Predestination: Mark Driscoll's forked tongue - part 1

[Username1]

At last, as long advertised (I know literally one or two people have been on tenterhooks waiting for this; one of them was me ), here are my musings on the illogicality, inconsistency, incoherence and unscriptural nature of Calvinism, as exemplified in the teachings of Seattle mega-church pastor Mark Driscoll.

Those who’ve read my previous postings on Driscoll and/or Calvinism will know I’m not his or its biggest supporter. Those who haven’t ought to know by way of introduction that I believe Calvinism to be one of the greatest evils Christianity faces, a bigger deterrent to evangelism than the problem of evil itself, and its key doctrines of predestination and limited atonement to be a dreadful slur on the character of God as revealed in the Bible and, more importantly, as revealed and modelled in the person and life of Jesus Christ.

So don’t expect a cool, dispassionate, even-handed treatise. The gloves, as they say, are off …

To speak with a forked tongue means, according to the ever-reliable Wikipedia, to “deliberately say one thing and mean another, or to be hypocritical, or act in a duplicitous manner”. And this, I hope to demonstrate, is precisely what Mark Driscoll does when he preaches about his Calvinist/Augustinian theology, and atonement and predestination in particular.

What I mean by this is that he says one thing one minute and then contradicts himself the next. Either that or he says one thing when he actually means the opposite. How this manifests itself mainly is that most of the time he talks like an Arminian, he uses the language of Arminianism, to preach Calvinism and ECT, or he deliberately obscures and skirts around the unpalatable ‘reality’ of predestination. And even when he does finally use the language of Calvinism itself, he does so after having led his listeners up and down so many different blind alleys, rushed his way through so many difficult theological ideas, so many scriptural references, so much historical analysis, in such quickfire but often disconnected succession, that most of his listeners are so bewildered and browbeaten they’re prepared to believe anything he tells them.

Here’s a quick example, by way of a foretaste, of what I mean:

If you are here tonight and you do not know Jesus, your blood is on your own hands, and your eternity is your own responsibility. You have no one to blame but yourself.

Calvinist, predestination-believing ‘Pastor Mark’s own words. (My emphasis.)

It’s fairly obvious why he does this. It’s because he knows that if he just comes right out and says what he actually believes – straight up, no chaser – a lot of the sensitive, thinking agnostics in his congregation will get up and walk out. And the sensitive, thinking converts in his congregation will, over time, realise the inherent contradictions and illogicalities in what is being preached to them. In particular they will recognise the absurdity, the blasphemy even, of Driscoll’s message that God is supposed to be, and is preached as being, love, more loving than any earthly parent, but that he hates some of his children and deliberately wills to let them suffer an eternity of conscious torment in hell. And they too will get up and walk out, and Driscoll’s mega-church won’t be quite so mega anymore. And Driscoll himself won’t have so much notoriety, power and influence. (And, perhaps, money, although I have no idea what he does with the mega-bucks his mega-church rakes in. Perhaps he gives it all to charity.)

Driscoll is not alone in this, of course. Plenty of other Reformed preachers do the same, or a similar, thing. Including, for example, Tim Keller. Now I admire Keller a great deal. I think he’s a brilliant expositor of the gospel, who never resorts to the sort of shock tactics Driscoll employs. But the trouble is, listen to his measured, carefully thought out sermons and you’d come away thinking he was a dyed-in-the-wool Arminian. That it’s all up to you whether you choose to come to Jesus and get saved.

I think you have to do this, though, if you’re a Calvinist. Because holding to this kind of illogical, Orwellian ‘doublethink’ is the only way a Calvinist can get through life without, as the late John Stott put it, “either cauterising their feelings or cracking under the strain”. (Stott was talking specifically about ECT, but the sentiment is directly relevant to all of Calvinism, I think.)

But back to ‘Pastor’ Mark. In this post (or series of posts) I will be quoting directly from the published transcript of his recent sermon on predestination. You can download and listen to or read that sermon from the Mars Hill church website, here:

marshill.com/media/religionsaves/predestination

In fact, I’d urge you to do that, so you get the full impact of Driscoll’s approach and tactics. But if you can’t bear listening to the Pastor for that long, or ploughing through the 20 A4 pages of transcript (yes, it’s a long sermon), fear not, for your humble critic has picked out some of the most egregious examples of doublethink and contradiction for you.

