The Super Theologian

I would say he severely misunderstands logic. Logic is a universally applied discipline. Logic is the discipline of pursuing reasonable & consistent thought. Anyone who is against logic is against thinking reasonably.

---

Proof that logic is not just a western idea?

---

Mathematics and science are built on the idea of consistently. The principle of A + B will give me C results. A Muslim invented algebra! For one to abandon logic they must also abandon mathematics and science which both require logic to function. The person's issue is not with logic it is with philosophical logic. The issue is they have contrary beliefs that they are emotionally attached to even though reasonably they make no sense. The issue isn't with logic, it is with the desire to be driven by ones emotions rather than intellect.

---

Can I prove the person isn't against logic?

---

Yes, does this person brush their teeth? Why? Do they believe if they brush their teeth that it will prevent cavities? Behold, logic at work! No human being can reject logic and still function as a human being. One of the things that separate us from other creatures is our sentients. To be able to reason is one of the things that make us human. He is not just rejecting philosophical logical. At the end of the day he is rejecting his humanity! Hope this helps. Thoughts in a nutshell :^). I'll deal with this question more in depthly on my podcast, go subscribe! https://itunes.apple.com/us/podcast/coram-deo/id963018449?mt=2

View more

Hey! Good question. Karl Barth had an extremely high view of God. The sections in his works dealing with the Doctrine of God are Spectacular. Some of the best you will ever read!

---

His areas of weakness were primarily in the areas of inerrancy & salvation. Ironically, he had trouble reconciling his High view of God with the possibility of Inerrant "written" revelation. In some sense, Barth believed God is too transcendent to have his word confined to the written word". That is certainly an over-simplification but is kind of the gist. As it relates to the Work of Christ, many scholars believe Barth was a Universalist. If you read his writings, his logic definitely leads there, but throughout his life he insisted that he wasn't. Barth was neo-orthodox. He rejected his Theologically liberal training and embraced many elements of Evangelicalism. Unfortunately, he tried to wed elements of the two together and on a foundational level, they are diametrically opposed to one another. This led to great inconsistencies within Barth's theology. I do absolutely think he was a believer but he did have his serious errors. I would absolutely recommend Barth on the Doctrine of God. He is good on the Doctrine and work of Christ but he gets weird and should be read with caution there. His understanding of scripture is wrong but it is extremely interesting how he develops it.

View more

Thanks for your feedback! I'm glad you found my answer helpful. My goal in answering the question was to avoid the simple (Anti-Gospel) rhetoric that has been occurring regarding Lent and actually dealing with the more foundational issue that is often overlooked. The issue of motivation. There are many things in the Christian life that are neutral. Much of what we do really does come down to the motivation or heart's intent behind why we are doing it. That is the crux of Biblical Counseling, to help a person come to see what heart motivations are causing the issues in their life and helping them to repent where necessary and re-orient their hearts. When it comes to Lent, I think it's possible but extremely difficult to have a motivation in practicing it that is sound. It is very much possible but unlikely. I think when we ask questions that deal with the motivations of our heart we can generally find areas where we are given over to "Religious Traditionalism" that separates our lives into secular and sacred practices. The Christian life however is all sacred. When this is understood, Lent becomes just a series of days that are lived faithfully rather than a season of "extra-spiritual days of fasting". Hope that makes sense and is helpful. Grace & Peace!

View more

Very interesting question. I do not think the burden to reconcile the two is necessary. I do not see the tension between the two at all. Unless one is to assert that mentally disabled people are in some way less than human, the issue of the Imago Dei and mental disability are not in contrast. In fact, it is the understanding of the Imago Dei that actually protects and treasures the inherent value of the mentally disabled person. Any other system of thought must either borrow capital from Christianity or believe that the mentally disabled are a nuisance to humanity. The consistent atheist would see the mentally disabled as needing to be disposed of as they are weak and are holding back evolutionary advancement. Most world religions would see them as cursed by God and under his judgment. It is the Christian who looks at the mentally disabled and can say that despite their mental disabilities, they are precious and valuable beyond measure because they are made in the image of God. Now much can be said about what the "imago dei" is and why it isn't lost within a mentally disabled person. Given this context, suffice it to say that it relates to way more than a person's intellectual faculties. The Imago Dei speaks primarily of the relationship man has to God and not man's abilities within himself. Man is the only being that God has "covenanted" with. Again, when most people think Imago Dei, they automatically assume man's sentience as being the defining marker of it. I would argue that it definitely plays a role but more deeply the Imago Dei relates to man & God's relationship to one another, specifically in the form of covenant. This is a very complex issue and unfortunately this medium isn't the best format to discuss it at length.

