137 Comments

Mark Driscoll mocks the Sinlessness of Jesus Christ

“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.)

How is this rubbish defensible from one who claims to be a minister of the Lord Jesus Christ?  This is the same thing as saying that Jesus Christ was tempted to lust after Mary Magdalene as others have claimed.  The next thing we will hear is that the thoughts of the Lord Jesus Christ did equal sin until He (the Lord) actually acted upon those thoughts —– Oh wait a minute, never mind, he did say that also!

This is the same man who claims that the heresy teaching Joel Osteen is a Christian brother and the “happiest Christian preacher” out there.  This is the same man who claims the Bible is completely silent on whether Jesus COULD have sinned.

This is the same man who is being endorsed by a man who has in the past stood for the truth of God’s Word.  He is being endorsed by a man who it seemed would not have endorsed much less allowed to preach in his pulpit a man who teaches the things that Driscoll believes.

I am afraid that I am one of those who take a stand for Biblical separation.  These issues are NOT matters of secondary separation.  They are clearly defined matters which require an explanation from one who has demeaned the office of elder by his caustic, vulgar, offensive, Christ-dishonouring speech (Driscoll) and also a Biblical explanation from those who are willing to openly endorse such nonsense without calling such a one to account.

It is a mockery to say that such a one who openly (and seemingly) with no remorse and repentance and no chastisement or discipline even has the Spirit of God dwelling within him.  The Bible makes it clear that by their fruits you shall know them.  While the ultimate judgment is in the hands of the Almighty Sovereign of the Universe, I believe that it would behoove Christian leaders to start being more discerning in what and who they allow into their pulpits.

Sadly, I believe that based on the writings and warning by the apostle Paul, it can be concluded that John Piper is gravely in error in allowing this man to preach at Bethlehem Baptist Church.  He is wrong for not condemning the language and for waffling on the issue.  I have serious concerns that such endorsements will just as surely lead true believers down wrong paths as what men like J.I. Packer did when being willing to embrace Colson and Neuhaus as brothers in the Lord Jesus Christ.

Grieving for the downhill slides in the church,

The Desert Pastor

********** EDITED WITH ADDITION BELOW **********

James 1:15 says, “Then, when desire (lust) has conceived, it gives birth to sin; and sin, when it is full-grown, brings forth death.”

The word used for lust in this verse means “a longing (especially for what is forbidden), concupiscence, desire, lust (after).”

Desire is defined by Princeton as “the feeling that accompanies an unsatisfied state.”

For those who are trying to smooth over the harm that Mark Driscoll is doing, it won’t work – at least, not with those who seek to be discerning.  Even if his only problem is that he used a poor choice of words, he has had plenty of time since 2006 to make this right.  His verbage indicates that Jesus wanted/desired what He could not have.  He also made it clear that Jesus had an unsatisfied state.  This explicitly demeans the sinlessness of Jesus Christ.  Jesus Christ had need of nothing, and He certainly did not “long for/want/desire/etc” the company of a woman to “satisfy” His flesh!

*************** PER MBAKER’S RECOMMENDATION ***************

**** I AM ADDING THE FOLLOWING COMMENT AS OF 11/29/2008 ****

Thanks again for your comments. We have no problems here at DefCon considering the issue of Mark Driscoll from a biblical perspective. The problem is that when we do his followers trot out the “do not judge” line. When we address his vulgar language and sexual innuendos about the Lord Jesus Christ, we are told that MD is merely trying to be culturally relevant.

If you are truly interested in further conversation, may I recommend that you go to the following link:

http://stevenjcamp.blogspot.com/search?q=driscoll

Read all the posts by Steven Camp that have been written from a carefully worded position that I believe is honouring to the Lord Jesus Christ. Those blogs have more than enough information showing the heresy that Mark is teaching and his connections with people like T.D. Jakes and the heresy of Oneness teaching, connections with the emergent church and the contemplative movement that is taking many within so-called new-evangelical by storm.

For the record, we do NOT hate Mark Driscoll. However, we do believe that he is disqualified from currently being a minister of the gospel. We also believe that instead of being openly rebuked that there are other ministers such as John Piper and Joshua Harris who are openly endorsing this man.

I would challenge ANY reader from a Biblical perspective ONLY (not your personal feelings) to prove that Mark Driscoll is theologically correct in his belief on the doctrine of imputation (as just one example) or that he somehow manages to qualify as a pastor (when such drivel as he preaches and teaches and such language would not have been tolerated even 10-15 years ago from mainline evangelical pulpits.

The Desert Pastor

About Mark Escalera

Name: Mark Escalera - (formerly The Jungle Missionary) Blog: DefendingContending.Com Ministry: I am a sinner saved by grace, and learning every day how much more I need the Lord directing my life. In a graceless world, my desire is to show to others the grace that has been extended to me. Have been married for almost 25 years and we have been blessed with five children with the oldest three serving in the US Air Force. My passion is seeking to minister the precious life-giving Word of God to those dead in trespasses and sins! Humbled that He would choose me as one of His children! Preferred translation: English Standard Version (ESV) Currently studying: Psalms Currently reading: The Attributes of God by A.W. Pink

137 comments on “Mark Driscoll mocks the Sinlessness of Jesus Christ

  1. Thank you for posting this article.I had the same comments from Driscoll on my blog recently,including the one he made about Joel Osteen being his brother in Christ.

    A large number of people said i was wrong about him and that he (Driscoll) is as sound as they come.Also they pointed out that he must be ok because Piper is working alongside him.This was new info to me.

    To my shame i appollogised and took the article down.

    Driscoll makes many assumptions in the comment above including his own opinion that Jesus “got tired of going to bed alone at night”.

    The more i read this the more i find it offensive .Why would the King of Kings and Saviour of mankind “get tired of going to bed alone” ?…His purpose was to do the will of the Father not to desire worldly things such as someone to cuddle up to at night.

    Driscoll is way off here and as far as i know he has never explained why he wrote this.Is he above reproach ?…Oh i forgot “he only listens to people like Piper and CJ Mahaney…Everyone elses opinions/concerns are meaningless”.(From his sermon at the desiring God conference)

    dale

  2. I’m confused. Are you saying that if man or Jesus is tempted he has sinned? I thought if you’re tempted and didn’t give into the temptation you have not sinned, but only if you do give yourself over to the temptation it becomes sin. Jesus was tempted, but he never sinned. If you stop taking things out of context and print the entire sermon or at least a link to the sermon it allows people to make up their own mind and it makes sense. People take scripture out of context to justify their sin and they also take bits and pieces of sermons out of context and try to make themselves look righteous. Here is the link to the sermon that this quote was taken out of context. It’s at about the 8 minute mark. I encourage everyone to listen to the entire sermon (all 7 parts) to understand the context of what Mark is saying.

  3. I spend a lot of time researching and exposing churches and pastors that have gone off the rails and I am not convinced that this qualifies as that. Truth be told it reminds me of what the inspired author of Hebrews wrote:

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

    Jesus truly was tempted in every that a human could be tempted. Driscoll has not committed a grievous error by trying to fill in some of the details of how Jesus was tempted or what He probably would have been tempted by AND saying that Jesus was tempted as we are is a far cry from saying that Jesus actually committed a sin.

  4. http://stevenjcamp.blogspot.com/2008/09/guardian-of-grunge-and-seattle-sludge.html

    Ezekiel 1-3

    Where will it all end! Keep thinking, keep imagining, keep creating possibilities, you you another one is that Jesus probably also had homosexual temptations, do we really want all this morbid and gross speculations about our Beautiful, Glorious, Majestic, Sinless, Great, Mighty, Powerful, Omnipotent, Omniscient, Omnipresent, Immutable,
    Holy, Holy, Holy, Righteous, All Mighty, Lord, Saviour, King, Ruler, Sovereing (oh, sorry pomo’s you might have to get a dictionary or should I say really cool/hip ancient dude) reduced to that, the very things He bled and died for. Shame on us!
    This is what the so-called leaders of our church are announcing and proclaiming. Jesus passed the test, a fleeting thought, he tossed it out, he conquered death and sin, now we try to justify it! Shame, or Woe to us. This is what we think about, Phillipians say to think on pure things, true things, these thoughts about Christ are impure. You know, have an enemy, nowhere on any of these blogs are we talking about the demonic, Satanic nature of a sex crazed culture, planting all kinds of nasty ideas in our minds about ourselves and now God. No wonder there are so many woes in the Bible, we better take heed church. Wow, what are we saturating our minds with, our poor children.

  5. Jim B,

    Your characterization of Defcon and Desert Pastor is not called for nor does it foster real conversation and discussion. You can grind your axe over at your blog.

    Now, like you I do not see any incongruity between Driscoll’s comment and Hebrews 4:15?

    I know that upsets some people and they disagree with me. But, Hebrews 4:15 is an extremely comforting passage for me, especially when I think that Jesus was tempted in all the disgusting ways I am tempted and He still was without sin. That is an amazing thought to me and is a key component of the Gospel message itself. It tells me that Christ not only conquered temptation and sin but that he sympathizes and understands what we go through and experience. Where I am weak and miserable He is strong.

  6. As much as I have enjoyed defcon I think this time you are wrong in your charactization of MD’s comments.

  7. My son’s school teacher is a youth minister at a newly forming church and the teacher just loves Mark Driscoll. Thank you for providing extra information on this man.It is tough dealing with the heresey attacking our youth from within the church.

  8. The issue here is not whether Jesus Christ was tempted. I believe that Hebrews 4:15 makes it very clear that He was definitely tempted, yet without sin. This means that He did not commit sin, but that He COULD NOT have sinned.

    The main point was with MD’s comments which were directly off the videos that were made of his message on “How Human Was Jesus.”

    Let me try to clarify, MD said, “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?”

    This is more of what I (and others) have a problem with from a Biblical standpoint. He has taken the mere temptation to include risque language and clearly indicates that there might be more to the temptation than just that which was presented to the Perfect One in the wilderness. Reread the parts I have bolded for emphasis.

    Brethren, there is a far cry being a temptation and then dwelling on that temptation. In fact, read James 1:14, 15, “But each one is tempted when he is drawn away by his own desires and enticed. Then, when desire has conceived, it gives birth to sin; and sin, when it is full-grown, brings forth death.”

    This does NOT describe the type of temptation that the Lord Jesus Christ endured. He had no evil, perverted, or sexual desires that were unrealized or unfulfilled and therefore was enticed by the temptation of “wanting” to go to bed with a woman! He did not “WANT” for anything for He was perfect. To assume that the Perfect God in the private of His mind dwelt on the thoughts of having intimate physical relations with a woman is far beyond the pale of Scripture!

    The Desert Pastor

  9. Desert Pastor,

    Your deeper explanation at 1:38 PM helps clarify the cogent parts. What Driscoll describes – attributing it to the Lord – goes beyond the temptation phase. It has moved into the sin of desire, which precedes the sin of commission. He’s describing David on his roof, looking at and lusting after Bathsheba – this is not the mind of Christ. MD has subtly deconstructed Christ, turning Him into a very good man – which is NOT who He is.

  10. Driscoll said NOTHING about “dwelling” on temptation. And he said NOTHING “risque”. (Unless, words like “intimate” and “woman” are risque.)

    Do you believe Christ was “tempted as we were”, but never ACTUALLY felt sexual desire? Is sexual desire or longing sinful? Was Christ’s “temptation” mere pretense?

    There is NOTHING unorthodox in Driscoll’s comment here. Again, your presuppositional hatred for the man colors everything of his you encounter.

    Do your post titles ever give you pause? “Driscoll MOCKS the Sinlessness of Christ” Really? Mocks? You’re intentionally setting your audience up to expect grand heresy within your post, yet such a thing doesn’t actually exist.

    Oops…

    Driscoll said NOTHING about “dwelling” on temptation. Driscoll said NOTHING “risque”. (Unless, the words “intimate” and “woman” are deemed by Team DefCon to be risque.) I believe they call this a straw man.

    Your presuppositional dislike of Driscoll has clearly colored your take on everything of his you encounter. There is nothing unorthodox in this comment. Was Christ tempted as we were, but never ACTUALLY experienced sexual desire? Was Christ’s “temptation” a mere pretense?

    Do your post titles ever give you pause? “Mark Driscoll MOCKS the Sinlessness of Jesus Christ” Really? Mocks? Good grief…

  11. Jim,

    I am afraid that even if your position was correct (which I do not believe it is), your disposition certainly leaves a great deal to be desired. Apart from the odd comment from you that was overly caustic or demeaning, we have allowed you to come without personally attacking you. We ask that you offer the same respect here.

    The Desert Pastor

  12. This means that He did not commit sin, but that He COULD NOT have sinned. So you are saying Jesus was not a man? If this is the case it means he was never tempted. Correct? The only way you can be tempted is if you can be tempted. If you CAN NOT sin you CAN NOT be tempted.

  13. I am NOT saying that Jesus was not a man. He was 100% God and 100% man. However, at no point did (or could) His human nature override the divine attributes which belong to Jesus Christ.

    I would recommend reading up on the biblical doctrine termed “the impeccability of Christ.”

    Two good articles – http://www.fbinstitute.com/McCormick/IMPECCABILITY.htm

    and one by A.W. Pink http://home.att.net/~sovereigngrace/impeccability.html

    The Desert Pastor

  14. DP

    Thank you for refining your remarks on what MD said. I will admit I read it casually first and thought ‘Hebrews 4.15 – so what?’. We need to pay attention to the details. Some would say we should cut MD some slack. Well, if he was 21 and pastoring a handful of people somewhere and some comments got into the public sphere then I suppose that would be right.

    But this man is now coming to the UK and telling whole denominations what they should be doing, and they’re all sitting there lapping it up. He must be held to a very high standard – surely these careless (and I believe they are that, not thought-through) remarks should be withdrawn. I hope and pray that someone can get through to Dr Piper on this.

  15. Thanks for the response. I will read the references you linked. I have always been under the impression form my reading of the scriptures that he was could have sinned, but did not. This is confusing to me. If he could not sin that changes everything and makes for some serious contradictions in scripture. I do not believe you can be tempted if you cannot sin. Thanks again.

  16. http://www.desiringgod.org/ResourceLibrary/AskPastorJohn/ByTitle/1942_At_the_Passion07_breakout_session_you_used_language_that_seemed_inappropriate_to_some_Will_you_explain_why_you_did_that/

    I listened to the panel discussion with Piper, Driscoll and Ferguson. I wanted to hear Driscoll’s answer to his reponse of Ferguson’s message. Both Piper and Driscoll seemed choppy and hesitant and not real or genuine in their answers. But MD just gave a cookie cutter answer, I was convicted and it was helpful, he did not seem really affective, troubled or repentent. I really listened to give him a chance and the benefit of all our doubts about him, but we came up disappointed as usual. Now, back in 2007 when Piper slipped, he gave his so-called confession that he should not have. But read it closely, how can a man who struggles to tittilate the audience and seem cool and hip and not middle age pious be a mentor and guide to Driscoll. This is why Piper likes MD, he wishes he could be like him and just spit out what he’s really thinking.
    Did you notice, he even blames it on the devil, he’s mad that the devil and his flesh get the better of him. Please read carefully and listen to MD, really be objective and pray and ask, they do not want to repent, they like to be able to shock and awe with words. On another note about words, during the election I have been learning new words, there are millions of great deep, profound, hard hitting words in our language.
    The secular media uses them instead of the lower gutter smut language to make their points. You know, I think now I know why I never really jumped on the Piper bandwagon years back. The guy is struggling with his own desire to be liked by all.
    If the younger generation of Christian men and women have to sink to commom (vulgar) speech to proclaim the gospel, we just give the world more to mock about behind our backs and to our faces, the whole time we think they think Christians are cool and real and genuine, believe me, that is not what they are thinking. You know if MD comes and start a church in the SF Bay, specifically Berekely and there begins a revival, I will recant!
    s

  17. Karie,

    All are welcome to post here provided they remain within the Rules of Engagement. Your comment was merely held in a moderated status until one of the editors released it because it had a link to it.

    Thanks for your comments.

