# Mark Driscoll and the Regulative Principle



## Sola Gratia

So, I listened to his sermon on the Regulative principle found here :Regulative Principle | Mars Hill Church . Unfortunately this only served to confuse me. Driscoll claims to be reformed, but I thought part of being reformed was acceptance of the regulative principle. Also, what about things like announcements? I assume that they would fall under things that we can infer from Scripture, but what in the Bible would illustrate that?

Thanks


----------



## matt01

I am not able to listen to the sermon, so maybe I am missing something. What are you referring to in respect to announcements? I didn"t realize that announcements were innapropriate.


----------



## Andres

Annoucements aren't actually part of the worship service, so they don't fall under the RPW. It would be like asking where fellowship meals fall under the RPW.


----------



## Sola Gratia

Andres said:


> Annoucements aren't actually part of the worship service, so I don't see them falling under the RPW. It would be like asking where fellowship meals fall under the RPW.



I was using announcements (which he mentioned) as an example of the type of things he was talking about. He lists many things he finds to be wrong with the Regulative Principle, but most have to do with things that are similar to announcements. Although he also condemns the RPW because we don't do everything in one service - such as raising hands, dancing, etc. as well as some other critiques. Honestly the whole sermon confused me


----------



## Andres

Sola Gratia said:


> Andres said:
> 
> 
> 
> Annoucements aren't actually part of the worship service, so I don't see them falling under the RPW. It would be like asking where fellowship meals fall under the RPW.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I was using announcements (which he mentioned) as an example of the type of things he was talking about. He lists many things he finds to be wrong with the Regulative Principle, but most have to do with things that are similar to announcements. Although he also condemns the RPW because we don't do everything in one service - such as raising hands, dancing, etc. as well as some other critiques. Honestly the whole sermon confused me
Click to expand...


I am going to do my best to be charitable towards Driscoll, so all I will say is that he is not Confessional and I'd strongly advise that if you are interested in learning about the RPW, there are numerous superior sources.


----------



## Gforce9

Hyatt,
There are several questions in your post. I'll add a few things to the mix. While a brother, as far as I know, Mark Driscoll seems to be an amalgamation of competing theologies. I wouldn't look at his work other than his personal opinion on the matter. He certainly does not hold to a historic view of the RPW as evidenced by his own ministry. While one could argue what items are _circumstance_ and what items are _essential_, it would seem that Mark D does not have a robust understanding of the premises that underlie the RPW:

1- God has the right to govern his church
2- He has given us instruction on the matter

Another, competing "view" of the RPW is that of Dr. John Frame (professor @ RTS Florida, formerly of Westminster Cali, I think). I saw an email correspondence between Dr. Frame and another prof @ WSC. Right out of the box, Dr. Frame said he didn't agree with a key tenet of Reformed Theology; that the RPW applies to the corporate worship of 
God's people and that Sunday (and presumably, the "ordinary means of grace" attached to the corporate gathering on the Lord's Day) only. Dr. Frame argues that everyday is to be under the RPW, which 1) makes the Lord's Day no more special that Monday @ work and 2) lessens the confines of the principle as no one could be "on" 24/7.
In conclusion, there are much better sources on the RPW than that of Mr. Driscoll..............


----------



## Sola Gratia

I am actually working through the Westminster Standards in-depth right now. Also, he does claim to be reformed and says that he has a commitment to reformed theology. That is why it confused me, because he was denying what I understand reformed theology to entail. There is just so much information everywhere all the time that I end up confused. Mostly because my degree in religion came from a quite liberal perspective which I embraced until recently and I think I am feeling overwhelmed.  Then I was reading about damnable heresy on here and that confused me more. Am I to be damned for not understanding much of what was being called damnable heresy? That scares me.


----------



## Sola Gratia

> Sola Gratia said:
> 
> 
> 
> I am actually working through the Westminster Standards in-depth right now. Also, he does claim to be reformed and says that he has a commitment to reformed theology. That is why it confused me, because he was denying what I understand reformed theology to entail. There is just so much information everywhere all the time that I end up confused. Mostly because my degree in religion came from a quite liberal perspective which I embraced until recently and I think I am feeling overwhelmed.  Then I was reading about damnable heresy on here and that confused me more. Am I to be damned for not understanding much of what was being called damnable heresy? That scares me.
> 
> 
> 
> Being "not Reformed" is not, in itself, damnable heresy. That's just silliness. I have plenty of Calvinistic friends who, at least in the historical understanding, are not "Reformed." They are my brethren. I can rejoice that there ministers preach the Gospel. I can rejoice that they do not embrace Romanism. Does it grieve me that we don't all embrace the Westminster Standards? Sure. But it is also understandable. Mr. Driscoll seems, soteriologically, to be solid in that particular understanding, and, while I am uncomfortable with many things he has publicly taught, I do not consider the man a heretic by any stretch. That said, simply claiming to be Reformed does not a Reformed person make.
Click to expand...


With reference to damnable heresy I must admit that I was wondering off into another topic. They were talking about things like the Trinity, which I believe in, but in terms and ways I had never heard before. Because I do not understand the nuances being discussed, does that make me fall into damnable heresy? They said not holding to inerrancy was damnable heresy too, which worried me because while I hold to it now I did not before. Like I said, I think I may be over my head. The things we talked about in college were process theology, open theism, Tielhard de Chardin, Westcott and Hort, the JEDP theory. I'm lost on the more "conservative" teachings of the faith because I've just come back to them


----------



## davenporter

Sola Gratia said:


> With reference to damnable heresy I must admit that I was wondering off into another topic. They were talking about things like the Trinity, which I believe in, but in terms and ways I had never heard before. Because I do not understand the nuances being discussed, does that make me fall into damnable heresy? They said not holding to inerrancy was damnable heresy too, which worried me because while I hold to it now I did not before. Like I said, I think I may be over my head. The things we talked about in college were process theology, open theism, Tielhard de Chardin, Westcott and Hort, the JEDP theory. I'm lost on the more "conservative" teachings of the faith because I've just come back to them



Brother, of course theology is crucial, as you sure understand, but that doesn't mean that you're not saved if you're not 100% orthodox in all of your theology. All of us are subject to error. We are saved by God's grace and that is a gift. You aren't saved by your perfect theology, for if you were, no one would be saved!

Yes, if we're regenerate, we will strive to immerse our minds in the Word of God, but that doesn't mean you will have it all perfect instantly. That's what Heaven is for. I think you can relax in God's grace; the fact that you care so much about understanding the truth of God seems to be a sign of good fruit! Trust in the gospel of Christ -- not in your knowledge and your theology. And then, in the peace He gives you, learn from Him -- His yoke is easy and His burden is light!

