, and James White are four giant intellects who grace the evangelical landscape with outstanding biblical exposition, depth of knowledge, and razor sharp apologetics. These are not the kind of guys to shoot from the hip and when they level criticism at Warren it is not unfounded nor ungrounded. Some of that has been on display as this series has progressed revealing that they are very aware of Rick Warren's "theological content".

But does Rick Warren really learn from his critics? The three most common and serious charges leveled against him would be:
1. His failure to preach the Gospel.
2. The fact that he continually twists Scripture and is overtly willing to use poor Bible translations in instances where they lend credence to his own ideas.
3. His regular failure to distinguish between believers and unbelievers when applying covenants and promises found in Scripture.

These are very serious grievances. The chorus of criticism did reach the point where Pastor Warren felt it necessary to write a book that would respond to the critics and set the record straight. He hired an apologetics attack dog by the name of Richard Abanes to harass websites and blogs that were critical of Warren as well as write the book "Rick Warren And The Purpose That Drives Him". So Rick Warren devoted a whole book to respond to the many criticisms leveled at him. And what did he have to say in response to those "big three" grievances mentioned above? Nothing - absolutely nothing! While Warren devotes plenty of energy in downplaying his friendship with Robert Schuller and his connections with the emergent church, he dances around the strongest objections raised against his ministry - in a book devoted to responding to these critics! Rick - this is not a great advertisement for how much you learn from your critics.

Tim Challies had this to say about "Rick Warren And The Purpose That Drives Him":

The single most common concern raised about Warren (at least in my experience) is his use (or misuse) of Scripture. This comes in two forms. First, Warren often quotes verses out of context or in ways that are advantageous to the point he is trying to make. He will often quote only a half of a verse if the second half does not support what he wants to say. Second, he uses poor translations and translations that say what he wants the Bible to say, rather than what God intended for it to say. There are times when this may be an honest mistake, but there are other times when it is clear that Warren has deliberately twisted a verse or taken it from its context to make it work for his purposes. Despite these two areas being of prime importance to those who are concerned with Warren's ministry, Abanes gives this no attention whatsoever. None. Not a sentence.

Another common criticism is Warren's prayer in the seventh chapter of The Purpose Driven Life. He leads the reader to pray, "Jesus I believe in you and I receive you" and then welcomes to the family of God anyone who prayed that little prayer sincerely. Yet this was before the person was provided any significant information about sin or repentance. It would be easy to assume that the person was praying to receive purpose more than to receive Christ. This is a very common criticism, yet one Abanes does not address. (online source)

All that from the man who sets new standards in humility. The pastor who is so much smarter than his critics because he learns so much from them - the very same critics who "only learn from themselves". Think about it, America's Pastor is pretty impressive. He was able to lecture us about humility, trash his opponents, and dazzle us with his smartitude all in the space of two minutes of video.

More to come . . .

Go On To Part 7
Go Back To Part 5
Go Back To Part 1

What Martin Luther Would Say To Brian McLaren

I recently had the priveledge of speaking with Phil Johnson. As we spoke, Phil reminded me that almost all of the new fads and trends that permeate modern evangelicalism are rehashed heresies from centuries ago. The emergent movement is no exception. They like to portray themselves as cutting edge "theologians" with precious new and fresh insights into how nobody has ever really understood the Bible and that they are the first ones humble enough to admit it.

Brian McLaren is at the forefront of this trend when he writes:

If I seem to show too little respect for your opinions or thought, be assured I have equal doubts about my own, and I don't mind if you think I'm wrong. I'm sure I am wrong about many things, although I'm not sure exactly which things I'm wrong about. I'm even sure I'm wrong about what I think I'm right about in at least some cases. So wherever you think I'm wrong, you could be right. If, in the process of determining that I'm wrong, you are stimulated to think more deeply and broadly, I hope that I will have somehow served you anyway. (A Generous Orthodoxy p19-20)

It is easy to see why God is not the author of confusion - Brian Mclaren is!

I have just finished Ray Comfort's book "Luther Gold" where he harvests some of the best golden nuggets from the extensive writings of Martin Luther. In one of the excerpts, Luther recounts his "conversation" with a group known as the "Sophists". As you read on you will notice that this ancient sect has an uncanny resemblance to Brian McLaren and the emergent movement.

