The Super Theologian

I would agree with you. Let me clarify something else though. I find that the issue many have with Limited Atonement as with the rest of T.U.L.I.P. is in a misunderstanding of what the doctrines actually teach. T.U.L.I.P. is a great acronym but not the greatest expression of the 5 points of Calvinist Soteriology (Doctrine of Salvation. Let me lay it out real quick.

---

1. Total Inability - Men are not totally depraved in the sense that they are as bad as can be but are totally depraved in their desires for true Spirituality. Mankind is totally unable to come to God unless God first does an inner working of conversion. Men are spiritually dead and are in bondage to sin. The will of man is not free but enslaved to sin. Therefore, God must first free and resuscitate man's will so that it desires what it should, Him. Jesus called this being born again. jesus said no one can come to the kingdom unless they are born again. People can born themselves. Conversion proceeds faith. God must convert before men can respond in faith.

---

For the sake of time, let me just deal with Limited atonement since you didn't ask me to break down all of TULIP ;^)

---

Limited Atonement is better expressed as "Definite Atonement" Atonement isn't limited because it will atone for the sins of God's people entirely and exhaustively. Passed, present, future! Christ's Atonement is FAR FROM LIMITED. Christ's atonement is however definite. Christ did not simply die to make salvation possible. No drop of the Savior's blood will be in vain. As the priest of Israel went to offer sacrifice in the Holy of Holies with the names of the twelve trebles of Israel on his breastplate (tribes of Israel not all the nations), Christ exercises his role of Priest with specific individuals in mind and written in the Lamb's book of life.

---

This is a side note but this really speaks to the issue. Too many Calvinists try to argue Calvinism based on a few texts in the NT. Limited/definite Atonement is the means of atonement throughout all of the Bible. There is no other way of reading the Levitical Priesthood (which typifies Christ) than as a Definite or Limited Atonement for Israel. This position can be argued from Genesis to Revelation! :^)

View more

Hmm... You would have to clarify what you mean by,

---

"is it really helpful to say he could come back any time?"

---

Jesus himself said he would come back anytime. And that when he did come back it would be unexpected. Throughout church history, every generation of the church has always believed that their generation would be the one that would see the second coming of Christ. They also have all believed that it would come unexpectedly. Yet, the predominant position for most of Church History has been Pre-mill. Keep in mind, the church throughout every age has been living in great persecution and so each generation has looked at their time and said, "this is it". However, American Premill is distinct from this because we do not experience persecution. Western Christians are the first age of Christians who have not believed that their time could be the time of Christ's return. Why? Because America has yet to know persecution, though we may be at the brink and we believe that all history revolves around our experience. This way of viewing the great tribulation is short-sighted and somewhat naive or elitist. The reality is that over the past 100 years, more Christians have been martyred for the faith than all of the rest of church history combined! (stats from voice of the Martyrs). Even today, countless Christians are being killed daily under Islamic extremists. Of course i'm not sure where you live but I can affirm this, Christians all across the world are experiencing persecution unlike anything the world has seen prior. I think it is absolutely necessary to remind Christians, especially in the west that they should have the mind of their forefathers that Christ could return at anytime. The lack of this mindset, the cushiness of Western Christianity has taken the idea of Christ's return out of peoples minds and they do not live lives that reflect its reality. One of Jonathan Edwards' Resolutions were, "Resolved: To live every day as if Christ could return by its end". All scholars agree that he is the best Theologian America has produced.

---

"Since we know certain events will precede his coming"

---

what events are you referring to. Are you aware that Benny Hinn alone has a following of over a few 100 million people? That within a matter of a few years a single change of opinion by Obama pertaining gays has now led to an all out war on anyone who calls it a sin. The world has never been more ripe for a person, an Anti-Christ and due to the bankruptcy of almost all of western Europe the potential of a worldwide currency has never been more eminent. I'm not a doomsayer but I think that the signs of the end times as presented in scripture has been met for long time. I am not spending my days looking at news articles in my basement but I am willing to step in line with church history and say like every generation before us, mine could be the generation. This mobilizes faithfulness and missional zeal. May or may not happen but I will labor like it could :^)

View more

I think this is an extremely important question but probably not for the reasons you think. In short, If pushed I would be somewhat of a modified Infralapsarian. However, there is something much deeper at the root of this debate than merely God's logical order of decrees. Consider this,

---

There are two ways in which Theologians have sought to practice the discipline of Systematic Theology. The most prominent way is practicing Systematic Theology through the lens of Philosophical Theology. Christianity came into practice during the age of Greco-Roman Philosophy and as a way of standing its ground firmly in the context in which it was developed, Christianity defended itself using various principles of Philosophy, Logic, and deduction. This practice though EXTREMELY helpful has led to the common modern practice of Systematic Theology being primarily practiced as a Philosophical Theology. What I mean by that is;

---

"A lot of Theology can be done in the realm of philosophical speculation in areas where the Bible remains silent-or where the Bible does not give sufficient data for a conclusion."

