Podcast appearances and mentions of john moffitt

In episode 471 of The Reformed Brotherhood, hosts Jesse Schwamb and Tony Arsenal begin a multi-part series on Jesus's parables of lost things in Luke 15. This first installment focuses on the Parable of the Lost Sheep, exploring how Jesus uses this story to reveal God's disposition toward sinners. The hosts examine the contextual significance of this teaching as Jesus's response to the Pharisees' criticism of his fellowship with tax collectors and sinners. Through careful analysis of the text, they unpack how this parable not only rebukes religious self-righteousness but also reveals the active, seeking love of Christ for His own. The discussion highlights the profound theological truth that God's joy is made complete in the restoration of His lost children. Key Takeaways The Parable of the Lost Sheep demonstrates Christ's heart for sinners, showing that seeking the lost is not exceptional behavior but the expected norm for those who understand God's character. Jesus positions this parable as a direct response to the Pharisees' criticism, turning their accusation ("he eats with sinners") into an affirmation of His mission and identity. The lost sheep represents those who belong to Christ but have gone astray; the shepherd's pursuit illustrates Christ's commitment to recover all whom the Father has given Him. God's rejoicing over one repentant sinner reveals a profound theological truth: divine joy increases in the act of showing mercy and restoring the lost. The shepherd's willingness to leave the 99 to find the one reflects not recklessness but the infinite value God places on each of His children. Regular worship practices, including family worship and congregational singing, reflect the same disposition of praise that heaven displays when sinners return to God. The parable serves not only as a comfort to sinners but as a challenge to believers to adopt God's heart toward the lost rather than the judgmental attitude of the Pharisees. Understanding the Shepherd's Heart The central focus of the Parable of the Lost Sheep is not simply God's willingness to receive sinners, but His active pursuit of them. As Tony Arsenal points out, Jesus presents the shepherd's search not as an extraordinary act of sacrifice, but as the obvious and expected response: "What man of you, having a hundred sheep, if he has lost one of them, does not leave the ninety-nine in the open country and go after the one that is lost?" Jesus frames this as the normal behavior that any shepherd would exhibit, making the Pharisees' lack of concern for "lost sheep" appear not just uncompassionate but utterly irrational. This reveals a profound truth about God's character: He is not passively waiting for sinners to find their way back to Him; He is actively seeking them out. As Jesse Schwamb emphasizes, "Christ's love is an active, working love." The shepherd does not merely hope the sheep will return; he goes after it until he finds it. This reflects God's covenant commitment to His people—those whom He has chosen before the foundation of the world. The parable thus powerfully illustrates the doctrines of divine election and effectual calling within a deeply personal and relational framework. The Divine Joy in Restoration Perhaps the most striking element of this parable is the emphasis on the shepherd's joy upon finding his lost sheep. This isn't merely relief at recovering lost property, but profound celebration that calls for community participation: "Rejoice with me, for I have found my sheep that was lost." Jesse highlights Thomas Goodwin's profound insight that "Christ's own joy, comfort, happiness, and glory are increased and enlarged by his showing grace and mercy." This suggests something remarkable about God's relationship with His people—that in some mysterious way, God's joy is made more complete in the act of showing mercy and restoring sinners. The hosts point out that this doesn't imply any deficiency in God, but rather reveals the relational nature of His love. When Jesus states that "there will be more joy in heaven over one sinner who repents than over ninety-nine righteous persons who need no repentance," He's indicating that divine celebration isn't prompted merely by moral perfection but by restoration and reconciliation. This understanding transforms how we approach God when we've strayed. As Jesse notes, "Jesus is never tired, flustered, or frustrated when we come to him for fresh forgiveness or renewed pardon." Our repentance doesn't merely avoid punishment; it actually brings joy to the heart of God. This is a profound comfort for believers struggling with sin and failure, assuring us that our return is met not with divine disappointment but with heavenly celebration. Memorable Quotes "This parable of the lost sheep gives us the beating heart of God, his normative disposition toward his children. It's really an exceptional and special window into God's design, his loving compassion for us, his heart of ministry and seeking for us, for his children who are lost." - Jesse Schwamb "He wants us to draw on his grace and mercy because it is inherently who he is. And he drew near to us in this incarnation so that his joy and ours could rise and fall together, which is insane that God would come and condescend to that degree that in his giving mercy and in ours receiving it, Christ gets more joy and comfort than we do when we come to him for help and mercy." - Jesse Schwamb "Christ's love is an active working love. Just as the shepherd did not sit still, wailing for his lost sheep, so our blessed Lord did not sit still in heaven pitying sinners. He comes to us, he came to us, and he continues to draw to himself those who are sheep, who hear his voice." - Jesse Schwamb Host Information Jesse Schwamb and Tony Arsenal are the hosts of The Reformed Brotherhood, a podcast that explores Reformed theology and its application to the Christian life. With a blend of theological depth and practical insight, they examine Scripture through the lens of historic Reformed doctrine, offering accessible teaching for believers seeking to grow in their understanding of the faith. Resources Mentioned Scripture: Luke 15:1-7, Matthew 18, John 10 Worship Resource: Sing The Worship Initiative (sing.theworshipinitiative.com) Theological Reference: Thomas Goodwin's writings on Christ's joy in redemption Brad Kafer and Michael Lewis, The Theocast Tragedy, episode 75, with guest Jeremy Marshall, November 16, 2025, https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/the-reclamation-podcast/id1747221237?i=1000736883898. Joshua Lewis and Michael Rowntree, The Theocast Split: Examining Christian Unity and Theological Differences, November 11, 2025, https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/the-remnant-radios-podcast/id1392545186?i=1000736293538. Daniel Vincent, Fallout of Theocast, November 15, 2025, https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/the-particular-baptist-podcast/id1512601040?i=1000736872315. Tony Arsenal, "A Refutation of Reformed Fringe," Reformed Arsenal, November 2025, https://reformedarsenal.com/category/a-refutation-of-reformed-fringe/. Tony Arsenal, "The Quest For Illegitimate Religious Gnosis: How 'Fringe' Theology Deforms Christology," Heidelblog, November 24, 2025, https://heidelblog.net/2025/11/the-quest-for-illegitimate-religious-gnosis-how-fringe-theology-deforms-christology/. Full Transcript [00:00:08] Jesse Schwamb: And what's special about the series? Parables that we're about to look at is it gives us the beating heart of God, his normative disposition toward his children, which is not like, we haven't seen some of that already, but this is, I think, really an exceptional and special window into God's design. His loving can compare for us, his heart of ministry and seeking for us for his children who are lost. It's really unequal in all the parables and probably among some of the most famous, Welcome to episode 471 of the Reformed Brotherhood. I'm Jesse. [00:00:56] Tony Arsenal: And I'm Tony. And this is the podcast with ears to hear. Hey brother. [00:01:01] Jesse Schwamb: Hey brother. You know, it seems like sometimes we could just summarize the teaching of Jesus like this. You get a parable and you get a parable, and you get a parable, and we've already, by looking at some of these parables, gotten to see what the kingdom of God means. The kingdom of God is Jesus coming in His power. It's here, but also not yet. The kingdom of God is the judgment of God. The kingdom of God is a blessing of God. The kingdom of God is the treasure of God. And what's special about the series? Parables that we're about to look at is it gives us the beating heart of God, his normative disposition toward his children, which is not like, we haven't seen some of that already, but this is, I think, really an exceptional and special window into God's design. His loving can compare for us, his heart of ministry and seeking for us for his children who are lost. It's really unequal in all the parables and probably among some of the most famous, and I think we'll probably have some maybe like semi hot takes, maybe some like mid hot takes as the young kids say. [00:02:07] Tony Arsenal: Mid hot takes. [00:02:08] Jesse Schwamb: Yeah. [00:02:08] Tony Arsenal: So like [00:02:09] Jesse Schwamb: lukewarm takes, well my thought is like, what is a hot take that's not heretical? Do you know what I mean? So it's gotta be, yeah, [00:02:16] Tony Arsenal: there you go. [00:02:16] Jesse Schwamb: Yeah. That's what I'm saying. It's like, listen, we want to be orthodox in our approach here, but I think we gotta, we gotta chew these up a little bit. Like we gotta digest them, we gotta move them around in our gut and really take everything that we've, we thought we knew about these, we just heard and they've been written on cards or postcards or crocheted into, I guess you're not crocheting bible verses, but like cross stitching Bible verses on pillows and really go deep because I think there's so much here for us, and if this were like for, for everybody that wants to say that, sometimes we take a little bit too long with our series. Again, I do have a question, simple question for all of those people. And that question is how dare you? And the second thing I would say is, you're lucky that you're not listening to a Puritan podcast. Maybe you never would, like at the Puritans in a podcast, the series would never end. They'd start with like a single verse and be like, we're gonna do two episodes on this. And then they'd be getting to the like, you know, 4 71 and they still wouldn't have left like the, the first five words. [00:03:11] Tony Arsenal: It's true, it's true. We move a little bit faster than that. Pace. Not much. Yeah. Way, [00:03:15] Jesse Schwamb: listen, way faster. By like Puritan standards, we are cruising. Like we're, we're just like NASCAR going through these parables. And to that end, I'll try to keep us moving though. I've already delayed us already because we're, we're late for affirmations. [00:03:30] Affirmations and Denials [00:03:30] Jesse Schwamb: Denials. The time is ripe. It is Now. The fields are gleaning with affirmations and denials. So let's, let's bring them in. Tony, are you denying against, are you affirming with something? [00:03:40] Tony Arsenal: It's a little bit of both, I guess. Um, do it. [00:03:44] Controversial Theology Discussion [00:03:44] Tony Arsenal: A little while ago, uh, it was maybe back in September, I did an episode on, uh, some theology that was being propagated by a podcast called Reformed Fringe. Um, it was a solo episode, so if you haven't listened to it, go back and listen to it. The affirmation here comes in, in, uh, the form of a show called, I think it's called The Reclamation Cast. Um, there are a series of podcasts that have addressed some of the same issues. For those who haven't been following it, which I would assume is probably most of you, the issue is kind of blown up online. Um, Theo Cast, which was a pretty big a, a really big podcast in the, uh, sort of reformed ish, particular Baptist world. Um, they actually split because of this. And so John Moffitt was one of the hosts. Justin Perdue was the other. And then John was also on this show called Reform Fringe with Doug Van Dorn. So I'm affirming some of these other podcasts that have covered the same issue, and I would encourage you to seek them out and listen to them. I can can pull some links together for the show notes today. Um, more or less the, the issue that I identified, um, is beyond just sort of what's known as Divine Counsel Theology, which was made, made, really made popular by, um, Michael Heiser. I don't know that he would, we could say that he was necessarily like the. Architect or inventor of that. I'm sure there are people who've had similar thoughts before that, but he's really the main name. Um, he's passed on now, but, um, Doug Van Dorn was a, uh, he's a Baptist pastor outta Col, uh, Colorado, who took his views and actually sort of like cranked him up and particularly. Uh, troubling is the way he handles, um, the angel of the Lord in the Old Testament. Um, I won't go into all of the details, but he wants to argue and he has argued in writing actually, and he, he published the paper first in 2015, and then again in 2024, he published it again, uh, with very minimal changes and nothing substantial. It was really kind of contextual stuff. Um, he actually argues that in the Old Testament, when we see the angel of the Lord, it's not just, not just God appearing as an angel, it's God actually becoming an angel. And in his paper, at least, he argues, um, more or less that this is a sort of hypostatic union. It's not just a temporary taking on of some sort of like outward appearance. Um, it's an actual, uh, uh, assumption of properties into the person of the sun. And the whole reason he makes this argument, which is why it's a little disingenuine, that now he's saying that's not what his argument was. He makes this argument in order to make it so the angel of the Lord can genuinely suffer, experience passions, change his mind, um, enter into covenant, come to know new knowledge, like there's all sorts of things that he wants the angel of the Lord to be able to actually do, not just accommodated, but actually. Experience. Um, and he does that by having the angel of the Lord be an appropriation of angelic properties into the person of the sun, what we would call a hypostatic union. And in his paper, he actually says like, I would want to use all of the same language of, uh, of this union as I do of the incarnation. He intentionally uses the words image and form kind of drawing from Philippians two. So the, the affirmation comes in and there are other podcasts that have identified this. So it's not just me. I would encourage people to go find them. Where the denial comes in is, um, there have been many people, including myself, who have attempted to engage with Doug Van Dorn, like publicly, directly, um, through private messaging. There are many people who've tried to reach out to him, and he has just sort of waved all of them away. Which is one thing, if like you just say like, I don't really care to interact with you. I don't really care to have this discussion. But then he is also presenting the situation as though he, he is totally open to having these conversations and nobody is trying to reach out to him. So I would encourage everyone, you're all reasonable people, search the scriptures, read what he has to say. The paper that he wrote is called Passing the Impassable pa or impassable Impasse, which is hard to say, but it's a very clever title. Um, and it was, it actually was written, I don't know a lot about this controversy and maybe I need to do a little bit more research. It was actually written during a time where, um, the particular Baptist conventions that were out out west where experiencing a lot of internal controversy regarding impassability, and this was his proposal for how, how biblically you can still maintain the divine attributes of changeness and impassability all these things, uh, without compromising the real, the real passable, um, appearance that we see of the, of God in the Bible. So. I don't wanna belabor the point. This is not the point of the show. We, I already did a whole episode on this. I've published, I wrote many blog articles. There's a lot that I've, I've put out on this. Um, so check it out, look at it. Wait for yourself. Um, the only reason I've been, this has come up in our telegram chat. People have encountered this theology. Um, one, one guy was asking about it, 'cause I think like his mom or his aunt or someone close to him had, has been sort of reading Michael Heider's work. Michael Heiser was very instrumental at logos. He was on staff at Logos for quite a while. So a lot of their, um, more speculative theological articles that you might find on their website are written by him. Um, he was a, one of the main people behind the sort of proprietary translation that, um, Laro uses the Lham, um, English Bible. So. It's not a neutral point. Pretty significant theological consequences if, uh, if our reading of what Doug is saying is correct. Um, and there doesn't seem to be any real openness to discussing that. He has to be fair, he has published a series of affirmations and denials, um, affirming his a his orthodoxy saying he affirms the change changeness of the son. He denies that there was a hypothetic union. So that's encouraging. It's great to see that when it comes down to it. He's willing to make affirmations, uh, of orthodox things and to deny unorthodox things, but it doesn't really help the situation when those things and those affirmations, denials are still at very least difficult to reconcile with what he wrote. I think in point of fact, they're actually contradictory to what he wrote. So the, the proper course of action would be for him to say, well, no, that's not what I meant. Or, or, yes, I wrote that, but that's not what I believe. Um, rather than to just try say, trying to say like, well, you all got it wrong. There's a lot of people reading these papers looking at it going, Ooh, it sure seems like the sun took on an angelic nature, even if that was temporary. That's, that's got some pretty weird consequences for your theology. And one of the shows I was listening to made this point that I thought was interesting and a little scary is this is like an utterly new theology. Um, no one that I've talked to who is aware of this, who studied these issues. Is aware of anyone ever saying anywhere that the angel of the Lord in the Old Testament was some sort of like assumption of actual angelic properties into the person of the sun. Almost everywhere that you read. It's either a manifestation view where the sun is kind of appearing as an angel, um, but it's not actually becoming an angel. It's, it's sort of taking on created medium, uh, in order to reveal himself or an instrumental view, which would be something like there's an angel that is used instrumentally by the Lord, and so we can say that it the angel of the Lord is the Lord in an instrumental sense, kind of like saying like if I pick up a hammer. Use that hammer for as long as I'm using that hammer. The hammer is actually sort of an extension of me. I'm moving it, I'm motivating it, I'm controlling it, it's connected to me, and then I put it down when I'm finished. Those are kind of the two main views that people, people would argue in the Old Testament, if they want to even say that the angel of the Lord is a Christoph, it would either be this manifestation view or this instrumental view, this sort of weird novel assumption of properties view. I'm, I've never encountered anything like that and I've studied this, this, this particular issue at some length. So check out the other episodes, I'll pull together some links, uh, of ones that have done it, both that have been, uh, critical of Doug's position. And also there was one, um, on remnant radio, which I never heard of, but, um, that was acknowledging that there are some question marks, but sort of saying like, this really is an overblown controversy. Um, and then I'll link to Doug's podcast too, so you can listen to his own words and, and sort of think through it yourself. [00:11:51] Jesse Schwamb: Some point I have this volition, you know, places, organizations, groups might have like FAQs, frequently asked questions. I have this idea to put together for us, like a frequently discussed topic. This would be one of them. We've talked, or we co we've come back to this idea of like the molecule way, the messenger of the Lord many times. Yeah. In part because I think there's a good and natural curiosity among many when you're reading the scriptures and you see that's the angel of the Lord and you're trying to discern, is it Christoph? And in some cases it seems more clear than others. For instance, the Maia appearing to, you know, Joshua, or, you know, there's, there's all kinds of instances in the scripture that draw us into this sense of like, well, who is it that is being represented here? And the funny thing about this though, and I agree with you, that like makes it. Puts it in like, I would say contradistinction to like just kind of innocently wanting to understand is that there's a lot of theological gymnastics happening here, like a lot and two, it seems to me that he's kind of trying to create a problem to find a solution on this one. Yeah. And so it should give everybody that sense that we always talk about where like the red light goes off, the flags get thrown up, that when you hear that, you're just like, well, something is not right about