How could respect someone that pushes such evil doctrines as keller. He is a marxist

Jason Brents Indeed. The difference here is that we can look at these men and all men and know that God loved them into being and that His love is ever working for their good. They may look at us and either say "I don't know if God loves them" or "God probably hates them" (as Keller's theology says here of MacDonald, even if he wouldn't use the words), but we are not caught in the depressing, darkly tangled, and philosophically and theologically inconsistent views which would cause us to think or say such things. These men both have some good things to say, but, in the end, their views will take you to some very dark places which are far from the bright horizon of The Father who loves His enemies with an infinite love.

Eric McCarty Yeah. I have to go with you on this one. Calvinism's belief in pre-destination for salvation is bad enough because it allows one to claim, "I am chosen by God for salvation." How does one know if it's God's choice? This is even worse in that he presumes that MacDonald's lack of the "right" belief would exclude him from the faith, yet it's supposed to be God's sovereignty that determines one's status. I don't know if I stating this clearly, but I hope my point comes across that Piper's statement is inconsistent.

+Jen S. NT Wright the new testament scholar has some views on predestination that is interesting . I do believe it's not black n white BUT it CANNOT be YHWH seeing 5 drowning men n picking up only 2! when He CAN pick up all the 5. That cannot be the case since God is not a sadist .

Fwiw, here is the paragraph from MacDonald "I desire to wake no dispute, will myself dispute with no man, but for the sake of those whom certain believers trouble, I have spoken my mind. I love the one God seen in the face of Jesus Christ. From all copies of Jonathan Edwards’s portrait of God, however faded by time, however softened by the use of less glaring pigments, I turn with loathing. Not such a God is he concerning whom was the message John heard from Jesus, that he is light, and in him is no darkness at all."

Well said 👌

@@Chiller31916 Thank you :)

Really well said and I totally agree and thank you. I understand Pastor Piper's comments made some of the commenters in this video psychologically uncomfortable. But I would say I understand Pastor Piper more. Because we know he is one of the few evangelical pastors known to many people around the world.

Look at them driving each other on. But they are wrong. GM is Christian.

If CS Lewis holds George MacDonald in high esteem then so do I. He has done more for me in a single book than countless doctrine thumpers have in years.

Calvinism- "When Being Better than Everyone Else Isn't Good Enough"

I completely and wholeheartedly agree. I have been a Tim Keller fan for some time and am highly, highly disappointed in this sophomoric denouncement of a great Christian writer. Very disappointing.

Blake Talley It's really nice to hear all you brothers come to the defense of, frankly, my own spiritual master as well (MacDonald). I have listened to Keller's podcasts for some time, read his books, and really enjoyed his teaching style. I used to enjoy Piper, but frankly, after reading the book "Against Calvinism," I really could put to rest my doubts that the narrow concept of God in Calvinism is truly false. I didn't know Keller was a Calvinist. It's hard for me to respect the position, intellectually. The best thing I ever read on the issue in my life is the article by Peter Kreeft. He points out that if you are wrong on God's sovereignty, it's a technicality. But if you are wrong on God's love, it strikes at the very root of his nature, his very essence. I find it strange, hypocritical if I dare say, to be so bold as to say MacDonald was not a Christian author. One clear take away I saw in this interview was this: Piper admits he closed the book. How much time have these brothers spent really pondering the arguments MacDonald made? I know Lewis did. I know I have. I also know that the four horsemen of modern Atheism have! Something interesting to observe: Dawkins, Hitchens (God have mercy on his soul), and Harris all attack not the God of any form of arminianism, but only and always the Calvinist version of God. Why? Because there is no logical escape from the conclusions Lewis and MacDonald came to about that God...the God of Jonathan Edwards. When Piper openly admits that his logical brain cannot fathom how God can be both good and sovereign (in the Calvinist sense, that is), one has to conclude that he is simply more dishonest than MacDonald or Lewis were. I suppose I have to say that of Keller now too. Socrates has been my teacher the past 6 years now (I have been teaching philosophy, and thereby learning it), and one thing I have come to believe is that God would have us seek him out. That means really thinking it through and if that God appears to be a tyrant, then you clearly don't understand yet, and you should not stop there in the name of "orthodoxy." Rather, as MacDonald often says, you should persevere to UNDERstand what is not clear. What is clear is that God is Love. What is not clear is how a Calvinist God could be Love. I believe that is because God is not a Calvinist, but either way you see it, the love of truth (Romans 2) is central to the praise of God for those who by persistence in doing good seek glory, honor, and peace from the only true God. That goes for everyone, not just the chosen few, by the way (see Romans 2 again: God does not have favorites).

