Last week, Mark Driscoll "interviewed" TD Jakes during the Elephant Room 2 conference. Of course, one of the topics Driscoll asked Jakes about was Jakes' view of the Trinity. Driscoll has caught some heat for not asking better questions of Jakes, and Jakes has been both lauded as a convert to orthodox trinitarianism by some, and derided as heretical by others for not expressing the doctrine of the Trinity correctly. Most of my own concerns about Jakes' view hinge on his use of the word "manifestations" instead of "persons" to describe the three-in-one nature of the Godhead. I do believe that Jakes has not left his Oneness Pentecostal beliefs, and still holds to a dangerous, unbiblical view of the Trinity. But, today, I'd like to focus a little more on Mark Driscoll, the man who was asking Jakes the questions in the Elephant Room.
Driscoll may be a lot of things, but he's no idiot. He is edgy, controversial, bold at times, popular with a lot of folks, and...educated. The man has a graduate degree in exegetical theology from Western Seminary. In addition to his education, he has written several books. You can call him many things, but ignorant he is not. Which to me, begs the question: why didn't he ask harder questions of Jakes during the Elephant Room 2? A lot of folks (myself included) who read the transcript or saw videos of the interview immediately balked at the language of "manifestations" that Jakes used to define the Trinity and did a double take when Driscoll let him have a pass on that. Why not probe that language further? Why let Jakes get away with a "unity over doctrine" slight-of-hand trick? I believe the reason is, Driscoll's own theology of the Trinity is so underdeveloped that he was not prepared to counter Jakes on that issue. Here are Driscoll's own words from his book Doctrine:
The whole attempt to define the eternal relations in the immanent or ontological Trinity seems misguided. First, God has given us no revelation of the nature of their eternal relations. We should follow the command of the Bible: "The secret things belong to the Lord our God" and refuse to speculate. Second, the Apostles' Creed defines the Son as "begotten, not made." The point was that something begotten was of the same substance as the one who does the begetting. But the term "begotten" could never be defined with any clarity, so it was of little use. Third, begotten unavoidably implies a beginning of the one begotten. That would certainly lend support to the Arian heresy that the Son is a created being and not the Creator God. For these reasons it is best to omit the creedal terms "begotten" and "proceeds" from our definition of Trinity. Our authority is not in creeds but in Scripture.
(Mark Driscoll, Doctrine: What Christians Believe (Wheaton, IL: Crossway Books, 2010), 27-28)
Note that Driscoll rejects some important theology regarding the eternal generation of the Son, and the procession of the Spirit from the Father and the Son. He says these terms go beyond what Scripture teaches (and this, despite nearly 2000 years of theologians saying this is exactly what the Bible teaches). Without going into more detail about these specific mistakes about the Trinity by Driscoll, we can say Driscoll's theology regarding the Trinity is underdeveloped at best, and heretical at worst (but let's give him the benefit of the doubt and just say it's underdeveloped). What are the practical implications of these errors regarding the Trinity? Turn back the clock to the late nineteenth century and W. G. T. Shedd. Shedd, of course, was a Presbyterian professor of historical theology and systematic theology at Andover Seminary and Union Seminary, respectively. He was also a prolific writer and wrote several books that are still in use today. In addition to his books, Shedd also wrote an Introductory Essay to the third volume of Nicene and Post-Nicene Church Fathers. That volume contains Augustine's work On The Trinity, so of course, Shedd talks about the Trinity and the implications of that doctrine. It is during that discussion that Shedd writes:
In some sections of Christendom, it has been contended that the doctrine of the Trinity should be received without any attempt at all to establish its rationality and intrinsic necessity. In this case, the tenets of eternal generation and procession have been regarded as going beyond the Scripture data, and if not positively rejected, have been thought to hinder rather than assist faith in three divine persons and one God. But the history of opinions shows that such sections of the church have not proved to be the strongest defenders of the Scripture statement, nor the most successful in keeping clear of the Sabellian, Arian, or even Socinian departure from it. (emphasis added)
(W. G. T. Shedd, "Introductory Essary" in Nicene and Post-Nicene Church Fathers, vol 3, ed. Philip Schaff. Available online, here.)
Shedd says that those who make the claim that the attempt to define the relationship between the persons of the Trinity is misguided are not the strongest defenders of the Scriptural doctrine of the Trinity, nor have such men been the most successful in keeping clear of Sabellianism. Mark Driscoll is a man who thinks such definitions are misguided. He was interviewing a man who is a Sabellianist (Sabellius being the founder of Modalism which is the ancient form of the modern Oneness view of the Trinity). And guess what? Driscoll did not show himself to be a strong defender of the Scriptural doctrine of the Trinity! Shedd was right.
