It’s worth mentioning that John Carpenter attacks people who simply think Driscoll should be held accountable to how he defines plagiarism on his own website.
This is true idolatry.

Mr. Carpenter, this is hardly the place to discuss Christianity!

You still refuse to consider the possibility that he made a mistake. And he wasn’t combative with Mefferd, that’s why it’s Mefferd who had to apologize, not Driscoll. But don’t let truth get in the way of your lust to smear a pastor.

See my first comment for that– I think it’s the combination of Driscoll’s prior statements about plagiarism being “a demonic, satanic issue” (making the Hypocrite Card all too easy to play) with his combative response to the confrontation. A gentle answer from him would have turned away a lot of wrath. I do agree that that it’s rather odd that this of all things is the scandal that went viral; there are much more problematic statements in his oeuvre for anyone who really wants to go on the attack.

…Did I just get plagiarized? LOL. Good point all the same, guest.

Nonsense. That’s a false accusation. You can’t show once where I’ve lied to myself or anyone else. You’ve broken the 9th commandment (Ex. 20:16) by bearing false witness and must repent. If you won’t repent, then you need to examine yourself as to whether you are really “in the faith” (2 Cor. 13:5). Or are you just a religious hypocrite who thinks he can fabricate accusations without any basis in reality?
Driscoll isn’t even my “favorite celebrity”. You don’t know what you’re talking about. And there are no substantiated accusations of “repeated” plagiarism. There is only one: in the 1 Peter study guide. Don’t post falsehoods and then claim you are interested in furthering the cause of truth.

Win for Eric!!

A little addendum: Anyone doubting the truthfulness of this quote can easily look it up for themselves. Driscoll specifically defines plagiarism as to “speak anyone else’s messages… unless you get permission”, which he says is grounds for resignation. He makes no requirement for it to be done intentionally or word-for-word. You’re welcome to disagree with Driscoll, of course, but to insert an absent word such as “intentionally” into his definition would be to lie about what he said. (Which means there is some major irony here from the trolls.)

Those who followed my comments in a previous thread will note that I’ve learned from my mistake and will not be wasting any time feeding the trolls. I recommend others do the same.

Eric, I agree the issue of plagarism is serious. My confusion was with the big deal that was being made if it given that the publisher does not believe it to be plagarism, in the first case, and we dont even know Driscoll knew about the study guide in the second.
I’m not defending Driscoll, I just don’t understand the level of rhetoric given that the process has not played out as of yet.