# Mark Driscoll, the Trinity, and W. G. T. Shedd



## sastark (Feb 1, 2012)

I've posted a new article at The Ruling Elder which examines some of the theology of Mark Driscoll, specifically in light of the recent Elephant Room interview of TD Jakes. I encourage you to have a read: The Ruling Elder: Mark Driscoll, the Trinity, and W. G. T. Shedd

I'm not intending to start another thread about The Elephant Room, but instead, to focus on Driscoll's theology regarding the Trinity, which I believe is the root of his inability to counter what Jakes said during that interview.


----------



## Semper Fidelis (Feb 1, 2012)

Good post. Thank you.


----------



## rbcbob (Feb 1, 2012)

Thanks Seth!


----------



## earl40 (Feb 1, 2012)

Yes, I thank you very much. I am in the middle of of this in that we have a niece that attends a church that in their belief statement uses manifestations to describe God. What bugs me to no end is that the broad view of most Christians I know just shrug their shoulders and look at me as a kook. I hope someone who Driscoll admires (calling John Piper) puts his feet to the fire because we are speaking of shepherds guarding the flock from wolves.


----------



## KMK (Feb 1, 2012)

Great job, Seth.

I have the same feeling about Baptists who wish to avoid using the word 'sacrament' in reference to the Lord's Supper.


----------



## sastark (Feb 1, 2012)

earl40 said:


> Yes, I thank you very much. I am in the middle of of this in that we have a niece that attends a church that in their belief statement uses manifestations to describe God. What bugs me to no end is that the broad view of most Christians I know just shrug their shoulders and look at me as a kook. I hope someone who Driscoll admires (calling John Piper) puts his feet to the fire because we are speaking of shepherds guarding the flock from wolves.



Earl, I know the feeling of being considered a 'kook' for defending the whole Truth. The broad view of most Christians is destructive to the Church, and if anyone doubts it, just look at the Elephant Room. According to some leading evangelicals, we are now supposed to except that TD Jakes is orthodox in his view of the Trinity. That is such a dangerous view! Getting the Trinity wrong is not a small thing. It is one of the doctrines that if you get it wrong, you go to hell. 

Seems to me that we ought to be very concerned with "the details" of something so important.

Also, I'll be praying for your daughter.


----------



## Zach (Feb 1, 2012)

Interesting thoughts. Thank you for sharing, Seth.


----------



## Ask Mr. Religion (Feb 1, 2012)

Good post, Seth!

Chalcedon implicitly identified the heresies of the time that still plague the church today. 

One can best understand the hypostatic union (together united in one subsistence and in one single person) by examining what it is not.

It is not:

1. a denial that Christ was truly God (*Ebionites, Elkasites, Arians*);
2. a dissimilar or different substance (_anomoios_) with the Father (*semi-Arianism*);
3. a denial that Christ had a genuine human soul (*Apollinarians*);
4. a denial of a distinct person in the Trinity (*Dynamic Monarchianism*);
5. God acting merely in the forms of the Son and Spirit (*Modalistic Monarchianism/Sabellianism/United Pentecostal Church*);
6. a mixture or change when the two natures were united (*Eutychianism/Monophysitism*);
7. two distinct persons (*Nestorianism*);
8. a denial of the true humanity of Christ (*docetism*);
9. a view that God the Son laid aside all or some of His divine attributes (*kenoticism*);
10. a view that there was a communication of the attributes between the divine and human natures (*Lutheranism, with respect to the Lord's Supper*); and
11. a view that Jesus existed independently as a human before God entered His body (*Adoptionism*).

AMR


----------



## Rufus (Feb 1, 2012)

Ask Mr. Religion said:


> Good post, Seth!
> 
> Chalcedon implicitly identified the heresies of the time that still plague the church today. One can best understand the hypostatic union (together united in one subsistence and in one single person) by examining what it is not.
> 
> ...



