Reply to Tyler

Tyler, I'm going to address your comment point by point, then give you some general feedback/opinion about what you said. Feel free to wait until after finals to read through and respond to this comment. I don’t want (a) to interfere with your studying or (b) you to read this too quickly without thinking carefully about what I’m saying.

Let's Talk About Sex

Introduction

            The Bible is extremely explicit on sex. From the Genesis 2 passage to explain that a man and woman will become one flesh, through to the sexually immoral dogs of Revelation 22, sex is a constant topic of conversation in this book. The current culture has redefined and perverted sex beyond the point of recognition. This perversion has caused some to misunderstand the church’s view, saying that the Bible condemns sex or that we aren’t meant to enjoy it. But, a proper handling of the word of God reveals the true view of sex, and this view is the subject of the following paper. To begin, we will discuss the pertinent passages to the issue, and then, from these passages, we will define the biblical model of good, moral, sex. After this, we will look at the boundaries that should not be crossed, boundaries that protect us from the perversions of sex, which carry physical, emotional, and spiritual consequences. Then, some of the most common perversions of sex will be addressed from the biblical standpoint.

Don't Be Who You Are. Be Someone Better.

            There is a cultural phenomenon sweeping through our world today, and I think it can best be epitomized by a comment made by Taylor Swift in an interview discussing her hit music video “Shake it Off.” The comment was, “I wanted it to be—kind of—unapologetic about like, ‘you don’t like me for being who I am, watch me be who I am more.’” [1]

            It’s the phenomenon of being who you are… unapologetically. Some female celebrities who have spearheaded this phenomenon are Jennifer Lawrence (known for her wacky behavior and outspoken nature on unhealthy body image), Taylor Swift (quoted above), Miley Cyrus (whose antics are well known). Many pop-stars fall into this mold. Justin Beiber is so used to steering into the skid that he decided to strip at a fashion show because he was being booed.[2] Talk about individuality!

            It’s a philosophy that says, “I’m not going to let other people tell me who to be. I’m going to decide who I am.” The hilarious and ironic subtext of this proposal is that most decide to be who they are by being the opposite of what everyone tells them to be, which means that they are still allowing public opinion to determine their personality.  

            It’s also a philosophy that has been adopted by the homosexual community, the transgender community, and the feminist community. From the feminists we often hear ‘positive’ descriptions of women who live by this philosophy as strong, sassy, feisty, and independent. From the homosexual community we hear comments about being ‘born that way’ and the transgender community says that it’s wrong not to be true to ‘who you are on the inside.’

            The problem with a philosophy like this is that it encourages people to look to themselves to determine right behavior. Unfortunately, the self is corrupt and wicked. Rene Descartes’ fatal idea ‘I think therefore I am,’ has encouraged humanity down through the ages to turn inward for the source of truth instead of turning to the author of truth, and we see the imports of such a philosophy lived out in our culture.

The Script

A script has been given to Christians today

It tells them the words that a Christian should say.

Lord fill my heart or Lord give me peace

Lord use your power to make my pain cease

We speak the right words and we do the right deeds

And say we're, quote, "ready to go and plant seeds."

if you pray for me then I’ll go pray for you.

Take love and make love… but show love? To who?

My neighbors are mean, and my enemies lie

And I want my friends to think I’m a nice guy!

This script, farce, lie, fantasy, play we perform

To satisfy those who, like us, are lukewarm

Who claim to believe and say that they know

But really right now have a lump in their throat

Cause they never did stop for a minute to think

Is it actually true?

                            before taking a blink

And then joining in singing and praising THEIR God.

The created lay’s claim never thinking it's odd.

Simply say the right words and close your eyes tight.

It won’t have to be true if I act the part, right?

The Seven Signs of John's Gospel

Introduction

            Within the Gospel of John, there are seven or eight – depending on one’s outline – major miracles recorded. This paper will take the position that the healing of Lazarus, and not the resurrection itself, was the seventh sign. That being said, they are as follows: (1) Turning water into wine, (2) healing an official’s son, (3) healing at the pool of Bethesda (4) feeding of the five-thousand, (5) walking on water, (6) healing of the man born blind, (7) raising Lazarus from the dead. The Resurrection of Jesus will be treated as an eighth miracle and not examined here since this miracle is the one in which a person puts his faith, and so is different in quality to the seven previous miracles that attest to the eighth. These seven miracles are all recorded for a singular purpose, which John states near the end of his Gospel. “These are written so that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, and that by believing you may have life in His name.” Each of these miracles will, in turn, be described in detail and all of the implications regarding the historical context will be given. After that, it will be explained how each miracle lends support to John’s overall purpose, as recorded in 20:31.

Who Wrote Hebrews?

Introduction

Among the books that comprise the New Testament, few incite as much controversy about the nature of their authorship as the letter that begins not with a greeting, but with an assertion about how God communicates to his people. Commonly called “Hebrews” because of its extremely Jewish slant in argumentation and assumptions, this book gives an insight into the superiority of Jesus Christ over all previous revelations from God. The question that plagues scholars of the work is simply, “Who wrote it?”

This question has been beaten and battered throughout the centuries and no conclusion has been reached. There are, however, a few leading theories as to its authorship. This paper will strive to present the cases for the most widely suggested authors and the arguments for and against each suggestion, as well as how each suggestion has been accepted throughout history. That stated, the most commonly suggested authors of the book of Hebrews in our day, arranged in order of age of the view, are: (1) Paul, (2) Barnabas, (3) Luke, (4) Apollos, and (5) Priscilla.

Progressive Dispensationalism in Comparison to Normative Dispensationalism

Introduction

When discussing Progressive Dispensationalism (PD) it is important to first establish its origin and a working definition so as to distinguish it from other theological systems. PD began its public life at the annual Evangelical Theological Society meeting in Atlanta Georgia in 1986. It’s main formulators were Darrel L. Bock and Craig A. Blaising, out of Dallas Theological Seminary, and Robert L. Saucy out of Talbot Theological Seminary. [1] These men put forward a critique and adjustment of Normative Dispensationalism (ND) that was different enough to merit defining an entirely new system.

The 7 Dispensations in Normative Dispensationalism

Introduction

Depending on one’s dispensational theology, as few as three dispensations can be argued over in scripture. In the passage that most clearly gives the basis for Dispensationalism, Ephesians 1-3, there are at least three spoken of. However, most dispensationalists will hold to a seven-dispensation view. These are the seven that will be discussed in this paper: Innocence, Conscience, Human Government, Patriarchal Rule, Law, Grace, and Millennium. Each dispensation, or economy of government between God and man, follows loosely the same pattern. A test or requirement is given from God to man, man fails to meet the standard set by God, God issues a judgment on man and ushers in a new dispensation. The main source to be used in this paper is Charles Ryrie’s Dispensationalism: Revised and Expanded, because it is, by far, the seminal work when discussing dispensationalism and provides ample explanation of the normative view on the dispensations, so not much else is needed. Other sources will be used to inform generally, but will not be directly quoted or supply unique ideas to their work that require citation. [1]

The Person and Work of the Holy Spirit: A Systematic Analysis

Introduction

The following is an attempt to concisely identify and explain the most prominent characteristics of the Holy Spirit revealed in Scripture in a systematic way. It is a daunting task and so a few shortcuts have been taken that should be clarified up front. The basic structure and attributes of the Holy Spirit that form the outline of this paper have been borrowed from Charles Ryrie’s Basic Theology, a book that does a good job of explaining the bare essentials of theology in plain English for anyone to read. Basic Theology will be the primary source in this paper just behind the scriptures themselves, and other Systematic Theologies will act as support works. One other shortcut taken is that not every scripture about the Holy Spirit will be analyzed. Ideally, every single reference in the Bible to the Holy Spirit would appear in this paper and would be exposited to understand what it tells us about the Holy Spirit’s character, but this is an unrealistic goal for a ten- to twelve-page paper. The point of this paper is to get the basics, not the particulars. That being said, the attributes of the Holy Spirit that will be discussed are: (1) His Personhood, (2) His Deity, (3) His Indwelling Work, (4) His Filling Work, (5) His Baptizing Work, (6) His Sealing Work, and (7) His Gifting Work.

Hide and Seek With a Still Small Voice

He looked up quick and looked back down hoping he would not be found. Hide-and-Seek’s a dangerous game, and he had gambled with his hiding spot. He soon forgot the thought though slowly praying he would not get caught between the front room posies. Lace and flowers round him, cozy, peaceful here in safety doze he.

In and out of consciousness he faded back and forth. He whispered soft a tiny cough, like speaking to the boogey-man, “Just keep me hidden while you can.” A still small voice said, “It’s a plan.”

Someone big had quickly raced right by his quite quaint hiding place, and though he saw their shining face he knew they had not yet retraced, the lace, cased, space in which he hid. And so he did.

They called his name. They couldn’t find him.

That was his aim. The plants confined him.

But still the searcher called out loud, and vowed if he were so endowed he’d find the boy within the shroud and he’d be proud. And so the searcher started tapping on the walls his knuckles rapping, searching for a clue abiding, to tell where the boy was hiding.

Just as his search was on full throttle, he dropped the bottle.

The pieces shattered.

Whiskey splattered.

The boy was spattered.

Nothing mattered, cause that’s when his father found him. Last time he had nearly drowned him. His mother interfered before, but now she lay still on the floor. His father staggered and took a swing, his ring would sting, and then he’d wring the boy and fling him to the floor while shouting, “I’m the king in this house, got it!” 

This isn’t how life should be, ought it? 

Then with a roar, his father swore, the boy was sure the voice from before would have a cure, so he implored it with a shout, “Just get me out!”

The voice replied, “The help’s inside.”

The tear gas hit his eyes and then, he heard the sergeant cry out, “When the mother’s in the ambulance we need assistance with the boy.”

He barely could contain his joy.

A better life for his mother and him. He closed his eyes to count to ten. He’d never play Hide-and-Seek again. He had been saved. The way was paved. They’ve braved the brand-new life supplied and each and every day’s a stride, but always they will still rejoice at the wonderful gift from the still small voice.

A Universal Flood: No Other Option

Introduction

Was Noah’s flood local or universal? As this question is highly divisive between scientists and theologians, the answer to be defended will be presented up front. Universal. From a theological point of view, this must be the case. The questions then become, “Why must this be the case?” and “Why do scientists always disagree with this idea?” After answering these two questions, an attempt will be made to explain a moderately satisfactory answer to scientists as to why the theological point of view does not disagree with the most recent scientific investigation.

Who are the "Sons of God"?

Introduction

There is a controversial passage of the Bible in the book of Genesis. The passage is as follows, Genesis 6:1-4:

Now it came about, when men began to multiply on the face of the land, and daughters were born to them, that the sons of God saw that the daughters of men were beautiful; and they took wives for themselves, whomever they chose.  Then the Lord said, “My Spirit shall not strive with man forever, because he also is flesh; nevertheless his days shall be one hundred and twenty years.” The Nephilim were on the earth in those days, and also afterward, when the sons of God came in to the daughters of men, and they bore children to them. Those were the mighty men who were of old, men of renown.

            The controversy is a threefold question, best summarized as follows: Who are the “sons of God”, what are the “Nephilim” and what are the effects of the answers to these questions?

            There are many answers to this three-fold question and they fall roughly into three basic viewpoints. (1) The Angel View (2) The Seth Line View (3) The Sociology View.

The Angel View

Adherents to this view claim that the phrase “Sons of God” in these verses refers to fallen angels, or demons as they are often called. They arrive at this conclusion based mostly on the use of the phrase “sons of God” in Job 1:6 and 38:7. In the context of Job, the phrase clearly means angels and not men.  In Genesis, these demons took on a human form and slept with human women producing offspring of super human size and strength, due to their half demonic genetics. These offspring are what Genesis refers to as “The Nephilim,” which is also translated “giants.”

The question of motive on the parts of the Demons is often brought into play in this view. It says that throughout biblical history the devil or the head demon or serpent who originally tempted man into falling from fellowship with God, had been trying to eliminate the pure human line from which the messiah would come to destroy him as prophesied in Genesis 3:15. Proponents of the angel view often point to the demonic dilution of the human gene as one of those attempts to keep the messiah from being born.

This view also, then, informs its adherents about angels and some powers that they possess when it comes to taking a human form, and their ability to reproduce. These “facts” about angels are also the biggest deterrents of this view, as other passages clearly indicate that the opposite is true of angels. For example, angles are spirits, not material creatures (Heb 1:14) and Angels do not marry (Matt 22:30). The angel view's answers to the threefold question can be summarized: (1) The “sons of God” are fallen angels. (2) “The Nephilim” are the offspring of fallen angels mating with humans. (3) The effects of the angel view call into question what we know about angels, as well as Satan’s ultimate prompting motive behind huge events of evil in the OT. [1]

My Country Used to Have a Constitution

My country used to have a constitution, but sadly it no longer does. I say constitution by what the word used to mean, not in the way that it means nothing, as it does today. Let me explain.

            
Constitution comes from the root constitute. As in made of. Formed from. If a woman is pregnant, and the pregnancy weakens her constitution, then it took a lot out of her. It made what she was made of less durable. It made her less her. A constitution for a country is what the country is made of. The stuff it’s formed from. The principles it stands for. In the case of the United States of America, it was made of a set of principles. The document that we call The Declaration of Independence, the precursor to the “constitution” of the United States of America, says as much in its first few lines. “We hold these truths to be self-evident.” In modern language, “This is the stuff our country will be made of, formed from, stand for. The following principles will define our country.”

           

Creation... Yes, I said Creation

Introduction

It has been argued down through the ages that the world has had a number of different beginnings. Rather, there are a number of different arguments that attempt to explain the beginning of the world. In general these arguments can be divided into two main camps. Camp one: someone, somehow, created the world. Camp two: the world became this way by a complicated series of chances. These Two camps, according to C. S. Lewis, can be classified “the religious view,” and “the materialist view.”[1] In this paper, these two camps will loosely be titled “Creationism” and “Evolutionism.” The former being that camp which says someone created the world, the latter being that the world evolved this way. Within both camps there are a number of various views, too numerous to detail here, but in general they all boil down to one of these two views. There are also large groups of people who believe an odd hybrid of the two. There are a number of these hybrids. The point being made is that consensus on this subject is far, far away.