Jesus the Evangelist to the Unevangelized? Driscoll Thinks So, But I Have Questions
The title of this post is a little bit misleading, but I don’t know of a better way of summing up the following quote. It is taken from a recent article by Mark Driscoll on the subject of evangelism. I appreciate much of what Driscoll says (and does in ministry), and given my particular research topic being that of religious pluralism, I could not help but be left bewildered a bit with the concluding paragraph. Here is what Driscoll writes:
Lastly, the fact that Jesus remains to this day an active evangelist is of great encouragement to me personally. It means that children who are aborted in the womb, those mentally incapable of understanding the gospel, and those people who have lived in times and places that missionaries did not visit are not necessarily beyond the hope of salvation. Indeed, Jesus could visit and save anyone anywhere because He remains The Evangelist.
In these few sentences, a whole can of theological worms come out. The salvation of the infant and mentally handicapped, the mission of God in relation to the church, the message of salvation, and the means by which one is saved all come into play. If I read Driscoll correctly, he is saying that the hope he has in the salvation of the unevangelized (by Christians, that is) as well as the unborn, infants, and mentally incapable is because Jesus is the great Evangelist. But what does he mean by that?
One theological option, though held by very few today, is a thing called post-mortem evangelism (PME) where Jesus will encounter those who did not have the chance to respond to the gospel and ask them whether they want to go to heaven. In other words, if the church failed to do their job, then Jesus would make up for it between this life and the life to come with His own evangelistic work. The proof text used to support this position is 1 Pet. 3:19.
Another theological option is inclusivism, though it comes in various forms. It can be as loose and extreme as the Roman Catholic Karl Rahner’s “anonymous Christian” and conservative as the Reformed Terrance Tiessen’s “accessibilism” (though he would not equate it with traditional inclusivism. Most common in evangelical inclusivism is that of Clark Pinnock and John Sanders who argue that it is not Jesus who is the evangelist but the Holy Spirit whose mission far exceeds the bounds of Christian witness. By definition, inclusivists argue that Jesus is ontological necessary (His person and work of atonement) but not epistemologically necessary (people come to God without hearing or knowing of Jesus Christ). Basically, the Holy Spirit applies general revelation (information known to all people at all times via creation and conscience) and applies it salvifically with the aid of prevenient grace. That is perhaps an oversimplification, but my point is merely to give a broad overview of this position and its inflections.
Leaving out soteriological pluralism and universalism, the only other option is then that of exclusivism (sometimes called restrictivism or particularism). Now again, this position is not as cut and dry either. For instance, there are those who believe that only those who hear the gospel (through any number of means) and respond in faith and repentance are saved. However, there is a softer version of exclusivism that says the hearing the gospel is not necessary, but special revelation is necessary; therefore, God can (and they argue does) reveal Himself savingly to people through dreams or visions immediately (that is, without mediation). Even still there are those who believe that those who respond positively to general revelation will ultimately be “given more light” and be saved by special revelation. Lastly, there are those who affirm the necessity of knowing Christ but hold out with a theological agnosticism with the hopes that the unevangelized will be saved due to the kindness and mercy of God. The special cases of infants and mentally handicapped are generally included in God’s saving plan on the distinction of (1) natural vs. moral ability and (2) original sin vs. original guilt, distinguishing these cases from that of the unevangelized.
Having laid out the various positions, what is so confusing to me is that Driscoll’s response could be taken potentially all three ways: (1) post-mortem evangelism because Jesus will “evangelize” them Himself, presumably after they die; (2) a variation of inclusivism; or (3) a form of soft exclusivism where Jesus reveals Himself to people in dreams or visions savingly. I am inclined that, given Driscoll’s charismatic beliefs (or mysticism) and theological influences, he would likely be in the third category. But this still begs for more questions.
For instance, where it is being reported that people (Muslims in closed countries especially) are having dreams and visions of Jesus, most if not all missionaries affirm that those visions did not result in their conversion or salvation but rather served the purpose of leading them away from their religion and seeking answers through the gospel. But assuming that Driscoll is saying that Jesus evangelizes through special revelation outside the gospel, how reliable would that dream or vision be? From that vision, what will that person’s Christian life look like? Will Jesus continue to reveal Himself mystically on a regular basis, discipling that person whom He evangelized? Inasmuch as Driscoll hopes that the unevangelized will be evangelized by Jesus, I hope that the unevangelized will also be discipled by Jesus because there will be no one around to do that work. If that does not happen, then is that view of salvation not as dangerous as the person who prayers a prayer and “asks Jesus into their heart” and do not follow Christ? Is there a legitimate difference?
The reason I bring this up is because this issue is hugely important. There are missiological, ecclesiological, pneumatological, soteriological, and Christological issues of major consequence that need to be addressed. In all of that, we do need to confess both (1) the sufficiency of Scripture and (2) our finite knowledge and fallibility. Nevertheless, we do not have the luxury to speak ambiguously on matters of first importance, especially when related to Jesus, the gospel, and the mission. Regarding Driscoll’s argument for Jesus as an Evangelist of the unevangelized, the Refomational principle of sola Scriptura requires biblical warrant and justification for both adhering and advocating a position that, ironically, creates a divide between Christ and His Great Commission.
Tags: Evangelism, Inclusivism, Mark Driscoll
You can comment below, or link to this permanent URL from your own site.
January 7, 2009 at 10:34 am
I don’t know if this clears anything up but in the Mars Hill Gospel class in the chart of soteriology and the position of their elders it speaks to the issue of those who have never heard and states that “some are likely saved”… Now I do not know by what means, but it seems to be consistent with their belief set. Even reading it then was sure if it was soft exclusivism or a really conservative inclusivism.
January 7, 2009 at 10:38 am
Oops, last sentence should have been: Even reading it then I was not sure if it was soft exclusivism or a really conservative inclusivism.
January 7, 2009 at 11:59 am
Great discussion! I am currently teaching through the Westminster Confession of Faith and we are currently looking at Natural (or General) Revelation vs. Special Revelation. I agree, this is a very important topic – impacting all of those theological catagories that you listed.
January 7, 2009 at 1:13 pm
I believe that God can and does work in the way Mark Driscoll has posted. I am reading a book right now entitled Eternity In Their Hearts by Don Richardson, that has over twenty stories of how God prepared people who having never had a missionary, never having a Bible, or heard the gospel, came to Christ in droves when missionaries did arrive and gave the gospel.
Paul encountered this in his journeys, and there is the story of Ninevah and Jonah, whose people God prepared to receive the gospel. I do not believe it would fall into the category of any of the positions you have described here. It’s God’s grace pure and simple. We may think we understand how God works, yet he is beyond and above all that we think. We won’t get it until heaven.