---

There is definitely a solid place for Philosophical speculation within biblical frameworks. Issues such as The Trinity, Effects of Sin, Dynamics behind creations, etc. I think the fundamental question that comes about when dealing with the issue of Infra or Supra is in asking the questions, "in what way does this benefit Christians, their Witness, and even our knowledge of God." Personally, I think there is great danger in over-speculating. Especially when you are over-scpeculating issues concerning scripture. I believe Systematic Theology should be rooted in Biblical Theology and not Philosophical Theology. Therefore, Where the Bible doesn't go, I am careful about going further. Where the Bible goes, I feel more freedom to reason Philosophically. The Bible speaks much about Election and very little about Reprobation. Therefore, I find greater warrant in speculating on issues dealing with election than I do dealing with those whom God has not chosen. Over-speculation has ruined many a Theologian. It has led the great modern Philosopher and apologist William Lane Craig into Molinism and recently the heresy of Nestorianism. Why? He has said himself, He believes that theologians should ground their Theology more in Philosophy. He has then gone on to bank more in Philosophy than scripture. It is such a trap, especially for Calvinists who delight in the life of the mind. When I hear Calvinist theologians engaging in the discussion of Infra & Supra, it always worries me. Why spend your days engaging in speculation when the revealed mysteries of the Godhead and the Gospel will themselves take an eternity to plunge. Of course as a Theologian I must be fully versed in the issue because people are talking about it but It is not an issue I spend my time dealing with. I engage with it as much as I need to engage with others but thats all. Sorry for lack of answer :^)

View more

Thank you so much, I am so happy you enjoyed my article! Great Question! I actually plan on writing an article dealing with this next week!

---

As we consider the nature of being a Christian Anon and the dynamics of public debate I think it is very helpful to remember that for the Christian worldview, Anonymity is something that must look different than in the world. Part of the mission of every Christian is to be not only to be salt to the world but LIGHT as well. Jesus makes clear in Matthew 5:14-16 that light should and cannot be hidden but should be presented to the world. Here is how it applies to Christian debate, "Christians cannot separate their character from truth." I can't tell you how many times I have heard Bill Clinton heralded as one of Histories greatest leaders. However, If you ever bring up his public adultery, the world will quickly remind you that it has nothing 2 do with the man's credibility as a leader. he is just one example but the world makes a clear separation of character and credibility. The Christian, as light, recognizes that "their light is what undergirds the credibility of their truth." Being an Anon can potentially, but doesn't have to, separate the two like the world does. The temptation behind being Anonymous is 2 think that your character, who U are, does not have any role in the credibility of your opinion. I have read many Anon tweets & engagements with others in which the "Law of Christ (Law of Love)" is almost completely non-existent. People hide behind Anons as oppose 2 recognizing that being an Anon calls for even more greater expressions of Christ-likeness because you can't be seen. To answer the first part of your question, in a sense, a "lowering" of personal responsibility being an Anon is not a strength but a great weakness to being an Anon. Christians Are to stand and be willing to even Die for truth. If we ever feel that we must hide our identities in order 2 say it, we have already compromised too much.

---

On the other hand, There are great benefits to being an Anon. Can I be honest with you? As a minority Theologian, many times people automatically assume that I am a second rate theologian. Reformed? Minority? "Yeah he is probably knew to the realm of intellectual theology." After establishing a base now on Twitter through my articles, I'm more confident now that people would embrace my alter-ego as a Theologian than they would without this platform. I have been able to demonstrate God's gifting to people without the stumbling block of my ethnicity. Anon women are able to demonstrate their gifting w/o the stumbling block of being a female in a complementation demographic. Creativity, humor, and a cool cape has given me a platform to speak to God's people in a way that my alter-ego could not. Being an Anon makes debate easier but also makes it easier 2 separate our personal light from our credibility of opinion. If i was a neglectful husband, bad father, lazy churchmen, would U want 2 listen to me?

