The Super Theologian

Wow, great question. The super Theologian is aware of it and find it and the major works written on it compelling. Though I believe there is a little bit of a Baptist bias amongst the predominate holders of the view, I'm not mad at them considering I'm a Baptist ;^)

---

At the end of the day and given this limited format, let me say this. I am Calvinistic in my soteriology, motto of Semper reformanda, and in my understanding of the Solas. I defer from Calvin on a whole host of things including his understanding of the Covenants, Baptism, role of civil government, ecclesiology, and EVEN his exegetical understanding of "Mission" tho he was all for evangelism. I SERIOUSLY back away from adding a label onto myself of another man. Calvinism, I will acknowledge due to Historical Roots though generally I will call myself "Reformed" and not a Calvinist. "Fullerism" I definitely understand and find myself inclined to but I would never adopt the title.

---

For those who don't know, Fullerism is a view that Baptist theology, especially missiology, is more in line with Andrew Fuller than John Calvin. With this, there are some that claim the Baptist heritage is more connected to fuller than Calvin. Historically I think that is a Leap as Baptists are the descendants of the Reformation. However, I see the connection to Fuller being deep and I can understand the claim.

View more

I read numerous translations depending on what I am trying to do and for greater perspective. If the Bible is a diamond, a good translation is light a turning of that diamond in the sun in order to see its brightness from another angle. The way Greek is written, there are numerous english words that capture a certain degree of meaning of the original word used. By looking at various sound translations, you are better able to grasp the whole meaning of the original words. Consider Isaiah 45:22, "Turn to Me and be saved, all the ends of the earth; For I am God, and there is no other" The ESV says "turn to me" and the KJV says "look unto me". Which one is right? Both are! In the original Hebrew the term in this text implies a kind of looking that is initiated by a turning from one thing to another. If you read Isaiah 45 in its context this is made clear. Isaiah 45:22 is saying, "Turn away from your idols and turn to me and continue to "look" unto me and be saved." By reading both the ESV and the KJV translation you are actually given a more robust understanding of the text and are able to grasp it better for further study or teaching. Here is the list of the translations I use and for what chief purpose.

---

NASB: In depth exegetical study
ESV: Reading and memorization, New Testament Reading
NIV: Casual reading
HCSB: The Reading of the Old Testament
KJV: Understanding Historical Interpretation and literary pleasure

---

The message is not a translation but rather a paraphrasing. It is a decent paraphrasing but I would caution someone from believing that it is an actual translation of scripture. I don't want to tell people to outright avoid any translations without also providing adequate reasons as to why and there isn't enough space here for me to do that. Let me just say the 5 I have listed are the best translations to date and the message is fine as a summary or paraphrase reading of scripture for enjoyments sake. The Message should not be read to acquire doctrine but for casual leisure reading instead.

View more

I offer examples of what Emotional Promiscuity looks like for primarily for singles in the link below
http://ask.fm/TTheologian/answer/117169440798

---

Your specific Question is about "Emotional Infidelity" and so I will presume that you are asking more in the context of what guarding emotional purity looks like for married saints.

---

Emotional Infidelity is when a person shares aspects of their heart with another person of the opposite sex other than their spouse. by heart I am referring to their inner desires, passions, and struggles that are not apparent through casual conversation or public confession.

---

As a Biblical Counselor, I have yet to meet the married couple who is struggling through an affair in which the motivations behind the offender was not emotional fulfillment. Adultery is never about sex. It is always about selfishness and a person seeking emotional fulfillment outside of the realm in which God has decreed it be found (in him and in a spouse). These things ultimately culminate in sex but sex is never the goal. Emotional infidelity can be extremely subtle. It can be as simple as a husband sharing with a female co-worker that he had an argument with his wife and then moves into telling that co-worker how that argument made him "feel".

---

I personally have a few Christian female friends but all of them are through either my wife or their husband. By that I mean, they are chiefly friends with my wife and through their relationship with my wife they become my friend as well. All interaction with them takes place with either my wife present or her tagged in a text message so she is a part of every conversation. For sisters who are married, I interact with them alongside their husbands. We can joke with each other, share stories, and even talk about personal things but it is with my wife beside me and their husband beside them and it is group interactions and there are still limits to what is shared. My wife and I know couples who we get along with so well that when we get together it is literally like a bunch of siblings talking but there are still boundaries.

---

We are all brothers and sisters in Christ and we should be able to have great relationships and friendships with one another. However, as sinners we should also recognize that until we are glorified there are certain boundaries of communication and transparency that need to be guarded and shared with others to different degrees depending on who they are. A husband and wife is the closest earthly relationship that exists. To protect the glory and the safety marriage provides for two people in the area of affections, and transparency, we must strive to guard the depths of intimacy that is shared within its gates and keep it from being shared outside of it amongst those whom it does not benefit. Make sense?

---

Feel free to ask any follow up...

View more

Good question! The two best examples we have of godly friendships are Jesus and his Disciples and David and Jonathan. In Samuel 18:1 we see that David and Jonathan had a friendship that was so deep and transparent that if it was as if they were brothers or even the same person.

---

Jesus tells his disciples in the Gospel of John that he too saw them as friends and he states the reason why,
"No longer do I call you slaves, for the slave does not know what his master is doing; but I have called you friends, for all things that I have heard from My Father I have made known to you."

---

Jesus of course being God incarnate would exemplify the epitome of godly friendship and in this passage we see him exemplify godly friendship toward his disciples. What marks this friendship? Clearly it is intimate transparency. Jesus tells us this in the 2nd half of the verse when he says, "for all things that I have heard from My Father I have made known to you."

---

What we can come to understand from these examples is that godly friendship certainly includes emotional and transparent interaction. However, in both cases of deep godly friendships in the bible, we see that they involve people of the same gender (in all cases). The deep emotional transparency is not taking place between Jesus and Mary or Martha. The transparency is taking place between Jesus and other men. Jonathan's soul is not knitted together with a woman who is not his wife, it is with David. Therefore, we can conclude that deep godly friendships take place between people of the same sex.

---

This does not mean that a Christian brother can't have a good friend who is a sister. It means that they will guard the level of intimate personal details they share and reserve them for other sisters or brothers in accountability and or their spouse. I should not be sharing my personal struggles with another woman other than my wife. I have struggles that I share with the church that are general but deeper issues of the heart I keep buried in a treasure chest and only my wife has the key... Or a closely trusted friend of the same sex.

---

An example of emotional promiscuity would be a person, let's say a sister, generally ladies are quicker to divulge their affections and feelings to men then men to female, is in a relationship with a guy and she begins sharing all of her thoughts and feeling with him. This guy is not her husband but she is giving him her heart and in return she is exposing herself to him in a way that only her husband should know her. When she ultimately gets married and offers her heart and body to her husband... Her body is being unwrapped for the first time but her heart has been unwrapped numerous times before by the various men she has dated. In this case, emotional promiscuity has robbed this couple of a degree of intimacy as it has already been shared with others. So much more could be said but I have another Qs to answer on this, share more there...

View more

"God didn't 'write' the Bible.It only becomes God's Word for us as we interpret it through Jesus.Interpretation is everything"

---

He is proposing a Karl Barthian understanding of revelation. Karl Barth was one of the foremost liberal scholars of his day who in later life became evangelical. Though the majority of his theology was evangelical and to some degree Reformed, he never came all the way over of the Doctrine of inerrancy. However, Even though he did not hold to inerrancy, he still had a higher view of revelation than most modern inerrantists. How so, Well Barth had an extremely high Christology and an extremely high view of God's sovereignty. Barth was definitely inconsistent in his "Doctrine of the Word" but he had a high view of revelation and in that a high view of Scripture. This gentlemen seems to be trying to identify as a Barthian ut I have a hunch he lake his depth and is more using the position to justify his lack of submission to the word of God

View more

Here are some excellent resources. Some of the best! All parents need to read these books not just new parents. These books deal with how to parent children Biblically in a way that also teaches them the Gospel and deals with there hearts, not just adjusting moral behavior. Too many CHristian parents are raising moral Pharisees and wonder why there children leave the faith... They never had it. These resources will help parents parent in a way that glorifies God and engages with there children on a heart level. Sorry my response is so late!I completely missed this question! Enjoy the reads!!

---

Shepherding a Child's Heart
http://www.amazon.com/Shepherding-Childs-Heart-Tedd-Tripp/dp/0966378601/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1409850047&sr=8-1&keywords=shepherding+a+child%27s+heart

---

Instructing a Child's Heart
http://www.amazon.com/Instructing-Childs-Heart-Tedd-Tripp/dp/0981540007/ref=sr_1_5?ie=UTF8&qid=1409850047&sr=8-5&keywords=shepherding+a+child%27s+heart

---

Family Driven Faith
http://www.amazon.com/Family-Driven-Faith-Doing-Daughters/dp/1433528126/ref=sr_1_8?ie=UTF8&qid=1409850264&sr=8-8&keywords=family+worship

---

Thoughts on Family Worship
http://www.amazon.com/Thoughts-Family-Worship-James-Alexander/dp/1453749047/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1409850302&sr=8-1&keywords=Thoughts+on+Family+WOrship

View more

Hell is certainly a literal place of torment however the descriptions of it are generally figurative. The most popular word Christ used in reference to Hell was the word "Gehenna". This term was used to describe a place where child sacrifices were offered and its location constantly emanated smoke. Jesus also spoke about fire in hell but I think this language is figurative. Hell itself is real and the experience of it will be akin to being burned alive perpetually. It could be a literal fire, I am completely fine with that interpretation but I don't believe it necessarily has to be. I think it is a picture of an experience that is truly much worse. The closest thing that Christ could use to describe it in humanly terms is "burning alive."

---

As far as the argument, "the Jews never believed in hell", that argument is just terrible. All Revelation is progressive. The Jews didn't know the Seed of the woman as promised in Genesis 3 would come about through a Virgin until Isaiah said so. The Jews didn't believe in the Trinity until God more fully revealed himself through The Son. The Jews knew nothing of a New Covenant until God made the Promise in Jeremiah 31:31 and Ezekiel 36. The Jews did not know that they would ever be delivered from slavery until Moses came and declared, "God says let my people go!". My point is simple, to say there is no literal Hell because the Jews didn't believe in it is completely irrational to anyone who takes the Bible seriously. Of course the Jews didn't believe in it, it wasn't talked about until later. Keep in mind, Jesus speaks more about Hell than all of the Old Testament and other New Testament writers combined! The Jews did believe in an afterlife (sheol) and they believed in a judgment to come. The Jews however, did not have a complete theology on the issue until Christ came and clarified how the afterlife worked. The funny thing is this... The Jews also didn't have a robust theology of Heaven. In fact, a part from a few people such as Enoch, the Jews had no record to assure them that they would spend eternity with their God. Jesus Speaks more of heaven then all of the Old Testament and New Testament writers combined as well! It's interesting that none of these people ever question the doctrine of heaven. Or never claim, "the Jews didn't believe in heaven so we shouldn't". They generally only apply their faulty logic to the doctrine of hell...

View more