    The Desert Pastor

  18. Thank you, I understand.

  19. Do not be surprised when people, esp. people in positions of authority, sin. Do you sin? Do you make mistakes? Do you ever interpret scripture wrongly? Do you ever say something off the cuff in a sermon that upon further reflection see how people could misunderstand it? I did just last Sunday, when I was talking about Jesus’ divine attributes. Someone misunderstood what I said and thought that I’d said that while Jesus was on earth he wasn’t divine. That’s not what I meant to say.

    Now, I happen to think that Mark said exactly what he meant to say. Of course, Jesus, a human being (who is also fully divine) wanted and desired the good things in life (yes, I believe and it is my experience that being married is a very, very good thing). But God had called him to a different task, which he willingly and perfectly fulfilled. Let me remind everyone of Jesus’ prayer for himself in the garden. ““Abba, Father,” he said, “everything is possible for you. Take this cup from me. Yet not what I will, but what you will.” The Holy Bible : New International Version. 1996, c1984 (electronic ed.) (Mk 14:36). Grand Rapids: Zondervan. Was it sin that Jesus asked to be spared the horrible, painful, excruciating pain of the cross? Isn’t the very question an indication that he was tempted to avoid suffering? And yet he showed he was without sin by saying, “not my will but yours.”

    Honestly, stop splitting hairs, and splitting the church. Point out heresy, sure. Warn people to listen objectively, not to say, “Oh it must be true because Mark Driscoll said so.” Encourage them to exercise discernment. Don’t malign our brothers in Christ, point out their errors (did you email Mark first? Did you give him a chance to respond as per Matthew 18?), slander their names and therefore reduce the good works they’ve done along with the bad works they’ve done. Simply say, “Did Mark go too far? I think he did, what do you think?”

  20. Paul,

    Thanks for your comments. Yes, I do sin and I do make mistakes. Some people may be shocked to hear that I actually have at times (hopefully less and less as time goes by) interpret the Scriptures incorrectly. I cannot honestly say that I can remember speaking “off the cuff” during a message as I do try (in this area) to be very careful in my preparation and normally only speak what I have prepared for.

    I am also married and yes, marriage is a very good thing. This is not the issue with what I have addressed with Mark who has gone beyond personal and private offenses as mentioned in Matthew 18. He has gone very public with his errors, mistakes, and his sin of using the world’s standards to try and introduce Jesus Christ.

    Personally, I believe that a simple understanding of the Scriptures as for the qualifications of a pastor would show that this man is not blameless and without reproach. Do I believe he can change and be conformed to the image of the Lord Jesus Christ and be used of the Lord in ministry? YES, just as any who by grace alone place their faith in the Lord Jesus Christ alone for their salvation.

    What I have written I stand by, and I do not believe for one minute we are splitting hairs and certainly not splitting the church! I am appalled that the church has done the road of decline to the point where this issue of the world’s standards, the world’s music, and the world’s language can be used in pulpits and churches is not considered not only acceptable (contrary to Scripture) but is an open door for those who wish to sling stones and state, “Don’t JUDGE!” or “Stop splitting hairs!” etc, etc.

    The Scripture makes it clear that when one is in error and is teaching contrary to God’s Word that it is to be addressed. The purpose of this website has been to take a stand against the error that is creeping (nope, now rushing) into the churches with little to no care for true holiness, but with more of a concern as to how we can be “relevant” to 21st century worldlings!

    One more thing, Jesus did NOT ask to be spared the Cross!!!! He did not ask to avoid suffering. To even insinuate, imply, or outright accuse the One Who was the Lamb slain from before the foundations of the world is contrary to Scripture. He came with only one purpose and that was the Cross! He came to suffer. He came to die. I’m sorry, but my Lord Jesus Christ did NOT come to pray and find a way out at the last minute!

    The Desert Pastor

  21. Wouldn’t Jesus have been guilty of lust if he had entertained, even for a moment, having a woman? Isn’t the mere thought of that for an unmarried man sin? What is temptation? Is it merely the presentation of opportunity to sin, or sinful thoughts that you reject and then refuse to act upon? Driscoll seems to think that Jesus actually desired, lusted, after a woman. Wouldn’t that have meant that Christ sinned? Is sin the initial thought coming into our minds or if we reject it immediately, is that not sin? I always thought that we have these thoughts because of our sin nature, which Christ did not have. I think some biblical clarification is needed here. I don’t think Driscoll is correct because it implies that Christ lusted, which is sin.

  22. You are right, Ingrid! Jesus would have been guilty of lust if he had entertained for even a moment the thought of having a woman. The Bible is very clear that if someone lusts it’s the same thing as adultery, if someone hates it’s the same thing as murder, if someone is rebellious it’s the same thing as witchcraft. The sins of the heart are just as wicked as the actual commitment of the sins.

    There were other things that I disagreed with him on but the reality is that if we say Christ could have sinned then we have a god of our own making. MD is saying that God could have sinned if he says that Jesus wanted a woman in his arms. This is not the same Jesus of the Bible, this is a god made into the image of man.

  23. I am also editing the post to include this as part of the blogpost.

    James 1:15 says, “Then, when desire (lust) has conceived, it gives birth to sin; and sin, when it is full-grown, brings forth death.”

    The word used for lust in this verse means “a longing (especially for what is forbidden), concupiscence, desire, lust (after).”

    Desire is defined by Princeton as “the feeling that accompanies an unsatisfied state.”

    For those who are trying to smooth over the harm that Mark Driscoll is doing, it won’t work – at least, not with those who seek to be discerning. Even if his only problem is that he used a poor choice of words, he has had plenty of time since 2006 to make this right. His verbage indicates that Jesus wanted/desired what He could not have. He also made it clear that Jesus had an unsatisfied state. This explicitly demeans the sinlessness of Jesus Christ. Jesus Christ had need of nothing, and He certainly did not “long for/want/desire/etc” the company of a woman to “satisfy” His flesh!

    The Desert Pastor

  24. “If God was merely an inhuman robot in regard to temptation -if Christ resisted sexual sin, merely because He experienced no desire for it -than He really didn’t “resist” anything. He was not truly and fully man.”

    Wow, this is getting complicated, isn’t it? Jesus WAS both fully human and fully God. BUT, He did not have a fallen nature like all the rest of mankind. So, though, as a man, He could be tempted and therefore could understand every temptation which besets us as humans, He could not sin because He was also God and God cannot sin. I believe Jesus won the victory over every temptation that man can ever know when He was tempted by the devil in the wilderness right after His baptism and before He began His ministry. He had a show-down with the enemy right then and there and He won. When he emerged from that battle, He was ready to concentrate His all in doing His Father’s will-completing His ministry and going to the cross for us. Satan had already tempted Him with every trick he had and it didn’t work. I just can’t see Jesus going to sleep at night feeling lonely thinking He was missing out not having a wife or that He had sexual attraction to certain of His women followers. I am sorry…I just can’t, because He was so focused on His Father’s will and it was everything to Him. Nothing else mattered…nothing else filled His thoughts but to fulfill the plan and purpose for which the Father sent Him into the world. MD is trying too hard to relate to unbelievers and in doing so he is demeaning the gospel message and the Savior. There is no excuse, ever, for the type of language he uses. I don’t care how good a speaker he is or how good his overall theology is. There are some things you just don’t do. It all comes down to being too casual about Jesus…having no fear of a holy God. Someday we will all stand before the Lamb to give an account for every word we have spoken and that,right there, ought to give us plenty of motivation to weigh our words before we speak.

  25. Amen, Rose!

    I noticed MD tried to dumb down the definition of holy by saying it meant ‘other’. Let’s choose new meanings for the words so we can make Christ into the kind of god we feel we can worship. The problem I see is that so many people want Christ to be a weak person like we are so we can feel better about ourselves and what we believe. The truth is God is so far above our understanding but so many want to be able to understand Him and they will NEVER NEVER NEVER understand Him even all eternity when we are in heaven with Him. How can we understand the fact that He died (He laid down His life) and yet He was still God! How can we understand the Trinity? We can’t! How can we understand that Christ became a babe and yet was still totally and completely God in all His power? We can’t and yet people get upset because they want to feel that Christ was tempted in such a way that He desired women to come to bed with Him, etc. etc. etc. This is blasphemy and as such should NOT be allowed!

  26. Jesus Christ was not tempted by sinful desires.

    Driscoll and his defenders here would do well to consider an orthodox view of Christ’s humanity and sinlessness instead of shaming the Risen King of Glory and imputing sinful sexual desires to the eternally Righteous One. Driscoll’s comments are demonically inspired and blasphemous. Such statements are hell-spawned and spoken by the mouthpieces of Satan himself.

    Frankly I’m appalled that Chris Rosebrough in particular is so comfortable with Driscoll’s excruciatingly heretical quote. Chris, you ought to know better.

    I wonder, would Chris Rosebrough and Jim B. still be defending Driscoll if he had said:

    “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 men who adored him. You don’t think he ever wanted the comfort of a man? 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 man? He was tempted.”

    In this instance (as is frequently the case) when Driscoll opens his mouth to speak his original words the context in view is clearly sexual. Driscoll’s speech here is earthly, fleshy, and devilish. Once again – as usual – we find Driscoll’s filthy reprobate mind in the gutter as he spews forth sexually titillating speech which serves absolutely no purpose except to smear, bring shame upon, and assassinate the sinless character of Jesus Christ the King for the enjoyment of his eager itching ears adherents.

    How relevant!

    How authentic!!

    How long oh Lord?!?

    I want to know Chris R. and Jim B., would you still be defending Driscoll if he had insinuated Christ “wanted” (which is the same as desired) to have “intimate relations” (which in the context of his quote clearly refers to sexual relations) with another man? If not, then please explain.

    Following the logic presented here thus far to defend Driscoll’s wholly indefensible statement then we must conclude that he would have been equally correct to impute homosexual desires to the Lord, right? How about Pedophilia? Bestiality? What if instead of a woman or a man Driscoll had suggested that perhaps Jesus Christ the Eternal Son and second Person of the Trinity “wanted to have intimate relations” with a young child or a goat? Would you be here defending such statements as well Chris? Jim B.? Anyone?

    Thanks to “pastors” like Mark Driscoll and his erstwhile hangers-on, sycophants and shameless and/or clueless defenders – not to mention the high profile support, encouragement, speaking engagements, and platforms he receives from his big name, sin-enabling buddies like John Piper this is where modern “Christianity” (so-called) is headed folks; right down the gutter and straight into deepest cesspool of the lowest pit of hell itself.

    THE SINLESSNESS OF CHRIST
    by R.C. Sproul

    When we speak of Christ’s sinlessness we generally refer to His humanity. It is unnecessary to plead the sinlessness of Christ’s deity, as deity by our definition cannot and does not sin. The doctrine of Christ’s sinlessness has been free of any fundamental controversy. Even the most crass heretics in history have not denied this of Christ.

    The sinlessness of Christ does not merely serve as an example to us. It is fundamental and necessary for our salvation. Had Christ not been the “lamb without blemish” He not only could not have secured anyone’s salvation, but would have needed a savior Himself. The multiple sins that Christ bore on the cross required a perfect sacrifice. That sacrifice had to be made by one who was sinless.

    Christ’s sinlessness had negative and positive aspects to it. Negatively, Christ was completely free of any transgression. He broke none of God’s holy law. He scrupulously obeyed whatsoever God commanded. Despite His sinlessness Christ even obeyed Jewish law, submitting to circumcision, baptism, and perhaps even the system of animal sacrifice. Positively, Christ was eager to obey the law; He was committed to doing the will of His Father. It was said of Him that zeal for His Father’s house consumed Him (John 2:17) and that his meat was to do the will of His Father (John 4:34).

    One difficulty concerning the sinlessness of Christ is related to Hebrews 4:15: “For we do not have a High Priest who cannot sympathize with our weaknesses, but was in all points tempted as we are, yet without sin.” If Christ was tempted as we are, how could He have been sinless? The problem becomes even greater when we read James 1:14-15: “But each one is tempted when he is drawn away by his own desires and enticed. Then, when desire has conceived, it gives birth to sin; and sin, when it is full-grown, brings forth death.”

    James describes a kind of temptation that arises from sinful desires within us. These desires are already sinful in nature. If Jesus was tempted as we are tempted it would seem to suggest that He had sinful desires. Yet this is precisely the point of the qualifier “yet without sin” in the book of Hebrews. Jesus had desires. But he had no sinful desires. When he was tempted by Satan the assault came from the outside. It was an external temptation. Satan tried to entice Jesus to eat during His period of fasting. Jesus surely had physical hunger; He had a desire for food. Yet there was no sin in being hungry. All things being equal, Jesus wanted to eat. But all things were not equal. Jesus was committed to obeying the will of His Father. He had no desire to sin.

    It was by His sinlessness that Jesus qualified Himself as the perfect sacrifice for our sins. However, our salvation requires two aspects of redemption. It was no only necessary for Jesus to be our substitute and receive the punishment due for our sins; He also had to fulfill the law of God perfectly to secure the merit necessary for us to receive the blessings of God’s covenant. Jesus not only died as the perfect for the imperfect, the sinless for the sinful, but He lived the life of perfect obedience required for our salvation.

  27. I love R.C.Sproul…………he’s a legend and a faithful preacher of God’s word! That passage is so clear……..thanks for posting that C.D.

    RP

  28. Is this the same R.C. Sproul who blasphemously referred to Christ as being “damned” on the cross? Wow. I can’t believe you’ve cited this “mouthpiece of Satan” to prove a point. What ever happened to discernment?

  29. Jim B. asked: What ever happened to discernment?

    Do you agree with your own pastor on this subject, Jim?: Discernment is not created in God’s people by brokenness, humility, reverence, and repentance. It is created by biblical truth and the application of truth by the power of the Holy Spirit to our hearts and minds. When that happens, then the brokenness, humility, reverence, and repentance will have the strong fiber of the full counsel of God in them. They will be profoundly Christian and not merely religious and emotional and psychological.

    If so, then why are you still here emotionally and psychologically defending the scripturally indefensible pronouncements of Mark Driscoll in this thread and others? Could it be that you are bristling at these comments because they touch upon your pastor’s ongoing (and undiscerning) enablement of Driscoll and your emotional responses arise in large part from [your] affinity for Pastor Piper, and [your] involvement at Bethlehem Baptist Church.?

    You have defended Driscoll’s scatological references from the pulpit.

    You have defended Driscoll’s innuendo including homo-erotic references to engaging in sex acts with Jesus Christ in heaven.

    You have defended the use of the word s*** by pastor-teachers.

    You have defended Driscoll’s claim that Jesus Christ the Righteous One was tempted by his own sinful desires.

    This is a shame Jim, and it’s deeply saddening that you apparently don’t even see it. Perhaps most telling for me personally is the fact that you are a living example of the fruit born by John Piper’s Bethlehem Baptist Church. You are John Piper’s epistle written without words – and you’ve spent practically all of your time here at DefCon defending the Biblically indefensible and taking cheap shots at those of us with whom you disagree. I truly hope that you aren’t representative of the type of Christian being discipled at and produced by BBC, Jim. If you are then my deepest seated concerns about the unintended consequences of John Piper’s decline into cultural relativism and ends-justify-the-means pragmatism are being confirmed. Your presence here has been very eye opening, Jim. Thank you.

    In my next installment I plan to explore the cult of personality “Celeb-rianity” that has cropped up around certain “TOUCH NOT MINE ANOINTED” pulpit idols and demonstrate how Mark Driscoll is simply the reformed version of Todd Bentley. I’ll further attempt to demonstrate how Bentley’s cult-like followers and rabid defenders are not unlike those of the current crop of Christian celebrities such as Mark Driscoll and others.

    In Christ,
    CD

  30. Jim B. said,

    “Driscoll seems to think that Jesus actually desired, lusted, after a woman.”

    Really? Where did he say that? Driscoll said:

    “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.”

    You’re putting words in the man’s mouth he never said.

    So what you’re saying is that desiring sexual intimacy is not the same as lust? Would you elaborate on that please? Because it sounds like you’re saying that I could want to have sexual relations with someone other than my wife and not be guilty of lust.

    Matthew 5:28–“But I say to you that whoever looks at a woman to lust for her has already committed adultery with her in his heart.”

    If Jesus desired sexual intimacy with a woman He was not married to, then He has broken the Law He came to fulfill, and He was no longer the spotless Lamb of God–but rather just another prophet come into the world.

    As far as Driscoll’s comment that “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?”