Since we have been persuaded to the contrary by this, by that pestilent saying of the Sophists, "the Scriptures are obscure and ambiguous," we are compelled, first of all, to prove that first grand principle of ours, by which all other things are to be proved: which among the Sophists, is considered absurd and impossible to be done . . . let us proceed, and drown that pestilent saying of the Sophists, in Scriptures.

Psalm 19:8 saith: "The commandment of the LORD is pure, enlightening the eyes." And surely, that which enlightens the eyes is not obscure or ambiguous! Again, Psalm 119:130: "The door of they words giveth light; it giveth understanding to the simple." Here it is ascribed unto the words of God, that they are a door, and something open, which is quite plain to all and enlightens even the simple. Isaiah 8:20 sends all questions ". . . to the law and to the testimony;" and threatens that if we do not do this, the light of the east shall be denied us.

Malachi 2;7 commands, ". . . that they should seek the Law from the mouth of the priest, as being the messenger of the LORD of hosts." But a most excellent messenger indeed of the Lord of hosts he must be, who should bring forth those things, which were both so ambiguous to himself and so obscure to the people that neither he should know what he himself said, nor what they heard!

And what, throughout the Old Testament, in the 119th Psalm especially, is more frequently said in praise of the Scripture, than that, it is itself a most certain and most clear light? For Psalm 119:105 celebrates its clearness thus: "Thy word is a lamp unto my feet and a light unto my path." He does not say only - thy Spirit is a lamp unto my feet; though he ascribes unto Him also His office, saying, "Thy good Spirit shall lead me into the land of uprightness" (Psalm 143:10). Thus the Scripture is called a "way" and a "path": that is from its most perfect certainty. (Luther Gold p86-87)

The entire emergent movement just got "owned" by Martin Luther!

More Correspondance Concerning Rob Bell (Part 2)

My Rob Bell Exposed video on youtube is still causing quite a stir. If only the hordes of Rob Bell groupies were as zealous about defending the Gospel as they are about defending Rob Bell. I regularly get slanderous and hateful mail from emergents who are outraged that I would expose their heretical guru as a fraud to Christianity.

I thought it would be worthwhile to post some more correspondance today. This time it is with a youth pastor who is studying for his Masters in Divinity and Theology. As with my previous post I have inserted my responses in bold.

Dear Cameron

I am a Youth Pastor in XXXXX, Michigan. I am also in school to get my masters of Divinity and Theology. One of the kids in my Youth Group brought to my attention a video that you did on Rob Bell's video called Dust. After watching the video i was disappointed and disturbed for several reasons. First the main reason that i am disturbed is because you as being a fellow believer in the Lord, have stood up in front of the mass and torn down another brother in Christ.

Based on the gospel Rob Bell preaches I don't consider this tearing down a brother. If Rob Bell is born again (because I cannot judge his heart) it certainly doesn't come across based on the content of his message.

You stood before another gathering of believers and used it to preach an agenda. If you wanted to preach the message about Peter having faith in God and God alone to walk on water you could have done that without showing the video of Rob Bell. By using Rob Bell you have pushed your own agenda into a sermon.

The question is not whether anyone has an agenda, it is which one of us has the right agenda. Jesus gave us all an agenda otherwise known as the Great commission and it is the reason why I witness and preach. In fact it is what I use most of my spare time doing. If you are interested to see how I witness and preach you will find plenty of other videos on youtube of me doing that.

I know you claim that you are exposing humanism but that is not what you are doing.

How so? I think it's pretty straight forward, you don't need to be a rocket scientist to work it out. Rob Bell is explicitly teaching that God has faith in man which is a blatant contradiction of the doctrine of human depravity.

I found it odd that you talked about knowing the contextual place of the word that you are reading so you give the background to the verse, but you do not show the whole video. So you take a part of the video and only show that section and not the rest.

I only had 10 minutes all up from my senior pastor. I would have loved to show the whole video although even if I did then you'd probably complain about breach of copyright. I have had mail from members of Bell's church, some of which accuse me of breaching copyright and others accusing me for not showing the entire video. By showing a portion of the Dust video I did what was legal to do within copyright law which describes it as "citing a work for commentary". Many people and all of the youth had already seen the video in it's entirity anyway. But I did spend many hours checking my context and I remain convinced it was sound, and I did invite biblical criticism from others which is why I am happy to hear from you (though I'd prefer if you spent more time reasoning from the Scriptures).

