All graphics and images are copyright of A True Church
Mark Driscoll Is Leading People To Hell
I. Through Suicide
Driscoll believes you can kill yourself and go to heaven. He made this very clear in his April 10, 2013 comment regarding the suicide of Rick Warren's son. Driscoll's last paragraph in his post reads,
Pastor Rick, I love you. Thank you for loving Jesus and so many people. I weep with you for the loss of your son. I rejoice that you worship a Father who buried his Son and is perfectly able to comfort you today. And, I rejoice that your son worshiped God’s Son who not only died, but rose from death and ascended into heaven where he welcomed your son and is preparing a family reunion that will last forever upon the resurrection of the dead. It will be a glorious day when you hug your son again! (underlining added, http://pastormark.tv/2013/04/10/rick-warren-critics-and-the-hope-of-god-s-son)
Driscoll clearly believes Warren's son went to heaven. Warren's son went to hell. People who commit suicide, as Matthew Warren did, prove by this act their faith and hope was not in Christ (e.g. Colossians 1:23). For a Biblical discourse on suicide, see our article on that subject.
II. Through Rejection of God's Commands
Driscoll proves himself to be a false teacher (2 Peter 2:1) via his rejection of the Word of God on several issues. For example, Driscoll rejects 1 Corinthians 14:34-35 and 1 Timothy 2:11-14. This is exemplified with this video where his wife is speaking in front of the church with him - www.youtube.com/watch?v=1WPVxndUcH.
Driscoll further reveals his rejection of 1 Corinthians 5:13 in his sermon “Men and Marriage” (www.youtube.com/watch?NR=1&v=vYBovk6MBEg&feature=endscreen). Near the end (www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZkaeAkJO0w8) Driscoll admits there are fornicators and people living in sin in his church, and he claims to know this. He even claims to know some of them have been there for years. If he knows there are (as he claims in this video), then he does not obey "put away from yourselves the evil person" (1 Corinthians 5:13).
Also, Driscoll rejects the Bible in regards to what it teaches concerning polygamy (www.atruechurch.info/polygamy.html). Driscoll teaches “as doctrines the commandments of men” (Matthew 15:8-9) by condemning polygamy, when God does not (http://theresurgence.com/2009/11/02/is-polygamy-biblical). By this, Driscoll blasphemes (as 2 Timothy 3:2 says they will) godly men of the past (e.g. Abraham, Caleb, David, etc.) who unrepentantly practiced polygamy.
III. Through The Ecumenical Broad Way
In Driscoll's message “Unlimited Limited Atonement” (http://marshill.com/media/christ-on-the-cross/unlimited-limited-atonement) Driscoll makes clear near the end that he is indeed ecumenical, accepting both Calvinists and Arminians (two antithetical false gospels, Galatians 1:8-9). In this message he also notes Spurgeon as a man of God (from his perspective). In another place he says,
We spent a whole week talking about Charles Haddon Spurgeon. He's a great preacher and man of God that we could all learn from. http://theresurgence.com/2008/07/28/recap-spurgeon-is-the-man-week
Spurgeon was most profoundly a man of the devil, teaching the exact opposite of Christ. The Lord taught the way to life is narrow and few find it (Matthew 7:13-14). Spurgeon taught it is wide and many (as opposed to few) find it. See www.atruechurch.info/spurgeon.html. Driscoll is clearly on that same broad road as the rest of the false Christian world. See www.atruechurch.info/savednot.html.
Furthermore, Driscoll considers the false teacher Rick Warren a man of God. Driscoll has written,
Rick Warren is a brother in Christ. Having spoken with him on the phone, spent time at his church, and shared dinner with him, I can assure you that he loves the Bible, loves Jesus, loves pastors, loves the church, and has a heart for the world. (http://theresurgence.com/2009/01/20/thank-you-brother-rick-warren)
Rick Warren is a minister of Satan (as in 2 Corinthians 11:13-15). See www.atruechurch.info/rickwarren.html. The reason Driscoll commends Warren is because Driscoll too is a minister of Satan.
IV. Through Ecumenical Creationism
Driscoll's ecumenical views and rejection of Scripture are really evident in his article on "Answers to Common Questions about Creation" (http://theresurgence.com/2006/07/03/answers-to-common-questions-about-creation) under the question, "What are the various Christian views of creation?" in which he begins by saying,
Among Bible-believing, Jesus-loving Christians there are at least six primary interpretations of the creation account in Genesis 1-2. Among the elders at Mars Hill we find the first two positions to be the most persuasive biblically.
So, there is even sustained doctrinal disagreement in the leadership of his own church over very simple Biblical doctrine, the creation account in Genesis 1-2.
