newtestamentchristianity

 Since I hear so many people do not use logic in their claims about God or theology, I wanted to provide several examples in this post of logical and illogical statements.  1. Logic about Christ and Judaism  This is an example of logic: To know Christ in the fullest sense, we must understand Scripture as it was written by the Jews.  Let me start with the beginning of the premise: ''To know Christ in the fullest sense...'' I am arguing that some can know him incompetely or without full knowledge of his work. But then I conclude, ''...we must understand Scripture as it was written by the Jews.''  How do I conclude the final part of my sentence? By logic. Below, you will see how I arrived at the conclusion.  My Argument: To know Christ in the fullest sense, we must understand Scripture as it was written by the Jews.  Premise 1. To know Christ, we have to have a Biblical theology of him. Premise 2: To have a Biblical theology, we must know scripture. ...

  What many people are unaware of concerning seminary is how much different various different programs within divinity schools are. Among the many disciplines in seminary is Biblical Studies, which I am considering doing after I complete my degree in Theological Studies. As I rely on the Lord for direction, I am considering becoming a professor of New Testament someday. But for this post, I wanted to list some recommendations of theology that I think summarize many important aspects of doctrine:  Infant Baptism in the First Four Centuries by Joachim Jeremias Did the Early Church Baptize Infants: A Response to Joachim Jeremias Infant Baptism in the Early Church by Joachim Jeremias Jesus and the Jewish Roots of Mary by Brant Pitre Jesus and the Jewish Roots of the Eucharist by Brant Pitre Jesus the Bridegroom by Brant Pitre An Apology for the Church of England by John Jewel Confessions by Augustine of Hippo Signs of Life: Catholic Customs and their Biblical Roots by Scott ...

                                                                                      I. Introduction In my previous post, I explained problems with many of the Evangelical views on Baptism. Now, however, I wish to show problems with the Roman Catholic view.                                                                                                                                II. The Case of King David One of the cases cited for the Catholic view of ...

                                                                                                                                                  I. Introduction It is quite common in many Baptist circles to claim that nothing in Scripture teaches that we should confess our sins to a priest. As someone who was part of the Awana Program in various Baptist Churches when I was young, I began to learn about the books of the Bible and various passages of Scripture. Although I did not realize it at the time, my studies in Awana prepared me for the memorization of not only Scripture but also the doctrines of Christianity, which I ...

  One of the dangers of modern Christianity, is the tendency of many well meaning Christians throughout the world to interpret the Bible with no knowledge of Hebrew, Greek, Judaism, or Early Christianity. This is demonstrated by the dangers that stem from those professing adherence to Sola Scriptura.  Oneness Pentecostals claim to hold to Sola Scriptura. They also deny the Trinity, claiming that it is a tradition of man. While many Protestants would say that their view of Scripture is wrong, they would say the same of Protestants. Which side is right? It’s not so easy for only one side to quote a single Bible verse and expect the other side to agree.  Calvinists and Arminians would both say that they hold to Sola Scriptura? Which of them is right?  Paedobaptists and Credobaptists both say their own view is alone taught in scripture. Which view of baptism is right?  Church of Christ would claim that the New Testament teaches Baptismal Reformation, though many Bap...

At the beginning of this new series of posts, I will argue for the Biblical understanding of head coverings. Frequently, many need to pay more attention to 1 Corinthians 11 with no intention of what the passage is saying. Ignored by many present Christians, all women wore head coverings, in light of the mentioned passage, until the feminist movement of the 1960s. Nevertheless, traditional Roman Catholics, many Eastern Orthodox, Oriental Orthodox, Amish, Mennonites, and some Reformed Baptists and Anglicans still believe that 1 Corinthians 11 is relevant for the churches of today.  Many theologians would now argue that 1 Corinthians 11 was only about commands for the Corinth Church in light of female prostitution. Whether or not this is the case, I will address it later. For now, I want to more precisely focus our attention on why Catholic and Orthodox priests traditionally wear head garments when it is claimed that 1 Corinthians 11 forbids men from covering their heads. I have heard...