The Kingdom Come

It is interesting that every new generation of evangelical elites, whether it be conservative Calvinists or liberal Postmodernists seem to always go through a time of rediscovery. Christianity is supposed to be an historical religion, with continuity of foundation and purpose but so much time is expended simply rehashing the same issues that had been argued and settled often centuries before. I know some people enjoy this "journey" but to me it seems a waste of time to always be resetting to zero. Why can't we, especially as Christians simply stand firm in the foundations of our Faith? Why do people think it necessary to go through years and years of doubt, as if that is some great achievement? It is like the once obese person celebrating after achieving some milestone weight reduction while it would be better that we celebrate the person who always maintained their diet and never became obese. But such is our culture, always celebrating the overcomers of failure instead of the faithful maintainers of success.

There was a time in Christianity when regional pastors, called "Bishops" would spend most of their time articulating the precepts of the Faith, defending against heretical encroachment, and all around general exposition of historic Christianity. But now, those days are all but gone.  Instead pastors are too busy tending "local churches".  It would be too disruptive, too messy for a pastor to take on the heresies that batter the Church. Instead, individual "laymen" who come across these heresies are either left to fall prey to them or to battle them on their own without much support from the local congregation.
Listen to this article:

With the massive earth quake of January 2010 striking the nation of Haiti many news sources have had leading stories about the dire struggle of the Haitian people.  There are heart-wrenching stories of the utter poverty of the nation even before the devastation.  One thing that seems to lack in all this coverage is the FACTS of how Haiti became so poor.  Most stories touch on Haiti's tumultuous political situation, having been under decades, perhaps centuries of dictatorial rule.  But the reports never seem to really get at the heart of the issue.

As October 31st approaches, the traditional day when Martin Luther supposedly posted on the Wittenberg Church door his 95 points of protest, I thought it would be useful to go through those points.  With so many Christians, and even heretics pointing to Luther as their role model, it seems important to see and understand what it was he was trying to say.

Having been to Hispaniola over five times, visiting the supposed yet disputed site of Christopher Columbus' burial and the palace where his son Diego Colon resided I have an special interest in the history of Columbus.

As the United States of America commemorates "Columbus Day" there has been mixed reception.  Was Columbus an explorer and discoverer of the New World, or was he a barbarous, murderer who brought death?

One thing that greatly impressed me about Columbus was his journal.  I had checked a copy of his journal out a few times from our local library.  In the journal, as we would expect for the period, Columbus gives much praise and honor to Christ and even makes references to the Spanish victory over the Muslim Moors.  What a person will glean from the journals is that Columbus was more interested in using his voyage to India to learn the best method to convert people to Christ.  This is a far different picture than a gold hungry Columbus.

A story appeared on the FoxNews website on October 8, 2009 claiming that one in four people claim to be Muslim (source).  We have seen these claims from Islam before and they have been hard pressed to prove the numbers.  Also, it is not that alarming that Muslims report a high number globally, so does communism but the places most of those communists and Muslims live, are places that force the people to adopt those mindsets or be outcasts or worse.  I have no doubt, that if given the freedom and free access to other concepts, most of the communists and Muslims would renounce their communism and Islam.  However, the statistics on the decline of Christianity are shocking.

As Christians move further and further away from the Protestant Reformation, more and more are misunderstanding what happened nearly 500 years ago.  Many of the modern Evangelicals portray the Reformation as a time when a group of Christians revolted against the Church and "traditionalism".  It is thus, en vogue to hold an almost latent disdain for anything that is historical as if everything historical should be rejected as pertaining to "Rome Lite".

For awhile now I have been advocating against hyperpreterism by appealing to "historic Christianity". Many of the hyperpreterists assume that when I say "historic Christianity", I really just mean the creeds. Although it's interesting that I hardly ever cite any specific creed. Some hyperpreterists, have even taken to calling Christians; "hyper-creedalists". Again, these Christians hardly ever reference specific creeds. So, what do we mean when we appeal to historic Christianity? Do we really just mean the creeds? No. Rather, the following analogy may be helpful to clarify this issue.

This is a chapter-by-chapter review of the book "The Shape of Sola Scriptura" by Keith Mathison. This review began on March 30, 2009 & is expected to end before September 2009.

The purpose for the review is to enhance Bible study by first studying how to approach the Bible. In modern Evangelical denominations, it is common to take a "private interpretation" approach where every individual gives their own private interpretation & then perhaps shares it with a larger group. Sometimes, all such interpretations are considered equally valid. This method is NOT what the Reformers had in mind when they articulated Sola Scriptura (Bible Alone). The Reformers did not intend to divorce Bible interpretation from historic Christian interpretation but merely question Papal/Church infallibility.