    Well, after fasting for 40 days I’m sure He could have gone for some fried chicken and a large iced tea. But when Satan offered Him things to fill His fleshly needs, what was the first thing Jesus did? “It is written…” So, we can see that although Jesus was tempted BY sin, He was never tempted TO sin. Satan tried to lead Him into sin, but Jesus never wanted any part of it.

    Let’s look a little deeper at the word “tempted” (Gr.: peirazw) in Heb 4:15. It literally means “Examine, test.” 2nd Corinthians 13:5–“Examine (peirazw) yourselves whether you are in the faith.” Thayer says of peirazw, “To try, make trial of, test: for the purpose of ascertaining his quantity, or what he thinks, or how he will behave himself…in a bad sense, to test one maliciously, craftily to put to the proof his feelings or judgments…to try or test one’s faith, virtue, character, by enticement to sin; to solicit to sin, to tempt.” Satan tried to test Jesus to see if he could get Him to sin, and learned the hard way where Jesus’ desires were (hint: it wasn’t on anything earthly).

  31. How i want Driscoll to defend himself publically on what he has said instead of letting others do it for him.

    How would he defend calling Osteen his Christian brother ? except to say that he was wrong and should have chosen his words more carefully.

    How would he defend himself on what he said about Jesus desiring to go to bed with a woman ? except to say that he was wrong and should have chosen his words more carefully.

    Should this guy be preaching /leading 3000 people while he still makes very basic mistakes like these ?

    Oh,how i want him to respond.

  32. CD,
    Thank you so much for that piece by R. C Sproul. He makes it so easy to understand. I am going to copy that …it is a keeper!

  33. http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/localnews/2004020898_webmarshill18m.html

    Did you know about this? I tried for a long time to really investigate this, there was an website set up by one of those former elders, I am not sure it is still up. If you know about this or have been able to speak with one of those elders I would like to know more. Everyone wants to believe that this is a wonderfully almost perfect church with thousands of people coming to church and getting saved, they never really look more deeply or consider there could be a lot of politics going on. In this case I believe it was a matter of giving a lot of power and control to Driscoll and his inner circle of “yes” men, but I would like to get the “real” story and facts. You need not post this, it is a question, but if you have details and truth and facts on this then people who denfend Driscoll and think Mars Hill is the repository of truth and soundness and wonder and awe need to step into reality. I still think the dude likes attention and is a really good actor and comedian who rides the fence. Also, there are you tube videos of Driscoll teacing on the role of elders and leadership that came at that time of the firings and is obviously targeted at those 2 men.

  34. Karie said,

    “In this case I believe it was a matter of giving a lot of power and control to Driscoll and his inner circle of “yes” men…”

    Why would you believe that, Karie? Why are you predisposed to believe these things about Driscoll? Do you know either of these terminated/probated elders? Why would you take the word of one man over 29?

    The only reason I can think of would be your predisposed dislike of Driscoll. Why would you want to publicly way in on this matter, anyway? Frankly, your interest in the affairs (*cough*… gossip… *cough*) of another local church body with which you have no real connection is a bit unseemly.

    I’m not taking Driscoll’s side (and the side of 28 other elders at Mars Hill) or the side of the jilted elders. There’s really no reason for me to have any interest in this at all.

  35. Gossip, how ironic, you scold me on gossip? What don’t you understand about the world wide web? Is the Seattle Times guilty of gossip? If 2 elders from my church were fired here in the SF Bay Area, I pretty much believe you are not going to here about it in our local city newspaper or Oakland or SF major newspapers.
    http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/localnews/2004022436_marshill19m.html

    It’s just like the Obama campaign trying to cover up Alinski, Ayers and Acorn connections when it’s the truth, facts. DON’T SHOOT THE MESSENGERS JIM!
    I was asking if anyone knew about this story, WHICH IS IN THE SEATTLE TIMES, and if anyone knew of anything else. My point is things are not perfect at Mars Hill and there has been other controversial church matters, THAT ARE ON PUBLIC DISPLAY IN MAJOR NEWPAPERS. Everyone keeps calling this 37 year old father a “young man.” He is not a recent convert, apparantly God him at about 26 years old to start a church in Seattle. that was 11 years ago. Gossip, really you got a lot of nerve, go to that MD guy and call him on His irreverent, disgusting speech, that He spews out in “a public way” to millions of people, and some who are naive, undiscerning and star struck, captivated, entranced by and clearly deceived!
    Do YOU know the TRUTH about this? What about MD on YOU VIDEOS defending this and Mars Hill’s position? That is pretty much a “public way” of making those 2 guys look like shmucks. What about that, where is their defense Jim, what I sent was a little website, kind of obscure but I found it and wanted to know, I do think you are just a Driscollite, and that if anything really blatantly factually negative came out about Driscoll in the future, you would not believe it, or just forgive him.
    I did not do anything someone seeking to know the truth and be more discerning about whom we endorse and promote and admire, would not do. I’m not voting for MD simply because he’s a really cool, clever guy who knows how to quickly switch gears to deeply profound and theological, I am not impressed by this. Cough, Cough, you seem to have a great interest in defending a man a church you really have no reason to defend, so why do you? Funny, how a guy can be called a Pastor who runs around to seminars and conferences and writes books? Oh, yeah he’s given that to others and the “big screen.”

  36. Oh, one more thing, then I am done. It is foolishness on my part to continue to argue about MD or defend myself for being discerning and questioning men and women who apeak from very large platforms to millions regarding the gospel of the Lord Jesus Christ in an authoritative manner and who are promoted by people that most consider sound and distinguished and wise. If you were to have read my first post regarding this, you would see that I said to the moderators of this blog, “YOU NEED NOT POST THIS” I LEFT IT UP TO THE DISCRETION AND WISDOM OF DEFENDDING CONTENDING, AND THEY DID NOT HAVE A PROBLEM WITH IT. I believed that if they felt it in poor taste or not appropriate they would not have posted it and I would have accepted a personal or private or even a response publically here that I was out of line and that they would not post the website or my comments. So, next time read carefully, and apparantly you are “predisposed” to quickly defend MD and to insult and rebuke those who have the audacity to question those others are lauding and gushing over.

  37. Karie, interestingly enough I went to that site and found some links to different things that MD said concerning the situation. I haven’t found out enough to know which one is the real story but from what I’ve seen MD seems to keep changing his story. That sends red flags everywhere especially after his comment that the only way for an elder to be fired is due to adultery! It was my understanding that they weren’t fired over adultery. If the two pastors didn’t commit adultery then why were they fired? Was it because they really didn’t do their job or was it because the leadership didn’t want to hear the truth over something and was trying to hide all the information (which meant the two pastors were kaput because they were threatening to tell something that the members needed to know)? Pastors are supposed to be above-board and it’s one thing to tell the same story no matter who says what, it’s something else to keep changing the story every time you turn around!

  38. Dear Desert Pastor’s wife, thank you so much for the follow-up and double checking.
    That shows you also desire the truth too, and that encourages me greatly. I have been troubled all day long by this. I keep praying and thinking and thinking and praying. And, I keep coming back to something my 88 year old precious Christian mother says, “The Truth Always Wills Out.” Actually, I agree with one quote I saw today by MD, “If you havn’t read The Shack, Don’t.” :)
    I don’t know why I don’t feel bad about the things I think aloud or write about concerning MD, I have been called judgemental, devisive, not compassionate,
    a gossip, not understanding, proud, ect. I keep thinking and comparing with the election. Obama the one we see campaigning is not the “real” Obama, that’s how I seem to see Driscoll, who is the real MD? MD-the cussing Pastor OR MD-The theologically profound and pseudo-dignified Piperite? For now, I will just hang on to wise Mom’s words. Thanks again….

  39. I agree. I also believe the truth will come out; although, it is all in the Lord’s time not ours! You are quite welcome and I thought I was the only one wondering about it until I read your words. You are quite welcome and I do wish I could have given you more information. I have asked on the one website but haven’t heard anything back from them.

  40. http://relit.org/porn_again_christian/ch1.php

    Yesterday I came upon this. There was a line in there that disturbed me all day and I decided then and there that if I am a woman and some of this talk made me feel and disgusted all day, how much more I would not want my husband or 3 adult sons to read this. I think that being soooo blunt is harmful, this speech put images in my own head and I felt ill and decided to stop reading the smut that comes out of his mouth.
    I had a talk with my husband last night about this. Soooo much time and energy in the church helping the poor helpless Christian men and their struggle with lust and fornication and adultery and impurity ect. I recently had a person tell me, the bottomline is the soul of the person turning to various sins or false prophets or teaching or teachers, if men in our church are trapped by this, then we are serious trouble. I have been told that I should not spend so much time looking into all the false teachings and stuff going around, but men are spending their time immersed in this subject. What about the heart, what about other issues? I think that MD is way to interested and focused on this and if it is a trap for me to investigate and research false teaching and teachers how much more for men to dwell on their poor pathetic weakness to basically fulfill their own selfish lusts and desires. This is Satanic and demonic. I have to quit. As a woman, a wife, a mother of 3 sons, I fear for them.
    It as if our men are being told, you are addicted, you can’t help yourself, you will always have this struggle, we need to sit around with our head hung down, and blame our work, our wives the media, when in fact, according to James, it’s your own lust, your own heart, your own selfish desires. I have thought about this alot. Where is the biblical counsel, where are the godly men who have disciplined themselves and given their minds and bodies over to the Lord, Rom. 12:1-2, where are the bold, strong, men who will call men to repentence instead of coddling, and pampering and helping to continue images to permeate their minds by constant conversation about the very subject they are trying to overcome. It does not matter how slim, how attractive, how submissive, how respectful, how seductive we are as wives, it is their own heart and spirit called into account here, look it’s the old in the garden blameshifting.
    Please men, call other men into account, call them to see they are selfishly seeking their own fulfullfilment to lust. To think about guys sitting around whining to each other and not praying and repenting and seeking the Lord in full surrender and loving God, their wives, their children the church, all this should be occupying those voids in their brain the craves and seeks to be satisfied by fleshly desires and fantasy.
    There is so much to deal with and pray about and do, to spend so much time in the church with this makes me want to stay home and just pray. Maybe this is why men like MD, he represents what really in the soul and heart of a lot of so called Christian men, I can’t call these men godly men though. He represents a guy who speaks what is really in their souls/hearts, he sympathizez with them and thus helps them to continue in their sins with an excuse instead of just plain old repentence like the rest of us are called to when we have life dominating sins, instead of filling their minds with higher, purer thoughts, they are encouraged to just let what’s inside come out. Well I don’t need to quote that verse. So if MD is so preoccupied with sex and sexual innuendo, bad language and bad taste then we really need to see that those who follow are really following after the lusts of their own hearts and being given approval to do so by men such as MD. All this takes away from any sound theology or profound sermon he would give apparantly MD’s theology is not powerful or strong enough to help men with their most imprisoning struggle!

  41. –So what you’re saying is that desiring sexual intimacy is not the same as lust?–

    That’s an interesting question. Are they the same, or not?

    Is, for example, a married couple desiring sexual intimacy with each other necessarily lust? I don’t think so. And if the desire for sexual intimacy can be separated in that situation, can it be separated in others?

    Is it then possible that, for example, an unmarried person may feel the desire for sexual intimacy without necessarily feeling lust for a particular person? Or is it possible that, for example, an engaged couple may feel that desire in regards to each other, without it devolving into lust?

    If we can see where the desire may be separated from lust, then I think we can see where Driscoll’s remarks are not so far off.

    And I would say that the title of this thread is inaccurate and misrepresents what Driccoll said. He was not mocking Jesus’ sinlessness.

  42. Karie, you are right but there are many men taking a stand for which I am so thankful. I believe God has his “7 thousand” (in a manner of speaking) of men who have not bowed their head to worship other gods! The problem is that so many men and women only want to have their ears tickled and are not interested in hearing the truth! See the response of those similar to the one that posted above me. It takes a lot of discipleship, prayer, time and effort to be willing to change but most people this day and age are not interested. They simply want to defend their favourite “idol” regardless of his/her sin. The Desert Pastor is in the middle of a series on “Hero Status” which is where Piper, MD and a lot of those other guys are. When a person is willing to use shock tactics and crude speech in the pulpit AND it’s acceptable to ‘normal Christians’ and even applauded then there’s a major problem with ‘normal Christians’. One day we won’t have to listen to such crudeness in heaven but will here true purity as we walk the streets of gold! I praise the Lord for this!

  43. You’re really stretching here, Desert Pastor. This post, together with the one about Driscoll embracing “contemplative,” makes me a bit wary about the clear-mindedness of this blog.

  44. David,

    Thanks for reading at DefCon. I am sorry that you disagree, but you are welcome to do so. If you have concerns about what we have tried to address from a biblical perspective, feel free to respond accordingly. However, we ask that you do it from Scripture, not based on personal feelings and emotions.

    I must say that we see alot of people who get upset at what we write, but very, very few do so from the perspective of the Word of God. Instead, the vast majority who disagree do so from an emotional level only.

    The Desert Pastor

  45. Methinks emergent pillage could have saved quite a lot of space by simply asking: “Yea, hath God said?”

    DP said: I must say that we see alot of people who get upset at what we write,

    How true DP!

    Most casual readers wouldn’t know this little fact but WE “get upset at what we write” here at DefCon!

    How we wish that the broader professing church wasn’t seemingly doing collective wind sprints towards the very bottom of the deepest cesspool of lowest pit of hell in a revolting race to see who can shamelessly prostitute themselves to the world by the most spectacularly blasphemous and/or heretical means possible!

    How we groan and sigh in our spirits when we study and post about the latest hip, relevant, edgy “pastor” (or “Reformissional Rev” if you prefer) as he spews forth his gutter slime speech, perverse innuendo, and homo-erotic fantasies involving the Risen Lord and Savior Jesus Christ, the Eternal Son and Second Person of the Trinity in the heavenlies even as he receives plum offers for exclusive speaking engagements from a big-name high-profile pastor who ought to know better!

    And how we cringe and our hearts ache when the starry-eyed followers of the modern day cult of Celeb-rianity rush in, up in arms and teeth on edge, itching to defend the Biblically indefensible statements and actions of their own personal pulpit idols apparently unaware that they are apologists for abounding spiritual compromise employing nothing but irrational emotional pleas based on subjective feelings and predictable patterns of blame shifting and self justification.

    The little boys that the modern professing church has coddled and raised like little girls have come of age and they’re sick and tired of having their spiritual slumber/bachelor parties interrupted by stuffy and stultified concepts like personal holiness, fear of the Lord, and walking circumspectly in purity as strangers in a strange land, being in the world and not of it.

    Martin Luther well said:

    “Just as in the days of the Apostles, so at this day we are forced to hear from certain denominations that we (by our obstinacy to adhere to the truth) do offend against love and unity in the churches, because we reject their doctrine. It would be better (they say) that we should let it pass, especially since the doctrine in dispute is what they call ‘non-essential’, and, therefore (they say) to stir up so great a discord and contention in the church over one or two doctrines (and those not the most important ones) is ‘unfruitful’ and ‘unnecessary’. To this I reply: Cursed be that love and unity which cannot be preserved except at the peril of the word of God.”

    Welcome to Laodicea!

    In Him,
    CD

  46. –Methinks emergent pillage could have saved quite a lot of space by simply asking: “Yea, hath God said?”–

    How so? Since you are quoting what the serpent said to Eve, perhaps you can expound more thoroughly upon what basis you link what I say to what the serpent said?

  47. Coram,

    The reason that I don’t think this a clear example of heresy or wrong doing on Driscoll’s part is because it requires you to know the exact moment a temptation turns into a sin. I don’t think that line is clearly delineated in scripture and I don’t see this quote as having clearly crossed a clear line into heresy. If you’d actually called Driscoll and had spoken with him he’d tell you VERY clearly that he affirms, confesses and teaches the sinlessness of Christ. The quote in question does not mock, ridicule or cause that doctrine to come into question.

  48. Amen! (To Mr. Rosebrough’s comment.)

  49. Chris,

    I appreciate your stopping by. I believe the simplest answer would have to be that temptation turns into sin the moment it becomes a desire or when that temptation is dwelt on. And I am afraid that we must disagree as to Scripture defining what lines are found in the matter of temptation. James says that each person is tempted WHEN they are drawn away by their own lusts. Impossible to desire what you are tempted with unless there is a sin nature present. Would you agree or disagree?

