newtestamentchristianity

  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 Baptists would agree. Both

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 the

  One of my first exposures to theology was through what is called ''Sysmstatic Theology.'' This discipline of theology breaks down theology by topic. For example, theologians who specialize in this field may write individual chapters in a book on Baptism, the Lord's Table, Church government, gifts of the Holy Spirit, etc. In many ways, Systematic Theology is like a helpful chart, as it can be a guide for people across various doctrines. It is also a useful tool for seeing how Catholics, Orthodox, Protestants, and others agree and disagree with one another in various different fields of thought.  I enjoy Systematic Theology. While I personally find it less interesting than historical theology, another discipline of theology that concerns the history of Christian doctrine, I find value in both. I don't have a problem with Systematic Theology. In many ways, Thomas Aquinas's  Summa Theologica  was one of the standards of Systematic Theology before any modern Ev

 When we read the New Testament, we don't read about the church ever being called ''Baptist'', ''Methodist,'' etc. At first, the followers of Christ were called Christians (Acts 11: 19-30.) Of course, the New Testament does not explicitly use terms like Catholic or Orthodox in referring to the church, but it also does not use some of the specific words referring to the Trinity or justification that Protestant theologians would use. However, from a historical standpoint, the Catholic and Orthodox Churches provide those of the Protestant Reformation and after. While some Anglicans wish to claim that their church is older than Catholicism on the grounds that the Council of Trent happened after the English Reformation, this is quite silly, as Roman Catholicism existed long before the English Reformation. Likewise, it is silly to claim that there was an underground Baptist Church for centuries when there is no historical evidence of this. Whether or not p

  In a past debate between R. C. Sproul and John Macarthur, the latter argued that infant baptism should be rejected on the grounds that it is an abuse of Rome*1. To Macarthur, infant baptism has no Biblical origins but is a practice that Presbyterians continue out of influence from Roman Catholicism.  To John MacArthur, the Reformation is not over. In his debate with R. C. Sproul, a prominent Reformed Presbyterian, Macarthur argued that the Reformation had not gone far enough----but needed to go even further. This time, Macarthur insists infant baptism should be cast out as he sees the practice as a liturgical abuse of the Roman Church.  However, Macarthur's reasoning is problematic. First of all, what makes him the standard of Reformation thought? Why is he the perfect balance of what is Biblical? Does he know more than Luther and Calvin, Augustine and Aquinas, and essentially every theologian of the first 1500 years---of whom nearly all supported infant baptism? Secondly, if the

                                                                          1. Introduction  Previously, I did nine posts on why I believe Scripture teaches the Eucharist to be the literal Body and Blood of Christ. Now, I wish for this post to address how often Christians should partake in the Lord's Table.                2. The Frequency of the Eucharist in the New Testament/First Century Church Although many Baptists and Presbyterians only partake in Holy Communion quarterly or monthly, this practice is not supported by Scripture. In Acts 2: 46, we learn that the Jerusalem Church partake in the Lord's Table every day. This remains the practice of Roman Catholics toward the Mass today.  On the other hand, a careful examination of Scripture shows that not all churches followed the same practice. Acts 20: 6-11 and 1 Corinthians 16: 2 reveal that the church of Troas engaged in the Eucharist on Sundays, the first day of the week. This remains the same practice of Eastern Orthodox Lu

Unfortunately, it is common in many reformed circles to see Judaism and Reformed theology as two oppositions of one another. Why this is doesn't necessarily make sense. I don't see why one can't be a Calvinist and fond of historic Judaism at the same time. However, I think many Calvinists are threatened by Judaism for two reasons (1) that God's elect may be someone else than themselves, and (2) that if they study Judaism, it may lead them to reject some of their own views.  A few years ago, when I first really began researching the New Perspective on Paul, I noticed many reformed sites critical of the New Perspective. Specifically, I noticed one site in particular insists that Christians do not need to understand Judaism in order to understand the Bible, which is the subject of this post.  Those in reformed communities who deny interpreting Scripture according to Jewish interpretations will interpret Scripture according to Reformed interpretations centuries, if not thou

