Mark Driscoll on two Christians living (and sleeping) together!

[Izdaari]

I don't think any two people would be comfortable with Mark Driscoll on them.

Right. 

And I stopped caring about Mark Driscoll's opinion a while ago. He's been getting just too weird. Which is a pity, because he's usually pretty entertaining to listen to.

 

[Just John]

I think Driscoll is a liberal, seeker sensitive potty-mouth, er....maybe not so much huh? 

 

[Izdaari]

I think Driscoll is a liberal, seeker sensitive potty-mouth, er....maybe not so much huh? 

Seeker sensitive, yes. Potty mouth, yes, at least on occasion. But he's never been liberal except by IFBx standards. He has been and remains a conservative Calvinist.

When I say he's been getting weird, I mean he's been developing too much "cult of personality" and other "managawd" symptoms.

 

[Just John]

I think Driscoll is a liberal, seeker sensitive potty-mouth, er....maybe not so much huh? 

Seeker sensitive, yes. Potty mouth, yes, at least on occasion. But he's never been liberal except by IFBx standards. He has been and remains a conservative Calvinist.

When I say he's been getting weird, I mean he's been developing too much "cult of personality" and other "managawd" symptoms.

Yes, my point being that if someone is labeled "seeker-sensitive" ergo they are "liberal".  :

 

[Izdaari]

I think Driscoll is a liberal, seeker sensitive potty-mouth, er....maybe not so much huh? 

Seeker sensitive, yes. Potty mouth, yes, at least on occasion. But he's never been liberal except by IFBx standards. He has been and remains a conservative Calvinist.

When I say he's been getting weird, I mean he's been developing too much "cult of personality" and other "managawd" symptoms.

Yes, my point being that if someone is labeled "seeker-sensitive" ergo they are "liberal".  :

That's not necessarily true though. But I guess that's your point? 

 

[Castor Muscular]

I fail to see the problem.  My wife and I are both Christians.  We are living and sleeping together.  And unlike Ironman's wife, mine doesn't die periodically, so I can't be accused of necrophilia. 

 

[christundivided]

CU said:

I don't know what bible you're reading but the good old King James.... says "covetousness" is as Idolatry. Not fornication.

It's ambiguous. Coming at the end of a list, is it talking about the last thing on the list, or the whole list collectively?  Rearranging the punctuation slightly:

Put to death therefore what is earthly in you---sexual immorality, impurity, passion, evil desire, and covetousness---which is idolatry.

It still makes as much sense.

I believe "which" or ητις creates a distinction between covetousness and the rest of the "sins" mentioned.

 

[christundivided]

Now one of us is.... maybe if you tell me why I am... .then maybe you'll understand why you are...

We can't both be right.

"Therefore consider the members of your earthly body as dead to immorality, impurity, passion, evil desire, and greed, which amounts to idolatry". (NASV)

Paul moves backward from the 'evil act' to the motive....immorality comes from impurity...comes from perverted passion/evil desire..which comes from the root sin of greed or covetousness.
Paul listed greed last because it is the root cause from which the previous sins come.
It is also last in the 10 Commandments.
Greed Pleonexia - to have more.

Paul also associates sexual immorality, covetousness and idolatry in Ephesians 5:3-5.
Deut. 25:1-3 also links Israel's sin of idolatry with sexual sin...as does the incident with the Golden Calf.

I see no "root" sin in Col 3. I see a list... a incomplete list at that. Just a general reference. Read on through verse 8.

Eph_5:5  For this ye know, that no whoremonger, nor unclean person, nor covetous man, who is an idolater, hath any inheritance in the kingdom of Christ and of God.

Ephesians 5:5 is rather clear and corresponds nicely with Col 3:5. Don't you see a clear distinction in Eph 5:5? The statement is clearly singular. Not plural.

I'm uncertain of your reference to Deut 25:1-3. Doesn't appear to have any influence on the discussion.

 

[Tarheel Baptist]

Now one of us is.... maybe if you tell me why I am... .then maybe you'll understand why you are...

We can't both be right.

"Therefore consider the members of your earthly body as dead to immorality, impurity, passion, evil desire, and greed, which amounts to idolatry". (NASV)

Paul moves backward from the 'evil act' to the motive....immorality comes from impurity...comes from perverted passion/evil desire..which comes from the root sin of greed or covetousness.
Paul listed greed last because it is the root cause from which the previous sins come.
It is also last in the 10 Commandments.
Greed Pleonexia - to have more.

