Piper Explains Warren Invitation in His Own Words- UPDATED- with video

I betcha y'all an Idaho spud that if Billy Graham was Rick's age and in Rick's shoes, John would have invited Billy to speak on the love of God at the DG conference.

I think it's interesting who certain groups view as problematic. For example, I don't remember any uproar when Piper invited Doug Wilson to a conference (maybe I missed it?), but on a confessional Reformed website I visit there was an outrage. Wilson is a proponent of the Federal Vision, an aberrant theology absolutizing certain aspects of covenant and election and dabbling in deviant views of justification. I'm pretty sure the people on that site don't like Rick Warren either, but they might prefer him to Wilson.

Doug looks like a conservative separatist holed up in the wooded hills of northern Idaho, waging battle with error and not even batting an eye over Hitchens' screech. Rick looks like a flaming liberal in California, wearing sunglasses and airjamming to anything under the sun.

Actually, Doug is the bearded, classical philosopher way over the top for his fellow brethren on his logical syllogisms and Rick - well - how is he suppose to know any better with his theological training. Aren't all Southern Baptists clueless?

(tongue in cheek)

A bridge in the Sahara is a lot bigger than an Idaho spud, for sure.

And I would acknowledge that Billy Graham, America's preacher, is different than Rick Warren, America's pragmatist in a lot of ways.

No leader is alike.

I'd be interested in hearing Warren on the topic mentioned by John. I actually relate to both sides of the pragamtist-idealist approach to ministry. I've come to the conclusion that I'm somewhat of an idealist-pragmatist-existentialish-Baptistish-Calvinish kind of a guy. The idea of a responsible and vibrant "pragmatism" (and I'm not convinced Warren is always "responsible" with his pragmatism) linked to and controlled by a responsible and healthy "theology" appeals to me. I like it....alot. Frankly, I'm not surprised by the move because bringing these two concepts together is very Puritan (which is consistent with Piper). Frankly over the years I've been turned off by the "idealist-only approach" to ministry as much (if not more than) the "pragmatist-only" approach.

BTW....I don't think you "Piper lovers" need to worry about John loosing his directional compass. I see this as a similar thing to what Calvary Lansdale used to do with it's leadership conference. You have different types of guys to come together to think about different approaches to a topic. Obviously Lansdale would only have fundamentalist leaders in. But the approach here is similar in an evangelical context. I also think there is good grace here in letting Warren speak for himself. Let him answer the questions instead of just accusing him of this or that.

I'll plan on getting the mp3's. But again....this is just me.

Straight Ahead!

jt

I'll admit up front that I'm disappointed, but I've got to point something out - It's called the "Desiring God Conference." Now, maybe we've forgotten what that means, especially since our kinds of "conferences" usually end up being a string of sermons focused on stirring people up in areas where they already agree. But my American Heritage Dictionary seems to think that a "conference" is "a meeting for discussion" (1.a.) or "an exchange of views" (1.b.). I can't say that I have yet been to a conference that offered "an exchange of views" much less gave any room for "a meeting for discussion." Seriously, I have always wondered why "conferences" bear a striking similarity to revival meetings, with the possible difference of sermon content. Anyway, haven't the DG conferences always featured speakers who were a little off of the center that Piper has attempted to portray? Sounds like that approach might make for a healthy conference.

Maybe or maybe not. There are lots of possibilities. Many have not even been hinted. History teaches us that compromise often begins in small, undetectable ways and ends in full-blown concession. It's a hard thing to distinguish and nail down. The perfectly legitimate and laudable traits of toleration and cooperation are steps on the road that leads to compromise. On the other hand, there’s excessive narrowness, intolerance, and isolation. The balance is difficult to achieve.

Usually, the first steps to concession are so small as to be imperceptible. Yet, a small deviation of 0.01 degree angle is immeasurable at the starting point but it becomes an obvious error when extended over a large distance. If one recalls the history of the Billy Graham, young Billy was an up and coming evangelist in Fundamentalism when he hit the LA scene. No one saw the compromise coming as Billy drew together larger and larger groups of Fundamentalists. This was ecumenism but it was within the bounds of Biblical belief. When the outside world via the Hearst media began to take notice, young Billy’s head was turned and he sought bigger and grander things than narrow Fundamentalism could offer. This led to cooperation with Roman Catholics, Modernists/Liberals, and heretics such as Bishop Pike.

