« Spurgeon on faith’s necessity | Main | Thoughts on the Court Ruling on the Ministers’ Housing Allowance »

Nov 22, 2013


Feed You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.

peter lumpkins


What I find at times humorous and at other times a bit irritating is guys like Driscoll who repeatedly and publicly pooh-pooh women, "effeminate" men, "heretics," "Arminians," and practically anyone from any other "tribe" they desire and count it as funny or just normal, but then get defensive when they're asked pointed questions and immediately charge "you're unkind" or "you're rude" or "you're not very Christlike." Rude? Unkind? You mean the Bart Simpson-like bad-boy of evangelicalism has the audacity to charge another--in this case, Janet Mefferd, who, as the audio demonstrates, is far from being either rude or unkind in attitude or tone in asking her questions--with being inappropriate in etiquette and/or demeanor?

Oh brother. Give me a West Georgia break...


Let's get this straight. Driscoll accusing someone of being "rude" or "un-kind". Pot meet kettle.


This one was interesting. Mark even tells her he was helping her out by being on her show. The hubris was overwhelming. But we find out later his publicist called and asked for him to be on. What a phony.

Janet was right. A man's long time work from a book he had published for SALE had only a vague reference to a website and no book page number for 14 pages! What integrity!

Yes, we must actually live out decency and integrity BEFORE we trot out Jesus to hide behind. How ridiculous Mark sounds. Then he hanges up. Total class?

Me thinks Driscolls star is waning and he has been so surrounded by yes men for so long he cannot handle a direct question about his very PUBLIC book he is SELLING.


The Amazon descriptor for Driscoll’s new book:

"The bad news is that many believers just don’t get it. They continue to gather exclusively into insular tribes, lobbing e-bombs at each other in cyberspace."

Well, somebody better keep lobbing them Driscoll's way ... this guy is a mess. He is taking the "church" for a ride.

Regarding his attitude about women, I keep thinking this may very well be the Achilles heel (or one of them) which will eventually bring an end to the “resurgence.” When Christian women trapped in New Calvinism finally figure out that they are deemed far lesser than Biblically specified, you will see them (and their man) bail out of this movement. Matt Chandler, Acts 29 President and leading New Calvinism pastor/influencer within SBC ranks, puts it this way: “I teach to men.” While Chandler and other NC leaders attempt to put their complementarian views into Biblical perspective, it comes across out-of-balance and condescending for those who have ears to hear. If you visit YRR church plants in your area (I have), look closely at the countenance of the women there.

Tim Rogers


What are you doing this for? Mark Driscoll has 70k Twitter followers and according to his position I can copy your material and use it as my own because we are friends. :)

Andrew Barker

Roll on the day, and it has to happen some day, when that age old phrase "there's no such thing as bad publicity" is shown to be wrong! :-)


Andrew - Yep, the "bad publicity" in this case may very well boost book sales for Driscoll. I can hear the busy little fingers of YRR e-scrambling on Amazon to get their copy now. LifeWay needs to put this on their Driscoll shelf soon: http://www.lifeway.com/Keyword/mark+driscoll

While I'm not a Driscoll fan, I found myself actually sympathizing with him some during the go-for-the-jugular interview by Ms. Mefferd. Then I quickly got over that feeling as I reflected on the number this potty-mouth preacher has done on Southern Baptist youth.

peter lumpkins


Well, according to Mark, his followers are 700,000, not 70K. But when we look at his twitter page, it's 437,000. https://twitter.com/PastorMark

While 437K is still an amazing amount of twitter followers, it's not 700k anyway you slice it (nor dumping in the quarter mil FB page "likes" assists since page "likes" do not equal followers). Maybe 300K stop following him when he crashed MacArthur's party! Anyways, now we know where J.D. Hall gets his practice of claiming "thousands" of SB listeners ;^).

Scott Shaver

From Tim:

"What are you doing this for? Mark Driscoll has 70k Twitter followers and according to his position I can copy your material and use it as my own because we are friends. :)"

Is this actually what the validation of an authentic biblical Christian faith has come too ...700K on Twitter?

What in the world does such a logic have to do with whether or not Driscoll is off-base?

I swear if there's ever a widespread failure of the national power grid ....Christianity as promoted by some folks will collapse.

peter lumpkins

Hey Scott. I think Tim was just fooling around :^)

Scott Shaver

My apologies to Tim, I caught a glimpse of the sarcasm but went ahead with the comment as a method of venting.

Sick to death of electronic calvinism. :)

peter lumpkins

No problem, Scott. I know how you feel. Tim's a cowboy misplaced in NC...


Did I hear Driscoll say he was doing Ms. Mefford a favor granting her an interview? How dare her to be so rude to a Twitter King! Not to mention he crawled to the phone with the flu to sell his book on her show (knowing that whether the press be positive or negative, YRR whippersnappers snap his books up anyway).

Oh brother. Give me a West Georgia break...

(Whoops, did I just borrow someone's line without asking?)


Max wrote:

> If you visit YRR church plants in your area (I have), look
> closely at the countenance of the women there.

That's a fact.

When my previous church was in the midst of its stealth takeover, I noted such in the face of the wife of one of the key newcomers/players. I even said to one of our elders, who I later found out was involved, "She looks afraid, makes almost no eye contact, and never smiles...what does he DO to her?" The elder wasn't quite sure if I was joking and had an initial facial expression of a smile; with the truth of my observation dawning on him, the elder's expression and tone quickly turned serious, then dismissive. "She smiles," he insisted, then made a quick exit.

The next week, she was trying to look up, make eye contact, and smile as she came across people, including me. Her eyes didn't match the corners of her mouth, however, and the falseness of all that was being shown to us started to become visible.

I later learned she'd been an outstanding student and on a road to accomplishment until she did what she thought was the right thing for a terrific young Christian woman to do in marrying a seminary student / future preacher. Now, she's been forced out of her career (which was in ministry, by the way) and into the stereotypical mold of a Calvinist-denominational wife, doing little more than serving snacks and drinks to guests her husband wants to impress/best and cooking, cleaning, and raising his spawn. All while now *forcing* smiles lest she reveal how trapped she's become.

Scott Shaffer

If you listen to the raw audio of the interview it appears he didn't hang up.

peter lumpkins

Thanks Scott. It was confirmed via email it was a hangup and not a lost signal, etc.

Scott Shaffer

I'll take your word for it. At the end of the raw audio file he says something like, "I'm still here", and then you hear a producer informing Janet of it. Perhaps he hung up after that. In either event,he was still on the phone when she cut away to the commercial break.


Trapper - You've just described the wives of others I've known and observed within New Calvinism ranks ... young women ensnared, with their own spiritual gifts finding no outlet. It really doesn't take too much spiritual discernment to see this ... just simple observation. So sad.

JD Hall

Here's the uncut audio: ftp://ftp.srnprograms.com/Driscoll/

Janet explains on her FB page that the second voice was Justin, Mark's assistant, on a third line (it seems). It appears that Justin was still on, but Mark hung up on his end.


When Pastor Driscoll refers to the low percentage of "real Christians" in this country, is he inferring that only Evangelicals are "real" Christians. Do most evangelicals believe that?