Paul also associates sexual immorality, covetousness and idolatry in Ephesians 5:3-5.
Deut. 25:1-3 also links Israel's sin of idolatry with sexual sin...as does the incident with the Golden Calf.

I see no "root" sin in Col 3. I see a list... a incomplete list at that. Just a general reference. Read on through verse 8.

Eph_5:5  For this ye know, that no whoremonger, nor unclean person, nor covetous man, who is an idolater, hath any inheritance in the kingdom of Christ and of God.

Ephesians 5:5 is rather clear and corresponds nicely with Col 3:5. Don't you see a clear distinction in Eph 5:5? The statement is clearly singular. Not plural.

I'm uncertain of your reference to Deut 25:1-3. Doesn't appear to have any influence on the discussion.

The point of our argument is at least was Driscolls equating immorality with idolatry.
The passages I cited do such.

I believe Driscoll is on solid Biblical ground in so doing.....nothing in this thread has changed my opinion.

 

[Tarheel Baptist]

I think Driscoll is a liberal, seeker sensitive potty-mouth, er....maybe not so much huh? 

Seeker sensitive, yes. Potty mouth, yes, at least on occasion. But he's never been liberal except by IFBx standards. He has been and remains a conservative Calvinist.

When I say he's been getting weird, I mean he's been developing too much "cult of personality" and other "managawd" symptoms.

Yes, my point being that if someone is labeled "seeker-sensitive" ergo they are "liberal".  :

I don't believe Driscoll would want to be labeled as SS.....and I believe he is a solid Bible teacher and seeks to be somewhat balanced in his ministry.

 

[Winston]

I think Driscoll is a liberal, seeker sensitive potty-mouth, er....maybe not so much huh? 

Seeker sensitive, yes. Potty mouth, yes, at least on occasion. But he's never been liberal except by IFBx standards. He has been and remains a conservative Calvinist.

When I say he's been getting weird, I mean he's been developing too much "cult of personality" and other "managawd" symptoms.

Yes, my point being that if someone is labeled "seeker-sensitive" ergo they are "liberal".  :

I don't believe Driscoll would want to be labeled as SS.....and I believe he is a solid Bible teacher and seeks to be somewhat balanced in his ministry.

I have heard him a few times in person, early on in his ministry, read a few of his books, and listened to quite a few of his sermons, and it seems that his church has some aspects that could be construed as "seeker sensitive" such as non-Christian concerts, but he is a far cry from the Bill Hybels or Rick Warren type of seeker sensitive.  He is strong on doctrine. He has had his life threatened for preaching controversial truth.

 

[Tarheel Baptist]

I think Driscoll is a liberal, seeker sensitive potty-mouth, er....maybe not so much huh? 

Seeker sensitive, yes. Potty mouth, yes, at least on occasion. But he's never been liberal except by IFBx standards. He has been and remains a conservative Calvinist.

When I say he's been getting weird, I mean he's been developing too much "cult of personality" and other "managawd" symptoms.

Yes, my point being that if someone is labeled "seeker-sensitive" ergo they are "liberal".  :

I don't believe Driscoll would want to be labeled as SS.....and I believe he is a solid Bible teacher and seeks to be somewhat balanced in his ministry.

I have heard him a few times in person, early on in his ministry, read a few of his books, and listened to quite a few of his sermons, and it seems that his church has some aspects that could be construed as "seeker sensitive" such as non-Christian concerts, but he is a far cry from the Bill Hybels or Rick Warren type of seeker sensitive.  He is strong on doctrine. He has had his life threatened for preaching controversial truth.

I agree, he is strong on doctrine, more so than Hybels and especially Warren.
He is also strong on 'sin' as opposed to many/most other missional minded pastors...his peers.

As to the cult of personality, it is my experience that any strong leader always accumulates followers.
Any strong leader also artuculates his opinion, in the ministry, his homiletical and hermenutical positions.
God ordained leadership structure in the church and commanded 'us' to follow His plan and the leaders in position to help carry out His plan.

 

[brianb]

I think Driscoll is a liberal, seeker sensitive potty-mouth, er....maybe not so much huh? 

Seeker sensitive, yes. Potty mouth, yes, at least on occasion. But he's never been liberal except by IFBx standards. He has been and remains a conservative Calvinist.

When I say he's been getting weird, I mean he's been developing too much "cult of personality" and other "managawd" symptoms.