My question is that if those things are so prevalent in modern Christianity how far do they go in terms of salvation? Most, if not all, of us here would say denying the Trinity is a damnable heresy.


----------



## Unoriginalname (Feb 1, 2012)

That sir was an awesome post.


----------



## earl40 (Feb 1, 2012)

Rufus said:


> Ask Mr. Religion said:
> 
> 
> > Good post, Seth!
> ...



I think an active denial may be key here. What I have found is that most if not all Christians will correct a incorrect view when confronted. With TD Jakes I believe he is buckling under pressure to say what we (Christians) want to hear. I hope I am wrong but I doubt it.


----------



## DMcFadden (Feb 1, 2012)

Seth, that was really, really good! I copied your entire post in an email to my children, several of whom have been asking why I am looking at Presbyterian and Lutheran churches in Fort Wayne (actually, not much choice for Reformational Christianity with one tiny Reformed church with members who average a one hour drive to church and 32 confessional Lutheran congregations).

The broad evangelicalism that gave birth to my college (Westmont) and seminary (the one in Pasadena that must not be mentioned) accepted such minimalistic definitions of "key" doctrines that we are left with the sadly (but penetratingly) true conclusion to your piece:

*This is the problem facing modern American evangelicalism: a conscious decision on the part of our leaders to reject historical theology results in leaders of the church who are unable to defend her from false teaching and uneducated Christians in the pews who see nothing wrong with such false teaching. Blind leaders of the blind seems to be the motto of American Evangelicalism.*

Well said, young man. Well said. [sigh]

Can you imagine how depressing it is to look back on my nearly 60 years of experience and leadership in "broad evangelicalism" and realize that it was all a massive cul de sac?


----------



## sastark (Feb 1, 2012)

Thank you all for your kind words. I am very humbled by them, especially because of the high opinion I have of so many of you here on the Puritan Board.

I've submitted the piece to The Aquila Report, and will post a link if they run it tomorrow.


----------



## DMcFadden (Feb 1, 2012)

Seth,

Broad evangelicalism reduced the faith to a minimalistic five doctrines. In fact, not to put too fine a point on it, your grad school helped to establish that reductionistic basis of faith.

Today, contemporary evangelicals have put even that emaciated corpse on an anorexic's diet. Now we are left with:
* There is a God
* Jesus is divine
* The Bible is true
* Jesus died for me
* Jesus is coming back

I submit that "Bishop" Jakes can certainly affirm that list. So can the Mormons, emergents, and much of mainline denominationalism (depending on how hard you press the word "affirm"). The rejection of historical theology reminds me of the old saw that those who reject history are doomed to repeat it.


----------



## Backwoods Presbyterian (Feb 1, 2012)

Dennis reminds me of a current discussion I am having on facebook with a guy that I went to seminary with over the abysmal Confession of 1967. He keeps trying to claim it is "Reformed" and "orthodox". As I noted to him when words like "Reformed" are removed from their historical context they can mean anything you want them to. Though I have to laugh he is now at the point of saying things like "there is more to being reformed than what 16th century white European men say there is" you are reminded why you left that kind of nonsense behind.


----------



## jwright82 (Feb 1, 2012)

sastark said:


> I've posted a new article at The Ruling Elder which examines some of the theology of Mark Driscoll, specifically in light of the recent Elephant Room interview of TD Jakes. I encourage you to have a read: The Ruling Elder: Mark Driscoll, the Trinity, and W. G. T. Shedd
> 
> I'm not intending to start another thread about The Elephant Room, but instead, to focus on Driscoll's theology regarding the Trinity, which I believe is the root of his inability to counter what Jakes said during that interview.



Amazing post Seth! I was saying amen every sentence. I am becoming more convinced everyday that whatever evangelicalism is it is not worth dealing with. I respect people like Carl Henery and his vision but it was probably doomed to begin with. I am not interested in giving up my confessional Reformed faith for whatever evangelicals have to offer.


