I watched this video about 4 or 5 years ago for the first time.  At that point in my life, I had not really formulated my ecclesiology — or doctrine of the church.  Because of this, the question, “Should drama be practiced in a local church setting?” had not really crossed my mind.  Take a look at this video below.  Although done really well (in fact, this video alone has 17 million+ YouTube hits), should the church when gathered corporately together practice this sort of thing?  Although this was probably done at a youth camp or something, the question is still begged.

One side says, “Yes.”  They would fall under the Normative Principle side of things.

The other says, “Absolutely Not!”  This side would consider themselves to be those who practice the Regulative Principle.

Would love to hear some thoughts on both sides.

The film writers and makers of Hollywood are remaking and reproducing some of the movies and figures from the past in new and exciting ways.  I have enjoyed their recreations of Batman, Transformers, X-men, and so forth.  One of those movies which will be released tomorrow will be called “The Rise of the Planet of the Apes” (2011).  This movie will perhaps be a rebirth of “The Planet of the Ape” series.  Before going to watch this movie, I decided to read the book which inspired all the movies: Planet of the Apes by Pierre Boulle.

In this book Boulle reveals a time and world in which the apes rule over everything else.  A couple of humans and their pet ape arrive, are taken captive, caged, and treated like we might treat zoo animals.  The apes feed the humans, the dangle things in front of them, and they take the humans for walks occasionally.  Reading this book was similar to imagining a backwards zoo – where we as humans are on display and the apes are looking at us.  It was quite, well, shocking to picture such a role reversal.  Could you imagine what it would be like to be in a zoo while the apes run the planet, have their own theaters with ape actors, have their ape authors, and so forth?  This idea of a role-reversal still shocks me to think of it because it is so backwards.  What are we to think of this idea?

As Christians, we must reject this idea by revealing its inadequacies.  Though entertaining, this idea is erroneous.  Apes still lack the mental capacity to rule, to talk, and so forth.  Though they can learn to mimic actions of other people, they still cannot learn to read, speak, and write at a level of competency similar to humans.  In the upcoming movie, humans will supposedly release some sort of gas that will accelerate all animal intelligence.  This invention is simply imaginative; clearly, we don’t have anything like this invention.  Furthermore, for the sake of the argument, even if we did invent something similar, we would probably be more inclined to try it ourselves rather than give it to another species.  Now, I am all for cultivating our imaginations.  Nevertheless, when we use our imaginations to propagate erroneous ideas, then we have misused our imaginations.

As Christians, we must present our Christian worldview in response to this inadequate, evolutionary worldview.   In Genesis 1:27-28, Moses writes, “27 God created man in His own image, in the image of God He created him; male and female He created them.  28 God blessed them; and God said to them, ‘Be fruitful and multiply, and fill the earth, and subdue it; and rule over the fish of the sea and over the birds of the sky and over every living thing that moves on the earth.’”  In these verses we learn that God created man and gave him a responsibility over creation – man is to rule over all the creatures, including the apes.  Yet, man is unable and unwilling to complete this task as assigned because of The Fall in Genesis 3 (search our other articles for more information on The Fall).  Whereas before, man was supposed to rule over everything with a benevolent rulership, now, he rules sinfully, or has apathy for his task, or both.  To remedy this sad circumstance, God has sent his Son to redeem mankind.  If man will change his mind about his sin (repent) and trust that Jesus Christ has bore God’s wrath on the cross for and rose again for man, now he can be made right with God.  Then, and only then, man can learn to rule over the earth in a benevolent fashion again.  That is, man should rule with a sense of responsibility.  This command from God rules out all forms of animal abuse, reckless animal killing, and so forth.  Yet, God still commands us as humans to rule over creation, not be ruled by any part of creation.

I am personally excited about watching this new movie soon.  From watching the trailers online and in the theaters, it looks interesting!  Nevertheless, we must learn to think and interact with the ideas with which we are being presented.  The writers and film makers of the movies we watch are trying to communicate ideas in their movies, just as good authors of fiction do in their books.  Yet, we, as Christians, need to be prepared to interact with those ideas in an intelligent and biblical manner.  Hopefully this article will help our readers who watch this movie engage the ideas they receive from it and all other movies they watch henceforth.

In Genesis 1:26-27, God said, “‘Let us make man in our image according to our likeness. Let them rule over the fish of the sea, the birds of the sky, over the cattle in all the earth and over every creeping thing that creeps on the earth.’ And God created man in his own image, in the image of God he created him; male and female he created them.” What does it mean for God to make man in his image? This question has been asked by many throughout the age of the Church. Many and varying positions have been proposed. This post serves simply to survey these positions.

Structural Perspective

Three major positions have been typically held by the major figures throughout the history of the Church: the structural, relational, and functional perspectives. The structural position has been the most widely accepted position. This view suggests that there is something about our structure–that is, our physical makeup or formation–that constitutes man’s being made in the image of God. In line with Aristotle, the early church focused its teaching concerning the image of God on human reason and free will. Augustine emphasized the structural elements of human memory, intellect, and volition and spoke of them as a reflection of the Triune God. During the Middle Ages, Thomas Aquinas made a distinction between the image and the likeness of God; he associated the immaterial aspects of the human with the divine image and the material aspects to the likeness of God. Thus, he positioned the image of God in man’s reason. These structural capacities were thought to be what separated man from animals and what enabled them to have a relationship with God.

[...]

