Mark Driscoll mocks the Sinlessness of Jesus Christ

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Grieving for the downhill slides in the church,

The Desert Pastor

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The Desert Pastor

Who will be sharing the stage with John Piper?

The list of those invited to speak at John Piper’s 2008 National Conference includes Mark Driscoll (see this post from Coram Deo). In the following video of John Piper, he does his best to “defend” and “justify” why he has invited Mark Driscoll.

But while the debate rages over Mark Driscoll’s appearance at this conference, it seems that there’s much less  discussion over another individual who is scheduled to speak at this same conference. His name is Paul Tripp. And Paul Tripp has a little video in which he discusses What makes bad language bad?

I was hesitant to post the video of Paul Tripp due to its nature (I refused to watch the whole thing myself) but I think it illustrates for people the severity by which John Piper is compromising by having people like Driscoll and Tripp at his conference.

I have reservations about posting the video on DefCon, but for those who simply wouldn’t believe it if I told them about it, here’s the link to the video of Paul Tripp’s flippant use of profanity (you have been warned).

Longing for the preachers of old.

Be prepared to witness one of the most pointless, narcissistic, self-centered, and shallow preaching testimony drivel in just under six minutes that you’ll ever subject your senses to.

This monologue is completely devoid of any reference to Jesus Christ and not supported by even one shred of Scripture, but it fits perfectly in today’s mile-wide, inch-deep church of “entertain me.”

After watching this video you will long even that much more for the preachers of old.

For some background and to better understand the foolishness that she’s talking about, see this post, this post and this post.

Book review: “Justification and Regeneration” by Charles Leiter.

I recently completed the book Justification and Regeneration by Charles Leiter (with a forward by Paul Washer). This was a great book that explained in the simplest of terms the difference between justification and regeneration in the life of a believer.

It’s a quick and easy read and I highly recommend this book, especially to those who struggle to understand the difference between justification and regeneration.

You can purchase the book from Monergism. Thanks to Tom Rayborn from Christ Church Alton for sending me this book.

John MacArthur on Mark Driscoll

John MacArthur

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

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

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

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

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

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

See part two by clicking here.

Boston’s Old South Meeting House

On a recent vacation, my wife and I spent a day in Boston visiting some interesting historic sights. The Old South Meeting House, where we stopped first, was a Puritan church building. (The Puritans never called their buildings churches, as they recognized that the church is the people who make up the body of Christ.) The building held many types of meetings with a variety of famous orators, including George Whitfield. It’s most well-known, however, for the meeting in which 5,000 colonists gathered to discuss the British tax on tea. When Samuel Adams gave the pre-arranged signal to begin the tea party by saying, “This meeting can do nothing more to save the country” the Sons of Liberty stormed out and emptied three tea ships of their cargo.

Today, the Old South Meeting House is a museum, with displays for each phase of the structure’s history. These include statues of some important people who have been involved in the history of the building. Margaret Sanger, the founder of Planned Parenthood, has been honored with a statue for her stance on freedom of speech. She wanted to speak at the meeting house, but the mayor of Boston prohibited her (and many others) from speaking because of her controversial views. In protest, she covered her mouth with a piece of fabric.

While I support everyone’s right to free speech in public places, I think it’s curious that the museum chose to honor Margaret Sanger, an avowed racist and proponent of genocide. Here are a few of her quotes:

“The most merciful thing that the large family does to one of its infant members is to kill it.”
Woman and the New Race

“Birth control must lead ultimately to a cleaner race.”
Woman, Morality, and Birth Control. New York: New York Publishing Company, 1922. Page 12.

“We should hire three or four colored ministers, preferably with social-service backgrounds, and with engaging personalities. The most successful educational approach to the Negro is through a religious appeal. We don’t want the word to go out that we want to exterminate the Negro population.”
Margaret Sanger’s December 19, 1939 letter to Dr. Clarence Gamble
 
I wonder what the curator’s thought process was when he or she chose to honor Margaret Sanger with a statue. Did the museum’s decision makers realize they were honoring a very evil person—one who sought extermination of an entire group of people? Why didn’t they honor the KKK members or someone else who was prohibited from speaking at the meeting house? As a museum customer, I was offended that someone so wicked had been honored with a life-size statue.