    This is exactly what MD stated happened to Jesus. He DESIRED what He could not have. In that regard, I am convinced that while he may say he believes or affirms the sinlessness of Christ, he has gone too far in ascribing to the Lord that which does not belong.

    Personally, this blog and comments are not meant to needlessly jump on any one particular individual just for the sake of doing so. We desire to stand for truth and to promote the glory of God in all things. We do not feel it is necessary to do this by the inclusion of the world into the church or the messages by the minister.

    The Desert Pastor

  50. Chris,

    Thanks for stopping by again. The Desert Pastor has already responded to you, but since your comment was directed to me I’d like to take a few moments to reply as well.

    The Bible plainly describes at least two KINDS or VARIETIES of temptation. Luke 4 recounts the enemy’s utter and complete failure to tempt the Lord Jesus Christ to sin (EXTERNAL TEMPTATION ORIGINATING FROM WITHOUT AND NOT INHERENTLY SINFUL IF REJECTED). Equally plain is the teaching of James 1:14 which makes it crystal clear that temptation comes WHEN men are “drawn away BY THEIR OWN LUSTS and enticed” (INTERNAL AND INHERENTLY SINFUL TEMPTATION ORIGINATING FROM WITHIN). Yet in his own words Mark Driscoll has claimed that the Lord Jesus Christ “wanted” (desired) in and of Himself to engage in intimate (sexual) relations with strange women (INTERNAL AND INHERENTLY SINFUL TEMPTATION ORIGINATING FROM WITHIN). I say to Mark Driscoll and his defenders prove it with scripture!

    Furthermore I’d say that neither I, nor you, nor anyone else is required “to know the exact moment a temptation turns into a sin” when the subject at hand is Jesus Christ the Righteous, the Eternal Son and second Person of the Trinity since that moment didn’t, doesn’t, and never will exist.

    But with Christ’s absolute sinlessness in view what then shall we conclude when a pastor-teacher like Mark Driscoll makes the tawdry claim that God incarnate, the Lord Jesus Christ, whose meat and drink was to do His Father’s will and whose desires were in complete harmony with His Father’s wanted (which is the same as desired) in and of Himself (INTERNAL AND INHERENTLY SINFUL TEMPTATION ORIGINATING FROM WITHIN) to have intimate relations (which in the context of his quote clearly refers to sexual relations) with strange women? Are we really to conclude that Jesus Christ the Lord actually entertained thoughts of fulfilling the desires of His own flesh during His incarnation?

    REALLY?!?

    Frankly this thought is so abominable and putrid that it’s difficult for me to even type it out in words and proofread it on my screen.

    It’s repulsive.

    It’s reprehensible.

    It’s devilish.

    A good man out of the good treasure of his heart bringeth forth that which is good; and an evil man out of the evil treasure of his heart bringeth forth that which is evil: for of the abundance of the heart his mouth speaketh. Luke 6:45

    At any moment in all of eternity have the Son’s desires ever been in disunity with those of the Father and the Holy Spirit? God forbid! Mustn’t we then conclude that Mark Driscoll is claiming nothing less than that the Triune One True and Living God, the Infinite Creator and Judge of the universe actually harbors the desire to engage in physical sexual relations with His own creations? I’m sorry; maybe hearing this sort of filth being spewed forth from behind the pulpit just doesn’t bother some people, but to me in the light of scripture this is an excruciatingly blasphemous and satanic perversion of my Lord and my God which deeply grieves my spirit.

    In closing I have little doubt that Mark Driscoll – not unlike “America’s Pastor” Rick Warren nor Satan himself – would intellectually and verbally assent to and affirm the truth claims Biblical Christianity (such as Christ’s sinlessness for example). But in my opinion this ought to make his demonically inspired comments all the more glaringly incongruous and impious to the Berean, discerning believer – but evidently such simply isn’t the case.

    P.S. – Your “Amen chorus” above is a relative newcomer to this humble blog who has been busying himself here lately as an apologist for using the word s*** from the pulpit, vigorously defending Mark Driscoll’s homo-erotic fevered high-noon fantasies involving the ascendant Lord of Glory in the heavenlies as well as his absurd and baseless claims that Jesus wanted to have sex with strange women, and generally taking gratuitous swipes at those of us here with whom he disagrees. Interesting, no?

    In Christ,
    CD

  51. David,

    I have looked at the recommended reading list at Acts29Network.org (one of MD’s websites). I found books by several people who would be considered contemplative. There are authors that I have never heard of who may also be in that vein. Under ‘Christian life’ I found Eugene Peterson listed. Under ‘church planting’ I was very troubled to find C. Peter Wagner, an apostle of the New Apostalic Reformation movement (his crew brought us the likes of Todd Bentley). Then, under ‘spiritual disciples’ I found Donald Whitney with his book, Spiritual Disciples for the Christian Life. In that book, he covers the topic of silence and solitude. If you read the reviews at Amazon, his writing is compared very favorably to Richard Foster and Dallas Willard by those who liked this book. These are only names I recognize as being contemplative. There may be other authors listed that are contemplative as well if I had the time to check them out. Why is his site recommending these authors if he does not approve of what they teach? Check it out…see what you think.

  52. Thanks, CD, for what you wrote! When we were in England, we had people tell us that Christ was a naughty little boy when he was a child. That is so sickening to even think that Christ COULD HAVE sinned! If He COULD HAVE sinned then we are truly without hope in this desolate world! NO, my Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ COULD NOT HAVE sinned and for this I am so very thankful!

  53. Rose,

    I looked in vain for a recommended reading list on MD’s site, so it’s impossible to discuss what he has on it. All I know is that the critique this blog linked to had a very shoddy method of condemning that list. It consisted almost entirely of guilt by association at two or three removes. So-and-so was once at a school with this other so-and-so who wrote a book in which he favorably quoted so-and-so… It’s pretty silly.

    Also, I don’t understand what is meant by the term “contemplative.” There’s nothing wrong with contemplating anything. Simply using that term doesn’t accomplish the censure that its user intends it to. There’s no discussion at all of why many of the authors mentioned are “bad.” It’s almost as if you think using their name is enough to cause people to reject them, because they’re associated in people’s minds with something bad. This is called prejudicial thinking.

    Finally, I do take particular exception to the remarks on Kierkegaard. The critique uses some unknown Ph.D. dissertation to incriminate him by asserting that he liked Eastern mysticism without backing up the claim. Kierkegaard is one of my favorite Christian writers because he is absolutely counter-cultural and exhorts his readers to a real discipleship of Christ rather than just a culturally comfortable Christianity that’s nothing more than a label. I would highly recommend his many Christian writings (not necessarily his philosophical ones) to the readers of this blog–especially his “Attack on ‘Christendom'” and his “Training in Christianity.”

    That’s all I have to say. I really do appreciate this blog, its zeal and the work it does to separate the wheat from the chaff in our culture. I read it quite often. I just think you’re too eager to find fault where none necessarily is–in this case.

  54. David,

    I am a regular reader at Ligthhouse Trails and have always found their research to be very reliable. They always give plenty of references to check and I usually do check them out. The particular article about the reading list at Mars Hills website, though, was a re-posting. The original post was back in Jan. 08 so the reading list mentioned may have changed or been removed. I did not find any reference to a reading list at the Mars Hill website. But, I did find one at MD’s other website Acts29network. That is the list I referenced from in my above post. It is not prejudicial thinking to label those authors I mentioned as Contemplative. They are by their own admission adherents to Contemplative Spirituality (or Spiritual Formation) which is has it origins in Eastern mysticism. You seem to be uninformed of this movement. It is not just contemplating Bible verses and praying quietly. It is about centering prayer where a person empties his mind, says a word like ‘Jesus’ over and over and enters a kind of altered state. This is becoming popular in the church today and it has no Biblical basis. And, it is dangerous because the spirit contacted is not the Holy Spirit. Jesus never told us to pray in this way. If you would like to read more about Contemplative, there are articles at Appraising Ministries at appraising.org. and also at Critical Issues Commentary at http://cicministry.org/commentary/issue83.htm. I would encourage you to do some reading on this topic as it is very deceptive and many are falling prey to it.

    Articles by MD (2006):

    1)”Silence and Speaking”(http://voxpopnetwork.com/voxpop/2006/11/03/silence-and-speaking/) At the end, is this article it he states: “Next month we will examine the contemplative discipline of meditation and the active discipline of teaching. Recommended reading: Spiritual Disciplines for the Christian Life (Donald S. Whitney), Celebration of Discipline (Richard Foster), Sacred Pathways (Gary Thomas), Life Together (Dietrich Bonhoeffer)”.

    2)”Contemplatives and Activists” (http://voxpopnetwork.com/voxpop/2006/10/13/contemplatives-and-activists/. Again he refers his reader to Contemplatives: “In part two of this series, we will begin by examining the disciplines of study and obedience. If you would like to study the spiritual disciplines in greater detail, Donald S. Whitney has written a wonderful book titled Spiritual Disciplines for the Christian Life that would be helpful for you to read. Also helpful are Celebration of Discipline, by Richard Foster, and Sacred Pathways, by Gary Thomas”.

    Though most of what MD teaches may be very sound doctrine, even a little bit of error should make the discerning Christian wary. Do you know that little story I used to tell my kids about the chocolate chip cookies with just a teeny tiny bit of dog ‘doo doo’in them? I don’t want those cookes!!…no thank you! Well, it is the same thing here…you can have 99% truth, but the 1% error can ruin the whole teaching. We have to steer clear of error …and not all error will be blatant -‘in your face’. But, Scripture warns us to test everything (and everyone!) especially in these last days. We are accountable to God to do that.

  55. That is so true, Rose! The Desert Pastor always makes the comment that if he had a basket full of apples and put just one drop of poison in it then mixed them all up together, who would be willing to take the chance that the apple they chose out of it would NOT be the one with the poison! I sure wouldn’t. The things that MD is encouraging sounds a lot like yoga. I remember when I was pregnant with my oldest child, we went to Lamaze classes and they told us to clear our minds. I asked my husband what kind of nonsense was that? I wasn’t even saved at the time! The study of the Bible is VERY clear that we are to guard our mind not to clear it and let whatever come in and take control! I think people need to wake up to the reality that their gods are beginning to fall! We cannot even put a pastor before God but must always be willing to test the Spirit, just as you stated above! Thanks for your words!

  56. The idea that you can find any place–whether your own church or this blog–outside of heaven 100% free of error is a dangerous one.

    Are you really prepared to claim otherwise?

    The question is not, “Is so-and-so 100% free from error?” but “When so-and-so’s error is pointed out, does he receive correction humbly or does he defend his error under the name of righteousness?”

  57. David,

    Thanks for your comments. We certainly would not claim here at DefCon to be 100% free of error for we are all learning and striving to be more like Christ. We struggle just as the apostle Paul stated in Romans 7 with the things we shouldn’t be doing and with not doing the things we should be.

    I would certainly agree with your last statement. Sadly, I am afraid that more times than not when error is pointed out the statements become, “Well, that’s just your opinion.” or, “Well, that’s JUST your interpretation of that passage.” etc, etc.

    My prayer is that we will all be sensitive to the Holy Spirit and to the Word of God which gives clear rules and guidelines which are to guide every aspect of our life and godliness. Contrary to popular opinion, EVERY aspect that pertains to life and godliness is given to us in the Word. We do not have to guess whether certain words or teachings are acceptable or displeasing to the Lord. Yes, there are some passages which are difficult to discern and there are many godly men who would agree to disagree.

    The Desert Pastor

  58. Surely Mark Driscoll has elders that point out his flaws when need be.

  59. Tom,

    One would certainly think that in the light of scripture he should, but they’re either asleep at the wheel or else it’s possible that he is surrounded by yes-men. Whatever the case the errors seem to be flowing unchecked, unimpeded, and uncorrected from his pulpit.

    In Christ,
    CD

  60. Actually, the question is not whether someone is 100% free from sin. The reason people have to point out sin is for the reason we are NOT 100% free of sin! Just like there are people within our lives that point out sin to us, so there should also be men within the lives of Piper, Driscoll, or anyone else (for that matter) that is in a position of leadership, or not for that matter, to point out sin to them. NO ONE is free from sin and if the men or women closest to these men are not willing to point out areas where he is wrong then someone has to do it! If they get things taken care of then that is the end of it and we can continue in another direction. If they don’t get things taken care of then it is the responsibility of anyone (who is a Christian) to continue pointing out sin until they are willing to get things taken care of! Whether anyone likes it or not Matt. 18 is still in the Bible. Both Driscoll and Piper were in the limelight when they said what they did so this is public knowledge. Since it’s public knowledge, it is important to address the matter publicly and they would need to confess their sin publicly! This whinging by the fans because these two men have been rebuked is absolute nonsense! If it were anyone else besides these two popular men then those that are whinging would happily agree and say the same thing! Sin is still sin and regardless of whether we like to admit it, we are required to confess and forsake it! This isn’t just a matter of Joe Blow off the street has one set of rule and Piper and Driscoll have another set of rules to abide by! That’s a double standard and is wrong!

  61. David,

    You are still missing the point. We are not talking about nit-picking here. By error, I was not referring to insignificant errors that are no real threat to a person’s faith or walk with the Lord. When I say error, I am talking about heresy, apostacy. If a preacher’s teaching is 99% sound doctrine but he throws in 1% of huge error -like contemplative spiritual disciplines-then he is someone I would avoid-like the plague! That 1% he is compromising on has the potential of leading many (even myself!) astray. “A little leaven leaventh the whole lump” (1 Cor 5:6) We are talking ‘leaven’ here! Leaven is sin and it is sin to teach the doctrine of demons. Contemplative spirituality is, in reality, New Age religion so it IS the doctrine of demons. It is no small matter! No pastor-I don’t care how esteemed he is- should expose or encourage his flock to seek after doctrines that are unbiblical-that could lead them into a different gospel entirely. In the articles I provided above, it is clear MD has done that by referring his adherents to books and articles written by authors who admittedly espouse this heretical movement. Perhaps he has since changed and is no longer promoting the contemplative movement. But I am inclined to doubt that since his website acts29network is still recommending books by contemplative people. All we are saying here is that we must exercise discernment -not go on a witch hunt and cut pastors down for little nit-picky stuff we disagree with. Absolutely not!

    The best way to think clearly on this issue is to become informed about the various heresies that are rampant in the church today. Then, when we hear or read those teachings, we recognize them for what they are. That, and most importantly, of course, reading the Word daily and testing everything against it. (One very good place to read about current unbiblical trends in the church is http://www.deceptioninthechurch.com.)

  62. Jim,

    Look, either contemplative spiritual discplines are heretical teachings or they are not. Neither you nor David will take the time to read about it-and it is very obvious from what you both have said that neither of you has a real good understanding of this movement. Lighthouse Trails is only one of many websites that cover this topic. Why don’t you read about it for yourself? Read Foster, Willard, Whitney and other contemplatives and see if what they teach lines up with Scripture. Read what their critics, like Bob DeWaay (Critical Issues Commentary) and others have written -their arguments/reasoning against it. Then come back on here and discuss this issue with knowledge of the subject matter. But you are not going to do that, are you? It is not a matter of getting at the truth of this issue-even if it hurts. It is a matter of defending MD, no matter what! While you are at it, read the book, The Beautiful Side of Evil by Johana Michaelson who was deep into New Age. She is one who also warns against this new trend toward contemplative disciplines because it pretty much the same practices she participated in before coming to true faith in Christ. She thought she was contacting “Christ” in her times of contemplation, but she found out it was another christ, a demon. These practices are dangerous and it is not something to be taken lightly.

    But….I am wasting my breath, I know…..

  63. Jim B. said “Team DefCon & Co. need a course in remedial logic.”

    Since all the treasures of wisdom and knowledge are hidden in Christ I think we’ll just stick to the scriptures if it’s all the same to you, Jim B.

    Based upon your hearty A M E N !!! of David L’s comment I’d like to clarify something; is it correct to say that you are defending, condoning or otherwise in acceptance of the practice of contemplative/centering meditation/prayer or that are you simply rebuking what you perceive to be “sloppy and uncharitable research” and “guilt by association tactics”, or both?