that. And the thing that's not right about it is one, it doesn't subscribe to, like you're saying, any kind of historical orthodoxy. And two, it's just funky for funky sake. It's, there's really a lot that's happening there to get to some kind of end, and it's better to know what that end is. I'm glad you brought that up. So I think you can, everybody who's listening can weigh, like, if you. Don't wanna weigh into that, or you don't really need to solve the problem that's being created here, then don't bother with it altogether. Yeah. Uh, it's just not worth your time. But people, this is the hide thing. Like when, when we are challenged to be discerning people, when we are challenged to take scriptures at face value, there is always a tendency for us sometimes to go too deep, to get too wild with it, to try to turn around and bend it to, to answer all in every single question. And even the reform tradition doesn't attempt to do that. So here, there is something that's beautiful about these certain mysteries of God and to take him at his face, to trust him in his word, we should seek, seek out many things. Some things are just not worth seeking out. So, you know, the Internet's gonna internet and people are gonna, people and theologians are gonna theologize. And sometimes that's good and sometimes it's not that productive. [00:14:08] Tony Arsenal: Yeah. Yeah. I mean, I, I think to be as charitable as I possibly can be, I think, um, Doug is, has identified a legitimate. Question about the Old Testament, right? Right. The, the Bible appears when we read about God in the Old Testament. He appears to do things like change his mind, suffer yes. Grieve experience passions. Right. Um, and, and so that's a real, um, question that needs to be answered as you read the Old Testament. Um, and the two options of course, or the two primary options of course, are either that God actually suffers, he actually experiences those things, in which case he wouldn't be a changeless God. Um, he wouldn't be a perfect God because there's these, these modes of change within God. The other option would be that there's some sort of appearance of suffering or appearance of, of change or passions that is not actual, it's not real in the sense that he's not God's lying. It's not that God's lying to us, of course not. But that these are appearances for our sake. We would say that's, we call that the doctrine of accommodation. Right. Um. What Doug tries to do is actually exactly what the church did in trying to understand how it could be that the second person of the Trinity suffered. Uh, why, why we can genuinely say that God suffered. Um, we can say that and that the answer was the hypothetic union, and this is where it really kind of like jumped into full relief for me is Doug has the same answer for the Old Testament, but instead of an incarnation of humanity, I don't know what you would call it, an, an evangelization or a, something like that, um, he would probably call like a, some somatization. Um, he uses the difference between Soma and sars as though that somehow answers the question. He says it's not a, an incarnation into sarks. It's a, an assumption of properties in da Soma. But in either case, like his answer is the same answer. That the way that the angel of the Lord suffers in the Old Testament is not according to his divine nature. It's according to these angelic properties that are assumed into his person well. Okay, so like you get the same conclusion. There needs to be some explanation now of like, well, why is it a hypostatic union when it's the human nature, but it's not a hypostatic union when it's the angelic nature or angelic properties. Um, and I think the, the real answer is that when Doug wrote those papers, he just didn't realize those implications. Um, Doug is a sharp guy, like, don't get me wrong, he's a smart guy. Um, I think he's got a pretty good grip on Hebrew and, and a lot of this too is, um. Not to make this more of an episode than it is, but, um, this Divine Council worldview at first feels like not that big of a deal when you, when you read about it the first time. Um, or when you read sort of like popular treatments of it. Um, the real problem is that this divine council worldview, um, which I'm not gonna define again, you can look, I'll pull the radio episode or the other podcast episodes, but this divine council worldview becomes like the controlling meta narrative for the entire scripture for these guys. And so if, if the son is to be the sort of lead Elohim on this divine council besides Yahweh himself, then he has to become an angel. He has to become a one of the sons of God in order to do this. Sort of almost ignoring the fact that like he already was the son of God. Like, it, it just becomes, um, this controlling meta-narrative. And if all that this, all that this divine council worldview is saying is like, yes, there's a class of creatures. Um, that are spiritual in nature and the Bible uses the word Elohim to describe them and also uses the word Elohim to describe the one true God who's in an entirely different class. And it just happens to use the same, the same word to describe those two classes. Okay. Like I would find a different way to say that that's maybe not as risky and confusing, but that would be fine. But this goes so much farther than than that. And now it has all these weird implications. He actually did a five, five-part sermon series at his church where his argument is essentially that like this. This overarching narrative of the Sons of God and, and the 70 sons of God. Um, that that's actually the story that explains how salvation functions and what we're being saved to is we're not being swept into the life of the Trinity, which is kind of the classic Christian view, the classic orthodox view that because, because of who the son is by nature, in reference to the father, when we're adopted, we gain that same relationship with the father and the son and the spirit. Um, he's, he's wanting to say, it's actually more like, no, we, we we're sort of brought onto this divine council as, as creator representatives of the cosmos. So it's, it, there's a lot to, it's, um, again, I, I don't want people just to take my word for it. I'm gonna provide as many receipts as I can, um, in the, the, um, show notes. Um, but yeah, it's, it's weird and it, it's unnecessary and [00:18:57] Jesse Schwamb: that's right. [00:18:58] Tony Arsenal: It made a lot of sense to me when Michael Heiser went down these routes, because his whole program was, he had a, a podcast called The Naked Bible, and the whole idea was like he interprets the Bible apart from any prior interpretations, which of course we know is not possible. But that was sort of his plan was he's. It wasn't necessarily anti cre, anti-real or anticon confessional. He just thought you needed to and could come to the Bible without any sort of pre interpretive, uh, positions. Um, so it made a lot of sense to me when he was like, well, yeah, this isn't the way that the historic tradition isn't understood this, but that doesn't matter. But then you have someone like Doug Van Dorn come around who claims to be a 1689 Confessional Baptist. This is like radically foreign to that system of doctrine. So it's just a weird situation. It's kind of an abandonment of the pattern of sound words that handed down to us, the ages. Um, and it does have all these weird implications, and I'm not hearing loud and clear. I am not saying Doug Van Dorn is not a Christian. Um, I do think that the implications of what he's teaching are heretical. Um, but we've made the distinction before that like, just because you teach something heretical doesn't mean you're a heretic. Um, that's a, that's a formal proclamation that the church officially makes not some dude on the internet with a podcast. But the, the implications of his teaching are quite dangerous. So. Check it out. Read it with caution and with discernment, um, and with, you know, a good systematic theology that can help kind of correct you in your hands. And the creeds and the confessions. But dude, check it out. You, you're reasonable people. Look at the scriptures yourself and make your own decisions. I don't expect anybody to ever just take my word for any of this stuff. [00:20:25] Jesse Schwamb: Yeah, that's right. Or like you said, don't bother with. Yeah. Or don't bother. Just read the confessions. Unaware of it. Yeah. That's also, okay. Stick to the, the, hopefully the good local preaching and teaching that you're receiving and just hang out there. Yeah. And that's also okay. The internet is a super strange and weird place. Yeah. And that includes even among well intentions. Theology, sometimes it just gets weird. And this is one of those examples. [00:20:51] Tony Arsenal: It's true, it's true. I often tell people that my, my goal in any sort of public teaching or podcasting or blogging or when I'm preaching, uh, my goal is to be as like vanilla reformed as I possibly can. Like that's what I'm saying. There, there are times where like some of the stuff that I be, like, I, I'm not like straight down the middle on every single thing. There are things that I would, you know, like my view on, um, state relations with church like that, that's not exactly run of the mill vanilla presbyterianism. Um, so there are definitely things where I'm, I'm sort of a little off center on, um, but I try to be like right down the middle of the vanilla, vanilla aisle here with maybe a little bit of chocolate sauce here and there. But it's, it's pretty, uh, my reform theology is pretty boring and I'm fine with that. I love [00:21:35] Jesse Schwamb: it. I love it. It's okay to be boring, isn't it? Like boring? It's is for the most part, right. On the money. Because often when we do take our views and we polarize them to some degree, we know that there's a greater probability propensity for the errors to lie there if you're always hanging out there. Yeah. But especially in this, again, you've said all the right things it, it's just one of those things. But it's a good mark for all of us to understand that when we move so far away from orthodoxy that we're just kind of out on the pier by ourselves and you're looking around, you ought to ask what happened that you're out there so far. [00:22:05] Tony Arsenal: Yeah. Well, Jesse, save us from this train of thought. What are you affirming or denying today? [00:22:10] Jesse Schwamb: I hope I have something that's exactly the opposite. As you know, Tony, not all affirmations especially are created equal because sometimes we throw one out there and it's, it's good. We think it's great. Maybe not for everybody. It doesn't resonate. It doesn't hit. This is not one of those, this is for everybody. [00:22:24] The Importance of Daily Worship [00:22:24] Jesse Schwamb: I'm coming in with a hot, strong affirmation, and that is one of the things you and I have promulgated for so long is the beauty, the necessity, the responsibility, and the joy of regular daily worship, and that can look. Lots of ways, but I think you and I have tried in our own lives and we've spoken a lot about the high conviction that we have that that kinda worship should be participatory and it can involve reading the scriptures, praying, singing this spills over into convictions about family worship, leading our families, and that kinda experience, even if it's just a little bit every day and even if it's, we give it our best efforts, this is not like a kind of legalistic approach. And so I just came across something that I think I've been testing for a while that I think is faab fabulous for everybody, could be helpful to you in daily worship. And I'm just gonna give you the website first and explain what it is. Secondly, so the website is sing the worship initiative.com. That's sing dot the worship initiative.com. You can find it if it's easier. Just search the Worship initiative. What this is, is it is. Once you sign up for this, you'll actually get a text. It's a daily text, and that text will be a link in a browser every day. So it's not a podcast, but it comes through a browser every day. It is a time of, I would say, I'll use the word colloquially, it's a time of devotional with singing led by Shane and Shane and some of their other musicians and their friends. And this is glorious. It's no more than 15 minutes, and it's purposely orchestrated to lead you or whoever's listening with you in singing, including in the app or rather in the browser. They will give you the words for the songs that they're gonna sing that day. And one, Shannon and Shane are fantastic musicians. You wanna listen to this with a good speaker or set of, uh, earbuds because, uh, the music is great and it's very stripped down. It's just, it's just piano and a little bit guitar generally. Uh, but the speaking of the theological pieces of what's in these songs is fantastic. And this just past week, they've done songs like Crown Hit with Many Crowns. Um, in Christ Alone, he will hold me fast, he will hold me fast, is an incredible piece of music and a piece of worship. So I'm just enjoying, they are using rich deeply theological songs to speak rich, deep theological truths, and then to invite you into a time of singing, like along with them. It's as if like they were just in your living room or in their kitchen and said, Hey, you got 15 minutes, especially start the day. Why don't we gather around this table and why don't we worship together? So I haven't found something quite like this where it's like an invitation to participate, both by being active listeners into what they're saying, but by also singing together. So I. Can only come at this with a really hot affirmation because I'm being blessed by it. And this rhythm of somebody like leading you daily into song, I'm finding to be so incredibly valuable. Of course, like we can find song in lots of places. We may lead ourselves, we may rely on the radio or a playlist to do that, but this kind of unique blend of a time that's being set apart, that's organized around a theme and then brings music into that as a form of meditation and worship is pretty singular. So check out, sing the worship edition of.com and especially if you're a fan of Shane and Shane, you're gonna slide right into this and feel very blessed because they're talented musicians and what they're bringing, I think is a, is a rich theological practice of actual worship, not just devotionals of some kind, but like actual participatory worship of, of in spirit and truth. [00:25:53] Tony Arsenal: Yeah, I just signed up for this while you're talking. It took about a minute. It's super easy. So, um, and I'm sure that they have a way to opt out. If you start it and you hate it and you want to just stop getting text messages, I'm sure you can just respond, stop. Um, so there's really nothing to lose. There's no gimmick. They don't ask for a credit card, anything like that. Um, and I, I'm with you, like I love me some Shane and Shane music, and I do like some Shane and Shane music, um, that, that like takes me way back. Those, there are a lot of singers who've been at this for a long time. Yes, Shane and Shane was like. A really like popular band when I was in like, like upper high school. Oh yeah. So like, we're talking about a multi-decade career, long career doing mostly worship music, like they're performers, but they have entire, they have entire, many entire, um, albums that are psalms, um, entire albums that are worship choruses or what you might think of as chorus singing. Um, so yeah, I think this is great. And I'm always looking for new ways to integrate worship into my life. So this could be something as simple as like, maybe you're not gonna be able to sing out loud, but you could listen to this on the bus on the way home. Or you could put in your air, your ear pods, uh, when you're, you know, doing the dishes and instead of just listening to another podcast. I recognize the irony of saying that on a podcast that you may be listening to while you're doing the dishes, but instead of just listening to another podcast, you spend a little bit of time thinking about meditating on God's word. So that's great. I think that's an awesome, awesome information. A little [00:27:20] Jesse Schwamb: bit like very casual liturgy, but you're right, they've been around for a while and this, the content that they're producing here strikes me as like very mature. Yeah, both like in, of course, like the music they're doing and how they're singing, they're singing parts, but also just what they're speaking into. It's not just like kind of a, let's let tell you how this song impacted my life. They're, they're pulling from the scriptures and they're praying through. They're giving you a moment to stop and pause and pray yourself. There's a lot that's, that's built in there. And can I give like one other challenge? [00:27:47] Encouragement for Family Worship [00:27:47] Jesse Schwamb: This, this came to me as well this week and I know we've had some conversation in the telegram chat about like family worship, leading our families in worship about somehow how do we model that? How do we bring that together? And music often being a part of that. And I think that it's especially important for families to hear their. Their fathers and their husbands sing, no matter what your voice sounds like. Can I give a, a challenge? I think might sound crazy. This might be a hot, hot take. And so you can bring me back down instead of a mid hot take. If it, yeah, if it's a little bit too hot. But I was reading an article, and this is really from that article, and it, it did challenge me. And the article basically challenged this and said, listen, most people are actually far more musical than they understand themselves to be. And that might just not be in the instrumentation of the voice, but in other ways. And so the challenge was if you're a, a husband, a father, maybe you have some proclivity of music, maybe you have none. The challenge was basically, why don't you consider. Learning a musical instrument to lead your family in worship. And, and the challenge was basically like, pick up a guitar and, uh, see if you can eke out a couple of chords. Work through that just for the sole purpose of if nothing else, but saying like, I want to participate in something differently in my home. And maybe that's getting a keyboard and just, just trying it there. If I can play the guitar, anybody truly I think can play the guitar. It's, it's not really that difficult. I just found this captivating that this guy laid down the gauntlet and said, maybe you ought to consider doing that if only to be a model of worship in your own home throughout, throughout the week. And I just thought, you know what? That's something we're thinking about. I think all of us have something there. And that might be for some, like, maybe it means strengthening your personal prayer closet. So like your example in time of, of corporate worship of your family is stronger. Maybe it means your study of the scriptures, not just of course for like pure devotional life, but to instruct or to practice that scripture for your family. So I, I take this point of, it's not just about the music, but it could be if you're, if you're looking and saying like, man, I wish that we had some music. Um, you, you possibly could be the music. And it's just something to think about. [00:29:47] Tony Arsenal: Yeah, I'll say this. Uh, it's not that hard to play guitar, but Jesse is actually quite a talented guitar player, so even though he's right, it's not that difficult. Uh, Jesse is, uh, is much better than he's letting on. But yeah, I mean, most modern worship songs, um, you can get by, you might have to like find a version online of it in this key, and you might not be able to sing it in this key, but like GC, D and E Minor. Yeah, that's right. We'll get you, we will get you basically every major worship song that you're used to singing. And those are all very easy chords to play. Yes. Um, there are difficult chords and some, some worship songs are more difficult or the, the tone is more difficult. Um, but even, even something like that, or get a keyboard and just do, you know, you can just pluck out notes, right? You can write on the notes what the, what the name of the notes are and just pluck out notes so people can sing with it. Um, there are lots of ways you can do, get a kazoo. You could lead music, you could lead your, that's your family in worship with a kazoo, um, or get the Trinity Salter hymnal app. Like, it's, yes, there are many ways that you could incorporate music in your family devotions and your personal devotions that, um, are not that challenging and, uh, really do add a lot. Now, I know there are some, there are probably a few people in our, our listening audience that are acapella only people. And I respect that perspective and, and I understand where it comes from. But, um, even then, like this might also be a little bit of a hot take. I'm not an excellent singer. I'm not a terrible singer, but, um, I could be a better singer if I practiced a little bit. And with the, with the ease of finding things like YouTube vocal coaches and right, just like vocal lessons and techniques and practice. Cool. Like, you could very easily improve your ability to sing and your confidence to sing, right? And that's only gonna help you to lead your family. I'll even throw this in there. Um. I'm in a congregation with lots and lots and lots of young families. There are five pregnant couples in our church right now. Wow. And our church, our church is probably only about 70 people on an average Sunday. So five pregnant, uh, couples is a pretty high percentage. Um, what I will