What's your opinion on the ISIS situation?
I think it's really sad and tragic... Sorry, you have to be more specific if you were looking for me to comment on a specific dynamic related to it :^)
Ask @TTheologian
Previous
Do you have a response to this article regarding homosexuality in the bible? http://www.crossroadscommunitychurch.us/homosexuality-and-the-bible.html
There is a lot that could be said but for the sake of time I can't get into all the errors presented in this article. Some of the most apparent, I'll comment below.
1. The Bible doesn't discuss sexuality
This is just deceit. Genesis 1:27 reads, "So God created man in his own image, in the image of God he created him; male and female he created them."
Notice the emphasis. The scriptures use a Hebrew literary device of repetition to make sure the point is not missed. "God made man in his image" "In God's image God created man" "This image bearing species called man (mankind) is made up of two kinds (Male and Female). Human sexuality is written into to the first chapter of the Bible and is reemphasized three times! We also read in Genesis 1&2 that man and woman when brought together become on flesh and thru this union multiplication occurs. From this re understand that human sexuality consists of a male and female who are built physiologically in a way that complements each other. I'll try not to be overly profane but when a male and female come together you have fruitful multiplication (life is made). When two men come together it is through the avenue in which God designed human waste to leave the body. Human sexuality is clear in scripture and most natural to how we are designed as male and female. Homosexuality is perverse and unnatural in the deepest of ways. We also have countless times when the scriptures refer to sexuality in this way "man 'went into' the woman". Denying that the Bible discusses human sexuality is nothing more than rejecting aspects of scripture that speak against your sin. The writer of the article loves their sin more than they do the word of God.
2. Jesus didn't speak against homosexuality. The OT and Paul did!
Jesus is the word incarnate. The whole Bible is Hod-Breathed. The Old Testament word is as much Jesus as the New Testament word. Jesus did not speak on it because there was no need to ratify what had already been spoken. Nothing changed. He clarified laws on murder, adultery, and taking oaths but there was no need to say anything about what the word (Christ) had already made abundantly clear. Furthermore, Jesus never spoke against molestation. Is this writer willing to assert that molestation is morally ok because Jesus didn't specifically speak out against it? The bottom line is that she. People are in love with their son more than Jesus, they will manipulate and twist his word in order to make their eating of poison more palatable. I weep for the writer of this article as he is clearly leading others on a road to hell. I pray for his salvation.
1. The Bible doesn't discuss sexuality
This is just deceit. Genesis 1:27 reads, "So God created man in his own image, in the image of God he created him; male and female he created them."
Notice the emphasis. The scriptures use a Hebrew literary device of repetition to make sure the point is not missed. "God made man in his image" "In God's image God created man" "This image bearing species called man (mankind) is made up of two kinds (Male and Female). Human sexuality is written into to the first chapter of the Bible and is reemphasized three times! We also read in Genesis 1&2 that man and woman when brought together become on flesh and thru this union multiplication occurs. From this re understand that human sexuality consists of a male and female who are built physiologically in a way that complements each other. I'll try not to be overly profane but when a male and female come together you have fruitful multiplication (life is made). When two men come together it is through the avenue in which God designed human waste to leave the body. Human sexuality is clear in scripture and most natural to how we are designed as male and female. Homosexuality is perverse and unnatural in the deepest of ways. We also have countless times when the scriptures refer to sexuality in this way "man 'went into' the woman". Denying that the Bible discusses human sexuality is nothing more than rejecting aspects of scripture that speak against your sin. The writer of the article loves their sin more than they do the word of God.
2. Jesus didn't speak against homosexuality. The OT and Paul did!
Jesus is the word incarnate. The whole Bible is Hod-Breathed. The Old Testament word is as much Jesus as the New Testament word. Jesus did not speak on it because there was no need to ratify what had already been spoken. Nothing changed. He clarified laws on murder, adultery, and taking oaths but there was no need to say anything about what the word (Christ) had already made abundantly clear. Furthermore, Jesus never spoke against molestation. Is this writer willing to assert that molestation is morally ok because Jesus didn't specifically speak out against it? The bottom line is that she. People are in love with their son more than Jesus, they will manipulate and twist his word in order to make their eating of poison more palatable. I weep for the writer of this article as he is clearly leading others on a road to hell. I pray for his salvation.
