John MacArthur on Mark Driscoll

John MacArthur

If anyone is interested in understanding John MacArthur’s position on Mark Driscoll you can read about it here, but as far as his position on Piper’s invitation to Driscoll to appear and speak at his 2008 Desiring God Conference…well…only time will tell.

From his December 11th, 2006 article entitled “Grunge Christianity? Counterculture’s Death-Spiral and the Vulgarization of the Gospel” MacArthur well says:

“Worldly preachers seem to go out of their way to put their carnal expertise on display—even in their sermons. In the name of connecting with “the culture” they want their people to know they have seen all the latest programs on MTV; familiarized themselves with all the key themes of “South Park”; learned the lyrics to countless tracks of gangsta rap and heavy metal music; and watched who-knows-how-many R-rated movies. They seem to know every fad top to bottom, back to front, and inside out. They’ve adopted both the style and the language of the world—including lavish use of language that used to be deemed inappropriate in polite society, much less in the pulpit. They want to fit right in with the world, and they seem to be making themselves quite comfortable there.

Mark Driscoll is one of the best-known representatives of that kind of thinking. He is a very effective communicator—a bright, witty, clever, funny, insightful, crude, profane, deliberately shocking, in-your-face kind of guy. His soteriology is exactly right, but that only makes his infatuation with the vulgar aspects of contemporary society more disturbing.

Driscoll ministers in Seattle, birthplace of “grunge” music and heart of the ever-changing subculture associated with that movement. Driscoll’s unique style and idiom might aptly be labeled “post-grunge.” His language—even in his sermons—is deliberately crude. He is so well known for using profane language that in Blue Like Jazz (p. 133), Donald Miller (popular author and icon of the “Emerging Church” movement, who speaks of Driscoll with the utmost admiration) nicknamed him “Mark the Cussing Pastor.”

I don’t know what Driscoll’s language is like in private conversation, but I listened to several of his sermons. To be fair, he didn’t use the sort of four-letter expletives most people think of as cuss words—nothing that might get bleeped on broadcast television these days. Still, it would certainly be accurate to describe both his vocabulary and his subject matter at times as tasteless, indecent, crude, and utterly inappropriate for a minister of Christ. In every message I listened to, at least once he veered into territory that ought to be clearly marked off limits for the pulpit.”

See part two by clicking here.

185 thoughts on “John MacArthur on Mark Driscoll

  1. Hello friend, I like your manner of speech and your willingness to stand. Be ready to be shot at from both sides of the fence. The world that dominates the church rolls today doesn’t seem too interested in truth, and the church that is at home in the world doesn’t either. I am not meaning to be discouraging. I want to encourage. Stand on separation from ungodly things, in spite of the ridicule that comes with it. People will cry, “Well, God knows my heart.” Yes, He does, that is the problem. In most cases the individual who says this doesn’t realize that only God knows their heart. We must live as good a testimony as we can because, John Q. Public does not know our hearts and he is the one we are trying to reach. YOU CAN NOT BAIT A HOOK WITH WORLDLINESS TO DRAG THE WORLD OUT OF HELL. It takes something more powerful than that. The word of God.

  2. Well, I would like to comment on both ministers. I must admit that I know just a little about both. I have read some of John MacArthur’s stuff. I did really like his book, “It’s hard to believe”. As far as Mark Driscoll goes, I’ve seen him on “You tube” a time or two and have read some of his stuff.
    Shooting from the hip, I would say that John can reach people that Mark can’t and vise verse. Mark can minister to the younger crowd outside the church, while John can minister to the some what older crowd in the church. What it appears is that you have “old school” and new school.
    I believe we need to be culturally relative, but not compromising the truth. It can be a fine line. We certainly need the Holy Spirit to guide us and show us when we might be going to far one way or the other.
    I believe we need to quit picking on each other and get busy with getting The Gospel out there. Many are lost and dieing out there why we sit and argue about who’s right and who’s wrong in “the church”.
    Be blessed as you go out,
    Richard

  3. rjperalta,

    Thanks for stopping by DefCon. The real issue is not about “old” vs. “new” school. The Bible cuts across culture. It does NOT stoop to being culturally relevant at the expense of Christian charity, sound Biblical exposition, or the Biblical qualifications that are required of a minister.

    When one who claims to be a minister of the gospel chooses to go more in the direction of the world (and claims it is for the purpose of reaching the culture), they have stepped over a boundary which is not permissible in Scripture.

    As a pastor, I can reach motorcycle gangs (as an example), but I don’t have to do drugs with them, sleep around with all the women, etc. in order to share the truth of the Scriptures. They may choose not to listen to me, but I do not expect them to change or have a desire to be interested in the Word of God until the Holy Spirit draws them to repentance. There should be such a vast difference between their lifestyle and mine that it will point to the Lord Jesus Christ and break through the sub-cultural society in which they are engaged.

    As for getting busy with the Gospel and to “quit picking” on each other, that is a good point were it not for the fact that even the Scriptures give clear commands about what to do and how to handle those who are an offense to the gospel. There are a number of passages which explicitly address those who claimed to be believers and have resorted to being like the world.

    Whose gospel is right? If cultural relativity means I speak, act, dress, etc. just like the world and demean the commands of Scripture to be separate and to NOT love the world, I do not have a clear gospel message. There must be a clarion call for what is wrong in the church. The world needs to know that not everybody who cries, “Lord, Lord” is part of the true church. When the lines begin to blur, they will continue to blur to the point where we might as well as be back in the arms of the RCC. Write the Reformation out of the history books, etc.

    With respect,
    The Desert Pastor

  4. Ministry Addict says:

    There is an interesting typographical error in rjperalta’s comment. I don’t think he did it on purpose, and I understood we’re not writing papers in grammar class here. (No doubt this comment itself will have numerous grammatical errors.)

    However, I think there may be some subconscious revelation in the term “culturally relative.” Probably what he meant was “culturally relevant,” but let’s be honest. Most people who want to be culturally relevant in evangelism, are really just exercising relativism concerning doing things the Bible’s way. “This gets results in business, so let’s do it in church. So what if it’s wrong? It really seems to work.”

    It’s great to do God’s work God’s way, but doing God’s work man’s way is sinful. I Timothy 3:1-7

  5. Very true! I get so tired of hearing people making excuses for their ‘big-name preacher’ when he’s doing something that is contrary to the Word of God and they don’t want to hear the truth about it! God’s Word is our FINAL authority not the big-name preachers!

  6. Sounds like I need to clarify myself.

    I said, “I must admit that I know just a little about both”. If a minister of the Gospel is sinning in his efforts to spread the Gospel, then undoubtedly that would be wrong. I don’t know if Mark Driscoll is sinning or not. Just because we talk a little or look a little like the world, doesn’t mean we are sinning. If we go down that road of legalism, there is no end and before long we won’t have a proper effect on anyone. We will say it is because no one will hear or “few will be saved”, all the time it is because we think our little way is right as we walk in our straight jacket. (Been there, done that)

    I gave this example today in our gathering with some believers that we are disciplining.
    If Justin(a twenty five year old that came to Christ a year ago) who hangs with his friends and plays music once or twice a week, and has had some interesting conversations with the guys there about Christ/God. His desire is to hang out together with them and hopefully win them to Christ. He is not stooping to sin with them, but desires to show them that he loves them and wants God’s Spirit to draw them to Himself. By this type of relationship evangelism, I believe he can win them over.
    Now, if they are playing together one day, and along comes a knock on the door, and it is this guy dressed in a suit and tie with his bible in his hand and asks if he could talk to them about God. Who do you think could reach them better?
    Bottom line is, you can reach people that I can’t. And I can reach people that you can’t. That is one good reason why God made is all different.
    If I am not engaging in sin, then what’s the problem? The Apostle Paul said, “I am all things to all people, that I might win some”.
    May God help is to relate to people who He puts in our path for the sake of The Gospel.
    Richard

  7. Actually, we had a Justin that did just that in our church in England. He was trying to be all things to all people (and not the way Paul in the NT did it) and guess where he ended up? He is now extremely charismatic! Give a person enough rope and they will hang themselves! That is why it’s so important to begin changing at the moment of spiritual birth! OLD things should have passed away behold all things should be becoming new!

  8. aj says:

    You may be interested to hear that in Seattle, the local porn festival, which is called interestingly “Humpfest” has a goal.
    That is to film two people in a gay sex act in front of Driscoll and his kids. This way, when they show the film at the festival, they know it has been filmed in Seattle.

    That is the context he is preaching in.

    I think we should pray for the guy.

    No one ever tried to do that to me or my family.

  9. Ben says:

    aj and rjperalta, thank you. The rest of you…I lived in Seattle and you should be praying for those doing his work there, not criticizing. It’s God’s work to be done, not yours.
    Don’t be so self important that you think your rants make a difference.
    I’ve heard quite a few Mark Driscoll sermons and he LOVES Jesus. It’s a dangerous place to go to challenge that because that’s between him and the Lord.

  10. Ben,

    What makes you think that “the rest of you” as you say aren’t praying for Mark Driscoll? What makes you think you can know the condition of another person’s heart or the contents of another person’s prayer life?

    Just because you’ve “heard quite a few Mark Driscoll sermons” do you really believe that you can somehow know Mark Driscoll “LOVES Jesus”?

    Mormons and Jehovah’s Witnesses proclaim that they “LOVE Jesus” and they go around doing many works in His name. Do you also believe that, like Mark Driscoll, Mormons and JW’s “LOVE Jesus”?

    In Christ,
    CD

  11. dfree says:

    Mark Driscoll is only “culturally relative” in the sense that he uses modern media and speaks English. His preaching and teaching is Biblically based and Theologically sound in the reformed tradition. I would hardly agree with Mr. MacArthur that he wants to “fit right in with the World.” Nor does he give any examples of the “crude, “profane,” or “deliberately shocking” language. As far as the “territory that ought to be clearly marked off limits for the pulpit,” that seems more like a statement of personal preference for Mr. MacArthur. Mark Driscoll unashamedly preaches the true Gospel.

  12. dfree,

    I don’t know if you’re speaking from ignorance or deception but it’s certainly one or the other.

    If you’re interested in learning more about Driscoll’s patently unbiblical behavior and theology I submit for your review the following posts:

    The Guardian of Grunge and Seattle Sludge

    Mark Driscoll Mocks the Sinlessness of Jesus Christ

    Mark Driscoll Rejects McLaren but Embraces Contemplative

    Crosstalk: Watch Your Mouth!

    Mark “The Cussing Pastor” Driscoll’s New Year’s Eve Bash

    I must also say that I find it duplicitous at best that you would challenge the “lack of examples” provided in the brief quote from John MacArthur, even as you proceed to make the blanket statement that “Mark Driscoll unashamedly preaches the true Gospel” without providing any evidence or “examples”. Isn’t this a classic case of the pot calling the kettle black?

    In Christ,
    CD

  13. dfree says:

    It is indeed. I committed the classic logical blunder. If you use these addresses you can view some examples:

    Thank you.

  14. Thanks for the examples, dfree.

    But the question isn’t whether or not Mark Driscoll knows or has ever preached the Gospel. Satan himself and all the demons of hell know and believe the Gospel and tremble.

    No one in any of the Mark Driscoll threads that I’ve read (or that I linked to above) claims that Mark Driscoll never tells the truth. The issue is the fact that Mark Driscoll mixes the sacred with the profane.

    He corrupts the holy with the unholy.

    He teaches some truth and he teaches some lies.

    He blesses God with his mouth and utters scatological profanity with his mouth.

    He claims to reverence Jesus Christ yet he dishonors Him by blasphemously musing on the risen Savior engaging in homosexual intercourse in heaven.

    He teaches that Jesus Christ is the sinless Lamb and Son of God yet he imputes sinful sexual desires to the Second Person of the Triune One True and Living God claiming the He desired sexual relations with His own creatures.

    All the aforementioned statements are covered in the links I provided in my prior comment. I pray that you might take the time to carefully review them.

    Let me ask you something dfree, how much poison is too much poison for you to imbibe? Would you offer just a little poison to your friends and family because overall it tastes really sweet and it doesn’t kill instantly?

    Driscoll is in desperate need of prayer and repentance.

    In Christ,
    CD

  15. Larry says:

    CORAMDEO, Get off Driscoll. He’s learning. And if he stays around John Piper, and John Macarthur, they will mentor him properly. His gospel is right on point ,and yes it’s agreed he needs to monitor his speech. The thing that is positive, is he’s telling those youth the truth aboout their sin and offense to God and without Jesus they will face eternal damnation. He’s not “nicing” them, into Jesus.

  16. Thanks for sharing your thoughts, Larry.

    I wonder how long it ought to take a Christian pastor to learn that:

    A) He shouldn’t use foul, corrupt language in his sermons from the pulpit
    B) He shouldn’t impute unscriptural sinful sexual desires the Lord Jesus Christ during His incarnation
    C) He shouldn’t fantasize about the risen Lord Jesus Christ engaging in homosexual acts in heaven with the saints?

    It appears to me that Driscoll is influencing Piper instead of the other way around, and I’m not aware of Driscoll spending any time with John MacArthur, could you point out some examples?

    No one is claiming that Driscoll never says anything true or that he never has anything spiritually valuable or scriptural to say, but the fact remains that it is unbiblical for Driscoll to be telling truth mixed with lies. He needs to humble himself and repent of his error. A little leaven leaveneth the whole lump.

    With respect to your assertion that Driscoll’s gospel is “right on point”, you’re simply mistaken – it isn’t. Steve Camp has followed Driscoll for many years and here is his assessment of Driscoll’s theology:

    -He is Amyraldian in his view of the atonement.

    -He is Arminian in regards to his views on particular redemption and election (the two go hand in hand). After listening to many of his sermons, he really doesn’t understand the nature of the atonement in regards to propitiation.

    -He is also extremely Arminian/pragmatic in his presentation of the gospel. To be fair, he preaches a non-easy-believism gospel, but then his call for others to be saved is very Warrenesque (”just believe and receive…”). Driscoll IS the seeker-friendly ecumenical movement in grunge rags.

    -He is antinomian; and that is why his degrading speech is not contemptible and woeful to him (cp, Is. 6:1-6), but continues to treat it in a cavalier and casual manner. I don’t believe he sees it as sin.

    -He is disrespectful and irreverent to the name and person of Christ in that he will use the Lord’s name and aspects of His incarnation as a punch-line for his own brand of off-colored humor.

    -Mark has embraced Robert Schuller completely as one “who deeply loves Jesus…” He has partnered with Schuller in conference settings at The Crystal Cathedral and has failed to publicly call him to repentance for his false gospel.

    Steve Camp is a sincere and godly man without an axe to grind, and he doesn’t throw serious charges like these around willy-nilly. This ought to be very sobering to any believer who is still “on the fence” about Driscoll or his ministry.

    Furthermore with respect to your demand that I “get off Driscoll” I’m really astounded, confounded and saddened to think that anyone would read my post (or Steve Camp’s) and conclude that he or I are gratuitously attacking Driscoll. Godly criticism in the light of scripture should never be construed as an attack, on the contrary believers are commanded to speak out against error – especially within the church! It isn’t my intent to be ungracious or unloving in my approach to this subject, but rather to be forthright and honest in truth and love.

    But the fact remains that Driscoll’s unrepentant, unbroken pattern of smutty language from the pulpit is in violation of scripture which has been covered here and in multiple other metas previously linked within this combox. In the light of scripture believers must understand that beneath the obvious external problems with Driscoll’s gutter-speak there clearly lies within a deeper spiritual problem for out of the abundance of the heart the mouth speaks, and again what comes out of a man defiles him, and again as a man thinks in his heart so he is.

    Dricoll’s language is typically earthy, worldly, fleshy, sensual and devilish (James 3:14-16). This is not at all representative of an adherence to God’s Word and reliance upon God’s wisdom but belies instead a worldly reliance upon the flesh and the intellect which things are in opposition and enmity to the Spirit.

    John MacArthur clearly recognizes this spiritual reality when it comes to Mark Driscoll while John Piper has completely missed the boat and evidently openly embraces his error. I wish I could believe that Piper is secretly “working on” Driscoll as some sort of “Paul & Timothy” spiritual discipling project is quietly taking place behind the scenes – but Driscoll has been on the same dead end road for at least as many years as he’s known John Piper, and thus far he has shown ZERO spiritual growth in this area whatsoever. What then shall we conclude? Maybe it will take him three more? Ten more? Thirty more? God only knows, but in the meantime he needs to repent of his uncleanness and turn away from his lewd sinfulness and if he fails to do so he must be disciplined and if he still refuses he must be considered as a restoration/witnessing prospect (Matt 18:15-17; 1 Cor. 5:9-13). Driscoll’s sincere and public repentance followed by actual fruits of repentance would be a really good starting point.

    As it stands right now Driscoll reminds me of Micah in the book of Judges. Micah built his very own backyard religion just the way he liked it. He mixed up some error and some truth that looked pretty good to him and to everyone else, and went about worshipping God in a way that was right in his own eyes. He even hired a Levite to be his priest to help him legitimize his idolatrous, abominable false religion – but in the end it couldn’t help him and he lost everything. (Judges 17-18) It’s my earnest prayer that Driscoll would simply abandon himself and return to Shiloh.

    In Christ,
    CD

  17. MK says:

    MacArthur is not all wet on this, but he’s close. Leave it to a guy who has worn the same haircut (but for receding hair line) since the 1970′s at least. He’s a yuppie stiff in classical pressed suit Baptist fashion, and probably has difficulty with “cross-cultural” and “culturally relevant” because such words and phrases don’t appear in his concordance (yet neither does “suit and tie”). His hermeneutic methodology sometimes suffers from the same stiffness convenient to traditional Baptist stodginess (and I’ll leave you to wonder of what instances I’m thinking).

    That said, Mark has been a little off a couple of times. Four years ago, I did here him use “hell” and “damn” in a swearing way several times. These were when welling up with anger over the molestation of his little girl by an old family friend, and frustration over (sexual) seducers slipping in among the flock, or young couples trying to live together while keeping a low profile at church. Still this was rare. — And maybe that’s better than Mac’s legalism of an unbiblical no-drinking alcohol qualification for pastors. [In Paul's context, "stumbling" the brother did not have to do with excessive consumption of alcohol, but causing them to think it was okay to stumble back into worship in pagan temples.]

    “LAVISH use of language that used to be deemed inappropriate in polite society” is a COMPLETE DISTORTION. It is not lavish, but spotty. Again, one wonders where this “polite society” is Mac is talking about. The Victorian Era, or the 1950′s? Surely it was not in the roaring 20′s, late 40′s, 60′s, 70′s, 80′s, or 90′s, except for appearances sake at the symphony, or while dining out in formal settings. Ever throw back martinis with fat cats and Congressmen in those days, or to a football game average Joes, John?

    “He is SO WELL KNOWN FOR using profane language that in Blue Like Jazz (p. 133), Donald Miller (popular author and icon of the “Emerging Church” movement, who speaks of Driscoll with the utmost admiration) nicknamed him “Mark the Cussing Pastor.”” — Another ignorant and fallacious dig. Mark used to run in that circle of innovators (which he has distanced himself from), and that’s how Miller knows him. It is Miller’s book that made it “so well known.”

    It should be pointed out that scripture does sometimes use crude language. The Greek word once translated “dung” in the N.T. is actually a crude form, and would probably carry its sense better if translated with a different four-letter work in English. And “All our works are as filthy rags” is very, very crude in the original tongue, referring to filthy menstrual rags, not merely a filthy piece of cloth.

    If I am not mistaken, and I am not, menstrual rags, let alone filthy ones, were never proper topics to be discussed, or terms to be used in MacArthur’s hermetically sealed “polite society.”

    Mark has been off the mark a few times, and I have disagreed with him on several things. He and I also do not share the same style. But his casual and down-to-earth, man-off-the-street style is not to be disdained simply because it does not fit John Macarthur’s cookie-cutter view of what one should say from the pulpit.

    I attended Mars Hill for five years, and listened to MacArthur for many on the radio. I doubt Mac has even come close to that. But then, Mac probably also has a problem with the fact that Mark seems to have the gift of prophecy (being given prophetic dreams, and having heard God speak a few times — and it has proved out), which Mac does not believe is possible, because it doesn’t fit his poorly constructed “sign gifts have ended” interpretation. Maybe that is playing a role here.

    Between the two, I’d take Mark’s rubber meets the road sermons over Macs ever sermon as continuous crescendo of shouting at an audience who came their willingly to learn, usually given in three to five points that start with the same letter (as if you should write it down, take it home, and memorize it like scripture). Funny thing, not one Gospel or Epistle ever uses that method. Maybe we should classify that practice as aberrant?

  18. Cat says:

    As a teenager coming from Pastor MacArthur’s church, I just wanted to say that you don’t have to make yourself seem younger or more culturally relevant to make an impact in the “younger crowd”. I have grown up at Grace Community Church and I have really grown to appreciate the way the Word is taught. The Holy Scriptures don’t have to be presented in a vulgar manner to reach this generation; The Word of God transcends all boundaries as someone said before me. Pastor MacArthur preaches the truth in a bold and straightforward manner, yet he has never had to compromise the integrity of the pulpit. I know I have a lot of growing to do as a Christian, but Philippians 4:8 sure rings in my head.

  19. Dear Cat:

    Thank you very much for your comment and insight. You are spot on but so many people simply prefer man’s wisdom and methods over that of God’s. They have a “better way.” Kind of like Cain, huh?

    You are among family here on DefCon and we look forward to your continued readership and future comments.