    In Christ,
    CD

  64. “We certainly would not claim here at DefCon to be 100% free of error for we are all learning and striving to be more like Christ. ”

    So there’s poo in your cookies, as well, eh?

    We should flee the poo in MD’s cookies but not yours?

  65. Rose says:

    “It is not a matter of getting at the truth of this issue-even if it hurts. It is a matter of defending MD, no matter what!”

    Can I revise to say:

    “It is not a matter of getting at the truth of this issue-even if it hurts. It is a matter of attacking MD, no matter what!”

    Like Jim said, Rose, this is about method rather than about the content of MD’s teaching (which, to be honest, you’ve not demonstrated to be really heretical).

  66. Rose says,

    “Look, either contemplative spiritual discplines are heretical teachings or they are not.”

    That’s not entirely true. If I were you, I’d go dig up something in the books included on MD’s list(s) that proves those books are heretical rather than condemning them by guilt-by-association and innuendo–and then using that specious condemnation to condemn MD.

  67. David, I did NOT say that our error has anything to do with false teaching, but the fact that we are sinners means that we still err and we still sin. There is no deliberate attempt here to teach that which is not explicitly taught in Scripture.

    As for the guilt by association comment – contemplative spiritual disciplines are heretical and it has NOTHING to do with Mark Driscoll. It just so happens that MD has chosen to include this drivel and heresy in his book corner and thus endorsing what is to be found within such teaching.

    As for demonstration of the error in MD’s teaching, that has been shown and why from Scripture. However, as Rose has stated, some will defend MD no matter what. There is no doubt that MD has helped people in the past, has preached straight in the past, etc. The question is what he is doing now with the ministry he has been entrusted with.

    Jim B, you said, “For example, I loathe N.T. Wright’s stuff on the New Perspective on Paul. However, N.T. Wright is phenomenal on the deity of Christ. So, what are we to do? If we play the juvenile DefCon game of lumping/categorizing, then we can’t recommend Wright’s excellent resources on the deity of Christ. However, if we’re mature adults, able to exercise a mature discernment, we can recommend the good and criticize the bad.”

    I am afraid that you have this one VERY wrong. There is no “juvenile game” that we are playing. This is very serious and it would behoove many true believers to get their heads out of the liberal sands. I could not imagine Paul writing to the Galatians and saying something like this –

    “Dear Galatians, there are some who have come amongst you and are teaching some false doctrines on matters of justification and salvation by works. They are wrong in those areas, but I did want to recommend to you some of their latest scrolls which are phenomenal. I obviously don’t agree with them on some of the fundamentals of the faith, but I like some things. So, therefore, dearly beloved brethren, I just want to let you know that it is ok to eat from the poisoned barrel of apples, JUST don’t pick the wrong one! I am sure you won’t do that because you are mature enough to discern the poison as it comes to your lips!”

    Jim B, I am afraid that your feeble attempts at standing up for false teachers is dangerous at best. Wright is very wrong and would be correctly labeled as one who seeks to teach another gospel. The CORRECT response is not to recommend his books, but is actually found in Galatians 1:6-9! They are still as applicable today as they were almost 2000 years ago.

    The Desert Pastor

  68. “As for demonstration of the error in MD’s teaching, that has been shown and why from Scripture.”

    No, it hasn’t.

    Jesus was sexually tempted, or else Heb. 4:15 is wrong. I’m sorry if sexuality scandalizes you, but if Jesus was 100% man, then he was 100% man physically as well as metaphysically.

    As someone said above, I think it’s possible to experience sexual temptation that is not connected to a particular woman, just as it’s possible to experience loneliness without desiring the company of a specific person.

    “some will defend MD no matter what.”

    If you’re suggesting that I’m part of this “some,” you’re absurdly mistaken.

  69. David,

    I stated much earlier in the comments here, “I would recommend reading up on the biblical doctrine termed “the impeccability of Christ.”

    Two good articles – http://www.fbinstitute.com/McCormick/IMPECCABILITY.htm

    and one by A.W. Pink http://home.att.net/~sovereigngrace/impeccability.html

    These will help much clearer than I have the time to elucidate the issue of Hebrews 4:15 from a clear exposition of Scripture.

    The issue here has NEVER been whether Jesus was tempted in the area of sexuality. Where MD is very wrong is when he chose to take the Scripture further than what is allowed, and clearly stated that Jesus “desired” or “longed” for what He could not have. This is an explicit statement of dwelling on a temptation. To dwell on a temptation is sin and was not AND could not have been found in the Lord Jesus Christ.

    As for defending MD no matter what, I was merely repeating what had been stated in your comments. If you are not one of those individuals, that is great.

    By the way, I believe that for all those who want to castigate us and OVERLOOK our use of Scripture to defend the faith, the onus actually rests on you to provide proof of Scripture that defends your positions. None of you have done this. Some reading here have done all kinds of mental gymnastics with the Word of God to defend MD, JP, Tripp and others. The burden of proof does not lie with those of us who use a literal reading and understanding of Scripture. It lies with those who seek to introduce a NEW thing into the churches that has not been there nor has been taught.

    10 or 15 years ago or so (if that), ministers like MD would never have been given the time of day to spew their filthy language and sexual overtoned-language from the pulpit. God’s people and godly ministers would have called him into account. Now, that is not the case – such insults are considered “cool” or “hip” or “very culturally relevant” etc, etc, ad nauseum!

    If anybody wishes to debate this further about the sinlessnes of Christ on THIS blog, may I recommend that the two articles above are read and then come back and try to defend your positions with Biblical exposition.

    The Desert Pastor

  70. David,

    I have a question: How does Driscoll’s belief that Jesus was tempted by sin square up with James 1:13–Let no one say when he is tempted, “I am tempted by God”; for God cannot be tempted by evil, nor does He Himself tempt anyone.

    Remembering the fact that Jesus was God in the flesh, and that God cannot be tempted by evil, does this not lead one to conclude that Jesus could not be tempted by evil? And if this is true, then hasn’t Driscoll just made the Bible contradict itself?

  71. Desert Pastor,

    I read the articles you linked to. They were OK. Just one question for you: You say, “The issue here has NEVER been whether Jesus was tempted in the area of sexuality.” I assume you agree then that He was tempted sexually.

    So how would you describe this temptation while still preserving the “impeccability” doctrine? Because both those articles, in dealing with Heb. 4:15, (especially the one by Pink) exclude the possibility of sexual temptation in Christ.

    “The meaning is not, that our Lord was tempted in every respect exactly as fallen man is-by inward lust, as well as by other temptations—only He did not outwardly yield to any temptation; but that He was tempted in every way that man is, excepting by that class of temptations that are sinful, because originating in evil and forbidden desire” (quoting Shedd).

    In other words, Christ was not tempted in all ways that we are. (An indirect denial of the verse’s plain meaning. After all, who does the “we” refer to but “fallen man”?) He was not tempted sexually because sexual temptation originates in forbidden desire. (As though other temptation doesn’t.)

    How do you reconcile these two points?

    fourpointer,

    I’d ask the question differently–and it’s a real question: “How does [Heb. 4:16, which says] that Jesus was tempted by sin square up with James 1:13–Let no one say when he is tempted, “I am tempted by God”; for God cannot be tempted by evil, nor does He Himself tempt anyone?”

    I really don’t know how to reconcile those two passages of Scripture (and I’m not going to be drawn into condemning Mark Driscoll).

    Hebrews 2:18 says, “For since He Himself was tempted in that which He has suffered, He is able to come to the aid of those who are tempted. ”

    The best guess I can make at the moment is, it looks like the Bible is using the word “temptation” in a particular sense not like our normal use of the word. Can I get back to you on that?

  72. it looks like the Bible is using the word “temptation” in a particular sense not like our normal use of the word.

    Bingo. Same word in James 1:13 and Hebrews 2:18 and 4:15. The way we use the word “tempted” is a whole lot different than the bilical meaning.

    See, our idea of being “tempted” is quite a bit different than what James and the writer of Hebrews meant. We think of it along the lines of fighting the desire to have something we want. We say we are tempted by any number of things, from chocolate to pizza to sex and pornography. That we see those things we desire and we are “tempted” by those things. But in Hebrews 4:15, and in James 1:13 (and even in Matthew 4:2), the word “tempt” means “to test, to put to the test, to examine.”

    The following is a copy-and-paste of a section of one of my previous comments:

    Let’s look a little deeper at the word “tempted” (Gr.: peirazw) in Heb 4:15. It literally means “Examine, test.” 2nd Corinthians 13:5–”Examine (peirazw) yourselves whether you are in the faith.” Thayer says of peirazw, “To try, make trial of, test: for the purpose of ascertaining his quantity, or what he thinks, or how he will behave himself…in a bad sense, to test one maliciously, craftily to put to the proof his feelings or judgments…to try or test one’s faith, virtue, character, by enticement to sin; to solicit to sin, to tempt.

    Does 2 Cor 13:5 mean that we are supposed to “tempt” ourselves? Of course not. We are to examine ourselves. Jesus was examined (Gr: peirazw) by Satan (Matthew 4:1-11) because Satan was trying to see “how He would behave Himself” (from definition above). That is the biblical sense of “temptation.”

    What was the first thing Jesus did when Satan tested Him? Did He dwell on how good a loaf of bread would taste after not eating for 40 days? Did He consider in His heart that if He threw Himself down from the temple that He wouldn’t have to go to the cross? No. The first thing He said was “It is written…” Now, if Jesus could not be tempted by food, power, or fame, how could we even imagine that He would desire to sin against the Father by wanting to have sex with a woman He wasn’t married to?

    Especially when 1st Peter 2:22 says that Jesus did not lie, nor was deceit found in His mouth. Not only did Jesus never sin–He never wanted to. The desire to lie was not there. And would it not be wiser to assume that since Jesus did not have an inclination to sin (being born the Seed of a woman, and not the seed of a man, therefore not having the sinful nature we are born with) that He would not even have the desire to be with a woman He was not married to? I believe that would be closer to Scriptural truth than to argue from silence about whether Jesus wanted to “know” a woman.

  73. That was very clear! Thank-you, fourpointer!

  74. OK, I see what you’re saying. Good explanation.

    But still, does sexuality enter into the category of the points wherein Jesus was tempted according to Hebrews 4:15?

    If so (and I still think it does), how would you describe his “temptation” in a way different from Mark Driscoll’s? What is it to be tempted (“examined”) sexually but not to sin?

  75. When the Bible uses the word “tempt,” when it talks about someone being “tempted” it means that they are being put in a position where they will show what they are made of, and how they will react in that situation. The Pharisees did that many times:

    Matthew 16:1–The Pharisees also with the Sadducees came, and tempting (peirazw) desired him that he would shew them a sign from heaven.
    Matthew 22:18; Mark 12:15; Luke 20:23–“Why tempt (peirazw) ye Me, hypocrites?”
    Matthew 193–The Pharisees also came unto him, tempting (peirazw) him, and saying unto him, Is it lawful for a man to put away his wife for every cause?
    1st Corinthians 7:5 (NKJV)–Do not deprive one another except with consent for a time, that you may give yourselves to fasting and prayer; and come together again so that Satan does not tempt (peirazw) you because of your lack of self-control.
    Galatians 6:1–Brethren, if a man be overtaken in a fault, ye which are spiritual, restore such an one in the spirit of meekness; considering thyself, lest thou also be tempted (peirazw).

    In the Bible, tempting/testing is always done by someone other than the one being tempted/tested. The person doing the tempting/testing is either (a) trying to see if that person is who they say they are, or (b) trying to show the person to be a fraud.

    Now, could we say that perhaps Satan tried to tempt/test Jesus by leading a woman to come on to Him? I don’t see why not. Satan may have tried to lure Jesus into committing sexual sin, I certainly wouldn’t put it past him. But to think that Jesus desired sexual intimacy from a woman He wasn’t married to is–to put it bluntly–absurd. He did not have the sinful nature that we do. He did not have the desire to rebel against God (which He would have been doing if He had those desires) that we do.

    That might not be the clearest explanation I can give right now, and if I need to clarify anything later I will. My schedule is full the rest of today, so it may be Monday before I get back to you. I hope this at least starts to clear up the difference between what we consider “tempting” and the biblical sense of the word.

    PS–there is another word translated “test” (dokimazw), but that means to compare two things side-by-side (Philippians 1:10; 1st John 4:1; 1st Thess 5:21).

  76. David L.,

    I believe that Mark Driscoll went well beyond Hebrews 4:15 when he flatly asserted that Jesus Christ the Savior WANTED (which is the same as desired in and of Himself) to engage in physical sexual intimacy with strange women. This is to ascribe to the Lord something that is Biblically unsupportable.

    Do you, David L., agree with Mark Driscoll’s assertion and do you personally believe that Jesus Christ the Eternal Son and second Person of the Triune One True and Living God “wanted to have intimate relations” with His creations (e.g. women)?

    Do you believe that this is an interpretation that is consistent with Hebrews 4:15?

    If so, do you also then believe by logical extension that it would be equally correct to assert that Jesus Christ “wanted” (desired in and of Himself) to have physical sexual relations with any of His other creations (e.g. men, goats, small children, inanimate objects, etc)?

    I’m sorry but I find it impossible to square this line of thinking – which by the way strikes me as absolutely reprehensible and utterly offensive – with what the Bible has to say about the absolutely HOLY, RIGHTEOUS and SINLESS Person of Christ.

    In Him,
    CD

  77. fourpointer,

    The trouble is, the exact same Greek word for “tempt” is used in James 1:13, so we have, side-by-side, “God cannot be tempted with evil,” Jesus “was in all points tempted like as we are,” and “he himself hath suffered being tempted” (KJV). No matter what definition you ascribe to the word, James appears to contradict Hebrews.

  78. Coram Deo,

    Is it your opinion that Jesus could not have been tempted sexually because sex is in and of itself sinful?

    That would be consistent with the paragraph by Shedd that I quoted above: “He was tempted in every way that man is, excepting by that class of temptations that are sinful…”

    One wonders if you would get quite so righteously indignant if it was claimed that Jesus was tempted to steal or lie?

    Also, I’ll repeat my question from earlier: “does sexuality enter into the category of the points wherein Jesus was tempted according to Hebrews 4:15?

    “If so (and I still think it does), how would you describe his “temptation” in a way different from Mark Driscoll’s? What is it to be tempted (”examined”) sexually but not to sin?”

  79. David,

    First, thanks for the kind way in which you are debating and questioning this thread. This is all we ask from each person who comes to our site.

    Second, let me try and use a different example using MD’s style and approach and maybe you could tell me whether you would have a problem with this or not.

    As though from MD —

    “Jesus was human. He longed to have nice things which He could give to His disciples. Are you telling me that at some point when His feet were tired, hot, and full of sand that He didn’t long or desire for a nice camel or a donkey to own? Sure He did! Jesus wanted to have those kind of things in His mind because He was human. When He passed by another traveler on the long roads who had a nice looking donkey or a camel, I’m sure that He wished He could have one to make the journey easier.”

    Third, I am not CD, but sex is not in and of itself sinful. It was created good by God to be used perfectly within the confines of marriage alone between one man and one woman. It was not for personal fulfillment or personal self-pleasure, but designed with the idea of giving pleasure to our spouse which is how we show love to them by thinking of them more highly than we think of ourselves.

    The Desert Pastor

  80. David L.,

    Do you always answer a question with a question? :-) I’m still waiting for your reply to my inquiries, but while I’m waiting I’ll respond to yours.

    You asked: Is it your opinion that Jesus could not have been tempted sexually because sex is in and of itself sinful? My reply is no sex in and of itself is not sinful. And I never said that Jesus Christ ”could not have been tempted sexually”. Perhaps the devil did tempt the Lord sexually, but there is ZERO scriptural evidence that Christ wanted (which is the same as desired) to have physical sexual relations with His creations as Mark Driscoll has asserted. There is no inherent sin in being tempted, but according to James 1:14-15 once temptation turns into want (which is the same as desire) then lust has been conceived which gives birth to sin which thing the Lord Jesus Christ was completely without.