This post stands as the final installment to my five part series, which has dealt with the doctrine of justification and the differences that exist between Protestantism and Roman Catholicism concerning this doctrine. In my first post, I introduced the debate, explaining what is at stake and gave some context to the issue (read it here). In the second post, I attempted to define and articulate the Roman Catholic teaching on justification—righteousness infused through the sacraments (read it here). In the third post, I sought to define and explain the Protestant doctrine of justification—imputed righteousness (read it here). In the last post, I intended to present a critique of the Roman Catholic doctrine of justification (read it here). In this final post, my goal is to respond to some of the most common objections that Rome has raised against the Protestant doctrine of justification.

[...]

Roman Catholics and Protestants have many doctrinal commonalities. However, they differ, and differ tragically, when it comes to their soteriology and their views of justification. In the first entry to this series, I introduced the discussion, explaining what is at stake and gave some context to the issue (see this post here). In the second entry, I sought to define and articulate the Roman Catholic teaching on justification—righteousness infused through the sacraments (read it here). Last time, I attempted to define and explain the Protestant doctrine of justification—imputed righteousness (read it here). In this post, I intend to present a critique of the Roman Catholic doctrine of justification.

The grave and historical error made by Rome is that they have failed to understand and believe the true message of the gospel: that man is saved by grace alone through faith in Christ alone. The damning flaw in Rome’s doctrine lies in its denial of this great truth. Since the Reformation, the most important criticisms of the Catholic view of justification have had to do with its inclusion of and need for meritorious works. While Rome seeks to emphasize that its views on merit should be understood in concert with God’s grace, it neglects the scriptural teaching that grace and meritorious works are mutually exclusive. The faulty Catholic doctrine of justification has much to do with the many problems in their teachings on merit.

[...]

“If we receive the witness of men, the witness of God is greater; for the witness of God is this, that he has borne witness concerning His Son. The one who believes in the Son of God has the witness in himself; the one who does not believe God has made Him a liar, because he has not believed in the witness that God has borne concerning His Son. And the witness is this, that God has given us eternal life, and this life is in His Son. He who has the son has the life; he who does not have the son of God does not have the life.” –1 John 5: 9-12 (NASB)

The clarity with which John makes known the foundational truth of Christ’s supremacy –his complete divinity and humanity is far from ambiguous. Jesus is God. He’s not a lesser god, he’s not a mode of God, he’s not a representation of God. The inspiration of the Holy Scriptures is evidenced in John’s letter addressing the divinity of Christ –a stumbling block to belief by countless millions through the centuries. The word stands in stark opposition to nearly every belief system on the globe from Islam to Atheism. The denial of Christ’s being co-equal with God the father is a dangerous and deceptive doctrine of one of the most prominent contemporary cults: Jehovah’s Witnesses.

[...]

This is a very intriguing interview.  The contents of the entire interview are below.  Here is a section of the interview where Piper asks Warren about his view on Limited Atonement.  You can find the entire 1 hour+ interview HERE.

Introduction
3:29  The glory of God.
7:16  David Wells and the weight of God’s reality.
9:00  Would you write the book the same today?
12:00 The sovereignty of God.
18:47 How do you speak of God’s sovereignty in the presence of tragedy?
22:01 How do all things work for bad for those who reject Christ?
24:14 Do you hedge on Larry King?
27:00 Unconditional election.
30:18 The importance of eternity.
34:42 How do you conceive of eternity: in heaven, on earth?
38:53 What is the Gospel?
42:00 What did Jesus achieve on the cross?
43:40 Repentance.
50:50 Why don’t you call yourself a Calvinist?
53:09 Propitiation.
54:39 Prevenient grace.
1:00:01 Total depravity.
1:03:00 Hell.
1:09:10 Eternal destiny of those who never heard.
1:12:40 The extent of the atonement.
1:17:00 Do unbelievers always do the devil’s bidding?
1:18:40 Your view of the Bible.
1:22:40 Expository preaching and doctrinal depth.
1:28:10 Rick Warren’s sacred trust.

Why do we celebrate Easter? Why did Jesus have to die? What was accomplished on the cross? What is important about Christ’s resurrection? Thabiti Anyabwile and Erwin Lutzer help us to think through these important matters.

You are on the verge of wrecking your life.  I know that with certainty.  I’m not psychic, and I’m not reading your mind as you read this chapter.  I doubt this book will be in print long enough to be read by artificially intelligent androids; so for now, I’m assuming if you can read, I know you’re human.  And if you’re human you’ve been designed to picture God – more specifically to picture the union of God and humanity in the man named Jesus.

This means, if the ancient Scriptures are right (and I’m wagering my life, and the next one, that they are), unseen spiritual beings out there are disturbed by what you are reminding them of.  By the “you” in the last sentence, I don’t mean a generic colloquial use of “one” or “humanity” in general.  I mean you personally.

The Protestant understanding of the doctrine of justification is undoubtedly very different from that of the Roman Catholic Church. Does this difference matter? Should those during the Reformation have made such a large deal about it? Should Protestants and Catholics today just forget about it all and be friends? Or, should we adopt the mindset of the Reformers and stand for the one true Gospel against any opposing and false gospel? This post stands as the third entry into this series in which I am attempting to articulate and defend the Protestant doctrine of justification over and against the one presented by the Roman Catholic Church.

In the first entry, I introduced the matter as a whole and explained what is at stake, giving some context to the issue (see this post here). Last time, I sought to define and articulate the Roman Catholic teaching on justification—righteousness infused through the sacraments (read it here). In this post, my goal is to define the doctrine of justification as is held my post Protestants—imputed righteousness. Generally speaking, the Protestant doctrine can be defined as follows: “Justification is an instantaneous legal act of God in which He thinks of our sins as forgiven and Christ’s righteousness as belonging to us, and declares us to be righteous in His sight.”[1] There are a number of elements inherent to this definition that must be discussed.

[...]