Tag: Recommended

Tim Challies on Piper & Warren: Responding with Grace

~ Bob Hayton

Last week, I posted my response to John Piper’s invitation of Rick Warren to speak at this year’s DG Conference. I have since gotten mixed reactions to it. Both on my blog and elsewhere, I’ve seen a wide range of reactions. Some are denouncing Piper as a heretic. At least one has withdrawn any endorsement or use of Piper’s books and materials in his church’s ministry. Some are waiting to see how this turns out, but displeased with Piper’s action. Others see no problem at all and are incensed with all the negative reactions.

Today, Tim Challies posted his response, and I think his post is a model of how to respond gracefully to such controversies in the church. He posts clear and thoughtful reasons why Piper shouldn’t have invited Warren. But he does this charitably and stresses it isn’t that big of a deal. We shouldn’t disregard Piper’s proven record of faithful ministry over this one decision.

I encourage you to check out Challies’ post, and may we all learn to express ourselves with such reserve and grace in such matters.

Quotes to Note 15a: Why “Good Friday”?

~ Bob Hayton ~ 3 Comments

This week I’ve been reading through Adrian Warnock’s new book Raised with Christ: How the Resurrection Changes Everything (Crossway). The following selection is both amusing and instructive. It may serve to help us turn our minds toward the events this day commemorates.

As a young child I asked my father a series of questions one evening as he put me to bed. This is the conversation as I remember it:

“Why is Good Friday called ‘good’?”
“Because Jesus died for us.”
“But why was it called good when someone died?”
“Because he came back to life.”
“But why is it not Bad Friday and Good Sunday then?”

I somehow instinctively knew that the cross could not be good news without the resurrection….

Many times when I heard the gospel explained in later years, the resurrection was either omitted altogether or briefly discussed in passing. When I began to share the Christian message with others individually and while preaching, to my shame I often did so without mentioning that Jesus is alive. The resurrection had become an afterthought to the message that Jesus died for our sins.

I think Adrian Warnock is on to something here. I posted an excerpt from a recent interview he did earlier. You may also want to check out another interview he did with my good blogging friend Jason Skipper.

You can preview or purchase his book from Westminster Bookstore at this link. Stay tuned to RaisedwithChrist.net for more info on the book. I’ll be posting my review in the next week or two.

John Piper, Rick Warren & the Watchbloggers: The Persistent Problem of Secondary Separation

~ Bob Hayton ~ 42 Comments

I wish I had more time to comment on this. As it is, I’m away from home and don’t have much online time this week….

I fired up my twitter feed when I got to our destination, only to see a lot of ire being directed toward John Piper for his invitation of Rick Warren to speak at the Desiring God National Conference this fall. The watchbloggers, most notably CrossTalk blog (formerly Slice of Laodicea), are all upset over this and seem to have totally written John Piper off. I won’t repeat many of the charges, I’d feel dirty doing so. Just search the term #apj in Twitter to see some of this for yourself, or scour the comments at some of Justin Taylor’s recent blog posts.

Piper had explained his rationale for inviting Warren in audio/video posted here or in the comments. This comment under that post provides a transcript of Piper’s words on the subject and is helpful.

Last night, DG had hosted another ask Pastor John live online Q & A event, and so of course Piper had to deal with the controversy. The DG Blog has a 12 minute video-clip up from last night’s event, that should satisfy anyone’s curiosity. In that clip, which I recommend you watch, I found a few segments very insightful and pertinent to the issue of secondary and excessive separation. Let me provide some excerpts here and then offer some thoughts. I apologize in advance, if I don’t get the transcript exactly right.

…I’m real eager that this glorious thing God is doing in the “young, restless, reformed” — whatever this thing is called that God’s doing, awakening people’s love for the supremacy of God in all things. I’m real eager that that not become a brittle, narrow, ugly, excessively separatist movement, and so I’m not devoting my life to finding a lot of enemies to attack. I’ve got some, but I like to do it simply by hammering on truth….

Separatism or, who you do things with, is an important Biblical question. And so, I don’t put Rick Warren in the group that I’m going to hold at an arm’s distance. …I’m not going to draw the circle there.

And suppose you disagree with me on that. Now you’re faced with the question, ok, I’m with John Piper theologically. I’m not with Rick Warren on a bunch of things. John Piper has just chosen to hang out with Rick Warren. What do I do with John Piper? That’s called secondary separation issues. And there you are, I hope we can disagree about who we hang out with. Okay. Because a lot of traditional fundamentalists have said, no, if you hang out with somebody that I believe I should separate from, then I’m going to separate from you. And I want to say, look let’s, can we disagree about whether he would come to your conference and you still be willing to eat with me, talk with me?

So I would encourage you to think through that issue of secondary separation. The way I have chosen to live my life for the sake of reformed theology and the supremacy of God and the inerrancy of the Bible and the importance of solid Reformation gospel truths, the 5 solas, and so on, is to give all my energy to putting them in a positive, aggressively spreadable form, not to spend my time shooting at the people who don’t like them….

I think Piper does a good job explaining secondary separation. It is always a problem, because people always will disagree with others on their particular approach to ministry. So, should we just separate from anyone not exactly like us? No.

I find it interesting that many who aren’t fundamentalists exactly (they aren’t card-carrying Independent fundamental Baptists), still think secondary separation should apply here. I think it’s the natural human reaction when we face disagreements. It is certainly easier to just write people off, then allow for important differences.

