*Once I've finished Greek, that is. One week yet to go. Then five days off till Fall semester. I'm pretty pumped, actually, to begin the real semester. I'm saving Hebrew for my second year. Greek exegesis is enough to worry about for now... brain-mangling I tell you! We'll definitely have to synchronize calendars and find an open spot to hang out. Looking forward to it.
Hey, Matt. I checked out your blog and the two Piper posts were the first things I spotted.
I'm not sure where to start because I have so many problems with Piper's theology in this area. I feel like he has, based on a few biblical passages and his great respect for Jonathan Edwards, gone quite extreme with his Calvinistic thinking; to the degree, really, that what he says doesn't even seem to make since to those who don't share his opinion. I could talk a lot about that, but you've probably heard most of it. So what I'd like to do is simply address his take on the bridge in the way that many people would understand it.
First off, I'm in complete agreement that Piper does not seem to be as sympathetic as this situation calls for. However, his lack of sympathy seems to follow from his belief that all calamity and all pain come by direct decree of God. My problem with his belief is not that the Bible never teaches this; indeed God most certainly punishes sin and is often praised as being ultimately in control of everything that comes to pass.
However, passages such as Jeremiah 7:31 are rarely given the voice they need when this theology is discussed. God does not take direct responsibility for every horrible thing that happens. Even the passage that Piper uses in Luke 13 says volumes about this topic by its omission: Jesus never claims that God was directly responsible for the slaughter and death of those people. Rather he uses the incident to point to the importance of following after righteousness because we live in a fallen world where tragedy can strike at any time.
When Piper proclaims that God is directly responsible for all death/destruction/deformity/calamity and then exhorts us to turn to that same God for comfort and forgiveness, he couldn't sound more like a contradiction. How can we expect non-believers to turn to God when we so often paint him as a cosmological madman?
I don't know why the bridge fell that day. I do know that John Piper's desire to glorify God in everything (which I appreciate and join him in) often seems to alienate him from the real pain of existence that believers and non-believers face each day.
Please don't take this comment the wrong way. I love discussing these things. I just feel like Piper has somehow become the Pope of evangelical Christianity and I don't feel like his theology is a good representation for the way a great many believers feel about God's sovereignty.
Thanks, first of all, for stopping in, and second of all, for weighing in. Appreciate the feedback and the dialogue. One of my biggest reservations with regard to Piper (they extend beyond this issue) is that he seems provoke widespread misunderstanding, and when this is the case, one cannot totally absolve himself from guilt for this, Piper included. So I think he has some room for improvement in the area of tact. However, I wouldn't go so far as to say he steps over the line, at least in my experience.
If your perception of what Piper said (and has repeatedly advocated) is accurate, then I'd have to agree that he distorts truth and, as a result, paints a picture of God over which even His most devout follower cannot help but get sick to his stomach. However, I'm fairly confident that he has not said that God is the instigator of all evil that happens in the world. This comes down to the difference between God's will of decree and his permissive will. To the majority of those not sharing his Calvinistic point of view, this seems like splitting theological hairs, but any person with a good head on his/her shoulders ought to be able to grasp the distinction.
I have heard and read John Piper say two primary things about evil in the world: a) that God can by his very nature do anything he pleases and is always vindicated in it, and b) that nothing evil happens in heaven or on earth that God does not give Satan permission to carry out (see Job 1). And he usually explains these back to back, which can leave some thinking that he means that God directly causes all 'evil' that occurs in the world. But if you ask him if he believes this (countless have, and I have heard/read some of his replies), he will deny it. But he will not rule out the possibility that God was directly responsible for any particular event. He may have been. He just as likely may not have been.
What may trip some people up is that he builds upon the theology of permissive will the idea that God turns "what man intended to harm" into "good", drawing from Genesis 50:20. Here, man is doing the bidding of Satan, therefore it is Satan who is "behind" these evil acts. In a nutshell, Piper is saying that all evil happens under God's watch, that he allows Satan to do it, and that every such instance contains within itself the opportunity to glorify God. In the instance of this terrible tragedy, as well as death in general, there is a glaring reminder of the inevitable consequences of sin. We grieve over this terrible thing that has happened and all of us, Christian and non-Christian alike, ask, "Why?" And God answers, "The wages of sin is death. Every human being must die at one point or another. Turn from your sin into my open arms of mercy while there is still time."
