Mark Driscoll on Nightline the other night

This is not the type of "rebellion" to judge Jesus' "rebellion" by.

In his day, it was against those who tried to tame him by their human traditions, the scribes and Pharisees.

 

Did the Pharisees have any authority over Jesus? Who was rebelling against whom? Wasn't it the Pharisees that were in fact in rebellion against God?

 

I think Driscoll hits some good points and I'm glad he tells the truth. But I am concerned about his desire to be "edgy" and his language, which I've read about. Sometimes his language is a little too much for me (in the video, he said something about "you don't know jack about Jesus").

MacArthur's comments on Driscoll:

http://defendingcontending.com/2008/09/27/john-macarthur-on-mark-driscoll/

But now you also, put them all aside: anger, wrath, malice, slander, and abusive speech from your mouth. Col. 3.8

Let no one look down on your youthfulness, but rather in speech, conduct, love, faith and purity, show yourself an example of those who believe. 1 Tim. 4.12

Let no unwholesome word proceed from your mouth, but only such a word as is good for edification according to the need of the moment, so that it will give grace to those who hear. Eph. 4.29

 

Yes, I agree!

 

I don't think it's a question of being tame or wild or being a rebel. Jesus was entirely submissive to God, self-controlled (which is the opposite of wild and rebellious, imo), and always knew what he was doing.

I see no biblical evidence that he was a rebel. Just because he spoke the truth and did not accept false teachings does not make him a rebel.

 

Annsni, did you see my post about MacArthur's comments on Driscoll's language? I've read several others who are disturbed by this as well. I wondered if your husband had come across this in the books. Could be that Driscoll is just like this when he speaks and not writes.

 

Jesus did not submit to their authority. Rather, he defied their authority as seen in their traditions.

Jesus' defiance of the rules of the religious leaders cast him as somewhat of a "rebel."

Of course the Pharisees were themselves in rebellion.

The issue becomes the object of one's rebellion.

 

Our argument becomes a riddle of semantics.

As I've said before, the fact that I cannot put God in a box means, to me, that there's a wildness to God that cannot be tamed.

It seems like you and others are troubled by terminologies.

Well, I'm not.

 

Jesus never "rebeled" against religious leaders

Jesus never "rebeled" against political leaders

Rather

THEY "rebeled" against HIM!!

Jesus was not the rebel

They were!!!

 

Ah yes...the old "we cannot put God in a box" excuse. This way we can justify anything we want.

 

Why did the religious leaders object to Jesus eating with the tax collectors and the irreligious?

To them, Jesus who claimed to be a man of God, should not have table fellowship with such people (Luke 7:39).

Jesus defied and went against their perception of a man of God.

The fact that Jesus defied some of their traditions meant that he rebelled.

He did not go along.

 

Who is John MacArthur?

 

Let's just cut the cow pies here. Adopting this language is merely a way of justifiying the attitudes of youth (in whose hearts foolishness is trapped) and snubbing parental authority.

Remember parents? They are the ones who first resist youthful rebellion, i.e. manners of dress, speech and music. And we have forgotten the commandment that tells us to obey our parents. Driscoll is the product of the youth culture. Naturally he will adopt the words-of-art created to hallow it.

Driscoll's theological position is "Charismatic with a seat belt." He believes God gives him direct revelation. This is not a man to listen to or emulate. The 90% orthodoxy he preaches is just to mask the taste of the 10% heresy.

 

It's not the term rebel that is important here but the nature of the rebellion. Was Christ of the world? No. To me that means according to the world Christ was a rebel. He rebelled against the world's authority.

Nonsense. You seem to be counting all rebellion as sin. Certainly Christ didn't agree with the worlds authority. He rebelled against it because He didn't recognize it's authority.

Maybe juvenile. Although the rebellion of Christ none the less is true according to the worldly powers of the day.
Is it rebellion to go against earthly powers or is it only rebellion when we are against Christ?
MB

 

The world has no authority but in their minds. The only true authority is God and God alone. God can not rebel against a subordinate.

A rather contradictory statement.


[/quote]Maybe juvenile. Although the rebellion of Christ none the less is true according to the worldly powers of the day.
Is it rebellion to go against earthly powers or is it only rebellion when we are against Christ?
MB[/QUOTE]

Rebellion requires an authority over the one rebelling.

 

But is he very clear on the submission of youth to the elder (1 Pe. 5:5), or does he marginalize the judgments of the elder as "teaching the commandments of men," and extol independence by calling Jesus a rebel too?

Describing himself as Charismatic is just that. Describing his call he said he had one of those "charismatic moments" where "God spoke to me and told me to preach the Bible, train men, plant churches and marry Grace. Told me exactly what to do."

I don't believe him. Yes, I'm calling him a liar.

The old link to this talk on the BB is no longer active, but I suspect if you take a look at the book you have you will find several statements like that above.

 

I would not conclude that Mark sees himself as getting direct revelation based on the statements posted here. When we all feel lead to do something we express that as having heard form God.