The Super Theologian

Hey! I am a Presuppositionalist though that by no means should be taken to mean that I reject other methods of practicing apologetics. Presuppositionalism just simply means that I recognize that that at the foundation of every ideology are a set of presuppositions and if you truly seek to compel someone to change there mind about something you have to attack their most fundamental understandings of reality....Or presuppositions. I certainly believe in the evidentiary method as well as various other methodologies as well. Van Till is very good and very thoughtful. I don't agree with everything he has said but he is definitely worth reading. At the end of the day, it is the Gospel which is the power of God unto salvation. As helpful as apologetics can be for Christian hope and defending the faith in the public square, we must also recognize that only the Gospel has the power to change god-hating hearts. NO ONE comes to God by being intellectually convinced. Apologetics assist in removing unnecessary intellectual barriers to the faith but only the Gospel has be power to change hearts.

---

Below are links to 3 of his most popular works. Not familiar with any commentaries he may have written.

---

http://www.amazon.com/Introduction-Systematic-Theology-Prolegomena-Revelation/dp/0875527892/ref=pd_bxgy_b_text_z

---

http://www.amazon.com/The-Defense-Faith-Cornelius-Van/dp/0875526446/ref=pd_bxgy_b_text_y

---

http://www.amazon.com/Christian-Apologetics-Cornelius-Van-Til/dp/0875525113/ref=pd_bxgy_b_text_y

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

lol, I don't think my impact has grown too much but I praise God for the impact I have had. I have received a couple of emails from saints encouraging me and just the idea that I have helped one saint know their God better or have some degree of encouragement causes my heart to overflow with praise. I have definitely considered revealing my identity. I absolutely plan on doing that in the future. The fact of the matter is that my alter0ego isn't a famous Christian celebrity. I am just a faithful Husband, father, Theologian, and Local Church lay-leader (Church planter soon). In all honesty, my experience has been, as an ethnically diverse Christian Theologian, that people assume that I do not know much. Being The Super Theologian allows me the opportunity to speak into people's lives and to share robust theology without the ethnic hindrances that still plague the Western church. As my impact gets larger, I get more inclined to reveal my Secret Identity. Right now, I am considering it revealing it at about 1000 followers. That could change. Other things I am considering is starting a podcast (As The Super Theologian), starting my own website with other teachings & Resources (As The Super Theologian), as well other ways to connect to my followers. Of course there is also the fact that once my identity is known, it may take away some of the fun of people knowing me just as The Super Theologian. What do you thing of these other ideas? DO you think I should reveal my identity sooner? :^)

View more

I have personal relationships with some of the people who work at Reach. Though I don't necessarily agree with all of their "artistic" decisions, I think that what they are doing is great and I know their heart behind it personally. I have actually spoken for many hours with some people who... Let's just say know the ins and outs of Reach Records about a theology of music, art, and the medium of Hip-Hop for Kingdom advancement. It has been really good conversations.

---

One of the things that stand out to me is the self-righteousness of many Christians as it relates to music. Many Christians criticize Reach Rec. for what they claim is compromise. Here is the irony, I personally believe that Lecrae and other guys like Andy Mineo are the first CHH who are actually being evangelistic with their music. For decades CHH has only preached to the choir. It has had a faulty missiology that says, "We make music for the lost but they got to come to church events in order to hear it and they better know there Bible and Theology too if they really want to receive the message." These brothers (Reach) are pioneers in trying to speak to the lost and bring a robust Christian worldview to the lost secular Hip-Hop culture. They are bringing the Christian worldview to people rather than waiting for people to come to them (Evangelism). Sway on his radio show (where Kanye, Snoop Dogg, Jay-Z, Nas, etc. have been guests) was practically crying the last time Lecrae rapped on his show! He kept saying, "Lecrae is bringing truth, we need this truth". Yet, ironically, other Christian Rappers who write songs only for other Christians are claiming Reach is compromising. I truly think that some of these other artists (who my alter-ego knows to various degrees) need to repent. That is like a Christian Urban guy criticizing an urban missionary in Africa for wearing African attire rather than jeans and Tims.

---

With that said, I think that there have been many times where the Artists at Reach records have given really poor interviews. They have, to some degree compromised boldness but it isn't their style of life. They are consistently bold for Christ. Since they are trying to navigate new terrain there is great chances of failures, sin, and short-comings but they should be receiving support from other Christians and correction when necessary but with grace. Not Ridicule. From my personal experience, the guys at Reach are very humble, teachable, and open to correction when done faithfully.

---

As far as modern media is concerned, it has tremendous potential for advancing the Gospel! However, there are numerous dangers and pitfalls and Christians must be discerning. We must use media as a tool for Kingdom advancement and always ensure that our media isn't using us. That would be my short answer, feel free to ask follow up for greater clarity (out of space for this Answer).

View more

Historically, Classical Arminianism had been deemed heretical primarily because of its close ties to semi-pelagianism. The reformers saw that Arminianism had great potential in falling into that heresy amongst others and I think that they were right in the potentials. I think the credibility of their assertion is seen today in the fact that most Arminians that I have met and many whom I have read are not actually Arminian but semi-pelagian. Even the document drafted by the Arminian camp of the SBC which included very well known saints like Paige Patterson was leaning on Semi-Pelagianism very hard and even putting at least one foot in it at times. The Church believed (I would say rightly) that Arminianism had lowered the view of God's sovereignty and elevated Man's. In response to the dangers presented in Arminian theology the church deemed it heretical.
I personally think that the Church deeming Arminianism heretical was more reactionary than theological. The whole 5 pts of Calvinism was a reactionary response to the 5 points of Arminianism. I do not think Arminianism is heretical if by heretical you are referring to a teaching that is a distortion of the Gospel and by being so its adherents are anathema (accursed). Orthodox? It has a weak track record, 1600 forward. Church Fathers were all Calvinistic! It's "Orthodoxish". I do think Arminianism is a false teaching much like many other false teachings like Paedobaptism (Historically orthodox). By false teaching I mean a teaching that claims 2 B Biblically faithful but in actuality is not a an accurate interpretation that is faithful to the scriptures. I personally believe that Arminianism has a completely different methodology of developing its doctrine of sanctification. Arminians develop their doctrine of Salvation from the ground up. By that I mean they begin with the sovereignty of Man's will rather than the Sovereignty of God's will. B/c Arminians develop their theology from wrong starting place they get critical things wrong.
Open Theism is heresy but I believe that a philosophically consistent Arminianism meets its conclusion in Open Theism. Praise God most Arminians aren't Philosophically consistent! I don't mean that as insult, I'm being genuinely serious. It was the Churches recognition of where Arminianism logically leads that made them deem it heresy prematurely. I don't think Arminianism is heresy in and of itself but I believe logical consistency will lead an Arminian into Open-Theism. Proof? Virtually all Open-Theist Philosophers began as Arminians Philosophers! The reason for this is, because they were philosophers they followed their beliefs to philosophical & logical conclusions. More could be said but in short, I do not find Arminianism heresy. I believe it is a false teaching that undermines the glory of God in Salvation much like Presbyterianism undermines the Glory of God in Conversion/regeneration and Christ's Priestly office by Baptizing infants. Out of space. Love U!!

View more

"Friendship arises...when two or more...discover that they have in common some insight or interest....'Do you love me?' means 'Do you see the same truth?'- or at least, 'Do you care about the same truth?' The man who agrees with us that some question, little regarded as others, is of great importance can be our friend... That is why those pathetic people who dimly 'want friends' can never make any. The very condition of having friends is that we should want something else besides friends. Where the truthful answer to the question 'Do You see the same truth?' would be "I don't care about the truth-I only want [you to be my] friend,' no friendship can arise. Friendship must be about something, even if it were only an enthusiasm for dominoes or white mice. Those who have nothing can share nothing; those who are going nowhere can have no fellow-travelers." (C.S. Lewis, The Four Loves)

---

A deep friendship provides "the inexpressible comfort of feeling safe with a person-having neither to weigh thoughts nor measure words, but pouring them all right out, just as they are, chaff and grain together; certain that a faithful hand will take and sift them, keep what is worth keeping, and then with the breath of kindness blow the rest away." (Dinah Maria Mulock Craik, A life for a Life)

View more

I think Christian Hedonism as defined by John Piper is absolutely Biblical. It is Biblically, Theologically, and Philosophically the right way to understand the Christian life. However, I am not a fan of the terminology Piper has chosen to describe it. As a Theologian and Philosopher, the nuances of words are very important to me. In many ways, words are the most critical tools of the theologian or philosophers trade. With that being said, the term Hedonism has already been defined and understood for centuries. Trying to apply it to the Christian life is not helpful, especially when trying to explain it to people who already have an understanding of what Hedonism is. It just leaves a bad taste in people's mouths. I understand Piper's distinction find and don't personally have a problem with it. I don't generally use it though. As an Historical Theologian I generally refer to myself as an "Edwardian" A follow of Jonathan's Edward's philosophy of the Christian Life. That is the term many Historians or theologians use to describe Pipers perspective. Piper's perspective really is just a repackaged Edwardian philosophy of Christian living. Even then though, I am not a huge fan of describing my biblical understanding my naming myself off someone else. Edwardian, Calvinism, I don't think these men would like others doing that and I don't think its helpful. Generally, I would just refer to the way I live as a living a way that is consistent with Biblical Christianity. Then I would explain how my view of the Christian life is Biblical. Of course this takes more time but in the long run I think it is more helpful.

---

In Short, I agree with the Jesus, The Apostle Paul, Augustine, Luther, Calvin, the Puritans, Jonathan Edwards and John Piper that "God is most glorified in us, when we are most Satisfied in him." Do you have to call that Christian Hedonism? I don't think so. Why not just call it Christianity. Feel free to ask me what "Christian Hedonism" is from my perspective. This question was simply whether or not I agree with it. :^)

View more

Isaiah 32:11 can most certainly be used in the greater salvific sense. For one, Isaiah is the most Christological book in the Old Testament. second, Yahweh as Savior is directly connected to Christ as Savior because all God's saving activity is done through the Son. All the work of God is decreed by the father, acted by the Son, through the power of The Spirit. The saving work of God is always Christological. This applies to Israel or the greater Israel, the church. It is critical to understand this principle while reading the Old Testament. The pre-incarnate Christ is the savior of Israel in the temporal sense and the savior of Israel as it relates to the whole of humanity. Remember the vision Joshua had at the river of the Angel (Theophony). Joshua saw the reincarnate Christ! And what did he tell him? He told Joshua that he was the one protecting Israel! Great Question and very important answer. All of the saving work of God is done through the son. There are numerous Biblical Theological connections that can be made once this reality is grasped! :^)

View more