# Help deciding M.Th. thesis topic



## johnrsorrell (Nov 3, 2005)

I am beginning the preliminary work towards deciding a topic to propose for my M.Th. thesis.
My specialization is in Systematic Theology and I feel as if I want to work on something that I have not really studied or fleshed out before. 
Some thoughts I have would be a comparison on the doctrines of grace/reformed theology/Calvinism with the modern church (i.e. Emergent church, Purpose Driven, seeker sensitivity). It would attempt to show how the man-centered theologies of these movements cannot promote/maintain a biblical reformed theology due to the ego-centric philosophies promoted therein. Does that make sense? Basically, how the two cannot truly, honestly live in harmony. 
However, I am open to any suggestions. I plan to make a proposal within the next 30-45 days.

[Edited on 11-3-2005 by johnrsorrell]


----------



## Anton Bruckner (Nov 3, 2005)

Why not do a Thesis on the impact of philosophy on the Gospel?

Show how the Gospel has been preach Pre Enlightenment, Englightenment, Post Enlightenment, Modern and Post Modern world.


----------



## johnrsorrell (Nov 3, 2005)

> _Originally posted by Slippery_
> Why not do a Thesis on the impact of philosophy on the Gospel?
> 
> Show how the Gospel has been preach Pre Enlightenment, Englightenment, Post Enlightenment, Modern and Post Modern world.



That's seemingly what I want to include and work toward. I want to show the decline of the true Gospel in preaching over the centuries, hoping to use Spurgeon's "Downgrade Controversy" as a building block.

However, I'm afraid it might be too similar to MacArthur's book, "Hard to Believe."


----------



## Anton Bruckner (Nov 3, 2005)

MacArthur ain't got nothing on you. MacArthur is a Dispensational, and Dispensationalists came into existance after 1830.

I did a brief summary in a conversation on this PB a while back but it needs to be developed.

Here is the summary.

Quote:
Originally posted by Puritanhead
Nah, false casual connection....
post ergo, propter hoc....

I don't think it is by chance Deism was the dominant religion of American Intellectuals at the beginning of the 19th Century, and the pervasive notion of Free Willyism being the cornerstone of Evangelicals.

When I read Jonathan Edwards Sermons, Calvin works, I see a major distinction between what passes off as Christianity today versus what passed for Christianity back then. I also see the subtle connection of what passes as Christianity today being directly tied to the pervading philosophy of the enlightenment period. Religion always seem to conform to the prevading philosophy of the day, and this is what I think happened in Western Society which inevitably pushed Calvanistic type doctrines into the minority. (Calvinism is odiously offensive to our society today, and even to most Christians)
Quoting Gene Garman's article was Jefferson a Deist, he quotes from a 1971 Encyclopedia Britannica, "The 1971 (ninth edition) Encyclopedia Britannica, 7:183, states the following: "By the end of the 18th century deism had become a dominant religious attitude among upper-class Americans, and the first three presidents of the United States held this conviction, as is amply evidenced in their correspondence."

Fact is Philosophies tend to have a trickle down effect. Once the intellectuals of a society accept a certain philosophical construct, these philosophical constructs will then be proselytize to the hoi polloi, and slowly everyone acquieces around it forming a homogenous psychology which binds society, nation and or civilization together. Everything is adjusted to fit the accepted philosophy of society including religion.

Check out how absurd the following quote of Edwards would sound in a Modern Pulpit today. This is taken from the Justice of God in the Damnation of Sinners.

Quote:

But every such objector as would argue from hence, that there is no fault at all in sin, confutes himself, and shows his own insincerity in his objection. For at the same time that he objects, that men's acts are necessary, and that this kind of necessity is inconsistent with faultiness in the act, his own practice shows that he does not believe what he objects to be true: otherwise why does he at all blame men?


God may permit sin, though the being of sin will certainly ensue on that permission: and so, by permission, he may dispose and order the event. If there were any such thing as chance, or mere contingence, and the very notion of it did not carry a gross absurdity, (as might easily be shown that it does,) it would have been very unfit that God should have left it to mere chance, whether man should fall or no. For chance, if there should be any such thing, is undesigning and blind. And certainly it is more fit that an event of so great importance, and that is attended with such an infinite train of great consequences, should be disposed and ordered by infinite wisdom, than that it should be left to blind chance.


Now check out what is passed off for the Gospel by the visible leaders of Christianity in America
Quote:
http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0502/01/lkl.01.html
KING: If you're predicting the AntiChrist, do we have a choice? You're saying it's fact.

JAKES: Larry, could I make a comment? I think what we're confusing here is predestination with foreknowledge. The Bible is not saying that God is going to make this happen, it is that God already has some knowledge to know what is going to happen, like someone who has seen a movie before someone else has seen it, they know what's going to happen, it's not that they make it happen. So it's not our free will is taken away any time we read a prophesy, our God is omniscient, he already knows the end from the beginning.

KING: Therefore, Reverend, how can I have free will if the AntiChrist is coming no matter what I do?

LAHAYE: We're talking about government. There are three things that are going to be the hallmark of the last days when -- after Christ raptures the church and the church goes through the tribulation. As Franklin said, we'll have a one world commercial system, we'll have one world government and we'll have a one world religion. Now, that's after all the Christians are taken out. And so the world will function that way. But still, God will give people an individual opportunity to receive Christ.


The Gospel today is Rights based with God having to respect the Rights of mankind. "God is in heaven waiting for you to make a decision to exercize your free will and accept His Son, but He wouldn't force you".i.e the Holy Spirit comes after the confession of Faith. The Holy Spirit does not soften the heart and spurs the confession of Faith. Faith is of man emanating from his free will.

The Gospel preceeding the Rights based was God doing as He pleases Having Mercy upon whom He pleases and Hardening whom He pleases. The very Faith that one has is a Gift from God.

Anyway I am awaiting your response for you to qualify your statement of a false casual connection


----------