January 7, 2009 at 1:56 pm
Debbie, the problem is you say they “came to Christ in droves WHEN THE MISSIONARIES DID ARRIVE.” Timmy’s talking about when missionaries don’t arrive. Paul seems to argue pretty clearly in Romans that they can’t believe in one of whom they have not heard, and they cannot hear unless missionaries are sent.
Driscoll seems to be saying some people are saved without any preacher (missionary) being sent to them, and without any outward hearing of the gospel or God’s Word. To me, that’s a pretty big problem.
January 7, 2009 at 2:07 pm
Debbie,
You are right to argue that Don Richardson’s books have been used anecdotally to support the position of inclusivists (Gerald McDermott comes to mind), but here are two really important questions that we must answer as we enter the discussion:
(1) What role (assuming that it does) the Bible play in your understanding of the fate of the unevangelized? It is authoritative? Sufficient? Silent? Supplementary? etc.
(2) What must a person believe in order to be saved? And following that, does the message of salvation change depending upon circumstances?
There are several ways to approach this issue, but these two questions, IMO, rise to the surface.
January 7, 2009 at 2:25 pm
Pondering #2 of Timmy’s response to Debbie:
“What must a person believe to be saved?”
Given: one cannot be saved without first being regenerated. Does faith/belief precede regeneration or regeneration precede faith/belief? If its the former, what is the barebones essential doctrines that must be articulated, then first believed so that one can be saved (sounds like a work, but I know its not)? If its the latter (this is where I stand), what must be articulated so the Holy Sprit can regenerate the elect, leading them to believe (sounds like the Spirit is subject to our articulation, but I know its not). Of course regeneration and faith are most likely simultaneous.
Truly, I have a dizzying intellect.
January 7, 2009 at 2:46 pm
Tim,
You said (with respect to some inclusivists): “Basically, the Holy Spirit applies general revelation (information known to all people at all times via creation and conscience) and applies it salvifically with the aid of prevenient grace.”
This reminds me of a similar position I recently heard articulated by William Lane Craig, but he argued for…almost sort of a different-levels-of-heaven-or-hell type of judgment for those who have not heard or been exposed to the Gospel. His position was that it is possible that some may be judged according to the measure of (general or special) revelation to which they had access.
I have benefited hugely from some of Dr. Craig’s philosophical work, especially his careful arguments for both objective truth and God’s existence…but I found his take on this issue troubling.
Since you’ve done so much work in this area, I’d enjoy hearing your take on this.
PS – Hopefully, I haven’t misrepresented Craig’s position. I definitely paraphrased what I remember hearing.
Gavin
January 7, 2009 at 3:22 pm
Gavin,
Craig has written an article on the issue of the unevangelized called “‘No Other Name’:A Middle Knowledge Perspective on the Exclusivity of Salvation Through Christ” available online here:
http://www.leaderu.com/offices/billcraig/docs/middle2.html
To put my cards on the table, I am not a Molinist, and if my memory serves me correctly, it seemed that the middle knowledge argument was sort-of a way to get God off the hook (answer the “that’s not fair” objection). Incidentally, Tiessen takes the Molinist position but replaces libertarian free will with compatibilism and argues for what he calls accessiblism built on the premise of “universally sufficient grace” (USG) which, Tiessen argues, is not the same thing as prevenient grace (an argument I am not convinced of). Tiessen and Craig both come with the angle of middle knowledge and employ similar arguments, both they are different in their soteriological convictions and view of human freedom.
January 7, 2009 at 3:37 pm
What an interesting discussion!!!!!
While Driscoll is usually pretty rock solid theologically, at least for the 4 point Calvinists, the dude isn’t perfect. However, I don’t think he is hinting at universalism or any of the other strange and weird beliefs that Tim has shown (which were cool to learn about, never heard of anything like that).
I have had similar thoughts to what Driscoll says as well. Not so much in consideration to people in other nations who haven’t heard, but primarily to the issue of babies. (While God could do that as well, I assume).
While we do not have anything in the Bible about God’s working in these regards, I balance my thinking with Psalm 115:3 – Our God is in the Heavens and does whatever He pleases.
If God wants to show up to a baby in the womb and preach the Gospel and save the baby, praise the Lord. God is capable of doing whatever He wants. I wouldn’t say He does this every time, but I know that He is able. While it is true that babies and mentally retarded people do not have the mental faculties to understand the Gospel, however, it would be wrong to bifurcate between a babies mental ability to understand SPIRITUAL truth with an adult’s.
Adults have no more capability to understand the saving truth of the Gospel than a baby does. They both require the saving and illuminating work of God to help us understand the light of Jesus Christ.
TO BOIL IT DOWN: Driscoll is saying that there is a possibility of something like this (i.e, Jesus showing up to save someone before they die). He could illuminate someones mind, an angel could preach, He could speak directly to them etc…
I feel comfortable hoping for something like this, but I wouldn’t be dogmatic about it.
Driscoll said “Jesus could”, not “Jesus does.” It is possible. Psalm 115:3
January 7, 2009 at 5:09 pm
Jeff,
I know that Driscoll is really big on Jesus, and rightfully so. I am too. However, Driscoll is saying that no one is beyond the hope of salvation because Jesus can exercise His sovereignty and evangelize people Himself. Sounds great. Who doesn’t want to see more people saved? But my question is where does he get that idea? Where’s the biblical support?
So Jesus is sovereign. Right. But can you play the sovereignty card over the biblical card? On what grounds do we have assurance and “hope” (confidence) that Jesus is evangelizing the unevangelized? If we believe the Bible is sufficient to communicate to us the plan, purpose, and message of salvation, then where in the Bible can that argument be made? Richardson’s redemptive analogies and circumstantial evidence on the field (which missionaries will often tell you the various dreams of visions are not salvific) are not legitimate grounds for making a theological assertion or construct. As it is, then, the grounds for Driscoll’s hope is not biblical but speculative, and speculative hermeneutic is not a tenable position in the Reformed tradition.
Also, is it not troubling that the sovereignty of Jesus is used as an alternative to the Great Commission? In other words, as I stated in my post, it is hard to see how such a view of Jesus as an evangelist to the unevangelized does not create a divide between Christ and His Great Commission. Inclusivists argue for a pluralism within particularism–that is, there is only one way (Jesus), but there are many ways within that one way to benefit from His death on the cross. It seems that Driscoll here is arguing for the same thing. Believing in the gospel is *a* way, not the only way to salvation.