Couldn't agree more. There is no question that Calvinists, especially Five Point Calvinists, have limited God for themselves, which is just sad. They couldn't be more wrong.

Blake Talley Are you a part of the George Macdonald Society Facebook group? I suggest you join. It's a well of encouragement.

Thank you Jason, I'll look into that right now.

Jason Brents The weird thing is is that if you read MacDonald even a little bit, and certainly as you go through more and more of his works, you understand that his view on God's sovereignty is actually very similar to Piper's or Keller's. Some of the direct statements MacDonald comes out with on God's providence and the extent of God's control are actually quite jarring when you initially read them - I could quote a number of things MacDonald wrote that could very easily come from John Piper's mouth. I imagine Keller's reasoning for labelling MacDonald a pelagian is his continual emphasis on obedience but that's a highly misguided belief that completely fails under scrutiny (and one he'd get rid of if he bothered reading MacDonald's theological devotionals in any vague detail). When did Lewis point out MacDonald wasn't a universalist though? I think it's very clear he was.

In the Great Divorce Lewis converses with MacDonald, as you know. He says to him something along the lines of "Many people called you a Universalist...do you really think everyone goes to heaven?" MacDonald replies "Och, Laddy, don't blaspheme! No one knows the end." In another place Lewis says of MacDonald that while he hopes all men and angels will eventually come out of hell, he knows that none will without repenting. I tend to agree with this view of MacDonald's theology.

Jason Brents I must say, I think Lewis makes a very clear adjustment, even a rather significant change in MacDonald's view when he portrays him in The Great Divorce. I think he tried to lean MacDonald on the 'hopeful universalist' side when I think MacDonald was actually fairly secure in its truth. Lewis actually admitted MacDonald's universalism when he was asked in a letter why he didn't side with his 'master' on it: “I parted company from MacDonald on that point because a higher authority - the Dominical utterances themselves - seemed to me irreconcilable with universalism.” I'll admit, there are times in his writing when MacDonald seems to go from surety to mere hope and vice versa, but I think if you combine everything together, he really did believe that God *would* ultimately save all; at the very least, I think a vastly better case could be made for that than it could be for him holding to a merely passive, hopeful position. Although it has to be said that I highly doubt MacDonald would like to be thought of as a universalist anyway. He hated the sectarian nature of doctrinal debates within the church and would probably not want to be thought of and remembered in terms of a particular doctrinal position he held.

Agreed. I see what you are saying. I feel that MacDonald holds a strong general sense that we should focus on doing, not on knowing. Universalism by nature can tend to be "doctrinal" if you're not careful. That's why I lean to the "hopeful" side rather than the "for sure" side. I have found that one of the most refreshing things about the George MacDonald community is that they don't seem to have that "us vs. them" culture. I get the feeling that even were I to become hellfire and brimstone they would still treat me with the love that is of the Lord Jesus. I don't get that feeling from the Calvinist camp. That's the whole point: knowing is not as important, in my mind, as doing...and the greatest thing to do is to love. In fact, the most important doctrines that we must stand firm on are the ones that point us towards obedience, and towards love...not that sappy version nowdays that cares so little about the loved that it overlooks sin, but the dangerously passionate kind that hates all that keeps the beloved from being loverly and good. THAT is what I love about MacDonald, and Paul and Jesus for that matter. In that kind of doctrine I am as firm as a man can be...and I think that is what you mean when you say MacDonald was "firm" in his universalism. HIs firmness was in his certainty of the deep love of God...that God almighty would do all he can for every creature he made to make them good and pure. I think where I side with Lewis, in the end, is in the gentleman God is. In the end, if Satan or any other free agent chooses for all eternity to reject him, I believe he will honor that choice. In that alone I cannot be a universalist, because it would require God to override his own gentlemanly nature to force another's will. And I think in this point Lewis understood that his master was in agreement. So even though it seems you are right about MacDonald in an objective way (I do concede his universalism in that broad sense), I still agree with Lewis about him that only through freewill repentance can any of his creatures come to be made pure again. Final thought apart from MacD or Lewis: logically speaking, if it's really free will, then it can't be forced even given all eternity to make the choice. Potentially a very stubborn free will could refuse to repent forever, no? Again, these are things beyond what is possible to know, and for that reason I don't try to know it. I hope in the love of God. And I obey my Masters Jesus, and persuade as many as I can to follow me as I follow Him.