What is the meaning of the life in one word?
Christ
Related users
If a tree falls in the woods, and no one's around to hear it, is the pre-trib rapture still a silly idea?
It depends on whether the tree is a Redwood or just a Pine. If is a great Redwood than my foundations may be questioned as I assumed them to be in sturdy ground. if it is just a pine... Well, then it was rooted in a shaky foundation anyways!
Liked by:
Dawson Shannon
Do you prefer the Bible in the original Swahili, or the devil's translation of Thai?
Wah?
Have you ever read "The Five Points of Calvinism" by Steele, Thomas, & Quinn? Do you recommend it?
No I haven't read it. Looks interesting but I don't think it will compare to what I believe the best introduction on Calvinism is... "Living For His Glory" This book does not only define the 5 points but it looks at Calvinism as a whole! Sections include
1. Calvinism in History
2. Calvinism in the Mind
3. Calvinism in the Heart
4. Calvinism in the Church
5. Calvinism in Practice
6. Calvinism's Goal
This book is AWESOME!!!
It doesn't just look at the 5 points or even at the doctrine of Calvinism. It looks at how Calvinism permeates every area of the Christian life, or at least should. Too many young Reformed guys have a shallow Calvinism and it is off-putting to others. Especially Arminians. This book will help a Reformed Saint to not only have a robust Calvinism but also a Calvinism that is appealing and leading to practical God glorifying Christian living. Not just head knowledge. If you haven't read this, I would recommend it over the book you asked about :^)
1. Calvinism in History
2. Calvinism in the Mind
3. Calvinism in the Heart
4. Calvinism in the Church
5. Calvinism in Practice
6. Calvinism's Goal
This book is AWESOME!!!
It doesn't just look at the 5 points or even at the doctrine of Calvinism. It looks at how Calvinism permeates every area of the Christian life, or at least should. Too many young Reformed guys have a shallow Calvinism and it is off-putting to others. Especially Arminians. This book will help a Reformed Saint to not only have a robust Calvinism but also a Calvinism that is appealing and leading to practical God glorifying Christian living. Not just head knowledge. If you haven't read this, I would recommend it over the book you asked about :^)
Liked by:
Paarsonax
Any good commentaries for lay people? (Those that don't depend so heavily on actual Greek & Hebrew. We all can't read original languages :(
Thanks for the question and let me encourage you! It can be helpful to know the original languages but our modern english translations are excellent! The ESV and especially the NASB are extremely accurate to the original Greek. With that said, it is always helpful to dig deeper in the word. One of the things I would say though that is somewhat different than what many others would say is that I don't think the best investment of your money will be in Commentaries. At least right now. I think what will bless your Bible study 100 times more than reading some commentaries is for you to invest your time and money in reading are the amazing books that have come out dealing with Biblical Theology. If you have a robust Biblical Theology, you won't need to use commentaries as much! The devotional commentaries I list below are excellent for devotions but if you really want to get deeper in your understanding of the word, invest in books on Biblical Theology! Here are a few books to get you started, excellent and easy to read. In order of which should be read first
1. Far as the Curse Is Found: The Covenant Story of Redemption
2. According to Plan: The Unfolding Revelation of God in the Bible
3. The King in His Beauty: A Biblical Theology of the Old and New Testaments
If you want to learn more about Biblical Theology as a discipline
1. What Is Biblical Theology?: A Guide to the Bible's Story, Symbolism, and Patterns
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 meditation.
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" (Multi-volume & around same price). 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. All of these commentaries can be engaged with by the average lay person.
My personal Favorite that a lay person could easily enjoy
Matthew Henry's Commentary Set
Expository Thoughts on The Gospel -Ryle
Treasury of David- Spurgeon
James Boice- Multi-Volume set on Romans, John, and a few other books
Macarthur's Commentary Set
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
1. Far as the Curse Is Found: The Covenant Story of Redemption
2. According to Plan: The Unfolding Revelation of God in the Bible
3. The King in His Beauty: A Biblical Theology of the Old and New Testaments
If you want to learn more about Biblical Theology as a discipline
1. What Is Biblical Theology?: A Guide to the Bible's Story, Symbolism, and Patterns
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 meditation.
