Finally Tonight, Jesus…

GOD HELP US.

Spiritual Gifts: “Apostles” by Mark Driscoll

Spiritual Gifts Series: Click | View Series

Now you are the body of Christ, and each one of you is a part of it. And in the church God has appointed first of all apostles… (1 Corinthians 12:27-28 NIV)

It was he who gave some to be apostles… (Ephesians 4:11 NIV)

The Spiritual Gift of Apostles Defined

There is much confusion regarding the spiritual gift of apostleship because there is sometimes a failure to distinguish between the office of apostle and the gift of apostle. The office of apostle refers to the twelve chosen by Jesus (e.g., Matthew 10:1; 19:28; 20:17; Mark 3:13-19; 6:7; 9:35; 10:32; Luke 6:12-16; 8:1; 9:1; 22:19-30; John 6:70-71; Revelation 21:14). The requirements for the office of apostle include being an eyewitness to the life and resurrection of Jesus (Acts 1:21-26). Another requirement is miraculous power (Acts 2:43; 5:12; 8:18; 2 Corinthians 12:12; Hebrews 2:4). Therefore, apostles do not exist today (e.g., writing books of the Bible), although the function of their office does continue in a limited sense.

Apostleship in a Secondary Sense

For example, apostleship in a secondary sense applies to such people as Barnabas (Acts 14:3-4, 14), Apollos and Sosthenes (1 Corinthians 4:6-9), Andronicus and Junias (Romans 16:7), James (Galatians 1:19), and Silas and Timothy (1 Thessalonians 1:1; 2:6). They, like apostles today, were gifted individuals sent out to move from place to place in order to begin and establish local churches (Acts 13:3-4). This gift also includes the capacity to minister cross-culturally (Acts 10:34-35; Ephesians 3:7-8). Today, church planters and missionaries are operating out of their gift of apostleship as well as those Christian leaders God raises up to lead and influence multiple churches and pastors.

People with the Gift of Apostleship

These people often have a number of gifts, such as evangelism, teaching, leadership, faith, and exhortation and are motivated by difficult new tasks.

Apostles in Scripture

Hebrews 3:1 says, “Therefore, holy brothers, who share in the heavenly calling, fix your thoughts on Jesus, the apostle and high priest whom we confess.” Jesus also builds the church (Matthew 16:18; Hebrews 3:1-6). He is the chief cornerstone of the church, upon which the foundation of the prophets and apostles is laid (Ephesians 2:20), and over which He rules as Chief Shepherd (1 Peter 5:4). Paul is another example (Romans, 1 Corinthians, 2 Corinthians, Galatians, Ephesians, Colossians, 1 Timothy, 2 Timothy, and Titus all open with Paul introducing himself as an apostle). Also, a reading of Acts shows how Paul ministered cross-culturally and planted churches. Peter also held the office of apostle (Galatians 2:8; 1 Peter 1:1).

Common Errors Regarding Apostles

Cult leaders and erroneous teachers say that they have authority that is, in effect, equal to Scripture because they are apostles just like those who wrote the Bible. But such people are false apostles (2 Corinthians 11:13; Revelation 2:2) and delusional “super-apostles” (2 Corinthians 11:5, 13; 12:11).

Are Old Testament laws still binding on Christians?