tell you is that when the congregation is singing, we have lots of men who sing and they sing loud. But when the children are looking around at who is singing, they're not looking at the women, they're looking at the men. Right. Um, and you know, we're not, we are not like a hyper-masculinity podcast. We're not, you know, this isn't Michael Foster's show, this isn't the Art of Manhood. Um, but we've been pretty consistent. Like, men lead the way. That's the way the Bible has, that's way God's created it. And that's the way the Bible teaches it. And if you're in the church. You are commanded to sing. It's not an option. [00:32:28] The Importance of Singing in Church [00:32:28] Tony Arsenal: But what I will tell you is that, um, singing loud and singing confidently and singing clearly and helping the congregation to sing by being able to project your voice and sing competently, uh, it does a lot for your church. Yes. So it's never gonna be the wrong decision to improve your ability to sing and your confidence to sing. So I think that's great. I think the whole thing is great. You can learn to sing by listening to Shane and Shane and singing with them, and you can Yes. Invest a little bit of time and maybe a little bit of money in, in like an online vocal. I mean, you can get something like Musician or something like that that has guitar, but also you can do vocal training through that. There's lots of resources out there to do that. So yes, I guess that's the challenge this week. Like, let's all get out there and improve our singing voices a little bit and, and see if we can, can do this together. [00:33:14] Jesse Schwamb: I love it. I, I don't wanna belabor the points. [00:33:16] Encouragement to Learn Musical Instruments [00:33:16] Jesse Schwamb: I only bring it up because there might be somebody out there that's thinking, you know, I'd like to do more of that. And I say to you, well, why not you? It's okay. Like you could just go and explore and try get or borrow a relatively inexpensive guitar. And like you said, you don't need to learn to read music to do that. You're just kind of learning some shapes and they correspond to certain letters in the alphabet. And in no time at all, you could be the person that's strumming out, eking out some chords and you're doing that at home. And that might be a great blessing. It might change your life. It might change the trajectory of how you serve in the church. And you might find that God has equipped you to do those things. Yeah. And wouldn't it be lovely just to try some of those things out? So whatever, whatever they are, it's certainly worth trying and, and music is a big part of, I know like your life. Mine and it is someday. Tony, we have to do the sing episode. I don't know that we've actually done that one, right? We just talk about what it like, is it a command that we sing and why I think we've [00:34:08] Tony Arsenal: done that. I think we did have, we, it's early on in the episode on our views. Might have changed a little bit. So we maybe should um, we should loop back to, I'm sure we talked about 'em when we were going through Colossians as well. [00:34:17] Jesse Schwamb: Yeah, I think we did. I just dunno if we did, like, we're, we're just gonna set a whole hour aside and for us, that's definitely not an hour, but, and just talk about this in particular and like what, why do we sing and what, why does guy command this? And then why our voice is different and why do some people feel this, you know, sense of like why don't have a good voice and you know, we, you always hear people say like, well make a joyful noise. And I think sometimes that falls flax. You're kinda like, yeah, but you don't know the noise I'm making you. That's kind of the response you hear. So some someday we'll come back to it, but I'm gonna make a prophetic announcement that there is no way we're going get through this one parable. No already. So. [00:34:55] Introduction to the Parable of the Lost Sheep [00:34:55] Jesse Schwamb: Everybody strap in because we'll do probably a part one. And if you're curious about where we're going, we're moving just away from Matthew for now, we're gonna be hanging out in Luke 15. We've got a trio of parables about lost things. And again, I think this is gonna be very common to many people. So I encourage you as best you can, as we read these to always start our conversation, try to strip away what you've heard before and let's just listen to the scripture. [00:35:20] Reading and Analyzing the Parable [00:35:20] Jesse Schwamb: So we're gonna start in Luke chapter 15 in verse one. I'm not even gonna give you the name of the parable because you will quickly discern which one it is. So this is the Luke chapter 15, beginning of verse one. Now all the tax collectors and the sinners were coming near Jesus to listen to him, and both the Pharisees and the scribes were grumbling saying, this man receives sinners and eats with them. So he told them this parable saying. What man among you, if he has 100 sheep and has lost one of them, does not leave the 99 in the open pasture and go after the one which is lost until he finds it. And when he is found it, he lays it on his shoulders, rejoicing. And when he comes home, he calls together his friends and his neighbors saying to them, rejoice with me for I found my lost sheep. I tell you that in the same way, there will be more joy in heaven over one sinner who repentance than over 99 righteous persons who need no repentance. [00:36:19] Tony Arsenal: Yeah. And yeah, this, this will definitely be a multi-part episode. And, and part of that is we just spent a half an hour talking about affirmations and denials. I think we probably should have a podcast called Belaboring The Point, which is just us talking about other random stuff. Fair. [00:36:33] Comparing the Parable in Luke and Matthew [00:36:33] Tony Arsenal: But, um, the other part is that this parable is, um, slightly different in Luke as it is in Matthew. [00:36:41] Jesse Schwamb: Yes. [00:36:41] Tony Arsenal: Um, and also it's positioning in the narrative and what comes immediately following it is different. And I think that's worth unpacking a little bit as we talk about it this week, next week and, and probably maybe even into a third week. Um, but the, the parable here on, on one level, like most parables is super, super straightforward, right? Like right. This is God's di, this is God's demeanor, and his disposition is that he seeks that which is lost, um, which is good news for us because all of us are lost. There's only lost people until God finds them. Right. Um, and find again, of course, is an accommodated way of saying it's not like God has to go out searching for us. He knows where we are and he knows how to find us. Um. But this is also a different format for a parable, right? He's, he's not saying the kingdom of heaven is like this. The parable is what man of you having a hundred sheep? Like the parable is a question Yes. Posed to the audience, and it, it is in the context here, and this is where, this is where looking at the parallels between different, different gospels and how it's presented and even the different variations here shows you, on one level it shows you that Jesus taught these parables in multiple different contexts and different occasions. Right? In this occasion, it's he's sitting down, he's with the tax collectors and the sinners. They're grumbling. They're saying, this man eats with sinners. And receives them in, um, in Matthew, it's slightly different, right? He's in a different context and sit in a different teaching context. So the way that we understand that is that Christ taught these parables multiple places. And so we should pay attention to the variation, not just because there's variation for variation's sake, but the way that they're positioned tells us something. So when he's telling the account in Luke, it's told as a corrective to the tax collectors and the um. Right on the Pharisees, um, who are, sorry. It's a, it's a corrective to the Pharisees and the scribes who are grumbling about the tax collectors and the sinners drawing near to Christ. And so he speaks to the Pharisees and to the scribes and is like, well, which one of you wouldn't go seek out their lost sheep? Like, it's this question that just lays bare. They're really sinful. Ridiculous Jonah. I just invented that. Like Jonah I perspective that like, oh, exactly how dare God go after how dare Christ eat with sinners and tax collectors? And he says, well, if you love something. If you love your sheep, you're going to go after your sheep. [00:39:03] The Deeper Meaning of the Parable [00:39:03] Tony Arsenal: You're not going to just abandon, uh, this sheep to its own devices, even though there is, and again, this is a, a comedy way of talking about like, even though there's some risk associated with going after the one sheep, because you do have to leave the 99, he still is saying like, this is the character. This is my character speaking as grace. This is my character. This is the character of my father. And there's this implication of like, and it's obviously not the character of you. So I think this is a, this is a really great parable to sort of highlight that feature of parables when they're repeated across different, um, gospels. We have to pay attention, not just to the words of the parables themselves, but what the teaching is in response to what the teaching like proceeds. We'll see when we look at Matthew, there's a very, there's a, a different. Flavor to the parable because of what he's going to be leading into in the teaching. So I love this stuff. This has been such a great series to sort of like work through this because you, you really start to get these fine details. [00:39:59] Jesse Schwamb: Yeah. This parable of the lost sheep is I think on the face straightforward, like you said. But it is actually complex. It's complex in the argumentation and the posturing Jesus takes here, like you said, he's binding the pharisee. This is condemning question of like which one of you, like you said. So there's that, which is slightly different element than we've seen or covered so far. There's also the context, like you said, in which it happens and I think we need to think specifically about. Who is this lost? Who are the 99? Who are the ones that Jesus is really trying to draw in with conviction, but also, again, what is he saying about himself? And it's way more, of course, like we're gonna say, well, this is again, that default, that heart posture. Even those things are more cliche than we mean them to be. Yeah. And we need to spend some time, I think, on all of these elements. And it starts with, at least in Luke, we get this really lovely context about when the teaching unfolds. And even that is worth just setting down some roots for for just a second. Because what I find interesting here is I think there's a principle at play that we see where. Everything that everything gives. Jesus glory, all the things give him glory, even when his enemies come before him and seek to label him. It's not as if Jesus appropriates that label, repurposes, it turns it for good. The very label, the things that they try to do to discredit him, to essentially disparage him, are the very things that make him who he is and show his loving and kindness to his people. And I think we'll come back to this like this, this sheep this, these are his children. So these words that it starts with, that were evidently spoken with surprise and scorn, certainly not with pleasure and admiration. These ignorant guides of the Jews could not understand a religious preacher having anything to do with what they perceive to be wicked people. Yeah. And yet their words worked for good. I mean, this is exactly like the theology of the cross. The very saying, which was meant for reproach, was adopted by Jesus as a true description of his ministry. It is true. He's the one who comes and sits and subs and communes and touches the sinners, the ugly, the unclean, the pariahs. It led to his speaking three of these particular parables in Luke in rapid succession. For him to emphasize that he's taken all of what was literally true that the scribes of Pharisees said, and to emphasize that he is indeed the one who received sinners. It's not like he's just like saying, well, lemme put that on and wear that as a badge. He's saying. You do not understand God if you think that God does not receive sinners, to pardon them, to sanctify them, to make them fit for heaven. It's his special office to do so. And this, I think therein lies this really dip deep and rich beauty of the gospel, that that's the end that he truly came into the world. [00:42:47] Christ's Joy in Finding the Lost [00:42:47] Jesse Schwamb: He came not to call the righteous but sinners to repentance. He came to the world to safe sinners, what he was upon Earth. He's now at the right hand of God and will be for all eternity. And he's emphatically the sinner's friend. And without this reproach from the Pharisees, like we don't get this particular teaching and what they intended again, to be used to really discredit God, to say, look, how can this be the son of God? What we get then for all of eternity is some understanding of Christ. And even here now with his word, we have this sense like, listen, do we feel bad? Do we feel wicked and guilty and deserving of God's wrath? Is there some remembrance of our past lives, the bitterness of sin to us? Is there some kind of recollection of our conduct for which we're ashamed? Then we are the very people who ought to apply to Christ. And Christ demonstrates that here, that his love is an act of love. Just as we are pleading nothing good of our own and making no useless delay, we come because of this teaching to Christ and will receive graciously his part in freely. He gives us eternal life. He's the one who sinners. I'm so thankful for this parable because it sets up very clearly who Jesus is, and this is where we can say he is for us. So let us not be lost for lack of applying to him that we may be saved. This text gives us the direct inroad to apply for that kind of healing and favor of God. [00:44:08] Tony Arsenal: Yeah. And, and I love, um, there is such a, um, subtle sort of SmackDown that Jesus does. Like, yeah. I, I think, um, just speaking on a purely human level for a second, like Jesus is such a master re tion. Like he is so handy and capable to just dismantle and smack down people who, and I obviously, I don't mean that in like a sinful way. Like he just puts down the argument. He just gets it done with, and even the way this is phrased, right, they come, they're grumbling, this man receives sinners and meets with them. So he told them this par ball, what, what man of you having a hundred sheep, if he lost one of them, doesn't leave the 99 in the open country and go after the one that is lost, right? So he's saying like, he jumps in right away, like. This is just the obvious answer. This is just the obvious state, like who would not go after their sheep. I think we hear this, and again, I'm not an expert on like first century sheep herding practices, right? But like we think of it, I look at it, I'm like, actually, like that seems like a really bad investment. Like it would be really bad idea to go after the one sheep and leave your 99 in the open country. That seems like a silly answer. That's my error. That's me being wrong because he's saying that as the obvious answer. Right? I think we sometimes, um, I've heard, I've heard sermons that preach this, that make it almost like this is a super reckless. You know, abandonment. Like he's so enamored with us that he leaves the 99 and he goes after the one, and he's taking such a huge risk. But the way that this is presented, this is the obvious thing that anyone in their right mind would do if they lost a sheet. Right? For sure. Right? It's not an unusual response. Yes. There's an element of risk to that, and I think that's, that's part of the parable, right? There's a, there's a riskiness that he's adding to it because, um. Again, we wanna be careful how we say this. Um, God's love is not reckless in the sense that we would normally think about reckless, but it's reckless in the sense that it, it es assumes sort of ordinary conventions of safety. Right? Right. That's not really what's at play here. Like the, the fact is Christ presents the scenario where you, you go after one lost sheep and leave your 99 in the open country or in Matthew, it's on the mountains. Like that's the normal expected course here, such that if you are the person who won't do that, then you are the one that's out of the ordinary. But then he goes on to say, and this is where, where I think he's just such a master, he's such a master at setting a logical trap. Here he says, um. And when he comes home, he calls together his friends and his neighbors saying to them, rejoice with me for I have found my sheep that was lost. And again, this is the expected answer. This is not some unusual situation where like people are like, oh man, he like, he had a party 'cause he found a sheep. That's strange. This is what, what would be expected, right? This would be the normal response. But then he says, just so I tell you, there will be more joy in heaven over one sinner who repents than over 99 righteous persons who need no repentance. He is able, in the course of like. 30 words, like this is a short, short response. He's able to show them that their response to, to sinners is totally out of the ordinary. Like it's a, it's sort of an insane response. Um, he positions going after the one sheep and leaving the 99 as the sane response and leaving the, you know, leaving the one to be lost, leaving the sinners and tax collectors to be lost. That's the insane response. Right. That's the one that like, nobody would do that though. Why would anybody do that? But then he goes to show like, but that's exactly what you're doing. [00:47:55] Jesse Schwamb: Yeah. Right. And he [00:47:56] Tony Arsenal: says, what you should be doing is rejoicing with me for, I found my lost, she. Right. He shifts. He shifts. He's now the man in the parable saying, um, not just, uh, not just rejoice or not just I'm rejoicing, but he's summoning them to rejoice with him over the salvation of these lost sinners. And that is the normal expected response. And then he, he shows like there will be this rejoicing in heaven when a sinner repents more so than if there was a, but, and we should address this too. He's not saying that there is a such thing as a righteous person who needs no repentance. Right? He's saying like, even if there were 99 righteous people who need to know repentance, even if that was somehow the case, there would be more joy. There is more joy, there will be more joy over the sinner who repents than over a hun 99 people who didn't need to be saved. Right? He makes the sin, the, the, um, Pharisees and the scribes look like total chumps and totally like. Totally self-absorbed and turned inwards on themselves in this tiny little master stroke that you wouldn't even, you wouldn't even think that that was part of the point. If it wasn't for the fact that it was positioned right after verse 15, one and two. You just wouldn't get that from this parable. That there is this sort of like rhetorical SmackDown going on that I think is, is important for us to, to latch onto a little bit here. [00:49:18] Jesse Schwamb: Uh, why is our podcast not three hours? Because there's so much I want to say, so. I'm totally with you. I like what you brought up about this recklessness of God, and I'm with you. We shouldn't define that in the same way. Maybe we can modify it. I might say like His love is recklessly spend thrift. That is, we see when Paul says like God has lavished his love on us, like these big verbs that they are real. Yeah. It's not just hyper rip hyperbole or just like flowery language. And I think as you're speaking, what really occurred to me, what really kind of came through with what you're saying is, okay, what is this cost? Why is he so particular to go after this one? And I think it's because it's, he's looking for his sheep. So these are his children. Yes. It's not just, I think Christ is out in the world because he will find his children. He will find the one who is. His own. So he is looking for his own sheep. One of his, one of his fold. So like the sheep I might find in the world is the one that God has been seeking to save, even one of whom knows his name. That's like John 10, right? So one of, I think our problem is understanding this parable has to do with the when of our salvation. You know, we generally think it's at the time that, you know, we believe. The people are those given to God before the foundation of the world. And God sees us as his people before we were ever born, even before the world began. And when we believe it is just our Lord finding us as his last sheep and we're returned to the fold. So he always goes after that one. So we'll learn more. Like you said, when we look at Matthew's account about who are those other 90 nines. So we can set that aside, I suppose, for now. But it really is a matter of our status before Adam, before the fall, and then after Adam, after the fall, while all men fell with Adam. So also did God's people, which he had chosen before time began. And so this idea of going after the one is bringing back into the fold that who is his child though, who he has made a promise, a covenantal promise to bring into the kingdom of heaven. I was thinking as well of this amazing quote and like, what that all means about God's love for us, which again, is just more than like, isn't it nice that when you are out in

How better to ring in the start of the holiday season than with two of my favorite music film obsessives, musician Chaki (The Funk Wizard) & comedy writer/artist/filmmaker Rachel Lichtman of Programme 4, who brought to my attention the 1970 TV spectacular The 5th Dimension Special: An Odyssey In The Cosmic Universe Of Peter Max.We discuss how this special got on Rachel's radar, Chaki seeing a restored version of this in a theater with the members of The 5th Dimension in atttendance, what's the story behind The Glass Industries sponsorship of this special and how they created a ‘real band,' The Glass Bottle, the PBS ‘fake band' Mulligan Stew, what it was like being a groovy extra in tv/movies during the hippie days, hippies in advertising, Dickie Goodman of Mr. Shark fame writing the music for The Glass Bottle, Rachel's The 5th Dimension crime show on Programme 4, Dionne Warwick, the obsession within The 5th Dimension to get their vocal harmonies absolutely right, Marilyn McCoo & Solid Gold, the Bee Gee's Idea TV Special, the steady hand of director John Moffitt (who also directed Mr. Show episodes), how the special was shot in studio 8H in NYC and not in Burbank, Peter Max's brand of psychedelic art--where art and commerce meet, the weird vibe of Peter Max's acting in this special, how the Laugh-In writers did not hit the psychedelic needs of this special, Artie Johnson's problematic and offensive comedy characters in this special, Glen Campbell and Flip Wilson's much needed energetic turns in this special, the song and the performance of 'Puppet Man', why the children in this special freak us out, the haunting littering commercials made for this special, Chris's first time seeing the musical Hair, the legendary arrangement of 'Aquarius' banging into 'Let The Sun Shine In. Also, Rachel gives a massive update regarding the future of Programme 4, and Chaki hints at his new collaboration with El Vez entitled “Fuck Ice”. THE 5th DIMENSION SPECIAL:Obsolete Video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mjC3xB7egmY&t=3292sRACHEL LICHTMAN:https://www.programme4.tv/contactCHAKI:https://chaki.bandcamp.com/REVOLUTIONS PER MOVIE:Host Chris Slusarenko (Eyelids, Guided By Voices, owner of Clinton Street Video rental store) is joined by actors, musicians, comedians, writers & directors who each week pick out their favorite music documentary, musical, music-themed fiction film or music videos to discuss. Fun, weird, and insightful, Revolutions Per Movie is your deep dive into our life-long obsessions where music and film collide.The show is also a completely independent affair, so the best way to support it is through our Patreon at patreon.com/revolutionspermovie. By joining, you can get weekly bonus episodes, physical goods such as Flexidiscs, and other exclusive goods. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

In this solo episode of The Reformed Brotherhood, Tony Arsenal tackles the concerning theological trend of "Divine Council Theology" and its recent resurgence within Reformed circles. He offers a critical analysis of Michael Heiser's influential work and its problematic popularization by Reformed figures like Doug Van Dorn and John Moffitt. Tony demonstrates how redefining the biblical term "Elohim" to include both God and created spiritual beings in the same ontological category fundamentally undermines the creator-creature distinction essential to Christian orthodoxy. Through careful examination of systematic theological categories, communicable and incommunicable attributes, and implications for Christology, he reveals why this seemingly academic redefinition poses serious threats to biblical monotheism and classical Reformed theology. Key Takeaways Divine Council Theology, popularized by Michael Heiser and now being promoted within Reformed circles, attempts to redefine "Elohim" as a functional category that includes both God and created spiritual beings. This theological trend commits an etymological fallacy by redefining the predominant usage of "Elohim" (which refers to the God of Israel in ~2,300 of 2,600 occurrences) based on minority usages. The approach dangerously blurs the fundamental creator-creature distinction that is essential to Christian monotheism and orthodox theology. Proponents incorrectly classify divine power as a communicable attribute rather than recognizing omnipotence as an incommunicable attribute that cannot be shared with creatures. The theological system makes problematic analogies to the incarnation, showing a confused understanding of the hypostatic union and potentially opening the door to Arian implications. This theology represents a concerning return to concepts the early church fathers fought against when confronting pagan Greek thought, rather than a retrieval of biblical teaching. Departing from the "pattern of sound words" handed down through church history in favor of novel interpretations should raise significant warning flags. Key Concepts The Creator-Creature Distinction The most fundamental division in Christian theology is not between spiritual and material beings, but between the uncreated Creator and everything else that exists. Divine Council Theology dangerously undermines this distinction by placing God and created spiritual beings in the same category of "Elohim." While proponents acknowledge God as the uncreated Creator, they nevertheless insist on categorizing Him alongside angels, demons, and other spiritual entities based on shared attributes of power or function. This categorization system parallels pagan worldviews more than biblical theology, where God exists in a class of one. By defining "Elohim" as a functional category related to spiritual power rather than an ontological one, this approach inadvertently returns to a hierarchical view of spiritual beings with God merely at the "top of the totem pole" rather than in an entirely separate and unique category of existence. This framework subtly but significantly undermines biblical monotheism by suggesting God shares a fundamental nature with His creatures. Communicable vs. Incommunicable Attributes Divine Council Theology mishandles the traditional theological distinction between God's communicable and incommunicable attributes. In classical Reformed theology, communicable attributes (like love or wisdom) can be shared with creatures in a limited, analogical way, while incommunicable attributes (like omnipotence, eternality, or divine simplicity) belong exclusively to God and cannot be shared without making the creature into God. Proponents of Divine Council Theology erroneously suggest that the power denoted by "Elohim" is a communicable attribute that God shares with spiritual beings, rather than recognizing omnipotence as properly incommunicable. This misclassification creates theological incoherence: if God could truly share His omnipotence with creatures, those creatures would effectively become equal to God in power, creating the logical impossibility of multiple omnipotent beings. This confusion of categories demonstrates how this theological system fails to maintain proper distinctions that are essential for preserving the uniqueness and transcendence of God in Christian theology. Memorable Quotes "Christianity and biblical Judaism—the primary distinction is not between spiritual and matter... The primary distinction when we're talking about the most absolute line is the distinction between the uncreated creator and his creation." "Rather than rely on the safe time-tested words and concepts that have been proven and validated, and attacked and defended and have been victorious for hundreds and thousands of years... Moffitt and Van Dorn think it is smarter and safer to depart from the pattern of sound words rather than to keep the pattern of sound words because they think that they are able to look at the Bible the way basically no one ever has in the 2000 years of the church and find something they haven't." "These teachings are pagan. This is talking about returning to a world populated by spiritual beings, and God is kind of just on the highest part of the totem pole... We're just returning to something that the early church fought hard to get rid of when they came out of their pagan culture." Resources Mentioned Reformed Arsenal article series on Divine Council Theology Full Transcript [00:00:24] Introduction and Episode Setup Tony Arsenal: Welcome to episode 461 of the Reformed Brotherhood. I am Tony, and today it's just me. Hey, brothers and sisters. We had a little bit of a scheduling conflict this week, so Jesse is taking the week off and uh, it gives me an opportunity to talk about something that I've been doing a little bit of research on. [00:00:47] Affirmations and Denials Tony Arsenal: Hopefully the listener has noticed that Jesse and I have been trying to keep our affirmations and denials a little bit tighter so we can get into the meat of the episode a little bit quicker. But occasionally we do run into a denial, usually a denial, but we run into a denial that, uh, we often say this could be an episode of its own. And so today is one of those episodes. So I'm not gonna give you my normal affirmation or denial. I'm just gonna jump into it. Now this is gonna be a little bit off the cuff. I've been doing some research, so I may not have as much of the receipts as the kids say, um, as I normally would. But I am writing a series of articles on this issue over@reformedarsenal.com. I'll make sure to put the link to the first article in the show notes. All of the receipts are there, all of the timestamps for the podcast episodes that I'll be. Discussing your critiquing. Are there citations for research work that I'm doing? All that stuff is there. So if you're interested in digging into the meet and you're the kind of guy who, or girl who likes to nerd out in the footnotes, then head over to uh reformed arsenal.com. You'll find the series pretty quick. [00:01:56] Introduction to Divine Counsel Theology Tony Arsenal: What I wanted to talk about today, and I'm glad we have kind of a whole episode, uh, to talk about it, is a movement, uh, that has some foothold in reformed theology. Uh, it's not new, uh, it didn't start in reformed theology, but for some reason, uh, those who are within our orbits tend to be a little bit enamored by this kind of theology. I'm not exactly sure why. [00:02:19] Michael Heiser's Influence Tony Arsenal: This theology is often called Divine Counsel Theology, and it was really, um, you know, it's not entirely new even with, with this figure, but it was really made popular and sort of, um, spread about and made accessible by the late Michael Heiser. Um, part of this is because he was just a very winsome, uh, guy. He took. Sort of highfalutin academic concepts and was able to bring them down to, uh, to an understandable level, including things like ancient near Eastern context, biblical, you know, ex of Jesus Hebrew language, other ancient near Eastern languages, which of course, that's that kind of stuff is what this podcast is all about, taking difficult, sometimes technical concepts. Talking about them, translating them into kind of the language that everybody else speaks. So that project was fine. The issue is the direction that he goes with a lot of the theology. So Michael Heiser writes a book called Unseen Realms, which is seen as kind of a retrieval of the supernatural mindset and worldview of the Bible. Uh, there's a lot to be commended about that, uh, enterprise, about that intention. I do agree with part of what he has to say when he says that we've lost a lot of the supernatural context of the Bible. Um, but I think where he goes with it is a direction that we really ought not go and we'll dig into it. [00:03:43] Critique of Reformed Fringe Podcast Tony Arsenal: The reason this is coming up now is because recently there's been a series of articles and podcasts put out by a show called The Reformed Fringe. Uh, some if you're in the Telegram chat, which you can join at, uh, t Me slash Reformed Brotherhood. You've already seen some of this stuff. We've already talked about it a little bit. But the Reformed Fringe is a podcast that sort of tries to fill a space that's something like Haunted Cosmos, which we've talked about before. Um, fills sort of looking at the weird fringe kind of things in the world. Ghosts, paranormal activity, trying to explain it through a biblical, uh, lens or worldview. Again, that's a commendable. Effort. There are strange things that happen in our world that are not easily explainable or at all explainable by natural, uh, naturalistic means. And so coming to those things with the Bible as our, uh, rubric to instruct us on how the world works is a commendable thing. But again, this project, which is by and large, um, and we'll get into maybe, but by and large is just an extension of, um, Heiser's project really goes in directions that cause all sorts of problems down the road. So the podcast is, uh, run by a guy named Doug Van Dorn, who most of the audience probably hasn't heard of. I have had run-ins with Doug over the years. Um, the last time I ran into him actually was revolving around similar kinds of issues that I'm gonna be calling out today. Um, and it, it ended up with him kind of having to depart from the reform pub, uh, maybe to put it a little bit politely and, um. You know, he has, he has taken, he's theology, which was not explicitly reformed. Heiser was not a reformed guy. He had no claims to be a Calvinist in many ways. Uh, he was sort of anticon confessional in, in that he opposed not the idea of a faith statement, but he sort of purported to come to the Bible with no biases, with no tradition. He wanted to approach what he called the Naked Bible. That was actually the name of his podcast before he died a few years ago. And so what Doug Van Dorn is, has done who, uh, Doug is a claims to be a 1689 Reformed Baptist. He's a pastor in Colorado, I believe. Um, he has tried to take this divine counsel theology and bring it into the reformed world. So he comes at it with a, a slightly different angle, but for the most part, his conclusions are the same. And in many cases he just straight up steals ER's work and doesn't cite it, doesn't do much to, uh, articulate that this is not his original research. Um, so he's taken that and he's trying to bring it into the reformed world. And Heiser himself was actually quite influential when I was a, an admin in the reform pub. We would run into lots of, lots of young reformed guys. Who were really enamored with this and they really saw, he's project as sort of a return to a pure form of exo Jesus that really got at what the Hebrew was saying. And it tickled, I think, kind of an intellectual, uh, an intellectual itch that a lot of those guys had combined with sort of this desire for the new and novel, um, which is in itself can be pretty dangerous. To sort of make things a little bit more pressing, Heiser has teamed up with John Moffitt, who many of our listeners may know. Uh, he's one of the co-hosts and founders of the podcast, Theo Cast, uh, which otherwise is a perfectly fine podcast. Um, he's also a 1680 or claims to be a 1689 Reform Baptist. He's a pastor. Um, their podcast is sort of what you would get if you had, uh, and I don't mean this to be pejorative, although maybe it is a little pejorative. Theo cast is what you would get if you took r Scott Clark. Uh, you made it much less intellectual and careful, and then made it Baptist. And what I mean by that is Scott's whole project. In large part is to recover and to emphasize the law gospel distinction. Theo cast has taken that and sort of cranked it up to 11. Uh, and they have um, they have sort of moved away from a lot of the classical reform distinctions of the law itself, so they don't full on deny the third use of the law. But in practice they would say that, um, good works is no kind of evidence whatsoever for your, um, for your faith. It's no kind of evidence of your, your salvation, which of course are confessions themselves. Um, say that there is a kind of evidential value to assessing our good works within certain reason and con. So the show is otherwise orthodox. You know, I I, I recall hearing episodes where they were refuting things like EFS, um, but because of that, Moffitt brings with him sort of an air of credibility and an error in orthodoxy that, um, the show itself probably hasn't merited. If Doug just recorded, pushed, play and put it on the. I don't think there would've been too much, uh, too much of a following. He would've probably, you know, grabbed a couple people who heard it and thought it was interesting. But because Moffitt has such a following on Theo cast, he brings with him a large audience, and that makes it particularly dangerous because his name attached to it makes it more widespread. It makes it feel like it's safer. And so I think a lot of people, uh, assume that what he's saying is orthodox and good. And I think what we'll find out is, is that it's not. So I think that's enough ProGo. [00:09:10] Elohim and Its Implications Tony Arsenal: I'm gonna go ahead and, and jump into explaining kind of what the theology that we're talking about is and, and what the problems are. So this all started kicked off, uh, with a series of podcast episodes and the first episode, and again, I don't have the specific titles here. I'll put a bibliography in the show notes on this one just so you have links to all the relevant episodes. Um, this all kind of kicked off with a podcast episode called something like The History of the Word God, or something like that. And, um, basically what Moffitt and Van Dorn want to do is they wanna look at the word Elohim in the Bible, which of course is a plural noun. Uh, in Hebrew, the, the suffix, just like in English, we might add an S or an ES, um, to a word to make it plural. Or in Greek, it's usually, if it's a masculine, uh, noun, it's, it's an oi or an omicron iota that sort of always sound at the end. Um, or when we, we talk about Latin, you have, you have like, um, you add the I at the end, so we say octopi instead of octopuses or something like that. Cacti instead of cactus. Although both of those are kind of pig Latins, um, in, in Hebrew for, uh, for masculine nouns. The suffix that you add to make it plural, is that eam sound. It's a, it's an Im if you transliterate in English. So the word Elohim is a plural of the original noun El which is a proper name for a eury deity. But it came to just be the singular word for, for God. Um, and, and in non-biblical language, we would say in a God. Um, and we do see in English, there are in, in Hebrew, in the Bible, there are places where we see the singular of this. It's kind of an older form, so it doesn't show up as much. Um, but by and large when we see the word Elohim in the Bible. Something like, uh, outta 2,600 references or more than 2,600 references in the Bible. Um, the word Elohim is associated with a single, a singular noun, and it only refers to the God of Israel. What Moffitt and Van Dorn want to do is they want to take this word and they wanna define it based on the abnormal. Uh, use of it. So the vast minority, minority of cases in the Old Testament, the word Elohim refers to the gods or to a non, like what we might say is lower G God, either like the God, Baal, or some sort of collective reference to the gods, the gods of the nation, or something like that. They wanna take the fact that there is this variation in the way the word is used and sort of radically redefine how the Bible uses it. And this, this is what I call and what a lot of people would call an etymological fallacy. So what they're doing is, instead of, uh, looking at the word and defining it based on how it's used in an, in an overwhelming fashion, they're looking at sort of the etymology of the word. And then they're using the fact that there are, uh, some pretty Dr. Dramatically minority cases where the word is used in a different way and they wanna redefine it and say, in, in all or most cases in the Bible actually. This is what the word means. So they look at the word L, which from its root has something to do probably with the, with the word for power or something like that. Um, they wanna look at it. And, you know, if you read someone like Vos in Reformed dogmatics in his volume one, he talks about how when we see the name Elohim for God, it denotes or, or refers to his sort of power, his omnipotence, which is all good and fine, just like we would say Yahweh. Uh, as a proper name refers to God sort of in his covenant role. It's his covenant name, his, his intimate, familial name that he shares, uh, with his people or he reveals to his people. Elohim is a more abstract name and it refers to God's power. Usually we see it in relation to his cre creation. So in Genesis one, um, when it's God created, it's Elohim created, which is also important and relevant for, for later. So what they wanna do is they want to say that Elohim actually. What Act Elohim actually means is it's a reference to a class of beings, spiritual beings, and that that it means sort of any spiritual being that has some type of supernatural power or enhanced power, some sort of spiritual power. They do this by saying that the noun is not an ontological noun, it's actually like a noun of function. Um, so like we would say a, a good example in English would be a painter that's a noun of function. It's a title of function. It any person could be called a painter if they engage in the verbal action of painting. And so what they're saying is that any being that engages in the action of having power. Is, uh, is an Elohim. And so that would include, in narrating at least, it would include angels, demons. Uh, I, you know, I don't know that they've said this explicitly, but I, I think Heiser would've included things like ghosts, disembodied spirits, um, humans in sort of the intermediary state might be considered Elohim humans in the, in the, um, this. Life are called Elohim, uh, in some instances. So, so this is where the Divine Council theology comes from, and that comes from Psalm 82, I think, where there's this council of Elohim that, that Yahweh seems to be speaking to and deliberating with. Or you look at Joe, where the sons of God come and they sort of pulled court in God's heavenly presence. So he would say those are examples where the, the collected Elohim. God being one of the Elohim are somehow gathered in this heavenly divine counsel. Now what this does is just devastating to Christian theology is it takes God who exists in a class of one. The, the, the God of the universe is, is the only uncreated entity in all of of the world. And so when we start to talk, and this is ironic, when we start to talk about the ways to divide up the world, the ancient world, the, the pagan world tended to divide the world between, um. Between spiritual and material. So think of g Gnostics where matter was bad and spirit was good. Or even think of something like, um, the Greek pantheons, the Greek, um, Greek religion, like ancient Greek mythology. You have sort of the spirits and the spiritual world and the gods inhabit a spiritual, have a spiritual existence for the most part. And then you have the physical world where kind of people live, uh, at least while they're alive. Christianity and, and Judaism, at least Biblical Judaism. On the other hand, the, the primary distinction is not between spiritual and matter. There is of course that distinction. There are humans, which are spiritual and material. There are animals which are entirely material, and then there are angels which are entirely spiritual. And so we would say that God is spiritual. So that is a distinction in the world. But the primary distinction when we're talking about the most absolute line is the distinction between the, the uncreated creator and his creation. So what Moffitt, Moffitt and Van Dorn do is instead of observing that biblical distinction, which really all of Christian theology and Christian monotheism rests on, they wanna say that instead, the distinction is between the. Um, is between the Elohim as the sort of spiritual beings and then sort of everything else of the created world, and so they wouldn't deny that God, that Yahweh is. The uncreated creator of all things, but they would say he's an uncreated Elohim and that there is a class of created Elohim. So I don't, I don't think you have to go too far down this road to see what this does. It puts God on the same level as his creatures in at least one way. Um, and I think we'll find out later, uh, as we talk through this, actually it does it in a couple ways that are really, uh, really can be problematic as we go. And so, uh, just let me be clear if all that, if all that Moffitt and Van Dorn were saying, if, if all they said was, um, we can use the word Elohim to describe any creature. Or God that doesn't have a body. Elohim is a synonym for the word spirit. Um, that wouldn't be the wisest way to speak, I don't think. It wouldn't be the, the most, um, felicitous or safe way to talk about the distinction. But it wouldn't be controversial. There'd be nothing wrong with that. It'd just be using a different word. It'd be like if I said, well, instead of the word spirit, I'm gonna use the word bibly bop, you know? So we have. We have God who is bibly bop, and we have the angels who is bibly bop, and humans are biblio bop. And also material, again, not the safest way to talk. There's no reason to use that alternative language when the Bible gives us perfectly legitimate language. Um, but it wouldn't be a problem. But Moffit and Van Dorn go. Way past this and maybe they don't realize it. I've asked them on Twitter, I asked them to clarify. I didn't get a response. So if they are hearing this, which maybe they will, maybe they won't. If they're hearing this, I would really love to get some clarification on some of these questions because I would love nothing more than to be able to say that this was all a big misunderstanding and that actually all they're saying is that there is this spiritual existence. That, um, we can put all things that are spirit without a body or spirit with a body. We can put all those in the same category and call that category Elohim. Again, I don't think that's safe, but if that's all they were doing, that would be fine. But we see in their episodes, and I'm gonna try to grab some quotes, um, from, from some of the articles I've written. But again, go read the articles because this goes way more in depth. It's got timestamps of it. It's got links to their episodes. Don't take my word for it. Go listen to their. Words and, and check, you know, check my math on this. But what they do is they actually start to, in, in an attempt to justify why it's okay to put God in the same category as his creatures. Um, and in at least one way, they start to make some weird statements that have a lot of systematic theology, um, implications that are, are just really, really risky. So, for example, one of the ways that they try to kind of explain this, I'm gonna pull, pull the article that I wrote up here. So, great podcasting. [00:19:34] Communicable vs. Incommunicable Attributes Tony Arsenal: Um, one of the ways they start to try to do this is again, they, they wanna say they use this distinction between incommunicable and communicable attributes, right? So in, in Christian theology, classically speaking, a communicable attribute of God is an attribute that he shares or could share with. A creature and primarily we're talking, you know, we're talking about attributes that he shares with his image bearers. So something like, um, love. Love is a communicable attribute. Our love is different than God's love, but when we say love, we're talking about the same basic category of things God loves differently than we do. But love and in a human sense, and love in a, in a divine sense, are still talking about the same thing. There's a point of contact there. Um, an incommunicable attribute would be something like, um, something like eternity. Right. Eternity is not just an extended infinite sequence of time. If it was, he could share that with us. Um, but eternity or infinity is an entirely different way of existing than a creature could ever, could ever exist in divine Simplicity is another example. Um, God could not make humans simple because simplicity entails all sorts of things like infinity. Um, eternality. Um, you know, omnipresence, omni, potent, all of these things are entailed by simplicity. So God could not make a creature infinite because in order for it to be infinite, it would have to be God. Uh, God could not make a creature simple, uh, in the, in the sense of no composition of parts. Uh, because that would mean that that creature is actually God and has no composer. So, so those would be the classic, uh, incommunicable attributes and omnipotence. Is considered, although it's a little bit weird, it sort of crosses the line in some ways. But omnipotence is considered. An incommunicable attribute. God cannot share his omnipotence with a creature because you can't have two omnipotence. Um, if you have two omnipotence, then those two omnipotence cancel each other out in some sense. If God, and, and, and he has a will, God wills one thing, and then I as a creature, if he shared his omnipotence with me, somehow willed a different thing, then we would no longer be, neither of us would be omnipotent. Where this goes sideways with Moffitt and Vandorn is rather than respect omnipotence as a an incommunicable attribute, they say that the attribute or the word Elohim denotes power or might, and that is a communicable attribute. So God does give us a certain level of power. He allows us a certain level of agency. He grants that to us. Again, I'm not even sure that we would call that an an. A communicable attribute. Um, but in a sense, I guess it is. And so they say here, um, Elohim does not mean omnipotent. It means power. It's not an incommunicable attribute. It's a communicable attribute that all kinds of entities could possess. So they're saying that the word, um, the word Elohim, uh, in the Bible denotes that a. A, an entity possesses a certain kind of power or acts in a certain role of executing a certain kind of power. And that doesn't mean omnipotence. It means it means potence. It means some sort of power. And so that that wielding power attribute that. Uh, being a, being that wields power, that attribute, whatever we want to call it, however we want to phrase it, that is a communicable attribute that God shares. He communicates that attribute to all other beings in the class of Elohim. Now, let's just back that up for a second. Um, this still would mean that God has to be the creator and they don't deny that, but it would still mean that God, prior to creation. Was an Elohim in a category of one, and then somehow he created a class and because he's extended. This attribute of wielding power, say power wielder, to try to make it actually more of an attribute. He's extended this attribute of power wielder to uncreate or to created angels, demons, human spirits, whatever other spiritual entities there might be. They would bring in things like principalities, powers, they have a whole, in other, other contexts, they'll talk about this whole different bifurcation of types of spiritual beings that I think is a little speculative, but not a big deal. He extends this power wielder attribute to these created categories. And instead of this now creating a separate category of power wields who are not God, it now is uh, he expands this category of one to now include all sorts of other things, which again, as you can, you can imagine, just runs into problems. And so the, again, this, this word Elohim appears over 2,600 times, and of these instances, 230 of them refer to the God of Israel. So the idea that that. This word is not used specifically as a reference to the God of Israel, or should not be thought of as uniquely titling or almost exclusively titling God. The God of Israel just doesn't really match the data, but it's also just really poor Exogenic method. So rather than take the predominant usage and look at the context. Understanding that the predominant usage is the predominant usage. Instead, we're gonna go back and say, well, these, these minority, these 300 or so cases outside, and not even all 300 of them are used the same way, but these 300 or so cases of them not referring to the God of Israel, we're gonna use that to redefine the word. Its entirety. It's just poor. It's just poor scholarship. It's overly speculative. Um, I haven't read much of. He's work on this in the primary sources. Um, I, I would venture a guess that Heiser makes a much more robust argument than this. And this is part of the problem. When you take an already speculative, already dangerous theology and you try to pop popularize it when you just don't have the same chops that he did, uh, you end up really making some crass, simplistic arguments that just make you look a little silly. To think we can take 200 or 2,600 instances and redefine 2 20, 300 of them. By the way, it's used 300 of the times Just doesn't make any sense. So it again, if, if all we are saying is that God is spiritual and angels are spiritual and so there is some point of affinity between the two, then that would be okay. That wouldn't be a problem. Again, there's some risk in using the word Elohim in that. Sort of placeholder, but, um, that would be a semantic discussion. What they're doing is far, far deeper and far more problematic than that. [00:26:30] Systematic Theology Concerns Tony Arsenal: And so the, the other thing they do, um, that I think is really dangerous, and I don't have all of the, I haven't finished this article yet, so I don't have all of the timestamps in front of me to, to, to get there, is in attempting to justify this Moffitt, uh, in, in one of the other episodes, he turns to the incarnation as a sort of model. And so he'll say that, you know, the son of God is divine, but he's also human. And the fact that he's human, uh, doesn't therefore mean he's not also uniquely the uncreated creator. I would assume everyone hearing this who listens to this show, uh, which has done many, many episodes on Christology, it's one of our pet projects, is just throwing their listening device across the room because what Moffitt seems to miss entirely is that Christ is not, the sun is not in the category of human. Uh, sort of in a simple sense, Christ is in the category of human because he assumes to himself a second created nature. So what, what the, the analogy he's trying to draw is if the sun can be human without ceasing to be the unique one, uncreated God, then so also can, the whole trinity, I guess, can also be Elohim without ceasing to be the one uncreated God. He even goes so far as to say that there is Uncreated Elohim, and then there is created Elohim, and they're all in the category of Elohim, but because there's this commonality, we should still consider that class. And he draws that distinction or he draws the implication that. Um, there's somehow uncreated humanity in Christ, which is a whole different ball of worms that we won't get into. But in, in drawing this analogy, he sort of shows that he really doesn't understand the hypostatic union. He doesn't understand the incarnation, or if he does, he's really making a poor comparison because in the hypostatic union it's not as though the son, uh, as divinity, the son, as the one uncreated. God simply adds to himself in a raw sense and merges. Uh, he doesn't become part of the category of human without taking on a second nature. And then now we are even getting into some inconsistencies. Is human an ontological category or is that a category of function? Are there other categories of function, uh, other creatures in existence that the category of function human might fit? So I think you can see that this just is not a self consistent. Um, a self-consistent system and it leads to all these weird implications. Um, you know, and then they'll even go on to talk about how the Son is the angel of the Lord. I'm not gonna get into a lot of it here, and I agree with that thesis that the, when we see the angel of the Lord in the Old Testament, in the vast majority of cases, we're probably seeing a pre-incarnate appearance of, um, of the second person of the Trinity. They go so far as to say that this is actually a sort of. Incarnation or a sort of hypostatic union of the Elohim nature. So they, they, they draw this distinction, or they draw this parallel between created Elohim and Uncreated Elohim, and they, they argue again, I think implicitly, but in some instances it's almost, it's almost explicit that the son in, in being the angel of the Lord, takes on the uncreated or takes on the created Elohim nature. It's, it's really, um, it's really problematic. So now we have the son who is, uh, sort of hypostatic united to the unc, to the created Elohim nature, and then also is hypostatic united to the human nature. Um, it, it really just gets messy and it confuses categories in a way that is not helpful. And if I'm just being frank, a lot of the younger reformed guys. And when I say younger, I'm talking, maybe I'm projecting back to when I was a younger reform guy, um, I'm talking about people in their mid twenties to maybe early thirties, right? The, the people who were maybe the second or third generation of the young restless reform guys, they didn't necessarily learn, uh, ref young restless reform theology directly from RC Sproul. You know, they weren't the first generation. Um, and, and maybe their pastors weren't the first generation, but, but maybe their pastors were the second generation and now they're learning it from their pastors. So you might think of 'em as like the third generation, to be frank, they don't usually have a great grasp on some of these systematic theology categories as part of why. Jesse and I do this podcast, and part of why we cover the same topic over and over again, part of why we're gonna go through this parable series. But when we're done, we're probably gonna go back and start over with systematic theology. We're gonna go back, we're gonna go through another confession. That's why we spent, we spent like six years going through systematic theology. And almost immediately went back to the Scott's confession and did most of it all over again because these truths need to be taught again and again and again. This is part of what Jude is talking about when he says, we have to contend for the faith. It's not just fighting with people online. It's not just polemics or apologetics. It is reteaching and handing down the faith that was once delivered to the saints. Again, and this is perhaps, and this is the last point I'll make. This is perhaps the most. Telling a reason we should be weary and suspicious of this theology. Paul, in, uh, one of the letters to Timothy, second Timothy, maybe he says, follow the pattern of the sound words that you heard from me. He's not talking about the scriptures. He doesn't say follow the sound words that I'm writing to you. He's referring to a body of doctrine sometimes. The Bible calls it the faith, right? Jude says to contend for the faith. There's this body of doctrine that is the teaching of the apostles, and it is encapsulated in this sort of set pattern of words. Erin A is called it the rule of faith or the regular fide, right? This is where we get things like the Nicean Creed or the Hanian Creed. Why we have creeds and confessions is because we don't need to reinvent the wheel and rather than rely on the safe time-tested words and concepts that have been proven and validated, and attacked and defended and, and um, have been victorious for hundreds and thousands of years, rather than rely on those. Moffitt and Van Doran think it is smarter and safer to depart from the pattern of sound words rather than to keep the pattern of sound words because they think that they are able to look at the Bible the way basically no one ever has in the 2000 years of the church and find something they haven't. I don't wanna be too bombastic. Um, I don't, I don't know either of them. Well, um, from what I can tell, what I've heard of their professions of faith, uh, they're, they're Christian believers. They love the Lord and are very confused. But these teachings are pagan. This is, we're talking about returning to a world of, of populated by spiritual beings. And God is kind of just on the highest part of the totem pole, and maybe there's a firm line between his place on the totem pole and the, the next level down. Maybe there is, um, gets a little bit less firm of a line when we're talking about Jesus, right? So there's some potential Arian implications there that the son, uh, is not the highest deity he is. He's like the father in some ways, but he, you know, in his sort of original form is like creatures in other ways. Um, we're just returning to something that the early church fought hard to get rid of when they came out of their pagan culture. When we started to see Greeks convert to Christianity, they had to figure out how do we come out of our polytheistic culture, and this is where we get the best defenses of monotheism. Jewish Christians didn't have to argue for monotheism because all the Jewish Christians already were monotheists in a biblical sense. The Greek Christians had to fight this stuff. Justin Martyr had to fight this stuff. Athanasius and the Cappadocian fathers had to fight this stuff constantly pushing back against the background Greek culture. And Moffitt and Van Dorn wanna point to that and say, see, really, they're just Greeks in disguise and in the reality is Athanasius and the cap oceans, were fighting against the theology that is making a resurgence in this divine council theory. [00:34:55] Conclusion and Call to Action Tony Arsenal: So I think that's enough for now. Please. Again, I'm writing a long series on this. I don't know how long it's gonna take. I think it's gonna be probably 10 or 13, 10 to 13 articles. It's, it's gonna be a pretty extensive project. But go read them. Go look at them, listen to their episodes, read their articles, and then you compare that to the word of God, has what I said made more sense or does what they make more sense. So I'll leave you with that. The dog is losing her mind. And uh, with that honor, everyone love the brotherhood.

Former NFL Player John Moffitt candidly recounts his journey to the NFL, navigating through controversies on the field, brushes with the law, grappling with the effects of CTE, and shedding light on the profound influence of the NFL on media narratives. Hosted, Executive Produced & Edited By Ian Bick: https://www.instagram.com/ian_bick/?hl=en https://ianbick.com/ Connect with John Moffitt: https://www.instagram.com/moffitt74/ Creative direction, design, assets, support by FWRD: https://www.fwrd.co Buy Merch: https://lockedinbrand.com Use code lockedin at checkout to get 20% off your order Timestamps: 00:00:00 - Intro 00:04:55 - Embracing Differences and Overcoming Bullying 00:09:37 - Personal Growth and Change 00:14:17 - The Swedish Prison System and Prison Content Creation 00:18:56 - The Inversion of Common Law 00:28:12 - The Impact of Football on Life and Career 00:32:48 - Quitting the NFL due to a degenerative brain disease 00:37:29 - College Experiences and Getting Into Trouble 00:42:10 - The Roller Coaster of My Personal Life 00:47:07 - Arrest and Jail Experience 00:52:03 - Recovery 00:57:04 - Addictive personality and gambling 01:01:59 - Channeling Addiction into Business and Football 01:06:51 - Disappointment in the NFL Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

