Do me a favor, go to this link and add yourself to the competition. In so doing, I get an extra submission my way and you get a chance to win as well. Of course, this will do nothing for you if you’re not particularly into theological books but that’s okay. You can send me a book as a “thank you” for kicking you to the competition.
It’s Another Tim Challies Crazy Monergism.Com Book Give-Away.
With the tri-fold assumptions in place: (1) the church is made up of people; (2)that the church could only come about after certain historical requirements were in place; and (3) that the church’s leadership is divine (in other words: God is the church’s leader), we can safely move on to the purpose, or goal, of the church. An ambitious goal for one post but that’s what you can expect from a probable-heretic.
“Wow, Saul really did Bad Stuff to David. Hunting him. Throwing a spear at him. Wanting to kill him.”
“Yes, Sy: Saul was a bad king. A very jealous man.”
“But at least, in the end he turned good and started telling everybody about Jesus.”
“What? No, Saul never did that, Sy.”
“But, Don’t you remember? Saul–he became Paul! And he preached about God.”
Why even have assumptions anyway? I mean, why can’t I simply study the church without any assumptions whatsoever, like a theological tabula rasa?
In my last post there was an assumption which I didn’t bother bringing attention to but which colored the entire post. That being that New Testament Principles in the church is a worthy stake to claim. With two thousand years of church history that sort of assumption should raise a couple of serious questions.