Though all of Scripture is inspired by the Holy Spirit and profitable to man, the book of Daniel is perhaps one of the most important books of the Bible to correctly understand. Daniel connects the Old and New Testaments in a way that traverses the inter-testamental period. Through Daniel God reveals the exact date, precise to the month and year, of Messiah's death and the events which will still as of yet lead to His return.
Imagine a busy crime scene where many people are investigating what appears to be a break-in, burglary, and double homicide. There are a variety of people performing a variety of tasks, but among them there stands out four prominent individuals: The chief detective of the police department directing a team of investigators, a snarky British private investigator with a monocle and pipe, a court appointed criminal psychologist in black socks and Birkenstock sandals, and a very trendy fictional crime novelist who moonlights as a tabloid reporter. Each individual has come with the intended goal to discover the events which transpired at this crime scene. However, each individual intentionally embraces a radically different role, which at times includes radically different methods, leading to radically different conclusions. Throughout this discussion of the proper and improper roles of the interpreter in biblical hermeneutics, please keep this quirky imaginary allegorical metaphor in mind.
Many works on the subject of hamartiology explain sin’s origin and definition very effectively. There is much material explaining how man is born a sinner and why we sin according to our sin nature. However, very little is written on why the regenerate continue to sin... I submit that the regenerate no longer have a sin nature. The reason the regenerate are capable of sinning is free will. The reason the regenerate continue to sin is the combination of what is occasionally referred to in Scripture as the flesh and other external influences. With this thesis in mind, I will advance an argument explaining the biblical foundation for how and why the regenerate are able, and indeed do, continue to sin after they are saved.
What is dispensationalism? In a time where there is a great deal of confusion and misinformation clouding the answer to this relatively simple question, Charles Ryrie addresses the question directly in his seminal work Dispensationalism. In this work Ryrie seeks to correct the many misconceptions non-dispensationalists have concerning normative dispensationalism, and to give a positive presentation and defense of normative dispensationalism. In this paper a brief overview of the author’s purpose and perspective will be presented. Then it will identify the relevant questions the book answers and also presents concerning dispensationalism and the related debate between Christian scholars. There will then be some report on the four views presented in the book: dispensationalism, covenant theology, progressive dispensationalism, and ultra-dispensationalism. After that there will be an evaluation of the book’s content and arguments followed by a discussion of two applications one can apply after reading the book.
In this paper I will begin by developing a robust definition of freedom, for many of the conflicting theories of freedom and determinism differ on this first premise. The definition of freedom developed will be significantly drawn from Aristotle’s work Nicomachean Ethics, and his dialogue concerning voluntary and involuntary actions therein. The argument will continue by showing how this definition of freedom is consistent with and actually sustained by the presence of a supremely sovereign God, like that of classical Christian theism. This will be done through the arguments and explanations of Thomas Aquinas. Finally the argument will try to interact with and answer other competing theories, such as determinism, simple indeterminism, compatibilism (like that of Jonathan Edwards), and to a lesser extent Libertarian freewill. The next section will develop the theory of freedom.
In this paper the Pelagian conflict will be discussed. First will be an explanation of its rise and the motivation behind its conception. This will be followed by a brief explanation as to why Pelagianism was at odds with orthodoxy. Finally a brief explanation as to how the heresy was condemned will be outlined. Following these sections outlining the controversy itself there will be two sections that deal with the applications that studying the Pelagian conflict has in our modern Church today.
It has often been said that if you aim at nothing, you will hit it every time. This relatively cute cliché is really quite profound when one stops to consider its implications for ministry. Many churches operate with poor efficacy and focus because they lack biblical direction with regards to their commission, purpose, and function. The solution is a well developed biblical philosophy of ministry. If God is to bless the ministry of a given church, that church ought to build its philosophy of ministry on a foundation that is thoroughly biblical. This paper will be devoted to defending the biblical philosophy of ministry that the Church is divinely commissioned for the purposes of equipping the saints, presenting them complete in Christ, and entrusting the apostles’ teaching to faithful people.
This paper will follow this basic structure. Taking the four apologetic systems: Fideistic Apologetics, Presupposition Apologetics, Evidential Apologetics, and Classical apologetics, the paper will identify and critique the foundational starting point upon which practitioners of these methods build their apologies. The systems will be dealt with in the aforementioned order. Each system’s apologetic method will be briefly described followed by an analysis of the starting point from which each system originates. After that, the starting point will be critiqued for its efficacy or legitimacy as a foundation for apologetics. Ultimately this paper will conclude that the foundations of Classical Apologetics are the strongest leading to the most effective and comprehensive apologetic method.
This paper will seek to logically critic and evaluate the Documentary Hypothesis, expose its errors, and defend the traditional position of Mosaic authorship of the Pentateuch. To do this, first a brief overview of the history of the Documentary hypothesis will be presented. This will include some of its main developers and supporters. How was it developed, and what were the influences and contexts from which it emerged? Next, the main arguments and claims of the documentary hypothesis will be outlined and explained. Finally, those arguments will be refuted, and an apologetic defense of Mosaic authorship will be presented.