The irony of all of this is that I don't actually consider myself to be completely Reformed theologically. I'm not a Calvinist. Neither am I an Arminian. I'm, shall I say, undecided. I certainly don't see John Piper as the evangelical Pope (though your point is very well taken that many do), but I have been tremendously blessed by his teaching and writing ministry... moreso by his teaching than his writing.
Thanks again for the discussion. I thoroughly enjoy a hearty theological dialogue, so long as everyone can persevere in charity towards one another. You've been extremely gracious. Hope the same goes for me. Feel free to take me to task on any of the points I made, if I overstepped my logical or scriptural boundaries. I won't perceive it as argumentative whatsoever. "As iron sharpens iron," brother.
Hope to see you 'round these parts again sometime soon. ;-) Get to feeling better, and I'll hopefully see you in class tomorrow.
I haven’t read much of Piper recently so I don't think I can get that deep into this conversation. I can say there are a few of his views that I don't agree with. By the way, your comment in response to my comment on "Saddened by Piper" didn't make me cringe although I might not agree totally with everything that you said.
Whenever, I hear Max Lucado talk about how God gave us all of Him and we are to give Him all of us, I want to do just that: however, he wants me to use my gifts, money, relationships…. Etc.. I feel like I am loving the right God for the right reasons. Whenever I hear Piper complain about how yuppies spend too much money on stuff, I just want to shut the book. Its not that I disagree with his message, he just lacks a certain amount of kindness. His lack of sympathy for those killed in the bridge collapse is not surprising. Furthermore, he seems to try to sell us on living a certain way for the rewards we get. He doesn’t do much to point us to Jesus. Didn’t Jesus say that knowing Him was the way to truth? I don’t think Piper’s flaws invalidate his ministry. I know Max Lucado isn’t perfect. Too be honest I feel bad saying so many negative things about John Piper. I do know he inspires many people toward godly living. I have struggled with how to view Piper for quite some time. I know I crave him to a degree. I am greatly concerned that I “Don’t Waste My Life” and that I am not “Desiring God” like I should.
I did have a thought about why I might not like Piper as much as you. It might be a shot in the dark, but it could have to do with our backgrounds. I was raised in Baptist churches. The Bible was taken very seriously, which was good. However, I feel that I picked up a view of God that was too serious and too demanding. This struggle might explain why I feed off of guys like Max Lucado and Eugene Peterson much more than I feed off of guys like John Piper. I know you mentioned a church past that was grace filled but possibly watered down. Those experiences may explain why you crave Piper's stuff. Just an idea I thought I would throw out.
You are probably on to something. But I have a pretty good hunch that it goes a bit deeper than that. In the seven or eight years I was a part of Southern Baptist churches, I had my fill of disgruntling experiences. There was something stifling about the environment. A resistance to pioneering and creativity, and a dangerously inward focus. But I wouldn't throw Piper into that category quite so quickly. His church probably isn't the most innovative one around, but it's a part of some major kingdom-building enterprises that speak for themselves with regard to their fruit.
Whether or not you end up choosing the seminary route, definitely make the effort to pick up some reading on the history of the Church, particularly the earliest centuries and the Reformation. What you'll realize is that Piper's message is not simply a warmed over version of Baptist hellfire and brimstone. It's a pretty darned accurate return to the most orthodox understanding of the gospel and what it means to follow Christ throughout the last two millennia. It's the more recent developments in 'gospel' preaching and teaching that make Piper seem such an oddity. The gospel has been so watered down, so tamed, so void of its basic meaning by modern evangelicalism that the true gospel is almost unrecognizable to most 'Christians' today. Read my pastor's most recent blog post on this topic. It couldn't have been more timely.
Blessings, brother. Look forward to hearing from you soon.
I got the info you sent in my email. I really appreciate the help, questions and input you have given me.
I might be misinterpreting how you interpreted some of what I said but I didn't mean to say that Piper was similiar to my southern Baptist experience. I just meant to say that we both had found, not so much someone who would balance out our past, but someone who helped put us on a more correct course in our thinking.
I really think you nailed it when you said "stifling" and "dangerously inward". I am pretty optimistic and do not want to think that most SBC are that way. However, I continue to see that in just about every SBC I come in contact with. I know that baptist churches are filled Christians with a wide variety of colors. There are also many wonderful people who are southern baptist as well as many southern baptist churches and ministries that do some great things. In any case, they need to deal with the "stifling" and denomotionalcentric attitude. I, as well, have a good number of adjectives in my own life that I need to deal with.