Recently, I have been accepted into the John Rawling School of Divinity. As someone soon to pursue a interested in both Biblical Studies and Theological Studies (and New Testament Studies and Historical Theology in particular), I am also interested in what the teachings and literature of the Old and New Testaments, along with the theological doctrines espoused in the Bible, the historical development of the canon of Scripture, and the history of the ancient world in which the Scriptures were born.  Those who study Biblical Studies are not simply interested in opening an ESV Bible and reading Romans 8 in English. Biblical theologians wish to understand the language in which Paul wrote this letter to the church of Rome and much more.  One of the principles of hermeneutics is understanding the grammatical, historical, literary, and religious context of the time. And how is this done better than reading from those sources that were written at the time of the New Testament's composition

                                                                I. Introduction In this short post, I wish to briefly elaborate on some common interpretations of Scripture that I believe that people make.                                                                 II.  Is this Bible Verse about Me? One of the most common errors that people make with hermeneutics is sometimes assuming that every Biblical passage is about them. However, interpreting Scripture this way can be quite dangerous. Claiming that Jesus's turning of the tables in the temple justifies any professing Christian to move inside an ungodly church and do the same thing is nonsense. Since Jesus was without sin, He could control his anger in ways that others can't.  Likewise, some will interpret passages in the Scriptures, such as the Hebrews killing all in their pathway (as they sometimes did in the Old Testament). But unlike the Hebrews, Christians today have not been commanded by God to wipe out all pagans

                                                                    1. Introduction Understanding theology often means studying from a wide range of sources (as historians do in their own discipline). Usually, a great Hebrew scholar won't be a great Greek scholar and vice versa. An amazing apologist may not be a good church historian, and a strong church historian may lack knowledge of Biblical theology. There are various experts in different fields. Occasionally, there are some scholars with in-depth knowledge of several. However, I've found this commonly to not be the case. Different Christian traditions tend to emphasize certain aspects of theology more than others. For example, historically, Catholicism emphasized our relationship to God through intellectualism (very much an Aquinas thought). At the same time, Eastern Orthodoxy stressed it through the experience of mysticism and prayer (as one sees through hesychasm). Likewise, Baptists generally emphasize evangelism differ

  Eangelion-the Greek word for gospel. The meaning of the word is the proclamation of the good news, as the apostles did in the New Testament.  There are many passages of Scripture used in the justification debate. However, that shall not be the purpose of this post. Rather, I wish simply to blog about a common lie frequently spread throughout Christendom.  Here is the lie: Catholics don't preach the gospel. Those making this claim often say the same about Eastern Orthodox, Lutherans, the Churches of Christ, and anyone believing in baptismal regeneration. While we can debate whether or not Baptismal Regeneration is Biblical, or what makes the believer righteous in God's sight, or what is the process of justification for a Christian, claiming that Catholics and others don't preach the gospel is a scary conclusion for anyone to make.  Those who claim Catholics don't preach the gospel will point to passages like Ephesians 2, Galatians 3, and Romans 3-4 as they argue that S

                                                                                                                                        I. Introduction In the last post, I set out to prove that the Trinity was taught in the Old Testament. In this post, I wish to demonstrate the doctrines of the Trinity in the Gospel of John and some other New Testament writings. In general, the purpose of this post is to demonstrate that John saw Christ as a distinct, separate Person from the Father, but also one who was both truly God and truly man.                                       II. The Incarnation in John 1 Proven from Scripture The incarnation was God the Son becoming God in the flesh. At the beginning of the Gospel of John, the author writes, ''In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God (John 1: 1, ESV).'' In verse 4, the Word of God is contrasted with other men in that the former is the one of light among darkness. Likewise, in verse 10,