You can work through these issues one at a time, and that will be more beneficial than trying to figure them all out at once!


----------



## DeniseM

A book that really helped me with the RP was How God Wants us to Worship Him by Joe Morecraft III. Pastor Morecraft also has a couple of sermons on sermon audio on the Regulative Principle in the New Testament and the Old Testament.
The Regulative Principle of Worship in the New Testament
The Regulative Principle of Worship in the Old Testament


----------



## sevenzedek

davenporter said:


> Yes, if we're regenerate, we will strive to immerse our minds in the Word of God, but that doesn't mean you will have it all perfect instantly.



My old church members at the the Pentecostal Church of God where I first started following Christ would say amen to that! I wasn't perfect then, and I am not there yet. As THEY used to say so many times, "I'm not what I should be, but I ain't what used to be... hayek kwai ouse ianbehix—blah blah blah..." I can still say that; except for the last part. I'm still reforming.


----------



## Semper Fidelis

The best example I can give to steer clear of Mark Driscoll's theology is here: http://www.puritanboard.com/f15/mark-driscoll-trinity-w-g-t-shedd-72507/


----------



## py3ak

sevenzedek said:


> hayek



Apparently when Pentecostals speak in tongues they are Austrian economists - or fans of Mexican actresses with interesting ancestry.


----------



## sevenzedek

py3ak said:


> sevenzedek said:
> 
> 
> 
> hayek
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Apparently when Pentecostals speak in tongues they are Austrian economists - or fans of Mexican actresses with interesting ancestry.
Click to expand...


Uhhh, yeah. Apparently my iPod has the gift of interpretation. It would appear that only a man so hungry for knowledge would consider my profound words spoken "in the spirit" of fun.


----------



## ch0zen

Driscoll has taken some big steps away from a traditional ''reformed'' teachings and practices. Again just adding weight to what other people are saying... he is good to listen to for his opinion, and even some effective communication tools, but as far as reformed theology is concerned in my opinion he's not the best person to listen to. (as im sure you're already aware). 

---- _but I thought part of being reformed was acceptance of the regulative principle._

my question is... are RPW and Reformed Theology completely inseparable? is there another thread on this?


----------



## Semper Fidelis

ch0zen said:


> are RPW and Reformed Theology completely inseparable?


In brief, the answer is "Yes". The system of doctrine in the Reformed Confessions has the RPW spread throughout. It entails not only the Reformed understanding of the depravity of man and the fact that he is wont to worship God in idolatrous ways but, accordingly, an understanding of the Second Commandment and the care with which God protects worship of Himself.


----------



## MightyManfred

Sola Gratia said:


> Andres said:
> 
> 
> 
> Annoucements aren't actually part of the worship service, so I don't see them falling under the RPW. It would be like asking where fellowship meals fall under the RPW.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I was using announcements (which he mentioned) as an example of the type of things he was talking about. He lists many things he finds to be wrong with the Regulative Principle, but most have to do with things that are similar to announcements. Although he also condemns the RPW because we don't do everything in one service - such as raising hands, dancing, etc. as well as some other critiques. Honestly the whole sermon confused me
Click to expand...


I think Driscoll's major aim is to confuse people who read the Bible and mislead those who don't.


----------



## sevenzedek

MightyManfred said:


> Sola Gratia said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Andres said:
> 
> 
> 
> Annoucements aren't actually part of the worship service, so I don't see them falling under the RPW. It would be like asking where fellowship meals fall under the RPW.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I was using announcements (which he mentioned) as an example of the type of things he was talking about. He lists many things he finds to be wrong with the Regulative Principle, but most have to do with things that are similar to announcements. Although he also condemns the RPW because we don't do everything in one service - such as raising hands, dancing, etc. as well as some other critiques. Honestly the whole sermon confused me
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I think Driscoll's major aim is to confuse people who read the Bible and mislead those who don't.
Click to expand...


Can you back this statement up with any evidence?


----------



## davenporter

MightyManfred said:


> I think Driscoll's major aim is to confuse people who read the Bible and mislead those who don't.



I don't think that's charitable or true. I honestly just think he's really confused and he has a serious pride problem (and over-contextualization problem). And some ecclesiastical and doctrinal problems, but I think those stem from the pride problem. God has used Driscoll to do a lot of good. Yes, Driscoll also has done some ill, but in general, he has done more to bring people to a better understanding of the Bible than they would otherwise have. Solid Christians won't be confused by him (probably because they would stop listening to him! , but less solid Christians would be brought into at least a better-than-Arminian soteriology and encouragement to read and study the Bible for themselves. I really think that the crowd he reaches is the more evangelical (rather than Reformed) crowd and he brings them closer to our camp. Granted, it would be going backwards for anyone on this board to go back to him, but I don't think that will be a problem for most of us...

Driscoll does have some dangerous teachings that we need to watch out for, but as far as I can tell he is still an evangelical brother (if not Reformed in any sense of the word -- he's not even a 5-pointer), and we should treat him as such.


----------



## thbslawson

MightyManfred said:


> Sola Gratia said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Andres said:
> 
> 
> 
> Annoucements aren't actually part of the worship service, so I don't see them falling under the RPW. It would be like asking where fellowship meals fall under the RPW.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I was using announcements (which he mentioned) as an example of the type of things he was talking about. He lists many things he finds to be wrong with the Regulative Principle, but most have to do with things that are similar to announcements. Although he also condemns the RPW because we don't do everything in one service - such as raising hands, dancing, etc. as well as some other critiques. Honestly the whole sermon confused me
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I think Driscoll's major aim is to confuse people who read the Bible and mislead those who don't.
Click to expand...


That's very uncharitable.


----------



## John Carpenter

You've accused a pastor of serious sin ("a serious pride problem") and doctrinal error ("some dangerous teachings"). Either document how you know those statements to be true or simply don't make them. If you have problems with particular teachings and practices, name them and deal with them specifically. Throwing around such broad accusations without substantiation is inappropriate.


----------



## John Carpenter

There's no evidence there that Driscoll has anything other than an orthodox doctrine of the Trinity. In the quote provided, Driscoll shies away from the traditional terms "begotten" because he feels it implies a definite beginning. While I'd reject his conclusion about "begotten" because it has always been qualified as "eternally begotten", Driscoll's concern is to preserve the eternality and thus full divinity of the Son, which is a properly Trinitarian concern. So, if that's the best you have, then there is no reason to question the orthodoxy of Mark Driscoll at this time.