I think maybe i've misinterpreted your interpretation of my interpretation...
Just kidding! ;-)
Actually, it sounds like 'balance' is the best way to describe what has happened in each of our stories. I think balance and course correction are virtually synonymous. It seems pretty obvious that the life we ought to be aiming for is "full of grace and truth", as Christ was. Piper is definitely lacking in the grace arena at times, and preachers who avoid the sharp edges and difficult implications of the gospel are omitting a huge chunk of truth. Either way, the gospel is distorted. Jesus taught that one cannot partake in the kingdom of God unless he is like the man who "sold everything he had, and went and bought the field" which contained the "pearl of great price"... the man who "denies himself, takes up his cross daily, and follows [Christ]". And right alongside it he tells the story of the pious pharisee who is so glad he's not a "sinner" like the tax collector over in the corner, beating his chest, grieving over his sin and pleading for God's mercy, the latter of whom "went home that day justified".
Ryan wrote a thought-provoking blog a few months ago on the topic of 'balance' in the Christian life, and pretty well nailed it. The Christian has to 'balance' radical extremes, not walk down the lukewarm center. He has to be radically truth-oriented, and radically grace-filled. He has to love God with all of his mind, and all of his heart, and all of his physical/material capacity. It's really an overwhelmingly beautiful truth. Yet it is one that cannot be actualized apart from the gracious work of our sovereign God.
This isn't too disagree with any of what you said but purely for discussions sake:
I have not ever liked the word balanced. The reasons I said that Piper and Lucado didn't balance us out is because I was thinking that it wasn't like you had your fill of grace and needed truth only or that I had my fill of truth and needed more grace. I know you didn't think that. What I mean is that what Lucado has helped do in my heart isn't nessesarily on the other end of the Christian spectrum of legalistic Christianity. He helped put me on a better course in my view of God. I am argueing pure semantics but semantics can be important. Balanced is a very good discription for how someone's passions should be. However, that word doesn't always help someone who isn't balanced. If I tell some guy he is too conservative, does that mean he needs to just slack off alittle? If someone is too liberal, do they need to become more traditional or serious or whatever? He needs a course correction and not so much a balance. I had also always thought that grace without truth wasn't really grace and truth without grace isn't really truth. I could hatefully tell someone that their laziness is wrong. Is my message based on truth? Not completely, because part of my message was that they are not worthy of respect, love, or mercy. I could tell someone that it was okay that they are lazy and I still love them. Was my statement based on grace? Not completely, because I don't have enought love for them to tell them the truth about their choice.
Including Piper? I'm confused. Am I wrong in my interpretation of Piper, or are he and I wrong that God allows suffering and receives glory when sinners are awakened to the repugnance of sin in God's sight and turn to him in repentance? Could you elaborate?
Thanks for stopping in. Did Dr. Yarbrough tip you off to the blog?
OK, now don't I feel like a fool. The guy posing as DA Carson is an imposter. Click on his link and read some of the stuff. It's pretty funny (once you realize it's not Carson's). For a moment I was feeling awfully significant.
Good stuff.....I actually feel like Piper balances grace and truth better than most. The thing I respect about him is he does preach hard truth, but he preaches to himself, and he'll even be vocal about the fact that the words he's saying are directed to himself as well as everyone else. And the sermon is always going to finish with the cross, there's always hope! So I think the trick is preaching the hard truths of the gospel with gentleness, and the beautiful mercies of Christ with empowering truth. Randy Alcorn wrote a book called, "The Grace and Truth Paradox" which, the only I was hoping was that it would be longer, but it's a nice little read about Christlike balance. Also check out Matt Chandler from The Village Church on Itunes, he's a friend of Piper, Driscoll, and the guys in that camp and I think does a great job balancing grace and truth. peaces in jesus.
nicely done. i'm hoping now that you're finished greek, and i'm emerging from newborn land, we can hang again soon. maybe?
ReplyDelete*Once I've finished Greek, that is. One week yet to go. Then five days off till Fall semester. I'm pretty pumped, actually, to begin the real semester. I'm saving Hebrew for my second year. Greek exegesis is enough to worry about for now... brain-mangling I tell you! We'll definitely have to synchronize calendars and find an open spot to hang out. Looking forward to it.