In this episode, Mayor Pro Tem John Moffitt speaks with Riverstone Properties Principal Chris Corrada and Community Member Peter Schneider about the Andell West project updates and future plans. 

[Rerun] What was it like to survive sex trafficking? How did he find the wisdom and strength to help other survivors in the Navy? Dr. Kirk Honda talks with John Moffitt about his experience in a sex traffic ring in Texas and his victim advocacy work while in the Navy. Become a patron: https://www.patreon.com/PsychologyInSeattleEmail: https://www.psychologyinseattle.com/contactMerch: https://teespring.com/stores/psychology-in-seattleCameo: https://www.cameo.com/kirkhondaInstagram: https://www.instagram.com/psychologyinseattle/Facebook Official Page: https://www.facebook.com/PsychologyInSeattle/TikTok: https://www.tiktok.com/@kirk.hondaThe Psychology In Seattle Podcast ®September 16, 2019Trigger Warning: This episode may include topics such as assault, trauma, and discrimination. If necessary, listeners are encouraged to refrain from listening and care for their safety and well-being.Disclaimer: The content provided is for educational, informational, and entertainment purposes only. Nothing here constitutes personal or professional consultation, therapy, diagnosis, or creates a counselor-client relationship. Topics discussed may generate differing points of view. If you participate (by being a guest, submitting a question, or commenting) you must do so with the knowledge that we cannot control reactions or responses from others, which may not agree with you or feel unfair. Your participation on this site is at your own risk, accepting full responsibility for any liability or harm that may result. Anything you write here may be used for discussion or endorsement of the podcast. Opinions and views expressed by the host and guest hosts are personal views. Although, we take precautions and fact check, they should not be considered facts and the opinions may change. Opinions posted by participants (such as comments) are not those of the hosts. Readers should not rely on any information found here and should perform due diligence before taking any action. For a more extensive description of factors for you to consider, please see www.psychologyinseattle.com

NFL player turned to a Juice Truck owner. Hear how the work ethic John Moffitt engrained in his everyday life is the reason he is now seeing success as the Owner of Moon Shots. Listen to life lessons, get a peak into the not so glorified aspects of the NFL, and become educated on the food/drink truck industry. Instagram: @drinkmoonshotsWebsite: www.drinkmoonshots.comInstagram: @desiretoinspirepodcastWebsite: www.desiretoinspirepodcast.com

Irving “Boo” Schexnayder is regarded internationally as one of the leading authorities in training design, bringing 39 years of experience in coaching and consulting. He recently returned to the LSU Track and Field coaching staff for a second stint, adding to his previous 12 year term on the LSU Staff. Regarded as one of the world's premier field event coaches, he was the mastermind behind 19 NCAA Champions during his collegiate coaching career. He was a part of 12 NCAA Championship teams and a pair of Juco National titles, as well as developing a host of conference champions and All-Americans. He returned to the LSU staff in 2017. Schexnayder has also been a prominent figure on the international scene, having coached triple jumper Walter Davis to multiple World Championships, and long jumper John Moffitt to a silver medal at the 2004 Olympics in Athens. He has coached 11 Olympians, and has served on coaching staffs for Team USA to the 2003 Pan Am Games in Santo Domingo, the 2006 World Junior Championships in Beijing, and was the Jumps Coach for Team USA at the 2008 Olympics in Beijing. In this episode Boo discusses: His method of categorising plyometrics according to their purpose in the program. Why young athletes may be more prepared for speed development than we think. How he integrates plyometrics early in the rehab process. How he adjusts plyometrics for Track vs Team Sports and Heavier vs Lighter athletes. Key coaching points in horizontal and vertical plyometrics. His go to jump tests to evaluate plyometric ability. You can keep up to date with Boo via the Twitter account: @BooSchex and via his website www.sacspeed.com . To learn more about the LTAD Network check out www.ltadnetwork.com or follow on Instagram: @ltadnetwork or Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/ltadnetwork . You can keep up to date with Athletic Evolution via our www.athleticevolution.co.uk , Instagram: @athleticevouk and Twitter: @athleticevouk .

 Today's guest on The Homestretch w/Adrian Durant, is one of the most inspiring Track and Field Athlete in the World, Olympic Gold Medalist, 4 times World Long Jump Champion and National Track and Field Hall of Famer, none other than, Dwight Phillips. Phillips was a promising sprinter from his early days. He started competing in international events in 2003 but didn't win a medal. He came to prominence in 2003, when he won both the IAAF indoor and outdoor World Championships at Birmingham and Paris respectively. From there it was no stopping him. Just a year after, in 2004 Athens Olympics, Phillips was ranked number one in the world, and he won the gold medal by a margin of 12 cm over his compatriot John Moffitt. His winning jump of 8.59 meters was the fourth biggest in Olympic history. He kept on repeating the feat till 2011 and in 2013 Philips finally said goodbye to track and field as an athlete and started serving as athlete role model and In September 2020, SPIRE Institute and Academy signed Phillips to become an international track and field ambassador. In this video, Dwight will talk about his early days into track and field and how he started his career as a triple jumper but ended up as a Long Jump star. He shares his life story and what his childhood was like. We talk about journey from running at Arizona State University to serving in US national team. But all this success wasn't didn't come easy for Phillips; he earned every bit of it with struggle, hard work and perseverance. He suffered multiple severe injuries during his career but it didn't stop him from becoming a track & field star. Phillips also share the incidents when he suffered from severe back and neck injuries just before 2012 London Olympics and how he overcame it. Thank you for watching! Leave a like if you liked the interview and also share with you friends. Subscribe the channel for more such inspiring interviews with athletes and sports personalities and make sure to turn on notifications for future updates. Adrian Durant Instagram - @Akdcoach Twitter - @Akdcoach Facebook - Adrian Durant Ashley Kelly Instagram - @ashleynatasha Dwight Phillips Instagram - Dwightdagreat Twitter - Dwightdagreat Website - meetmymelanin.com Support the show (https://www.patreon.com/adriandurant)

96-97 Cougar Ballers were 29-7 and went to the NAIA Championship Tournament and went to the Elite 8. This team was known as one of the most exciting teams in Cougar Basketball history. In this podcast, we welcome some of the members of the 96-97 Cougar Men's Basketball Team. Jeremy Patterson (JP), John Moffitt, Derek Anspaugh, Jason Corstange, Jason Elder, Head Coach Doug Noll.

Our first guest of 2020 is the former All American & NFL lineman and future entrepreneur, John Moffitt. Both John and Chris get passionate in this one, discussing mindset, masculine energy, and more. This is an episode that will keep you on your toes.

What was it like to survive sex trafficking? How did he find the wisdom and strength to help other survivors in the Navy? Dr. Kirk Honda talks with John Moffitt about his experience in a sex traffic ring in Texas and his victim advocacy work while in the Navy. Become a patron of our podcast by going to https://www.patreon.com/PsychologyInSeattleEmail: https://psychologyinseattle.squarespace.com/contactThe Psychology In Seattle Podcast. Sept 16, 2019.Access archive at: https://psychologyinseattle.squarespace.comMusic by Bread Knife Incident. This content is for educational and informational purposes only. Although Kirk Honda is a licensed marriage and family therapist, this content is not a replacement for proper mental health treatment. Always seek the advice of your mental health provider regarding any questions or concerns you have about your mental health needs.

Four turnovers by the Seahawks defense helped to keep Seattle in the game and ultimately earn the victory over the L.A. Rams. But we shouldn't be too quick to call them the best performing unit for the Seahawks on Sunday. The guys offer the critique on why the defense doesn't get all of the credit and what is keeping them from being comparable to the 2013 Seattle defense that helped to win it all. It was another week where the running game couldn't get going, which has Adam thinking of other ways to move the offense. There's a running back tandem that he's interested in pairing in the backfield and neither Thomas Rawls or Eddie Lacy are involved. One running back the Seahawks showed interest in this offseason is now going to the Cardinals. What does this mean for our NFC West rivals moving forward? Can Adrian Peterson be the piece they need to stay competitive in the division? As the one team in the division Seattle hasn't faced, the guys take a look at Arizona along with the other upcoming teams and talk about why picking games in April is a wasted effort. In the second half of the show, the guys announce the leaders of the pick'em league, a listener scolds Brandan for ruining a bake sale and they talk about the latest article from Jenny Goos. One guy defending Cam Newton after last week was John Moffitt and Jenny was not impressed with how he doubled down on Cam's statement. Who needs to do better this week? CBS for their apparent problem with geography and to the Dolphins former coach who has a strange way of professing his love for a woman in his life. Better at life goes to a scientist's work toward predicting future volcanic activity and Earl Thomas shares his nomination with someone he credited for helping him master a move that is helping the Seahawks win games. Subscribe via: iTunes | Google Play | Stitcher | TuneIn | Facebook | Twitter | RSS Or listen on our free app for Android, iOS, Kindle or Windows Phone/PC Call or text: 253-235-9041 Email: gohawks@seahawkerspodcast.com Join the pick'em league The Sea Hawkers Podcast pick'em league on NFL.com Register your team name to win prizes Support the show Get in the Flock! Visit GetInTheFlock.com and get bonus episodes Purchase Seahawks tickets via Ticket Network Or visit our website for other ways to support the show Find Sea Hawkers clubs around the world at SeaHawkers.org Music from the show by The 12 Train, download each track at ReverbNation

Joie du monde moderne, Jerry Seinfeld signe un stand-up special d’une heure sur Netflix, “Jerry before Seinfeld”, visite guidée dans la jeunesse et les débuts de l’actuelle superstar du stand-up. Sur la scène de ses débuts, Jerry ressort ses vannes, son comique d’observation, sa marque de fabrique. Et oui, la machine est bien huilée, impossible de douter de son talent et sa technicité, mais partout transparaît son rapport méticuleux et obsessionnel qu’il entretient avec la comédie. Et à vouloir absolument tout contrôler, Seinfeld dans son egotrip faussement spontané ne se met pas en danger, ne lâche rien et ne se moque pas de lui-même. Légère déception : avec sa recette “humour années 90’s”, Seinfeld ne colle plus totalement à l’époque. Reste une machine de guerre de la comédie, un grand qui n’a plus à prouver la maîtrise de son art, et un bon spectacle malgré tout. Podcast animé par Thomas Rozec avec Lelo Jimmy Batista, Yannick Dahan, David Honnorat et Stéphane Moïssakis. RÉFÉRENCES CITÉES DANS L’ÉMISSIONSeinfeld (Jerry Seinfeld, 1989- 1998), Amy Schumer : the Leather Special (Amy Schumer, 2017), Comedians in cars getting coffee (Jerry Seinfeld, 2012-2017), The Irishman (Martin Scorsese, 2018), 2017 (Louis C.K., 2017) , The Tonight Show Starring Johnny Carson, Norman fait des vidéos, Comedian (Christian Charles, 2002), Talking Funny (Louis C.K., Ricky Gervais, Chris Rock, John Moffitt, HBO, 2011), Bill Burr, Georges Carlin, Gad Elmaleh, Larry David, Carl Reiner, Mel Brooks, Bill Hicks, Delirious (Eddie Murphy, Bruce Gowers, 1983), Raw (Eddie Murphy, Robert Townsend, 1987), Curb your enthusiasm (Larry David, 2000 - ), Comedy News Weekly (podcast de Dan Gagnon et Anthony Mirelli), Thoughts and Prayers (Anthony Jeselnik, 2015), Saturday Night Live (SNL), Amy Schumer, American Vandal (Dan Perrault & Tony Yacenda, 2017), Superbad (Greg Mottola, 2007), Making a murderer (Laura Ricciardi, 2015).RECOMMANDATIONS ET COUPS DE COEURRETROUVEZ LES RECOMMANDATIONS FAITES EN FIN D'ÉMISSION sur la page Soundcloud officielle des recommandations de NoCiné >> @nocine-reco

  John Moffitt, NFL Offensive Lineman, joins Joey Diaz and Lee Syatt live in studio. This podcast is brought to you by: Onnit.com. Use Promo code CHURCH for a 10% discount at checkout. Iron Dragon TV. A New Roku channel with all the best martial arts films. Use Code word joey for two free rentals. HITecigs.com For a better tasting, longer lasting e cig go to HITecigs.com. Use Promo code joeyschurch for a 20% discount Naileditlife.com - Get 20% off a vapor pen by using code word joeydiaz. Music:  Immigrant Song - Led Zeppelin I Wanna Be Around - Tony Bennet The Thrill Is Gone - BB KIng Recorded on 05/18/2015

Bye Bye Week Follow Us On Twitter! @Moffitt74 – Ben Rosen @BetterRobotJosh – Josh Kuderna @SweepAlex – Alex Braslavsky @MichaelMoran10 – Mike Moran @DigSeshPod – For Podcast Updates! Hola DigHeads! On this week's episode, Josh has one hell of an interesting and hilarious interview with a former offensive lineman for the Seattle Seahawks and the Denver Broncos, John Moffitt! And Alex Braslavsky sits in as guest cohost! Moffitt retired from the NFL in the 2012-2013 season while he was in his prime, at the age of 27. He didn't want to “risk health for money” and walked away from about $1 million in salary, various benefits for retirees who play at least three seasons and a trip to the Super Bowl. But, he would not change a thing! Moffitt was a completely open book and discuss a wide range of topics from his thoughts on the NFL, the existence of alien robot conspiracies, his degree in Sociology, his own yet to be named podcast, phone beeps, trying improv and stand up, the draft of Michael Sam as a publicity stunt, and more! What an ep! Thanks for listening! If you can swing it please drop our asses a few bones via the “Donate” button on DigressionSessions.com! Also please subscribe to Digression Sessions on Stitcher and iTunes. And check out our podcast network, Thunder Grunt! Thanks everyone! We love you!

On the eve of a huge Sport Ball Game, TBTL Friendo and former NFL player John Moffitt stops by with some wild stories of arm wrestling people in Denver and hiding from the cops behind tall bushes.

John Moffitt of the Denver Broncos cites reading Noam Chomsky as one of the reasons he quit football, Rand Paul uses footnotes, and a Kansas City Christian Rescue Mission bans the local atheist group from volunteering at the annual Thanksgiving event.

1. Phil Steele ACC projections 2. John Moffitt arrested for public urination?