Jason Brents I broadly agree with you on your reading of MacD, especially in terms of obedience (and I can clearly see his influence on you). There really are too many Christians who will trust in doctrine and theory over Christ Himself and MacD was obviously very clear about this. I don't however see an issue between holding to human free will and believing that all will eventually be saved. I know this is quite frequently claimed because I read it a lot but there really is no problem. Universalism doesn't necessarily state how all will be saved, just that all will be saved. If you have a reason for believing so (like scriptural testimony or a belief in God's persistence) then it's quite easy to argue universalism and still believe that God will not override the free will of single human being. "Final thought apart from MacD or Lewis: logically speaking, if it's really free will, then it can't be forced even given all eternity to make the choice. Potentially a very stubborn free will could refuse to repent forever, no?" Technically, yes. But that doesn't mean you can't hold to free will and be a universalist, otherwise you can't have surety that any will be saved. If you have a reason for believing that all will be saved, like, as I said, scriptural testimony, then you can quite easily hold to both without conflict.

Amen.

Jen S. They are repulsive in their smug arrogance. They need to read George MacDonald and learn some humility!

Lewis was more generous than them, certainly. But his appreciation for MacDonald had nothing to do with that generosity. He read him and imbibed his teaching because he was the very thing Keller claims he wasn't: a passionate follower of Christ and a "superb" preacher of the true gospel.

@@newmannoggs for sure. Couldn't agree more

"let us do our homework first, for it is probable that John Piper and Tim Keller have done theirs." That's just the point though, they haven't. Piper disengaged with MacDonald NOT directly because of any theological or doctrinal argument, but because he said something critical about a man Piper has on a pedestal (Jonathan Edwards.) I see little humility from either of these men in the video, and I'm sorry to say that it's quite possible for large numbers of people within the body of Christ to be wrong. And if it comes to that, the character and insight of George MacDonald has been attested to by large numbers of Christians, including Lewis himself, G K Chesterton, Elisabeth Elliot, Oswald Chambers and more recently, John Eldredge. I would take the word of any of them over Piper and Keller, but I don't need to, as I can (and have) read MacDonald for myself. If these guys would do the same, they would be in more of a position to judge, though even then they would not be qualified to speak on his eternal destiny, as Keller does in the video.

Can someone explain to me what they mean, then, by "he's so wrong when it comes to the cross."? I can't take anyone seriously on this video, because everyone is commenting like this: "I've read it, and you're wrong". That is opinion and serves no purpose. What could they possibly mean by that, if they've never read his work? And why would they make such assertions, if they've never read it.. And don't tell me It's because they are (name-calling). It seems like most are putting one or the other on a pedestal. They are ALL men(Lewis, Edwards, Macdonald, Piper, and Keller), and sinners, and can be wrong, just like you and I. Can someone give me a reasoned response? Anyone?! I hate this type of vagueness (out of everyone involved). Can you NOT put your favorite on a pedestal for a moment, and give me some kind of objective response? I like this original comment, btw. It seems to be the only one with honesty.

David Chesley, your comment was said with honesty and humility. Thank you!

@@timwinn5834 Again, Piper himself admits that he stopped reading a MacDonald sermon because the latter criticised his hero, Jonathan Edwards-and he gives no indication that he re engaged with his writings after that point. Keller, for his part, decides that he "doesn't think GM was even a Christian" on the basis of a lazy (and inaccurate) label he chooses to put on him, rather than addressing anything his opponent actually said or wrote. So when you say "what could they possibly mean...if they've never read his work," the answer, in all seriousness, is that your guess is as good as mine. A more pertinent question, however, would be "where is the evidence that they HAVE read his work" because everything in this video suggests the opposite.

Have you read 'Sinners in the Hands of a Loving God' by Brian Zhand ?

You need to reread the great divorce if this is what you think. MacDonald was the saint who came out to meet Lewis when he arrived from the grey town.

Lewis and MacDonald would certainly have been friends with the reformers. It is the reformers who, I think, would have denounced Lewis and MacDonald.

I’m not sure Keller or Piper are believers. They use great proverbial speech, but not sure they’re Christians! 🤣

Keller said MacDonald wasn't a Christian. I may be wrong but I haven't seen anyone here suggest that either Piper or Keller aren't believers, even if elements of their Calvinism have been strongly criticised. Keller's comments seem to me a far stronger Phariseeism. And MacDonald's insistence on obedience being the outworking of faith is perfectly biblical - the Calvinist boogeyman Pelagius has no relation to MacDonald, who is strong on the idea that you can't be free without Christ and that all things done not of faith in Him are sin.

My thoughts exactly

Tim Winn I think they are referring to the fact that he (in fact both MacDonald and Lewis) did not believe in Penal Substitution.

