Praising God For What Is, Not For What Might Have Been

Hi all,

So I'll be teaching a course on heresies over the next couple of months at my church and our first up is open theism (btw- you can find the recorded classes at our sound cloud account, and I'll eventually be doing screen flows with the notes on YouTube). One of the issues I have with Open Theism is their counselling model, how they deal with grief. From the perspective that God does not know the future, God's will for a person's life can change at the drop of a hat. He can desire one thing one moment, and then in the wake of unforeseen circumstances, have a different desire the next. This creates a God of little hope. What hope can we have in what God will do, if we can't hope in what he hasn't done? I believe not in the God of the simply possible, but the God of purpose. 

A few months back I had a major tragedy in my life- maybe you heard about it, it was covered on national news- my two year old son got hit in the head by a ball at an MLB baseball game. I held him as he threw up half a pint of blood, stood over him as he slept, not knowing what was going on inside his body or if he would ever wake up. Thankfully, he did. And was quite himself to boot the very next day. However, his skull was fractured and he had some internal problems that will be with him from now on. As a dad, it hurts. It hurts to know my son won't ever be the same, and certain hopes for his future may never come to pass. How am I to respond to that in my grieving process? I think that as a Christian, the correct response is to rejoice in our trials (James 1:2), obviously. The real question is how do we do that? I can think of two responses:

Praise the Lord because-

-things could have been worse, but we were spared, or

-what actually happened was intended for his Glory and our benefit. 

One of these is easy to do, and one of these is difficult. As with most things, I think the path that is more difficult runs more true. 

If the answer is to praise the Lord simply because things could have been so much worse, how does that provide thanks or praise for what it was that actually happened? Not to say that this virew is entirely wrong- the Lord is gracious, slow to anger, and abounding in covenant faithfulness- and certainly deserves praise for withholding the full of his wrath from us, for we deserve it. However, it needs a balance. On its own weight or merit, this view provides us with no thanks to God for what it was that actually happened. How does this view actively represent Romans 8:28? How can we rejoice in what actually happened, if our focus is perpetually on what didn't happen? Think about Job's words for a moment:

"Naked I came from my mother’s womb, 

And naked I shall return there. 

The LORD gave and the LORD has taken away. 

Blessed be the name of the LORD.”

And,

"Shall we indeed accept good from God and not accept adversity?"

In none of this does Job ever come close to saying, "hey, at least I still have my life." Look at what Job praises God for- "the Lord gave and the Lord has taken away"- he's praising the Lord for what it was that happened. And again, he speaks of "accept[ing] diversity," not of being thankful for what didn't happen.  

Job's perception of thankfulness and praise is not to dwell on how much worse it could've been- and it couldn't have gotten much worse- but rather, praising him for reality. 

Psychologically, I think praising God merely for what could've been is a means of self protection, a means of ignoring the facts of life in order to not be forced to come to grips with reality. It's a way out. An easy path. A means of coping with life without actually having to deal with it.  J.R.R. Tolkien once asked the question, "Which one of God's punishments are not also a gift?" I think this applies greatly here. For every difficulty in our life, ever closed door, God opens a new one for us.

What happened to my son was tragic. He will have to deal with it more than I ever will. Something so random, and yet,

"The lot is cast into the lap, but their decision is from the Lord (Prov 16:33)." The Lord's hand was in it, and as random as it seemed, it was his intention. For that, I can praise him, because with that comes the knowledge that there is only good purpose in it, "to those who love God and are called according to his purpose."

God bless,

Mike Senders

The Blaze: Covenant Theology and Supercessionism

Hi all!

Today, Billy Hallowell penned an article in "The Blaze," where he highlighted some points made by Grant Barry on the issue of Israel's place in the end times. I don't really want to get into the minutia of end times prophecy, but I do want to highlight an inaccuracy in the article. 

We here at Pressing On Podcast have identified ourselves as dispensationalists. We see a distinction between the Church and Israel within the one people of God, each having its own distinct purpose in, and relationship to, the New Covenant in Christ. However, we do part ways with most of our dispensationalist brothers and sisters in that we don't find any benefit in having our fists eternally raised at what is often treated as the false idol of replacement theology. In the ongoing discussion of how Israel and the Church relate to one another, both sides must be committed to honesty and integrity in how we represent the other side. No progress will ever be made if misrepresentation is the norm.

That said, I want to kind of stand up for my Covenant Theology brethren. The article in The Blaze paints an "either or" picture of the Church and Israel.

 Either you see a distinction, or the Church has replaced Israel. A couple of problems here:

1) If the Church has replaced Israel, then you still see them as two distinct groups. If both groups are actually one group, then no one has actually replaced anyone. True "Replacement Theology" requires a distinction (if not entire separation) between the two. If one is making the assertion, like Holloway seems to assert by saying, "...“Israel” actually refers to the contemporary Christian church...," that someone who holds that view is holding to "Replacement Theology," then what you've done is imposed Dispensational distinctives onto a system that does not recognize them.

