Mark Driscoll on Nightline

Advertisements

40 thoughts on “Mark Driscoll on Nightline

  1. It’s kind of annoying that they focused on the sex thing primarily. Driscoll’s church is growing leaps and bounds and they’re doing alot of great things in that city. But I assure you none of that growth can be attributed to the fact that he openly talks about masturbation and sex toys from the pulpit.

    I have every sermon the dude has preached for the past three years on mp3. Sex is the primary topic of only about 12 or so and that’s because they were doing a series on the Song of Solomon!

    But he’s a spitfire evangelical that’s high on my radar. So I’m glad to see him get some extra attention.

  2. of course they focus on sex. everyone focuses on sex. it kind of makes me want to become a eunuch.

    what you say about how they focus on this yet it’s rarely mentioned in his sermons reminds me of people who think every bob marley song is about weed, and having probably 95% of the guys complete recorded material, the songs that even mention weed fall in single digits. people like sex & drugs. that’s what they want…violence, too. hooray!

    p.s. you should be watching ted haggard on oprah (did i just plug oprah?!?!). the lying and denial is amazing…and sad.

  3. usually i cringe when the media decides to pick one person to represent christians, but I am ok with driscoll….
    He can be over the top sometimes but I love his approach to life and the church…
    for the record I do love both just like driscoll (sex with my wife and Jesus)

  4. in the spirit of not debating but trying to understand…

    i don’t get calvinism. at all. i don’t understand what the point of someone being predestined to damnation is…why even live? why would God give someone life is he’s already decided to damn them? and why do so many limit themselves to one of two choices – calvin or aminius? soteriology isn’t limited to two people! i personally don’t trust anything named after a person – except christ. also, calvin wasn’t the nicest guy…him & zwingli both had anabaptists drowned for their “heretical” belief in adult baptism – which i think most readers on here subscribe to. but that’s beside the point…i’m just trying to understand why people are into the idea that God has predestined all of humanity before they’re even born and that people don’t have choice, and that those who are damned can’t do anything about it. to me, that…well, sucks.

  5. In one sense it’s a surprisingly flattering and soft piece, considering how “fundamentalist” Driscoll probably is in their eyes. At the same time, it so misses the point. Most of those preaching clips cut him off just before he goes somewhere interesting. The “hipster who talks about sex in church” angle doesn’t do justice to what is happening at Mars Hill.

  6. tim- i would recommend you getting driscolls sermon on it i think it is under his series call 9 other misconceptions (a little help with the title) but he doesn’t a great job of the historical view and biblical on both side of the subject…
    and technically he would would have an Augustinian view on the subject…

  7. tim, are you openly soliciting a discussion on calvinism?
    you do know that’s a topic just as dangerous as sex, right?

    back in the day, there was nothing more fun than the dirt board’s theology section. it was chock full of calvinists and arminians.

  8. I tracked down the sermon Ryan was referring to. It was part of the series titled Religion Saves (& Nine Other Misconceptions), which he preached back in February of 2008.

    Here’s the description of the sermon:

    Pastor Mark Driscoll tackles the issue of predestination by answering question #7 of Religion Saves, and 9 Other Misconceptions by answering “Why does an all loving, all knowing, and all sovereign God will into creation people He foreknows will suffer eternal condemnation? Why does Romans 9:20 feel like a cop-out answer?”

    Here’s the link to the mp3.

  9. Mark is, as far as i can tell, a four pointer. (four point calvinist) He leaves the “L” out of the TULIP (limited atonement).

    of course, any good 5 pointer will tell you that once you start plucking the leaves of the TULIP, the whole flower falls apart leaving you with arminianism.

    a good friend of mine once said that romans 8-11 was schitzo:
    Romans 8—-you’re free to choose
    Romans 9—-you’re not
    Romans 10—you’re free again
    Romans 11—not so much

    if anything, it’s worth reading those four chapters.

  10. i remember at nyack we’d joke about “calminians”, aka 4 pointers. and i think that was when i asked, why are we limiting our view to one of two interpretations?!?! i agree with the ideas of depravity & grace, but the rest i either don’t comprehend or just flat out disagree with. i just think of the puritans and that mindset, which was pure calvinism, and get the willies. plus, i look at a guy like driscoll with his kids and wonder, so do you believe that God chose your entire family? i’m just a firm believer in free will, though at the same time i think that no one aside from God can “convert” a person. people either believe or don’t believe for various reasons, and there’s nothing you can say or do to change that. “you can’t argue someone into the kingdom of heaven”. and if a person is a calvinist, i wonder why would you try to “reach” non-believers? they are already damned, what’s the point? it just doesn’t make any sense (to me), even with links to explanations of it or scriptures that those who subscribe to the ideology provide.