If the gospel message by grace alone through faith alone in Christ alone is but one of the various means by which Jesus saves people, then are we even to expect that to be normative? What we have revealed in Scripture is Jesus working by His Spirit and Word through His Church to accomplish His redemptive mission. If there is biblical warrant and weight to argue for something otherwise, I am all ears. But I am not going to entertain speculative conjecturing, especially in regards to the mission of God and the gospel with which we have been entrusted.
Is Jesus committed to His Word? His church? His own Great Commission? To all of these, I affirm with a yes. Does Jesus have a mission as an evangelist to save people in spite of His Word, outside His church, and undermining His Great Commission? To all of these, I deny without hesitation.
January 7, 2009 at 7:25 pm
I see what your saying, but I think Driscoll may be saying (and this is what I am saying)….
- To be saved, it no doubt require a hearing and responding to the Gospel Message.
- Jesus can show up to someone, preach to them, and they respond to Him.
- I don’t think this undermines the great commission. Did it when Jesus appeared to Paul? I think the Sovereignty Card fits under the Biblical card, since Ps 115:3 is in the Bible : )
Just out of curiosity, what is your view on the death of babies, in respect to salvation? I think if all/some go to heaven, it falls inline with election just fine. They were elect according to God’s grace, and in correspondence with all that would happen to them in their life time (e.g. early death).
If this is not true, it is not disturbing to me at all in view of God’s love. It is a horrific commentary on the gravity of sin.
But again, Driscoll’s point (mine as well) is that Jesus COULD do this.
January 7, 2009 at 7:29 pm
Excellent discussion indeed. I had a question stemming from Jeff’s initial comment about Driscoll being a 4 point Calvinist. The Acts 29 doctrinal statement looked to be 5 point Calvinist, with the possible exception of Limited Atonement: is Driscoll 4 or 5? Is Acts 29 4 or 5?
January 7, 2009 at 7:47 pm
Convict finds salvation in prison cell, becomes pastor and counselor
by Mark Driscoll.
Here’s a case where Jesus visited a bloke in prison and told him to pick up a copy of the Gideons’ Bible and read it according to Mark Driscoll. Is that true?
“He was in prison, facing a possible life sentence, when, Scotty says, Jesus came to his cell and told him to read the Gideon’s Bible on the shelf.”
So really, Christians needn’t evangelize? Jesus will do it Himself?
January 7, 2009 at 9:26 pm
“So really, Christians needn’t evangelize? Jesus will do it Himself?”
Could he? If faith comes by hearing the word of Christ, which is why we’re so passionate about preaching, and this pastor was led to the Bible for salvation, then could the case of this pastor in prison happen? Or did he just get lucky?
January 7, 2009 at 9:36 pm
If we are to believe everyone who claims to have had an encounter with Jesus, then scripture is going to begin to take even more of a back seat in the lives of people than ever before. Experience must always align with the Word of God. We need to be always thankful that God has provided a way of salvation, The Bible clearly indicates that he has ordained the preaching of the Gospel as the means by which one is saved. If God is truly omnipotent (and He is), and he has ordained the salvation of a particular person, then he will bring about the means by which that person will hear the saving message of Christ. I simply do not see God working contrary to His Word at anytime since the completion of the cannon of scripture.
January 7, 2009 at 10:53 pm
Jeff,
So suppose Jesus does show up and preach the gospel and the believe in Him, then what? As I mentioned on the post, will they be discipled by Jesus in subsequent visions as well? If this does not happen, then what are we to say about Jesus’ form of evangelism via visions versus via His Word/Spirit and Church? At this point, I admit with angst that much of the church does not take the discipleship even with the Word and Spirit seriously. But that aside, not only is the question of salvation at hand but also what is biblical evangelism as well.
The case with Paul does not comport with the unevangelized for the simple reason that Paul was presented to the church after having spent years in the wilderness. And if Paul thought that his immediate encounter with Jesus was normative, then why did he do all things for the sake of the gospel? Preach where Christ is not named? Sent as a preacher that those may the hear the word of Christ that faith may be created in their hearts (Rom. 10:9-17)? Apparently, Paul’s theology of mission and salvation, not his experience, must be the governing and guiding principle don’t you think?
January 7, 2009 at 10:55 pm
Garrett,
As best I understand, Driscoll is a four point Calvinist and A29, while most I know are five point Calvinists, does not require you to be one. I have to go back and look at their doctrinal statement, but I am pretty sure Driscoll disagrees with limited atonement and perhaps this issue raised has something to do with that.
January 7, 2009 at 10:57 pm
Darby,
People can and are saved by reading of Scripture as the Holy Spirit convicts them of sin and draws them to Christ. I think the preaching of the gospel is the primary means of grace to convert sinners, but I have no reason to believe that sinners cannot repent and believe in Christ from reading the living Word of God.
January 7, 2009 at 11:04 pm
I agree. Even in the account of the pastor in prison, God used human means. Human hands were all over his conversion, from those who worked to translate the Bibles into a language he could understand, to those who give money to print the Bibles, to those who distributed them to the prison where he read it, to those that got the Bible into reading position. I guess I’m just mystic enough to think that if God wants me to read a Bible that he providentially landed within reading distance, he can get that job done.
January 7, 2009 at 11:09 pm
Stan,
Excellent word. Very well stated. The tendency to elevate experience over biblical revelation is not only to undermine Scripture but the God who has spoken. Time and again, Jesus placed the centrality of His Word at the heart of His mission and the mission entrusted to His disciples. If dreams and visions were means by which sinners were converted to Christ, then why is that not prescribed in the Scripture?
One example that comes to my mind is the Phillip and the Ethiopian eunuch. An angel appears to Phillip, presumably in a vision, and tells him to go south toward Gaza where he finds this eunuch reading Isaiah. When Phillip approaches him and asks him if he understands what he is reading, the eunuch replies, “How can I unless someone guides me?” (Acts 8:31) A few verses later, Scripture says that “Phillip opened his mouth, and beginning with this Scripture, he told him the good news about Jesus” (Acts 8:35).
Where there were dreams, visions, or being supernaturally transported from one place or another, it was in conjunction with or to serve the purpose of the preaching of the gospel, not as a substitute for it.
January 7, 2009 at 11:14 pm
Darby,
Well, I don’t know how much of that is mysticism and how much of that is divine providence. The invisible hand of almighty God is working out His purposes both exhaustively and meticulously, from the rising up of kings and nations to the little sparrow that does not fall apart from the permission of the Father. As such, there is no such thing as luck, chance, or coincidence for the Christian. Christians who believe in such a providential God know that He uses meeans to accomplish His sovereign will, and therefore I want to be used as such as much as possible, sowing as many seeds of the gospel, never fully knowing how God may in the future use that to minister to someone later of which this side of eternity I would never be aware.