View more

Let me come at your question another way. Notice that pre-trib, mid-trip, and postmillennialism all have the same thing in common. They are all positions made in American and held to by Americans! I believe all 3 positions are rooted in a comfortable American bias. If you go to almost any other country i the world and tell the Christians there that they will be raptured before the tribulation- or if your Postmill that there will not be a tribulation... They will all look at you like you are insane. Their response will be, "What are you talking about, we are experiencing the tribulation right now!" all around the world saints are dying in the masses. The current statistics are 400 Christians are martyred a day. More Christians have died for the faith in the past 100 years than all of church history combined. Personally, I am Amill and so I don't believe in a literal 7 years of tribulation though it could be. Personally, I believe it is not beyond the realm of possibility that everywhere else has entered the tribulation and it is just now beginning to hit America and it is coming rapidly.To answer your question, I think it takes an American Elitist presupposition being read into the text to arrive at a position of the Church missing the tribulation. Furthermore, I think those who hold to it are also lacking insight into what is going on around the world. Interesting question, that's the most I can answer for now :^)

View more

Simple Answer! Your question is actually 2 in one. First, The church fathers aren't the ones who decided on Canon. The Canon was determined by the churches as whole. Letters that were given to churches by the Apostles or their associates and the local churches preserved them and granted them authoritative based on authorship. Church Fathers followed the same Canon that the churches all already embraced. "Susanna and the Elders" was not part of the Canon for this reason, it wasn't part of the Jewish Bible, the Tanakh. The Jews recognized prior that the addition of that book to Daniel was written well after the Book of Daniel was written. The Bible of the church of the mid first century was the Jewish Old Testament and "Susanna and the Elders" was not part of the Jewish Old Testament. It really is as simple as that. The Apocrypha is a very interesting group of writings. The fact that they were not part of the Jewish bible, their authorship is unknown, and that elements of them contradict History or Jewish and later Christian Theology are the reasons why it was left out of the Canon. Keep in mind, The Apocrypha was not Jewish Canon that was later rejected by the church. The Apocrypha was rejected as Jewish Canon and its rejection was reaffirmed by the early church. The reformation simply rejected from their scriptures what the early church and their Jewish forefathers had already rejected prior to them. :^)

View more

The simplest, most humble, and theologically rich answer to this question is this... "He loved us because he loved us." To really comprehend the motivations behind God's love for his people, one would have to plunge the depths of eternal trinitarian love. We know how he loved us and we know what the love looks like but the motivations of is the kind of thing we will spend eternity searching out and growing in the knowledge of. Consider the words of Gerald Bray from his Amazing book "God Is Love: A Biblical and Systematic Theology",

---

"God is He who, without having to do so, seeks and creates fellowship between himself and us. He does not have to do it, because in himself without us, and therefore without this, he has that which he seeks and creates between himself and us. He does not have to do it, because in himself without us, and therefore without this, he has that which he seeks and creates between himself and us. It implies so to speak an overflow of his essence that he turns to us… But it is an over flow which is not demanded or presupposed by any necessity, constraint, or obligation, least of all from outside, from our side, or by any law by which God Himself is bound and obliged. On the Contrary, in itself and as such it is again rooted in Himself alone (273)."

---

This reality should lead the Christian to have the deepest kind of rest. No sin is too dark to quench the flame of God's eternal Trinitarian love he has for us. The best book dealing with the Trinitarian Love in a profound but simple way is the book "Delighting in The Trinity" This book is small but amazing. It is the first book I would recommend to any Christian or person exploring the Christian Faith. Get It!

---

Below is an excerpt of an article I wrote on the Love of God. I hope you find it helpful. It's only an excerpt, eventually I may post the rest of it :^)
https://medium.com/@TTheologian/the-love-of-god-c1414007a9c6

View more

Hmm.. I wish you were more specific. I honestly don't see how 9 & 10 can be read as differing ideas. Considering that the Apostle Paul was trained in Greek Rhetoric, let me lay out his argument and hopefully that will be helpful.

---

Romans 1-3
All have sinned and fallen short of the Glory of God. Gentiles are all culpable because they sin against their own conscience. Jews are culpable because they not only sin against their own conscience but they actually have the law and still sin. Because all have sinned, the only way someone can be saved is through grace along provided through faith.

---

Romans 4-5
Paul recognizes the difficulty many will have by him equating Jews and Gentiles as both in need of salvation equally. Anticipating this respond Paul responds by expelling that even the Hebrew Patriarchs were justified by faith. He then explains that Justification by all of humanity must come through faith in a new Adam.