----------



## sastark (Feb 2, 2012)

The Aquila Report has posted my article, here: Mark Driscoll, the Trinity, and W. G. T. Shedd


----------



## rookie (Feb 2, 2012)

earl40 said:


> Rufus said:
> 
> 
> > Ask Mr. Religion said:
> ...



I once heard TD Jakes in an interview once, that Jesus was a great business to be in....for money....
My team lead at work is a huge fan of TD Jakes, but the problem is as mentioned above, no one is dogmatic about doctrinal truths anymore. New age has slipped into the "church" (talking about the buildings here) and now everyone's truth about God is good to go....


----------



## Kevin (Feb 2, 2012)

Well stated.

The trinity is the point of greatest assault on orthodoxy in our day. in my opinion

And the most overlooked.


----------



## Ask Mr. Religion (Feb 2, 2012)

Unfortunately, the Trinitarian God is just not explicitly preached that often from the pulpit of the church militant. Could it stem from mist in the pulpit on solid knowledge of the doctrine? I just don't know. I fear that the mystery of the doctrine of the Trinity has become an excuse to avoid digging deeper.

AMR


----------



## solas4me (Feb 2, 2012)

Excellent blog post Seth...Thanks for sharing it here.


----------



## sastark (Feb 2, 2012)

Ask Mr. Religion said:


> I fear that the mystery of the doctrine of the Trinity has become an excuse to avoid digging deeper.



I think Dennis nailed it, earlier: The Trinity is not one of the Five Fundamentals, and so it isn't taught.


----------



## Marrow Man (Feb 2, 2012)

Ask Mr. Religion said:


> Unfortunately, the Trinitarian God is just not explicitly preached that often from the pulpit of the church militant. Could it stem from mist in the pulpit on solid knowledge of the doctrine? I just don't know. I fear that the mystery of the doctrine of the Trinity has become an excuse to avoid digging deeper.
> 
> AMR



This is a problem, I think, with a lack of _lectio continua_ preaching in our day, especially in the epistles. You can't preach through those and escape the robust Trinitarian doctrine. Consider a passage like Ephesians 1:3-14 for instance. I am currently preaching through Romans 8, and even though Paul has a lot to say about the Holy Spirit in the chapter, it is amazing how seamlessly he weaves Trinitarian doctrine into the inspired text (e.g., vv. 9-11, where he moves from "Spirit" to "Spirit of God" to "Spirit of Christ" and then back to "Spirit" again). I'm not sure topical preaching (especially on subjects like sexuality) is going to address passages like that.


----------



## rbcbob (Feb 2, 2012)

sastark said:


> Ask Mr. Religion said:
> 
> 
> > I fear that the mystery of the doctrine of the Trinity has become an excuse to avoid digging deeper.
> ...



We do make a point in our services to frequently select hymns setting forth the doctrine of the Trinity. I suppose we could/should look for more legitimate opportunities to bring it out in the regular expositions of passages in preaching through books of the bible.


----------



## py3ak (Feb 2, 2012)

Kevin said:


> Well stated.
> The trinity is the point of greatest assault on orthodoxy in our day. in my opinion
> 
> And the most overlooked.



Certainly one of the greatest points of controversy. It is alarming to me that Kline was not interrogated fully, and that Smith seems to have been little challenged.



Ask Mr. Religion said:


> Unfortunately, the Trinitarian God is just not explicitly preached that often from the pulpit of the church militant. Could it stem from mist in the pulpit on solid knowledge of the doctrine? I just don't know. I fear that the mystery of the doctrine of the Trinity has become an excuse to avoid digging deeper.
> AMR



I wonder if a contributing cause to vagueness isn’t that there is little grasp that we really do relate to the Triune God, and that it is beneficial for the Trinity of God to be a conscious and controlling element in our spirituality. No doubt it factors in that mistakes are easy to make (although some histories of the doctrine, e.g., Letham’s, overemphasize this by accusing practically everyone of tending towards one or another error) and so people are hesitant to become involved in technicalities. But it seems like our knowledge of God, our interaction with him, so to speak, can never be more than superficial if it is not explicitly Trinitarian. That is a genuinely Christian religious life, as opposed to a merely general religious life.



