The Super Theologian

Yeah, I own all three. on a scale of 1-10 here is my overall rating
Michael F. Bird's =5 (was very disappointing, Evangelical is broad term in work)
John Frame=9 (Very academic, good, a third of the book is just regurgitated summary of his Lordship series)
Gerald Bray=9 ( I like format, easier to read than Frame but similar depth, I disagree with a few things-wish he would have added a few things).

---

Best and most accurate Review of "God is Love" by scholar Tom Schreiner
http://themelios.thegospelcoalition.org/article/a-biblical-theologian-reviews-gerald-brays-systematic-theology
I agree completely with review.

---

Out of the 3 I would recommend Bray first without any reservations. I think it is the clear winner of the three. Frame 2nd and Bird third though I would pass entirely on if I could reset time. Schreiners "The King and His Beauty" or his more comprehensive "New Testament Theology" are both on par with Bray if not better overall :^) (They are Biblical Theologies though.

View more

In all honesty, not at all for multiple reasons. First, it's a theological hypothetical not based on any sound data. I don't give much weight to unfounded theological hypotheticals. Virtually all scholars agree that Revelation was written at the close of 1st century.

---

Second, even if it was written prior to 70, Postmill would still be the weakest Biblical & Theological position concerning the eschaton. I reject Postmill on Biblical, Theological, Philosophical, and Social grounds. It requires a (with all respect) weak Biblical Theology, it's Theologically untenable, and it's Philosophically inconsistent.

---

As I have said before, One of my great concerns about Postmill is I think it's an Western Elitist Doctrine. There is a reason why practically all Postmill advocates are White Americans or Europeans (Puritans). I don't mean to offend but I think it is a position held by those who lack a comprehensive understanding of what is occurring around the world and are stuck in their prosperous western bubble of safety. Americans & Eastern Europeans make up about 20% of Christianity. The other 80% belong to countries that are experiencing persecution. If you were to tell those other roughly 80% of Christians there is no tribulation, it would be the height of insensitivity. They would respond "we are in it now!" Postmill cannot be an eschatology that can be universally applied to the church and is therefore wrong. More Christians have been martyred in past 100 years than all of Christian history combined!

---

Personally, as a minority, if I meet a Christian PostMillenialist I can already assume they are American and Caucasian. I would also assume that they lack global awareness of the church. I don't only think Postmill is unbiblical, I think there are subtle prejudice dynamics to it and it is insensitive to saints suffering. I pray I haven't offended you beloved in my answer but I do have strong feelings against it not just theologically but socially. White Postmill Christians (almost all Postmills) who seek to convince me of Postmillenialism would have as much trouble convincing me of their position as they would convincing me that the "Republican" party is God's political party. I find it that culturally tied and bias. I am very conservative but not "Republican". I honestly am not a person who frequently pulls the race or ethnic card. I promise you I'm not! However, I do think the issue of Postmill carries certain ethnic prejudices with it that many of my beloved caution brothers don't see. All this is said in love and recognizing one race in Adam! Grace and peace!

View more

That is an excellent question! As a Super Theologian and teacher of Theology, it is important to have your doctrine worked out. Even Paul told Timothy to watch his doctrine. It is very hard to watch your doctrine if you aren't settled in your doctrine. If your a teacher of theology this is all the more important. You could be wrong but having confidence or conviction is important. No one wants to sit under a teacher who says, "I dunno, I think this might be right but it could just as well be wrong, I have no real idea but whichever". It is for this reason that I think those who do not have conviction on a particular doctrine shouldn't teach it but rather learn until they do have strong conviction. Of course of the worst and most dangerous things a person can be is "confident in falsehood". That is the disposition of all heretics and false teachers! If I was to choose a doctrine I'm least stalwart about it would probably be between me choosing Amillenialism over classical Premillenialism. I think there is a lot of Biblical warrant to adhere to either one. I lean Amill but I completely understand Premill saints. I do think the case is stronger for Amill but I'm somewhat relaxed here. I would take strong convictional stance against post-mill and Classical Dispensationalism. I would like to emphasize that me being confident in my doctrine is not to be taken in anyway that I think I have everything figured out. I'm sure I am wrong in some areas of doctrine and I really want to be someone who walks in a "humble confidence" and a teachable spirit. Again, great question!

