I have heard people talk a lot of trash about Mark Driscoll (mostly insinuation and the rehearsal of old stories). I have to admit that I’ve not spent hours researching the man, but this I know. Every time I’ve listened to his sermons or read his teachings, I have been impressed with the theological accuracy, the uncompromising commitment to even unpopular biblical truth, and an amazing ability to communicate.
Anyway, here is a clip on our topic du jour.
I wonder what Driscoll would say to this idea:
‘God’s wrath is simply God’s love as experienced by those who refuse to accept it.’
I’m not sure.
God is One, but wrath and love seem to be two distinct character qualities. Love is the attribute that God demonstrates toward his own. And at the end, wrath is held in store for the unbeliever.
I would say that wrath and love are both effects of God’s fiery presence. The glory warms the believer but destroys the unrighteous.
We speak in my faith of ‘the fire of Thy Divine Love’ being enkindled in our hearts by the Holy Spirit.
That is probably one of the best explanations I have heard Dave.
DAVID, you might find meaning in the ending of the ending of St. Augustine’s prayer, here:
“Late have I loved you, O Beauty ever ancient, ever new, late have I loved you! You were within me, but I was outside, and it was there that I searched for you. In my unloveliness I plunged into the lovely things which you created. You were with me, but I was not with you. Created things kept me from you; yet if they had not been in you they would have not been at all. You called, you shouted, and you broke through my deafness. You flashed, you shone, and you dispelled my blindness. You breathed your fragrance on me; I drew in breath and now I pant for you. I have tasted you, now I hunger and thirst for more. You touched me, and I burned for your peace.”
The idea of the all-consuming ‘fire of Divine Love’ is a very ancient teaching of Christianity.
Well, I know what you’d like to twist it around and make it mean. That there is no hell–no conscious eternal punishment for all those who die without repenting of their sins and conscoiusly trusting Christ as Savior.
Of course, there will be nothing but torment for those who refuse to repent of their sins and who do not consciously trust Christ as Savior and that torment will be eternal (i.e. never ending) no matte what people like you and Rob Bell believe.
Like Enemy Billy Graham? Roger Olson offers a response to the claim you made earlier about the Rev. Graham being under the influence of medication and talking crazy or whatever when he was espousing inclusivism in the interview with Shuller. Apparently he was espousing inclusivism as far back as 1978.
http://rogereolson.com/2011/03/26/billy-graham-and-inclusivism/
A couple quotes from the 1978 interview:
“I found that my beliefs are essentially the same as those of orthodox Catholics. We only differ on some matters of later church tradition. I find that my beliefs are essentially the same as those of orthodox Roman Catholics”
“I used to think that pagans in far-off countries were lost — were going to hell — if they did not have the Gospel of Jesus Christ preached to them. I no longer believe that. … I believe there are other ways of recognizing the existence of God — through nature, for instance — and plenty of other opportunities, therefore, of saying yes to God.”
And a Rob Bell-esque type response from Billy G. here:
In 1985, Graham affirmed his belief that those outside of Christ might be saved. Los Angeles reporter David Colker asked Graham: “What about people of other faiths who live good lives but don’t profess a belief in Christ?” Graham replied, “I’m going to leave that to the Lord. He’ll decide that” (Los Angeles Herald Examiner, 7/22/85).
One more time:
“And I think there is that hunger for God and people are living as best they know how according to the light that they have. Well, I think they’re in a separate category than people like Hitler and people who have just defied God, and shaken their fists at God. … I would say that God, being a God of mercy, we have to rest it right there, and say that God is a God of mercy and love, and how it happens, we don’t know” (The Charlotte Observer, 2/16/93). [As reported in Evangelicals and Rome, by David Cloud.]
The post-fundamentalist Billy Graham really seems to have more theologically in common with the Rob Bells of American evangelicalism than with the Mark Driscolls. I suspect that if Billy G. had come up in the internet age, he might have had many many more critics.