Marrow Man said:


> This is a problem, I think, with a lack of _lectio continua_ preaching in our day, especially in the epistles. You can't preach through those and escape the robust Trinitarian doctrine. Consider a passage like Ephesians 1:3-14 for instance. I am currently preaching through Romans 8, and even though Paul has a lot to say about the Holy Spirit in the chapter, it is amazing how seamlessly he weaves Trinitarian doctrine into the inspired text (e.g., vv. 9-11, where he moves from "Spirit" to "Spirit of God" to "Spirit of Christ" and then back to "Spirit" again). I'm not sure topical preaching (especially on subjects like sexuality) is going to address passages like that.



That’s true – but even with _lectio continua_ it seems possible for people to speak on paragraphs while skipping over many implications and ignoring structural elements. The doctrine of the Trinity runs through the whole NT like a basso continuo that is often overlooked precisely because there is a melody – but the melody acquires its depth and resonance because of this harmonic element – indeed, the melody flows out from that harmonic structure. Unless the preacher is persuaded that it is important to show people how the basso continuo interacts with and supports and affects the melody, even continuous expository preaching will address the doctrine of the Trinity only occasionally – in Matthew 28 and 2 Corinthians 13. And that doesn’t seem like enough. It’s analogous, perhaps, to people who can preach on the content of the OT without seeming to apprehend its prospective announcement of Christ.



rbcbob said:


> We do make a point in our services to frequently select hymns setting forth the doctrine of the Trinity. I suppose we could/should look for more legitimate opportunities to bring it out in the regular expositions of passages in preaching through books of the bible.



I think that would do much to foster love to God, because the doctrine of the Trinity truly does set a lovable God before the sinner.


----------



## KMK (Feb 2, 2012)

Ask Mr. Religion said:


> Unfortunately, the Trinitarian God is just not explicitly preached that often from the pulpit of the church militant. Could it stem from mist in the pulpit on solid knowledge of the doctrine? I just don't know.






Marrow Man said:


> This is a problem, I think, with a lack of lectio continua preaching in our day, especially in the epistles.



I think this addresses part of the problem. Another problem is that the doctrine of the Trinity is just really hard to teach. Partly because there is so much mystery, but mostly because most church-goers in America have no grounding in the basic terminology of Christianity. It requires a great deal of grunt work by preachers and teachers to overcome generations of 'preaching down' to the congregation.




py3ak said:


> The doctrine of the Trinity runs through the whole NT like a basso continuo...



Classic.


----------



## py3ak (Feb 2, 2012)

KMK said:


> py3ak said:
> 
> 
> > The doctrine of the Trinity runs through the whole NT like a basso continuo...
> ...



I doubt it’s original, but I don’t recollect a source.


----------



## KMK (Feb 2, 2012)

py3ak said:


> KMK said:
> 
> 
> > py3ak said:
> ...



Could one also say that the doctrine of the Trinity runs through redemptive history like an 'idee fixe'?


----------



## py3ak (Feb 2, 2012)

I would rather say _leitmotif_, but it sounds right to me.


----------



## Marrow Man (Feb 2, 2012)

py3ak said:


> That’s true – but even with lectio continua it seems possible for people to speak on paragraphs while skipping over many implications and ignoring structural elements. The doctrine of the Trinity runs through the whole NT like a basso continuo that is often overlooked precisely because there is a melody – but the melody acquires its depth and resonance because of this harmonic element – indeed, the melody flows out from that harmonic structure. Unless the preacher is persuaded that it is important to show people how the basso continuo interacts with and supports and affects the melody, even continuous expository preaching will address the doctrine of the Trinity only occasionally – in Matthew 28 and 2 Corinthians 13. And that doesn’t seem like enough. It’s analogous, perhaps, to people who can preach on the content of the OT without seeming to apprehend its prospective announcement of Christ.