Obviously I can’t give you all the context of every quoted remark without quoting the whole sermon. But I can promise you that everything I quote is verbatim from the transcript, is in chronological order, and does not ignore Driscoll’s context just to make him look bad. (If I were the sarcastic type I might say he doesn’t need my help to do that. Luckily I’m not. ) Plus all emphases in the quoted passages are mine.

But do bear in mind that I have had the dubious luxury of studying the transcript of the sermon. I have been able to read and re-read it, to go back over all the bits that actually make no sense but are rushed through quickly so you don’t have time to notice them. It’s a bit like watching The Sixth Sense First time you see it you get carried along by the story, and when you find out at the end that Bruce Willis was actually dead all along you go “wow, that’s amazing, that’s incredible!” But if you go back and watch it again you realise it doesn’t hang together at all, is a load of illogical rubbish, in fact. Like all M Night Shyamalamadingdong’s films, if you ask me. I mean, has anybody seen The Village? Seriously …

So, rather a long introduction, sorry. But here we go. I invite you to journey with me into the illlogical world of Mark Driscoll on predestination.

So, Father, we begin by thanking you for being such a great, loving, compassionate, merciful God, who is willing to pursue us for relationship. And Lord Jesus we thank you for making that relationship possible. And Holy Spirit, we thank you for regenerating us, that we might receive Jesus.

As we study, we ask for the mental ability to hang in there, with a lot of content and deep doctrines. And God, I pray that I would be able to articulate your heart and your Word effectively and accurately, so that as many people as possible would love Jesus, in whose name we pray, amen.

Not one to disappoint the sceptics, the Pastor is off to a bad start with his opening prayer. Note the inherent contradiction in his opening line – for a god who punishes people arbitrarily for eternity is neither great, loving, compassionate nor merciful to those poor sinners, at least. Note too how he sets up his audience for the bewildering blizzard of “deep doctrines” with which he’s going to blind them.

And note, finally, the language of his prayer – as you will observe, it’s pretty much 100% Arminian. The very word “possibility” ought to be foreign to Calvinism, where everything as regards matters of salvation (and everything else, actually) is worked out in advance. But Driscoll makes it sound very much like his preaching is going to help bring “as many people as possible” to love Jesus – as opposed to only those people God has predestined to be brought to love Jesus.

At this point the unelect in the audience might as well get up and walk out, for nothing the good Pastor says can make any difference to their unelection. Trouble is, some of the poor blighters don’t know they’re unelect – yet. But let’s continue.

Here is the gist of the question. Some people love Jesus, go to Heaven. Other people don’t love Jesus, they go to hell. Why? Why is it that some people go to hell, and others go to Heaven? Is it because they didn’t choose Jesus, or is it because Jesus didn’t choose them? That is the gist of the question.

Fair enough, you might think. The Pastor is facing up to the tough question pretty much out of the blocks. He’s going to tell us why some of God’s beloved children end up in the fiery furnace forever.

Except he isn’t, of course. Straightaway the diversionary tactics kick in, and we’re off on a 1,500 word (count ‘em) detour through the history of theological schools of thought, of Arminianism, Augustinianism, Calvinism etc, before we get anywhere near any kind of explanation of why some are chosen – predestined – for heaven and others not. But moving on.

First, I would say that we should begin with Origen, who lived 185 to 254, and John Chrysostom, who lived 347 to 407. In so doing, I want you to get a bit of historical perspective on how Christians have viewed this issue.
They said that salvation was a two-handed event, whereby God looked down the corridor of time, saw those who would choose him, and then he predestined to choose them. And so, election, or predestination, or choosing begins with us choosing God, and then God responding to our choice and choosing us by his foreknowledge of seeing in advance who would choose him.
And so, he knew that we would reach out to him, and he reached out to us, and we were saved in that way.