January 8, 2009 at 3:27 am
This paragraph by Driscoll is very very disturbing. Would he be willing to clarify it?
January 8, 2009 at 7:06 am
[...] Jesus: the Evangelist to the Unevangelized [...]
January 8, 2009 at 9:46 am
Timmy,
Your insight on Driscoll’s statement is very illuminating. I, along with you, must reject any type of notion or philosophy that cannot be supported by Sola Scriptura.
chadwick
January 8, 2009 at 11:05 am
Tim,
Thankls for the article. Here, also, is some audio where Dr. Craig discusses what happens to those who do not have access to special revelation (He cites a hypothetical example of a woman in Darfur who has no Bible or access to evidence of Christian truth claims): http://www.rfmedia.org/RF_audio_video/RF_podcast/Lessings_Broad_Ugly_Ditch.mp3
Gavin
January 8, 2009 at 11:08 am
…and it seems to me that Molinism/the concept of middle knowledge typifies what happens when philosophy is imposed too strictly upon theology.
Gavin
January 8, 2009 at 11:20 am
If Jesus is the evangelist, in the manner, that Mark Driscoll is stating would this not be saying they are having the exact encounter that Paul had? Would that not make those that have this specific encounter at least able to be called as modern day apostles? Could this seem a little Roman Catholic even Mormon?
Just some thoughts that I have had as I read all of the thoughts
January 8, 2009 at 11:41 am
It might also be important to realize that the writer of Hebrews expects angels to be “roaming about” and I think we tend to jump to the conclusion that anything supernatural will so radically confuse everyone concerning the sufficiency of Scripture that we’re scared to acknowledge such things. It is the inerrant, infallible, sufficient Scripture that tells us there is an entire supernatural world all around us. Accepting this won’t cause the Christian faith to spin hopelessly out of control.
January 8, 2009 at 12:23 pm
I read the blog entry by Driscoll immediately after he posted it. I recognized it immediately as “hardshellism.” I substantiate this in my blog posting in regard to what Driscoll wrote. You will see statements by Hardshells who have said the same thing.
See my entry here
Blessings,
Stephen
January 8, 2009 at 12:57 pm
Gavin,
I think you’re right about middle knowledge guys. It’s a fascinating philosophical construct that, when imported into Scripture, creates interesting formulas but does not hold water.
Phil. 1:6,
There are evangelicals today who do hold to the role of apostle though not in the same sense of the apostle in Jesus’ time (an example would be C.J. Mahaney and Sovereign Grace). But that aside, there is something to be said about the peculiarity of Paul’s encounter with Jesus, even as Paul Himself explained, in his role in redemptive history in bringing the gospel to the Gentile world (see Rom. 15; cf. Gal. 1). I do believe that God may give special revelation to people around the world, but I do not believe that those visions or dreams constitute a person’s conversion.
Darby,
What you said about angels is true, and I don’t want to dismiss that we live in a spiritual realm as well as an earthly realm. For instance, Paul argued that God purposed that the church be the instrument whereby his manifold wisdom is made known to “rulers and authorities in heavenly places” (Eph. 3:10-11). Furthermore, as I mentioned earlier, God may uses forms of special revelation (dreams or visions), but I do not see either in Scripture or in reports how they can bring about the salvation of a sinner apart from other means (namely the preaching of the gospel).
Stephen,
I think your main hangup about me, Driscoll, and others in the Reformed movement has do with the role the Holy Spirit plays in our regeneration and conversion. I, like Driscoll, believe that we are born again and that by the sovereign work of the Holy Spirit, and that regenerating work results in a person’s conversion, having received the gift of repentance and faith. But the Word and Spirit do not work independent of one another, and therefore the agency of the Spirit and instrumentality of the Word are both effectually bringing about a person’s salvation.
January 8, 2009 at 1:00 pm
Dear Tim:
I do not have “hangups” with people. I do contend against theological error.
Blessings,
Stephen
January 8, 2009 at 1:09 pm
“But I do not see either in Scripture or in reports how they can bring about the salvation of a sinner apart from other means (namely the preaching of the gospel).”
Well said, Timmy. Even when the Ethiopian eunuch had Scripture, God sent a preacher (miraculously?) to explain the gospel to him. God could have just awakened the eunuch without any means, especially holding a piece of the Bible, if that’s the point he wanted to make. It seems he deliberately sent a preacher to prove the necessity of human means.
January 8, 2009 at 2:07 pm
“Did it when Jesus appeared to Paul?”
Not at all. Paul was steeped in Scripture. And Jesus explained to the two from Emmaus that the OT was the Gospel about Him. Beside, Paul was there at Steven’s open air sermon and fully knew those things taught by those who were known as the Way. He had fully, far more fully than most today, been evangelized.
The great commission is so emptied today. It does not say go and evangelize. But go and make disciples. It might be better to punctuate the point: “Go and make disciples: emersing them in all that I have taught you to keep and to do.” And if we want a real good look at what it means we merely need to look at Paul’s instructions to Timothy who he commanded, as he was commanded, to do the work of the evangelist, being instant in and out of season to give every man an answer, rebuking, exhorting, training in righteousness, et cetera…
Timmy’s right. Evangelism according to Jesus is not mere conversionalism. To add to this, where is “without the preaching of the Gospel in some form and consequent discipleship” ever portrayed in Scripture as the means of men being saved? Even Abraham was a worshipper of the gods of his native lands as well as the one true God. Somewhere along the line the decendants of Noah through Shem fulfilled: “Then God said to Noah and to his sons with him, “Behold, I establish my covenant with you and your offspring after you…” The idea of an anointed witness begins with Abel and God does nothing except that he first tells his prophets. Moses was weaned by his mother, the Hebrew religion know among the Egyptians, and Moses was a prince well schooled. When the children are brought through the wilderness, there always is the “memorial stones” laid to point the people back to what it means, this thing they are taught… when the children ask.
One might speculate about a manuscript testimony and if there were such before Moses. But one cannot deny the fact that the Lord has never left himself without witnesses in the flesh, for even Moses records Abel’s sacrifice indicating the Way which was spoken in the curse. It is in fact impossible that anything is established except by two or three witnesses. Now, there are three who testify and Christ in the commission did what Paul said is the only means, commanded and entrusted the testimony of reconcilliation, the articles of covenant, to be expressed and taught, proclaimed and commanded. Jesus left this commission and commanded others to go. He left it to be done by his anointed ones.
