First, I recognize that there are those who will read this that will immediately judge my statements while at the same time stating, “JUDGE NOT!” Second, I know that Driscollites will probably show up en masse to defend their champion while deliberately overlooking Biblical commands to point out error.
Sadly, there are few opportunities for those who claim to be ministers of the gospel to make a stand that will impact millions. This is because the gospel OFFENDS and the listener to the Word of God will be brought under conviction of the Holy Spirit. The conviction will bring a conviction of sin and then it will bring transformation from an old creature to a new creation in Christ Jesus.
Recently, one man was given that opportunity to give a clear explanation of the gospel and the consequences of not believing the truth as proclaimed in the Word of God. That man was Mark Driscoll AND HE FAILED MISERABLY!
(The video can be viewed by clicking here.)
Let’s consider a few thoughts from this man who by his own admission has 20 (something) services a week and has over 10,000 members per week on average.
The venue was Crystal Cathedral where rank heretic Robert Schuller is the founder. This is the church of Mr. God-Is-In-You, Mr. Positive-Thinking, Mr. We-and-Muslims-All-Do-God’s-Work-Together, Mr. I-Love-And-Endorse-the-New-Age-Movement.
Yes, I wasted some time by even listening to the drivel, but I wanted to be able to speak clearly and expose the harm that was done in this message. Schuller began by asking Driscoll how he came to know the Lord. This should have been the first opportunity for Driscoll to be NOT ASHAMED OF THE GOSPEL OF CHRIST, yet HE FAILED MISERABLY!
Driscoll responded, “I started reading the Bible and learned about Jesus.” This was followed by an off-handed attempt at humor. He continued by saying, “I got excited about Jesus and have been excited ever since!” When asked about his ministry, he noted he speaks for over an hour and “I yell a lot and I get excited – but its working.”
Whatever happened to a BIBLICAL explanation of the meaning of salvation? Every unbeliever who attended heard his salvation account as mere excitement about Jesus. There was NOTHING about sin. There was NOTHING about repentance. There was NOTHING about a changed life and being a new creation in Christ. There was NOTHING about being conformed to the image of the Lord Jesus.
As for his ministry, could you imagine the apostles on the day after Pentecost being asked what they do. Peter, being the spokesman, speaks up and says, “Well, you know, I just yell a lot and get excited. But hey, its working, so let’s keep doing whatever it is we don’t really know what we are doing!” NO, a thousand times NO! Peter, full of the Holy Ghost, stood and called a spade a spade. He spoke of sin and judgment. He made it clear that God is angry with the wicked and eternity is coming. The Holy Spirit moved and thousands placed their faith in Jesus Christ alone. Through grace, those individuals learned what it meant for the God-Man to become the Sin-bearer for ALL who would place their faith in the finished work of Christ on Calvary.
On to the message sermonette. Driscoll introduced his message and noted that he had seven points to share. These seven points are as follows and were written across the bottom of the screen for the viewers. Additional notes and comments are in italics beneath the main points. I want to note that while there is nothing wrong with the statements in and of themselves, what was wrong was what was NOT said.
1. Christ came down from heaven.
Driscoll noted in this section that Christ did something nobody else has ever done or claimed to do. He came down from heaven. He also stated that Christ “came down on a rescue mission of love.” Is it true that God so loved the world? Yes! But do the Scriptures tell us that He laid aside His glory to perform a “rescue mission of love?” In one word – NO!
2. Jesus said that He alone is God.
Driscoll made an error when he stated that “No other religious leader has ever said that he was God.”
3. Jesus said His miracles proved He was God.
4. Jesus claims that He is without sin.
Driscoll stated that “We have remorse and regret over things we have said or done, or not said or not done.”
Wikipedia notes, “Remorse is an emotional expression of personal regret felt by a person after he or she has committed an act which they deem to be shameful, hurtful, or violent. Remorse is closely allied to guilt and self-directed resentment. When a person regrets an earlier action or failure to act, it may be because of remorse or in response to various other consequences, including being punished for the act or omission.” It then defines, “Regret is an intelligent and emotional dislike for personal past acts and behaviors. Regret is often felt when someone feels sadness, shame, embarrassment, depression or guilt after committing an action or actions that the person later wishes that he or she had not done.”
In other words, sin is not a loathing of our wickedness before a holy, righteous God. What we do only causes us personal regret or a dislike for our acts and behaviors. The problem comes when we seek to water down what sin really means and what it required from Christ as the propitiation of our sins. Sin is not a mere feeling sorry because we have been caught or because we have a guilty conscience.
5. Jesus said He could forgive our sin.
Driscoll noted under this point that “God needs to forgive us, love us, pursue us, embrace us, cleanse us, renew us, and restore us. Jesus is going to die on the cross to pay for our sins so that we could become new people with new lives, new hopes, new dreams, new passions, new pleasures, and new purposes for our whole life.”
Mark, I am afraid you once again failed in both your understanding of Scripture and your delivery. First, God NEEDS NOTHING! Second, Jesus did NOT die so we could have the things Driscoll mentions. He died so that we would be saved from the wrath to come. He died to satisfy the just penalty that every sinner rightly deserves. 2 Cor. 5:21 makes it clear that He died so that we would become new creations in Christ.
6. Jesus said He is the only way to heaven.
7. Jesus said He would rise from death.
He concluded by pointing out that, “Some of you are on the precipice of the end of your life and are wondering what awaits you. What awaits you on the other side is Jesus.”
Mark again failed his listeners. His statement allowed those guilty before God to walk out thinking that the end of life would bring them into the loving arms of Jesus. He never mentioned the coming judgment whereby all who reject Christ as Saviour will be cast forever into the Lake of Fire which burns forever and ever. While he shared a few good points, he completely glossed over or overlooked the reality of the gospel message as found in the Scriptures.
He closed with the final question – “Who do you say that I am?” In his final prayer, he said we need to pray and “say you are God, Saviour, and Friend. Holy Spirit, I humbly beseech you that you would allow them to meet Jesus right now.”
One final time, he had a chance in his prayer to extend the true, biblical call to salvation AND FAILED MISERABLY! He watered down the message to a simple “meet Jesus” statement. Once again, he lost the chance to take a stand, but it would have cost him dearly to share the truth – so he didn’t do it!
Glossing over sin, hell, the righteous of God, the damnation of the sinner, the wrath of God against all unbelievers, his audience could go away comforted in their feel-good religiosity. They were able to go away thinking what a great guy Jesus is. They walked out knowing that Driscoll by his silence on what really mattered fully endorsed the ministry and the false gospel being spouted by Schuller and his cohorts. The evil one and his minions delight when the message is confused, and this was certainly NOT a straitforward call to repentance.
This is NOT the evangelicalism that I want to represent me. This is NOT the gospel I want my lost friends, family, and neighbors to hear for it will send them to a Christ-less eternity! One final thought, let’s see whether such a performance will result in the pulling of endorsements by ministers like Piper. Somehow, I sadly and seriously doubt it will happen!
Not ashamed of the gospel of Christ,
The Desert Pastor
Pilgrim
Bill
fourpointer
abidingthroughgrace
Chris Hohnholz
Spot on analysis, Desert Pastor. And such a tragedy. Yet this is Vintage Driscoll. And if you listen carefully, when he shakes hands with Schuller (right before he takes center stage), he calls Schuller “brother”. That alone says volumes. We truly live in interesting times. Let us hold fast to the uncompromising Gospel, and the true Jesus of the Scriptures.
First Rick Warren, now Robert Schuller.
Schuller: God loves you, so do I.
(Applause)
(Drisoll extends hand for handshake)
Driscoll: I appreciate that, thank you brother.
During the hubbub leading up to this (after Driscoll’s scheduled appearance was announced) Driscoll proponents (in defense of why he would go there to preach) conceded that Schuller was a heretic and that was the reason Driscoll NEEDED to go preach at the Crystal Cathedral . . . for all the lost souls under Schuller’s care.
Well, I think the above exchange between the two proves that this is not the case. Mark Driscoll gleefully called Robert Schuller “brother” (just like he did of Rick Warren).
The ecumenical drum beats on in unison with all the pied pipers.
Time eventually reveals the truth,
- The Pilgrim
David and The Pilgrim,
Thanks for pointing that out about the calling of Schuller “brother.” He said it so low that I missed it, but went back to listen again – and there it was!
So, the question really is – WHY did Driscoll have to go preach if Schuller is a brother which by implication means that he is preaching the truth??
Surely, it couldn’t be for the marketing value that it would bring to Schuller’s endorsement of Driscoll’s website AND his books!!
The Pilgrim, you are very correct when you state that time eventually reveals the truth. Now all we have to do is wait for the Driscollites to start their defense, but they do not realize that is 4th and long. In fact, the home team is going to have to try and kick a field goal from the other end of the field past the stadium bleachers to make three points on this one!
The Desert Pastor
It seems to me as though his only purpose in going to the Crystal Cathedral must have been to market himself to a new audience.
I had really hoped that this was one time Driscoll’s outspokenness and hard-hitting style would serve to advance the Gospel. Sadly, you were proved right: yes, Schuller is a heretic, and Driscoll has unambiguously proven himself to be a wolf is sheep’s clothing.
So much for sound doctrine.
Like you said, Jesus does not need us, we NEED HIM!
Matthew 7:21-23 NIV “Not everyone who says to me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ will enter the kingdom of heaven, but only he who does the will of my Father who is in heaven. (22) Many will say to me on that day, ‘Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in your name, and in your name drive out demons and perform many miracles?’ (23) Then I will tell them plainly, ‘I never knew you. Away from me, you evildoers!’
Perhaps now there will be a few, a precious few, that will see all of this for what it really is: apostates/heretics on parade. “And blessed is he who is not offended because of Me” Matt 11:6. These men are obviously offended by Jesus Christ and His message or else they would stand true for Him inspite of opposition.
Also, Amos 8:11, (famine for HEARING the words of the Lord) is playing out right before our eyes. It breaks my heart to see it happening in my SS class. The refusal to hear the word of the Lord is becoming more brazen as the weeks go by.
Even so, Come Lord Jesus
Driscoll knows the gospel and yet he preaches a watered-down message in a heretics home church, with little or no repentance.
Fear of men?
So do you believe Driscoll is a Christian or not?
oh no.
This is of great concern!
I just watched the video and sadly, this was indeed a fail.
A so-called “preacher” of the Gospel, a defender of the faith, yet not only was it a failure at the perfect opportunity to present the clear, unadulterated message of the Gospel, but to do that, one would have to get out of the starting blocks first…..