BDW: Billy Graham preached the Gospel of Christ. He lived the Gospel of Christ. I think you need to look at all of his preaching, all of his living before making judgments like the above. It angers me that this happens over and over again. I want to say “knock it off.” You are hurting good orthodox Bible believing men when you do this. Billy Graham can hardly defend himself now can he?
Who said Billy Graham doesn’t preach the Gospel of Christ?
I certainly believe that Billy Graham preaches and lives the Gospel of Christ. Who is making a judgment? Not me.
All I did was point out to Joe that Graham’s inclusivist comments from the late 1990s were hardly unique. BIG WHOOP.
How the heck am I hurting “good orthodox Bible believing men” ??? That’s so ridiculous. I simply cited several quotes from the esteemed evangelist, given at different points throughout his career.
Give the hysteria a rest. After a while, the drama is annoying.
Catholics love Billy Graham. John Paul II called him ‘the world’s greatest living evangelist.’
When the time comes that Billy Graham passes away, he will be mourned and honored as a great servant of Lord Christ by people from all over the world.
BDW: Wrong is wrong. If you think that is drama, that would be your problem not mine. I am not causing the theatrics here. That is the MO of the SBC. I simply address it.
Wrong is wrong?
What the heck am I wrong about, Debbie? I didn’t judge anyone. I didn’t state nor did I imply what you accused me of.
You swoop in, make huge assertions and never correct yourself or even attempt to respond to the substance of my reply. Weak.
I would imagine that Billy Graham couldn’t care less about having to defend himself. He tried hard to avoid the cult of personality and yet we built one around him anyways in some regards.
Besides, the actions he took to keep himself above reproach ought to be taught and drilled into the many pastors and evangelists running around today. He not only prevented temptation, but he prevented rumor and the appearance of impropriety.
A lesson many pastors today scoff at….right up until their ministry burns down around them.
Appeal to authority is a fallacy of defective induction, where it is argued that a statement is correct because the statement is made by a person or source that is commonly regarded as authoritative. The most general structure of this argument is: Source A says that p is true. …
Not trying to prove that inclusivism is correct.
I have demonstrated though that Graham’s inclusivist comment with Shuller shouldn’t be easily dismissed by asserting that he was having a bad day, doped up on medicine or sick or whatever.
You most certainly have used Billy Grahm’s quote in an effort to prove inclusivism is correct before and you most certainly believe it. Of course, moderates play word games to avoid spelling out what they actually believe.
Word games? What do you call offering up being old and ill as an excuse for espousing – what you would consider – heresy?
what Christians would consider – heresy
Sorry. You had a typo there. Just thought I’d help.
So can a person espouse heresy without being a heretic?
To this video I say a hearty Amen. I say it with a very heavy heart to those without Christ.
Good job Joe, kill a conversation before it can get going, you got in too late on Todd’a post, glad too see you didn’t make that mistake again
Congrats on your new found skill as a mind reader!
When someone has revealed themselves as an enemy of the gospel, mindreading is really not all that necessary.
Continuing the conversation, hopefully,
I found this poem on the blog ‘Journey Towards Epiphany’, and how it speaks of ‘exclusivity’ and ‘inclusivity’, two terms that need further exploration by all Christian people, I think:
“God uses the stutterer who stammers a resignation,
He speaks through youth who quake in their shoes.
He shares secrets with prostitutes, moon seekers and stargazers,
Visits with strangers of small stature in trees.
He employs sarcastic donkeys and keeps sparrows secure.
Exalts smelly fishermen to positions of honor.
His deep knowledge is grasped by children
And His simple message is scoffed at by sages.
He spits on blind eyes, chases hypocrites OUT of church,
Offends prideful offenders, defends the humble defenseless;
Inclusively exclusive, He is the ultimate Paradox,
An Epiphany Beyond Time “
“What we like to do is take an attribute of God and elevate it above all others.” That is so true, particularly when people talk about the love of God. There are people who take the love of God to mean that God will not punish anyone. The love of God, as Driscoll notes, culminates in the fire of hell–conscious, eternal torment.
I can’t say I’m down with every one of Driscoll’s sermons but boy he is on the money with this one.
