Wittenberg Door Campus Ministry
  • Home
  • Calendar
    • Calendar
    • Events
  • Blog
  • Recording Archives
  • Resources
    • Bible Study - John's Gospel
    • Greek Tutorials
  • About
    • About Wittenberg CoMo
    • Support Us
    • Contact Us
  • Position Papers
  • Sandbox

Christianity's Cultural Legacy

5/24/2017

0 Comments

 
Wednesdays are for Bits and Pieces
5/24/17
Maas, Korey D., and Adam S. Francisco, eds. Making the Case for Christianity: Responding to Modern Objections. St. Louis: Concordia Publishing House, 2014. Kindle Electronic Edition.  
Chapter 7, “Christianity’s Cultural Legacy: Poison or Panacea?” by Corey Maas, Loc. 2929-3463.

Apologists have often focused on the truth claims of Christianity, while critics of Christianity often allege ill effects of Christian belief (Maas 2014, Loc. 2934). Maas ties this idea in modern thinkers to ancient roots, citing Tacitus in the early second century (Ibid., Loc. 2952). As a prime modern example Maas calls on Christopher Hitchens. The conflict, though, is not an easy one (Ibid., Loc. 2965). There have certainly been negative aspects to Christian influence in the world. Furthermore, the apologist’s task is to defend Christianity, not Christians. Because there are countless examples of good and evil in experience, it is impossible to address all. We therefore address some of the “philosophical problems in Hitchens’ polemic” (Ibid., Loc. 2980). Because Hitchens denies the supernatural he does not have a clear foundation upon which to identify morality (Ibid., Loc. 2985). Nevertheless he does affirm the existence of morality. Hitchens also asserts a deterministic naturalism which rejects free will. This requires in turn that nobody may be considered guilty of any evil (Ibid., Loc. 3008). “In summary, any denunciation of Christianity predicated upon its being culpable for actions which are in fact evil must proceed from a belief in real moral laws which might or might not be followed by agents possessed of free will” (Ibid., Loc. 3013). Hitchens also assumes that if there is a religious element “even remotely associated with some atrocity he assumes and then asserts it as the primary cause” (Ibid., Loc. 3018). Hitchens will also, on occasion, dismiss those who do good as not really religious, while he finds religion of some sort in everyone who does evil (Ibid., Loc. 3034).

Maas now turns his attention to a case study, Hitchens’ analysis of Christianity and slavery (Ibid., Loc. 3040). Hitchens asserts that slavery “was blessed by all churches” without any protest (Ibid., Loc. 3052). While the assertion may win modern audiences, slavery was not at all universally accepted by churches or individual Christians. In fact, slavery pre-exists Christianity and has always been sanctioned by many non-Christian groups (Ibid., Loc. 3073). The tenets of Christianity were capable of being used to denounce slavery, though that was not always the highest priority of the Christian community (Ibid., Loc. 3083). Yet there is abundant evidence of Christian comments in opposition to slavery. This objection arose only in the Christian community, nowhere else (Ibid., Loc. 3105). In fact, Christian acceptance of slavery always seems to be based on appeals to Aristotle (Ibid., Loc. 3120). The rebirth of slavery in the West followed on the heels of the Enlightenment (Ibid., Loc. 3136). The abolitionist movement in the 1800s was almost entirely a Christian movement (Ibid., Loc. 3153).

Maas reminds his readers that the example of slavery is parallel to many arguments used by the New Atheists (Ibid., Loc. 3181). Claims to human rights and equality are largely rooted in Christianity. The positive morality urged by the New Atheists is moral capital borrowed from Christians (Ibid., Loc. 3207). This results in the arguments of secular superiority being self-defeating.

​
0 Comments

Gratuitous Evil and a God of Love

5/17/2017

0 Comments

 
5/17/17
Maas, Korey D., and Adam S. Francisco, eds. Making the Case for Christianity: Responding to Modern Objections. St. Louis: Concordia Publishing House, 2014. Kindle Electronic Edition.  
Chapter 6, “Gratuitous Evil and a God of Love” by Angus Menuge, Loc. 2494-2928.

The problem of evil is, simply put, “If God is all-powerful (omnipotent), all-knowing (omniscient), and perfectly good, why is there any evil in the world?” (Maas 2014, Loc. 2498). The existence of evil is used by skeptics to deny God, his omniscience, his omnipotence, or his goodness (Ibid., Loc. 2502). The three classic orthodox Christian responses as a theodicy, justifying evil for a greater good; a defense, saying there may be possible justifications, or a narration, showing God using evil to draw people to himself (Ibid., Loc. 2508). In more scholarly discussions, the logical question asks if God and evil are consistent. The “evidential question is whether God’s existence [is] probable” (Ibid., Loc. 2512). Menuge explores the logical problem then the evidential issue.

