The Preacher and the Gospel

1Cor. 15:1-4 - Now I make known to you, brethren, the gospel which I preached to you, which also you received, in which also you stand, by which also you are saved, if you hold fast the word which I preached to you, unless you believed in vain. For I delivered to you as of first importance what I also received, that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures, and that He was buried, and that He was raised on the third day according to the Scriptures...

Paul understood the power of the gospel was the center and focus of all Christian life and ministry. It was the focus of his teaching. It was point of his exhortations. Everything, bar none, points to the Gospel. We are sinners, desperately in need of a saviour. Our sin has no bounds, knows no end, and God's wrath abides on every one of us apart from Christ.

And apart from him, we can do nothing about it. 

This is the message that should drive every believer to Church on Sundays. Not how cool the pastor looks, not how applicable his clever anecdotes are to my life, not how "awesome" the worship band is, or the dim lights, or friendly atmosphere, or the how culturally relevant they are- because not ansingle one of these can come close to being described as the power of God to all who believe. 

"Ministry" and "outreach" do not rely on finances, and no man is a preacher simply because he talks in front of people. The job of the preacher is to proclaim the Gospel, to both the saved and the unsaved. To proclaim the utter despair of our position in sin. To proclaim that day by day the faith which is given to us must be placed in our only source of hope- Jesus Christ our Lord. 

1Cor. 2:2 For I determined to know nothing among you except Jesus Christ, and Him crucified. 

A Church that doesn't proclaim the Gospel weekly to the exhortation of the congregation isn't a Church, and a preacher that doesn't proclaim the Gospel to his sheep isn't a shepherd.

1Cor. 1:23 But we preach Christ crucified, to Jews a stumbling block and to Gentiles foolishness. 

Press on,

Mike Senders

True Repentance

"Yea; but, friend, thou hast neglected prayer or reading; thou hast been vain and loose in thy conversation in other things, that have not been of the same nature with that lust wherewith thou art perplexed. These are no less sins and evils than those under which thou groanest. Jesus Christ bled for them also. Why dost thou not set thyself against them also? If thou hatest sin as sin, every evil way, thou wouldst be no less watchful against every thing that grieves and disquiets the Spirit of God, than against that which grieves and disquiets thine own soul. It is evident that thou contendest against sin merely because of thy own trouble by it. Would thy conscience be quiet under it, thou wouldst let it alone. Did it not disquiet thee, it should not be disquieted by thee. Now, canst thou think that God will set in with such hypocritical endeavours, — that ever his Spirit will bear witness to the treachery and falsehood of thy spirit? Dost thou think he will ease thee of that which perplexeth thee, that thou mayst be at liberty to that which no less grieves him? No. Says God, “Here is one, if he could be rid of this lust I should never hear of him more; let him wrestle with this, or he is lost.” Let not any man think to do his own work that will not do God’s. God’s work consists in universal obedience; to be freed of the present perplexity is their own only."

John Owen, Of the Mortification of Sin in Believers

So often repentance gets pushed to the back seat of our thoughts, relegated to a simple, "I'm sorry Lord, I've done this or that thing, and it's bothering me." Or in salvation, how Christian culture has relegated repentance to, "I've done some bad things in my life." How great a disservice has been done to Christians, even to me in my life, to have sin dumbed down to merely sins. How I so struggled in the past with this sin or that sin, crying out to God saying, "If only you'd relieve me of this, then I'd be fine." And yet, he allows us to continue on in it because we've so misconstrued the true terror of sin to such a degree that if we were relieved, we might as well forget God, because we'd be fine. He would never hear from us again. 

Sin cannot be limited to this act or that act. To this passion or that. To this lifestyle or that. In sin my mother conceived me. The whole of our humanity has been so tainted, so wrecked, so defiled on account of Adam apart from our own choices that if we were locked in a blank room all our lives it would still be enough to convict us of being only the most detestable of creatures. Only by recognising this true identity of sin, that of the totality of its defilement, can we approach God in true repentance, recognising that apart from the Grace shown us in his Son, and by the indwelling of the Spirit are we able to have any peace with him at all.