I hear bad things ABOUT Driscoll, but every time I hear Driscoll himself, I say, “Amen.”
Maybe some of the negativity is misplaced.
Dave,
Here is a transcript of one of Driscoll’s perverse sermons on the Song of Solomon, wherein he binds the consciences of the attendant wives to perform oral sex on their husbands and to sexually degrade themselves for their husbands’ pleasure. Apparently God commands it.
To anyone sensitive to such matters, please refrain from reading, as the following link contains much offensive adult content.
https://docs.google.com/Doc?docid=dg4fc37g_6fjdd38c8&hl=en
The source of the link is John MacArthur’s “The Rape of Solomon’s Song” article series, part three.
http://www.gty.org/search/resources/rape+of+solomon+s+song
I am unaware of whether Driscoll has repented of this or not.
Chase-
There is nothing perverse about Driscoll’s song of Solomon series. Your mind is what makes it perverse because you consider sex and sexuality only from a worldly point of view. Sex and sexuality were created by God. To educate believers about such matters is incredibly important, especially considering the day we live in. I am sorry you are offended by a frank discussion of sex and sexuality. In the culture Driscoll pastors in, it is not only necessary but needed. I would suggest that you refrain from bashing a brother in the faith any further.
Regards,
Ryan
Ryan,
I fail to see how Driscoll’s interpretation is not a violation of the third commandment. He is perverting God’s holy scripture to vindicate the lusts of his flesh, and even to proclaim that God commands such actions. I also see no reason that Christ’s sheep cannot be educated about sexuality without being subject to lascivious jests, and false statements that God intends for his daughters to strip and behave in a “dirty” manner. Is this what Paul intended when he commanded that “husbands, love your wives, even as Christ also loved the church, and gave himself for it”? Such filth is inexcusable.
Mark Driscoll has never presented the message of sex in any other terms but in marriage. Good grief. I remember when the Song of Solomon used to be avoided by churches because of the same accusations of filth. And this book is in the Bible. I believe however that the subject is this particular video, not Mark Driscoll. And in this video(among other things he has preached) he is correct.
Discussing sex in a frank, honest manner? Fo’ shiggidy that needs to be done. Describing specific sex acts? Really? It’s necessary to discuss oral sex from the pulpit? You don’t think a man and a woman could probably figure that one out on their own? Wow.
Debbie,
I’m sorry, but I don’t agree with the idea that, “Well, if we’re married, and it’s just husband and wife, we can do whatever we want!” Our thoughts our to be kept pure, the marriage bed is to be kept pure, and the love between husband and wife is to reflect the love between Christ and his church. When we are given liberty as Christians, it is never to be used to fulfill our lusts, be they sexual or otherwise, but to honor God and fulfill his commands in a more situational manner; for God claims complete dominance over every aspect of our lives and our thoughts, and there is no occasion in which we have right to turn our minds to lewd things. Sex must be discussed respectfully and modestly; it is a gift of God for the sacred covenant of marriage, not an everyday trifle to be the subject of jokes and vile depictions.
You said, “I remember when the Song of Solomon used to be avoided by churches because of the same accusations of filth.”
Then their interpretation of the book was sinful.
You said, “And this book is in the Bible.”
Yes, and it must be interpreted, in a God-honoring, holy manner, as befits God’s Word. I see no such filth in the Song of Songs, and I regret that you do.
To obviate a foreseen objection, the focus of which being that God does intend marriage to fulfill our bodily lusts (1 Cor. 7:3-5): Marital sex acts as a means for us to curb our lusts, not to wallow in them and perform any vile act that our sinful imagination conjures. By rendering due benevolence to each other, the couple allows “that Satan tempt you not for your incontinency,” that our lusts be temporarily satisfied, to preclude sinful temptations. There is no warrant for drawing a loose view of sex from this passage, but rather that the lustful functions of sex are a welcome benefit and curb to temptation, effected by fulfilling God’s commands to “Be fruitful, and multiply,” which I assume we would all agree is the true purpose of marital sex.