The exceptional cases do no suffice to bring Christ down out of heaven. Acts’ demonstrations of the Spirit cannot be used as a normative example. And nowhere do we find the witnesses of miracles without the word, even at that. The norm is founded in Genesis where the prophet is first commissioned to offer the sacrifice as shown, and the limit of the message is bounded by human history according to the covenant delievered to a particular people. It does not go to heirs without its proclamation and even in the hearing of those who are not, the covenant holds no promise. And the heirs, as Hebrews states, were are marked out before the creation of the world.
The fact that no one receives this message except that they are regenerated is established by Christ by two testimonies: “Even if one should rise from the dead they will not believe…You do not understand because you are not of the Father.” But in this Jesus relates a sure principle, he was in the flesh reconciling the world to himself, and he was testified to by both word and deed, which he says only some are given eyes and ears to understand.
The fact that regeneration precedes the hearing of faith does not negate the reality that without the proclamation no sons will know that they are. So in this we have the testimony that sons are made and that they know they are by the word of the covenant proclaimed. The covenant does not make them sons, but without it, no sons are made. So then John tells us that the word which gives light to men came in the flesh, not by spirit alone, and also says that it is of the anti-christ that testifies that he has not. Scripture bears testimony that those who do not receive the word are not of us.
One might wonder how that is germane. It is simply this, the Lord has not left himself without witness and that witness is always in the flesh. That being, that Christ has come to make his home in us that we might bear testimony to princes and paupers alike, near and far. So, Timmy’s assertion is sustained by the Scripture, that without Christ in the flesh (commissioned evangelists) no one comes to him. How shall they hear except one be sent? And Christ came into the world once to appear in the flesh to those he commissioned. If you check, Paul witnesses to the physical resurrection, not an apparition. And unless there are living apostles, then none today have seen him in that sense. So where is the biblical testimony that he appears without one being sent in the flesh? There is none and Christ Himself has sent representatives to do the works of ministry in the flesh, and Paul’s pattern handed off to Timothy defines the means now extant. Namely, that Christ has given us the ministry of reconcilliation, and as he was in the world in the flesh, so now he reigns in us so that we work as one flesh with him.
It is not a matter that God prepares or does not before the preaching of the word. The testimony of Scripture is that regeneration must precede the undersanding and understanding before faith. The question is, where in all of Scripture is Jesus not testified to in the flesh by the teaching of Scripture? Speculative matters such as infant salvation and the salvation of the incompetent fall among those things which are vain wranglings about empty words. They are not solvable through the testimony of Scripture. And the commandment is that since they are myths and old wives fables, they are to be stopped, because they lead to greater error.
It makes sense that a less than five pointer would slide this way. It is well said that the rejection of limited atonement leads to the rejection of the word and a leap into the abyss of error and darker doctrines.
If the covenant that was made concerning the heirs is not understood as necessarily conveyed by preaching, then it is wide open to any and all by any means. The nature of covenants dictates that they are enunciated before they are put into effect. Jesus came in the flesh and by word and deed enunciated the convenant. But, even at that, the covenant was not given that all should receive it, but only that the heirs would. Now any heir born among men cannot enter into it without the way being plainly marked. Where is the court, where is the upholder, what is the promise and how shall one know who has not heard of it? Hebrews also completes this thought that some, even if they have some knowledge and perception of the things of the Spirit, unless they move on to maturity, they are not saved but rather are close to being condemned and tossed into the fire. The writer affirms that certain things accompany salvation and primary among these is milk proceding to meat. And if these, then how much less is salation assured where there has not been even the first? Teachings of baptisms, and repentance, resurrection, eternal life, the writter says in not sufficient, how much less so where these are not? And as Timmy says, it is perseverence in the doctrines of the faith and growing into the unity of it in the full knowledge of the Son of God (Ephesians) that marks the disciple who has been evangelized from those who have not.
January 8, 2009 at 2:08 pm
Romans 1 certainly teaches that those who respond improperly to General Revelation are judged based on their response. Would it follow then that there is a proper response to General Revelation and that God would find this response acceptable?
Leon Morris says that, “He [Paul] is not facing the question whether there was enough in the revelation for them to be saved.” (P79) but he also says, “It does seem clear here that Paul is not speaking of a saving knowledge of God.”
If we say that apart from human preaching (Romans 10:14-15) they cannot be saved, do we in any way belittle God’s sovereignty?
In the end, whether we believe they can or cannot obtain a saving knowledge via General Revelation, we should be eager for all to hear about and have the opportunity to accept Christ.
It is fair to say that I don’t have this issue completely resolved in my own mind.
January 8, 2009 at 2:29 pm
Michael,
The standard by which unbelievers are judged is an important point to bring out. Are judged because we are sinners or because of our sin, or both? On this point the issue of infant salvation as well as the mentally handicapped come into play. If the argument is made that people are judged based on their actual sins and not their sin nature, then it makes sense that infants and the mentally handicapped will go to heaven. But I am not sure how, then, does that position address Psalm 51 and Eph 2 (among other texts).
Inclusivists make the argument that if one has the ability to respond negatively to G.R. that they can respond positively to it as well. However, this assumes two things: man is not totally depraved and (2) has libertarian free will (power of contrary choice). Paul’s argument in Romans 1-3 and the rest of Scripture reveal contrariwise. Therefore, it is not biblically tenable to say that (1) people can respond positively to G.R. and (2) that G.R. is potentially salvific.
Regarding Rom. 10:14-15, I do not believe God’s sovereignty is belittled for the simple reason that God is sovereign over the means as well as the ends. By that I mean God is sovereign of the instrumentality (human agents) as well as ultimacy (the fate of the unevangelized). At this point, a person’s control beliefs (presuppositions) come into play, especially in regards to theology proper and divine providence.
Finally, yes, we should all labor, pray, send, go, and support the work of calling all men everywhere to repentance, seeking their salvation and God’s glory among all the peoples of the earth. God’s program of the Great Commission is one that will not fail, and it should bring us great encouragement to know that He is with us (not in spite of us!) in this great work.
January 8, 2009 at 3:54 pm
Timmy and Garret,
Driscoll plays around with the points some, but for most Calvinists he would be considered a 5-pointer. He calls his view Unlimited Limited Atonement and from all I’ve read and heard it is some variant of the “sufficient for all, effectual for the elect” position held by many Calvinists that DO accept limited atonement. As for A29, he stated in a recent message at a Boot Camp in Dallas that A29 is accepting of 4- and 5-point Calvinism in their plants, with the obvious -1 being the L.
Nice discussion. I would also like to add my name to the list that believes he is talking about some sort of special revelation, since that seems consistent with his charismatic beliefs and prior statements, as was noted.
January 8, 2009 at 8:43 pm
Mark Driscoll also calls Jesus a dude and says he told “knock-knock jokes to miscreants who love his sense of humor because his perfection had to have included comedic timing.”