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" (Multi-volume & around same price). 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. All of these commentaries can be engaged with by the average lay person.
My personal Favorite that a lay person could easily enjoy
Matthew Henry's Commentary Set
Expository Thoughts on The Gospel -Ryle
Treasury of David- Spurgeon
James Boice- Multi-Volume set on Romans, John, and a few other books
Macarthur's Commentary Set
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
Liked by:
Rebekah Songbird Day
Summary Question: Is it better to begin a defense against same-sex marriage by dealing with societal issues (Turek) or Biblical text (White)?
I think the problem comes when one individual looks at one of these approaches and says one is better than the other. As Christians, we are called to care about all human suffering and to seek human flourishing. Of course we desire this primarily in the eternal sense but we are to also care about it in the temporal. In the temporal sense, society, culture, and laws are all things that help promote human flourishing. The lack of them leads to suffering. With that said, the fact that Turek seeks to present those concerns first is not unfaithfulness in any way. In fact, it is faithfulness as he is seeking to address the very things that should concern Christians. He is also being strategic in recognizing that in the public square, the chief concern people have is not "what the Bible says" but what leads to yuma flourishing. By presenting the case the way he does, he has a wider audience and he is meeting them where they are at. The fundamental question for Turek is where does he take them? If ALL he does is share cultural issues than he is being unfaithful. However, if he is using that as a means of engaging with unbelievers where they are but ultimately seeks to lead them to what God says, then it is being winsome. White may have the appearance of being more faithful but for him the same issue plays in. If all he is doing is telling people what the Bible says but not seeking to connect with them where they are as unbelievers, then even though he is being Biblically faithful, he may not be fruitful or even really caring (I am speaking in general, I don't know the man specifically). So many times we alienate ourselves from people in evangelism and cry persecution when in reality it is not that they have alienated us but that we have alienated ourselves by disengaging with unbelievers where they are.
In short, I think that my approach would be to do both. I would be like Turek and speak on the practical societal issues related to same sex marriage but I would be no means end there. I would that as a doorway to presenting the scriptures. I think both need to be done to have a robust fruitful apologetic. Otherwise, your preaching to the choir and not truly seeking to have those outside the faith hear you out.
Again, I don't know to what level White or Turek have been faithful in there approach. I am speaking in general. I think both approaches can be faithful but I think using both is most helpful. Please don't hear me criticizing either of the men personally. I don't know either of them or their heart. I don't even know in deathly about their ministries. I'm not a close follower of James White. I've read some of his books, heard him debate, but I don't follow him too closely.
In short, I think that my approach would be to do both. I would be like Turek and speak on the practical societal issues related to same sex marriage but I would be no means end there. I would that as a doorway to presenting the scriptures. I think both need to be done to have a robust fruitful apologetic. Otherwise, your preaching to the choir and not truly seeking to have those outside the faith hear you out.
Again, I don't know to what level White or Turek have been faithful in there approach. I am speaking in general. I think both approaches can be faithful but I think using both is most helpful. Please don't hear me criticizing either of the men personally. I don't know either of them or their heart. I don't even know in deathly about their ministries. I'm not a close follower of James White. I've read some of his books, heard him debate, but I don't follow him too closely.
I notice that you qualify your comments about many/most theologians you mention with a note about disagreeing with some of their doctrine. Are there any theologians with whom you've wholly agreed that you could identify as representatives for everything you believe doctrinally?
Hahaha! No, and I seriously doubt there is any person on the earth who agrees with me on everything. Even my wife who probably agrees with me more than anyone else gives me pushback on certain things. Grant it, My wife is a "budding" theologian in her own right and generally by the end of debate we are in agreement. I give that remark because I take serious the fact that not many should become teachers and those that do will be held accountable for what they teach. I don't want to give a theologian, even myself, a blank cheek endorsement. There are definitely Theologians who I find myself VERY much in line with and who I disagree on very nuanced issues but to find someone you agree with 100% is impossible apart from Christ if you sat at his feet. Also, I am still young and learning. I am fully confident that my position on various things will change, mature, and become more seasoned. With that, I may agree more later than I do now with another theologian. My desire is to always remain teachable but to be willing to stand on conviction as long as it is Biblical, Orthodox, and Consistent. If It is proved that my conviction is not one of these three things, even if unintentionally; I pray I will have the humility to abandon it, even if rebuked by the newest and most immature of saints.
As a side note, I would also say that if a young theologian just agrees with everything they read from another theologian, chances are they are only soaking in information and not meditating on it deeply. No one wants clones, we want independent orthodox theologians who are humble and recognize the church is always reforming and all men all sinners with biases and blind-spots. Especially them
As a side note, I would also say that if a young theologian just agrees with everything they read from another theologian, chances are they are only soaking in information and not meditating on it deeply. No one wants clones, we want independent orthodox theologians who are humble and recognize the church is always reforming and all men all sinners with biases and blind-spots. Especially them
in regards to the Human Soul which side do you stand on: Creationism or Traducianism?
Really good and complex Question. Let's define terms so others can follow your question.
Traducianism teaches that the human is created through the copulation of a mother and father. TO get more specificic. Just as a new life shares the physical makeup of both parents,The soul in every new life is the makeup of both the mother and father's soul. The Soul is unique to the child but is a by product of the souls of parents just like the body.
Creationism teaches that God creates the soul and imparts it into a new life generally at conception.
Again, Traducianism teaches that apart from Adam whom God breathed the soul into, people receive a soul from their parents. Creationism teaches that God creates the soul outside of the parents and imparts it into the human being at conception.
Hmm...to be honest with you I have yet to stand on a side. Both have biblical support, both are philosophically plausible, and both have history and orthodoxy on their side. I see strengths and weaknesses on both sides. Maybe I'll do a podcast on this issue where I can present those things and work it out on the air. I honestly haven't given adequate thought to have a firm conviction. I think I would more lean towards creationism as I see issues related to Traducianism in how it may understand sin, federal headship, life in light of cloning technology, and even the image of God. Those are some of the main issues I'd like to flesh out if I was to engage with someone who held to the view. Sorry to not answer more deeply, this is a seriously complex issue and I have really limited space and time to flesh it all out on this platform :^)
Traducianism teaches that the human is created through the copulation of a mother and father. TO get more specificic. Just as a new life shares the physical makeup of both parents,The soul in every new life is the makeup of both the mother and father's soul. The Soul is unique to the child but is a by product of the souls of parents just like the body.
Creationism teaches that God creates the soul and imparts it into a new life generally at conception.
Again, Traducianism teaches that apart from Adam whom God breathed the soul into, people receive a soul from their parents. Creationism teaches that God creates the soul outside of the parents and imparts it into the human being at conception.
Hmm...to be honest with you I have yet to stand on a side. Both have biblical support, both are philosophically plausible, and both have history and orthodoxy on their side. I see strengths and weaknesses on both sides. Maybe I'll do a podcast on this issue where I can present those things and work it out on the air. I honestly haven't given adequate thought to have a firm conviction. I think I would more lean towards creationism as I see issues related to Traducianism in how it may understand sin, federal headship, life in light of cloning technology, and even the image of God. Those are some of the main issues I'd like to flesh out if I was to engage with someone who held to the view. Sorry to not answer more deeply, this is a seriously complex issue and I have really limited space and time to flesh it all out on this platform :^)
I apologize for not clearly wording my question. What I really wanted to know is: What do you think of Frank Turek's Apologetic work?
lol, I assumed that's what you meant but figured it was a good opportunity to mess with you :^)
I think he's cool. A lot of times, people get hung up on the various models of apologetics.
"I'm a Presuppositionalist"
"I'm follow the evidential method"
"I follow the new Covenantal approach"
And the truth of the matter is, if you just follow one methodology of apologetics you are a lousy apologist.
I hope that didn't sound ungracious but I do mean it as a rebuke.
A wise and discerning apologist will use whatever method best suits the occasion and if it is debating with unbelievers than most likely at some point numerous methods will be used to reach a full and robust defense of the faith. I think Turek is helpful but I don't think he is as robust as I would like. I'm not aware of any issues with him, though I don't follow him extremely closely. Is there a specific aspect of his approach your wondering about?
I think he's cool. A lot of times, people get hung up on the various models of apologetics.
"I'm a Presuppositionalist"
"I'm follow the evidential method"
"I follow the new Covenantal approach"
And the truth of the matter is, if you just follow one methodology of apologetics you are a lousy apologist.
I hope that didn't sound ungracious but I do mean it as a rebuke.
A wise and discerning apologist will use whatever method best suits the occasion and if it is debating with unbelievers than most likely at some point numerous methods will be used to reach a full and robust defense of the faith. I think Turek is helpful but I don't think he is as robust as I would like. I'm not aware of any issues with him, though I don't follow him extremely closely. Is there a specific aspect of his approach your wondering about?
What is the first Christian book you ever read that really made a difference in your life?
Dietrick Bonhoeffer's "The Cost of Discipleship". Dietrick has some weird theological presuppositions, certain issues that even other Lutherans would roll their eyes at but despite this, this book radically changed my life. Well, it wasn't really the book but a certain sentence in the book that changed my life.
"When Christ bids [calls to salvation] a man, he bids him to come and die"
I came to Christianity through a hyper-charismatic church and they were headed in the direction of Health, Wealth, and Prosperity. My theology of the Gospel was headed in the same direction. However, that sentence literally brought me to my knees and changed the entire direction of my life and ministry. There are some serious theological errors in the book but overall the book is great and was timely for me.
"When Christ bids [calls to salvation] a man, he bids him to come and die"
I came to Christianity through a hyper-charismatic church and they were headed in the direction of Health, Wealth, and Prosperity. My theology of the Gospel was headed in the same direction. However, that sentence literally brought me to my knees and changed the entire direction of my life and ministry. There are some serious theological errors in the book but overall the book is great and was timely for me.
Are you familiar with the Apologetic work of Frank Turek?
Wow, easy question... Yes :^)
What are some of your favorite podcasts to listen to?
I honestly don't listen to much of any podcasts. I'll check out Albert Mohler's "The Briefing" and "Thinking in Public" but that's about it. Any you'd like to recommend :^)
What authors do you enjoy reading in your free time?
Umm... I read a whole lot of authors!!! A few of my favorite modern authors who I read for leisure...
1. Steven Lawson
2. Spurgeon sermons
3. Douglas Bond (Novels)
4. John Flanagan (Novels)
5. Various Children's books with kids
6. A lot of my free reading time is reading with my kids or reading a book out loud with my wife.
1. Steven Lawson
2. Spurgeon sermons
3. Douglas Bond (Novels)
4. John Flanagan (Novels)
5. Various Children's books with kids
6. A lot of my free reading time is reading with my kids or reading a book out loud with my wife.
Hmm... Interesting. What do you think about Luther's antisemitism & all the harsh things he said & wrote against jews?
Well, obviously I disagree. Though I don't think he was as anti-Semitic as many people have made up out to be. He was brash, blunt, and opinionated. Have you read the things he said about Baptists?! I do think Luther had a lot of issues with taming his tongue and that as scripture says in Proverbs, "when words are many, son is sure to follow".
I think he sinned in speech and heart against Jews, Baptists, and many others. I also recognize him as being a man for his times. God raised up Luther as a man you who be bold in speech. More so than anyone else in history. With that great gift came the potential for many shortcomings, many that were met. Of course on a personal level, I love Jewish people. I long for the day that they accept their messiah!
I think he sinned in speech and heart against Jews, Baptists, and many others. I also recognize him as being a man for his times. God raised up Luther as a man you who be bold in speech. More so than anyone else in history. With that great gift came the potential for many shortcomings, many that were met. Of course on a personal level, I love Jewish people. I long for the day that they accept their messiah!
I've seen people claim Jonathan Edwards helped kill Kennedy. Do you know if he did such a thing, or did he pay someone to do it?
LOL, not unless Edwards traveled to the future in a time Machine. They are 200 years removed from each other. Is this a serious question or is someone mocking my ask.fm?
Who do you respect more: Martin Luther or Martin Luther King Jr?
Not even in the same category. Luther was the great Reformer who stood boldly on the word of God and stood against the Catholic Church and ultimately was used of God to break the chains of over a thousand years of Catholic bondage.
King was actually a liberal for most of his life and proclaimed a liberation theology. His PhD dissertation was actually on the myth of the Virgin Birth and resurrection! So many people don't realize King was a liberal thru most his life. Brought up Southern Baptist, he entered into seminary academia around the time virtually all the seminaries were lost to liberalism. He actually preached at SBTS during its liberal days. It wasn't until after his home was bombed and he and his entire family almost died that he realized his liberal theology was bankrupt. He returned to the conservative evangelical faith he was brought up in but even then, still died amidst and adulterous affair. King may have been a believer but he died in the midst of infidelity and that is a horrifying reality for anyone, even a saint in Christ. God used him to accomplish much but I don't believe any man who is found in adultery is worthy of honor.
"Oh God keep me from such a fall!"
With that said, I am much more respect for Luther than King. I respect King for his convictions on love and peace but his theology was poor and his personal character highly questionable. As an African American it is always a bold thing to speak against a people groups idol but there you have it...
King was actually a liberal for most of his life and proclaimed a liberation theology. His PhD dissertation was actually on the myth of the Virgin Birth and resurrection! So many people don't realize King was a liberal thru most his life. Brought up Southern Baptist, he entered into seminary academia around the time virtually all the seminaries were lost to liberalism. He actually preached at SBTS during its liberal days. It wasn't until after his home was bombed and he and his entire family almost died that he realized his liberal theology was bankrupt. He returned to the conservative evangelical faith he was brought up in but even then, still died amidst and adulterous affair. King may have been a believer but he died in the midst of infidelity and that is a horrifying reality for anyone, even a saint in Christ. God used him to accomplish much but I don't believe any man who is found in adultery is worthy of honor.
"Oh God keep me from such a fall!"
With that said, I am much more respect for Luther than King. I respect King for his convictions on love and peace but his theology was poor and his personal character highly questionable. As an African American it is always a bold thing to speak against a people groups idol but there you have it...
I've seen people claim Jonathan Edwards didn't defend the doctrine of penal substitution. Do you know if he believed in it or if he held to some other view
LOL, that's ridiculous. They need to read Edwards. He most certainly affirmed Penal Substitution.
Was Jonathan Edwards a Calvinist?
Yes, Edwards was most definitely a Calvinist. Edwards was not a Puritan though many assume he was. His father was a Puritan but Edwards was 2 generations removed from first wave Puritanism. Despite this, theologically he was Puritan to the core and with that also a Calvinist
How is Calvinist Theology different from Puritan Theology?
It's not, the Puritans were virtually all Calvinists with the exception of Thomas Brooks. Thomas Brooks is a well known Puritan, a favorite of Spurgeon but he was also a classical Arminian. He still had an extremely high view of the sovereignty of God but he believed in Prevenient grace. Apart from Brooks, virtually all the well known Puritans were Calvinists. Some maybe 4 pointers at best.
Thank you so much for answering my questions about Systematic Theologies! You are such an awesome Superhero :D
All of Grace... All of Grace...
How would you describe your style?
Super Swag
Re: Systematic Theologies - I would appreciate it if you could give me 3 recommendation for Old School & New School Systematic Theologies to own. Ex: Give me 3 vintage S.Theologies I should own ex: Calvin, Hodge, etc... & give me 3 contemporary versions I should own ex: W. Grudem
You kinda just did it yourself :^)
OLD
1. Institutes
2. Hodge
3. Puritan Theology (The new systematic from Heritage book that covers the theology of the Puritans. Technically vintage).
NEW
1. Wayne Grudem or Gerald Bray
2. John Frame
3. Michael Horton
OLD
1. Institutes
2. Hodge
3. Puritan Theology (The new systematic from Heritage book that covers the theology of the Puritans. Technically vintage).
NEW
1. Wayne Grudem or Gerald Bray
2. John Frame
3. Michael Horton
What made you choose southern baptist theological seminary over other seminaries?
That's a weird question. I never said I went to southern. If by this question you mean which seminary would I recommend to others.... I would definitely recommend Southern. They professors at Southern are the men who write the textbooks for all the other seminaries. Why go there and pay the same when you can learn from the men directly. Beautiful campus, awesome local churches, and godly brilliant staff puts southern ahead of the other Seminaries in my opinion. I'm assuming this is what you meant. My Super Theological powers come directly from the king of glory ;^)
Next
