Team Pyro on Driscoll: "Why does Driscoll have such a fixation with obscene subject matter, ribald stories, and racy talk?"

56 posts / 0 new
Last post
Offline
Since
Thu, 2/11/10
Posts: 2334
Team Pyro on Driscoll: "Why does Driscoll have such a fixation with obscene subject matter, ribald stories, and racy talk?"
Offline
Since
Wed, 6/3/09
Posts: 348
Well...

At least now we know why Mark is so obsessed with sex. The Lord's been messing with his head.

Is it just me, or does he even sound like he's lying about these "incidents"? Usually these "I am amazingly gifted" story-tellers are better at making it sound like it really happened.

Offline
Since
Wed, 5/6/09
Posts: 3505
Crazy

I'm sorry, but Driscoll needs to step down from his church, and if his elders/deacons don't see it, then I don't know what to say.

Look at what he's saying:

Quote:
Upon occasion when I get up to preach I'll see—just like a screen in front of me—I'll see somebody get raped or abused and then I'll track 'em down and say, "Look I had this vision. Let me tell you about it."...

She was walking by and I just saw it. It was like a TV. And I said, "Hey, come here for a second." I said, "Last night did your husband throw you up against the wall and have you by the throat, physically assault you and tell you if you told anyone he would kill you?"

And she just starts bawling. She says, "How did you know?"

I said, "Jesus told me."


This stuff isn't even close to orthodox...and how is any of it verifiable? What if Driscoll says that some woman was abused and the 'abuser' and the 'victim' say it's not true, and Driscoll's wrong? Then what?

Furthermore, Driscoll's obsession with sex is really getting out of hand if he feels like he must describe incidents in his preaching. If I'd been at that service where he described the incident with the woman who cheated on her husband, I would have walked out and never come back.

At some point, you have to ask at what point the people in the church are going to get fed up with it.

"Our task today is to tell people — who no longer know what sin is...no longer see themselves as sinners, and no longer have room for these categories — that Christ died for sins of which they do not think they’re guilty." - David Wells

Offline
Since
Mon, 6/29/09
Posts: 117
Observe that the message quote is from 2008.

Observe that the message quote is from 2008.

That's 3 years ago.

Michael Osborne
Philadelphia, PA

Offline
Since
Tue, 6/14/11
Posts: 378
M. Osborne wrote: Observe

M. Osborne wrote:
Observe that the message quote is from 2008.

That's 3 years ago.


Maybe that just means he's been in his pulpit 3 years too long. :bigsmile:

Lee

Susan R's picture
Offline
Since
Wed, 5/6/09
Posts: 4317
Every group

seems to have its darlings. Take some advice from William Faulkner, and "Kill your darlings". ;)

Offline
Since
Thu, 6/4/09
Posts: 303
As far as I know...

... http://marshill.com/about/what-we-believe ]Mark Driscoll holds to the fundamentals, and could agree with the SI doctrinal statement. I think you could call him a "conservative evangelical", couldn't you? If he isn't one, what is a CE? His doctrinal statement is right in line with "historic fundamentalism", isn't it? Some might claim he is more of a true heir of historic fundamentalism than separatist fundamentalists.

So what in the world is Phil Johnson saying?

Quote:
But Reformed charismatics themselves aren't careful to distance themselves from charismatic nuttiness.

Phil has a lot of nerve, doesn't he? Who does he think he is, telling people what they should do? Can't we all just get Together 4 the Gospel? Mark preaches the Gospel, after all. HOW DARE PHIL CALL HIM NUTTY?!!!

Do you see what Phil is doing here? He is distancing himself from Driscoll, publicly criticizing another believer who preaches the Gospel and holds to the fundamentals. Phil (and John Mac) wouldn't even invite Driscoll to preach, or accept an invitation from him! But Phil doesn't even stop there. He's actually criticizing others for not distancing themselves, for having Driscoll in to preach. Who does Phil think he is? Mark Driscoll is a servant of the Lord, preaching the Gospel!

I'm not going to pretend that Phil hasn't said what he said. He actually gives the impression that the failure of some to distance themselves from Driscoll is going to have an impact on his view of their ministries. He might even be hesitant to join with them in some things because of this. You do all recognize what is being hinted at here? Phil Johnson sounds like what some people call a "second degree separationist"! :O

***

Hopefully my point is clear. Welcome back to the realities of separation. It is sometimes necessary to pull back from someone, even if he holds to the fundamentals.

Most comments on separation on this site tend to consist of one or more of the following:
1. Scorn for the principle of separation.
2. Scorn for those who hold or advocate the principle.
3. Downplaying the principle by turning the conversation to abuses of it.

Perhaps examples like Driscoll will help some of you move beyond that, and see that there is something to be said for "distancing" at times, even from those who hold to the great truths of the Gospel. If Biblical "separation" is limited to separation from apostasy, as some claim, then there is no Biblical grounds for "distancing" from Mark Driscoll. We might as well all join his church, listen to his sermons, and consider his "words of knowledge" or whatever they are.

But if Biblical separation goes beyond separation from apostasy, then we can chuck a lot of the specious arguments against separation into the trash, and start to focus on Biblical principles, and how to apply them.

Conservative evangelicalism has Driscoll's kind of stuff (and other rubbish) all over the place. Don't believe me? Just cross over to that world for a while, and look around. You'll forgive me, hopefully, if I don't take the journey with you.

Fundamentalism has, perhaps, just as many messes. The difference is that, in fundamentalism, at least the principle is accepted (or used to be accepted) that you distance yourself from the rubbish -- exactly what Phil Johnson is saying here. That's true even if the rubbish is being spread around by someone who accepts the great truths of the Gospel. You still distance yourself from it, and if others won't, then you'll need to create some level of distance from them to keep yourself away from the rubbish. You don't need to treat the rubbish spreaders or their friends as enemies, but you keep away from the rubbish.

The Reformed charismatics won't listen to Phil. Why should they? Conservative evangelicalism has no understanding or acceptance of the Biblical principles involved in distancing ourselves from the rubbish.

Phil said Reformed charismatics should "distance themselves." Why? Once you answer that Biblically, and start to apply it "without fear or favour" as they say on this side of the Atlantic, you might find you need to do some other "distancing" yourself. You could make a very good separatist fundamentalist, Phil, if you will work through and apply a careful and charitable Biblical understanding of what you've said here.

May the Lord bless you all as you figure out what to do with the rubbish. I've spent enough time around it in the past to know what I need to do, no matter who is spreading it.

Steve Davis's picture
Offline
Since
Sat, 7/25/09
Posts: 286
Why now?

M. Osborne wrote:
Observe that the message quote is from 2008.

That's 3 years ago.

Even as a "soft" cesssationist myself (i.e., Open to God at work in analogous ways to the early Christian era in pioneer situations where the Word is not present), what Driscoll teaches wanders far from biblical truth. I'm just wondering why this came up now if the video is from 2008 or if Driscoll has since retracted his error. None of the Acts 29 guys I know practice or advocate this. Maybe soneone could come up with more recent videos on this subject. If Driscoll still holds to that then he is one scary dude in a Mickey Mouse shirt.

