Mark Driscoll on Nightline the other night

[Alive in Christ]

"Jesus was a rebel.

Why do some want to domesticate him?

The Scribes and the Pharisees wanted to domesticate him just like some on this board are attempting to do.

They want to remake Jesus.

He was indeed a rebel.

The religious thought he was. How ironic!"

I agree completly. Jesus was indeed a rebel, as was Paul. Both were constantly and deliberately going "against the grain".

Why are people threatened by the thought of Jesus being a rebel? Its right there in the scriptures. The things He said, the things He did.

Its obvious.

:godisgood:

 

[Revmitchell]

I agree completly. Jesus was indeed a rebel, as was Paul. Both were constantly and deliberately going "against the grain".

Why are people threatened by the thought of Jesus being a rebel? Its right there in the scriptures. The things He said, the things He did.

Its obvious.

:godisgood:

It belittles Christ deity. Why do people need childish characterizations of Christ.

 

[Amy.G]

It belittles Christ deity. Why do people need childish characterizations of Christ.

I agree. It was everyone else that was rebelling against Christ. He was right, they were wrong. It's humans that are rebellious, not God.

 

[Revmitchell]

I agree. It was everyone else that was rebelling against Christ. He was right, they were wrong. It's humans that are rebellious, not God.

yea I do not know for the life of me why that is so hard to comprehend. It is a hyper-attention of the humanity of Christ while setting aside His deity. Bad theology.

 

[gb93433]

Obviously that pastor gives straight talk. I have found that over the years people who want to grow and learn appreciate straight talk. People want direction and they want help. Avoiding the real issues of life makes Christianity nothing more than an intellectual religion where too often the more you know the more you are viewed as spiritual. I do not see Jesus did that. Jesus preached the real people addressing real issues. He always point to what God wanted.

 

[Alive in Christ]

Rev Mitchell and Amy,

Both of you, and others, are completely misunderstanding the way in whch we are using the word "rebel"

Nobody is saying Jesus was "rebelling" against God. That should be obvious.

Jesus IS God!

But He was CLEARLY a rebel, none the less.

And thank God for it!


And thank God that other rebels such as Martin Luther have come along at various times through the centuries.


:godisgood:

 

[Revmitchell]

Rev Mitchel and Amy,

Bothe of you, and others, are completely misunderstanding the way in whch we are using the word "rebel"

Nobody is saying Jesus was "rebelling" against God. That should be obvious.

Jesus IS God!

But He was CLEARLY a rebel, none the less.

And thank God for it!


And thank God that other rebels such as Martin Luther have come along at various times through the centuries.


:godisgood:

Apparently it is you who are misunderstanding what we are saying. Jesus cannot rebel as He is the standard to rebel against. Only the liberal Pharisees could rebel or in effect the world. This world is not a legitimate standard to rebel against as far as Christ is concerned.


Again why does anyone need to hold on to this blasphemous characterization?

 

[Marcia]

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.

I thoroughly appreciate that this is your view, but I firmly reject the word "wildness" associated with God, a word which comes from man's imposition of some quality on God that is not there in scripture.

Wildness is related to paganism and its rebellion, lack of self-control, and other negative traits. God is not wild just because we cannot totally understand Him. He's just beyond us because he is infinite, not wild.

No one is trying to put God in a box. God has clearly revealed the attributes about Him that we need to know. That which we do not know is part of his eternal infinite nature, which does not make Him "wild."

 

[Marcia]

Who is John MacArthur?

He's kind of well-known. I don't always agree with him but his remarks on Driscoll are good. And MacArthur is hardly the only one to notice this.

MacArthur's site:
http://www.gty.org/

 

[Marcia]

Well, he's read me some things that are quite ..... I'm trying to think of the word.....

OK - an example was that he was talking about his belief that man should be the head of the home, that he is to love his wife sacrificially and that she is to respect and submit to her husband. (I don't have the book here so I can't give the exact quote from that part). He ended up with saying that this was about as popular as a "fart in an elevator". We got a good laugh on that one. It's true - while not exactly the way I'd put it in conversation. I don't think my hubby has found anything wrong with his language - but it's definitely different than the country club Christian kind of talk that most of us experience.

As far as the cussing, yes, I understand he used to use some of the 4 letter words in his messages but someone called him out on that as a brother in Christ and he repented and has stopped doing that.

Thanks for the info, Annsni! I still don't like some of his language, like saying "you don't know jack about Jesus" (this was in the video). The "jack" is short for an obscenity and everyone knows that.

He seems to be posturing too much for me, although I guess the Lord is using him. The most postive thing about him that I know is that he now speaks against some of the more radical Emerging church views, which he used to be a part of.

 

[Marcia]

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.

How can Christ rebel against what He created? That makes no sense. Christ was not a rebel; he was taking the rebels against God to task.

Rebellion is by definition defiance against some kind of authority or power over one. No one on earth had authority or power over Jesus.

 

[Alive in Christ]

Marcia,

You responded to this...

"Originally Posted by MB
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.

By saying...

"How can Christ rebel against what He created? That makes no sense."

C'mon Marcia. Thats absurd. You know full well that when we advocate that Christ was a "rebel" against the world we are not saying that He rebelled against the trees, the oceans, the animals, the mountains, the stars, and people in general, etc. In other words, "what He created".