From there you twist the words to meet an agenda that you already had planned.

Please explain to me how quoting someone qualifies as twisting their words????

You changed the point that Rob Bell was trying to make.

I was actually totally focussed on Rob Bell's major point. My closing remarks were actually in response to Rob Bell's major point in the video - "that God has faith in us". This idea has no biblical basis. It is also actually a denial of God's omniscience (all knowing), and omnipresence (all seeing) because Hebrews 11:1 defines faith as "the substance of things hoped for and the evidence of things unseen". You can only hope in things you don't know about and for things to be unseen would require God to not be omnipresent. It is a very big deal as it is a radical redefining of the character and nature of God. God does not have faith - He is the object of faith. The whole reformation was built upon this truth.

The point he is making is just like when the Bible talks about with we were to have faith the size of a mustard seed we could move a mountain. The point here and that Rob is making is that we know we can do this, if we had the faith, but we do not believe enough in ourselves to believe that God will do this for us.

Find me one verse in the Bible that says we should believe in ourselves. I can assure you that I can find many that say the opposite some of which were quoted in my presentation.

We do not want to look at our selves has holy vessels for God, so we doubt our own capability no matter what God can do. We believe God can do it, but we believe it can't be done through us. We lack faith that it is possible for these things and these works to be done through us.

But he said to me, "My grace is sufficient for you, for my power is made perfect in weakness." Therefore I will boast all the more gladly of my weaknesses, so that the power of Christ may rest upon me (2 Corinthians 12:9).

I do not agree with Rob Bell all the time, but I believe it is wrong for another pastor to tear down the work of another pastor. It is not for you to judge, or call Rob Bell a false preacher, by what you have said in your video makes it look like you feel Rob is a false preacher.

The key problem with your sentence here are the two words "I believe". This is not about what you believe but what the Scripture actually says. Romans 16:17 tells us to "mark" those who teach doctrine contrary to what we learn in Scripture. Ephesians 5:11 tells us to expose the works of darkness. Galatians 1:8-9 pronounces damnation on anyone who preaches any other gospel than the one preached in Scripture. So the question is not whether I should be doing this as a shepherd (and remember that shepherds are supposed to feed sheep and protect them from wolves), but whether I am telling the truth and handling Scripture correctly - both subjects that you never delved into.

Once again, the question is not whether I should call him a false teacher but whether he is a false teacher. I gave a biblical critique of the content of Rob Bell's teaching and it would be nice if you could extend me the same courtesy.

Christianity is divided enough, and no divided team ever works to its full potential.

It is false teachers that cause division - not those who expose them. "Now I beseech you, brethren, mark them which cause divisions and offences contrary to the doctrine which ye have learned; and avoid them" (Romans 16:17).

What you preach holds an impact and that impact will be judged, and judged by God alone. It disappointed me greatly that preacher would take a shot at another Christian.

I wouldn't take a shot at another Christian. Rob Bell is a universalist. That's not Christianity last time I checked.

In Christ
(Name withheld)

Go Back To Part 1

More Correspondance Concerning Rob Bell (Part 1)

My Rob Bell Exposed video on youtube is still causing quite a stir. If only the hordes of Rob Bell groupies were as zealous about defending the Gospel as they are about defending Rob Bell. I regularly get slanderous and hateful mail from emergents who are outraged that I would expose their heretical guru as a fraud to Christianity. But sometimes I get polite e-mails from people expressing concern for my "Rob Bell Exposed" video which convey a genuine concern for truth. I am only too happy to respond to these mails. Today I am posting an example as I thought it might be helpful to the many readers who have expressed their frustration at unsuccessfully pleading with their church leaders to stop playing Rob Bell's videos (of which several are heretical). What follows is a recent letter I received. I have inserted my responses in bold type (for the record, my response was very well received).

Hey Cameron,

This is in reference to: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8wSAEezBc3s

I can understand where you are coming from in this video. But I think you misinterpreted Rob Bell.