I am an orthodox Lutheran. Last time I checked the Bible says that the only thing necessary to be saved is to "believe on the Lord Jesus Christ". There are millions of devote orthodox Lutherans, Roman Catholics, Eastern Orthodox, conservative Anglicans and other Trinitarian Christians in this country. Add that number with you evangelicals/Southern Baptists (who we orthodox consider to be "real Christians") and "real" Christians still represent a sizable percentage of the US population. We number much more than the small percentage Pastor Driscoll mentions.

I hope Evangelicals are not under the false impression that one must believe all the correct doctrines and pray a version of the Sinner's Prayer to be saved, to be a "real" Christian. The Word of God says that one is saved simply by believing in Jesus Christ as Lord. Your belief of when God saved you is not included in that passage of Scripture, even if you believe that God saved you in infant Baptism. "Do you believe at this MOMENT in Jesus Christ as your Lord and Savior?" THAT is what matters. That is what determines whether or not you are a true Christian; not whether you "really believe what the Bible says", which is another way to say, you are saved if "you believe MY evangelical doctrine" as Pastor Driscoll seems to imply.

Ben Simpson

Apparently it was lost on Mrs. Mefferd that she & her staff deceived Mark Driscoll into coming on the show for the purpse of promoting his book but instead unleashed a surprise attack on not only his book but his integrity as a person. If she is of as high integrity as she tried to put on there, then she would have given him a heads up instead ambushing with a gotcha moment.

If Driscoll didn't cite correctly, that certainly needs to be changed immediately, but Mrs. Mefferd should leave the ambushes to secular media personalities. She may be right but was clearly wrong in how she apprached it. But hey, most of you on here are are no fans of Driscoll and are just glad to see him given a hard time. Enjoy!

Ben Simpson

Scott has provided evidence that Driscoll certainly did not hang up although he probably should have long before the end of that segment to get out of Mefferd's inappropriate ambush.

A Christian

Janet and pretty much everyone who has commented on this page has a Pharisaical Spirit. Your all wrong, your idiots, and I pray for anyone who has to put up with your false logic and reasoning.


Driscoll ASKED to be on her show. SHE warned them she was going to ask him tough questions and they said that was fine. HE wanted the publicity. THEY came to HER. Not the other way around. And yet Driscoll says "I'm here doing you a favor"?? Seriously? What an egomaniac.

So, ok apparently he did not at first hang up on Janet but he did sit there for 9 full seconds saying nothing (which is just as petulant).

Here's the end of the interview audio from Driscoll's side

Here's the statement from Mefferd's producer including the link to the raw audio from their side:

From Bobby, the producer in Dallas.
Here is the link to the raw recorded Salem Radio Network audio file of Janet Mefferd's Nov. 21, 2013, interview with Pastor Mark Driscoll, author of "A Call to Resurgence."

It was recorded at 12p ET on Nov 21 as a mono .mp3 file for playback on air at 3p ET. It was not recorded as a multitrack session, so there would have been no way to JUST pull out Driscoll’s voice. Janet was clearly conducting the interview, and upon completion of her thoughts, Mark Driscoll failed to respond for two seconds so Janet closed the segment. No audio came through the board after Janet’s words “in your book.”

It is interesting that even on Driscoll’s own audio recording, he was silent for 9 seconds. The second voice on the Driscoll audio was Justin Dean, Driscoll’s assistant, who patched through the original call.

Did Justin hit the mute button on his end, preventing Janet from hearing Mark for the final seconds of the segment? I do not know. I can only state what occurred on our end.

I specifically left the volume up on the phone line until Janet said, "And we'll be coming back." The phone call then disconnected from Driscoll's end before the segment was completed.

FOR THE RECORD, Janet DID NOT hang up on Pastor Driscoll, nor did WE cut the interview short. We also edited nothing for the final playback.

Janet is a Christian and a journalist. She would never doctor an interview or betray her Christian testimony or journalistic ethics.

Bobby Belt
The Janet Mefferd Show


(just login as 'guest' to download that)


" She may be right but was clearly wrong in how she apprached it. "

And obviously to all of you that's a worse sin (asking a question one too many times when the person doesn't give you a straight answer and deflects, passes the buck, and issues 'fake' "if I did wrong" apologies) than deliberate plagiarism... FOURTEEN PAGES? Come on, people.

Seems we're learning that the blatant misuse of "touch not the Lord's anointed" has crossed over from TBN to the YRR crowd. Sick.


By the way if you want another similar interview, listen to the Unbelievable radio podcast from 1-14-12 and he did the same thing to that guy for asking a respectful simple question. Accused Justin Brierly of attempting to be a shock jock. It was totally wacked and the interview goes downhill from there. This is the one where he accuses British Christians essentially of being pansies and their pastors are "guys in dresses preaching to grandmas" and stands up for his own 'drill sergeant' approach. (At best he reminds me of Herbert Sobel in Band of Brothers.) After this interview they came up with STRICT guidelines on further interviews. Apparently those didn't protect him this time. What a tough guy.

Can't seem to link directly to the podcast so here is where I found it:
look for the 1-14-12 episode:
Pretty eye opening.

And a great analysis can be found here:


I hate that Driscoll claims to be Reformed. He clearly is not.


One tires of the perpetual but misplaced not to mention lame defense when one of the YRR heroes do not fare so well in public perception. He was "bushwhacked" or the brunt end of a misguided journalist more interested in "gotcha" moments than real, substantial questions. And, the questioner becomes the 'bad guy' for bringing up legitimate questions. Please. Dealing with some of these guys is dealing with the biggest whiny butts on God's globe.

With that, I am...


Poor Mark Driscoll, a persecuted soul.

He invaded the Strange Fire conference to be controversial. He was met with grace and he used their graces to claim it was all innocent. Shame on you.

He got caught with his hand in the cookie jar on the radio. Of course nobody likes that. But it just shows you that Mark isn't the superstar you think he is. He's got A LOT of baggage like this. It ain't pretty.


"touch not the Lord's anointed"

Yep, Paula, I've heard that defense of Driscoll from the YRR camp. Many of us who attempt to speak some wisdom into this mess would not offer our input if we discerned that was the case. We've had an outbreak of arrogance, rather than anointing, in the New Calvinism movement which must be addressed. Trying to contend for the faith without being contentious has become a tough balance to hit with these militant and aggressive folks.

Scott Shaver

Just so there's no mistake:

Scott Shaffer and Scott Shaver are two very different people.


Thanks Scott Shaver ... I was beginning to think you were a "moderate" or something worse.


I guess the Baptist and evangelical readers of this blog are more concerned with plagerism and pastoral arrogance than the act of one Christian labeling other Christians as not being "real" Christians.

Very sad.

Andrew Barker

Scott, since JD was good enough to contribute to this debate I think it wise that you've come clean about your identity! After all, it's bad enough that Peter has two nom de plumes ie Lydia and Mary without somebody else getting in on the act! ;)


I'm not speaking for folks who post on this site and they may very well disagree with me. "Some" of my positions as a reformed Baptist are very much frowned upon by most folks on this site, which stands to reason because they are not "reformed".

I don't think I / They are "more concerned with plagiarism and ......than the act of......" Both are worthy topics, the focus here is currently on the plagiarism issue, which doesn't need to lead you into thinking it's "more" important than your point.

