Did Jesus rise from death?

Yet another explanation from Mark Driscoll on the resurrection of Jesus.  Overload yes.

Resurrection Q&A

Mark Driscoll answers questions at the end of this sermon on the resurrection of Jesus.

The Hope of Resurrection

Mark Driscoll explains how the resurrection of Jesus is the great and only hope of the world.

Prophecies of the Resurrection

Mark Driscoll shows how the resurrection of Jesus was predicted from Old Testament passages.

What is Resurrection?

Mark Driscoll explains well what resurrection means. It is not, contrary to a near-majority's understanding of the subject, merely life after death where we "go to heaven" as widespread evangelicalism would have us believe, but it is rising back into a bodily existence, as modeled by the prototype of Jesus' resurrection back into his body (be it a newly glorified body).

Objections to the Resurrection

Mark Driscoll answers some of the primary objections to the resurrection as historical fact, discussing some material from N.T. Wright.

 

 

The Resurrection of Jesus

Happy Easter! This is the day Christians everywhere celebrate the fact that Jesus has risen from death and that it is for those who love and trust Jesus as the Messiah of God and King the impetus of our own resurrection, that we will also rise one day to live forever with him, reigning with him in a new and glorified body over a new creation. What could be better than that?

Also, Mark Driscoll provides a helpful summary of N.T. Wright's book The Resurrection of the Son of God, which echoes some of the things I have been writing about it here:

Part 1
Part 2
Part 3
Part 4

Who's the Hero?

ABC Debate: Does Satan Exist?

This debate was aired in March 2009 at Mars Hill Church in Seattle, featuring a panel of Mark Driscoll and Annie Lobert answering "yes", and Deepak Chopra and Carlton Pearson answering "no" (sort of). As I pretty much expected from mainstream media like ABC hosting something like this, this was not much of a debate, as far as debates go. The "debate" quickly evolved from opening statements and rebuttals into a disorganized scuffle with plenty of non-sequiturs to go around. However, it is something very interesting to watch and hear the different arguments, though not much is accomplished in what appears to be an intensely edited version of the event. It is interesting to take a look at, if you can stand the slightly terrible interface with this website (beware of ad overload).

Mark Driscoll on Spiritual Warfare Pt. 4

Below is the concluding Q&A session on spiritual warfare. The overall learning from this for me is a new perspective and a better biblical basis for understanding what the Christian life is and how it is played out, specifically in the context of spirituality--good and bad alike. So many people these days talk about spirituality as if it's a completely positive thing to be "spiritual." I think we often forget that there are good spirits (angels that love God), but also there are bad spirits (angels that hate God) that are in rebellion against God but sometimes emulate their leader Satan by "[masquerading as angels] of light," (2 Corinthians 11:14) and can be very deceptive. It is vital that discernment is practiced and grown by constantly "[testing] the spirits," as the Apostle John commands (1 John 4:1-4).

Mark Driscoll on Spiritual Warfare Pt. 3

In part 3 of this teaching series, Mark Driscoll expounds even further on demons and spiritual encounters. This is an intensely practical (as well as extremely disturbing, not to mention controversial) message where he walks through how he deals with demonic "trials" in Christian counseling, including verbal communication with demons, their militaristic organizational structure, and many examples from his experience. I am sort of stunned after listening to this and not sure what to make out of it. While I am tempted to dismiss it all as craziness, I cannot help but believe this man who has had such a profound impact on my life through his preaching and teaching (just through the internet). I have listened to and read 95% of what he has produced and what he has written, as well as what has been written about him (though I can't account for the immense amount of blog activity on him, positive and negative alike), and I can say with certainty that he is sincere and this is not a facade. I see the total biblical credibility of this teaching, but I still cannot mentally grasp the reality of the spirit realm. It's shocking and unbelievable to me, yet so painfully real that perhaps it is simply overlooked out of fear. I just picked up reading Night by Eli Wiesel last night, and the atrocities committed during the Holocaust in concentration camps I can only begin to explain by utterly evil forces at work in the world. I cannot conceive of a human soul concocting these acts alone. There have to be spiritual influences, pure evil from out there and from within. I don't believe humans are capable of behaving in such ways apart from demonic guidance and temptation, but rather originally created in the image of God and imbued with dignity and goodness at heart. Sadly, I think the fall is so far-reaching and man's rebellion so increasingly incumbent in the world, that the line between the two has been horribly blurred and spiritual discernment is rarely practiced well. I've never heard this topic so much as mentioned with much sincerity (perhaps only Screwtape Letters by C.S. Lewis), and certainly never heard anyone teach about it. I'm grateful for this teaching series which has been a small revolution in my thinking on the subject. There is still part 4 to come, which I think will be a Q&A session.