2) Enter Covenant Theology. While Dispensationalism focuses on discontinuity, CT focuses on continuity. This means that while dispensationalists see a discontinuity in the people of God, CT sees only continuity. So, "Replacement Theology" doesn't make a whole lot of sense, because the Church is Israel, and Israel is the Church. There can be no replacement if there is no difference. I don't want to go over the minutia of this subject right now, but if you want a deeper look at this, try here. The main thing that I want to express is that Covenant Theology does not see two distinct groups, but rather, two manifestations of the same group- the one Elect people of God.


Over the years, there have been many back and forth battles between Dispensationalists and Covenant Theologians, a ton of unnecessary mud flinging. However, if we are to all take part in the wonderful history of theology, and keep the flow of doctrine flowing onwards, purifying and refining ever further- then we have got to start addressing each other's points of view as it they are expressed by each party, not as we would like to address them in our own pejorative way. This especially goes for articles written for larger news/religion/theology blogs. The conversation will go no further if the major points are not being addressed properly. Each one of us is responsible for our own words.


In Him,

Mike Senders

The Woods is a Nice Place

Hey all,

Happy New Year! Took a week off recording for a week to celebrate and have a bit of time off, but we'll be back in the studio again this week to record a new episode. The topic this time will be communion, and I don't want to spoil it, nor do I want to box us in when it comes time to record, but I thought I'd maybe go over one aspect of communion that's pretty applicable to our lives on a day to day basis. 

The woods is a nice place. I happen to be an avid fisherman, and I also love aquariums and recently I've been putting the two together and keeping native species in my aquarium. It's extremely enjoyable. The time alone, the quiet of the trees, the sound of the water is extremely pleasing to me. On a spiritual level, it's quite invigorating. (A little fun fact- in the 1600s, while Bunyan's "A Pilgrim's Progress" was enjoying bestseller status, the number 2 bestseller at the time was a book called "The Compleat Angler," by Izaak Walton, which was actually about both theology and fishing.) 

Getting all alone can seem like a spiritual draw to many of us. That old joke about how "church would be so great if it wasn't for that darned front door" sometimes has more validity to it than some would like to admit. Church comes with a lot of annoyances. Disagreements, politics, culture clashes &c., can all get in the way of our desired Sunday morning in the woods.

Some people graciously smile and take it for what it is. Some people love it so completely that they become pastors and elders. Still others take a different route- the woods. Forsaking fellowship is a real big deal for people, and happens more often than we realise. Of course we all know someone who at some point has said, "I don't want to get up on Sunday," and thinks that [planning to] turning on the radio is Church enough, but I'm not talking about that, that's just called being lazy. I'm talking about those who wilfully forsake fellowship- communion- in order to lead a monastic-ish lifestyle.

As a student of the Bible, someone who considers higher thought and deeper insight a necessary and invigorating thing, and feels Spiritually called to be so, the draw to be alone and not deal with others is enticing. I mean come on- who hasn't disagreed with the Pastor over his usage of, or oversight of, some specific theological insight that wasn't the main focus of his sermon? Or dealt with laypeople who don't want to attend your Sunday school class because they want something more practical, usually in the form of "inductive Bible studies" that amount to nothing more than glossing over the important issues? Viewing church this way builds ourselves up into a Spiritual mountain. A lonely mountain. A large, vast, lonely mountain standing in the middle of a lake. And it is entirely sinful.

Theological nitpicking is usually the sign of a deeper sin issue. When we can't listen to a sermon without treating it like a seminary lecture, it's sign that we are out of touch with the application of all the actual lectures we've heard. Our Pastors are put in place by God to feed us, shepherd us, in a way that the Spirit has lead them. The pastor speaks both to individuals and to a body. While there is of course an intentional thrust that the pastor is intending as speaking to a singular body, who are we to say that the Spirit does not have individual intentions, to the point that the message speaks in a very personal, and unique way to every single congregant? When we disagree with what we're hearing, why could it not simply be that the Spirit is speaking to us in such a way as to cause us to further meditate on an issue that we, in our arrogance, think that we have exhausted? Or even when we hear repetitious sermons of things that we agree with, is the "I already knew that, nothing new here" attitude demonstrative of a softened, receptive spirit with an attitude of learning and growth? I think not. As a matter of fact, when I catch myself doing that, I have to immediately  remind myself that if I think I already know something, it's probably proof that I don't know it in the way that I should. 

Building ourselves into giant mountains of deep theological truth, higher than, and separated from, other people is the opposite of communion. What is knowledge of it has no personal application? What is knowledge, if it isn't imparted to others? And don't tell me "I talk to people online"- you're not fooling anyone. Communion means being together with others, being bound to them, being one with them. Seeking solidarity against community is not unity, but disunity.