I love evangelizing folks, those who attend church and those who don't. My experience, limited as it may be, has left me concluding that the determining factor of who is and isn't of the faith (not that's I'm the judge)is based on more than the simple statement ..."Bible says that the only thing necessary to be saved is to "believe on the Lord Jesus Christ".

While, in a sense, salvation is so simple a child can believe, it's important to examine the statement within the culture we live. I would NOT count a person a brother in Christ who simply says they believe that quote, even if very sincerely.

I have a short history in the Mormon church and have Family who are Mormons. As such, while I'm far from an authority, I do have a working knowledge of Mormon teaching. Most Mormons will be happy to testify that they believe the statement I quoted from you and yet they are not of the true faith.

I live in the south where "everyone" is a Christian, unfortunately many are not. Which is why I said I evangelize folks who are both in the church and out.

A Christian

Look if Peter Jones feels he's been plagiarized I'm sure that is something he can take up with Mark. You say this man has "baggage" but you don't seem to understand that everyone but Jesus has baggage lol. This seems like an opportunistic way of trying to slander a mans reputation in some hope of rescuing his fallen followers. You say this man is arrogant(which he may have been in the past) but all I see are arrogant comments coming from people who are preying on the fall of a teacher who's theology you don't agree with. You should be ashamed of yourselves.


Mefford "sinned by questioning"
Driscoll modeled "act like men"



My point is that no one on this comment page batted an eye at the astonishing comment by Pastor Driscoll that only 8% of the American people are "real" Christians. Plagerism is a sin. Arrogance is a sin. But denying the label of "real Christian" to millions of non-Baptist, non-evangelical Christians in this country should be condemned as an equally appalling sin.

On the issue of what is necessary to believe in order to be a "real Christian", lets look at Scripture. There is not one single passage of Scripture that states that "You must believe all the right doctrines to be saved". None. Zero. There is no evidence from Scripture that Christ grilled the thief on the cross regarding his doctrinal positions on the Trinity, Justification by Faith, and the "ordinances" of Baptism and the Lord's Supper before granting him salvation with his words, "today you will be with me in Paradise".

In multiple passages of Scripture it is very clear that all that God requires for someone to be a "real Christian" is genuine faith and belief in and on the risen Jesus Christ as Lord.

Like you, I do not believe that the Mormon "Church" is a "real" Christian Church because they deny the core doctrines of the Christian faith, in particular the doctrine of the Trinity. However, if a person identifying as a Mormon tells me that he believes on Jesus Christ as his Lord and Savior, I do not believe that God gives me the authority to pronounce him as a non-Christian. That is God's decision. I would definitely tell him that he is attending a non-Christian church and that he needs to believe in the Doctrine of the Trinity and Justification by Faith.

Evangelicals need to be very careful when they start playing God and denying the "label" Christian to persons professing Christ as their Lord and Savior.

peter lumpkins


Come on. Your point concerning Driscoll's questionable stat not being explored here is hardly well taken. The post wasn't intended to question Driscoll's presentation but Mefferd's confrontation with him and his book. One might as well accept as valid the complaint that no Hip Hop was played at the National Polka Festival as to accept your complaint no one on this page "batted an eye" at Driscoll's questionable eight percent.

With that, I am...


Gary, How about those 700x twitter followers who were told his books had been "confiscated" at Strange Fire".

And his followers read his blovations, explanations, recaps, etc, etc and STILL believe/defend him every time. Must be the machismo. As they say the bolder the more believed, I guess. I cannot figure it out. Oh I remember! They excuses after Joyful Exiles, pornodivinations, sodomy and assorted vulgarites/lies was: He preaches the Gospel. That will guarantee you off the hook if you are a celebrity Christian. Whatever "Gospel" meant to them at the time.

Our dear friend Ben thinks Driscoll was tricked and deceived by Janet Mefford. Evidently she orchestrated a nefarious ambush of "mean" questions concerning his very PUBLIC twittered behavior and responded to his PR people about the book promotion.

What a meanie. Did she not understand how sensative Mark is?


That will probably be the last time I listen to Janet Mefferd. That was a very ungracious ambush.

And no, I am not some kind of a Mark Driscoll fan. I know very little about him.

It looks like showmanship on her part to me.

Boooh. Very lame Janet.

If I were Mark Driscoll, I wouldn't have been nearly as gracious to her.

She was completely out of line in her approach.


Well, I've looked for a comments feed and cannot find one. I was hoping to track this conversation.

Why no comments feed or option to receive notice of follow up comments??



My point is this: If an orthodox Christian pastor or priest, during an interview regarding plagiarism and pastoral arrogance, made a comment inferring that Baptists and evangelicals are not "real" Christians, THAT would be the topic of conversation on an orthodox Christian blog discussing the interview.

No one in "Evangelical-land" batted an eye at Pastor Driscoll's comment relegating 72% of American Christians to eternity in hell.

peter lumpkins


I got your point. But you're ignoring mine; namely, it's completely irrelevant to complain a comment thread does not address what you judge is a more suitable subject toward your desires when the comments fairly well match the issue the post raised in the first place. You now make out like I would feel different if Driscoll had implied "Baptists and evangelicals are not "real" Christians." Well, why would I? My post is not about the accuracy of Driscoll's claims in his presentation. Rather as I've noted and apparently all but you have fairly well gotten, my post only is about Mefferd's questioning Driscoll over his alleged mis-citation and possible plagiarism. To complain here that I and/or others should be more concerned like you are about something else is, in a word, absurd. This thread is what it is.

Michael Smith

Bunch of angry Pharisees, all with a bag of rocks in hand! Put 'em down people. The raw audio shows that he didn't hang up. And really the "plagiarism" charge isn't about NOT footnoting - because he did. So this is all boiled down to "not footnoting ENOUGH!" Seriously! God deliver us from the hyper-legalists!



Really, you are picking a fight where there is none to fight. Driscoll made other statements, other than the low percentage quote, which folks will also disagree with. That's simply not the topic at this time. Cant say it any better than Peter Did.

I will challenge you to Biblically think thru your following comment:
"However, if a person identifying as a Mormon tells me that he believes on Jesus Christ as his Lord and Savior, I do not believe that God gives me the authority to pronounce him as a non-Christian. That is God's decision"

For the benefit of evangelism, A true Christian does have "the authority to pronounce him as a non-Christian" when talking about a Mormon.

I'm defining the term "pronouncement" to simply mean Making a "judgment" about the salvation of a person, based on what that person believes.

A Christian also has the authority to pronounce A Muslim, atheist or Buddhist as a non Christian because they deny the fundamentals of the faith. It is impossible for a Mormon, Buddhist or Muslim to have true faith in Christ as Lord and Savior.

One growing problem with our "Christian" culture today is the refusal of some preachers and teachers to proclaim the truth when it comes to defining what true salvation is and is not.

For instance when Joel Osteen states that he counts Mitt Romney as a brother in Christ. Romney is a true believe in Mormonism. Osteen says this because Romney will say he has faith and trust is in Christ.


Enough said.

Scott Shaffer

Carl Trueman, who has had much to say about Chrisitian celebrity, weighs in:




I grew up a fundamentalist Baptist until age 18. I was taught that only independent, fundamental, pre-millennial Baptists were "real" Christians. Everyone else is going to hell. I was under the impression that evangelicals do not hold that terrible, narrow-minded belief system. That is why I was shocked to hear Pastor Driscoll's comment and see that no evangelical had denounced it.