I think when Rob talked about how Peter did not have faith in himself as opposed to not enough faith in God, he was really trying to say: It wasn't that Peter did not have faith that Jesus had the power, cause He obviously did since He was still floating. It was that Peter did not have faith that He could do what God wanted Him to do.

Rob Bell explicitly teaches at the end of the video that God has faith in man just like we should have faith in Him. I know why Bell didn't quote a Scripture to support this idea - because there isn't any. Furthermore faith is defined in Heb 11:1 as the substance of things hoped for and the evidence of things unseen. Faith requires things both unseen and unknown. God is omniscient (all knowing) and omnipresent (all seeing). Faith cannot be a part of God's character and nature. He is the object of faith. The Gospel is all about faith ALONE in Christ ALONE. Bell redefines God in doing this - which is actually breaking the second commandment.

I think by comparing "faith in God" vs "faith in himself" he really meant to say "faith in the power of God" vs "faith in the power of God to do stuff in Him". He just worded it very poorly.

I actually listened to Bell's sermon "Covered in the Dust of Your Rabbi" which is a much expanded version of Dust. Bell makes himself even more clear in the sermon and I took great care to understand him rightly. Furthermore, when it comes to the Gospel, the Christian minister must take great care to be explicitly clear on fundamental truths. Bell is constantly foggy. God is not the author of confusion (1 Corinthians 14:33).

I identified with this because I used to struggle really bad with porn and masturbation. I didn't doubt that God was all-powerful, but I did doubt that I would escape my addiction. I thought "I'm human, there's no way I can live purely like God in this way." What I was missing is that, even though I'm human, I can live like God because of His grace, power and Holy Spirit. I'll never be God, but I can be Christ-like.

You are actually agreeing with me here and disagreeing with Bell. We must be born again (John 3). We need the heart of stone removed and replaced with a heart of flesh by the Holy Spirit so that we can walk in obedience by His power (Eze 36:25-27). We need to be a new creature in Christ (2 Cor 5:17). Bell says none of this here. He says that God believed in the disciples because He left the great Commission in their hands. Bell never mentioned the upper room and the necessary indwelling of the Holy Spirit. This was a MAJOR focus of my presentation and Bell said nothing about the role of the Holy Spirit in 10 plus minutes. That is just plain disgraceful distortion of conversion and the Gospel and the depravity of man.

Eventually, after being addicted for around 8-9 years, I finally realized that I COULD stop! And I have stopped through the power of Christ and the Holy Spirit!

Exactly - not because God believes in you but because you confessed your need for Him!

Now another thing: My friend saw the Everything is Spiritual movie, and this lead her to believe in God and ultimately become a Christian (believing Jesus is Lord, lived, died and rose in the flesh. She also has repented of her sins). So Rob Bell's message was influential in her life. Even if Rob Bell did give a false message in this video, that does not mean he is not Christian, all his messages are wrong or that he is not your brother.

Rob Bell is actually a universalist so this story surprises me. If your friend repented of her sins - she never heard that from Rob Bell. He never preaches it which makes sense for a universalist. Bell articulates his universalist views in both Velvet Elvis and his third book. If your friend became a Christian all glory to God - it was inspite of Rob Bell's heretical gospel, not because of it. I document many of Bell's heresies on my blog and please also check out this scholarly review of Velvet Elvis which outlines much of Bell's heresies and false teaching: http://www.sohmer.net/Velvet_Elvis.pdf

Now if he is your brother, and you slander his name and all his teaching the way you do, this is bad! It's one thing to watch his
movie, sit down with some friends and discuss something amiss amongst yourselves. It's another to try to discredit his whole reputation based on this one mistake. Did not Paul make mistakes in speaking too harshly?

If he preaches a false gospel then he is not a brother. Paul pronounces damnation on all who preach false gospels (Gal 1:8-9) and instructs us to "Mark them" (Romans 16:17) and expose the works of darkness (Eph 5:11). So you have to decide if I am telling the truth not whether I should be exposing him.

I would say that if you really had a problem with his message, that you sit down with Rob face to face and confront him about it. Maybe you'll show him he is wrong, or maybe he will say "oh! yeah! I think I wasn't clear on what i was trying to say in that sentence" This is how the church should be rebuked and built up. When we publicly oppose one another behind each other's back without confronting one another first, we tear down each other.