Bryan
He blew it! He has shown clearly where he stands. Will the real Mark Driscoll please stand up!!! He didn’t say anything that would challenge their view of the gospel, their watered down, heretical what they call gospel. Through Jesus I am saved from God’s wrath, and now I live for His glory.
Thanks for the heads-up to Pastor Mark’s message. I look forward to seeing how he teaches in an environment very unlike his own church to people very unlike his own flock. Somehow I have a feeling this is going to be very Mars Hill (in the Acts 17 sense).
Brett,
Thanks for stopping by to read. While we do not know Driscoll’s heart or his standing before God, the Bible is clear that by their fruits you shall know them. It is very concerning when one who claims to know the Lord Jesus Christ is not just willing to stand in the pulpit of a rank heretic, but calls that individual a brother in Christ. Schuller is NOT a true believer in the Lord Jesus Christ by the very testimony he gives. While Driscoll may be a believer, he has fallen hard for the affections of man in that he has allowed himself to be openly endorsed by one diametrically opposed to the truth of the gospel and has given them his endorsement as well.
We can only say that if Driscoll is a true believer that the Holy Spirit will do a work on his heart and bring him to repentance. This is what the Holy Spirit does in the lives of all who have placed their faith in Christ alone. If there is no godly sorrow and repentance for what has been said and done, then we would point to the Biblical references to see whether such a one could truly indeed fall under the category of one who has life within him.
For the record, we are not out to castigate people because we have nothing better to do. We have a responsibility to stand for the truth of God’s Word whether we like it or not. The Bible is the standard, not the traditions of man.
The Desert Pastor
_______________________________________________________________________________
To rzh,
Apologies for using what you say is your photo. There was nothing on the photo to show that it was copyrighted, but we have removed it to alleviate any concerns you have. Thanks for bringing this to our attention.
The Desert Pastor
I have read the transcript of Driscoll’s message (it is also available at the Crystal Cathedral website). Here’s what I come away with: Yeah, he pretty much blew it. Not saying that what he preached wasn’t truth, because everything he said was true. But he didn’t preach the whole truth. And because of that, he missed out on a golden opportunity to show a few million TV viewers the truth about Christ.
Here is where I see that he missed out:
First, he never once mentions Hell. He talks about Jesus forgiving our sins, he talks about being reconciled to God. But if I did not know Christ, and I sat there and listened to that speech, and this was the first time I had heard the name “Jesus,” would I think there would be any negative consequences if I died without accepting Him as Lord and Savior? I don’t think I would. Because I would not think there was any reason for me to do so. It’s not a question of “Who do you say that He is?” It’s a matter of “What will you do with this Jesus?” To quote Ray Comfort, “People can’t know how good the good news is until they know how bad the bad news is.”
Second, it seems like his attempt to be relevant got in the way of delivering a stronger message about sin and how it is because of our sins that we are dead to God. Yes, he briefly mentioned something about sin. But never does he inform the listener about the consequences of our sins. That if we die in our sins, we will be eternally dead to God. Not only that, he never says anything about the fact that we are all sinners. So, the Schullerite will sit there and say, “Well, I don’t have any sin in my life.” See 1st John 1:8.
Third, he never mentions repentance. So the Schullerite will sit there and say, “Oh good, Jesus has forgiven me for my sins! I’m going to Heaven!” , without understanding that they must turn away from those sins (if they even think they have any sin in their lives, see previous paragraph). It’s not a matter of “God needs to forgive us, God needs to love us, God needs to pursue us, God needs to embrace us, God needs to cleanse us, God needs to renew us, God needs to restore us…” It’s a matter of “We need for God to forgive us, we need for God to love us, we need for God to embrace us, we need for God to renew us.” God doesn’t need anything! To even think that is ludicrous! We are the ones that need to hate our sins and be reconciled to God!
Fourth, what is all that nonsense he talked about, “He did it so that we could become new people with new lives and new hopes and new dreams and new passions and new pleasures and new purposes for our whole lives.” Was this Mark Driscoll speaking, or Rick Warren? That kind of tripe is right straight out of The Porpoise-Drivel Lie. Jesus did not come to give us “new hopes and new dreams.” He came to give us life. He came to reconcile those who would believe in Him with a God who is Holy, and cannot stand to have wickedness in His kingdom.
In short, he blew it. Nothing about the holiness of God. Nothing about the consequences of our sins. Nothing about Hell. Nothing about the wicked sinfulness of man. This is exactly the kind of wishy-washy message I would expect from Robert Schuller himself.
This appears to be the first of two sermons that Pastor Mark delivered that weekend, the second to be aired at a later date.
To those critical of what the first sermon allegedly lacked, if the second sermon meets your criteria, will you be as quick to praise it?
Brendt Waters,
There’s no “allegedly lacked” about it. Only real lack. But we can play needling hypothetical questions all day, if you like.
To answer your hypothetical: Absolutely! If it is praiseworthy, if it isn’t rank cowardice and it glorifies the Lord Who spilt His life’s blood out under the just wrath of a Holy God for my sin, if it warns men of the wrath to come and the blessed hope, if it lifts up the truth that the carnal heart hates and offends the delicate sensibilities of a godless world…
… then absolutely. But now to my hypothetical:
To those not critical of what the first sermon allegedly contained in presenting a clear portrait of the human condition before God, if the second sermon got too “preachy” about sin and our need for the cross, will you be as quick to backtrack out of defending it?
I have edited my post and took out the reference to Mark’s clothing style. In hindsight, this added nothing to my expose of the message given at Crystal Cathedral. I appreciate those comments that brought this to my attention.
Not too crazy about these ‘cultish personality’ type preachers.
Being hip and cool is fine, but when it’s the hallmark of your preaching style, there is a problem.
He has a long way to go in understanding the law/gospel paradigm in preaching.
Other than that, Mrs. Lincoln…
While this is not one of Driscoll’s best sermons, I do wonder whether or not we are all being too quick to declare someone a heretic who has taken very hard stances for the Gospel in the face of liberalism, universalism, and a denial of atonement preached so loudly.
Driscoll is not a perfect preacher by any means, and he has said as much in the past, but he also has a track record of repenting when confronted with real problems with his ministry (his response to Phil Johnson’s criticism comes to mind).
There are situations where I believe that we like to project our fears regarding easy belief and a lack of the doctrines of sin and hell onto men seeking to honestly proclaim the Gospel (this is something I do as well). Looking at Driscoll’s track record of his writing and preaching, however, I think we can see that his discussion of a “rescue mission of love” reflects an understanding that (as he says) we are desperately in need of the love and forgiveness Jesus provides. Also, when he discusses the “new” purposes and life to which Jesus calls us, I’m not sure this is “new purpose” in the sense that Rick Warren means it, but rather a reflection of the new heart that we are told God gives the regenerate believer (a fact that is dominant in much of Driscoll’s writing). Again, I do not think that this was one of Driscoll’s better sermons, but I do think that we should be very, very, very careful where we draw the line between heresy and an “off day”.
I earnestly believe that the work of discernment ministries such as DefCon is incredibly important, particularly in this age of easy “belief”. Still, instead of seeking to “win” or “score points” against people who are earnestly seeking to spread the true Gospel (and, having read Driscoll’s work, particularly “Death By Love”, and heard his sermons in the past, I do believe he is), let’s pray hard for God to guide such men away from pitfalls that so often surround them. Let’s pray equally hard for the listeners and preachers who are drifting further away from the truth, that they may be convicted and turned back to the full Gospel.
Let’s pray for each other as well, and encourage each other as long as it is called today,
Zac
DonQ,
We have made it clear that defense of Mark Driscoll’s teaching that is contrary to Scripture will not be allowed to see the light of day on our blog. There are plenty of other sites that permit this all too freely.
However, in regards to your statement, “Mark calls on the name of the Lord therefore I believe he is saved”, I reply with the words of the Lord Jesus Christ Himself.
Matthew 7:22, 23, “Many will say to Me in that day, ‘Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied in Your name, cast out demons in Your name, and done many wonders in Your name?’ And then I will declare to them, ‘I never knew you; depart from Me, you who practice lawlessness!’”
And in regards to your comments about the use of the word “brother”, again from Scripture, I would highly recommend reading 1 John. You will see that the Word of God gives us NO LEEWAY to proclaim somebody as a “brother” who rejects the fundamental teachings of God Himself.
Finally, in an age where people want to talk about love, it is this alone which will keep you fervent in your walk with the Lord. It is only well with your soul when the heart desires all of God and His Word. King Solomon wrote in Ecc. 12:13, “Let us hear the conclusion of the whole matter: Fear God, and keep his commandments: for this is the whole duty of man.” Then when the Lord Jesus Christ was confronted in regards to the law, He said in Mark 12:30, “And thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind, and with all thy strength: this is the first commandment.”
ONLY when we KEEP His commandments can we say that we LOVE Him. Biblical discipline begins with self, but when an individual chooses to go public with a watered-down (at best) message and claim it to be the gospel, public rebuke is more than justified from Scripture.
The Desert Pastor
Brian,
I am glad that you would be willing to praise that which is praiseworthy. That, however, would make you VERY uncommon among those who criticize Driscoll.
I thought he preached a message at Desiring God which said he ought to have been harsh with the wolves and tender toward the sheep? Here he was in the wolves’ den and he treated the wolf as a sheep. Disappointing.
——————————————————————————————
Brendt I would praise the second part if he indeed gets to the main point.
However, in the meantime, those CC people or those who tuned in to the Aug 23 message, who may perhaps die this week without hearing the true gospel, it’ll be too late for them.
Making the most of EVERY OPPORTUNITY…
Here he had the red carpet of opportunity rolled out for him.
If I profess with the loudest voice and clearest exposition every portion of the truth of God except precisely that little point which the world and the devil are at that moment attacking, I am not confessing Christ, however boldly I may be professing Christ. Where the battle rages, there the loyalty of the soldier is proved; and to be steady on all the battlefield besides, is mere flight and disgrace if he flinches at that point. –Martin Luther (1483-1546)
PS – Oh, and Brendt, if you want to listen to someone analyze these popular sermons in an even handed way, check out Chris Rosebrough’s podcast “Fighting for the Faith” – he’s always fair and equitable and focused like a lazer on the truth of the gospel.
Brendt Waters,
I would be in agreement with Brian in being willing to “praise that which is praiseworthy.” Let me reiterate what I stated in my post, “I want to note that while there is nothing wrong with the statements in and of themselves, what was wrong was what was NOT said.”
And I also stated, “While he shared a few good points, he completely glossed over or overlooked the reality of the gospel message as found in the Scriptures.”
May I humbly remind you and our other readers that when the apostle Paul took a stand for the gospel of the Lord Jesus Christ against those who would preach another or different gospel, he did not sugar-coat the problem. He made it abundantly clear what was to happen, Titus 3:10-11, “A man that is an heretic after the first and second admonition reject; knowing that he that is such is subverted, and sinneth, being condemned of himself.”