I am not interested in defending Mormons. I detest their non-apostolic belief system and their predatory practices of converting Trinitarian Christians.

My concern was the dismissal of the salvation of most non-evangelical, non-Baptist Trinitarian Christians. My purpose was to point out how this attitude of "only we are getting into heaven" still exists in evangelicalism. It is wrong.

I still insist that there is NO passage of Scripture that states that you must "believe on the Lord Jesus Christ AND hold all the correct (Baptist) doctrines in order to be a real Christian.

Baptists and evangelicals are so adamant about the Bible being the ONLY authority on Christian doctrine (we orthodox Lutherans, like Martin Luther, believe that the Bible is the SUPREME, FINAL authority on doctrine, not the only authority) but yet there is no Scripture that states that a correct belief system on doctrine is a requirement for salvation. Ask the thief on the cross. Ask the Philippian jailer. Ask the Ethiopian Eunuch. None of these converts were required to memorize the Four Spiritual Laws. They were told to "believe". That's it.

I realize my comments on not exactly "on topic" but this thread seems to have died anyway. If Peter refuses to publish my response to you I will not be offended. He is correct, my comment is not on the principle topic of this thread, and this is his blog.


By the way, an orthodox Lutheran would never refer to a Mormon as a Christian brother. We also doubt his status of being a Christian. However, we do not believe in telling someone who thinks he is a believer in Christ that he is not.

We would preach the Gospel to a Mormon, the same as we would to a Muslim, Jew or Buddhist: Salvation is a free gift of God, by his grace alone, received through faith alone, in Christ alone: Believe. Repent. Be baptized.


Scott, Carl Trueman was also on the 3 man panel that exonerated CJ Mahaney of any ministerial shenanigans. Evidently shepherding cults are ok with him, too.


Thanks Scott Shaffer for the Carl Trueman link. He speaketh truth regarding Driscoll. Certain corners of reformed theology are cluttered with celebrity icons - the YRR prefer the term "influencers". Well, there's no doubt that influence they do - the YRR have become so open-minded to icon buzz that their spiritual brains have fallen out. Driscoll Drivel and Piper Points are tweeted and re-tweeted through cyberspace. Like a Pied Piper, these influencers are stealing our youth. It's going to be tough attracting a generation back when Driscollism has run its course. But, that's the strategy of New Calvinism, I suppose ... target the most sensitive in our midst. The rest of us are apparently too old, stuck in tradition, and Biblically illiterate to waste any time on. If you can capture a generation, you can change the church of tomorrow. I keep praying for God to prepare some young folks in the wilderness who have not surrendered to such influence - may they come forth soon.


Thirsty jon,

how was it an "ambush"? I am always interested in people's definitions of words they throw out.

Let's see, Driscoll's people asked for him to be on the show. Does that mean Driscoll gets to decide the questions? Well the questions WERE about his book which is why he wanted to be there. Just not the questions Driscoll wanted about the book.

Sadly for him Mefford was quite familiar with Jones' work. I suppose had he known that, his people would not have asked for him to be on?

So, were his books "confiscated" at Strange fire or not?

I am starting to see how this word business makes for some interesting games in Driscoll world.

BTW: Word is getting out that Mefford did talk to Jones before the she asked Driscoll those questions.

14 pages? And you call it an ambush.


"Bunch of angry Pharisees, all with a bag of rocks in hand! Put 'em down people. The raw audio shows that he didn't hang up. And really the "plagiarism" charge isn't about NOT footnoting - because he did. So this is all boiled down to "not footnoting ENOUGH!" Seriously! God deliver us from the hyper-legalists! "

Can you explain the dead air? We know he did not hang up because his assistant guy was recording from their end. So why all the dead air. Why did neither of them on Driscoll's end say anything?

My personal guess is this is a typical tactic of a bully narcissist who could not take control of the situation. He wanted her to hang up. Why? Because he had already lied. He said he was doing her a favor by being there. I am really surprised Janet did not jump on that at the time. But he was so all over the place trying to MAKE HER the problem it was hard to keep up. (typical tactic of narcissists). She knew his people called her! So he had already lied up to that point.

I guess this is what passes as Act Like Men in that bizarre world you guys run in.

No thanks. Our SBC leadership thought so too which is why we have tons of Driscoll clones out there with power and OUR money.

peter lumpkins


It's an "ambush" by a "bunch of pharisees" because an all too common knee-jerk reaction emanating from many YRR types is to avoid responsibility at all costs. None of this was Mark's doings according to them. It's all Janet Mefferd. She's ungodly for pressing a question one naturally should understand remains positively significant to her--she's a journalist by both academic credentials and experience after all--but Driscoll is the victim even though it's his manuscript lacking appropriate citations. He's godly, she's not.


I don't object to her asking the question.

But Driscoll's answer was very satisfactory. Summary: "I didn't intend that, if I made a mistake I am sorry, I will look into it."

But she kept pressing. And pressing. And pressing.

That makes me think the whole thing was an ambush. I felt like I was listening to Dr. Laura or Norman Goldman or Bill O-Reilly, or any of the others that bring people on their shows and ambush them.

I don't believe her treatment of Driscoll was Christian behavior. At all.

I have no idea whether or not Driscoll generally behaves as a Christian. But I have no objection to him pointing out that her approach was unkind. I also would have no objection if he indeed did hang up.

I wouldn't go on her show and I have no real interest in watching her or listening to her after observing her behavior.

Tim Rogers


Now that is a name everyone can identify easily. Why not just name yourself John Wayne?

Seriously, do you not know how book tours go in the secular world? The publishers call and ask various medial outlets to have the author on so the book can be discussed. According to the various statements in the comment thread already the person setting up the interview was warned that she was going to ask the hard questions.

Yes, Pastor Mark did say that he didn't intend to make that mistake and he would look into it. However, for an author that writes 14 pages of undocumented thoughts a "its a mistake" is not an answer that should be accepted at face value. Why not ask the page numbers and the exact quotations that seem to be plagiarized? That would help move the conversation back to the book. That is, if the author actually wrote the book and it wasn't written by a ghost writer.


"It's an "ambush" by a "bunch of pharisees" because an all too common knee-jerk reaction emanating from many YRR types is to avoid responsibility at all costs. None of this was Mark's doings according to them. It's all Janet Mefferd. She's ungodly for pressing a question one naturally should understand remains positively significant to her--she's a journalist by both academic credentials and experience after all--but Driscoll is the victim even though it's his manuscript lacking appropriate citations. He's godly, she's not. "

Peter, So what do you call a person who responds in such a way to make the confronter the problem over a 14 page mistake? He did a classic deflective switch. Driscoll is good at it.

What do you call it when a MOVEMENT does the same thing over and over again?

This sort of thing does not bode well for the future of Christianity in America. We have several generations of nasty, in your face, refusing personal responsiblity young pastors and followers out there. Many are REAL nice until they are challenged. Then,They shoot messengers. No, they seek to RUIN messengers who dare question them in a way they do not like. I get to hear such stories almost weekly here. And it has been goign on for years. You know, this thinking is ingrained in taht movement. It is not just Driscoll. He is just so obvious.

What do you call it when one thinks the wrong they do for Jesus is ok?

History is replete with this stuff and it does not end well at all.

