I'm a struggling college student, so I've been away for a while; but I now feel a need to address some misunderstandings concerning evangelicals and support for Israel. It is widely guessed (by non-Christian media types) that such support is motivated by a desire to advance a premillenial end-times scenario that is overtly religious. I should say that this is only partially true. Some evangelicals feel that way; still others need not hasten God's prophetic time-clock, and their ardent support stems from a basic affinity with their spiritual forefathers. 60 Minutes did a terrible report speculating that Christians supported Israel en masse for the purpose of bringing the end-times to pass, and futher theorized that the Bush Administration did so for the same reason. As long as the American left looks with suspicion upon Christianity, they will never garner more than a pittance of Christian support.
Hilarious Com-Box Quote of The Day: "I was caught immediately because it is the Acts of the Apostles, not the Acts of the Holy Spirit Acting Erratically."--Donald Todd, reacting to the inartful opposition of the Holy Spirit and the Magisterium. Mark Galli, an editor at Christianity Today, had suggested that today's "confusion" in evangelicalism replicates a confusion on the day of Pentecost. Mr. Todd commented after this reply , and the original article is here. My thoughts: By what means was this Church-less "consensus" formed? If the Council did not possess the authority to adjudicate such questions, who does? If the Council Fathers did not intend to be the arbiters, why do they say that they do? At the risk of being rude, I would define evangelicalism as, "Whatever I want or need to believe at any particular time." Ecclesial authority to settle a particular question is a step forward, but only as long as, "God alone is Lord of the con
Comments