Did Mark Dever Withdraw from Elephant Room 2?

I my previous post I shared that I leaned toward Mark Dever withdrawing from participating in Elephant Room 2(ER2) due to T.D. Jakes scheduled participation.1 A commenter on that post informed me that Dever’s bio, pictured above, is missing from the ER2 website.

If Dever does or did withdraw from the event it should not come a surprise. In 2008 he was challenged on the issue of biblical separation. Dever answered the challenge explaining that he does practice separation. Others may be able to learn from his practice. The following quote is part of Dever’s article on separation which applies to events like ER2.

…I have tried to have a wider ministry of encouraging godly cooperation and discouraging ungodly associations. This is one of the sources of my being unpopular and even unwelcome in some circles. So we declined an invitation to give leadership in DC to a Graham-like crusade. Furthermore, we worked to get the Southern Baptist Convention to de-fund the local DC Baptist Convention, because (among other reasons) the convention’s organ, the Capital Baptist, had mocked those who believed that faith in Jesus was the only way to be forgiven for our sins, or who believed that Mormons need to be evangelized. I could go on. In fact, our own giving to the Southern Baptist Convention is targeted—it is focused on the International Mission Board, in order to help us fulfill the Great Commission. I regularly decline to speak at conferences because of who else is speaking there. On the 9marks website we critically review books. In our Together for the Gospel statement of faith, we deliberately had Affirmations AND DENIALS. In personal and private conversations I seek correction from others, and try to faithfully and lovingly rebuke others.2

Given Dever’s words on separation it would be easy to understand if he withdrew. The question asked in the title of this post because when going to the ER2 page that once displayed Dever’s bio the following page loads.

Whether Dever withdrew or not at this point is unclear. However, it should not be a surprise to anyone given his wise words on separation which may help others see why some may choose not to participate in certain venues.

tagged as , , , in apologetics,Church Issues,Gospel,heresy,theology

{ 47 comments… read them below or add one }

1 Jacob A. Allee October 4, 2011 at 10:40 pm

I certainly hope he has backed out. The only reason to be under the same roof with a heretic is if you are evangelizing or debating them.

2 KB October 4, 2011 at 11:30 pm

Hey Jacob,

By your comment shouldn’t Mark Dever stay in the Elephant Room event then … it is a debate.

3 Jacob Allee October 4, 2011 at 11:52 pm

If the subject is “Is God one being in three persons” then yeah probably. If its about issues not central to salvation then no.

4 Paula October 5, 2011 at 3:20 am

Since the elephant room was originally supposed to be Christians getting together to discuss important issues, and only AFTER inviting Jakes did they decide to patch up that description, it can’t be considered a ‘debate.’ I hardly think they’re going to change anything. Add to that promoting Driscoll who seems preoccupied with sex and shock jock stuff from the pulpit (if he used a pulpit) and Furtick and Noble, who are flock abusers not pastors, and turning and calling his valid critics ‘nazis’ and siding with Rick Warren against Thabiti Anyabwile, saying we Christians are “fiddling while Rome Burns” in a tweet…you just end up with a preponderance of evidence against Macdonald. He’s spiraling down the latrine pretty quick here.

At best, I guess that doesn’t seem like the way to set up a formal, respectful debate.

Macdonald is out there freewheeling and offroading and he is not about to entertain the idea of being corrected, it seems. It would be foolish of Dever NOT to separate from this out of control brother.

5 Paula October 5, 2011 at 3:22 am

correction – only AFTER inviting Jakes and AFTER getting a whole lot of flak for it and not taking it with much graciousness at all did they change the description.

6 Dan October 5, 2011 at 7:33 am

Mark Dever did in fact back out of this conference.

7 brdavision October 5, 2011 at 9:32 am

@DAn-Praise God! Somebody in ministry with some backbone…..

8 D.R. Randle October 5, 2011 at 10:13 am

I really hate to see that Dever backed out because I think he was the only one on the panel that could have really challenged the methods of many of these guys. It’s like throwing Mohler into a room full of college student wanna-be theologians – it wouldn’t have been a fair fight.

BTW, Paula you might want to listen to or read a legitimate amount of Driscoll’s stuff before declaring him to be one “who seems preoccupied with sex and shock jock stuff from the pulpit”. Driscoll’s reputation for that is quite overblown and based on a few statements and sermons (most of which were at least 3 or more years ago).

