Did Mark Driscoll Finally Cross the Line?

Mark Driscoll is an interesting guy. I love his theology but I personally believe he crosses the line sometimes. A reader directed me to this sermon Driscoll preached in Scotland a few weeks ago. Did he cross the line? You be the judge…..

WARNING: THE FOLLOWING AUDIO IS VERY GRAPHIC……

 

http://www.destinyedinburgh.com/Sermons/Sex,_a_study_of_the_good_bits_from_Song_of_Solomon.aspx

Advertisements

12 thoughts on “Did Mark Driscoll Finally Cross the Line?

  1. Phil,
    God hates Mark Driscoll’s theology. Here’s why:

    Driscoll SAYS orthodox stuff, but continues in unrepentant sins. Therefore, whatever MD SAYS, he MEANS that we can continue in sin evidently. Otherwise, he’s an incredible hypocrit. That’s BAD THEOLOGY biblically. In contrast to MD, God says that without holiness no man will see the Lord.

    Who’s right in their theology? MR or God?

    So whatever else he has in his “theology” he lies in regard to obedience to God by being in open sin, while claiming to be a brother. I Cor. 5:9 and following says we aren’t even to eat with him.

    I know of two sins he constangly sins and over which he has refused to repent. One is vulgarity. Worse still is bringing into the assembly false teachers and false teaching. He and others excuse this as being under grace.

    Phil: Which false teachers does he bring into the assembly?

    God said that those who encourage others to listen to false teachers were to be killed in the Old Covenant. Deut. 13. In the New Covenant we are told to have nothing to do with false teachers, especially not to help them in any way in their work. II John 10-11. Driscoll actually has Emergents come to his church to teach. That means he consciously and knowingly makes sure they get paid to come to his “church” and teach their lies. This is sin.

    He has never repented of either of these sins. As such we are to have nothing to do with him. I Cor. 5. And those who excuse known sin because it’s under grace are liars and false teachers. Jude 4.

    Have all of you never read these things in Scripture? If not, why not? Have you been living in a cave without a Bible from the time you were converted untill now? When will we start obeying God in regard to separation? When will we start obeying God in regard to knowing the Bible? These are sins. No excuse.

    In Christ,
    Phil Perkins.

  2. Phil,
    What heretics does Driscoll bring into the assembly?

    Well, one has only to google for five minutes. He has been Emergent by his own admission until (I believe) April of 2007. Then he said he wasn’t anymore, and is now supposedly straight. But as late as April this year he was promoting “Multi-Site/Seattle Conference, a function promoting the Leadership Network.

    And who is the Leadership Network? Emergents with a few who pretend to orthodox doctrine. Folks that are part of Leadership Network or are promoted by them include Leonard Sweet, Brian McLaren, and Tony Compolo. For those of you who don’t know just how evil these folks are, both McLaren and Compolo approve of homosexuality. McLaren says we don’t actually know it’s wrong and Compolo says we have been evil by telling homosexuals that their lifestyle is evil and excluding them from our churches.

    So what is the lesson here?

    ANSWER: CHECK OUT EVERYONE WHO IS CALLED A LEADER.

    But then, the Bible already said that, huh?

    Wake up, Christians. We live in a great time of falling away.

    In Christ,
    Phil Perkins.

  3. Hi Phil,

    Personally, I think Driscoll crossed the line and I guess I shouldn’t be surprised that he would take such a carnal approach to Solomon.

    Phil P is right. Driscoll has been part of the emergent movement and that movement is so filled with smoke and mirrors, it can be hard to tell where their theology stops and Christianity begins or vice versa.

    I don’t know if others caught it, but there wasn’t much about Jesus in his presentation – it was more about man/woman pleasing….

    Also, he refered to the early Genesis text as poetry. I’m not sure to what extent he defines it, but Genesis has always been viewed as historical and this “new” poetic version of Genesis is serving to promote a “local flood” view of Noah and a “tribal God” religion imho, thus Christianity is just another “local” brand of spirituality.

    What can I say but throw enough chum in the water and the sharks will join in a feeding frenzy.

  4. it was actually a good sermon! he was very
    detailed in what he said! maybe to detailed for
    some but mature adults should be able to listen
    the problem is we do not talk about sex in the
    church!

    Phil: I think the question is should sex even be discussed in the pulpit?

  5. Hi Phil,

    Sex from the pulpit is an issue, but what I see to be a bigger issue and one that leaves Driscoll without support imho is the one where there should be other scriptures in more books than just Song of Solomon to validate his position that God is talking about our sexual liberties.

    Just because Driscoll has a problem with this book describing the unity between Jesus and the Church, doesn’t make it my problem. I do believe there is scriptural support for that position.

  6. Phil,
    Yes, sex should be spoken of in the pulpit because Scripture speaks of it. However, it ought to be limited to saying just what the Scritpure says about it.

    The bigger issue is this: Why are we even listening to a man who remains in unrepentant sin, since the Bible so clearly forbids it? This is sin. And you’ve encouraged others to do the came thing. Stop it.

    In Christ,
    Phil Perkins

    Phil: This is a discussion site….how can we discuss the issue if we don’t listen to what the man has to say?

  7. Phil,
    Well, you could synopsize his teachings and point out its inconsistency with Scripture for others. That way you wouldn’t have to ask those who may not be very discerning to expose themselves to stuff that may cause to stumble.

    At any rate, Scripture should trump any format, shouldn’t it?

    God bless you and yours,
    Phil Perkins.

    Phil: Well, I could do that but I’d rather people listen to the WHOLE message and study the Word on their own…..that is something you’ve chided others for not doing isn’t it? Also this format keeps people from making the accusation I’m taking things out of context…..or forcing my opinions on others….something else you’ve pointed out….

  8. “Hip. Relevant. Contemporary.”

    What more could you ask for?

    How about free from vulgarity and Theologically sound for starters?

  9. Phil Perkins you need to repent as you have slandered the good reputation of Mark Driscoll.
    You have done very poor research and are obviously extremely ignorant regarding Mark Driscoll, you source of truth in google is very flawed!
    Again I call on you to repent!

  10. Phil,
    This is my first ‘reply or blog’ whatever you want to call it, ever. I regularly google scriptural issues, preachers, churches, teachings, and study them. Maybe you should do some more research on MD and the emergent church, and homosexuality, and see what you come up with. I have a few podcast sermons of his where he talks about Rob Bell, Brian McClaren and other emergents and “homosexual approvers” as you say, and how what they teach is heresy. He is following Scripture and pointing out false teachers, and protecting his flock from them. Don’t be so quick to judge, lest you be judged with the same measure. Do some more research from ALL sides of the spectrum, pray about it, then come to your conclusions.

  11. Phil – I cannot access the link but I have heard Driscoll preach on Song of Songs and I find no bad theology in his message. God did indeed create sex for marital enjoyment and it is pleasing and glorifying to God.

    If you think SOS is about Jesus’ relationship with the church, I feel very sorry for you, and especially for your wife.

Comments are closed.