Susan R's picture
Offline
Since
Wed, 5/6/09
Posts: 4317
Still up

Bro. Davis- this video is still up on http://marshill.com/media/spiritual-warfare/christus-victor ]the Mars Hill website . Other messages, not as graphic, contain the same ideas.

Greg Long's picture
Offline
Since
Tue, 6/2/09
Posts: 947
Steve Davis wrote: M.

Steve Davis wrote:
M. Osborne wrote:
Observe that the message quote is from 2008.

That's 3 years ago.

Even as a "soft" cesssationist myself (i.e., Open to God at work in analogous ways to the early Christian era in pioneer situations where the Word is not present), what Driscoll teaches wanders far from biblical truth. I'm just wondering why this came up now if the video is from 2008 or if Driscoll has since retracted his error. None of the Acts 29 guys I know practice or advocate this. Maybe soneone could come up with more recent videos on this subject. If Driscoll still holds to that then he is one scary dude in a Mickey Mouse shirt.

Steve, they posted this video now to piggy-back off of a post regarding Driscoll's recent assertion that "cessationism is worldliness." I think this video, while three years old, provides some context regarding Driscoll that shows just how ridiculous his assertion is.

------------------------------
Pastor of Adult Ministries

Grace Church, Des Moines, IA

Adjunct Instructor
School of Religion
Liberty University Online

Steve Davis's picture
Offline
Since
Sat, 7/25/09
Posts: 286
thanks

I appreciate the clarifications from Susan and Greg. When people start speaking about what Jesus told them yesterday we need to listen to what we know He said.

Offline
Since
Wed, 5/6/09
Posts: 3505
M. Osborne wrote: Observe

M. Osborne wrote:
Observe that the message quote is from 2008.

That's 3 years ago.


True, the video is three years old. However, the post on TeamPyro was made yesterday, which is why we ran it.

If Driscoll has come out and disavowed this kind of behavior, we'll be happy to link to that as well.

"Our task today is to tell people — who no longer know what sin is...no longer see themselves as sinners, and no longer have room for these categories — that Christ died for sins of which they do not think they’re guilty." - David Wells

Offline
Since
Mon, 3/7/11
Posts: 327
if true

He reported all this abuse of women and children to the proper authorities, right?

Susan R's picture
Offline
Since
Wed, 5/6/09
Posts: 4317
Psych

Maybe he could even get a TV show out of it.
[img ]http://www.examiner.com/images/blog/EXID11363/images/psych.jpg[/img ]

Offline
Since
Fri, 7/29/11
Posts: 32
So Let's Separate!

So let's separate. Why don't the moderate, sane fundamentalists of the NIU/MBBC/BJU stripe begin first!

When is Matt Olson and NIU going to separate from BJU for not rebuking Chuck Phelps for two botched cases of child molestation and incest?

When is Matt Olson or Dave Doran going to publicly rebuke Bob Jones, III for his endorsement of a book written by a convicted child abuser Caleb Thompson?

When is BJU going to reject Ron Williams and separate from him for the child abuse he inflicts on the girls at Hephzibah House?

Certainly Driscoll does things that are over the line. He is rightly called out on it by conservative evangelicals. Where is the outcry among fundamentalists for the sins of their brothers?

O yeah, they are not a denomination so they don't need to point out the sins of those other ministries and men who use the label "fundamentalist!" But they can criticize and call for separation from conservative evangelicals (neo-evangelicals)! Ironically, true, biblical separation does take place among conservative evangelicals. But it does not take place among self-identified fundamentalists, unless you count BJU uninviting Matt Olson with regard to delivering the graduation speech!

But where there is real, blatant sin, fundamentalists do not separate. They ignore it and claim that it is a local church issue or there is no mechanism to separate because we are all independent and autonomous. Right.

Offline
Since
Mon, 3/7/11
Posts: 327
Michael Horton chimes in

but he isn't singing Driscoll's song.

http://www.whitehorseinn.org/blog/2011/08/22/reformed-and-charismatic/

Quote:
I’ve never been willing to die on the hill of cessationism: that is, the belief that the miraculous gifts such as prophecy, healing, and tongues have ceased. I’m still not. Nevertheless, I am convinced that this position is neither exegetically sound nor historically compatible with Reformed theology.

Offline
Since
Tue, 5/8/12
Posts: 44
The Problem is Johnson

We also need to be discerning about Mr. Johnson's ministry. He makes accusations that require substantiation. Telling the truth is essential. He accused an evangelical pastor of “pornographic divination”. If he had labelled it "Sexually Explicit "Visions"" then that would be much laden with inflammatory meanings (although some would insist that Driscoll really is not explicit here, there is no precise description of sex acts or nude bodies as one would find in true pornography or sexually explicit material.) But he chose words that have specific meanings which Johnson needs to support, especially in their Christian context.

First, “pornography” is media whose intent it is to incite lust. Therefore, for something to be “pornographic”, it has to be geared for that purpose. It is not simply anything that is about sex, or else certain passages of the Bible would be “pornographic” (but we know that’s not true). To assert that simply because something involves sex that it is “pornographic” betrays an unBiblical assumption about the nature of sexuality.

Second, the accusations that a reported “vision” is “divination” goes far beyond simply believing it wasn’t Holy Spirit inspired. Here, he clearly not using the term in a morally neutral way. It is a direct accusation of involvement in some kind of witchcraft or spiritualism. Therefore, to make such an accusations, especially publicly, he will need to cite the evidence that he has that the person was “divining” (i.e. summoning demons). If he can’t do that, then he needs to retract his accusations. He can say that he doesn’t believe it is of God, but to state that it is “divination” he needs evidence of involvement in some sort of spiritualism. Otherwise, the origin could simply be psychological or fictional. To accuse someone of divination is to accuse them of a crime that brought the death penalty under the old covenant.

If he can’t prove that the media was intended on eliciting lust or that acts of divination were involved, then he will need to do the Biblical thing: retract his accusation, apologize to the specific person he accused, and perhaps get some kind of spiritual help as to why he would make such an accusation. That’s true repentance.

JohnBrian's picture
Offline
Since
Tue, 6/2/09
Posts: 653
old thread

JCarpenter,

Prior to your post, the last post on this thread was almost a year ago (Aug 22).

After reading your posts on the other thread I must conclude that you have an agenda here: to criticize Phil Johnson apparently because he took on Driscoll, with whom you have something to do.

I expect you will be here for a short time and then will disappear, like so many others we have seen in the years that SI has existed. I am 1 of the 2 (or maybe there's more than that) Baptists that are reformed in our soteriology who hangs around here. I am disappointed in the approach you are taking here in what can best be described as an assault on Johnson, and I will be glad when you disappear. You have yet to add anything to the threads you have posted in that contributes any value to the discussion.

CanJAmerican - my blog
CanJAmerican - my twitter
whitejumaycan - my youtube

Chip Van Emmerik's picture
Offline
Since
Thu, 6/4/09
Posts: 1698
I must be number two John

I must be number two John Brian.