9 Mark October 5, 2011 at 10:58 am


I understand what you’re saying, but as far as Driscoll, I don’t think he is all shock jock all the time. That said, I wonder if any consideration was given to the other panelists in revising the purpose of ER as I understand was done.

10 Mark October 5, 2011 at 11:00 am


I know what your saying. Though not officially confirmed that Dever backed out I think he was the person who would stand biblically and question Jakes on several fronts. However, Dever withdrawing may be enough of a statement in itself.

11 Acidri October 5, 2011 at 3:16 pm

Yah! Now that Mark Dever is out let James Mac Donald get Joyce Meyer or Patricia King. They sure will make good entertainment. No?

12 Jose October 5, 2011 at 7:21 pm

I didn’t know Jakes did not believe in the Trinity. I suppose many others don’t know either, can’t see why the elephant room is bad in this sense? Or should we continue our ineffective method of informing others of the dangers out there and differences???

13 Fr. Bill October 6, 2011 at 8:33 am


“I didn’t know Jakes did not believe in the Trinity.

Now you do! And, that is good. And, now you can begin to work through your own convictions about appearing in public venues with someone who denies what the Bible and the Church has taught for the past 2,000 years.

“I suppose many others don’t know either …”

Sadly, this is true. One good thing to come from this is to highlight a feature of Jakes’ ministry that mainstream evangelicals simply have ignored.

“… can’t see why the elephant room is bad in this sense?”

Well, ER is bad insofar as it promotes itself as a forum for ~Christian brothers~ to debate/discuss things they may, nevertheless, disagree about. Putting Jakes into that venue says “Jakes is a Christian brother.” And, that is not true.

“Or should we continue our ineffective method of informing others of the dangers out there and differences???”

What do you think is ineffective? I don’t understand you here. It seems to me that the Christian blogosphere has been fairly effective in reporting the deplorable unseemliness of Jakes being invited to ER under the terms of that invitation. Jakes was NOT invited as an exponent of heretical Christianity. He was invited as a Christian brother. And many objected and continue to object.

Looks like those who protest MacDonald’s invitation of Jakes to ER are doing a passable job! Now it remains to be seen if other members of the Gospel Coalition can be effective in reining in an errant brother, or to maintain some sort of organizational discipline if he refuses to repent of his error.

14 Ted S. October 7, 2011 at 5:04 am

Have you watched this video of Dever, Driscoll and MacDonald?
MacDonald and Driscoll seem to be openly disrespectful toward Dever – almost mocking him. In contrast to his bombastic discussion partners, Dever is soft-spoken. Humble. Principled. Not in the same league as the mega-church superstar celebrities. If he has withdrawn from the Elephant Room 2, he should be commended.

15 Thomas January 23, 2012 at 8:41 am

Coming in late… sorry =)

Watching the link of the Dever, Driscoll, and MacDonald debate…… I agree that Driscoll and MacDonald came off kinda jerkish. I watched the first Elephant Room and I think MacDonald is a lousy moderator as he gets on his soap box too much and doesn’t just moderate. I also think Driscoll and MacDonald came off trying to “win” instead of trying to understand and further the conversation which they do a little bit better at on Elephant Room.

On Jakes’ beliefs on the Trinity, can someone give me a link to anything where Jakes says he believes this way? I have found many things with people who say he does but the things I find that he says does not match with this accusation. Would like to read anything that is from him on this topic that supports this.

I think Dever should have stayed in when it comes to Elephant Room. He has a voice that should be heard. By backing out, thousands of church leaders are going to hear one point of view without his input. If he believes in his position, he should champion it best he can. He’s well spoken and handles himself well. I’d love to hear more from him.

Random thoughts….

16 Mark January 23, 2012 at 10:07 am


Thanks for stopping by. I’m confused about your question on Jakes and the Trinity. Are you asking if there is evidence that he holds to Trinitarian theology or that he denies it?

I’ve written about Jakes’ on the Trinity. See the TD Jakes tag on this site.

17 Matt Nestberg January 25, 2012 at 1:02 pm

At Elephant Room 2, TD Jakes just affirmed that he is trinitarian.

18 MJ January 25, 2012 at 2:10 pm


I don’t believe he “affirmed” anything.

19 prchrbill January 25, 2012 at 3:36 pm

“Jakes: I believe the latter one is where I stand today. One God – Three Persons. I am not crazy about the word persons though.”

This is not an affirmation of the Trinity, it is a bait and switch.

