Print Friendly

Comments:


65 thoughts on “Driscoll and Wilson on Spiritual Gifts and Intepreting Strange Happenings”

  1. Frank Turk says:

    I’m in at about 15 minutes, and my first comments are these:

    1. I agree with MD that the conversation between the people who can’t see the Holy Spirit as a real person and the people who think that every sound (including all the interior emotional sounds) is the Holy Spirit talking in some way is unproductive and probably irreconcilable. They share no premises; they have no basis for agreement. Those two groups may actually both be heterodox — but let’s trot some of them out and be more careful in understanding what they’re saying before we break out the torches and pitchforks.

    2. MD gives away where he falls on the spectrum with his comment which conflates Special Revelation with General Revelation. That is: he says plainly that both are equally reliable, and that’s an anti-biblical stance. For example, he says that because we can’t open Leviticus (or any book of God’s word) and find out how to tune up the car, we have to rely on general revelation to tune up the care and therefore it has its own kind of clear authority. But this overlooks that the point of /Special Revelation/ is not to tell us about human inventions: it is to tell us about Jesus, and therefore about how He makes fallen people into His people, and therefore how His people ought to live under His death, resurrection, and eternal reign at the right hand of the Father — both now, and then forever (already/not-yet). The place where this is transparently-obvious is when Jesus appears on the road to Emmaus. His disciples are there utterly befuddled by the general revelation of the events — as is anyone who comes to the events as merely-historical data, merely things like the operation of my car this morning. But Jesus does what — does he tell them to think a little harder, or do more investigation into what just happened and it will come to them? Nope. How about giving them a lesson like Paul receives in the wilderness so that they can say that they got their Gospel directly from God Himself? Maybe – but if that’s true, why aren’t they transformed into Apostles by title and role? What Jesus does for them is what Jesus did for Satan in the wilderness when the accuser was tempting him: he opens up the Scripture and recounts what God has said, this time beginning with Moses and all the Prophets, he interpreted to them in all the Scriptures the things concerning /himself/.

    What Driscoll apparently wants — and it will be interesting to see DW work this over in the video — is for the Holy Spirit to be doing things for him that the Holy Spirit did for Paul. The first guys after the Apostolic age who wanted this as well were called the Marcionites — and I’ve yet to see how MD would distinguish his position from their’s, apart from the fact that MD would not actually say that he has Scripture he would throw out because it misrepresents God.

    Last thing: notice how he can’t approach the cessationist position without, again, naming it as a gross sin, or in the same league as other gross sins. In the A29 video which caused the original dust-up, we are akin to deists and atheists; now we are akin to homosexuals in the way we handle Scripture. If what he is not doing is not being the barking-dog Azusa Street Pentecostal who is speaking for God, then someone help me see how his approach to the subject is different in substance.

    Looking forward to watching the rest and seeing the sane comments from other interested parties.

    1. Ethan says:

      Frank,

      You said: “The first guys after the Apostolic age who wanted this as well were called the Marcionites….”

      Did you mean Montanists?

        1. Steven says:

          We get it Frank, you disagree with Driscoll. Since this subject has been and will forever be controversial and since Driscoll is the latest and certainly not the last, can we move on already?

          I mean you couldn’t even make it to the end of the video before you threw down 8+ paragraphs of rebuttal. That’s just sad.

          How about we celebrate the way Wilson and Driscoll spoke about a controversial subject rather than rehashing the pyromaniacs blog yet again?

          1. Frank Turk says:

            When the other side responds to the objections rather than rehash things already responded to, I think we could see something new.

          2. Steven,

            Would you pose the same question to Justin Taylor that you posed to Frank about moving on?

            “Since this subject has been and will forever be controversial and since Driscoll is the latest and certainly not the last, can we move on already?”

            I’m not sure why Frank seems to be your only target, here?

            1. Steven says:

              Mary,

              I would not pose the same question to Justin because his reasoning for posting it is included in the first line, “The main value here, I think, is to hear two brothers talk through how to evaluate and think through various phenomena.” I appreciate Justin posting this video of two brothers sharing differing views.

              Also, Frank certainly isn’t the only one who is beating an already dead horse. You frequent the Pyromaniacs blog yourself and know this has long since been discussed to death.

              Not sure why people feel the need to follow this subject around on multiple blogs posting the same old tired comments and rebuttals.