Why is it that my voice always seems to be loudest when I am saying the dumbest things?

DavidO's picture
Offline
Since
Mon, 5/3/10
Posts: 727
.

Quote:
There's more than that.

Several more, I think.

Although, I think Mr. Carpenter's point is worth considering in a general sense at least. The inflammatory headline or term brings readers and commenters to a blog. But when brothers deal with those who profess brotherhood, is that the best way to proceed?

I enjoy PJ immensely, and am no Driscoll fan. But precision of terms is something we Christian bloggers should demand from ourselves when calling out another Christian.

Offline
Since
Wed, 5/6/09
Posts: 3505
Hang on

Let's talk about what Driscoll actually says:

Quote:
I'm not a guru. I'm not a freak. I don't talk about this. If I did talk about it everybody'd want to meet with me and I'd end up like one of those guys on TV. But some of you have this visual ability to see things.

Um, uh, there was one women I dealt with. She never told her husband that she had committed adultery on him early in the relationship. I said, "You know—" (she's sitting there with her husband). I said, "You know I think the root of all this—I think Satan has a foothold in your life because you've never told your husband about that really tall blonde guy that you met at the bar. And then you went back to the hotel. And you laid on your back. And you undressed yourself. And he climbed on top of you. And you had sex with him. And snuggled up with him for a while. And deep down in your heart, even though you had just met him, you desired him because secretly he is the fantasy body type." I said, "You remember that place it was that cheap hotel with that certain-colored bedspread. You did it—you had sex with the light on because you weren't ashamed and you wanted him to see you. And you wanted to see him."

She was just looking at me like—

I said,"You know, it was about ten years ago.

"I see everything."

She says—she looks at her husband. He says, "Is that true?"

She says, "Yeah."

"He was 6'2", blonde hair, blue eyes?"

"Yeah."

Or:

Quote:
It's the supernatural. It's, it's, it's the whole other realm. It's like the Matrix. You can take the blue pill, you take the red pill. You go into this whole other world. And, and, and that's the way it works.

So I say—tell me everything you hear, tell me everything you see. And sometimes I see things too. I see things too. I've seen women raped. I've seen children molested. I've seen people abused. I've seen people beaten. I've seen horrible things done. Horrible things done. I've seen children dedicated in occultic groups and demons come upon them as an infant by invitation. And I wasn't present for any of it, but I've seen it visibly.

Upon occasion when I get up to preach I'll see—just like a screen in front of me—I'll see somebody get raped or abused and then I'll track 'em down and say, "Look I had this vision. Let me tell you about it." All true.


How is this even remotely the work of the Holy Spirit? God 'makes' Driscoll watch these acts of abuse and adultery - all the way down to the color of the bedspread in the hotel (via his special gift of being able to see things) - and this is even remotely aligned with I Timothy 3?

I can think of at least three things that Driscoll fails in I Timothy 3 on based on what he's quoted as saying above:

Quote:
3 The saying is trustworthy: If anyone aspires to the office of overseer, he desires a noble task. 2 Therefore an overseer must be above reproach, the husband of one wife, sober-minded, self-controlled, respectable, hospitable, able to teach, 3 not a drunkard, not violent but gentle, not quarrelsome, not a lover of money. 4 He must manage his own household well, with all dignity keeping his children submissive, 5 for if someone does not know how to manage his own household, how will he care for God's church? 6 He must not be a recent convert, or he may become puffed up with conceit and fall into the condemnation of the devil. 7 Moreover, he must be well thought of by outsiders, so that he may not fall into disgrace, into a snare of the devil.

"Our task today is to tell people — who no longer know what sin is...no longer see themselves as sinners, and no longer have room for these categories — that Christ died for sins of which they do not think they’re guilty." - David Wells

DavidO's picture
Offline
Since
Mon, 5/3/10
Posts: 727
What Driscoll says is, in my

What Driscoll says is, in my opinion, indefensibly innappropriate for more than one reason. However, his description, also imo, would fall into a category of innappropriateness that falls between what is appropriate and what is truly pornographic. Whether the "vision" was pornographic is a different issue.

I don't defend him at all, and I think the discussion of general precision of terminology is not off topic.

Chip Van Emmerik's picture
Offline
Since
Thu, 6/4/09
Posts: 1698
David, If those "visions"

David,

If those "visions" aren't pornographic, please tell me what is.

Furthermore, assuming Driscoll isn't pulling some elaborate con, if those "visions" didn't come from God, then where did they originate?

Why is it that my voice always seems to be loudest when I am saying the dumbest things?

DavidO's picture
Offline
Since
Mon, 5/3/10
Posts: 727
two different things

Hi Chip. I expressly left the visions out of my characterization. I was actually charactarizing Driscoll's comments (Johnson's article adressed both vision and comments).

Offline
Since
Wed, 5/6/09
Posts: 3505
@Chip

Chip,

I think that some have said that since Driscoll didn't get into even more graphic detail (for which we all thank God), it's not really pornography. I (and you) would beg to differ.

"Our task today is to tell people — who no longer know what sin is...no longer see themselves as sinners, and no longer have room for these categories — that Christ died for sins of which they do not think they’re guilty." - David Wells

Offline
Since
Thu, 6/4/09
Posts: 303
Truth IS essential

JCarpenter wrote:
Telling the truth is essential. He accused an evangelical pastor of “pornographic divination”.

I'm no Phil Johnson fan. But this is silly season.

Johnson gave the video. He didn't lie. He gave the transcript. It's all there. He didn't "accuse" Driscoll of anything -- he reported in exact detail and in context what Driscoll said.

He gave his opinion as to how it should be characterised. You have a different opinion. Fine. You're welcome to it. I wouldn't probably use his words, either. I'm not bothered. I don't feel deceived. He gave us the exact detail. He didn't expect people to rely on his characterisation. No one has the right to say, "Oh, I feel betrayed by Phil. He said it was something and it wasn't." He gave the exact words in context.

You are characterising him as not telling the truth, of making false accusations. You've explained why. You haven't lied, either. Your characterisation of what Johnson did is deeply flawed, but it's just a mischaracterisation in a context where everyone knows what's going on. Nobody is lying here.

If you want to claim that Johnson was uncharitable, you might have a hearing. Driscoll is so uncharitable so frequently that I'm not going to weep for him, but I would see your point. There was no need to call it "pornographic divination". Since I don't even have confidence that Driscoll saw anything, I certainly wouldn't say he was using divination. I'd just say he was talking trash, but Driscoll talks trash all the time.

I don't so much fault the "pornographic" description. He's talking about visual portrayal of extramarital sexual activity. But I wouldn't have used the word "divination." You are right about the implications of the word, IMO. I don't think it was charitable to use it.

If I want to claim that you also are being uncharitable, I should have a hearing, too. You've used an extreme characterisation of what Johnson did. It's not charitable of you. You are disputing about words to no profit to try to prove something that is manifestly not true -- that Phil Johnson was dishonest. You'll never prove it, on this count at least.

I just defended Phil Johnson. I might have to go wash my hands, or something. Smile

Offline
Since
Thu, 6/4/09
Posts: 303
Uncharitable again

From the other thread, and the comment is likely to be deleted since you keep going off topic. So I postedi it here just so everyone can see exactly what kind of stuff you are doing:

JCarpenter wrote:
I wonder, has Johnson taken a stand against racism?

I wonder how long you'll be permitted to keep posting malicious stuff? That's an implied accusation.

Can you provide a single, anywhere, isolated bit of evidence for even hinting that Phil might not be opposed to racism? Pot meet kettle, you're blacker than Phil.

DavidO's picture
Offline
Since
Mon, 5/3/10
Posts: 727
Jay wrote: I think that some

Jay wrote:
I think that some have said that since Driscoll didn't get into even more graphic detail (for which we all thank God), it's not really pornography. I (and you) would beg to differ.

I think it will clarify to some folk that my category for pornography (written, verbal, or visual) only includes things I would not quote or post here or elsewhere. As I said, I have categories for innappropriate speech that fall short of pornography. Some I might quote, some I might not.

Offline
Since
Wed, 5/6/09
Posts: 3505
Makes sense

Let me step back for a minute here.

I was the one who posted this filing back in August. When I did post it, I specifically did not want to link to the description that Driscoll provides in his message, but I did think that Johnson's question "Why does Driscoll have such a fixation with obscene subject matter, ribald stories, and racy talk" merited discussion.

The other aspect of this story is that I felt that it was in SI's interest to post the story since it is an article of interest to Fundamentalists, who are aware of Driscoll's ministry, and at the same time, present it in such a way that those who are reading this site with a history of exposure to pornography would not be caused to stumble as a result of reading the story. Essentially, I wanted to keep this a 'family-friendly' thread.

That changed this morning (well, yesterday morning) when the contents of what Driscoll said began to be discussed. I do wish that it was possible to talk about the contents without posting the actual comments, but that doesn't appear to be an option anymore.

"Our task today is to tell people — who no longer know what sin is...no longer see themselves as sinners, and no longer have room for these categories — that Christ died for sins of which they do not think they’re guilty." - David Wells

Offline
Since
Tue, 5/8/12
Posts: 44
I'm really not interested in

I'm really not interested in defending Johnson's victim. However, it's obviously false to say (as someone above does) that Johnson "didn't "accuse" Driscoll of anything". He headlined the entire discussion "pornographic divination" which is a startling, inflammatory accusation. Here we have the issue of Johnson's selection of terms. I think I’ve dealt with the misuse of the “divination” accusation sufficiently at the other thread and the lack of substantiation of the “scripted” accusation (he made about the Elephant Room) should now be self-evident.

As for “pornographic”, that is defined by the dictionary of Johnson’s choice as “in a manner intended to stimulate erotic . . . feelings". I don’t believe anyone could seriously make the case that Driscoll was speaking “in a manner intended to stimulate erotic . . . feelings" (i.e. lust), even if we did believe it was foolish or even demonic. We can make a case against Driscoll's account without having to resort to Johnson's rhetoric and tactics.

Further, “pornographic” cannot be confused with “sexually explicit.” The Bible is “sexually explicit” in a few points, such as Genesis 38:9, “But Onan knew that the offspring would not be his. So whenever he went in to his brother's wife he would waste the semen on the ground, so as not to give offspring to his brother.” (Did we really need to know the "nitty-gritty" of how he took practiced birth control? Apparently we did.) We have to ask ourselves, if we were there when Moses first delivered the book of Genesis, by Johnson’s standards, would we have accused him of being “pornographic”?

Pastork's picture
Offline
Since
Thu, 3/18/10
Posts: 120
I'm a Reformed Baptist as well, John.

So does that make three of us? Although I haven't posted too much of late, I try to check in and read occasionally and have found the discussion quite beneficial for the most part. In my opinion, this is one of the better forums on the internet.

I wholeheartedly agree with your sentiments when you wrote: "I am disappointed in the approach you are taking here in what can best be described as an assault on Johnson, and I will be glad when you disappear. You have yet to add anything to the threads you have posted in that contributes any value to the discussion."

By the way, thanks to the creators and moderators of this blog for making Reformed Baptist pastors like me so welcome here. I surely do appreciate it!

Aaron Blumer's picture
Offline
Since
Mon, 6/1/09
Posts: 7233
Splitting hairs again

JCarpenter wrote:
I'm really not interested in defending Johnson's victim. However, it's obviously false to say (as someone above does) that Johnson "didn't "accuse" Driscoll of anything". He headlined the entire discussion "pornographic divination" which is a startling, inflammatory accusation. Here we have the issue of Johnson's selection of terms. I think I’ve dealt with the misuse of the “divination” accusation sufficiently at the other thread and the lack of substantiation of the “scripted” accusation (he made about the Elephant Room) should now be self-evident.

As for “pornographic”, that is defined by the dictionary of Johnson’s choice as “in a manner intended to stimulate erotic . . . feelings". I don’t believe anyone could seriously make the case that Driscoll was speaking “in a manner intended to stimulate erotic . . . feelings" (i.e. lust), even if we did believe it was foolish or even demonic. We can make a case against Driscoll's account without having to resort to Johnson's rhetoric and tactics.

Further, “pornographic” cannot be confused with “sexually explicit.” The Bible is “sexually explicit” in a few points, such as Genesis 38:9, “But Onan knew that the offspring would not be his. So whenever he went in to his brother's wife he would waste the semen on the ground, so as not to give offspring to his brother.” (Did we really need to know the "nitty-gritty" of how he took practiced birth control? Apparently we did.) We have to ask ourselves, if we were there when Moses first delivered the book of Genesis, by Johnson’s standards, would we have accused him of being “pornographic”?

Personally I would not have used the term "pornographic" and I won't defend Johnson's use of it. However, there is a difference between sexually explicit and sensually explicit. But let's not get distracted by irrelevant semantic nuances. If we say Johnson has accurately characterized Driscoll's ministry as including "clearly inappropriate graphic descriptions of sexual activity," does that make you happy?

As for "Johnson didn't accuse Driscoll of anything" I don't know who's saying that... but I have no problem with saying that he (a) accused and (b) he was correct in spirit if not always in the exact word choices (though I don't really have a beef with that either).

Offline
Since
Tue, 5/8/12
Posts: 44
When making accusations, accuracy is essential

When making accusations, accuracy is essential. To call an inaccurate term -- especially an exaggerated, inflammatory one -- used in an accusation "splitting hairs" is incorrect. A wise person who wants to avoid being accused by the Lord of bearing false witness, would rather understate than over-state an accusation.

Offline
Since
Wed, 5/6/09
Posts: 3505
The problem with 'pornographic'

is that it's bad...just kidding.

I think - based on some other feedback I've seen - the hangup with using the term pornographic is that Driscoll isn't (thankfully!) being any more explicit in his description of what he actually saw. We know he 'saw' details - he describes the actions and even the color of the bedspread, but he didn't get into describing the act of sex itself. Of course, since these visions are in Mark's head (which is a whole other reason to be concerned with this issue), we don't know if the TV in his head has strategically placed black boxes so he doesn't see that part or not...all we have is Driscoll's words and not what he claims to be able to see. So we can't actually, technically, say that he saw 'pornography'.

In short, they're using this definition:

Bing Dictionary wrote:
pornography
Definition
por·nog·ra·phy [pawr nóggrəfee ]
NOUN
1. sexually explicit material: films, magazines, writings, photographs, or other materials that are sexually explicit and intended to cause sexual arousal

2. sexual images industry: the production or sale of sexually explicit films, magazines, or other materials [Mid-19th century. Via French < Greek pornographos "writing about prostitutes" < pornē "prostitute" ]

por·nog·ra·pher NOUN

I would strongly disagree with that position, and think that Driscoll's defenders are trying to thread the needle of what is and is not pornography. Yes, his description is not intended "to cause arousal" or "is not for sale", but there is no doubt that it's sexually explicit and a sexual image.

Furthermore - Mark doesn't have any right to describe these visions, especially in a preaching setting, because he's in clear violation of some other Biblical passages:

Quote:
Let no corrupting talk come out of your mouths, but only such as is good for building up, as fits the occasion, that it may give grace to those who hear. - Eph. 4:29

Therefore be imitators of God, as beloved children. And walk in love, as Christ loved us and gave himself up for us, a fragrant offering and sacrifice to God. But sexual immorality and all impurity or covetousness must not even be named among you, as is proper among saints. Let there be no filthiness nor foolish talk nor crude joking, which are out of place, but instead let there be thanksgiving. For you may be sure of this, that everyone who is sexually immoral or impure, or who is covetous (that is, an idolater), has no inheritance in the kingdom of Christ and God. - Eph. 5:1-4

But now you must put them all away: anger, wrath, malice, slander, and obscene talk from your mouth. - Col. 3:8

I do not see any way - any way at all - that giving these kinds of descriptions and information to an audience that contains men could possibly be helpful to any of them. Even at best, if his motives are pure, he's still setting up temptations and traps for the men in his audience, and I'm betting that many of the men in his church (and even some who may be reading this site!) have struggled with pornography. Driscoll does them no favors by teaching on that. The place for that is in private instruction and counseling.

The fact that this keeps coming up over and over and over and over again makes me wonder what is actually going on in his soul - has he really 'won' over his past sexual history? Or is it still ongoing and that's why it keeps popping into his articles, books and messages?

In any case, there is a great quote from http://www.dennyburk.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/04/8-Lambert.pdf ]one review of Real Marriage, and I'll close with that here:

"Our task today is to tell people — who no longer know what sin is...no longer see themselves as sinners, and no longer have room for these categories — that Christ died for sins of which they do not think they’re guilty." - David Wells

DavidO's picture
Offline
Since
Mon, 5/3/10
Posts: 727
agreement

So I read your argument above and thinking back on what Driscoll said (rather than rereading), I agree that a couple of the details that he threw in (which ones I will not belabor for all our sakes) do indeed qualify it as explicit. I think that's a significant point.

Other semantics notwithstanding.

Offline
Since
Tue, 5/8/12
Posts: 44
very disappointed

I've been very disappointed in the lack of concern for integrity shown by some contributors here. For Christians, truth telling should be a major concern. It is so important to the Lord that one of the ten commandments has to do with prohibiting bearing false witness and at the end, in Revelation, we're told that everyone who "loves and practices deceit" is cast into hell. Yet over and over I've seen concerns about Johnson's inaccuracies pooh-poohed, called "hair-splitting", ignored, etc. That's doesn't show the priorities of the Lord and is disappointing coming from Christian leaders.

Aaron Blumer's picture
Offline
Since
Mon, 6/1/09
Posts: 7233
Concern

"Lack of concern for integrity." No, if "accuracy in accusations" is what you're aiming for, you should use the proper term: "People disagreeing with me."

What you're doing is dodging argument by dismissing the views of those who disagree. The method of dismissal is mischaracterize it as some kind of deceit (Interesting POV: "not my view"="deceit").
Anyway, I note that you didn't answer this question:

Aaron wrote:
If we say Johnson has accurately characterized Driscoll's ministry as including "clearly inappropriate graphic descriptions of sexual activity," does that make you happy?

If Phil had used "clearly inappropriate graphic descriptions of sexual activity" instead of "pornography" would you be here saying "OK, that's fine because he didn't say 'pornography'"?
Seems unlikely.
The point is that you don't agree with Phil's assessment, but rather than making a case that he's wrong, you try to make a case that he should have used different words?

Let's grant for the sake of argument that he should have used some other word... and let's suppose Phil himself says "I should have used some other word for the rotten smutty stuff I called 'pornography,'" what then?

Offline
Since
Tue, 5/8/12
Posts: 44
"Pornographic" & "divination" are serious accusations

Some here don't seem to grasp the significance of accusing someone of doing something "pornographic" or of participating in "divination". These aren't just fine semantic differences. Was Moses being "pornographic" by writing the sentence from Genesis 38 above? No. Would Johnson have accused him of such using the same criteria he applies to Driscoll. Likely. For divination, participating in that draws the death penalty in the OT law and falsely accusing someone of a death penalty crime also draws the death penalty. God took bearing false witness so seriously, that he called for the execution of someone who falsely accused people of divination, among other things. Accuracy is serious to the Lord.

Aaron Blumer's picture
Offline
Since
Mon, 6/1/09
Posts: 7233
Still missing it

Quote:
Some here don't seem to grasp the significance of accusing someone of doing something "pornographic" or of participating in "divination".

You're still ignoring my earlier question. But I'll ask another.
Is "clearly inappropriate graphic descriptions of sexual activity" less serious than "pornographic"?
And would "seeking revelation from God in vision form" be less serious than "divination"?
(but I think Phil's intent was probably that this revelation is not from God... in which case it's even more improbable that the term is less serious than "divination")

I don't see the "clearly inappropriate blah blah" and the "seeking revelation blah blah" as any less serious than the more compact terms. If one is not less serious than the other and the differences are micro-thin nuances, it's hard to see why it matters.

Offline
Since
Wed, 5/6/09
Posts: 3505
Not the same thing

JCarpenter wrote:
Some here don't seem to grasp the significance of accusing someone of doing something "pornographic" or of participating in "divination". These aren't just fine semantic differences. Was Moses being "pornographic" by writing the sentence from Genesis 38 above? No. Would Johnson have accused him of such using the same criteria he applies to Driscoll. Likely. For divination, participating in that draws the death penalty in the OT law and falsely accusing someone of a death penalty crime also draws the death penalty. God took bearing false witness so seriously, that he called for the execution of someone who falsely accused people of divination, among other things. Accuracy is serious to the Lord.

I'm presuming you're referring to v. 8-9:

Quote:
8 Then Judah said to Onan, “Go in to your brother's wife and perform the duty of a brother-in-law to her, and raise up offspring for your brother.” 9 But Onan knew that the offspring would not be his. So whenever he went in to his brother's wife he would waste the semen on the ground, so as not to give offspring to his brother.

I'd say Moses handled it a little differently from Driscoll:

Quote:
I said, "You know I think the root of all this—I think Satan has a foothold in your life because you've never told your husband about that really tall blonde guy that you met at the bar. And then you went back to the hotel. And you laid on your back. And you undressed yourself. And he climbed on top of you. And you had sex with him. And snuggled up with him for a while. And deep down in your heart, even though you had just met him, you desired him because secretly he is the fantasy body type." I said, "You remember that place it was that cheap hotel with that certain-colored bedspread. You did it—you had sex with the light on because you weren't ashamed and you wanted him to see you. And you wanted to see him.

But I could be mistaken.

"Our task today is to tell people — who no longer know what sin is...no longer see themselves as sinners, and no longer have room for these categories — that Christ died for sins of which they do not think they’re guilty." - David Wells

Offline
Since
Tue, 5/8/12
Posts: 44
"Pornographic" & "divination" are serious accusations, 2, Gen. 3

Hi Aaron,
You asked, "Is "clearly inappropriate graphic descriptions of sexual activity" less serious than "pornographic"?"
Actually I answered this earlier on the other thread. I proposed that Johnson could have said "sexually explicit" without being inaccurate. As above, that's not equivalent to "pornographic". Whether it is "clearly inappropriate" is a matter of judgment, but, again, it doesn't fit the definition of "pornogrpahic."
What you don't seem to be grasping is that if we accuse someone of being "pornographic", they have to be "pornographic", not just sexually explicit or "clearly inappropriate." Words matter. They matter so much that if you use the wrong one, you've violated one of the 10 commandments.

Also, you said, "And would "seeking revelation from God in vision form" be less serious than "divination"?" Definitely. And I'm flabbergasted that you don't see the difference. If you're a cessationist you'd say that seeking a revelation from God will not be answered. If you aren't, then it's possible it could be. But, as before, "divination" is not being used in any morally neutral way (seeking from God) but suggests spiritualism, some form of witchcraft. No Christian I know of uses the term "divination" to mean "seeking revelation from God in vision form". They mean it to refer to seeking revelation through supernatural means other than from God (which I believe to be only demonic)

Hi Jay, it appears to me that Genesis 38 is more explicit than is Driscoll as Genesis 38 actually described what happened at the point of intercourse. This is text that if it were not in the Bible already (like a passage in Ezekiel about male genitalia and passages of the Song of Solomon) would be considered "pornographic" by the standards Johnson uses.

DavidO's picture
Offline
Since
Mon, 5/3/10
Posts: 727
Quote: Is "clearly

Quote:
Is "clearly inappropriate graphic descriptions of sexual activity" less serious than "pornographic"?

I don't think it's a matter of seriousness. To me its a matter of the inflamatory nature of the word that works to prejudice the reader.

I don't think that was Johnson's intent. But he is, after all, Mr. Due Process, and I think avoiding inflammatory words for a more technical accuracy really works in his favor all the way around.

If he uses Aaron's wording, we don't waste a dozen posts discussing the justifiability of the other word.

Or have to read Driscoll's quote yet again.

Aaron Blumer's picture
Offline
Since
Mon, 6/1/09
Posts: 7233
Gotta go

"Sexually explicit" would be too morally and ethically neutral. Johnson used the term he did because he meant to communicate that Driscoll's communication was/is improper.
So a debate worth having would not be on the question of is "pornographic" the right word but rather on where the boundaries of propriety belong.
Of course, assuming that Driscoll is not over the line and dismissing all views to the contrary is not having a debate.
But it's not a debate I'm personally interested in having. The impropriety is as obvious to me as the non-impropriety apparently is to you.

Quote:
Also, you said, "And would "seeking revelation from God in vision form" be less serious than "divination"?" Definitely. And I'm flabbergasted that you don't see the difference. If you're a cessationist you'd say that seeking a revelation from God will not be answered.

I don't believe it's proper to seek revelation from God beyond what He has given us in His word. Cessationism would indeed mean that God is not dispensing divine revelation and that the "revelation" that comes is either imaginary or diabolical. It is not obvious to me that this is better than "divination." (It's not even obvious to me that this is not divination).

We're going in circles, as I anticipated, so I think I'll be moving on to other things now. I continue to believe that though Phil could certainly be mistaken on one point or another, he has not acted improperly in making the evaluations he has and supporting them the way he has supported them.

DavidO's picture
Offline
Since
Mon, 5/3/10
Posts: 727
Aaron Blumer wrote:The

Aaron Blumer wrote:
The impropriety is as obvious to me as the non-impropriety apparently is to you.

This is simply not an accurate reading of the totality of what I have written above. And plays into the notion of the false dichotomy in play here, namely, "either you think its pornography or you don't have a problem with it."

I explicitly stated I do have a problem with it, I just have more than those two categories.

Offline
Since
Wed, 5/6/09
Posts: 3505
@David O

David, I think Aaron is referring to Mr. Carpenter, not you. At least, the quoted section of his post is from JCarpenter.

@JCarpenter - let me play Devil's advocate here. If I decided to agree with you that Phil is wrong and he shouldn't have used the terms "pornographic divination", would you have a problem with what Driscoll said?

What if Driscoll had just said:

Quote:
I'm not a guru. I'm not a freak. I don't talk about this. If I did talk about it everybody'd want to meet with me and I'd end up like one of those guys on TV. But some of you have this visual ability to see things.

Um, uh, there was one women I dealt with. She never told her husband that she had committed adultery on him early in the relationship. I said, "You know—" (she's sitting there with her husband). I said, "You know I think the root of all this—I think Satan has a foothold in your life because you've never told your husband about that really tall blonde guy that you met at the bar, and you had sex with him, and you've never confessed that to the Lord, to him, or sought the help you needed to work through your own guilt."

Would we even be talking about this? I'd say we would, because Driscoll is claiming that the Holy Spirit is putting a "TV in his head" of rapes and abuse and criminal actions, and that the Spirit does this even when Mark is getting up to preach.

"Our task today is to tell people — who no longer know what sin is...no longer see themselves as sinners, and no longer have room for these categories — that Christ died for sins of which they do not think they’re guilty." - David Wells

Offline
Since
Tue, 5/8/12
Posts: 44
"pornographic" is the word Johnson used

Hi Aaron, I'm kind of flummoxed that you seem to be understanding that it is wrong to make a false accusation. It should not be difficult to understand. Johnson boldly charged Driscoll with "pornographic divination." If that's false, it is a seriously wrong thing to do to make a false accusation. Pornographic is not accurate. To use it is to make a false accusation. Ditto with divination. Since these are the terms Johnson used, the debate is whether they are valid. They are not.

There just is no scripture supporting that kind of radical cessationism, saying that it is wrong to seek revelation from God outside of scripture. Your position is therefore ironic in that you claim to believe in the sufficiency of scripture but have a position that you can't support with scripture.

There are, it seems to me three possible positions here:

1.Someone could agree with Johnson, despite the fact that Johnson's own choice of dictionaries doesn't support the "pornographic" charge and there is not evidence that Driscoll was involved in spiritualism (the meaning of divination.)
2. Some one could both disapprove of Driscoll's comments because they considered them "inappropriate" and of Johnson's characterization of them as pornographic and divination.
3. Someone could approve of Driscoll's comments (or view the moral appraisal of them as none of their business) but disapprove of Johnson't characterization.

To me, #1 is totally untenable and invalid.
# 2 I understand and respect. This seems to be David's position and I think it is reasonable and fair. I tend to think the appraisal of Driscoll being "inappropriate" is culturally (not Biblically based) and I think the same people who say so would have called Moses, Solomon, and Ezekiel "inappropriate" if their words were not already in the Bible.
Since Driscoll doesn't teach any false doctrines here or advocate allegiance to another god, then I don't see that I have to come to any conclusion as to the truthfulness of his claimed visions. It doesn't necessarily fail the Deuteronomy test but I don't necessarily believe it either. I just don't know, such as Jonathan Edwards said about physical manifestations during the Great Awakening: they neither prove nor disprove anything. But Johnson's "pornographic divination" charge is clearly false and so that is the problem, not Driscoll.

DavidO's picture
Offline
Since
Mon, 5/3/10
Posts: 727
Jay wrote: David, I think

Jay wrote:
David, I think Aaron is referring to Mr. Carpenter, not you.

Ah, my mistake then.

Offline
Since
Wed, 5/6/09
Posts: 3505
Huh?

JCarpenter wrote:
There just is no scripture supporting that kind of radical cessationism, saying that it is wrong to seek revelation from God outside of scripture. Your position is therefore ironic in that you claim to believe in the sufficiency of scripture but have a position that you can't support with scripture.

Are you saying that Christians can and should seek guidance from outside of Scripture? Basically, you're claiming that you believe in ongoing revelation?

Quote:
There are, it seems to me three possible positions here:

1.Someone could agree with Johnson, despite the fact that Johnson's own choice of dictionaries doesn't support the "pornographic" charge and there is not evidence that Driscoll was involved in spiritualism (the meaning of divination.)
2. Some one could both disapprove of Driscoll's comments because they considered them "inappropriate" and of Johnson's characterization of them as pornographic and divination.
3. Someone could approve of Driscoll's comments (or view the moral appraisal of them as none of their business) but disapprove of Johnson't characterization.

To me, #1 is totally untenable and invalid. # 2 I understand and respect. This seems to be David's position and I think it is reasonable and fair. I tend to think the appraisal of Driscoll being "inappropriate" is culturally (not Biblically based) and I think the same people who say so would have called Moses, Solomon, and Ezekiel "inappropriate" if their words were not already in the Bible.

So you're at #3, then? I'm curious since you discount #1 and 'understand and respect' #2, but you haven't said what you personally think.

Quote:
Since Driscoll doesn't teach any false doctrines here or advocate allegiance to another god, then I don't see that I have to come to any conclusion as to the truthfulness of his claimed visions.

Full stop. Driscoll is claiming that the Holy Spirit gives him personal, visual, and sexually explicit revelation into the lives of people, and that He even does so just as Driscoll is getting up to preach. And that's NOT false doctrine? Yikes.

If I 'found' a new book of the Bible and wanted to add it onto the canon, would you have an objection to that?

"Our task today is to tell people — who no longer know what sin is...no longer see themselves as sinners, and no longer have room for these categories — that Christ died for sins of which they do not think they’re guilty." - David Wells

Joel Shaffer's picture
Offline
Since
Tue, 6/16/09
Posts: 378
Quote:If I 'found' a new

Quote:
If I 'found' a new book of the Bible and wanted to add it onto the canon, would you have an objection to that?

Jay,

Most (if not all) conservative evangelicals who are non-cessationists believe that revelation such as words of knowledge, prophesy, and etc.... must be under the authority of the Bible. If a person says something through these types of revelation that contradicts what the Bible says, than it is considered false. Many of these churches will even confront the person for making a false statement that goes against what the Bible says. The canon is closed for them. Even my more insistent charismatic/tongue-speaking brothers in Christ believe that the canon is closed.

Offline
Since
Tue, 5/8/12
Posts: 44
What Johnson did is very serious Biblically

Hi Jay,

First, I affirm what Mr. Joel Shaffer said completely.

Second, because I believe in the sufficiency of scripture, for me to say that something is "wrong" or "false doctrine", I need a scripture to prove that. Just because it makes me uncomfortable or is not my style, etc., doesn't give me the right to condemn something. Driscoll preaching in a Mickey Mouse shirt is not my style. I don't like it, at least not for me. But I don't have the right to condemn it because there is no scripture saying so. Just so with the claim to a vision. Now, if in his claimed vision he said we are to do something unBiblical, like commit immorality or follow Buddha or if he clearly predicted something (like the rapture is going to be at a certain time), and it didn't come true, then we could pronounce him a false teacher. That's the Deuteronomy test.

I wouldn't accept a claim to a new book in the Bible because we have the Bible from the Lord Jesus. He affirmed the entire OT and He gave us the Apostles ("sent ones") to give us the NT.

As above, the irony of cessationism is that it claims to be defending the sufficiency of scripture but it is itself not found in scripture. So they are supplementing scripture in order to say that scripture doesn't need supplementing. As for "continuing revelation", scripture tells us that God reveals Himself through nature all the time (Romans 1), "the heavens declare the glory of God, . . . day after day they pour forth speech" (Psalm 19). A pastor in a counselling session may ask questions or use reason to seek additional information to help someone; since all truth is God's truth, all truth is "revelation." But scripture is the authoritative rule. It's the special revelation that is perfect, inerrant.

So, in this case, Driscoll hasn't taught anything that is clearly condemned in scripture. But, in my opinion, Johnson has violated scripture: he broke the 9th commandment against bearing false witness. Indeed, he accused Driscoll of doing something ("divination") that would have brought the death penalty under the Law in Israel. The penalty for falsely accusing someone of a capitol crime is receiving the same penalty: death. What Johnson did is very serious Biblically.

Offline
Since
Wed, 5/6/09
Posts: 3505
So

What what Joel is saying is that non-cessationalists have no problem with claims that God reveals things visually to those who receive "His" visions - no matter how bizarre or sinful they may be. I can understand that, but disagree with it.

JCarpenter, on the other hand, thinks that "Driscoll hasn't taught anything that's clearly condemned in Scripture", but hasn't yet interacted with any of the Scripture that I quoted in http://sharperiron.org/comment/43430#comment-43430 ]post #33 . He does, however, have a real problem with Phil Johnson, who documents what Driscoll does with Driscoll's own words.

Okay, then...well, I guess that settles that conversation.