----------



## raekwon

Driscoll is "reformed" in the "soteriologically Calvinist" sense (and some would raise questions about even that) and that's about it. That's a legitimate use of the word, though.


----------



## Semper Fidelis

John Carpenter said:


> There's no evidence there that Driscoll has anything other than an orthodox doctrine of the Trinity. In the quote provided, Driscoll shies away from the traditional terms "begotten" because he feels it implies a definite beginning. While I'd reject his conclusion about "begotten" because it has always been qualified as "eternally begotten", Driscoll's concern is to preserve the eternality and thus full divinity of the Son, which is a properly Trinitarian concern. So, if that's the best you have, then there is no reason to question the orthodoxy of Mark Driscoll at this time.



When a man both rejects the orthodox terminology on a facile basis that the term "begotten" plays into the hands of the Arians and, in the same breath, rejects Eternal Procession, I would say that's reason enough to warn others to avoid listening to him. He basically gave T.D. Jakes a "pass" on his modalism.

There's more to protecting the Trinity than protecting the eternality of the Son, there's also the need to preserve the distinction between the persons. I'm not interested in the promotion of any notions on my board that downplays the importance of these historic definitions.


----------



## MightyManfred

thbslawson said:


> MightyManfred said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sola Gratia said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Andres said:
> 
> 
> 
> Annoucements aren't actually part of the worship service, so I don't see them falling under the RPW. It would be like asking where fellowship meals fall under the RPW.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I was using announcements (which he mentioned) as an example of the type of things he was talking about. He lists many things he finds to be wrong with the Regulative Principle, but most have to do with things that are similar to announcements. Although he also condemns the RPW because we don't do everything in one service - such as raising hands, dancing, etc. as well as some other critiques. Honestly the whole sermon confused me
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I think Driscoll's major aim is to confuse people who read the Bible and mislead those who don't.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That's very uncharitable.
Click to expand...


Driscoll has been very uncharitable in his lordship authoritarian rule over his flock, his harsh language from the pulpit, his false visions from God about sin in his flock (while preaching!), his building up those who lead people astray with modalism, prosperity gospel, and seeker-sensitive none sense. He demeans the character of Christ in his books and sermons with his language, dress, and behavior. His leadership in Acts 29 turned into a business that crushed as many churches as it "helped". 

I do not sit in judgment on his status before the Lord, but I will not give him a break.


----------



## MightyManfred

raekwon said:


> Driscoll is "reformed" in the "soteriologically Calvinist" sense (and some would raise questions about even that) and that's about it. That's a legitimate use of the word, though.



To be Reformed, one must hold to the 5 solas. Being a Calvinist (which requires holding to all 5 points) does not make one Reformed. Driscoll is not a Calvinist - by his own mouth, he is a 4-pointer. One of the hallmarks of Reformed theology is the regulative principle of worship, which flows out of Sola Scriptura. One cannot legitimately claim to be Reformed if he is not holding to this principle.


----------



## raekwon

MightyManfred said:


> raekwon said:
> 
> 
> 
> Driscoll is "reformed" in the "soteriologically Calvinist" sense (and some would raise questions about even that) and that's about it. That's a legitimate use of the word, though.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> To be Reformed, one must hold to the 5 solas. Being a Calvinist (which requires holding to all 5 points) does not make one Reformed. Driscoll is not a Calvinist - by his own mouth, he is a 4-pointer. One of the hallmarks of Reformed theology is the regulative principle of worship, which flows out of Sola Scriptura. One cannot legitimately claim to be Reformed if he is not holding to this principle.
Click to expand...


Okay, then.


----------



## Andres

MightyManfred said:


> raekwon said:
> 
> 
> 
> Driscoll is "reformed" in the "soteriologically Calvinist" sense (and some would raise questions about even that) and that's about it. That's a legitimate use of the word, though.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> To be Reformed, one must hold to the 5 solas. Being a Calvinist (which requires holding to all 5 points) does not make one Reformed. Driscoll is not a Calvinist - by his own mouth, he is a 4-pointer. One of the hallmarks of Reformed theology is the regulative principle of worship, which flows out of Sola Scriptura. One cannot legitimately claim to be Reformed if he is not holding to this principle.
Click to expand...


I think one could just as easily contend that one cannot legitimately claim to be "reformed" without holding to paedobaptism, but I digress.


----------



## jandrusk

G.I. Williamson has an article that I'm including on the Regulative Principle of Worship from Ordained Servant. 

http://www.reformedprescambridge.com/articles/ICRC_RPW_Final.pdf


----------



## John Carpenter

Actually, Driscoll holds to the 5 points, he only emphasizes the potential sufficiency of the death of Christ for all. I think he's wrong to do so but it doesn't disqualify him from being considered Reformed.
One could make a good case that since paedobaptism isn't taught or described in scripture that it is a violation of the regulative principle and therefore someone who practices it isn't really Reformed!


----------



## John Carpenter

There's no evidence that Driscoll doesn't fully hold to to the distinctions of the Persons in the Trinity or the full Divinity of each or the Unity of the Three. Personally, like you, I think he is wrong to reject the long-standing terminology of Nicea on "eternally begotten" and eternal procession. But since I'm Reformed and not Catholic (or Eastern Orthodox) what determines orthodoxy is not exactly repeating the formulas of the past but being faithful to the Biblical ideas. There are no grounds for suggesting that Driscoll's doctrine is not Biblically faithful, Trinitarian, historically orthodox, and Reformed.

Your statement sounds more Catholic than evangelical. Check that.


----------



## John Carpenter

I've paid some attention to Driscoll's ministry and while I'm not uncritical, I think he is basically sound. I do not believe you can substantiate any of those sweeping accusations you've made.


----------



## MightyManfred

Andres said:


> MightyManfred said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> raekwon said:
> 
> 
> 
> Driscoll is "reformed" in the "soteriologically Calvinist" sense (and some would raise questions about even that) and that's about it. That's a legitimate use of the word, though.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> To be Reformed, one must hold to the 5 solas. Being a Calvinist (which requires holding to all 5 points) does not make one Reformed. Driscoll is not a Calvinist - by his own mouth, he is a 4-pointer. One of the hallmarks of Reformed theology is the regulative principle of worship, which flows out of Sola Scriptura. One cannot legitimately claim to be Reformed if he is not holding to this principle.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I think one could just as easily contend that one cannot legitimately claim to be "reformed" without holding to paedobaptism, but I digress.
Click to expand...