The individuals who make up the body find their identity in Christ. We share our identity because we have only been joined to each other by his work. Seeking solidarity takes Christ away from others and makes him ours alone. It means building a new body made up of only two, me and Jesus- oh wait- I meant to say "my version of Jesus." The Christ of the Bible is the head of the whole of the church. Forsaking fellowship with the body means to forsake fellowship with Christ. You cannot be both a lone mountain, or live in the woods, and be pa member of a body, the two are antithetical to each other. Communion is only found in coming together- not in separation.

When we come to the Lod's Supper, we are declaring, praising, and worshipping God for what Christ has done for us- for our "shalom" we have with God through Christ as members of his body. This is not simply an adoration of communion with Christ individually, but communion with others as a single body made up of many individuals. A mountain standing in a lake looks great on a calendar- but it's unapproachable and good for no practical use in its own right.

In sum, don't go to the woods, and if you must, don't build a house out there. Come back. Communion is found in fellowship, and fellowship through being a part of the body of Christ. You can't do that when you're all by yourself. 

God Bless,

Mike Senders

"Merry Christmas, pieces of s***!"

Hey all,

I'm guessing that title got you? Well, those aren't my words. Our very first podcast was on swearing and the building up of the body through our language. In it, we addressed BadChristian podcast's article on why swearing isn't against the Biblical mandate. They come from the perspective that words can shift meaning, and therefore there can't be words that are universally "wrong." We gave some good counter arguments. Some people have posted our podcast on their website and tweeted it to them asking for a response. We haven't heard from them. 

Today I read this. 

https://twitter.com/xbadchristianx/status/679742105372258304

Now here's what gets me. I've heard people making the arguments found on their blog for a real long time. Those who make the arguments always seem to bring up the idea that swear words don't necessarily tear people down. Then I read stuff or hear stuff like this out of those same people. 

The kicker here is that their tweet completely undermines their article. The article uses this specific word and tries to point out that the "sh" word means the same thing as "crap." But if we replace one with the other, "Merry Christmas, pieces of crap," does that help at all? Does that make it less offensive? Is this the picture Christians are to have of Gabriel saying that he brings glad tidings of great joy?

The thing here is the demonstration of inconsistency in the application of what they're teaching. The response? Don't look to BadChristian for Spiritual guidance and growth. As a matter of fact,  is listening to them at all beneficial? That's not for me to decide. However, being that our podcast is not strictly apologetics or debating, but is trying to steer towards growth and maturity through sound theology and exegesis, I do want to make an analogy here. 

A couple weeks ago I was doing some Christmas shopping. I wandered into the Christian bookstore and was appalled at the selection I found there. Heresy and heretics line the shelves, intermingled with some really good and trustworthy authors. The analogy here is that when you follow people like this, who call themselves Christians, advertise their Christianity, but look like the world, and seemingly have no concern for the growth and maturity of their listeners- it's just like walking into the bookstore. You need to keep your guard up, because it's always the most dangerous when you feel the most comfortable with dropping your guard. I fear for those who drop their guard with BadChristian and come to think that BC represents the face of mature Christianity. 

God Bless and Merry Christmas,

Mike Senders

The $1M Question for Jehovah's Witnesses

Hey all,

So after going through the podcast on John 1:1, I realized we missed (or maybe only partially answered) one gaping hole in the Jehovah's Witness'argument in John 1:1c. 

 

It goes like this:

Argument: Because the article is missing before θεός in 1:1c, the English should be rendered "a god."

$1M question: Does adding the article make 1:1c Trinitarian?

Answer: Definitively no. 

John 1:1c-  καὶ θεὸς ἦν ὁ λόγος. 

As we argued in our podcast episode, in a statement of equality, there is no direct object. By placing the article before λόγος (logos- Word), λόγος then becomes the subject of the sentence. So, if we place the article before θεὸς (theos- God), like-

καὶ ὁ θεὸς ἦν ὁ λόγος

What happens is that you've now forced both nouns to act as subjects by making both definite, and therefore interchangeable. So, John was pretty clever. What he did was safeguard against a Modalistic reading. In Modalism, God the Father is the same Person as Jesus. So in Trinitarian terms, they are "One Person, One Being, two manifestations." This isn't Trinitarianism, and certainly isn't biblical.  

So, the facile argument made by Jehovah's Witnesses can't be solved by simply following what they say should be done. Which means the argument falls on its face. Following the rest of our arguments through, the only answer for understanding John's prologue properly is to read it in a Trinitarian manner. 

"Holy, Holy, Holy, merciful and mighty!

God in Three Persons, blessed Trinity!"

