Bill, it is disingenuous to say that the these were "simple statements and links that supported them." I was not trying to comment on the virtues of Piper or agreement/disagreement with any of his views.What I saw were simple statements and links that supported them- as opposed to ad hominem and slander. I hope that we are not falling sway under 'Piper worship'. Let's remember what Paul taught us about going the whole 'of Paul/of Apollos' arguement route.
The claim, "liberals such as Daniel Fuller," is verifiably untrue by any standard definition of the term "liberal" (unless it was referencing his politics rather than his religious views???--I am personally unaware of his political position and only protested the untrue reference to his theological views). Using it in this context was excessive, defamatory, and shameful.
Yes, we all have strong feelings about movements and persons with whom we are in disagreement. No problem. We are still called, however, to conform our rhetoric to the canons of "simple" truthfulness.
I am in no position to evaluate the other claims made in the piece, merely the one relating to a man who lives in my retirement community. But, unless the words were a slip of the tongue, they do call into question how carefully the the other claims made might be.
Again, folks, state yourselves forcefully, but truthfully.