But I must ask: Should this come as a surprise to anyone? As I said before, I do not think Driscoll is an idiot. He is an educated man. He has made an educated, informed decision to reject the historic, biblical definition of the relationship between the persons of the Trinity. As a result, he is ill-prepared to counter trinitarian errors, such as those espoused by TD Jakes. This is the problem facing modern American evangelicalism: a conscious decision on the part of our leaders to reject historical theology results in leaders of the church who are unable to defend her from false teaching and uneducated Christians in the pews who see nothing wrong with such false teaching. Blind leaders of the blind seems to be the motto of American Evangelicalism.
(My thanks to the blog Against Heresies for bringing the Shedd quote to my attention.)
(My thanks to the blog Against Heresies for bringing the Shedd quote to my attention.)
Yeah, and why is Driscoll attributing the words of the Nicene Creed to the Apostle's Creed? Do you think they even recite these creeds in their gatherings?
ReplyDeleteI went back and checked my citation, and I quoted Driscoll correctly (you can "Look Inside" the book "Doctrine" at Amazon. If you search for "The whole attempt to define the eternal relations" page 27 comes up, and you can read the quote).
ReplyDeleteHe misidentifies the Nicene Creed as the Apostles Creed. Good catch, RevK!
Driscoll comments about TER2 reflect his arrogance:
ReplyDeleteI say that not to brag, but to show how wonderfully complex it is to try and steward so much of God’s grace and so many people. Nothing changes until the leader changes, and I have a lot to learn. While I can and do learn a lot theologically from my tribe, the truth is there are not many evangelistically fruitful churches in my tribe and there are not any churches larger than ours I can learn from. So, I have to go outside of my theological tribe to learn certain things.
(Source: http://pastormark.tv/2012/01/31/10-reflections-on-the-elephant-room)
In short, unless your church is bigger than Mark Driscoll's you have nothing to teach him and there is nothing he can learn from you.
Please know that I am not being hateful when I say that Driscoll has lately become a caricature; it's hard to find any respect for him at all.
And earlier in his blog, he said his beliefs don't change. "I have gone on record with my beliefs. They are unchanging." (same source as Michael). Okay, good if your core beliefs do not waver, but later he says he has "a lot to learn" and that the Holy Spirit is not done with him. Guess what: my beliefs have changed - they've deepened and they have been brought more in line with Scripture. If his beliefs are unchanging (period), I'm more concerned than I was before.
DeleteMichael, what respect I had for MD was out the window a few years ago when he went to preach at the Crystal Cathedral; instead of having another gifted man of God fill the pulpit and preach the Word, he bragged about how great technology is that it could play a re-run of him from the previous year.
A recent tweet of his said he wished that his fellow reformed pastors...something or other. I'm sorry, but his "fellow" what? Like you, not meaning to be hateful in the least, but let's face it: his membership on the Puritan Board would probably be rejected since he does not subscribe to any historic Reformed confession nor hold membership in a recognized Reformed church. His beliefs would need to change to join Puritan Board even! I too have transitioned in understanding and affiliation, but a) I'm not Reformed because it's hip to be Reformed and b) I'm not a pastor of a church I planted who is a very public figure.
Wow. With a statement like that (in print no less), could Driscoll be ordained by any Reformed body?
ReplyDeleteMay this all bring our Father in heaven Glory? Lord have mercy on us? We need a the Church to rise to the occasion. May we pray for Mark and see the Lord move. I am deeply grieved right now.
ReplyDeleteSeth
ReplyDeleteGreat article! Insightful and charitable
Michael: Some sad comments there from Mark Driscoll.
ReplyDeleteTim: No, I do not believe he could be ordained in any Reformed body that stuck to its confessions.
Brizzle: Yes, praying for Mark Driscoll is one of the best things we can all do for him.
Dean: Thank you, sir, for the kind words.
I attended Mars Hill for 6 years and though I never had a discussion with Mark Driscoll I do think it is fair to say that I have a good grasp of what he believes and what his hermeneutic is. I think the latter is part of the problem. In an effort to be "faithful" or "literal" to the Bible Mark tends to have a real issue with endorsing theological conclusions that are not overtly or expressly taught in scripture. I find this same hermneutic at work when he discusses his view of baptism and in his book Real Marriage. In the book on marriage he especially shows this when he deals with some more scandalous questions about sex within marriage and says that certain things cannot be labeled sin when there is no direct command on the topic. Douglas Wilson has a good ananlysis of that hermeneutic in an article he wrote at his blog at http://www.dougwils.com/index.php/Sex-and-Culture/dinner-for-two-at-angelos.html
ReplyDeleteWhen a Christian leader's pride and smutty speech are long established, his well-earned academic credentials cannot rescue his reputation.
ReplyDeleteIf there's some good things that can come out of ER2, this ought to be on the list - greater awareness of Driscoll's own problems with the eternal Sonship of the Son and with creedal terms to describe the relationships in the Trinity (begotten, proceeds).