Odd, isn’t it, that Driscoll adduces Origen as an early example of an Arminian, lumping him in with John Chrysostom, without mentioning Origen’s Universalism? (And Driscoll puts the boot very firmly into Universalism and Universalists elsewhere in his sermonising.) Maybe he doesn’t want to upset the Arminians in the audience.

There was, then, another man, in 354 he was born, his name was Pelagius, and he had very bizarre concept that was single-handed salvation, but essentially without God’s involvement whatsoever.
He said that we are not sinners by nature. That Adam did not give a sin nature to any of us as our first father. And that we are all born with an open, perfect, blank slate of will and choice, just like Adam was created, and that we could choose good or bad. We could choose God or not. Therefore, to be saved, all we need do is choose God. That’s all. It’s entirely of our own doing.
That’s a heretical, false position.

Maybe Mark doesn’t use Wikipedia when he does his research for his sermons. If he had, he would know that “Recent analysis of [Pelagius’s] thinking suggests that it was, in fact, highly orthodox, following in the tradition established by the early fathers and in keeping with the teaching of the church in both the East and the West. … From what we are able to piece together from the few sources available… it seems that the Celtic monk held to an orthodox view of the prevenience of God’s grace, and did not assert that individuals could achieve salvation purely by their own efforts.”

Maybe Pelagius wasn’t such a heretic after all, Mark.

But anyway. In his eagerness to bash Pelagius, Driscoll actually lands one squarely on the chin of the Arminians he’s trying so hard (well, fairly hard) to be nice to:

We’re not good people who save ourselves. Every Christian agrees that that’s not how it happens.

Well, not really, Mark. If you think about it logically, Arminians basically believe that we do actually save ourselves. Jesus throws out the lifebelt, but if we don’t grab hold of it we sink. So although Jesus died to save everybody, at the end of the day, only those who are smart or lucky or, yes, good enough to opt into salvation make it to heaven in the end. Ultimately, it’s something we do that saves us.

But we’re not here to expose the illogicalities of Arminianism!

Moving along, then there was a man named Augustine, 354 to 430 is when he lived …
His position was that we are all sinners. We have all turned from God. We have all run from God. We all deserve hell. And God in his mercy reaches down and through Jesus grabs some of us and gives us an ill-deserved gift of grace. He gives us his love. He forgives us of sin. He gives us a new heart. He makes us a new people.
I would call that position single predestination – single predestination. That everyone chooses hell, and Jesus chooses some. That is my position. My position is the Augustinian position.

Here we go, this is Mark Driscoll laying his cards on the table at last. He’s an Augustinian. He believes in single predestination, as opposed to Calvin’s double predestination. There is a distinction, but it’s purely a semantic one. The ultimate result is exactly the same under either doctrine. Under Calvinism God actively predestines some for election and salvation, and also actively predestines others to reprobation. But under Driscoll’s ‘unlimited limited atonement’ theology, God actively predestines some for election and salvation, and simply leaves others to suffer the consequences of their sinfulness – ie damnation.

Notice, by the way, that Driscoll still hasn’t explained why some get saved and others don’t. It will be a while before he attempts to do that. What he does do now is get into ‘explaining’ Calvinism. And straightaway he shoots himself in his illogical foot.

And the Five Points of Calvinism start at Genesis 3. Nonetheless, they begin with total depravity. That we are all sinners by nature and choice. And as a result, we don’t have free will. We cannot choose God.

Sorry, Mark, what was that? We’re all sinners “by nature and choice”? But “as a result, we don’t have free will”. So we can ‘choose’ to be sinners, but we can’t ‘choose’ to do anything else? Certainly not accept Christ as saviour.

And anyway, we can’t be sinners by nature and choice, can we? Surely it’s by nature or choice? If we’re born sinners, born with a sin nature, as you believe, it’s simply incoherent to say we choose to behave sinfully.

But we’ll we leave that piffling little trifle of an illogicality, because there are some real monsters coming up soon.

[At this point in his sermon Driscoll waffles on for a good while about how Calvinists can fellowship with Arminians. We’ll skip over all that, because now he starts getting into a, quote, “biblical examination of the big issues”. (Don’t hold your breath, though.)]