How do you know I didn't try to speak with Rob Bell about this? I can show you my correspondence with them if you like and their cut and paste response that most people get who try to approach them about this. Think about it - it is publicly marketed material that warrants a public response. So it wasn't a Matthew 18 situation anyway. Plus this was a biblical critique of the content of Bell's teaching - not slanderous character assassination. Find one personal comment I made against his motivation or personal conduct? I would contend that Bell's Bullhorn Guy video is a damaging caricature of the many faithful open air preachers out there who suffer enough ridicule as it is. Who is taking Bell to task over that. Bell didn't approach any open air preachers before marketing that video - and he still won't talk to the many who have tried to air their grievances.


Say someone becomes a genuine Christian through a message by Rob Bell. Then they hear from you that Rob Bell is a sham. What if they say "oh, so all the stuff I learned about God from Rob is false? He's just a liar?" This could turn them away, when they infact might have had an accurate description of God that came from Rob.

Find me one orthodox Gospel presentation by Rob Bell in audio/video/written form. I have been challenging people from his church to present one for the last two years. Nothing has been forthcoming. Here is Bell's attempt to "tweet" the Gospel:

I would say that history is headed somewhere. The thousands of little ways in which you are tempted to believe that hope might actually be a legitimate response to the insanity of the world actually can be trusted. And the Christian story is that a tomb is empty, and a movement has actually begun that has been present in a sense all along in creation. And all those times when your cynicism was at odds with an impulse within you that said that this little thing might be about something bigger—those tiny little slivers may in fact be connected to something really, really big.

Now please tell me how someone can come to saving knowledge of Jesus Christ by virtue of that? Please tell me you can recognize that that is not the Gospel of Jesus Christ. Shepherd's feed the sheep and protect them from wolves. My video was fulfilling a shepherd's duty.

Also, if Rob Bell says Jesus is Lord and Jesus lived, died and rose in the flesh by the power of God, would you say he has the Holy Spirit? Another thing to think about.

Rob Bell says many things that sound orthodox but then redefines their meaning. You would be shocked to read what Bell says about the Trinity in Velvet Elvis. Rob Bell's Jesus is not necessarily the only way! Please read the book review I linked earlier and/or my blog (search for "Rob Bell") to biblically consider my contentions.
Sincerely
Cameron

Let me know your thoughts on this!

(Name witheld)

Go On To Part 2

Can You See The Zipper On Brian McLaren's Sheep Suit?

Brian McLaren has grown more and more brazenly heretical with every new book he writes. Is he changing his theology over time or unveiling more and more of what he has always believed?

I think the reason Tony Jones seems to have disappeared off the "emergent radar" is not because of his multitude of heresies, nor that he has run out of foundational Christian truths to deny (he's denied just about everything). I believe it is because Tony was just not being vague and cryptic enough - his sheep suit was becoming too obvious! Which leads us back to Brian McLaren, because his sheep suit has more holes than a box of Krispy Kremes (no that wasn't product placement, I'm just bitter that they opened a store in my hometown the month after I left the country).

Some of my Aussie friends recently wrote to their local Christian bookstore to protest them stocking Brian McLaren's books (and you'll soon see they had good reason). I am posting their letter today and the response of the Christian bookstore for three reasons.

1. To see how overtly blasphemous Brian McLaren is willing to be in his most recent book.
2. So you can cut and paste this letter and send it to any bookstore that stocks this poisonous trash.
3. To introduce you to the modern world of "pragmatic integrity" as demonstrated by the bookstore.

First up, Phil Leaney's letter to the "Christian book store":

Hi XXXXXXX,

I wanted to write and share my deep concerns about XXXXX stocking Brian McLarens books, especially his last two books “Everything Must Change” and “A new kind of Christianity”. The XXXXX History/Ethics statement says in part "To effectively supply and promote an extensive range of Christian products that will be of spiritual benefit to the body of Christ." And yet in a very tangible way, stocking Brian McLarens books goes directly against this statement. For something to “be of spiritual benefit to the body of Christ”, I would have thought it should conform to at least some basic core doctrines of Christianity – not oppose them. Because someone uses a bible, quotes a few verses and has a following does not validate in any way their message. Their message must be examined in light of the true gospel. Go to McLarens own website and see encouraging letters from atheists about his books and messages – his beliefs are just what they thought Christianity should be like. Hell is removed, the cross belittled and blood atonement questioned. All inclusive, all embracing, non confronting..

