The Kingdom Come

As we know, the media often portrays Muslim or Islamic extremists as a different and minority group within the larger religion of Islam. We are told that most Muslims aren't terrorists and don't want to harm other people. We are told that "Islam is a religion of peace". And there is some truth to at least one part of these claims; most Muslims aren't terrorists, otherwise the situation would be worse. So, then why does a group of Muslims turn to terrorism? Are they merely taking an extreme, literal interpretation of the Koran?

Then, when we think of Christian extremism, is it groups like the Branch Davidians, the Jim Jones sect or other such groups? Or is it more accurate to consider groups like the Amish, Quakers, and Mennonites as the comparison to the so-called Islamic extremists. After all, the ones that are labeled extremists are those who take the actual text the most literal -- and with Islam that is the terrorists and with Christianity that is the Amish/Quakers/Mennonites and such.

Barack Obama made the following statement:

"As a citizen, and as president, I believe that Muslims have the same right to practice their religion as anyone else in this country. That includes the right to build a place of worship and a community center on private property in lower Manhattan, in accordance with local laws and ordinances. This is America, and our commitment to religious freedom must be unshakable." -- source

Perhaps at face value and after decades of liberals trying to tell us the United States of America wasn't built on Christian values, Obama's stand sounds simply like a man defending the rights of his fellow Americans. But upon further consideration, we should look at the contrast of Obama telling Israel that they shouldn't build more settlements in their own territory because it would be insensitive to the surrounding Muslims.

The Obama White House has tasked NASA to "find a way to reach out to the Muslim world and engage much more with dominantly Muslim nations to help them feel good about their historic contribution to science ... and math and engineering." -- source

The elites often like to claim that while pre-Medieval and Medieval Europe was groping around in the so-called "Dark Ages", Islam and Muslim culture was imparting to the world, great scientific strides. But let's back up a little. Where were the great centers of learning and knowledge resource BEFORE the advent of Islam?

Among the many topics the Reformer, Martin Luther addressed was the topic of marriage. Luther, as you know came out of a culture where Papalism said that priests should remain celibate. Eventually, Luther himself did get married. I want to take some time to review a treatise by Luther titled, The Estate of Marriage.

Luther discusses who should marry and whom to marry, per the Bible and further Luther discusses whom should be celibate and why. I will review his three-part treatment in even smaller segments. Please refer to this link to see Luther's actual treatise as translated into English by Walther I. Brandt.

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.

We have all heard the supposed example of the bitter rivals, George Whitefield and John Wesley from whom we are supposed to consider how Christians should disagree yet remain friendly. But have you heard of Augustus Toplady? Toplady was a contemporary of George Whitefield, John Gill, and William Romaine. At age 15, Toplady converted via the preaching of an Arminian preacher but by the time Toplady was 18 and had read several Calvinistic works, he came to see Arminianism as an incorrect view.

While Whitefield constantly publicly refused to engage Wesely, even though Wesley had turned Whitefield's Calvinst ministry into an Arminian ministry, Toplady took Wesley head on. Toplady first published a work titled, The Doctrine of Absolute Predestination Stated and Asserted which upset Wesley. This 1769 work was actually a translation of the 1562 work which in great part helped Toplady become a Calvinist. (Confession of the Christian Religion).

No matter what you call it, many Christians, bi-annual "Christians" and non-Christians will attend some sort of service Sunday. Many will do so out of mere tradition, some because they were invited by some family member and others because they are commemorating the resurrection of Jesus Christ.

After services, some families will spend time together eating lamb (in a symbol of the passover, sacrificial lamb that Jesus represented), or some will have ham. Pork is traditionally an "unclean" food for Jews but Jesus came to fulfill the Law and bring mercy, grace, and salvation, thus eating what was once forbidden symbolizes freedom (see Acts 10:9-16).

Sometimes when in discussion with atheists or people resisting Christianity, or religion in general you will hear the claim that religion has been the cause of the most human suffering and death in the world. Typically, events like the Crusades, the so-called "witch hunts" and the Inquisition will be trotted out as proof. And many Christians will shrink back or will say something like, "Even so, Christianity as it was espoused by Christ is non-violent." Although it is true that Christianity as espoused by Christ was to be spread not by the sword (as Islam is designed), but by the Word, by mere preaching. But why should we allow the atheist to even use the Crusades and such as evidence in their claim that most human suffering and death has been caused by religion. It plainly is not true.

What I want to do is offer a detailed listing of human death from the 18th century through the 20th century and see if the claim is true. Yes, we'll also look at the Crusades, the witch hunts and the Inquisition.

Athanasius of Alexandria Egypt gained the title of contra mundum or "against the world" because at times, when it came to the issue of the Trinityⁱ and the deity of Christ it seemed like it was just Athanasius against the entire world. When emperors and fellow churchmen seemed to waffle on this position, Athanasius stubbornly stuck to it no matter how much he was berated and harassed, even exiled and threatened with execution.

Athanasius' story -- the real story, not some fiction -- began between 293AD and 298AD when he was born presumably in the city of Alexandria Egypt.

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.