The first thing that I would like to say is that we need to agree on God’s heart. God’s heart is a heart of love. God’s heart is a heart that desires that everyone would turn from sin, trust in Jesus, go to Heaven (not hell), and be saved through Jesus Christ.

Ah, so you’re an Arminian after all, Mark! God wants everyone to be saved, you say.

But hang on, you’re also a Calvinist, a sola scriptura, soli Deo gloria Calvinist. God is omnipotent, you say. What he wants, he gets. And he wants everyone to be saved. Ergo, everyone will be saved. So actually, Mark, you’ve been a closet Universalist all along! Hurrah!

Anyway, time for some more of that pesky forked tongue of yours.

There is no one here, if you believe in Jesus, that you will be cast away or rejected.

So any of us can be saved, right? All we’ve got to do is believe in Jesus, yes? Oh yeah, and be one of the elect, of course. Funny you didn’t mention that bit. But hang, you do mention it.

You say, “How do I know that I am elect?” Here is the answer. Do you believe in Jesus?

Still no explanation of why you might be elect. And actually, how do I know that I really do believe in Jesus? After all, the Bible talks about it being impossible to renew those who fall away, of Jesus turning to some who thought they were saved and saying ‘I never knew you’. What if I’m just deceiving myself (for we are sinful and deceitful by nature)? Mark, you’ve got me seriously worried now. Scared in fact.

My first point is that God loves you; God loves the world; God loves everyone; God invites everyone to come to him for salvation. Furthermore, God invites us through sending the Gospel out to all people, inviting everyone to turn from sin and trust in Jesus, who is God, who lived without sin, died in our place to pay our penalty of death for sin, and rose to give us salvation.

Phew, that’s a relief. You’re back to your Arminianism again. God invites ‘everyone’ to come to him for salvation. ‘Everyone’ includes me. So all I’ve got to do is accept his invitation, turn from sin, trust in Jesus, and I’m okay. Right? (Although I don’t have to turn to him, do I, because he only issues a blanket invitation, not an irresistible command. So I could reject him if I wanted to, right?)

I’ll read these verses to you as well. Matthew 11:28, Jesus says, “Come to me all who are labored and heavy laden, and I will give you rest.” Acts 16:31 says, “Believe in the Lord Jesus and you” – and I would say any one of you – “will be saved if you turn from sin and trust in Jesus.” Acts 17:30 says, “He commands all people everywhere to repent,” that is to turn from sin and turn to Jesus.

Uh-oh. So God does command us to repent after all. It’s not an invitation, it’s a command. I’m getting a bit confused here, Mark. Help me out will you? What’s the true situation?

And Revelation 22:17 says this, “The Spirit and the bride say, “Come!” And let the one who hears say, “Come!” And let the one who is thirsty come. Let the one who desires to take the water of life do so without price.” God says three times therein, “Come to me! Come to me! Come to me!” God loves people. God invites all people to turn from sin and to trust in Jesus for the forgiveness of all sin.

Ah, right, so it is an invitation after all. Thanks for clarifying that Mark.

Nonetheless, many people do not love Jesus. Many people do not desire Jesus. Why? Why?

Tell me, Mark, do please tell me. That’s the 64,000 dollar question, the one you said you were going to answer about six pages ago. Why are some people going to end up in hell?

Here is the point. God is good. God desires you to be saved. God desires you to come to Jesus. God invites you to come to Jesus. And some people do not because they refuse Jesus. They reject Jesus. They resist Jesus. They disobey Jesus.
The result is that every non-Christian who goes to hell has no one to blame but themselves.

Ah, I get it. It’s our fault, if we’re not Christian, that we go to hell. We’re wicked sinners, and God is just and fair in sending us to hell as punishment. Sounds harsh, but I suppose God is just and holy and must punish sin, so he’s got no option. Sounds also like an Arminian explanation to me, that God ‘invites’ us to come to Jesus, but we refuse his invitation. Are you an Arminian after all, Mark?

They cannot blame God, that he didn’t love them, that he didn’t pursue them, that his Spirit didn’t convict their conscience, that his Son Jesus was unwilling to receive their repentance.
If you are here tonight and you do not know Jesus, your blood is on your own hands, and your eternity is your own responsibility. You have no one to blame but yourself.