---

So if Mental Disability and the Imago Dei are not at odds, then what aspect of Christian Theology speaks towards Mental Disability? I would argue it is the understanding of "Biblical Anthropology" or the Doctrine of Man. Man was made as the crowning achievement of God's created Order. However, When Adam sinned, death in all its forms came into the world. All sickness, disease, and infirmities are the direct result of the fall. Mental Disability exists because sin, sickness, and death exist. As some people are born with physical disabilities, others can be born with psychological ones. Now there are a lot of psychological diagnosis within modern medicine which are actually spiritual issues but there are also mental disabilities which are truly physiological. These disabilities are the effect of the fall and people are born with disabilities not because they are cursed but because all of nature is under a curse and they are a part of nature. Until they repent and believe, they are enemies of God. When they repent and believe, their infirmities may still exist but they are promised a glorified state in Christ in which no infirmities will exist as Jesus rules as the sinless last Adam on the New Earth.

View more

I think topical sermons done rightly are always okay. There as been an emphasis on expository preaching that I think is good and healthy. However, a lot of young men have taken the idea to an extreme and have asserted that it is the ONLY way to preach. I disagree and church history disagrees with me. I absolutely believe that a church needs a steady diet of expositional preaching. If a man is going to shepherd a congregation, he should do so expositionally. If a man is to preach, he is to proclaim the word of God. That very well may be a topical sermon. Jesus' Sermon On The Mount was not an expositional sermon, neither is The Book of Hebrews. They are both Biblically saturated and are the expounding of Scirpture but they aren't verse by verse exposition. I don't think there is anything wrong with preaching a topical sermon. It just needs to be done right (preached grounded, saturated, and overflowing with the scriptures. I would say preach what you think will edict. If there is a specific text you want to expound, go for it! If there are several verses you want to expound and handling them more topically will better serve the young men, do it! Hope his helps

View more

I think the big issue is with Catholics who use Lent as a means of justifying themselves before God. I don't think Lent has to be that however. I think Lent can be practiced by evangelical (Gospel) Christians as a season of reflection and self-denial and in so being, a season of cultivating their spirituality. If a Christian seeks to practice Lent in the way I just described, my question would be why.

---

The Christian life as a whole is to be one of self-reflection. fasting should be a part of the normal Christian life. Lent practiced by Protestant Christians can be like a Spiritual Valentine's Day. Have you ever browsed The Greeting Card section of your local Super Market during Valentine's Day? The most common card is one that says, "I know I don't say I love you enough but..." In my marriage, Valentine's Day is just another day because as a pattern of life I am called to Woo my wife not just one day a year. Don't get me wrong, my wife gets flowers on Valentine's Day and she gets a romantic dinner as well. She also experienced those things a few weeks prior. Similarly, the discipline of fasting which is practiced during Lent is to be one that marks the Christian life. If a saint is feeling the need to practice Lent, even in an evangelical (Gospel-central) way, the concern is why do they feel the need? Are they playing spiritual catch up with fasting? The desire to practice Lent by evangelicals may be a result of lack of Spiritual vitality through every other season of their life as it relates to fasting. I do not think Lent is inherently wrong. I do think it can help a Christian in their walk. It can also play as a diagnostic upon a saints soul regarding their spiritual vitality. I think Lent for Catholics is anti-Gospel. I think Lent for Evangelicals is unnecessary if they are practicing a robust Christian life. Those are my thoughts in a nutshell. I welcome push back and any additional comments for clarification. Trace and peace!

View more

Hey Katie! Thank you so much for asking this question. I know that many young high school & college students struggle with the same things you are experiencing, and so I pray this short answer would encourage you and others.

