Piper, Driscoll Stay Passionate for Mission amid Criticisms

By Lillian Kwon|Christian Post Reporter

E-mail
Print
RSS
digg Facebook Twitter Stumble Reddit del.ico.us Buzz Share
Text

"You don't need to go as far as you've gone sometimes with your language but I understand what you're doing missiologically there and I have a lot of sympathy ... because I'd like to see those people saved," he added.

Even before MacArthur's public statements, Driscoll had responded to some of the concerns conservatives have expressed, hoping to keep the dialogue gracious and be at peace with fellow believers.

Having become a hot topic of debate over the last few years, Driscoll stated, "The worst thing in the world would be that somehow I became the center of discussion when the entirety of my ministry and, to be totally honest with you, the burning passion in my heart is Jesus."

"He saved me ... he's my Lord, my God, my Savior," Driscoll said in a video response released by Jonathan Christman, pastoral assistant at Heritage Baptist Church in Owensboro, Ky.

"And my job is to talk about him."

Piper and Driscoll are working on a number of projects together including The Gospel Coalition – a diverse group of pastors who desire to prepare the next generation for Gospel-centered ministry – and the Resurgence Training Center, which aims to develop pastors and deacons with a passion for the Gospel.

Pages: 12

View article on single page

Next Story : New Hampshire Legalizes Marriage for Same-Sex Couples

Most Popular

Viewed
Commented
Blogged

Sort by: Newest | Oldest | Agree | Disagree

All comments on this page are subject to our Terms of Use and do not necessarily reflect the views of The Christian Post or its staff.

99caravan »

Sun Jun 14, 2009 12:03 am Agree: 0 Disagree: 0

SOS is a graphic book of the Bible. It is, however, perhaps the only book in the Bible that does any justice to the intimate relationship between a woman and a man in love, courtship and intimacy. Yes it does reference sex, etc., and is a subject that most churches refuse to preach about... in my opinion, a failure on the part of churches that don't preach about it. It is intimacy, courtship, and love between a man and a woman in the context that the Creator God intended for it to be. Otherwise it wouldn't have been written there.

It is easy to sit back, do nothing, but critique another person who steps up to the plate and dares to accept criticism and does their best to preach it as it is written, as God intended the bonding of a woman and a man.

If you refuse to teach intimacy in the context that it was intended by God, we cannot as not only believers in Chriist, but just as intelligent human beings, be naive to believe that our children and young adults will not learn about sex... and you can be sure it will not be in any form of biblical or spiritual reference :)
oldstudent »

Wed Jun 10, 2009 1:08 pm Agree: 0 Disagree: 1

My issue with both modern-day Calvinists and Arminists is that both must take passages and put unnatural interpretations onto them. Somehow God loves the whole world (and not just the elect of the world) and we are sealed (Eph 1.13) as believers who have a choice in the matter (Acts 2.21 there is no "whoever shall" if there is no choice or responsibility) but are not the initiators of the pursuit (just a cursory examination of Scripture shows that when left to our own devices and God doesn't intervene, we do not look for Him).

Grace and Peace,
Jim
matthewr1 »

Tue Jun 09, 2009 7:37 pm Agree: 1 Disagree: 0

Chaz,

I always find it interesting how Arminians object to Calvinism. They largely bring in a philosophical argument (much like the one you presented), rather than a cut and dry argument from Scripture.

Matt
believer »

Sat Jun 06, 2009 10:28 pm Agree: 0 Disagree: 0

os, if advance notice was given then I agree it was the parents responsibility to ensure no children were there, but personally I don't think I would present the series on a Sunday morning, but either Sunday night or a special time such as Discipleship Training, but that's just a personal preference and not an objection to the way MD did it.
oldstudent »

Sat Jun 06, 2009 8:45 pm Agree: 0 Disagree: 0

Hi Believer,

Your thoughts of children being present is a valid point but these services were spoken of well in advance, there were no surprises and most of the attendees are not with kids in the audience. Could there be kids present? Yes. Should there be kids present when given advance notice up to beginning of the sermon? No. Adults must take responsibility for their kids, even in gatherings.

My real point is that Mac is over the edge on this as are others who either don't actually listen to the sermons in context OR think that SOS is not descriptive of sexual acts in a way we do not speak like today.

Grace and Peace,
Jim
believer »

Sat Jun 06, 2009 9:20 am Agree: 0 Disagree: 0

oldstudent, I've heard the same thing about his sermon series, my only concern was that there might be young children present who are not mature enough to handle such an up front presentation, what's your take on that?
Chaz »

Fri Jun 05, 2009 10:33 pm Agree: 0 Disagree: 1

My objection to 5 point Calvinism is that of George MacDonald: If God does not love every one then I don't care to have Him love me.
oldstudent »

Fri Jun 05, 2009 10:01 pm Agree: 0 Disagree: 1

Has anybody on this string actually listened or watched Driscoll's teaching on SOS?

MacArthur is WWWAAAYYY off in his remarks about the series. I have listened to it and although I wouldn't be as forward, Driscoll doesn't make it into soft porn any more than SOS is presently (and it ain't soft porn).