Christians often wonder, Are Old Testament laws still in force? The New Testament gives two basic answers to this question: Yes, and no. Some verses indicate continuity, and others indicate change. Some verses maintain the validity of the law; others describe it as having been superseded by Christ. If we look at one group of verses, we might conclude that we have to keep all OT (Old Testament) laws. If we look at another group of verses, we might conclude that they are all done away. Both answers have scriptural support and validity, so we need to look at both sides of the question. Let’s start with an emphasis on continuity. A passage like Matthew 5:17-19 can be used to argue that all OT laws are still in force. Jesus didn’t do away with any of God’s laws. Rather, he emphasized that we ought to obey God not only in our actions, but also in our hearts. We have to keep every OT law in the spirit, in its attitude and purpose. God’s laws are written in our hearts and minds (Heb. 8:10). They are internalized, so we should want to keep them. Hebrews 8:10 is a quote of Jeremiah 31:31-33, one could argue, and the laws that Jeremiah had in mind were the laws that were valid in his day: the old covenant laws. They were all given by God. If this line of reasoning is correct, our love for God will motivate us to be circumcised, to keep the Jubilee year and sabbatical years. We will be diligent to avoid all forms of uncleanness, and we will wear phylacteries and only pure fabrics. We will offer sacrifices, not only for sin but also for fellowship offerings and thank offerings. When Jeremiah described the kingdom of God, old covenant customs were included. This is what Jeremiah meant. Spiritual application These laws are still valid – but, as we know, they are applied in a spiritual way. The application of the law has been transformed by the coming of Jesus Christ. If our hearts are circumcised, it does not matter whether we have been circumcised in the flesh. If we are offering spiritual sacrifices, we do not need to offer animals. If we are always forgiving debts and liberating people from bondage, we do not have to do anything different on sabbatical years. If we are treating our livestock and farmland properly, we do not have to do anything different on sabbatical years. If we live by the spirit, the letter of these laws is not required. If we examine our hearts for corruption and are being cleansed by Jesus Christ, then we do not have to be fanatical about destroying houses that have mildew. If our thoughts are pure, we don’t have to worry about our fabrics. If we are always thinking of God and his laws, we don’t have to wear phylacteries. The laws are valid, but the way in which we obey them has been transformed by the coming of Jesus Christ. Spiritual dimension The point is that some OT laws are, in Christian application, spiritualized. They are removed from the dimensions of space and time and transferred into the spiritual dimension of attitude and interpersonal relationships. Some people fight against spiritualizations. I’ve heard of one minister who says Christians should offer animal sacrifices if the temple were still standing! And yet, as far as I know, he does not wear phylacteries or blue threads in tassels on his garments, nor does he advocate the destruction of a home when mildew is discovered. Moreover, I don’t know why the absence of a temple should stop an obligation (if it really is an obligation) to sacrifice animals. Sacrifices were part of correct worship long before Moses, so the end of the old covenant simply means that sacrificing is no longer the exclusive duty of Levites. We ought to worship God like Abel, Noah and Abraham did – and that includes animal sacrifices. According to this logic, ministers ought to make animal sacrifices, preaching all the while that these animals remind us of the sacrifice of Jesus Christ. We ought to kill Passover lambs in addition to partaking of bread and wine, because Jesus only added to the law; he did not take anything away. The sacrifices may be shadows, but even when the reality has come, the shadow still exists! Animal sacrifices are very educational, full of spiritual meaning, and it would be wrong to ignore any of God’s commands. I have been arguing facetiously in the above two paragraphs, of course, but elements of the above argument have been used to promote various old covenant customs. My main point is that some OT laws are spiritualized. Almost everyone can agree on that. However, there are all sorts of opinions concerning which laws may be spiritualized and which cannot. Some fringe groups want physical circumcision. Some want land sabbaths. Some may even want tree-branch booths. Some want first tithe but not second and third. Some want weekly Sabbaths but not annual. Some want new moons. Many different doctrinal packages exist; each person thinks his own is the biblical one and that the others are inconsistent. Some people are willing to say that the old covenant is obsolete; others are not comfortable with this statement. Some are willing to say that gentiles do not need to keep the law of Moses; some are not. Some are willing to say that the “law” of Galatians 3:19 is the old covenant; some are not. With so many opinions floating around, it’s difficult to know where to start in a rational discussion. What biblical criteria can we use when discussing which laws are spiritualized and which must be kept in the letter as well as the spirit? Critical questions In discussions, we need to start by defining the issues – can the person agree that the new covenant has been established (Hebrews 8:6)? Can the person agree that Christians should live by the terms of the new covenant? Can the person agree that some OT laws, such as tassels and phylacteries, are obsolete even if the New Testament says nothing about such laws? Can the person give a rational reason why some old laws are valid in the letter and others are not, or is the position irrational? The OT clearly commanded the Israelites to wear blue threads in tassels on their garments (Numbers 15:38-39). Was this law inspired by God, or not? Answer: It was. Is this law obsolete? Answer: It is. Who has the authority to declare a God-given law obsolete? Answer: Only God. Does the New Testament specifically rescind this law? Answer: No. It says nothing about this specific law. Then how can we prove, with divine authority, that it is obsolete? Answer: Because the New Testament declares the entire old covenant obsolete (Hebrews 8:13). As a law code, as a source of laws, it is not valid. That brings us to our second approach to OT law: None of it is valid. Christians do not have to keep the law of Moses because those laws were a temporary package, designed to be in force only until the Messiah came. Now that he has come and given a better covenant, the first is obsolete. A covenant is something like a contract. In business, people make contracts. A farmer agrees to deliver tomatoes to the store every Tuesday, and the store agrees to pay a certain price per pound. If he comes on Monday, the store is not necessarily obligated to buy. If he brings broccoli, the store is not obligated to buy. Now, what happens if the farmer is simply unable to bring tomatoes on Tuesday because his entire crop is rotten? Perhaps there will be penalties; it depends on how the contract is written. Suppose now that the store makes a new contract with the farmer: Bring every vegetable that you have, as often as you pick it. This new contract even specifies that the old contract is null and void. The old restrictions (only tomatoes, only on Tuesday) are irrelevant, because the new contract supersedes the old. A farmer and a store can have several contracts simultaneously, concerning different vegetables, different prices and terms and expiration dates, but God has only one covenant with his people. We do not simply add the new on top of the old and try to keep both the letter and the spirit of every law. We do not have to wear tassels on the outside and keep the law in our hearts as well. Instead, the new has replaced the old (Hebrews 10:9), and we focus on the spirit rather than the letter. Of course, it is true that in some cases the proper spirit will cause us to keep the letter, but in other cases it is not true. Consider the spirit of adultery, for example. If we avoid lust, then we will also (without any need for a written law) avoid physical acts of adultery. The letter of this law is still valid. If we do not covet, then we will (without any need for a written law) not steal. This law is also valid in the letter. If we are not angry at our brother, we will (without any need for a written law) not murder. Again, the letter is valid. Keeping the spirit of the law has thwarted these sins at their very source. However, consider how different the Feast of Unleavened Bread is. The spirit of the law is (in moral terms) that we repent of sin and (in Christological terms) that we partake of the sinless Bread of life. If we are abiding by the spirit of the law, do we automatically (without any need for a written law) look to a calculated Jewish calendar, based on the agricultural seasons of Palestine, and observe a specific seven days of the year, specifically by avoiding bread made with yeast and avoiding work on the first and seventh days? This is not automatic at all. Rather, it is based exclusively on the written old covenant. In this case, there is a dramatic difference between the spirit and the letter of the law. Or consider whether we must live in booths during the Feast of Tabernacles. The argument is missing the point, for the simple reason that the new covenant says that the old contract is obsolete. The new contract does not require booths, nor does it forbid them. It says nothing about tomatoes, Tuesdays, or palm-branch sukkahs. Instead, the new covenant requires us to remember always that we are strangers and pilgrims on this earth, journeying on our way to God’s promised new earth (1 Peter 2:11; Philippians 3:20). Just as with phylacteries and tassels, if we keep this law in our hearts, we do not need to worry about the letter. The purpose has been fulfilled. Fulfillment in Jesus Christ We know that sin offerings were shadows of the real sacrifice for sin, Jesus Christ (Hebrews 10:1-3). Now that the real sacrifice for sin has been made, the physical symbolism does not need to be reenacted. But what about peace offerings and fellowship sacrifices? The New Testament doesn’t specifically say that they are done away, but Jesus Christ fulfilled them, too. We keep these laws in the spirit, not in the letter. Jesus has made atonement for us once for all, making us at one with the Father. We do not need to commemorate Christ’s atonement with the goat rituals of Leviticus 16. Their purpose has been fulfilled, and the purpose for fasting on the 10th of Tishri (Leviticus 16:29-31) has also been fulfilled. Fasting is still a beneficial spiritual discipline—but it is neither commanded for nor restricted to the Day of Atonement. Christ, by bringing a new covenant, has transformed the law. The same underlying law still exists—the law of love. Jesus did not change that law at all. Rather, he fulfilled it. The old covenant, including the sacrifices, tassels and Jubilee years, had specific, physical applications of the underlying law of love. But those specifics are, in many cases, now obsolete. The spirit of the law remains, but the letter does not. The old covenant way is not the only permissible application of the purpose of the law. There are other ways to achieve the same goal, to express our devotion to God and our love for our neighbors. The Sabbath commandment, as our last example, had several purposes. It was a reminder of creation; it was a reminder of the Israelites’ exodus from Egypt; it was a reminder of their special relationship with the Creator. It provided physical rest for animals, servants and families. Morally, the Sabbath symbolized our duty to cease from evil works. Christologically, it symbolized our need to find spiritual rest in Christ, to trust in him rather than our own works for salvation. It symbolized the completion of our creation at the end of the age. Now, if we have the spirit of the law written in our hearts, will we automatically, without need for written instructions, refuse to work on a particular day of the week? Will we, from our hearts, know that holy time extends from evening to evening? Will we automatically perceive that this specific time is so important that we should be willing to lose our jobs because of it? The answer is obvious: No. These things are dependent on the written old covenant. They are not automatic even if our hearts are right with God. The spirit of the Sabbath law does not automatically produce the letter – but Christians are to focus on the spirit. Perpetual remembrance The real purpose is that we enter the rest of God through faith in Christ. Our salvation is in him, not in a specific day of the week. If we are in Christ and he is in us, we will always remember our special relationship with him. We will be in perpetual remembrance of the new creation being done in us. We will cease from evil work every day of the week. We will do good works on every day of the week. We will worship on every day of the week. And we will also recognize that new covenant love should motivate us to meet with one another regularly to encourage one another (Heb. 10:24-25). Resting on the Sabbath may picture a changed life, but then again, many Sabbath-keepers do not have changed lives. Moreover, Sabbath-keeping cannot change our hearts. Spiritual Sabbath-keeping, however, does change our hearts – because spiritual Sabbath-keeping means the life of faith in Christ, which changes us from the inside out. Jesus Christ has magnified the Sabbath law far beyond the temporal restrictions of the letter. If we are keeping the spirit of this law, the physical restrictions are not required. Of course, it is not wrong to rest on the Sabbath day. The physical benefits are still there. But it is wrong to see the physical as required for all Christians. But, some will say, we should keep both the letter and the spirit of this law. It is easy to make that claim, but there is no proof for it – and there is certainly no reason to condemn people on the basis of a different interpretation of how we should obey God. It is just as easy to make the claim that people truly abiding by the spirit of the tassels will also be wearing tassels. The flaw of such logic is exposed by the realization that the new covenant declares the old contract obsolete. We must focus on the spirit and purpose of the laws. A Sabbatarian approach to the Sabbath emphasizes Matthew 5:17-19, and that usually leads to a distorted meaning for such verses as Colossians 2:16 and Romans 14:5. However, after we recognize that the letter of some OT laws is obsolete, then we realize that Matthew 5:17-19 has to be qualified or restricted in some way. So do Romans 3:20, 31; 7:12, 14 and other verses of continuity. These verses do not tell us which specific laws are still in force, and they do not prove the continued validity of any specific law. They are general, not specific. Once we recognize that some OT laws, although still valid in purpose, are obsolete in the letter, then we are free to accept the implications of what Paul wrote in Colossians 2:16. We should not let anyone judge us regarding Sabbath days, just as we shouldn’t let them judge us regarding new moons. Each person should be convinced in his own mind, but he should not judge other Christians regarding such matters.

Nightline / FACE-OFF

The “Face-Off” is a recurring series where opposing sides debate hot topics. In 2008, Ron Jeremy and Vivid porn star Monique Alexander debated “porn pastor” Craig Gross and former porn producer Donny Pauling about America’s addiction to porn. In 2007, the first “Nightline Face-Off: Does God Exist?” pitted actor and evangelical Kirk Cameron and his partner at the Way of the Master against two self-proclaimed atheists. In this third installment, philosopher Deepak Chopra and Bishop Carlton Pearson will face-off against Pastor Mark Driscoll of the Mars Hill Church and Annie Lobert, founder of the Christian ministry “Hookers for Jesus” about the existence of the Devil.

WATCH HERE.

The New Calvinism – TIME Magazine

TIME Magazine’s Article on “The New Calvinism.”

Christianity, Copy cat religion?

Parallels between the Jesus and Horus stories?

Hardly. For those unfamiliar with the Horus story, Horus is a character in Egyptian mythology, the son of the gods Isis and Osiris. There actually appear to be multiple dieties named ‘Horus’, but the one who is the son of Isis and Osiris is the one the critics claim influenced the Jesus story. For a quick and unbiased debunking of this story, go to any search engine and find a site on Egyptian mythology and read the Horus story for yourself (I’ve provided some links at the bottom of the page), or check the mythology section at your local library (go ahead, I dare you!). Acharya S’s book “The Christ Conspiracy” is the apparent source of this list, but the author provides evidentiarly footnotes for only five of the claims, and those footnotes frequently disagree with her own claims!Here are the claims of parallels between Jesus and Horus, with my responses:1. Horus was born of the virgin Isis-Meri on December 25th in a cave/manger with his birth being announced by a star in the East and attended by three wise men. Let’s take this one apart and deal with each separate issue: Horus’ mother was not a virgin. She was married to Osiris, and there is no reason to suppose she was abstinent after marriage. Horus was, per the story, miraculously conceived. Seth had killed and dismembered Osiris, then Isis put her husband’s dead body back together and had intercourse with it. In some versions, she used a hand-made phallus since she wasn’t able to find that part of her husband. So while it was a miraculous conception, it was not a virgin birth. Horus was given three different birthdates in mythology, one of which does correspond to December 25th. But since Jesus wasn’t, per the evidence, born on 12/25, this isn’t a parallel. “Meri” (technically “Mr-ee”) is the egyptian word for “beloved” and was apparently applied to Isis prior to Jesus’ time, as a title, not as part of her name. But since there were probably thousands of women between Horus’ time and Jesus’ with a name or title that was a variation on “Mary”, there’s no real reason to suppose that Jesus’ mother was named after Isis in particular. Horus was born in a swamp, not a cave/manger. Acharya’s footnotes for this point only make the claim that Jesus was born in a cave, and say nothing about Horus being born in one. Horus’ birth was not announced by a star in the east There were no “three wise men” at Horus’ birth, or at Jesus’ for that matter (the Bible never gives the number of wise men, and they showed up at Jesus’ home, not at the manger, and probably when Jesus was a year or two old). Acharya’s source for the last two claims appears to be Massey, who says “the Star in the East that arose to announce the birth of the babe (Jesus) was Orion, which is therefore called the star of Horus. That was once the star of the three kings; for the ‘three kings’ is still a name of three stars in Orion’s belt . . . ” Massey’s apparently getting mixed up, and then the critics are misinterpreting it. Orion is not a star, but a constellation, of which the ‘three kings’ are a part. And even if there is a specific star called ‘the star of Horus’, there’s no legend stating that it announced Horus’ birth (as the critics are claiming) or that the ‘three wise men’ (the three stars in Orion’s belt) attended Horus’ birth in any way. 2. His earthly father was named “Seb” (”Joseph”). First of all, there is no parallel between the Egyptian name “Seb” and the Hebrew name “Joseph”, other than the fact that they’re common names. Also, Seb was Osiris’ father, not Horus’. 3. He was of royal descent. This one’s true! But it’s not really a comparison to Jesus. When followers speak of Jesus being of ‘royal descent’, they usually mean His being a descendent of King David, an earthly king. Horus was, according to the myth, descended from heavenly royalty (as Jesus was), being the son of the main god. 4. At age 12, he was a child teacher in the Temple, and at 30, he was baptized, having disappeared for 18 years. He never taught in any temple and was never baptized. Also, Jesus didn’t ‘disappear’ in the years between His teaching in the temple and baptism. He worked humbly as a carpenter. 5. Horus was baptized in the river Eridanus or Iarutana (Jordan) by “Anup the Baptizer” (”John the Baptist”), who was decapitated. Again, Horus was never baptized. There is no “Anup the Baptizer” in the story. 6. He had 12 disciples, two of whom were his “witnesses” and were named “Anup” and “Aan” (the two “Johns”). Horus had four disciples (called ‘Heru-Shemsu’). There’s another reference to sixteen followers, and a group of followers called ‘mesnui’ (blacksmiths) who join Horus in battle, but are never numbered. But there’s no reference to twelve followers or any of them being named “Anup” or “Aan”. 7. He performed miracles, exorcised demons and raised El-Azarus (”El-Osiris”), from the dead. He did perform miracles, but he never exorcised demons or raised his father from the dead. Also, Osiris is never referred to as ‘El-Azarus’ or ‘El-Osiris’ (clearly an attempt to make his name more closely resemble the Bible’s “Lazarus”). 8. Horus walked on water. No, he did not. 9. His personal epithet was “Iusa,” the “ever-becoming son” of “Ptah,” the “Father.” He was thus called “Holy Child.” Horus was never referred to as “Iusa” (nor was anyone in Egyptian history – the word does not exist) or “Holy Child”. 10. He delivered a “Sermon on the Mount” and his followers recounted the “Sayings of Iusa.” Horus never delivered such a sermon, and, as pointed out above, he was never referred to as “Iusa”. 11. Horus was transfigured on the Mount. No, he was not. 12. He was crucified between two thieves, buried for three days in a tomb, and resurrected. Horus was never crucified. There’s an unofficial story in which he dies and is cast in pieces into the water, then later fished out by a crocodile at Isis’ request. This unofficial story is the only one in which he dies at all. 13. He was also the “Way, the Truth, the Light,” “Messiah,” “God’s Anointed Son,” the “Son of Man,” the “Good Shepherd,” the “Lamb of God,” the “Word made flesh,” the “Word of Truth,” etc. The only titles Horus is given are “Great God”, “Chief of the Powers”, “Master of Heaven”, and “Avenger of His Father”. None of the above titles are in any Egyptian mythology. 14. He was “the Fisher” and was associated with the Fish (”Ichthys”), Lamb and Lion. He was never referred to as “the fisher”, and there are no lamb or lion in any of the stories. Acharya S.’s footnotes on this claim only show an association with fish (which is that Horus WAS a fish, unlike Jesus), with no evidence of his being called ‘the fisher’ or having any association with a lamb or lion. 15. He came to fulfill the Law. There was no “law” he was supposed to fulfill. 16. Horus was called “the KRST,” or “Anointed One.” He was never referred to by either of these titles. “Krst”, in Egyptian, means “burial”, by the way. It wasn’t a title. 17. Like Jesus, “Horus was supposed to reign one thousand years.” No mention of this in Egyptian mythology. Links: Encyclopedia Mythica: Horus Egyptian Mythology: Horus The Eye Of Horus Horus: He Who Is Above Tektonics: Horus, Isis, Osiris Egyptian Book of the Dead Here are some other links that are also in the vein of this topic. Taken from: www.kingdavid8.com Jesus vs. Adad (aka Hadad) – Sumerian Jesus vs. Adonis – Greek Jesus vs. Aesculapius – Greek, Roman Jesus vs. Apollo – Greek Jesus vs. Apollonius – Greek Jesus vs. Artemes – Greek Jesus vs. Attis (aka Atys) – Asian, Greek Jesus vs. Baal – Semetic, Syrian, Persian Jesus vs. Bacab – Mayan Jesus vs. Balder – Norse Jesus vs. Bali – Indian Jesus vs. Beddru (aka Beddin) – Japanese Jesus vs. Bel Merodach (aka Marduk) – Mesopotamian Jesus vs. Bremrillah (aka Bremrillahm) – Druid Jesus vs. Buddha – Indian Jesus vs. Cadmus – Greek Jesus vs. Caesar – Roman Jesus vs. Chu Chulainn (aka Cuchulain) – Irish Jesus vs. Crite – Chaldean Jesus vs. Dahzdbog – Russian Jesus vs. Deva Tat – Siamese Jesus vs. Dionysus (aka Bacchus) – Greek, Roman Jesus vs. Divine Teacher of Plato - Greek Jesus vs. Elvis – American (humor) Jesus vs. Fohi (aka Fu-Xi, Fu-Hsi) – Chinese Jesus vs. Frey (aka Freyr, Fricco) – Norse Jesus vs. Gentaut – Mexican Jesus vs. Hercules (aka Alcides, Heracles) – Greek, Roman Jesus vs. Hermes – Greek Jesus vs. Hesus – Celtic Jesus vs. Hil and Feta – Mandaite Jesus vs. Holy One of Xaca – Chinese, Indian Jesus vs. Horus – Egyptian Jesus vs. Hyacinthus – Greek Jesus vs. Iasion – Greek Jesus vs. Ieo – Chinese Jesus vs. Indra – Indian, Tibetian Jesus vs. Inanna – Sumerian Jesus vs. Ischy – Asian Jesus vs. Ixion – Greek Jesus vs. Jao – Nepalese Jesus vs. Jupiter (aka Jove) – Rome Jesus vs. Krishna – Indian Jesus vs. Lao-Kiun – Chinese Jesus vs. Marsyas – Greek Jesus vs. Maximus Christos – Israelite Jesus vs. Melkarth – Greek Jesus vs. Mikado – Japanese Jesus vs. Mithra – Persian, Roman Jesus vs. Mohamud – Islamic Jesus vs. Odin (aka Wodan) – Norse Jesus vs. Osiris - Egyptian Jesus vs. Perseus – Greek Jesus vs. Prometheus – Greek Jesus vs. Quetzalcoatl – Aztec Jesus vs. Quirinus – Roman Jesus vs. Sakia – Indian Jesus vs. Salivahana – Indian Jesus vs. Samheim (aka Samhain) – Druid Jesus vs. Sammonocadam (Aka Sommona-Codom) – Siamese Jesus vs. Sandan of Tarsus – Greek Jesus vs. Serapis (aka Asar-Hapi, Zaparrus) – Egyptian, Greek Jesus vs. Shang-Ti (aka Chang-Ti, Tien) – Chinese Jesus vs. Sun/Zodiac Jesus vs. Sybillene Universal Monarch Jesus vs. Tammuz (aka Dumuzi) – Sumerian Jesus vs. Taut (aka Thoth) – Phoenican Jesus vs. Thor – Norse Jesus vs. Tien – China Jesus vs. Virishna – Indian Jesus vs. Wittoba (aka Vithoba, Withoban) – Bilingonese Jesus vs. Zalmoxis of Thrace (aka Xamolxis, Xaniolxis) Jesus vs. Zoar of the Bonzes – Asian Jesus vs. Zoroaster (aka Zarathustra) – Persian Jesus vs. Zulis (aka Thulis, Zhule) – Egyptian

By the way, I had a discussion about this list with Acharya S, the author of the book “The Christ Conspiracy: The Greatest Story Ever Sold”. To view a text of our discussion, go to this site.

Mars Hill Church on Nightline

LOVE LETTERS

Theology in the News

Love Letters

Driscoll and Breshears explore the many-splendored atonement in Death By Love.

Review by Collin Hansen | posted 1/13/2009 08:07AM

Death by Love: Letters from the Cross Mark Driscoll and Gerry Breshears Crossway 272 pp., $19.99

Visiting Mars Hill Church in Seattle as a journalist can be a jarring experience. The writer expects to meet the Mark Driscoll whose confrontational style has made him a hero in some evangelical circles and a pariah in others. Indeed, Mars Hill members will go to the mat to defend their larger-than-life pastor against critics. And Driscoll will not feel the need to yield. Journalists looking for colorful copy will find it. Who would Jesus smack down? There are so many deserving targets, we learn, he wouldn’t know where to begin.

But you meet another Mark Driscoll when you begin to spend more time around the people affected by his ministry. They don’t always agree with him and cringe when he says things they know he will later regret. Yet it seems God has used his willingness to speak directly about the Bible and sin to deepen their love for Jesus Christ and their resolve to resist Satan’s snares.

Death by Love is a book that might stir theological controversy, but it probably won’t attract The New York Times’s attention. Here we see Driscoll’s pastoral side as he offers letters on the Atonement to friends, family, and acquaintances. The book is the second in the Re:Lit series with Crossway, which released Vintage Jesus in February 2008 and plans to publish Vintage Church at the end of January. Like Death by Love, both books were coauthored with Western Seminary theology professor Gerry Breshears.

Driscoll and Breshears aim their book at the popular level, but they do not shy away from using technical terminology. They believe all Christians should understand the meaning of words such as propitiation (Rom. 3:25; Heb. 2:17; 1 John 2:2, 4:10), because the cross is “at the crux of all that it means to think and live like Jesus.” Each chapter begins with a letter written by Driscoll, often addressed to someone he knows who has suffered abuse. When discussing the details of some abuse situations, Driscoll is probably a little too vivid for sensitive readers. But he can also be gentle, such as when he suggests ways for a woman who was raped to remember Jesus’ love for her.

Driscoll is at his most winsome when telling his youngest son, Gideon, only one and half years old, why his daddy believes Jesus’ atoning work was unlimited in scope. He also shines by vividly retelling Jesus’ victory over sin and death to encourage a woman tormented by demons.

“Seeing Jesus alive, the Great Dragon snatched you as his captive, drew his sword of the law, covered with the blood of your sin, and thrust its razor-sharp point at your head, naming every sin you have committed along with the name of every boy who every touched you,” Driscoll writes. “Smiling, Jesus stepped forward and declared that he already paid the penalty for your sins on the cross, canceled any right Satan had to hold you captive, and defeated your Enemy along with his servants and their works and effects in your life.”

Not every letter recipient is a victim. He models Bible-based evangelism in appealing to one woman to trust in Jesus’ atoning work for reconciliation with God. He also writes to a man who succumbs to lust and another who molested a child. In typically direct fashion, Driscoll begins the latter of these letters, “You are a despicable human being.” If this book captures one key element of Driscoll’s style, it lacks his characteristic humor. Given the content, that decision was entirely appropriate.

Breshears follows each of Driscoll’s letters with a couple of pages of “Answers to Common Questions” about a particular aspect of the Atonement. But it’s Driscoll’s letters that stand out. Death by Love reminds us why God inspired epistles. The genre is a natural fit for teaching and applying theology. The gravity of the situations Driscoll addresses draws out the urgency of his theological prescriptions. It does not read like a theology textbook, which can only assume readers already see theology as important and apply it themselves. Driscoll’s letters make an apologetic case for theology’s vitality and immediately confirm its power. At the same time, the letter format makes the book frustrating to read from cover to cover. Driscoll covers similar ground in many of the letters, repeatedly explaining the difference between propitiation and expiation, for example.

One Atonement theme that continually emerges with Driscoll and Breshears is justice. Breshears offers this succinct explanation of penal substitution: “By dying for us in our place and suffering our rightful punishment, Jesus also satisfies the retributive justice necessary for God the victim.” Driscoll observes that those who demand justice for the poor and oppressed today but deny that God should seek justice for the sins we commit against him are hypocrites. He finds a number of ways to bring divine justice home for readers. Driscoll forsakes cheap forgiveness in his letter to a man whose wife cheated on him with his friend. His affirmation of the man’s thirst for justice becomes for Driscoll an opportunity to illustrate how God feels about our sin. He notes that “the Bible speaks of God’s anger, wrath, and fury more than of his love, grace, and mercy.” Driscoll says he finds the concept of hell to be beautiful, “because it means that God is not unjust and will not let all of the evil and cruelty in this world go unpunished.”

Driscoll and Breshears don’t cover new ground in today’s so-called Atonement wars. Indeed, Driscoll writes that “theological innovation is inevitably the road to heresy.” Yet Driscoll covers many facets of this many-splendored doctrine. His letters touch on themes such as Christus Victor, expiation, ransom, Christus Exemplar, and reconciliation.

Driscoll explains: “Most poor teaching about the cross results from someone’s denying one of these facets, ignoring one of these facets, or overemphasizing one of these facets at the expense of others, often due to an overreaction to someone else’s overreaction.”

With this approach, Driscoll might just win over some critics. Responding to Mark Dever’s CT cover story on substitutionary atonement, Scot McKnight issued a challenge. “I’m tire of hearing conservative evangelicals say ‘we need all the stories’ and then proceed to tell us one story, which is only part of the atonement, and that part invariably the penal substitution theory,” he wrote on his blog, Jesus Creed. “Show me, I say, that you really mean business — I mean saving business — with ransom and liberation and recapitulation and exemplar — show me, and then I’ll listen to the point that we need all the stories. Show me that justice is inherent to the atoning work of God, as Tom Wright has clearly done and others too, and I’ll listen. But, if we keep saying that we need all the stories and then focus on individual redemption from guilt by double imputation through penal substitution, which has its own problems the way it is often explained, then I fail to see why we need the other stories.”

Perhaps, then, Death by Love will accomplish two things Driscoll may not have intended: break new ground and please some critics.

Collin Hansen is a CT editor at large and author of Young, Restless, Reformed: A Journalist’s Journey with the New Calvinists.

Copyright © 2009 Christianity Today. Click for reprint information.

Are ETs & UFOs Real?

by Jason Lisle

Taken from: www.answersingenesis.org

December 6, 2007

Are there extraterrestrial life-forms out there? The question of life on other planets is a hot topic in our culture today. Science fiction movies and television shows often depict strange creatures from far-away planets. But these ideas are not limited merely to science fiction programming. Many secular scientists believe that one day we will actually discover life on other planets. There are even projects like the Search for Extra-Terrestrial Intelligence (SETI) that scan the heavens with powerful radio telescopes listening for signals from intelligent aliens. Many Christians have bought into the idea of extraterrestrial alien life. But is this idea really biblical? The Christian should constantly examine ideas in light of Scripture and take “every thought into captivity to the obedience of Christ” (2 Corinthians 10:5).