God bless,

Mike Senders

Greek learning materials

Hey all,

In our last podcast we mentioned some great resources for learning Biblical Greek, so here are the links to find he items we mentioned. 

http://www.dts.edu/itunesu/

The first resource we want to mention is Dallas Theological Seminary's Greek I and II courses at iTunes University. DTS has a wonderful selection of classes to choose from aside from Greek. The files are in video format, and are direct recordings of actual classroom lectures. Course requirements and material lists are provided so you even have the opportunity to follow homework assignments on your own if you wish. 

http://www.billmounce.com

The second, and primary resource is William Mounce's Basics of Biblical Greek and the accompanying workbook. This is a classroom text that is easy to read and understand and along with the workbook provides practice exercises in translation. DTS, mentioned above, uses Mounce for their text and together the two work well together because the instructor makes comments about Mounce's text for further helpful clarification. Mounce also has other resources available such as a DVD set, flash cards, and charts to help with learning. 

http://www.dailydoseofgreek.com

The next helpful resource is more for those who already know some Greek and need a primer to help stay in practice. Daily dose has short videos on individual verses of scripture going word by word through the Greek to help with parsing and syntax. 

Well there ya have it, some helpful resources for learning and keeping up with Greek studies. Make use of resources, more knowledge and understanding of our scriptures always helps. 

God bless,

Mike Senders

That Thing About Person vs. Being...

Sooooo.... on the last podcast we discussed a bit of Trinitarianism. The whole Person vs. Being thing that confuses the heck out of everyone and their brother. Plus, like we mentioned, if you're going to be a heretic, you're probably going to fall on this issue. So, we'd like to help you out a little.

What is Being? Being has to do with existence. It's something's "is-ness." Tables have being. So do cows, christmas trees, telephone poles, dogs, squirrels, and hygrometers (I like random. Random is fun.). So, being has nothing to do with Person. Something can have being without being a Person. Ideas, however, do not have being. Only "things" have being. So computer programs, the theory of relativity, or temperature (another random list) do not have being. Once again, Being has to do with existence, the state of "be-ing" (makes sense).

Person is a little more complex. Being a Person does not necessitate humanity, but it is does require some things that animals do not possess. Will, thought, power, determination, etc., are all requirements of person. So, animals don't qualify because they don't have a will. If you disagree, watch a few episodes of Cesar Milan. They run on instinct, top to bottom- and if you know how instinct operates, you can control them (you whisper to them).

So now that we've got some simple, working definitions, let's look at how to apply them in regards to common misunderstandings regarding the Trinity. I'm going to try my darnedest to exhaust every possible combination.

One person, no being- This isn't possible. Maybe an AI but without a body. Crazy sci-fi stuff.

One being, no person- This would be something like a table. It exists, but is not a person.

One being, one person- This is what we call Unitarianism. Human beings are Unitarian. We possess one existence, shared only by one person. Theologically, Arians, Unitarian Universalists, Modalistic Monarchians, and Muslims are all Unitarians.

One being, one person, split between multiple persons- Schizophrenia. This is where you have multiple minds within one mind. Theologically, this is represented by Modalism. In Modalism, God is One Being, One Person, but he manifests himself in three different ways- Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. Since this is the case, a Modalist can say de facto that Jesus is the Father. They're the same Person. This is also similar to, but not exactly, like the analogy of, "I'm a father, a son, and a brother, but only one person." That has to do with different roles played at different times.

Multiple beings, one person- Hive mentality. This would be something like bees or ants. They all (sorta) share the same mind, information is passed between all beings to reach a sort of equilibrium, but they don't share their existence.

One being, one person divided into multiple parts- Partialism. This would be like the Greek myth of Cerberus. In this, three separate persons divide the one person, and consciousness is not shared. This is different than schizophrenia described above in that the multiple parts all operate simultaneously without reference to each other. In schizophrenia, only one person manifests itself at a time, and therefore the being is subsumed by only a single person in turn. Partialism is like Cerberus in that there is one being, one person and the multiple persons sharing that person are like the multiple, living heads on Cerberus.

Then, finally, there's Trinitarianism. This is One Being, Three distinct, co-equal, co-eternal Persons. The Persons are not confused, intermingled, shared, or divisible. Since their Being is shared, the act of One Person can be attributed to all three, though responsibility terminates only on one member. They also are One in will, determination, and purpose via shared Being; however, distinction in Person allows for a distinction in role and/or participation. Shared Being and distinction in Person also allows for perfect relationship. A shared Being means that the multiple Persons can never be at odds with one another, yet a distinction in Person means that, well, they're not the same Person and so therefore can experience one another. Mind boggling.


Well, there you have it. Hope that helps a bit. Trinitarianism is a confusing subject, and its no surprise that so many people have a hard time with it. If you have any comments or questions, feel free to post in the comments section! If you happened to bump into this article on accident, follow the links on this page to listen in to our podcast!

God bless,

Mike Senders