Mark Driscoll Explains the Warlock Thing

Pastor Mark Driscoll of Mars Hill apparently has decided to explain his tweet about the converted warlock. In said explanation he tells us:

I told him that it seemed to me that Jesus saved his life and his soul, and that Jesus spoke to him personally. Simply, I was blown away at the evidence of God’s grace in his life. That God would reach down, speak to a man, and love him from death to life, both physically and spiritually, was incredibly encouraging….

So, I posted a short summary on Twitter and Facebook that simply said, “Met a former warlock today who was near death on a drug OD & heard God say, ‘This one is mine & I love him.’ Yup. He’s elect.” I thought fellow Christians would be encouraged and maybe give a fist pump while shouting, “Yay, Jesus!”

Instead, there was sadly a minor round of hose-meets-bees-nest drama. I thought I’d take this opportunity to clarify a few things.

One, God did not speak to me about this man. Rather, God apparently spoke to this man.

Two…

Wait, wait, wait. Stop right there. There’s the problem, right there in number one. That dog won’t hunt at all. Jesus did not speak to this man. God does not speak to people – not to warlocks, not to Christians and not even to pastors – apart from the written Word of God.

Mark, and beloved reader, if God said something, it was written down in a closed cannon, the Bible, not whispered in your ear. God’s will for you is your sanctification, your conformity to Christ. Do you know how I know that? Because it’s written in the Bible.

This continued push to accept charismatic nonsense in the Church is a great error, and not something to be fluffed off as a ‘secondary matter.’ This entire ‘new Calvinism’ movement is absolutely fraught with danger.

This kind of talk from anyone is nothing short of fruity, whacked, out-there. It is unbiblical and dangerous. I cringe when I think of how many are being mislead by this man, I truly do; but I cringe more at the deafening sound of silence from influential voices of reason.

If you must, you can read Mark’s explanation here.