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

[Jay] David, I think Aaron is referring to Mr. Carpenter, not you.

Ah, my mistake then.

[JCarpenter] 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?

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.

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?

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.

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.

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 .

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.

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?

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

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.

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?

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.