In his book “A New kind of Christianity” there is a chapter entitled “Is God violent?” When talking about the flood in Genesis McLaren says “a god who mandates an intentional supernatural disaster leading to unparalleled genocide is hardly worthy of belief, much less worship. How can you ask your children—or non-church colleagues and neighbours—to honour a deity so uncreative, over reactive, and utterly capricious regarding life?” He goes on to say that he treasures the Bible, even calling it God’s inspired Word, but then goes on to say that much of it, especially the older parts, are just plain wrong…..

In the next chapter “Who is Jesus” ……. the Son of God – nope that’s never mentioned or discussed. A critical, pivotal point on which our salvation depends never mentioned – he (Jesus) seems in the book a great example and hero of the oppressed, coming not to redeem us from the curse, but instead to turn social injustices around. To McLaren, this seems to be Jesus primary purpose for coming.

Just one more; in the first chapter about – what the bible is about… why, why, why, does he make this statement: “I’d rather be an atheist than believe in the God that most of us think that is in the Bible”. Wow…. He doesn’t like the God of the Bible, and that’s why he wants a new kind of Christianity…. And it’s on your shelf.

It really doesn’t take too long, or too much study to see that his books are filled with heresies (and I don’t banter that word around lightly) and the fact that they are stocked on your shelf is a concern. I believe XXXXX would do far more for the body of Christ by removing books like these. I know it’s far easier to just keep them on the shelf, but ultimately we will all answer to God for that which we have done. Let us not to put a stumbling block before our brothers and sisters.

Regards
Phil Leaney

Now, behold the "pragmatic integrity" of the bookstore:

Dear Phillip,

Thank you for your email bringing to my attention some of the things McLaren is saying in his recent book. We have prepared our catalogues introducing the book to the market in June and July. Taking on board your criticisms I’ll exclude the book from further catalogues after that. We also have some high stock levels of his other books that we have bought as remainders which should clear through soon.

Our policy at XXXXX is to allow the various debates in the Christian church to be aired and for views and counter views to be expressed. Due to high customer demand we’ll continue to stock the McLaren books but I’ll endeavour to keep them out of our catalogues.

Yours Sincerely,
XXXXX

As far as taking a bold stand goes . . . we've come a long way since Luther and his 95 theses!

Why NT Wright Is Wrong

NT Wright, the Bishop of Durham, enjoys tremendous popularity among "thinking Christians". He is even getting a foothold in the secular bookstores, as evidenced by finding his latest book on display at the front of a Barnes and Noble store I recently visited. This has prompted me to write a post about him as he has not been previously discussed on this blog.

It is true that Wright's landmark book "The Resurrection of the Son of God" is widely recognized as an outstanding defense of Christ's bodily resurrection. Getting the resurrection right seems to have opened a lot of people's receptivity to Wright's subsequent books where he discusses the cross, justification, and penal substitutionary atonement (Wright even endorsed Steve Chalkes book in which Chalke described the doctrine of penal substitutionary atonement as "cosmic child abuse"). Many reformed theologians have been greatly disturbed by the theology that NT Wright's subsequent works have revealed. It may well be that Wright's scholarly defense of the resurrection turns out to be a scholarly trojan horse concealing destructive heresies.

At the heart of Wright's many troubling ideas lies his view of the doctrine of justification, particularly the component of imputed righteousness. Over and over again, Wright attacks the classic Reformed and biblical doctrine that the righteousness of Christ is imputed, or reckoned, to the sinner's account, and it is on the ground of Christ's righteousness alone that we obtain our righteous standing before God. Wright says:

If we use the language of the law court, it makes no sense whatsoever to say that the judge imputes, imparts, bequeaths, conveys or otherwise transfers his righteousness to either the plaintiff or the defendant. Righteousness is not an object, a substance or a gas which can be passed across the courtroom . . . If we leave the notion of 'righteousness' as a law-court metaphor only, as so many have done in the past, this gives the impression of a legal transaction, a cold piece of business, almost a trick of thought performed by a God who is logical and correct but hardly one we would want to worship (p98 What St Paul Really Said).

