The Hope of Romans 8

Good morning! Hopefully the Lord blessed you this weekend and you experienced the love of our precious Lord God yesterday, the Lord's Day. I would like to start our week off with a message of hope found in the greatest of chapters, Romans 8.



8:2- For the law of the Spirit of Life in Christ Jesus set you [all] free from the law of sin and death.


The Lord's servant, Paul, writes to the church at Rome reminding them of the grace found in the current dispensation of grace, our Sacrifice having been made in Christ Jesus on the cross at Calvary. The righteous wrath of God was fulfilled in the perfect submission of his Son our Lord Jesus Christ, requiring nothing to be added on our part to that which was already perfect; no more sacrifices, no more appeasement.

Has sin worn on you? Have you ever felt that perhaps you haven't done enough, or done too much of the wrong thing- that somehow you simply aren't worthy? Take heart in Paul's words, in what the Lord has done for us, and the grace that accompanies it.

He begins this verse with that ever-important word "for." The hope in the present verse relies on hope of the previous verse-

Therefore there is now no condemnation for those who are in Christ Jesus.

No condemnation. None. Not in any word or deed. And who is this grace extended to? Those who are in Christ Jesus. Notice here in verse 2, that this law that we are now under comes from the Spirit of Life who also is in Christ Jesus. It is this very law, that is in Christ Jesus, that has free those who are also in Christ Jesus.

What was this law of sin and death that we were set free from? A law that brought condemnation rather than relieved of condemnation. Look at the next verse:

For what the law could not do, weak as it was through the flesh, God did; sending His own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh and as an offering for sin, He condemned sin in the flesh. 

The law was weak. All it could do was condemn. When we sinned while we were under this law, this law of works, it simply rested on us. We brought judgment on ourselves and it never went away. In this new law, we see something different- there is no condemnation, for we have been set free from it by the new law, a law of grace and peace brought about by Christ's work on the cross- he condemned sin in his own flesh.

Take heart! Sin can no longer condemn! Your shortcomings have been made right in Christ! No longer must you judge yourself by your own imperfections, for Christ has made all things aright in him.

Grace and Peace,

Mike Senders

Answering the Amillennialist Challenge

Hey all, been a while. Had a question by someone on a Facebook group about how I would respond to this particular document, from the blog "Pilgrim and Shire," this particular article being written by J. Brandon Burks. The response got a bit long for a Facebook post, so I decided to put it here. The following is my response to the most common accusations against Premillennialism by Amillennialists (and Postmils by extension).

1) His discussion of 'make known' (σημαίνω) is entirely non-sequitur. Even the firmest dispensationalists pushing the "literal" interpretation have to concede that Revelation is symbolic. No dispensationalist would understand Rev 5:6 as meaning that Christ is a shape-shifter that can take the form of a sheep at will. On the contrary, John was seeing a vision, and the Lamb was representative (i.e., symbolic) of Christ. So, not only is the issue of σημαίνω non-sequirtir, its also presumptuous in the way it is being implemented. What Beale et al. are stating is that if σημαίνω refers to symbols, then the book must be understood in a sort of allegorical way, with no hard and fast interpretation, rather than just that John was shown visions which were symbolic in the sense that what he saw required an interpretation.

2) He skips over, as many (read: all) amillennialists do, John's use of γενέσθαι in the same verse (1:1), "what must happen." John uses the aorist of γίνομαι (to become) here. When γίνομαι is used in the aorist, it acts ingressively (the ingressive aorist). An ingressive verb functions by describing the entering into from one state into a different state. Something was once one way, now it is a different way. A good example of this is in John 1:3a, "πάντα δι᾿ αὐτοῦ ἐγένετο," "all things became through him." The verse is talking about non-existence and existence. Those things that are were once not, and became through him; so, entering into the state of "being" from the state of "non-being." So when John says, "...to show his servants what must happen very soon (δεῖξαι τοῖς δούλοις αὐτοῦ ἃ δεῖ γενέσθαι ἐν τάχει)," what he is saying is that when these things happen, i.e., when the "end" begins, they will happen quickly. Usually the amil approach is to define τάχει as meaning "quickly," skipping over γενέσθαι, and say that these things must take place shortly after they were shown to John. Instead, if the aorist is taken ingressively (it must be), it is saying that when these things begin, i.e., the estate has changed, then they will proceed in rapid succession. The verse says nothing of *when* the estate will be entered into.

