John Piper and Rick Warren on the Atonement

"We're closer than I thought we were." (Rick Warren)

In this short video, John Piper and Rick Warren discuss their views of the atonement and in so doing come to the conclusion that they are actually not far off from one another on their understanding of this critical Christian doctrine. This should come as no surprise to those who have followed TETH’s analysis over the years, given that in earlier efforts we have noted that John Piper wholeheartedly endorses Arminian Theologian Millard J. Erickson’s word-for-word description of the atonement as a valid definition of what Piper regards as the doctrine of Limited Atonement; and this in spite of the fact that Erickson’s comments sit directly under the heading of “Universal Atonement” found on page 846 of his Systematic Theology. This is really confusion of the very highest order, but rather than make that point now, let’s listen in on Piper’s discussion with Warren along with my commentary…

From the Peanut Gallery - "You're not Rightly Dividing. You're Compartmental Partitioning!"

I get a lot of feedback from people about my online efforts. In fact, I'm finding it increasingly difficult to keep up with the level of correspondence and inquiry that I encounter on a daily basis from the Internet. Those interactions often raise issues that I believe are likely raised in the minds of many who read and participate in theological discussions. As a result I've decided to begin sharing some excerpts from these interactions. In so doing I hope to provide more clarity on some of the nuances, objections, and accusations that come my way.

I recently encountered the following accusation from the peanut gallery:

Is Believing in God Illogical?

Believing in God is not illogical. It is il-natural, but it is not illogical. To suggest that believing in God is "fundamentally illogical" is to embrace, perhaps unknowingly, that there can be NOTHING beyond the natural world; this in spite of our lack of definitive evidence to establish that this is so. That said, if one embraces "pure naturalism" (the belief that there is nothing beyond the natural domain of matter and energy) one must still deal with the problem of the existence of life and matter. The moment one suggests that a solution lies within nature itself one has created an illogical and unscientific circular reference, because we have absolutely NO scientific or naturalistic basis for asserting that matter arises out of nothing, nor to assert that that which is dead and inanimate randomly assembles itself into life - not for some fleeting moment mind you - but in an unbroken chain of self improvement and radical diversification spanning literally hundreds of millions of years. I submit that to believe either of those two things - which science foists upon its naive and zealous converts as "scientific truth" - is perhaps the greatest expression of abject irrationalism ever known. I believe one of the greatest 20th century philosophers said it best when he quipped...

"Nothin' from nothin' leaves nothin'." (William Preston)