ReplyDeleteCertainly it was picked up on at the time Doctrine was released, but it was ignored/not noticed by many. Martin Downes at Against Heresies made some great blog posts about the problems (and showing that eternal generation is in the Bible), but other than that, all I saw on the issue was a few murmurs (though I may have missed the controversy). That it wasn't a bigger thing was odd, as I saw lots of reviews of Doctrine and it jumps out the page as really iffy, but the reviews went with the less iffy limited/unlimited atonement thing and made that the book's controversial thing.
Thanks for bringing this issue to people's attention Seth.
So happy for the homework done on your part, Seth. I happen to know children who understand the Trinity better than Mark Driscoll does. I found your amazing article on facebook, posted by Phil Johnson.
ReplyDeleteI'm wondering how many have read Driscoll's chapter on Trinity from Doctrine (from which the above quote is taken). Mainly because the quote seems to be taken out of context. And the conclusions drawn about Driscoll from this quote are inconsistent with much of the rest of the chapter that Driscoll wrote
ReplyDeleteDon't get me wrong, I'm no defender of Driscoll and am certainly not an expert on his views, but I have read Doctrine and while I can attest that the above quote is very sloppy on Driscoll's part, it is not in the least his conclusive stance on the Trinity.
On the contrary, Driscoll's quote is explaining that he chooses not to use certain terminology ("begotten") in part because some use it to support false doctrine. Furthermore, the immediate context of the quote is Driscoll reviewing the history of the doctrine of the Trinity and commenting specifically on a debate that arose from the wordage of the Nicene Creed. The debate was whether the Holy Spirit "proceeds from the Father" (concluded by the First Council of Constantinonple) or that Holy Spirit "proceeds from the Father and the Son" (revised by the the Third Concil of Toledo). Apparently the endorsement of that revision led to the 1054 split between the Eastern Orthodox and Western Roman churches.
In light of that context, I think Driscoll's quote and his stance to embrace Scripture over creeds in cases where Scripture may not clearly define one way versus another, is much more understandable.
And if context is key, immediately following the quote used in the above post, Driscoll states: "We stand with the universal Trinitarian definition of the church to confess that God is one God, eternally existing in three persons, Father, Son, and the Holy SPrit. Each of the three shares fully the one divine essence. God is not simply unity, but eternally exists in rich, loving fellowship as the one and only God."
And THAT quote is MUCH more consistent with the rest of Driscoll's chapter on the Trinity.
Again, I'm not trying to defend Driscoll are speak as an expert on him or his positions, as I don't know enough about him to do so. But I have read the book and feel the need to speak against what appears to be a quote out of context. Especially since some pretty harsh conclusions are drawn from that single quote, conclusions which are inconsistent with an entire chapter defining, describing, and defending the Trinity.
Misquote on MY part (whoops!): Driscoll DOES say "Holy Spirit" NOT "Holy SPrit" - now that would be something to take a stand against!
DeleteI'm wondering how many have read Driscoll's chapter on Trinity from Doctrine (from which the above quote is taken). Mainly because the quote seems to be taken out of context. And the conclusions drawn about Driscoll from this quote are inconsistent with much of the rest of the chapter that Driscoll wrote
ReplyDeleteDon't get me wrong, I'm no defender of Driscoll and am certainly not an expert on his views, but I have read Doctrine and while I can attest that the above quote is very sloppy on Driscoll's part, it is not in the least his conclusive stance on the Trinity.
On the contrary, Driscoll's quote is explaining that he chooses not to use certain terminology ("begotten") in part because some use it to support false doctrine. Furthermore, the immediate context of the quote is Driscoll reviewing the history of the doctrine of the Trinity and commenting specifically on a debate that arose from the wordage of the Nicene Creed. The debate was whether the Holy Spirit "proceeds from the Father" (concluded by the First Council of Constantinonple) or that Holy Spirit "proceeds from the Father and the Son" (revised by the the Third Concil of Toledo). Apparently the endorsement of that revision led to the 1054 split between the Eastern Orthodox and Western Roman churches.
In light of that context, I think Driscoll's quote and his stance to embrace Scripture over creeds in cases where Scripture may not clearly define one way versus another, is much more understandable.
And if context is key, immediately following the quote used in the above post, Driscoll states: "We stand with the universal Trinitarian definition of the church to confess that God is one God, eternally existing in three persons, Father, Son, and the Holy Spirit. Each of the three shares fully the one divine essence. God is not simply unity, but eternally exists in rich, loving fellowship as the one and only God."
And THAT quote is MUCH more consistent with the rest of Driscoll's chapter on the Trinity.
Again, I'm not trying to defend Driscoll are speak as an expert on him or his positions, as I don't know enough about him to do so. But I have read the book and feel the need to speak against what appears to be a quote out of context. Especially since some pretty harsh conclusions are drawn from that single quote, conclusions which are inconsistent with an entire chapter defining, describing, and defending the Trinity.
*Ignore my previous comment. It appears the web is playing tricks on me? I commented, made a reply to my comment, and then my comment disappeared. So here it is again, with the typo corrected. :)
Whoa, that came from Gerry Breshears, who has a PhD in Systematics from Fuller?
ReplyDeleteFor my part I'm willing to chalk up Driscoll's part in that paragraph to an undeveloped theology proper. But a man with a PhD in Systematic Theology?
Heaven forbid, but they write, "God has given us no revelation of the nature of their eternal relations."
Yet in John 8:42 Jesus expressly states:
"If God were your Father, you would love Me, for I proceeded forth and have come from God, for I have not even come on My own initiative, but He sent Me.”
Jesus attaches the Father’s sending of the Son to His own eternal nature with God. Not only is it the Father who sends the Son, but it is not the Son who sends the Father. This differentiation is explicitly connected to their eternal nature with each other since Jesus speaks of both “proceeding forth” and “coming from” God.
These 3 (proceeding, coming, and sending) are differentiated in Jesus’ mind and ought to be in ours if we would be His worshipers. The “proceeding forth” must be eternal. If it were temporal then Jesus is at most a created being and not one who shares in the eternal essence of the Father. His “proceeding forth” occurs only at the time of the sending. Therefore, his differentiation with the Father happened in time and therefore does not express His eternal relationship to the Father.
Worse yet, by denying the "proceeding forth" is eternal means by default that the Father-Son distinction is only temporal, and is not a representation of the eternal relationship within the God-head. They are actually something other than sending Father and proceeding Son.
Instead, the “sending of the Son” is taught by Jesus to be intimately related to two things: His “proceeding forth” (which must be eternal) and His “coming from God.” Therefore we are taught that the sending of the Son itself reflects the eternal relationship of Jesus and the Father. The “sending” is a true picture of God and itself revelatory.
This means the Bible explodes with a revelation of the nature of God’s eternal relations. Every time Jesus mentions “send” or sent” in connection with the Father is a revelation of their eternal relationship, and this type of "sending" language occurs 100s of times in the gospels. To claim then that “God has given us no revelation of the nature of their eternal relations” is more than undeveloped for a man who has studied.
It is Arian.
I think you're reading too much into John 8:42. "Proceeded" is in the aorist tense, and could refer to a past action or a present action; obviously the aorist by itself is inconclusive.
DeleteWhat is *not* apparent--or at the very least, not obvious--in this verse is an "eternal procession" from the Father. We would be equally justified in construing the "procession" as corresponding logically to the "sending": i.e., The Father sent him, and so he obediently "proceeded" from heavenly glory to earthly humility.
Bottom line: this verse cannot be relied on to establish a doctrine of "eternal procession" or "eternal generation."
You argue that it /must/ be eternal or else Jesus is merely a created being. Yet there's no reason to assume that every statement Jesus makes about his person or mission is necessarily referring to his eternal deity. This could be a reference to his incarnation: his humanity was created at a point in time, implanted in Mary's womb, then growing into an adult man. So Jesus could be making a reference to his incarnation here, which of course /began/ at a point in time.
You're also mistaken to suggest that an "eternal progression" is necessary for undergirding a permanent Father-Son relationship. That simply isn't the case: if my dad sends me on an errand, that errand begins at a point in time--but does that logically mean that before that errand he wasn't my dad?? Of course not! The Bible teaches as a /brute fact/ that the Father and the Son have an eternal Father-Son relationship *regardless* of whether we're viewing the Son's eternality or his temporal incarnation, *regardless* of whether we're viewing his heavenly glory or his earthly humiliation.
Since Jesus' mission to Earth began at a point in time, then the "proceeding" referred to in this verse could easily be a reference to the commencement of that mission--without denying an eternal Father-Son relationship.
Ted -
ReplyDeleteBoom! Thank you, friend. I realize that some people want to be irenic, but if we're required to read the rest of Driscoll's comments on the Trinity to "interpret" his obvious ignorance of numerous actual texts, then there really is no point in expecting him to be accurate with the any of it. At best, his normally stellar communication skills took a glaring moment off when he wrote the "no revelation" assertion, or at worst, he only appears astute in theology but hasn't studied the Scriptures enough to defend it. I wonder how many people read "Doctrine" and concluded from Driscoll's claim that since the Bible has very little to say about trinitarian relationships, we shouldn't be making a big deal about T.D. Jakes. Ideas have consequences...
Ted, I appreciate your comment. It is very insightful and does reveal the dilemma of interpreting and misinterpreting John 8:42 and similar verses. And while it does SEEM like Driscoll misses that point, that is where CONTEXT comes in. Because if you jump ONE paragraph before the one quoted, you would read:
ReplyDelete"The Bible says the Father sent the Spirit to conceive Jesus in the womb of Mary [Luke 1:31-35; Matt 1:20]. Jesus is therefore referred to as the 'only begotten [monogenes] Son' [John 1:14, 18; 3:16, 18; Acts 13:33; Heb 1:5; 5:5; I John 4:9; 5:1. The KJV uses 'begotten']. Theologians extended this begetting in history back into the eternal Trinity and posited that the Son is eternally begotten of or generated by The Father. Similarly, they went from Jesus' historical promise to his disciples, 'I will send to you from the Father, the Spirit of truth, who proceeds from the Father' [John 15:26], to posit that the Spirit eternally proceeds from the Father."
Sounds very similar to what you were saying, no? And although Driscoll is stating that as what "theologians" believe--based on interpretations of Scripture--he does so in a way that supports it and he does not refute that.
Jerry, I do understand what you are saying, but on the contrary: trying to interpret someone's stance on a doctrine such as the Trinity by reading one paragraph (that was very much contextual) is apt to lead you astray--as I think the demonstration above may show.
If this is an issue of critiquing Driscoll’s view of the Trinity, it is only fair to take a thorough (or more thorough than one paragraph, anyway) look at his view.
And to further clarify, as one who HAS read Doctrine, I did not in the slightest conclude that the Bible has little to say about Trinitarian relationships or that T.D. Jakes' (or anyone else's) error is not a big deal. I truly did take away the contrary – hence why I am pointing out that maybe one paragraph (again, a sloppy one, for which Driscoll should have no excuse) is not an accurate representation of what he has to say on the issue.
Again, this is not to say what or what not Driscoll believes in his heart or what he takes a stand for when he has the opportunity.
- Sarah
Ted, I appreciate your comment. It is very insightful and does reveal the dilemma of interpreting and misinterpreting John 8:42 and similar verses. And it does SEEM like Driscoll misses that, at least in the portion quoted above. But that is where CONTEXT is important. The passage in Doctrine DIRECTLY before the one quoted, shares something very similar to what you just did:
ReplyDelete"The Bible says the Father sent the Spirit to conceive Jesus in the womb of Mary [Luke 1:31-35; Matt 1:20]. Jesus is therefore referred to as the 'only begotten [monogenes] Son' [John 1:14, 18; 3:16, 18; Acts 13:33; Heb 1:5; 5:5; I John 4:9; 5:1. The KJV uses 'begotten']. Theologians extended this begetting in history back into the eternal Trinity and posited that the Son is eternally begotten of or generated by the Father. Similarly, they went from Jesus' historical promise to his disciples, 'I will send to you from the Fahter, the Spirit of truth, who proceeds from the Father' [John 15:26] to posit that the Spirit eternally proceeds from the Father."
Although Driscoll refers to it as the "theologians" interpretation--based on Scripture--he does so in a way that shows support and he does not appear to refute that, except to caution (in the controversial quote) that we maintain Scripture as our authority so we are not swayed by false interpretations via terminology or even creeds. Yes, he could've been stronger to the initial point. Yes, his controversial quote is sloppy and arguably without excuse. But it cannot be said that he doesn't lend credit to there being an eternal trinitarian relationship. His claim is that it is hard to define.
Jerry, I do understand what you are saying, but on the contrary: trying to interpret someone's stance on a doctrine such as the Trinity by reading one paragraph (that was very much contextual) is apt to lead you astray--as may be the case, here. If this is an issue of critiquing Driscoll’s view of the Trinity, it is only fair to take a thorough (or more thorough than one paragraph, anyway) look at his view.
Also, as one who HAS read Doctrine, I did not in the slightest conclude that the Bible has little to say about Trinitarian relationships or that T.D. Jakes' (or anyone else's) error is not a big deal. I truly did take away the contrary – hence why I am pointing out that maybe one paragraph (again, a sloppy one, for which he should have no excuse) is not the accurate representation of what he has to say on the issue.
Again, I am not trying to say what or what not Driscoll believes in his heart or what he does or does not stand up for. That may be a different issue entirely. And I am not claiming to stand behind him.
My main concern is that an entire blog post critiquing an author is based on one quote that very well may be out of context. If this is truly an issue of concern, I do want to know more and I would appreciate seeing further explanation and evidence as to how/why Driscoll's doctrine of the trinity is skewed, especially in light of T.D. Jakes.
-Sarah
Hi Sarah,
DeleteThank you for your comments. I agree that context is important, but I would note a couple of points:
First, I quoted a whole paragraph from Driscoll's "Doctrine". I didn't quote a sentence or a phrase. A paragraph ought to reflect a whole thought, so it's hard to say that quoting a whole paragraph is quoting someone out of context. But...