The Desert Pastor
PS – Why is that fans of Mark Driscoll want us to bend over backwards to only look for the good or at the very least praise all the good things done and said – YET, these same fans NEVER take a stand for what MD does and says that is wrong? Maybe somebody out there has a biblical explanation for such a conundrum!
Brendt Waters,
You stated a hypothetical and expected others to answer it which a couple of them did. Now, it’s your turn to answer the hypothetical that Brian of the Hill People asked you!
“To those not critical of what the first sermon allegedly contained in presenting a clear portrait of the human condition before God, if the second sermon got too “preachy” about sin and our need for the cross, will you be as quick to backtrack out of defending it?”
I am interested in hearing what your comment is about that or are you above answering hypotheticals since you are a Mark Driscoll fan?
Partial quote from Zac’s comment above: “There are situations where I believe that we like to project our fears regarding easy belief and a lack of the doctrines of sin and hell onto men seeking to honestly proclaim the Gospel…”
Very observant, Zac.
Paula, your “However, in the meantime…” statement strikes me as a VERY low view of God’s sovereignty.
Oh, and thank you for the good laugh when you facetiously referred to Chris Rosebrough as being fair and equitable.
________________________________________________________________________
The Desert Pastor,
I am glad that you, too, would be willing to praise what is praiseworthy. I did not deny that you made a couple of brief positive comments. In and of itself, that fact puts you in a good, but small, minority.
_______________________________________________________________________
Desert Pastor’ wife,
“You … expected others to answer it” — I did? Really? Wow, your knowlege of my inner motives is uncanny! Well, except for the fact that it’s, like, well, um, incorrect. My question, while obviously hypothetical, was much moreso rhetorical. The fact that Brian and your husband answered in a positive manner speaks well of them (IMHO), but was not specifically “expected”.
As to your comment regarding it being “my turn”, I’ll be glad to answer Brian’s hypothetical question as soon as he asks one that’s actually applicable to me. I have made no argument for or against the sermon — largely because (as I made clear in my first comment) I haven’t watched/read it yet.
I can only imagine that you assumed that Brian’s question applied to me, even though I said nothing to indicate that it did. Just as I can only imagine that you assumed that I am a Driscoll fan, even though I said nothing to indicate that I am. Personally, I find such assumptions even more offensive than snarky “or are you above” comments.
Paula: you were right on in your comment. Your defense of the faith and concern for the lost is encouraging. Whenever you take an uncompromising stand for the truth of God’s word, you will receive opposition from those who are not of Christ. In doing so you have reaped a blessing: “Blessed are you when men shall revile you, and persecute you, and shall say all manner of evil against you falsely for My sake. Rejoice and be exceeding glad: for great is your reward in heaven: for so they persecuted the prophets which were before you.”
To praise Mr. Driscoll just because he says some “good” things is like praising the demons for the “good” they said about Jesus (“we know who you are, the holy one of God…”"…Jesus, thou Son of God”, etc). The issue is not what little “good” Mr. Driscoll has said. Jesus has made it clear in His word, that isn’t good enough. It’s all the false doctrine, blasphemies, perverse speech, defiling of consciences, heresies, mocking Jesus, mocking the Scriptures, preaching a false Jesus and a false Gospel, condemning whole groups of bible believing Christians, etc. that draws us on Scriptural grounds to call for his repentance, nullifies his claim as a biblical elder or pastor, and demands that we warn others about him.
Admin,
Did you realize that you have the option to turn on threaded discussion on the comments. It makes it easier to see who is talking to who.
Some guy asked a question and then a person answered him several comments later. A bit confusing.
It is found in Dashboard > Settings > Discussion
Hope that helps.
Wow. Comparing Driscoll to demons. That’s classy.
Somehow, I was under the (apparently mistaken) impression that only God was allowed to say stuff like “get behind me, Satan”.
Brendt Waters,
Then what was your point in posting if it was only rhetorical?
I apologize if I was wrong in what I read in all of your comments on this post (yes, I did read the other posts and with the whole of them it did lead to the assumption that you are a Mark Driscoll fan; however offensive it may have been to you).
I don’t know if Brian’s comment had you in mind but I certainly was interested and that’s why I asked it. Sadly enough, it’s easy to complain or make snide comments about those who are defending and contending for the faith whether rhetorical, hypothetical, or really asking the question (which does sound the same considering it was put on as a comment).
These men and ladies on this blog don’t post these things lightly. There is normally a good reason for them to share what they are sharing. If you look at the blog there is so much more positive then negative and they are quick to praise those who seek to keep the Lord first. A form of praise is posting comments by those ones who are truly serving the Lord. Comments like the rhetorical one you made demeans what they are trying to do and puts you in a light where you tend to look bad whether it was done purposefully or not. That was the reason for my comment.
I do ask for your forgiveness if I have wrongly accused or offended you as that was not my intent! My intent was to hear what your thoughts were on the message to which I would still be quite interested in hearing!
Found this on the website theresurgence.com “On Sunday, June 14, I preached two sermons at the Crystal Cathedral in Southern California. The trip went well. I paid my own travel expenses and preached without an honorarium as a way to ensure I was just serving Jesus. Everyone was super kind and allowed me to preach Jesus without edits. The sermons will be broadcast to 12 million people nationwide on the “Hour of Power” TV show, so please pray that people meet Jesus. They don’t have a firm date yet for when the show will be broadcast, but we’ll let you know on the Resurgence and on my Facebook and Twitter , so keep checking back. My first sermon was on Jesus’ claims to be God, and the second was a brutal tour of the crucifixion of Jesus Christ in our place for our sins.” Mark Driscoll
Mark does preach long sermons and is quite good at tying things together by the end and is quite frank about sin and repentance in his sermons to his church which can all be viewed for free at http://www.marshillchurch.org. I guess we will see how it turns out.
Brendt: You either missed the point, or you’re just not honestly willing to look at it. Jesus makes it clear that just because one calls Jesus “Lord”, that means nothing. The demons call Him “Lord”, they believe and tremble (it was an example). Just because one may do “good” things for Jesus, it still means nothing if they are also doing, or teaching, what He forbids in His word.
I’ve noticed from numerous sermons, and several of his books, that Driscoll’s typical method of dispensing with his critics is to use sarcasm, ridicule and every derogatory remark he can come up with, rather than appealing to the Scriptures and submitting to God’s word. It really comes as no surprise then when his defenders, supporters, and followers do the same. Do such tactics represent Christ? What is the real interest here? To defend a man or to defend God’s truth as revealed in the Scriptures? To “test all things” as God commands us? Or to ignore God’s truth because it runs contrary to what we want to hear?
Desert Pastor’s wife,
I’ve got a longer response cooking in my head, but don’t have time to elaborate right now. But I felt it important to say at least this much now, and will delve deeper later.
1) Apology accepted
2) I, too, need to apologize as my words to you were too harsh.
Brendt,
How is the question you posed “obviously hypothetical”? Here is your question, verbatim–
There is nothing in that question, or the full comment for that matter, that would cause anybody to think that you were asking “hypothetically.” And in fact, when Brian answered your question, you responded, quote–
Now, you say you were not expecting an answer to your “hypothetical” question. Yet when Brian answered in a way you liked, you thanked him for answering.
If we were to contrast that with your response to Desert Pastor’s Wife (DPW for short). She said something you didn’t like, and by golly, all of a sudden you whip out the “Master Thespian” card, saying, “Whoa, now, wait a minute! I wasn’t actually expecting an answer!”
So, in short, when someone answers your “hypothetical” question favorably, you welcome such a response and thank them for it. But when someone calls you on your query, all of a sudden it’s “hypothetical” and “rhetorical.”
For your disingenuousness, I do believe you owe DPW an apology. And in the future, you might want to make it clear for us slobbering Fundamentalists that you are asking “hypothetically.”
Paula, I totally agree with you. He seems very harsh with the sheep and gentle with the wolves.
fourpointer,
How is the question you posed “obviously hypothetical”?
Well, Brian and DPW both identified it as hypothetical before I did, so it was obviously hypothetical to them. Maybe they could better answer your question on how something stated about an event that has yet to happen would be classified as “hypothetical”.
There is nothing in that question, or the full comment for that matter, that would cause anybody to think that you were asking “hypothetically.”
Brian and DPW, apparently you don’t count in fourpointer’s world.
Now, you say you were not expecting an answer to your “hypothetical” question. Yet when Brian answered in a way you liked, you thanked him for answering.
Please show me where I thanked him for asking.
But let’s assume that your fallacious statement is correct …
So what should I have done when met with a statement with which I agreed — in the blogosphere, no less? Funny, I thought blogs were about discussion. Are you actually implying that your previous post was writtten because DP expected your reply to his OP?
Or are you saying that since I may disagree with some of DP’s conclusions, that the only statements that I am permitted to make are ones that are negative of those that agree with him? Sorry, man, I don’t fit in that box.
But when someone calls you on your query, all of a sudden it’s “hypothetical” and “rhetorical.”
Um, no. The question is/was hypothetical and rhetorical regardless of the existence or nature of responses.
For your disingenuousness, I do believe you owe DPW an apology.
Um, no, I don’t. I did apologize to her for the harshness of my words. But seing as how I wasn’t disingenuous, I can’t apologize for actions that you fabricated and attributed to me.
And in the future, you might want to make it clear for us slobbering Fundamentalists that you are asking “hypothetically.”
I just love how you attribute attitudes (”slobbering Fundamentalists”) to me.
However, I will take your suggestion under advisement. And be of good cheer — if I forget to put out the blinking neon “hypothetical” sign, both Brian and DPW have shown that they can help in that regard, too, as they both “got” it.
___________________________________________________________________________
Desert Pastor’s wife,
As I stated before, I am sorry for the harshness of my earlier words to you.
While in no way excusing these words, I would like to explain them, and it may be easiest to do so via an illustration. This is an actual event, but I am changing the names to avoid obfuscation of the point.
There is a teacher out there (let’s call him Steve) with whom I disagree on many issues. In a heated argument with another blogger (we’ll call him Neal), Steve stated that he felt that Neal’s actions were un-Christ-like.
Neal got his knickers in a twist and wrote a voluminous diatribe about how Steve called Neal’s salvation into question (which he didn’t, but that’s not relevant) and how such statements were improper to make (which I agree with, had it actually happened).
In response to this post, another blogger (call him Larry) stated definitively that Steve is not a Christian. So, when Larry specifically committed the same exact error (if not worse) as what Neal alleged about Steve committing, this was fine with Neal.
