Hello, welcome back to Sociology 101.

On our last episode, we looked at an interview with Dr. John Piper and Rick Warren over their

sociological differences, or their supposed differences, because obviously because of the

conciliatory nature of the conversation, I think Rick Warren likes to be agreeable and likes

to be conciliatory in his responses and therefore it tends to

kind of muddle the waters as far as the distinctions. And I'm not, as I explained last time,

I'm not trying to be divisive by pointing out the clarity of the perspective. I'm simply

pointing out the clarity of the perspective. And being

clear is not necessarily being divisive. It's just being clear about what the actual distinctions

are in the points of contention historically over different theological points. And so what he talks

about in this one, and the last one we looked at, we talked about the total inability aspect. In this one, I want to look at his view of unconditional election, because

according to the Calvinistic understanding of unconditional election, God has chosen particular

individuals to be saved by effectual means. In other words, God has chosen who he will give an irresistible

work of regeneration to. In other words, he's going to supernaturally make certain people alive

so that they will certainly believe, and he pre-chuses who those people will be before the

foundation of the world.

Now, is that what Rick Warren means when he affirms unconditional election?

Well, we don't know because there's not really a lot of clarity given in this back and forth, though he does seem to affirm what John Piper says, and maybe that's really what he means,

and he's just not real clear about it.

But what you'll notice here is, I think Rick Warren, though well-intending, he just

affirms a contradiction.

He just simply says A equals not A, and because of my limited understanding I can say a

...