The six views he lists are:
View #1 - Historic Creationism
. . . it is likely that all of creation was completed over an extended period of time (anywhere from days to billions of years).
View #2 - Creationism
In this view, God created the entire universe, including Adam and Eve, in six literal twenty-four hour days.
View #3 - Gap Theory
In this view, Genesis 1:1 explains a first creation that happened perhaps billions of years ago. Then, a catastrophic event, likely the fall of Satan from Heaven, left the earth in the destroyed condition of Genesis 1:2.
View #4 - Literary Framework View
In this view, Genesis 1-2 is intended to be read as a figurative framework explaining creation in a topical and not sequential order. In this view the six days of creation listed in Genesis 1 are also to be interpreted metaphorically as not literal twenty-four hour days.
View #5 - Day-Age View
In this view, God created the universe, including Adam and Eve, in six sequential periods of time that are not literal twenty-four hour days.
View #6 - Theistic Evolution
In this view, God essentially began creation and then pulled back from working directly in creation to instead work through the process of evolution.
#2 is the only view for "Bible-believing, Jesus loving Christians." But, Driscoll has no such discernment (1 John 2:4; 2 John 9).
Later in this same article under "Are the six days of creation literal twenty-four hour days?" he says,
While the six Christian views of creation listed above are possible, the question remains, which is probable?
Driscoll clearly does not believe the Bible. The only view "possible" is the only one Scripture teaches which is clearly #2.
Furthermore, Driscoll further reveals his rejection of the Biblical text by rejecting what the Bible reveals about the age of the earth. He writes under "How old is the Earth?"
This date of a young earth was arrived at by starting with the genealogies in such places as Genesis 5 and 10 and adding the number of years between Adam, Noah, and Abraham to arrive at the total number of years creation had been in existence. But, there are at least three assumptions that may make their findings faulty.
His three "assumptions that may make their findings faulty" are,
First, they assumed that the genealogies in Genesis were strict chronologies and assumed that there were no other generations that existed, . . . .
This is a concept added to the Word (Proverbs 30:5-6) that is not there. There is no justification for a possible "other generations" as is exemplified by the "strict" chronology of Christ in Matthew 1:1-17 counting an exacting 42 generations from Abraham to Christ. Compare this to Christ's genealogy in Luke 3:23-38 that goes all the way back to Adam. As in Matthew 1, there is no indication of gaps.1 If the Biblical text itself dictated a massive skip (as he is talking about), then this would be appropriate. But, otherwise, it should be taken literally as written (i.e. believed). Nonetheless, trying to find, or allowing for, vast eons of time in these genealogies is quite a stretch and departure from the Biblical text.
Driscoll continues and allows for “billions” of years.
Second, they assumed that creation began in Genesis 1:2 and overlooked the fact that Genesis 1:1 could be a brief summary of a number of additional years (perhaps even billions since the word for "beginning" in Hebrew is a very broad word referring to various periods of time) that preceded the six days of creation in which the already made earth was prepared for the creation of mankind.
It is amazing how “In the beginning” can be so complicated! Driscoll makes room for the gap theory which is a blatant disregard of Proverbs 30:5-6. Moreover, “'beginning' in the Hebrew” in the context of Genesis 1 means as it does in English, “beginning.” It is the Hebrew word רֵאשִׁית (rê'shiyt). Every time this word is found in relation to time (Deuteronomy 11:12; Isaiah 46:10; Jeremiah 26:1; 27:1; 28:1; 49:34) it means “beginning.” In Job 8:7 and 42:12 it speaks of Job's “beginning” referring to his former state before his suffering. Elsewhere, it is used for the “beginning” of some thing (Genesis 10:10; Psalm 111:10; Proverbs 1:7; 8:22; 17:14; Job 8:7; 42:12; Ecclesiastes 7:8; Micah 1:13), the “first” of a product (Exodus 23:19; 34:26; Leviticus 2:12; 23:10; Numbers 15:20-21; 18:12; Deuteronomy 18:4 [2x]; 26:2, 10; 2 Chronicles 31:5; Nehemiah 10:38; 12:44; Proverbs 3:9; Jeremiah 2:3; Ezekiel 20:40; 44:30 [2x]), the “first” of something (Genesis 49:3; Numbers 24:10; Deuteronomy 21:17; 33:21; Job 40:19; Psalm 78:51; 105:36; Proverbs 4:7 “principle thing;” Hosea 9:10 “first season”), the “best” of something (1 Samuel 2:29; 15:21; Ezekiel 48:14; Amos 6:6), “prominent” (Daniel 11:41), “foremost” (Jeremiah 49:35), and “chief” (Amos 6:1).