Granted, and well said.




KMK said:


> I think this addresses part of the problem. Another problem is that the doctrine of the Trinity is just really hard to teach.



Granted as well. Reminds me of something James White said on his podcast a week or so ago. He used to attend a very large (15,000 attendees or so) SBC church, where he taught Sunday school. The church used the Baptist quarterly material, and that particular quarter was on the book of Romans. That's right, the whole book of Romans in a mere 12 or 13 weeks. But it gets worse: the material combined chapters 8-11 into one lesson. White saw this in advance, and changed the lesson that week (and perhaps the following weeks as well) to concentrate on the material in more detail. The Christian Ed minister at the church heard what happened and called him into his office. He gently chastised him and told him that at this particular church they didn't go into deep doctrine. "Teach every class like it's a person's first time in a church ever" was the advice he was given.


----------



## Pilgrim (Feb 2, 2012)

Ask Mr. Religion said:


> Unfortunately, the Trinitarian God is just not explicitly preached that often from the pulpit of the church militant. Could it stem from mist in the pulpit on solid knowledge of the doctrine? I just don't know. I fear that the mystery of the doctrine of the Trinity has become an excuse to avoid digging deeper.



I think this is correct. In my hometown, the largest religious center is United Pentecostal. I used to be a member of a congregation of the OPC there. The pastor was dismayed that older members would just shrug off questions about their children (most of whom had been raised in a more or less confessional Presbyterian church) attending this UPC organization with comments like "It's the same Jesus." Confessional congregation or not, if this truth is not preached consistently, people will not be able to discern truth from error on the subject of the Trinity, or other subjects for that matter.


----------



## KMK (Feb 2, 2012)

Marrow Man said:


> The Christian Ed minister at the church heard what happened and called him into his office. He gently chastised him and told him that at this particular church they didn't go into deep doctrine. "Teach every class like it's a person's first time in a church ever" was the advice he was given.



I was once chastised in a Romans Bible study for asking questions that went too deeply into doctrine. I was told, "Sometimes it is better to just enjoy some yogurt. You can't expect steak at every meal."




Pilgrim said:


> "It's the same Jesus."



Many in my town say the same thing about Mormonism.


----------



## Pilgrim (Feb 2, 2012)

earl40 said:


> Yes, I thank you very much. I am in the middle of of this in that we have a niece that attends a church that in their belief statement uses manifestations to describe God. What bugs me to no end is that the broad view of most Christians I know just shrug their shoulders and look at me as a kook. I hope someone who Driscoll admires (calling John Piper) puts his feet to the fire because we are speaking of shepherds guarding the flock from wolves.



Regarding Piper putting his feet to the fire, let's hope and pray that MD will see the error of his ways here. But keep in mind that the church Driscoll pastors is bigger than Piper's now, (probably several times over) and the following post ER II quote from Driscoll indicates a significant factor in his mentality now with regard to relating to other ministries: 




> I say that not to brag, but to show how wonderfully complex it is to try and steward so much of God’s grace and so many people. Nothing changes until the leader changes, and I have a lot to learn. *While I can and do learn a lot theologically from my tribe, the truth is there are not many evangelistically fruitful churches in my tribe and there are not any churches larger than ours I can learn from. So, I have to go outside of my theological tribe to learn certain things.*



While generally not in the camp of the members of the Puritanboard (although at one point or another a few have posted here occasionally, If I recall correctly) I have little doubt that a good number of the men who joined the Acts 29 Network did not do so with the intention of throwing in their lot with the megachurch trend of the 2010's. At least one pastor has already left that network over ER II. Additionally, at least one church has left the Harvest association (James McDonald's group) over it as well. Let's hope more of that happens in the unfortunate event of a continuation of this trend toward a pragmatic atheological megachurch mentality on the part of the leaders of those networks as evidenced by their recent association with leaders like Noble, Furtick and now Jakes.