Mark Driscoll even thinks its OK to twist the words of Jesus, “You must be BORN-AGAIN,” and turn them into a perverted title for his new book, “PORN-AGAIN” Christian.” Have you seen the cover of the book?
Have you heard him laugh about whether or not Jesus went “potty.? … Mark says “…yes, Jesus went number one and number two” but he did it perfectly…”never got the toilet wet.”
Now I ask you,…what does it do to your concept of God, the Lord our Righteousness, when you hear a pastor flippantly and irreverently twist His words and talk about our Savior like this?
This is a man who admits to listening to foul-mouth comedian Chris Rock to learn how to preach. Mark says, he was ” a better study in homiletics than most classes on the subject.” What an example for all of the young men out there. How many “F” words did Mark have to listen to in this Chris Rock classroom?
Come on you guys!!!
Talk about lowering the standard….Why are some of you excusing this man and validating anything he says?
January 8, 2009 at 8:59 pm
“Talk about lowering the standard….Why are some of you excusing this man and validating anything he says?”
I for one appreciate the points you bring up, and the ironic thing is that I think Mark would too. The best thing to do to get a handle on him is go to the Desiring God 2008 conference and watch his message. You’ll get an insight into why he is who he is. He doesn’t need any of our validation to do what he’s doing.
January 8, 2009 at 9:45 pm
Darby,
With all due respect, why are you only focusing on my word “validating” and overlooking the other examples I have given of Mark carelessly presenting false information about Jesus? Why are you not more concerned about Mark saying that comedic timing was part of Jesus’ perfection when it doesnt say that in Scritpure?.
What does it do to your concept of Jesus and your attitude toward Scripture? Is it now ok for us to rewrite Scripture.?Mark does not rightly divide the Word of Truth. That is the issue. He does not need our validation but he does need the validation of God’s word to agree with what comes out of his mouth. It is falsehood to say Jesus told knock knock jokes or to describe the Old Testament as “a red-neck hillbilly comedy” or to describe Jeremiah, a prophet of God, as someone “who cries like a newly crowned beauty queen all the time.” This is an attack on the integrity of God’s word.
Per your remark, Mark has given all of us an insight into who he is in his books and public sermons. I realize Mark can give a good sound sermon if he wants to, but he can also plant seeds of error, which should be alarming to you. Do you think Jesus told knock knock jokes?
J.C.Ryle (1816-1900) said in his book Warnings to the Churches, ” Beware of supposing that a teacher of religion is to be trusted because, although he holds some UNsound views, YET he teaches a great deal of truth. Such a teacher is precisely the man to do you harm; poison is always most dangerous when it is given in small doses and mixed with wholesome food.”
A. W. Tozer warns, “We should and must learn that we cannot handle holy things carelessly without suffering serious consequences.”
I submit, Mark Driscoll handles holy things carelessly. Therefore, until he repents, we should not validate him by inviting him to preach to any young men.
January 9, 2009 at 12:11 pm
Darby, I agree.
January 9, 2009 at 12:29 pm
Cathy: I don’t endorse all things Mark Driscoll. In fact I disagree with him most of the time. However on this, I agree with him. I’m sticking with the context of this post, not putting all things Mark Driscoll as OK. But then, I’m fallible too.
Tim: As for your questions, there is the testimony of Joseph Hamas Yousef, which is a wonderful story of how I believe God works. In scripture there is the Ethiopian, and I believe the Apostle Paul as well, who was being prepared for salvation beginning with the stoning of Stephen.
The answer you gave to Stephen is the key to why I think Driscoll is correct. In the OT Christ appeared and evangelized.
Romans is clear in how can they hear without a preacher. How can they believe in one they have not heard. God saves, then continues on in miraculous ways as he did when Philip was there to further disciple the Ethiopian, baptizing him, and Paul when God provided those to further disciple him. It just goes to show that God’s plan will not be thwarted. I hope that clarifies, if not I will be happy to go further.
January 9, 2009 at 12:45 pm
Michael,
What do you agree with about Pastor Darby’s statement?
Mike Driscoll plays fast and loose with Scriture…He calls the King of Kings “a dude” who tells knock knock jokes and that your Savior’s perfection had to have included
comedic timing. This is NOT the description of our Lord. found in Scripture.
Michael, like Darby, do you also have no problem with treating Scripture as if it were material for a stand-up comedian.? Do you agree that Jesus’ perfection included comedic timing? Do you think. like Pastor Driscoll, that the account of Noah getting drunk and ending up naked in his tent is funny, and sounds like a red neck on vacation?
All you can say is, “Darby, I agree.”?
Michael, “to a convinced sinner, to one that has felt the guilt of sin, who has seen his need of Chirst’s righteousness and worth of it,” (Mathew Henry) suggesting Jesus was some dude telling knock knock jokes to describe the Almighty God tastes like bitter poison.
This is a sad day in the Church that pastors need to be reminded that “It is a mark of great and daring impiety for men to jest with the words of God.” (Mathew Henry)
January 9, 2009 at 12:51 pm
Michael,
What do you agree with about Pastor Darby’s statement?
Michael, “to a convinced sinner, to one that has felt the guilt of sin, who has seen his need of Chirst’s righteousness and worth of it,” (Mathew Henry) suggesting Jesus was some dude telling knock knock jokes to describe the Almighty God tastes like bitter poison.
This is a sad day in the Church that pastors need to be reminded that “It is a mark of great and daring impiety for men to jest with the words of God.” (Mathew Henry)
January 9, 2009 at 12:54 pm
Michael,
What do you agree with about Pastor Darby’s statement?
This is a sad day in the Church that pastors need to be reminded that “It is a mark of great and daring impiety for men to jest with the words of God.” (Mathew Henry)
January 9, 2009 at 4:13 pm
Cathy,
You should be careful what you are saying here. Do you actually believe that Mark Driscoll “plays fast and loose with Scripture”? What “false information” has Mark Driscoll presented about Jesus? You may find it crass, but do you honestly believe that Jesus did not require restroom breaks just like all of us? Driscoll is simply pointing out the humanity of Jesus and that he wasn’t the Swedish looking guy wearing a white robe and surrounded by a halo that so many “spiritual” people depict him as in the pictures hanging above their TV.
It is your prerogative not to like Driscoll, I know many people don’t, but what is not okay is to level inaccurate statements about his character as a man of God. It scares me seeing this because it is the same attitude that comes from certain legalistic theologians who are driving further into the rift between the church and this generation. Sure, there are bad teachers around that need to be spoken out against, but I do not believe that Driscoll is one of them.
January 10, 2009 at 1:19 am
Cathy,
Thank you for your contribution.