I noted this disingenuousness. After a couple “rounds” of avoiding the point, Neal began ascribing all sorts of ideas and attitudes to me that are Steve’s, essentially lumping me in with him. Based on absolutely nothing that I said.
Not surprisingly, when I noted this fact and the fact that I disagree with much of what Steve says, my (moderated) comment never saw the light of day.
While this is a specific incident, it is by no means isolated. I have encountered numerous occasions when person A criticizes person B, I question the manner in which this was done, and person A assumes that I am in lock-step with everything person B has ever said or done.
If one broadens the term “enemy” to include those with whom we disagree, this type of thinking boils down to “the enemy of my enemy is my friend”. Last I heard that phrase was from Saddam Hussein, not exactly the first font of wisdom that I’d consult.
So when I saw you making assumptions about where I was coming from, I sighed and thought, “Here we go again.” And by doing that, I wound up committing the same error of assumption that offends me, mentally classifying you with the likes of “Neal”, and my comments to you wound up being much moreso in response to previous occurences than to what you actually said.
I was hoisted by my own petard, and I am sorry, both for making assumptions and for getting on your case for making assumptions.
FWIW, if by “fan” you mean someone who has learned from another and has appreciated many of his teachings and writings, then yes, I am a Mark Driscoll fan. If however, by “fan” you mean (and I doubt that you personally do) that I agree with everything he says and does, then no, I am not a Mark Driscoll fan.
I do not think that Driscoll can do no wrong. However, I know of no other person who has so many critics that think he can do no right. And this attitude is not nearly so much reflective on such a person’s view of Driscoll as it is of their (lousy) view of God’s sovereignty. I am by no means attributing such a perspective to you. But as I stated before, you and your husband and Brian are in the minority.
As to your specific interest in my take on the sermon, stand by. ;-)
Doh.
I’m the troublemaker in the class today. I said ‘hypothetical’ first, before anyone else.
Give me the Dunce hat, I’ll go sit in the corner until class is over. I know better than to tangle with words containing more than 3 or 4 syllables.
Meanwhile, I hope this 2nd message from MD is one where sin isn’t merely a dainty post-it note reminder in the sermon. The fear of God is a wonderful gift, not only to those who do not yet know the Lord, but to those who walk with Him daily.
Hi,
I just want to point something out that I’ve noticed has been critiqued. I am not hear to support nor oppose this sermon, but I will say that there has been a misunderstanding about one of the things that people have taken offense over.
This is this:
‘In Psalm 51:4, someone who is seen grievously, perhaps like you, that cry out to God in prayer saying, “God, against You only have I sinned.” That’s true. Our failures, our faults and our flaws, they’re against God. And so God needs to forgive us, God needs to love us, God needs to pursue us, God needs to embrace us, God needs to cleanse us, God needs to renew us, God needs to restore us, and Jesus says that’s what I do.’
People have taken offense that he said, ‘ God needs to forgive us’ , and have very rightly retorted with ‘ GOD NEEDS NOTHING’ but that is a misunderstanding of what Pastor Mark is pointing out.
He was saying that our sins are against God, and so if they are to be forgiven God needs to forgive them. He, and I think I am right in interpreting what he said this way, is saying that if our sins can be forgiven they need to be forgiven by God and so if Jesus says He can forgive sin then it folllows that He is God.
I think he means, ‘ If our sins are to be forgiven, since those sins are sins against God, God needs to forgive them or else they are not forgiven at all’.
It’s not that God has a need to forgiven them. It’s that only by God forgiving can they be forgiven.
Brian, no need for you to wear a dunce hat — you were right and so was DPW.
Brothers, in the context addressing the dreadfulness of another gospel Paul did not say Peter Failed but that he sinned. He was guilty. And Peter was a pillar. He did not negotiate in a dialogue with Peter. Schuller would invite anti-christ to speak and he will if he gets the opportunity.
Dear Brendt:
Thanks for your comments and readership.
Please do not assume that this is a personal attack–as I assure you it’s not–I just wish to have a few things clarified if you’re so willing to oblige me.
You said to the Desert Pastor’s Wife (DPW):
“Just as I can only imagine that you assumed that I am a Driscoll fan, even though I said nothing to indicate that I am. Personally, I find such assumptions even more offensive than snarky ‘or are you above’ comments.”
I have a genuine question in regards to the impression you left with that particular part of your comment because I don’t want to incorrectly attribute anything to you.
Although the DPW may have assumed you were a Driscoll fan because of your continued defense of him on this thread, is it correct or incorrect of me (and others) to assume that you’re a Driscoll fan–not not because of your defense of him alone, and not because you have numerous favorable posts about him on your blog but–because of your admitting to it in this post on your blog?
“While I make no secret of being a Driscoll fanboy, I am encouraged by this work of God in his life, as his personality — which drives some forceful teaching — would make humility a harder thing to come by for him than some others.”
Additionally, is your defense of Mark Driscoll here not only because of the reasons cited above but because you’re a contributor to the CRN Info and Analysis blog, (not to be confused with Ken Silva’s Christian Research Network)?
CRN Info and Analysis is a longtime opponent of what some would call Online Discernment Ministries (ODM’s) like Slice of Laodicea, A Little Leaven, Apprising Ministries, etc.
So is it possible that as a “fanboy” of Mark Driscoll, and as a “fan” of Mark Driscoll (who doesn’t agree with everything he says), and as a contributor to CRN Info and Analysis your objectivity in this matter is biased and is the impetus for your vigilant defense of Mark Driscoll?
Thank you,
Sincerely,
- The Pilgrim
Alot of discussion has definatly been generated here.
Mark really is the man on everybodies lips!
I have said before here and over my blog;
The crux of all the problems with Mark is that he has no issues in (in the name of cultural relvancy) meeting the carnal at thier carnality. What do I mean? Well, he has no problems in speaking vulgar and at their (unbelievers & churched youth) level.
We have by now all heard his song of solomon rubbish. Now comes this……The man must think so different to me…He must think so diffferent that it leads him to comprimise.
It seems, that if he can speak “tough and all reformed” he will, though if that is not the “context” to do so then he will not.
After long investigation I come to this conclusion;
Mark is a man who both incorrectly (and sinfully) contextualisers and comprimises. And he must repent of it.
Simple and yet so important.
Amen Matthew Johnston!
Brendt,
Thanks for your apology and accepted.
DPW
I don’t subscribe to everything Driscoll does or says, so forgive me if I come across as a “Driscollite”, but I think some of you need to understand the gospel, namely GRACE.
I am curious about this Pastor Mark you have been talking about and have been doing some research. I am curious as to what you think about his response to the following question?
How can a church build an atmosphere—starting from the pulpit and moving beyond—where people can be honest about their sin?
Mark Driscoll founded Mars Hill Church in Seattle and is co-founder and president of the Acts 29 Church Planting Network.
Mark Driscoll responds in our Ask the Experts discussion.
Topics: Accountability, Authenticity, Character, Discipleship, Empathy, Judging others, Preaching, Vulnerability
Filters: Bible study, Christian education, Pastor, Pastoral care, Preaching, Shepherd, Spiritual director
Purpose: Discipleship
Date Added: September 25, 2007
“Jesus and Paul both said that people follow the example of their leaders. This means that the preaching pastor has to establish a culture of humility, honesty, authenticity, and repentance. The following five practices are ones that I have found to be practically helpful for that to occur.
First, the pastor needs to integrate sermon preparation and personal Bible study. In the past, it has been argued by some that a pastor should bifurcate personal Bible study from sermon preparation. I wholeheartedly disagree with this counsel because a preacher needs to preach from a life in Scripture. Therefore, a pastor should not be studying the Bible to prepare a sermon as much as studying to be a faithful Christian who will preach a sermon out of the experience of living according to what God the Holy Spirit imparts through his Word.
Second, the pastor needs to regularly practice humble repentance of sin as an act of faith in the finished work of Jesus on the cross to grant them forgiveness of sin and new life. This repentance should be the natural outflow of proper Bible study. Simply, any faithful reading of Scripture will result in a deeper love for Jesus and deeper awareness of one’s personal sin.
Third, the pastor needs to live in community in such a way that what he is learning from the Bible is practically integrated into his natural relationships. What this means is that as a pastor is meditating on Scripture, praying through Scripture, and studying Scripture throughout the week, he must also be engaged in conversations about what God is showing him with friends, family, coworkers, neighbors, and others. Further insights into the Scriptures will come through these natural opportunities that God gives—through the comments of others, the discussions that ensue, and the practical application of what is being learned. These daily moments are a gift that God in his providential kindness gives the preacher to live a life integrated with his Word. Practically, this means that a preacher is constantly discussing what he is learning with his spouse and children as a first priority, so that he is serving his family before the church family.
Fourth, the preaching that naturally flows out of this lifestyle will include a lot of personal information from the preacher. Rather than only telling stories of victories, the pastor must reveal snapshots of the week where God convicted them of sin, discussions they had with their spouse and children, how God gave them opportunities to practice what he was teaching them, and how God’s Word proved truthful and helpful throughout the week. Practically, this means that occasionally, and as appropriate, the preacher will even speak about a fight they had with their spouse and how the Scriptures were applied to deal with their conflict and sin. In saying this, I am not in any way seeking to excuse sin that would make a preacher not “above reproach,” but rather stating that even the preacher is a sinner and unless preachers practice honest confession of their sin, their people cannot learn to do the same.
Fifth, in the end, Jesus must be the hero of every sermon. As a preacher, I have often been told that a pastor should not speak of their struggles or sins because they are to set a good example for their people. However, I can think of no better example to set for my people than the example of ongoing humble repentance of my sin to Jesus under the authority of Scripture and in the community of my church and family.
In closing, I am convinced that if these five practices are habitually practiced by the preacher from the pulpit, then a culture in which the Scriptures are true, Jesus is the hero, and faithful Christianity means ongoing humble repentance in community will naturally ensue. The question is whether or not the preacher has the courage to not only preach the gospel of grace, but also to live it publicly as an example. To be sure, religious people are prone to despise such preaching and use it as an occasion to criticize their preacher, but the humble, lost, and discouraged will be drawn to the simplicity of a repentant person with their Bible open, pointing to Jesus as their hero, hope, savior, and joy. ”
God is sovereign, he has a plan and to know that there is another part to the MD at the CC story, we may be a bit quick to assume that Jesus hasn’t gotten any glory from the time that Pastor Mark spent at the Crystal Cathedral. They do have the power not to air the sermons and maybe there is a bit of strategy involved in the way Pastor Mark presented the two sermons. Never the less my prayers have gone out to Pastor Mark, Robert Schuller, the congregation of the Crystal Cathedral, the Desert Pastor and all whom have read this blog. May Jesus be glorified.
