You are right that it may be different from how Driscoll is preaching it. SoS was seen then (and by many today) as allegorical.

Like this one.

But I must admit a fleshly exhilaration concerning Driscoll and his ministry. He walks like an Arminian, talks like an Arminian, preaches like an Arminian, and even looks like an Arminain, all while professing to be a Calvinist. And all this to the consternation to most Calvinists!

When a Cal-sheep wanders off the prescribed pasture and has others follow him, I get a voyeuristic pleasure in watching the Calhedrin writhe in theological pain and anguish. I know it is sin, but I seem to be addicted to it, and I cannot summon the desire to stop.

Why is this sight defending Driscoll? You do know he believes in that nasty penal substitutionary atonement, as well as election and predestination right?

I’m not defending Driscoll per se. What I’m defending is a preacher–who, despite my misgivings with his theology, is a preacher ordained of Christ to proclaim the Gospel.

Nobody ever said it was nasty nor that it wasn’t accurate. It just isn’t the full picture.

Yep.

And, to be sure, this post isn’t about the atonement. It’s about what words preachers are allowed to use from the pulpit using Ezekiel 23 as a litmus test.

SoS was the most preached from book in the early church. It is a to our detriment that we have gotten away from it.

I’m curious about this statement. I perhaps agree with the latter part, but the former part intrigues me. So, without detracting from the point of the post, could you direct us to some concrete evidence to support this?

To be sure, I seriously doubt that the early fathers you may be referencing preached SoS in any way close to the way Driscoll preaches it. And, in fact, would likely be appalled at his interpretation of the book–as I am.

Still, there is a big difference at being appalled at a particular series of sermons and writing off someone/someone’s ministry because of it.

You do know he believes in that nasty penal substitutionary atonement, as well as election and predestination right?

Nobody ever said it was nasty nor that it wasn’t accurate. It just isn’t the full picture. I’m still not certain why the atonement becomes the litmus test?

SoS was the most preached from book in the early church. It is a to our detriment that we have gotten away from it.

With that said, I can’t stand Driscoll. He’s everything I think a pastor should not be and I disagree with him on just about everything.

But SoS? cool.

Why is this sight defending Driscoll? You do know he believes in that nasty penal substitutionary atonement, as well as election and predestination right?

Probably because, unlike the ODM sites, we don’t feel the need to falsely malign or accuse those who we disagree with.

As I’ve already noted, I do disagree with Driscoll on a good many things, but I don’t think that he’s not a Christian or that he deserves to be lied about.