This peace does not come from a simple, shallow, freedom from being annoyed by our own consciences, but by a renewing desire to be so totally transformed that sin hasn't a single foothold by which to overcome. Daily looking to the Father in repentance of sin, both recognised and unrecognised, seen and unseen, so that we may be in total and complete submission to him, in obedience of both will and action, mind and body.

What great glory is the Grace of God! What peace that comes from knowing the nature of that from which I've been saved! What great hope there is in knowing that day by day, repentance becomes only more perfect until that day when I see my Lord and Saviour, and become conformed to his character to the Glory of the Father through the Sanctification of his Spirit, so graciously given as a pledge to those who have come to him as children!

So then, take care that repentance not become about this or that issue, this circumstance or that; but rather, that we are so helpless that without the Grace of God moment by moment, our lives would be ruined and we would come to that firey end without hope. But we have a hope not found in relief from grief, for faith is not that which is seen, but a hope founded in knowing what is, and what is yet to be.

Grace and peace,

Mike Senders

A prayer offered up to the God of all.

Oh dearest God, our Father, Thou art Ruler of all; high and lofty, above all things.

Holy, holy, holy is the One who sits on His throne. Praise be to Him!

By the wisest counsel of Thy will, was Thy plan for the ages, ratified.

By the word of Thy power, was all that is visible, made.

By Thy sovereign will, didst Thee allow rebellion, to become.

By Thy love and mercy, didst Thou take on flesh and taste death, for all who art Thine.

By Thy power and might, didst Thou quash death, and rise from the grave.

In Thy infinite wisdom, willst Thou return in judgment against the armies of earth, which remain against Thee.

In Thy glory, we shall live, forever.

Forthwith: let us consider and favor the glory of Thy Being and the wondrous works of Thy Hands. Let us be sanctified in Thy truth and set apart unto life. May Thee be our subsistence; may Thy Word be our sustenance. Shine the light of Thine countenance upon us oh Lord, and doth make visible the path of Thy will afore us. It is in the precious name of our Lord Jesus Christ, we ask this.

Amen.

Does it make sense to pray to saints?

Grace and peace to the saints, that is, the invisible church, the body of Christ.

Today I am asking a question: Does it make sense to pray to saints? It was the question I posed to my wife one of the first times we hung out together, when she was still a Roman Catholic. Asking that question seemed to mark a turning point (from what I could tell) in her conversion to Protestantism; it sparked a moment of visible doubt in her. This is because the question must be logically answered with a no, and it doesn’t take much thinking to come to this conclusion.

Some background: The Roman Catholic system is a hierarchical system that sees us - the laypeople, common folk - at the bottom of the pyramid, and progressively goes up through all sorts of various positions such as priests, bishops, arch bishops, cardinals, the pope, saints, the virgin Mary, etc. and eventually making its way to God Himself. The general understanding amongst most Roman Catholics is that the higher up the pyramid you go, the closer to God you get. Delivering your prayers to those who are closer to God (veneration) gives you a better chance to have those prayers answered. To those who haven’t thought too deeply about this concept, it makes some amount of sense. But it is not hard to shoot it full of holes.

Now there are all sorts of angles to be taken on this, let alone the fact that it is incredibly similar to henotheism - the belief that while there is one God, there are other lesser gods that are worthy of our worship and who are able to answer our prayers (while God is busy with other more important things). But the question of “does it make sense to pray to saints” is ultimately a theological question, and more specifically, anthropological. What we know about humanity and our own finite existence must be considered here. If humans are in fact finite, then what change takes place in death that allows us (or certain humans who are blessed) the ability to receive prayers, and to do so in what would seem to be an infinite manner? For example, let’s take one of the most popular saints: Saint Patrick. Let’s consider how many people must say prayers to Saint Patrick, not just at any given time, but on the one and only Saint Patrick’s day. How many do you think that would be? In the millions? Now let’s also consider how much time there is in a day, in seconds - 86,400. Even if Saint Patrick only received 1,000,000 prayers on his famous day, he would be receiving, on average, a prayer every 0.08 seconds. In order for Saint Patrick to do anything about all of these prayers, he needs to be something more than human - he needs to be a god. He needs to shed the limitation of finite existence and put on the infinite ability of fielding the requests of many, many people at once. But he IS only a man, and a dead one at that; alike all the other saints.