---

Keep in mind that as a Biblical Counselor, If you were with me & my wife in our home seeking counsel, there are dozens of questions I'd ask you in order to properly identify the foundational issues behind your struggles. Questions such as,

---

1. What about your school work is stressful?
2. Why do you think these things stress you out?
3. In what ways have secular counseling made the problem worse?
4. Where do Christ and the implications of the Gospel fit into your anxiety?
...and many more

---

The general counsel I would give is as follows;
Jesus commands us, as his people, to not be anxious (Matthew 6:25-34). When we are anxious about something, it is because we are desiring to either have something or seeking divine approval in something other than in Christ. In your case, there seems to be an unhealthy desire in school that is causing you anxiety, stress, and depression. Without more questions, I am not sure what it is. It could be the desire for "good" grades, notoriety, favor of parents, or a numerous host of other things. Unfortunately, this format does not allow me to ask enough questions to diagnose it specifically. What I can say is this, the source of your anxiety and depression is primarily spiritual and not biological/physiological. Secular counseling sees Spiritual issues as biological ones and, therefore, sees medication as the cure rather than The Spirit, grace, and repentance. Beloved, take heart and be encouraged. God's word says in Philippians 4:4-7,

---

"Rejoice in the Lord always; again I will say, rejoice. Let your reasonableness be known to everyone. The Lord is at hand; do not be anxious about anything, but in everything by prayer and supplication with thanksgiving let your requests be made known to God. And the peace of God, which surpasses all understanding, will guard your hearts and your minds in Christ Jesus.

---

It may be a process getting here in relation to your anxiety ad school, but it should be the goal. God promises that this joy is available to His people. He also tells us in the following verses how a saint is to receive it,

---

"Finally, brothers, whatever is true, whatever is honorable, whatever is just, whatever is pure, whatever is lovely, whatever is commendable, if there is any excellence, if there is anything worthy of praise, think about these things. What you have learned and received and heard and seen in me—practice these things, and the God of peace will be with you."

---

The goal of your life should be to renew your mind according to the things Paul tells you to think about in this text. As you do that effectively, peace & joy are promised to follow. :^)

---

Feel free 2 follow up @ ask.fm/KyleJamesHoward or leave me a message @ 502-482-3611 & i'll try 2 discuss topic on my "Coram Deo" podcast

View more

Great question Will, my counsel would vary depending on several different situations

---

1. Preaching in church
2. Preaching at a non-church function
3. Who told you to lessen your sermon time
4. What expectations were laid out by the authority that asked you to preach
5. Etc.

---

My ideal sermon time would be 40-45 minutes however I've been in various contexts where sermons have to be more condensed. 20 minute church service sermon is problematic to me. It could demonstrate a low value of the preached word within the congregations. However, even if that was the case, I would oblige. The way to lengthen your sermons is not to fight the congregation over it but to preach the word in such power and accuracy that they crave more. This may take awhile but if the congregation is made up primarily of believers, than as the word is preached faithfully it will cultivate a desire for more of it. My advice to you would be to respectfully oblige the peoples request unless those in authority in the church have specifically asked that your sermon be longer

View more

Hmm.... I personally use Commentaries sparingly. Only when I need to verify my exegesis. There are three kinds of Commentaries. Devotional, Expository, and technical. Devotional Commentaries are commentaries that expound Biblical text in a way that emphasizes person edification and mediation.

---

The Best Commentary in the Devotional genre is the 6 Volume Commentary set by Matthew Henry (Only $30) and J.C. Ryle's "Expository Thoughts on the Gospel". Those two are followed bySpurgeon's multi-volume set on the Psalms "The Treasury of David."
The Best set in the Expository Genre are Macarthur's NT Commentary set (every volume in set are golden). The "Preaching The Word" series edited by Kent Hughs (All books in this set are really good). R.C. Sproul has excellent Commentaries that fit this Genre as well! These are all commentaries that you can actually read through like a book but come away very edified.

---

Commentaries in the technical genre look heavily at the actual original languages and are generally really dry. These are commentaries that you use when you are trying to grasp the Greek and Hebrew and for me personally, are better in my Logos than on the shelf because it is only certain pieces of them that are helpful at different times. The Best in this series is the "Pillar New Testament Commentary Series" which is actually more of a hybrid between the Expository genre and the Technical Genre. The whole series is awesome but the commentaries written by Douglas Moo are the best. The "Concordia Commentary" series is one of the best strictly technical series.

---

My personal Favorite,
Matthew Henry's Commentary Set
Expository Thoughts on The Gospel -Ryle
Treasury of David- Spurgeon
James Boice- Multi-Volume set on Romans
Macarthur's Commentary Set
Thomas Manton's complete 22 volume work (Puritan)
Thomas Boston's Complete Works (Puritan)

---

Matthew Henry
http://www.christianbook.com/matthew-henrys-commentary-whole-bible-volumes/9781598564358/pd/564365?product_redirect=1&Ntt=564365&item_code=&Ntk=keywords&event=ESRCP

---

J.C. Ryle
http://www.christianbook.com/expository-thoughts-on-the-gospels/j-c-ryle/9780851516295/pd/711365?product_redirect=1&Ntt=711365&item_code=&Ntk=keywords&event=ESRCP

---

Spurgeon
http://www.christianbook.com/the-treasury-of-david-3-volumes/charles-spurgeon/9781565639454/pd/06259?product_redirect=1&Ntt=06259&item_code=&Ntk=keywords&event=ESRCP

---

Boice
http://www.christianbook.com/the-boice-commentary-series-romans-volumes/james-boice/9780801065941/pd/65946?product_redirect=1&Ntt=65946&item_code=&Ntk=keywords&event=ESRCP
Thomas Manton
http://spurgeon.wordpress.com/category/thomas-manton/
Thomas Boston
http://spurgeon.wordpress.com/2006/09/26/book-review-the-complete-works-of-thomas-boston-12-volumes/

View more

In short, I would say it is wrong. Using another person's material without citing is plagiarism and grounds for disqualification from ministry. Using another's work and citing is not stewarding ministry well. God calls individuals to preach and each individual is responsible for putting forth the labor of sermon preparation. Commentaries and tools for interpretation can be very helpful but is never to take the place of private preparation. One thing you can do to prevent falling into the trap of regurgitating another's sermon material is to prepare your sermon before you look at another's work. Trust the Spirit to guide you and only use other people's work to check your own to ensure you have properly grasped the meaning of the text. Thank you for being willing to ask this question. In love I would encourage you to avoid regurgitating anther person's sermon. It is extremely risky and could easily lead to being. Disqualified from ministry. I'm sure it isn't your intention to not put forth the work yourself, most likely you are simply erring in your methodology of sermon prep. Commentaries and other tools should not be used to prepare your sermon but rather check your exegesis to ensure its sound. I know some preachers would differ from my view but my opinion is to prepare as much of sermon as possible before looking at other works. That way, your not tempted to use their material. On another note, God does not want another Platt. He wants you. He has raised you up and given you the unique experiences and spiritual gifts to be His preacher to the people he has called you to preach to. Be encouraged brother that God has sovereignly chosen you to preach to the people you are preaching to. They need to hear from you as you know them personally, Platt doesn't. Hope this is helpful, race and peace!

View more

Hey! Great question. In short, I do believe Gambling and the stock market are different though they share commonalities. In fact, in some respect-the real issue behind your question is, "how do we define gambling". If one uses a very loose definition of gambling, giving to the church could be considered "a gamble".

---

As we seek to define gambling, I think it is helpful to distinguish between "gambling" and investing". In reality, giving to church isn't a gamble, it's an investment. Gambling is when a person seeks to take the wealth God has given them, and risk it for the sake of personal entertainment, leisure, or self gain. Investing is when a person makes a judgment based on data that by putting money into a particular thing, they have a high potential of increasing their wealth. One is frivolous, the other intentional and calculated. One seeks financial gain for the sake of self while the other seeks financial gain as a means of stewardship.

---

In Jesus' parable of the wages, He rebukes one servant for not investing like the others. It seems most likely that the servant would have received same rebuke if he spent money for self-enjoyment. I do believe there are people who "gamble" on Wall Street but I don't think that's it's purpose. Stock investment is a way in which the people of this country can invest in the success of its own enterprises by putting forth money as support. If the company does well, it hires more people, gives money back to investors, thrives, and ultimately provides America with a stronger economy. Gambling is all about self and does not promote societal flourishing. Hope this is helpful, much more could be said. Grace and Peace! Feel free to ask follow up!

View more

Well, i would say that is a caricature and not a genuine engagement with Calvinism. Even on the surface that assertion does not hold up under scrutiny. The individual said, "Calvinism is unbiblical because it requires 'fruit checking'.
So is the person asserting that fruit checking is unbiblical? Was Jesus unbiblical when he said, "you'll know them by their fruit"? Or Paul when he said, "examine yourself"? To claim something is unbiblical because it leads to "fruit checking" is actually an unbiblical assertion. The issue isn't fruit checking, the issue is examining fruit according to the Law of Christ, the law of love. We examine one another as brothers and for the sake of encouraging and building one another up in our walks. Not to condemn or discourage. Legalism exists in all theological systems. In a system that says all our good is grace and not us, it is actually less likely to be legalistic like its Arminian counterpart. Good question! Thanks for asking!

View more