              1. I have no issue with Justin Taylor, as he seems like a wonderful God-fearing man. But, could he have appreciated the video in the privacy of his own home? Sure! I suggest that to bring this video to a blog of this magnitude and readership was to garner further dialogue.

                As to the issue of exposing false teachers and your feeling that it has reached a level of the same old rhetoric: I find it interesting that each and every day NEW converts are coming to Christ. Many of these people will be exposed to the teachings and writings of these false teachers for the very FIRST time. Would it not benefit new converts to read blogs such as this and Pyromaniacs, so they can make well-informed decisions, and get a better understanding of who is holding to Biblical truth and who isn’t?

                If a child walks into on coming traffic and gets seriously hurt and doesn’t have the good sense to NOT do it again, is it judicious and responsible to reiterate the warnings over and over again to them? Do we not warn children a hundred times to stay away from the edge of the pool? Would you ever tire of making such statements? Where do you draw the line? We are dumb sheep and slow learners, after all.

                Enough said. I’m sure you are a very nice person.

            2. Steven says:

              Mary, I never said I have a problem with exposing false teachers, I said the level of obsession with Mark Driscoll has reached it’s course. Please learn to distinguish between a false teacher and someone who ascribes to a doctrine that you don’t. They aren’t even close to the same.

              You and many others follow this issue around to every blog that speaks on it and you run the same rhetoric every single time. Frankly your examples of discernment bloggers as the equivalent to parents watching over children in traffic or the pool is sensational and not even remotely applicable. I sincerely hope you don’t think that’s what you’re doing by posting on numerous blogs about your brother in Christ.

              My point is, we get it and we hear you. Disagreeing with Charismatic doctrine is one thing, marching on Driscoll is another. Learn to agree to disagree in these areas and learn to enjoy what the man does rightly. Believe it or not, he does do a great deal of good things for the church body.

              Have you ever once posted or blogged about the things he does right? I doubt it. Build up the body, and stop pretending you are building up the body by running around to every blog tearing the man down with sensationalism. Which he addressed in the video, btw.

              So anyway…I’m sure you’re a very nice person too.

              1. James S says:

                Steven –
                You are doing the same by rebutting the rebuttals at every point. We get it you dont agree with the rebuttals already.
                I agree that because there are new christians everyday, “the same old tired rejections” must be put forth everytime it is brought up.

          3. Frank Turk says:

            I would also say that Doug stumps me on this topic. There’s no way he ascribes to that for which Driscoll is advocating, and I am certain he knows why this is a dangerous model for church and private faith. But he seems to want to make nice with Driscoll over an issue which he would not abide in his own church.

            Stumped.

            1. Steven says:

              Again the need to discuss the exact same subject and rake Driscoll through the coals on more than one blog says more about yourself than Mark. Are we going to follow every Driscoll move around and rehash the same thing for each video he makes? You’ve been going on about Driscoll for over 5 years now.

              Could it be that Wilson was actually practicing humility and restraint with his fellow brother in Christ? He asked him questions and he’s listening to him and hearing him out face to face. Nothing stump worthy about that my friend. We should all take a page from Wilson.

              1. Steven says:

                The above post came across way more harsh than I intended.

                I respect your body of work and I appreciate all of the hard effort you have given the church, despite this minor objection.

              2. Frank Turk says:

                Two items:

                1. I bring that out in people. I think that’s a spiritual gift?

                2. I would like to believe what you have said here about the interaction. I think much of Doug Wilson. Somehow it doesn’t read that way to me, and I think it is worth voicing the opinion contra this video’s apology for charismatic practices.

            2. Frank, it seems to me that Doug was making room for a non-cognitivist approach to HS promptings in a cess theology. That is, propositional revelation from the HS, the kind that is recorded in Scripture, is no longer happening, but emotional promptings are still at work. It isn’t clear to me whether “visions” falls neatly into either category, but I think the distinction is an important one that got lost in the joking and jesting.

    2. Brad says:

      Hey Frank,

      I don’t quite get the connection between MD and the Marcionites. If you have time, could you elaborate on that a little.

      Thanks!
      Brad

      1. Frank Turk says:

        Well, shoot.

        I did in fact mean Montanists and not Marcionites, and I confused them here rather glibly. The link I gave even cleared it up, and I should have self-corrected then.