Yeah, yeah, I get it Mark. You’ve made it abundantly clear. It’s nothing to do with God not choosing us, God not predestining us for salvation. It’s all our fault for not receiving Jesus. God does his best, but we just don’t choose him. You’re an Arminian, I’ve got that.

That is because we’re all sinners. This is our condition by nature and choice.

Ah, but if we’re sinners by nature, that means we can’t help being sinners, and hence we can’t help it that we don’t choose God, right?

And that our will does not, cannot, will not choose the provision of God through the person of Jesus.

Good, we’re agreed on that. It’s not our fault if we don’t choose God, because we simply can’t do it. End of.

That being said, God’s heart is love. God’s invitation is Jesus. Our rejection is our own responsibility.

Oh man, now I’m really getting confused. You just said we cannot choose the provision of God, but now you’re telling me our rejection is our own responsibility. Make your mind up, Mark!

And the reason why we reject and refuse Jesus Christ is because we are wicked. We do evil continually. We are slaves to sin. We do not seek God. We do not do good. We do not fear God. Our thinking is hostile to God. We are unable to understand the greatness of Jesus. We are children of wrath who are spiritually dead. Dead, dead, dead! Physically alive, spiritually dead.

Right. Let’s see if I’ve understood all this correctly. We’re wicked – by nature, or by choice, or maybe both, doesn’t matter. The point is, we’re wicked, and because we’re wicked, we don’t choose Jesus, don’t choose salvation. Okay, I think I’ve got it.

Now at this point, some will ask, “What about free will?

I hear them, Mark, I hear them.

At this point I would quote his answer, but it’s long and confusing and references Erasmus and Luther and Jesus and Augustine, and you’re pretty bored already. But basically, it’s ‘we don’t have any’ – free will, that is. Not in any real, meaningful sense.

Everyone chooses Satan, sin, death, and hell. And apart from a new heart, that’s all anyone would ever choose.

Oh man. That’s it then. We’re all doomed. Or are we …?

Satan and demons sin and do evil and injustice and atrocity, and it is their fault. And God is bigger than Satan and sin and sinners, and God works out all things for good, because God is good, bigger, more powerful and sovereign than everyone and everything that he has made.
And this is the grounding of the Christian hope. That though we are bad, God is good. And though life is hard, God works out everything for our good and his glory.

So there’s hope, Mark, Christian hope? Though we are wicked and helpless to save ourselves, God “works out everything for our good and his glory” does he? But not for all of us, of course. Only those who he predestined to salvation. Which, incidentally, you still haven’t given us an explanation of.

God foreknew. God foreknew, meaning, he knew in advance that he was going to create some of us to be his children. He knew all who would come into existence, but he foreknew, he chose certain people that he would love, that he would actively pursue for relationship. That he would passionately, continually, relentlessly, graciously pursue for salvation.
That is in eternity past. Those he foreknew he also predestined. He predetermined their destiny. He chose that despite their sin and folly and rebellion and hardness of heart and stubbornness, and not just undeservedness, but ill-deservedness, he predestined to love the unlovely, to love the unlovable.

Aha, at last! An explanation of sorts. Although to be frank, you’re still not telling us why God predestined some people to be get saved and others to be damned. Maybe you’re building up to it.

And many say that Paul was a man who taught the doctrine of predestination most actively, most vigorously, most completely in all of Scripture.
Might *I *suggest that the reason he did so is because he experienced predestination most powerfully?

Might I suggest the reason Paul (allegedly) taught the doctrine of predestination most completely in all of scripture is because nobody else taught it at all – not the way you teach it, anyhow. Including Paul, actually.

Secondly, some would argue that if you believe in the doctrine of predestination, you will not be very evangelistic. You won’t do evangelism; you won’t plant churches. You’ll think, “Well, God’s gonna save everybody, so I’m just going to take a nap.”

Yep. Some would argue that. Because if the elect’s salvation is guaranteed from the beginning, it surely makes no difference whether you or Mars Hill church or me or any other individual or body evangelises them. God’s gonna get em anyway. So yes, sit back and take that nap, Calvinists.

