newtestamentchristianity

  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? Second...

                                                                          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 al...

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 compos...

                                                                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...