I came across videos commenting on a debate on Eternal Security - the doctrine that once someone comes to saving faith he/she cannot loose salvation. The debaters were Mark Driscoll who teaches Eternal Security and Dan Corner who teaches against it.. Dan Corner, in my opinion, lost this debate. I think the reason why he wrote these comments and made these videos to make up for his loss. I disagree with Corner for lots of reason and for Driscoll's part I think he lost his temper a lot. I don't blame him, but it takes a certain temperament to do discussions and debates like that. Pastors don't necessarily need it, but it is a gift apologists really need. You can hear the discussion at the links below. This is part 1.Listen to Part 1 and Part 2 (mp3)
Get the debate observations and comments in audio format here (mp3)
Mark Driscoll Exposed (video)
Mark Driscoll Skull and Crossbones Award
I decided to respond to Corner. His material is in blue and red, my comments are in black.
One day before I had this debate with Mark Driscoll, the Calvinistic pastor of Mars Hill Church in Seattle Washington, I was contacted by phone but it wasn’t initially for a debate but merely for a two hour interview on eternal security. On the same day as the debate, about 3 hours before it was to begin, the announcer himself phoned and told me it would be a debate with a pastor Mark Driscoll who has about 6,000 people in his congregation and the 15th fastest growing church in the USA.
I also learned that the radio announcer attends Mark Driscoll’s church. As I thought might happen, the debate I had was actually with Mark Driscoll, the announcer who was Thor Tolo and various phone callers who would all try to make different points for the eternal security doctrine as they tried to refute me and discredit the Christian position of a conditional security. At times insulting comments came at me, some subtle, some open and harsh.
I don't agree that "conditional security" is a Christian position. I'll be going into more detail as to why.
During the debate, I was interrupted at times, shorted time to respond or they skipped over me entirely. At two different points my ability to hear what was being said was turned off completely!
It really didn't seem that way to me...listen to the exchange and see if you agree with him.
I have learned from experience that these types of sleazy things are somewhat commonplace when dealing with proponents of eternal security. In spite of the various forms of blatant unfair opposition, I believe the truth of God regarding salvation came across loud and clear. May it prove to be a great learning tool for you and others. Clearly, eternal security has a double message that is both contradictory to itself and dangerously unscriptural as it gives people, in wickedness, a false security of salvation.
Here we really see what Corner believes. It shows in the dialogue. Let's see if he make these points stand in the rest of his follow-up
Our debate begins with an early doctrinal misrepresentation of me from the announcer that would be controlling the entire debate.
TT
He believes eternal security is entirely conditional and can be lost.
ANSWER: The doctrine of eternal security is defined by both Charles Stanley and Charles Ryrie as, “That work of God in which he guarantees that the gift of salvation once received is possessed forever and cannot be lost.” Hence, I certainly don’t believe in eternal security at all in any form. The Bible teaches a conditional security for the believer and this is what I believe. The eternal security radio announcer, at a very early point, misrepresented my beliefs and will do this at least three other times.
I don't see how Corner was being misrepresented. Both he and Thor said he believed that salvation can be gained and then lost. I disagree, but that is what I understood was Corner's position.
Calvinism has a double message. Here Mark presents the sanitized version.
MD
... other that I would prefer to articulate as, my Calvinist brothers articulate as perseverance of the saints meaning once you meet Jesus you’re going to continue to walk with him. Not that you are sinless and perfect as he was but that you are growing in your hatred of sin and your likeness of Jesus and that’s how we know who the Christians are. They love Jesus and we see change that is ongoing throughout the course of their life.
ANSWER: According to this statement, a Christian is going to continue to walk with Jesus. Later you will find out that he must apparently think that this can be done even when in the most heinous sins possible since Calvinists think King David remained saved while in adultery and murder; the prodigal remained saved while in wild living and being with prostitutes; that drunkards can be unrepentant and saved at the same time; etc.
Corner is an expert at straw-men argumentation. He holds up King David and the prodigal son in the parable as examples of people who were saved but due to sin stop being saved and then says that Driscoll believes that one can be an unrepentant sinner and saved simultaneously. Driscoll never said such a thing. And Corner seems to forget that both David and the Prodigal did repent so they are not example of one who is saved and still ends up in hell.
In fact, Mark himself admitted he has all kinds of sins:
MD
I have all kinds of sins.
ANSWER: Since Mark admitted he has all kinds of sins, he actually disqualified himself from being a spiritual leader, according to Titus 1 and 1 Timothy 3. It also seems apparent that he is not sorrowful for all those sins that he has. This goes with the typical false idea in eternal security circles that one has to sin all the time and all sins are of the same degree.
Huh? Who doesn't sin all the time? WE are all sinners saved by grace and Driscoll in context was not saying that he purposely sins all the time. It was at that point that Driscoll very pointedly asked Corner about the last time Corner sinned and just what kind of sin(s) or how much was enough to cause one to loose salvation? Corner never answered. He doesn't answer here either.
Furthermore, how can Driscoll give the false impression that a real Christian is growing in his likeness of Jesus and that’s how we “know” who the Christians are, but 1 John 3:10 states something that is clearly different:
This is how we know who the children of God are and who the children of the devil are: Anyone who does not do what is right is not a child of God; nor is anyone who does not love his brother.
Again, here is what Driscoll wrongly taught:
I guess according to Corner if a Christian sins once at anytime he is now child of the devil. 1 John is not talking about a single act. It is talking about habitual lifestyle. Driscoll is not wrong. And there is no contradiction Look at Romans 8:28,29 to get a sense of what Driscoll was pointing to.
MD
But that you are growing in your hatred of sin and your likeness of Jesus and that’s how we know who the Christians are.
ANSWER: There Mark said we can KNOW who the Christians are, but later he will deny this is possible! This will be just one of his doctrinal contradictions. The truth is a real Christian is one who is following Jesus and putting his word into practice. He is also one who is obeying God, according to Hebrews 5:9.
Driscoll was not denying any of that. When he said that we don't know who Christians are he was referring to the identity of the Elect.
Getting back to what Mark Driscoll said earlier, he stated that Christians “love Jesus” and there is ongoing change in their life. This sounds great but the problem is, this is not what he always teaches as an eternal security proponent. This is evident by his unscriptural understanding of the sin that leads to death.
For Mark and other eternal security proponents, if it is D. James Kennedy, Dave Hunt or whoever, the sin unto death occurs when God in his anger and wrath strikes dead an unrepentant habitual adulterer, drunkard, etc. then takes him to heaven. Mark specifically mentioned the alcoholic who God kills because he remains unrepentant to the end of his life and is taken to heaven.
This was the part of the discussion that they both lost me. I think trying to figure out what sin it is that make you ineligible for salvation is silly given what the Bible says. And if you believe in eternal security there is no such a sin anyway. I think talking about the "sin that leads to death" in this discussion is a waste and out of context.
______________
CALLER: . . . pick a sin, any sin, and I just decided I just did not want to repent of that and stay in it. I’m yet a believer but that’s just going to cramp(?) my journey here on earth. I’m just going to see the Lord a little bit quicker. That’s just my take on that.
THOR
And cost you rewards in heaven. Is that ...
MARK
She’s talking like maybe alcoholism or gluttony or whatever it is, that is going to take your life prematurely cause sin leads to death.
CALLER
Exactly.
_____________
ANSWER: Mark also didn’t disagree but fully agreed with the phone caller and the radio host who lethally believes the sin unto death is a believer who remains unrepentant in any sin, regardless how vile and wicked, is killed by God and taken to heaven. Only their rewards will be lost:
Um, no. I disagree with both of them. If God is comforming us to be more like Jesus, there will be no sins that God will allow us to just hold on to.
Another glaring problem surfaced when Mark also said Christians “love Jesus.” This is a Bible fact, but the glaring problem is Mark doesn’t really believe that at all. He is claiming something for his own theology which is false. How can I say this? The Bible states to love Jesus means you are going to have to obey Jesus (John 14:15), which is something he thinks even the Apostle Paul was NOT able to do.
MD
At one point in writing, “I’m a sinner.” He says in another point, “I’m the least of the apostles.” As he writes a little bit later he says, “I’m the worst sinner of all.”
Since Driscoll thinks Paul was the worst of sinners and he went to heaven, he therefore must believe the WORST OF SINNERS can go to heaven, if they were ever regenerated at any point. Also, eternal security teachers don’t say that Paul ever repented of being the worst of sinners! How then did Paul, as the worst of all sinners even worse than Judas, conform more and more to be like Jesus? Driscoll thinks Paul was the worst of sinners. This also brings up another glaring problem for his theology. Since he thinks all sins are the same, then how could any sinner be worse than any other? Moreover, does he really think Paul was worse than the Prodigal when in wild living and with the prostitutes or King David when he was in adultery and murder? The worst of sinners would have to be more vile than they were in those sins. Could that be the Apostle Paul of the book of Acts? Never. That would be impossible, but that is how these people distort the truth of God.
Either Corner was not listening or completely mistaken. Paul was living all he knew but still recognized his imperfections and saw himself as a sinner and no better than anyone else. Driscoll was not trying to say that Paul was evil or worse than Judas. Paul and Driscoll would agree with the assertion that they themselves are the worse sinner that they know. Paul did not do many many things people do but he knew his heart and how God changed him. We need to all get there and judge ourselves the way God does. I doubt that Corner sees himself as the worse sinner he knows.
ANSWER: Listen again to how Mark Driscoll teaches we can know who the Christians are, which excludes what he said about the Apostle Paul.
MD
Once you meet Jesus yow are going to continue to walk with him. Not that you are sinless and perfect as he was, but that you are growing in your hatred of sin and your likeness of Jesus and that’s how we know who the Christians are.
ANSWER: What a horrible and shocking dangerous distortion of the Bible eternal security is. To slander Paul’s image is to also smear the image of a real Christian. The Bible declares:
The man who says, “I know him,” but does not do what he commands is a liar, and the truth is not in him. (1 John 2:4)
ANSWER: From how Paul is typically slandered by the eternal security proponents, if that was true, 1 John 2:4 would have to label Paul as a liar and the truth is not in him. How could the person God used to write half of the Bible be without truth?
Straw Man!!! Driscoll never said any such thing!
Driscoll also said:
MD:
1 Jn 2:19. They were with us but they really weren’t one of us. And there’s a lot of people like that. Jesus says that in the church there’ll be wheat and tares.
ANSWER: Mark Driscoll mentioned 1 John 2:19 but failed to cite that the context shows the ones that departed did NOT believe Jesus was the Christ, according to verse 22! Their doctrine was that blatantly in error. They obviously didn’t appear to be Christians for certainly all Christians believe Jesus of Nazareth is the Christ.
Another straw man! Driscoll did not try to say that those who left were Christians or ever had salvation. If anything Corner is undermining himself!
Driscoll also tries to connect 1 John 2:19 to people in the church who go back to wickedness. But folks, think about this: how can he consistently say this when he and all other Calvinists believe that a truly elect person can commit the sins of David (adultery and murder) the sins of Peter (disowning Jesus), the sins of Solomon (idolatry), the sins of the prodigal (wild living and being with the prostitutes) and the sins of the unnamed man of 1 Cor. 5, which was incestuous fornication. The eternal security teachers have a double message and will teach whatever is best for them at the moment.
Double message? Not clear. All of the elect are sinners, but not all sinners are elect. I'd expect the elect to sin and they are saved because of Jesus not of themselves.
Thirdly, Mark Driscoll mentioned the wheat and tares because he wrongly thinks they can not be distinguished from each other. He is speaking the popular view of Calvinism. It is vital to realize that tares can be identified from the wheat in Jesus’ teaching. In Mt. 13:27,28, we read:
The owner’s servants came to him and said, “Sir, didn’t you sow good seed in your field? Where then did the weeds come from?” “An enemy did this,” he replied. The servants asked him, “Do you want us to go and pull them up?”
It is clear the weeds or tares could be identified from the wheat as the servants identified them as such which led the servants to ask if they should go and pull them up.
Recall that those who could tell the tares and wheat apart were workers in the field - angels - not the wheat itself - believers in the church.
When Judas was mentioned, part of Driscoll’s rebuttal and defense of eternal security was:
MD
... you’re saying is that Jesus Christ’s death on the cross, you want to talk blasphemy, is not enough to actually forgive sins.
ANSWER: Such a slanderous, ludicrous answer seems to almost be the norm with these people when discussing eternal security. That is a horrible misrepresentation of all Christians who reject the security in sin gospel of eternal security. Of course Christians believe Jesus’ death was enough to forgive sins. Many seem to think that because these teachers mention Jesus’ death at Calvary, his blood, grace and other Biblical terms they are sound, when they are FAR from being sound.
Driscoll was not being slanderous at all. If you don't believe that God can save you despite your sins then you don't believe that his death was enough to pay for your sins. Driscoll was not saying that it was okay to sin and do whatever you want.
Driscoll also was abusive here:
MD
... talk a lot. Just, just, just take your paxil, sit down.
ANSWER: Jude said the people who change grace into a license for immorality are scoffers or mockers in verse 18. They also talk abusively against whatever they don’t understand, verse 10. Mark has displayed this by his name calling.
Corner does have a point here. I think its due to Mark loosing his temper a little bit and the fact that Corner was being loud and not listening.
MD
Here’s what I believe. If you meet Jesus, you live a new life. If you meet Jesus and you don’t live a new life, you probably didn’t meet Jesus.
ANSWER: I believe if you know Jesus in the way of salvation you will live a new life too, but that really means a holy and obedient life, which he doesn’t think is possible by how he portrays Paul as the worst of sinners, at least at times.
Driscoll never excused sin and said that it was okay to live any kind of way. He did not portray Paul as the worst of sinners.
The Bible also teaches one can meet Jesus in the way of salvation and later die spiritually. Consequently, such a person would be back on the road to damnation once again and needs to repent for salvation’s sake.
Corner never gave any Bible passages to back this up.
Mark also hinted at his double message with these words:
MD
If you meet Jesus and you don’t live a new life, you probably didn’t meet Jesus.
ANSWER: Did you notice the word “probably”? Mark also displayed his Calvinistic lack of understanding about salvation with the following:
I would not have said "probably" I would have said that if you don't live a new life, you didn't meet Jesus. Driscoll was being nice but not contradictory.
MD
Salvation’s not mine. Jonah 2 says that salvation is of the Lord. The question is, will Jesus lose a Christian? It’s not about me losing anything. It’s about whether or not Jesus fails. They belong to Jesus. Salvation doesn’t belong to them.
ANSWER: Again, when it is convenient, Driscoll will say salvation is not mine:
MD:
Salvation is not mine.
ANSWER: but at another time he refers to his own salvation as though it is his:
MD
my salvation is not dependent upon what I do.
ANSWER: He said “my salvation.” Did you catch that?
Oh come'on! Those were different contexts! Salvation is not mine to get or give...it's mine a gift of God. That is all Driscoll was saying.
At a different time MD also said:
MD
They belong to Jesus. Salvation doesn’t belong to them.
ANSWER: Calvinists teach salvation doesn’t belong to the Christian. In other words, they don’t believe it is the Christian’s salvation, but Paul taught otherwise. In Rom. 13:11 he wrote of “our salvation.” That verse reads:
our salvation is nearer now than when we first believed.
When Paul wrote the Philippian saints he wrote of their salvation. He said this in Phil. 2:12:
continue to work out your salvation with fear and trembling.
Peter wrote in a similar fashion:
Like newborn babies, crave pure spiritual milk, so that by it you may grow up in your salvation, (1 Pet 2:2)
Clearly it is the Christian’s salvation. See also Hebrews 2:10. Driscoll thinks it is not about us losing anything but whether or not Jesus failed. Imagine that! The real truth is, Jesus told those who had already been saved this:
Only hold on to what you have until I come. (Rev 2:25)
We are told repeatedly in the New Testament to hold on to what we have so that we don’t lose it. This can apply to salvation itself as shown by the following two Scriptures:
By this gospel you are saved, if you hold firmly to the word I preached to you. Otherwise, you have believed in vain. (1 Cor 15:2)
We have come to share in Christ if we hold firmly till the end the confidence we had at first. (Heb 3:14)
Corner! Corner! Mixing up contexts again.
Again, Mark said:
MD
My salvation is not dependent upon what I do.
ANSWER: He said his salvation is not dependent upon what he does. He really means, regardless how much he would sin his salvation will not be affected by it. This is the heart of the security-in-sin gospel of eternal security.
This is not what eternal security means at all. Driscoll was not saying that you get to sin all you want and still go to heaven. If you live a life practicing sin then you weren't even saved to begin with.
Mark Driscoll also said:
MD:
You actually think that everyone in the church at Galatia, he says they believed a false gospel. He says they should go all the way to emasculating themselves and that they’re trusting in circumcision for eternal life. You cannot say Galatia was filled with Christians.
ANSWER: Eternal security teachers would say the unnamed man guilty of sexual immorality in 1 Cor. 5:1-5 was a Christian, but here in the book of Galatians he tries to dispute such an idea. What were his arguments: (1) Paul said they believed a false gospel. My answer to that is Paul said that they were turning to a false gospel and had previously accepted the real gospel in 1:9. (2) The ones Paul stated should emasculate themselves were the false teachers that came to Galatia and deceived the Christians. (3) After being deceived the same ones who were then trying to be justified by the law had fallen away from grace to the point where Christ is of no value to them at all, according to Gal. 5:2-4.
Moot point. No where was it said that the saved people in Galatians or Corinth lost their salvation.
So what is the evidence that Paul was writing to people who had been truly born again?
(Section from The Believer’s Conditional Security, p.222 here.)
Also, there is no question that God was their spiritual Father (1:3) and that is also confirmed in Acts where we read about the very beginning of the churches in Galatia:
The next day he and Barnabas left for Derbe. They preached the good news in that city and won a large number of disciples. Then they returned to Lystra, Iconium and Antioch, strengthening the disciples and encouraging them to remain true to the faith. “We must go through many hardships to enter the kingdom of God,” they said. Paul and Barnabas appointed elders for them in each church and, with prayer and fasting, committed them to the Lord, in whom they had put their trust (Acts 14:20-23).
Without question, Acts 14:20-23 show the recipients of the Book of Galatians were really saved. After they came to salvation, some people (who were false teachers) came and preached a false gospel to these Christians (Gal. 1:7) and they were in the process of turning to that false gospel (1:6), when this epistle to the Galatians was being written. Furthermore, this turning to a false gospel happened quickly and astonished Paul (1:6). This proves that real Christians can be fatally deceived by false teachers.
It doesn't prove that they ever lost their salvation. Because I'm sure that those of them who were elect eventually turned back to right path and went to heaven and those who were lost were never saved in the first place. Driscoll's point was lost on Corner: Not every single person in the church were saved, even before the false teachers came.
Mark called me brother Dan:
MD:
This might be the one point I think brother Dan and I agree on.
ANSWER: He thinks I’m a “brother” but also thinks I’m the most annoying and arrogant man he has ever met, a blasphemer and implied I don’t believe Jesus died for all sins. Apparently, he thinks such a person can be a Christian. How could such a person be walking with Jesus?
I wonder if Corner has any siblings he disagrees with. You can believe in conditional security (living beneath your privileges) and still be a follower of Jesus. We all agree that the only security is with Jesus.
During the course of our debate, as I have already stated, I was often misrepresented. Here are three different times the radio host did this very thing:
THOR
One who would passionately disagree with the premise, if not the 8th chapter of Romans, is Dan Corner who is director of Evangelical Outreach
THOR
... and Dan Corner also says, and here’s where they part ways, David lost his salvation, however David repented and never strayed again
THOR
We’ve had violence and gluttony. We flock to movies that revel in steamy sex scenes and gratuitous violence. We snatch up the tabloids when it comes to abhorrent behavior in our lives. Many people shrug it off as having no consequences because they’ve been baptized or confirmed. They pray to Jesus. That makes it all okay. It was the thrust of the theme behind Dan Corner’s, The Believer’s Conditional Security.
ANSWER: To set the record straight, (1) I do NOT disagree with the 8th chapter of Romans, (2) I do NOT believe David never strayed again after his adultery and murder because he also sinned when he numbered the troops. Did you notice that Thor never gave the source of where I allegedly stated that. (3) The thrust of our book, The Believer’s Conditional Security is that for a real Christian, that is, one who has been regenerated, there exists a conditional security. That means he can lose the salvation he once possessed. There are at least 18 examples of people or types of people in the Bible who have lost their salvation temporarily or permanently. Hence, eternal security is clearly disproved. I was misrepresented in these areas.
Not really. I completely understood that what was Corner was espousing - I just disagree. I think he was only misrepresented on point 2 on the amount of time David sinned, but I doubt that Thor meant it that way.
Listen to a longer segment and notice what Mark Driscoll believes about David as he dialogs with the radio host. Later Mark won’t readily admit to his belief about David:
THOR:
And Dan Corner also says, and here’s where they part ways, David lost his salvation, however David repented and never strayed again so he did enter the Kingdom of God. But Mark, I’ll use my word not yours but it referred to earlier as a uturn where he had it, lost it, and had it again and you think that’s silly, in a word.
MARK
Yeah, I think uh once you belong to God he’s good for his word and he continues to work with you until he sees you face to face.
THOR
And no more convincing a passage in the Bible you believe than Romans 8 when it comes to this.
MARK
Nothing shall separate us from the love of God. Can we take some calls?
ANSWER: A caller said this:
CALLER
And a Calvinist would say, if you ended up backsliding, that’s a bad term on their part, ya know, from their perspective but apostatizing, they would say they were never saved.
ANSWER: It is amazing how such is equated with Calvinism but that is not what their own confessions states! The Westminster confession CLEARLY states that an elect person can go astray and cites David as an example, which is also what John Calvin himself taught. Hence, they do believe a saved person can backslide and REMAIN SAVED while unrepentant and backslid even in sins of adultery and murder! Their own confession doesn’t say such were never saved.
I think "Backsliding" and "apostasy" are being equated and they are not equal. Until a person dies in their sins, you don't know if they committed apostasy or not. Therefore then they were never saved. Until then you can only say they "backslid". Driscoll was clear and I agree. David backslid but never lost his salvation!
MARK
So if I really am a Christian, Scripture says I will do good works.
ANSWER: Here Mark portrays a Christian as doing good works, which is the opposite of how he interprets Rom. 7:19. Calvinism thinks Rom. 7:19 is Paul as a Christian who could not do good he wanted to do but always did evil he didn’t want to do.
Neither Driscoll or Calvinism said any such thing. Paul said himself that sometimes he tried to do right and failed. We all know what that is like...not that he never does good!
Here is another time Mark sanitized his version of eternal security. Because Calvinism has a double message it confuses the issue and prevents some from recognizing what a license for immorality and doctrine of demons it really is.
MARK
Those who habitually, unrepentantly practice sin, you say keep raping, killing, no, they, they’re, they’re not Christians. They’re, going to Hell. They’re not , they’re not saved. And they’re not evidencing the new life that Jesus has for them.
ANSWER: Later Mark argues that the Prodigal who was in wild living, and with prostitutes was a Christian!
Corner seems to forget that the Prodigal repented and stopped what he was doing.
MD
The issue of the prodigal is: whether or not that boy left home and sinned; he was still a member of the same family and he still had the same father and that’s what I’m arguing for.
ANSWER: How is it the prodigal was not in habitual, unrepentant practice of sin before he returned to the Father? Calvinism also has a double message and a confused theology based on a confession but not the Scriptures.
Point being? Who isn't in habitual, unrepentant practice of sin before we come to God?
Mark Driscoll vs. Dan Corner Eternal Security Debate
![Reblog this post [with Zemanta]](https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/blogger_img_proxy/AEn0k_u5g4GSyuH2P29lgtNoltGhXLs58nTHLNgDGfrOsxp5B0M7sJH6zBgOEx7lhHY9Rrzx75K9RGFs0SHwZKmn-8_WJE5vPPVKa0ggW3ksFfB3NLUS1iYW957SQ30sWjcG1UJuIBr-vEM3FKxPnqf1zd1t=s0-d)
![Reblog this post [with Zemanta]](https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/blogger_img_proxy/AEn0k_uatwGbmVa-dJqINPSlBBcudF5iiAzKEx4LtGIT94P0UDd6zzDq-vPuBCxpc0TtE77gEaKqFd04CRUx2tXePC_uRDJo24apYSQme_4ghJ03ad5SI4AGR5maHe3YB5jCmo0WgmDMxdCqsOopMTkPpkjM=s0-d)