Driscoll, however, thinks that’s bad form, because:

Those who end up acting in that way miss the heart of Paul

Which is funny, when you consider what Driscoll immediately goes on to quote:

Here are [Paul’s] words in Chapter 9, beginning in verse 1. He says, quote, “I am speaking the truth in Christ. I am not lying. My conscience bears me witness in the Holy Spirit, that I have great sorrow and unceasing anguish in my heart. For I wish that I myself were accursed and cut off from Christ, for the sake of my brothers,” – there he is speaking of the Jewish people – “my kinsman according to the flesh.

Maybe I’m missing something, Mark, but that sure reads as if Pauls wants all his kinsmen to be saved, that were it possible he would give up his own salvation to get them saved. So if God doesn’t choose to save some of Paul’s kinsmen, when he could if he wanted to, does that make him less loving than Paul? Does God “miss the heart of Paul?” Surely not.

All right, we could debate this forever. The bottom line is, whether it’s individuals or nations, God has the absolute right to chose whom he will save and whom he will use. Right? … God chooses, in his divine sovereignty to love and bless individuals and nations, and to let others simply go the course of their own decision and get what they deserve.

You’re right, Mark. We could debate this forever. But I need to go and get a cup of tea. And I’m sure everybody else wants a chance to sit back and digest what you’ve said thus far.

That’s all for now folks. Part 2 follows soon. But just in case you were thinking maybe Mark Driscoll was going to pull the rabbit out of the hat and somehow make all this confused and confusing doublespeak make sense when he (finally) wraps it up, well, sorry to disappoint you. It doesn’t get better. In fact it gets worse!

Shalom

Johnny

[stuartd]

I’m not too far behind you regarding calvinism , my [at the time] boss was a true calvinist [5 pointer] but only when it was convenient with him

[corpselight]

it seems to me that a pastor might use predestination as a way to make his congregation feel like they belong…and that they’re special, and separate from all those who aren’t in their group.

tell them they’re DEFINITELY of the elect, so long as they behave, and they’ll follow you to hell…

[snitzelhoff]

I love this:

You say, “How do I know that I am elect?” Here is the answer. Do you believe in Jesus?

Yeah, okay. You’re elect if the answer is “yes,” but if the answer changes to “no,” not only are you no longer elect–you were never elect in the first place. And what if the answer is no but you later come to believe in Jesus? Then not only did you become elect, but you were elect from all eternity.

[corpselight]

I love this:

You say, “How do I know that I am elect?” Here is the answer. Do you believe in Jesus?

Yeah, okay. You’re elect if the answer is “yes,” but if the answer changes to “no,” not only are you no longer elect–you were never elect in the first place. And what if the answer is no but you later come to believe in Jesus? Then not only did you become elect, but you were elect from all eternity.

there’s another way round this…you could say that the person has backslidden, but God will bring them back before too late.
i still think this approach stretches Scripture, though!

[snitzelhoff]

And the state you die in, it was always God’s will for you to be in that state. You were always elect. You were always non-elect.

Oceania has always been at war with Eurasia.

[JasonPratt]

100% in favor of Johnny’s analysis so far!

[davidbo]

Johnny wrote:
Straightaway the diversionary tactics kick in, and we’re off on a 1,500 word (count ‘em) detour through the history of theological schools of thought, of Arminianism, Augustinianism, Calvinism etc, before we get anywhere near any kind of explanation of why some are chosen – predestined – for heaven and others not.

Diversionary yes, but I think there is something more sinister involved here. The point of these long forays into theological schools, Greek and Hebrew word play, and baffling logic is to get the most important point of all across to the membership:

You are stupid idiots and need me, the expert in all things spiritual, to tell you what to believe.

The whole shtick is aimed at control and Calvinism or Augustinianism is a useful script.

BTW I’m love’n the analysis and can’t wait for part 2!

Keep it up Johnny.

[stellar_renegade]

Ooohh, you’ve just revolutionized my whole approach to emailing him, Johnny! Thank you heartily! I’m so glad I haven’t done that yet.