” I affirm the Trinity but not that there are persons but manifestations” is basically what he said.

Jakes can be considered a Trinitarian when me denies modalism outright as heresy and affirms the orthodox doctrine. Until then, don’t affirm what he is until he does so without hesitation or redefining the terms.

20 Thomas January 25, 2012 at 3:43 pm

We’re still at the same point….

I am seeing where a lot of other people are telling me in their commentary that Jakes does not believe in the Trinity.

I am not seeing anything where he says this belief point blank.

He says in Elephant Room today what you see above and we’re still splitting hairs to beat him up.

I think I’ll wait until I watch the DVDs myself of Elephant Room and/or see anything he writes on the topic to judge it on what he says…not what others tell me he says…….

If you go by the above…. I am a complete believer of the Trinity. I believe God is three-in-one. I would have an uncomfortably with using the word “persons”. God in “person” form is Jesus…… I believe the Trinity is true but realize I don’t fully understand it. What did he say that was so wrong today? Is it that he didn’t say it exactly as you want him too?

21 Jacob A. Allee January 25, 2012 at 3:50 pm

The question that needs asked is does Jakes affirm that there is one God who has simultaneously and from eternity existed as three distinct persons. Personhood is not to be confused with humanness because the Father can be a Person but not be human whereas a human cannot be anything but a person.

22 Jacob A. Allee January 25, 2012 at 3:53 pm

The notion of “Manifestations” implies that the one God has taken various forms at various times. There is a reason that the Nicene creed defined terms so specifically. It’s not enough to affirm that there is one God who has manifested himself in three ways. God is one and in his oneness there are three eternal, co-equal persons who exist simultaneously. God is not a shapeshifter or role player.

23 Mark January 25, 2012 at 4:02 pm

There are so many things to be said. A clearer statement of Trinitarian belief along with denouncing Oneness as heresy. A “Bishop” who got his ministerial title from Oneness folks and claims to have been saved in the Oneness church. This Bishop serves as a board member to a Oneness group and participates in “ministry” with them. This Bishop’s church statement is still worded as a Oneness statement. And on and on…

How many of you would submit to a pastor who admitted that his doctrine of God was evolving?

24 Thomas January 25, 2012 at 4:18 pm

To me, you’re still splitting hairs unless if there is something tangible that is a quote. We all use words and define them different so we have to be careful.

I am uncomfortable with what prghrbill did above….. Jakes said this, what he is basically saying is this, then addressing Jakes beliefs on what we said he said instead of what he actually said. I am seeing a lot of this and it’s off base.

I hear what Mark is saying though as far as history and association raising a red flag. I get that…..However, the quote given today (since that’s the one we are working with) says he believes in the Trinity….is uncomfortable with the term “persons” which I can understand since he may define it different than Jacob and more like I do…..

Would I submit to a pastor who says his doctrine in God is still evolving? Depends on what that means….. On things that the Bible is Black and White about and we understand….. then no…… on things that are bigger than our understanding like all the ins and outs of the Trinity….. if it’s person, entities, or what ever….. I would be leary of submitting to a pastor who does not the humility to say he doesn’t understand everything about God since God is God and we are mere men.

25 Matt Nestberg January 25, 2012 at 4:25 pm

I am really stunned by you guys. Today, Jakes gave a clear pro-Nicene testimony. Yet, he is still distrusted and accused of parsing words or being a heretic. I can’t believe that his clear confession hasn’t caused you guys to confess your sins of gossip and slander and repent! This, I do not believe, honors Jesus.

I’m out.

26 Jacob A. Allee January 25, 2012 at 4:38 pm

You know Matt, I am ready to say Jakes is orthodox if he can clear up a few things and cut ties with those who clearly reject the Trinity. All I am saying is that there have been specific words used (which words have meaning in themselves so it’s not just what want them to mean) to explain the biblical doctrine of the Trinity and Jakes has come very close in what I have read to truly affirming the Trinity. I do not think, however, that the questions or answers were precise enough to clear the air. This not a minor issue, so let’s just be absolutely clear, that is what I would ask for. I would also like to hear him condemn Modalism as heresy. If he would do that then I could feel comfortable affirming him as a brother.

27 Thomas January 25, 2012 at 4:59 pm

I want to make sure I am understanding you correctly, Jacob. Are you saying that if you met someone who had accepted Jesus Christ as leader and forgiver in their life….. and they said they believe in God, Jesus and the Holy Spirit and that they are three in one but they weren’t quite sure how the whole Trinity aspect works itself out…. that you would not “affirm him as a brother”?

28 Jacob Allee January 25, 2012 at 5:07 pm

He is a pastor. Someone holding that office should be fully aware of what he thinks on this matter. A new believer may not have this all clear but the concept of the trinity should be easily explained and affirmed by a pastor. He also has a history of being involved in a heretical movement so asking for more clarification is warranted. Just as I would ask for such clarification from a supposed former Mormon or Jehovah’s Witness.

29 Thomas January 25, 2012 at 5:14 pm

So myself as a pastor with a background in the American Baptists (now non-denom). I affirm the Trinity…. I believe in God, Jesus, and the Holy Spirit as 3-in-1….. I have no idea if these would be one God in three persons, three entities, or what word captures it……I can’t say I can explain it in such a way that is “easily explained”…. I find the egg, apple, or any other explanation lacking in the fullness of the mystery of God…… I find comfort that I can’t fully understand or explain it since He is much more than I….. do you find my comments suspect or is it different because the beliefs of my heritage are more Trinity believing based?

30 Jacob A. Allee January 25, 2012 at 5:31 pm


To be honest your denominational background would make me more ready to accept you as my brother. You are not coming out of a tradition that has historically denied the Trinity in favor of a heresy. I don’t have a problem so much with the idea of “I don’t completely understand how this all works” as long as you affirm that there is one God who has always existed simultaneously in three distinct persons. You don’t have to have a full working understanding of that but if you affirm it is true that’s enough. But in Jake’s case, because of his background, I want to hear that he outright rejects modalism as heresy and that he affirms historic trinitarian theology.

31 Thomas January 25, 2012 at 5:39 pm

OK – I think I’m getting a better handle on here you are coming from. Again, I see where some of you guys are seeing red flags.

I do find it a little weird that Jakes and I are saying the same thing and people are judging different because of background but I do understand the hesitancy. However, I think that’s why Matt was annoyed.

I am uncomfortable with the “affirm he is a brother” comment. I doubt Jakes cares if we affirm him or not. He probably cares if God does or not. If you had stated you had a problem with my beliefs, it wouldn’t matter much more than how you see me. My concern is if God affirms me. It came off a little harsh and weird to me but again…..maybe I took it wrong as people do see things and defines words differently which is why follow up conversation is so important. We are not always saying what other people hear us say….

Thanks for following through with me Jacob… I thin I understand your position better and I appreciate it….

32 Thomas January 25, 2012 at 7:22 pm

Was thinking about this over dinner ….

If a person has accepted Jesus as Leader and Forgiver in their life, believe in God, Jesus and the Holy Spirit….but don’t believe in the Trinity….. are they….

a Christian but in error on their theology?

or not saved?

33 Mark January 25, 2012 at 11:56 pm

Thomas, if I applied what you just said to Mormonism my answer would be no.

I would need more clarification, however, to really answer further. Would this be a new believer? One who doesn’t quite understand the Trinity? One who outright denies the Trinity? One who thinks it really doesn’t matter? One who claims to be a Bishop in the church who has been teaching and leading people for years who should know better?

34 Mark January 25, 2012 at 11:59 pm

Matt, myself and others have well documented Jakes’ lack of clear affirmation of the Trinity. You call that gossip? What do you call a “Bishop” who would not come clean on his doctrine? His clarifying remarks today were refreshing, however, he did not denounce the Oneness heresy and still does ministry with them. Some have even pointed out that his statements still leave a little confusion.

Instead of coming here and grandstanding why don’t you engage? That is, if you’re really trying to help.

35 Thomas January 26, 2012 at 7:55 am

I find it hard to compare to Mormonism since it is a false belief on salvation (as well as other things) and we are talking about a false theological belief.

I would also find it hard to give you several false examples to flush out your belief. So let me state what I think you are saying and you can correct me if I misunderstand. If someone is a young Christian and do not believe in the Trinity…..they are saved and confused. If they are a mature Christian or in a leadership role, they are not saved. Is that correct?

If it is, can you back that up with any Scripture? That belief in the Trinity is a Salvation issue once you hit a certain level of Christianity…

36 Mark January 26, 2012 at 9:18 am


I don’t know why this is to difficult to grasp. First, why does Mormonism have a false view of salvation? There is a doctrine of works, sure, but there is also their doctrine of God that is off. They can affirm much of what Jakes affirmed about the Trinity until words are defined. The comparison has to do with heretical beliefs which ever they may be.

I am saying there is a difference between not believing the Trinity because it has not been taught and someone out right rejecting the Trinity. The thief on the cross is one example some have tried to use as a way of saying one does not have to belief in the Trinity.

However, is this is true the all of the doctrinal writing and warnings in the New Testament can be thrown out. The thief is an example of one whom Jesus said would be in paradise who did not get much doctrinal teaching.

37 Thomas January 26, 2012 at 9:25 am

I not having a problem understanding what you are saying as much as trying to make sure I fully understand because, quite frankly, I find what you are saying to be incorrect and trying to give you the benefit of the doubt until I fully understand where you are coming from (a benefit most people don’t give each other).

Thank you for the example of the thief as one who was a new believer and didn’t have to understand and believe all the right things.

Can you give me an example of someone who had accepted Jesus as Leader and Forgiver, had a false belief, and loses their salvation over it? Or an instruction in the New Testament that backs up this belief?

Not trying to skirt over the Mormon questions…just to me it’s a side discussion instead of the main…but the fact they teach a work based salvation is the difference and we agree on that.

38 Mark January 26, 2012 at 9:45 am


I may need some clarification on what you’re asking.

Can you give me an example of someone who had accepted Jesus as Leader and Forgiver, had a false belief, and loses their salvation over it? Or an instruction in the New Testament that backs up this belief?

If I understand the first question, it assumes that one who claims to have accepted Christ within his false beliefs was actually saved. One answer that someone of a Wesleyan perspective may answer with is that salvation can be lost. Another perspective is that said person was never saved to begin with because their profession was made under false doctrine.

Of course, Peter warns of false teachers infiltrating the the church. But false prophets also arose among the people, just as there will be false teachers among you, who will secretly bring in destructive heresies, even denying the Master who bought them, bringing upon themselves swift destruction. And many will follow their sensuality, and because of them the way of truth will be blasphemed. And in their greed they will exploit you with false words. Their condemnation from long ago is not idle, and their destruction is not asleep. (2 Peter 2:1-3 ESV)

Paul also tells us to watch out for false teachers. I appeal to you, brothers, to watch out for those who cause divisions and create obstacles contrary to the doctrine that you have been taught; avoid them. For such persons do not serve our Lord Christ, but their own appetites, and by smooth talk and flattery they deceive the hearts of the naive. (Romans 16:17-18 ESV)

39 Thomas January 26, 2012 at 9:59 am

OK, I will just lay out my thoughts….

It seems to me that yourself and some others on here are lumping salvation, having 100% correct belief on every theological issue, and false prophets together.

Taking TD Jakes out of the mix (which I think after reading the quotes and the context of the quotes from yesterday he does believe in the Trinity and many are just picking him apart and twisting his words at this point)…..

If you are saying that those who don’t believe in the Trinity are incorrect and we should reach out to them, debate with them, and correct those especially those in leadership positions…. go for it! Bring 100% Love and 100% Truth and dig in….

If you (and I speak a generic you not just a Mark you) are saying that if someone does not believe in the Trinity so they are not really saved and are going to hell….. I see nothing in the Scripture that backs that up and I think is very damaging.

The Scripture is clear that you are saved when you accept Jesus by acknowledging Him with your mouth that He is the son of God and believing with your heart that He died and rose again thus making Him Leader and Forgiver in your life.

If someone has a wrong understanding of the Trinity, Hell, prophecy, and the like….. I see nothing that says they are not saved. Wrong, sure……..not saved……? Nope.

I continue to be bothered by the above words that ” I can not affirm him as a brother. It is not up to us if someone is saved or not. If they believe or don’t believe something that is contrary to the Word, then we address it.

Mormons belief of salvation is wrong according to the Word. The belief of Trinity is not a salvation issue and I won’t change that unless someone shows me Scripture that corrects me which you can’t. It’s a theological issue.

There is nothing in God’s grace and Word that says someone who accepts Christ as Leader and Forgiver but believes incorrectly about the Trinity is in for a big surprise on Judgment day.

Reach out, discuss, teach sure….. but the judgement I see in some things here is wrong (not a blanket statement) and since it was the original topic….. some of the things being said about TD Jakes is wrong. Unless if you (again generic) get to write the statment in your words and then he just signs it, you’re not going to be satisfied.

OK, I’ll stop bugging you. I just wanted to make sure I understood before I spoke. I am sure many will disagree with me on here but thanks for letting me say my thoughts.

40 Mark January 26, 2012 at 10:12 am


Thanks for the challenge. I think you have unhelpfully made a generalization when you wrote the following.

t seems to me that yourself and some others on here are lumping salvation, having 100% correct belief on every theological issue, and false prophets together.

You are doing a similar style of lumping of that which you accuse others.

Let me ask you this since we are talking about the Trinity. Do you believe it matters one bit toward one’s salvation about what one believes about the doctrine/nature of God?

41 Mark January 26, 2012 at 10:47 am

BTW, here is a post showing more of Jakes’ problematic teaching as well as dealing with what was said at ER2: Elephant Room 2: may we now regard T.D. Jakes as Trinitarian and orthodox?.

42 Thomas January 26, 2012 at 11:04 am

Typing from phone now so hopefully my auto correct doesn’t mess with me too much:)

First, I disagree with your assertion that I made a general blanket comment when I said “you and some others” and not “you all”

I believe a belief on Trinity is a discipleship/ theology issue and not a salvation issue.

Look, it’s clear we believe different. I appreciate you explaining your belief and listening to my side. I think it’s teetering on going past a healthy exchange with a couple of the comments made which is usually my cue that now that both beliefs have been stated, the conversation is coming to an end. Thanks for explaining your side.

43 Mark January 26, 2012 at 12:51 pm

Thomas, I thought that a few more clarifying questions may help, but I understand.

Thanks for your comments and your time.

44 Jacob A. Allee January 30, 2012 at 11:51 am


I wrote a post recently that I think you might find helpful as to why I personally have taken the stand that I have on the matter. God bless. http://www.jacoballee.com/?p=1014

45 *Rykel™ Lim* (@rykellim) September 6, 2012 at 1:25 pm

Hi all, just reading all the anti-Jakes (Trinitarian) comments trying to compel him to take sides and “damn” the Christians who prefer the non-trinitarian view – after he has affirmed that God is “One God, 3 Persons/manifestations” – make me feel that there is a spirit akin to the Inquisitors in the Dark Ages. I further feel like asking, “What if the non-trinitarian Christians were to declare that Trinitarians are heretics and decide that unless you renounce the Trinity and condemn it, they cannot affirm you as a true Christian in the biblical sense?” I think there are a number here who are itching for that divide in the Body of Christ. Sad. For the rest of you who are praying for UNITY (love one another, as I have loved you), cheer up! For we will all go to Heaven, whether Oneness or Trinitarian. I hope with that we can agree. Love, Rykel

46 Mark September 6, 2012 at 2:11 pm

Rykel,you’re a little late to the conversation. However, I would like to note that most (all?) Trinitarians do not consider “Christians who prefer the non-trinitarian view” to be Christians.

47 James Sundquist January 20, 2013 at 9:07 am

My question is why doesn’t Mark Dever apply his quote to marking and separating to Rick Warren? Instead he states the following, followed by John Piper quote, a collaborator to both Warren and Dever:

John Piper quote about Rick Warren’s Purpose Driven Life:

“Frankly, I’m appalled at the kinds of slander that have been brought against this book by people whose methods of critique, if they were consistently applied to the Bible, would undo it as the Word of God… When I read the book, I thought “what’s the issue here?”” John Piper, May 28, 2011 Christian Today

Mark Dever (IX Marks) on Rick Warren:

“First of all, let us affirm that we love and respect Rick Warren as a Christian brother, and we consider him a genuine comrade in pastoral ministry. His heart for evangelism is second to none. His passion to see people reached for Christ is pulsating, contagious, and quite frankly, convicting. His sincerity is unquestioned, and his apparent success is unparalleled. And we agree with Warren on the fundamentals of the faith. In fact, one of our primary concerns in releasing these reviews has been that we’ll be misperceived as turning our guns on our own guys if we say anything corrective. We’re not shooting at our comrade in arms here. Our intent is constructive, not destructive.” Mark Dever, IX Marks

Now contrast these quotes with this new film documentary on Rick Warren vs. Scripture:
Church of Tares: Purpose Driven, Seeker Sensitive, Church Growth & New World Order

It could not be more timely in light of Rick Warren major secular media blitz with the re-release of his 10th Anniversary Purpose-Driven Life and Global Peace Plan.

Rick Warren/John Piper Alliance


Previous post:

Next post: