Like many others have done, Pastor Driscoll skims along the surface of the Scripture's teaching, missing its depth, and projects his own issues onto the face of God. St. Gregory the Theologian, St. Gregory of Nyssa, and St. Basil the Great (the Greek Cappadocian Fathers) and many other of the earliest Fathers of the Church I think would be rolling over in their graves! This is at best, gross distortion, and at worst, utter blasphemy. I prefer the Apostle John, who states quite clearly in his first epistle "God is love." Until we understand that God's "wrath" and "hate" in the Scripture are anthropomorphic terms which when applied to the Divine must lose many of their more literal human (and inherently sinful) meanings if we are to properly understand them, we seriously risk devolving into a very human and pagan understanding of the Godhead. This pagan notion is what we are really proclaiming if we see them as "attributes" of God *in opposition* to His "love," rather than an actual outworking of God's love in particular circumstances.

I find myself sitting first under the profound truth of this teaching. Until we fully grasp (and will we ever?!?!) our own utter depravity how can we understand the absolute incommunicable profound reality of the cup that Jesus drank for us and others?

This teaching unsettles us to our very core...as well it should. God forgive us where we do not proclaim the *entire truth* of the Gospel of Jesus our Savior and Lord, not in pride and arrogance but in repentance and humility....

Thank you, Karen, for your articulate and, in my opinion, your very insightful comments regarding a key problem with many in the conservative, Evangelical movement.

Guess OutofUr needs a boost to the number of hits it gets so it goes back to the good ole standby.

(and deletes my comment)

Who cares what Driscoll thinks? He's got a perspective but not someone I go to for honest biblical truth.

Oh Robert...why the cynicism? Why the cut? I don't recall deleting your comments. All voices are welcomed here if they play nice.

Url

"Guess OutofUr needs a boost to the number of hits it gets so it goes back to the good ole standby."

My thoughts exactly. In response to the original question on this post, what we NEED are less blogs that try to stir up controversy.

"This is at best, gross distortion, and at worst, utter blasphemy."

And just for the record, this statement is ridiculous.

I don't know if the church needs more "fire and brimstone" preaching. However, the full counsel of God is necessary along with the awareness that both the cross and wrath of God are foolishness and offense to an unbelieving world.

It ought not surprise us that we tend to shy away from communicating that which can evoke scorn nor ought it surprise us that this type of communication is criticized when it happens.

While is it convenient to "prefer" the Apostle John who states clearly that "God is Love" (as a prior comment mentioned) we cannot forget the same Apostle John who also states clearly "Whoever believes in the Son has eternal life, but whoever rejects the Son will not see life, for God’s wrath remains on them."

"All voices are welcomed here if they play nice."

Any chance of us getting to see the rule book for that?

Anyway, Mr. Driscoll, well, that lil bit made me want to go out and get some fire insurance...but nothing in there about drawing close to G-d, nothing about walking with G-d, following G-d, obeying G-d...just another religious hawker in the square...

"Get cha'r'fire insurance today, folks, right here, right now, limited supply, all for the asking, just walk right on up and get your 'I'm not going to hell!' card for free! Donations and tips welcomed, please just cash, coins are to heavy to carry to the bank."

So...how bout some good old fashion old timey music? Would love to see some classic worship music that stuns the soul, calls the mind to meditate on the mind of G-d, and makes me think about how to be a better follower...anything out there like that?

Not to make a big deal of it, but I've had several critical comments in the past deleted when I ask honest questions about the motivations for a post.

Anyhow, Driscoll's point, like many of his others, is just poorly framed...and probably exactly how he desires it to be so. I find his banter and accusatory style unnecessary for most today, but clearly he has a following. I am thankful for his ministry.

bil, I think no one can understand the depth of his or her own sinfulness until they have a clear vision of God's *love.* The Apostle Paul tells us it is God's *kindness* (evidenced in His great patience toward sinners and slowness to anger) that leads us to repentance.

I'm sure I'm not alone in my perception that telling sinners God hates them in the way Driscoll does here flies in the face of John 3:16-17 and the very reality of Christ on the Cross that you allude to. Consider the implications of the fact that Jesus, Who said from the Cross, "Father, forgive them, they don't know what they are doing," was also Jesus Who said "He who has seen Me has seen the Father." Do you think He asked God, the Father, to forgive those who crucified Him because the Father would have been otherwise indisposed to do this? Or was it because He wanted us to see and know that this is exactly what God, His Father, is like and that this is what the Father intended to do from the beginning before we ever even sinned?

There is a modern theological narrative that suggests that what Jesus purchased for us on the Cross was God's forgiveness and grace, but what the Scripture really teaches is that *demonstrated* God's forgiveness and grace by purchasing our redemption from *Sin and Death,* in which bondage we were held as slaves. The relatively recent narrative of our salvation in Christ introduced through the Penal Substitutionary Atonement theory of the Reformers has the unfortunate side-effect of turning God into the sinner's Adversary and Accuser and Condemning Judge, instead of our heavenly Father (Whose nature and character Jesus expounded in the Parable of the Prodigal Son). It makes God our Enemy, rather than our great Rescuer, Redeemer, and Savior (and as we Orthodox repeat often in our prayers, the "Good God Who loves mankind"). I would not dispute that we are often enemies of God, but I will never allow that He is our Enemy even where He out of His love must oppose our self-destructiveness and sin (for our own good and the good of those whose lives we impact). Otherwise He would have no authority to command us to love even our enemies because "God is kind to ungrateful and evil men." The Scripture explicitly says that (very unlike human haters), God takes *no pleasure* in the death of the wicked, but rather wills that he turn from his sin and live.

These are some of the reasons I believe Driscoll, like the two disciples in Luke 9:51-56 whom Jesus' nicknamed elsewhere the "Sons of Thunder" (obviously, from this passage, not without reason!), does not know what spirit he is of.

Thank you Br. Thomas, for the kind words, but the thanks really belongs to those in Evangelical, Roman Catholic, and Orthodox circles who are helping to recover and expound a more fully biblical understanding of our salvation in Christ by reintroducing us to the profound biblical insights of many of our first Fathers in the faith, especially the Eastern Greek Fathers and their faithful contemporary interpreters.

I don't see it as any opposition to God's love that He hates sin. Now, whether "God hates sinners" is a bit of biblical hyperbole (like Jesus's "anyone who loves Me must hate their father and mother") in order to express just how much He hates sin, and the folks who choose to identify with sin rather than Him, is debatable.

Driscoll obviously chooses to take it literally, as do many Calvinists. I can understand that. I just hope it doesn't produce the usual fruit: the assumption that because God hates sinners it's okay for Christians to hate sinners, once we've identified who falls into the camp of "sinner." And in so doing we violate Jesus's command to love our neighbors, our enemies, and pretty much everyone we come in contact with.

Yes, understanding that God is love has been taken to ridiculous extremes: that since God loves everybody regardless of sin, maybe that means He'll let everyone into the Kingdom regardless of their lack of repentance, their lack of love for God, their lack of fruit, and so forth. But the corrective is not to go to the other extreme.

I don't like it when people juxtapose mercy with holiness and love with being just.

These are not things that stand in opposition to each other. But they sound like they are when presented this way. (By many other people too, not just the speaker in the video.)

I also don't like it when people define "holiness" in essentially moral-ethical terms.

This is a profound misunderstanding of the idea of "holy" in the OT and is a confusing of a by-product/expression of holiness as the "thing itself".

God is not some glorified, better behaved version of a human being in the sky.

Holiness as a category captures the singular, uncategorizable, unquantifiable, reality of God.

It's a category that says "This God is not able to be categorized".

It's the category which denies and transcends all others...This is the majesty of God.

Not merely some moralistic idea that God's majesty is essentially about God's ethical superiority.

i guess i'm wondering why these controversial posts by folks like marc driscoll and john piper. what is the purpose of posting this sort of divisive material? i am not a fan of either of them but i don't see the point of ceaselessly posting their most controversial statements which just cause controversy and division in the body of christ. you have a huge platform in this blog and i would hope you would post things that are edifying and unifying rather than posts that just stir up dissension. my hope is that you will think a bit about what role this blog is to have in the kingdom and use it for good. why not blog about important matters and use this space to challenge christians to really live out their faith? lastly, why hide behind a pseudonym for posting where you have no personal accountability?