Has Ps Driscoll made a public apology recently to his church about some of the comments he has made?
January 10, 2009 at 1:33 am
Todd why should Cathy be careful with what she is saying?
It is an opinion that many share.
I think she makes some very valid points to be considered by all pastors given the privilege to stand and share God’s most Holy Word and for those given the privilege to write, speak, and be heard by many.
He is a public figure well known in Christian circles and leaves himself open for us to consider and state our opinions about what he says and does.
I thought that this was part of the discussion – things he has said and the way he has said them.
Do you honestly think crassness is necessary in preaching, speaking, and writing about God and the things of God?
I don’t believe it is necessary!
Legalism has nothing to do with this.
As most parents would teach their children and hopefully most mature adults understand we do not need a “potty mouth” when we speak nor to get our message of the Gospel out.
What is scary to some of us is the degrading level some go to to share the beautiful truths of God’s Word.
Right speech is timeless it has nothing whatsoever to do with generational issues.
January 10, 2009 at 3:19 am
First off, just because you said it, right speech is not timeless. Right speech is very much contextual. The practice of right speech is timeless, but what constitutes right speech is subject to change. God did not give the 7 words you can’t say on TV in Scripture.
Now, to your point, I think it is wise for Cathy and whomever to be careful when they start accusing Driscoll of bearing false witness about Jesus and twisting Scripture. Even in your own comment all you reference is the crassness. I am willing to give any of Driscoll’s opponents that, he may be judged as crass and inappropriate. However, it is when we let that distaste towards his method bleed into our opinion of his practice that I have a problem. Mark Driscoll preaches the authority and inerrancy of Scripture as much as any pastor in America. Saying he “plays fast and loose with Scripture” is not a very discerning thing to say. Let’s reserve that attribution for the likes of Rob Bell, Doug Pagitt and Brian McLaren.
January 10, 2009 at 11:44 am
I love how it seem that Cathy sits around and googles Mark’s name because she shows up and says the same crap every time there is a post about him.
On the subject of Marks Crassness: 1. Crassness is a cultural issue, visiting another country where they also speak english will demonstrate this. 2. To make any other argument is impossible to sustain.
January 10, 2009 at 1:19 pm
Todd,
Do you believe it is in accordance with Scripture to describe the King of Kings as “a dude”?
Do you believe that Jesus told knock knock jokes and that His perfection had to have included comedic timing?
Do you believe that all good comedy begins in Genesis and that the Old Testament can be described as a “red neck hillbilly comedy?”
Do you believe that it is in accordance with Scripture to turn the issue of circumcision found in Galatians 5 into a crude “cut off your pickle joke?
Do you believe there is “scatological humor” or “poopy comedy” found in Ezekiel?
Do you believe it is in accordance with Scripture to describe Jeremiah as someone “who cries like a newly crowned beauty queen all the time”?
Do you believe it is funny that Noah got drunk and naked and acted like “some redneck on vacation”?
Do you believe that in accordance with Scripture, a wise man would take a gospel truth, such as, “YOU MUST BE BORN AGAIN,” and twist it for the title of a book addressing pornography and call it, “PORN-AGAIN” Christian”?
Do you believe that in accordance with Scripture one should describe one of the Old Testament stories in Judges to a “Monty Python” skit?
Do you believe that men like Jesus, Paul, and John the Baptist were “heterosexual, win-a-fight, punch you in the nose dudes”?
Do you believe “real men” avoid church because it projects a “Richard Simmons, hippie, queer Christ” ?
If you do agree with all of the above, you agree with the ministry of Mark Driscoll.
Yes, Mark Driscoll plays fast and loose with God’s word, which is diametrically opposed to the responsibilities of anyone who is called by God to preach from God’s holy Word.
Furthermore, Todd, a man of God would never listen to or credit foul-mouthed comedian Chris Rock for playing a role in teaching him how to preach.
“Likewise urge the young men to be sensible; in all things show yourself to be an example of good deeds, with purity in doctrine, dignified, sound in speech which is beyound reproach, so that the opponent will be put to shame, having nothing bad to say about us.” Titus 2:6
January 10, 2009 at 1:50 pm
Cathy,
It appears you have a lot of subjective concerns about Mark Driscoll. Again, the issue comes to your comfort with what he’s saying, not if he’s speaking biblical untruths, and yet you continue to accuse him of being out of “accordance with Scripture.” Unfortunately it does not appear that you are going to try and view this outside of your own cultural goggles. I would suggest you listen to Dr. Mohler’s engagement of this issue. Al Mohler is, in my opinion, the most even-handed scholar in SBC life today and what he says may surprise you. Though he never mentions Driscoll by name it is implicit that this is who is talking of mostly (based on the topics and the timing, which was right before Driscoll’s appearance at the DG conference). It can be downloaded at http://www.almohler.com/radio_show.php?cdate=2008-09-19.
January 10, 2009 at 3:36 pm
Timmy,
Let me say first that I agree with you and the traditional Reformed position on this subject, but I do have a question. How do you interpret this passage?
“…for he will be great before the Lord. And he must not drink wine or strong drink, and he will be filled with the Holy Spirit, even from his mother’s womb.” (Luke 1:15)
Is it possible that this is one biblical instance of someone being saved without hearing and believing the gospel? And what about infants who die without hearing and believing? Are they saved? If so, how, since they cannot hear and believe, which seems to be the biblical requirement for salvation?
I know those are not the questions you’re seeking to answer in this post, but they seem relevant to me. If there is one instance of someone (John the Baptist) being saved without hearing and believing, may there not be others?
Sorry if this is an unhelpful digression. Thanks.
January 10, 2009 at 3:37 pm
@Timmy: I raised a similar issue on my blog, in response to the many testimonies of people going to Hell so as to warn people of its reality, or the stories of Jesus appearing in visions, and many in Reformed circles acknowledging these events as viable, and consistent with Scripture.
Below is the conclusion from my two-part series:
You can read the two posts I did here:
http://cal.vini.st/2008/12/does-god-save-his-elect-through-extra-ordinary-means-part-1/
http://cal.vini.st/2008/12/does-god-save-his-elect-through-extra-ordinary-means-part-2/
Thank you for questioning what Driscoll said. Unfortunately, many people are easily led into error simply because a preacher / teacher is popular.
January 10, 2009 at 5:45 pm
Timmy,
Had you made any attempts to contact Mark for clarification prior to posting this on your blog? Had you expressed your concerns to him regarding that paragraph and any other comments that may have been unclear or bewildering? I’m assuming you probably did, and perhaps he did not reply?
