Got a lot of laughs that you got pegged on this one Todd.  Some how a post of the past has annoyed Paul Edwards.  Maybe he is buddies with Ernie...

Christian method has gone over to “when in Rome do as the Romans do”?. When I read Acts 17, I never see Paul popping open a bud with the boys at the areopagus do you? It seems today that personal sanctification means whatever you want it to mean. I think some nedd to study the concept of Christian dignity. If I way be so bold to say this, I believe certain christians like to do things like drink beer and get a little buzz. Not all ,but alot. It’s the flesh.... Some like thumbing their noses at tradition. Another thing I’ve noticed, the world doesn’t have to bash us anymore, just let the christians do it for them. And they are doing a great job. No respect, no honor, for established christian leaders? Come on my friends, it’s time to mature. And Todd...quit stirring the pot just to get blog comment.

Thanks Tom,

Only problem with attatching “knowledge” or “correct doctrine” in ANY way to salvation is that there will always be people who aren’t intellectually capable to figure all this stuff out. In other words, where do you draw the line on “salvific” doctrine? I draw, myself, no such line. Do I have a line (or many loines) on correct doctrine? Yes.

I would say that if you misrepresent Jesus, then you “trust” a Jesus who doesn’t exist… but I will also say, boldly, that even someone in a clearly HERETICAL religious tradition may find the real Jesus and trust Him and be saved… and STILL believe things that are wrong. And here’s the beauty part… The Holy Spirit living inside them WILL straighten out those things.

My problem with many of these “ultra-reformed”, to be honest, is that Salvation and being a Christ-follower becomes a pure intellectual excercise. I’ve been down that road, and I’m done with it. I want Jesus to live in my heart, not just my left brain.

Craig,

What would be wrong with Paul having a beer with the guys at the areopagus? The idea that alcohol is inherently evil is a pretty new one in the history of the church, and comes to us by way of society, not the Word. I’ve heard too many twisted interpretations of what happened at Cana for instance, from well-meaning people, that are just ridiculous. But let’s not go down that road too much. I only mean to bring it up to say that those who relatively recently decided that temperance was the only way to live as a Christ-follower were, in a very real sense “thumbing their noses at tradition.”

Jesus certainly thumbed his nose at tradition when he said that the way to love your neighbor was to stop on the road and help a bleeding and dying man, becoming ceremonially unclean in the process…

he thumbed his nose at tradition when he said that our righteousness must be greater then the religious leaders of the day.

He did this a lot, and I’m glad.

I tried to stay away but I couldn’t. Someone said that “Mac is 100% biblical” no he isn’t, no preacher is.  Even in the inspiration of scripture God used the men who would pen those words personalities, experiences and lives.  To say Mac is 100% is to say all who disagree are 80%, 63%… Mac might be faithful to his understanding of scripture but he is not 100% biblical.  I have listened to him for a long time and he uses other resources too. 

Much of this centered around Driscoll be called the cussing pastor.  I too have listened to many of his messages over podcast and found nothing I considered cussing.  The issue is Justification and Sanctification here is a straw argument.  It is Mac saying that even if Driscoll did preach justification he can’t get to sanctification because his methodology prohibited it.  That is nothing more than unfounded conjecture. 

To see sanctification in the life of another one must look at where they came from.  Paul wrote in 1 Corinthians 6

Do you not know that the wicked will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: Neither the sexually immoral nor idolaters nor adulterers nor male prostitutes nor homosexual offenders nor thieves nor the greedy nor drunkards nor slanderers nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God.  And that is what some of you were. But you were washed, you were sanctified, you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and by the Spirit of our God.

Mac has no possible way to gauge where any person in Seattle began their journey.  He has no way to discern what some of them “WERE” The church of Christ is filled with “use to be’s” who forgot what they used to be.  My journey started long before the cross, my justification was at the cross, sealed by the Resurrection of Christ but my sanctification is still happening as I keep in step with the Spirit.  If Mac is right then Driscoll is evil (I don’t think he is right) because he is leading people to the cross but robbing them of the impact of the cross, a renewed life.

I have listened to both ministers. John M.?  What a bore.  Nap time.  He may preach the Word of God, but he is boring.  Driscoll?  He’s just slightly higher that John.  Both of their theologies are great.  Thank God it’s the Holy Spirit that convicts the hearts of men and draws them to repentance.

As far as the style of language that is used from the pulpit, I can only think of Jesus’ words when he compared the righteousness of men to filthy rags.  He was talking about menstrual rags.  It was a very vulgar reference in that day.  I more than half think that Jesus used every available word to get his point across.  To some people, that may have included words that could have been considered vulgar in their day.

I remember when my local church hosted a nationally known pastor as a guest speaker both for our church and we brought him into the schools.  I asked him what he was going to speak on at the school.  His was response was, “I’m going to tell them that they can make plans and work for their goals, or they can be a s**thead.” I was floored, so was my senior pastor, but you know what?  He was right.  Since then I have worked with two pastors who’s language could be considered less than “holy”, but both pastors are committed to God and to reach the lost for Christ.

Craig

YOU SAID “The bible does not give permission to drink”.

#1 Give me one verse (in context) where we are commanded not to drink.

#2 How can you say drinking is wrong when Jesus turned water into wine?

#3 How can you say drinking is wrong when the early church used real wine for communion. We know it was real wine because some were getting drunk on it, and Paul had to command them not to get drunk on it

All the best mate!!!

Thanks my Friend for the good questions. Scripture does not give any type of permission to drink beer in a bar or your home for evangelism purposes, does it? You tell me where that is? In the historical context, there wasn’t much of a choice on what you would drink. No explicit commands not to drink . So lets’ ask this. What alcoholic drinks are acceptable?  Then , how amny beers are too much? Or are you drinking beer because you want to be acceptable to your friend? Or not stand out, because you’re the only one not drinking Paul understood the effects of alcohol. Be not filled with wine, wherein is excess, but be filled with the Spirit. Wine effects your behavior and your mindset, that is a fact. So what is excess? WE must be filled with the Spirit, especially when it comes to people who have an alcohol problem. Do I think alcoholic drinks are GOOD for the body of Christ? Emphatically NO! I just believe some christians are just selling out their sanctification just to appear to be cool to the world.

Craig

You said..."Do I think alcoholic drinks are GOOD for the body of Christ? Emphatically NO! I just believe some christians are just selling out their sanctification just to appear to be cool to the world”.

To be honest mate - really don’t care what you think. What does Jesus drink.

Again can you please answer the questions…

#1 Give me one verse (in context) where we are commanded not to drink.

#2 How can you say drinking is wrong when Jesus turned water into wine?

#3 How can you say drinking is wrong when the early church used real wine for communion. We know it was real wine because some were getting drunk on it, and Paul had to command them not to get drunk on it

Peter and Leonard....it’s all good.  Yeah...I know “straw man” can be used correctly, but most of the time it is not.  Much of the time its used to shut down an argument that might be including a broader context not referenced in a particular discussion/article, etc.  Enough of this silly side-discussion I’ve started.  Back to the subject at hand...carry on.

I love what Josh Harris said about Driscol after he spoke along with John Piper.  I do have a lot of respect for both of these men.

From Adrian Warnocks blog:  http://www.adrian.warnock.info/2006/10/dg06-when-josh-harris-was-glad-he.htm

Josh Harris reports from one of the discussion sessions - his whole post is great, but what stuck out for me was what he had to say about Driscoll:

“Moment I Was Most Glad Not to Be Mark Driscoll: When John Piper gave warm pastoral adjustment and correction to him while he wasn’t there. I thought Driscoll carried himself really well at the conference. God is doing so much through this man. This weekend Mars Hill celebrates it’s ten-year anniversary. Praise God! I love his courage, his passion for God’s Word and church, and his zeal to reach a lost world with the Gospel. And I sure would not have wanted to be the lone representative of the “younger generation” in the midst of the Giants of the Faith assembled at this conference.

But the moment I was most happy not to be Mark Driscoll came after his session, when he had already left for the airport and John Piper commented on his message. Piper began by explaining how he thinks about who he hangs out with, and how he decides who to invite to speak. “I have a litmus paper and it’s called theology,” he said. He referenced a point Driscoll had made in his talk about the importance of holding certain unchanging truths in our left hand that are the non-negotiables of the faith while being willing to contextualize and differ on secondary issues and stylistically (these are “right hand” issues). Driscoll had listed nine issues we need to contend for, including the authority of God’s Word, the sovereignty of God, penal substitutionary atonement, the exclusivity of Christ, and gender roles to name a few. So Piper said, “If he [Driscoll] has those nine things in his left hand, I’m not even going to look at his right hand.” The audience clapped loudly for this.

Then Piper went on to share that he does have some differences with Driscoll on some so-called “right hand” issues of style that he feels free to share with Driscoll. Then he went on to share a specific one, noting that Driscoll would get to see this on video. (This was the moment when I was glad I wasn’t Mark!) As if he were speaking to Mark he said (and I paraphrase): A pastor cannot be clever and show Christ as glorious. Mark Driscoll, you’re clever. You have an amazing ability to turn a phrase and make statements that draw people back week after week. But it’s dangerous. So many pastors will see you and try to imitate you and then try to watch all the movies and TV shows so they can try to be like you. In essence, Piper was bringing correction to certain aspects of Driscoll’s style and delivery, while stating that they agreed on the most important issues of doctrine.

Driscoll has thick skin and will take this like a man. I can only imagine that Piper’s words will sting a little. But the wounds of a friend are worth the sting. And that’s definitely the spirit in which Piper delivered them.

I felt in his statement not just a correction for Driscoll, but for me and every other young preacher learning to proclaim the good news of the glorious Savior. Thank God we get to learn from guys like Piper. Thank God they’re talking to us. I’d rather be berated by John Piper than cooed over by someone else.

We young guns have a lot to learn. We can’t be satisfied with being clever. We have to learn to show Christ as glorious. I see Driscoll doing this more and more, and I know that by God’s grace he will only improve in the days ahead. I’m glad that our generation has older heroes in the faith like John Piper who are willing to not only give us a chance to minister alongside them, but also provide the leadership to help us see what needs to improve.”

gee whiz..I wish Johnny Mac would loosen up..does his “Reformed “doctrine of sanctification address his pugilistic spirit,his judgmentalism,his self-righteous pronouncements on Driscoll????

Wyeth...two things.

You are incorrect about JM attacking MD.

“I am convinced that if Mark Driscoll; he’s a gifted enough communicator, believe me; if Mark Driscoll conducted himself differently and preached the gospel and preached holiness and Godly life and demonstrated humility, he’d have a church at least the size, if not larger than what he has.”

As I already pointed out, it is an attack on MD to say he does not preach the Gospel or Holiness.  It’s simply a statement out of irresponsible ignorance...and probably worthy of repentance.

Second, I DO agree with you about the childish name calling and the like.  Ironically, Driscoll DOES use names and what-not to convey his sarcasm at times...a tactic he gets whacked for by some of the very people on this board that do likewise back to him and JM.  Again...maybe worth some repentance.

Todd,
The problem is that it doesn’t matter if “the process and end result of Sanctification might look a little different to Mark than it does to John.” The process and end result of sanctification IS what it is.  I went for a time to a “seeker-sensitive” type church, and the problem I saw there is similar - it seems to me - to the prblem that JM has with the “Driscoll approach.” Specifically, that people come just as they are (which is great) and come to a palce where they can understand that God accepts them just as theya re (which is absolutely correct), but they are somehow never directed to come to a palce where they understand that God is NOT OK with them STAYING just as they are.
God said very specifically to not be conformed to the world but to be transformed by the renewing of your mind.  That directive leaves precious little room for interpretation.  If you are still, after years of knowing Christ and “being saved”, behaving and speaking thye same way you did when you were lost as the proverbial coin, then that process of transformation (i.e. sanctification) has not happened.  That is not to say that it ISN’T happening, but to say that one’s behavior need not change is theologically incorrect and approaching heretical.

-James M.
Abba’s House @ CBC Hixson TN