The Kingdom Come

It is often common today to say things like "I'm sorry" or "I apologize" when you have somehow wronged a person in some way. But these phrases don't carry the sense of remorse the phrase; "Forgive me" carries. To say "I'm sorry" could mean many things, such as; "I'm sorry I got caught" or "I'm sorry you don't like it but...". Similarly, the word apology actually means "to make a defense", such as in the concept of Christian Apologetics. Someone who is truly remorseful for what they have done doesn't defend themselves.

Look, just ask your spouse which they'd rather hear when you have wrong them and you'll see what I mean.

In the debate between Arminianistic (human free-will) and Calvinistic (God's control) theology, each has its proof-texts. Each claims to be using Scripture alone to prove its position. Perhaps one way to resolve the dispute, so you'd think would be to simply put all the proof-texts side by side. Yet, as often as this has been done, the dispute continues. It could be because the proof-texts are presented as negating factors in an attempt to negate or cancel out another proof-text.

The approach of proof-texting does more damage than good, since to the non or weak Christian observer, it may appear Scripture is highly contradictory.

Ω-Α
Christian Atomism is the underdeveloped notion that "everything is the same", that is, at base level, at the atomic or subatomic level everything is the same. While this may sound more like a philosophy or some sort of Gnosticism or Hellenistic/Neo-Platonic influence, there is strong biblical warrant for this notion.

First, the biblical Creation account has God creating the universe out of "firmament". (Gen 1:1-9) Eventually God creates humans from the humus or dirt of the reorganized firmament called planet earth. As we know, as any organic thing; be it humans, animals, or plants degrade - they return to "dirt". Or as the Bible puts it: "Till you return to the ground, For out of it you were taken; For dust you are, And to dust you shall return." (Gen 3:19)
Is this not the epitome of Atomism?

During the 2011 Indiana State Fair, a tragedy occurred where uncommon high winds collapsed a make-shift stage killing 5 persons and injuring many others (source). I express my heart-felt condolences for all the families affected by this tragic event.

In a ceremony to honor families, the first Lady of Indiana, Cheri Daniels gave a speech wherein she referred to the last line of Ecclesiastes 9:11. She said:

"One of the most often asked questions during times like this is 'why?'. In our best intentions, we try to answer this question, when quite frequently there is no answer. As the scriptures say; 'time and chance happen to all.'"

In response to questions about whether Mt 16:17-19 indicates that Peter was the leader of the apostles and whether Peter passed on that role to future bishops of Rome; I had these comments.

First let us look at Is 22:20-23 which is the first mention of this/these "key(s) of the house of David".

"Then it shall be in that day, That I will call My servant Eliakim the son of Hilkiah; I will clothe him with your robe And strengthen him with your belt; I will commit your responsibility into his hand. He shall be a father to the inhabitants of Jerusalem And to the house of Judah. The key of the house of David I will lay on his shoulder; So he shall open, and no one shall shut; And he shall shut, and no one shall open. I will fasten him as a peg in a secure place, And he will become a glorious throne to his father’s house.

Is this a reference to the kind of authority Peter will have? Who is Eliakim the son of Hilkiah?

Does humanity have a "sense" or an innate awareness of God? Does humanity have within it a "seed of religiosity" and if so why? This has been the historic starting point of Christianity. Christianity has advocated that humanity does indeed have an innate awareness of God based on Romans 1:20

"For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even His eternal power and Godhead, so that they are without excuse"

This is an extremely important point before we even get to the discussion of the Bible. So many people treat the Bible as if it is a book of logical axioms that can be used like some sort of sectional, sub-paragraphed legal document. There are things God says and does in the Bible that SEEM contradictory but in reality are not. (Examples: Commanding humans to keep the commandments, knowing full well no human had the ability to do so, or the entire Job account)

I routinely receive email questions which I normally answer privately but on Sept 30, 2010 I received a question that was so sincerely asked that I wanted to answer it publicly. The text of the email is as follows:

"I am trying to sort out what the bible teaches about the return of Jesus, et cetera.

While within the environs of the independent fundamental baptist denominations, an often quoted and topic-launching verse was Proverbs 22:6

Train up a child in the way he should go: and when he is old, he will not depart from it.

The implied contention is (at least within that denomination) that if you raise your children correctly, they will remain good, Christian persons.

Attached to this idea that you simply need to raise your child correctly are all sorts of other aspects such as; to home school or not, Christian school or not, sheltering or not.

Interestingly, some of the worst behaved children within the church structure tend to be the "pastor's kids"...at least this is what is often said. Is it the stigma and pressure of being the pastor's kid that would cause them to tend to rebel?

Further, children raised in strict Christian homes, sheltered from "the world" are often said to "go wild" later in life. If this is really true, why is this and how does it compare with what Proverbs 22:6 says?

Why does Jesus and the Bible sometimes refer to Him as the Son of God and other times as the Son of Man? Is one expressing Jesus' deity whereas the other expressing His humanity?

Let's first look at the title, Son of God. In the Christian understanding, Jesus is seen as the unigenitus Dei Filius or the only begotten Son of God, whereas general humanity may be considered "sons of God" generically since God is called The Father. An example of the general use can be found in Gen 6:1-2 where it is said the "sons of God" copulated with the daughters of men. This verse is often interpreted as the "sons of God" being either angels or righteous men. The dominant interpretation is that "sons of God" indicate, humanity within the covenantal relationship with God, or specifically in Gen 6:1-2, the offspring of Seth rather than the offspring of Cain. The view that "sons of God" relates to angels is typically held by heretical or cultic groups, such as the Jehovah's Witnesses.(source #1, source #2 see also: Job 1:6, Job 38:7, Psalm 29:1)

The entry in the online dictionary, dictionary.com defines the word axiom as:

"1.a self-evident truth that requires no proof.
2.a universally accepted principle or rule.
3.Logic, Mathematics. a proposition that is assumed without proof for the sake of studying the consequences that follow from it." -- source

Clarkianism in summary, is the teaching by theologian Gordon Clark (1902-1985) that the presupposition or starting point of Christian theology is the axiom:

"The Bible is the Word of God written"

-- Quo Vadis, Evangelicalism?: Perspectives on the Past, Direction for the Future

This specific reference to Clark's axiom is a quote of an address he gave while president of the Evangelical Theological Society. The fuller axiom and its conclusions are, "The Bible is the Word of God written. Therefore the conclusion is the Bible is inerrant. God cannot lie."

Now, the reason this axiom is actually irrelevant is because it doesn't really start in the correct place. Let us examine.