Does glorification alone solve this issue? The simple answer is “no”. It would be correct to conclude we do not become infinite or no longer subject to the constraints of time just because we have passed from this life to the next. Only God can be described as atemporal; humans, whether having been just created as Adam was, procreated as we are, or glorified as we one day will be, are finite beings limited to the temporal existence God has created for us.

For there is One alone who is God, One alone who is infinite, One alone who is able to hear our prayers and answer them. While it is good for us to share each other's burdens and pray for one another, this is something entirely different than praying to those who are deceased as if we can somehow communicate directly with them. Our understanding of who God is, and in retrospect, who we are, tells us that prayers delivered to men, whether alive or glorified, is a misguided and dangerous practice. Let our prayers be to God, and to God alone.

In Him,

Joel Senders

Towards a Modern Monasticism and Self-Denial

Hey all,

So if you've been following the podcast at all, you've noticed that I've been recording audiobooks, and have been focusing on two areas, the Patristics, and Owen's Mortification of Sin. This has got me thinking about the relationship between killing sin in our current lives  and living a monastic lifestyle.

Usually when people think of monasticism, they think of Roman Catholic monks who wear brown robes and take ridiculous vows. I want to think of monasticism in a more general way, a way that relates to our everyday living; putting ourselves to death daily, through the denial of earthly desires and toward a devotion to heavenly desires.

There is an obvious issue with balance here. I personally do not think that Scripture teaches for there to be monks, nuns, eunuchs, etc., within the church body. These things go against the communal nature of the church. Neither does Scripture teach asceticism, that goes against the grace given to all Christians that all things are permissible, though maybe not profitable. Also, what Scripture does not teach, and I think that this is where American Christianity fails, is there to be a carefree attitude about partaking in anything even mildly attractive. I'm not talking about taking part in sin per se, and neither am I talking about over indulgence. What I'm talking about is simply denying the flesh for the sake of bridling it. Denying myself something simply because I want it. To what am I a slave? Do I want to be a slave to my desires? Or should I make my body hunger, thirst, want, or be deprived of things that though permissible, may not be profitable?

Matt 18:8-9 says,

“If your hand or your foot causes you to stumble, cut it off and throw it from you; it is better for you to enter life crippled or lame, than to have two hands or two feet and be cast into the eternal fire. If your eye causes you to stumble, pluck it out and throw it from you. It is better for you to enter life with one eye, than to have two eyes and be cast into the fiery hell."

Now while this is primarily talking about sin, I think the point is denial.

Your hand or foot. This is referring to the things we set out to accomplish. "Their feet are swift to shed blood." It is referring to the means or ability to accomplish sin. Whatever it is that enables us to sin should be denied, cut off.

Your eye. Our senses. If looking at something is causing yourself to sin, don't look. If your heart is causing yourself to sin, stop longing. 

I think these concepts should be married practically to Owen's concept of mortification. One point he brings up is that to mortify sin does not simply mean to not take part in it. If the passions of youth dim with age, have those passions been mortified simply because they no longer appear desirable? No. If obedience to Christ is simply on account of my annoyance at the effects of sin, then it is not obedience. I am only bothering to put my sin to death because it bothers me. Rather, through denial, I daily reign in my senses, my faculties, my body, so that they come under my control to my perfection in Christ. 

1Cor. 9:26-27: Therefore I run in such a way, as not without aim; I box in such a way, as not beating the air; but I discipline my body and make it my slave, so that, after I have preached to others, I myself will not be disqualified.

Man have I failed at this. I look back at my youth, and how much time was wasted doing whatever I wanted at the time. Living the bachelor lifestyle, free floating, tied to nothing. How much of that still remains! Only through denial, only though the forced control of my body can I make it mine. And the thing is- I don't have to join a monastery or take stupid vows to do it. I can do it right now, everyday, in my own home. I do it by not giving into every fleshly desire at every moment. Perhaps sleep isn't needed sometimes. Perhaps I can do without food. Perhaps I can do without hobbies. Whatever it is my heart desires to do, I must bring that desire to my control, to the perfection in Christ, so that I am the one ruling it, and it is not ruling me. "Sin's desire is for you, but you must master it." 

In Him, 

Mike Senders

The "Jesus Fish" is a Vagina?

http://www.cracked.com/article_19909_6-famous-symbols-that-dont-mean-what-you-think.html

Hey all,

So I stumbled on this lovely piece of New Testament and Early Church history courtesy of the scholars over at Cracked Online entitled, "6 Famous Symbols That Don't Mean What You Think." Popped up on my Facebook feed and I couldn't help but address it.

Yeah, you read that right.

Ok, so I was being sarcastic about the whole "scholars" bit. So how correct are they? The issues really lie in the final paragraph,

"According to some researchers, Christians adopted the vagina-fish symbol simply because of how common it was, but later looked for all sorts of non-vaginal justifications for it. Even actual Christian scholars admit that their second most popular symbol has a colorful history, just not one you want to bring up during a family dinner party."

Prior to this, they identified the use of fish as a symbol for the female genitalia in the Pagan ancient world. That much at least, they're correct about. Let's point out a couple of inconsistencies though. 

First, notice how they don't give names for "some researchers." So... we should just take your word for it that these "researchers" are real, credentialed scholars writing in acknowledged peer reviewed publications and not random internet warriors or people like Bart Ehrman who are known to have a chip on their shoulder against Christianity? Riiiiight. Appeal to the unthinking, unquestioning majority. Great journalistic skills there.

Secondly, the author links to an article in Christianity Today (http://www.christianitytoday.com/ch/2004/issue81/7.15.html) as his source for "actual Christian scholars." For one, Christianity Today isn't exactly scholarly reference, unless of course you're writing your sophomore year research paper. Sophomore year of high school, that is. For two, go look at the article. The article gives a brief history on the use of the fish in Christian history, and also briefly tells of its use in Pagan symbolism, but nowhere does the author succinctly tie the two together, or state that Christians outright took it from Pagan sources. What the author says is this:

"The fish's spawning as a Christian symbol during the first century is similarly esoteric. Using the Greek word for fish, Ichthys, the compilers of a collection of religious teachings called the Sibylline Oracles created an acrostic: Iesous Christos theou huios soter, or "Jesus Christ Son of God Savior." This acrostic is now commonly embedded in modern fish symbols."

Use of the word "similarly" does not mean, "Christians stole this from Paganism." In fact, the whole rest of the article makes it clear that Christians had their own uses and intentions about the fish, and they were entirely separate and distinct from the pagan use. The only link is that since pagans used it too, Christians wouldn't get killed if they drew it, unlike a cross. We can draw a parallel between this and people who say the Trinity is pagan in origin because pagans like to use triangles in their symbolism. Yup. Because they use triangles and we use triangles, that means that we necessarily stole it from them. Not so.

The real basis for this is the continued insistence that Christianity is or was somehow syncretistic. This falls under what scholars refer to as the "Bauer Hypothesis." What the hypothesis states is essentially that there was no such thing as "Christianity (read: Orthodoxy)", but rather "Christianities." So to people that hold to this hypothesis, in the earliest of Christian days, there was no kind of solidarity in Christian doctrine or dogma, but rather it was a rag-tag-mish-mash of beliefs. The way that Christianity is today is really formed just on the basis of whoever won certain Church councils. 

There are two main arguments against this idea. The first is looking at the church fathers as well as Scripture. Gnosticism and the Judaizers were written against from the earliest of times, and are  outright taught against in Scripture. Also, the Fathers were not reluctant to call Christ God. So we have historical evidence that points to there being some kind of historical acknowledgment of certain doctrines as being either "orthodox" or "heresy" from the earliest of times. Even the issue of Christ's deity, Arianism, is not tied to any kind of historical strain, but rather as a theological answer to the linguistic problems surrounding Sabellianism. So these heretical notions weren't always around, but popped up as responses to developments within Orthodox Christianity.

The second argument against the Bauer hypothesis is that the underlying idea is that Christianity just rose up out of the ashes of other religions.

Well, if you're genius scholar and arch-heretic Rob Bell, anyway.

This has been addressed and completely refuted on so many occasions that it's almost not even worth addressing. From Isis to Attis, the facts of Christ's life have been attempted to be shoehorned into about every ancient reincarnation story possible. Because we all know that Christ's death and reincarnation involved him washing up onto the shore in an egg.  Just because there are certain motifs present in different stories does not mean they share origins, or even share history. Like this- think of a means of transportation that has its rating in horsepower, all leather seating, and is built for long distance travel. You thinking of a car? Wrong. How about a truck? Nope. How about an actual horse? Still wrong. I'm talking about a giraffe, because my daughter told me yesterday that she would love to ride one. These things all share certain similar ideas, but are not related. Same thing goes for religions, and in particular, Christianity. 

So, in conclusion, don't worry about that Jesus fish on your car, it's not a part of female anatomy, nor is it an homage to fertility. As long as you can confess, "Jesus Christ, Son of God, Saviour," you're in the clear. 

In Him, 

Mike Senders 

Keeping Our Mouths Shut

Hey everyone!

Wouldn't ya know? Two days in a row! I must be feeling sick. Or motivated. Whatever. Anyway, I've been reading quite a bit in Proverbs recently and today opened my Bible to stumble on this gem, which oddly enough has been on my mind anyway:

Prov. 12:23- A prudent man conceals knowledge, but the heart of fools proclaims folly. 

One of the things I've pondered over the years is the impact of sitcoms and tv dramas being such a part of everyone's lives. I've wondered how much influence the television program standard of telling-everyone-around-you-everything-you're-thinking-at-all-times has had on our culture. Also, how that has impacted the idea that it's ok to wear all your emotions on your sleeve at all times. Like a child. Or an idiot. 

Like this guy. 

The problem manifests itself in multiple ways. In my life, my problem has always been wanting to be the Sheldon Cooper and tell everyone the history and mechanics of everything. My mom used to call me "Mr. Know-it-all." I remember standing up in kindergarten and giving directions to the class on how to do the homework. Wrong, of course. Honestly, I get embarrassed thinking about my younger days because I just couldn't seem to keep a lid on it and made an idiot of myself. 

"You're a Mr. Know-it-all!". 

Thankfully that problem had some healthy redirection and some of our friends started calling my brother and I "The Book of Knowledge Vols I & II," and we've been blessed with various teaching opportunities, like this one. It's been good for me to learn to keep my mouth shut and not always have something to say. 

One reason is that it gives me time to think. If I'm always talking, how do I have time to think about whether or not what I'm saying makes good sense or is even relevant? If I'm always spouting off my dang fool ideas, how am I actually helping anyone? Just another way to hear myself talk. 

Wish I had less dang fool opinions and more dang fool adventures.... 

Another thing shutting up helps with is my ability to listen. This goes for the mind too, not just the lips. Everyone has that one person they know that never seems like they're actually listening, but just waiting for the first pause so they can get to talking, and while you're talking, it seems like they're just thinking about what they want to say. Or while you're talking, they keep saying, "Yeah.. Uh huh...yeah... I know... Oh totally..." Stop. Stop talking and please listen to me. I guess there's a respect/common courtesy thing there too. 

As far as constantly expressing emotions goes, there's a similar proverb that speaks to that:

Prov 29:11- A fool utters all his mind: but a wise man keeps it in till afterwards.

The thrust of the words here isn't talking about speaking one's mind, but talking in the heat of passion. It's better to wait until the emotion has passed. We've all been there. Once it's been said, there's no taking it back... If only I'd stuck to all the lines I'd rehearsed...

In all, there's wisdom in silence. It's good to close our mouths from time to time. It's good to listen. It's good not to say too much. It's good to not let everyone know everything we're thinking. It's wise to craft our thoughts and words. 

God bless,

Mike Senders 

Is God the Author of Sin?

Hey all,

These blog posts seem to be getting further and further between. Still working on getting the next podcast published, we recorded two in one night and had some audio trouble with the both of them which is causing some issues getting them mixed. Hopefully those will be up soon. In the meantime, I hope everyone has been enjoying the audiobooks I've been recording, I still have a lot planned with that which includes some very large works in the future.