He’s usually pretty phenomenal when dealing with personal/social issues, but his theology is an outright mess. After having observed him for awhile (as an outsider from within the church), I think he’s honestly just struggling and confused. I have no doubt that he’s doing what he believes God told him to do, but also feels that he can’t question a major doctrine and be successful in his helping build the church. If only he knew! He doesn’t need Piper (who’s at least honest and clear) and Keller and the like, he just needs Jesus’ help! But as far as that goes, he could have a Talbott or someone alongside him. But I think he puts too much stock in his bravado. I dont hold all too much hope for him right at this juncture.

I’m not sure about greed being a motivation. A close friend visited his house and said it’s not all that elaborate but more what you’d expect for a family with five kids. I think the issues are much more spiritually sinister than that. I get the hardcore ickies whenever this topic is broached.

[BirdOfTheEgg]

Tbh, I think you’re all going a bit too far with your analysis of Driscoll. I believe the issue is far simpler…

[SLJ]

What do you say the issue is, Bird?

Sonia

[BirdOfTheEgg]

I haven’t read that much about Mark Driscoll, personally, because he doesn’t interest me in particular, so I am dealing with incomplete information here.

But I believe this applies to most Christians out there who are wrestling with the issue of free faith vs closed faith. I’m on the free faith side, in the sense that I’m open to new ideas, heresies, stuff from the outside, alternative readings of the Bible and translations, etc. The fundamentalist Christian is on the other side - they have specific ideas in mind, and everything else is a heresy. This view finds a lot of friction within Protestant because Protestants are all heretics by definition.

So what results is issue of having a young tradition arise as a result of opposition to an old tradition, and now trying to save this tradition. Because if you reject the young tradition, you end up with nothing. You will have to plunge yourself into the sea of “everything I ever knew before needs to go” and learn everything yourself.

And nobody wants to do that. Hell, I don’t want to do that. I just want to join the EOC and sit tight instead of reinterpreting the Bible every time I read it.

This all puts a rather significant strain on faith itself, too.

[Username1]

Hi Bird

Very interesting viewpoint, as always. I take your point about Driscoll. The thing is, for me at least, he’s got a very loud mouth, and a lot of people are listening to him. And it worries me what they’re hearing, or think they’re hearing, or don’t know that they’re not actually hearing, if you get my drift.

I just want to join the EOC and sit tight instead of reinterpreting the Bible every time I read it.

I’m assuming by EOC you mean the Eastern Orthodox Church? Because yes, I see loads that’s good, loads that I think “yes, they’ve got it right” in that belief system. Loads.

Shalom

Johnny

[Username1]

Hi Stellar (it’s Justin, isn’t it? Sorry, we’ve not actually ‘met’ properly - forgive me, Englishman, formal introductions etc old chap. )

He’s usually pretty phenomenal when dealing with personal/social issues, but his theology is an outright mess. After having observed him for awhile (as an outsider from within the church), I think he’s honestly just struggling and confused. I have no doubt that he’s doing what he believes God told him to do, but also feels that he can’t question a major doctrine and be successful in his helping build the church. If only he knew! He doesn’t need Piper (who’s at least honest and clear) and Keller and the like, he just needs Jesus’ help! But as far as that goes, he could have a Talbott or someone alongside him. But I think he puts too much stock in his bravado. I dont hold all too much hope for him right at this juncture.

I didn’t know you attend Mars Hill and get to listen to the Pastor in person!

Actually, I agree with you. The more I wrote about his predestination sermon, the more I started to feel sorry for the guy. (I know, I know. ) I do think that he probably is doing his best, most of the time, to follow the light he’s received (just like all the rest of us). I guess in many ways he’s just picked up the baton handed on by Augustine, Luther, Calvin and all those who came in between and after who bought into Augustine’s horrible, pagan-influenced theology.

I could wish that Augustine had fumbled it to begin with. But the trouble is, if he had, somebody else would have picked it up soon enough. Because if you shut your Arminian eye when reading the Bible, you can easily see Augustinianism - ECT. Which is why, of course, we need to keep *both *eyes fully open so that we can see UR instead!