View more

This is just a Summary of my view!

---

Paedos say that New Covenant Church membership is like the Old covenant membership of Israel. As a nation being under the Old Covenant, it included children. Just like the Old Covenant was made up of both regenerate and unregenerate so is the New Covenant church. However, Jeremiah 31:31 says that the New Covenant will not be like Old and will be made up of people with new hearts (regeneration). PaedoBaptists don’t consistently walk in the glory of the New Covenant which is a regenerate people. a people where no one has to say to the other "know the Lord" for every member will know him (Jeremiah 31:34).

---

Regarding New Covenant (Jeremiah 31:31) Jeremiah says in verse 34,
And no longer shall each one teach his neighbor and each his brother, saying, ‘Know the Lord, ’ for they shall all know me, from the least of them to the greatest, declares the Lord. For I will forgive their iniquity, and I will remember their sin no more

---

Christ died for his church. Paedos will then argue that the Church is made up of believers and their children. Just like the OT priest was priest over a whole family (believer & unbeliever), Jesus is Priest over church (believer and unbeliever). Hebrews says when covenant changes then priesthood must change (Hebrews 7). PaedoBaptists ignore this and try to live under a revised model of Old Covenant Priesthood. Hebrews 7 makes it clear that the New Covenant also has a new priesthood. PaedoBaptists must claim that within the new Priesthood there is both unregenerate and regenerate…So Christ is Priest over the regenerate and unregenerate? As priest Christ is the sacrifice for believers and unbelievers? If Christ is priest over unbelievers that means he sacrificed himself for them and you have unlimited atonement. If Christ is Priest over unbelievers that means he intercedes for the non-elect which is also the work of the Priest. You see, Paedobaptism does not just undermine Baptism and it is not just a matter of “pick your verse on Baptist." Paedo Baptists undermine the entire Priesthood! Reformed PaedoBaptists undermine their whole theology. Follow logic….

---

1. Jesus is Priest over church

---

2. Church is made up of believers & unbelievers

---

3. Jesus is therefore Priest over unbelievers

---

4. Jesus sacrificed himself and intercedes for unbelievers (The work of a Priest)

---

5. If Jesus paid the ultimate sacrifice for sin and he did that sacrifice for the church (believer and unbeliever)

---

6. There are people under Christ’s priesthood who are unregenerate but still saved and interceded for.

---

7. There really is no elect.

---

8. The New Priesthood is not better than the old (Hebrews 7 undermined)

---

PaedoBaptism is not just about Baptism. It is about The doctrine of the work of Christ (Priesthood), Doctrine of Regeneration, The meaning of New Covenant, Doctrine of the Curch, The doctrine of election, and so many other issues that become inconsistent from a paedobaptist standpoint. That’s my view in a nutshell :^)

View more

Ah, I got you. I think I missed the question first time around. Yeah, I'm sure the Apostles recognized that there would be false professors in the church but their writings were written presupposing its recipients were converted. They didn't assume the church was unregenerate. They assumed all those in the church were regenerate until fruit proved otherwise. By assumed I don't mean that they were naive. What I mean is that everyone who joined the church and received membership was considered to have made a genuine profession. With that, they assumed those professions to be legitimate with all until proven otherwise. They knew that in some cases a profession would be false. Did they walk around with a critical eye? no. They encouraged the saints to bear fruit in keeping with repentance and to watch their life and examine themselves. They also warned of falling away in Hebrews 6. Remember, the church is made up of regenerate church members and so even Revelation 3:14 is not recognizing unconverted church membership. What it is doing is warning a church who is lacking fruit that if they continue on that path they may prove that they don't actually belong to God. That text isn't presupposing unbelievers- I would argue that it is presupposing that the church would respond to the warning in obedience and faith. Both texts you mention are texts used to lead to self-examination of a credible faith and reinvigorate faithfulness. I actually don't think they indicate unbelievers in the church though I'm sure they were there. Rather, I think they are warning believers that they better be making sober assessments of the faith they posses and its implications. Sorry for missing the point of your question the first time. Hopefully I did better this time around :^)