The Evolution Connection

The idea of extraterrestrial life stems largely from a belief in evolution. Recall that in the evolutionary view, the earth is “just another planet”—one where the conditions just happened to be right for life to form and evolve. If there are countless billions of other planets in our galaxy, then surely at least a handful of these worlds have also had the right conditions. Extraterrestrial life is almost inevitable in an evolutionary worldview.

However, the notion of alien life does not square well with Scripture. The earth is unique. God designed the earth for life (Isaiah 45:18). The other planets have an entirely different purpose than does the earth, and thus, they are designed differently. In Genesis 1 we read that God created plants on the earth on Day 3, birds to fly in the atmosphere and marine life to swim in the ocean on Day 5, and animals to inhabit the land on Day 6. Human beings were also made on Day 6 and were given dominion over the animals. But where does the Bible discuss the creation of life on the “lights in the expanse of the heavens”? There is no such description because the lights in the expanse were not designed to accommodate life. God gave care of the earth to man, but the heavens are the Lord’s (Psalm 115:16). From a biblical perspective, extraterrestrial life does not seem reasonable.

Problems are multiplied when we consider the possibility of intelligent alien life. Science fiction programming abounds with races of people who evolved on other worlds. We see examples of Vulcans and Klingons—pseudohumans similar to us in most respects but different in others. As a plot device, these races allow the exploration of the human condition from the perspective of an outsider. Although very entertaining, such alien races are theologically problematic. Intelligent alien beings cannot be redeemed. God’s plan of redemption is for human beings: those descended from Adam. Let us examine the conflict between the salvation message and the notion of alien life.

The Redemption of Mankind

The Bible teaches that the first man, Adam, rebelled against God (Genesis 3). As a result, sin and death entered the world (Romans 5:12). We are all descended from Adam and Eve (Genesis 3:20) and have inherited from them a sin nature (Romans 6:6, 20). This is a problem: sin is a barrier that prevents man from being right with God (Isaiah 59:2). But God loves us despite our sin and provided a plan of redemption—a way to be reconciled with God.

After Adam and Eve sinned, God made coats of skins to cover them (Genesis 3:21). He therefore had to kill at least one animal. This literal action is symbolic of our salvation; an innocent Lamb (Christ—the Lamb of God) would be sacrificed to provide a covering for sin (John 1:29). In the Old Testament, people would sacrifice animals to the Lord as a reminder of their sin (Hebrews 10:3) and as a symbol of the One to come, the Lord Jesus, who would actually pay the penalty for sin.

The animal sacrifices did not actually pay the penalty for sin (Hebrews 10:4, 11). Animals are not related to us; their shed blood cannot count for ours. But the blood of Christ can. Christ is a blood relative of ours since He is descended from Adam as are we; all human beings are of “one blood” ( Acts 17:26). Furthermore, since Christ is also God, His life is of infinite value, and thus, His death can pay for all the sins of all people. That is why only the Lord Himself could be our Savior (Isaiah 45:21). Therefore, Christ died once for all (Hebrews 10:10).

The Redemption of ET?

When we consider how the salvation plan might apply to any hypothetical extraterrestrial (but otherwise human-like) beings, we are presented with a problem. If there were Vulcans or Klingons out there, how would they be saved? They are not blood relatives of Jesus, and so Christ’s shed blood cannot pay for their sin. One might at first suppose that Christ also visited their world, lived there, and died there as well, but this is antibiblical. Christ died once for all (1 Peter 3:18; Hebrews 9:27–28, Hebrews 10:10). Jesus is now and forever both God and man; but He is not an alien.

One might suppose that alien beings have never sinned, in which case they would not need to be redeemed. But then another problem emerges: they suffer the effects of sin, despite having never sinned. Adam’s sin has affected all of creation— not just mankind. Romans 8:20–22 makes it clear that the entirety of creation suffers under the bondage of corruption. These kinds of issues highlight the problem of attempting to incorporate an antibiblical notion into the Christian worldview.

Extraterrestrial life is an evolutionary concept; it does not comport with the biblical teachings of the uniqueness of the earth and the distinct spiritual position of human beings. Of all the worlds in the universe, it was the earth that God Himself visited, taking on the additional nature of a human being, dying on a cross, and rising from the dead in order to redeem all who would trust in Him. The biblical worldview sharply contrasts with the secular worldview when it comes to alien life. So, which worldview does the scientific evidence support? Do modern observations support the secular notion that the universe is teeming with life, or the biblical notion that earth is unique?

Where Is Everybody?

So far, no one has discovered life on other planets or detected any radio signals from intelligent aliens. This is certainly what a biblical creationist would expect. Secular astronomers continue to search for life on other worlds, but they have found only rocks and inanimate matter. Their radio searches are met with silence. The real world is the biblical world—a universe designed by God with the earth at the spiritual focal point, not an evolutionary universe teeming with life.

When it comes to extraterrestrial life, science is diametrically opposed to the evolutionary mentality. We currently have no evidence of alien life-forms. This problem is not lost on the secular scientists. It has been said that the atomic scientist Enrico Fermi was once discussing the topic of extraterrestrial life when he asked the profound question, “Where is everybody?” Since there are quite possibly multiple billions of planets in our galaxy, and since in the secular view these are all accidents, it is almost inevitable that some of these had the right conditions for life to evolve. And if some of these worlds are billions of years older than ours, then at least some of them would have evolved intelligent life eons ago. The universe should therefore have countless numbers of technologically superior civilizations, any one of which could have colonized our galaxy ages ago. Yet, we find no evidence of these civilizations. Where is everybody? This problem has become known as the “Fermi paradox.”