My big beef with him is a) his rubbish theology; and b) the influence he and his rubbish theology are having both on those within his immediate sphere of influence, and on the wider perception of Christianity. Read what, say, the New York Times reports about Driscoll and his ‘God hates you’ tirades and you’ll see the damage that is being done.

I get very, very angry when I read the testimony of ex-Calvinists who have been tortured - literally - by what they thought they had to believe about the wonderful God revealed in Jesus Christ. I think not a few of them are members here. Blimey, even our really nice-sounding new Calvinist member Jaxxen has admitted (hope he won’t mind me quoting him):

“my knees buckled under the crushing weight of Scripture and much to my anger and despair, I acknowledged that Reformed theology was true. As the only believer in my family, the thought of loved ones being reprobate devestated me, but that couldn’t cause me to ignore what Scripture taught said.” (My emphases.)

Now there you have it straight from the horse’s mouth, as it were. Calvinism terrorises! It’s just wrong, wrong, wrong, and the sooner Mark Driscoll sees that light, the better it will be for him, and for all of us.

Shalom

Johnny

PS I don’t necessarily think Driscoll really is motivated by money or power or influence - not consciously, at least. But he needs to be *very *careful that he doesn’t become so …

[stellar_renegade]

Totally agree! Great post.

Hi Stellar (it’s Justin, isn’t it? Sorry, we’ve not actually ‘met’ properly - forgive me, Englishman, formal introductions etc old chap. )

Yep. Nice to meet ya, Johnny. I loved the profile pic you had before (was that the Velvet Underground?) It went well with your fascinating sarcastic flair.

Now there you have it straight from the horse’s mouth, as it were. Calvinism terrorises! It’s just wrong, wrong, wrong, and the sooner Mark Driscoll sees that light, the better it will be for him, and for all of us.

Indeed, solid words. I knew a woman who threw out her kids’ Veggie Tales after she heard her (abusive) husband argue double predestination from the vessels of destruction passage. That was during the turning point I was experiencing toward universalism, before I knew it was even an idea considered by anybody but me.

I can’t imagine anyone actually believing it…

PS I don’t necessarily think Driscoll really is motivated by money or power or influence - not consciously, at least. But he needs to be *very *careful that he doesn’t become so …

I was going to say that he might be subconsciously so, but then took it back to be fair. It’d probably be influence or machismo somewhat moreso than money, if I were a betting man…

[Username1]

Hi Justin

I was going to say that he might be subconsciously so, but then took it back to be fair. It’d probably be influence or machismo somewhat more so than money, if I were a betting man…

I’d agree. Influence and machismo - *definitely *machismo - are Mark Driscoll’s stock in trade

Shalom

Johnny

PS The avatar pic was the late great Johnny Ramone, actually

[stellar_renegade]

Right. I felt like it was a Ramone but couldn’t remember because you changed it so fast (and I was looking at it on my phone).

[stellar_renegade]

Also, I kind of surmised that it was the macho thing after Driscoll came after you Brits with the implication that universalism is feminine (obviously judging after the flesh).

I think perhaps he didn’t get enough quality time with his dad growing up.

[jaxxen]

Johnny, (or should I call you Esau? ) I would like to debate Calvinism with you very much…but first we must get one thing straight…stop your sugarcoating of how you feel about Calvinism! If you have something to say, say it! Just kidding Seriously though, I will contend with you. Right now I have to prepare to go teach youth group…gotta go indoctrinate the little reprobates and heap some coals on their impenitent heads
I will be back, checking on this thread during the weekend. I’m very busy in general, but don’t want miss out! Take care for now…

Love, Matt (Jacob)

[Username1]

Hi Jacob!

I sense we are going to get along just great. Hey, we might scrap a little, but all brothers do that, don’t they?

Seriously, Matt, I very much look forward to engaging with you on the merits, or otherwise, or Calvinism. Straightaway I sense a good heart inside that elect chest of yours, and I have faith that our discussions will bear much fruit.

And don’t worry, I’ll stop beating around the bush soon.

Shalom

Esau (aka Johnny; just realised the irony of who I share my first name with - a certain Mr Calvin!)