Yes, my point being that if someone is labeled "seeker-sensitive" ergo they are "liberal".  :

I don't believe Driscoll would want to be labeled as SS.....and I believe he is a solid Bible teacher and seeks to be somewhat balanced in his ministry.

I have heard him a few times in person, early on in his ministry, read a few of his books, and listened to quite a few of his sermons, and it seems that his church has some aspects that could be construed as "seeker sensitive" such as non-Christian concerts, but he is a far cry from the Bill Hybels or Rick Warren type of seeker sensitive.  He is strong on doctrine. He has had his life threatened for preaching controversial truth.

I would hardly call him seeker sensitive. The seeker sensitive movement started with the seeker surveys - finding out what potential church goers like and conforming what you do and teach to what they like. If Driscoll was truly seeker sensitive he would allow women to be leaders in the church for example. Driscoll is popular with those who like the things he likes such as MMA which in his church is more than something guys talk about. Though he is Calvinist or Reformed I'm pretty sure most Reformed Christians would not be comfortable with what he does or his methods.

 

[Just John]

I think Driscoll is a liberal, seeker sensitive potty-mouth, er....maybe not so much huh? 

Seeker sensitive, yes. Potty mouth, yes, at least on occasion. But he's never been liberal except by IFBx standards. He has been and remains a conservative Calvinist.

When I say he's been getting weird, I mean he's been developing too much "cult of personality" and other "managawd" symptoms.

Yes, my point being that if someone is labeled "seeker-sensitive" ergo they are "liberal".  :

I don't believe Driscoll would want to be labeled as SS.....and I believe he is a solid Bible teacher and seeks to be somewhat balanced in his ministry.

I have heard him a few times in person, early on in his ministry, read a few of his books, and listened to quite a few of his sermons, and it seems that his church has some aspects that could be construed as "seeker sensitive" such as non-Christian concerts, but he is a far cry from the Bill Hybels or Rick Warren type of seeker sensitive.  He is strong on doctrine. He has had his life threatened for preaching controversial truth.

I would hardly call him seeker sensitive. The seeker sensitive movement started with the seeker surveys - finding out what potential church goers like and conforming what you do and teach to what they like. If Driscoll was truly seeker sensitive he would allow women to be leaders in the church for example. Driscoll is popular with those who like the things he likes such as MMA which in his church is more than something guys talk about. Though he is Calvinist or Reformed I'm pretty sure most Reformed Christians would not be comfortable with what he does or his methods.

To many, many traditionalists if you have contemporary music you are, ergo, "seeker-sensitive". My point was sarcasm as to how people are often labeled for silly reasons.  I remember when my brother visited my church in the early 90's he was convinced it was a Charismatic church because a (very) small percentage of people raised their hands when singing.  I couldn't convince him otherwise even though it was squarely an SBC church in doctrine.

As most know I went to one of the major churches that some would call "seeker sensitive" and the first one to make surveys popular. After 30 years there are still no women in pastoral leadership, elders or deacons. (They are in leadership roles in women's ministry and the children's ministry however). The survey didn't ask what they wanted to hear but learned that they wanted to hear teaching relevant to their everyday life. Not "what" but "how". Shouldn't everything a church teaches be relevant? It doesn't have to be the message that changed but the delivery can. Some abuse it...just as some traditionalists abuse.

 

[Winston]

I think Driscoll is a liberal, seeker sensitive potty-mouth, er....maybe not so much huh? 

Seeker sensitive, yes. Potty mouth, yes, at least on occasion. But he's never been liberal except by IFBx standards. He has been and remains a conservative Calvinist.

When I say he's been getting weird, I mean he's been developing too much "cult of personality" and other "managawd" symptoms.

Yes, my point being that if someone is labeled "seeker-sensitive" ergo they are "liberal".  :

I don't believe Driscoll would want to be labeled as SS.....and I believe he is a solid Bible teacher and seeks to be somewhat balanced in his ministry.

I have heard him a few times in person, early on in his ministry, read a few of his books, and listened to quite a few of his sermons, and it seems that his church has some aspects that could be construed as "seeker sensitive" such as non-Christian concerts, but he is a far cry from the Bill Hybels or Rick Warren type of seeker sensitive.  He is strong on doctrine. He has had his life threatened for preaching controversial truth.