        Apologies to Brad here and Ethan above who both caught the mistake, and to all the readers I have confused with my mistake.

        Sorry All: my mistake, and I apologize for it.

  2. Frank Turk says:

    P.S. – I did say MD’s stance is anti-biblical, and I cited Christ’s use of Scripture as the example. I think it is worth-while to show that Scripture actually says more than this explicitly about this subject, and here’s a short list:

    Rom 1 & 2 – The Bible spells out the noetic problem here explicitly, so that what is revealed in nature is obscured by our vain reasoning, and then even the Law itself is obscured by us by our disobedience. The problem here is that man cannot perceive Creation rightly, and man interprets it according to his own desires.

    Titus 1 – I think Paul’s instructions to Titus on how to deal with the evil, lazy Cretans who are buying into the lies of false teachers is instructive. You’d think that if general revelation was speaking clearly, the lies of the false teachers would be obvious enough — but Paul says that the church needs the Scriptures and a man who can handle them well to rebukes such men.

    Acts 17 – I think reading the account of Paul’s interaction in the Areopagus speaks to us of the uses of general revelation for spiritual ends. That is: Paul says that these men only know one thing clearly — they probably don’t know anything about God. And it should be noticed that when Paul does resort to special revelation — that is, that Christ has died and risen from the dead, to return some day in judgment — it is ridiculed by the Greeks.

    And that doesn’t even touch the OT witness on this subject, or really scratch the surface of the NT witness.

    MD’s point that somehow general revelation is as good as special revelation is flawed. It has to be reviewed especially in the context he is trotting it out.

  3. Frank Turk says:

    um, no really: last thing:

    Dan Phillips doesn’t just write great books (like this and this). DJP also wrote a great series replying to the Poythress article JT linked above.

    You’re welcome.

  4. I’m just struck by how much poise it must take to sit at a little cafe table, the setting of intimate conversation, yet all of it before the watchful gaze of cameras and audience. There’s a recipe for opinion self-reinforcement.

  5. donsands says:

    I don’t trust Mark. And it’s more than when he talks about his visions. Plain and simple for me. I don’t have any vision or anything like that. I just don’t trust him because of his past teachings, and because he seems more like a celebrity, than a pastor for me. I could be wrong. Thanks for the post. Doug is a good teacher.

  6. Daniel Jarrett says:

    First off, thanks for the comments Frank. Clear, and helpful commentary.

    I would love to hear MD’s response to MacArthur’s take on speaking in tongues. What does the word tongues/glossolalia mean from scripture? Is it the same thing in each of it’s usages, etc? I just do not understand how the “reformed charismatics” that have such a high view of scripture and a low view of man, but continue down roads that seem so extra biblical.

    The reason I mention the above issue in relation to the video is due to how intertwined they are in churches that approve the practice. Those who claim to have special revelation, as MD does, also seem to have a very thorough system of understanding about tongues that seems to be absent from scripture.

  7. Charlene says:

    I agree with Frank in that MD believes that cessationists should not assume every charismatic is at the far end of the looney false teacher spectrum yet it seems that he automatically puts every cessationist at the far end of the deist spectrum. In regards to visions, I do recall that when MD told the story about the lady who was beaten by her husband in another video, she asked him how he knew and he told her “Jesus told me”. Up front he “safeguarded” it by saying, “If I’m wrong, I’m sorry”. He said he didn’t want to say, “Thus saith the Lord”. But when she said it was true and asked how he knew, he essentially did say, “Thus saith the Lord” by saying “Jesus told me”. This was before he confronted the husband. So now IF the husband had denied that this was true then MD would NOT have been at the same place as any other pastor in a counseling situation who then would need to investigate, as he stated, because he’s already said Jesus told him which would have to mean that it was true. This is the problem with his position. Also, how can any elder affirm that something like that is from the Lord? DW never asks him. How do the elders line up stuff like “Your grandpa molested you when you were too young to remember” with Scripture and say for sure it is God speaking? And as far as God speaking to him and telling him to marry his wife, teach the Bible, etc., his “test” is, well, Satan wouldn’t tell someone to teach the Bible so it must be God. But Satan could tell a false teacher to “teach” the Bible. I’m NOT saying MD is a false teacher, I’m just saying that someone could hear those words and it could not be from God. I can agree wholeheartedly with MD, though, when he says, “I forgot my second point ’cause I went to public school. But it was fantastic.” I have those moments all the time :=D

  8. John Calvin makes a clear distinction of the testimony of the Holy Spirit from fresh revelation. This excerpt was taken from Dr. R.C. Sproul’s book The Soul’s Quest for God.