If Driscoll thinks Christianity is dying, he can look in the mirror. He has done more than most to help that along. We made a narcissistic bully a Christian idol. Sick. The SBC has blood on it's hands.

I personally think most of what passes for Christianity out there in that movement lacks so much integrity and character, it cannot be fixed. It must die out. They are blinded and delusional as to what they think Jesus is really like. They don't have a clue.

We will continue to meet many of the followers as rabid athiests.

Patrick V

"we orthodox Lutherans, like Martin Luther, believe that the Bible is the SUPREME, FINAL authority on doctrine, not the only authority"

Gary, I was taught that Martin Luther believed in "sola Scriptura" I guess I am wrong.


@ Tim Rogers:

You said:

"Yes, Pastor Mark did say that he didn't intend to make that mistake and he would look into it. However, for an author that writes 14 pages of undocumented thoughts a "its a mistake" is not an answer that should be accepted at face value."

You are assuming guilt. You are assuming that Mefferd's accusations are accurate.

Driscoll claimed that he acknowledged the source of the idea and then did his own extensive breakdown.

I have no reason to believe Mefferd over Driscoll.

So I choose to give the benefit of the doubt to the accused.

I am disappointed that any Christians would put up with Mefferd's behavior.


@ Peter Lumpkins:

Seriously though, why no option to follow the comments to this blog in some way?

Most blogs have a little check box that says "follow comments to this post" or something like that.

Or at least there is an RSS feed to follow.

I recommend you look into it.

What do you say?

peter lumpkins


Thanks for your interest. Actually, I had the feed option for comments and posts active but it went coo-coo so I disengaged it. I restored it. Try it out and see if it works for you...

peter lumpkins

BTW, I'm looking to migrate from Google's feedburner to Feedblitz. I just need a few days to look over the transition to see if I even want to tackle it. Last time I monkeyed around with "third party" services (Disqus), it was a disaster.


Patrick V.

Yes, dear brother in Christ, you and the overwhelming majority of evangelicals who hold Martin Luther up as the original born-again evangelical are wrong. He NEVER taught that the writings of the Early Church Fathers and the pronouncements of the Early Church Councils should be thrown out the window as non-authoritative sources, barred from use as useful guides for correct Christian doctrine and practice.

Luther said that only Scripture, "sola Scriptura", is the supreme and final authority...not the Pope of Rome, not Church Councils.

This false understanding of Luther's teachings is what has caused the Radical Reformers and their descendants such as Baptists and evangelicals to "throw the baby out with the bathwater". The Christian Church had taught, and Luther continued to teach, that Jesus is found externally, in the Word, in Baptism, and in the Lord's Supper. The Reformed and their descendants abandoned this teaching for an "internal" Jesus. A Jesus who I "feel" in my heart to move me, lead me, etc...

Problem is there is nowhere in Scripture that says that Jesus is in your heart speaking to you in an "inner voice". Do you want to feel Jesus? Get out your Bible and start reading! Go to church and listen to the Word preached. Partake of your Lord in his Supper.


I posted Mark Driscoll's comments regarding only 8% of Americans being "real" Christians on my orthodox Lutheran blog. Here is what one of my readers had to say about Pastor Driscoll:

Mark Driscoll is a false teacher, a man who believes he has the ability to discern (or more properly, to divine) certain past events of sins committed against individuals, or demonic activity. Mark Driscoll is known to preach in a manner which includes coarse jesting, graphic sexuality and punk rock music. Now I'm no hard-core pietist, but can't imagine setting the worship of God to a style of music which more often than not conveys a worldview which glorifies violent sin.

There are certainly false, nominal Christians in church denominations of all stripes. Indeed, our Lord tells us that there are many who believe they are saved but are not. Free-for-all antinomianism and Pharasaical legalism are equally damning apostasies.

God's Word tells us to "examine ourselves, to see if we are in the faith". These are stern warnings of the Law to the Old Man, the inner Adam of my sinful flesh. And they should drive the Christian back to the Gospel, back to the Cross, back to their Baptism into Christ and His forgiveness.

We confessional Lutherans employ the theology of the Cross, not a theology of glory. We stumble into sin and are forgiven over and over again. We are not encouraged to heap up false pride due to a "victorious life in Christ" or any growth in personal holiness. Such a theology of glory often opens the door to "holier-than thou" legalism. In like fashion, simply saying "Jesus saved me forever, so I'm free to do as I please!" is another theology of glory, the glory of hedonistic self-gratification. In both cases, the idolatry of self-worship is the result. Every Christian needs to remember they remain a fallen sinner, justified by God's gift of grace alone, through His gift of trusting faith in Christ alone for salvation.

Mark Driscoll's teaching seems to indicate a theology of glory. As this man believes he can see past sins and demonic activity, I suppose judging who's saved and who's not might be not stretching things too much. It's not Mark Driscoll's job to divine what proportion of professing Christians are truly saved. Perhaps he should look at the man in the mirror first.

The more I look at current Evangelical Christianity and its sudden heretical tangent away from the truths of Scripture, exchanging them for pop psychology and trying to dumb down the Gospel to make it "hip", the more I am thankful for being led by the Spirit to confessional Lutheranism.

But for the likes of Mark Driscoll to judge all non-neo-Evangelical Christians as false Christians, it seems to me like the pot calling the kettle black..

peter lumpkins


I appreciate some of your contributions here. But I'm becoming a bit impatient with your long tomes on the virtues of Lutheran theology contra both Baptist ecclesiology and soteriology. I find some of your commentary on our Baptist-evangelical heritage grossly simplistic and fundamentally skewed. In short, I hope our silence--my silence--is interpreted neither by you nor others as unanswerable concession to what I view as fairly easy to challenge.

The truth is, personally I have no fight to pick per se with Lutheranism proper since Free Church believers (i.e. Baptists, etc) long ago settled for themselves issues concerning what they concluded were and are the theo-ecclesial errors of developed Lutheranism based upon their thorough examination of the inspired New Testament, not an unsagacious appeal to the fully fallible Church Fathers as you inferred in one comment above. Moreover, Free Church believers continue to insist upon the NT and the NT alone as our final and fully infallible guide for faith and faith's practice.

Hence, I'm afraid what I perceive as your apologetical defenses of and pleas toward assisting we poor Baptists in rediscovering what you perceive are the undeniably true doctrines of our 2,000 year old Christian Faith which you find in confessional Lutheranism over against Baptists and evangelicals who, according to you, teach "new doctrines" not found in the history of the church prior to circa St. Thomas Aquinas, is just not working for me. And please understand: it's not that I neither appreciate nor think unhelpful people of other persuasions logging on here. To the contrary, I think genuine dialog from mixed religious company to be extremely helpful and not nearly as present on decidedly polemical blogs like mine as should be. In fact, some of the most helpful exchanges here have been initiated by Dr. Paul Owen, a moderate Calvinist and Christian believer in the Episcopal tradition. However, quite unlike your participation, Gary, Dr. Owen's contributions do not come across as polemical on one hard or an apologetic for the Episcopal heritage on the other. In short, I think you might learn from his participation to not come to town with pistols drawn to straighten out we Baptists on our alleged "new doctrines" we fallaciously embrace.

Lord bless and have a good Thanksgiving my brother...