I would be jesting, but this is not funny, and it speaks volumes about the absolute lack of doctrinal soundness in some people of our 'kind'. I'm pretty sure that two of the verses I cited in post #33 - Ephesians 5:1-4 and Colossians 3:8 - govern this situation in regards to 'visions that come from God', especially when they're given to reveal acts of sin and crime. I'm also pretty sure that any claims of persistent revelation 'from God' fly in the face of Scriptures that say that those who 'prophesy' must be tested to see if they're in alignment with Scripture, which is the final authority for all things. I'm kinda - but not really sure - that when someone claims that God gave them a vision of sordid and explicit sexual detail, that http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=1+John+4%3A1-6&version=ESV ]that is not of God . I'm also kind of thinking that there are a LOT of people who are going to say that they served Jesus faithfully, but will be surprised at http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matthew+7:21-23&version=ESV ]the reception they get from Him .

But hey, if you want to govern your spiritual life by a guy instead of the Bible, by all means, go right ahead. Just don't come crying to me when http://esv.scripturetext.com/matthew/7-24.htm your house collapses on the sand .

"Our task today is to tell people — who no longer know what sin is...no longer see themselves as sinners, and no longer have room for these categories — that Christ died for sins of which they do not think they’re guilty." - David Wells

DavidO's picture
Offline
Since
Mon, 5/3/10
Posts: 727
an aside in fairness to ol' Wild Eyes

In fairness to Johnson, from the best of my recollection (and I don't care to go back and read the article or quotes again), Phil explicitly charactarized the visions as pornographic. However he referred to the speech as smut or smutty (can't recall), the definition of which has significant overlap with pronograp(y/ic), perhaps to the point of synonomy. More semantics, I know.

But, as a "writer", this is an issue of concern to me.

Greg Long's picture
Offline
Since
Tue, 6/2/09
Posts: 947
And off we go down another

And off we go down another rabbit trail...

JCarpenter, I have two questions for you:

1. Where in Scripture does it say that the canon would be closed with the book of Revelation?
2. Do you believe there are Apostles of Jesus Christ today with full apostolic authority?

------------------------------
Pastor of Adult Ministries

Grace Church, Des Moines, IA

Adjunct Instructor
School of Religion
Liberty University Online

Offline
Since
Wed, 5/6/09
Posts: 3505
an aside in fairness to ol' Wild Eyes, part 2

As an aside - this is what Phil http://www.teampyro.org/2011/08/pornographic-divination.html actually says about the video:

Quote:
The video below features Mark Driscoll, claiming the Holy Spirit regularly gives him graphic visions showing acts of rape, fornicators in flagrante delicto, and sexual child molesters in the very act. WARNING: This is an extremely disturbing video, for multiple reasons:

* This is bad teaching. The biblical "Gift of discernment" has nothing to do with soothsaying and everything to do with maturity, clear understanding, the ability to make wise and careful distinctions, and (especially) skill in differentiating between holy and profane, clean and unclean, truth and falsehood (Ezekiel 44:23; Hebrews 5:14).

* The counsel Driscoll gives is bad counsel. If by his own admission Driscoll's divinations are not "a hundred percent always right," he has no business accusing people of serious sins—including felony crimes—based on what he "sees" in his own imagination. Much less should he encourage his congregants to dream that they have such an ability and urge them to "use that gift."

* The salacious details he recounts are totally unnecessary. They serve only to reinforce the concern some of us have raised: Why does Driscoll have such a fixation with obscene subject matter, ribald stories, and racy talk? The smutty particulars regarding a counselee's tryst in a cheap hotel are not merely unnecessary; "it is disgraceful even to speak of [such ] things" (Ephesians 5:12).

* For that same reason (among others), these yarns aren't even believable. The Holy Spirit's own eyes are too pure to behold evil, and He cannot look on wickedness (Habakkuk 1:13). So why would He display pornographic visions to Mark Driscoll, whose mind and mouth are already too lewd anyway?

* This proves that cessationists' concerns are not far-fetched. Reformed charismatics frequently complain that it's unfair for cessationists not to expressly exempt them when we criticize the eccentricities of the wacko fringe [fringe is struck through in the original post -JC ] mainstream of the larger charismatic movement. But Reformed charismatics themselves aren't careful to distance themselves from charismatic nuttiness. John Piper was openly intrigued with the Toronto Blessing when it was at its peak. (If he ever denounced it as a fraud, I never heard or read where he stated that fact publicly.) Wayne Grudem to this day endorses Jack Deere's Surprised by the Power of the Spirit, despite the way Deere lionizes Paul Cain. Sam Storms aligned himself with the Kansas City Prophets' cult for almost a decade. I can't imagine how anyone holding Grudem's view of modern prophecy could possibly repudiate what Driscoll insists he has experienced. Does anyone really expect a thoughtful analysis or critique of Driscoll's view of the "gift of discernment" (much less a collective repudiation of this kind of pornographic divination) from Reformed charismatics? I certainly don't.

* Thus we see that the leaky-canon view leaves the church exposed—not only to the whimsy of hyperactive imaginations, but (as we see here) to the defiling influence of an impure mind as well (begins Driscoll quote).

But of course the problem is with Phil (and those who agree with him, like myself), not Driscoll.

"Our task today is to tell people — who no longer know what sin is...no longer see themselves as sinners, and no longer have room for these categories — that Christ died for sins of which they do not think they’re guilty." - David Wells

Greg Long's picture
Offline
Since
Tue, 6/2/09
Posts: 947
Here's another question for

Here's another question for you:

Today I listened to Driscoll's sermon on Jesus' letter to the church in Ephesus. In it he said, "Cessastionism...essentially says that the Holy Spirit does not operate today like he once did. It's a clever way of saying, 'We don't need Him like we used to.'"

That is an absolutely false characterization of Cessastionism. I've known many cessationists and sat under the preaching and teaching of cessationists all of my life, and I've never heard a single one of them say we don't need Him today like we used to.

My question is, Is Driscoll breaking the ninth Commandment by bearing false witness? Is he now unfit for pastoral ministry?

------------------------------
Pastor of Adult Ministries

Grace Church, Des Moines, IA

Adjunct Instructor
School of Religion
Liberty University Online

Offline
Since
Tue, 7/21/09
Posts: 45
Biblical Pattern

I was just wondering if there are any Biblical examples of the kind of "visions" that Mark Driscoll claims to have? Ones with the detail of a sin to confront someone with that sin. For example, the Bible doesn't say anything about Nathan getting a vision of David and Bathseba before confronting David about it.

By Mark's own word's the visions are not right 100% of the time, how does he know which ones are right? Also if these "visions" are from the Holy Spirit does that then mean the Holy Spirit is not right 100% of the time? I can see the conversation now, "the Holy Spirit gave me a tv show in my mind about what you did (with all this detail), opps I guess he was wrong". Any Biblical pattern of the Holy Spirity being wrong on "vision"? i don't think so. So I am not sure how Mark can claim to get "visions" from the Holy Spirit if some are wrong.

If Mark is getting "visions" to confront peoples sins which sometime involces crimes, does that mean we should be reconsidering if the psychic can really help police? Would it then be reasonable to consider that those vision could be from the Holy Spirit as well and given to help bring someone to justice? I don't think beleve the "psychic" people are getting vissions from the Holy Spirit any more than I believe Mark is. But they do sound very similar.

In my mind, these points as well as many of those posted above settle the matter for me.