  11. well tim, in a brazen attempt to shove you into a theological camp, that makes you arminian!

    calvinists usually say that we need to evangelize because:

    1. We’re commanded to (Mark 16, Matt 28 )
    2. We’re not God and have no way of knowing who the elect are. So, we have to preach to everybody

  12. haha, it was a covert operation and you blew up my spot! but seriously, i would say that arminianism makes more sense to me, but again, i don’t want to name my beliefs after any other person than christ, or limit myself to one of 2 views of salvation. in regard to the commandment – why would christ command it if people are predestined to damnation? reminds me of telling my nephews to go look for their ma when i know damn well she’s not home 🙂

    #2 makes sense. i think for me it’s a matter of comfort – i’m comfortable with free will, not comfy with predestination. but, ultimately, i think this is one of those issues that is of secondary importance. we all agree on who christ is, so the rest is up for debate…errr, conversation 🙂 i also remind myself that even though i’m not “comfy” with predestination, it doesn’t mean i’m right. i could very well be wrong, though, i highly doubt it >;P

  13. well, tim, i agree with you.

    semanticaly, i’d argue that “arminianism” is just an easy way of identifying a particular theological point of view…but no big deal.

  14. I like CS Lewis’ interpretation of time in regards to this matter. I can’t remember which book it is from, but I’ll paraphrase.
    God is not in linear time like we are. He is above it, and thus He is looking down on all of it, beginning to end, in one instant. So Adam’s decision to eat the fruit, to Jesus death, to my grandfather choosing to follow Jesus, to me following Jesus is all starting, happening, and concluded in God’s eyes.
    So then, He “knows” what we’re going to do because it did and it is happening.
    Does that make any sense? We have choice to make in our linear timeline, but it God’s eternal stance He knows our choice.

  15. jim:

    also known, imo, as Romans 8:

    “…those He foreknew, He also predestened to be conformed to the image of His Son….”

  16. this is exactly why everyone needs to rent (or buy) the movie PRIMER.

    winner of the 2004 sundance film festival award! first time a sci fi movie won the award, too.

    it’s the only movie i have ever watched back to back. literally started it over as soon as it was done to figure it out. which i didn’t. i’ve seen it over 20 times now, and still can’t seem to iron it out. if you’re a geek, and boy am i ever, you’ll love it.

    71 minutes long
    7000 budget
    zero special effects

    greatest sci-fi flick of the century

  17. jim – that’s something i’m w/ you on 100% (of course, i ❤ clive staples!), but there are hardline calvinists who say sans reservation that God chooses to damn people before their even born. that’s messed up (imo). God knowing is a different matter. of course God knows, he’s God! 🙂

    stem – i’m netflixing it. if it sucks you owe me a nickel!

  18. oh and shane, i distinctly remember on a manhattan gospel team trip once that you equated calvinism to finding a xmas present…or something like that. so you, me, dustin & ben b. went out in washington square park looking for xmas presents amongst the bums – one of whom dustin had a breakdance challenge with.

  19. I think you have me confused with someone else. I never went on a single gospel team trip during my Nyack tenure.

    The xmas present thing was a Poston illustration. I’m pretty sure of that.

    I’ve consistently remained neutral in the age old Calvanist-Armenian conflict. It’s like the Christian version of the conflict between Israel and Palestine.

  20. shane, if you’re not up to the challenge, then so be it. i hear vin diesel has a real shoot em up flick coming out soon you may be interested in…..(tongue in cheek! tongue in cheek!)

    tim…
    i’ll gladly send you a nickel if you don’t like it. let me just say this. pay attention to what they are SAYING. and pay attention to the ear piece. and you might want to take notes.
    also, per the writer, the “granger” scene is unexplainable. there is nothing in the movie that gives a clue to how he does what he does.

    but everything else can be puzzled out by info given in the movie.

    yes, i am a geek.

  21. ok so maybe you weren’t in manhattan when you told me that, but i know it was you. i never mix up a butrose.

    that might have something to do with poston also saying no one went to heaven between the years of 312 – 1517.

  22. Question:
    How come his and Rob Bell’s church are both named Mars Hill? Also, where is the video or article where MD debunks some of RB’s theology?

    I’m back to reading blogs now that I’m on a Facebook break 🙂

  23. i think that’s driscoll’s real beef. “HEY BUDDY! I GOT THE REAL MARS HILL!” i like how bell hasn’t played into the baiting game…or has he? if so, i rescind that comment.

      1. well i like to think that we can have different views of theological issues without being jerks and finger pointing and name calling. i’m episcopalian (now), you’re evangelical, we still believe in jesus, so who cares about the rest? if jesus really is your lord, and really is what’s most important, it’d be reflected in how you approach theological “debates”.

        *fundamentalists excluded b/c i hate on them non-stop, and therefore am a total hypocrite >:P

      1. he believes in jesus. that should suffice. right now in this day & age all christians from the left end of the spectrum to the right (again, fundamentalists excluded, haha) should be getting together and putting the “heresy” and debates aside b/c we are dwindling in numbers and the time for separation and division needs to be done. we need to be willing to do what jesus said and set it all aside as secondary things which may be very important to us individually, but if jesus is the most important thing, act like it. i don’t care if you’re calvinist and i’m not, if you’re premillenial and i’m not, if you’re republican and i’m not. jesus is jesus is jesus.

  24. I can take and leave pieces of each of the Mars Hills pastors theology. Both seem to have the Spirit of the Living God in them. Both have challenging thoughts to consider. I appreciate art, poetry and creativity being used to draw people’s hearts toward Christ. I also appreciate people who don’t beat around the bush but say what they mean. Even if I don’t agree. I know that for me personally, God uses unbelievers to teach me lessons all the time. Certainly he can do the same through believers who have the same Spirit but who may be “diametrically opposed” as Shane explains it.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s