Second, your citation of the earlier paragraph seems to support my conclusions. Driscoll, in the section you quote says that theologians posited the eternal generation of the Son and the procession of the Spirit from the Father and the Son; however, he goes on to point out in the paragraph I quoted (the paragraph which immediately follows the one you cited), that "The whole attempt to define the eternal relations in the immanent or ontological Trinity seems misguided."
This is why I said Driscoll has made an educated, informed decision to reject the historic, biblical definition of the relationship between the persons of the Trinity. He is aware of that language--he is not ignorant--but he chooses to reject it.
You're simply wrong, Seth. Driscoll has /not/ "reject[ed] the historic, biblical definition of the relationship between the persons of the Trinity."
DeleteFirst of all, as important as the creeds are--they're not Scripture; they're not infallible. Any sound theologian would agree with me there. Secondly, Driscoll argues that the language of the creeds themselves is problematic--but /doesn't/ deny any /biblical/ statement.
So, again, you're simply wrong.
Thank you, Sarah, for wanting to be careful. But you see, this has been my growing concern all along. Driscoll's "sloppy [comment] for which he should have no excuse" is becoming very typical of mainstream, well-known evangelical teachers. Sermons are laden with bold declarations void of biblical support, theologies discussed with little or no serious study of pertinent passages, books cleverly penned and swiftly marketed though often poorly researched or not checked for contradictions and theological errors. I don't think I'm overstating the case when I say that the church is now far more prone to excuse these problems than hold teachers accountable, especially when their appeal is far-reaching. Instead of lovingly, but firmly reproving a noted church leader for ongoing "sloppiness" of life and doctrine, we're more like doting grandparents, noticing signs of foolishness but treating it as mere childishness. Driscoll's "one paragraph" is not where his sloppiness began.
ReplyDeleteThat did his homework on this article and hit the nail on the head. Driscoll is not the best person to defend the doctrine of the Trinity no matter what his buddies will say. Driscoll does seems to cover his fuzzy trinitarian theology (with regard to eternal generation) with a smoke screan claiming that the language "begotten" is the "secrete things." Thanks for the article.
ReplyDeleteHere's the problem, I believe. 99% of the time, in somes sense all you need in your Christian walk is to believe that there are 3 Persons in 1 God. You don't "need" to understand how that all works out or makes sense (in fact, the best Trinitarians will tell you that it will always be a mystery). But Driscoll is NOT just saying "Hey, we believe the ancient rites but let's just admit they are mysteries." No, he's saying the ancient language of the church is really not critical. But, 1% (or more) of the time it is crticial. Like when Sabellius rises up, or Arius rises up. Driscoll perhaps understands the Trinity enough relative to the 1st and 2nd century church, but he would have floundered in the 3rd and 4th century. What he misses is that the church developed these somewhat complex ideas (based on Scripture) because the heresies became more nuanced/complex. So here comes Jakes - and Driscoll is so unarmed, he doesn't even recognize the heresy really - if God is just manifestations, than we do not have a mediator which means our salvation is impossible, but I'll spare the details for now. The church didn't make up technical terms for the fun of it (well... sometimes they did). Mostly, they came up with the terms not so much to "define" God, but to put up fences against heresy. All that hard work... and Driscoll comes and says "Nah... my only creed is the Scripture". And of course, we know that you need a creed to defend even that position.
ReplyDeleteAthanasius, Augustine, Basil, etc.... please come back! Calvin... take me away!
Roy: It is simply a fallacy to argue that one must accept entirely the wording of the creeds in order to refute modalism. I have the same problem with the Nicene terminology as Driscoll does, yet I believe very strongly in the Trinity and would have no hesitation pouncing on Jakes' own fishy terminology.
DeleteI've always described myself as a "freak for precision"--and in fact the Nicenes weren't as biblically precise as they should've been.
In other words, one simply doesn't need the wording of the Nicene Creed in order to refute modalism. Reference to Scripture itself is enough.
DeleteTitus 1:9 is quoted at the top of this article.
ReplyDelete"Holding fast the faithful word as he has been taught, that he may be able, by sound doctrine, both to exhort and convict those who contradict."
The writer of this article neither exhorted nor convicted Mark Driscoll. He only spat out of his mouth in a public forum which Mark Driscoll is not a part. He is causing division among brothers in the Lord. Is he not? I see people here clearly despising Pastor Mark, a man whom loves Jesus and of whom the Holy Spirit dwells. Mark Driscoll is not even among the caliber of people that Titus 1:9 is written about.
"For there are many who are insubordinate, empty talkers and deceivers, especially those of the circumcision party. They must be silenced, since they are upsetting whole families by teaching for shameful gain what they ought not to teach. One of the Cretans, a prophet of their own, said, “Cretans are always liars, evil beasts, lazy gluttons."
The differences between what Paul wrote in Titus and what was written here... Paul rebuked them personally, for their good, and with the goal of unity in mind. "Therefore rebuke them sharply, that they may be sound in the faith". Titus 1:13b
I will say a prayer for Mark and everyone in this sad forum.
Hi Joseph,
DeleteThanks for your comment. I see some folks have already replied to what you wrote, but since I am the author of this article, I feel I ought to reply as well.
First, I quote Driscoll's book Doctrine in my article. That book is public. Since Driscoll wrote what he wrote in a public setting, I am under no obligation to contact him privately. Public teaching may be countered and discussed publicly. My blog is not private, and anyone can read what I've written (even Mark Driscoll himself!).
Second, my blog is public. So is your comment. You are welcome to comment on what I write, and you are welcome to disagree with me. But, as has been pointed out already, to call me out publicly for calling out Driscoll publicly smacks of hypocrisy.
Third, as to Titus 1:9, Paul is giving direction to elders (Titus 1:5-16). I am an elder. This blog discusses issues of relevance to elders. That's why Titus 1:9 is at the top of this blog.
Fourth, Paul rebuked men publicly at times (Alexander in 2 Tim 3:14-15; Peter in Galatians 2:11-21, especially verse 14).
Fifth, I never called into question Mark Driscoll's salvation. I do call into question his choice to not defend the historic, creedal, biblical definition of the Trinity. I believe he is not able to defend the Trinity against trinitarian errors (such as those of TD Jakes) because of his views. If Driscoll were to read this, I would hope he would see his weakness and improve and be able to defend biblical trinitarianism in the future.
Sixth, I appreciate your goal of unity. I, too, seek unity among believers. But I am unwilling to sacrifice truth in order to achieve unity.
Seventh, I thank you for your prayers for me. Those are always appreciated.
Joseph - not sure if this hits on your point per se, but certainly the men near Mark should approach and potentially rebuke him graciously. However, Driscoll is a widely-heard public speaker. He doesn't just preach from his pulpit but he writes books, gives interviews, and is clearly a public figure by HIS choice. You may have a point regarding whether a blog is the "right" forum, but I would be concerned if a Pastor, who doesn't have access to Driscoll, does not warn his sheep from his pulpit about false teaching that is "out there" in the public square.
ReplyDeleteIn fact, by quoting some of the verses you did above, and in rebuking the blog-writer but not to his face(who also is a public figure by his choice), you have done the same exact thing.
When ever anyone contends for cussing or sexual /talk reference (sex sales it's popular) I am automatically on guard and lose trust and respect especially to entrust myself to their interpretation of Gods word. I have serious doubts of Mr. Driscoll's qualifications to be a leader according to 1 timothy.
ReplyDeleteHere's the problem:
ReplyDelete"Here's the problem, I believe. 99% of the time, in somes sense all you need in your Christian walk is to believe that there are 3 Persons in 1 God. You don't "need" to understand how that all works out or makes sense (in fact, the best Trinitarians will tell you that it will always be a mystery)."
Why must understanding the trinity be a mystery and where did that concept ever come from!?? No where in the Bible can I find a verse that says understanding the Trinity is a mystery? Even if you did want to go ahead and say it is a mystery, Jesus Himself told us that it has been given to Christians to know the mysteries of the kingdom of heaven!! I am certainly NO theologian, so it is difficult for me to read through books and articles on the Trinity, but I want to know who God is so I have been spending much time in prayer over the Word of God, and books on the Trinity, in asking the Holy Spirit to teach me and guide me into the truth of who God is. I can't even begin to describe the length and height and depth of the richness of what I have been learning of the Father, the Son, and the Spirit. It absolutely makes sense to me and I completely believe that the Son is eternally begotten of the Father! How can you claim Jesus is of the same essence as God the Father, unless your faith stands firm in the knowledge that He is eternally begotten of Him, being of the same essence of God the Father, truly very God of very God! Man, it's so exciting!!! Anyways, I think the initial problem is saying the Trinity is a mystery! If that's true, why even study something you'll never understand? It worries me, because I who am 26 years old can testify that it is soooo understandable, certainly not through my own efforts (we walk by faith!), but through the guidance of God Himself, God the Spirit! I'm worried that my generation will pass up this doctrine, which should be at the very center of our life - to understand who God truly is.
Heather, I'm glad it's essentially not a mystery to you. By mystery, I do not mean we cannot understand the essence of the matter. Or that we can't believe it. I mean to say that, across the ages, most Christian theologians have argued that in spite of some mystery to the matter, the Bible teaches the Trinity. When YHWH said to Moses "I am that I am"... did Moses feel like "Oh, now I know God's name... I have him figured out now"? No, he knew MORE about God, and that actually made God all the more awesome and "mysterious". Mystery is not a dirty word - it just means God is transcendent and he is not like us. We hardly know ourselves - how can we not see mystery in who God is. And so, when theologians want to dig deeper, they do so knowing they can't figure out all the details. That's why the church fathers, when push came to shove, would affirm something very basic like "The Father is God, the Son is God, the HS is God. The Father is not the Son. The Son is the HS. The HS is not the Father."
DeleteHi Roy,
DeleteJust re-read my comment, I hope it didn't come across that I was criticizing you? I was actually agreeing with you that most Trinitarians say it will always be a mystery, and I was basing my comment off of that fact, not your comment - sorry! The thing I was trying to say, though, was that I've heard many pastors/teachers/theologians specifically say the doctrine of the Trinity is a mystery we'll never understand, but they will never say that of any other doctrine in the Bible. Why? We just embrace all the other doctrines in faith, which is exactly what He wants us to do - to walk by faith not by sight, so why not embrace the doctrine of the Trinity in faith? Why declare it's such a mystery we will never understand? Don't teachers realize when they say that, they're turning off the church from studying the Trinity? I use to think, "If these pastors and teachers say they can't understand the Trinity, how will I EVER hope to understand the Trinity, and why should I even bother?" Not only me, but I know of many young people that think the same thing, and if we thought that, there MUST be many, if not multitudes, of believers thinking the same thing! You said, "By mystery, I do not mean we cannot understand the essence of the matter. Or that we can't believe it." see! It's so easy to clarify, so why don't teachers do that!? They just leave it as being a "mystery," and what I'm trying to bring to the light is that I think this is not only leaving room for doubt in the hearts of listeners, but I think it's also drastically misleading many people (especially young people) of understanding the Trinity. I've heard someone say one thing Satan could never do is begat an only-begotten son. Don't you think he hates the doctrine of the Trinity more than anything else and would want to destroy our understanding of it? Wouldn't he want to destroy our understanding that the Father has eternally begotten His Son? I dunno, to me, by saying the Trinity is a mystery is just one more brick wall Satan is putting up to block our understanding of the Trinity. Just my thoughts.
Entendo como importantÃssimo o Estudo do Tema Doutrina da Trindade; e pulsa de maneira intensa no meu coração (cognição, mente) o desejo de vê-la estudada e discutida de maneira madura e séria ─ quer defendida ou contestada ─, e nessa minha obstinada visão e intenção; postei um Blog com o tÃtulo THE DOUTRINE OF THE TRINITY IS HERESY, endereço www.heresiadatriunidade.blogspot.com , para o qual peço toda atenção, como estou tendo para o seu Blog. E termino dizendo que o Blog em apreço é um Estudo de certa extensão textual de pesquisa séria: sujeita à também séria contestação de quem se dispuser a fazer.
ReplyDeleteAtenciosamente JORGE VIDAL - BRASIL
Mr. Stark, thanks for your article. I preface the following comments with an affirmation of the Trinity: I believe--staunchly--in ONE God revealed in THREE PERSONS (not mere "manifestations"). That said, I take exception to your characterization of the excerpt from Driscoll's book.
ReplyDeleteAs a staunch Trinitarian--I at least partially agree with Driscoll. Those terms really *do* sound as if they're implying a beginning-in-time for the Son and the Spirit. As such, those terms really *do* go beyond the terminology used by Scripture to describe the Godhead. "Begotten" is scriptural, yet misused by the drafters of the Nicean Creed: "begotten" DOES sound like, or related to, "made," despite the denial of the Creed. Since the denial sounds like an evasion, they would have done better to apply "begotten" to Jesus' humanity, which *was* made (as per Heb. 10:5).
As for "generated" and "proceeds," when you read them in modern English they really do sound less-than-biblical (though I fully grant I don't know as much about the original language of the Creed as I should). When I think in other contexts of something having been "generated"--well, naturally, that does sound like the object in question had a beginning-in-time, does it not?
"Proceeds" isn't quite as strong in a modern-English context, but nonetheless it sort of implies a point-of-origin for the Holy Spirit, hence taking away from His eternality. Sure, biblically the Spirit was SENT by the Father and the Son at Pentecost--but that "sending" was in terms of the Spirit's particular mission and function in the Church, which mission/function commenced at that time. But there's simply no biblical reason to assert that the Spirit "eternally proceeds" from the Father and the Son.
Shedd was simply off-base in his reasoning. I side with Driscoll re. the creedal language precisely *because* I wish to defend the Trinity--NOT because I have any inclination toward Sabellianism, Arianism, or even Socinianism. I was already having trouble with the terminology of Nicea long before I saw anything from Driscoll.
I myself would've challenged T.D. Jakes on his slippery language, especially the term "manifestation"--but Driscoll may have used kid gloves for another reason. It could've been as simple as the psychological hesitancy to verbally "attack" a man sitting right across from him.
In short: you're reading way too much into Driscoll's characterization of the creeds.