ReplyDeletePeace.
Hey, Matt. I checked out your blog and the two Piper posts were the first things I spotted.
ReplyDeleteI'm not sure where to start because I have so many problems with Piper's theology in this area. I feel like he has, based on a few biblical passages and his great respect for Jonathan Edwards, gone quite extreme with his Calvinistic thinking; to the degree, really, that what he says doesn't even seem to make since to those who don't share his opinion. I could talk a lot about that, but you've probably heard most of it. So what I'd like to do is simply address his take on the bridge in the way that many people would understand it.
First off, I'm in complete agreement that Piper does not seem to be as sympathetic as this situation calls for. However, his lack of sympathy seems to follow from his belief that all calamity and all pain come by direct decree of God. My problem with his belief is not that the Bible never teaches this; indeed God most certainly punishes sin and is often praised as being ultimately in control of everything that comes to pass.
However, passages such as Jeremiah 7:31 are rarely given the voice they need when this theology is discussed. God does not take direct responsibility for every horrible thing that happens. Even the passage that Piper uses in Luke 13 says volumes about this topic by its omission: Jesus never claims that God was directly responsible for the slaughter and death of those people. Rather he uses the incident to point to the importance of following after righteousness because we live in a fallen world where tragedy can strike at any time.
When Piper proclaims that God is directly responsible for all death/destruction/deformity/calamity and then exhorts us to turn to that same God for comfort and forgiveness, he couldn't sound more like a contradiction. How can we expect non-believers to turn to God when we so often paint him as a cosmological madman?
I don't know why the bridge fell that day. I do know that John Piper's desire to glorify God in everything (which I appreciate and join him in) often seems to alienate him from the real pain of existence that believers and non-believers face each day.
Please don't take this comment the wrong way. I love discussing these things. I just feel like Piper has somehow become the Pope of evangelical Christianity and I don't feel like his theology is a good representation for the way a great many believers feel about God's sovereignty.
Hey Josh!
ReplyDeleteThanks, first of all, for stopping in, and second of all, for weighing in. Appreciate the feedback and the dialogue. One of my biggest reservations with regard to Piper (they extend beyond this issue) is that he seems provoke widespread misunderstanding, and when this is the case, one cannot totally absolve himself from guilt for this, Piper included. So I think he has some room for improvement in the area of tact. However, I wouldn't go so far as to say he steps over the line, at least in my experience.
If your perception of what Piper said (and has repeatedly advocated) is accurate, then I'd have to agree that he distorts truth and, as a result, paints a picture of God over which even His most devout follower cannot help but get sick to his stomach. However, I'm fairly confident that he has not said that God is the instigator of all evil that happens in the world. This comes down to the difference between God's will of decree and his permissive will. To the majority of those not sharing his Calvinistic point of view, this seems like splitting theological hairs, but any person with a good head on his/her shoulders ought to be able to grasp the distinction.
I have heard and read John Piper say two primary things about evil in the world: a) that God can by his very nature do anything he pleases and is always vindicated in it, and b) that nothing evil happens in heaven or on earth that God does not give Satan permission to carry out (see Job 1). And he usually explains these back to back, which can leave some thinking that he means that God directly causes all 'evil' that occurs in the world. But if you ask him if he believes this (countless have, and I have heard/read some of his replies), he will deny it. But he will not rule out the possibility that God was directly responsible for any particular event. He may have been. He just as likely may not have been.
What may trip some people up is that he builds upon the theology of permissive will the idea that God turns "what man intended to harm" into "good", drawing from Genesis 50:20. Here, man is doing the bidding of Satan, therefore it is Satan who is "behind" these evil acts. In a nutshell, Piper is saying that all evil happens under God's watch, that he allows Satan to do it, and that every such instance contains within itself the opportunity to glorify God. In the instance of this terrible tragedy, as well as death in general, there is a glaring reminder of the inevitable consequences of sin. We grieve over this terrible thing that has happened and all of us, Christian and non-Christian alike, ask, "Why?" And God answers, "The wages of sin is death. Every human being must die at one point or another. Turn from your sin into my open arms of mercy while there is still time."