That's laughable, considering paedobaptism is construct of man and not found in Scripture. How can one hold to Sola Scriptura AND paedobaptism? The New Covenant corollary to the Old Covenant circumcision of the flesh is the circumcision of the heart, which is not made by human hands.


----------



## thbslawson

John Carpenter said:


> Actually, since paedobaptism isn't mentioned in scripture one can legitimately argue that teaching it is a violation of Sola Scriptura and practicing it is a violation of the regulative principle; therefore, paedobaptism is inconsistent with being Reformed.



And here we go...


----------



## MightyManfred

John Carpenter said:


> I've paid some attention to Driscoll's ministry and while I'm not uncritical, I think he is basically sound. I do not believe you can substantiate any of those sweeping accusations you've made.



Read some of the articles here, for starters: driscoll | Search Results | Defending. Contending.


----------



## Zach

MightyManfred said:


> Andres said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MightyManfred said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> raekwon said:
> 
> 
> 
> Driscoll is "reformed" in the "soteriologically Calvinist" sense (and some would raise questions about even that) and that's about it. That's a legitimate use of the word, though.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> To be Reformed, one must hold to the 5 solas. Being a Calvinist (which requires holding to all 5 points) does not make one Reformed. Driscoll is not a Calvinist - by his own mouth, he is a 4-pointer. One of the hallmarks of Reformed theology is the regulative principle of worship, which flows out of Sola Scriptura. One cannot legitimately claim to be Reformed if he is not holding to this principle.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I think one could just as easily contend that one cannot legitimately claim to be "reformed" without holding to paedobaptism, but I digress.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That's laughable, considering paedobaptism is construct of man and not found in Scripture. How can one hold to Sola Scriptura AND paedobaptism? The New Covenant corollary to the Old Covenant circumcision of the flesh is the circumcision of the heart, which is not made by human hands.
Click to expand...




John Carpenter said:


> Actually, Driscoll holds to the 5 points, he only emphasizes the potential sufficiency of the death of Christ for all. I think he's wrong to do so but it doesn't disqualify him from being considered Reformed.
> One could make a good case that since paedobaptism isn't taught or described in scripture that it is a violation of the regulative principle and therefore someone who practices it isn't really Reformed!



Both of you ignore the fact that the Trinity is not mentioned in Scripture. Is being Trinitarian a violation of the Regulative Principle and Sola Scriptura? Your logic is flawed and not only that but inconsistent with the Confession of Fatih:

WCF 1.6. The whole counsel of God concerning all things necessary for his own glory, man's salvation, faith and life, is either expressly set down in Scripture, *or by good and necessary consequence may be deduced from Scripture*: unto which nothing at any time is to be added, whether by new revelations of the Spirit, or traditions of men. Nevertheless, we acknowledge the inward illumination of the Spirit of God to be necessary for the saving understanding of such things as are revealed in the Word: and that there are some circumstances concerning the worship of God, and government of the church, common to human actions and societies, which are to be ordered by the light of nature, and Christian prudence, according to the general rules of the Word, which are always to be observed.


----------



## MightyManfred

Zach - the Trinity is clearly revealed in Scripture, though the English word is not.

Next!


----------



## Contra_Mundum

John Carpenter said:


> Actually, since paedobaptism isn't mentioned in scripture one can legitimately argue that teaching it is a violation of Sola Scriptura and practicing it is a violation of the regulative principle; therefore, paedobaptism is inconsistent with being Reformed.


The Trinity isn't mentioned in Scripture, so by parity of reasoning is teaching it a violation of _sola scriptura_, and likewise a trinitarian shape of worship (by implication) a violation of the RPW?



Incidentally, the above comment re. "Reformed" in conjunction with paedo-baptism, is simply a reflection of the fact that the overwhelming consistent Reformed witness by dozens of Confessional statements (which is a churchly way of testifying to a common faith), from every country in Europe, over the 100+ year Reformation era, is prima facie evidence that p-b is part and parcel of the *definition* of Reformed.

Such was the poster's point, even if the concession is made that at the tail end of the era, an English Confession appeared that promoted most of the standard Reformed doctrines, with (at least) the noteworthy change on the subject of baptism. Few today make a serious effort to reserve the word "Reformed" in its historical sense (some are still jealous for it), where "Particular" or "Calvinistic" Baptist once did the descriptive duty for those who self-consciously rejected a distinctive mark of the historically Reformed.

Times change, and so does language. The 20th century was a time of building bridges all over the place, and looking for common ground. So, "Reformed" is now recognized to be a much broader term than it was even 50 years ago.


----------



## John Carpenter

Hi Zach & Bruce,

The idea of the Trinity is taught in scripture. Teaching the Trinity is proper exegesis of numerous Biblical texts and so actually an out-come of Sola Scriptura. That's why I -- and notably Driscoll -- hold to it. I don't believe even the idea of paedobaptism is found in scripture. One can debate that but no one can debate that the practice of infant baptism isn't found explicitly in scripture. There isn't one explicit model of an infant baptism or an instruction given to do it. So if being "Reformed" is defined Biblically -- as being most faithful to scripture, as I think it should be -- then that most of the early proponents of the "Reformed faith" were paedobaptists only shows us that they were inconsistent with Sola Scriptura.

The strict definition of the regulative principle is that nothing ought to be introduced into the worship of God that is not found in scripture. Since infant baptism isn't found in scripture, then one could argue that doing it is a violation of the regulative principle.

But what I think is missing from the strict application of the RPW is the understanding that it is a "principle" and principles are abstract guidelines that can express themselves in many forms. The NT simply does not give us a detailed, specific order of service to follow. It gives us principles -- like "Spirit and truth", "decency and order", "for edification", "preach the Word", etc. --and only a few specific instructions, like "sing psalms . . .", "do this in remembrance of Me". How exactly those principles are expressed and the details included is a matter of wisdom and liberty. That's what I think should be understood as the "regulative principle".


----------



## Contra_Mundum

MightyManfred said:


> Zach - the Trinity is clearly revealed in Scripture, though the English word is not.
> 
> Next!


This response is, if possible, even less substantive than the original assertion. The naked assertion that "paedo-baptism" isn't discoverable in the pages of Scripture is the same form of argumentation.



John,
You do a little better job responding (and we really should avoid a thread-hijack), but your dismissal is precisely the point of disagreement between us. And therefore, it is the same form of argumentation that the Arians attempted. Let's argue these points elsewhere, and use strong arguments, not beggarly ones.


----------



## raekwon

So anyway, yeah... Driscoll isn't an RPW guy. He more closely aligns with the normative principle of worship. I listened to his sermons weekly back when that one came out and I remember, while it was reasonably argued, sharply disagreeing with it.