----------



## GulfCoast Presbyterian (Feb 2, 2012)

Ah, Driscoll throws in his lot with the "numbers determine success" branch of evanjellyfishism. Furtick is rubbing off on him.


----------



## Pilgrim (Feb 2, 2012)

KMK said:


> Marrow Man said:
> 
> 
> > The Christian Ed minister at the church heard what happened and called him into his office. He gently chastised him and told him that at this particular church they didn't go into deep doctrine. "Teach every class like it's a person's first time in a church ever" was the advice he was given.
> ...



I have met PCA RE's (and at least one TE) who are unable to discern the difference between Roman Catholicism as an institution to be separated from as the confession teaches WRT marriage to Papists, etc. and the fact that some individual Roman Catholics are among the elect in spite of Rome's teaching.


----------



## Backwoods Presbyterian (Feb 2, 2012)

This thread is moving me to do a sermon series on the Apostles Creed over the summer.


----------



## J. Dean (Feb 2, 2012)

GulfCoast Presbyterian said:


> Ah, Driscoll throws in his lot with the "numbers determine success" branch of evanjellyfishism. Furtick is rubbing off on him.



Agreed. It is sheer folly to uncritically believe that numerical largesse implies true Christianity. Driscoll sounds like the preachers in the 19th century who sided with Charles Finney because his "ministry" got "results."


----------



## Marrow Man (Feb 2, 2012)

J. Dean said:


> Driscoll sounds like the preachers in the 19th century who sided with Charles Finney because his "ministry" got "results."



And one of Finney's contemporaries (Archibald Alexander maybe?) estimated that about 90% of Finney's "converts" had abandoned the church within a decade of their "conversion."


----------



## sastark (Feb 2, 2012)

Backwoods Presbyterian said:


> This thread is moving me to do a sermon series on the Apostles Creed over the summer.



You mean the Nicene? (sorry, a little humor since Driscoll incorrectly identifies the Nicene Creed as the Apostles Creed in the quote I reference in my article.)


----------



## Marrow Man (Feb 2, 2012)

sastark said:


> Backwoods Presbyterian said:
> 
> 
> > This thread is moving me to do a sermon series on the Apostles Creed over the summer.
> ...





Maybe you can ask Driscoll to attend so he can learn the difference.


----------



## Dearly Bought (Feb 2, 2012)

One of the things which I really appreciate about my church is that we confess the Apostles' Creed, the Nicene Creed, the Formula of Chalcedon, and the Athanasian Creed. In fact, the information on the back of our Lord's Day bulletin explicitly mentions this (link). All four of these ecumenical creeds deserve to be adopted by Reformed churches in continuity with the church throughout the ages.


----------



## Kevin (Feb 2, 2012)

Backwoods Presbyterian said:


> This thread is moving me to do a sermon series on the Apostles Creed over the summer.



Great idea.

Maybe we should organize a sermon series over the entire year, or three years, that covers all of the basic doctrines.

Why didn't someone think of this before?


----------



## Backwoods Presbyterian (Feb 2, 2012)

I see what you did there.


----------



## py3ak (Feb 2, 2012)

Backwoods Presbyterian said:


> This thread is moving me to do a sermon series on the Apostles Creed over the summer.



If you do, I hope you will get Olevianus on the Creed to use in preparation. For a very little book it packs a great deal of wallop.


----------



## MarieP (Feb 3, 2012)

rbcbob said:


> We do make a point in our services to frequently select hymns setting forth the doctrine of the Trinity. I suppose we could/should look for more legitimate opportunities to bring it out in the regular expositions of passages in preaching through books of the bible.



Perhaps the confusion and sidelining of the Trinity comes in large part from the disappearance of the Trinity from modern church music. It's been said by more than a few that a church's theology is seldom higher than what she sings.


----------