Third, they assumed that Genesis 1:5 speaks of the first day of creation, when it is best translated "one day" and not day one of history. If this is the case, which Exodus 20:11 seems to indicate, then their counting from the first day forward is off because they wrongly assumed a first day that may have been preceded by many other days.
This again adds a concept that is not there ("many other days," Proverbs 30:5-6) and rejects the clear declaration of the first of the six days of creation, as Exodus 20:11 clearly proclaims.
For in six days the LORD made the heavens and the earth, the sea, and all that is in them, and rested the seventh day. (Exodus 20:11)
This statement is made in the context of six literal twenty four hour days (Exodus 20:9-10), and if that wasn't enough, Genesis 1 describes every day of creation as a literal twenty four hour day with the words, more literally, "and it was evening and it was morning, one day" (Genesis 1:5).2 The next more literally reads, “and it was evening and it was morning, a second day” (Genesis 1:8),3 and so forth unto and through the “sixth day” (Genesis 1:13, 19, 23, 31). Evening and morning are mentioned each and every day. It is not unclear what is being said, except to those who do not believe (2 Corinthians 4:4).
Finally, when one calculates the 1656 years of genealogies up to the flood (Genesis 5:3-32; 7:11), the 582 years of the Hebrew genealogies from the flood to the time Jacob came into Egypt (Genesis 9:28-29: 11:10-26; 21:5; 25:26; 47:9), the 430 years Israel spent in Egypt (Exodus 12:40), the 480 years from the Exodus to Solomon (1 Kings 6:1), the 427 years of the kings (1 Kings 6:1; 2 Chronicles 9:30-36:11), the 70 years of the Babylonian captivity (2 Chronicles 36:20-23; Jeremiah 25), and the prophesied 483 years of Daniel to the time of Christ (Daniel 9:25), it becomes evident that the heavens and the earth had only been in existence for approximately 4128 lunar years by the time Christ came. So, where are the billions of years?
Later in this same discourse under the question, “How are men and women different than the rest of creation?” Driscoll writes,
As we read the opening chapters of Genesis we also discover that men and women were created for four relationships.
For his second point he says,
Second, we were made to have a psychological relationship with ourselves.
Where does he find that in “the opening chapters of Genesis”? Because we were created in the image of God (Genesis 1:26-27)? Where does Scripture dictate such a thing (or anything else) equals "made to have a psychological relationship with" yourself? Nowhere. Such a concept is not found in "the opening chapters of Genesis" or anywhere else in Scripture. This is not God's Word (Proverbs 30:5-6).This is psycho-babel, the “wisdom of this world” which God calls foolishness (1 Corinthians 3:18).
Someone could just as easily argue that chickens were made to have a psychological relationship with themselves. Birds are also mentioned in "the opening chapters of Genesis." It is noted that they have souls like we do (Genesis 2:19 “living soul” נֶפֶשׁ חַיָּה). Perhaps this study of the soul (psychology) would apply to them as well.
In case someone might think Driscoll is talking about a relationship with other human beings, he's not. That's his next point.
Third, we were made to have social relationships with other people.
Then he gives his fourth “created for.”
Fourth, we were made to have an environmental relationship with nature.
With this kind of “created for . . . relationships” criteria, you could make an endless list of “relationships” we were supposedly “created for” simply because such things exist.
In his article Driscoll mentions the verse that reveals what we were “created for” (Colossians 1:16). He should have stuck with that and not speculated into good sounding (2 Peter 2:18) human wisdom (psychology). Speaking of Christ, Colossians 1:16 says,
For by Him all things were created that are in heaven and that are on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or dominions or principalities or powers. All things were created through Him and for Him.
We were “created for” Christ, to be either “vessels of mercy” or “vessels of wrath” (Romans 9:22-23), and, although not explicitly stated, there is a good hint to this in Genesis 3. Genesis 3:15 speaks of "her Seed" (Christ),4 and Genesis 3:22 records God's agenda to thwart man from eternal life.5
In this same article Driscoll asks, “Did animals die before the Fall?” His first sentence in his answer reads,
In Genesis 2:17 God told the man that if he sinned he would die. But nothing is said of the possible death of animals before the Fall so we do not know if animals died before the Fall, though it is possible.
If Driscoll knew and believed the Bible, he would know. But instead, he doesn't know and encourages others to be ignorant. Nonetheless, for those who do know and believe the Bible, it is quite clear. No animals died before the Fall. Romans 5:12 makes that clear.
. . . through one man sin entered the world, and death through sin, . . . . (see also Romans 8:20/Ecclesiastes 1:1-4; 2:16-18)
Romans 5:12 explicitly notes death came “through sin.” There was no death until “sin entered the world” (the fall).