Phil Johnson responded to these exact comments in a sermon by saying "Well, I, for one, am quite happy to worship a God who justifies the ungodly and who is both just and the justifier of the one who believes in Jesus."

John Macarthur has this to say about the importance of getting imputation right:

The cornerstone of justification is the reckoning of righteousness to the believer's account. This is the truth that sets Christian doctrine apart from every form of false religion. We call it "imputed righteousness". Apart from it salvation is utterly impossible (p197 The Gospel According to Jesus).

Here is an excerpt from an interview RC Sproul had with Michael Horton discussing the theology of N.T. Wright.

[Q] Considering Bishop N.T. Wright’s doctrine of justification, do you believe he is teaching another gospel?

[A] J.I. Packer has a great line: Tom Wright foregrounds what the Bible backgrounds, and backgrounds what the Bible foregrounds–but Wright does more than that; he denies a crucial component of justification, namely imputation. So, in answer to your question, yes–in denying imputation, Wright is preaching another gospel.

There’s a kind of fundamentalist approach to Scripture that Tom Wright seems to want to confront. And while he does a wonderful job of highlighting the fact that justification in Paul’s writings is understood within a broader redemptive-historical framework, something not all presentations and defenses of justification do, he is not confronting historic Reformed theology. Reformed theology always has understood justification within a broader redemptive-historical framework. If he were to read the Reformers and more recent Reformed writers, such as Geerhardus Vos and Herman Ridderbos, he would clearly see that justification is placed in its proper context with the believer’s union with Christ and within the whole history of redemption. Reformed writers speak of Paul’s treatment of justification being inseparable from the inclusion of the Gentiles. Then, when you read Tom Wright he makes it seem as if he’s the first person who saw these emphases of Paul, and that everyone else before him sort of taught the four spiritual laws. It’s an incredibly naïve view.

I know Tom Wright–not well, but we had a few conversations in my Oxford days; we’ve gone back and forth about these issues, and he simply doesn’t know historical theology. He’ll actually admit that when you catch him at a few points; he’ll say something along the lines of “well this really isn’t my area of expertise.” Well, if your thesis is that the Reformation fundamentally misunderstood Paul, it better be your area of expertise to at least know what the Reformers said–and he doesn’t. So, Wright creates a straw man. And the people who are swayed by him, who are enamored of him, are also in many cases ignorant of what the Reformers actually taught, what Reformed theology has taught on these matters. And let me offer an impassioned plea to folks: There are Reformed presentations of the doctrine of justification that include some of the very salient points that Tom Wright has raised and incorporated, without denying the very crucial component of imputation as Tom Wright does. Without imputation, justification isn’t good news. When he says that the Gospel is “Jesus is Lord,” I reply, there are many passages that tell me “Jesus is Lord” isn’t good news. There are many passages that tell me “Jesus is Lord” means to a whole lot of people “the great Avenger on the white horse with a sword in His hand, bringing the last judgment.” “Jesus is Lord” means that He will be your judge. On Mars Hill in Athens, Paul said there is a judgment coming, a last judgment coming, and God has given proof of this to everyone by raising Jesus from the dead. So Jesus is Lord is not necessarily good news. Only when God assures me that I am in Christ by grace alone through faith alone and kept by grace is the announcement “Jesus is Lord” good news rather than the worst possible news (online source).

It is worth noting that many false teachers survive on the basis of their lack of clarity. We tend to give people the benefit of the doubt when they speak in a foggy and unclear manner. NT Wright has become (unwittingly perhaps) the Mr Miyagi of the emergent movement for this reason. Wright communicates a different gospel in a way that is obscure enough not to be pinned down outside of orthodoxy. He is the master of answering questions by cutting a short story long and burying the initial question in the process. With this in mind, I have found a good rule of thumb when choosing our feeding grounds for Christian teaching. Sound biblical teachers are aways explicitly clear about the fundamental truths of the Christian faith. Choose feeding grounds that communicate the Gospel faithfully, accurately, and clearly.