    “Those who rejecting Scripture, imagine that they have some peculiar way of penetrating to God, are to be deemed not so much as under the influence of error as madness. For certain giddy men have lately appeared, who, while they make a great display of the superiority of the Spirit, reject all reading of the Scriptures themselves, and deride the simplicity of those who delight in what they call the dead and deadly letter. But I wish they would tell me what spirit it is whose inspiration raises them to such a sublime height that they dare despise the doctrine of Scripture as mean and childish.

    Calvin’s asks the question, ” But what kind of Spirit did our Savior promise to send? One who should not speak of himself (John XVI.13), but suggest and instill the truths which he himself had delivered through the WORD. Hence the office of the Spirit promised to us, is not to form new and unheard-of-revelation, or to coin a new form of doctrine, by which we may be led away from the received doctrine of the gospel, but to seal on our minds the very doctrine which the gospel recommends.”

  9. chris taylor says:

    Frank,

    There is Special Revelation, and then there is special revelation. The first is Normative (and closed: no new Scripture), the later is informative (and ongoing: as witnessed by Christians through the ages).

    The prophets in Paul’s day received insights from the Holy Spirit that Paul was to be arrested when (and if) he proceeded to Jerusalem. Paul accepted the fact that they had indeed received such a communication from God, but given that their word was only informative, he did not accept their interpretation (i.e., that he should avoid going up to Jerusalem). Instead, he took it as further confirmation that what Jesus had revealed to him was to take place, he would indeed suffer many things on Christ’s behalf.

    The failure to acknowledge this distinction is why you are being accused of ignoring the Bible’s teaching on the subject.

    1. Frank Turk says:

      I’ll chase that rabbit.

      Let’s assume that the people telling Paul not to go to Jerusalem or else he’ll be imprisoned have some people like them today. Let’s also assume that this is a supernatural power. And, for an example, let’s assume I have this power.

      If I tell you, “Don’t drive to work today, because the Spirit of God told me that you’ll be fired,” what is your obligation to listen to me and obey what I just said? If you have any obligation, what is the basis of that obligation?

      1. chris taylor says:

        I don’t think there is any authority in it. I see it merely as informative. The “don’t drive today” part would be your interpretation, and I might choose to disagree with your take. If I get to work, and I’m not fired, I know you are not to be trusted. If I get to work and I’m fired, I thank the Lord that he gave me an extra word to confirm that this was his will and that he has other plans for my life.

        And, I should note, your example seems trite, but I’m assuming the Lord wouldn’t have given such a word unless it was extraordinarily necessary for me. As in, I was in such dire straights that the flicker of hope might have been dashed by getting fired without hearing from my Father that he was still in control and that he was going to take care of me. The Lord is close to the broken-hearted. The strong in the faith don’t seem to need as much special attention and care as those whose faith is so fragile.

        1. Frank Turk says:

          It would not seem trite of you were actually unemployed. :-)

          To your first statement, regarding “authority” (a category I placed into this discussion), you are of a mixed mind here: you have no obligation to listen to this word from God, yet you think it can confirm for you that you are inside his will. What’s sort of strange here is that the word from God was not “you will lose your job,” but “Don’t drive to work today, because the Spirit of God told me that you’ll be fired”. That is, it was a command which stated the consequences of disobedience.

          But of what spiritual or material use is that? That is: how do you take refuge in a great God and Savior who is only dispensing descriptive memos but not governing all things with his own words? If God is just talking to you like I might just talk to you, how is that divine conversation better — especially when you admit you can’t tell if it’s me or God talking?

  10. Don Sartain says:

    Fantastic discussion! Thanks for sharing!!!

  11. Brad says:

    “Last thing: notice how he can’t approach the cessationist position without, again, naming it as a gross sin, or in the same league as other gross sins. In the A29 video which caused the original dust-up, we are akin to deists and atheists; now we are akin to homosexuals in the way we handle Scripture. If what he is not doing is not being the barking-dog Azusa Street Pentecostal who is speaking for God, then someone help me see how his approach to the subject is different in substance.”