    Sincerely,
    - The Pilgrim

  20. My My MK, you’d better be careful when you deliberately speak falsely against others, in a belittling way… ‘MacArthur is not all wet on this, but he’s close. Leave it to a guy who has worn the same haircut (but for receding hair line) since the 1970’s at least.’ So slander is okay in God’s eyes? ” But now you must put them all away: anger, wrath, malice, slander {Greek-blasphēmia-slander, detraction, speech injurious, to another’s good name}, and obscene talk from your mouth. ” Colossians 3:8 Also, notice the command to put away obscene talk.

    You also say, ‘And maybe that’s better than Mac’s legalism of an unbiblical no-drinking alcohol qualification for pastors’.

    Let’s go to the only source of truth we have on this matter, the Bible. From 1st Timothy 3:3-7–”A bishop then must be blameless, the husband of one wife, temperate, sober-minded, of good behavior, hospitable, able to teach; not given to wine{ Greek-paroinos-given to wine, drunken}, not violent, not greedy for money,but gentle, not quarrelsome, not covetous; one who rules his own house well, having his children in submission with all reverence (for if a man does not know how to rule his own house, how will he take care of the church of God?); not a novice, lest being puffed up with pride he fall into the same condemnation as the devil. Moreover he must have a good testimony among those who are outside, lest he fall into reproach and the snare of the devil.’
    Matthew Henry’s commentary on bishops/preachers being sober, “He must be sober, temperate, moderate in all his actions, and in the use of all creature-comforts. Sobriety and watchfulness are often in scripture put together, because they mutually befriend one another: Be sober, be vigilant. ”
    If a man claims to be called to preach, yet he belts down alcohol, spews out foul language, and dresses like a pauper, what makes him any different than the world? How will a lost sinner see the change Christ makes?
    Such a person is a dishonorable ‘vessel’.
    “Let everyone who names the name of the Lord depart from iniquity. Now in a great house there are not only vessels of gold and silver but also of wood and clay, some for honorable use, some for dishonorable. Therefore, if anyone cleanses himself from what is dishonorable, he will be a vessel for honorable use, set apart as holy, useful to the master of the house, ready for every good work.” 2nd Timothy 2:19-21

  21. Sjones says:

    I’m sorry all if this doesn’t read well. I have enjoyed reading the replies here and feel compelled to quickly respond. I hope my tiredness hasn’t impaired too much of my wit or finger action.

    MK,

    Your tone may be strong, but as I read all the responses, I find your reasoning spot on. I’ve been reading and listening to both John MacArthur and Mark Driscoll for years now and find John out of line for criticizing Mark.

    I do believe that it is imperative for Christians to be ready to defend the Gospel at all times. Take for instance Athanasius in his day. Or Paul in his day, defending the cross. Or take for instance the Scriptural command. Continuing, as John says, Mark’s soteriology is right on. Just read “Vintage Jesus” or listen to his sermons on the atonement. I find no fault here, or discontinuity with Scripture. No person has yet to prove it, at least on this website. And take it from D.A. Carson, J.I. Packer, Gerry Breshears, C.J. Mahaney, John Piper, Matt Chandler,
    Wayne Grudem and other believers who stand with Mark and agree that he is a sound biblical teacher. I say these names because I am nobody, but these guys are known for their clear, orthodox teaching.

    I would contend that what John posits are in-house debates. These should be treated with a fair amount of decent discourse instead of an intimation at Mark being a non believer. What does John have a problem with? Or you have a problem with? Mark’s style of clothes? This is completely irrelevant. Style is garbage anyway, worthless to consider in respect to soundness. I daresay Jesus didn’t bathe much. Nor did John the Baptist. And consider that Jesus didn’t come adorned with much, as he was a man of no reputation. I could list more names, more sources, but these should be sufficient.

    Vulgar language? As John says, modern 4 letter curse words aren’t used. And when and if they have been used, it is in recognition of the very nature of the impact of those words for Biblical clarity (as MK pointed out). So John says, then, that Mark uses language and subject matter that is “tasteless, indecent, crude, and utterly inappropriate for a minister of Christ.” When did discussing topics the Bible itself discusses become indecent or tasteless? When did it become utterly inappropriate to call people to repentance and believe the Bible?

    Mark may be learning from Piper, but his relationship with Piper is certainly not simply a mentored one. Mark’s religion is not shortsighted, nor is it his own. It would be devilish to align him with false teachers as much as it would be devilish to align MacArthur with false teachers. Mark may be earthy, but he is not worldly or sensual. Smutty is just way out. (I have never, never, never, heard smut come out of his mouth. And I’ve listened to countless sermons and read a number of pieces of literature of his.) If speaking an orthodox position on the Song of Solomon or other like passages makes you sensual then the questioner may need to be cross examined against Scripture.

    The intellect being in opposition to the Spirit? Umm, hate Paul then who, although he considered his intellect as filthy rags in comparison with knowing Christ, still used it as a tool to the Romans when outlining a very clear, intellectual treatise on Christ. Sure, it was from the revelation of the Holy Spirit, but it was intellectually presented as though the Spirit used it as a hammer to drive home His character.

    Driscoll leavening in lies? Where? Really. Where? I have yet to find something that he stands by that is a lie. Remember, even John MacArthur admits to have falsely represented the Bible as a beginning preacher. If you want proof of this, I can find it. He has said it in a number of sermons. Of course, John says that he has repented and took rebuke soundly. So, I guess Mark, if in case he has misrepresented Scripture once, or twice, if that, maybe, can’t repent?!? I haven’t found a lie yet that he stands by. Maybe some differences in minor theological points. Both Luther, Calvin, and Zwingli had things they agreed upon and disagreed upon. Would you call in question any of their salvation? Seriously? Would you?

    I’m not simply trying to defend Driscoll. It is plainly clear that the attackers here are out of bounds. Not once has Mark’s theology been sufficiently disproved by Scripture. That which matters most, Christ and His Gospel, has been upheld by Mark, clearly and definitively. Yet, Mark’s style comes off as crude and out of line for a gospel preacher for some. Is that cause for an effigy to be burned in his honor? If he falsely represents Christ by upholding style as preeminent, then Mark would be wrong. But he has yet to be unrepentant of that. Seriously, it sounds as though some people would have problems with a native Papua New Guinea tribal pastor preaching orthodox Christianity in tribal clothes in a tribal hut using no pulpit or organ or nice suit.

  22. The fact that Driscoll resorts to vulgarity and profanity are the reason he will not be effective in his ministry, regardless of how correct his theology may be. The word of God is pure, the men and women who uphold this truth should not act, look, or talk like the world to drive home their gospel. The power to transform lies within the gospel itself. There is no need to cheapen and dirty the word of God with smut, just to be cool and be like the culture. This is where the rubber meets the road, either you follow Christ and shed the things of this world, and that definitely includes the inappropriate language and sexual innuendos, or you don’t.
    Trying to blend the word of God with the profanity of the world is not found anywhere in scripture. I have yet to find Christ, or any of the disciples using profanity, or sexual innuendos to help ‘drive the gospel message home’.
    If a family goes to church and brings their children, and the Pastor starts talking about sex, is this what you want your young children to hear? How would this benefit them, or you, in growing in Christ? Growing in holiness?
    Here is a sample of Mr. Driscoll’s ‘preaching’ … from http://www.stevenjcamp.blogspot.com/

    “An “Under 17 Requires Adult Permission” warning flashes before the video cuts to evening services at Mars Hill, where an anonymous audience member has just text-messaged a question to the screen onstage: “Pastor Mark, is masturbation a valid form of birth control?”

    Driscoll doesn’t miss a beat: “I had one guy quote Ecclesiastes 9:10, which says, ‘Whatever your hand finds to do, do it with all your might.’ ” The audience bursts out laughing.

    ‘For the record… this is not funny; it’s tragic’…from Steve Camp. Read the post in its entirety at http://stevenjcamp.blogspot.com/2009/01/grudge-report-inaugural-post-todays.html

    It appears Driscoll ‘fans’ would much rather defend a mortal man and allow unbiblical practices into the church than to stand firmly on God’s word.

    This is exactly what is wrong with the churches of America. They want to be ‘cool’, stretching the limit and talking about taboo issues, things that should NOT be spoken of from the pulpit. They like to dress casual, be comfortable, and be entertained. Sunday worship is no different than going to the office on Monday; except they dress nicer for the office.
    It has been said that Robert Murray McCheyne used to throw his head down into an open bible and weep before he preached. Others have had men and women praying continually under the pulpit while they preached the word of God. Perhaps if this verse was taken to heart, we might see true revival, “Let all the earth fear the LORD: let all the inhabitants of the world stand in awe of him.” Psalm 33:8

  23. Sjones says:

    lyn,

    I whole heartily disagree with your evaluation. I have the evidence and use the Word as the judge. I think your comments are shortsighted and cause for grieving sound Biblical teaching.

    It is uber obvious that you are stuck in traditional fundamentalism. This fundamentalism sounds more important to you than sound doctrine. Of course, I see that you might be knee jerking to progressivism. I can understand that knee jerk because liberal theology is clearly a perversion of the historicity and authority of Scripture. But, by highlighting those of yesterday and their methods, you might be teetering on elevating those methods therein and slighting the clear teaching of Scripture.

    Talking about sex in church is very good. There is no taboo. Where in Scripture is this taboo taught. That is: clearly taught. I’m sure the decency sections of Scripture should be read more thoroughly inline with all other Scriptural teaching. More specifically, all teaching, with consideration to all subjects, ought to be taught in congruence with the character of God revealed in Scripture, setting all perversion of those teachings aside, that is, setting the perpetuation of our personal agenda aside. By the way, “in church” is a misnomer. Christ’s body is the church. If you mean, “when the church is gathered” then I can understand. But then, I still think that is a madman’s statement. For, nowhere does Scripture ask us to not study any part of Scripture or its teaching thereof when we are gathered. If then you mean, “teaching of Scripture should be done with consideration to those present, ” Then I might agree with you, but this statement needs to be clarified.

    The quote concerning Ecclesiastes 9:10 was Mark referring to a guy who misquoted that verse. It is imperative for a Scriptural teacher to highlight false teaching and/or rendering of Scripture. That is what Mark exactly did. No wrong done here.

    The profanity of the world? Excuse me? That is so typecast and hypocritical to say. Paul himself uses profane images as illustrations. So does Elijah, Jesus, etc. . . But, Christians think they can get away with profanity because they don’t use the 4 letter type. But, believe me, step outside of your box and you might find that many Christians use profane renderings of very common words, words like “religious,” “stupid,” “I was cheated,” “mine,” or any other host of words that are meant to devalue someone else and/or elevate you. You, lyn, in particular may not use them, but many do, and do so, in their minds, with justification.

    Don’t forget Paul’s words, which I have a mind to think you may not be reading them with understanding, “To the weak I became weak, that I might win the weak; I have become all things to all men, so that I may by all means save some.” Of course, when following this one should be ever mindful of continuing in Christ. Yet, the truth of this passage still stands. Also, remember Jesus who criticized the Jews who criticized him for drinking and eating, especially with sinners. Jesus referred to John the Baptist who was criticized for living humbly and meekly and John didn’t eat nor drink, but Jesus said that he, himself, came eating and drinking and they criticize him for that. I say, that you may be in danger for criticizing the wrong man for the wrong thing.

    Driscoll’s fans? Excuse me. By defending the teaching of a sound teacher, I am in essence defending his teaching, not the man. If his teaching is spot on, then by proxy, I am defending the Scripture. Yet, Scripture is the only truth, not Mark Driscoll, whom I could care less for, except for the value Christ puts on him. We do the same for other teachers, say Athanasius, St. Francis of Assisi, Luther, Calvin, Spurgeon, Wycliffe, Piper, etc. . . Shoot, I contend that you did it in a referencial manner with Steve Camp. (Which, by the way, I think leverages his disagreement with Driscoll with slightly more decency than many who cow tow to him.)

    Judge my ramblings, I don’t care. Criticize my remarks and how the reasoning doesn’t fit, fine. I’ll take your remarks and learn. But, judge the essence of what I say in light of Scripture. And let Scripture be the judge.

  24. Sjones says:

    I want to add an addendum to my previous post.

    It is so great that Scripture is the upmost of importance to many posters here. What a great and marvelous thing. We should strive for sound doctrine, to know Christ on his terms, and to be humble, repentant, and obedient. Thank God that many here may be.

    Just, please, judge a person with mercy, the same we have received. When it appears like someone is disgracing God and his Word, then be mad, sure. But be careful also. The temptation to sin is great and comes around the corner when we are trying so hard to be right. Being right is right if indeed we are right. But, if indeed we aren’t, then it is shameful.

    If Mark or anyone else is misrepresenting Scripture, then you better be darn sure that you are right when your mouth(fingers) start moving. And you better be darn sure that you are acting on the authority of Scripture and its teaching. Be careful of pretexting the Bible. And be sure, to continue in humility. When someone’s theology/teaching is right, then you are dealing with someone God is using. And then you are contending with God’s person.

  25. lyn says:

    SJones, What I am stuck in is God’s word, sola scriptura!

    As for this statement by you, ‘Paul himself uses profane images as illustrations’—elaborate, using scripture.

    NOWHERE in the holy scriptures do we find any of the apostles teaching on sex, other than to abstain from and flee sexual immorality. Husbands and wives are called to ‘submit’ to one another, it is NOT taken any further {Eph. 5:22, Col. 3:18} Your defense is like all the others who’ve come before you, you like to hear someone ‘talk dirty’, and it’s okay, as long as you throw in a few passages from scripture.
    Here’s what we are to follow, ‘ Follow the pattern of the sound words that you have heard from me, in the faith and love that are in Christ Jesus.’ 2 Timothy 1:13 Notice, the pattern to follow is ‘sound words’; where are these words found? IN SCRIPTURE!!
    This passage is for preachers such as Driscoll, ‘And many will follow their sensuality, and because of them the way of truth will be blasphemed. ‘ 2 Peter 2:2
    I stand solely on God’s word, bearing in mind His command not to add to or take away from His commands. Praise God I don’t have to sit under ungodly preaching that tickles the ear and satisfies the lustful desires of unregenerate hearts. If you’re having issues in the bedroom, take it to the Lord in private!
    How should the Gospel be preached? With sexual innuendos? Here’s what Paul says, “For Christ did not send me to baptize, but to preach the gospel, NOT WITH WISDOM OF WORDS, lest the cross of Christ should be made of no effect. ” 1 Cor. 1:17
    The word of God speaks for itself, profanity and sexual advice is not part of it.

  26. lyn says:

    Sjones, I reference back to Coram Deo’s post, it’s worthy of repeating…
    ‘With respect to your assertion that Driscoll’s gospel is “right on point”, you’re simply mistaken – it isn’t. Steve Camp has followed Driscoll for many years and here is his assessment of Driscoll’s theology:

    -He is Amyraldian in his view of the atonement.

    -He is Arminian in regards to his views on particular redemption and election (the two go hand in hand). After listening to many of his sermons, he really doesn’t understand the nature of the atonement in regards to propitiation.

    -He is also extremely Arminian/pragmatic in his presentation of the gospel. To be fair, he preaches a non-easy-believism gospel, but then his call for others to be saved is very Warrenesque (”just believe and receive…”). Driscoll IS the seeker-friendly ecumenical movement in grunge rags.

    -He is antinomian; and that is why his degrading speech is not contemptible and woeful to him (cp, Is. 6:1-6), but continues to treat it in a cavalier and casual manner. I don’t believe he sees it as sin.

    -He is disrespectful and irreverent to the name and person of Christ in that he will use the Lord’s name and aspects of His incarnation as a punch-line for his own brand of off-colored humor.

    -Mark has embraced Robert Schuller completely as one “who deeply loves Jesus…” He has partnered with Schuller in conference settings at The Crystal Cathedral and has failed to publicly call him to repentance for his false gospel.

    Steve Camp is a sincere and godly man without an axe to grind, and he doesn’t throw serious charges like these around willy-nilly. This ought to be very sobering to any believer who is still “on the fence” about Driscoll or his ministry.’–Coram Deo’s post of Nov. 28th, 2oo8

  27. To be very blunt Driscoll is a rank blasphemer.

    He regularly breaks the third commandment with utter impunity and complete irreverence. One need not curse God to be found guilty of taking His name in vain. The name of the Lord is great and is greatly to be praised, the Lord is never to be spoken to our about except with the greatest of reverence and fear for His infinite majesty and unspeakable holiness, yet Mark Driscoll consistently takes the Lord’s glorious name in vain by making Him the butt of homoerotic jesting from the pulpit and by frequently invoking His Holy Word in the commonest, basest, and most unholy manner.

    The discerning Christian can clearly see that Driscoll’s “God talk” is meaningless.

    Satan’s theology is quite orthodox and all the legions of hell know the truth of the Triune One True and Living God and tremble in terror, yet like a brute beast Driscoll speaks of that which he knows not, and heaps hot coals upon his own head in the process. The scriptures teach us that ravenous wolves will enter into the flock and lead many astray who have itching ears, desiring that they should have their ears tickled and that these will heap false teachers unto themselves. The scriptures also teach us that evil men will bring forth evil from the evil treasure in their hearts, and we are furthermore taught that it is out of the abundance of the heart that the mouth speaks. In other words what is inside of a man comes forth from a man.

    Driscoll spews forth filth and flesh at every opportunity, but worse still he mixes the profane with the holy, offering strange fire to the Lord.

    A good man out of the good treasure of the heart bringeth forth good things: and an evil man out of the evil treasure bringeth forth evil things. (Matt 12:35)

    Ye shall know them by their fruits. Do men gather grapes of thorns, or figs of thistles? Even so every good tree bringeth forth good fruit; but a corrupt tree bringeth forth evil fruit. A good tree cannot bring forth evil fruit, neither can a corrupt tree bring forth good fruit. (Matt 7:16-18)

    A double minded man is unstable in all his ways. (James 1:8)

    Driscoll is double-minded.

    He brings forth evil fruit.

    He speaks like the world, and the world hears him.

    An abomination like Mark Driscoll could only exist in the morally decadent, sensual, flesh glorifying Laodicean church of corruption that’s been spawned by modern American evangelicalism. With his aberrant views and gutter-sludge innuendo-laced mouth Driscoll could never have even held the position of a church member in good standing, much less that of a pastor in another age. But sadly the last days harlot church has given up the inestimable worth of her spiritual birthright of holiness, purity, and godliness for a worthless bowl of worldly pottage – she’s returned to the flesh pots of Egypt and revolting pseudo-Christians like Mark Driscoll are eager and willing to keep them into bondage to their sins and trespasses; the lust of the eyes, the lust of the flesh, and the boastful pride of life.

    Driscoll takes great pride in his worldliness, he’s hip with all the latest Hollywood buzzwords and is keen to be oh so relevant for his audience…but he forgets that his audience is One, the Infinite Creator and Judge of the universe, the One True and Living God before whom Driscoll will one day give an account.

    For all that is in the world, the lust of the flesh, and the lust of the eyes, and the pride of life, is not of the Father, but is of the world. (1 John 2:16)

    Mark Driscoll is in desperate need of prayer and repentance.

    In Christ,
    CD

  28. Joshua Cookingham says:

    “Mark Driscoll is in desperate need of prayer and repentance.”

    Agreed.

    “An abomination like Mark Driscoll…”

    urgh…..

  29. Sjones says:

    Wow, y’all are intense. You certainly have a lot to say, and with no evidence. Wow. Simply wow. And you call yourselves Christian? I wonder, if Scripture were really so important, maybe you would be careful enough to read it front to back with a good method for reading. Take the acronym L.I.G.H.T.S. I daresay that one may find illumination from it. And Christ portrayed by your presentation? I don’t think so. I slipped my foot into the discussion because I thought it was important to maybe help tone down the rhetoric.

    I mean to say, I disagree with John MacArthur’s view on an end-times antichrist as taught in Revelation. I get my understanding from Scripture and plenty of well-respected theological teachers. But, I don’t go calling him a blasphemer for misrepresenting the Word of God, which, in my opinion, he is doing. I understand that his ideas are not central to the Christian faith, so I’m OK. But, Mark says that those who read the Song of Solomon in a strict typological fashion, saying that the husband can only be read as being Jesus, are loony. He said that when we get to heaven we aren’t going to want to experience Jesus just as the bride experiences her husband in the Song of Solomon….sexual references and all. Of course the Song of Solomon is an image of the church’s relationship with Jesus, just as Paul described it in Ephesians, but it is loony to render the book only so. I’m sorry that when he makes fun of you (just as Elijah made fun of the prophets of Baal), you get your feelings hurt and call him a blasphemer. But just because YOU disagree with him doesn’t mean that Scripture and Jesus does.

    By the way, I have read the Steve Camp posts and thoroughly find that he uses ad hoc hypothesis. He takes Mark’s comments out of their presented contexts and justifies it because, in his and not Scripture’s opinion, a teacher should never discuss such things.

    Of course I follow the apostles teaching, but I also believe that, just like Paul, all Scripture is God breathed and useful for correction, teaching, etc. . .So, I don’t simply read the apostles’ part in Scripture, look for what is presented therein only, and curse everyone who talks of things not within those particular texts.

    I have read every single post here. And I have found that no one at anytime has proven that Mark Driscoll is a blasphemer. The only thing proven is that those who disagree with him simply disagree with him. Against Scripture, Mark is no blasphemer.