P.S. Oh, and for the record, neither Mark Driscoll nor his church has any ecclesial ties with the Southern Baptist Convention. Neither is Driscoll of the Baptist persuasion.


Heres the raw audio of the last 2 mins of the interview. He did NOT hang up! Clearly he was cut off.




The link's already been posted. And no, the link does not clearly prove Mark didn't hang up or at minimum was responsible for the lost connection...


Come on Peter,

Mark clearly said he is still there.
You can clearly hear someone in the background saying
Janet he is still here....

Plenty to be bothered over with his other words.
but the tape is clear ....it appears he really didn't hang up.

So listen, have a great day with family over thanksgiving.
Our God is greatly to be praised and thanked.

and remember....Go Gamecocks over Clemson.

peter lumpkins

Well, my brother Eric, the questions concerning the mysterious second ending posted by Driscoll finds its roots in your community not mine. See Fr Turk at Pyromaniacs 

The sizeably challenged lady has not sung her song on this one just yet...

And a very nice Thanksgiving to you and yours!


Peter, just an FYI (no need to publish this)

Lutherans, as do all orthodox Christians, consider Baptists to be a Christian denomination AND a theology. We believe that "evangelical" is neither.

A (non-denominational) evangelical is either a Baptist or a Presbyterian who has abandoned his denominational label. Mark Driscoll IS a Baptist by definition of the Statement of Beliefs of his church, Mars Hill. He may not be Southern Baptist, but he IS a Baptist:

Here is the link to the Mars Hill Church Statement of Beliefs: http://marshill.com/what-we-believe


Hey Peter,

Thanks for re-engaging the comment follow thingy, although I do not see it anywhere.

Maybe I am just signed in wrongly. (Currently signed in with Twitter and typepad).



I seem to have found the comments feed and successfully subscribed.




Hope you're having a delightful Thanksgiving meal with family. I'm waiting anxiously for the babies to awaken from their naps so we can gather round the table for our traditional feast. Lord bless...



Just a quick note. First, while you might speak for what Lutheranism might embrace concerning Baptists, it goes without saying that you certainly do not speak from what "all Orthodox Christians" embrace. I'd call that an obvious stretch.

Second, it doesn't follow that Baptists constitute a "Christian denomination AND a theology" just because Lutherans consider them so. From my perspective, Lutherans are wrong on many counts--both theologically and ecclesiologically--and the vast majority of Christians--both Catholic and Protestant--agree with me. But somehow I don't think you'll grant me that point, ah?

Third, you define an evangelical as either "a Baptist or a Presbyterian who has abandoned his denominational label." Care to cite any authorities on your definition, Gary? Frankly, I've never heard such a curious definition. So, please, if you would, educate us.

Fourth, a second time you insist even more strongly "Mark Driscoll IS a Baptist by definition of the Statement of Beliefs of his church, Mars Hill. He may not be Southern Baptist, but he IS a Baptist" and offer a link to his site to prove your point. Nonetheless, as I pointed out above, you offer yet another simplistic conclusion based upon insufficient consideration of all the relevant facts. Namely, while Driscoll and Mars Hill practice immersion, they also welcome paedobaptists into the church as members. Hence, the most one could conclude is, while Driscoll and Mars Hill may have ecclesiological leanings toward believer's baptism by immersion, they definitively are not Baptist in either practice or conviction. Historic Baptists died for believers baptism by immersion only. Men like Driscoll refuse to embrace such a narrow ecclesiology and thus while they may be baptistic-like, they are are not Baptists. Nor are either Assemblies of God believers or Nazarene believers even though both evangelical fellowships practice and prefer believers baptism by immersion.


Oops. I meant to offer the links to Mars Hill to demonstrate my point:



P.S. Sorry, Gary. I didn't see the "no need to publish" until just now. My apologies...


No offense taken, Peter, in publishing my post. I just didn't want to be pushing an "off topic issue", so I just left it as a personal comment to you, but no problem.

It is the last paragraph of Mars Hills Church's Statement of Beliefs, that in my opinion, and I would bet that of most other orthodox Christians, would cause us to classify Mark Driscoll and his church as being Baptist:

"We believe that the church, which is the body and espoused bride of Christ, is a spiritual organism made up of all born–again persons (Eph. 1:22, 23; 5:25–27; 1 Cor. 12:12–14; 2 Cor.

11:2). We believe that the establishment and continuance of local churches is clearly taught and defined in the New Testament Scriptures (Acts 14:27, 18:22, 20:17; 1 Tim. 3:1–3; Titus 1:5–11). We believe in the autonomy of the local churches, free of any external authority and control (Acts 13:1–4, 15:19–31, 20:28; Rom. 16:1, 4; 1 Cor. 3:9, 16; 5: 4–7, 13; 1 Peter 5:1–4). We recognize believer’s baptism and the Lord’s supper as scriptural means of testimony for the church (Matt. 28:19, 20; Acts 2:41, 42; 18:8; 1 Cor. 11:23–26)."

1. "Born-again believers/persons" has historically been a Baptist term, although I am aware that some Arminians such as the Assembly of God do use it. I am not aware that Presbyterians and other Reformed typically use that term. Don't they prefer to use "the Elect"? When an orthodox Christian hears "I'm a born-again Christian" we assume that the person speaking is a Baptist or an evangelical who follows mostly Baptist doctrine.

2. " We believe in the autonomy of the local churches, free of any external authority and control."

Baptist. Baptist. Baptist.

3. "We recognize believer’s baptism and the Lord’s supper as scriptural means of testimony for the church."

Again, this is solidly Baptist teaching.

The Reformed would never call the sacraments of Holy Baptism and the Lord's Supper as simply "a testimony of the church". That phrase is just a new-fangled way to say that "baptism and the Lord's Supper are symbolic ordinances; symbolic acts of obedience/public professions of faith/a symbolic memorial service".

I have noticed that many "evangelical" churches are de-emphasizing Baptism and the Lord's Supper to the point that sometimes these core beliefs of Trinitarian Christianity are completely omitted from the church's on-line Statement of Faith. Notice that Mars Hill Church leaves these two "ordinances" for the very bottom of the page...even below their form of church government!

Why are so many non-denominational "evangelical" churches de-emphasizing Baptism and the Lords Supper? Answer: for the same reason they are taking "Baptist" off of the church sign out front:

"Baptist", "Presbyterian", "Baptism", "Communion", "Lord's Supper" are devisive labels that can alienate the big crowds that you are trying to attract every Sunday to build your dream mega-church.

Mars Hill accepts persons who were infant baptized into their membership, but unless I did not see it, they only PRACTICE "believer's baptism": that is good, old-fashioned adult-only baptism as simply and only a public profession of faith. No Reformed "covenant" with God is formed, and definitely there is nothing salvific going on in Mars Hills baptisms.

You SBC Baptists and maybe even all Baptists may have a stricter definition of what makes a Baptist but if it walks mostly like a duck, quacks mostly like a duck, and looks mostly like a duck...it IS a duck.


From the Mars Hill link you provided on Baptism:

"So what we do, we immerse. We take people and we put them under the water, and then we bring them up"

100% Baptist theology.


Look, Gary. You can post Driscoll's entire statement of faith here and it won't overturn the single qualification he and Mars Hill church make in their statement; namely, they absolutely, unequivocally accept as members of their church paedobaptists, ecclesial heresy from an historic Baptist perspective.