After the above question, Driscoll askes, “What about dinosaurs?” He answers,
When it comes to explaining the apparent existence and now extinction of dinosaurs there are generally two answers. Those who believe in a young earth believe that the dinosaurs were among the animals Adam named in Genesis 2:19-20 and that they were wiped out in the Flood of Genesis 6-9.
Genesis 6:19 records God told Noah he would bring two “of every living thing of all flesh” “into the ark.” Dinosaurs are not excluded. Thus, they were not “wiped out” into extinction in the Flood. See, for example, Job 40:15-24.6
Driscoll continues and finishes his answer by saying,
Those who hold an old earth position generally believe that the dinosaurs lived and became extinct before Adam was ever born.
This reveals again Driscoll's disdain for the Biblical account as he allows this to be a possible answer. It is a lie and he repeats it, as if it could be true.
Finally, by the way, Adam was never born (Genesis 2:7).
1. The genealogy in Luke 3:36 does not follow exactly what is found in the Hebrew genealogy of Genesis 11:12. There is an additional “of Cainan” in Luke 3:36 that is not there in the Hebrew of Genesis 11:12, but it is found in the Greek Old Testament (Septuagint, LXX) for Genesis 11:12.
2. Genesis 1:5, וַיְהִי־עֶרֶב וַיְהִי־בֹקֶר יוֹם אֶחָד (vayehiy-`erev vayehiy-voqer yom 'echâd)
3. Genesis 1:8, וַיְהִי־עֶרֶב וַיְהִי־בֹקֶר יוֹם שֵׁנִי (vayehiy-`erev vayehiy voqer yom shêniy)
4. See Galatians 3:16, 19; 2 Timothy 2:8; 1 Peter 1:23; 1 John 3:9.
5. Genesis 3:22 says,
Then the LORD God said, "Behold, the man has become like one of Us, to know good and evil. And now, lest he put out his hand and take also of the tree of life, and eat, and live forever."
It is evident from this the Lord did not want them to obtain eternal life ("live forever"). In John 17:3 Jesus said,
And this is eternal life, that they may know You, the only true God, and Jesus Christ whom You have sent.
Jesus reveals the purpose of eternal life is so that people might know God ("that they may know You"). The Lord prevented this from taking place in Genesis 3, and kept people from it thereafter (Genesis 3:24); and saved very few from His wrath (Genesis 6:7-19; 1 Peter 3:20).
6. Job 40:15-24 is not the only place "Behemoth" is found. It is found elsewhere, but it is not typically translated as "Behemoth" as in Job 40:15. In other passages, it is typically translated "beasts." This is because "Behemoth" is simply a transliteration of the Hebrew word בְהֵמוֹת (behamot) which is the plural feminine form for the word for “beast,” בְּהֵמָה (behamâh), e.g. Genesis 1:24. Yet, in several passages it should be translated “Behemoth,” because the context is singular (as in Job 40:15), not plural.
Psalm 73:22 is a good example of this, where the Psalmist calls himself a “Behemoth” before God.
I was a Behemoth with you. (Psalm 73:22, a more literal translation of בְּהֵמוֹת הָיִיתִי עִמָּךְ [behêmot hâyiytiy `imâch])
Likewise, in Job 12:7 בְהֵמוֹת (behêmot) is translated “beasts” (NKJV; KJV; NAS), but the verb with it, תֹרֶךָּ (torechâ), more literally, “it will teach you,” is singular, not plural. This same exact verb, תֹרֶךָּ (torechâ), is found in the next verse (Job 12:8) and translated, “it will teach you” (NKJV) referring to the earth. Thus, Job 12:7 would be more literally translated, “Behemoth.”
Moreover, in Jeremiah 12:4 בְהֵמוֹת (behêmot) is the subject of the single feminine verb סָפְתָה (sâphtâh). Although the masculine noun עוֹף (`oph) “bird” (or “birds) is contextually part of the subject, the single feminine verb סָפְתָה (sâphtâh) points to the feminine noun בְהֵמוֹת (behêmot) as being understood here as a singular subject. Thus, in Jeremiah 12:4 it would be more literally translated “Behemoth.”
Also, in Deuteronomy 32:24 NKJV has “teeth of beasts” for שֶׁן־בְּהֵמוֹת (shen-behêmot) which is more literally, “tooth of Behemoth.”
Finally, the construct form, בַּהֲמוֹת (bahamot), is found in Joel 1:20, and there it is translated “beasts” (NKJV; KJV; NAS). But, the verb with it, “cry out” תַּעֲרוֹג (ta`arog), is singular, not plural. Thus, it would be more literally translated in Joel 1:20 as “Behemoth.”
a true church, P. O. Box 130, Moodys, OK 74444