Like BG, success can be a major contributor to one's compromise. With our success-oriented culture, we are compelled to reach for bigger and better things. When the resources within our reach are exhausted, we must go outside our circle to accrue new resources even it involves a conciliation of beliefs and purpose. The past has demonstrated that successful ministries breed a thirst for success. Many times this involves enlarging one’s tent to include those outside one’s own theological perspective. Dare we call it compromise or do we call it open-mindness. Is it stretching our beliefs or is it a willingness to listen to others? How far can one go? My observation is that Piper has been enlarging his tent with Mark Driscoll, et. al. and now Rick Warren.

But doesn't that kind of openness point to the kind of "conference" that I mentioned? I mean, when you admit you don't know exactly what someone thinks on a subject but invite him to come speak and tell you, that hardly implies that you endorse whatever the guy says. I catch your point about concession and the enlarging of one's tent (without necessarily agreeing about the motives behind it), and you could be right. But does conference imply concession? One has only to think back on Pastor Sweatt to realize that not everyone thinks so.

Here's a 12-minute clip of Piper addressing this question from last night's Q&A: http://www.desiringgod.org/Blog/2323_more_details_about_our_national_con...

Towards the end, he talks about secondary separation issues. Interesting, to say the least.

The gist of the video seems to be (I paraphrase) "I'm charmed by the guy and his contradictions intrigue me so I'm going to have him come and make a case for his way of doing things to thousands of pastors I have the opportunity to influence." It doesn't reflect really well on him.
I don't see anything wrong w/the logic of "This is about the mind and I want to see how he thinks," but you could do that in a conversation. Why do you have to put him in front of thousands under your auspices to find out how he thinks?

I accept the idea that JP doesn't intend the event as a "platform fellowship" sort of endorsement. But sometimes what something is is more than what we intend. I just don't think it's plausible at all to suggest that who JP brings to speak isn't extremely influential in the minds of many--especially young--pastors and other leaders, especially if you compare who has invited to who he could have invited. Say, DA Carson for example.
If pragmatism is really all that interesting and important to understand better, it makes sense to host RW, but really... what is there to figure out other than how in the world RW can read so much Edwards and still be so mixed up? Personally, I don't share JP's curiosity on that point.

It wouldn't happen on God's green earth that Douglas Wilson would invite Rick Warren to his conference, unless it was to debate. Their personal circles don't even begin to intersect.

Let's face it . . . John Piper is very broad in his Baptist circle when it comes to expressing his own personal appreciation for other leaders. And anytime a leader in a Christian circle acts out on his own circle of personal appreciation, the public circle is disrupted.

Douglas Wilson does not appreciate an "evangellyfish", but John seems to appreciate Rick Warren.

Mark Driscoll does not appreciate the fundamentalist (nor does Doug for that matter it seems), but wait till some future day when John out of personal appreciation invites a fundamentalist that neither Driscoll or Wilson would tolerate in a conference of their own. (laughing) Imagine that disruption.

Ok, I thought I was done randomly blabbing on this issue. So I had better call it quits.

et

(Btw, Clarence Sexton can be disruptive to his Baptist circle, too. Hosting BJU preachers. Also, this guy preaches on the Calvary Chapel satelite network out here. What is up with this guy?)

Aaron, some great points. I agree that if he wanted to better understand Warren, he should meet with him personally. I like a lot about Warren, just not those painful (to me) compromises. Unfortunately, because of those compromises, even the good things he says are often written off apiori.

I think I'd rather not...but if Piper invites you, Todd, I'll tune in for that

I think Aaron hit the nail on the head. I get what someone said about a conference being a place to stimulate thought and provoke discussion, but I'm amazed that Piper invited Warren. I probably shouldn't be, because I know he's got friends all of "christianity" [as broadly as you can stretch that term], but I do think that he's taking a risk and inviting Warren not just because Warren will make others think, but because he wants Warren to think about what he's doing as well...note the "I want to challenge him" line in the explanation he gives.

I do think it's a poor reflection on Piper, and I don't think he should have invited Warren, but he'll answer for it to God, I guess.

