The Kingdom Come - Christology

For New, Baby, & Weak Christians

Mon, 09 Jun 2008 22:08:58 -0500

First, I want to make sure the reader understands that this article is to me as well. I in no way am trying to say I am some sort of superior Christian, rather I simply want to look at what the Bible actually says about new, baby, & weak Christians & how to grow in faith.

I recently heard a sermon on 2 Peter 1:3-15 & as I was hearing that passage read aloud I noticed something very interesting. In verses 3-4, Peter talks about the grace & the honor of being chosen by God & being partakers of salvation & being new creatures escaping the corruptions of this world. Basically, verses 3-4 talk about a person’s initial salvation.

Verse 5 starts off with the words: “For this reason…” meaning for the sake of a Christian’s new life & then we are given the explanation of what our response ought to be to our salvation.

The Anchors of Christian Faith

Sun, 02 Mar 2008 02:12:05 -0600

There are two anchors to consider when it comes to Christian Faith & if either of these anchors are not solidly planted into the ground of a person’s relationship with Christ, then it is quite possible that the "Jesus" that the person is following is not the Jesus of the Bible.

Christians, especially Christians of Protestant heritage often speak of a concept called “Sola Scriptura” – this is a Latin term coined during the 14-16^th century advent of Reformed Christianity. It’s English translation it typically presented as “Bible Alone”. Here is the first anchor of a healthy Christian faith.

Even Forgiven Sin Has Consequences

Sat, 12 Jan 2008 15:39:18 -0600

How often have we been told that forgiveness means everything is made better, everything is forgotten? The same people will quote verses like Psalms 103:12 in attempt to prove not only is God merciful (which indeed He is) but that sin has no consequence (which indeed it does).

Looking at the example of a man of whom it has been said, was a “man after God's own heart” we can clearly see that though God forgives & does remove our transgressions from us as far as the east is from the west, this does not negate that the damage done by sin often remains.

David was called to be king of Israel, king of the Jews all the while David was a small & humble shepherd boy. God lead David to the throne, giving victory after victory into the hand of David, even eventually over Saul, the previous king. (1 Sam 16-31). It is important to note that it was God that was leading David into these wars & giving David the victories, because it will help us make sense of the verses we are about to view.

Why Does God Let Bad Things Happen?

Tue, 27 Nov 2007 21:43:06 -0600

Bad things do happen therefore there are a few conclusions we can draw:

There is no God in operation (things happen as they happen)
That if there is a God “he” is powerless to stop bad things
That if there is a God “he” has a purpose in bad things happening

For Posterity's Sake

Mon, 24 Sep 2007 00:07:52 -0500

The other day, I was reminded of an important Christian principle as I struggled to answer my 14 year old daughter's question about the importance of learning. Due to her disinterest in science my daughter sometimes struggles in that area. As I explained to her that there was a time when children would be taught to be fluent in multiple languages & the rudiments of all subjects. I also explained the very short time we are here -- typically about 80 years. Then she asked the question:

"Why does anyone need to be that smart?"

First, I explained it isn't really about being "smart" but that the things we do, the things we learn are NOT just for us & our short 80 year life but rather it is for all the people who come after us -- for posterity.

Agreeing to Disagree: Or Using the Mind of Christ

Mon, 27 Aug 2007 11:00:00 -0500

The most common phrase employed whenever two parties seem to reach an irresolvable impasse is the phrase, “We’ll just have to agree to disagree”. Though this may sound charitable & diplomatic, it isn’t really realistic. Unresolved conflicts will simply resurface at another point.

This is even truer when it comes to theological disputes. The reason so many issues seem to resurface generations later is because the issue was never resolved in the first place, but only set aside.

Now, perhaps we might be tempted to think some issues aren’t resolvable. Though that may be true when it comes to mere opinions & subjective issues this is not the case with theology. The Word of God is not meant to be subjective. It really is supposed to have only one true meaning. It is getting at that meaning that may be sometimes difficult especially as people bring their own biases to it.

When two Christians disagree over a theological point, especially such pivotal points as say God’s Sovereignty & mankind’s so-called freewill there can be no middle ground; there can be no “agreeing to disagree”. Either one or both of the points are incorrect.

The problem is, especially perhaps in America where we're taught every “opinion” counts is that we approach theological disagreements in the same manner that we approach any subjective disagreement. This ought not to be.

Answering The Silver-Bullet Question About God's Fairness

Thu, 02 Aug 2007 15:48:41 -0500

Typically those who deny that God can be fair & righteous & victorious & still condenm people to "hell" (whatever that entails is another question), the claim is made that no one ever answers their silver-bullet question about a supposed loving God who can also send people to hell.

Often they keep pretending "no Calvinist will ever answer" their silver-bullet question. I will point out one last time that their question has been answered OVER AND OVER -- they just don't like the answer so they pretend it isn't an answer.

Just to be clear, the question again is posed like this:

But Even Jesus Hung Out with Tax-Collectors & Prostitutes

Mon, 30 Jul 2007 14:30:22 -0500

You have heard it said that even Jesus hung out with tax-collectors & prostitutes so how dare we judge such people. But what is not often pointed out in these appeals for loving tolerance is that Jesus expected these people to change, to repent & no longer be corrupt tax-collectors (corruption & tax-collection was synonymous at the time) or prostitutes. Thus, Jesus only hung at with them to change them. He in no way was approving of their sins. These tax-collectors & prostitutes became FORMER corrupt tax-collectors & FORMER prostitutes.

To illustrate the point even more let us look at the accounts of a tax-collector & a prostitute & Jesus’ interaction with them.

The Mark of a Christian Heart

Tue, 24 Jul 2007 22:39:04 -0500

How can you tell if someone is a Christian? We often hear people quote John 13:35 “By this all men will know that you are my disciples, if you love one another.” But the problem is the people who often quote this verse (like other people who build their theology on single proof-texts) typically never define “love” or they define it simply as being nice to each other. And then we must ask what constitutes being “nice”? Is it “nice” & “loving” to let one another run off the side of a cliff for example?

These same people that love to quote John 13:35 without any definition are the same that typically have disdain for doctrine, for dogma, for propositions. They will claim that those things divide. Yes, yes they do – they are designed to divide. (1 Cor 11:19) Unity for unity’s sake can just as well be unity around error. Do we really think Jesus was saying, “Forget about doctrine, just love one another”. No, rather John 14:15 shows what it means to love:

God in All His Glory: The God Few People Would Worship

Wed, 11 Jul 2007 03:51:23 -0500

In the age where we are always trying to make things less offensive, either through perfuming or makeovers there is something about God almost no one wants to bring up. We have worked hard to re-paint & reshape a more generous god, a god that is fair by our standards & is kind to a fault. We certainly don’t ever want to project a God that might be offensive to anyone, for who would worship such a God.

But is this really the God of the Bible?

When I read the Bible I see the very egotistical God – not ego in how we humans view it, but God is God & His ego isn’t merely arrogance & grandeur of delusion as human ego is, but His “ego” is really His own glory. I see in His commandments, the God that commands…even demands that we have no god before Him. (Ex 20:3) I see the God who is “jealous” (Ex 34:14). I see the God that is very exclusionary, who creates humans & blesses some over others for no apparent reason than to display His grace & mercy...His own glory.

Why Doctrine & Dogma Matter to a Christian Relationship

Thu, 05 Jul 2007 01:03:28 -0500

We have all heard it, maybe even fallen into espousing it ourselves; the notion that “doctrine & dogma” doesn’t matter but that instead we should focus on “relationships” as if being Christian is a popularity contest.

Pitting doctrine & dogma against relationship is already a false comparison. The unity & relationship that Christians are supposed to have is the unity & relationship around the Jesus Christ of the Bible & how can we know that Jesus Christ but through the Bible?

Jesus Christ doesn’t “come into your heart” anymore than the animal sacrifices of the old covenant “came into the hearts” of people. Indeed, Christ CHANGES a person’s heart but that is an act initiated by Christ not by us.

The point is how do you KNOW & have a relationship with anyone without knowing more about them? Our relationship with Christ & fellow Christians is the same. The more we KNOW about Christ & have a common knowledge of Christ with fellow Christians, the more we have unity & a relationship. People who think you can KNOW Christ almost through osmosis or by simply “feeling His presence” are typically the same people who disdain doctrine & dogma & instead spend most of their time talking to people about their life experiences instead of what the Bible actually says.

N.T. Wright Muddles the Resurrection?

Fri, 22 Jun 2007 13:56:48 -0500

N.T. Wright is often touted as a great Christian scholar but what if such a “scholar” has no problem with professed Christians denying the physical resurrection of Jesus? This is exactly what Wright has done when speaking of his co-author Marcus Borg of the book called “The Meaning of Jesus: Two Visions”.

Wright as originally reported by theaustrailian.news.com said of Borg:

“I have friends who I am quite sure are Christians who do not believe in the bodily resurrection…But the view I take of them - and they know this - is that they are very, very muddled. They would probably return the compliment.
“Marcus Borg really does not believe Jesus Christ was bodily raised from the dead. But I know Marcus well: he loves Jesus and believes in him passionately. The philosophical and cultural world he has lived in has made it very, very difficult for him to believe in the bodily resurrection.” (source)

There are a few problems with what Wright says here:

The Meaning of Freedom

Fri, 06 Apr 2007 13:11:44 -0500

I once asked a person what the word freedom means. Knowing I wanted a simple definition, they answered; “Freedom means doing whatever you want”. Most of us would basically agree with that, but then I asked what anarchy means. The person could immediately see the problem – their definition of anarchy would really be no different than their definition of freedom.

With that, let’s look closer at the word freedom. We’ll start with an etymological approach.

FREE = unhindered, not restrained

It is the “free” part of freedom that equates with “doing whatever you want” & is most like anarchy.

DOM = dwelling, house (such as domicile)

It is when we put “free” & “dom” together that we begin to see the full force of the word freedom.

The Heart of Reformed Theology

Sat, 15 Dec 2007 23:45:26 -0600

Reformed Theology was not born in the comfortable lecture halls where modern day dynamic church “leaders” spout forth-vain invectives against everything traditional & everything “Western” as if they are some sorts of new kind of Martin Luther.

The Reformed Faith of yesteryear, which sometimes seems to be waning in face of postmodernistic culture to which the Church is told it must adapt or become irrelevant was born during a time when having faith was often a matter of life or death.

As I read the epic work, “Bondage of the Will” by Martin Luther (the real one, not the pretenders of today) I see so many similarities between his time & our own.

In the book, Luther is responding to the premier churchman darling of his day, Desiderius Erasmus. Erasmus was the guy who comparable to our day was going about advocating that we all simply get along & leave doctrine & dogma behind.

Worthy

Sun, 03 Feb 2008 00:57:41 -0600

Dear Jesus I thank you that you are the first & last. Like a true friend you are there even while we are not thinking of you but giving our attention & affection to others over you. Though it may seem a difficult thing to love you more than our mothers & fathers; our sons & daughters; our brothers & sisters; & even our friends -- this "burden" is light & it is by loving you that we can truly love all these others. Thank you Jesus for your devoted love to us.