---

Romans 6-7
Explains the Law and how Christ fulfills it through his death and resurrection. It explains that Christ must fulfill the law so that we could be freed from the bondage of sin and made alive in Christ. Romans 7 illustrates the purpose of the Law as being a schoolmaster to people that they are sinners in need of grace.

---

Romans 8
Declares that their is no condemnation for anyone who embraces Christ through faith. He then explains the victorious life Christians have now until the eschaton.

---

Romans 9
Explains that God elects individuals to salvation. He anticipates the Arminian response, "It is unjust for God to elect people!" He rebukes such man-centered thinking and asserts that God is sovereign over salvation.

---

Romans 10
Explains that despite the fact of election the Gospel is still to be proclaimed to all. The reason for this is that we as finite humans do not know who is elect. Therefore, we are to be burdened for every soul and give every soul the Gospel. As we give the Gospel to all, those who respond are the elect that were described in the previous chapter. Those who do not respond continue in a state of rebellion against God's grace.

---

Romans 11
Reassures the Jews not to worry. Within God's elect, there is a remnant in national Israel belongs to it. Though Israel rejects Christ now, there will be a day where the Israelite elect will turn to him. However, that day is in the future and one of the means God will use to convert the elect Jews is the testimony of Gentile saints who have received the promises of God that Israel has rejected.

---

This is the most natural reading of Romans up until Romans 12. I welcome pushback as I am honestly not sure how you are reading Romans 9 & 10 that makes you think they are contradictory. Each chapter of Romans builds on the Previous Chapter and Romans 10 is building on Romans 9. It is explaining why the Doctrine of Election does not stifle Evangelism but strengthens it as you know that God has an elect and it is thru beautiful feet of Gospel preachers that they will come to know him.

View more

lol, I think that statistics are bogus. As the saying goes, "Statistics lie and liars use statistics". I'm not saying you are lying but those who give such statistics are misrepresenting the facts. As "secularism" increases religiosity may decrease but the issue is secularism and not education. The very thought is absurd when you consider the wealth of knowledge that religious individuals have provided society. Harvard, Princeton and Yale all have various religious student groups as well. I have friends that go to Ivy League, all of them are prestigious in their class and field. 7% of scientists is an arbitrary number which I don't take seriously. Even if it was accurate which I don't think it is, it would prove nothing other than the fact that secularism is prevailing within the scientific arena. This is obvious for the point I states before. Modern science seeks to mute anyone who opposes an atheistic interpretation of scientific data. If The field of Science opposes people with religious affiliation than of course the most prominent scientists are going to be atheistic. It's not due to a lack of religious scientists or lack of religious intellectualism, it's that religious scientists are treated as fools for not buying into atheism and are not given a fair analysis of their views.

---

Many invest more in "science" as absolute truth than I do. I think theology is a more stable foundation than Modern scientific assertions. Some see science itself as a "Faith" or religion. I think it's ultimately an empty faith as it is practiced by fallible man and "facts" change rapidly and so it is not sturdy.

---

It doesn't come down to intelligence, rather it all comes down to the presuppositions you make. Someone who presupposes that revelation is non-existent will interpret man's pursuit of understanding the world as if it is the best hope for meaning. Someone who holds to the idea of Revelation will see mans attempt as valuable. Maybe even penultimate but certainly not ultimate.

View more

Martin Luther and the Diet of Worms, no question! I may receive some push-back on this but here me out! I firmly believe that the most important event in history is the "Diet of Worms" where Martin Luther defended his writings against the Papacy. Love him or hate him, Martin Luther is the most important figure in Church History minus the Apostles. for well over a thousand years the Roman Catholic Church had held God's people in bondage to a false Gospel and false church. God raised up countless men to call the church back to orthodoxy and the church had them all killed. Huss, Wycliffe, Tyndale all tried to return the church back to Scripture as supreme authority and Justification by faith not works. Saint after saint was killed by the church.