Our subject today is a response to an ever common assertion that, in Calvinism, God is the author of sin. As the thought goes, since in Calvinism God ordains whatsoever comes to pass, then that must also mean that he also is the primary cause of everything that happens. When a sin occurs, or more specifically, when Satan or Adam fell, God was as much responsible as they were, if not more so, because he caused them to sin. 

This usually gets branded as "determinism," but really isn't; determinism has to do with the existence or non-existence of possibility outside of what is actual. In the case of determinism, the accusation is along the lines of, "If God foreordained whatsoever comes to pass, then we have no choice because it is already decided." This a different, albeit related, subject that I won't be getting into. (If you're interested, click the link to the podcast on the right and listen to my class titled "Possibility.")

For a Calvinist, the subject hinges on what we call the "Creator/Creature distinction." God, as creator, is above, and therefore not subject to, the laws of his creation. There is therefore an eternal distinction between God and his creation. That said, the question must be asked:

How does God act?

1) Nothing at all like creation 

2) Exactly like creation 

3) Like creation, but different

We have three words to describe these three possible choices:

1) Equivocal

2) Univocal

3) Analogous

Of the three, the Calvinist (and really, all Christians) chooses the third. The reason is fairly simple. If God's actions are equivocal, then there is no possible way to understand him at all, his ways are completely separate from ours, and he has not, and cannot, communicate himself to us. That cannot be the answer, by the simple wording of Scripture. The second answer must also be dismissed. If God's acts are exactly like ours, then we have the possibility of exhausting our knowledge of God, because his ways, and the way he has revealed himself, are completely exhausted in creation. This basically makes God part of creation, and says that there is nothing more to be known about him outside what we see. Statements like the psalmist's proclamation, "How unsearchable your ways," seem to make the idea of exhausting the knowledge of God's character impossible. 

The only option is that God's actions are both like what we see in creation and  unlike what we see in creation. We call this analogy. We can know God after a kind, or a type, but we cannot know him as he is, because that would mean we have exhausted his character, and the creator/creature distinction would be dissolved.

Back to our original topic- is God the author of sin? Our discussion of the nature of God's actions forces us to say no. This is because God's actions are both alike and dislike actions as we see in creation, because God's actions are analogous to ours. Which means that when he causes things to occur, his causation of those events is both like our understanding of the "cause and effect" relationship, and dislike it. It's not exactly the same, because that would be a univocal understanding of God's causation, and we've already dismissed that as a possibility. That immediately raises the possibility that God could potentially cause things to happen without being responsible for them directly. How?

Let's think about cause and effect for a second. When a cause establishes an effect, that cause is the direct reason for the actuality of the effect. We call this cause the "efficient cause." Within a chain of causes and effects, we can also have secondary and tertiary causes, all the way back to the first cause, which in our case would be the creation of the world. We as Christians therefore refer to God as the First Cause. Since he is the First Cause, that necessarily means that he is outside of the cause and effect chain. He is himself the cause and yet is neither a cause himself, nor an effect of a different cause. Instead, he is the cause-er. This puts his being before any cause/effect relationship and means that he is not bound by the law of cause and effect, and can therefore act outside of the bounds of that law. Said another way, the only reason cause and effect exists is because creation exists, and if God is the reason creation exists, then he must also be the reason cause and effect exists; if creation has no essential impact on God's being, then neither does the law of cause and effect. 

So, God is not bound to act the same way we act. When he "causes" things to happen, this does not mean that he is necessarily the efficient cause of the effect. So when Adam sinned, God was not necessarily at fault. He theoretically could be, but Scripture says this is outside his character, and so must be ruled out. The only thing we are left with then is that God caused the fall, and yet caused it in a way that did not make it his fault. Nor does it mean that he "forced" Adam to sin, because he isn't bound to causing things to occur in a way that is univocal to creation. He caused Adam to sin, but not in a naturalistic "cause and effect" way. 

So the Calvinist is exonerated from the charge that God is the cause of sin, and is done so by simply confessing what all Christians confess: that God is not bound to his creation, but Creation derives its existence from him. 

God bless,

Mike Senders