Nor does it make an iota's difference that when they baptize, they only practice believers baptism by immersion because they also practice accepting infant baptism from others which is not believers baptism by immersion.

Hence, you can call them Baptists till the proverbial cows come home but it only shows your misunderstanding of who Baptists historically are. Practicing believers baptism by immersion doesn't make one a Baptist anymore than practicing infant baptism necessarily makes one a Lutheran. Hence, if your quacking duck makes Driscoll a Baptist, then I could just as well argue Presbyterians' infant baptism makes them Lutherans. Sorry, brother. You're going to have to do better than that.


By the way, Gary, I'm still interested in your providing citation for your definition of evangelical...

cb scott

Gary is a nut.


Here is how Lutherans view the term "evangelical":

The Pelagian Captivity Of Evangelicalism—What The Reformers Would Think Of Modern Evangelicalism

March 3rd, 2013 Post by Pastor Matt Richard, The Brothers of John the Steadfast Blog, a confessional (orthodox) Lutheran website.

Confession time! I’ve had more and more of a difficult time applying the label of ‘Evangelical’ to myself as of late. (Note: When I use the word ‘Evangelicalism’ I use it to describe the current national-cultural form of American Christianity.)

Even though the Lutherans of the 1500′s embraced the label and could be considered some of the first Evangelicals, I have come to wonder if they would associate with Modern Evangelicalism if they were alive today? If alive today, could the Reformers even identify any remnants of the 16th century Reformation in Evangelicalism today? Mark Noll in his book, America’s God, states that if the Reformers were alive today they would find themselves further removed from modern day Evangelicalism than they were removed from the Catholic Church of the 1500′s.


Definition of "evangelical" from the National Association of Evangelicals:

Historian David Bebbington also provides a helpful summary of evangelical distinctives, identifying four primary characteristics of evangelicalism:

Conversionism: the belief that lives need to be transformed through a "born-again" experience and a life long process of following Jesus.
Activism: the expression and demonstration of the gospel in missionary and social reform efforts
Biblicism: a high regard for and obedience to the Bible as the ultimate authority
Crucicentrism: a stress on the sacrifice of Jesus Christ on the cross as making possible the redemption of humanity


I believe that the best definition of "evangelical" is this:

An evangelical Christian is a Christian who identifies/calls himself an evangelical.

Unfortunately there is no set definition of the term "evangelical". Again, I believe that most orthodox Christians would consider any Christian who refers to himself as a "born again Christian" to be an evangelical.

That may not be your definition, Peter, but since there is no set definition of that term, we are all entitled to our own definition.

Maybe evangelicals need to have their own "Council of Nicea" to establish a Creed clearly spelling out the definition of "evangelical" as did the Early Church at Nicea for the definition of the term "Christian".


How about this compromise, Peter:

Mark Driscoll is a Baptistic evangelical.

His theology is MOST CLOSELY aligned to the Baptists, although he cannot be strictly categorized as an "orthodox" Baptist.


Dear Peter and other Baptist readers of this excellent Christian blog:

I come to you as a friend, with news of warning. News of a great danger to your Baptist Christian Faith:

One after one, year after year, Baptist churches are falling to the Calvinist invasion. The infamous, respected, and admired Baptist zeal for evangelism, preaching a Gospel available to ALL who believe by faith in Jesus Christ, is rapidly being replaced with a doctrine of Election, available to only the chosen few.

Baptist Arminianism and Calminianism are fading in importance and numbers within Baptist circles due to the realization by educated, well-read Baptist students of the Word, that Election cannot be based on God's foreknowledge of a future free will decision by a spiritually dead sinner, but is solely based on the divine will of our loving and gracious Heavenly Father, for reasons not revealed.

The conquering Calvinist has squashed this false teaching in your churches but since he has an intense distaste for the mysterious; for the unexplainable; for paradoxes in Christian theology he has replaced one false teaching for another: Since the Word clearly teaches the Election of those who will be saved, human reason and logic would therefore dictate to the Calvinist that the un-elect are also predestined... to eternal damnation in the torments of Hell. The poor un-elect! They lost the "Great Calvinist Election Lottery" and have no hope for salvation. Their eternal destination is already determined: Hell.

Dear Arminian and Calminian Baptists: instead of falling victims to the Calvinist onslaught, look to the other Christian church that teaches Monergism: Lutheranism.

The core of Lutheranism is that salvation is a monergistic act of God. The sinner brings NOTHING to the act of salvation. The sinner neither assists nor even cooperates to initiate, conduct, or finalize the act of salvation. God does it all! God GIFTS salvation, ALL of salvation, the whole package of salvation... to the undeserving sinner: God gifts faith, belief, repentance, and eternal life all in one instant of divine quickening of a sinner's soul by the power of the Word, written or spoken.

The sinner does not "accept" Christ. Christ accepts the sinner. The sinner does not make a "decision" for Christ. Christ makes a decision to save the sinner.

But the wonderful Good News of the Gospel, which Calvinism completely blacks out with its dour, dark, hopeless doctrine of Limited Atonement, is that Christ shed his blood for ALL, and that God desires ALL to be saved!

Martin Luther was right, dear Baptist friends. The Calvinists and the other Radical Reformers, in their desire to strip away the false teachings of Rome, stripped out the heart of our historic, apostolic faith: God comes to us through is Word and his "mysteries". Man does not go to God, either with his good deeds... or with his good DECISIONS!

Come to the true Gospel, the Gospel that is for ALL who believe and have faith in Christ, dear Baptist brothers and sisters, come to the true Gospel before your churches' message of this Gospel is snuffed out by the Calvinist onslaught. Your seminaries have already fallen. Much of your leadership has fallen. Is YOUR church next?

Andrew Barker

I think maybe cb had a point! ;-)


I was wondering where Gary was going with his post's


"Gary is a nut."

CB, I am going to start charging converted Lutherans for my time. Over the last 5 years, I have been treated to dissertations and lectures from these converted Lutherans that would make your head swim. (Those who were raised Lutheran don't seem to see the need for such things)

I often wonder just how much of Martin Luther they have read? But then, I would be subjected to another "man of his time" arguement on why he was so vulgar and cruel toward women, Jews and peasants. How convenient that the Nazi's were able to use his own words to help bring the Lutheran church inline with the party. (nasty little secret of history) One wonders which part of his "doctrine" fed the cruelty. Remember, sin boldly.

Methinks Martin Luther was more political than spiritual. No Tetzel, no Luther? Hmmm.


Martin Luther was a despicable, hell-bound sinner saved but by the grace of God...just like you and me. He was a wonderful theologian, but at the same time a shameful anti-Semite.

We Lutherans do not give Luther a pass for his sins, but we do recognize and cherish his rediscovery that the Christian life is lived by faith; good works are a natural result of true faith, not the desperate attempt of the believer to earn God's love and limit his time in Purgatory.

THAT is what the (Lutheran) Reformation was all about: Satisfaction, not Salvation.

This is the shocking message that I bring to my Baptist and evangelical brothers and sisters in Christ: Someone has told you that the Reformation began when Marin Luther, while reading the Epistle of Romans, fell to his knees, prayed a version of the Sinner's Prayer, and asked Jesus to come into his heart to save him and to be his Lord and Savior. That did NOT happen.