Funny how Martin Luther measured the success of the reformation in terms of persecution. We measure it in terms of a leader’s relevance to culture and popularity.
The Pilgrim,
No worries. I learned my lesson about assuming on this blog and have been duly self-chastised. ;-)
You may have missed my longer response to DPW, as it somehow got rolled into my response to fourpointer, but if you look at the latter half of this comment, you’ll see what I’m talking about there.
Ugh. I messed up a tag. Sorry about that DP. If you want to clean your blog, I think if you put a slash on the blockquote at the end of the line that says “on this thread”, that should fix it.
Or I can just look goofy, I don’t mind. ;-)
_______________________________________________________________________
A little levity here from John Piper. Good spiritual point with some self-deprecation and reference to Mark Driscoll. I think everyone here will enjoy it.
I honestly didn’t find your review of Driscoll very enlightening and it was a bit quick to call a fail. Who among us is wise enough to see all ends?
Could have the message contained more? Of course, but so could every one of Spurgeon’s messages. Did he magnify the name of Jesus? I thought so, but it is not up to me.
I guess I don’t know your criteria of failure. His speaking style doesn’t appeal to me all that much, to be honest. But I don’t know how I would characterize a failure other than when someone emphasizes law over grace (which is really the usual fare at the Crystal Cathedral), and I guess I just didn’t hear that.
Just seems to be a bit of a knee jerk to me. I am not necessarily saying you are flat out wrong, just a bit hasty.
If it makes you feel any better, it thought his choice in tie was bad; too thin.
Brendt,
After further review, I guess I should take my foot out of my mouth and admit my error. My mistake was that I was reacting to your sarcastic tone towards DPW’s request.
However, I do have to correct one thing you said, and it’s not to be argumentative, but, I think, a simple misunderstanding. You said, I just love how you attribute attitudes (”slobbering Fundamentalists”) to me. Actually, I was referring to myself as the “slobbering fundamentalist.”
Brian,
No need for you to wear the dunce cap. It’s mine for now!
Those who insist on defending Driscoll are getting what they deserve; as Paul Washer so clearly states, ‘“Their god is their belly, but, they look like sheep; how is that? How is it that they look like sheep? By their flattering, smooth speech that in an age of tolerance makes you think they are men most full of love.
They will never contradict, they will never create a scandal, they will never be offensive, they will never speak forth things to anger men. They have the smooth tongue of a serpent, and they flatter men, and they give carnal men exactly what they want.
Let me tell you something about false teachers, you think so many times that people fall prey to false teachers, and that, in a sense, can be true, at times. But, I think the dominant theme in scripture is just the opposite. False teachers are God’s judgment on people who don’t want God…but, in the name of religion, plan on getting everything their carnal heart desires.
That’s why a Joel Osteen is raised up; those people who sit under him are not victims of him, he is the judgment of God upon them…because they want exactly what he wants, and it’s not God!’- Paul Washer, from his sermon ‘the gift nobody wants’
For those of you who have tuned in to this who aren’t aware of Mark Driscoll, his tactics, his teachings, his history, this blog might all sound like some unjust judgmental nitpicking about a guy that just “preached Jesus” at Crystal Cathedral. That’s not what this is all about. He’s not the victim here. Nor do we hate Mr. Driscoll. What is at stake here is the truth and purity of the Gospel, and the accurate proclamation of the Jesus of the Bible.
Mr. Driscoll “preaches Jesus”, but as one digs deeper in his books and sermons into just who that “Jesus” is that he preaches, one begins to see a perversion of “Jesus”, rather than He Who is described in the Scriptures. Driscoll has described the all-holy, all-pure, all-righteous Lamb of God as a “bartender” who goes around telling “knock-knock jokes”, who is a “fun dude”, who he sees as a “prize-fighter with a tatoo on his leg”, as the “ultimate fighting Jesus”, etc. Driscoll says he doesn’t want a Jesus he can beat up. He says Jesus was a “punch you in the nose” kind of dude. Granted he puts that all in the context of being against the effeminate image of Jesus as portrayed by some. But in doing so he presents just another distorted image of Him. Jesus was not a brawler, since that is against His own word. In fact, the Scriptures command we put to death that sort of fleshly, worldly type of man, and be the meek and humble servant that Jesus displayed for us. Driscoll has gained a reputation for flagrantly and unashamedly violating the Scriptures. He has declared sin where God has not so declared it, and negated sin where it is declared by God’s word. He has utterly twisted and distorted the word of God to fit his theology and ideologies.
He has exhibited numerous traits of spiritual abuse over his congregation (also evident in several sermons). Other people have also documented this.
He is famous for saying one thing, then doing the very opposite. He flat out claims he is proud and always has been, then turns right around and chastises his congregation for their own pride. He says men ought not to look at porn, then says his barber has the finest selection of porn in his city (how would he know?). Such (and many other examples I could give) is just hypocrisy.
He has a lot of head knowledge about Christianity, and knows how to deliver a good sermon when he needs to. But by his other teachings, his ungodly speech and behavior, his raunchy sexual jokes from the pulpit, his outright mockery of the serious things fo the word of God, etc. he has through the duration of his “ministry” shown himself to be thoroughly unfit for the pulpit.
So don’t be fooled by his little public relations appearances on TV. He has a long history, and if anyone truly desires to compare his teachings and behavior with the word of God, it shouldn’t take long to see that he shrewdly mixes in truth with error, righteousness with unrighteousness, orthodoxy with heresy, right and wrong.
My heart goes out to those of his followers who are perhaps new to the faith, and perhaps are unaware of Driscoll’s abuses of the pulpit. But then there are also the militant defenders of Driscoll who, in supporting him in his errors, display an unwillingness to submit to the authority of the Scriptures. They would rather attack and undermine any effort to expose Driscoll’s errors by God’s word. And they typically do so with endless word games attempting to distract from the issue at hand.
We should all be praying that God’s word is defended, lifted up and submitted to. That God is honored. And that all false teachers are exposed for who they are. And we should be praying that the deceived have their eyes opened by God to see and understand the truth as revealed in His word.
____________________________________________________________________________________
Clarification on my last post: When I said: “In fact, the Scriptures command we put to death that sort of fleshly, worldly type of man, and be the meek and humble servant that Jesus displayed for us.”, I was referring to each Christian to spiritually “putting to death” the flesh, the “old man” as the Scriptures refer to it, and command us. Just so there’s no misunderstanding, I don’t advocate any physical violence on anyone.
fourpointer, I was reacting, too, and I’m sorry.
Now gimme back my dunce cap. ;-)
Brendt,
Nope, it’s mine for the day! I think also that I didn’t read Brian’s and DPW’s responses. If I had, oh if only I had….
But God demonstrates His love toward us, in that while we were yet sinners (and wore dunce caps), Christ died for us.
Lyn,
YOu really comparing Driscoll to Joel Osteen? Really? You think Osteen would EVER preach the kind of Christology Driscoll preached on Sunday?
I know all of us can wear dunce hats at some point or other! I think that’s the great thing about being a teachable Christian is that we can seek forgiveness and it’s over and done with! God is awesome, isn’t He? (And I don’t use this word lightly, either like most people do these days!)
I’m not a huge Driscoll fan…while I think his sermon came off weak, I think he took a different tactical approach than many would.
He treated the congregation of the Crystal Cathedral as if they were an unevangelized people in complete darkness.
I’m not sure that Driscoll preached the right sermon, but I’m not sure he was a failure.
I think anyone can listen to, or meet Mark, and know that he is a brother in Christ. If you think he made a mistake, don’t put it up here for the whole world to read. This is different than having to expose doctrinal lies or the words and actions of someone like R. Schuller.
He was given a very unique opportunity and it was in a format that took him WAY out of his comfort zone. It is hard to teach expositionally for an hour every week and then go preach a small sermon at another church.
And if it is a place that needs A LOT of gospel such as this one, I can only imaging the amount of stress he went through in trying to determine the best way to accomplish the Lord’s purposes. If it was his first time doing such a thing, then I’m sure that made it much worse for him.
Also, we could sit down with God’s Word and study the way that Jesus, Paul and Peter related to different groups of people and see that Mark may have done better than you want to think he did.
But all that aside, if you think he messed up, then have some grace and mercy on him. He is not a heretic, he is a brother and to publicly rebuke him like this is not cool with our family.
If we all believe that it is God who gives us the grace to obey and serve Him and that it is [only] God who gives each one of us gifts of grace to use in the body of Christ and in preaching to the rest of the world, then we should praise Him for the grace He gave to Mark to be able to do what He did.
If there is a next time, even with another group, he will be better than he was before as he is growing in grace and in the gifts God has given him. I know, being a pastor myself, I blow it every week. There are a whole handful of things I could have done or said better, but I can only do what God gives me the grace to do each week.
He doesn’t make me perfect the first time, nor does He fail in growing me in my gifts. The important thing that is dependent on the man/woman ministering is how much they are giving themselves over to God to continue to grow in the grace and knowledge of Christ. Even the desire and power to do that comes from God.
So, if Mark has quit submitting to the way God wants to grow him and is doing everything solo, without Christ, then I can concede your points. But really, how can you determine that in most people you are not very close to? You can’t.
Anyway, just show a little grace, as your Lord shows you when you mess up too. Don’t give the whole unbelieving world another reason to laugh at us by criticizing your brother. If he starts preaching another gospel, then sure, but he’s definitely not doing that.
http://www.marshillchurch.org/media/trial/doctrine-from-false-teachers-part-1
Seems solid and Spirit led to me what do you guys think?
Hi Jake,
Refer to my comment @ August 24, 2009 at 8:08 pm
“…….It seems, that if he can speak “tough and all reformed” he will, though if that is not the “context” to do so then he will not. ……………..”
Exactly, DPW! ;-)
I am not a driscoll fan either way… I know of him, but nothing more than I know who chuck swindoll is… BUT… It seems to me that if he was going into someone else’s church as possible evangelism, why would he preach a turn or burn message instead of getting people to listen to him. It seems that he introduced himself, and made people comfortable with him, and his style. All of you who would have rushed in and blasted the heretic from his own pulpit, remember this, what work would he have been able to do with these people after being shunned and banned from this church, or having offended the pastor/congregation. Do missionaries first introduce themselves and get people to know them first in order to gain their trust before introducing the gospel, or do they just show up, and denounce all the leaders in the area and start yelling at them… I am not a pastor, but have worked in ministry for along time, and I am ashamed that all of you would condemn his actions so quickly. Most ministries have a plan, and his plan might not have been to go in the way you expected. I know that some of you are going to come back with lots of excuses for why you would blast him the way that you did. None of us are perfect, his approach might not have been how you would’ve done it, but to blast him for his approach seems counter productive… go there, set up on the stairs, and preach yourself, see how long you will get to stay in the buiding.