---

Martin Luther comes on the scene as a timid superstitious monk. He was a law student and one night he was caught in a thunderstorm with lightning striking all around him. In his fear he cried out to God, "Lord save me from the lightning and I'll become a monk!" He didn't get struck and he become a monk of the Augustinian order (Augustine believed in Justification by faith alone and so Luther's connection to this order was not an accident, it was God providentially pointing Luther back to the sources). Long story short, we cannot underestimate how critical Luther was to the church. We cannot underestimate how radical the Reformation was. Luther was one man going against an entire Empire who had a long history of killing anyone who Questioned its place. Not even Luther considered toppling the Church, he didn't think it was possible. He just sought to refine it and call it back to orthodoxy. The church excommunicated Luther he did not leave the Catholic church. The Diet of Worms is so critical because many others had Questioned Rome. Many people had their own versions of the 95 Thesis. Where they differed is that they were all killed and in the end none could stand up to the Empire. As Martin Luther stood before the Emperor and chief Cardinals of the Catholic Church he was speechless! He literally could not speak out of fear! He begged the council to give him one night to consider recanting. That night, people in the hallways could hear him crying out in Prayer. Luther believed he was praying against the Devil Himself that night. This is possible considering what was at stake! HE prayed throughout the night and that following day he stood before the Empire. One man standing for Christianity against the most powerful force in History and said,(Paraphrase) "Unless I can be convinced by SCRIPTURE I will not recant. Here is stand and I can do no other, God help me!" He stood, by God's grace he stood firm and the chains of over 1000 of Satanic oppression against the Church began to break. Luther had many faults but God used a timid, foul-mouthed monk to change the entire course of Christian history for the good. Praise God for that most critical event in History.

View more

In logic this question is called a "Non sequitur". What that basically means is that the conclusion the asker is making, "Jesus went against the will of God" is not the natural or even most logical conclusion following the premise, "If you claim 'it is the will of God' for bad things to happen."

---

Let me clean up the question into one that is both logically and biblically consistent.
Do you believe that God "wills" for bad things to happen such as sickness, death, etc. and if you do, how does this not cause Jesus to go against the will of God as he healed and raised others from the dead?

---

The Bible uses "will" in two different senses, even as it relates to God. There is "will" as in the sense of desire or want and there is "will" in the sense of divine decree. God "wills" that no one will perish (2 Peter 3:9). Notice in this text that the KJV says "God wills" no one to perish and virtually all modern translations say "God desires/wants". The reason for the change is not that the KJV is wrong but that the will used in this passage was intended to convey desire and not decree. We know it doesn't mean decree because if it did there would be no hell.

---

In one sense God does not will or desire for their to be sickness or death. Sickness and death are products of the fall. We know God does not desire them in his world because he promises in Revelation 21 to end all suffering. Jesus cannot be going against the will of God if we know from scripture that God does not desire or want sickness and suffering in this world. Jesus, as the one who ushers in the Kingdom of God is demonstrating what will be fulfilled in Revelation 21 in fulness. He is completely operating within the will of God as he does the work of God of renewing a sin cursed world.

---

However, "will" as in decree, we know that God does decree suffering, sickness, and death. To deny this is to deny the very cross of Christ where suffering and death meet their culmination. The most critical verse to keep in mind as you consider this is Genesis 50:20, "As for you, you meant evil against me, but God meant it for good, to bring it about that many people should be kept alive, as they are today." Even though Joseph's brothers meant evil against him, in God's sovereign omnipotent plan, the evil they meant God used it for Good. What good? The salvation of the very people who meant evil!

---

Did you know that even today we could end world hunger for the same amount that America alone spends on Cigarettes and Alcohol! We don't because people as a whole don't care about starving people! Why? Cuz men are evil! Mankind and man's sin is responsible for all the suffering in the world. God however is able to use this suffering in order to achieve his salvific purposes. God even uses the Satan's work to achieve his purposes. "History is a story written by the finger of God", if he doesn't write it who would? Satan? God is the author of history.

View more

In short, the idealist view is insufficient because it reads Revelation through the lens of the wrong literary genre. Revelation is Apocalyptic literature and in so being is meant to describe real history using fantastical language and imagery. The idealism view also struggles with consistency. If Revelation is written in the same genre as the visions of Daniel and Ezekiel... either you have to conclude that these Old Testament books were not fulfilled in real History or that Revelation will unfold in real history like these two books. The fact that the concept was developed by liberals should automatically raise red flags as well. Why did they develop this view? You see, Liberals believe that the History recorded in the Apocalyptic writings in Daniel were inserted after the actual events. By claiming this, they can reject the Supernatural and in so doing reject Revelation. For the orthodox Christian however, we read the Old Testament Prophets as true prophets. We believe they foretold what would transpire. It is the height of inconsistency for them read revelation, which is written in the same literary genre, as simply metaphorical. Naturally there is much more nuance to this but these would be my first impressions...

View more