D.L. Kane
January 10, 2009 at 7:09 pm
George,
Per your question about Mark Driscoll apologizing recently for any of his comments, I do not have an answer. All of the direct quotes I have posted is still all public information diseminated in his books and
January 10, 2009 at 7:35 pm
(Excuse me for reappearing, but I am not an experienced blogger as someone above suggesting, and my above comment was sent before I was ready….)
Anyways, as I was saying to George, all of the information I have posted is well documented in Marks book and his public sermons posted at the Mars Hill. I know he has written that he was embarassed that Donald Miller gave him the nick-name, the cussing pastor, but I am not aware of recent apologies.
Do some research on what Mark is now advocating for Christian married couples. It sounds more like sex counseling from Dr. Ruth than an evangelical pastor.
God’s word is all we have and we need to protect and guard the integrity of Scripture with our life.
Mark Driscoll clearly distorts Scripture to serve his own purposes, which is why I was surprised that anyone would bother discussing his responses to any theological question. I will say it again,…anyone who jokes that Jesus was some dude telling knock knock jokes is not handling Scripture or the name of my Lord carefully. There was a generation that understood my concerns.
Before our eyes, we are witnessing the dumbing down of the church.
I have said all I can say here. I pray that in time some of you will see why I took the time to warn you about this ministry.
January 10, 2009 at 10:20 pm
Cathy said:
” I pray that in time some of you will see why I took the time to warn you about this ministry.”
Why, are you planning on “taking him out?” – I’m only kidding, but your comment does have that sort of prophetic foreboding feel to it.
January 10, 2009 at 11:37 pm
Timmy you asked: 1) What role (assuming that it does) the Bible play in your understanding of the fate of the unevangelized? It is authoritative? Sufficient? Silent? Supplementary? etc.
(2) What must a person believe in order to be saved? And following that, does the message of salvation change depending upon circumstances?
I do not feel from my last comment that I answered this fully.
I believe the Bible to play a very important role. But could Christ not give this? Does it have to be read or heard? Faith comes by hearing and hearing by the Word of God(I believe this to be referring to the Bible)
I believe that faith in Christ alone is the requirement for salvation. But doesn’t Ephesians tell us that faith comes from God? Couldn’t that come from Christ appearing? I believe so. I also believe that like the Ethiopian, a way is made for others to come and disciple. I don’t think it’s done because the church isn’t doing their job, but out of grace for the church and those who haven’t heard. Do I believe that will be everyone on this earth? No, but then again I don’t rule it out.
January 11, 2009 at 10:52 am
That should be I believe the Bible to be sufficient,authoritative.
January 11, 2009 at 2:29 pm
Usually, I never comment on any post with Mark Driscoll as the subject, even excellent ones such as Timmy’s here, for the simple fact that they always turn into “backstab Driscoll-fests” in the comments.
All I’m gonna say is this: though I wouldn’t say the things he says, I have the exact same sense of humor Driscoll does, and I appreciate it. We have too many preachers and believers who are Pharisaical about Christian living. Many of those taking issue with this aspect of him need to seriously lighten up. Your inability to do so makes it impossible to have a relevant discussion like the one Timmy is attempting to have here.
Jesus is the “Dude of Dudes” who probably had diarrhea after eating bad figs, partied enough to get accused of being involved in Animal House, and was radical enough, comparatively speaking, to fit in on Vietnam-era university campuses. None of that cheapens the fact that this fully human “dude” was also the fully divine “God” who came to take away the sins of the world, it actually (at least in my mind) makes it more incredible.
Whether or not Jesus preaches to people today is a whole different issue, and one which we’d be better off actually talking about here instead of slamming Driscoll’s character.
January 11, 2009 at 11:21 pm
Stephen wrote:
“Whether or not Jesus preaches to people today is a whole different issue, and one which we’d be better off actually talking about here instead of slamming Driscoll’s character.”
I concur.
January 12, 2009 at 3:47 pm
Cathy,
At least there is no legalism in any of your posts…(insert sarcasm here). Let me do my best to an
Do you believe it is in accordance with Scripture to describe the King of Kings as “a dude”?
depends on your definiton of “dude.” I don’t see anything negative about Jesus being a “dude.”
Do you believe that Jesus told knock knock jokes and that His perfection had to have included comedic timing?
Not sure about “Knock Knock”jokes but what about the character of God would be against having a sense of humor. As far as timing, maybe he was off on one or two but his self-confidence wasn’t hurt.
Do you believe that all good comedy begins in Genesis and that the Old Testament can be described as a “red neck hillbilly comedy?”
Absolutely! If you don’t see the depravity of man in the OT, then you must be crazy. Granted, it is the ultimate tragic comedy.
Do you believe that it is in accordance with Scripture to turn the issue of circumcision found in Galatians 5 into a crude “cut off your pickle joke?
Maybe a little over the line.
Do you believe there is “scatological humor” or “poopy comedy” found in Ezekiel?
Yes…just re-read it:)
Do you believe it is in accordance with Scripture to describe Jeremiah as someone “who cries like a newly crowned beauty queen all the time”?
What do you keep meaning by “in accordance with Scripture”? That is so unclear! Does this mean that anything that is humorous is not in accoradance with scripture.
Do you believe it is funny that Noah got drunk and naked and acted like “some redneck on vacation”?
Not funny…but unfortunately, I do have some relatives…
Do you believe that in accordance with Scripture, a wise man would take a gospel truth, such as, “YOU MUST BE BORN AGAIN,” and twist it for the title of a book addressing pornography and call it, “PORN-AGAIN” Christian”?
Twist it? Is he using it as a claim of a Scriptural term? Or is it just a play-on words to address a very serious issue that Mark deals with very well.
Do you believe that in accordance with Scripture one should describe one of the Old Testament stories in Judges to a “Monty Python” skit?
Have you ever seen Monty Python?
Do you believe that men like Jesus, Paul, and John the Baptist were “heterosexual, win-a-fight, punch you in the nose dudes”?
doubt it
Do you believe “real men” avoid church because it projects a “Richard Simmons, hippie, queer Christ” ?
Yes…absolutely…100%. To think otherwise is to have stuck your head in the sand.
If you do agree with all of the above, you agree with the ministry of Mark Driscoll.
So…yes…Mark has made mistakes and has even admitted to these mistakes. But to say that Mark uses Scripture for his own benefit is just ridiculous. Also, I think the accusation of Mark dumbing down Scriptures doesn’t hold water. In fact, I would say that you would be hard pressed to find many churches that taught as deeply as Mark does.
January 17, 2009 at 12:12 am
Great post and comments. One thing you can say about Mark Driscoll, whether you like him or not, is that he sure has a lot of people talking. I think it helps to keep everyone sharp when they have to think about what they believe and why. Great stuff!