-confused
I am very curious how the second sermon will play out. On the Mars Hill website they break up Jesus and the Gospel to those new to Jesus and their site. They set the ground work for who Jesus says He is which is essentially important for what He has done (penal substitutionary atonement)and called us to do (like repent) and what will happen if we don’t (hell), which is then laid out in the Gospel section. I very curious if the second sermon will follow this pattern. They also have a link to welcome Hour of Power viewers that takes them directly to Jesus and the Gospel.
To “confused”:
If this were a case of a true Christian pastor, being invited to preach the Gospel to those who honestly want to hear it, with only one opportunity to do so (two max), shouldn’t he make the most of the opportunity to give them the whole gospel in the first opportunity? Even just the basics of the whole Gospel? Since who knows when a second opportunity will arise? I mean, what good is only part, or half of the Gospel? And if he does get a second opportunity, wouldn’t that be a good time to give them a deeper explanation of it?
Tragically, that’s not what happened. Mr. Driscoll, himself a teacher of false doctrines (fully documented elsewhere from his books and sermons), was invited by another teacher of false doctrines, to an assembly in which Driscoll refered to Schuller as his brother (indicating apparent “brother” in Christ, and therefore fellow proclaimers of God’s truth, equally yoked, etc). In doing so, he gave tacit endorsement to Schuller.
Nor did Driscoll give the listeners (live and TV audience) a true gospel, but by giving the false assurance that when they die (infering as they are now, with no mention of repentance, etc), that Jesus would be waiting for them on the other side (with no mention of judgment). That isn’t the Gospel of the Scriptures.
If Mark Driscoll comes back a second time, (many who saw him the first time on TV, may not tune in a second time) and if he does preach repentance (and explains what that means), who cares? They have already been given the assurance of meeting Jesus when they die. As long as they’re going to make it to heaven, who cares about the details? I mean, realistically isn’t that the bottom line for most people?
As for your admission of not knowing much about Mark Driscoll, all I can say is, beware of him. He has a history of saying one thing, and doing another. Of speaking a lot about “Jesus”, but in many of his sermons to his own congregation presenting a very perverted, blasphemous description of Him. Paul warns us to reject those who bring a different Gospel and a different Jesus. And that is determined by checking them out according to the Scriptures.
Amen!
Quote from David: “If Mark Driscoll comes back a second time, (many who saw him the first time on TV, may not tune in a second time) and if he does preach repentance (and explains what that means), who cares?”
I’m not a fan or a defender of Driscoll, but I will care to the point of rejoicing. “What then? notwithstanding, every way, whether in pretence, or in truth, Christ is preached; and I therein do rejoice, yea, and will rejoice.” (Philippians 1:18)
Folks may not be aware of this series by John MacArthur about grunge “Christianity”; if not, you can find it here at Sermon Audio http://www.sermonaudio.com/sermoninfo.asp?SID=82409191398.
The message I listed above is 4 of 4 (the most recent one); if you scroll down on this page you can find the option to select the other messages if so desired.
This is why so many of us are incensed and righteously indignant at men like Mark Driscoll who trample under foot the holy things of God and make a mockery of Christianity. Herein, I hope the Driscoll defenders will listen to this series and do some serious soul searching to find out why you continue to defend Driscoll in light of the clear violation of both the letter and spirit of God’s word.
To: Ministry Addict
My point in that quote was not that I don’t care, nor that we shouldn’t care. But in the context that for those who do not know the Gospel, since he already assured them that Jesus is waiting for them when they die, and gave no indication that judgment for sin is involved, but rather indicating or infering their eternity is already secure, then what need is there to hear anything more? Why would they want to care about anything more, since he just told them they’re good to go right now? What’s he going to say: “sorry, I left something out, you’re really not going to heaven as you are after all, there’s more to the story”? Point is, once you give a false gospel, once you’ve already given them a happy ending, it’s really hard to start over with those same people (“the jury will disregard that comment”). Especially since you’ve already given them their ticket and passport, so to speak.
As for Phil.1:18, I totally agree as it is in context with the rest of the Scriptures. Those who were preaching the true Jesus to “out do” Paul, well, Paul doesn’t care about his own image, as long as the true Jesus is being preached, that’s great. But Paul would surely not advocate false teachers “preachiing Jesus”, just so “Jesus” can be preached. Cults and false religions “preach Jesus” too. In one religion “Jesus” is brother to Satan. Or a “son of God” but not the only begotten Son of God. Or an enlightened man. Or any number of characters, but not He Who is described in the whole of the Scriptures. Even the demons “preached Jesus” in that they declared Him the “Son of God”, “The Holy One of God”, etc. They all “preach Jesus”. But Paul also condemns those who preach a “different Jesus” and a “different gospel”, which is not another, but a perversion of the true. Tragically, Mr. Driscoll has preached a different Jesus to his own congregation. So that verse really needs to be in context with the whole of Scripture.
So I think I understand what you are saying, and I hope you understand what I was trying to say.
To: edjferg
I for one, and I believe others here are of a similar mind, do not hold any personal animosity toward Mark Driscoll. My focus is not to jump on his mistakes. As you have rightly said, who of us doesn’t make mistakes. I make more mistakes than anyone I know. Nor do I wish to call him for his sins. Who of us is without sin? And you had mentioned you consider him a brother, and to publicly rebuke him is not cool with your family. So I do apologize if what I have said about him came across as sounding unfair.
But here’s part of the problem. If the world thinks, based on what they may have seen on the “hour of power”, that what Mark Driscoll presented was the Gospel of the Scriptures, then the world needs someone to tell them: “no, that wasn’t the Gospel.”, and why. The problem is, he gave false assurance of heaven to everyone there, and everyone listening. That is a “mistake” we cannot sit idly by and ignore. The world must be told that what he said is not true, at least not according to God’s word.
And I am sorry to say, yes, I have heard Mr. Driscoll teach falsehood in his sermons and in his books. I have heard him flagrantly violate the Scriptures time and again. The issue is that by Biblical standards, he is not qualified to be an elder or pastor. Sorry, he doesn’t. He may mean well. He certainly has a lot of head knowledge about the bible. He certainly is a charismatic, energetic, influencial speaker. He can deliver a sound sermon at times. Problem is, he continues to mix truth with error in his preaching over the long haul. He is infamous for having a perverse mouth, in direct violation of the Scriptures. Then there are his blasphemies, mocking of the things of Scripture, etc.
A pastor teaches by more than words. His life must match up with his words, or he, as a public representative of Christ, gives a bad example of Christ to the world. Sadly, he does not represent the Jesus Christ of the Scriptures to the world, and the world needs to know that, so they do not get a wrong understanding of Jesus. It is the pure Jesus of the Scriptures Who must be honored, taught and lifted up, and Mr. Driscoll needs to step down until such time as he can do that. To hide this from the unsaved world is to show approval of his errors.
So we’re not jumping all over him about this one appearance at Crystal Cathedral. He has however displayed in this instance further evidence of what he continues to show at his own church: his yet inability to adequately represent the truth of God’s word to anyone.
I take no pleasure in criticizing anyone. What is at stake here is the purity of the Gospel, and the purity of the character of the Lord Jesus Christ.
I pray for Mark Driscoll, that he would repent, that the Lord would open his eyes, that he would step down from the pulpit and pull all his offensive, unsound teachings from the internet, and that he would come to a solid understanding of Christ and the Gospel.
I hear what you’re saying. I listen to him from time to time and sometimes I think he has the perfect personality for teaching certain subjects and other times I can’t listen to him. At times he speaks as if someone like myself is uneducated because I am a pretib and premill believer, and it is hard to take for too long.
And every joke he ever makes about unintelligent people seems to be a joke about people from KY which is where I live. I can take a lot of jokes and make fun of myself, A LOT, but for some reason every joke he makes about idiots and uneducated people are always about people from KY.
This issue though, I can only say so much since I haven’t listened to the messages yet and you seem to know more about him than I do. All I can do is trust that you know him better than I do and hope that your heart is the Lord’s heart.
I just haven’t heard him be the failure I hear him being called now. But even if he was a failure in this matter, I believe we need to be very careful of how we discuss these things when the whole world is able to watch the conversation.
I haven’t watched the video’s yet, so I cannot talk with you about the points he made or what he neglected to say or how he said what he did say. But, if we think he didn’t present the gospel the way we wanted it to be told, then should we not just go and present that message ourselves?
Do we really need to take the time to point out those who fouled their message up, before we do present the gospel for ourselves?
Do you think Mark Driscoll’s motives were to hurt or take advantage of people? If you do, then go get him, but if not, then isn’t there a case to be made for a more gentle spirit in communicating that you think your brother messed up so as to protect him from the wicked one. I’m not talking about you particularly, but all of us.
I can’t help but think that we give ammunition to Satan when we jump on the internet and scold our brothers and sisters. Once again, if they are a 2Peter2 kind of teacher, then fine, let everyone know, but we should also think a bit about how Paul started out when it came time to deal with the Corinthian church and their rejection of him for the false teachers.
Obviously, he knew — and did — end up having to say some harsh things in the last 4 chapters of 2Cor — but notice how he began — as a man who stopped in the midst of such great emotions, to check his flesh and be careful to approach the conflict in the spirit so that the fruits of the spirit would be dominating the flesh and guiding his words.
He began to confront their rejection of him and their disobedience to God, and their deception by the false teachers with a meek and gentle spirit. And even though we say we have the best intentions, our words and the way we communicate before others, especially when the world can look in, makes it a different matter.
And how much more careful should we be now that we have the internet recording everything we say about others. It’s a different game than a minister writing a personal letter to a ministry he pastors.
Now yes, I know of all the verses where Paul calls people out and names people for being divisive and hurtful, but I’m not to sure this is a similar situation. Robert Schuller maybe, but not Driscoll speaking at the CrystalC.
I don’t know…just some thoughts. I think it is wise to consider Paul’s example in being gentle. Even though he did end up having to say some heavier words of warning and there are a few lessons to be learned in between verse 1 of ch10 leading up to when he did have to come out and say something more painful and direct. And I’m not to sure he really was anything but gentle with those in the church; even those rejecting him.
Now that I think of it, all of these behaviors you speak of about Mark is not unlike, nor probably as bad as those in the church at Corinth, including some of those in the leadership apparently who were allowing or encouraging some of their bad behaviors. Yet Paul spoke to them as beloved sons.