This paradox for evolution is a feature of creation. We have seen that the earth is designed for life. With its oceans of liquid water, a protective atmosphere containing abundant free oxygen, and a distance from the sun that is just right for life, earth was certainly designed by God to be inhabited. But the other planets of the universe were not. From the sulfuric acid clouds of Venus to the frozen wasteland of Pluto, the other worlds of our solar system are beautiful and diverse, but they are not designed for life.

What about UFOs?

Sometimes after I speak on the topic of extraterrestrial life, someone will ask me about UFOs. A UFO (unidentified flying object) is just that—an object seen in the sky that is unidentified to the person seeing it. People often want me to explain a sighting of some unknown flying object which they or often a friend have claimed to see. (Sometimes the implication is that if I can’t explain it, it somehow proves that it must be an alien spacecraft; but such reasoning is completely vacuous.¹) These kinds of questions are unreasonable. It is one thing to be asked to interpret evidence that we have, but it is unrealistic to ask someone to interpret undocumented second- or third-hand stories with no actual evidence available for inspection.

There is no doubt that some people sincerely have seen things in the sky that they do not understand. This is hardly surprising since there are lots of things “up there,” which can be misunderstood by people not familiar with them. These include Venus, satellites, the international space station, the space shuttle, rockets, Iridium flares, manmade aircraft, internal reflections, meteors, balloons, fireflies, aurorae, birds, ball lightning, lenticular clouds, parhelia, etc. However, a person unfamiliar with these would see a UFO, since the object is “unidentified” to him or her. It is how people interpret what they see that can be questionable.

Remember that we always interpret evidence in light of our worldview. It is therefore crucial to have a correct, biblical worldview. The fallacious worldview of atheism/naturalism may lead someone to draw erroneous conclusions about what they see. From a biblical worldview, we expect to occasionally see things that are not easily explained, since our minds are finite. But UFOs are not alien spacecraft, and of course, there is no tangible evidence to support such a notion.

Why the Hype?

In the 1990s the television series The X-files entertained millions of fans with stories of aliens, government conspiracies, and one dedicated FBI agent’s relentless search for truth. The show’s motto, “The truth is out there,” is a well-known phrase for sci-fi fans. But why is there such hype surrounding the notion of extraterrestrial life? Why is science fiction programming so popular? Why does SETI spend millions of dollars searching for life in outer space?

The discovery of intelligent extraterrestrial life would certainly be seen as a vindication of evolution; it is an expectation from a naturalistic worldview. But the desire to meet aliens, especially intelligent, technologically advanced ones, seems much more deeply felt than merely to vindicate evolutionary predictions. What is the real issue? I’ve heard a number of different answers from secular astronomers.

In some cases a belief in ETs may stem from a feeling of cosmic loneliness: “If there are aliens, then we would not be alone in the universe.” In many cases it comes from an academic desire to learn the mysteries of the universe; a highly developed alien race might have advanced knowledge to pass on to us. Perhaps such knowledge is not merely academic; the hypothetical aliens may know the answers to fundamental questions of existence: “Why am I here? What is the meaning of life?” and so on. An advanced alien race might have medical knowledge far exceeding our own—knowledge which could be used to cure our diseases. Perhaps their medical technology would be so far advanced that they even hold the secret of life and death; with such incredible medical knowledge, perhaps human beings would no longer have to die—ever.

In a way, a belief in extraterrestrial life has become a secular replacement for God. God is the one who can heal every disease. God is the one in whom all the treasures of wisdom and knowledge are deposited (Colossians 2:3). God is the one who can answer the fundamental questions of our existence. God alone possesses the gift of eternal life (John 17:3). It is not surprising that the unbelieving scientist would feel a sense of cosmic loneliness, having rejected his Creator. But we are not alone in the universe; there is God. God created us for fellowship with Him; thus, we have an innate need for Him and for purpose. Although human beings have rejected God, in Adam and by our sins as well, our need for fellowship with Him remains.

When I think of the majority of intelligent scientists who have studied God’s magnificent creation but have nonetheless rejected Him and have instead chosen to believe in aliens and millions of years of evolution, I am reminded of Romans 1:18–25. God’s invisible qualities—His eternal power and divine nature—are clearly revealed in the natural world so that there is no excuse for rejecting God or suppressing the truth about Him. The thinking of man apart from God is nothing more than futile speculations. Exchanging the truth of God, such as creation, for a lie, such as evolution, and turning to a mere creature such as hypothetical aliens for answers is strikingly similar to what is recorded in Romans 1:25.

But when we start from the Bible, the evidence makes sense. The universe is consistent with the biblical teaching that the earth is a special creation. The magnificent beauty and size of a universe, which is apparently devoid of life except for one little world where life abounds, is exactly what we would expect from a biblical worldview. The truth is not “out there;” the truth is in there—in the Bible! The Lord Jesus is the truth (John 14:6). So, when we base our thinking on what God has said in His Word, we find that the universe makes sense.

Footnotes

1. The argument is that alien spacecraft could not be explained by a natural phenomenon. Therefore, it is suggested that witnessing something that cannot be explained naturally must prove the existence of alien spacecraft. This is a logical fallacy called “affirming the consequent.” It’s equivalent to saying, “All white dwarf stars are white. Fred is white; therefore Fred is a white dwarf star.” Back

Tim Smith Interviews DEMON HUNTER

Tim Smith, worship elder of Marshill church in Seattle, sat down with Don and Ryan from Demon Hunter to talk about music, especially heavy metal, in the Christian scene. Watch   part 1 part 2