    OK, for the record, although Mark is a crazy 5-pointer, being Ariminian doesn’t make you a blasphemer. Pragmatic isn’t evil unless it is more important than Scripture. Take for instance Fundamentalism. This isn’t evil either, unless it is more important than Scripture. For Mark, he certainly doesn’t profane Scripture in order to advance Scripture. Show me one thing. I’m sure I’ll be able to refute it because every evidence here has been false and refutable. Mark isn’t disrespectful of the incarnation. Saying Mary was accused of being knocked up in an extra marital affair is the reference Scripture itself gives. Look at Joseph who thought that very thing. It appears as though you read this section through your fundamental lenses and can’t see the words on the page or the meaning thereof and so you curse someone who tries to be true to Scripture. Wow, Mark profanes? I have seen more profanity on this page than anywhere in a long time.

    Who says Amyraldian is heresy? I don’t like this particular view myself, but I’m not going to call it heresy. I don’t like paedobaptism, but I don’t call it heresy. It fits within the pale of orthodoxy. I bet your preacher reads Wayne Grudem’s Systematic Theology where he himself argues this point (paedobaptism and non central Christian doctrines).

    Antinomian? OK, I think you may not be listening to Mark Driscoll then. I can kind of see where someone might get this, but it must come from hearing a statement and tuning the rest out. Mark talks clearly against this point of view. He speaks about works showing a real faith, that if one is born again then Jesus is the Lord of their life and obeying his authority is central to it thereof. This is not simply wishful thinking, it is very clearly there.

    Coram Deo, I appreciate this blog here. Really, I do. But, I think your statements on this particular subject are crazy. If a non Christian were to read this they would say, “Hey look, someone with as much anger as I have..” or, “Wow, why so angry?” Of course this is a straw man argument. I don’t mean to prove anything by it, except, it doesn’t read like righteous anger. You blast this teacher with ad hoc, ambiguous assertions, selective observation, error of fact, slippery slope fallacies, and bifurcation. If he was Binny Hinn, I could understand, the man digs his own grave. Yes, Mark has been rude on occasion, and repented, but rudeness doesn’t equate him with degeneration and ineffectiveness. I think rereading your assertions might be a good thing to do. I don’t know you, but my guess is that you might find yourself in your own words.

    lyn, thanks. I read your testimony and I am very happy for where the Lord has brought you. God may have some great plans in store for you. But, please learn to be discerning and gracious. Remember, that our words, even our call to the world for repentance, must be done with the authority of Scripture, not invoking the word “Scripture” or “Bible” but through what the Bible actually says. Arius used the Bible and he was dead wrong. You, my guess, are nothing like Arius, so please be discerning and humble. (Even though I struggle with both of those.)

  30. Sjones says:

    By the way, I don’t like to hear someone talk dirty. It doesn’t please me. I am surrounded by such filth to varying degrees in several areas of my life such as work and some family. I like to talk about Jesus. As-a-matter-of-fact, my friends say I do so a little too much. They say, “Why can’t we talk about football…” If Mark talked so vituperatively, irreverently, and dirty as some here say, then I wouldn’t listen.

    What does that mean to you? Simply this, that his vulgar tone refers to his plebeian usage. He isn’t cultivated like St. Paul. He is more like John the Baptist. You say he is gross and morally crude. OK, if your morals are more important than the Bible. See, even John MacArthur will personally tell you this, that the Bible doesn’t teach morality. The Bible teaches Jesus and his redemptive plan. If you find some morality within the Bible, then great, but you can miss the forest for the trees. There are plenty of people who read the Bible and get morality from it, but miss Jesus.

    Be wise. If Mark proposes a false gospel then tell it like it is, and give specific references that are falsifiable. “Truth will out.” If his style is offensive, then that is fine. I think John MacArthur’s suit is offensive. So what. The Bible doesn’t speak on such terms and any attempt at trying to render it such is misrepresenting Scripture.

    Again, if Mark’s vulgarity misrepresents Jesus, then it would have to certainly misrepresent Jesus. Inasmuch as Mark has presented Him, I have not found irregularities with the Jesus of the Bible. And no one here, John MacArthur, or Steve Camp has proved it. You have a loose body of circumstantial evidence and use it like a pubescent handling a scalpel weighing 400 pounds.

  31. As is often the case I see many comments here that are long on feelings and opinion, but short on scripture.

    In the light of Holy Scripture what shall we make of a professing Christian pastor who from the pulpit fantasizes about the Risen Lord Jesus Christ participating in a homosexual act in heaven?

    In the light of Holy Scripture what shall we make of a professing Christian pastor who from the pulpit employs scatological references to the King of Glory to demonstrate his “true humanity”?

    In the light of Holy Scripture what shall we make of a professing Christian pastor who imputes sinful sexual desires to the impeccable Son of God during his Incarnation?

    In the light of Holy Scripture what shall we make of a professing Christian pastor who from the pulpit refers to the Lord Jesus Christ, the Eternal Son, the Second Person of the Triune One True and Living God as “dude”?

    In the light of Holy Scripture what shall we make of a professing Christian pastor who flippantly uses God’s exalted and Holy Word to make jesting references to masturbation?

    In the light of Holy Scripture what shall we make of a professing Christian pastor who embraces Robert Schuller – who is an arch-apostate – and who publicly praised Rick Warren’s blasphemous inaugural prayer wherein he invoked the demonically inspired name of “ISA”, the Muslim anti-christ?

    In all of this Driscoll, as previously mentioned, is in direct violation of the third commandment, as well as Ephesians 4:29, 5:3-4 & 12; and Colossians 3:8. Additionally, as also noted, Driscoll’s comportment in these examples is representative of Matt. 12:35, Matt. 7:16-18, and James 1:8. According to His own self-revelation about Himself as contained in the Holy Bible the One True and Living God takes His Name and His Holiness very, very seriously, and commands all men everywhere to do the same. It’s nothing less than a damning indictment of the total and radical depravity of a sinful, fallen man’s heart when he doesn’t.

    The holy and the profane; darkness and light, these have no communion with one another, and the Bible makes it crystal clear that evil proceeds from the evil treasure of an evil man’s heart. Driscoll brings forth sexual, scatological, fleshy, evil spiritual swill and then sprinkles it with a smattering of God talk and sadly many undiscerning, deceived people with itching ears are all to eager to belly up to the trough and lap it up. Look, you can put make-up, perfume, and a wig on a pig and call it “Sally”, but it’s still just a pig.

    But let’s get down to the real crux of the matter; Driscoll’s particular brand of sin is especially pernicious, evil, and wicked. Why? Well let’s think about it for a minute…what’s his reward for regularly taking God’s Name in vain and shamelessly profaning His holiness?

    Exactly what type of fleshly satisfaction is fulfilled by treating God Almighty and His Holy Word in a flippant, casual, cavalier, and unholy manner?

    I mean, after all the whoremonger receives fleeting temporal pleasure from his whores, just as the drunkard receives pleasure from his drink, and the thief receives pleasure from his ill-gotten gains, but what pleasure does the blasphemer receive for his blasphemy? NOTHING! His is simply to do evil for the sake of doing evil, which thing is especially abominable and detestable.

    At this point Driscoll’s starry-eyed hangers-on, apologists, and sycophants can (and usually do) wave their hands, and stamp their feet, and protest until they turn blue in the face, but his error is still error, and his evil is still evil, and his deception is still deception.

    God will not be mocked and the same Almighty God that struck Nadab and Abihu dead for offering up strange fire before Him is the same Almighty God who rules and reigns in great power and unspeakable glory today. Blessed be the Name of the Lord!

    Woe be unto the pastors that destroy and scatter the sheep of my pasture! saith the LORD (Jeremiah 23:1)

    ‘Til He returns or calls me home,
    CD

  32. Sjones,
    For what its worth: I totally appreciate your posts. Your patience and your graciousness is not lost on this one.
    I agree with you, Scripture is primary with those who read
    here, and that is refreshing, but I guess what I hear in what you write is an attitude that mirrors that written word. That is truly refreshing!
    Press on.
    Keith

  33. Amazing how harmless the casual references to God’s holy name, and the holiness of Christ can seem in the light of the rationale of carnal men. And how wicked and detestable these remarks and references suddenly appear when the light of Scripture is shined upon them. Thanks, CD, for the constant call to Biblical testing.

  34. Sjones says:

    It looks like my foot stepped in has been to no avail. This is quite sad to say the least. The rules over which y’all intimate, which we should reference God’s attributes and names, are Pharisetical. You tote around extra-biblical weight and condemn those that don’t wear your crowns of glory. I do hope you are prepared to answer for this to the King of glory. Referring to God as “dude” does no more diminish his holiness than referring to the second in the Trinity as Jesus because of their vernacular renderings. It sounds as no one here understands grammatical context. It isn’t what word we use to refer to God if it fits his attributes. The word “dude” refers to his closeness in relationship for those of us who use that term affectionately. Mark himself says that he affectionately refers to one of his sons as “dude.” It is a term of endearment. And befitting of the Lord who took on flesh and walked among us.

    CD, every single Scriptural reference you used was used out of context in vague constructs to condemn Mark Driscoll. I think you may be in danger yourself for rendering Scripture with a personal agenda attached. This, in my opinion, is more disgusting than anything you have written about Mark. You see, Scripture is that important to me, and you use it like a rag doll, throwing it around carelessly. You

    Remember that Jesus used such curses as “white washed tombs” to refer to how the Pharisees tried to look pure from the outside but were stinky on the inside. The vulgar discourse in Matt 12:34 calling the Pharisees “brood of vipers” was as vulgar as you could get in Jesus’ day. And Paul calling some “dogs” was rude to the max in Phil 3:2. And consider the language Paul refers to his works compared to knowing Christ. The Greek here refers to excrement and it is a very dirty word.Should we flippantly throw curse words around? No! But words are mere words. There is no power in words except that which you mean to do with them. Look at what James says we do with our tongues, praise God one moment and curse him the next. You, I’m sure, have been doing this.

    Eph 4:29. Mark himself uses such language that is wholesome to edification for the moment. For those that hear, his congregants, hear words like “repent” almost every single Sunday. His “curse” words are meant to highlight the actual meaning of the text. If you disagree with this point, then you should bring your accusations in a more scholarly conjecture instead of a cursing manner.

    Eph 5:3-4 Greed? Umm, that is a bold statement. Are you sure? On what basis are your claims founded? Mark discloses what he makes per year. It is just enough for a family of 7 in the Seattle area. Filthiness? Man, way to impute a modern rendering on an ancient text. This does not mean instructing people how to keep sex in the marital relationship. Yes, Mark goes into detail, but it teaches the congregants to keep those details reserved (not the mention of it thereof, but the act) for marriage. He also, if you’ve listened to the sermons and read “Porn Again,” talks about masturbation and lust being sinful outside of the marriage. Course jesting? Again, another modern imputation. I believe that Mark jests using the context of Jesus, Paul, Elijah, John the Baptist….

    Eph 5:12 If anything, this may be an area that Mark comes awfully close to. But, remember, sexuality is rampant everywhere in our society. Much of it is not secret. Shoot, I was watching a regular movie channel yesterday(not a premier station) and I had to turn the channel because a sex scene came up with bare women chests. Today, many junior high and high school kids are passing nude pictures of themselves to their boyfriend/ girlfriend and having sex regularly. When Mark mentions what they do it is not to glory in it. Look at his context, he is warning of the dangers of walking outside of God’s precepts.

    Col 3:8. It sounds as if you don’t understand these words.: slander, anger, wrath, malice, abusive speech. This, in effect, is what you have been doing here. I have read slander after slander with no apology. Slander is like libel, which is what you have done. Abusive speech? No more than what Christ has done. He argues for the authority of Scripture and makes warns of abusing Scripture with some weighty words to which you may take offense. Again, if you have a disagreement with his manner then reserve it for the scholarly work because it would take quite an analysis of Scripture and a few splitting hairs to disagree with Mark. And even then, you would probably be wrong.

    Matt 7:16-18, 12:35, James 1:8 Does not sound at all like Mark Driscoll. Look at he growth of the body in Christ at Mars Hill. And I’m not talking numbers. I’m talking about the lives of people that have been changed by Christ. People en masse who have repented from living with their boyfriend/ girlfriend, turned away from homosexual practices, turned from pride, turned from lust, turned towards Christ. The fruits of his labor are obvious. The church is getting clear teaching from an authoritative Scripture.

    And I know we are supposed to be the Bereans, but when did your intelligence outwit the likes of Piper, Grudem, Chandler, Carson, Packer, Keller and the like who stand affirming Driscoll? I know that the world went nuts with Arianism in his day and it seemed like only Athanasius stood firm. But the heresy was clear, not a splitting of hairs over manner and style. I daresay you are not Athanasius because your statements are scant of the scholarly approach. Your renderings are unfair to the synergistic reading of Scripture and are cause to be thrown out.

    “Exactly what type of fleshly satisfaction is fulfilled by treating God Almighty and His Holy Word in a flippant, casual, cavalier, and unholy manner?” Mark’s method has yet to do this. He speaks in a plebeian manner to speak contextual to a people who hear and understand his words. His manner is no less holy than a Lutheran pastor in robes. Cavalier? You sound as though you would denounce Spurgeon. These words of yours look almost like the words used to denounce him. Mark’s platform is befitting his stance as a missionary to a lost people. You have missed this boat.

    “In the light of Holy Scripture what shall we make of a professing Christian pastor who from the pulpit fantasizes about the Risen Lord Jesus Christ participating in a homosexual act in heaven?” You sure can take a guy’s words and twist them. What you did is malignment and libel. Mark refers to an overspiritualizing of the Song of Solomon as an inconsistent rendering. It would allow for these sort of fantasies of life with Jesus eternally. Hence why reading it as a love letter between Solomon and his wife is a more appropriate rendering. Again, I urge you to look into doing scholarly research here.

    “In the light of Holy Scripture what shall we make of a professing Christian pastor who from the pulpit employs scatological references to the King of Glory to demonstrate his “true humanity”?” Huh? I guess you don’t understand that many people do not believe that the Jesus of history is not the same Jesus of the Bible. Do you deny that Jesus came in the flesh? Do you deny that with a body Jesus would have scatological needs? It sounds as though you are teetering on being like the Pharisees.

    “In the light of Holy Scripture what shall we make of a professing Christian pastor who imputes sinful sexual desires to the impeccable Son of God during his Incarnation?” Again, as a man in human flesh, Jesus had regular desires. He did not fulfill those desires, as the Bible teaches. He was the perfect man who could abstain as we should outside of the desires constrains ordered by God. Wow, again, look into doing scholarly research. And sex is not sinful. Where do you get this? Are you a Shaker? To be tempted to want to have sex outside of marriage is not sin, it is human. To follow it through in your mind or actions is. Mark does never say this of Jesus.

    “In the light of Holy Scripture what shall we make of a professing Christian pastor who flippantly uses God’s exalted and Holy Word to make jesting references to masturbation?” Again, you are out of context. Mark was publicly refuting a member who misused Scripture to justify his sin so that others will not follow in those footsteps.

    “In the light of Holy Scripture what shall we make of a professing Christian pastor who embraces Robert Schuller – who is an arch-apostate – and who publicly praised Rick Warren’s blasphemous inaugural prayer wherein he invoked the demonically inspired name of “ISA”, the Muslim anti-christ?” This is the closest you got to the cookie jar. Here Rick Warren should have done taken better scholarly measures. And Schuller as well. Also, Mark should have looked a little deeper into this. But, pass him off for this? Maybe write a blog about it with your own scholarly research. Maybe write the elders at Mars Hill with your own scholarly research.

    “But let’s get down to the real crux of the matter; Driscoll’s particular brand of sin is especially pernicious, evil, and wicked. Why? Well let’s think about it for a minute…what’s his reward for regularly taking God’s Name in vain and shamelessly profaning His holiness?” God’s name in vain? Huh? Are you a Pharisee? I don’t even know what you mean? A Biblical rendering is not the one you did. Profaning God’s holiness? Seriously, I don’t know where you get this. I have read and read all over the net I find nothing, nothing at all. Profaning God’s holiness can be found in direct contradiction to sound doctrine. I have not witnessed this. Look also to Mark’s own repentance which falls inline with sound doctrine, that one should repent. But you ask him to repent for following Christ. Wow.

    I am not blue in the face trying to defend Mark. Like I said, I could care less for Mark except for his Bible teaching. I am blue in the face because of your misuse of Scripture to justify your own Mark Driscoll hate. I don’t mind if you have stylistic differences with Mark. I went to a service at a church that was more rigid than what I prefer, singing songs I found base, and missing key components such as artistic creativity. Yet, I enjoyed the service because the gospel was preached, not some foreign gospel not found in the Bible. In light of the same objective truth, Mark has committed no offense.

  35. gabriel says:

    Wow, I get to go vist Mars Hill when I go Seattle. Yes Mark is good and sometimes blunt. I go because every time he says the good news. Jesus came ,Jesus dided, Jesus is Alive. Jesus is the way to God . Not church, Not seed $
    It’s not our work it is the GRACE and sanctifying work of the Spirit. Its about the good news then God does the work. Go Blast the “$ seed sowing, work doing its up to (me and you) ” false teachers. Jesus calls me to repent of know sin and Mark relays that very well. Give praise to the King of kings for using Mark his servant. Dude in Chelan

  36. Perhaps my conscience is weak, but I personally find much about the manner in which Mark speaks offensive. I even corresponded with his ministry, trying to be Biblical about it, relating my being troubled with the way he spoke of sex and some of the profanity issues. Profanity is behavior unfitting a Christian, and does not give evidence to being led by the Holy Spirit in our speech.

    If we are spiritual we are to judge all things, and bring the flesh into submission. We are to do all things to Christ’s glory, and where we defame His name or offend brothers, OR cause gentiles to blaspheme Him, we are in error. We should not use our liberty as a license to do whatever we want, but should submit ourselves to each other in love, having great charity towards each other.

    Are we not to be reverent people? Do we not give men reason to doubt God, if we have a form of godliness, but deny the power of it in the way we live our lives?

    As far as clothing or cultural tastes, who cares? But the word of God is clear, being relevant doesn’t save, Jesus does. And being cool isn’t evangelistic, preaching the Gospel is. That is God’s chosen method, and we do not know better than God.

    Mark is not perfect, neither am I, but being so “in the public eye” as he is, he can be a black eye for Christianity if not careful. I think most would only wish him to take greater care to be reverent and Biblical in all his speech, behaviors and attitudes (reflecting repentance), and so reflecting the holiness of Christ so that God may cause others to notice the difference in “gettin’ saved” and being a born again Christian. There should be a difference in us and the world, beyond meager morality.

    What do you think?

  37. Aussie says:

    I know very little about Mark or Mars Hill, but heard that he was a great preacher and listened to a bunch of his sermons online. After reading the above, I have one key comment: Mark is not trying to be cool or worldly!!!!!!!

    Listen to the sermons! He preaches on the most uncool stuff ever. His messages are utterly offensive to the world. It is all focused on Jesus, his death and resurrection and all tied to the Bible.

    Please wake up and realise that you are on the same team.

  38. ragman,

    You are free to disagree with our position, but to do so by calling an elder and minister of the gospel by the words you chose will not be tolerated on this blogsite. Graciousness is obviously not one of your quality traits. Your comment has been deleted. For the record, John is far more biblical in his positions than Mark Driscoll.

    The Desert Pastor

  39. Driscoll doesn’t tell me how to reach my neighborhood, I don’t tell him how to reach his. as long as his doctrine is dead on, and it is, he can preach in a speedo. Thousands of lives are moved away from addiction and abuse, but still the Pharisees howl. I love MacArthur, I love Driscoll, I hate this counter productive criticism. There are some who would criticize Paul for commending the people at mars Hill, did he not know they were heathen?
    Satan does not need to attack us, we attack EACH OTHER. God forgive us.

  40. Hello willohroots,

    No one here is saying, or has ever said, that Driscoll never says anything worthwhile or Biblical. It’s clear that he has many compelling and scriptural things to say. Sadly he also speaks about men engaging in homosexual acts with the Risen Lord of Glory in heaven, and he speaks of the Lord Jesus Christ desiring to fornicate with strange women during His Incarnation, and he generally shames and slimes the pulpit with his scatalogical and profane references to holy things.

    I don’t know who you are calling a Pharisee, but you’re simply confused if you think that term describes John MacArthur or anyone here at DefCon. Phariseeism was based upon a works-righteousness soteriology (i.e. keeping the law), and therefore they trusted in themselves that they were righteous (i.e. had a right standing before God). Neither MacArthur nor any of Team DefCon believes this about themselves. We believe salvation is of the Lord and is by grace alone, through faith alone, in Christ alone, to the glory of God alone.

    However all true blood-bought, born-again believers in the Lord Jesus Christ (including Team DefCon, John MacArthur and you if you are a believer) are commanded to earnestly contend for the faith and to offer Biblical correction and even rebuke to those who profess Christ, yet profane His name.

    We ought to count ourselves as unprofitable servants for doing that which we are commanded, and we ought to consider ourselves disobedient and worthy of rubuke and chastisement if we refuse to obey Christ’s commands.

    ‘Til He returns or calls me home,
    CD

  41. The Pharisee comment was not made with anyone here in mind, so sorry if that came across, defcon is always a friendly read for me, There are other sites not near so loving or nice. I have followed Driscoll on occasion, and never heard any of that. As far as being a man, Hebrews 4:15 For we have not an high priest which cannot be touched with the feeling of our infirmities; but was in all points tempted like as [we are, yet] without sin. Was Jesus, my Savior not tempted as I have been , or am I reading that wrong. I know Driscoll has made comments about the images of Christ being sissified, but those images are sinful and should not be in our churches. I see Driscoll as earnestly contending for the faith in Seattle. His soteriology is sound according to MacArthur, let him do what the Lord is calling him to do.
    Calling people out of addiction, homosexuality, fornication, these are true and noble things, how sad that we need to criticize. While Tod Bentley and Benny Hinn are still out there with a thousand other jokers we have time to pick on someone who follows the Scripture amazes me.
    Mark 9:20 For he that is not against us is on our part.