    You said: “One wonders if you would get quite so righteously indignant if it was claimed that Jesus was tempted to steal or lie?” My reply is, if Mark Driscoll had stated that Jesus Christ wanted (which is the same as desired) in and of Himself to steal or lie then my response would be a resounding YES! This is because, as previously mentioned, there is ZERO scriptural evidence that Christ wanted (which is the same as desired) to steal or lie. His meat and drink was to do His Father’s will and Christ’s will was always – from eternity – in perfect harmony with the will of His Father. Are we to believe that the Father wants (which is the same as desires) to have physical sexual relations with His creatures or that He wants (which is the same as desires) to steal or lie? God forbid! Such thinking is foolishness.

    You asked: “Also, I’ll repeat my question from earlier: “does sexuality enter into the category of the points wherein Jesus was tempted according to Hebrews 4:15?” My reply is as already stated above; “perhaps the devil did tempt the Lord sexually, but there is ZERO scriptural evidence that Christ wanted (which is the same as desired) to have physical sexual relations with His creations as Mark Driscoll has asserted.”

    You asked: “If so (and I still think it does), how would you describe his “temptation” in a way different from Mark Driscoll’s? What is it to be tempted (”examined”) sexually but not to sin?” My reply is; just be consistent with the teaching of Bible and state factually that Christ was tempted in every way as we are yet without sin and don’t ascribe “wants” (which is the same as desires) to Him that go beyond the scriptures.

    Jesus Christ never wanted to sin, period. In my opinion and in the light of scripture such thinking is patently unbiblical and there is ZERO evidence to support such a position. Mark Driscoll should simply correct his erroneous teaching on this subject and repent.

    In Christ,
    CD

  81. Coram Deo,

    I only responded with that question because I hadn’t yet received an answer to it when I asked it earlier. I see what you guys are saying (although I’m still waiting to see if fourpointer has a reply to the apparent contradiction of James and Hebrews), and I do agree with you. This discussion has been helpful to me.

    But what you’re saying is that you agree with the main point of Mark Driscoll’s paragraph. He said, “some of you say, ‘Now Mark, Jesus wasn’t sexually tempted.’ Well, of course he was…” The point of disagreement is not over that sentence but over the meaning and content of the word “tempt.” Mark clearly thinks it involves some internal struggle against desire, which is indicative of sin; while you believe it’s more of an external opportunity to commit sin. Further, when we keep in the mind the context of Hebrews 4, the point of verse 15 is to say that Christ relates to us in being tempted and that, by His example, we should remain without sin. I think to a naive person this implies that Christ’s temptations and ours are of the same quality or nature. But they’re not. It sounds to me like MD is just not being very wise or careful with his language and that he apparently misunderstands this different kinds of temptation. It sounds to you, however, that he’s deliberately teaching error–i.e., that he knows he’s wrong and is teaching it anyway.

    Either way, the notion that he’s mocking (ridiculing) the doctrine of Christ’s sinlessness in this quotation is rather far-fetched. This quotation alone doesn’t provide enough evidence to support that charge. If you’re convinced he’s teaching error on purpose–and if you want your readers to think so, too–you should produce some evidence that’s a bit more damning that this.

    Again, I appreciate the work you guys are doing on this blog and I look forward to reading more.

  82. David L.,

    I do appreciate your obvious efforts to be gracious here both to Team DefCon and to MD. I’ll readily admit that if this was MD’s only “issue” then there’d likely be much less discussion on the subject. But sadly this “misunderstanding” resides amongst a veritable catalog of the Reformissional Rev’s questionable utterances – which apparently are legion – hence the more intense scrutiny.

    In Him,
    CD

  83. Ignore my last two comments. I’ve been studying the issue more over the weekend, and found where I had come up short in my understanding of the difference between temptation from man’s standpoint versus Jesus’ standpoint. Anyway, I’ve begun formulating such a defense. It’s rather lengthy, so rather than fill up the combox, I posted it over at my blog.

    And David, I would echo Coram’s appreciation of your patience and graciousness.

  84. fourpointer I downloaded and printed your post a couple weeks ago and today I just read it, I know I’m a little slow :)
    Your post is right on the mark.
    A quote from your post:
    “So to conclude, I would sum up this issue like this: While Satan may have tested Jesus, to see if He would sin, and while Satan tried every way he could to lead Jesus to sin, there was no way that Jesus would have ever even considered sinning against the Father—because He did not have our sinful nature. We, however, are tested by our own fleshly lusts and desires that bring forth nothing but death.”

  85. Jim B,

    For the last time, you have crossed the line. For somebody who supposedly has a godly pastor and seeks to do what is right, I am amazed at the vitriol which spews forth from your blogpen. The areas which you have blatantly accused me are exactly what you are condemning myself and DefCon for.

    The difference between us is that I have taken what has been stated and said by people like MD, JP, and yourself at face value and as they were originally spoken and brought a biblical concern against them. You on the other hand have taken the parts that rile you the most and added to my words and even included (supposedly) my thoughts on the matter.

    You have in this blog attacked each of us individually and corporately, and all the while bemoaning the “fact” that we have judged another, that is ALL you have done but with NO biblical recourse. You have made statements that are nothing more than lies, not to reiterate all the points of heresy and false teaching which you seem to enjoy hanging on.

    For what it is worth, I did make contact with Desiring God Ministries and asked them again about the situation. I finally received an answer and it was nothing more than excuses for the relationship between MD and DGM, et al. That was highly disappointing but certainly not unexpected.

    We have brought point after point of Biblical issues and shared a number of Scriptures with you, yet you insist that ONLY your beliefs are correct. All that disagree with you even in the minutest of points get castigated. You not only have no problem with vulgar speech and language and innuendos in the pulpit, but you also support the teachings of people in the emergent church as well as heretics like Wright.

    After your most recent post at your blog was once again filled with vitriol and lies, we believe that enough is enough. All posts or comments by yourself will no longer be allowed to be submitted to this site and accepted at face value any longer for it appears that you have an ulterior motive for everything you are saying and doing.

    Let me conclude by saying that if you are the result of JP ministry, then I would be extremely cautious in recommending anything to others including reading material from DGM. Fortunately, I believe you are acting on your own and all of your beliefs are not supported by your pastor or Bethlehem Church or DGM. It appears obvious that at this time you have no true intentions of defending for the true faith, but your own ill-conceived notions about religion.

    The Desert Pastor

  86. Can’t this man stop being a immature little boy and start acting like a born again believer. Isn’t there anything in life that is sacred to him, not even our Lord and Savior. He needs to lift his mind out of the gutter, and stop bringing our Lord Jesus Christ down to his level. Jesus was in constant communion with our Father while He was on earth. His mind wasn’t polluted with all the filth that ours are. If Jesus wanted someone to sleep with, a different sort of life, a comfortable bed etc, He is not the Savior of the bible. Read the gospels, does Jesus sound like who MD is saying . No He knew who He was and why He came to earth. With talk like this I really don’t know that MD understands the truth, of our Blessed Lord and Redeemer, Jesus Christ

  87. Sadly in other parts of the blogworld, we at DefCon (particularly myself and Coram Deo) have now also been accused of the heresy known as Apollinarianism. How or more correctly why has this happened – simply because we have stepped on the sacred cow called Mark Driscoll!

    What is sad is when even family members are willing to jump on the bandwagon in agreement. At no point have I or any other contributor to DefCon EVER denied or detracted from either the deity OR the humanity of our Lord Jesus Christ. For the record, we believe unequivocally that He was 100% man and 100% divine.

    The difference between ourselves and those from whom vulgar language and sexual innuendos flowing from certain ministerial quarters such as Mark Driscoll (and who is openly endorsed by John Piper and DGM) is that we do not believe that Jesus Christ had ANY sinful actions, that He did NOT dwell on any sinful possibilities, that He did NOT desire what He could not have, etc.

    We have been accused of holding to a heretical teaching because we do not endorse Mark Driscoll and have taken a clear stand against this man. I guess this puts us in the same camp as people like Steve Camp and John MacArthur who are willing to take a stand (although highly unpopular) against the rank and file openly mockery of the ministry by those who make light of God’s Word and the very Person of the Lord Jesus Christ.

    Jude, unfortunately, as long as this man is openly endorsed by “big name preachers” he does NOT have to stop acting like an immature little boy. This man can continue his vulgar statements and sexual innuendos, he can continue his lack of sacred behaviour towards the divine, he can continue to keep his mind in the gutter, and he will continue to bring (or at least attempt to) our Lord Jesus Christ down to his level. There will always be those who will endorse such drivel at the expense of the gospel.

    One final comment, if people like John Piper were to stop openly stop supporting and endorsing this man and he were to lose valuable endorsements, I dare say that his tune would quickly change and I assume so would his language and maybe even his doctrine. Amazing what a person will do for attention, for money, or for whatever you have to have apart from a complete desire to please the Lord Jesus Christ with every aspect of your being.

    The Desert Pastor

  88. The doctrine that is held by people like Mark Driscoll sounds more like Mormonism–a lust-filled polygamist who was ready to hop anything that moved.

    We hold to the fact that Jesus did not sin, could not sin, never wanted to sin.

    Yet we are the ones being called heretics.

    Sad.

    Matthew 5:11–“Blessed are you when they revile and persecute you, and say all kinds of evil against you falsely for My sake.”

    Oops. I was of course talking about Driscoll’s view of Christ when I referred to a “lust-filled polygamist”.

  89. DP,

    I slogged through the thoroughly laughable post you referenced wherein the absurd and baseless charge of Apollinarianism was leveled.

    Ridiculous!

    Sadly the author manifestly isn’t clear thinking enough to grasp the undeniable fact that NO ONE in this thread has taken the position that Christ wasn’t tempted according to scripture. Yet conveniently for those who lack all grounds for substantial argumentation straw men are quite easy to set up and then knock down.

    At issue here is the fact that Mark Driscoll unbiblically, blasphemously, and unrepentantly imputed sinful sexual desires to the majestic Risen Savior, the Lord Jesus Christ and he has been called on it.

    In stark contrast to being offended about Driscoll telling evil lies about King Jesus and thereby teaching heretical false doctrine to his listeners some professing Christians are instead offended about the fact that Driscoll telling evil lies about Jesus and thereby teaching heretical false doctrine to his listeners has earned him a stern rebuke.

    Amazing!

    But this is just another garden variety, tired example of the sort of dizzying mental gymnastics we see employed time and again by the erstwhile self-anointed defenders of the indefensible. I suppose there’s something to be said about consistency.

    I fully realize that certain representatives of Driscoll’s noisome cadre of starry-eyed, cult of personality hangers-on detest it when their pulpit-idol is called on the carpet in the light of infallible scripture; but they can stamp their feet, and wave their hands and scream “foul” as much as they wish, yet it won’t change the fact that according to scripture Driscoll must retract his lies about Jesus and repent of his wickedness and error or else he must be disciplined out of the church.

    In Christ,
    CD

  90. Cd,

    First of all let me state that I am not one of the “certain representatives of Driscoll’s noisome cadre of starry-eyed, cult of personality hangers-on detest it when their pulpit-idol is called on the carpet in the light of infallible scripture” folks that you are speaking of. I do not agree with Mark Driscoll’s approach, nor am I a fan of his, but on the other hand I do not agree that he should be called upon to “retract his lies about Jesus and repent of his wickedness and error or else he must be disciplined out of the church.” That’s pretty extreme in my view, based upon his ‘potty’ mouth and this quote.

    I personally do not think he was deliberately lying or trying to establish a different theology, but making a comparison.

    Rather than speculating on what should happen to Driscoll and Piper personally, I believe the discussion, in order to be both biblically edifying and educational to all who read here, should focus strictly on the theological integrity of his statement, nothing more. Then the reader can make up his/her mind as to Driscoll’s biblical (and/or personal credibility), which after all is what all of us will be called to (both here and before Christ) to be judged upon.

    Just my 2 and 1/2 cents for whatever it’s worth. Thanks and God bless.

  91. Thanks for your response mbaker.

    I might agree with your opinion if this was but an isolated incident or an out of character “slip”, but sadly it isn’t. Instead it’s representative of the typical error-riddled and unscriptural teaching which consistently spews forth from Driscoll’s pulpit.

    James is pretty clear about the “double-minded” professing believer (James 1). Does a stream produce both good and bitter water? Does a fig tree produce olives? (James 3:11:12)

    Finally in the light of scripture I can’t see how there’s any need for speculation in the matter except that some people steadfastly refuse to address sin under any circumstances. Maybe such refusals are intended to maintain “unity”, but the result is only to enable sin and to allow false teaching to continue to be propagated at the expense of the purity of Christ’s church.

    There’s a reason the scriptures prescribe church discipline, which thing is arguably the least obeyed command in scripture.

    Driscoll needs prayer and repentance – and that’s what is being called for – but if a professing believer refuses to repent of ongoing patterns of offense against God then church discipline must be properly and lovingly exercised in hopes of restoration.

    In Him
    CD

  92. I am not trying to spam here, I am simply trying to be intentionally brief.

    I say again,
    :(

  93. mbaker,

    Thanks again for your comments. We have no problems here at DefCon considering the issue of Mark Driscoll from a biblical perspective. The problem is that when we do his followers trot out the “do not judge” line. When we address his vulgar language and sexual innuendos about the Lord Jesus Christ, we are told that MD is merely trying to be culturally relevant.

    If you are truly interested in further conversation, may I recommend that you go to the following link:

    http://stevenjcamp.blogspot.com/search?q=driscoll

    Read all the posts by Steven Camp that have been written from a carefully worded position that I believe is honouring to the Lord Jesus Christ. Those blogs have more than enough information showing the heresy that Mark is teaching and his connections with people like T.D. Jakes and the heresy of Oneness teaching, connections with the emergent church and the contemplative movement that is taking many within so-called new-evangelical by storm.

    For the record, we do NOT hate Mark Driscoll. However, we do believe that he is disqualified from currently being a minister of the gospel. We also believe that instead of being openly rebuked that there are other ministers such as John Piper and Joshua Harris who are openly endorsing this man.

    I would challenge ANY reader from a Biblical perspective ONLY (not your personal feelings) to prove that Mark Driscoll is theologically correct in his belief on the doctrine of imputation (as just one example) or that he somehow manages to qualify as a pastor (when such drivel as he preaches and teaches and such language would not have been tolerated even 10-15 years ago from mainline evangelical pulpits.

    Weary of foolish behaviour in pulpits today,
    The Desert Pastor

  94. Once again I thank DefCon for standing for truth against stiff opposition from Driscolls fans. It seems the more their “Golden Calf” is challenged the more they squeal and twist the truth of scipture.

    I posted an article on my blog regarding the T-Shirt Driscoll chose to wear while preaching at Mars Hill recently. Someone responded by quoting Driscoll… “The shirts and style of dress were actually a brief topic in one of his sermons. He said he likes to dress that way to try and get the “old stiff necked tight hair bunned” Christians mad.”

    Where in the bible did anyone that was not unregenerate behave in such a manner ?…If there is any hatred it appears to be coming from the Driscoll “camp”

    Thanks again DefCon.

  95. Desert pastor,

    Thanks for the link, and your thoughtful reply.

    I shall indeed study it, as my wish is to be properly informed, not be anyone’s ‘groupie’. As I reinterated before both here and on Jim B’s blog, I am an strictly an issues person. I am also a former journalist, and my little journalist’s heart requires specific facts before making a decision, one way or another. Especially so, as a Christian, in these uncertain times.

    As I have stated, I am definitely not a fan of Driscoll’s, and decry the use of any language which does not show complete reverence for God from the pulpit. The only dog I have in this fight is a fair and objective biblical perspective, with emphasis on the biblical. As long as that is happening you will have no quarrel with me.

    However, I feel that based upon the information in this particular post, that your point has not come across as it was probably intended to those of us who are not familiar with the bulk of Driscoll’s teachings. It seems more like a personal opinion, with the brief statement chosen as the secondary objection. Perhaps it would be helpful to post the link you are speaking of in your comment above in the original post, so that folks reading here can get the full perspective as to why you feel as strongly as you do.

    Thanks and God bless.

  96. Thanks for putting in that link at the top.i did indeed read several of the posts on Steve’s site.

    The doctrine of imputation as taught by the Bible:

    II Corinthians 5:21: “Him who knew no sin he made to be sin on our behalf; that we might become the righteousness of God in him.”

