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.
Category: study
At times, we find that our logic has limits so we reach to our Bible and our Strong’s concordance and find exactly how our opponent falls short of what Scripture Is Actually Saying. Unfortunately we go and use Scripture in exactly the way it shouldn’t be used and find that even though we might technically be making a good point we’re using Scripture in a wrong way to support that point. So I’ve decided to put together a post that shows the wrong way to use Scripture and although I use specific examples these are indicative of the types of things folk do all the time:
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.
Why even have assumptions anyway? I mean, why can’t I simply study the church without any assumptions whatsoever, like a theological tabula rasa?
Psalm 137 is gorgeous and some would say “almost perfect”. Lots of Psalms fall into that category in people’s minds: that Almost Perfect slot. You usually know where people feel any Psalm falls short during the Lord’s Supper when one of the brothers is sharing a Psalm and stops just short of the end. Surely the rest of the Psalm was right and nice…but that last bit really threw the whole thing off. Psalm 137 is, once again, a perfect example.