Should we feel the same way about our own family in Christ? Should we think of how we would treat our own sons and daughters as we are writing about the sons and daughters of God? A good question to ask ourselves would be, would we write that same stuff if Mark [or whoever] WAS our own blood son or daughter who messed up?
If we would, then it must be terrible what they did or consistently do. But we would be VERY VERY thoughtful and careful wouldn’t we, and yet how much more should we feel this way about a family that is more real than our own flesh and blood if they do not belong to the family of God? Paul, not only did he not want to shame his family, his children in Christ, but he continually reminds them, filling them with extra assurance that they are “in Christ.”
So there is a good balance with Paul in sharing the truth of sin and consequences of sin as well as God’s love for us that never takes us away from being “in Christ”. He even gives thanks for the grace God has to show them in-spite of their carnal weaknesses, because the testimony of Christ is confirmed in them all the more. So much so that they will be confirmed unto the end and blameless in the day of our Lord Jesus Christ.
God is faithful, by whom we were called unto the fellowship of his Son Jesus Christ our Lord — even when we fail to say and do the right things — even though we are sincere.
Again, just some thoughts about how gentle our Lord is with us, even when we mess up, even as leadership, and unless you are a 2Pe2 kind of man/woman, should we take these conversations outside of the church to be judged also by the world?
Should our ability to communicate with so many people like we do through the INet make us think twice about what we say and who we talk about, even if it is a immature Christian who didn’t give the best message he could give when he had the chance.
I’m not a big fan of Mark. I do like some of his thoughts, but still not a big supporter. Although I am very concerned about how we are representing the King in our zeal to defend Him. Do we pray for a while before we write or type? Probably not most of the time, although we should.
I’m not telling you what to think. If you know stuff that terrible about him that I don’t, then I pray you are doing or writing what God is telling you to do. But I also hope you don’t mind a little encouragement to approach all of these situations with the meekness and gentleness of Christ — something I guess Mark could do a lot better at too, huh?
So if you have to talk about it, OK. It sure would be glorious though to see someone write what they do, as if that was their own child they were writing about. The words chosen and the tone would be so different. People would go out of their way to clarify just how much they are writing in love and with care and concern. The result would be a message more like the way Christ would speak to you and me. I think it is a neat thought.
Yes their is death and hell and wrath and punishment to speak of and blood shed for our sins. This is how much God loved us. When we think of what great pains He went through to save us and to reveal His love for us, our taking the extra effort to be a little more gentle is nothing in comparison, remember what love is — “Herein is love, not that we loved God, because that he loved us, and sent his Son to be the propitiation for our sins. Beloved, if God so loved us, we ought also to love one another.”
Also very well demonstrated by Jesus, washing the feet, even the feet of a man who he knew would betray Him that night, and another who would deny Him. It’s remarkable stuff!
And again, I’m not directing this at anyone in particular…just all of us. Sorry, I went on for so long.
You said
“5. Jesus said He could forgive our sin.
Driscoll noted under this point that “God needs to forgive us, love us, pursue us, embrace us, cleanse us, renew us, and restore us. Jesus is going to die on the cross to pay for our sins so that we could become new people with new lives, new hopes, new dreams, new passions, new pleasures, and new purposes for our whole life.”
Mark, I am afraid you once again failed in both your understanding of Scripture and your delivery. First, God NEEDS NOTHING! Second, Jesus did NOT die so we could have the things Driscoll mentions. He died so that we would be saved from the wrath to come. He died to satisfy the just penalty that every sinner rightly deserves. 2 Cor. 5:21 makes it clear that He died so that we would become new creations in Christ.”
I think you failed to understand his use of the word ‘need’
Let me explain.
God did not ‘need’ to create us
God did not ‘need’ to save us
But God decided in his sovereignty to create a race that he knew would fall into sin.
God decided in his sovereign will not only to create, but to redeem a people.
Once God had chosen to do this, he ‘needed’ to do so in line with his character and attributes. So God DID need to save us in a particular way so that his own justice was satisfied. Any other way wouldn’t do.
God didn’t ‘need’ to save us
But having decided so to do, he did ‘need’ to do it in a certain way.
I believe this is what Driscoll is referring to.
Actually, we ‘need’ a Savior and we are helpless, so we ‘need’ someone to do it for us.
If I could add to what gj said, look up the number of times Jesus said “must” in connection to the word “cross”. Dr. Robert Morey, in his book “Studies in the Atonement”, used this as proof that the cross was the ONLY means by which we could be saved. His graph leaves only one option: Christ needed to die on a cross.
Perhaps we have overlooked the fact that God sends Jesus because He is a loving God.
I like Piper’s view that God loves us because He loves himself and wants glory.
The amazing thing is that he wants to share that love with wretched unworthy sinners.
Jesus comes into history and to those who are being saved he is winsome, loving and kind. But to those who reject him, he is hard to understand and judgemental.
Do we believe that a sovereign God will call his elect through winsome preaching? Do we really trust that God will save to the utmost those who he is calling?
Did not CH Spurgeon get saved by a replacement preacher who could only say “Look ye unto him” – a preacher who missed a whole load of theology – no judgement, no clear definition of sin.
Thankfully God is sovereign.
That makes me really glad.
_____________________________________________________________________________
Roseborough at Pirate Christian Radio loved his sermon.
Said he dealt with the law ‘lawfully’ and pointed people to Jesus for repentance and forgiveness of sins.
You can listen to the whole sermon and his comments on it on his radio show aired just this week
Frank,
I see little difference between Driscoll and Osteen. Mixing just a drop of poison is lethal. Driscoll is a wolf in sheep’s clothing, as is Osteen. A false teacher is a false teacher, God does not see a wolf as any other thing but just that…a wolf.
I’m a little late coming into this as I’ve been on a trip. When I clicked on the link there was only part of the video available.
The transcription of what was in the message did not contain some of the things quoted above in the original post, such as number 5, nether did the written transcription. You might want to go back and see.
Here’s the explanation given on the website:
Vintage Jesus
Unfortunately the full hour of this week’s episode is not available. We apologize for the inconvenience but you can still view the episode in segments.
Message: Mark Driscoll
Guest: Bill Dallas
Music: Bridgette Bentley
Music: Mark Schultz
Choir: Crystal Cathedral Choir
What’s up with that?
Lyn,
You didn’t really answer my question. And really, saying it doesn’t make it so. You’ll have to give me more than a tautology or just a lumping of people together.
My question again was
“You think Osteen would EVER preach the kind of Christology Driscoll preached on Sunday?”
Re: my last comment: this may be because I am on a Mac system and was not able to get it all. That happens sometimes.
Could you possibly post the entire transcription that you have on here in full? From what I did get I wouldn’t say it was a total failure, more like a soft gospel intended for a certain audience who responds to that sort of thing. When in Rome … seems to be Mark’s method of operation, whether it’s with the street folks or the ‘elite’. Noticed he wore a suit this time. Hmmm… quite a departure from his usual style of dress.
Thanks, and God bless.
Nope, it’s not because of a Mac system. I have a PC and it came up that way for me, too! Not sure what has happened with it!
To mbaker:
One of the problems (there were several) in Driscoll’s speech was this statement:
“Paul says that death is our great enemy. That we will all die. Some of you are on the precipice of the end of your life wondering what awaits you on the other side. What awaits you on the other side is Jesus who has conquered death and came back to tell us He did die and He did rise, He did so on a Sunday. That’s why every Sunday, a few billion people on the earth gather to remember Jesus, not as a dead example, but as a living Savior. As the one who hears our prayers, who forgives our sins, who changes our lives, who guarantees our eternity and who conquers our death.”
Maybe I missed it, but I listened to this, and read it after listening, and I couldn’t find that he gave any qualifier for this. No mention of repentance. No mention of eternal punishment for those who do not believe the Gospel. To those sitting there, and those listening, who are “on the precipice of the end of your life” (that is, who are close to physically dying), he assured them that Jesus is waiting for them when they die. No mention that He might be their judge rather than Savior. On the contrary, he clearly infered as their Savior. To all who are dying. That isn’t biblical. On the contrary, to tell just anyone that they are going to heaven when they die is heretical. To tell the reported millions of viewers of the “hour of power” broadcast that they are all going to heaven when they die (and he didn’t say anything to the contrary) is to give false eternal security to an awful lot of people.
Don’t forget, too he said a few billion remember Jesus as their savior every Sunday. Oh, really? Some 1/3 of the world population are true Christians? Didn’t Jesus Himself say the way to heaven is narrow and those who find it are few? Who does Driscoll consider to be a Christian?
Dear Lydia:
You said:
Funny how Martin Luther measured the success of the reformation in terms of persecution. We measure it in terms of a leader’s relevance to culture and popularity.
If DefCon ever had a top ten comments list, yours would definitely make it in the top three.
Dear David:
You said:
My heart goes out to those of his followers who are perhaps new to the faith, and perhaps are unaware of Driscoll’s abuses of the pulpit. But then there are also the militant defenders of Driscoll who, in supporting him in his errors, display an unwillingness to submit to the authority of the Scriptures. They would rather attack and undermine any effort to expose Driscoll’s errors by God’s word. And they typically do so with endless word games attempting to distract from the issue at hand.
I was beginning to wonder if I was the only one who noticed the myriad of distractions and word games being played here. I’m glad someone else noticed it to.
Since this thread fell victim to these distractions I’ve published a new post that deals directly with the problem of Driscoll’s appearance at the Crystal Cathedral.
- The Pilgrim
Frank
I don’t believe Driscoll preaches any ‘Christology’. Again, Driscoll mixes just enough truth with poison to sound good to his followers. You either preach truth, in its entirety, or you don’t. Too many are looking for loopholes, or they want to ‘cut him some slack’. God deserves better than that, and He demands it.
Matt,
We did listen to the message very carefully. I would highly recommend you either go troll on another blogsite or read our Rules of Engagement before you attempt to leave one more comment at DefCon. We rightly question anybody who has the audacity to support what Driscoll is doing. Sadly, those who defend people like Driscoll would definitely have had an issue with Paul, Peter, and even the words of the Lord Jesus Christ for they called people to account for their sins and demanded repentance.
The Desert Pastor
Desert Pastor:
I invite you to look in at a blog I visit. The blog’s administrator posted an article on Driscoll’s appearance at the CC. Below I link you to a point in the brief thread where you’ll find the two most recent comments.
The first is by a Rod Hodgamn who claimed on Driscoll’s preaching , “…I considered both sermons to be valid gospel messages.” To which I replied in by linking back to this article by you with an excerpt. See-
Mark Driscoll can Preach a Serious, Reverent Message About Christ
LM
“You either preach truth, in its entirety, or you don’t.”