Bob, you lost me as soon as I read this. To disagree with Piper is one thing, but to say that Piper's theology is worse that Warren's? I don't think so. Have you read any of Piper's books or listened to him preach?

--edit--
This is what Michael Horton says about Warren's theology (From another SI Filing):

That doesn't seem to agree with any point of Reformed theology that I've ever heard of.

All,

In his second video he released, I transcribed it and posted it on my site:

http://www.vibist.com

I don't know about you, but I am a visual learner, and it helps me to read something, so I can examine what it says to make sure I am not jumping to conclusions, or not understanding the issue.

I'm not sure. Alex G. posted it and I think he'd have to explain that one.
I know that some see just about any strong role for repentance as "Lordship salvation" and would object to Piper's view on those grounds. But as far as I know, there is really nothing in his view of justification that should even concern Arminians. Now his view of the why and how of election & predestination would be polls apart from the Arminian view, but justification? I'm just guessing it has to do with the lordship controversy.

I will try to slay several birds here.

First the lesser and that is while many might object to Piper I would consider avoiding polarized or binary language that seems to be postured in the view that if one is not a Calvinist then they are Arminian. Though I have stated this before, it is always useful considering that within the Calvinist community there is a rather strong tendency to reduce those objecting to either Calvinism or Calvinist teachers simply as Arminian when in fact many people reject both theologians and hold to proprietary theology belonging to neither. To me, the largest consideration appears to be in using the term non-Calvinist when describing those rejecting Calvinism. This is not to say there are not Arminians and maybe many but not all non-Calvinists are Arminian, hence the more considerate term, non-Calvinist. Much more can be discussed about the matter but this is not the purpose of the thread and so it is afforded simply this sidebar.

Now to the greater matter, Piper's teaching on justification. While, as Aaron pointed out some might include Lordship salvation when they are approaching Piper's view of justification but I do not. Generally Lordship salvation is preoccupied with the predisposition one allegedly must have and certain views to which they must acquiesce before they can rightly believe on Jesus, the Christ, as their Savior. And though tempting I will forgo addressing the good intentions but ultimate flaws of this view but do note that there is a reasonable connection or trail that one might follow from this location to the location one finds themselves with Piper's expression of justification. In other words one can find a migration of the cause of Lordship salvation to the context of Piper's view of justification. But again, I do not have in view Piper's Lordship salvation though it is both worth combating always and understandable if others, who object to his view on justification, have this in view also.

As to Piper's view of justification:

Here is a link to a discussion that you should read. Here the discussion begins with the Piper commenting on a Tornado and the ELCA but moved into the topic of Piper's view on justification at post #27 where Bob T stated:

Followed by these inquiries:

A few reponses:

There is plenty to digest, not only from the dialogue here at SI but from the links that deal extensively with the ends of Piper's error on the doctrine of justification. If after reading the discussion and involved examination and criticisms at the links you have further questions or objections I gladly will respond.

Well, the Bible doesn't agree with Reformed theology. Should we make sure it is not present?

First, I agree that Horton is a good scholar and balanced Reformed theologian. On other threads here on SI and elsewhere I have referred to the book "Christ the Lord" edited by Michael Horton. In that book he and other Reformed theologans dismantle John MacArthur's view of the Lordship Gospel as not being according to the Reformers Gospel as he claims and close to the Roman Catholic gospel. Since they are Reformed theologians and MacArthur claims to be in their traditional soteriological camp, this was, and is, evidence from within their camp giving light regarding the subject. However, some of the criticisms that Horton lambasts Rick Warren with are the traditional criticisms of the Reformed against all non Reformed evangelicals that present a simple gospel and ask for a decision. But some are criticisms I may agree with.

Second, as I said in a prior post, I do disagree with the main theme and gospel presentation of RW's book "The Purpose Driven Life." I have criticized the book heavily in the past. I do not defend it at all.