    Sheesh, Frank. You expect “sane” comments to flow after somehow deriving this very unreasonable and uncharitable analysis from Driscoll’s comments? You call for civility after being wholly uncivil yourself? Though you’ll certainly get it, the double standard you’re calling for is jaw dropping. You’ve taken several things that Mark said, blew them out of proportion and then twisted them into things Mark never says here or anywhere else.

    “What Driscoll apparently wants — and it will be interesting to see DW work this over in the video — is for the Holy Spirit to be doing things for him that the Holy Spirit did for Paul. The first guys after the Apostolic age who wanted this as well were called the Marcionites…”

    Huh? Driscoll denies the authority and inspiration of the Old Testament because he offends your cessationist sensibilities? I didn’t hear anything in the entire intervew that even remotely lends itself to labeling Mark as a neo-Marcionite.

    Frank, you’ve truly jumped the shark here.

    As to the interview: “You’re a charismatic in denial!” That was awesome. Loved Doug Wilson’s charity and humor. God is clearly at work through both of these men. Thanks for putting this up Justin.

    1. Frank Turk says:

      Given that most of the people who have ever told me I have jumped the shark are people who have never even had a prime-time moment (in terms of credibility, not popularity), I can live with that criticism.

      To the rest:

      - Yes, I expect some sane commenters to come up with a response to these issues — because they are not esoteric issues but face-value issues. To the matter of whether my comments are “uncharitable,” they are not any more or less uncharitable than MD failing to encounter the credible complaints against his position — of which, I am the author of at least one. Think of this: what if some of the people arguing against him have listed a serious, moderate position in which the Holy Spirit is living and active but not revelatory? When will he respond to that rather than call them atheists, homosexuals and deists?

      - to the second comment, you omitted the second half of my sentence. The answer to you is there if you’d like to have it.

      I’m looking forward to having time to watch the whole thing. It would be great if it could change my mind as I am really tired of this argument. I would be completely willing to recant every word I have ever blogged on this subject if the other side would proffer something serious. I am sad to say it never happens.

      1. jigawatt says:

        Frank, I’m interested to know if you still think that Mark Driscoll “called anyone who doesn;t believe in the miraculous things he [MD] says are happening right now an atheist.”

        Also, do you still think it’s ok to call a brother an atheist if he disagrees with your interpretation of Driscoll? (http://bit.ly/q85gRR)

        1. Frank Turk says:

          In your case, yes to both. If someone else asked me I might offer a different answer, but you have all the context you need for understanding that answer rightly.

      2. Jordan says:

        I have never commented before on TGC, but have been an avid follower for quite some time. Normally, I ignore the comments because they lead to wasteful arguments… and people find a strong back bone that is absent in real life. however on this video I was interested because of some of the interesting things I have heard Driscoll say. But I feel the need to respond to this erroneous comment thread.

        I am appalled at the response’s that have been made thus far by Mr. Turk (I know, this opens me up for criticism, seeing as I must be engaging in the same activity… and it also must put me in the Driscoll camp that apparently hates anyone who is a cessationist… and if you wondered, i am a cessationist.).

        To your statement defending your “uncharitableness” – I would say this – If you must compare Driscoll to the standard of Christ and not to others, please do the fellow Christians on this site a favor and hold yourself to the same standard – that is of Christ and not comparing to others so as to make your statements seem okay.

        To your statement of not having time to watch the whole thing – If I recall correctly according to the time that you posted each of these lengthy posts, I believe you would have had enough time to watch this video 2-3 times over.

        These are just my observations looking to ensure that our lives are worthy of the Gospel. I know I will get hammered for this, but I do pray that this is useful.

        Thanks.

        1. Frank Turk says:

          Did I hold Driscoll to a divine standard? I think all I have ever asked of the man is that he man up the way he expects his critics to man up. That is: he should be able to take the kinds of rhetorical blows he dishes out, and not simply cower behind his pastoral robes when someone speaks to or about him the way he speaks to or about others.

          As to not having time, you’re right: instead of talking to people talking to me, I could have watched the video. I’m sure that looks more like love to some people.

  12. This issue of seeing visions and God speaking to us directly, upsets me. The Bible tells us not to go beyond what is written.