Chase, I just want to encourage you by saying that everyone in blogville does not fall at the feet of Mark Driscoll. His latest stuff demonstrate to me that his former apology about drinking was less than genuine.
His cussing has become less noticeable but his off-color joking is not much better. But, hey, he’s cool and as long as every once in a while he says something orthodox, people will defend him.
I really don’t listen to him and I only read some of his stuff when it becomes a pastoral matter with someone in my church. So, he doesn’t make it to my radar much.
Having said that, I think you should be prepared for some negative attacks for even suggesting: 1) you even know who John MacArthur is; and 2) your not into wine, women, and the Song of Songs.
Frank: My response to BDW on Billy Graham applies here as well. Mark Driscoll isn’t perfect, he was learning. But he is Biblical in his preaching, although I don’t agree with everything, he preaches from scripture and tackles a lot of relevant subjects that are avoided by most ministers but are of great importance, especially to the youth. He also ministers in the roughest part of the city. He should be encouraged and mentored(as some are doing).
Right doctrine doesn’t mean a thing if it isn’t practiced. If it isn’t lived. You can know all the correct doctrine and right way to do things, but if it doesn’t show in the life of the person, it’s not worth the breath it takes to teach it.
I might also add, if we can’t be who we are, warts and all, right doctrine means nothing.
Frank,
Thank you for your encouragement. I am prepared for negative attacks, though it grieves me that they may occur. I disagree with MacArthur in multiple areas, but I was not aware that a low view of him was common. I am certainly glad, though, that he defends the sanctity of God’s Word.
Chase (#32), I’m a little surprised by Debbie’s “anything goes in marriage” view of sex. She usually is very sensitive to abusiveness toward women–but I guess that does not apply across the board.
Some married men derive great sexual pleasure from being rough on women–even beating them. Driscoll plays right into this depravity and maybe does not even realize it.
Debbie chimes right in. It will certainly make her arguments against abuse in other areas less credible.
The whole premise that Driscoll is correcting the sexual dysfunction of society by crude joking and mixing drinking with sex would be laughable if it were not so dangerous.
I’ll even give him the benefit of “meaning well.” I think he is a perfect example of what happens when culture trumps exegesis.
It has been my experience that sex is taboo for discussion more often than not in church/Sunday school/life group settings.
I would contend that this has led to an overabundance of both learning through experience (premarital sex, not justifying it, just saying) and/or complete ignorance for many believers. I think that this is also leading into some of the great problems that never get solved in marriage because men and women come to have certain expectations about sex in marriage yet don’t know enough to talk about them.
Here’s my opinion (if anyone cares),
I think that a frank and open discussion of sex is biblically justified. Proverbs 5 would be very difficult to read from the pulpit. God made us male and female and called that creation “very good.” Sex is one of God’s great gifts.
There is nothing shameful or disgusting about sex. The church needs to adjust it directly and openly, especially in this world.
My opinion is that:
1) Driscoll steps over the boundaries of propriety as he does this. I think his attempt to address sexual issues boldly and biblically is noble, but I think he goes too far.
2) He makes a hermeneutical jump, even if he exegesis can be justified. Just because a particular act (we all know which one) can be biblically justified from the Song (again, I’m assuming his exegesis, not arguing it), that does not meant that the act if mandated or required. Driscoll makes that jump.
3) Just because Driscoll goes too far as he addresses sex does not negate the value in everything else he says.
Dave, I was with you until point 3, and I will only mildly object there.
How much strycnine is permissable in a good glass of water before it becomes poison. Driscoll is a slippery slope. The poison if you will makes the glass he offers too risky.
Most people know that the FDA has an “allowance” for how many rat hairs are acceptable in a good hamburger. My view is “one is three times more than I accept.” Same with Drischoll for me.
He does at least as much harm as good in my opinion.
So true Dave. I have looked at some of his sermons and thought he went way past the line of edifying the church, but I pass this off to a certain immaturity at the time he gave it.
Driscoll is rock-solid in his doctrine and I enjoy him very much. The more I hear from him, the more I see a man who has taken the Word of God seriously and with a passion, that many Pastors do not possess.
Chief, I agree that the issue is one of immaturity or as the Word says, “Zeal without knowledge.”
Ephesians 5:4 definitely reproves Drischoll’s approach, and his exegesis is still quite another matter.
I don’t think that ‘love’ is ‘an attribute’ of God.
According to the Holy Scriptures and according to Christian orthodox teaching, God IS love. Please examine this verse:
” Whoever does not love does not know God, because God is love. ”
1 John 4:8 (New International Version, ©2011)
This is the message we have heard from him and declare to you: God is light; in him there is no darkness at all. I John 1:5
For the LORD your God is a consuming fire Deut 4:24
I am the LORD your God; consecrate yourselves and be holy, because I am holy Leviticus 11:44
God IS a lot of things and He is those things all at once in perfect harmony with no contradiction. No one with any sense will take the love of God and elevate it above his other attributes.
I just don’t have time to follow the blog on Sunday – preaching 3 times and all (and being a world class procrastinator, that means that much of Sunday afternoon is spent working on the evening message.)
I’m always a little nervous when I get to the blog. It seems like Sunday is so often the day the comments go haywire on here.
Back to sermon prep.
You write Sunday night’s on Sunday afternoon?
That’s a terrible waste of the Discipleship Training hour and the music time in the evening service.
I would have rather heard your hastily prepared sermon than the “theology course” that was offered in lieu of a biblical sermon last night at the community Lenten service here in town. Guy didn’t even bother to crack his Bible open once. I don’t even know if he bothered to take one up to the pulpit now that I think about it.
To say “you haven’t spent hours researching the man(Driscoll)” is the greatest understatement of 2011 to date. Obviously you came to the wrong conclusion by NOT DOING YOUR HOMEWORK!!!
Driscoll is a ‘cool pervert’ who once in a while ‘gets it right’. I don’t want an occaisional leader…and he has opened up so much perversion for the next generation that it will take a real revival to undo it. Talk about making ‘methodology your god’…Driscoll is your poster boy!
Casey,
I would actually love to hear what you are referring to in this post. What perversion has he opened up?
He seems to be the Dr Ruth of the Reformed crowd.
I am afraid that Billy Graham has made some comments in his latter years that indicate as BDW has said, that he has moved toward a more inclusive view of God’s grace.
I think that as he grew older, he lost his zeal or something. I don’t know.
But here is a link to an interview he did with Robert Schuller which is disturbing and offensive to those who love the gospel and have respected Billy Graham. But, these are the words of Billy Graham, nonetheless.
Here’s the link.
Ultimately, if you say something that makes Robert Schuller happy (as Graham did) you must have compromised God’s Word somehow.
My point is that the comments Graham made to Schuller in the late 90s were not new. He made similar statements during an interview in 1978 (see quotes I posted earlier) at the terribly old old age of 60.
Ls noted earlier that John Paul II called Graham “the world’s greatest living evangelist.” There’s a reason for that. Back in the late 40s and through the 50s, Graham was clearly an exclusivist who spoke out loudly against what fundamentalists and others considered the twin evils of Catholicism and Communism. In the late 1960s, Graham’s tone softened. He dropped the anti-Catholic rhetoric, began speaking at Catholic universities and adopted an ecumenical-friendly outlook. Changes in his attitude towards Catholics and towards salvation paralleled one another and do seem related.
Graham – like many Protestants – began to warm up to Catholics immediately following the pronouncements of Vatican II – Vatican II was when the Catholic Church dropped exclusivism and embraced inclusivism.
So again, I think Graham probably had more in common with the likes of Bell than Driscoll. During his heyday, Graham was much more likely to preach about the love of God rather than the wrath of God.
You know. in all the drivel about inclusivism there is one interesting thing I’ve noted. No one making arguments for inclusivism backs up said arguments with scriptures. “Billy Grahm believes it” is a pretty pointless arguement since, the last time I checked, Billy Grahm isn’t the source of divine truth–that would be God’s inerrant word.
Of course, the reason no one makes arguments for inclusivism from scripture is that they can’t be made. The Bible is 100% crystal clear–any person who does not consciously trust Christ to save them and repent of their sins will go to hell no matter how sincere they were in following whatever “light” they had. Not one single person is going to get to heaven and say “Huh? All this time I thought I was praying to [insert deity name here] but it was actually Jesus that saved me? Never saw that one coming.” All Christians believe that.
Oh that’s bull. Do you really want to argue that no person has made an argument – based on scripture – for inclusivism?
Obviously, that’s not the case. Someone here might not find that scripture-based argument to be persuasive. That’s fine. But don’t pretend that the argument itself doesn’t exist.
I haven’t presented it because I’m not interested in that debate. My comment was simply a reply to your recent and repeated assertion that Billy G’s inclusivism can be explained away by his supposedly being out in la-la land during the Schuller interview due to illness and meds or whatever.
It is perhaps ironic that you declare that Billy is not the source of divine truth considering that you regularly attempt to convey that you yourself are the source of such divine truth and have an authoritative word about who is and is not saved…
Joe,
Quick question. Would you say that one must have a proper view of hell in order to be saved? Or to ask that another way, is it possible for someone to believe the exact opposite of this:
“The Bible is 100% crystal clear–any person who does not consciously trust Christ to save them and repent of their sins will go to hell no matter how sincere they were in following whatever “light” they had. Not one single person is going to get to heaven and say “Huh? All this time I thought I was praying to [insert deity name here] but it was actually Jesus that saved me? Never saw that one coming”….
and still be saved?
You may not make the argument, but you most certainly beieve it.
Mike,
Is it possible for someone to believe in inclusivism and be saved? Well, I’ll put it like this–someone could be ignorant of the fact that inclusivism is unbiblical (i.e. they’ve never been taught the truth that salvation is only through conscious faith in Christ). But someone who has been shown the truth from scripture and they reject it?? I’ve never met an inclusivist who believed the gospel so if such a person exists I believe it’s in fairy tales. The people who defend inclusivism typically (a) reject the miracles recorded in scripture (i.e. the virgin birth, Christ’s resurrection, manna from heaven, Jonah and the whale) (b) reject the historicity and inerrancy of scripture (c) reject the vicarious blood atonement of Christ on the cross and (d) believe that some things the Bible calls “sin” are actually just human prejudice because people are “born that way” so I would put them outside the bounds of being able to call themselves a Christian.
Thanks, I was trying to understand your “all Christians believe that” statement. I think I do now.
Mike
Sorry. It’s kind of a way of backing into an insult. I took something that certain people who claim to be Christians believe (“God will save sincere people from other faiths through Christ without them realizing that it was Christ who saved them”) and then I say “No Christian believes that” or “All Christians believe…” the opposite of that. Ergo, anyone who believes that isn’t a Christian.
But no, if you thought I was saying someone wasn’t a Christian who didn’t know or had not been taught that conscious faith in Christ is required for salvation, no that’s not what I meant.
Dave
Have you seen this? Do you think there is any chance that maybe he just flipped out momentarily? I, for one, want to believe it. I’d hate to think of him having abandoned the gospel like that because obviously anyone who believes inclusivism doesn’t believe the real gospel.
I don’t know Billy Graham’s heart. But I think that there might be some evidence that his views of truth have shifted over the years.
I don’t really know.
To get back to the OP, I thought this was as clear as it gets about the reality of Hell and the necessity of faith in Christ.
Yes. Thank you. Exactly.
People can make arguments for inclusivism, but it’s all based on speculation.
I would love for people to have a chance to accept Christ after they die. I would love for people to have never heard to get a chance. I would love for people who follow other religions on earth who are never really given an opportunity to hear and follow. A lot of that appeals to our sense of fairness and God’s love.
But my job is not to speculate about those things or to play as if I am God. I cannot wish someone into heaven any more than I can consign some people to hell.
What we are called to do is to be faithful to Jesus and what he said, as entrusted and recorded by his followers. It’s a matter of faithfulness and loyalty, for me, to stick with what Jesus said. I realize that systematic theology is a very tricky business and requires a great deal of judgment.
But I believe it is inappropriate to speculate one way or the other about scenarios that we know nothing about. Heaven, hell, the afterlife etc., all exist in another dimension that is far beyond anything that we could know or comprehend.
Why would we want to get into speculating about such things?
As best I can discern Christ died for the sins of man, and his sacrifice enables us to know God. That benefits of that sacrifice, according to the vast teaching in the NT, is promised to those who believe. And we are commanded to preach the Gospel, to go and make disciples, across all the earth because people need to hear of Christ.
So, why speculate about whether Jesus is going to give second chances to people or grant salvation to others. This is simply not addressed, and I am completely comfortable to worrying about it.
Sorry for the typos.
Oh, by the way, one thing that I will forever be grateful to Billy Graham for is his support of the conservative resurgence in the SBC.
There are many things that are not a matter of pubic record. But the 1985 telegram to the Dallas Convention (I believe the addressee was Grady Wilson) in support of Charles Stanley was very helpful.
Also, Dr. Graham’s support of Dr. Mohler when he was under fire at Southern in the early days was critical.
Dr. Graham has made statements that I would not agree with. So what. I can say that of probably anyone I know – including myself!
I hate to burst your bubble, Louis, but Graham supported a lot of people publicly. It is one reason he has no enemies.
And BDW has it right about his public words that folks can be saved without knowing Christ as far back as late 70’s.
Casey wrote about Driscoll:
“Talk about making ‘methodology your god’…Driscoll is your poster boy!
”
Amen.
Are you all aware that Driscoll is the “cussing pastor” Miller refers to in Blue Like Jazz? Driscoll is a shock jock and now he has a bigger audience and is accepted by the big boys.
Those are old charges. On that issue, at least, he has indicated a willingness to be instructed and change his ways.
Can anyone demonstrate that he has cussed in a sermon in the last couple of years?
It is not really the cussing….it is that he was very popular with the emergents where he got his start but that train was going no where.
Actually, I have a bigger problem with his church coup to takeover-oust other leaders and change the bylaws to make himself dictator.
I think he is a performer and shock jock. It brings them in.
And even performers get some things right.
So what does happen to a person if they die having never heard the gospel, thus never having the opportunity to accept Christ? What if they’re born into a muslim culture and never hear the gospel yet hear Islam?
What happens to a child who grows up in the church yet dies before giving their life to Christ? What age is the cut off? 4? 5? 7? 9? 11?
How did we come to these answers? Scriptures?
This is purely for discussion and because I would like to know what you all think here.
Bill,
Your second paragraph of questions I’m not going to touch, but simply say that I trust in the mercy and goodness of God. The Judge of all the earth will certainly do right.
Your first paragraph of questions needs to be re-framed in my opinion. People don’t fundamentally go to hell for rejecting the gospel. Romans 1 says that the Muslim that you speak of that has never heard Christ is an idolater that knows God but suppresses the truth. His guilt is not in rejecting a gospel he has never heard but in rejecting the God that he does know.
I think Romans 1:18-32 may be one of the most important places to consider in this discussion. Helps us to ask the right questions.
Fine by me, I’m off to go chew of what you’ve given me. Thanks.
I’m following most of the rest of the conversation, but was wanting some clarifications for my own benefit. Thanks.
Bill,
If you are a convinced Arminian, you may not find this post helpful. I will answer the first part of your questions as they regard adults, or people who are capable of understanding the gospel and confessing their faith.
“So what does happen to a person if they die having never heard the gospel, thus never having the opportunity to accept Christ? What if they’re born into a muslim culture and never hear the gospel yet hear Islam?”