----------



## John Carpenter

Contra_Mundum said:


> MightyManfred said:
> 
> 
> 
> we really should avoid a thread-hijack),
> 
> but your dismissal is precisely the point of disagreement between us. And therefore, it is the same form of argumentation that the Arians attempted.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hi, you're right we should avoid getting off-track. I brought up infant baptism because someone commented that being Reformed means X, Y, & Z and since Driscoll doesn't hold to X, Y, & Z therefore, he isn't Reformed. I used the same logic (and I think actually more soundly and consistently): being Reformed means holding to the Sola Scriptura and the Regulative Principle. Infant baptism isn't taught in scripture or shown to be practiced. Therefore, it isn't "Reformed". Shocking, I know, but probably fairer than the attacks on Driscoll I see that are unsubstantiated and common.
> 
> As for infant baptism, if you had a scripture to support it, then you would show it. But you can't. If someone asked me for scriptures on the Trinity, I could provide them right away, Mt. 28:18f comes to mind; John 1:1 on the divinity of the Son, etc.
> 
> But I accept that paedobaptists are Reformed and have been some of the greatest leaders, evangelists and theologians of the church. And so my basic point is that we should back of these excessively restrictive definitions of what it means to be "Reformed", including ones that exclude Driscoll.
Click to expand...


----------



## Contra_Mundum

John Carpenter said:


> As for infant baptism, if you had a scripture to support it, then you would show it. *But you can't*.


Says you, just because you would disagree with my presentation of baptism from the Scriptures.



John Carpenter said:


> If someone asked me for scriptures on the Trinity, I could provide them right away, Mt. 28:18f comes to mind; John 1:1 on the divinity of the Son, etc.


Brother, you have to _exegete_ Mt.28:18f and Jn.1:1, applying hermeneutics to them, to teach Trinitarian doctrine from them, and furthermore show that this is a doctrine that is derived from all over the place in Scripture (which is how p-bs who know their Bibles defend their doctrine of baptism).

So, please. Brother, let's drop the whole p-b discussion (here and now) WRT Driscoll's purported stances on points of orthodoxy. I'm not interested in trying to "fence" the title to "Reformed."


----------



## JP Wallace

I agree with Josh. Let's knock the silly jibes about baptism on the head.


----------



## John Carpenter

Do you understand why I brought infant baptism up? Some want to say that to be "Reformed" means Sola Scriptura (true) which means the Regulative Principle of Worship (depending on how it is understood) and since Driscoll doesn't repeat verbatim the traditional terms of Nicea or the "L" in TULIP and does that while dressed in a Mickey Mouse t-shirt, so he isn't "Reformed". But two can play that game! 

While I think Driscoll's presentation on the principles of worship was fine and well-presented, what is missing is understanding that the Regulative Principle of Worship is a "principle" and principles are abstract guidelines that can express themselves in many forms. Of course, that is also missing from the strict Reformed expressions of the RPW that Driscoll is responding to and the proponents of which would often charge Driscoll with not being truly "Reformed" -- and throw in another few choice insults and sweeping accusations which they usually can't prove. I believe in the Regulative Principle of Worship. But it's just a principle. The NT simply does not give us a detailed, specific order of service to follow. It gives us principles -- like "Spirit and truth", "decency and order", "for edification", "preach the Word", etc. --and only a few specific instructions, like "sing psalms . . .", "do this in remembrance of Me". How exactly those principles are expressed and the details included is a matter of wisdom and liberty. That's what I think should be understood as the "regulative principle".


----------



## Contra_Mundum

John,
I think I understand your point. And it's not my point.

The p-b issue was brought up by someone on "this side" of the fence. That was an unfortunate distraction. It was doubly unfortunate that the comment wasn't left to die a lonely death.

What it precipitated is a side discussion on what it means to be "Reformed," and in the general context of the thread, what "Reformed" means is something that _some_ wish to reduce to a single issue, or two, or 5-Points, etc. On this Board, however, "Reformed" is the totality that the church _confesses_ corporately to be biblical doctrine. The biggest "sticking point" on that subject is (maybe) Baptism, because in fact we aren't all of us in Confessional agreement on that subject--because the Confessions differ; that is, one of them differs from the rest of them. But we've agreed to admit that difference, and even argue over it between ourselves.

The issue is complicated by the fact that "Reformed" is an historical distinction (current for several centuries until only about 50 years ago). And with "the right administration of the sacraments" being one of the cardinal Marks of a true church, the doctrine of baptism was not a minor point of *definition* for all those centuries. Some definitions die hard.

So, in the context of this thread, you have at a critical juncture appropriated the adjective "Reformed," made it applicable exclusively to an ad hoc, truncated definition of the term, and then cut out the historic owners of that term on the basis that they don't deserve it, while keeping yourself included. But clearly, the basis for the claim (as you represented it) is entirely open to severe criticism on your own terms. The riposte WRT the Trinity and Arianism was an accurate read of the weakness in the form of argument.

But to come back around, Driscoll is _not_ an adherent to a *Confession* that establishes the boundaries and the content of what defines "Reformed." When he reduces what is needful to being "Reformed" to only what he thinks is OK, so as to define himself within that precious moniker, he's asserting a claim to decide what puts him in or out of the club he (apparently) wants sometimes to be in known association with. That is a stance itself open to just opposition, by the hitherto established "owners" of the title.

Do you understand my point?


----------



## davenporter

John Carpenter said:


> You've accused a pastor of serious sin ("a serious pride problem") and doctrinal error ("some dangerous teachings"). Either document how you know those statements to be true or simply don't make them. If you have problems with particular teachings and practices, name them and deal with them specifically. Throwing around such broad accusations without substantiation is inappropriate.



Driscoll admitted the pride problem himself.
Driscoll’s Confession on Pride – Justin Taylor

Doctrinal error - he considers himself a 4.5 point Calvinist, thereby rejecting Limited Atonement. If you want more, just watch his Song of Songs sermon series and TELL ME that there are no dangerous teachings there.

Also, tell me that 4.5 points "limited atonement and unlimited atonement at the same time" isn't contradictory and is Reformed. If he really believed in limited atonement, he would call himself a 5-pointer! So he must not be talking about sufficiency and efficiency!

I didn't even know about the Trinity stuff, but apparently there's even more "dangerous teaching" than I knew about! And, oh yes, his charismaticism and continuing revelation. That's also dangerous teaching. And we don't even need to go into his ecclesiology. 