    What I find uniquely absent from the prophesies such as the ones Mark Driscoll envisioned is that the stories are incomplete. They lack the proverbial wisdom that usually accompanies/follows biblical parables, visions and stories.

    They lack a “reason” for being a vision. We’re left hanging in mid air, wondering where’s the beef? Where’s the moral to the story? We’re sadly left in the dark, with no results/consequences or parabolic application. We have a right to say, “So—-And—-Your point being?”

    But we don’t get that from Mark Driscoll, or other dream weavers. Instead we get bombshells dropped into the laps of people with no rhyme or reason to them. Think of Nathan when he told David, “You’re the man.” What was the result, the finish to the story, the lesson learned? David repented of his actions. The story had closure. He admitted that he had sinned against God and God alone (moral to the story). We may not always have answers to all of God’s ways, but Scripture is never short on stories with real life applications and real moral conclusions.

    Bombshells like Mark Driscoll has are totally destructive, because they operate void of any meaning, rhyme or reason. They only destroy and have no remedial application whatsoever.

    Buyer beware!

  13. Ethan says:

    I thought Doug was very patient and listened very well (much like Dever in that multi-site video with Driscoll and MacDonald). This is something that seems under-appreciated by the church but is an honorable characteristic of a pastor.

    I also thought Wilson was off his game a bit. Maybe he just wanted to hear Driscoll’s hear ton the issue, but I just had the feeling like he wasn’t up to the task of debating (or maybe just didn’t want to!).

  14. Ethan says:

    I’ll also add that Charismatics seem to not understand that the role of the Holy Spirit is to exalt the Son. What most Reformed folk are against is when Charismatics use the Holy Spirit to exalt themselves.

  15. Heath Lloyd says:

    Brother Taylor:
    I have not had time to watch the video, so perhaps I should not even comment here.
    However, with your permission, I will. What scares me is that some might say that the Bible is NOT enough. Where does one draw the line? How can one say that “God didn’t say that to you,” if you accept that we need and still have “special” revelation? It just seems it begins down a path that leads to trouble and heresy.
    Thank you for stirring the conversation. May we seek God’s wisdom, not always what we want to accept just to be welcoming to other “brothers.”
    – Heath Lloyd

    1. Good comment, Heath. And when the Bible (God’s Word) isn’t enough, people turn to the spiritual gurus who have an extra WORD of knowledge! This is “SO” dangerous! As it makes fallible men the final abiter of ALL revelation. Can’t people see this?

      This makes idols out of pastors, and is shamefully idolatrous!

    2. chris taylor says:

      Brother Lloyd,

      Having watched the video, I think it’s safe to say that your basic question was not fully answered there, though they did touch on aspects of it. So here’s my attempt.

      Your Question: If a church allows prophesies, won’t that encourage folks to rely on prophesy instead of the Bible for relevant teaching?

      My Answer: First, when I speak of special revelation (lower case), I am not thinking of doctrinal content. That is, when we look at the cases of special revelation in the Bible, they do not consist of Normative statements that are universal to all believers for all times. In fact, it seems that they are quite parochial, given to certain individuals for the benefit (warning, encouraging, etc) of a limited audience.

      If someone says they have a word from the Lord, and the message consists of some new teaching, not found in the Bible, then you have your answer. This is a false prophet who does not abide in the Word.

      However, if someone says, “I was praying this morning and I don’t know if this is right or not, but it seems the Lord laid it on my heart to encourage you with the words from Psalm …”, I wouldn’t be surprised to hear the one being encouraged to respond with, “Isn’t the Lord faithful, I have been struggling with doubt for days about the very thing that Psalm speaks of: thank you for reading that Psalm; you have strengthened my faith.”

      Second, it seems to me that it often pleases the Lord to demonstrate his power to a people in special ways when he brings his gospel to a new region (sometimes this ‘region’ appears to be the size of one man’s heart; sometimes a whole people group). From the testimony of the NT and from the testimony of missionaries throughout the ages, we hear of how the Lord helped establish the Word with demonstrations of power.

  16. Fascinating. Which text in 1 Cor 14 is Driscoll referring to when he says that if you have a revelation, you need to run it past the leaders? Any ideas?