Quotes (381)

Do you know why it says at the end of the age that the Lamb will take wrath on the world? I think it’s because there will be a crystal clear reminder—he didn’t always show up this way, He showed up once in the middle of history as a real Lamb; let Himself be ripped to shreds, mocked, spit upon, dishonored, hung on a stick, treated like dirt in order to rescue us from the wrath of His Father and it was God’s idea. And when He comes the second time it will be so plain: This is the crucified Lamb with the sword coming out of His mouth hewing people in pieces who would not have Him. Know your Christ, Christian, and tremble, with joy.

– John Piper

Your Sermon of the week: “Romans 3” by Paul Washer.

Your sermon of the week is Romans 3 by Paul Washer. Many of the sermons featured on DefCon are directed toward those already converted (or at least warming a pew). I have been looking for a good sermon for the lost and I think this one may be it.

I think this message provides a clear presentation of the gospel, one that the unconverted outisde the church needs to hear as well as the unconverted inside the church.

Ravi’s crash and burn.

I’ve previously reported on Ravi Zacharias’ failure to preach the Gospel to those following a counterfeit Christ after he was invited to speak at the Mormon Temple in Salt Lake City (see here). Then I posted on Ravi’s descent into the abyss of compromise (see here) when he refused to pray in the name of Jesus Christ at the latest National Day of Prayer (Coram Deo even wrote a piece on Ravi’s compromise here).

And now Ravi Zacharias is proving yet again that compromise will always take a man where he never intended to go.

RAVI’S CRASH:

Ravi speaks favorably of Henri Nouwen and can be seen in the following video (at the 5:47 mark) calling this Roman Catholic mystic “one of the greatest saints of recent memory.”


Ken Silva has also weighed in on this here.

RAVI’S BURN:

And what started as a little compromise here and there, seems to have started a snowball rolling for Ravi. Slaughter of the Sheep is reporting that Ravi Zacharias will now be speaking at none other than the Crystal Cathedral at Robert Schuller’s infamous ReThink Conference scheduled for February 2009. Lighthouse Trails is also on top of Ravi’s latest compromise with the rank heretic Schuller in a piece they did here.

Witnessing at the Democratic National Convention

A friend and I met some guys from Nebraska to go witnessing at the Democratic National Convention in Denver last month. It was quite interesting to see the overwhelming police presence, the great number of reporters, and the creepy protestors. The guys from Nebraska have some interesting witnessing techniques that I wasn’t sure about at the beginning, but after observing them in action, I realized they were effective ways to get conversations started easily.

The Nebraskans had three 5’x7’ signs, which they display on poles. The large signs can be seen from quite a distance. The one we were using says, “It’s your choice: Jesus or hell.” Of course, to think about myself standing there with a sign was a little bit of a gut check. Do I really want to take such a bold stand for the gospel? Is this drawing too much attention to me? (Of course, it’s important to exercise wisdom about the proper venue for such a sign.) After seeing many people walk up to these guys and ask questions about the gospel—whether to start a debate or with genuine questions—the effectiveness was evident. They didn’t have to try to start conversations with people. People interested in conversing came to them. At various points, the sign drew quite a crowd of people with whom to discuss our faith.

Witnessing with the sign near the state capitol.

Witnessing with the sign near the state capitol.

 One Nebraska friend also came with a tract specially written for the event titled, “Jesus doesn’t vote Republican” and in fine print, “(Democrat either).” It explained that Jesus, as the King of Kings, appoints to office whomever He wants, and it gave a solid gospel message. We were folding about 200 copies in Office Max when a young man asked if he could read it. He quickly glanced at the title, announced he was with the Ralph Nader campaign, and asked if we would like to have a table at the Green Party event the following day. We told him that we’d be interested, but we didn’t hold out much hope that the offer would stand after they scrutinized the message of the tract. He just said that he’d have a lady from the campaign call us with the details.

After folding the tracts, we went witnessing at the interfaith assembly, packed with people. One of the Nebraskans who stood there with the sign must have had 50 pictures taken of him, and was interviewed by various media outlets multiple times. I handed out about 150 tracts. Most people were busily going wherever they were headed, and not too interested in having conversations, although I did have a couple.

After a couple of hours, we went to the park in front of the state Capitol where the protest parades were beginning. Our original plan was to eat lunch—until we heard a singer in a band performing there said that there would be no Judgment Day. We took that to mean that the people there needed to hear the truth about Judgment Day, and we set up our sign in the park. The people were open to talking; each of us had many good conversations there.