What we see as 'beautiful' language as intentionally beautified is to think Solomon was writing as the 1611 KJV scholars did; intentionally beautify the language. With the Hebrew, there isn't much beautification going on.

Grace and Peace,
Jim
mlreader »

Fri Jun 05, 2009 1:57 pm Agree: 1 Disagree: 0

throughitall,

I think you have the terms mixed up. I believe "socially liberal" indicates someone who supports homosexuality and such. Culturally liberal is more likely a reference to the culture of the church like rock music rather than hymns.
ID4234 »

Thu Jun 04, 2009 9:20 pm Agree: 1 Disagree: 0

Chas, my experience has been that Calvinists are very evangelical, knowing that God has ordained both the means of salvation, that is, how people receive the Word, and those who are to be saved. They (Calvinists) are very mission minded and take witnessing seriously.

Man absolutely has free will. He just is too depraved ever to choose Jesus without the effectual calling of the Holy Spirit. It is God who enables man to choose to repent, to turn from his sins, and to ask Jesus into his heart.

Other views give man way too much credit. God deserves 100 per cent of the credit for a saved soul.

"Called, chosen, and faithful." Rev. 17:14
believer »

Thu Jun 04, 2009 7:45 pm Agree: 0 Disagree: 0

chas, what you describe is hyper-calvinism, most calvinists I know struggle some with the predestination issue, I tell people I'm a 4 and a half point calvinist because like you I believe God has predestined a plan by which anyone can be saved, but it is up to each of us to choose whether or not we'll accept His plan of salvation. But I am becoming more convinced that God's foreknowledge plays a much bigger role in our salvation than I realized.
Chas »

Thu Jun 04, 2009 4:53 pm Agree: 1 Disagree: 3

Calvinism in a nut shell:

Whether you go to church, love Christ or don't it doesn't matter because everything is pre-ordained and there is no such thing as Free Will.

It doesn't matter if you love Christ and try to live a holy life, or are a downright cussing, lying bad person.

You are either elect or not. God either predestined you for Hell or Heaven.

I do believe in predestination, but a different form. My version of predestination ehorts that Christ died for everyone for all times and that he predestines all of us for heaven. Because of free-will, God will never force us to love him or accept his sacrifice on the cross for our sins. My God is a loving God, who gives salvation as a free Gift. Like any gift, you must accept it. God predestined everyone for Heaven, but some choose not to accept Jesus as their savior.

Those who are baptized into Christ and who everyday accept Him as their Lord and Savior and persevere, albeit imperfectly, in the faith and friendship of God will be saved.
ID4234 »

Thu Jun 04, 2009 2:24 pm Agree: 0 Disagree: 0

You're right, Diana. I like John Piper, but he missed the mark here.
Diana626 »

Thu Jun 04, 2009 2:07 pm Agree: 4 Disagree: 1

So basically Piper is saying the ends justifies the means...

He would never encourage perversion talk but by not separating he is doing just that...
Hypocrisy be thy name John Piper. God does not need potty talk to win people so I would inspect the fruit Mark Driscoll is so called" winning" very carefully. If they need potty talk to be won over, there is a problem.
ID4234 »

Thu Jun 04, 2009 10:09 am Agree: 1 Disagree: 1

"Driscoll is my man, even if he is a Calvinist."

What's wrong with being a Calvinist? Is it the absolute Sovereignty of God that is offensive? If all are lost, totally depraved, and no one can choose except they be drawn by the Father (John 6:44 and 65), must not God move through the Holy Spirit in those the Bible says are called, chosen, and faithful (Rev. 17:14)?

God's Sovereignty certainly gives Him the right to choose, doesn't it? And left on his own, man would, would he not, always choose wrongly regarding God?

Romans 9 and Ephesians 1
rj78 »

Wed Jun 03, 2009 10:06 pm Agree: 1 Disagree: 2

Driscoll is my man, even if he is a Calvinist;).

I enjoyed his entire series on the Song of Solomon, and I agree with Edredge and Coughlin that it is a moving love story.

It is not pornographic, as MacArthur contends.

God allowed the Song of Solomon in the Bible. Is MacArthur a higher authrity than God?

I also enjoy all his frank talk with his youth. Driscoll talks as a dad should with his spiritual children. MacArthur is out of line for calling him out.

Driscoll is doing a great work for the Gospel. Christ called Herod a fox (i.e., scumbag) and Paul made a dirty joke in Galatians (about castration). They would both be proud of Driscoll. Not for the jokes, but because of his outreach.
Karen Hess »

Wed Jun 03, 2009 10:05 pm Agree: 2 Disagree: 0

All a Christ Follower has to do is read the comments on this website to know that there are alot of anguished, disillusioned, disheartened, even desperate souls in this world. If Mr. Driscoll is doctrinally sound (and I would trust Mr. Piper to know that) then please, please spread the Word. Someone LOVES you, died for you, is THERE now for you AND has answers to the hard questions for you.His name is Jesus.

Please help us to monitor our message boards by flagging comments that are unlawful, harmful, threatening, abusive, harassing, defamatory, vulgar, obscene, libelous, hateful, or racially, ethnically or otherwise objectionable.
Contact Us if you have any questions, comments, or concerns.

Comment on this story