> Actually, since paedobaptism isn't mentioned in scripture one can legitimately argue that teaching it is a violation of Sola Scriptura and practicing it is a violation of the regulative principle; therefore, paedobaptism is inconsistent with being Reformed.



That's like saying since the Trinity isn't mentioned in Scripture one can legitimately argue that teaching it is a violation of Sola Scriptura and practicing it is a violation of the regulative principle; therefore, the Trinity is inconsistent with being Reformed. (Oh, whoops -- Zach beat me to it... but I typed this post as I read)

Edit:
And now, having read the second page:

I understand your argument over infant baptism. Unfortunately, it doesn't apply. When I said Driscoll isn't Reformed in any sense of the word, I was referring (obviously) to more than just the fact that he's not confessional, specifically that he is not Calvinistic. Maybe eventually the usage of the term will become SO BROAD that it will refer to someone even TRYING to be Biblical, but we're not there yet.

Typically, Reformed is used to refer to someone who is AT LEAST Calvinistic. Calvinism seems to be the lowest bar for "Reformed" -- and Driscoll himself has admitted (like I said) that he is a 4.5 pointer, thus missing even the lowest bar for "Reformed". Maybe he doesn't miss it by much, but by his own statement (4.5), he does.

Not that the Reformed or not thing even matters -- it's whether Driscoll is dangerous or not. And I think he is!! But I don't think he is trying to be, and I try to assume the best of people unless I have good reason to do otherwise. I think his motives may be good but his actions and teachings aren't.


----------



## JP Wallace

John Carpenter said:


> I believe in the Regulative Principle of Worship. But it's just a principle. The NT simply does not give us a detailed, specific order of service to follow. It gives us principles -- like "Spirit and truth", "decency and order", "for edification", "preach the Word", etc. --and only a few specific instructions, like "sing psalms . . .", "do this in remembrance of Me". How exactly those principles are expressed and the details included is a matter of wisdom and liberty. That's what I think should be understood as the "regulative principle".



So back to the subject. The Regulative Principle is a principle, and to that extent it *is* abstract, but you seem to be presenting it as principle of regulation which has few regulations, it proposes only very general principles such as in Spirit and Truth etc. Is that in keeping with spirit of the RP itself? Does the RPW not actually teach us that we are restricted in *what* we do in worship and *what* we ought not to do in worship, i.e is the RPW not as much about *what* we do and not merely *how* we do it? 

I've not read enough from you to know your position on these matters, there are plenty today in RB circles who agree with John Frame who proposes what in essense is a regulative princple without any regulation - this seems a far cry from the spirit and intention of the Confessions;

BCF 22:1
But the acceptable way of Worshipping the true God, is instituted by himself; and so limited by his own revealed will, that he may not be Worshipped according to the imaginations, and devices of Men, or the suggestions of Satan, under any visible representations, or any other way, not prescribed in the Holy Scriptures.


----------



## rbcbob

John Carpenter said:


> Actually, since paedobaptism isn't mentioned in scripture one can legitimately argue that teaching it is a violation of Sola Scriptura and practicing it is a violation of the regulative principle; therefore, paedobaptism is inconsistent with being Reformed.



Mr. Carpenter, you have made quite the entrance with your posts. You will find that the PB is a large and diverse family consisting of paedobaptist and credobaptist alike. We generally strive to be gracious to one another and not refuel arguments which have been debated here ad nausium. There are highly trained ministers as well as simple pastors like myself and a host of regular church members besides. 

If you would allow me I would counsel you to read many more posts (current and archived) in relation to those you submit until you gain a sense of how you might best profit from as well as be a profit to the folks here. 

Peace,


----------



## NaphtaliPress

Folks, keep to the topic of this thread. Take the baptism question to another thread at an appropriate time.


----------



## John Carpenter

Hi,

It takes some humility to admit pride, especially as it is a common problem, the root of sin itself. It's an excellent, mature statement that he posted. You may want to learn from his model.

Your characterization of his take on "Limited Atonement" ("Unlimited Limited Atonement") is too severe. He is simply trying to emphasize that the death of Christ is potentially sufficient for all, following Dr. Bruce Ware, a fine theologian. To call that "doctrinal error" is itself excessive. I think fudging on "Limited Atonement" is unnecessary and confused but there have been many Calvinists who do the same: emphasize the sufficiency of the death of Christ for all while admitting its efficiency for only the elect.

There is no proven problem with his doctrine of the Trinity and you appear to have exposed a problem with jumping to conclusions based on limited or misinformation; it belies your claim that you tend to think the best of people. Further, your sweeping statement that Driscoll is dangerous is frankly wrong. What is dangerous is the attitude that it's acceptable to make unsubstantiated, sweeping condemnations of Christian leaders. It's simply inappropriate to spread sweeping, unsubstantiated false or incomplete accusations at people. I realize that some people think that it is open season on Mark Driscoll and that apparently the 9th commandment doesn't apply when speaking about him. I know it is commonly accepted in our American culture to speak like that of prominent people. But our culture is anti-Christian in that regard.

The excellent statement of this Board on the 9th commandment states: "We begin with the basic principle that we ought to protect our neighbor’s good name. In applying this principle, we must not prejudice the minds of our brethren against others in such a way that would lead to the defamation of our neighbor’s good name." Mark Driscoll is our neighbor. We have a duty to uphold his good name from false accusations. If he teaches something we disagree with, we can challenge, correct and expose the problems with the specific teaching. If that false teaching goes so far as to be what the church has considered heresy, then we have a right to expose that too and warn others of the danger. But to make the kinds of broad condemnations, without specific evidence of real false teaching, is a violation of the commandment.


----------



## John Carpenter

Hi Pastor Paul,

I believe in the regulative principle, that scripture must guide and guard our worship assemblies. But having said that, we have to be honest about exactly the regulations scripture contains for our worship, which in fact is very few. Most of what scripture contains is general principles that can express themselves in a variety of forms. There just isn't a detailed order of service, a formal liturgy, specified in the New Testament. If there were, the regulative principle would require us to follow it exactly. But there isn't. When the NT does tell us to do something specifically, like sing Psalms (Col. 3:16), I believe we must follow. Hence, in our church, we make sure to sing a psalm every service. But it doesn't tell me how often to have the Lord's Supper, whether to sing only old hymns or contemporary songs, what version to use, how to take up the offering, the time of service, what direction to face, etc. As above, the principles of scripture that regulate use are usually general, like: "Spirit and truth", "decency and order", "for edification", "preach the Word". The statement you quote, from BCF 22:1, is fine and right. But when we actually open up scripture to see what God instituted Himself for the church, we mostly find general principles, not specific liturgies. So someone like Driscoll shouldn't be faulted for not slavishly following a traditional order of service or toeing the line of a "regulative principle" that doesn't take the actual content of the NT into account.