While the other guys were standing with the big sign, they passed me a little sign that said, “Repent for the kingdom of God is near.” I leaned against my leg and passed out tracts to the people who walked past. Several people came up and talked to me. I was interviewed by a Fort Collins radio station, and I gave a quick gospel message. I was also interviewed by a Boulder newspaper. The other guys were interviewed on camera by BET and Al Gore TV and others, so I hope the gospel got on the air somewhere.

The next morning, the lady from the Ralph Nader campaign called, and gave us the details about setting up a table at the rally, which was held at the University of Denver arena. We were the sole Christian table. Others had messages such as stop torturing terrorists, impeach Bush, give Israel to the Palestinians, fight for women’s rights at work, and support the Sierra Club. It was clearly miraculous for us to get the opportunity to pass out tracts and witness inside a far left event.

Our table at the Ralph Nader rally.

Our table at the Ralph Nader rally.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

The people were nicer than I had expected at all of the events. I’ve found that oftentimes those who hold tolerance as the highest virtue fail to exercise tolerance of Christians, but most people behaved well. There was no shortage of leftists with their far-out ideas, but the worst thing to see was the “sweet,” little, old pro-choice ladies.

I’m sold on the sign evangelism technique. I think every Christian should be handed his or her own huge sign as he or she exits the baptismal waters. Until then, we’ll all have to procure our own.

Jeff Noblit on Church discipline coming to South Carolina.

Wendi from Declared Righteous by Christ Alone asked if I would be willing to publish an advertisement on an upcoming Church discipline conference by Pastor Jeff Noblit. Knowing Pastor Noblit’s uncompromising preaching, I am honored to get the word out.

Exactly one month from today, Pastor Jeff Noblit will be at Holly Ridge Baptist Church in Blacksburg, South Carolina speaking on Church discipline.

A Mormon Mistake

Mormons believe that Jesus is Jehovah, (the LORD in most versions of the Old Testament). I would certainly agree with them on that. Since that is the case, it becomes very easy to refute most of what they believe about Jesus.

Those who adhere to the teachings of Mormonism believe Jesus hasn’t always existed. But Psalm 90:2, referring to Jehovah, says, “…even from everlasting to everlasting, thou art God.” They say you should only pray to the Father, but throughout the Old Testament, people prayed to Jehovah (Genesis 25:21 says, “Isaac prayed to the LORD on behalf of his wife, because she was barren. The LORD answered his prayer, and his wife Rebekah became pregnant.”)

Latter-day Saints also believe at least three gods exist: The Father is a god called Elohim, the Holy Spirit is a god, and Jesus is a god. According to the Bible, however, before Jehovah there was no God formed, nor will there be after Him (Isaiah 43:10).

Clearly, whoever came up with the concept that the Father is Elohim and Jesus is Jehovah had zero knowledge of Hebrew. Elohim is the Hebrew word for God, and Jehovah is God’s name (Psalm 83:18). There are dozens of verses that claim Jehovah is Elohim. Deuteronomy 4:35 says, “Unto thee it was shewed, that thou mightest know that the LORD [Jehovah] he is God [Elohim]; there is none else beside him.”

Furthermore, a belief in three separate gods makes mincemeat out of the first of the Ten Commandments. The first commandment (Exodus 20:3) says, “Thou shalt have no other gods before me.” Jehovah wrote that with His finger in stone. If that is Jesus speaking, as the second god, is it blasphemy for Him to say that we should have no gods before Him? What about the Father? If it’s the Father speaking, why is Jesus worshipped by the angels (Hebrews 1:6)? Aren’t the angels obligated to obey the Ten Commandments?

Mormons would like us to believe that the Bible is corrupted, and Joseph Smith was able to restore the truth. They have to believe the Bible is corrupted, because if it weren’t, the LDS church would cease to exist. Here’s a chicken or egg question for you: Did Mormonism come about because Joseph Smith thought the Bible was corrupt, or did he teach the Bible was corrupt because he came up with Mormonism?

While there are so many misconceptions about the Trinity, it is the concept that makes sense out of the entire Bible. All of the non-Trinitarian ideas-including those of the Mormons-fall apart when viewed through a Scriptural lens.

Would a Christian vote for Barack Hussein Obama?

Not could a Christian vote for Barack Hussein Obama, but would a Christian vote for Barack Hussein Obama?

When I say “Christian” I don’t mean a lukewarm, name-only, self-deceived “Christian,” but a true, born-again, regenerated Christian (think: the Apostle Paul vs Brian McLaren).

So what are those professing Christians of the Matthew 25 Network in the previous video endorsing?