Thanks for you insightful comments, Bil.

Evangelicals lean to the side of mercy and love, but that understanding is incomplete without the understanding of hate and judgment. Read Jesus's teachings, and see that He is more often harsh than gentle in His words. His words turned seekers away, and Jesus turned to His disciples and asked if they wanted to leave too. That is harsh. Pastor Driscoll is unafraid to touch a nerve in much the same manner. Not that I agree with everything he says, but I am not going to disagree just because Driscoll says it.

I think Driscoll is good fun :)

But seriously the current "God is love" movement have also swayed far from biblical truth. Karen (post #1) says that wrath and hate are anthropomorphic terms - well so is our distorted view of God's love. We've projected our definition of love rather than a biblical version of it.

What I believe Driscol is tackling and rightly so is the pervasive universalism in the church. If God is love why would he send nice people to hell? If God is love why would he punish me.

The common adage today is that God loves the sinner and hates the sin? I think Driscol might just be right here - those who oppose God are not his children, they are children of wrath or of the devil. They are far outside the love of God and they need to hear that so that they can taste the immeasurable worth of Jesus grace.

"What I believe Driscol is tackling and rightly so is the pervasive universalism in the church."

Brent,
I chose this quote of yours because I agree with the rest of your statement, but in this "attempt" of Mr. Driscol's his lack of biblical scholarship, and his lack of historical biblical context underscores the term "tackling" which I think he was more flopping, and floundering under the legs of the subject.
"Tackling" would indicate decisive purpose of action against a specific target...Mr. Driscol...well, he never got there.

But I do agree with you...the Church has completely flubbed the Holiness of G-d, lost the raison de'etre for the Love of G-d in it's row to be relevant and non-threatening to the world around it.

Y'shua was a pretty scary guy.

There was/is no middle ground with him. You're either on the side of G-d, or you are not, no fence sitting allowed.

So, yes, I think we have flubbed it, and Mr. Driscol failed to get his point across in that regard, and instead came off sounding like a 1910 throwback to hellfire and brimstone preacher/insurance-salesmen who was more interested in building his flock through fear and intimidation than through a genuine desire to become a different person.

Wow...I really don't get Mark Driscoll's popularity however I also don't think he has any idea what Love means. He also seems to ignore Grace completely. To my mind love is not squishy and sentimental. God is not Santa Claus in heaven. He's our Father for a reason. True love (and yes God is true love) is fierce, scary, amazing, sacrificial (as in greater love has no man etc), awful, and tender. I often find the best images of God are parental for a very good reason. I know how I feel when I look at my little son and think about how I want to protect him and how angry I get even thinking about someone harming him. That's not even close to how God feels about each one of us but it's probably the best we can do. I honestly think that to say God hates anyone is heresy and renders the cross meaningless.

Brent, there is certainly a sense in which those who have not repented are not God's "children," but rather children of the devil and God's enemies. On the other hand, I think it is shameful to infer that the God Who gave us the parables of the Prodigal Son and the Lost Sheep, etc., does not have the heart of a loving Father/Shepherd, etc., even toward, and perhaps especially toward, those who are going astray even though in their blinded state they deny, disown, and do not know him. Again, I ask you, if this is not so, how on earth can this God have the authority (intrinsic in His own Being) to command us to love our enemies?

The early Church Fathers understood it in this way:
http://classicalchristianity.com/2011/11/05/sinners-in-the-hands-of-an-angry-god/

God's love for even unrepentant sinners is evidenced in Christ's lament over Jerusalem (please note this is understood as a *lament,* not as jubilant rejoicing over the just judgment that is coming upon Jerusalem, for crying out loud!). It is also evidenced in Jesus' assertion that it is only the sick (i.e., the sinner) who needs a Physician, and that He came not to call the righteous, but sinners to repentance. Indeed, it is all throughout the Gospels for the one who has ears to hear and eyes to see.

