Occam’s Razor: The Fool-Proof Test Of True Christianity

    Readers of this blog will probably already know that I pay little or no attention to speculative theology.  The issues that seem so important to philosophical punditry are reckoned by myself as mere “impedimenta” which prevent Christians from attaining dogmatic positivism in matters of religion.  Since I have learned in my studies that the pathway to truth is usually the easiest and most well-traversed road, I naturally wax suspicious of any person who seeks to make Christian doctrine uncessarily complex or tortuous.  In many sectors of the professing church, speculative theorizing has become so ingrained that self-styled “gatekeepers” (the scribes and Pharisees of today) deem discipleship incomplete until one has taken a course in philosophy.  For they well know that philosophy is necessary in order to explain away the plain meaning of God’s word.  But we prefer to heed Paul’s warnings to beware of such spoilation (Colossians 2: 8).  And we are not alone in our concern.  Real Christians (and there are lots of them) generally resent any tampering with the meaning of Scripture; insomuch that they’ll clap their ears to anyone who systematically denies what Christ and His inspired apostles set down as an authoritative and uncompromising rule of faith.  Call it bull-headed bigotry if you will.  I thank God for it every day I live..

The Monologue Apologist

   There is something to be said for the old adage that in simplicity resides an inherent beauty.  At least I have found that to be so from personal experience.  Theology becomes ugly in direct ratio as it becomes more complex.  Of course, I realize that complexity  —  or perhaps sophistication is the better word —  arises in most cases from a desire to address the concerns of one’s opponents, who posit objections and imagined confutations without end, insomuch that at the end of the day all creeds and all theologies seem discredited.  But regardless of all the conflicting voices, I have not so learned Christ.  The Christian religion is one of great simplicity; and since in this property exists its main strength, Christianity has its own kind of beauty.  Beauty not sensual, nor even intellectual: but eminently spiritual..

Shaking Things Up

    There are two primary dangers that a Christian faces in this world.  One of them is becoming  trapped in a backwater of stagnant formalism, where the “shell” of ritual is substituted for the “kernel” of spiritual worship.    The other is getting involved in a community of fervid debate, where discussion becomes a substitute for devotion.  Between these two extremes is a “golden mean,” a middle-ground which Christians would do well to walk, if they would pass through tribulation uninjured in spirit, and stand approved at our Lord’s second coming.

   Christ ordained that we as believers should bear His image and take up the cross daily (Matthew 10: 38; 16: 24; Mark 8: 34; Luke 9: 23, etc.).  And yet, rather than buck against this wicked world, too many Christians who have known Christ for too long  —  whether in truth or conceit, God only knows  —  end up bucking against each other, merely because they don’t have anything to stimulate their graces.  Sickness, hardship, persecution: these will do the trick.  But yet how many persons see trouble and tribulation as curses from the throne, rather than as blessings in disguise?

A Brief Survey Of Christian Eschatology

   As many Christians know from experience, the study of eschatology can be downright confusing.  Not only must Biblical texts be correctly interpreted, but a wide range of theological data must be taken in and analyzed before one can arrive at any final conclusion.  At the end of the day, when all is said and done, the student often desires nothing more than to lay aside his Bible and do anything BUT think of theology.  The study of eschatology is made more complex by the existence of different schemes or “systems” which purport to assess the evidence in an unbiased manner, and present an objective framework to assist in understanding the Scriptures.    Nevertheless, the study of “last things” must be undertaken if we are to arrive at correct conclusions regarding God’s redemptive plan.  To help readers, I have given a brief classification of the two prevalent eschatological schemes which exist among professing Christians.  These two systems are known as Preterism and Futurism.  The goal of this paper will be to provide an objective analysis of each one, in the hope that those who know little about eschatology will be benefited by a more or less systematic classification..

The Mustard-Tree Parable

 Whenever we explain to Hyper-Preterists and others the necessity of returning to orthodox Christianity, we are always apt to be treated with some skepticism as to what orthodoxy is all about.  After all, our opponents say, there are so many different “brands” of orthodoxy, that it becomes difficult at times to distinguish which is correct, and which incorrect.  This gives them license (so they think) to reject orthodoxy altogether  —   not knowing that while species may vary, the genus remains  the same.  That is to say, all orthodoxy has a common basis which implies agreement on essential characteristics.. 

Brief Response To A Papist

During the last couple days, there has been a heated debate at this blog concerning whether the fundamental truths of Christianity may or may not be found preserved in the history of Christendom.  Yesterday, a Roman Catholic named Joe Heschmeyer commented on my post entitled “The Fallibility Gradient,” alleging that in order to use the historical argument consistently, one must become a Catholic.  Being a staunch Protestant, I rejected such a notion, affirming that historicity in no wise requires one to join the Roman church.  Since Heschmeyer made his response to my position the subject of a blog post entitled ‘Proving Too Much, Part 2,’ I have written a counter-response, which is given below.  Needless to say, this is classic apologetics, and just the kind of stuff I enjoy.