Third, in spite of the book, I have altered my viewpoint on RW's over all ministry, especially in his church. I have listened to four of his sermons and found each one has a strong clear gospel message regarding the true unadulterated gospel. They were presented in a contemporary context of solutions to present problems such as finances, foreclosure, family difficulties, in which he also referred to practical and spiritual answers for Christians, But then he transitioned to a clear gospel and believing as the first step. He gave enough time to handle sin and salvation. His is not an expository teaching pulpit. However, it does have teaching for the Christian as well as the true gospel. Anyone who makes a decision gets a good immediate follow up session and is then followed up to get them to new beginners classes. Beyond this there are solid doctrinal and apologetics training to produce stable and knowledgeable Christians. It is the best followup for new decisions that I am aware of. This is no Jack Hyles or IFBX easy decision and numbers count church. Do they have some easy decisions? Or course. Many people profess but do not really believe. That is the reason for Rom. 10:9-10. However, they are leading a remarkable number of people to true belief and regeneration. Yes, they believe that faith precedes regeneration so this would make them unacceptable to Reformed people. However, I like the way they find so may of the elect better than the Reformed don't do it.

Fourth, I have commented on here and, even set forth quotes from John Piper, regarding his view of Justification. His view is simply that we wait for the confirmation of our justification at the Bema seat of Christ, He sees this as a general judgment for all believers and unbelievers where the subject is our works, which evidence our justification. He clearly states the subject is our salvation. The examination of our works will evidence whether our past justification really occurred. I will not go into the many problems with this. That this is his true position is evidenced by clear statements. He especially has such theology set forth in the books "Future of Grace," and "What Jesus demands of the World." He also has a clear statement on this in his sermon on 2Cor. 5:10 available online at Desiring God. This doctrine is exactly like the doctrine of "investigatory judgment" set forth as a revelation by Helen White of the Seventh Day Adventists. It became an issue among the Adventists in the eighties. Some or their professors and pastors denied it and claimed that we could be saved by Christ's completed payment for sin on the Cross. Some thought this could turn the Adventists to Orthodoxy. Instead they had a huge meeting and endorsed the investigatory judgment and defrocked those who denied it. So I do feel that John Pipers theology is very wrong and problematic on that issue. It is problematic on other issues also. His passion for God is coupled with a Passion for Puritanism.

Fifth, let us be fair and acknowledge John Piper appears as, and is most likely, a good Christian seeking to please God and develop a passion for God. His background is interesting. He rejected the Fundamentalism he was brought up in. He journeyed to Wheaton College that was at the time a classic part of the New Evangelical Movement. There he was exposed to Russell Mixter and a science department seeking to teach the evolutionary theory and merge this with the Genesis creation account. Other professors set forth a moderate evangelicalism. Some were in rebellion against traditional Fundamentalism and Dispensationalism. Instead of resisting, Piper evidently was highly influenced there and went on a further journey to the new hotbed and center of the emerging New Evangelicalism, Fuller Seminary. At that time Fuller was embroiled in the emerging controversy of inerrancy of Scripture and accusations that some professors at Fuller were even teaching Neo Orthodoxy. Daniel Fuller was one of the first professors to write, and openly endorse, the errancy of the Scripture. We acknowledge that Piper does take a strong stand for the full inerrancy of scripture. But Piper's own repeated profession is that Daniel Fuller became his mentor and he took every class he offered. Daniel Fuller was also vehemently rejecting the Dispensationalism he was brought up in. Fuller students in those days ( I knew two) were adrift seeking to retain orthodoxy while experiencing many views that were cutting edge flirting with some non orthodox influences. Piper could not have been taught or mentored in a sound consistent theology or Biblical education at Fuller. He did however embrace a strong view of the inerrancy of scripture. He also became enamored with the Puritans. From there he chose to go for the prestige that was attached to a German doctorate. He Chose the University of Munich. From which the present Pope also has his doctorate. At Munich he received good research methods. He also received an eclectic theology emphasizing Neo Orthodoxy as the present craze. There is no doubt that Piper is an extremely articulate and good writer, He expresses some aspects of theology and salvation with clarity and a popular way. He is especially popular with the younger generations. However, from my observation, his lack of good fundamental (or conservative evangelical) mentoring had possibly left him finding his way without good foundational mentoring. Some of his theology is problematic to me. So, yes I do see more problems with Piper than with JW.

You bet Bob but you must know your post filled in many of the gaps so it is without doubt the inquiry regarding Piper's view on justification has been thoroughly answered in a forum context.

BTW I notice my link to the discussion on the ELCA missing (obviously I thought I included it), here it is from me for the record:

http://sharperiron.org/filings/8-20-09/11839

Jay, why are you asking me questions I just answered?