What Luther realized while reading the Epistle of Romans is that Christ paid the penalty (made satisfaction) for ALL our sins on the cross. Christians do NOT need to do good works to make satisfaction for their post-salvation sins. We do good works out of love for our Heavenly Father. What fantastic news to the Christians of his day who were desperately buying indulgences to reduce their time in the fires of Purgatory!

Luther believed that he was saved as a helpless baby by God's unmerited grace alone, through the power of God's Word alone, received through GOD'S gift of faith alone, in Christ alone...in his (Catholic) infant Baptism. Many Baptists and evangelicals are shocked to learn this truth about the Great Reformer.

It is true that most "cradle" Lutherans simply ignore Baptists and evangelicals. "Why bother trying to talk to them," they say. "Baptists and evangelicals ARE Christians, so why bother trying to convince them of the true doctrines of the Faith."

I have a different view: I don't bother debating doctrine with Roman Catholics, Eastern Orthodox, Anglicans, or liberal Protestants for this reason: They do not hold Scripture as the sole, final authority on Christian doctrine. Conservative Baptists and evangelicals do...as do we orthodox Lutherans. I want to share with my Baptist/evangelical brothers and sisters in Christ the wonderful news that GOD accomplishes 100% of the act of salvation, unlike what your Arminian and Calminian theologians have told you, AND the wonderful news that Christ died for ALL; that God desires ALL to be saved; so that ALL have the opportunity to be saved, unlike what your Calvinist theologians tell you.

You will only find these truths TOGETHER in orthodox Lutheranism. Unlike what you have been told, Lutherans do NOT believe that it is the ACT of Baptism that saves, it is always the Word that saves, and the Word can save when, where, and how HE chooses!


"Martin Luther was a despicable, hell-bound sinner saved but by the grace of God...just like you and me. He was a wonderful theologian, but at the same time a shameful anti-Semite."

The cognitive dissonance is mind numbing. Don't know how you guys do it. You and the Cals. Makes me want to hide the silver and lock up the children when you guys come to call.

Saved as a helpless baby? Oh my.

Gary, you will feel right at home at internetmonk which is all Luther all the time now.

No Luther or Calvin but only King Jesus, please.


Yes, Lydia is correct. We Lutherans do look to our Lutheran Fathers (Luther et al.) for spiritual guidance, who themselves looked to the Early Church Fathers to correctly interpret Scripture and to re-establish correct doctrine in the Christian Church.

You may not have realized it, but Baptist and evangelicals have their own "Church Fathers". I can't give you any specific names of your "Fathers" but SOMEONE told you that Acts 2:38, Mark 16:16 and many, many other passages of Scripture cannot be believed in their plain, simple interpretation. SOMEONE told you that these Words of God must be re-interpreted from their simple, blatantly obvious interpretation under the excuse that "Scripture interprets Scripture"...or because of the belief in a "Great Catholic/Magisterial Protestant Conspiracy" in which all the translators of every English language Bible for over 500 years have unwittingly or wittingly participated in to mistranslate the true "Baptistic" translation of the Bible into something "Catholic".

Why do Baptists and evangelicals have so many "Problem passages"? We Lutherans don't have problem passages. When God says, "Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ and you will be saved", we believe it literally. You don't need good deeds or even Baptism to be saved, only belief.

But ask a Baptist if he believes the plain, simple interpretation of Acts 2:38 and you will receive a mind-boggling, convoluted, grammar and sentence-structure twisting that turns "Repent and be baptized for the forgiveness of sins and to receive the gift of the Holy Spirit" into "Repent, and then be baptized BECAUSE OF the forgiveness sins, which you received when you previously prayed a version of the Sinner's Prayer, and then you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit...which actually also occurred when you prayed the Sinner's Prayer but some Anglican translator mistakenly put at the end of the sentence."

You follow King Jesus? How about believing what he actually said. How about accepting the plain, simple interpretation of your ENGLISH Bible instead of depending on your Greek lexicons to interpret God's words for you? God promised to preserve his Word. Do you really believe that He only preserved his Word on 2,000 year old papyrus and parchment in Koine Greek?

If you really want to follow King Jesus, jump off the "we accept the original Greek only" evangelical bandwagon. Not ONE single translation of the Bible into the English language has translated the New Testament as Baptists seem to think it should have been translated. Not one!

Think about that my Baptist and evangelical brothers and sisters when you are reading the Bible about the purpose of Baptism. "An act of OUR public profession/obedience ONLY"??

Only if you ignore the plain, simple interpretation of half of the New Testament!


I have to grin at this comment from Gary,

We Lutherans don't have problem passages.

If Lutherans truly believe this! my hat is off to them
For knowing the meaning of every word and passage of scripture


It sounds to me like she sandbagged Driscoll. She was not honest with what the interview was about and ironically shows HER being deceptive... Also the headlines to this blog are deceptive as they imply Driscoll called her names and hung up. I am not connected to Driscoll, but I am in secular PR, and if this happened to one of my clients, I'd say they were deceived about what the interview was about. Any Christian in media whether radio, social media, live teaching, or publishing should place themselves under the authority of James 3:1 ("not everyone should assume to be teachers, because teachers will be judged more severely..."). We all need to be abiding in Christ to live out His honesty and integrity in whatever role He has called us to... So they see Him in us amidst this crooked and depraved generation. Don't you agree?


"If you really want to follow King Jesus, jump off the "we accept the original Greek only" evangelical bandwagon. Not ONE single translation of the Bible into the English language has translated the New Testament as Baptists seem to think it should have been translated. Not one! "


My "bandwagon" has 2 passengers. I am a woman without a bandwagon and it thrills my soul. No more movements for me. No more dead guys. No more gurus. Only one very alive Jesus.


Apparently Mefford has apologized for the interview.


This greatly increases my esteem for her and I actually swung by her website to see what she is all about.

It takes a man (or wo-man :-) ) to admit wrong doing, regardless of the actions and choices of the other person.

Go Janet!

In other news, this is what Tyndale House had to say about the plagiarism accusation:

"Tyndale House takes any accusation of plagiarism seriously and has therefore conducted a thorough in-house review of the original material and sources provided by the author. After this review we feel confident that the content in question has been properly cited in the printed book and conforms to market standards." - Source of Statement: http://jonathanmerritt.religionnews.com/2013/11/27/mark-driscoll-silent-amid-mounting-allegations-of-plagiarism/#sthash.h0G3zOjE.dpuf

Driscoll has reached out to the alleged-plagiarism-victim, although I haven't heard the result of that yet, but it is my understanding that Dr. Jones is not making any public comment at this time.

Here is that statement: "Dr. Jones wants to express his appreciation for the balanced article on this matter published at Religion News Service. At this time, Dr. Jones and TruthXchange will not be making public statements, but we do pray for reconciliation among all parties involved." - Source of Quote: http://jonathanmerritt.religionnews.com/2013/11/27/mark-driscoll-silent-amid-mounting-allegations-of-plagiarism/#sthash.hDmjf6Ab.dpuf

This is my first experience with Mefford, and other than vague references from others, my first with Driscoll as well.

From what I have seen Driscoll is handling himself properly and with humility, and after input from others, including Tyndale House saying "no plagiarism here" Mefford is finally beginning to behave.

The comments to this entry are closed.