I would hardly call him seeker sensitive. The seeker sensitive movement started with the seeker surveys - finding out what potential church goers like and conforming what you do and teach to what they like. If Driscoll was truly seeker sensitive he would allow women to be leaders in the church for example. Driscoll is popular with those who like the things he likes such as MMA which in his church is more than something guys talk about. Though he is Calvinist or Reformed I'm pretty sure most Reformed Christians would not be comfortable with what he does or his methods.

To many, many traditionalists if you have contemporary music you are, ergo, "seeker-sensitive". My point was sarcasm as to how people are often labeled for silly reasons.  I remember when my brother visited my church in the early 90's he was convinced it was a Charismatic church because a (very) small percentage of people raised their hands when singing.  I couldn't convince him otherwise even though it was squarely an SBC church in doctrine.

As most know I went to one of the major churches that some would call "seeker sensitive" and the first one to make surveys popular. After 30 years there are still no women in pastoral leadership, elders or deacons. (They are in leadership roles in women's ministry and the children's ministry however). The survey didn't ask what they wanted to hear but learned that they wanted to hear teaching relevant to their everyday life. Not "what" but "how". Shouldn't everything a church teaches be relevant? It doesn't have to be the message that changed but the delivery can. Some abuse it...just as some traditionalists abuse.

Whoever's church you attended, people probably mark it as seeker because they had great success and did not do things the "Old fashioned way."

It sounds like a well-known Southern California church who was lambasted for using a survey.  Then the Pastor writes a fantastically popular book and it gets attacked because it is not "deep enough."  And, my goodness, it reached millions who would never have read a deep book.

Driscoll, although I do not appreciate the cussing, is bashed for similar things.

 

[Just John]

I think Driscoll is a liberal, seeker sensitive potty-mouth, er....maybe not so much huh? 

Seeker sensitive, yes. Potty mouth, yes, at least on occasion. But he's never been liberal except by IFBx standards. He has been and remains a conservative Calvinist.

When I say he's been getting weird, I mean he's been developing too much "cult of personality" and other "managawd" symptoms.

Yes, my point being that if someone is labeled "seeker-sensitive" ergo they are "liberal".  :

I don't believe Driscoll would want to be labeled as SS.....and I believe he is a solid Bible teacher and seeks to be somewhat balanced in his ministry.

I have heard him a few times in person, early on in his ministry, read a few of his books, and listened to quite a few of his sermons, and it seems that his church has some aspects that could be construed as "seeker sensitive" such as non-Christian concerts, but he is a far cry from the Bill Hybels or Rick Warren type of seeker sensitive.  He is strong on doctrine. He has had his life threatened for preaching controversial truth.

I would hardly call him seeker sensitive. The seeker sensitive movement started with the seeker surveys - finding out what potential church goers like and conforming what you do and teach to what they like. If Driscoll was truly seeker sensitive he would allow women to be leaders in the church for example. Driscoll is popular with those who like the things he likes such as MMA which in his church is more than something guys talk about. Though he is Calvinist or Reformed I'm pretty sure most Reformed Christians would not be comfortable with what he does or his methods.

To many, many traditionalists if you have contemporary music you are, ergo, "seeker-sensitive". My point was sarcasm as to how people are often labeled for silly reasons.  I remember when my brother visited my church in the early 90's he was convinced it was a Charismatic church because a (very) small percentage of people raised their hands when singing.  I couldn't convince him otherwise even though it was squarely an SBC church in doctrine.

As most know I went to one of the major churches that some would call "seeker sensitive" and the first one to make surveys popular. After 30 years there are still no women in pastoral leadership, elders or deacons. (They are in leadership roles in women's ministry and the children's ministry however). The survey didn't ask what they wanted to hear but learned that they wanted to hear teaching relevant to their everyday life. Not "what" but "how". Shouldn't everything a church teaches be relevant? It doesn't have to be the message that changed but the delivery can. Some abuse it...just as some traditionalists abuse.

Whoever's church you attended, people probably mark it as seeker because they had great success and did not do things the "Old fashioned way."

It sounds like a well-known Southern California church who was lambasted for using a survey.  Then the Pastor writes a fantastically popular book and it gets attacked because it is not "deep enough."  And, my goodness, it reached millions who would never have read a deep book.

Driscoll, although I do not appreciate the cussing, is bashed for similar things.

 

[Tarheel Baptist]

I think Driscoll is one of the good guys of his movement.
Last night, I watched some of the 3C Church conference from Dallas and was frankly a little disgusted by what I saw.