They go to Hell. John 3:18 – “He that believeth on him is not condemned: but he that believeth not is condemned already, because he hath not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God.” All who do not have faith in Christ will be punished in Hell for their sins. All people in the world are sinners, and thus deserve Hell (Ro. 3:23; 6:23). God is under no obligation to save anyone at all, but in his great mercy he gave his son to die for the sins of those that will believe in him. If a person does not hear the gospel, then they were not chosen by God to have it delivered to them, and were not chosen to be given faith (Eph. 2:8-10). What we must remember is how a great mercy it is that God saves ANYONE. And for those he chooses not to save, we have no right to question him, and must bow before his perfect judgment (Ro. 9:18-22). As I said, this answer regards adults. For children or the mentally handicapped, see as follows:
“What happens to a child who grows up in the church yet dies before giving their life to Christ? What age is the cut off? 4? 5? 7? 9? 11?”
All children deserve Hell as well, through original sin (Ps. 51:5). When we have children, we must pray for their salvation, and trust in God to answer our prayers, and remember that God will always do what is right. It is possible that there all children go to Heaven, but we do not have sufficient scriptural evidence to make such a claim, so we can only confess that all elect children are saved. God is just, and we must remember that. And when we enter into glory, we will be fully satisfied with his judgments. I hope that helps.
Your question is phrased too simplistically. You do not address whether the child had reached the age of accountablity, or whether we would or could know that.
But, this situation has no direct connection to a statement that says, “these children can get saved after they have died.” If, in fact, and we cannot know, any of these children were convicted by the Holy Spirit of their sin, and offered salvation in Christ, but rejected it, they will not go to heaven.
The issue of a second chance after death, and the issue that we do not know what someone’s relationship was before death are two different matters.
I’ve asked the questions that I wanted answered.
Feel free to elaborate in your answers.
Mike Leake,
I think that is well said and something that I thought interesting that Rob Bell said in one of his recent interviews. He seemed to think it was bizarre that people thought God would send someone to hell for not believing in Jesus. I didn’t hear anyone respond to that comment but thought to myself that God doesn’t send people to hell for not believing in Jesus but He does save them from hell by their faith on Jesus.
If inclusivism is true how can there be a such thing as a damnable heresy?
Good observation, Mark. The only way to affirm inclusivism is to deny scripture.
Are you confusing ‘inclusivism’ with ‘universalism’?
Or is your reference implying that they are one and the same?
They are different things, but they are both wrong. How’s that?
Bill:
I don’t find anything in the NT that would promise such persons eternal life. I don’t know anything about heaven and such based on experience.
I am trying to go by what Jesus and his apostles said. They never said such things. And what they did say indicates that they, like all persons, need Christ for salvation.
So, I would not make them any promises or say anything beyond what Jesus and His apostles said.
The problem with all of this discussion is that all of you will very likely make significant changes as the years pass, as your horizon of knowledge expands, as more information and better comes your way. Some one well said, “I don’t know that I would agree with myself in everything I have said,” or something to that effect.
We all make half-baked statements, assertiions that are based on insufficient evidence, which we will later have to revise. One of the most difficult things to do is to develop a mehodology for learning that allows or permits you to come to some sort of conclusions that you can live with at the present moment which will also permit development later.
Interestingly enough, the Bible does have an approach which allows for growth and development in the light of further knowledge. There is a two-sidedness to the word of God, a synthetical type of approach, that is, a two-sided approach, and it sets up a tension in your mind which enables you and empowers you to be objective when that is demanded by the situation and/or subjective warming, affirming, or loving when that is required, and you can do this without feeling like you have compromised away all of your convictions.
As to the violations of convictions there is a problem of conspiracies, and, like anything else, one must make a study of such things. One factor that seldoms enters into any such discussion is how much an influence a conspiracy can have on any effort at understanding, expecially when the conspiracy is designed to evade detection (like it is so big, you just can’t believe it). But a cool head, objective observation, thinking outside the box, an acquaintancewith the methods of propaganda and misdirection and a willingness to invest the sweat labor of research to check out the sources is a part and parcel of real knowledge and its development. No one is immune to being checked and criticized, when necessary. That is the Protestant approach which even so is much more positive than most people imagine.