Yet, Rom. 14-15 should apply here. We can accept others even thought they differ from us. Personally, I’m encouraged that Piper is reaching out to Warren. He may perhaps influence Warren, and Warren does have some positive things to share with us, too.

I have serious reservations about Warren and his methodology. But his book revolutionized my grandfather’s life. I can’t argue with that. When we take small differences and make them so important we will die over them, we are making mountains out of molehills. And in the process, the important, fundamental truths–that list Piper shared that Warren upholds– are rendered meaningless. As I have pointed out before, we “minimize the gospel through [such] excessive separation.” I think the unity we have in the big things should enable us to get along enough to respect others who differ with us in relatively minor matters.

What’s your thoughts on Piper and Warren. Do you agree with my thoughts here? If not, why should we think of Piper as “selling out” for this invitation of Warren to speak? Please join the conversation in the comments below.

Phil Johnson on Standing Firm

~ Bob Hayton ~ 4 Comments

…And let me add this: if you do abandon Arminianism and become a Calvinist; if you leave one eschatalogical position and take up another one; if you undergo any major doctrinal shift””don’t suddenly act like that one point of doctrine is more important than all others. Don’t blog or talk about it constantly to the exclusion of everything else. Spend some time settling into your new convictions before you pretend to have expertise you frankly haven’t had time to develop.

I think the tendency of fresh Calvinists to become cocky and obsessive about the fine points of predestination is one of the things that makes Calvinism most odious to non-Calvinists. Don’t do that. It’s not a sign of maturity, and you’re not truly steadfast in the faith unless you are truly mature…. (from Phil Johnson’s recent post: “Stand Firm“)

This fits right in with my recent doctrinal disagreements post and Jason’s “words of warning“. I think everyone who has had a major shift in theology, is always open to the pendulum swing and a general unstable perspective on all things. This tendency is something to be aware of and to guard against.

Does this mean we should all have a stable eschatology or all points figured out on every doctrinal position? Does it mean we should pontificate and criticize others not exactly like us? No. We shouldn’t be tossed by the wind, but neither should we root ourselves in something that isn’t connected to solid ground.

For those who are still developing in their pursuit of a stable and correct theology. Don’t rush things. Take your time. Be slow to talk and aim for wisdom. Take Phil’s advice. Study your Bible first, books second, and blogs last.

I’m sure I’ve been guilty of not heeding this advice in the past. But by God’s grace, I’ve become settled on many things. And I’m not afraid to say when I’m not! May God continue to shape and mold us all.

Seriously, check out Phil’s article, it will be worth the read, and let me know what you think.

Why 1611 Makes All the Difference

~ Bob Hayton ~ 4 Comments

Over at my team King James Only debate blog, Damien Garofalo has an excellent post up that’s well worth your time. The picture above captures the essence of it. Pre-1611 Bibles vary from the KJV as much as modern versions do. But to most KJV Onlyists, that’s okay. The modern versions are to be rejected but many pre-1611 Bibles are just fine because they are in the lineage of “Good Bibles” that eventually produced the 1611 gem, the King James Version.

Here’s a snippet from the post, but I encourage you to go read the whole thing.

…I’m not sure if this sort of view has been pointed out before, but I refer to the “Trail of Blood View of Preservation” as basically the one that I was taught in Bible college. We can also call this the “It’s There Somewhere View.” Obviously, I get the label from J. M. Carroll’s Book, The Trail of Blood, which basically serves as an end-all textbook (though it’s paper-thin) to the question of Baptist origins for many independent Baptists. The basic premise is that independent Baptists like the groups of the 20th century can be found all throughout history if you just look hard enough (and revise along the way). Heretical groups like the Cathari along with questionable groups like the Donatists and Albigenses are listed as forerunners of modern day independent Baptist churches. Though some of them may not have believed the deity of the Lord Jesus, they were opposed to the state church or even practiced anabaptism, so they were included in the lineage. When a reconsideration is brought up against this view, one is quickly reminded that the “winners write the history books” and we must “take by faith” that these groups were all Baptists.

Likewise, the Trial of Blood view of preservation does the same thing. Since the premise of this view is based on biblical passages of preservation, and the conclusion of this view is that the preserved words are in the King James Version of 1611, then logically there must be a version that is just as much the Word of God as the KJV for Christians throughout the ages. However, it doesn’t have to be mainstream. It doesn’t have to be the most widely read or known. It simple has to exist. So it’s not the Vulgate, though the majority of Christians only knew of it for 1100 years. But less popular Bibles like the Italic, Old Latin, the Peshitta, and the Waldensen Bible make the list. Because some psuedo-scholars point out possibly Byzantine readings in these older versions, the Trail of Blood adherents believe they fulfill the requirements for a pre-1611 KJV. Where was the Word of God before 1611? Why, the Italic version of course! It is mainly this view that I am calling into question in this post.

The fact is that these versions do not fully agree with the King James. And this is the double standard. How can we approve of pre-1611 Bibles even though they’re different than the KJV, but whole-heartedly reject modern versions for their differences? In all likelihood, many modern versions are closer to the KJV than any of the Bibles listed on the “good” tree. The Peshitta, for example, omitted entire books from its NT cannon. This means the NIV, ESV, NET Bible and others are closer to the KJV than the Peshitta. Yet, the Peshitta enjoys a place on the “good line of Bibles” in many a King James Only work….