Mark Driscoll admits to "Free Will"

It's the "Emerging" concept, it's "missional" approach, his casual, five-o'clock-shadow appearance, his profanity and the latest hubbub over his loose and flippant manner in teaching on human sexuality.

There are only two possible explanations: 1) He's a narcissist who found his method of self-aggrandizement behind the pulpit, (the most likely answer, especially considering his testimony about his "call"); or 2) more mercifully He really thinks that appealing to the pop culture is a hallowed method of evangelism, which belies his lip-service to the Doctrines of Grace.

 

Proof on this thread there is such a thing as modern day Pharisees...

 

This is a reformed question you posted.. so you will get a reformed view in response. I would consider myself a reformed thinker more than not although I am still a new student to the scriptures.

so yes is the answer to your initial post.

Deut. 29:29

perceptive will: God's revealed will for us to live by and look to for light on our paths so that we may carefully choose the right things so that we may stay in Spirit. So according to this will and man's point of view we have free will to choose. This includes love, obedience, and so forth.....

Decretive will: This is the will that holds God's sovereignty over all creation in some mysterious way. His choosing of the elect, his secrets in which he providentially brings all His will to pass without failure. We cannot see this will until it has already happened, and it is very dangerous to try to live by this will because it really isnt our business, although we can remain humble and prayerful knowing God has great control over all things.

So yes we have a choice and no we dont have a choice :smilewinkgrin:

 

Im not defending him by no means b/c i have only seen a few sermons which seemed good. maybe post a link to him cursing or doing any of those things you claim would help us to beware, if it is true.. thanks- Zach

 

Aaron, Driscoll now repudiates the Emerging church and teaches against it.

I thought he was good on Nightline - gave the gospel and the truth about Jesus and salvation several times without being smug or preachy. Whatever faults he may have, I did not see them on the Nightline show. I was glad he was there to refute Deepak Chopra and Pearson to the extent he could.

 

I'm not wildly fond of Driscoll but he does preach the gospel, including hell.

 

I agree wholeheartedly with the above statement. Words do have meaning. that is the reason I believe in the plenary verbal inspiration of the Bible. Context is always essential. In the final analysis words, phrases, clauses, and sentences must be understood in the context of all of Scripture since Scripture does not contradict itself. Vern S. Poythress in his book Understanding Dispensationalists devotes a chapter to this subject.

I tend to agree with this statement but I will have to give it some thought. It seems to me that there are times when God will over rule the "horizontal" free will of man.

I do find it interesting that some Arminian pastors will insist that God arranges marriage, career, etc yet insist that man can come to God of his own free will.

I agree totally with these statements. Man will not, cannot, of his own freewill come to God. I have posted the following quote from John Dagg's Manual of Theology [page 322] a number of times on this Forum. I believe it describes accurately man's total inability or moral unwillingness to come to God.

“Every proposed method of salvation that leaves the issue dependent on human volition is defective. It has always been found that men will not come to Christ for life. The Gospel is preached to every creature; but all, with one consent, ask to be excused. The will of man must be changed; and this change the will cannot itself effect. Divine grace must here interpose. Unless God works in the sinner to will and to do, salvation is impossible.”

I see nothing in your post that some have called condescending.

 

I asume you believe the Bible. So sometime you may want to consider the fact that the gentlemen you addressed is old enough to be your dad and scripture does talk about how to address those people. I have had a few contacts with him via email and I find him to be especially gracious and humble.

 

My whole point. He honors God with his lips, but in works he denies Him. He is not Reformed.

 

Yes. I've not mentioned a thing I either didn't hear from his mouth or read from his pen.

The problem isn't the evidence, the problem is how it's interpreted. You and I are as opposed as a Darwinist and a Creationist. We can see the same thing and judge it quite differently.

Our disagreement isn't about Driscoll, it's about God, Christ and the Gospel.

 

Yes, I can.

 

And they are? Are you gonna' say :"They're coming?"

 

Im also itching to hear. Like I said I have listened to Driscoll a few times and he sounds as if he preaches pretty soundly (although his methods are a little different). Im simply waiting for something to show me otherwise. I will give you that I wasnt to fond of his attitude at times in the OP video. The real bewares were the others around him in my opinion, but somehow there is attacking on him while the real men spreading false teaching leave untouched. That is a little odd to me personally...

Do you really think Jesus is teaching to dig in the unknown hearts of men when He said "beware of false prophets, who come to you in sheep's clothing but inwardly are ravenous wolves." I think fruits that we judge are based on what people say more than how they appear... clearly out of the four people teaching on the video Driscoll was the last one I would call a false prophet based on what he taught. Yes good fruits are words teamed with attitude, but the greater, from our perspective, is what comes from the mouth. again unless you can show me otherwise that proves to me the teaching of Driscoll is no good.....

 

I've already given it, i.e. the Emerging Church. And in previous threads I've given you direct quotes.

The problem, as I stated, is you're either unwilling or unable to consider the evidence. If you don't know what the Emerging Church is, or the principles it espouses, then you need to educate yourself. I won't do your homework for you.

Even if I would, it would be an exercise in futility, especially considering your defense of Rick Warren lately.