You said: "So you would agree with Warren's Pelagian presentation of Salvation as described in PDL: "

You also said :"I know that you are a non-Lordship person, but Warren's "gospel presentation" leaves much to be desired - like the fact that he never explains why anyone would actually need the forgiveness of sins."

I have already stated: "Second, as I said in a prior post, I do disagree with the main theme and gospel presentation of RW's book "The Purpose Driven Life." I have criticized the book heavily in the past. I do not defend it at all."

So why am I being asked to defend it ?

You also said that you know I am a "non Lordship person." Actually no, I am not a Jehovah witness or any other form of person who denies Jesus Christ's full deity. I believe in His absolute full Lordship. No person who is saved will deny the Lordship of Christ as he is Lord, Unless he is Lord he would be incapable of dying for all sin even bringing the eventual transformation of the entire universe by lifting the curse. He is Lord of all creation. So I believe the Lordship Gospel. Of course no person is asked to be saved by submitting to His Lordship, nor are they asked to understand His Lordship. No unregenerate man can or will do so. They are asked to be saved by simply believing in Jesus Christ and His death burial and resurrection, which involved payment of their sin and salvation simply by their believing. This biblical believing involves knowledge, assent, and trust. No one can believe something without knowing something and assenting to the truth and then having that which develops as trust (personal application) for themselves. This instantaneously brings justification and regeneration, They are inseparable as they are involved with union in Christ. Faith prior to regeneration is not cooperation but sole reliance of one upon another. This involves conviction by the Spirit. The Spirit gives root before faith and then indwells bringing regeneration after faith. These two were spoken of as such by Calvin but then combined and altered at the Council of Dort. All Gospel believers have believed, and do believe, a Lordship Gospel. However they have received such salvation by grace alone. through faith alone, in Christ alone. They do not add repentance, submission, commitment, or spiritual fruit, as part of that which brings or sustains salvation. Those follow. Though repentance is also used as a call to believe, especially to Israel who was rejecting their promised messiah. So I am not a non Lordship person.

Robert Warren presents a clear and Biblical gospel in his pulpit . His church teaches and builds upon the true biblical gospel. One may reject his book and disagree with much of his associations and endeavors. However, I have come to admire what has done and is doing in the harvesting of souls. He has set a wonderful example in his finances. Gave away most of his income from books. Takes no salary from the church. No expensive car, No big expensive house. He has divested himself of millions. He puts on no airs. He wears no ties (usually). I do not endorse him but I would be careful in criticism of RW.sustains. I find many more faults and unbiblical beliefs and practices among all IFBX churches and pastors (especially KJVO), and some other IFB churches and Pastors.

If the Reformed have so many solas, are they then all solaists?

Happy Easter everyone. Find those eggs. Catch that Bunny and put him on a Spit over the fire. Nothing like BBQ rabbit for the kiddies. "Here wabbit, wabbit, wabbit!

But especially may you be blessed by the hope of the resurrection!!

Jay C.

1. I do not agree with MacArthur,s gospel. His is a submission, commitment, works gospel. Some Reformed theologians accuse him of coming close to the Roman Catholic gospel. The issue is not Lordship, as he claims.

2. Emphasizing the love of God in the presentation of the gospel is not Pelagian. This has been the prominent emphasis by most since D.L, Moody. If John 3:16 is true then this is certainly a biblical emphasis. Perhaps a check of what Pelagius believed is in order.

3. Your definition of Reformed theology by giving the solas is very incomplete. I do not know of a Dispensationalist who does not agree with those. That includes myself.

Dereck, what you're seeing there is a common overstatement among those who disagree with Mac's view of the role of "Lordship" in the gospel. Of course, it's possible to disagree w/Mac on these points and not characterize "his gospel" as a "works gospel," but it seems that few do! It's always easier to hit your target if you make it larger by inflating it. This is what many of Mac's critics do on this point.
(But we really don't want to get into a debate about "Lordship Salvation" in this thread, I don't think. There are several threads about it in the forums already I hear, and some are not very old. Better to take it there probably.)

does anyone have a video of warren's speech at the conference? did he answer piper's question about why thinking biblically matters in his "amazingly pragmatic approach to ministry"? was there ever any kind of interview about warren's theology like piper mentioned might be around 12:30 in the video More Details About Our National Conference?