He was not a rebel in the sense of the world that He created, but he was a rebel against the erroneous and sinful attitudes, practices, and mindsets that were the standard in the world, and sometimes with in the religious authorities, of that day.

"Christ was not a rebel; he was taking the rebels against God to task."

And most everybody was a rebel against God, just as it is today. That made Christ a rebel.

"Rebellion is by definition defiance against some kind of authority or power over one. No one on earth had authority or power over Jesus."

Jesus was a rebel against error, because He was and is...the Truth.

:godisgood:

 

[Marcia]

Marcia,

C'mon Marcia. Thats absurd. You know full well that when we advocate that Christ was a "rebel" against the world we are not saying that He rebelled against the trees, the oceans, the animals, the mountains, the stars, and people in general, etc. In other words, "what He created".

He was not a rebel in the sense of the world that He created, but he was a rebel against the erroneous and sinful attitudes, practices, and mindsets that were the standard in the world, and sometimes with in the religious authorities, of that day.

And most everybody was a rebel against God, just as it is today. That made Christ a rebel.



Jesus was a rebel against error, because He was and is...the Truth.

:godisgood:

I think you and others are redefining the word "rebel" so you can use it. Jesus was not a rebel just because He came to teach truth and was against false teachings. Being against something does not make you a rebel. The nature of rebellion is defiance against an authority or power over you. Jesus had no such authority over him that he was in rebellion against.

Liberal Christians and New Agers love to say Jesus was a rebel because this is how they see him - going against society. It justifies their own views. But he wasn't going against society in order to defy it like a rebel; he was preaching truth to it and came to offer redemption. This is not rebellion. A rebel does not redeem.

 

[annsni]

Thanks for the info, Annsni! I still don't like some of his language, like saying "you don't know jack about Jesus" (this was in the video). The "jack" is short for an obscenity and everyone knows that.

He seems to be posturing too much for me, although I guess the Lord is using him. The most postive thing about him that I know is that he now speaks against some of the more radical Emerging church views, which he used to be a part of.

Right - I do think that he's changed quite a bit from his earlier years. He's .... maturing??

Our pastor hadn't really heard much about him - our pastor being older (60s) and somewhat old school. He went to the Mars Hill website and said that from what he can see, Driscoll is solid theologically. He read an article that Driscoll wrote on Romans 12:1 that he said was the best commentary on that passage that he's ever seen (and he's going through Romans and hit Romans 12 last week so he's been studying a LOT of commentaries right now). So he MUST be doing something right. LOL

 

[Alive in Christ]

Marcia,

"The nature of rebellion is defiance against an authority or power over you. Jesus had no such authority over him that he was in rebellion against."

The religious authorities...the Pharisees...claimed authority over Gods people, and not only that but they abused it, perverted it and where in great error. You know the exceedingly strong things Christ had to say to them, I dont need to post them.


Jesus was clearly in rebellion against them. Thats just one example.

Christ was a rebel.


:godisgood:

 

[Marcia]

Marcia,



The religious authorities...the Pharisees...claimed authority over Gods people, and not only that but they abused it, perverted it and where in great error. You know the exceedingly strong things Christ had to say to them, I dont need to post them.


Jesus was clearly in rebellion against them. Thats just one example.

Christ was a rebel.


:godisgood:

The religious authorities claimed authority over God's people, but they did not have authority over Jesus.

You miss the meaning of rebellion. It does not mean just to be against something, as I have repeatedly said. It does not just mean to rebuke people, which is what you are referring to. People here want to redefine it because for some reason they want to say Jesus was a rebel.

Rebellion is very negative; it is usually action done out of desire to overthrow authority, and it means a defiance against authority or power over one. It is often associated with violence.

There is nothing in the Bible that gives evidence of Jesus as a rebel. As someone else here said, Jesus was/is the standard. Jesus is also the ultimate authority. An ultimate authority cannot rebel.

 

[TCGreek]

He's kind of well-known. I don't always agree with him but his remarks on Driscoll are good. And MacArthur is hardly the only one to notice this.

MacArthur's site:
http://www.gty.org/

Marcia, I know Dr. MacArthur. I've been reading and listening to him a few years now.

I've even visited his church and met him personally.

My question has to do with his sole authority.

 

[Marcia]

Marcia, I know Dr. MacArthur. I've been reading and listening to him a few years now.

I've even visited his church and met him personally.

My question has to do with his sole authority.

Well, I took you at your word. I tend to do that. I don't always get the underlying undercover hidden remark.

"Sole authority?" I really don't understand.

 

[TCGreek]

Well, I took you at your word. I tend to do that. I don't always get the underlying undercover hidden remark.

"Sole authority?" I really don't understand.

Because MacArthur feels a particular way about Driscoll, Should his evaluation be the standard?

 

[Marcia]

Because MacArthur feels a particular way about Driscoll, Should his evaluation be the standard?

No, I was just offering it. As I said, I had already heard that criticism elsewhere, so MacArthur was not the only one.

However, Annsni said that Driscoll repented of using bad language, which is good.

However, on the video, I thought he was still getting awfully close to "unwholesome" speech.