    Calvinist teaching on imputation as I understand it:

    Adam’s sin was transferred to mankind; (2) man’s sin was transferred to Christ; and (30) Christ’s personal righteousness was transferred to believers.

    My impression after reading the Steve Camp post on imputation, as quoted by Mark Driscoll, is that I believe Mark was guilty of preaching the scripture quite literally, rather than making clear that Jesus was the perfect sin sacrifice, because he was fully human but lived a sinless life, despite all the human temptations He faced.

    However, Christ did not literally become personally a pedophile, etc; for any length of time on the cross, in taking the sin of the world upon Himself. He certainly could not have done that and been able to say to the man next to Him on the cross, “ Today you will be with Me in paradise.” Certainly if we think about it logically, sin cannot impute righteousness. That would be like saying that an innocent animal, who actually had nothing to do with committing a person’s sin, was personally the sin that the person did, instead of being the object of an unblemished sacrifice God required before Christ’s death on the cross.

    My own take is that in recent years we have taken the teaching about having a PERSONAL relationship with Christ so far, in Christianity in general, that it’s become all about us and our need to be validated in our sins, rather than turning from them.

    This is why I believe there are so many otherwise sincere pastors that genuinely love the Lord, but have mistakenly made Christianity more of an exercise in personal indulgence, (what some call ‘greasy’ grace), as a method of soul winning, and keeping their converts, rather than balancing that properly with the need for genuine repentance, sanctification and restoration.

    In doing so, they fall into the narrowly defined identificational gospel camp, i.e. that Jesus identifies with our sins to the point that He overlooks them because He knows how it feels, rather than calling us to follow His example, and at least make a genuine attempt to turn from our sins. The first way is not only extra-biblical, it stunts the growth of the new convert by giving him/her no incentive to change or to stop practicing what God considers sin.

    That is more the issue I see as the underlying problem with folks like Driscoll, who pragmatically attempts to put Jesus on our level, and in the bargain reverence for God is lost.

    I hope I have worded this clearly, as far as my belief that Jesus was both fully divine and fully human, and was tested and tempted as we are, but unlike us, remained sinless. All the more reason for we Christians, who ourselves still constantly sin, to respect and reverence the depth of character and sacrifice that must have taken.

    Thanks for hearing me out, and God bless.

    Please excuse the typos

  97. I know this is an old post so forgive me for digging up old stuff. I really appreciate the theological arguements made here. If I’m reading right, you have the arguements that

    1. Jesus being 100% human was tempted (examined perhaps, thanks 4pointer) with all the same things we humans are tempted with, and that he could have thoughts but not dwell on them and therefore not sin.

    2. Jesus being 100% God as well was tempted but being that he was God and therefore sinless, did not even let these thoughts enter his mind.

    I don’t really think anybody is saying Jesus sinned, so have I boiled down the base conflict being discussed correctly?

    I’m new to this thread, but the language used and the exaggerations made about what MD actually said are shocking. From the snippet you provided it appears that MD believes Jesus could have been tempted in his mind but not “dwelled” on the thoughts and therefore not sinned. You guys, CD, 4P, DP, disagree, and say that the actual thought itself would have been sin. Discussing this specifically in a biblical context would, IMO, been more enriching to believer’s than what has been displayed.

    Would you have titled the article something different in hindsight?

  98. Tom said, “Surely Mark Driscoll has elders that point out his flaws when need be.”

    Yes. And surely they disappear from the Mars Hill website afterwards.

  99. It is my understanding that an oversimplification of the “doctrine of temptation” may well be the problem here.

    Please allow me to try to explain.

    1) We (christians including Christ because He came as a Man can be “tempted” by someone or by a situation that presents itself to us (IE: externally – apart from us, apart from our sinful wills etc).

    For example: You are on diet and are currently eating healthy foods. But I knowing this, bring before you your favorite dish of food which you know is very unhealthy and I place it in front of you….. But now you have no desire to go back to your former sinful gluttony….. so the reality is “you were tempted – but only by me”.

    So you were still tempted – but only by me, and not by a sinful desire. That is what the theologians call “external temptation”.

    2) Secondly, and conversely on the other hand we can also be tempted by our own sinful desires (“internally” our own desires)

    There are two types of temptation. “External (Someone else) ” and Internal (personal – the heart)”

    The Lord Jesus Christ never was, because he had no sinful desires! Eating and being hungry is not a temptation (His temptation in the desert) , but gluttony is sinful.

    James 1:13-14
    13 Let no one say when he is tempted, “I am tempted by God”; for God cannot be tempted by evil, nor does He Himself tempt anyone. 14 But each one is tempted when he is drawn away by his own desires and enticed.

    Christian friends, God does not tempt neither is He tempted!

    Our Lord Jesus Christ though tempted (externally) never had sinful or illegitimate desires as His mind, His will, His motives yes even His emotions perfectly conformed to the will of God – so whilst He was tempted at every point (externally) He was without sin!

    Does this not cause us all to love and praise Him more!

    I think the Bible makes abundantly clear how off beam Mark Driscoll is.

    For a good sermon on this subject listen to
    http://www.sermonaudio.com/sermoninfo.asp?SID=4501104850

    Wishing you every blessing
    In Christ

    CH – Pastor from England

  100. CH,

    Exactly! I can tempt you with something, but you can be un-tempted by it. I fleshed this out a bit more over at my own blog, if you care to read more.

  101. Four pointer ……spot on and good work…. but what happened to your other point? I thought there were five!

  102. I fully agree with Desert Pastor that there is a dire need to point out erroneous messages emanating from prominent people and my thoughts fly to such as a certain Paul Norcross. I will confess that I tend in a minor way to follow Desert Pastor’s most excellent lead in this direction.
    I must further confess that in my own overly enthusiastic efforts I have spotted and commented and taken issue with heresy and false teaching when none actually existed!? I’m inclined to think that maybe in this instance Desert Pastor might just possible have done the same.
    Please bear with me while I attempt to explain what I mean.
    I do a modicum of work amongst those rejects from society known as drug addicts, a group most certainly not prone to listening to the gospel message as would be preached in the average suburban church. In telling of the prodigal son, Christ’s meaning is lost on them when he says what would be clear to His Jewish hearers, namely that the son found himself amongst pigs. One needs to relate that to one’s own hearers, explaining that to a Jew, feeding pigs would be worse than the drug taking, prostitution and so forth their habit has led them into. Otherwise they would respond, “OK so he fed pigs and his father forgave him, that’s cool; what I’ve been into is much worse”.
    Now if I should use Heb. 4:15 For we do not have a high priest who is unable to sympathize with our weaknesses, but one who in every respect has been tempted as we are, yet without sin, the response will be (Note, not could be, but will be) “Sure, maybe as ordinary people are, but I’m not ordinary, I’m an addict”. So I would need to graphically illustrate what ‘in every respect’; means and ‘as we are; and, because of my audience, I’d need to be very graphic indeed.
    Now either Christ was tempted ‘in every respect’ and ‘as we (all – my addition) are or He wasn’t. If Desert Pastor says He wasn’t, then Desert Pastor has a problem with the veracity of Scripture, not with MD.
    If He wasn’t tempted in every respect as we (including the drug addict) are, then He could be a comfort to Desert Pastor, maybe others who take issue with MD and some of the stuffier church folk whose temptations run to nothing worse than the temptation to refuse to love that horrible Mrs. Jones in the next pew. But He’d be totally unable to sympathize with my good friend the drug addict, wouldn’t He?
    So MD is perfectly correct in explaining all this in words that His audience can understand albeit it unacceptable to the more lofty churchy folk who would translate Paul’s “dung” into the more acceptable word “rubbish”.
    So although you might be in error in criticising MD on this one, Desert Pastor, keep on with the good work of being God’s appointed guardian against heresies in the church.

  103. well, merville, you took the words right out of my mouth. i would have to wholeheartedly agree with your post. amen & amen. Jesus was tempted in all points or the writer of Hebrews was lying, which I do not believe. I definitely believe the Bible is inerrant, therefore Jesus would have to have been sexually tempted, yet WITHOUT sin. Being tempted is not a sin, lusting & following up on it is.
    That being said, I appreciate all of your awesome work, Desert Pastor & I will continue reading your awesome blog. Don’t beat yourself up, there is no perfect human – except JESUS (and He’s God too).

  104. Jen,

    Thanks for stopping by. I would highly recommend you read the following three articles to get a Biblical picture of the doctrine of impeccability. It is a vital truth. To think otherwise is to allow the mind to wander down paths it does not belong such as preachers like Mark Driscoll have done. A faulty understanding of impeccability vs. peccability will and can ultimately lead to the acceptance of secret sins in the mind.

    Part 1
    Part 2
    Conclusion

  105. As I would be very interested to hear where I have perhaps been incorrect in my presented, could my highly respected Desert Pastor perhaps find the time to comment on my post above?
    In particular, is it wrong to attempt to take passages from Scripture and explain them graphically in words that one’s audience can understand? I find Scriptural warrant for so doing but I could be wrong.
    Addressing those who have felt that their defence of The Word should, as Desert Pastor has done, be confined to a rather destructive criticism of a brother; would they consider providing instead an example of how they would explain passages. Perhaps, in order to move the subject away from MD’s passage, they would elaborate how they would explain the words regarding the prodigal son to an unwanted, rejected drug addict on the street? Their explanation would only be acceptable to said addict if they were convinced that it included that the Lord Jesus was tempted in all respects as we are (Heb 4:15 KJV, “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”
    Hopefully, as there are many who condemned MD, there will be an equal number of (short) examples of how this passage could be dealt with posted in the very near future.
    Having taken up far more space already then what my contributions warrant, may I close with just one observation, namely that if each critic of MD above would read their critique of MD as one addressed not towards MD but towards themselves personally, would they not consider that the most of the critiques they read were couched in terms singularly lacking in Christian Brotherly Love?

  106. Merville,

    I am sorry that I missed the previous post somehow. I will seek to succinctly answer your thoughts. First, having worked with drug, sex and alcohol addicts, I have listened to them and find they normally fall into two categories. A) They are where they are because of somebody else’s fault which is blameshifting, or B) They have fallen to the bottom of the pits of degradation and only have one way to look – UP! There are a few minor variations on each of these two extremes.

    Second, you said addicts are “a group most certainly not prone to listening to the gospel message as would be preached in the average suburban church.” This is not the fault of the hearer, but of the minister who fails to preach the entire counsel of God. The average “gospel message” is not being listened to in suburban churches either as evidenced by the apostasy that is starting to fill the pulpits of the land and the extreme lack of holy living among God’s people.

    Merville, I would ask you if you have taken the time to read the article I posted that you can reach through the three links in a previous comment? I believe that will help you to greatly understand the vital doctrine and truth of the impeccability of Jesus Christ.

    My friend, you misunderstand if you think that I do not believe Jesus was tempted. However, as the articles will show clearly, Jesus was not tempted as we consider temptation which as James says is unto sin. I believe in the total veracity of Scripture, but that does not mean that we have to believe that Jesus had the potential to sin or that He COULD have sinned.

    This is false teaching and undermines the doctrine of substitution in that Jesus Christ became the Perfect Sin-Bearer for He alone was Perfect in every aspect of His being. At NO point, did He lay aside his Godhood in order to assume the potential of sin as a man.

    Sadly, such a teaching that Jesus Christ, the Perfect Sinless Lamb of God could possibly have sinned leads to further errors. It also leads ministers down a slippery slope that soon allows them to justify their own actions, words and thoughts before others and in the privacy of their own heart. After all, if Jesus was tempted and could have chosen to sin just like us well “He understands how we feel and knows we are just frail creatures of clay!”

    To conclude for now, I would hope that if strayed into a realm of doctrine not being taught by Scripture, that I would have godly counsel from true Biblical friends who would desire to point me back to the truth. I would pray that I would not have people just standing on the sidelines patting me on the back saying, “Well, The Desert Pastor, is building a great work, he must be doing something right. We will just overlook some of his foibles, after all, he is just a man.” THAT would NOT be “Christian Brotherly Love” and would not be a justifiable reason for not rebuking me for my sin and error which is leading people astray.

    Feel free if you have any further questions and comments to respond at any time.

    The Desert Pastor

  107. Merville and Jen,

    I posted a while back (in fact, shortly after this post from Desert Pastor) explaining the difference between Satan tempting Jesus and Jesus “being tempted.” Because there is a difference. Jesus was tempted with sin, but He was not tempted by sin. You can read more about it here.

  108. I do have problems with much that I have heard from the mouth of Mark Driscoll. At his age and in his position he should be seriously praying for a spirit-filled guard over his mouth.

    But I also belive that the title of this article is misleading.

    Christ was tempted in real ways. He comitted no sin. Both are absolutely glorious truths, especially when seen together!! I love this teaching with all my heart! The fact that both are true is unfathomable to me. I believe we must take special, spirit filled care to guard both truths. One could make a good case for error on Mark’s part in this sermon – he was stressing the first truth – and seems to have flirted with compromising the second.

    But saying that he has mocked the sinlessness of Christ is a judgement of his intent that is pure sensationalism.

    The argument as to whether it was possible for Christ to sin or not has never been a test of orthodoxy.

    Here is the glorious thing: He didn’t sin! and for this I praise the Lord!

  109. Miles,

    After reading numerous books written by Driscoll, and listening to countless hours of his sermons, i have to say that this post is not misleading in the slightest. Driscoll has mocked the true Jesus Christ of the Scriptures many times in many ways, far more seriously and blasphemously than what the Desert Pastor quoted here. What Driscoll has done repeatedly is denigrate Jesus’ sinlessness and holiness, making him out to be a worldly, fleshly man, re-imaging the All-Holy, All-Pure Almighty God come to earth in human flesh as a smart-mouth, wise-cracking, brawling, prize fighting party dude among other things. Having so re-imaged Jesus, it’s no stretch at all to portray Him as someone who not only thought about, but as Driscoll says WANTED TO have sex with some attractive women, (but because He had to remain sinless in order to fulfil His missional goals, couldn’t afford to do things like that). It’s that very portrayal of Jesus that places Him in a position of sin (looking at a woman with lust in your heart is already sin). Driscoll takes Jesus beyond temptation into actual inner sin as defined by God’s Word.

    When a regular human being, and former sinner, is born again, he becomes a new creature. He no longer thinks as he used to. His mind is renewed after the mind of Christ. He no longer looks at a woman and think about her in the way he used to in his previously unregenerated state. Why? Because the God Who has regenerated him and given him the mind of Christ doesn’t think along those lines either. The difference in how a man used to think as an unregenerate, and how he thinks after he is indwelt by the Holy Spirit, is just one more testimony that the Jesus of the Scriptures and Driscoll’s “jesus” are not one and the same.

  110. @DavidW

    I have only heard about 3 sermons by Mark, and have never read his books, as there are better things to read. Thanks for your analysis. If I happen to hear another sermon by him, or hear someone quote him I’ll be extra warry.

  111. If Jesus was not capable of sinning, then he was not really obedient to the Father in all things, because he had no free will choice between sinning and obeying. That was the whole point of God taking on the flesh of man, to show that man could be capable of choosing obedience to God by yielding to the Holy Spirit. Jesus was the firstfruit of obedient sons, so that we could have the power to obey God and walk free of sin ourselves. If you are walking in sin, you do not know Jesus. Only those who walk as he walked know Jesus, the Son of God.

  112. There is no free will choice in spiritual matters, all of mankind is born dead in sin, ‘And you were dead in your trespasses and sins’ and will remain so until God brings us to life, ‘even when we were dead in our transgressions, made us alive together with Christ (by grace you have been saved) – Ephesians 2:1, 5

    As for Christ being capable of sinning, impossible. He was not born with a sin nature we all have that is inherited from Adam. He was tempted from without, not from within. 2 Corinthians 5:21 states God made Him to be sin who knew no sin, and 1 Peter 2:22 says He committed no sin. Christ taught what comes out of the ‘heart’ of man in Matthew 15:19, heart means mind, the center of everything. The Lord had a pure mind, not tainted by sin’s curse of the fall of mankind. Does that mean he wasn’t a real man in the sense of flesh and blood? Absolutely not.

    As for this ‘That was the whole point of God taking on the flesh of man, to show that man could be capable of choosing obedience to God by yielding to the Holy Spirit.’ Not so, Christ came to this world to die, to make atonement for those God chooses for eternal life.