View more

Great Question! For the sake of theological nuance I would not use the term "disposition" of wrath. The reason I would avoid that is because the term "disposition" generally implies the chief direction or attitude of a person. God's wrath is not an inherent attribute but a contingent one. To explain further, God's attribute of wrath cannot be be considered inherent because prior to the fall it was not present. God's Justice and Holiness was eternally met with delight and acceptance within the Godhead. Therefore, wrath is an attribute of God which is contingent upon rebellion against his law and character. Since wrath is contingent and not inherent I don't think using the term of an "eternal disposition if wrath is helpful". God's disposition will always be one of joy, delight, and love as he is completely fulfilled within himself and judgement of the unrepentant sinner will not have such an effect on god that his disposition changes. Will God have an eternal expression of wrath towards sinners? Yes! God will execute Justice and wrath for all eternity towards unrepentant sinners but he will do so as a necessary or contingent response to sin and not in a way that takes away from his perfect joy and delight that he finds in his elect. Therefore, God will eternally express and execute wrath towards sinners but his disposition will be one of eternal delight in himself (Godhead) and his elect! Praise God!

---

Hope this helps!!!

View more

Interesting question. I definitely think I understand why you are asking this question but I would still challenge the assumption you make regarding the letters being written to both believers and unbelievers. I don't think that assumption is biblically supported beloved. Virtually all the Epistles in the New Testament clearly state that they are written to God's people. Even when you get to those in scandalous sin like the Corinthian church, Paul speaks to the church and tells them to remove the scandal. The letters are all clearly written to churches and to the people of God. What we glean from the epistles is that churches are filled with redeemed sinners but sinners nonetheless. Ecclesiastically I think this speaks to is by informing how ministers care for God's people. Pastors must know they are caring for sinners and things will het messy. The sacraments? We Baptize those who are genuine believers and in so doing we also protect the church from scandal. When scandal comes, we see either repentance in church discipline or excommunication. Lord's Table-people are to make sober assessment of their spiritual state before partaking... Feel free to ask follow up for greater clarity. Try to be more specific :^)

View more

I agree with you that both gluttony and laziness are serious blind spots in the western church. I want to nuance my answer by emphasizing "Western" church. America and Eastern Europe make up about 20% of the Christian global church and I don't think those things are the predominate blind spots across the other 80% of the church which is experiencing intense persecution and even hunger.

---

I think another major blind-spot in the lives of western Christians that is often ignored if the issue of violent/gory entertainment. There are so many Christians who have a seared conscience in the realm of violent & gory entertainment. When it comes to such things, many do not apply the reality of being image bearers. I apply this the saints who watch UFC (men beat each other bloody and unconscience). Violent movie and video games that do not simply depict violence as a way of presenting reality but rather present it in a way where the viewer finds entertainment or delight in watching or playing with gore and violence.

---

The Global blind spots of the church are doctrine and church history. Christianity as a whole lacks an understanding of orthodoxy and history. Especially Protestants! In our attempt I separate from Catholicism, Anglican, and Lutheranism, we have completely rejected the benefit and guiding light of church history. This has led to severe doctrinal error here in the west as well as abroad. Prosperity preachers are benefitting materially most from the church's neglect of knowledge in church history

View more

Philippians 2:12-13
"Therefore, my beloved, as you have always obeyed, so now, not only as in my presence but much more in my absence, work out your own salvation with fear and trembling, for it is God who works in you, both to will and to work for his good pleasure."

---

This is one of the most popular texts that are taken out of context. Lets expound on the section you are asking about, "work out your own salvation with fear and trembling, for it is God who works in you, both to will and to work for his good pleasure." We are commanded to work out our salvation with fear and trembling but we are also given the motivation for why we are to this "FOR it is God who works in you". The fear and trembling that this text speaks about is the reality that the Spirit of the living God is dwelling in you and working in you. This text brings greater assurance because we have God working in us! What is he doing? "both to will and to work for his good pleasure."

---

Yes, we are called to be actively pursuing sanctification. This consists of everything from Spiritual disciplines, to works of service and love. However, we are not to do so with fear and trembling in the sense of worry that we won't work it out enough and get a failing grade from God. The fear and trembling we experience while we work out our salvation is a holy awe- a worshipful amazement that behind our efforts is the living God working in side us. Too often people have taught that this text is speaking of a fear and trembling in the working out of our salvation and they are only quoting half the verse. The fear and trembling comes from a humble acknowledge that behind our efforts, the Holy Spirit is the one who is working Christ-likeness into us. Praise God! Hope this helps!

View more

Well, I have my ideas but my Super Powers don't include omniscience and so I can't say anything with authority since it happened almost 2000 years ago. Scholars are pretty certain that the Apostle Paul did not write Hebrews even though that is what most in the early church believed. We know Paul didn't write it because the Greek is literally different than the Greek Paul used. Not only is the letter not reasoned like Paul but sentence structure, vocabulary, and even idioms are completely different than all of Paul's writings. I would submit that though Paul didn't write it, whoever did must have been in Paul's inner-circle. I would conclude this because of the overwhelming support for Pauline authorship held by the early church. To me, there is no way so many could have assumed Paul unless it was written by someone so close to Paul that Paul was the logical assumption. This leads to 3 options,

---

Luke- Great arguments have been put forward for Lukan authorship of Hebrews. I ultimately disagree. My main hang-up on this theory is the fact that Luke was Greek and the writer of Hebrews must have had extensive knowledge of Judaism and the Levitical Priesthood. The Biblical Theology of the Priesthood in Hebrews is mind boggling and I don't think Luke fits the bill but it is very possible. Excellent book here and very convincing. I'm open to this theory--> http://www.amazon.com/Authorship-Hebrews-American-Commentary-Theology/dp/0805447148/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1407850496&sr=1-1&keywords=lukan+authorship+of+hebrews

---

Barnabas- Was a Levite (Acts 5:36)! He also was a close friend to all the other Apostles before Paul knew them (Acts 9:27). He would not have only had an extensive knowledge of the Levitical priesthood as a Levite but he also had a close relationship with the 12 Apostles and could have had his knowledge refined by all of them to have one of the most robust Biblical Theologies of how Christ fulfills the Priesthood. He was also Paul's right hand man which leads to the reason why the Church assumed his letter was Paul's. Though gifted, Barnabas always played the background and let Paul get the spotlight (which is why he was called Zeus and Paul Hermes in Acts 14:12). He wrote nothing else we are aware of and so this could explain why the writing style of Hebrews is unique with hints of Pauline. I lean most towards Barnabas. He was a Levite, Knew the 12 and had their insight, Paul's right hand man, everything fits!

---

I think Luke or Barnabas are best options for Hebrew authorship for the reasons listed. That's the best I can do with my Super Power of seeing through Biblical, Theological, and Historical nuances. :^)

View more

The idea of suicide being an unpardonable sin was developed by the Roman Catholic church a Millenia ago. The concept is that because Humanity is made in the image of God, Human life is priceless. For someone to take another person’s life or there own is the most evil thing that can be done. A murderer, has time to do acts of penance, buy indulgences, & do various other acts of service to gain enough merit to still get into heaven. For the suicide, they kill themselves so they cannnot do act of penance and are damned…
There is NO biblical support 4 this. I mean no disrespect but It is built on faulty Catholic doctrine. The only unpardonable sin is the sin of blaspheming the Holy Spirit (that’s another issue). It is very possible for a believer to be so discouraged and depressed that in the midst of despair they take there life. Salvation comes through believing Christ and his Gospel. To claim suicide as an opt-out of salvation is a complete misunderstanding and misapplying of the Gospel and what is necessary for someone to be saved. Consider Elijah, after Jezebel threatened him, the Bible says he ran away and curled up in a cave so depressed “he wanted to die”. He did not kill himself but the text makes it clear that it’s possible for a beliver to be depressed to the point of wanting death.
When a professing Christian commits suicide it is a tragic event. It speaks 2 the struggles of a human soul and to the necessity of a local church. When I hear about a believer doing such a thing I immediate think, “where was the church, how did they get to such a dark place without others in the body knowing. Did others know?” No Christian should be able to live a life of darkness with others not at least knowing about it.
Local church community should be so tight and close that anyone who is going through such things has many saints whom they can confide in and seek help to.
Christians sin every day. Christians sin actually every second as there has never been a moment when we love God with all our mind, heart, and strength which is the greatest commandment. This is why understanding the Gospel by faith alone is so critical. Without it, we can never have salvation. We can’t work enough penance to forgive the sin we commit every second! Suicide is a terrible way to go but at the end of the day, if someone asserts that a Suicide means a person does not go to heaven, I have to simply respond by saying in love, they may not know the Gospel. They may look at themselves and may not yet realize how pervasive sin is in their own life. they may still be looking at others like the Pharisee to the tax collector. Salvation is by Faith Alone. Praise God for this.
I do want to stress however that dying in the midst of awful sin should be a fate no Christian desires. Every Christian should strive 2 enter into glory triumphant. It could be the person doesn't know him. All is not lost when a Christian takes their life tho. It can look Grim but The Gospel secures sinners

View more

R.I.P. originally comes from the Latin phrase "Requiescat in pace". In modern times it has been translated "Rest in Peace" The phrase was originated in Roman Catholicism and was a prayer written on the tomb stone of the deceased. Consider the phrase. Because Catholics do not have assurance of salvation, they were never sure exactly who would get into heaven or how long it would take (purgatory). Because Catholic Dogma lacks assurance this prayer was developed as a final well-wishing of the deceased. It was not meant to imply that the loved ones hoped the deceased would sleep peacefully in the grave but rather that they would one day be raised and have rest in Jesus.

---

The Protestant Reformers as far as I know never used the phrase. Within protestantism, there was the belief that a person could know whether or not they were going to heaven. In protestantism, Jesus died on the Cross once and for all for sin and all who believe upon him will be saved. The salvation of the Christian is so secure that scripture, Romans 8:30 says they have been predestined, called, sanctified, and even glorified (future present tense-already happened). Because of this reality it wasn't necessary to wish professing Christians "make it". In modern times this phrase has become somewhat of a catch phrase. Personally, I don't think there is anything wrong with it but it is important to understand its history and recognize that the prayer should chiefly be used towards those whose profession was questionable and not towards faithful Christians whose hope is certain who die clearly in Christ. Hope this is helpful.

View more

Yes, The Doctrine of the Incarnation explains why Jesus had no original sin. To deny the Virgin birth is to deny Jesus as the Spotless lamb and in so doing reject the Gospel and any sense of imputed righteousness. Liberals and others who reject the Virgin Birth don't understand the ramifications of it. Many think it is just some frivolous unnecessary doctrine. NOT SO AT ALL! Christianity must stand firm on the Virgin Birth

---

Side Note: The Catholic Doctrine of the Immaculate Conception does not refer to the Sinlessness of Jesus. This is a common misconception amongst Protestants. The Immaculate Conception actually speaks to the sinlessness of Jesus' Mother Mary. Catholics believe that Mary was without original sin as well as Jesus. This allows them to venerate Mary and consider her a co-redeemer along with Christ. Again, the Doctrine of the Immaculate Conception refers to the sinlessness of Mary not Jesus.

View more