    1. Theologian says:

      Probably 1 cor 14:26-33

  17. Also: Doug says, “I know God gave me that information.” I don’t see how that differs from the position of responsible charismatics. What am I missing?

    1. Steven says:

      I don’t see how it differs either. Good post.

  18. Frank, I am willing to include within the boundaries of our fellowship a lot of things that we wouldn’t do at Christ Church. Some of them are really important, and others not so much.

    A big issue for me is which end of the feet the toes are on, if you follow me.

    1. Frank Turk says:

      Well, baptism aside, Doug, you really think the theology of the Holy Spirit Driscoll discusses here is not very troubling?

      Let me put that another way: one of the things I think I have learned from your paedo-baptist views, which I reject whole-cloth, is a better appreciation for what the church is and ought to be. My love of the Body of Christ has improved because your view of it is better than mine was. (Maybe even than mine is currently, too) If that’s the end here (aim of the charge being love in good faith and sound conscience), what do you expect to take away from not treating Driscoll’s pneumatological beliefs the way you treat both credo-baptistic beliefs and half-hearted paedo-baptistic beliefs?

      1. Frank I don’t know if you saw this comment above, but I think it is worth posting here as it relates to what I think Wilson was trying to do:

        “Frank, it seems to me that Doug was making room for a non-cognitivist approach to HS promptings in a cess theology. That is, propositional revelation from the HS, the kind that is recorded in Scripture, is no longer happening, but emotional promptings are still at work. It isn’t clear to me whether “visions” falls neatly into either category, but I think the distinction is an important one that got lost in the joking and jesting.” –AO

        1. Frank Turk says:

          I did see it. I don’t have any comment on it.

  19. Daryl Little says:

    It seems to me that Driscoll’s tows have been gradually moving to towards the wrong end.

    This is important because of where things end up in the end.

  20. Daryl Little says:

    Ummm…that’d be Driscoll’s “toes”.

  21. donsands says:

    There was a woman who was telling people that Paul and Silas were servants of God. Paul cast an evil spirit out of her, and he got beaten with rods for it, and chained up. He praised the Lord, and an earthquake shook the the city like crazy.

    It seems these would be the things happening today, if the same things were happening. John the Baptist did no signs nor miracles, and yet he was as great a prophet as Elijah, and all the other prophets.

    In our day, we have the Holy Writ, which God has given us. The OT & the NT. God’s awesome revelation to us, so that we can be settled in the truth, which is His Word.

    Driscoll seems like a showman, and not a pastor so much: Thrills and frills accompany him. He seems almost to bold and confident. Maybe it’s just me.

  22. Steve McCoy says:

    Frank, thanks for posting this. Oh, wait. This was posted by Justin. It was difficult to tell because of ALL OF FRANK’S comments. Frank has never taken over a comment thread before! :)

    JT, may we see more and more discussions like this. Important not only for the content, but also because we see good discussion on disagreements between brothers done in a civil way. Excellent.

    1. Frank Turk says:

      If I were driving through the Ozarks, I would call you and cuss you out.

  23. Frank Turk says:

    I think Justin is out of pocket, BTW, because I have a comment in moderation waiting for an editorial approval and it’s been there since 10 AM. I am sure I have not, however, spoken for him here.

    :-)

    1. Justin Taylor says:

      It’s now been released into the wild!

  24. Joe Thorn says:

    I woke up way too early this morning and watched (and really enjoyed) the exchange between MD and DW over at Wilson’s site. Justin, I was glad to see you posted it here, but avoided the comments until Brother Steve told me to check it out. Thanks for “Turking” me, Steve.

    Justin, when referencing Driscoll on the blog you’d probably have more fruitful comments by turning them off. :)

    1. Frank Turk says:

      I’m sure you had better things to do today, Joe: like ministry.

  25. Frank Turk says:

    I didn’t realize that Henry was participating in the conversation. I thought he was either conducting mile-high satire or else simply in his own world.

  26. I’m done with this conversation.

  27. Henry says:

    ah, you must have deleted your comment. I can understand your offence though from your intriguing blog: http://equalitypress.wordpress.com/

    Sorry that you are offended brother, but try to remember that in a previous era you would be the odd one out.

Comments are closed.

Justin Taylor


Justin Taylor is senior vice president and publisher for books at Crossway and blogs at Between Two Worlds. You can follow him on Twitter.

Justin Taylor's Books