3) The biggest argument he poses is Augustine's recapitulation argument. He argues that ch20 is recapitulating ch19, that is, ch20 is a separate vision that is restating the events of ch 19. There is a very large hurdle he has to jump though, the position of Dr. Michael Svigel of DTS. In order for recapitulation to work, ch20 must be entirely divorced from ch19 grammatically. There can be no necessary grammatical subsequents of ch19 found in ch20, and there can be no necessary grammatical antecedents of ch20 in ch19. The problem is in 20:4, where John says, "I saw thrones and ἐκάθισαν..." There are two possible interpretations of ἐκάθισαν. The first is, "and seated on them were." This translation would mean that John saw the vision, and these ones to whom authority had been given were already sitting on the thrones when the vision occurred (so NET, NIV, ESV). The other interpretation is, "and they sat on them." This interpretation implies that when John saw the vision, no one was seated on the thrones, but as he was watching, then these people sat down (so NASB, KJV, ESV 1901, ASV). First off, the latter is to be preferred due to John's use of the aorist versus the participle, particularly with "to sit," (κάθημαι/καθίζω). When John wants to show someone already seated on something, he uses the participle as with the Four Riders in Rev 6 (see 6:2- καθήμενος). When he wants to show someone in the act of sitting (see 3:21, "cause him to sit," and "I sat"), he uses the aorist. The problem for amillennialists is that John's use of the aorist here requires an antecedent subject. We need to know who "they" is in the statement, "and they sat on them." The key is in the following statement, "καὶ κρίμα ἐδόθη αὐτοῖς," "and judgment was given to them." This phrase fits with Rev 2:26-27: "He who overcomes, and he who keeps My deeds until the end, TO HIM I WILL GIVE AUTHORITY OVER THE NATIONS; AND HE SHALL RULE THEM WITH A ROD OF IRON, AS THE VESSELS OF THE POTTER ARE BROKEN TO PIECES, as I also have received authority from My Father..." The identity of the "they" should then be understood as those of 19:14-15, the armies of heaven, who are the Saints (note that the "rod of iron" is mentioned again also). So, the "they" is found in ch19, which means that 19 and 20 are concurrent and build on each other, not recapitulating. No amillennialist has ever answered this position, that I am aware of.

As for his three final points:

1) He cites Poythress' argument, which has some presuppositional problems. He is presupposing that those in the millennial kingdom are all saved, and cannot be deceived. While those who were alive prior to the defeat of Christ's enemies and enter into the millennial kingdom without dying are certainly saved, nothing is said of the offspring of those people, those who populate the earth. It seems though, that there will be nations during the millennium, over which Christ in Israel rules (Isa 14:1-2; 49:22-23; 61:5-9; and here in Rev 20:8). So while the blessings of Israel and the binding of Satan (not a long leash) will be cause for a time of complete peace via a previously unseen level of common grace, there is no reason to believe that as nations begin to repopulate the Earth all these individuals are elect. 

Of course though, I answer as a dispensationalist. This argument, however, is significant against the post-tribulationists, and this blog after all, is directed at historic premillennialists. If all people at the end of the Great Tribulation are translated to the heavenly estate, then, (1) they cannot have children (Matt 22:30; Mark 12:25) and (2) they cannot die (Luke 20:36). With this, I agree with the author, that post-tribulationalism has unresolvable problems in regard to the population of the millennium, and this contention has been oft repeated.

2) This idea of "eschatological progression" is presumed. It is a presumption, and dare I say one in particular of Covenant Theology, that soteriology is the end-game. If the sole purpose of the eschaton was the salvation of an elect people, and nothing more, then this point stands. If however, there are other purposes, then this point fails. Here is where the dispensational premillennialist parts ways with other premillennialists in that we do not put as much emphasis on prophetic fulfillment at the Cross. This is explained in the "already/not yet" hermeneutic. The Covenant Theologian views the majority of kingdom prophecy as having been fulfilled at Christ's death and resurrection, the dispensationalist sees some fulfilled, and some remaining yet future. One of these things is fulfillment of Christ's position as the second Adam. The purpose of the release of Satan back onto the Earth, which is regression in the eyes of amillennialists, is for the purpose of Christ to defeat the Serpent in the Garden, as Adam should have (note the serpent imagery found in the NT only in Rev 12:9 and 20:2- ). Where Adam failed, Christ will conquer. So, this is not regression at all, but rather, fulfillment.

3) He cites Meredith Kline for his final point, where Kline argues that the millennium will not be an era of peace. In order to hold this position, Kline must divide contexts in 20:4. Kline mentions the "souls of those who had been beheaded," but does not state what will happen to them during this age: "and they came to life and reigned with Christ for a thousand years." First, Kline presupposes the recapitulation argument, refuted above. Second, as an amillennialist, he must presume that these ones are reigning with Christ now. Kline refers to the millennium of the premillennialists as a "millennial semi-glory kingdom." On the contrary- if this life, with all its woes and sin-wrought toil is what it looks like when Satan is bound and Christ and his saints are reigning- I have little hope for the future. This millennium, the one of the amillennialists that I am apparently currently living in, is the epitome of "semi-glory."

Grace and Peace,

Mike Senders

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