Ann Chovey Is that true? And.. Isn't that really bad? Jesus said it plain as day; that He was the ONLY way to the Father. If you don't believe in penal substitution, aren't you missing the point of Christianity? How else are we justified before God? There is no other way but Him. If they didn't believe in Christ as a propitiation, they can't be saved.

I'll admit that I love Lewis - can't get into MacDonald - but the fact that he denied penal substitution does bother me. He did believe in the virgin birth and Christ is the only way to God, plus he did believe in the resurrection. Without the resurrection we definitely don't have Christianity. Lewis got so much right and I focus on that. How he and God worked out all his beliefs is not something I've been given privy to. I know if you judge a man by his fruits - a lot of people came to be Christians. Lewis did not bring me to Christ but he helped me stay there. Being brought up in a church based on emotions, I craved to see Christ through an intellectual/logical lens. I wanted to be sure all those emotions weren't being wasted on something that didn't hold water.

Ann Chovey I feel the same way about Lewis. I have a collection of his books, and even read the Narnia books as a child. "Mere Christianity" got me to think in ways that I never did before, and opened up a whole new world of knowledge for me. That said, I don't understand how a person can believe Christ is the only way, and not believe in penal substitution. Scripture says that while we were ENEMIES of God, Christ died for us(Romans 5). If we are His enemies, and have broken His law, then justice demands our punishment, or a worthy propitiation in it's place. Otherwise, God is not just. Or, you could say that God is not holy, which is blasphemous, and we can get to Him by somehow paying for the blackness in our hearts, but that will only lead us to hell. Hell is the only punishment good enough to make up for our sin, and eternity is how long it would take us. Jesus could pay that because He's God, He's perfect, and because of His immense worth. If he doesn't take away our sins by taking our place, then I just don't see any way we're escaping hell. I just don't understand how a person believes Jesus is the only way to God; that He died on the cross and rose again but, doesn't believe that He took the punishment for our sins. Why did He die, then? What am I missing? I'm not saying whether or not anyone was saved; that's not my place, and they died before I was born, anyway. However, none of this adds up to me. It doesn't make sense.

My apologies for all my errors in my previous posting. I have since gone back and fixed them. As for penal substitution, the Levitical priests even put their hand on the head of the animal to symbolize the transfer of sin to the priest (Christ). I think because Lewis was a professor of Medieval literature he read the Bible with a literary eye which gave us some interesting insight into the bible since most approach it theologically. One thing he said using his literary eye was "Something will usually have to be said about the historicity of the Gospels. You who are trained theologians will be able to do this in ways which I could not. My own line was to say that I was a professional literary critic and I thought I did know the difference between legend and historical writing: the Gospels were certainly not legends (in one sense they're not good enough); and that if they are not history, then they are realistic prose fiction of a kind which actually never existed before the eighteenth century. Little episodes such as Jesus writing in the dust when they brought Him the woman taken in adultery (which have no doctrinal significance at all) are the mark." Lewis did believe Christ was the only route to God and this quote shows he did believe the gospels were true because they were written in a style that was not the norm then. There is a book called "Mere Christian" that gives accounts of people who were changed by Lewis.

why

When I was searching for proof of election, etc, I would go to anti-Calvinist videos to hear them and see what sermons the followers have on their channels, so I can check those out, too. However, time and time again, I found the same thing -- *rarely* a sermon on Christian living; content is either blocked or it's all anti-Calvinist viciousness and hatred for "hellbound" Calvinists. That's been one of the biggest signs to me that non reformed theology damages you.

So true.

Seriously? You don't detect the hatred coming from Keller himself in the video? I for one have no time for Calvinism or Arminianism, but I believe those who adhere to either can be Christians. Certainly not BECAUSE they are Calvinists or Arminians but I consider them brothers if they follow Christ.

Gadsden Runningwater You must not be familiair with the debate then, because you only have to look at the comments on soteriology101’s KZfaq-page from calvinists to be convinced otherwise.

@@newmannoggs What a beautiful and balanced comment. God bless you brother.

So being pastors and teaching aren't real jobs?

Triune?.. can you bear hearing the arguments of Unitarianism? It is hard to bear the truth at first. So much to unlearn what was corrupted and turned into a falsehood

Why?

@@JesusGarcia-Digem facebook.com/groups/GeorgeMacDonaldSociety/search/?query=piper%20keller&epa=SEARCH_BOX

@@anitaoomen8021 whats some of the points you dont agree with?

DJT is not gonna save anyone. If anything, he is the opposite of what you might think he is. There’s much evidence for him having been chosen to lead the false hope of the false light, duping people who dislike the current situation.

not a fake, just wrong in some areas - as we all are, since no one grasps 100% of the truth.