Lyn,
I ask that you would reconsider your stance on this statement or at least rephrase it. I don’t know of anyone in history who has ever taught nothing but truth… except our Lord Jesus. I don’t think any of us can preach truth in its entirety due to our fallen nature, even though we should strive for it daily.
waywardnowhome,
If you are in the pulpit you had BETTER be preaching the truth in its entirety… or step down, sir!
In Jesus,
- Jeff H
The Bible is very clear that if a person in a position of leadership is NOT preaching the truth in its entirety then they will answer to God for that. Better NOT to preach if you are going to preach anything other than the truth!
I am in the process of deciding for myself on Mark Driscoll. I dont necessarily find your arguments against him overly theo centric so I dont see too much meat behind your arguments.
I also have read Pipers comments on Driscoll. Pipers sees Driscoll like a son that will change if he has made errors and yes, Mark Driscoll has made errors and has had to readjust his sails. Piper also said Driscoll’s theology is “spot on”.
Can you lead me to more complete sources against Mark Driscoll as I make my own decision?
Driscoll is a carnal, foul-mouthed, perverted sexual deviant. He is a porno-preacher.
John Piper’s idea that God loves us because He loves himself and His glory is idiotic and narcississtic at its worst. “Christian” hedonism is idiotic, unBiblical and blasphemous. But hey, Calvinism is a blasphemous doctrine, so going further into it, as Piper does, is no surprise.
True love is to look away from ourselves. God loves us because He IS LOVE, and because he is full of compassion. Christ did not consider himself, but denied Himself out of love so as to die for the world.
Ok, I read all the comments on this admittedly older post and there are a couple of Driscoll discussions on my blog as I write this.
No one has addressed this? I will:
“Schuller began by asking Driscoll how he came to know the Lord. This should have been the first opportunity for Driscoll to be NOT ASHAMED OF THE GOSPEL OF CHRIST, yet HE FAILED MISERABLY!
Driscoll responded, “I started reading the Bible and learned about Jesus.” This was followed by an off-handed attempt at humor. He continued by saying, “I got excited about Jesus and have been excited ever since!””
(I, for one, do believe he’s saved, though I admittedly question some of his teaching/preaching methods. It is NOT. UP. TO. ME. to question his salvation. That is God’s job.) Anyway, my point. Because of that one statement, we’re going to assume he’s not saved and is leading people astray? Because he didn’t mention in that one statement his sin and his need for repentance? Let me ask you this: my son is 5. He is saved. I know this, because I know my son. I, too, was saved at 5. Does a 5 year old understand repentance, hell, and sin? No. But a 5 year old understands the need for Jesus in his heart. Does this make my 5 year old a heretic because he “prayed the sinner’s prayer”? At any rate…I digress…when my 5 year old is 39, like Driscoll, and has the opportunity to share with someone how he got saved, he would be lying if he included the words hell, repentance, and sin in telling *his* story, because how *he* got saved is by asking Jesus into his heart. So the fact that Driscoll read the Bible and got excited about Jesus does not mean that he is not saved or that he’s not preaching the Gospel. We don’t know his heart. We DO know that he does preach the Gospel, though some of you don’t (want to?) admit that.
I’ve questioned him, admittedly. But I’ve looked at his theology and his soteriology and I can’t argue with it. I can’t. He’s rock solid.
His methodology is questionable, I grant that. Maturity issue? Maybe. Arrogance? Maybe.
But the only perfect preacher to ever walk the earth was Jesus.
Have we forgotten that?
It’s sad how many people are willing to say “we should not say someone is not saved” but find it so easy to say that “someone is saved”.
So, if God is the judge of who is saved or not saved, why do people condemn those who confront teachers like Driscoll (who’s fruits truly show who he is) as saying we say he is not saved YET are so quick to say that Driscoll is saved without any evidence of the sort?
I’ll be waiting for the answer……..
I’m not sure there is an answer. Can you tell me where in the Bible it says we–men–should determine who is and is not saved?
And please don’t pull out passages about holding other believers accountable to the Word of God. That’s not the same. We ALL fall short. Every day. That’s what grace is for.
I’ll be waiting for the answer…
Mt 7:15 ¶ Beware of false prophets, which come to you in sheep’s clothing, but inwardly they are ravening wolves.
Mt 7:16 Ye shall know them by their fruits. Do men gather grapes of thorns, or figs of thistles?
Mt 7:17 Even so every good tree bringeth forth good fruit; but a corrupt tree bringeth forth evil fruit.
Mt 7:18 A good tree cannot bring forth evil fruit, neither can a corrupt tree bring forth good fruit.
Mt 7:19 Every tree that bringeth not forth good fruit is hewn down, and cast into the fire.
Mt 7:20 Wherefore by their fruits ye shall know them.
Mt 7:21 ¶ Not every one that saith unto me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdom of heaven; but he that doeth the will of my Father which is in heaven.
Mt 7:22 Many will say to me in that day, Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied in thy name? and in thy name have cast out devils? and in thy name done many wonderful works?
Mt 7:23 And then will I profess unto them, I never knew you: depart from me, ye that work iniquity.
Mt 7:24 Therefore whosoever heareth these sayings of mine, and doeth them, I will liken him unto a wise man, which built his house upon a rock:
Ac 20:29 For I know this, that after my departing shall grievous wolves enter in among you, not sparing the flock.
Ac 20:30 Also of your own selves shall men arise, speaking perverse things, to draw away disciples after them.
Ro 16:17 ¶ Now I beseech you, brethren, mark them which cause divisions and offences contrary to the doctrine which ye have learned; and avoid them.
Ro 16:18 For they that are such serve not our Lord Jesus Christ, but their own belly; and by good words and fair speeches deceive the hearts of the simple.
2Ti 3:1 ¶ This know also, that in the last days perilous times shall come.
2Ti 3:2 For men shall be lovers of their own selves, covetous, boasters, proud, blasphemers, disobedient to parents, unthankful, unholy,
2Ti 3:3 Without natural affection, trucebreakers, false accusers, incontinent, fierce, despisers of those that are good,
2Ti 3:4 Traitors, heady, highminded, lovers of pleasures more than lovers of God;
2Ti 3:5 Having a form of godliness, but denying the power thereof: from such turn away.
Mt 7:16 Ye shall know them by their fruits. Do men gather grapes of thorns, or figs of thistles?
Mt 7:17 Even so every good tree bringeth forth good fruit; but a corrupt tree bringeth forth evil fruit.
Mt 7:18 A good tree cannot bring forth evil fruit, neither can a corrupt tree bring forth good fruit.
Mt 7:19 Every tree that bringeth not forth good fruit is hewn down, and cast into the fire.
Mt 7:20 Wherefore by their fruits ye shall know them.
Mt 12:33 Either make the tree good, and his fruit good; or else make the tree corrupt, and his fruit corrupt: for the tree is known by his fruit.
Yeah, those are all good.
But where is the verse that says “And make a judgement for yourself if someone is saved or not.” Or something of the like.
Verse 12:33 sums it up. You can know someone by their fruit, and if their fruit is bad, rotten, no good, then what more can one say.
You will know them by their fruits.
Matthew 7:20-23 Wherefore by their fruits ye shall know them. (21) Not every one that saith unto me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdom of heaven; but he that doeth the will of my Father which is in heaven. (22) Many will say to me in that day, Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied in thy name? and in thy name have cast out devils? and in thy name done many wonderful works? (23) And then will I profess unto them, I never knew you: depart from me, ye that work iniquity.
RWM ~
You said you believe Driscoll is saved. By saying that, you have made a judgment for yourself.
The Bible is clear that we will know those who are saved by their fruits. I have read the things that Driscoll has said & done, read the stories about who he associates himself with, and more. The man’s fruits stink worse than a garbage dump in New Jersey.
As for your mention of grace, are we to abuse it? I see many people who claim to be Christians who abuse it greatly. They believe they can constantly sin and yet feel nothing because they know they have been saved by grace. We do struggle greatly with sin, but the difference is you know those who are saved by their hating of their sins and their going to the Lord to forgive them. You can see those who show no signs of salvation by the ways that they live & act & say.
RW Mama:
You wrote, “Because of that one statement, we’re going to assume he’s not saved and is leading people astray?”
Saved? Probably. Leading people astray? Definitely!
LM
DavidT– Your point is somewhat valid and somewhat not. If we are to judge neither who is saved nor who isn’t…perhaps we should just focus on first what Jesus has done for each of us, and then pray for those we believe to be lost, and witness to those we believe to be lost. That’s better than issuing judgement in either regard, is it not?
Lou–
I would agree with your response.
Thank you!
The Bible gives the guidelines; you will know them by their fruit. Mark Driscoll is in dire need of repentance, and our prayers.
Right Wing Momma:
“But I’ve looked at his theology and his soteriology and I can’t argue with it. I can’t. He’s rock solid.” No, his WORDS are orthodox. The key issue is, what “jesus” does Driscoll preach? His outright blasphemy of Almighty God, as well as of Jesus, presenting a different “jesus” than He Who is described in the Scriptures, makes his “Gospel” orthodox in words only, but not in substance. To say he preaches the Gospel becomes meaningless when his “jesus” is not the sinless, non-worldly, non-fleshly, pure and all-holy Son of God.
We would do well to remember what Jesus Himself said (given already above by Mike Hernandez):
“Wherefore by their fruits you shall know them. Not every one that saith unto me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdom of heaven; but he that doeth the will of my Father which is in heaven. Many will say to me in that day, Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied in thy name? and in thy name have cast out devils? and in thy name done many wonderful works? And then will I profess unto them, I never knew you: depart from me, ye that work iniquity. (Matt. 7:20-23)
It is clear, acknowledging Jesus as “Lord”, doing “many wonderful works” in His name, even (apparently) believing one is a Christian, means NOTHING to Jesus, if we are ALSO practicing what He forbids (“iniquity”). Mr. Driscoll continues this day to practice what God forbids, continues to teach false doctrines. Notice also, Jesus did not say we would know them by their words. Anyone can say the “right” words. Their fruit is what tells us who is a Christian and who is not.
But you say we are not to make such judgments? How else are we to know who to fellowship with, and who not to fellowship with? It is imperative we make such judgments. Since we are not to be yoked with unbelievers, it is crucial we determine who are believers and who aren’t. Since we are not to keep company with anyone who claims to be a brother yet walks contrary to the Scriptures (1Cor. 5:11-13), we are directly commanded to make such judgments.
It might benefit you, and give you greater understanding as to where many of us stand regarding Mr. Driscoll, to read through the other posts on Driscoll on this site (type in “Driscoll” in the search box). This one instance concerning Driscoll and Schuller is but the tip of the iceberg. We do not judge him by “this one statement” as you accuse us of.