The irony of all of this is that I don't actually consider myself to be completely Reformed theologically. I'm not a Calvinist. Neither am I an Arminian. I'm, shall I say, undecided. I certainly don't see John Piper as the evangelical Pope (though your point is very well taken that many do), but I have been tremendously blessed by his teaching and writing ministry... moreso by his teaching than his writing.
Thanks again for the discussion. I thoroughly enjoy a hearty theological dialogue, so long as everyone can persevere in charity towards one another. You've been extremely gracious. Hope the same goes for me. Feel free to take me to task on any of the points I made, if I overstepped my logical or scriptural boundaries. I won't perceive it as argumentative whatsoever. "As iron sharpens iron," brother.
Hope to see you 'round these parts again sometime soon. ;-) Get to feeling better, and I'll hopefully see you in class tomorrow.
Grace,
I haven’t read much of Piper recently so I don't think I can get that deep into this conversation. I can say there are a few of his views that I don't agree with. By the way, your comment in response to my comment on "Saddened by Piper" didn't make me cringe although I might not agree totally with everything that you said.
ReplyDeleteWhenever, I hear Max Lucado talk about how God gave us all of Him and we are to give Him all of us, I want to do just that: however, he wants me to use my gifts, money, relationships…. Etc.. I feel like I am loving the right God for the right reasons. Whenever I hear Piper complain about how yuppies spend too much money on stuff, I just want to shut the book. Its not that I disagree with his message, he just lacks a certain amount of kindness. His lack of sympathy for those killed in the bridge collapse is not surprising. Furthermore, he seems to try to sell us on living a certain way for the rewards we get. He doesn’t do much to point us to Jesus. Didn’t Jesus say that knowing Him was the way to truth? I don’t think Piper’s flaws invalidate his ministry. I know Max Lucado isn’t perfect. Too be honest I feel bad saying so many negative things about John Piper. I do know he inspires many people toward godly living. I have struggled with how to view Piper for quite some time. I know I crave him to a degree. I am greatly concerned that I “Don’t Waste My Life” and that I am not “Desiring God” like I should.
I did have a thought about why I might not like Piper as much as you. It might be a shot in the dark, but it could have to do with our backgrounds. I was raised in Baptist churches. The Bible was taken very seriously, which was good. However, I feel that I picked up a view of God that was too serious and too demanding. This struggle might explain why I feed off of guys like Max Lucado and Eugene Peterson much more than I feed off of guys like John Piper. I know you mentioned a church past that was grace filled but possibly watered down. Those experiences may explain why you crave Piper's stuff. Just an idea I thought I would throw out.
You are probably on to something. But I have a pretty good hunch that it goes a bit deeper than that. In the seven or eight years I was a part of Southern Baptist churches, I had my fill of disgruntling experiences. There was something stifling about the environment. A resistance to pioneering and creativity, and a dangerously inward focus. But I wouldn't throw Piper into that category quite so quickly. His church probably isn't the most innovative one around, but it's a part of some major kingdom-building enterprises that speak for themselves with regard to their fruit.
ReplyDeleteWhether or not you end up choosing the seminary route, definitely make the effort to pick up some reading on the history of the Church, particularly the earliest centuries and the Reformation. What you'll realize is that Piper's message is not simply a warmed over version of Baptist hellfire and brimstone. It's a pretty darned accurate return to the most orthodox understanding of the gospel and what it means to follow Christ throughout the last two millennia. It's the more recent developments in 'gospel' preaching and teaching that make Piper seem such an oddity. The gospel has been so watered down, so tamed, so void of its basic meaning by modern evangelicalism that the true gospel is almost unrecognizable to most 'Christians' today. Read my pastor's most recent blog post on this topic. It couldn't have been more timely.
Blessings, brother. Look forward to hearing from you soon.
I got the info you sent in my email. I really appreciate the help, questions and input you have given me.
ReplyDeleteI might be misinterpreting how you interpreted some of what I said but I didn't mean to say that Piper was similiar to my southern Baptist experience. I just meant to say that we both had found, not so much someone who would balance out our past, but someone who helped put us on a more correct course in our thinking.
I really think you nailed it when you said "stifling" and "dangerously inward". I am pretty optimistic and do not want to think that most SBC are that way. However, I continue to see that in just about every SBC I come in contact with. I know that baptist churches are filled Christians with a wide variety of colors. There are also many wonderful people who are southern baptist as well as many southern baptist churches and ministries that do some great things. In any case, they need to deal with the "stifling" and denomotionalcentric attitude. I, as well, have a good number of adjectives in my own life that I need to deal with.
I think maybe i've misinterpreted your interpretation of my interpretation...
ReplyDeleteJust kidding! ;-)
Actually, it sounds like 'balance' is the best way to describe what has happened in each of our stories. I think balance and course correction are virtually synonymous. It seems pretty obvious that the life we ought to be aiming for is "full of grace and truth", as Christ was. Piper is definitely lacking in the grace arena at times, and preachers who avoid the sharp edges and difficult implications of the gospel are omitting a huge chunk of truth. Either way, the gospel is distorted. Jesus taught that one cannot partake in the kingdom of God unless he is like the man who "sold everything he had, and went and bought the field" which contained the "pearl of great price"... the man who "denies himself, takes up his cross daily, and follows [Christ]". And right alongside it he tells the story of the pious pharisee who is so glad he's not a "sinner" like the tax collector over in the corner, beating his chest, grieving over his sin and pleading for God's mercy, the latter of whom "went home that day justified".
Ryan wrote a thought-provoking blog a few months ago on the topic of 'balance' in the Christian life, and pretty well nailed it. The Christian has to 'balance' radical extremes, not walk down the lukewarm center. He has to be radically truth-oriented, and radically grace-filled. He has to love God with all of his mind, and all of his heart, and all of his physical/material capacity. It's really an overwhelmingly beautiful truth. Yet it is one that cannot be actualized apart from the gracious work of our sovereign God.
Thanks for the great discussion!
This isn't too disagree with any of what you said but purely for discussions sake:
ReplyDeleteI have not ever liked the word balanced. The reasons I said that Piper and Lucado didn't balance us out is because I was thinking that it wasn't like you had your fill of grace and needed truth only or that I had my fill of truth and needed more grace. I know you didn't think that. What I mean is that what Lucado has helped do in my heart isn't nessesarily on the other end of the Christian spectrum of legalistic Christianity. He helped put me on a better course in my view of God. I am argueing pure semantics but semantics can be important. Balanced is a very good discription for how someone's passions should be. However, that word doesn't always help someone who isn't balanced. If I tell some guy he is too conservative, does that mean he needs to just slack off alittle? If someone is too liberal, do they need to become more traditional or serious or whatever? He needs a course correction and not so much a balance. I had also always thought that grace without truth wasn't really grace and truth without grace isn't really truth. I could hatefully tell someone that their laziness is wrong. Is my message based on truth? Not completely, because part of my message was that they are not worthy of respect, love, or mercy. I could tell someone that it was okay that they are lazy and I still love them. Was my statement based on grace? Not completely, because I don't have enought love for them to tell them the truth about their choice.
"He helped put me on a better course in my view of God."
ReplyDeleteThat's no mere semantics, brother! ;-)
There's no more profound a revolution a person or church can experience than receiving a greater, truer revelation of God.
I would just like to weigh on on this discussion by saying this:
ReplyDeleteYou're all wrong.
Including Piper? I'm confused. Am I wrong in my interpretation of Piper, or are he and I wrong that God allows suffering and receives glory when sinners are awakened to the repugnance of sin in God's sight and turn to him in repentance? Could you elaborate?
ReplyDeleteThanks for stopping in. Did Dr. Yarbrough tip you off to the blog?
OK, now don't I feel like a fool. The guy posing as DA Carson is an imposter. Click on his link and read some of the stuff. It's pretty funny (once you realize it's not Carson's). For a moment I was feeling awfully significant.
ReplyDeleteGood stuff.....I actually feel like Piper balances grace and truth better than most. The thing I respect about him is he does preach hard truth, but he preaches to himself, and he'll even be vocal about the fact that the words he's saying are directed to himself as well as everyone else. And the sermon is always going to finish with the cross, there's always hope! So I think the trick is preaching the hard truths of the gospel with gentleness, and the beautiful mercies of Christ with empowering truth. Randy Alcorn wrote a book called, "The Grace and Truth Paradox" which, the only I was hoping was that it would be longer, but it's a nice little read about Christlike balance. Also check out Matt Chandler from The Village Church on Itunes, he's a friend of Piper, Driscoll, and the guys in that camp and I think does a great job balancing grace and truth.
ReplyDeletepeaces in jesus.
Hey Davie,
ReplyDeleteWell said, man. Thanks for stopping by!