  113. I have been following the comments made on this site regarding this issue of Driscoll’s remarks which were “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 [...] ” and have been somewhat appalled at the vehemence of the attacks on Driscoll and anyone who fails to repudiate him such as Piper. Now I am fully aware that heresy is never to be tolerated and that Driscoll does sometimes couch his words in a style which will make him popular in some circles and thus fails to use a modicum of reverence in his preaching but these attacks on Driscoll go a little beyond acceptable Christian utterances.
    This is not however my main reason for re-entering this confusion of comments.
    My view is rather a simple one and I concede that those who have previously commented with much Biblical knowledge and much learning on things doctrinal are both to be respected and heeded; but with the greatest respect to them I must confess that I fear that they have somewhat failed to see the wood for the trees.
    Surely we must all acknowledge that all mankind can derive exceedingly comforting hope from the fact that God’s Word clearly tells us that “… 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” NIV HEB 4: 15. And if tempted in every way, how can anyone even begin to justify that sexual sin was not included, that not being a fallen man he wasn’t tempted as we are and put forward that Driscoll, while irreverent in his utterances, was not perfectly correct in what he sought to make clear.
    In short, I cannot, nor can any man, claim that I and they have fallen to temptation because we’ve been tempted in a manner in which Christ was never tempted; no Sirs, Christ was tempted in “every way” and if I have failed to remain sinless, that’s because I’m me, not because He was somehow tempted in a lesser way.
    Why do I say the quoted scriptures are exceedingly comforting? Because they tell me that I have Christ’s sympathy because He has been there, seen, it and bought the T-shirt of what I’m experiencing and that should I fall, He will, like the Father of the Prodigal son, come running to welcome me back home when I come again to my senses.
    I believe in sound doctrine, I believe in the infallible word of God taking the whole of it into consideration and not building doctrines and theories on isolated verses or passages, but I also do not believe that it is correct to use man’s puny intellect to enter into intellectual debates that in the final analysis merely serve to obscure what His Word clearly tells us and thereby, mayhap, confuse others.

  114. He learned obedience from the things he suffered. Just like we learn obedience when we suffer by choosing to obey God. He had a choice to obey or not, just like we do when we walk in the spirit. We choose to become a slave to righteouness or a slave to sin and death. Please provide scriptures that says he was not capable of sinning, that is why he took on flesh, to become the firstfruit of men that choose to obey rather than sin. When Jesus came to me to ask me to receive him, he gave me a choice to say yes or no, he did not force me to receive him, I chose to do it.. If there is no free will, then there is no such thing as obedience

  115. The topic is the doctrine of the sinlessness of Jesus Christ, and God’s Word clearly tells us He was without sin. To teach/preach that Jesus WANTED TO go to bed (have sex) with a woman, is to say that Jesus made the mental decision to have sex with her (which goes far beyond the issue of temptation). And that, my friend, is engaging in sin in one’s heart and mind. To preach that Jesus did so is to accuse Jesus of sin, which is precisely what Driscoll has done.

    I can’t for the life of me understand why people aren’t getting this.

  116. Sadly, this is the result of the erroneous doctrine of ‘free will’…”He learned obedience from the things he suffered. Just like we learn obedience when we suffer by choosing to obey God. He had a choice to obey or not, just like we do when we walk in the spirit. We choose to become a slave to righteouness or a slave to sin and death. Please provide scriptures that says he was not capable of sinning, that is why he took on flesh, to become the firstfruit of men that choose to obey rather than sin. When Jesus came to me to ask me to receive him, he gave me a choice to
    say yes or no, he did not force me to receive him, I chose to do it.. If there is no free will, then there is no such thing as obedience”.

  117. We know he did not sin. Lyn, we are waiting for to provide scripture that says he could not sin having taken on human flesh. He was born of the seed of God through a woman so he was not born into sin. But he still had flesh. What was the point of his 40 days in the wilderness in fasting and prayer and being tempted by Satan? If he could not decide to obey or disobey, then why bother tempting him, it would be a moot point? Also, please provide scriptures that says we have no free will. Thank you. I appreciate you input on this.

  118. Being tempted is not sinful. As for why Christ was tempted, Hebrews 4 provides some insight, ‘For we do not have a high priest who cannot sympathize with our weaknesses, but One who has been tempted in all things as we are, yet without sin. Therefore let us draw near with confidence to the throne of grace, so that we may receive mercy and find grace to help in time of need.’

    Free will is not found in the Bible, there are no verses that say all you have to do is choose Jesus. There are verses that state the condition of the sinner, which I have already given in a prior comment and will give again, ‘And you were dead in your trespasses and sins’ and will remain so until God brings us to life, ‘even when we were dead in our transgressions, made us
    alive together with Christ (by grace you have been saved) – Ephesians 2:1, 5

    When Paul states we are dead in sin, he means just what the verse says, dead, unable to respond. How is one saved? By the supernatural power of God through the gift of faith {Read Ephesians 2:8-9}. Nowhere in Ephesians 2:8-9 do we find sinners being given the option to choose Jesus “For by grace you have been saved through faith; and that not of yourselves, it is the gift of God; not as a result of works, so that no one may boast.” To make a claim of choosing Jesus goes against this verse, for you are claiming a ‘work’ and then boasting of that work.

  119. Alan,

    I would highly recommend you read the article at this link http://www.fbinstitute.com/McCormick/IMPECCABILITY.htm. Dr. McCormick does an excellent job showing the truth of the biblical doctrine of impeccability.

    TJM

  120. Ignoring the question of free will and salvation because it is a different topic, and coming back to the topic of Christ’s sinlessness …

    Alan, you said this a while back: “If Jesus was not capable of sinning, then he was not really obedient to the Father in all things, because he had no free will choice between sinning and obeying.”

    The problem with your theory is the assumption that obedience only matters in cases where disobedience is an option. Where is that in … anything? If my car is physically incapable of going over 50 miles per hour, I would still be obeying the speed limit of 50 miles per hour.

    In the garden of Gethsamane, Jesus Christ made it clear He did NOT want to go to the cross but that He was going out of obedience.

  121. Lyn, thank you. Please don’t confuse temptation with sin.

    Behold I stand at the door and knock, if anyone opens the door, I will come in and sup with him.
    Choose this day whom you will serve. There is no scripture that says free will does not exist.

    I ask you to show me man has no free will and that he does not have that characteristic as one created in the image of God. That is the point Driscoll is making. Jesus was tempted, but did not sin. Adam and Eve choose to disobey God because they were deceived. Jesus is the second Adam and he was not deceived because he is the Son of God.

    I understand Ephesians quite well. Nevertheless, when Jesus came to me and spoke to me on the day I was saved, He asked me to accept him. I know I was both called and elected, but that does not mean God overrode my free will to receive him or not on the day I was saved. If all is predetermined, then evangelism is a waste of time, because according to the Calvin doctrine of predestination, it won’t matter. Every one that God determines to be saved will be saved. Also,just because God knew of my salvation before the foundation of the world, does not mean I had no free will in the matter. I chose to accept His offer of grace through faith when he revealed himself to me.

    If there is no free will then how can I chose to yield myself to the spirit and righteousness, instead of yielding myself to the flesh and the resulting death? How can I obey if God already foreordained that I disobey?

    Thanks for the link junglemissionary, I will check it out. From what denomination does the doctrine of impeccability come from? Is that part of Calvin’s TULIP or is that a Catholic doctrine? It has been years since I have placed doctrine over walking in the Spirit and just being His son.

    It just occurred to me to ask if any of you runnng this blog are born again? Are you born again? John 3.3

  122. Alan,

    Let’s define “free will.” There is no true “free will” except for those who are in Christ. The old man dead in trespasses and sins will NEVER of his own “free will” choose God in any way, shape or form. He will only exercise a will that desires more of the same. If by free will, you mean that a person is free to choose God, then the answer will be a negative. If by free will, we mean that a person has the freedom to choose what they desire, then yes, the answer will be positive because a sinner will ONLY and ALWAYS choose sin. You would never have chosen God had He not set His love upon you from eternity past. A dead man has no desire for life any more than a sinner desires God.

    Now, once a person is a believer, then they have the ability to choose whether they will yield themselves to righteousness or whether they will choose to sin against a holy God in bodies that belong to God. If they choose the latter, then there will be discipline. You confuse God being the Controller and Sustainer of all with the claim that God is the Author of sin. He is not the Author of sin in any way.

    Impeccability comes not from a denomination but from the Word of God.

    TJM
    ____________________________________________________________________________
    072591,

    Actually, I will have to disagree with your last statement that…

    “Jesus Christ made it clear He did NOT want to go to the cross but that He was going out of obedience.”

    From before time began, God the Son knew what His purpose would be in coming to this world. To assume that He went from eternity down through the first years of earth’s existence ONLY to come to the Garden of Gethsemane and get “cold feet” at the last moment is preposterous. It is from a life of serving and suffering that He (The Master) calls us His servants to follow Him. How could He call us to follow Him if He was intent on trying to get out of going to the Cross, but insist that He only went out of obedience.

    No, heaven forbid that Jesus Christ would try to find another way to pay for the sins of mankind. When He said, “Let this cup pass from me,” I believe He was saying that He knew the separation that was to come upon Him when He was separated from the Father. For the first and ONLY time in history, this would take place. It was something neither of them had ever known and could not have imagined the horror of being separated. It was this part of the cup that He struggled with. There was no struggle that He desired not to go to the Cross.

    TJM

  123. Hello Alan,

    You brought this verse in defense of free will, “Behold I stand at the door and knock, if anyone opens the door, I will come in and sup with him.” from Revelation 3:20. You have to understand who Christ was addressing, the Laodicean church, He is knocking the the church door, not someone’s heart. If He were knocking on the door of your heart, you would refuse to let Him in because your heart is deceitful, wicked {Jer. 17:9} and dead in sin {Eph. 2:1}.

    You say ‘I understand Ephesians quite well. Nevertheless, when Jesus came to me and spoke to me on the day I was saved, He asked me to accept him.” So you are telling us you heard an audible voice, that of the Lord, and He specifically asked you to accept Him?

  124. TJM: I suspect you would agree with me more than you think, but I may have just phrased it wrong; that is the peril of online discussions, so allow me to elaborate and/or clarify.

    Jesus Christ knew what was going to happen and knew this was the price – indeed, the only way -He would be paying to redeem His chosen. He wasn’t getting cold feet and wasn’t trying to get out of it. This was not a surprise, and He knew the Father would not be changing His mind. Further, He also knew of the glory that would be coming beyond that. He was committed to going to the cross.

    But He knew that He would suffer, and suffer unimaginably; I believe that when He was on the cross, He literally experienced Hell. He dreaded it, and in Gethsemane, it was looming ever closer; remember that while He was God, he was also a man – a man that KNEW the horrors that were only hours away. (And the path to those horrors was not through Happy Happy Sunshineland.)

    “Nevertheless, not My will, but Thy will be done.” For me, this provides even greater comfort and praise for our High Priest in Heaven; not only did He bear our sentence, which was so horrific that even He was in untold anguish (and He knew that glory was coming afterward), but He understands that we, as His followers, are not always going to want to do what He wants us to do, but we are doing it anyway. By this, I don’t mean “I don’t want to obey God, but I guess I have to,” but closer to, “God want me to do X. I really don’t want to do X. But I will do X because God wants me to.”

  125. 072591,

    Thanks for the clarification. Yes, it would appear that we are closer than I thought. :-)

  126. WOW – Look at Steve’s BLOG now.
    What a change in perspective
    http://stevenjcamp.blogspot.com/search?q=driscoll

  127. Chuck Sowers: It is truly a tragedy that Steve let “love” and “humility” (in some sentimental sense) distort his judgment and compromise his original convictions concerning Driscoll, to the point of accepting him as a brother in Christ. I saw the Nightline face off back then as well, in which Driscoll was correct in verbally acknowledging basic (very basic) orthodoxy, but his behavior on the show was anything but Christ-like. I don’t know where Steve currently stands regarding Driscoll, but if he’s in the same place he was back in 2009, he needs to re-assess Driscoll’s continued downward spiral since ’09, and go back to the Scriptures, paying particular attention to the what the Lord says about fruit, as opposed to enticing words.

  128. Quote: “We are to be salt and light to a dying world – and our brother represented the Lord and His gospel well”.

    http://stevenjcamp.blogspot.com/search?q=driscoll

  129. Sorrowful that steven camp has bought the lie.
    Driscoll is a manipulator, unbiblical, and is now promoting a conference which is called, Resurgence.
    And look who is speaking.
    http://theresurgence.com/conference

  130. Interesting comments, From some of the evidence that has been put forth in opposition against Driscoll for his filthy and crude language is indeed justified. I believe the facts speaks for itself. It still seems to me though, that their needs to be more stronger evidence presented. When refutting someone like Mark Driscoll for his foul and blasphemous language he uses about our beloved Lord. It is important to quote the Scripture that shows that in correspondence to the actual quote by Driscoll, and cite the reference as well. By using this method, which I believe CD has done a good job in doing lends strength and credibility to one’s argument.

    In no way is the Church to stupe to the level of the world in reaching the lost for Christ. We are to be men and women marked by a language that is holy and different from the world’s language. The Lord rescues the “Gutter most” to the “Utter most” period! In other words, He saves the worst of us who speak the most profane, blasphemous, sexual and filthy language and “CHANGES” us, and gives us a “NEW LANGUAGE,” a language that is becoming of Christians who claim the name of Christ. (See Eph. 4 and James 3). To put it more bluntly, if there is not a genuine change in our language, then there is no real change in our life! God’s absolute standard is holiness, whereas man’s standard is unholiness!

  131. I agree completely. Mark Driscoll is a tower about to collapse. Humpty Dumpty is coming down.

  132. It’s tough not to call people stupid.

    Saying Jesus experienced our weaknesses & saying Jesus laid awake at night wishing he had a naked women lying beside him are NOT the same things!!!!

    Being tempted is purely external!!

    What Driscoll is saying is that Jesus tempted Himself internally with His own thoughts!!

    What have we done in this country when people have no reading comprehension skills?

    Driscoll is implying that He Himself tempted Himself sexually!! Read Driscolls words again! He’s alluding to the idea Jesus tempted Himself!!

    Why are Christians so stupid?

  133. Driscoll, if he wanted to, could so very easily have spelt out, without details, the sinlessness of Christ and/or that tempted as we all are He yet remained sinless.
    Not everyone listening to sermons such as Driscoll’s are tempted in the same ways Driscoll describes and so obviously himself is. There would be those listening either present on the day or later via internet, who could say, “Sure, I’d also be able to overcome that temptation, but would Christ have overcome the temptation (for drugs, porn, paedophilia or whatever) that I am beset with? I doubt”.
    It takes away from Hebrews that tempted as we all are to dwell on any specific temptation and also in the process, demeans the image of Christ that all should hold. It’s rather like the demeaning that Driscoll indulged in when he described so graphically Christ’s toilet habits regarding His need for number one and number two adding gratuitously that being perfect, when doing number one, Christ would never wet the seat.
    Who, other than the anti-Christ’s would want to build up in their minds images of Christ indulging in all the things that us humans need to go through? Would Driscoll describe Queen Elizabeth, for example, in like terms? I rather think not, his respect for such people would inhibit him from doing so. So why would he do these things as regards the King of Kings, our Lord and Saviour, the 100% man and 100% God?
    That such as Piper get into bed with such a person is beyond me.

  134. Clearly, Jesus faced sexual temptation at some time in his life, but we know Jesus did not sin, no sin whatsoever, rather He fulfilled the law completely. But I would disagree with the notion that Jesus tempted himself. Jesus is God, and God does not tempt anyone.

    James 1:13-15
    13 When tempted, no one should say, “God is tempting me.” For God cannot be tempted by evil, nor does he tempt anyone; 14 but each person is tempted when they are dragged away by their own evil desire and enticed. 15 Then, after desire has conceived, it gives birth to sin; and sin, when it is full-grown, gives birth to death.

    I believe that Jesus did not have evil desires. We do know that Jesus was often tempted by direct temptation (externally) from Satan.

    What are you trying to say David D? The notion of Jesus tempting himself internally doesn’t make sense to me and is not scriptural.

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

%d bloggers like this: