The Kingdom Come

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.

As a Reformed Christian, the subject of Sola Scriptura or Bible alone is a very important part of my approach to Christianity. But it is not so much "my" approach I want to understand, as I'm not very keen on developing a radical individualized theology. I am pursuing a course that will bring my faith more in line with the "faith once and for all delivered to the saints" (Jude 1:3). Unfortunately, I have had Roman Catholics (RC) and Anabaptistic Christians alike tell me that if I want that kind of faith, I'll have to become a Roman Catholic. I disagree.

The topic of Sola Scriptura is prescient because so many times, we non-Roman Catholics seem to use that phrase but instead behave like it is "Sola private interpretation" and to heck with the faith passed down via the apostles (2 Thes 2:15) -- as if the Church was so corrupted within a few centuries, that it was not revived again until the Reformation. This is wrong thinking in that it ultimately undermines the continuity of Christianity and saws off the very branch we claim to sit on.

In this regard, I have had some interactions with Joe Heschmeyer, a Roman Catholic Christian and law student at Georgetown University Law Center.

Christians have long sought to understand what the "abomination of desolation" is that Jesus references in Matt 24:15 and Mark 13:14, which in turn cross-references back to Dan 11:31 and Dan 12:11. At least for the last 40 years in American "Left-Behindism", we have been told that the Abomination of Desolation is a time in the future when a "revived Roman Empire" is created and that the Devil or Antichrist is worshiped in a rebuilt Temple in Jerusalem. But what has most of historic Christianity thought of these passages?

Let's first look at Dan 11:31 and Dan 12:11

You will often hear an atheist claim that they are not Christian because Christianity is full of hypocrites, and it is true. The reason there are so many hypocrites, not only in Christianity but in any religion is because people are actually trying to hold themselves to a standard. The atheist doesn't have this problem. For the atheist, whatever he alone considers "good" is good and whatever he alone considers "bad" is bad. And he can change this at a whim. The atheist can't be a hypocrite because he has no standards to hold. No one can point to the atheist and say, "Ah-ha, you hypocrite! You aren't holding to what you believe", because what an atheist believes is so fluid and ever changing. Therefore the atheists excuse and accusation against religion is hollow and is instead a testament that the religious person believes something that is not being held.

First, we must ask where this idea comes from? Is it just hype created by the movie "2012"? Ironically enough, released in 2009. I've reviewed other movies from a Christian perspective but I wanted to delve into this concept in a way more than just a film review.

Apocalyptic scenarios have been with us since mankind began to tell stories, but is the 2012 account different? Let's first get to the origin of the concept. As you may know, a Mesoamerican culture called the Mayans maintained a calendar, called the Haab which ends on December 20, 2012. But why? This requires more about the creation accounts of the Mayans. According to Mayan theology, the gods created three worlds before this present world. The previous world ended on August 10, 3114 BC, and the present world began on August 11, 3114 BC. This in itself causes issues, since for example, according to popular biblical accounts the present world was created on October 23, 4004 BC,

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.

A church in England preached Ephesians 5:22 and Colossians 3:18 and immediately many women members were so offended that they quit the congregation.  So what does Eph 5:22 and Col 3:18 say that is so offensive?

Wives, submit to your own husbands, as to the Lord. -- Eph 5:22

Wives, submit to your own husbands, as is fitting in the Lord. -- Col 3:18

Some of the women congregants said they were "disgusted" by the sermon which was accompanied by leaflets. Further, a woman member asked,

So we heard about the state of the Union, but what is the state of theology today?  It is not a question to be asked by a politician but let each Christian ask him or herself.  Let us base it on the biblical principle of  2 Cor 13:5 and 2 Peter 1:10.  Is our theology a personal hodge-podge hobbled together or is it the faith of the community of saints?  Is our faith a weak, beggarly faith more apt to be part of the Oprah or Dr. Phil show?

In the 21st century, Christianity is under attack not only from secularism, but from enemies within the gates; people who claim to be Christian but uphold everything but historic Christianity.  Whether they are trying to make a "new kind of Christian", such as the Emergent/postmodernists have been attempting, or they fancy themselves as apologists or watchmen out to expose everyone and everything yet never seem to get around to applying 2 Cor 13:5 and 2 Peter 1:10 to themselves.