YOU WRITE: “The passage you quote about Jesus being tempted and the other one about the prize-fighter Jesus with the tattoo up his leg, sound like they might be dramatic messages to the 14-16 year old crowd. As such, I don’t think they cross the line. They sound like acceptable dramatizations to make a biblical point.”

The one about Jesus having a tattoo was in Relevant Magazine, its not a kid mag – it really wouldn’t matter what age group it was, it isn’t Biblical, that’s EXACTLY what leads people astray. The real TRUTH is the REAL DEAL, not a made up rendition – GOD doesn’t need a faux sermon to give out the Gospel.

“In Revelation, Jesus is a pride fighter with a tattoo down His leg, a sword in His hand and the commitment to make someone bleed. That is a guy I can worship. I cannot worship the hippie, diaper, halo Christ because I cannot worship a guy I can beat up. ”Mark Driscoll, Relevant Magazine

And if any man shall take away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God shall take away his part out of the book of life,</b. and out of the holy city, and from the things which are written in this book. Revelation 22:19

GOD the Son should never be referred to in terms such as these, there is no excuse, the WARNING is very clear.

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

36 But I say unto you, That every idle word that men shall speak, they shall give account thereof in the day of judgment.

37 For by thy words thou shalt be justified, and by thy words thou shalt be condemned.
Matthew 12

Report comment to moderator

Actually, I was writing to withdraw my much too casual comment that ‘Mars Hill is not my cup of tea’. I was surfing their website and there was a Q&A for adults only, and I followed a link from their website to an online “Christian-run” sex toy shop. It was a little disturbing….

People come to Christ from all kinds of backgrounds and situations, and I appreciate leaders who step outside the usual traditions of the church to reach them without sacrificing doctrinal accuracy to do so. Perhaps that is what Mark Driscoll is trying to do, but given the content of the website—and that link in particular— I’m not really sure what to think about what he teaches as a whole.

Report comment to moderator

For we have not an high priest which cannot be touched with the feeling of our infirmities; but was in all points tempted like as we are, yet without sin.
Hebrews 4:15

Jesus was without sin, so there is no way HE lusted after any woman. Driscoll either doesn’t know this, or ignores it. Without searching out the Scriptures, one can not know what’s in them.

Report comment to moderator

Driscoll has made a lot of remarks which are un-Biblical.

Mark Driscoll makes a statement which doesn’t stand up to Scripture –

“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

Jesus said:

But I say unto you, That whosoever looketh on a woman to lust after her hath committed adultery with her already in his heart. Matthew 5:28

NO, Christ Jesus didn’t want to have sexual relations with a woman, if had lusted after a woman HE would have committed adultery in HIS heart, which obviously HE DID NOT. Here again we ‘lust’ and ‘tempted’ confused to make a story which isn’t true. Jesus was GOD the SON, HE was tempted, “yet without sin.”

Report comment to moderator

Report comment to moderator

http://criswell.files.wordpress.com/2006/03/3,2%20APastoralPerspectiveontheEmergentChurchDriscoll.PDF

Report comment to moderator

YOU WROTE: “I do wish that Piper and MacArthur would come together a bit regarding Mark Driscoll of Mars Hill Church in Seattle. If MacArthur were to take the mentoring role with Driscoll that I see Piper doing the last few years, the growth of Driscoll and God’s work on the Pacific rim would likely become visible worldwide.”

Mark Driscoll is Emergent Church of which most Evangelicals will not accept. Mark Driscoll’s statements about Jesus and tattoo’s are not Biblical.

Report comment to moderator

Report comment to moderator

Other preacher/teachers I hold in that same regard, who are in that handful I mentioned, and who also give their sermons away at no charge are Alister Begg (Truth For Life) who recently made all of the sermons on his site available for free download, and John Piper (Desiring God). I don’t believe their is a finer preacher and teacher of God’s word in the world today than Pastor Piper, and you can download at no cost every sermon he has ever given at his church (more than 20+ years worth).

I do wish that Piper and MacArthur would come together a bit regarding Mark Driscoll of Mars Hill Church in Seattle. If MacArthur were to take the mentoring role with Driscoll that I see Piper doing the last few years, the growth of Driscoll and God’s work on the Pacific rim would likely become visible worldwide.

Report comment to moderator

In his commentary on Galatians he breaks grace down into Justifying Grace and Sanctifying Grace. In his Hebrews commentary on vs 4:16 MacArthur calls God’s Throne a grace dispenser as though grace were a kind of elixir or power that we must gain more of in time of need.

Nothing could be further from the truth. Grace is undeserved kindness, nothing more. The only spiritual power that helps us is God himself and the work of the Holy Spirit. There is no other power called grace. That’s ridiculous. God, according to his kindness to the undeserving, has given us his Spirit to help in time of need.

I assume MacArthur would agree with all this. But the way grace is explained in his commentaries comes far short of a full exposition of this most fundamental element of Christianity. And because whatever is not grace is works, his commentaries don’t discourage very strongly the notion of sanctification by works. He really struck out on this, but I still respect the man for all the good he has done.

Report comment to moderator