  42. willohroots said: As far as being a man, Hebrews 4:15 For we have not an high priest which cannot be touched with the feeling of our infirmities; but was in all points tempted like as [we are, yet] without sin. Was Jesus, my Savior not tempted as I have been, or am I reading that wrong.

    The scriptures are true, willohroots; and the scriptures teach that temptation is not the same thing as sin. Being tempted to sin doesn’t make one sinful. In other words temptation does not equal sin. Jesus Christ never sinned, He was in fact sinless, although tempted in all ways as we are. Yet Mark Driscoll claims that Lord Jesus Christ desired to fornicate with strange women during His Incarnation. In this we can easily see that Driscoll therefore imputes a sinful desire to the spotless Lamb of God! This is excruciatingly blasphemous! No sinful desire ever welled up from within the Lord of Glory! His meat and drink was to do the will of His Father and Christ’s self will and inner desires were always from eternity in perfect unified harmony with His Father’s!

    Calling people out of addiction, homosexuality, fornication, these are true and noble things, how sad that we need to criticize.

    I agree.

    It is a noble thing to call people from their lives of active disobedience and rebellion and to confront them with the Word of God and present them with His Eternal Gospel of Grace. I also agree that it is very sad that we find men, like Mark Driscoll, who mix the sacred with the profane which thing forces true believers in the Lord to criticize his errors, and rebuke his lies, and call him to repentance. And while this type of ministry may seem “divisive” or “unloving” to some, in reality it’s none of that – in fact it’s necessary and commanded by scripture.

    I hope this helps clarify things a bit.

    In Christ,
    CD

    P.S. – Would you say that you’re a born-again Christian, willohroots?

  43. I would say that by the Grace of God, His Holy Spirit quickened the flint-like heart of a spiritually dead man lost in sin and made him a Servant of the most High, saved through the ministry of Christ Jesus to be born unto faith and repentance. I have been given a ministry in an area like Driscoll’s. I do not seek to emulate him, I do not wish to adopt his ways. I value John MacArthur and have his books before me on my shelf. With the possible exception of a shade of difference in eschatology, and that minor, I hold to the same values.
    Tell me, Christ being tempted as all men, yet sin free, can we not give Driscoll credit for stating emphatically that Jesus did not sin? I do not pretend to know the nature of my Savior’s temptation, but I do understand Driscoll trying to explain that Jesus was fully, in all ways a man, yet able to live a sinless life. As far as I know, He was the last one able to do so, as well as the first. I forgive Driscoll for his misstatements. He is young, please do not expunge him from the flock. I have heard him repent and mature. The Lord is not finished with him yet.
    I know of know one else who is addressing in such a powerful way the evil of porn. I use him as a reference for many who struggle with that vile addiction. Most of us, myself included, would rather not talk about it.
    I too have a flock, much smaller, of repentant addicts and sinners of the worst kind. I may perhaps be a bit rough around the edges, but we are growing, our ranks include ex-cons, ex- addicts, ex-blockheads. For a new Church Start we have many men. I pray I would not dishonor my God with any word or thought that would be displeasing to Him, but I would not bet my salvation on it. My Salvation is based on Christ alone, thru Faith alone , as taught in Scripture alone.
    As we move into these the end times, we must be ever so careful of criticizing those on the same team. Forgive me if I offend, but praying for M.D. to increase in discernment and gently attempting to correct him would be the superior road. I have no doubt he is a Tool of the Lord, fallable as we all are. Praise his good points, and offer love to wash out the motes.

  44. mbaker says:

    CD,

    Could you provide some specific sources from where you got the following comment regarding Mark Driscoll?

    “Sadly he also speaks about men engaging in homosexual acts with the Risen Lord of Glory in heaven, and he speaks of the Lord Jesus Christ desiring to fornicate with strange women during His Incarnation”

    I would like to read up on that.

    Thanks.

  45. Thanks for the response, willohroots.

    Various contributors of DefCon, myself included, have called for prayer for Driscoll, and speaking for myself I can assure you I have personally followed through with this call. Maybe someday Driscoll will clean up his pulpit gutter-smut act, time will tell.

    You said: I value John MacArthur and have his books before me on my shelf. With the possible exception of a shade of difference in eschatology, and that minor, I hold to the same values. Me too, except I agree with his eschatology and utterly reject his embrace of cessationism.

    You said: Tell me, Christ being tempted as all men, yet sin free, can we not give Driscoll credit for stating emphatically that Jesus did not sin? Believers have been emphatically teaching the sinlessness, full deity, and full humanity of Christ for millennia by pointing to the teaching of the scriptures, and they’ve done so without imputing sinful sexual desires to the King of Glory. You see, this is but another example of the contents of Driscoll’s sex-saturated heart leaking out through his mouth. Mark has a spiritual heart problem, and it’s evidenced by his speech, for the scriptures teach that out of the abundance of the heart the mouth speaks.

    I forgive Driscoll for his misstatements. He is young, please do not expunge him from the flock. I have heard him repent and mature. The Lord is not finished with him yet.

    Mark isn’t sinning against me or you with the statements in view, he’s sinning against God by attributing sinful desires to the Most High. With respect to expunging him from the flock, it’s up to the elders of Mars Hill church to exercise discipline and godly counsel. I do pray that Mark will continue to repent and mature, and it’s a faithful saying that the Lord isn’t finished with any of us yet.

    I too have a flock, much smaller, of repentant addicts and sinners of the worst kind. I may perhaps be a bit rough around the edges, but we are growing, our ranks include ex-cons, ex- addicts, ex-blockheads. For a new Church Start we have many men. I pray I would not dishonor my God with any word or thought that would be displeasing to Him, but I would not bet my salvation on it. My Salvation is based on Christ alone, thru Faith alone , as taught in Scripture alone.
    As we move into these the end times, we must be ever so careful of criticizing those on the same team. Forgive me if I offend, but praying for M.D. to increase in discernment and gently attempting to correct him would be the superior road. I have no doubt he is a Tool of the Lord, fallable as we all are. Praise his good points, and offer love to wash out the motes

    I praise the Lord for your service to the King, and I thank you for your gentle and gracious admonition willohroots, it’s well taken. I hope we’ll continue seeing your comments here at DefCon.

    Keith said: I know you appreciate Steve Camp, and was wondering what you thought of this post from the other day.

    Keith, I read Campi’s piece on the day he posted it, and you’re correct that I do appreciate Steve and his ministry. I was heartened by Steve’s post and pray that it is the work of the Holy Spirit bringing a mature, godly believer like Campi into a position to influence Mark Driscoll towards a more Christ-like Spirit – and mouth.

    I would also recommend that DefCon’s readership follow the link you left and read up on Steve’s apparent reconciliation with Mark. Our God is amazing!

    In Christ,
    CD

  46. mbaker, here is the information you requested:

    “If you’re tempted to these sorts of things — including sexual sin — some of you say, “Now Mark, Jesus wasn’t sexually tempted.” Well, of course he was — 30 something year old single man who had women who adored him. You don’t think he ever wanted the comfort of a woman? You don’t think he ever got tired of going to bed by himself? You don’t think that he didn’t once want to have intimate relations with a woman? He was tempted.”
    (Mark Driscoll – “How Human was Jesus?”, October 15th 2006.)

    HT: TDP

    DRISCOLL: “Now what happens is some say “Well, we do believe in the book, and we will teach it, but we’re gonna teach it allegorically.” And there’s a literal and an allegorical interpretation. They’ll say, “Well the allegorical interpretation, it’s not between a husband and a wife, Song of Solomon, love and romance and intimacy; what it is, it’s about us and Jesus.” Really? I hope not. [Laughter from crowd] If I get to heaven and this goes down, I don’t know what I’m gonna do. I mean it’s gonna be a bad day. Right? I mean seriously. You dudes know what I’m talking about. You’re like, “No, I’m not doing that. You know I’m not doing that. I love Him [Jesus] but not like that.” [Laughter from crowd]” source: (from Driscoll’s first sermon on the SoS series called, “The Peasant Princess” – start at 27:15)

    HT: CRN

    From Driscoll’s book “Confessions of a Reformissional Rev”:

    “This was drilled home for me one night when the church phone in our house rang at some godforsaken hour when I’m not even a Christian, like 3:00 a.m. I answered it in a stupor, and on the other end was some college guy who was crying. I asked him what was wrong, and he said it was an emergency and he really need to talk to me. Trying to muster up my inner pastor, I sat down and tried to pretend I was concerned. I asked him what was wrong, and he rambled for a while about nothing, which usually means that a guy has sinned and is wasting time with dumb chitchat because he’s ashamed to just get to the point and confess. So I interrupted him blurting out, “It’s three a.m., so stop jerking me around. What you have done?”
    “I masturbated,” he said.

    “That’s it?” I said.

    “Yes,” he replied. “Tonight I watched a porno and I masturbated.”

    “Is the porno over?” I asked.

    “Yes,” he said.

    “Was it a good porno?” I asked.

    He did not reply.

    “Well, you’ve already watched the whole porno and tugged your tool, so what am I supposed to do?” I asked.

    “I don’t know,” he said. “You are my pastor, so I thought that maybe you could pray for me.”

    To be honest, I did not want to pray, so I just said the first thing that came to mind. “Jesus, thank you for not killing him for being a pervert. Amen,” I prayed.

    “Alright, well you should sleep good now, so go to bed and don’t call me again tonight because I’m sleeping and you are making me angry,” I said.

    “Well, what am I supposed to do now?” he asked.

    “You need to stop watching porno and crying like a baby afterward and grow up, man. I don’t have time to be your accountability partner, so you need to be a man and nut up and take care of this yourself. A naked lady is good to look at, so get a job, get a wife, ask her to get naked, and look at her instead. Alright?” I said.

    and from the same book:

    “Every one of them was older than me, a chronic masturbator, a porn addict, and banging weak-willed girls like a screen door in a stiff breeze…”

    HT: Challies.com

    See also:
    John Piper, Mark Driscoll and Harsh Language
    Clarifying “Harsh Language”

    Driscoll isn’t funny – he’s a disgrace – and the filthy contents of his sex-saturated and perverted heart are continually leaking out of his mouth.

    “…for of the abundance of the heart his mouth speaketh.”

    In Christ,
    CD

  47. trudat says:

    Coram Deo,
    I have read thru your posts. Please examine your heart and ask God if you have been trying to cause division with exaggerations. I am especially saddened to read this:

    Sadly he also speaks about men engaging in homosexual acts with the Risen Lord of Glory in heaven, and he speaks of the Lord Jesus Christ desiring to fornicate with strange women during His Incarnation,

    You are not going to bring someone to repentance by sining. When you slander one of God’s children and twist things they say to try and stir up division, that is disobeying God’s word which says not to slander, and to maintain the unity of the Spirit.

    You are not edifying anyone, least of all Christ.

  48. mbaker says:

    CD,

    I know you are a very busy man. I am a busy woman also.

    However, when such allegations are made , I want to know the original sources of them, so I can have a way to defend them myself when I speak against such unbiblical theology.

    I hope you understand where i am coming from.

    Thanks.

  49. mbaker,

    I understand that you’re a journalist by trade, and therefore you’re going to approach things from an objective, journalistic POV. Personally I don’t have a problem with that – in fact I applaud your concern for the truth.

    Feel free to keep my feet to the fire. :)

    In Christ,
    CD

  50. mbaker says:

    CD,

    You betcha, CD. I know we are both after the same thing.

    Did you know in journalism, a profession in which there are generally very few Christians, that they use the biblical approach of establishing a matter from the testimony of two or three witnesses? When you tell them that’s from the Bible they look absolutely horrified! Just makes my day.

    Thanks for understanding. I’m looking forward to reviewing your sources.

    God bless.

  51. mbaker,

    I did not know that little factoid about journalism, thank you for sharing.

    I confess that I’m generally ignorant about the journalistic method per se, and I typically eye the trade with a bit of skeptical suspicion since it seems that so many who call themselves journalists are actually out to manufacture the news as opposed to factually and objectively reporting it. Couple this with the sad reality that many journalists are little more than apparatchik apologists for rational/material secular humanism and my suspicion only deepens.

    May you be salt and light, and be harmless as a dove and wise as a serpent among your colleagues.

    In Him,
    CD

  52. mbaker says:

    Thank you, CD.

    Iagree with your assessmentm and I am part of the profession! Like many areas of the church, its integrity is in question. I’m from the old school, which still believes in the integrity part, although sad to say I am very much outnumbered, on both the left and the right side, in these days of advocacy journalism.

    I was taught that a good journalist presents the facts which backs his/her point of view, but the great journalist presents both sides of the story, and encourages the reader to make his/her mind up for themselves.

    As a Christian, i believe we definitely have the advantage of God on our side, however it is often harder to prove to folks who might be saying: show me the facts. It is this audience of believers and non-believers I like to address. I try to give them realism, within the bounds of scripture. To do so, one must be acutely aware that the young folks today are especially looking for something real, and they can they see right through anything else.

    I hope to bring the gospel home to them in a real way, and separate that which is merely rhetoric, from what is the real word of God. That’s why I ask for specific sources from both sides.

    God bless.

  53. Jesse says:

    Though I’m certainly not the most theologically versed of the bunch here, I do sense one thing big time… PRIDE.

    From one side, people like Mark, and feel like by him being called out, they are being called out.

    From the other side, people mostly don’t like how Mark does some things, and they want to find some of the more “serious” problems with what he has done to make it a legitimate accusation, when he might have just messed up.

    The way I see it, Mark is able to teach the gospel in a way that is understood VERY well. He says some things that he shouldn’t from time to time. He has repented publicly for some of his actions in the past. Many ministries he is associated with have been able to reach the lost in a way unlike almost all of his accusers have ever seen.

    There are FAR more obvious perverter’s of the Word out there to be ripping on a few questionable theological statements (when almost none of his teaching would indicate he really thinks that way) of a guy that is doing some incredible things for God. Pick your proverbial wedgie and go preach the gospel yourself to some real people, rather than people on a message board. Maybe we’ll have a real impact on the world that way.

  54. trudat says:

    Hebrews 4:15
    For we do not have a high priest who is unable to sympathize with our weaknesses, but we have one who has been tempted in every way, just as we are—yet was without sin.

    Coram Deo,

    I don’t understand the problem you have with Mr. Driscoll’s statement on Jesus being tempted sexually.

    How is what he said any different from what the Bible teaches in Hebrews?

  55. trudat,

    Go back and read what Driscoll said…he imputed sinful desire to the Lord. By claiming that God in the flesh had sinful sinful desires Mark Driscoll blasphemes. Sadly Driscoll doesn’t stop with the plain teaching of scripture, which is that Jesus was “tempted in every way just as we are – yet without sin”; instead Driscoll goes beyond the scriptures and blasphemes God by claiming that he desired to sin.

    This is an evil, abominable lie vomited forth from the very pit of hell.

    In Christ,
    CD

  56. trudat says:

    Huh? How is saying “He was tempted”= he had sinful desires and sinned?

    That is quite the stretch! If you listened to all of Driscoll’s sermons you would know that in almost every sermon he speaks of Jesus Christ’s sinless life on earth.

    He has said this hundreds if not thousands of times. For you to say that he think Jesus sinned is the one of the most proposterous claims I have ever heard.

    I haven’t disagreed with all of the points you have made on this site. Some of them seemed spot on. But they were about things I wasn’t as familiar with. However, when you spout off nonsense like this it makes me question everything you say. It makes we wonder if I can trust your judgement at all?

    Last night I saw over 30 people baptized. Isn’t that awesome? Can we both agree that is awesome? That was following a message by Driscoll about our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ living a sinless life, dying for our sins, and then rising on the third day. No Glory goes to him, it all belongs to God. But my point is, God is clearly working thru Mark. There are so many false teachers out there. I’m all for exposing them and pointing out their false doctrine, but you are taking shots on a guy who is busting his butt for the Gospel.

    Did you listen to that sermon?

  57. lyn says:

    Trudat~were these thirty people reconciled to God? Did they fall under conviction of their sins, being broken by the Holy Spirit? Did they cry out for mercy and forgiveness, or was it simply a decision made, or a prayer repeated? Did the message by Mark Driscoll include the absolute need of repentance and the new birth, neither of which is humanly possible apart from His grace?
    Was there genuine brokenness, with confession of sin?

    So many churches love to boast of the number of decisions and baptisms, but, what about the number of regenerated hearts? Is there evidence of a changed life, a new creation?
    I wouldn’t be too quick to proclaim how awesome these baptisms just yet. Instead of getting too excited, pray fervently for these people, pray that what they have is real. Only God saves, by His grace alone; there’s nothing we add to the equation.
    ‘Nothing in my hand I bring, simply to thy cross I cling’.

  58. trudat,

    You asked a straightforward question, and I answered it as simply and clearly as possible; but based upon your latest reply I can only surmise that you didn’t actually go back and read the particular quote in view. Here’s the link to the quote being referenced. Also please understand I’m not particularly concerned about whether or not you trust my judgment. Believers should always compare everything that anyone else has to say about spiritual matters with the scriptures since they are the true and final authority.

    Furthermore I’m more than happy to concede the point that Mark Driscoll doesn’t teach pure, unadulterated falsehood at all times, he doesn’t. Please let me repeat once again for the record – no one here is claiming that Mark Driscoll never has anything Biblical or edifying to say. I’ve not claimed that, and to my knowledge none of the other contributors have either.

    In fact in various cases we’ve stated exactly the opposite, that Mark does indeed have many valuable and Biblical things to say – yet what are believers to think when he repeatedly goes beyond the scriptures, even going so far as to attribute sinful desire to the sinless Lamb of God during His Incarnation, and making lewd references to engaging in homosexual acts with the Risen and Glorified Savior in heaven? Such things aren’t funny or thought provoking, trudat; in fact they’re abominable and shameful.

    How much poison is too much poison? If a baker put just a little arsenic in every thousandth donut he’d be taken to prison. Likewise if an apple farmer spiked just one apple from every tree with some cyanide before they went to market he’d be rounded up and hauled off as well. How much spiritual poison should Christians put up with from a “good” pastor before they say, “Hey Pastor! Enough with the poison already!”?

    If Mark imputes a little sin to Jesus here and there, and makes just a little joke about men engaging in homosexual acts with Jesus in heaven, and if he has just a little fun to get a few cheap laughs by telling folks about they guy who tried to justify masturbation by quoting Ecclesiastes 9:10 are these little pet sins justified by the “good” he does, or is much of the “good” he does undermined by his little pet sins?

    Maybe the Lord in His grace will surround Mark with godly counsel that will disabuse him of his senseless and distracting foot-in-mouth disorder. By many measures, including your baptism report, the Lord is reaching souls through Driscoll’s ministry, praise the Lord! I’m praying for Mark, may he decrease and the Lord increase.

    In Christ,
    CD

  59. trudat says:

    Lyn,
    The answer to all the questions in the first paragraph are yes! It was an awesome thing to witness on Easter as we celebrated Jesus resurrection. You should watch the service. It will be online soon.

    In response to bragging about baptisms, I’ll boast all day long about Jesus Christ.

    And your word about not getting excited about baptisms…that is the saddest thing I have heard in a while.

    Coram,
    Thanks for your thoughtful response. Actually I did go back and read the text before I responded. :) I think I understand where you are coming from the first time. I still totally disagree with many of the conclusions and interpretations you are coming up with, but I can respect what your trying to do. I honestly hadn’t picked up at all that you are concerned with only a small portion of his teaching and you realize he is overall a good bible teacher with good theology. I am glad you highlighted that point for me.

    I am also glad to hear you are praying for him. I was really discouraged to see Christians attacking Christians in Jesus name.

    Let me know if you are ever in Seattle, maybe we could get some coffee.

  60. lyn says:

    Trudat~ my point is that an outward doing isn’t proof of anything. I’ve seen people get ‘baptized’, and in less than six months time, fall back into absolute wickedness…one such person professed Jesus, gave her testimony, was baptized, and within six months, she was back living a homosexual life. She wants nothing to do with Christ. This is why I say not to get too excited just yet. Boasting of baptism is not necessarily a work of Christ. Regenerating the heart is indeed a work of Christ which manifests itself over time.
    It would be better, by far, to pray for these people than it would be to boast about something that may not be genuine for all of them.
    Please understand this dire need of prayer for all who ‘honor Christ with their lips’, yet, their hearts might be far from Him. The regenerated heart is both key and essential in genuine salvation and bears evidence of a changed life, water baptism does not bear such evidence.
    I will join you in praying for these new converts, but I will never brag about someone being baptized as evidence of their being saved.

  61. I realize many of these posts were from months ago, but I recently read this note from Driscoll’s blog–http://theresurgence.com/spring_cleaning

    Should cause some people to think about being teachable and humble.

  62. Jeremy,

    I read the post at the link you provided, thank you for sharing. I remain prayerful that the Lord will continue to surround Mark with gracious, godly men who can speak into his life and encourage him in The Way. But this being said I must confess that I find Mark’s retraction – if it can even be characterized as such – to be less than convincing or satisfying given the excruciatingly heinous nature of his Song of Songs comments contained in what he has blithely sanitized in his blog post as “older content”.

    Mark said: “Allegedly, some of my critics were concerned by the older content, and I think there is wisdom in some of their concerns. So we have pulled that content.”

    “Allegedly concerned” about obscene jesting references made about engaging in homosexual acts in heaven with the Eternal Son, the Second Person of the Triune One True and Living God, the Risen King of Kings and Lord of Lords?!?