----------



## Bill The Baptist

rbcbob said:


> ad nausium


----------



## Jeff Burns

Bill The Baptist said:


> rbcbob said:
> 
> 
> 
> ad nausium
Click to expand...




Simply searching the PB or teampyro for "driscoll" is enough to induce true nausea.


----------



## John Carpenter

I'll repeat what I posted above:
The excellent statement of this Board on the 9th commandment states: "We begin with the basic principle that we ought to protect our neighbor’s good name. In applying this principle, we must not prejudice the minds of our brethren against others in such a way that would lead to the defamation of our neighbor’s good name." Mark Driscoll is our neighbor. We have a duty to uphold his good name from false accusations. If he teaches something we disagree with, we can challenge, correct and expose the problems with the specific teaching. If that false teaching goes so far as to be what the church has considered heresy, then we have a right to expose that too and warn others of the danger. But to make the kinds of broad condemnations, without specific evidence of real false teaching, is a violation of the commandment.


----------



## thbslawson

Jeff Burns said:


> Bill The Baptist said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rbcbob said:
> 
> 
> 
> ad nausium
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Simply searching the PB or teampyro for "driscoll" is enough to induce true nausea.
Click to expand...


You know, I'm not a sold-out "Driscoll fan". I really like most of what he says, and there are things that I have problems with, but at the end of the day he's a brother in Christ, and I do believe he's sincerely doing the Lord's work. I'm friends with an older mentor friend of Mark's and he commented once that "The internet will not let Mark grow up." The facts are that, while he still says some things and has some methodologies that I don't particularly agree with, that he's matured significantly since the early days of his ministry, yet many do not want to acknowledge this. I know for a fact that he has older, wiser, more mature Christians who counsel and mentor him. He asks for and submits to this. 

Regarding Team Pyro, it's no secret that Phil Johnson and the gang are not Driscoll fans. I only wish they spoke of him with the same level of respect that he speaks of MacArthur and GTY. Better to pray for the man that God would continue to mature him and bless his ministry.


----------



## PuritanCovenanter

Did anyone read this post? 

The Ruling Elder: Mark Driscoll, the Trinity, and W. G. T. Shedd


----------



## J. Dean

Sola Gratia said:


> So, I listened to his sermon on the Regulative principle found here :Regulative Principle | Mars Hill Church . Unfortunately this only served to confuse me. Driscoll claims to be reformed, but I thought part of being reformed was acceptance of the regulative principle. Also, what about things like announcements? I assume that they would fall under things that we can infer from Scripture, but what in the Bible would illustrate that?
> 
> Thanks


While I admit to having questions about aspects of RPW, I wouldn't use Driscoll as a foil for measuring RPW critiques.


----------



## John Carpenter

Yes, I read it and commented on it, concluding that there is nothing there. It appears to be saying that Driscoll is sort of doing something that Shedd said was a problem (abstractly). It appears to be purely inferential.


----------



## MW

John Carpenter said:


> I'll repeat what I posted above:
> The excellent statement of this Board on the 9th commandment states: "We begin with the basic principle that we ought to protect our neighbor’s good name. In applying this principle, we must not prejudice the minds of our brethren against others in such a way that would lead to the defamation of our neighbor’s good name." Mark Driscoll is our neighbor. We have a duty to uphold his good name from false accusations. If he teaches something we disagree with, we can challenge, correct and expose the problems with the specific teaching. If that false teaching goes so far as to be what the church has considered heresy, then we have a right to expose that too and warn others of the danger. But to make the kinds of broad condemnations, without specific evidence of real false teaching, is a violation of the commandment.



I notice that you have only recently joined the board. Before assuming the privilege of interpreting and applying the rules for the good management of the board, perhaps it would be the safest and best course if you took some time to settle in and see how the board works. There is such a thing as "general consensus." Discussion boards regularly depend upon it. Previous discussions have tended to establish it. It might be worth your while to look at previous threads (which can easily be accessed through the search function) in order to discern whether or not a proper course has been taken in evaluating the teaching of Mark Driscoll. Your criteria for evaluating his teaching according to the ninth commandment is commendable, but your accusation of "broad condemnation" merely recoils upon yourself if you have not examined what has already been established in previous threads.


----------



## John Carpenter

Hi,

I'm fairly well acquainted both with Mark Driscoll and some of the attacks on him, especially by that leveled by Phil Johnson. I've had the displeasure of briefly engaging personally with Phil Johnson about his accusations, suffering similar abuse as he pours out on Driscoll. I hope that such attacks have been discouraged here. I did take a look at one of the previous threads about Driscoll. I believe a couple of the comments here have made sweeping and unsubstantiated and uncharitable characterizations.

I was responding to the specific accusation made above that Driscoll is "dangerous." I believe that is groundless.

Reactions: Sad 1


----------



## MW

John Carpenter said:


> I was responding to the specific accusation made above that Driscoll is "dangerous." I believe that is groundless.



From the point of view of confessional, conservative reformed theology and practice, which is quite strong on this board, Mark Driscoll IS dangerous. It is not an accusation. It is a fact. His views on doctrine, worship, government, and discipline are contrary to historic reformed views. If you choose to take the same ground which he has assumed you are sure to meet with the same opposition on this board. Should you choose to become a combatant in these areas, since experience proves that participation and refereeing are not well managed by the same person, it would be best if you left the judgment calls to others.

Reactions: Amen 1


----------



## davenporter

Even Challies writes as though Driscoll -- esp his views of Sex and his interpretation of Song of Songs as a sex manual -- is dangerous. Even if you disagree that any of Driscoll's other teachings make him dangerous, this one should convince anyone who takes the Bible seriously. Book Review - Real Marriage | Challies Dot Com

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## John Carpenter

Hi Matthew,

I'm conservative, Reformed and know the theology and practice of the Reformed movement pretty well and know something about Mark Driscoll. I've seen no evidence that Driscoll is "dangerous" and you haven't produced any. His views on doctrine are sound, as far as I know (I haven't read all of his "Doctrine" book but the parts I did read I thought were good.). His views on worship are fine. I assume you mean polity (church government) and I know of no problems with his polity or his use of discipline or how they are "contrary to historic reformed views". He may not be as mature on polity as is Mark Dever (or as mature as him generally) but I'm not aware of anything about him that would be considered diametrically opposed to Reformed, Biblical convictions. I'd be interested if you could substantiate any of that. I'm relatively confident that you cannot.