K. W. Leslie also raised a good point in a comment above about the ugly "fruit" this notion produces in terms of Christians justifying their lack of forgiveness or grace toward other sinners based on the way they understand God to deal with the unrepentant. Driscoll's handling of Scripture and the hearts of his listeners in this video is like a bull in a China shop and like someone trying to do brain surgery with a chainsaw in his hand! It is frightening to me because I know we as Christians can never become more loving than the God we envision and Driscoll's preaching here goes a long way, at least for the naive, toward seriously obscuring the awesome purity of God's love.

I would also hope my pointing out in my first comment that God's "wrath" and "hate" should rather be understood as the *outworking of His love* in particular circumstances would make it obvious I don't understand the fact that "God is love" to necessitate Universalism or that I understand God's love to be something less pure and holy than it is--indeed, its terrible fiery and infinite purity is why our sin (falling short of that love) separates us from Him and puts us in hell.

While I'm on that subject, Orthodox don't believe God *sends* people to hell. This is a childish literalism that tends to give the impression that God's judgment is somehow arbitrary because He *could* decide to do something else with the unrepentant if He wanted yet chooses not to. Nothing could be further from the truth! The Orthodox understanding is that the torment of hell is the experience of the sinner who goes into God's Presence unprepared through genuine repentance and transformation to be there, because as the Scripture says "our God is a consuming fire" and "in Him we live and move and have our being." Their torment according to Orthodox understanding comes from the fact that they do not love God, do not want the love of God and yet can no longer escape full awareness of it. Having actively refused throughout their lives to internalize this love of God, it now "burns" them from without. The "outer darkness" into which they are "thrown" is the darkness of their own hearts. As C.S. Lewis noted, the doors of hell are locked from the inside.

Nathan, good thoughts there.

Heather, well said.

I've really come to a much different understanding of the Lord and his judgments. The Lord really doesn't have to judge my sin - my sin will kill me all by itself - no intervention needed. It actually works that way by design. When a people are full of violence, deceit, greed, lust... even the land cries out against them - and that same land will vomit them out - it kind of works that way by design. FEMA isn't big enough to stop the land from convulsing or undo its devastation.

We make God out to be this angry, unpredictable, volatile, hate filled being who when He has finally had enough explodes into unquenchable wrath. (Kind of like Mark Driscoll) - yet Jesus didn't model that. Jesus' displayed anger over one thing - the religious experts of his day and their rotten 'man-made' religious system. Nothing has changed there. It's still the same system - and still the same Jesus.

He forgave the prostitute, the tax collectors, the fisherman, the rich, the poor, the native, the foreigner ... Their lives were forever transformed thru an encounter with Him. It is still the same today.

Why don't you give up on this man-made religious mess and come to the true living God? We don't give up our sin so He will like us better - just the opposite. Without Him - we are a hopeless, helpless people who will perpetually be destroyed by our own waywardness. His great love for us in our pitiful, misserable existance is the only hope we have.

Some good comments here.

Karen and others, I don't think Driscoll has done well here, so I don't want to defend him to much :) Karen your illustration of a chainsaw is good! I would not easily use his language or style at this point, but having listened to much of his other teaching he understands grace and the love of God well and I would argue biblically.

I think the challenge is to ensure that we don't live in either the wrath or love camp because I believe the scripture holds the two ideas in tension.

The parable of the prodigal is one of my favourites, but there are also other more troubling parables of the virgins and their oil, the rich fool, the wedding feast and others that are far tougher to digest.

We need to ensure we hold both the love of God and the wrath of God in constant tension. To lose either of them is going to land us up in trouble. Either a loving God with no judgement or a condemning God with no love. Both are wrong!

Jerry: I hear your heart but it would seem (in my opinion) that the scriptures paint judgement as a very active thing God does. Is it not our fear of painting an unpalatable picture of God that pushes us into this thinking? God is the one who judges, our sin only gets us to the judgement, but then God will judge and punish according to his eternal holiness.

I think Sheerahkahn said it well "As Y'shua was a pretty scary guy"

Loving: definitely
Holy: totally
Gracious: beyond our human understanding

Brent, you make some very good points. As an almost senior citizen, I still have trouble believing God leaves me because of all the garbage churches have put into my head. If I never hear another fire & brimstone sermon, I am better off for it. I have a long way to go before enough love is in my life to balance all the hate that was put into it for my first 50 years.

The wrath of God? For a totally depraved people? Yes. Absolutely. Romans 1 tells me that I don't even know the full extent of what evil I was/am capable of doing. I deserve God's wrath. Thank You LORD, You didn't hate me.
The remarkable truth is the gospel, the good news about a God I don't fully understand, and His love. Jesus said in John 3:16 that He loves me. I grab hold of that, I believe that, I cling to that, and I am saved. Romans 5:8 tells me that before I had a chance to turn to Him and be lovable, God demonstrated His love for me; He died for me. If He hated me before I came to Him, I couldn't have responded to His Spirit’s loving pull. He loved the rich young ruler who never did respond to Him, but rejected Him. Finally, He commands US to love each other AND our enemies. Why would He do that if He hated them? We're not greater than our Master, and we sure couldn't do it without HIS love for THEM residing in our broken, unloving vessels. I'm gonna keep believing His love letter to a lost, sin-sick and depraved world: The Bible. Believe it, sinner: GOD LOVES YOU.

Some thoughts...

-context is important; the only way to be fair to Driscoll and understand his point is to watch the entire message
-also to be fair to Driscoll, you have to weigh this against his full body of work; I believe his overall record shows him to be doctrinally sound
-anyone and everyone will look bad if reduced to sound-byte caricatures
-if one's issue with him is METHODOLOGICAL, I can understand that, because his style doesn't really draw me in (to be fair though, different personalities employ different styles); but, if the issue is THEOLOGICAL, I would wonder about the root of the opposition
-one issue at play here is that this kind of preaching is so uncommon that it's shocking when we hear it; I suspect that Jonathan Edwards' "Sinners in the Hands of An Angry God" wouldn't be one the most downloaded sermons at iTunes nowadays, and had Edwards preached that message in this culture he too would be hit hard in parts of the blogosphere
-in parts of this particular message, Driscoll hammers on a very difficult doctrine (wrath), but in the end he does offer the balancing truth (mercy)
-he supports his position biblically
-Seattle is his context, one of the least churched, most pagan cities in America; that's an important lens through which to view this; an example: I'm thinking of a situation I'm aware of, a woman whose husband is an alcoholic, who's been having affairs on her for years, who walked out on her and their kids, who says he's a Christian...I'm thinking he may need to hear of God's severe disapproval of what he's doing

Thanks Brent -

I think the law tries to control my behavior - so that I won't hurt myself - or hurt someone else. It is a guardian - or a schoolmaster. Yes - it is rigid and stepping outside of its boundaries are consequential. If I commit adultery - facing that lady's husband might not be the most pleasant experience - in fact - he may kill me. Is that God's judgment? I don't know. But very often - even the instant judgment of sin has no power to prevent me from doing it. I'm kind of drawing a hypothetical here - but once upon a time - that really was me.

The problem with the law is not that it's not perfect - it's that I'm not perfect. I have no power to keep it - the invitation to stray is more attractive than the fear of the consequences.

...But - Christ is much different than the law. "Follow me and I will make you fishers of men...". He turns us into something we weren't before. He didn't say "follow me and I will show you how to fish for men". He's not trying to "show us how" - He makes us into something we weren't before.

"Such were some of you, but you were washed, your were sanctified, you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus and by the Spirit of our God" (i Cor 6:11)

The law is about behavior modification, but Christ is about transformation. What the law was powerless to do (change me), Christ did.

The solution, therefore to God's judgment - is not behavior modification - it's to be transformed by Christ. We escape the flood waters of God's judgment by getting into the ark (Christ) - to be found IN HIM - not having a righteousness of our own...

The religious legal system produces religious lawyers (Driscoll and the like....) - I don't need a lawyer to get out of this mess - I need an advocate (Christ).

Preaching Christ is so fun :)

I am not a Driscoll hater, nor do I have a great knowledge of his work as a whole, but what I have run across ALWAYS gets under my skin. . . and not in a I really need to look at that in another way and see why it is bugging me. In almost eight minutes, he said "you" about a billion times and only once said "you and I." Maybe I'm being petty, but it feels like I'm listening to someone who seems very sure that he himself is never under the microscope of the wrath he is talking about. Maybe that is my issue, but I'm not so sure.

I also agree with the poster that said that we need to be really careful with the words we use and how they will be understood by our listeners. Every time the word hate came up, it always sounded and felt like the human understanding of hate (which Jesus likens to murder in the Sermon on the Mount), not an incapability of tolerating sin and a desperate longing for us to flee from it.

The times I have watched Driscoll preach bring to mind some lyrics from the Chagall Guevera song, "Violent Blue." I don't mean them as a personal attack on Driscoll, but rather as a word of warning to all of us who are tasked with teaching and preaching: "Hey, are you in there?
Or don't you recall
When the perfume of belief was all we needed
It was all we needed
To set our sights

So when did you throw out
The rest of the world
Deaf from the din of your self-righteous babble?
I think you've been blinded
By your own light

Was it hatred?
Was it pride?
Or did you just have a lot to hide?

Come away
Throw down
Let it burn
And lose yourself"

I am constantly having to hear Jesus reciting those last four lines to me and am reminded how hard it is to lose myself. . . and find Him instead.

If God is love then God must hate, this short video will explain...

http://youtu.be/xbUEtTAPZlc

This reminds me of my former pastor who said at the beginning of a sermon, "The biggest mistake a Christian can make is to believe that God loves them individually." And all the people said "Amen." Well, now me, but everyone else did. I don't know how you feel about his statement, but that was pretty much the last Sunday I attended church there.

I thank God for Mark Driscoll, a faithful minister of Christ on our behalf, and count it a privilege to pray for him often. May God continue to fill him, and all of us, with the knowledge of His will through all the wisdom and understanding that the Spirit gives.

I think we can easily get lost in semantics and a multitude of words. To me, the message is pretty simple.
1. God hates sinners (the people we have chosen to be, when we choose to reject Him).
2. What God hates *even more* is the idea that some of His children will be forever condemned because of their choices.
3. In fact, He hates that thought so much that He gave Jesus Christ (and all that entails) in order to redeem us.

One more thought.

Maybe Driscoll's delivery style/wording of this message isn't the one that would win me. However, I am not the standard. There are many, many different kinds of people in the world, and not all will be reached in the same way. Some will connect through contemporary teaching. Some through good old fashioned pulpit pounding. Some through gentle, subtle love. And, I'm afraid, some might only be reached through sermons such as this one.Neither 'different' or 'not my preference' equate to 'bad'.

I see what you're saying John, but my problem isn't so much with Mr. Driscoll...alright, not true, I think Mr. Driscoll can be infuriatingly frustrating because he's got the passion, but not the wisdom to go with it...anyway, that aside, the issue is that this gets to the heart of the message of G-d...which is...do you want fire insurance, or do you want a relationship with G-d?
When I read the bible there a lot of people who want the fire insurance, but not the relationship.
Why, because a relationship with G-d means that things are going to change in my life, in others lives...no one can be a follower of G-d and not be changed...it is a physical, spiritual, mental impossibility.

G-d's presence in one's life immediately begins changing the individual.

But fire insurance...that's the "Get out of hell, Free!" card that allows the "oh yeah, your the big cheese, G-d, booyah, I'm all for G-d!" until it gets in the way of one's life, and the choices and ways we live that life.

Mr. Driscoll may not be intending that outcome, but he's unwittingly selling it when he should be emphasizing the relationship with G-d, the costs of following G-d vs the advantages of living comfortably with the world, and the way the world does it's thing.

Yes, G-d hates sin, but the escape from the consequences of that sin are through Y'shua, and you don't get to have a relationship with Y'shua until you sign over everything...body, mind, and soul.

So, if it was me up there...I'd be emphasizing the cost of following G-d, the hardship, the choices because the grubby end of our thinking is "whats in it for me!"

And until we learn what it means to be in a full relationship with G-d...there isn't very much recognizable and tangible benefit of following G-d other than having that fire insurance card...which, imo, is just outright lying.

I listen to Mark Driscoll quite a bit, and I found this clip to be a bit disturbing. I think I understand what he's trying to say, but I thought the whole clip undid itself logically. Pastor Driscoll starts off by pointing out the fallacy of taking one of God's attributes (in his example, love) and taking it above all of God's other attributes. Then, almost immediately, Pastor Driscoll takes God's attribute of wrath, and elevates it above all of God's other attributes. I understand he's dealing with a culture that does this, but I'm not so sure that taking the "God hates you" perspective to fight off "Hippie Jesus" is a good way to go.

There are a couple of things that concern me regarding this post, but all of them are found in the comments section.

I do not want to specifically point out individuals, but I do want to make a clarifying remark.

There is no grace without the cross.

Grace is not an act of benevolence, a price was paid. When we focus on God's love and fail to consider the cross, we miss the point.

In Romans 3 Paul presents the need for salvation because everyone is unrighteousness, and because of this unrighteousness all must face judgment. However, the wrath of God has been poured out on Christ upon the cross... it is not a representational death - it is the very way of our salvation.

"Do we need more fire and brimstone preaching today?"

Hell. Yes. ;)

The word "hate", like the word "love", has been twisted as well. In the Bible, when it says the Lord "hated" so-and-so "in the internal sense it is not hatred, but mercy, for the Divine is mercy but when this flows in with a man who is in evil, and he runs into the penalty of evil, it then appears as hatred and because it so appears, in the sense of the letter it is likewise so called." (http://biblemeanings.info/Words/Feeling/Hate.htm)

In other words, we tend to use the word "hate" today like a child who uses the word "hate" when saying his mother or his father "hates" him because they won't buy him a toy or some candy he wants. Or a teenager whose parents won't let him take the car to go to some party where they don't know what's going on (for obvious reasons). He perceives it as an affront when really they are restricting his sugar intake, or his acquisition of toys, or his presence in a potentially dangerous situation, for his own good.

Another good clip by Driscoll. Heard him in person for the first time recently and thought he was very solid.

atbom, is God lying when He says He hates something then?

This looks like the classic example of the unexamined life thinking that he, and he alone has truth and that he alone is on the right path. Extraordinary self-deception going on here.

It looks to me like he is near the edge of burnout, is very, very, very frustrated and unhappy with a large number of those attending his church, and is speaking his own pain and anger while being convinced this is God speaking through him. This is cult leader behavior and very concerning.

He needs intense therapy, in my opinion. Pure projection here--and his anger issues, his own sense of unacceptability before God, and his inability to understand grace are pummeling his soul. I ache for him and his congregation.

Mark Driscoll's God is my Satan. Satan hates man. God loves man. This teaching makes me sick. PIty the poor people who follow this line of thinking.

I'll take the word of someone who laid on His breast day after day for three years over someone who never met Him.

Jesus said "It is said hate your enemies but I say love your enemies.... you need to be like your Father in heaven who send rain on the just and the unjust..." He can't expect more from us than He does Himself. I like the God that likes to be called Daddy. He sent Jesus to show the heart of the Father who loves us.

God is love does not mean overlooking our sinfulness and letting us just go on our own way. He is Holy. He deserves holiness. We only receive holiness, forgiveness, and glory through receiving Jesus as our Savior which includes repenting of our sin and walking away from it by the strength we will receive from Christ. We can't be perfect, but we can strive to walk away from our sin.

God is love does not mean looking over sin and letting us walk in sin. God loves us, but hates our sinfulness. God is Holy and deserves holiness. Through faith in Jesus as our Lord and Savior, repenting of our sin, and walking away from it by the strength Christ will give us, we are forgiven and made holy heirs of Christ. Without Christ as our Lord and Savior, we are enemies of God.

Romans 5:10
"For if while we were enemies we were reconciled to God by the death of his Son, much more, now that we are reconciled, shall we be saved by his life."

Driscoll loves to exaggerate to make his points. As in this video clip where he says that in 2009 Rick Warren did not know how to define church and therefore everyone was waiting for Driscoll to write a book and help them define it.

http://www.morethancake.org/archives/2104

Same thing here... exaggeration to make oneself look more important than you really are.