    Yes, as strange as it may seem to Mark Driscoll there are some who are concerned about such things. Simply painting those who cry foul over egregious sins such as this as “his critics” is, in my estimation at least, a rather tawdry tactic. Mark isn’t being victimized by “his critics”. In point of fact Jesus Christ was victimized by a professing believer and pastor who denigrated His unspeakable holiness, and defiled and dishonored the reverence due to His Majestic Person.

    Removing the “older content” is a good start, and some would posit that publicly repenting of the outrageous blasphemy contained in the “older content” would be a proper finish. I pray that Mark has at least apologized to Jesus, even if he does nothing more.

    In Christ,
    CD

  63. dinmo says:

    To all – When I look into my heart, my deepest desire is to love the Lord. That is my base for all things. Just a few things to hit on so I guess you can “hit” back

    … regarding all the baptisms at Mars Hill Church and any other biblical teaching church over Easter… Praise God! Anyone who questions whether they are really saved are not please let me humbly say “it is between them and the Lord, they will answer to Him”. ALL saved Christians have sinned and WILL sin.

    …I believe that if it is biblical, it is right. Period. We are to be like a child when coming to the Lord. Not theological, not argumentative, not prideful (I see a lot of that here – pride in “knowing” you’re right and everyone else is wrong).

    ….in regard to Driscoll… I have listened to may of his sermons and saw him in person a few months ago. Before he preached, I literally watched him on the side lines, seeing how he was preparing to preach. I witness a man who seemed very humble and was shocked since I watched him online. After the sermon, I spoke briefly with him and he was very respectful and no way outlandish or brash. I saw him as a man that God gave a spiritual gift to preach although he does not fit into the neat little “box” we are all accustomed to. He preaches the basic message of salvation in his sermons. I find no fault in that, nor do I find fault in his approach. What seems offensive to some, speaks mounts to others. Even the religious leaders of Jesus’ time found fault in Jesus’ for associating with drunkards and those not meeting up to their expectations of what a Christian should be. Bottom line is that Driscoll’s agenda is to present the Bible to those that are lost so that they might be saved. And the more he preaches to the more blogs will attack him and his ministry. Proven fact.

    I hope Driscoll and others preach and lead so many to the Lord as quickly as possible. I’m ready for heaven!

  64. mbaker says:

    CD,

    Thanks for the sources and the quotes on Mark in your post on April 4 above. Somehow I missed it, looking for at the bottom of our previous exchange.

    Pretty shocking stuff, that’s for sure.

    We’ve got the best message already in Christ, why dumb it down and make it irreverent just to suit a few punks who don’t care anyway?

    Thanks again for hunting this up.

    God bless.

  65. Heb. 4:15 – the word is in the passive. He himself could not have the desire or is would be active. The word generically means tested. That He was. All passive. He did not desire intimate relations. “What a man thinks in His heart, so is he.” To say what Driscoll said is to say Jesus was an adulterer. Sorry, that doesn’t sit well with the Godness of this God-man. God with sin?! We would all be in trouble if what Driscoll said was true. But lets just hope it was a gaff.
    Coram Deo may be acidic in his passion but He is right to say that this statement imputes sin to our Lord. Iyn love your posts. MK, SJones – thanks for your posts, but fads and hypes throughout Church History have come and gone but the impact of the expositional approach to scripture hasn’t changed since Nehemiah and Ezra. So take it easy on MacArthur. His method of disseminating the truth is proven. The “Driscoll methods” will fade away, you watch. Expositional truth never will. I appreciate Marks passion but the end never justifies the means. Be ye holy, not relevant. And for the record, Holy will never be culturally relevant.

  66. Tim,

    I apologize for the acidic tone that has come across not only in my comments above, but in too many of my other comments and posted material. The Lord has been dealing with me about this issue and by His grace alone I am growing in Him.

    I do stand by the content of my prior statements, but not necessarily by their tone.

    In Christ,
    CD

    ____________________________________________________________________

    You’re welcome, mbaker!

    In Him,
    CD

  67. smilesback says:

    CD,

    I very much appreciate you taking a stand on this issue against Mark Driscoll. I am deeply offended by him, not only because of his clearly sexist attitude –demeaning women, but mostly because of the horrible way he has subjected the Lord and His Word, and the true, pure bride of Christ to public disgrace. What an outrage this should be! This man could not possibly love our pure Lord, our mighty God, who is so holy He cannot be in the presence of sin. Even a speck of sin (of action, thought, or word) is utterly abhorrent to God, and so should it be to any true follower of Christ.

    If the Lord has spoken to you about your tone, fine. But be encouraged to remember the many times even Jesus spoke harsh words, took a whip, turned over money tables, and called Pharisees names. We have many examples in Scripture where the apostles did similar. We must be sure we are being led by the Holy Spirit, but we also need to guard against being pulled down by those who call, “Foul! You aren’t being loving!” No, the loving thing is to tell the truth; and proclaiming and defending necessary truth, which you are doing by exposing an unholy preacher of God’s Holy Word, can often be described, as it is in Acts 18:28 & 19:8, with “he vigorously refuted… in public debate…” and “spoke boldly… arguing persuasively…”

    So, may the Lord give you strength to continue. And as the Lord commanded Paul in Acts 18:9, “Do not be afraid; keep on speaking, do not be silent. For I am with you…”

    And don’t forget what God said to Jeremiah in the first chapter. Notice verse 10: “See, today I appoint you… to uproot and tear down, to destroy and overthrow…” That part is not fun; but it is very necessary, in order that the next part –”to build and to plant” can take the place of what had to be demolished. So, as God says to all His servants who stand at attention to obey Him immediately, “You must go to everyone I send you to and say whatever I command you.” Even if it doesn’t win popularity contests in this fallen world. But, dear brother, it does in the next “world.” Because we live to please One.

    Keep on. Stay faithful. Some (the few) are listening. And thanking you.
    Rachel

  68. DavidW says:

    smilesback:
    Very kind, true, and wonderful comment. Thanks for sharing it. We can all benefit from such encouragement.

    Coram Deo:
    I have appreciated all the posts of yours I have read. May the Lord continue to grant you wisdom and strength as you continue to serve Him.

  69. Tom says:

    ‘Scuse me, but what is going on here?
    I am just finishing up John MacArthur’s book “A Tale of Two Sons.” It has blessed me greatly and taught me much that I didn’t know about The Prodigal Son story. I also have listened to many of Mark Driscoll’s youtube videos. They have blessed me and taught me much.
    Why the flame war? They are both men of God and both have been appointed by God to teach. As far as we know neither is in sin or serious doctrinal error, so everyone needs to pipe down and let them fill the roles assigned them by the Lord.

    Tom

  70. Tom,

    I would highly recommend you read through the various posts found here at DefCon in regards to Mark Driscoll. You are very much incorrect in your synopsis of Mark. He IS in sin and also in grave error in several areas. Mark has disqualified himself from ministry through a variety of areas.

    We do not doubt that people have learned from the teaching of both men, although we would question exactly what it is that is being learned from the vulgar sexual innuendos and even blatantly open sexual comments by Mark Driscoll that have NO place in the pulpit. Such a person has NOT been appointed by God to teach – at least not to teach truth!

    The Desert Pastor

  71. David T says:

    Good link to use Matthew. Where’d you get it from? LOL j/k.

    But definitely a good link to use to show those who defend him the vile garbage that comes from Driscoll.

  72. David T,
    :) Was it you or Vox who informed us of it?

    It is the best critique thus far………………….

    Apart from when a prominent pastor from the US spoke at our church awhile back ;)

  73. Sean says:

    I don’t think that these comments are helpful at all. No one pastor has it all together and no pastor’s preaching should be taken as gospel. It should all be studied and the Holy Spirit should have a chance to work in our hearts. I do not agree with everything that Mark says, just like I don’t agree with everything Piper says, but you cannot ignore that God is moving in Seattle…even if it doesn’t look as fundamentalist as you would like. All things are possible through Christ and it is nice to see someone who knows that and uses his sinful self as a tool to reach people for Christ. I don’t know if any of the people on this post would be willing to answer the call to bring the Gospel to one of the least churched cities in America…I don’t know how I would respond. I for one can say that God has changed my heart from listening to sermons from Mark, and has put a fire in my life to pursue Him more. This has lead to looking to more knowledgeable pastors and actually studying the Word. Just because you guys are not reached by him does not mean that no one else is. I think the unwillingness to see what God is doing and that God needs to use someone like Mark is a perfect example of what being COMPLETELY separated from the world looks like. People don’t realize what you actually need to do to reach people in different areas. I lead at a youth ministry in Maryland and if we used your rigid rules and stiff necked approach to evangelism we would stand in an empty room every week, but instead we can worship with hundreds of students who are on fire for God! Not because of us, but because we get out of the way and let the Spirit convict and move in the students heart. I see too much DO and not enough Holy Spirit, and heart change on this board. I know that this post will be torn apart but I pray that God will use it for someone…

  74. Sean: I wouldn’t want to “tear your post apart,” but I would suggest that you consider this thought of yours in light of the Bible: “God needs to use someone like Mark,” keeping in mind the idea of whether God actually “needs” any human being to accomplish His will.

  75. Sean-
    What makes you think God is moving in Seattle? What is the evidence on which you base this claim?
    God will NOT use a man or woman whose life is patterned by sensual, profane talk…that is biblical truth. 2 Timothy 2:20,21 talks about vessels of honour and dishonour. Those who cleanse themselves of ‘dishonour’ are the vessels the Lord will use. This means not being like the world, not lowering the bar by speaking vulgarity { Neither filthiness, nor foolish talking, nor jesting, which are not convenient: but rather giving of thanks-Eph. 5:4} from the pulpit, just to try and ‘reach’ the lost. We have ONE weapon to fight this battle with…the sword of the Spirit {Eph. 6:17},which is the word of God. We are commanded not to add to or take away from His word {Deut. 4:2}, doing so nullifies whatever we might think we’ll accomplish.
    What changes lost sinners? Is it cool dressing, cool talking pastors? Or maybe it’s the hottest contemporary Christian band, with piercings and tattoos, screaming guitars, funky clothes, and hair styles that rival their pagan counterparts…WRONG!!!
    “For I am not ashamed of the gospel of Christ: for it is the power of God unto salvation to every one that believeth; to the Jew first, and also to the Greek.” Romans 1:16
    There is certainly nothing man can add to try and bring lost sinners into God’s kingdom; we are powerless to change a lost person dead in sins into a born again believer. It is the lack of understanding by most concerning total depravity, sin and its bondage that lead to false conversions and false doctrinal preaching.
    God moves in the hearts of sinners when Truth is preached, when the Gospel is presented accurately.
    Those who are born from above will NOT resort to profanity or sensual preaching in order to ‘resonate’ with the culture. They will stand on the word of God, being faithful to preach truth and understanding that the results of that preaching are in God’s hands…not man’s. They will not try and manipulate sinners into conversion, they will not look upon God’s word as inadequate and in need of updating. Instead, true men of God will tremble at His word.
    ———————————————————————————
    I found this interesting, this is what a true man of God looks like, here is a brief summary on A.W. Tozer…
    ‘Among the more than 40 books that he authored, at least two are regarded as Christian classics: The Pursuit of God and The Knowledge of the Holy. His books impress on the reader the possibility and necessity for a deeper relationship with God.

    Living a simple and non-materialistic lifestyle, he and his wife, Ada Cecelia Pfautz, never owned a car, preferring bus and train travel. Even after becoming a well-known Christian author, Tozer signed away much of his royalties to those who were in need.

    Tozer had seven children, six boys and one girl. He was buried in Ellet Cemetery, Akron, Ohio, with a simple epitaph marking his grave: “A. W. Tozer – A Man of God.”
    Thanks to http://providencechapel.blogspot.com/2009/12/aw-tozer.html
    ———————————————————————————-
    Sean, your mention of people being on fire for the Lord brought this video to mind…

  76. DavidW says:

    Sean:
    I want the Holy Spirit to work in people’s lives too. I want God to be glorified. I want sinners to come to repentance. But the Holy Spirit, as God, cannot and will not go against His own word, the Bible. The Bible must be our authority in all spiritual matters. We must be obedient to what God says, doing ministry and evangelism according to His rules, doing what He has commanded His way, not our way. And God has been very specific, in both Testaments, that any attempts to worship Him, or do anything for Him, that is not according to His revealed word is not approved by Him. In fact, it is abomination to Him.

    If you consider yourself a follower of Jesus, are willing to take an honest look at some of what He has said?:

    “Not everyone that says unto Me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdom of heaven: but he that does the will of My Father which is in heaven. Many will say to Me in that day, Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied in Your name? And in Your name have cast out demons? And in Your name done many wonderful works? And then will I profess unto them, I never knew you: depart from Me, you who work iniquity?” (Matt. 7: 21-23)

    What has Jesus just told us here? That it doesn’t matter to Him whether we call Him Lord, it doesn’t matter how many “wonderful works” we do in His name. It all means nothing if we are also doing that which He forbids in His word. If we are not doing the will of the Father, all our works, all our claims to Christianity are bogus and void. And what is the will of the Father? To obey His Son whom He has sent. Obeying Jesus means to obey His word. That’s why the Bible must be our supreme and only authority.

    Is it not self-evident that it is absurd to cast God’s word aside to “reach the lost” for Christ? Yet Mr. Driscoll is living in unrepentant sin by doing that which is specifically forbidden by God, with his foul language, with his blasphemies and mockeries of the character of Jesus and God Almighty Himself, with his false teachings about Jesus, with his mockeries of the things in God’s word, and many other things. He has cast God’s word aside. How can such a person be reaching the lost for Christ? Because many people are coming to Mars Hill you say? If numbers were indication of God working, then surely the Roman Catholic church, (with it’s billion or so members), Mormonism, JW’s, Islam, etc would also be of God. Do you see that numbers have absolutely nothing to do with God’s blessing, or whether His truth is being preached? The only thing numbers indicate is that the people flock to what they want to hear, feel, or believe.

    Do you see that if I pervert the character of Christ, if I present a Jesus that is not Who the whole Bible describes Him as, I am presenting a “different Jesus”. If I preach a “gospel” that draws people to this distorted, perverted “Christ”, I am preaching a “different gospel”. Scripture specifically states that all who do such are accursed in God’s sight (Gal.1:6-8). The “Christ” Mr. Driscoll is preaching has a character that is not at all consistent with the Jesus Christ that is described in the Scriptures. Rather, he preaches a “Christ” of his own invention, in his own image.

    My friend, what we are attempting to do is what Scripture commands us (1Thess 5:21, etc.). What we defend aren’t our rules, but God’s rules, as He has revealed them in His own word, for everyone to read. If you choose to ignore God’s word, and “go by the spirit”, as is very much in vogue today, you are placing yourself in grave spiritual danger. Because the Holy Spirit will never go against His own word.

  77. Marc says:

    I don’t know why people still believe John MacArthur. Just view this video, and see how he twists the words of the Bible just to promote war and defend the United States.

  78. DavidW says:

    Marc:

    Soooo…is this video intended to do what exactly? Discredit MacArthur? Did you even listen to this video? Where has he twisted the words of the Bible “just to promote war” as you allege? From the very short segment he was allowed to speak, what he said was that it is biblical to DEFEND oneself from an aggressor, NOT engage in war of aggression. And in reference to what or who was he speaking? What is the context of the entire conversation that is being discussed here? Hard to tell from the short clip. If you truly desire to discredit MacArthur, you need to come up with some solid biblical evidence.

  79. brother Michael says:

    America is not a godly nation and this war, which many “leaders” in our govt. say will have no end, is not a noble cause nor one Christians should support. It is based on a ruse of epic proportions the likes of which I don’t believe the world has ever seen before. When one comes to understand at least part of this, the world viewed through rose colored glasses quickly darkens where things never look the same as they once did in one’s youthful ignorance. In this is fulfilled the Scripture which declares, For in much wisdom is much grief: and he that increaseth knowledge increaseth sorrow.

  80. Nightshine says:

    I had never heard of Mark Driscoll until coming across this site. Then I had a look at him on Youtube. He is an engaging, good speaker; a great communicator – hey, maybe even an orator (he wishes!). I’d even say watching him was great entertainment – but nope, not great Christianity… And I can’t say he struck me as a good Christian. And certainly not someone you’d want to call to pray by your side on your deathbed.

  81. Howard says:

    The vulgar expressions and jokes by Driscoll are not only indiscretions. They are sin – a public sin. And must be confessed as such. According to scripture, it is the responsibility of the spiritual to restore such a one. Mt. 7 clearly teaches that we are not to judge according to our own standard but the standard of the word of God. To this point, I have not seen evidence that Mark has truly been restored at this point of failure.

    Driscoll’s reference to shocking Biblical expressions are used as an excuse for him to set up his own standard of coarse language. The Bible forbids coarse language. Here is a novel idea: Why not simply use the biblical references and explain them in the biblical grammatical and historical context? The Bible doesn’t use coarse language. The Holy Spirit is powerful and will communicate truth through the dispensation of the Word. In fact, the Holy Spirit is so powerful that he can even draw men to Himself despite the imperfections of the preacher. But that does not excuse the preacher for carelessness and vulgarity! In this case it is deliberate.

    DavidW submitted excellent comments to this issue a few posts ago.

  82. DavidW says:

    Howard:

    Right you are. Driscoll’s perversities, of language, values, sexual deviancy, and doctrine, merely display the rotten fruit of his continued degenerate state. And his perversities from the pulpit are deliberate, as they are part and parcel of deconstruction theology: the necessary first step in destroying the foundations of the true faith in order to lay the new foundation of a false christ and false gospel. Why should he repent of something he so strongly believes is vital to his “missional” goal of promoting Emergent Christianity, of which he has admitted to being in the “conservative” stream.

    The man has shown himself to be a dedicated, consistently manipulative worker of Satan. But his followers desperately need prayer for deliverance from the spiritual power that holds them captive.

  83. Tony says:

    I’m increasingly becoming more concerned about Mark Driscoll and his likes! First of all, it should be a BIG RED FLAG when any Church leader adheres to any man-made theological system that requires mass unauthorized allegorical interpretation of Bible prophecies, National Israel, etc. We can thank the Reformed Covenant Theology Seminaries who continue to promote such errors for this! This erroneous theological system is why so many Christians are presently blind to the prophetic Biblical relevance of end times events in the Middle East. This is why the Book of Revelation (which opens with a promise of blessing from God upon those who read it!!!) is the most neglected book in many circles like these. OF COURSE! Why teach something that’s been fabricated into an allegorical nightmare through your erroneous anti-Israel/unbiblical theological system! Funny, when I personally started seeking the ENTIRE WORD OF GOD…the reality of such prophetical implications caused me to fearfully reconsider living for Christ FAR MORE SERIOUSLY! I’ve noticed a trend among those who are ignorant of this Mystery Paul warns us about in Rom 11…they’re typically ignorant of most things pertaining to MEAT TEACHING as well. While I have no problem with learning about the Reformers, Darby, etc…I’ve GOT A BIG PROBLEM when people allow their man-made theological systems to have authority over SIMPLY READING THE BIBLE SIMPLY. I have an equally large problem with people inhibiting the fullness of the Biblical context through lenses crafted at Replacement Theology Mart. This is the root of their un-authoritative allegorical garb, and fear-less living before the Imminent Return of Christ at His LITERAL REVELATION!

  84. mattie says:

    Okay – being a conservative Lutheran makes me add that these sermons are born out of a lack of Scripture as the focus of the service. Lutheran pastors preach from the readings for the day. Maybe evangelicals should try that one – it might keep them from talking about their satisfying sex lives – which is the creepy bit I caught from Driscoll on YOuTube. A pastor who talks about his sex life in church is a creep.

    If you are enamored of the culture and the social milieu into which you were born – and we all are born of an age – but you can’t stand back nor can you see cultural relativism in sermons is pandering to you – you need to.

    When you want to defend someone for being relative, you should realize that it’s not preaching. It’s ego gratification.

    I’m not interested in anyone’s sex life, especially my pastor’s – if you are, you might want to examine your conscience, if you have one.
    __________________________________________________

    It’s amazing to hear filthy language from the pulpit defended – nowhere would a pastor utter the word skubula in a sermon – among a mixed group of men and women.

    Menstrual rags is a powerful metaphor – but to use such terms or scatology in sermons week after week is daft. It’s daft to defend such a proclivity in a pastor.

    Being hip is so beside the point that I can’t believe an adult would use such a defense. Jesus was NOT hip. Hip is silly. Driscoll looks sillier and sillier because he is NO LONGER young and hip – he appears aging and pathetic in pandering to youth in his way.

    Young adults are juvenile – they don’t seem in the least like adults. Adolescents like to say shocking, naughty words. Driscoll looks pathetic.

  85. Mark says:

    You guys are tripping me out. This was written almost 3 years ago. Driscoll had cleaned up his language and is very much reformed in his theology. Some of you need to do a little more research rather than just taking someone’s three year old words for something. In fact, MacArthur and Driscoll are friends and promote each others books.

  86. Mark,

    Where would we find a link indicating that “MacArthur and Driscoll are friends and promote each others books”?? Based on what I have read and heard recently from Grace to You, I would say that you are mistaken, but we are willing to research any “proof” you might provide.

    As for Driscoll cleaning up his language, that is debatable, and just being “reformed in his theology” does not equate to a biblical leader, a servant leader, nor a godly leader.

  87. Mark says:

    The Desert Pastor,

    The only “proof” I can provide is from Mark’s mouth to my ears. I have attended a few conferences where he has spoken. He’s a very gracious man and has on several occasions said that he and MacArthur have had there differences in the past, but that he loves him, and encouraged us (those at the conference) to read works by MacArthur. The last time I heard Driscoll speak he recommended the book “Slave” by MacArthur, which I bought, read, and loved. When you say “debatable” in regards to Driscoll’s language, what proof can you provide? I listen/watch his sermons online weekly and have not heard him use any language that would be deemed offensive in the church. Do you actually listen to him preach? And if so, are you looking for something to bash him over, or listening to the truth from God’s Word that he IS preaching? I don’t attend Mars Hill, and have no affiliation with it. I’m a pastor myself, and did have issues with some of the things Mark did in the beginning of his ministry, but he has repented, does not cuss anymore, and is a tremendous teacher of God’s Word. He has a passion for Christ and His truth like few I’ve seen, and his doctrine is sound. I recommend you watch this short 8 minute video for just a glimpse of what Mark’s about. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XicnbW06fbk

    God bless, -Mark

  88. DavidW says:

    Mark

    You’ve fallen for perhaps the most common sentiment among Driscoll supporters: you like what he says on the surface, and that’s all that matters. You haven’t sufficiently tested him against the standard of the Word of God. For justification that “He has a passion for Christ and His truth like few I’ve seen, and his doctrine is sound” you provide an 8 minute YouTube snippet, to the ignoring of copious amounts of documentation that we have provided on this site in a variety of subjects regarding Driscoll’s false teaching and associations, not merely his language. I have heard him preach a sound basic gospel message. BUT! After listening to countless hours of his sermons, it becomes quite evident that he applies this gospel to a “jesus” who is not the Jesus Who is described in the whole of Scripture. Same name, different person. Driscoll’s “jesus” is a hybridized, worldly, fleshly, unholy counterfeit that we have covered here in detail many times before.

    Your reasoning that you “have not heard him use any language that would be deemed offensive in the church” is ridiculously subjective, as well as biblically irrelevant. Obviously his language over the course of his career has not been offensive to his other followers either. But what is the standard of righteousness in God’s sight? Majority opinion of what is “offensive”? Or is it what God has specifically stated in His word?

    Jesus made it clear one is known by his FRUIT (not his mere words). The Devil and his minions certainly believe in Who Jesus is, and TREMBLE. Church History is filled with those who SPOKE sound words, yet their lives did not match up with Scripture. Those truly of Christ bear fruit consistent with The Vine. The Jesus of the Scriptures also warns us that it doesn’t matter to Him if we are calling Him “Lord”, nor if we are doing many good works in His name. If we are also doing that which He forbids, we are none of His (Matt. 7:21-23). Whether or not Driscoll has “cleaned up” his current language is a minor point, and is no evidence whatsoever of true repentance. True repentance would be more credible if he issued a retraction and repudiation of his language evident in the first dozen or so years of his “pastorate”, as well as to retract and remove sermons and books in which he verbalized his sinful speech. Aside from that though, what about his continued offering on his website of his blasphemous sermons (call up the one on “Humor” if you’d like just one example)? What about his continued selling of his book “The Radical Reformission” which is liberally strewn with assorted blasphemies of God, Jesus and God’s Holy Word? What about his stated purpose of furthering the Emerging Church? What about his admiration of the likes of heretic Rick Warren, or calling heretic Robert Schuller his brother? Do these few examples (and I could go on if you wish) bear fruit of a true follower of Christ?

    Mark, Mr. Driscoll is well known for mixing truth with error. He does it well, which is why so many, like yourself, are seduced by him. And as for your original assertion that he and MacArthur are “friends” and “promote each other’s books”, the question still stands, to which you still have not shown any proof: “Where has MacArthur promoted any of Driscoll’s books?”

    If you, as a professing pastor, see no conflicts between Driscoll’s “jesus”, Driscoll’s “humor”, Driscoll’s outright mockeries of the things of God and Scripture, Driscoll’s flavor of Emergence teaching, against the pure and holy Word of God, then I have to say I pity your flock.

  89. DOUG PERRY says:

    I don’t know much about Driscoll, but I keep hearing about his his unchaste language.
    There’s little in sacred scripture about SUCCESS. (If that’s the objective), but there’s so very much about being FAITHFUL!
    Matt. 12:34-35 ..for out of the ABUNDANCE OF THE HEART the mouth speaketh. A good man out of the good treasure of the heart bringeth forth good things: and an evil man out of the evil treasure bringeth fourth evil things.”
    Bad fruit, maybe..bad root! You don’t get drunk with someone to tell him about Jesus.

  90. concerned says:

    Personally, I think Mark Driscoll is paving the way for the antichrist. Perhaps the antichrist is already here and using such vessels and tactics to form his support structures/armies. Either way, Mark Driscoll is not preaching truth.

  91. concerned:

    You could be right. If we take look at the term, we see that the “anti” of antichrist ( ἀντίχριστος), has the meaning of both “in opposition to” as well as “in place of”. And as one studies just which “jesus” Driscoll defines in character and personality in his preaching, it is not the Jesus of the Scriptures, but another “jesus” which is actually, by Driscoll’s description of his perverse/worldly/fleshly/demonic character, truly in opposition to the Jesus Christ of the Bible. And in substituting his “jesus” for the true Jesus, Driscoll certainly is putting his “jesus” in place of the Jesus of the Scriptures. So in that respect, Driscoll preaches an antichrist rather than the true Christ.

    In preparing gullible and undiscerning Christians to accept and follow his “christ”, and raising them up to be hostile and antagonistic to true Christians (as evidenced by the vitriolic attacks from his followers against those who hold soundly to the Scriptures), he certainly is doing his part to bring about an atmosphere conducive to that man of sin who will make war on the saints.

  92. Timothy Law says:

    So many issues, I’ll just take one:
    “Many are lost and dieing out there why we sit and argue about who’s right and who’s wrong in “the church”.”

    First of all, are you implying that we don’t discern friends or foes before who go into the battlefield?

    Take a look at the congregation of Driscoll’s church, then compare it with MacArthur’s:
    A church that bears fruit can also be judged by its cover. For example, if I see a church full of people of different ages, loving the Scripture and sermon, I say, praise God; If I see a major age group missing in a congregation of a Sunday worship, where ALL children of God fellowship together…then I wonder, where in scripture did Jesus say: Okay, now I am going to preach to the youth in a way that’s suitable for them, so the rest of you can go take a break.

    Hence, if my ministry is to motorcycle gangs, if they cannot congregate with the general children of God, what then? Do you think there is a motorist heaven for them separately?

    My dear friends, please come to your senses.

  93. Sj, thank you for stopping by. It is always heart-breaking to read the accounts of people like yourself who have been led astray by those men who are supposed to be shepherds. Yes, regardless of what the majority of church building seminars tell you, and regardless of what the big-name preachers say in regards to “being relevant”, the truth still remains. The Lord Jesus Christ is the same yesterday, today, and forever. The introduction of porn, beer, and rock music just shows the continued slide and degradation of the testimony of those who claim to know Christ before a lost and dying world. The world simply looks at most of evangelical Christianity and laughs their way to hell. They are not fooled because they know one of the only winners in seeker-sensitive, relevant, hip, cool, and awesome churches (think Joel Osteen, Mark Driscoll, Ed Young, Steve Furtick, and ilk) is the guys at the top of the Ponzi scheme get richer all the time. The world knows the message is not really important or valuable to them because it doesn’t change the hearts of those who are listening now. They don’t need more of the same. If they wanted that, they would join the local Country Club scene.

    We do have access to a number of solid, Bible-preaching churches throughout the US and even some abroad. If you have not found one, feel free to contact us via our email ( Love4Liberia@gmail.com ) and we would be glad to see if we have some recommendations for you.

    Every blessing – TJM

  94. Tim says:

    There are two options: Leave or stay and fight.
    Both are right moves to me (depending on your calling).
    Though I personally treasure those who picked the latter.

  95. SJ Burns – many people, redeemed by Christ, have been driven out of “churches” that have followed the world in doomed attempts to save goats. We all must encourage one another to trust God, not men. That is the lesson, for on Judgment Day, nothing else will matter but whether or not one’s name is written in The Lamb’s Book of Life. No church registry, no record of decisions, no applause of men. The judgment of the Lamb is righteous and final.

  96. Steve Noolan says:

    We are known by our fruits.
    If Mark Driscoll is bringing people (from out side) in to the Kingdom, Hallelujah!
    If they are people you are not reaching. even better.

    Please unsubscribe me from this group because your policy of moderating out dissenting posts is not healthy.

  97. sj burns says:

    Wot, was it something I said? Really, no more comments! Nothing else to be said? Well, in that case, let me just give you a short update on our “church situation”. We’ve finally figured out our new “assignment” for the Lord. We’ve been there a year but I was not able to discern it as His will until this last week (long story)… Anyway, in doing research on this churches’ history, I came across a video of John Mac “speaking” at the memorial service of the longest tenured pastor in their history (Paul Steele, 1971-1991). The church tripled their attendance (500 to 1500) under pastor Steele, so his passing at 54 yrs. old was extremely tough. Anyway, the thing is, I was blown away by John Mac’s decision at his “close friend’s” funeral to give a 40 min. exhortation with 20+ points of definition and application on the subject of ” the christian’s joy”. The service was over an hour and a half and John’s contribution was just plain vain and numbing of body, soul and spirit. Half-way through, I could almost hear John channeling Tom Hanks, “Crying! Do I hear CRYING! There’s no crying at a CHRISTIAN FUNERAL!”

    I could think of dozens of other ways that John could have made his point in 10-15 minutes, spoken from the heart concerning his beloved friend and comforted family and flock with scriptural words of faith and affirmation without once having to refer to his notes, but alas, that must not be pastor MacArthur’s strong suit (and tie)… My point is this; I could care less about whether his hair style has kept up with the times, but I do have to question whether his “exhaustive” style of presenting God and His holy word has driven the Mark D’s and many a young preacher into the arms of “cultural relativism” and all of her other cute sisters… Most of the discussion on this thread is concerned with Mark’s offensive behavior and whether he is scriptural enough to get away with it. Extensive cases have been presented pro&con. John Mac proves that you can be uber-scriptural, clean language and extremely offensive! Need we be reminded again that Jesus said that the Father was looking for worshippers– in spirit and in truth. Jesus said that He was looking for His Father’s house to be a house of prayer, but we make it a den of (coffee drinkers) thieves! Beloved, study 2 Timothy; it is the apostle to the Gentiles best effort to communicate the Holy Spirit’s “pattern (outline) of sound (healthful) words in (that lead to) the faith and love which are in Christ Jesus”. Paul’s words can help us to not be fooled by the Mark D’s and the John Mac’s in our churches! Amen

  98. RS says:

    cal4u: The point is that there is a seriously corrupted, perverse, hostile takeover of many of the pulpits in Evangelicalism today. Mark Driscoll is only one example of such. And that is what John MacArthur is attempting to draw to the attention of the church, as a warning. Of course John isn’t a perfect man. But a comprehensive study of Mac’s ministry and teaching cannot rightly place him in the category of a tare. Of course we shouldn’t follow any man. But no one here is advocating following John MacArthur. Nevertheless, his warning is valid.

    Is the Apostasy rampant? Absolutely! Should we pull out of apostate churches? I believe so. BUT, we still need to adhere to the church pattern established in God’s word, submitting ourselves to God’s order of pastors and elders, and of fellowship with other members of His body.

  99. LInda says:

    sj Burns said –”I’m not surprised to read how his church is getting in-deep with government/U.N. types. The desire for power and influence in the world is a very corrupting thing, especially when you think so highly of all that you do… The stuff on Mac’s strange view of the blood of Christ shows again how his vanity has carried him to another ridiculous low in inappropriateness and error!”

    I’ve not heard of John MacArthur having a “strange view” of the blood of Christ and nor have I heard or read how his church is getting in deep with the government/UN..

    Could you please give us some proof and tell us what his “strange views” are?

  100. I have to agree with Linda concerning MacArthur, making these serious accusations should not be done lightly. Can you provide proof, and if not, then be careful what you say. Slander and gossip are both sins.

  101. Rev Limiter says:

    Linda wrote:
    I’ve not heard of John MacArthur having a “strange view” of the blood of Christ”

    Linda:
    This all started about 20 yrs. ago when some nut case in mid-town Los Angeles decided to make a big deal over some minor issue Mac made about “the Blood.” Not long after, he released two messages entitled, “I believe in the precious blood.” If you search the GTY archives, I’m sure you’ll find it there or Google the title and see what comes up.
    Blessings-

    I’m running now, but hope to deal with “SJ” tomorrow!

  102. Linda,
    from the link I provided previously, “The controversy was originally ignited by a supposed “news” item written by Bob Jones, Jr. in the April 1986 issue of Faith For The Family (a Bob Jones University-sponsored magazine). Jones quoted some remarks MacArthur had originally made in a live Q&A session at Grace Community Church sometime in the early 1970s. MacArthur’s comments had been transcribed and published in the May 1976 issue of the Grace Church newsletter “Grace Today.” The Jones article cited the comments without any documentation, and without noting that they were from a ten-year-old source.
    In the BJU article, Jones quoted MacArthur as saying, “It is not His bleeding that saved me, but His dying.” Jones then cited Hebrews 9:22 (“without shedding of blood is no remission”) and intoned, “MacArthur’s position is heresy.”— from Phil Johnson

    I recommend reading the entire article from Phil that clarifies the misconception concerning MacArthur’s beliefs on the blood of Christ. This isn’t the first time John has come under fire, and sadly, won’t be the last. There is a website, one of many, {http://jesus-is-savior.com/wolves_in_sheep%27s_clothing.htm} that lumps MacArthur, Washer, and Martin Luther in with the ‘wolves’ category. I do NOT recommend that site for anything other than a chuckle.

  103. SJ,
    You say J. M. is arrogant, is it wise to slander another on the basis of dislike for them? If you have no scriptural basis for an accusation against another, then you are slandering them. The tongue indeed is a deadly poison.

    You obviously did NOT read the article from Phil. Here is what MacArthur actually believes and says concerning Christ’s blood, “Plainly, MacArthur was not denying that Christ literally shed His blood. He was not denying that the literal shedding of blood was a necessary aspect of the atonement. His only point was that the efficacy of Christ’s blood lies not in some property of the blood itself, but rather in the fact that Christ shed it in death, and such a death was the price of atonement for our sin.
    Moreover, if the blood of Christ is in any sense “eternally preserved” in heaven, it would be in the glorified body of the risen Lord, not in a bowl or a vial where it is perpetually offered or literally applied to sinners in some way. Look again at the point MacArthur was attempting to make in the first place: When Scripture speaks of Christ’s “blood,” the expression is normally a reference to His sacrificial atoning death, not the actual red and white corpuscles. And the vivid language in our hymns about the cleansing ability and “wonder-working power” of the blood and “a fountain filled with blood” is not meant to be taken literally. There is no magical or mystical cleansing property in the red fluid, and there is no container of blood in heaven that is somehow literally applied to sinners. Such language is meant to speak of Christ’s sacrificial atonement—just as when Paul spoke of “the preaching of the cross” he had in mind the death of Christ, not the literal wooden instrument on which the Savior died. We’re not to think a piece of wood is the point of our preaching. What happened on that cross is what is efficacious for our salvation, not some magical power in the wood itself. Similarly with the blood of Christ: it is the violent pouring out of blood in Christ’s sacrificial death that saves us, not some supernatural property of the fluid itself—just what MacArthur said in the first place.
    The obvious truth of all that has escaped a few militant fundamentalists who have no clear concept of the biblical notion of blood atonement, but who revel in labeling anyone who is not part of their group a heretic. They continue to insist that MacArthur is actually denying the efficacy of Christ’s blood.” – P. Johnson

    —————

    SJ, I find it strange that you would speak against MacArthur, when not so long ago you appealed to him for help, from your Dec. 12, 2011 commentary, “Ironically, I heard John MacArthur speak on the radio about the “R-rated church” during that last year and I wrote to him concerning my experiences. I explained that this church has had the “buzz” of the Silicon Valley and that many small churches are looking to it for guidence and assistance. There was one last “conclusive” meeting with pastor scheduled with another local pastor mediating (long story here and totally Spirit directed). Because pastor was reluctant, the meeting was pushed months out and I appealed to John MacArthur to join me in this meeting when it was pointed out that the mediating pastor was a hunting buddy of pastor Steve. John respectfully declined and nothing productive came of the meeting.” —why would you write MacArthur then if you believe he teaches error? You seem to contradict yourself…

  104. Rev Limiter says:

    SJ wrote:
    “Am I to wait until tomorrow, quaking in my boots”

    Please accept my apology for my poor use of words in my initial reply! Will I receive the same from you? Maybe then we can continue a dialog; maybe not!

  105. Linda says:

    sj burns,,, you should read the article from Phil FIRST.

    I’m sure there is a simple explanation when it comes to John MacArthur and that his statements have been wrenched out of context. I’ve listened to John Mac for many years and have not found him to be saying anything that is unbiblical when it comes to the gospel or the blood of Christ. Your assertions are unwarranted

    I don’t even know you and yet you impugn John MacArthur who is well known to be sound and biblical in his teachings. Anyone can come on the internet with typing skills claiming just about anything. Chances are they haven’t done a fraction of the homework they need to do to be a reputable commentator. You are preying upon credulous people and slandering people which is a very serious thing..-”He who conceals his hatred has lying lips, and whoever spreads slander is a fool”. -Pr.10:18

    Proverbs 18:17 The first to present his case seems right, till another comes forward and questions him.

    Proverbs 18:13 He who answers before listening— that is his folly and his shame.

    seems as though you have a burr under your back side

    sj burns said–”Dear Rev Limiter,
    Am I to wait until tomorrow, quaking in my boots, thinking of all the ways you will “deal” with me?”

    what kind of statement is that sj burns? Why are you being so cynical? There’s nothing wrong with his statement. He simply curtailed his statement today because he more than likely if you think about it was in a hurry, busy, had to GO. We should be giving people the benefit of the doubt.

  106. Linda says:

    Thank you unworthy1 for the link.. ,,

    it’s just as I thought—-”On June 13, 1986, MacArthur wrote to Bob Jones III, complaining that the magazine had taken snippets of his remarks out of context and deliberately made them seem sinister.”

  107. Ray says:

    It appears to me there is an inkling of double standards on display here. I have no trouble with Mac calling out Driscoll on the issues stated , however , when it comes to scrutiny of Mac , it’s as if this is off limits. Lets be practical about this , Mac has tons of stuff out there in print and audio, he has made himself a large target and he will be scrutinised, these are the facts. Maybe we need to be a little less precious over men and a bit more enamoured towards the word of God .

  108. LInda says:

    Ray, John Mac Arthur is not exempt from scrutiny. there is at least one thing I don’t agree with him about but that has absolutely nothing to do with this discussion and it’s not a major issue like the efficacy of the blood of Jesus Christ is. Just last nite after I wrote and sent my comment,, I read it and thought to myself (someone is probably going to think based on my comment that John is exempt from Scrutiny). I should have commented about that as well but I didn’t…

    I wholeheartedly agree with you but well, the issue at hand are some serious accusations made against John that frankly impugn his credibility. all who know John MacArthur know statements like these are conspicuous erroneous attacks

  109. Rev Limiter says:

    Thanks Linda for setting the record straight! I was in a giant rush and didn’t take time to check “unworthy’s” link which pretty much summed up the whole thing!
    In my original comment, I had my time line off by about six years or so but remember the incident well. What “Jones” said had filtered down to a church here in mid L.A. and had created quite a fire storm in this area. I remember hearing this pastor on the radio bashing Mac on the subject so I called him and discussed the matter with him but ultimately it went nowhere. As I said before, not long after this whole thing started, John did a two tape series entitled “I believe in the precious blood” witch to my recollection brought the whole “mess” to a very low simmer!

    I would like to make one observation pertaining to John’s character. If He is as shady an individual as sj asserts, why do the likes of Mark Dever, Begg, Sproul, Lawson, Duncun, Mohler, Baucham and so many others keep hangin’ around. Sure wouldn’t want to see their reputations demeaned!

    Blessings, Rev-

  110. Ray, No man or woman is above being corrected, IF WARRANTED: here lies the difference between speaking out against Driscoll and attacking John MacArthur. You do not have to agree with everything MacArthur teaches, but the accusations made against him here are unwarranted. I will leave this matter up to the moderators here at DefCon to deal with. I trust their judgment and knowledge of what MacArthur teaches and believes, as they are all familiar with his beliefs.

  111. LInda says:

    Rev said—”What “Jones” said had filtered down to a church here in mid L.A. and had created quite a fire storm in this area.”

    That’s exactly as unworthy pointed out what rumors and slander do.. I cannot help but to remember when I was around 10 years old I began spreading a rumor about a neighbor. Boy when My mom and dad found out I had to go to the man and apologize to him. Ill never ever forget that 1 it was like fire to my backside and 2 they put that out real quick like on my behind. But you know it hurt more when I had to admit I was wrong and apologize than it did when My dad spanked me for it…

    We HAVE to get the truth about people even if we don’t like them too well. we know John Mac is a very credible pastor but not beyond error as none of us are. Paul was very credible but not beyond scrutiny as well. We know that we are to be like the Bereans and search the scriptures daily to see if what anyone says is true… I’ve always heard John Mac preach the gospel and the efficacy of the blood of Jesus so this to me was a form of chicanery. Who knows WHY people want to take what people say and write out of their context-Maybe unwittingly or overtly only God knows. Maybe this Jones guy wanted to find some kind of dirt-I dunno.

    It was done with Paul in the Bible and it’s done with many to smear their reputation. If someone said Paul didn’t believe in the efficacy of Christ’s blood we would instantly know it’s just simply not true….

    Thanks Rev for your kindness and for pointing that important truth out

  112. RS says:

    “No man or woman is above being corrected, IF WARRANTED: here lies the difference between speaking out against Driscoll and attacking John MacArthur. You do not have to agree with everything MacArthur teaches, but the accusations made against him here are unwarranted.” Very well said Unworthy1.

    If we are not very careful, we can let ourselves get overly critical and lose focus as to who the bad guys are, and who the good guys are. What we need to guard against is the tipping point that can happen when we rush to judgment. And we are to judge (1 Cor 5:11-13), but with righteous judgment according to the whole counsel of God’s Word, not by how one looks to us (Jn.7:24), or whether he failed our magnifying glass test, or spoke longer than we deem optimum on a given topic, etc. Certainly we can make more efficient use of our time.

    I stand with Unworthy1 on this issue. Attacks on MacArthur are an unwarranted distraction from the real culprit in the pulpit, who is luring countless thousands into a Christ-less eternity, while being a preeminent influence today (especially among young families) corrupting and perverting the Faith for future generations.

  113. cal4u – While it’s true that no man has perfect theology, it’s quite another to claim ALL those guys you listed compromise the truth. What compromising do you discern with Dever, Mohler, or Baucham? I am not asking where any of these men have erred – we all do. Where has any of them deliberately departed from the truth of God’s Word?

  114. cal4u – I have read that article (twice now) and see the guilt-by-association assigned to Mohler and do not find Dever’s name on the page. What about Baucham – you accused ALL of them of compromise. I have yet to read of compromise on the part of any of these three. Judgment issues, arguable. Compromising on the truth of God’s Word? Please be specific.

  115. LInda says:

    sj burns,,, I understand pain and disappointments especially from Christians… I can tell by reading your comments on here, You are sincere in your walk with Christ.

    I’ve been wronged by Christians(many have) and it can be some of the most painful hurts. least we forget that everyone will let us down in one way or another and many times our perceived view of others doing us so wrong as real as it is, is distorted and blown out of purportion and misunderstanding. Time has a way of showing us (I know in my life with the Lord) that many times I was wrong and not the other person as I thought- I just didn’t see it.. I’m not saying you are in the wrong and I’ve not always been in the wrong. But my attitude was wrong and God was teaching me this. My perspective was myopic in that I didn’t know how to truly love people in spite of their failings or faults–”Hatred stirs up dissension, but love covers over all wrongs”-Pr.10:12… We have to all learn to give things over to the Lord and sometimes during the healing process that can mean many times since we can take it back… But Jesus is patient with us and his “yoke is easy and his burden is light”. Only Jesus Christ is Unfailing in his faithfulness to us. We even let him down and if we go before the LORD and are completely honest and get a glimpse of his holiness we will see our utter wicked hearts that the very thing we have been angry about with others we ourselves have done to Jesus.

    I would sincerely HOPE that as time goes on that God would heal you in those areas and that Jesus Christ would be your sole satisfaction and your JOY.. We all have areas in our lives that God longs to heal and fill with his love and he will in His way as we grow in Christ. Jesus Christ is enough and he is our Righteousness. We should not seek to justify ourselves. We made a commitment to Christ and abdicated all our rights to SELF. seek to please Jesus and not ourselves. “Blessed are those who hunger and thirst for RIGHTEOUSNESS for they will be filled”–only ONE righteousness satisfies God and completely satiates our hearts and that’s the righteousness of Jesus Christ. Seeking our own means our own subjugation and unhappiness.

    I’ve pondered this verse in my own life for a very long time –Pro 14:29 “A patient man has great understanding, but a quick-tempered man displays folly. One day I believe the Lord granted me understanding of this..I think that the reason why a patient man has great understanding is because He is trusting God and the reason why a quick-tempered man displays his folly is because he is trusting in himself . The lack of patience is evidence that he’s trusting in his own foolishness. Let us be patient and trust in the LORD~

    sj burns–I’m touched by your humility and gentle words—”,,,, “with humility comes wisdom”-Pr.11:2b

    I hope I’m not misunderstanding you sj – in Christ…
    Linda

  116. Rev Limiter says:

    cal4u:
    Would you please submit your pastors name and the church he shepherds? I would like to do a thorough investigation of anything he may have said at anytime in his entire ministry that doesn’t square 100% with scripture!
    ————-

    sj wrote:
    Again, I ask your forgiveness if my sin in this matter discouraged you in your walk and love for Jesus this weekend. Let me know if there is anything more I need to do in regard to repentance and restoration…

    Thank you brother for your kind words and… for your heart of contrition! May the Lord bless you as we travel the road together toward the “Celestial City!”

  117. Rev Limiter says:

    cal4u:
    I clicked onto the link you provided (in your reply to sj) and read much of what was posted concerning Mac, Molher and Dever!

    I knew a man some years back who became enthralled with anything and everything that came down the pike concerning Christianity! At first, he clamed to have the gift of healing. After that wore off, he became caught up in the Vineyard movement (John Wimber) and all the shenanigans that came out of that “ministry!” He saw demons behind door knobs, devils under door steps till he didn’t know north from south. He bounced from one church to another and as a result **had no firm footing whatsoever in the body of Christ or in His precious word!**

    Let me be brief; I don’t have time to run around looking for every possible error uttered by every well known pastor with an agenda to prove him a heretic. I’m stunned by the number of sites condemning these great men of God for the slightest infraction they may have committed thirty years ago or ten seconds back as reported on someone’s web site! My time is better spent learning the word of God and putting it into practice in everyday life than pointing fingers at folks without concrete evidence!!

    Here’s the bottom line! As long as Mark Dever, Begg, Sproul, Lawson, Duncun, Mohler, Baucham and all the other faithful pastors continue to teach the fundamentals as well as preach on sin, hell, the wrath of God and the like (which unfortunately most “church’s” today don’t) I’ll continue to listen and be “built up in my most precious faith!” This is the attitude of my heart; if I’m in error may God show me otherwise!

  118. 072591 says:

    Wow, and people say I’m harsh. They’re right, but still …

    cal4u: I noticed you trying to throw down the “Me man” card on Linda by claiming she had no right to call you out on your public claims because she was a woman. Read that passage again very closely – it refers to a woman claiming a position of authority within the church body itself, not someone responding to a blog posting. Or do you assert that all Christian men have that level of authority over all Christian women? Show me where that EXACT claim is made.

    As for your accusations against MacArthur and the claims of the UN = satanism and the call to leave all institutional churches, this is where you must show Biblical support to what you are claiming. Not logical assumptions and a verse showing to leave evil, but actual statements from the Bible stating every point you are making. For example, show EXACTLY where the Bible says the UN is satanic. Not hinting or “well, it’s referring to …”- and in fact “Everybody knows Babylon is code for Rome” doesn’t count; you want to claim Biblical authority and now it’s time to put up or shut up.

  119. Ray says:

    Quote
    For example, show EXACTLY where the Bible says the UN is satanic. Not hinting or “well, it’s referring to …”- and in fact “Everybody knows Babylon is code for Rome” doesn’t count; you want to claim Biblical authority and now it’s time to put up or shut up.
    end quote
    072591
    Thats a ridiculous ultimatum don’t you think.The bible no more names the UN than it identifies “Babylon” as the Roman Church, or Magog as Russia for that matter. The call to exit the institutionalised church is a relatively easy one to resolve, it’s there in black and white in Rev 18:4

    And I heard another voice from heaven , saying , come out of her my people , that ye be not partakers of her sins and that ye receive not of her plagues.

    Much is made of Pastor x or Pastor Y adhereing to sound doctrine , but how does this relate to practice. I challenge you to proceed to your favourite bible teacher’s website and be honest about what you see , many will make the claim that it’s all about Christ , and yet all we see are their photo’s , we read their bio’s , we are confronted with their many achievements and qualifications, and thats before we have our attention diverted to the “store”[ freely you have received , freely give.] , heck , some of these guys even have bibles with their names on them. Sadly , for many of us , the ” merchandised ” church has become the norm, but this was never meant to be . The celebrity Pastor and the merchandised gospel are abominations before God, and these are representative of the institutionalised church. There is a better way, it’s the Lord, His word and you[ me].

  120. I have seen no evidence that Mac or Molher promote in any way the same anti christian and new age/pagan and theosophical agenda of the united Natiions and i am one those who believes most Christians are blind to the connections between the UN and end times.

  121. RS says:

    Well folks, it’s been a real education into one of the psychological aspects of spiritual warfare. Distract everyone off the subject by making wild, unwarranted accusations on a man who has attempted to expose a wolf, drawing the criticism upon him rather than the wolf, dominating time, effort and energy upon sifting through the minutia of such false accusations, leaving the wolf to laugh at such distraction while he continues to slaughter the flock. And I have to say there’s a distinct similarity to the standard practice of defense attorneys, who turn the attention off the crimes of their client, focusing instead on discrediting the witnesses.

    We have to be smarter than this brethren.

  122. Indeed spiritual warfare is the point brethen, things are not mutally inclusive or exclusive because one brings them into the debate. Just because the UN may have been wrongley bought into this debate by wrongful association with the topic at hand does not mean they are not the “bad” guys as mperhaps072591 believes. I feel that you would have to be blind to not notice the part the UN is playing the game in preparing the way for antichrist on a worldwide basis and it’s one world pagan religion via christian sell outs as far we are concerned ie emergent church and false teachers bringing in occult mystisim and multifaith compromise, just do some research and some real discernment into the UN before commenting and it’s a no brainer from their fruit and bible prophesy, from the prophets, apostles to Revelations which matches reality. Why on earth do think we get the same anti christian, new age ,agenda and pride in sin policies no matter if you live in the US, the UK or Australia, wake up guys to the bible prophesies unwinding before you if you have the eyes to see.
    Not only can wrong people be associated with the satanic NWO (as in this case i feel with Mohler and mac) but many christians will dismess the real threat because they think they think it’s all conspiracy nonsence and so be blind to the prophesies those with eyes to see can see happening worldwide through agents and authorities would never suspect as we speak.

  123. Andrew – it appears (please correct if I’m wrong) that you have a dispensational perspective. Such a theological construct is unfortunate and untenable.

  124. RS says:

    Andrew: No one is dismissing global spiritual threats, prophesies, or lots and lots of bad guys in and outside of Christendom. And most of us acknowledge the spirit of antichrist very much at work both in and outside of Christendom as well. In a sense, it’s all interrelated. But there are other threads for such discussion. If we bring the whole world spiritual situation, with it’s associated organizations, movements and bad guys into any given thread we can easily get muddled and lose the focus of the particular topic altogether. I’m not insinuating anyone is purposely being used by the enemy here to distract from the issue and thereby neutralize it, but in general spiritual warfare it can happen to the best of us if we are not alert. This particular thread needs to focus on warning of the errors of Driscoll as it was intended. Otherwise, well meaning or not, he and his evil teachings get swept aside, altogether lost in a quagmire of other topics. And that’s what we would be wise to not let happen. Make sense?

  125. Tim says:

    sounds like ego fight to me if y’all can’t keep it short and simple and to the point, instead of making new topics and false accusations.

  126. ***”I question Mr. MacArthur’s “salvation”, I have read his testimony and have a copy of it on file. Knowing his father’s history, and influence I question what God J MacArthur represents and believes in. So I brought it to light, because J MacArthur is in essence calling the “Pot black”, when his “pot” is indeed black also, it’s called hypocrisy.”***

    I appeal to my brethren at DefCon, how much longer is this slander going to be allowed to continue? This is an unwarranted attack based on opinion and propaganda, which is very unbiblical and should not be allowed on a blog of this caliber. Please consider intervening and putting an end to this nonsense.

  127. cal4u,

    I am not big into the “celebrity” pastor status either…however, after listening to hours upon hours of sermons by Baucham, Begg, MacArthur, James White, Paul Washer and others, I truly feel that biblically they are right on biblically. (Now, in the matter of eschatology, I have to differ views with J Mac).

    I truly believe your time would be better spent denouncing true heretics….TD Jakes, Osteen, Meyer and the like.

    Kindly,
    Katy

  128. 072591 says:

    Let me clear up a couple things then get to my main point.
    1) I do think the U.N. is a bad organization. I am not convinced that it is satanic; used by Satan, sure, but to be satanic, it would have to be actively seeking to serve Satan and his goals, which I simply do not see evidence of. Then again, I try to avoid attributing to malice what can be explained by stupidity.

    2) As I have said before, elsewhere, I do not believe the Roman Catholic church is the same as Babylon in Revelation. This does not mean I think the RRC is a good thing. But that topic is for another time.

    Ray: The standard I set is high. It is intended to be high. That is because I have grown up around many in Christian circles who saw the antichrist everywhere and made doctrinal views based on secondary and tertiary matters, as well as deriving morality on contorting Scripture. (For example, a pastor declaring that it is physically impossible for a Christian to get a tattoo, or declaring that a student using loans to go through college is living in sin). So, when someone says that a Christian pastor cannot even associate with another Christian pastor who is working for an organization that is connected to the U.N., I want to see better than “everybody knows the U.N. is eeeeeevil.”
    (For the record, the only NWO that I am certain existed was founded by Kevin Nash, Scott Hall, and Hulk Hogan.)

    And now that cal4u has gone beyond merely attacking McArthur’s character and declaring that he is an unregenerate and a deceiver (which is really close to blaspheming the Holy Spirit), I have to echo unworthy1′s call for the moderators to get involved in this. The matter has gone beyond off-topic and is heading into spiritually dangerous territory.

  129. LInda says:

    well cal4U, from what all I’ve read along with many others from you even taking verses out of their context and using them to cry foul where there is no foul- such as “women are not permitted to teach” and applying them to women blogging and women apologists, and women who raise up their sons or women who present the Gospel to their husbands or male co-workers, then your view is very myopic and unreliable. when it comes to John MacArthur you have attacked him the whole time and your whole argument has been one big red herring in this thread.. …Scripture has no doubt been misused by you as a hammer instead of being used in gentleness and humility, rightly divided for correction to draw people to Christ and the truth

    –”-A man who lacks judgment derides his neighbor, but a man of understanding holds his tongue.-Pr.11:12..

    sj Burns has chosen what is MOST important and that is fellowship among the bretheren EVEN though he still holds his views and disagrees..

    I would have hoped you would do the same but I continue to read your belligerent comments which might I add reflect your hearts attitude –pride

    and yes we ALL can become prideful but the difference is recognizing it and repenting to come into agreement with God.
    Phl 2:3 “Do nothing out of selfish ambition or vain conceit, but in humility consider others better than yourselves.”

    “pride only breeds quarrels but wisdom is found in those who take advice.”-Pr.13:10

    “He who ignores discipline despises himself, but whoever heeds correction gains understanding.”-Pr.15:32

  130. cal4u, your time of being allowed to make open rants against ALL preachers because of perceived slights has come to an end! First, for you to sit at home in your easy chair, willfully separating yourself from the assembling together with other saints, is unbiblical. The Bible knows and speaks NOT one word about an “unchurched” Christian.

    Second, your words and your character lack much grace and certainly do not show forth the love of the Lord Jesus Christ.

    This is not written in support of John MacArthur, Sproul, Dever, or any other man. While we may agree or disagree with a minister of the gospel, we must be careful in the way we do it. There are many who are “guilty” by 3, 4, or 6 degrees of separation. That give you, nor I, the freedom to call a man a heretic or a false teacher or to bring their salvation into question.

    You have yet to share one shred of evidence that anything that MacArthur, Sproul, Dever, Washer, etc. says that would lead us to rightly question their salvation. In the past, we have questioned men like Piper and Driscoll, who clearly have given rise to questions not JUST because they are guilty by association, but also because their CURRENT teaching is contrary to the clear teaching of Scripture.

    ***********
    Sjburns, I appreciate the comments you have made about where and how you draw the line of fellowship. While we would disagree on our position on Driscoll, I believe that there is at least one more criteria for fellowship – do you in any way attribute sin, sinfulness, or a sinful character to the perfect, spotless Lamb of God? Driscoll has done this on more than one occasion and has not repented of such a position, any more than he has from his vulgarity and trash talk which demeans the true testimony of Jesus Christ and the church. I do not believe that one can be called a brother in the Lord Jesus Christ if he is in full agreement that a man like Robert Schuller is his brother.

    May I recommend that once again, any wishing to leave comments refresh their understanding of the rules of this blog. We do not take lightly our responsibility, nor do we take lightly banning the comments of somebody coming to this blog. It has been a RARE occurrence that has probably taken place less than 5 or 6 times in 5 years of writing!

  131. John Arthur says:

    Hi cal4u,

    After my last brusing encounter on this blog, I determined that I would never respond again. However, your comments on John MacArthur surprise me greatly. I am not a fan of John MacArthur, but he is a five point Calvinist so he comes within the ambit of Evangelicalism.

    What in the fvollowing statement would the bible disagree with and of this what would John MacArthur disagree with?

    “The Lord Jesus by his perfect obedience and sacrifice of himself, which he through the Eternal Spirit once offered up unto God, hath fully satisfied the Justice of God, procured reconciliation, and purchased an Everlasting inheritance in the Kingdom of Heaven, for all those whom the Father hath given unto him.” (Second London Confession: V111:6)

    You say that John MacArthur denies the “blood” of Christ but offer no real evidence.

    Does he deny that Christ offered himself up as a sacrifical offering to God in our place and for our sake to take away our sin? Does not a sacrifice imply the shedding of blood? And does not John MacArthur say that Christ death is efficient only for the elect though it is sufficient for all .

    The value of the sacrificial offering of Jesus is of infinite worth before God the Father and is sufficient to cover the sin of the world because it was the God-Man who died for us but is only efficient for all whom the Father has given him.

    I cannot understand why you think that MacArthur, Sproul and Mohler are heretics. They are Evangelicals through and through.

    Shalom,

    Hi Cal4,

    I visited your blog and perused all your blogposts and could not find anything on John MacArthur, though I have not read the comments sections of those posts. So woulfd you kindly let me know which post(s) you are referrng to?

    Shalom,
    John Arthur
    John Arthur

  132. Hi SJ Burns, for the most part, I normally am incommunicado. As long as I tilt my head a little to the left, squint my right eye just right and pray for a clear signal from the cell phone tower, we can normally get online at least long enough to check email AND sometimes internet. Pictures and videos though are normally nothing but a distant memory. Thanks for the works of encouragement. We are seeing the Lord bless here in West Africa.

  133. LInda says:

    sj burns, what a lovely person you are reflecting the sweet smelling fragrance of LIFE-2 Cor.2:16…

    I am glad you shared so we can pray for you

  134. SJ Burns,

    Thank you for expressing your concern. Our issue is not with those who come truly wishing to express their concerns and seeking to learn. None of the editors or contributors would ever want to express the thought or idea that we have a complete and exhaustive understanding of the Scripture. Our main issue is that there are a handful of people who have come to DefCon with an axe to grind. Maliciousness pervades their speech, even though they claim to know Christ as Saviour.

    The “cal4u” comments were removed because in just about every comment, there was an attack either against another commenter or against a minister of the Lord Jesus Christ. From all appearances, “cal4u” had and expressed an agenda against all who do not line up with his viewpoint. There was no expressed or even implied attitude of grace towards those of us who believe differently. We were simply tried, found guilty, and forthwith condemned with comments ranging from “being apostate” or “blasphemous to the Scriptures” and similar statements that clearly indicated his position is one that we here at DefCon are not true to the Scripture and therefore cannot be true believers.

    This was not a matter of lack of trust in our commenters, nor is it a desire to do the work of the Holy Spirit in the lives of any and all true believers. The comments were removed simply because they do not line up with Scripture, were inflammatory against true believers, degrading to true ministers of the Gospel, local churches were all painted with the same brush, etc. etc.

    We hope this clarifies our position. Personally, it may very well be that “cal4u” is a nice person and a true believer, but this is not his blog, nor is he (or anyone) free to come here with the intent of spreading his own exclusive brand of Christianity while castigating all others who are true believers in the Lord Jesus Christ. All the accusations in the world hold no water if the proof is not forthcoming from Scripture alone, not our own personal feelings, foibles, or traditions.

  135. Tim says:

    I just follow James 1:19.
    Yea, sure some of my posts get removed. But I’m sure they are in your emails as well.
    This should be old news…archive. But after a long time, I am getting bunch of postings in my email lately from this thread. And most of them are not profitable. So I made a rule to finish each posting in less than 20 seconds.

  136. SJ Burns,

    First, I apologize that you feel that we have done the same thing as the Mark Driscoll type. In retrospect, we can all make decisions that we wish we could undo or that we may have done in a way that could be misconstrued. We rarely delete any posted comments, in fact, this has probably only happened 2 or 3 times that I am aware of in the existence of this blog, so is definitely not a normal occurrence. We do hope that you return and read here as we seek to defend the Word of God and contend for the faith.

    We will respect your wishes to delete your comments.

    TJM

  137. RS says:

    TheJungleMissionary: Just want to say, I support your decision to remove “cal4u”‘s comments. I’ve seen and experienced a lot over the years in online apologetics, and I’m well aware of the spiritual warfare that takes place. In an open forum such as this, with many minds taking in what is written, the potential to influence in favor of God’s truth is as great as the potential for perverting or destroying God’s truth. The blog administrators have the awesome responsibility to keep their blog from being hijacked and used as a stage not just to attack the truth, but to draw others away into their error. Often this comes by means of someone who honestly believes they are promoting the truth, not realizing they have been deceived and are in reality promoting error. When Biblical correction has been attempted, and the person persists in their agenda, it is neither “unfair” nor “closed-minded” to remove their comments. Those who think it is unduly censorious don’t fully realize what is going on. What you’ve done was an act of love for the body, especially for those younger in the Faith, and I applaud you.

    In the perverse days we live in, in which the vast majority of “celebrity preachers” remain either silent regarding Driscoll, or worse yet, buddy up to Driscoll, it is most refreshing to see one well-known and highly respected preacher (John MacArthur) come out publicly to warn the flock of God concerning Driscoll. This reflects a heart for the welfare of God’s people, for upholding truth and righteousness, for making a stand for the real, genuine Jesus of the Scriptures. May the Lord bless John MacArthur for doing this. May the Lord grant Mark Driscoll an awareness of the tremendous damage he has done, and is currently doing, to the holy name of character of Jesus Christ, to the violence he is doing to God’s holy Word, to greatly perverting the Biblical Gospel, and to destroying the Christian Faith. May He draw Driscoll to serious repentance.

  138. SJ Burns says:

    Thanks for your kindness from the beginning and for serving the Lord in very difficult places. I hold these things in very high esteem! The Apostasy of the church is obviously a very difficult place and like the killer virus of 1919, or “bird flu” recently, appears to me to be spreading like wild-fire and showing up in unexpected places. Evangelical leaders speaking definitively on matters that the Bilbe is either silent or unclear is tantamount to “popery” and purging opposing voices is the first measures of totalitarianism. I feel very strongly about these things and as a solid “sovereignty” of God student of Jesus, I am most comfortable erring on the side of His grace. I am not in agreement with the purging in this case, I do not agree with “RS” and I will be praying that John MacArthur sees his need for serious repentance in the areas that he has offended. Please delete all of my comments as there are still the ones from the last year. Thank you and may the Lord continue to grant you His wisdom and His boldness to serve Him faithfully in the difficult places!

    SJ

  139. fleebabylon says:

    thejunglemissionary said:

    “First, for you to sit at home in your easy chair, willfully separating yourself from the assembling together with other saints, is unbiblical. The Bible knows and speaks NOT one word about an “unchurched” Christian.”

    While I whole heartedly agree that no true believer should separate themselves from fellowship with other saints, let me add for balance that the Bible also speaks not one word about a “senior pastor”, “clergy laity system”, “pulpits”, “pews”, “pre-programmed services”, “501c ceaser agreement” or many other things that were handed down from rome to the reformed churches. May all of my reformed brethren who accept these non biblical practices approach those such as Cal4u with the deepest humility knowing his error is no different than yours concerning fellowship, just on the opposite side of the perfect will of God.

    Selah.

    Written for edification and not destruction -Jim

    PS – I used your comment only for a general talking point and not to reflect on you personally, as I have the utmost appreciation for the work the Lord is doing through you.

  140. fleebabylon,

    Thanks for your comments. For what it is worth, I do not agree with the terms that you mentioned, nor do we implement any of those things here in Liberia, West Africa. We are teaching our men that the Bible knows nothing of a clergy-laity distinction. Most of our people sit on a dirt floor or a rough-hewn chair they bring with them to service if they don’t want to sit on a floor. We meet in somebody’s house with anywhere from 20-30 of us crowded into a room not 6 ft high to the ceiling and about 10′ x 12′. Those that can’t fit lean in an open window while chickens, goats, lizards, etc. walk through our midst at any time. I do recognize that much of what is practiced comes directly from Rome and being here in some ways is like a breath of fresh air because we are under no restrictions to teach and practice the same traditions. Yes, we must be careful how we approach the worship of God, and sadly, much of what passes for worship is not truly worship, and is a far cry from what God authorizes in the worship of His Most Holy Person.

  141. SJ Burns says:

    In case anyone is wondering if I’m being inconsistent again, my request to be completely purged from from this blog is my way of speaking to what I believe is a sin against “Cal4u”, in just the same way as some of you spoke to me about some inflammatory language I was using in my comments. I am so glad that you all gave me what I needed to grow out of an attitude that the Holy Spirit wanted changed! Thank you, Lord Jesus!! If I were to ever meet anyone on this blog face to face, I would extend the right hand of fellowship, call you “brother/sister” and ask if you have some time for a chat… SJ

  142. SJburns – If you find yourself in the swamp known as Houston, give me shout and I’ll buy you the best burger in the Republic of Texas :-)

  143. Rev Limiter says:

    … and you’ll be my guest for the worlds best spaghetti right here in Manhattan Beach. Calif. :<)

  144. And on the very outside chance, you made it across the pond to the little Republic of Liberia, we would provide the best West African cuisine you could expect to find including a nice plate of fried baboo worms, goat soup, and fried potato greens! LOL

  145. Linda says:

    Thanks guys for the wisdom and discernment here at DefCon. We cannot be provincial in our thinking but understand that many people who are unbelievers come here and they would be confused.

    I am hoping that even when we don’t agree with other Christians that we would not take sides with people and follow them off the cliff but rather realize that we are to follow JESUS. Peter even made one of the most comforting statements that I’ve found to be so true in my life.

    after many of the disciples turned their back and no longer followed him-

    Jhn 6:68 Simon Peter answered him, “Lord, to whom shall we go? You have the words of eternal life.

    I hope our decisions will not be based on what our buddies do or whom we may even agree with the most but will always be based and motivated solely on Jesus Christ and the truth~

    May God grant us His amazing grace and mercy all because HE is worthy of such adoration and praise forever because of His unfailing love all because of HIS righteousness–Jesus Christ

  146. RS says:

    Linda: May the Lord bless you for the faithful stand you take for His truth and righteousness.

  147. SJ Burns says:

    OK, OK, OK! I can see that my “stand” for the Lord on behalf of one whom I believe was been unjustly “handled” by this blog will not allow me to disengage as I’d hoped. It was a sacrifice for me because I’d really come to enjoy the blessings of your “fellowship” which also included “Cal4u”. I felt we all might benefit from his different perspective. When I felt he crossed a line for me, I spoke to that with specifics. I do not feel that you all gave him specific warnings of your intent to purge before the decision and act was executed. There were appeals but no warnings from the moderators that I remember or “archive”. Was the “Matthew 18″ pattern followed?

    Linda, I perceive that you are speaking to me! You have been used very wonderfully by the Lord in my life through your biblical confrontations and by your words of encouragement. In this latest message you seem to be falling into the same error that “Cal4u” was accused. “Provincial thinking”, and the assumption that “cal4u” has left the Lord or is not a christian, is the same problem you had with his views on John MacArthur. Yes, his views were pushing the limits, but I chose to personally “error on the side of love (1Cor13) and grace (cal’s comments made me reflect on James and John, the “sons of thunder”). I know that this is not my blog and the responsibility and limits lie with others who know more about the realities of the internet.

    All I wanted in this case was to see very biblical people, zealous for God’s word and for His glory and the Spirit of Holiness and the love of the Lord Jesus, follow his instructions for discipline in the body (even the cyber one). I was hoping to learn from the veterans and I felt cheated and disappointed. I have grown to really care for you all (even “Tim”, who I’ve wondered what a “James 2:19″ conversation with him would be like-lol), and these feeling embraced “cal4u” as well… I hunger for truth and righteousness, and guys like Driscoll and MacArthur have contributed to keeping that hunger burning! But it takes the striving of the Holy Spirit with the flaws of my flesh that keep me growing the faith, hope,love, grace and peace of the Lord Jesus… I guess being “raised” by the Plymouth brethren has taught me that “truth” and “righteousness” can become very subjective commodities in the fellowship of God’s elect but love is the “upward call” of our service to King, Jesus!

    We continually ask God to fill you with the knowledge of his will through all the wisdom and understanding that the Spirit gives, so that you may live a life worthy of the Lord and please him in every way: bearing fruit in every good work, growing in the knowledge of God, being strengthened with all power according to his glorious might so that you may have great endurance and patience, and giving joyful thanks to the Father, who has qualified you to share in the inheritance of his holy people in the kingdom of light. For he has rescued us from the dominion of darkness and brought us into the kingdom of the Son he loves, in whom we have redemption, the forgiveness of sins… so that in everything he might have the supremacy.

    ps- guys, be careful what you offer, because I might be doing some traveling soon. My mouth is watering, as we speak!

  148. Manfred, how on earth you reached reached that assumption is beyond me, i am if if anything totally anti dispensational and would warn against their hersey What has the lack of discernment with regard to the United Nations paving the way Antichirst which was the ghist of my post and defending Mac and against conspiracy therories has anything to with do dispensationalism? J N Darby and the Plymouth brethren are not on my Christmas card list Brother? I am one of the biggest critics of dispensationalism.

  149. Andrew – I was prompted to think you are dispensationalist because I know of no other theology which would think the UN can pave the way for Antichrist.

  150. SJ Burns says:

    Andrew, it took a few years to discern the errors of the Brethren and of dispensationalism but even though, there are some great believers among them and their “breaking of bread” service is pretty wonderful most of the time…

    Forgot to mention in my last comment that Jesus chose a “tax-collector” and at least one “zealot”, that we know off, to be in His holy fellowship. Those campfires must have been a “riot” and what about all that striving about who was going to have the preeminence? Much grace, my brethren! “SJ”

  151. Linda says:

    Yes SJ burns I was being tacit in my response because I’m trying to let the word of God be what convicts and guides us and not myself. It is not my job to do what is only the Holy Spirits job. My reply was ONLY meant to bring about a gentleness type nudge as I was saddened that your focus was being more on following your friend than following the Lord Jesus. I don’t want you to go because you disagree with how your friend was treated. our basis should be solely on what our Lord Jesus wants even when we don’t understand and the path becomes very narrow… WE -including myself—fight NOT against flesh and blood and we have to be WISE and look to Jesus Christ.

    No I don’t believe calu4 is not a Christian and nor have I drawn this conclusion even though his attitude has been rather combative and odious–we all can be like this. I do think he lacks self-control and needs to learn soundness of speech that cannot be condemned”-Titus 2:8.

    The provincial thinking was in reference to you wanting to leave and not see the broader picture of what God is doing in your live and I didn’t want it hindered by you focusing more on your friend than on Jesus. It had absolutely nothing to do with John Mac.. It had everything to do with me rooting for YOU and your friend to follow Christ-

    The fruit that I LONG for are the Fruit of the Spirit and you have displayed the fruit of the Spirit. Calu4 has lacked this quality for whatever reason only God knows his heart and it is disappointing for ANY Christian to have a brother or sister in Christ to display such a level of immaturity. We ALL are growing and no one has arrived and no one will on this earth. I’ve displayed such immaturity before and I’m growing as well. We are not a bunch of cookie cutter Christians and we all are on different levels of growth. God our heavenly Father is the Gardner and he prunes us when he sees fit.

    My hope is for what is BEST and especially for unbelievers. It takes a prudent man/woman to fear the Lord and realize that sometimes we need to be thinking about what we are saying for the sake of people coming to know Christ.

  152. SJ Burns says:

    Thank you Linda, we always need more of the fruit of the Spirit! Had I not experienced it dozens of times in 32 years, I would be surprised that you would assume that my “stand” was not for my gracious Lord Jesus. In fact, I was inspired by His teaching on discipline among believers in Matthew 18 in regard to “cal4u”. Also, from my “Driscoll type experience”, they are wont to bend the rules in deference to the youth and the un-churched they hope to impress. I do share your concern, but I can’t indorse the purging without due process. I’d do the same for you on another blog if it came to that! “SJ”

  153. fleebabylon says:

    thejunglemissionary says:

    “For what it is worth, I do not agree with the terms that you mentioned, nor do we implement any of those things here in Liberia, West Africa.”

    Brother, I truly did not intend to indict you in any way and thank God for the work you are doing in Africa and only wanted to make a general comment that is all to true. In fact, even if you had some of those traditions going I would still thank God for the good you are doing. I am currently sitting here in a comfy chair typing while you are down in the trenches doing hard work for the kingdom. God bless you and your wife and the local Church there. May God build it for His glory.

    -Jim

  154. Hello Jim,

    Not to worry, I did not take it personally, but simply wanted to clarify for those who were interested further in our ministry how we choose to operate. We do not look like what is often found on the street corner buildings of America, and not just because we meet in grass huts! LOL

    Thanks for your encouragement and your prayers. They are greatly appreciated. We face some very difficult and, at times, dangerous situations around our area of West Africa. We have learned that there are still ritualistic killings taking place right here in our area.

  155. sj burns says:

    Hey all! Just thought I’d give it one more try as it appears like we’ve all moved on. As a new-be to blogs and the commenting, I was hoping that Matthew 18 discipline applied to this arena of christian fellowship. Was I expecting amiss? I know you expected biblical standards from me, but maybe I don’t understand that this is a different kind of christian fellowship. I would love some help and guidance so that I don’t make such a conspicuous nuisance of myself in this arena in the future!
    Thank you in advance. ”SJ”

  156. SJ,

    Thank you for your comments as always. The main problem that we are facing is that while this is a blog where true believers can share what is on their heart and mind, this is not a true “Christian fellowship.” This blogsite is not a gathering together of like-minded believers explicitly for the purpose of worshipping God in a collective manner. Far too often, we find a move away from local gatherings and a replacement of sites like DefCon as the primary means of “fellowship.” We do not see this as a Biblical principle of worship anymore than we would see that listening on the radio, internet, or television to MacArthur, Piper, Sproul, Begg makes them your pastor.

    In context of Matthew 18, the Lord Jesus is speaking to His disciples, and this entire passage is dealing with the matter of offenses between one another within the confines of a local gathering. For example, my church has no authority over you or anybody else reading, commenting, or posting here in areas of church discipline, any more than your church would have over me, even if I am in grave sin or doctrinal error. It is this reason that while we can call error into question, we have no authority ultimately to call a pastor to account to this website or any other. The only people who have the authority to bring one who is in error under true Matthew 18 discipline are those within the local church itself.

    While the principles which govern our lives should be expected to play a large part of our every day lives and activities, those principles must regulate us according to the manner that God prescribes. Yes, Galatians 6:1 makes it clear that we are to seek restitution between offending brothers, but again, Paul is writing in a local church context to the believers at Galatia.

    Further, in regards to Matthew 18, discipline is often wrongly applied even in the local church setting. Discipline is for the purpose of correction and the ultimate goal is to ALWAYS be restoration. Discipline is NOT for the purpose of punishing an individual or for the purpose of “ex-communication.” This word “ex-communication” incidentally is not a Biblical term. The last step of church discipline, if necessary due to the lack of repentance on the part of the offending brother is to put them out from the protection of the church and to treat them AS IF they were an unbeliever.

    So, in regards to the situation with “cal4u”, there was no authority over him to call him to give account to us. The only option that we have available to us when somebody is in error and they continue to give forth vitriol, hatred, unChristlike attitudes or words, etc., etc. is to remove them from the ability to continue such. (This is not to say that “cal4u” did all of these things, but simply meant to indicate a general audience.” As I stated before, we have rarely in almost 5 years of this blog ever removed somebody or their comments. I would be hard pressed to actually remember this happening more than two or three times. In this particular case, the person in question – “cal4u” – only seemed intent on being here at DefCon to promote his own agenda, to castigate all who do not believe like him, and on more than one occasion called our own testimony and beliefs into question as being heresy. Some were called outright as being an unbeliever because of their differences in belief.

    I truly hope this helps, but if you have any other questions, feel free to ask and I or others will attempt to answer more clearly.

  157. RS says:

    SJ Burns:
    There are many of us who are very willing to answer any questions you may have regarding Biblical topics, or Christian blogging in general, but the place for that would be more appropriate either in the comments section of “About Us”, or under the post on a specific topic that deals with your specific concerns. Please continue with your questions there, and I’m sure you will receive many helpful responses.

  158. sj burns says:

    Thank you guys for your insights. It is evident that social media and international celebrity has blurred our standards of christian fellowship. See how easily I fell into error in regard to gossip and slander. Your correction has enabled me to find cleansing and wholeness. I must say that by your explanation, it would seem best by these new situations to leave the pastors under consideration in this blog (MD & JM) to be confronted by their own fellowships, publishers, broadcasting affiliate, etc. I don’t know, maybe this kind of christian expression is altogether inappropriate for those who truly desire Christlikeness. I mean, exposing “brethren” and trying to teardown their testimony and walk from a safe distance. Since I have significant doubts in my mind and do not wish to offend the Holy Spirit, I think it best for me to work that out before I say anymore.

  159. There is a sermon concerning gossip, slander, and defamation of character by MacArthur which I think would benefit ‘cal4u’ greatly.

    MacArthur says

    “So what we think about others is basic to the thoughts that deny a place to defamation. And if your heart is right before God, you’re going to see other believers as brothers. Again I say, it doesn’t mean you don’t point out sin when sin is there. It doesn’t mean you don’t discipline when discipline is called for. What it does mean is you don’t lie, and you don’t gossip, and you don’t backbite and you don’t slander and you defame their character maliciously. And if you, there’s every reason…if that’s the pattern of your life…to question whether your salvation is real because the ones who love God love the ones God loves.

    If I see my fellow Christians as God’s beloved children for whom the Savior died and for whom He really has planned eternity, if I see my fellow brothers and sisters in Christ as those who are eternally the loved ones of Jesus Christ and the beloved of God, if I see them as my brothers and sisters, as my fellow Christians to be protected and forgiven and nurtured and cared for, that’s going to control how I talk about them. You understand that? So I control slander not by keeping my lips sealed, I control slander by keeping my thoughts right. And the first thing to be considered is what do I think about others…do I see them as children of God? If I do, I will never say anything about my own dear brothers and sisters that is not true and that does not in some way half to be said for the sake of the purity of the church. I certainly will not maliciously lie and slander and if I do as a pattern of life, there’s every reason to question the legitimacy of my claim to salvation.
    We might expect that from people on the outside. But not on the inside. And yet somebody said the Christian army is the only one that shoots its own wounded. We really are after our own. We tend to slander ourselves. It’s a serious sin. That kind of offense is very serious. Look again at Matthew 18, let me show you how serious it is, and we’ll just cover this first point for tonight. But in Matthew 18 verse 7, well actually verse 6, “Whosoever shall offend one of these little ones…” remember, the little ones here are not babies, but Christians, little ones who are children in the spiritual sense…who have become like little children, verse 3 and therefore entered the Kingdom, who have humbled themselves, verse 4, and he’s talking about spiritual believers, children of God, not babies. “Whoever offends one of these little ones, it would be better for him that a millstone were hanged around his neck and he were drowned in the depths of the sea.” He simply says you’d be better off to die a tragic and frightening death than to ever do anything to offend one of my children. What he is saying is, you better be careful how you treat other Christians. Got that? Because to offend another Christian is so serious, you’d be better off…what?…dead…dead.”

    The entire sermon can be found at http://www.gty.org/resources/sermons/59-26/the-blasphemous-sin-of-defaming-others-part-1

  160. SJ,

    My purpose of sharing with you was not to minimize, in any way, the damage being done to the name and testimony of Christ and His church by those who are in error. MD & JM cannot be confronted biblically by anybody but their own fellowships when it comes to error and discipline. Our intent here at DefCon is to take a stand against those who do not line up with the teaching of Scripture and to warn others as the apostle Paul did of those who refuse admonition and continue to teach false doctrine. Paul warned true believers of others, even though he was not a member of that particular church. I believe this sets a clear principle that while we can warn of danger, we do not have the liberty to bring them under judgement within their own local assembly.

    If you spend time reading through some of our past material, you will note that we have warned about many “big name” people and the dangers that are being overlooked within the body of Christ. Sadly, because many see the “big name” preachers as their quasi-pastor, it is hard for people to see anything more than the sound bites or snippets found on the internet. What we hear is what many people accept as standard regardless of whether it is true.

    For what it is worth, in the past, we have also made comments to the effect that if true doctrinal error was found in some of those whom we have recommended, we would remove their information from our website as well. A classic example of such would be in the position that we used to hold in regards to John Piper. Sadly, this endorsement has been retracted due to his teaching, his assocations, and his condoning of teachers that hold to heresy.

  161. treena gisborn says:

    I really don’t think that we are ‘on the same team’ as people like Driscoll. He blatantly denies Bible on end time issues. Bible believing Christians have a perfect right to contend for the truth. We don’t judge the man himself but we come against false teaching so that others will be warned and will not be led astray.

  162. keepongoing7 says:

    Is God small and man big? Who are we trying to please, God or man? This is the question that should guide our lives. “The Fear of Lord is the beginning of wisdom.”

  163. LouAnn says:

    Eph. 4:29 Do not let any unwholesome talk come out of your mouth, but only what is helpful for building up others according to their needs, that they may benefit those who listen. Eph. 5:4. Nor should there be obscenity, foolish talk or coarse joking, which are out of place, but rather thanksgiving. 1Tim 3:2 Now the overseer must be above reproach. 1Tim. 4:8. For physical training is of some value, but godliness has valu for all things, holding promise for both present life and life to come. 1Tim. 4:12. Don’t let anyone look down on you because you are young, but set an example for believers in speech, in life, in love, in faith and in purity. 1Tim.6:11. But you, man of God, flee from all this, and pursue righteousness, godliness, faith, love, endurance and gentleness.

  164. Danny says:

    So can I ask a question? Can someone give a specific, word for word quote, where Driscoll has used inappropriate language, or been smutty? I personally have greatly appreciated talks on sections of the Bible that other pastors don’t touch (e.g. Song of Solomon).

    There are all these vague references to coarse language, not one single actual example. I’ve listened to a lot of Driscoll messages, and have been very blessed by them. Not heard one thing that I’ve thought is coarse…

  165. Forest Ray says:

    Your two links grunge Christianity and the subculture ones have linked to Porn sites. you have been hacked I believe.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s