The Bible Archive

How would you deal with the question: “When did the Son of God exist?” Notice that it’s not asking “when was the Word created” or “Is Jesus eternal?” The question is specifically asking about the Son of God and doing that assuming a whole bunch of things about what it means to be the Son of God.

In a recent discussion about the validity of Trinitarian theology there was some questions about the use of the term “Son of God” as applied to Jesus. Some have argued that (1) the Son of God can’t technically be part of the Godhead since the Son is the physical manifestation of the Word. The basic argument is that “Son of God” is temporal language (like Jesus) which can only come into proper usage when the Son is born (Luke 1:35-this one will be called the Son of God). Others argued that (2) “Son of God” is an ambiguous term completely interchangeable with “Jesus Christ” and “The Word of God”. Yet others argue that (3) the term “Son of God” has been imbued with new (and exegetically unsound) theological meaning by the New Testament writers.

Starting with their own presuppositions they each make some solid points but I would argue that contra (1) the term refers to something with intent that can only be realized with a preexistent Sonship; contra (2) the term has specific meaning; and contra (3) the terminology’s usage has been properly realized by the New Testament authors.

Virginia Tech…32 dead: why? The question that always comes up after something like this is: how can there be a good God if there is so much evil in the world? How come he doesn’t stop it right now?

{{Romans 9:1-18}} is (by common consent) a rough spot. Some go in with theological girding in place and a skewed reading is bound to occur while others go in thinking they have to walk away convinced with Something because of the foreboding rumblings in the Christian atmosphere way above them. People might look at my (rather Paul’s) Pharaoh versus Israel model and think that Israel was eternally saved and Pharaoh eternally damned from the get-go. I beg to differ.

These next few verses wind up being breeding ground for lots of
contention. Some have inappropriately used these verses to show that
Jacob was “saved” and Esau “damned to hell”. It seems to me that this
ignores Paul’s argument at this stage of his defense of the
righteousness of God: that being, God’s Word stands and now, why it
stands.

The question “what about the Jew” is frighteningly important in it’s
historic context. Paul immediately impresses upon the reader how
important his kinsmen according to the flesh are since it directly
impacts God’s good word.

Let me start an investigation of the third movement of Paul’s defense
by directing attention to Brother Russ’ series on Calvanism. There are
many discussions that may arise based on very old arguments that I
don’t want to spend (too much) time discussing. Not that the
discussions shouldn’t be—but rather it detracts from my purpose of
going through the book of Romans. Calvinists and Arminians would both
agree that their respective stance is a systematic doctrine. These
camps do not establish their doctrine solely on the grounds of these
three chapters of the Bible so I will not limit my overview of these
chapters to those doctrines either. (Here’s a link to the rest of the study.)

I have an idea why Adam and Eve hid yet even so I think it was futile. I mean, sure we have the whole benefit of seeing God work through history so we have some understanding of what He?s capable of?but so did Adam. He saw that a bunch of animals were made for the benefit of his naming (Gen 2:19). God created his wife and he acknowledged her and was bound to her. All that and still he hid from God?s presence.

There are then some basic lessons that we might get from Genesis 2 which may be of personal benefit. Indeed many have looked towards the institution of the marriage covenant and have drawn long sermons for Valentine’s Day banquets. I just want to touch on a few things as an overview and as a leading thought into Genesis 3.

But before entering into the next scene I?m impressed by another problem in the midst of an amazing story. God recognizes the need for Adam not to be alone?an amazing thing in itself. It is God recognizing the need, not man, and it is God who puts into effect a plan for man to be complete and to recognize his need!

Upon entering {{Genesis 2:4}} we encounter another problem. Why is the writer of Genesis giving us a second creation account? Didn?t he just cover all of creation in the first section? Why introduce this section with those same words?

So what does it all mean? How do those different interpretations of the Genesis days affect the reading of the text? How do we consider the passage in light of those interpretations?

Somebody pointedly asked me “Can God have a plan B?” as his coup de
grace ending the discussion that everything happens because God
purposefully makes it happen. His main thrust was that the Fall of Man
was a good thing because aspects of God would never have been seen if
it weren’t for the fall and thus God wouldn’t have been receiving that
due glory. Now that got me thinking.

randy amos

Technically, there is a difference in meaning between the death of Christ and the cross of Christ. This chronicle, with others to follow in the will of the Lord, will attempt to develop these differences to better understand the place of the cross in the wonders of God’s wisdom in man’s salvation.

Reynaldo Reynoso (admin)

I was recently introduced to the differences in worship in the New Testament, and have been left astounded. I was struck by the contrast of these definitions and my younger perceptions.

When I was a child I looked at worship as a meeting where I could catch up on sleep if need be, but mostly a time of extreme boredom. When I was older, I looked at worship as an action done by certain men, and still the clock was studiously watched. Today I see some other aspects of worship, which I hope to share with you) and I understand my learning is not over.

It is not my goal to try to teach anyone what worship is, for many have been in the Lord much longer than myself, and you all have studied the passages and bring your fruits to the Lord every Sunday. No, my goal is simply to share how my view has changed in light of what the New Testament says about worship.

Indeed, it has been said we will spend eternity worshipping God. Right off the bat, my younger self would have shuddered at the looming eternal boredom (I speak as a fool), and my slightly older self would wonder if he would be spending eternity on the sidelines while such giants as Paul, Timothy, Peter, John and many of yourselves stand up to offer the worship due to the Lord Jesus Christ, who is above all, forever and ever. Amen.