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.

We’re considering God’s righteousness and seeing how it works with mercy specifically in the case of the Jews. Thus far Paul impressed on us his sorrow that the Jews are not presently believers of the revealed Christ. Paul has been showing us how important a people they truly are and has taken us through history showing how and why God’s Word of Promise was established. We saw how they were kept from Edom’s fate only by God’s mercy. Let’s look at this mercy.

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.)

God doesn?t give the serpent a chance to defend himself. Firstly it?s cursed more than all cattle and all the beast of the field. Secondly it will go on its belly and eat dust all the days of its life. Thirdly enmity will be put between the serpent and the woman and between its seed and her seed. Fourthly, the seed of the woman will injure the head of the serpent and the serpent will injure the seed of the woman on the heel. Let the fantastic musings begin!

I get a bit depressed when I read {{Hebrews 11}}. Anybody who?s a long-time Christian is acquainted with the list of the Bastions of Faith. Sometimes non-Christians have heard of Hebrews 11 when we say ?By faith we understand that the world was framed by the word of God?. The way the chapter is renowned just makes it all the more depressing because I know the quality of my faith.

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?

So when coming to {{Genesis 1}}, we are immediately impressed
upon the activity of God. The Bible makes no apologies as the main (if you will
and said) actor of the Bible is introduced with the mind-boggling words: “In
the beginning God”.

In the past I’ve had wrestling matches with illustrations or analogies
that would help understand the Tri-unity. All of the illustrations
seemed to have a major flaw and it’s understandable that a finite
metaphor breaks down when it comes to God. I’ll need your help in
finding out at what point this illustration comes apart from reality.

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.

I have to make some sort of amends for my post regarding the
tinted glasses on Ephesians. If anything, the humor sparked some serious
considerations on Ephesians chapter 2?one of which spurred by my brother in
Christ, Doug from Coffeeswirls. Together we embark on a look at Ephesians 2,
not to spark debate, but merely in an effort of learning and mutual
edification. Perhaps this will count as penance for my humor?mia culpa, mia
culpa, mia maxima culpa.

How does one go about explaining something that is so different from us? To try to explain such a thing is to traverse the road of potential major error, this is why we approach the subject at hand with reliance on the Lord for guidance and patience in our weaknesses.

The trinity is a broad subject that would definitely cover more than a single post, book or even library. When one tries to study God in all his greatness and otherness, one sometimes falters at trying to express his attributes and repeatedly one may find him or herself relying on church councils or confessions or doctrinal statements. Those statements are extremely helpful in that godly men studied the word and came up with a concise thought on what they had gleaned.

Error drove the forming of such councils and confessions because they had to respond to what others were saying. So it is the case that the driving force behind some of these confessions would be to prove how another thought was wrong. It is a valid way to progress in the things of Christ?but sometimes we must be careful in relying solely on those councils, catechisms and confessions. Whereas those men sat together and inquired of the Lord in the matter and found themselves fully convinced not one of them had the Lord Himself speaking in their ears or face to face. In other words, these men were interpreting the Word of God just as much as we are?so a study in the trinity must be reliant on the Word of God and not of Men for who knows the inner workings of God but the very Spirit of God?