Reactions: Sad 1


----------



## John Carpenter

I've read that review (which was somewhat hysterical) and read Driscoll's "Real Marriage" book and attended his seminar by the same title. While I don't believe in all of his interpretations -- especially his infamously overly literal interpretation of a verse he says suggests oral sex -- I believe his teachings on marriage are Biblical and helpful. I'd recommend it to anyone.

I note that generally those who warn about Driscoll cites second-hand information, makes sweeping condemnation -- e.g. "dangerous" -- but aren't able to produce verifiable, primary sources showing any real problems.

Reactions: Sad 1


----------



## MW

John Carpenter said:


> I'm conservative, Reformed and know the theology and practice of the Reformed movement pretty well and know something about Mark Driscoll. I've seen not evidence that Driscoll is "dangerous" and you haven't produced any. His views on doctrine are sound, as far as I know (I haven't read all of his "Doctrine" book but the parts I did read I thought were good.). His views on worship are fine. I assume you mean polity (such government) and I know of no problems with his polity or his use of discipline or how they are "contrary to historic reformed views". I'd be interested if you could substantiate any of that. I'm relatively confident that you cannot.



I am only trying to help you, as a newcomer, to get a better idea of the nature of the board. I still think you would do better if you settled in and saw how the board worked. Your confidence, or lack thereof, in my abilities is of no concern to me.


----------



## davenporter

His view on worship is fine if deafening rock concerts qualify as worship. Let's cater to 20s and 30s because who needs old people in church anyway? I live in Seattle so you may want to reconsider your suggestion that I have no firsthand experience with Mark Driscoll and Mars Hill. Many of my friends are attending/members there.

But Driscoll is (As far as I know) a brother in Christ and God did use his teaching to get me interested in the Bible, so I will defend him from overcriticism. Usually that's the problem on the PB, so I find it surprising that it is so hard to see that there is *anything* dangerous about him.

Plenty of evidence has been cited; you just reject it. I suppose it is time to bow out now and just hope that no one who is too uncritical hears your endorsement of Driscoll.


----------



## NaphtaliPress

Taking a time out.


----------



## NaphtaliPress

Moderators have closed several threads as they deal with a situation (moderators will reopen these on Monday) but I wanted to address the opening post of this thread as it sort of strayed into the tall grass. Announcements are a circumstance and not a part of worship, ignoring the additional fact that announcements far as my experience goes happen before the formal worship service has begun. For a brief overview of the regulative principle see my intro to substantial critiques of the views of Profs. Frame and Gore that appeared in the 2005 issue of _The Confessional Presbyterian_ journal (see the journal issue itself for the lengthy critiques themselves; the journal is available at the link). 

What is the Regulative Principle of Worship. An Introduction to “A Critical Survey of the Worship Views of John M. Frame and R. J. Gore,” By Frank J. Smith, Ph.D., D.D. and David C. Lachman, Ph.D.



Sola Gratia said:


> So, I listened to his sermon on the Regulative principle found here :Regulative Principle | Mars Hill Church . Unfortunately this only served to confuse me. Driscoll claims to be reformed, but I thought part of being reformed was acceptance of the regulative principle. Also, what about things like announcements? I assume that they would fall under things that we can infer from Scripture, but what in the Bible would illustrate that?
> 
> Thanks


----------



## NaphtaliPress

Thread reopened.


----------



## Matthew Willard Lankford

I believe Mark Driscoll is unfit to be a pastor and that's why I don't commend his teaching to others. He violates the RPW and the Second Commandment and has been sinful in other ways. (note: if you search for some information on Driscoll, it likely that you will come across an image that purports to be Christ; however, I have linked to the general website, where the information can be easily found, where this is the case)

Driscoll purports of having visions from God, which include explicit visions of his congregants committing adultery (see the video on Phil Johnson's blog post Pornographic Divination: Pyromaniacs: Pornographic Divination)

Earlier the point was made: Driscoll demeans the character of Christ in his books and sermons with his language, dress, and behavior. E.g. Driscoll's irreverence and disobedience to Christ by using purported images of the Lord on his t-shirts (search Defending. Contending. | Defending truth and contending for the Faith while carrying the Light of the Gospel into a world shrouded in darkness., and see the website http://www.driscollcontroversy.com/ ... FYI, Driscoll's Twitter page once had a wallpaper crowded with such idols... And another violation of the Second Commandment is that Driscoll believes he can use "creative license" to portray Christ's death in a video. (See this news story from the Christian Post: Mars Hill Recaptures Bloody Murder of Christ for Good Friday). Also see various quotes from Drisoll's writings: Various Quotes from Mark Driscoll, http://www.lighthousetrailsresearch.com/driscoll_michels.pdf

Driscoll believes it is permissible for a husband and wife to practice sodomy with each other (he doesn't call the practice sodomy) See: a critique of his book Real Marriage (which was discussed on the board earlier this year): http://www.dennyburk.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/04/8-Lambert.pdf, My Review of Mark Driscoll

Driscoll uses foul and harsh language (for documentation, see Phil Johnson's Sermon Sound Doctrine; Sound Words Sound Doctrine; Sound Words (Phil Johnson) - YouTube and John MacArthur's The Rape of Solomon's Song http://media.sermonaudio.com/mediapdf/417091244255.pdf), Local News | Pastor's apology defuses demonstration at church | Seattle Times Newspaper, 
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/01/11/magazine/11punk-t.html?_r=0

Another point that was made: Driscoll builds up those who lead people astray with modalism, prosperity gospel, and seeker-sensitive nonsense (See these regarding ER 2: http://www.aomin.org/aoblog/index.php?itemid=4964 and No Compromise video: http://vimeo.com/47844054, and on his friendship with Rick Warren: http://apprising.org/2012/09/12/the-resurgence-reminds-us-of-the-piper-warren-embrace/, http://apprising.org/2012/08/25/new-calvinist-mark-driscoll-hangout-with-seeker-driven-rick-warren/)

Another point that was made: Driscoll has been very uncharitable in his lordship authoritarian rule over his flock (see: http://joyfulexiles.com/)

Driscoll's apparent Amyraldianism (note the link the website contains to a blog post on the Pyromaniacs blog has an image of Driscoll's book, which a purported face of Christ on it) Mark Driscoll &ndash; An Amyraldian? (Four Point Calvinism) « 5 Pt. Salt

This website reviews much of this information with some additional sources: The Reformed Sheep: Mark Driscoll False Teacher, False Prophet, Updated List

Where is the repentance?


----------