As well, Driscoll has added his notes from this teaching here.

Mark Driscoll on Spiritual Warfare Pt. 2

This is part 2 of 4, where Pastor Mark Driscoll continues his lecture on spiritual warfare, discussing what he calls the "ordinary demonic." This encompasses such seemingly "bland" run-of-the-mill sins such as rebelling against authority, lying, gossiping, and even avoiding sex with your spouse per 1 Corinthians 7. Driscoll rightly points out that these are not exactly what we think of when we think of something as being "demonic" or even "satanic." This is however exactly what they are, as these Scriptures explicitly state over and over again. Additionally, he briefly discusses the "unordinary demonic," which is more what we think of in the realm of demonic spirituality, including such things as satanic accusations, spiritual-physical attacks and torments, false miracles/healings, and demonic possessions. As well, this is a tremendously practical teaching and puts a perhaps new twist on how to view the Christian spiritual life, specifically as in a context of warfare and how to guard against the works and effects of Satan and his minions.

Mark Driscoll on Spiritual Warfare Pt. 1

There's a lot of freaky sounding stuff in here. He is the only person I've ever heard of talking about encountering spirits/demons/forces that doesn't sound like a whacko and that I actually believe. There's some pretty helpful and practical material here also. The reason why is that he makes an effort to say that people who normally talk about this subject and claim to have supernatural experiences with demons are very open about it and will talk arrogantly about their power in whacko-fashion (think the crazy preachers on TV). Driscoll makes it clear that handling spiritual warfare biblically is primarily a humble activity that does not boast about one's experiences with demons and spirits in worldliness, but boasts only about Jesus in humility, following the example of Paul.

Past Few Years - Part 3 - Predestination cont'd

Here's what I meant, picking up from last time. I don't mean that everyone acknowledging Christ claims the label of Calvinist (obviously this is not true). There are reservations I have with taking the label as well, since it seems awfully focused on John Calvin, rather than on Jesus and the Scriptures. But my point is that every true Christian believes that God is sovereign over all, that it's Jesus and his power that saves us and it's not ourselves or our abilities that do so. Truly, this is the heart of what it means to be a Christian, to be humbled and ask for forgiveness of sins from God. However, it is my contention that Arminian theology does not hold to this, even though some claim it as their own that truly are Christians. A quote from Spurgeon, which is him caricaturing a prayer of an Arminian, illustrates this better than I can say:

"You have heard a great many Arminian sermons, I dare say; but you never heard an Arminian prayer—for the saints in prayer appear as one in word, and deed and mind. An Arminian on his knees would pray desperately like a Calvinist. He cannot pray about free-will: there is no room for it. Fancy him praying, 'Lord, I thank thee I am not like those poor presumptuous Calvinists. Lord, I was born with a glorious free-will; I was born with power by which I can turn to thee of myself; I have improved my grace. If everybody had done the same with their grace that I have, they might all have been saved. Lord, I know thou dost not make us willing if we are not willing ourselves. Thou givest grace to everybody; some do not improve it, but I do. There are many that will go to hell as much bought with the blood of Christ as I was; they had as much of the Holy Ghost given to them; they had as good a chance, and were as much blessed as I am. It was not thy grace that made us to differ; I know it did a great deal, still I turned the point; I made use of what was given me, and others did not—that is the difference between me and them.'" (taken from a sermon entitled Free Will--A Slave)

The underlying problem with the Arminian system (meaning that ultimately it is the choice of a fallen human to believe in Christ and be saved) is that in the end the Arminian believer must boast in himself for his salvation, rather than in Christ. The reason is that Armianism (as opposed to Calvinism) espouses a system of doctrine teaching that all humans are given the same amount of grace to believe (termed prevenient grace by John Wesley), and some choose to accept it to their salvation and some choose to reject it to their damnation. This inescapably makes the work of Jesus on the cross merely a powerful suggestion (if we can say it has power at all), rather than a great work of redemption. Now I will fully admit that few Arminians would claim that their salvation was of their own doing, but if questioned logically they are left with no other possible path to take. All Christians, when squeezed in the press of rational consistency, must reveal the pulp of Calvinism. The Christian heart is inevitably Calvinist, since our hope is not in our own abilities, but in the sovereign power of God. (I know some may take great issue with this, so I reiterate here the secondary importance of this doctrine in being a Christian, though as I have noted I believe Calvinists and Arminians would all agree on the main point of God's sovereignty here, despite the stark difference in label and professed doctrinal loyalty.)

Many of my friends that I met in college would hold to the teachings of John Wesley (inevitable since this was at the Wesley Foundation of the United Methodist Church) and those of Jacobus Arminius by association, since Wesley was an adherent to this system of theology. Also, for the person I was closest to in college (no names mentioned), this was a large source of our conflict and eventual falling out, so I am quite familiar with the sentiment of the debate's other side.

I am also familiar because I have often taken the Arminian side, and have switched between the two a few times, whether for emotional reasons or for what I perceived as biblical ones. I was raised in the free will side of the Baptist church and given pretty much the standard Arminian stance: Jesus died for all sin and we just have to accept it to be saved, or: God chose everyone, we just have to choose him back. When I was confronted with the concept of Calvinism, I wrestled for a good while with it, and eventually aligned with it. Upon interacting with others in debate over this, I was forced to evaluate harsher the claims of the predestination clan, and was convinced for a time that it was not biblical. This turning back was due mostly to the influence of these few things (listed with how they were corrected afterwards):

• The audio teaching of Dennis McCallum (from Xenos Church in Columbus, Ohio) on Romans 9. McCallum, whose teaching was invaluable to me in much of my understanding of the Gospel in college, interpreted this passage to mean that the Jews were chosen, as it were, to be the vessel by which all the nations of the Earth would be blessed, and not chosen in the sense that they received forgiveness of sin and salvation. This was very intruiging to me and convinced me for a time, but it simply did not hold up in the context of Romans (though this is what he claimed), and especially by the verses that follow which speak very clearly of salvation (10:1). The purpose of this text is to point out that Israel does not believe and has rejected its Messiah, and that God has now opened wide the door of his blessing and salvation for Gentiles. Indeed, Christ the Messiah is the very blessing which the witness of Abraham and Israel pointed to. This is the promise spoken in the old days of a blessing to the nations--Jesus.
  
  
• Appeals to emotion and personal reasoning. This is the argument used most of the time by those that despise predestination. Admittedly, it simply doesn't seem right when we think that God predestines some for salvation and leaves the rest to their own devices. It also seems to violate the principle we call "free will." While I do agree with the notion of the free will of man, I also think that the majority's conception of it is critically erroneous. I believe that we have a choice to obey God or not, and the decisions we make everyday can be made either way. But I also believe that man's "free" will (which is a bestowal on us from God's perfect creation) has been indeterminably bent towards sin. We are forever free to sin and to will our own defiance from God. We are not free, however, to turn our hearts to the Lord on our own power, since we are endowed with the curse of Adam from birth. We can do the right thing from time to time, but we can never please God with the filthy rags of our righteous deeds (Isa. 64:6). We need the impartation of God's Spirit to us, a regenerated heart to be able to willfully love him, and a new nature to turn from sin and obey Jesus. And it's only by God's free action to give us these gifts and enable us to have faith in him again. In other words, our wills are in bondage, as Luther would say. Think of it this way: Adam's initial standing with God was perfect because God made it to be that way. Adam chose to sin against God by a free action. But Adam could not right the wrong he did through any amount of "free" action unless God came looking for him and granted him forgiveness (which he did), eventually by providing the ultimate sacrifice in Christ. The restoration of their relationship was made only by God in dying for the sin Adam committed, since it is by definition a divine act to forgive and redeem.
  
  
• My Methodist surroundings. I was surrounded by Methodists, 99.9% of which were Arminians. This isn't meant to be denigration since I have so much to owe to the environment I was placed in at Texas A&M, but merely an account of its truth. The environment you find yourself in is a big influence on the beliefs you lean towards. If you took a Methodist and put them in the opposite situation (perhaps in a PCA Church), I would bet that they would struggle with predestination also. Seeing people you love have different beliefs, and the character and integrity you see them draw from those beliefs is a strong witness to their veracity. Some of the strongest and most devout people I know are Methodists. I love my Methodist friends and I am indebted to the fellowship I have had with them (heck, my wife grew up Methodist), but I just simply disagree with a significant chunk of the doctrine. I just don't see it in the Bible. Much of this disagreement has nothing to do with predestination mind you, but is more along the lines of church practice. A lot of it has to do with the view of women in ministry (more on this later), as well as some of its practical stances on Scripture, homosexuality, etc. On the whole though, I see them as brothers and I would never separate myself from fellowship with them unless a bigger issue arose.
  
  

In the midst of struggling so much with all of this and leaning one way or the other, I discovered a preacher that would shape me the most in my life and my understanding of Christian truth. Not by a long shot does this only apply to predestination, but to a large degree its truth was solidified in my heart through the preaching of Mark Driscoll. Odd as it may seem, since he's been known by some sketchy identities (the Cussing Pastor, for one, as labeled by Donald Miller in Blue Like Jazz), but I was moved by his passion for the Scripture and for the Reformed faith, while maintaining his real personality. As he would say, he's a "boxer-wearing Calvinist (not briefs)." In some ways I feel like I've been swept up in the new wave of Calvinism among younger people, which is weird to say. Something about it appeals to white guys in their 20s. I'm not sure what. I think a lot of it has something to do with the whole emerging thing, with the younger generation wanting something new and different from Christianity and the church than the older traditional approach. Like any division, people go to the left (Emergent) and to the right (Calvinism), though I think the orthodox thrust of it is somewhere in the middle. Driscoll's theological push is for the church and its members to view themselves as missionaries in the culture, much like an overseas missionary would in a different nation. The goal is the same: to win people to Christ and disciple them. This is the historical view of the church. The Emergent side would claim something similar, to love people where they are and in the culture they inhabit, but they simply reject the foundation of historical Christian truth and seek to forge new territory.

But this is getting far off topic, so I will end this post here and continue later...

Preaching and stand-up comedy...

Churches that are really successful usually seem to have a common attribute in the pulpit. It is that of speaking into the culture and answering the heart cries of the people, the core questions that underlie everyone’s lives and ambitions. One example is in Seattle, where Mark Driscoll preaches to the un-churched, those that in our day and age are greatly spiritual (in that they believe in some sort of transcendent nature of the universe), but also greatly lacking truth. So he preaches hard the truth of Scripture and the exaltation of Jesus to ground all worldviews and to funnel them into the core of God’s truth. Another example is in Dallas, where Matt Chandler preaches in one of the centers of the Bible belt, where everyone has heard a lot about Jesus, but there is rampant false teaching, empty Christian platitudes, dangerous theological pitfalls, and straight-up non-sense everywhere you look. As 2 Corinthians 11 puts it, there are many “different Jesuses”. So he preaches against pop-Christianity and easy-believism, those that seek to make being a Christian just another activity you do on the weekends and pronounces the truth and the reality of Christian life according to the Scriptures in the midst of the mess. He preaches with alarming honesty about his own depravity and shortcomings, and invites all to be honest with God and themselves and stop hiding behind the façade of religion and Christian cliché, to simultaneously cut to the heart of Jesus’ humanity and exalt his deity, and to offer healing to the broken spirits of those that have been picking at the rotting meat of false piety and deprived the fresh meat that Christ offers in himself.

No other profession or job seems to be so dependent on relevant and constantly updating evaluation of current times and thinking than that of preacher. Mark Driscoll makes the comparison that the only job today similar to preaching is that of the stand-up comedian:

Stand-up comedy and preaching are the only two mediums I can think of in which someone walks onto a stage to talk for a long time to a large crowd. Dave Chappelle, Carlos Mencia, and Chris Rock are genius at capturing an audience using irony and sarcasm.

And this is pretty true. I can’t think of another job like that. But, they are drastically different on one point: the comedian performs the same material hundreds of times and only has to come up with a new act every once in a while so he can sell more tickets and more CDs of his material. A preacher must week-in, week-out come up with “new material” for his next sermon. Not to say the preacher deviates from preaching boldly the Gospel every time (which he should), but this puts a much higher demand on the preacher than on the stand-up comedian, and the burden of hard work bears much heavier on the preacher to fire an arrow to the heart of the culture and its thinking every time he stands up to speak. Not to mention the temptation I’m sure exists to water down the message and just try and appeal to the audience that is listening and make them laugh or feel warm and cozy inside, despite the wicked hearts that constantly beat in the chests of the community.

All that to say that preaching 200 years ago is drastically different than it is now. Even 50 years ago, or last decade sees vast swings in the methods of preaching and the sins and erroneous philosophy of the given time period it is given in. Read Wesley’s sermons, Spurgeon’s sermons, Paul’s letters, and then listen to those of Billy Graham, or Mark Driscoll, or Matt Chandler. There are drastic differences in the people that are being preached to in these times and places, and the sins and certain types of foolish thinking that is espoused in each of these periods that requires loving correction. 18th Century Britain is far different than 21st Century America, and people think differently all over the world. In every instant of time some new ism or heresy is being promoted that the entire community seems to grasp onto. Successful preachers throughout history recognize this, and aim their guns, so to speak, at these targets in an attempt to correct the wisdom of the world. This doesn’t mean that the Gospel is substituted by human philosophy or likewise, but it does mean that people need to be communicated to in their own culture, time period, epistemology, and vernacular. This I believe is part of what Paul meant when he wrote:

I have become all things to all people, that by all means I might save some. I do it all for the sake of the gospel, that I may share with them in its blessings.

(1 Cor. 9:22-23)

Now I am obviously no preacher, but I do enjoy listening to preachers and the method in which they perform their craft, though this is not my only reason for doing so. God forbid I just aim to criticize and pick apart the hard work of men God has called to proclaim the word of God, though I could raise many an issue with Joel Osteen’s preaching, and much of the silliness that is broadcasted on Christian television.

But my point is that I think it wise to seek a church and a preacher that speaks into the culture in which you are, and that it should be a high priority (if not the highest) to any Christian looking for a church to attempt to find where the truth of Jesus and his Gospel are emanating into the surrounding community from the pulpit, and where lives are being transformed by its power that only it possesses. It is something surprisingly difficult to find done well, but I hope we are ever-mindful of its importance.

p.s. speaking of Joel Osteen, below is a humorous and deadly accurate video by Mark Driscoll on this topic...enjoy.

Nehemiah - Part Three - Mark Driscoll

Nehemiah - Part Two - Mark Driscoll

Nehemiah - Part One - Mark Driscoll