The logical problem of evil is generally responded to by “The Free Will defense of Alvin Plantinga. Plantinga argues that God may be justified in allowing moral evil because if his creatures have morally significant free will then it must be possible for them to do evil . . . “ (Ibid., Loc. 2526). Free will to do moral evil is allowed by God even though he is sovereignly in control. The consequences of evil are bad and the world, being largely predictable, acts as a deterrent to evil (Ibid., Loc. 2549).

Menuge next discusses “the evidential problem of evil” (Ibid., Loc. 2564). The evidential position says that there are some pointless evils, that there would be none if God existed, therefore God does not exist (Ibid., Loc. 2578). While we might make some theoretical answers, Menuge brings out a fairly strong response, that “finite, fallen creatures are not well-placed to discover whether or not an omniscient God has a reason to permit evil, so we cannot responsibly claim that some evil is probably pointless” (Ibid., Loc. 2603). The world is extremely complex and we cannot know all the possible outcomes of actions. Menuge further observes that in a world without objective moral law a definition of evil becomes very difficult (Ibid., Loc. 2640).

Another challenge to the evidential response is to suggest that God cares for our souls and reshapes them in positive ways, even though the process may be painful (Ibid., Loc. 2656). The metaphor of a shepherd caring for sheep or a father caring for a son is common in the Bible and illustrates this concept well. An objection to this answer says that maybe God is intent on teaching us to do better or simply on showing human inability (Ibid., Loc. 2689). Menuge answers that objection. Many of the “moralistic soul-making” arguments depend on a theodicy, saying God manages somehow to balance good and evil (Ibid., Loc. 2718). A stronger argument is a “creaturely conviction” argument, in which we see our inability and must depend on God (Ibid., Loc. 2736). Yet this does little to justify evil. Menuge prefers “a Christocentric approach” (Ibid., Loc. 2760). Seeing the world of sin and evil as evidenced by the cross of Christ, we are also able to see that Christ suffered as one of us. In the resurrection he shows that evil has been condemned. This cuts through all the philosophical and theoretical arguments and allows for an answer not subject to our own limitations (Ibid., Loc. 2793).

​
0 Comments

The Scandal of Christian Particularity

5/10/2017

0 Comments

 
Wednesdays are for Bits and Pieces
5/10/17
Maas, Korey D., and Adam S. Francisco, eds. Making the Case for Christianity: Responding to Modern Objections. St. Louis: Concordia Publishing House, 2014. Kindle Electronic Edition.  
Chapter 5, “The Scandal of Christian Particularity.” by John Bombaro, Loc. 2098-2493.

Bombaro considers “Christian particularity, the doctrine that salvation is found in Christ alone with the consequence that some are not saved but damned . . . “ (Maas 2014, Loc. 2102). This is a tenet which is often discounted out of hand as unfair. Pluralistic thinkers are quick to demand that a sovereign and righteous God not be exclusive. Bombaro discusses this under the rubric of a “fairness doctrine” (Ibid., Loc. 2128). He interacts with the objections Richard Dawkins made to the exclusive claims of Christ. “Dawkins identifies three inherently scandalous things about Christianity: the sinfulness of humanity, the righteousness of God’s judgment, and the cross of Christ as the means of redemption whereby some but not all are saved” (Ibid., Loc. 2146). His insistence is that Christianity must change these unenlightened ideas. Dawkins considers that Christianity is based on internal and subjective ideas. However, Bombaro cites Michael Horton in defense of the Bible being primarily about facts and events (Ibid., Loc. 212). He further states, “The entire Bible stands and falls with the phenomenological manifestation of God in human reality, which is why stories of the Bible are bound to verifiable . . . events” (Ibid., Loc. 2189). Bombaro observes that the “kingdom” paradigm is the metanarrative for the Bible (Ibid., Loc. 2250). He goes on to discuss some of the texts which establish God as the sovereign ruler. As the king God is able to require whatever he might wish (Ibid., Loc. 2276). While Dawkins sees God as petty, if we consider the kingdom motif rather than a fairness doctrine to rule, we find that sin requires punishment (Ibid., Loc. 2300). Salvation then becomes an escape from God’s righteous judgment (Ibid., Loc. 2330). This rescue can then be seen as gracious when we see that Jesus, the king, lays his own rights down to rescue others from required destruction (Ibid., Loc. 2355). In this light, the call to evangelism becomes especially important (Ibid., Loc. 2390).This is the way the king has made for people to receive his forgiveness. In the end it is human failure, treason against God, which has brought all evil upon us. “The issue at play in the biblical narrative is not fairness but righteousness” (Ibid., Loc. 2435).

​
0 Comments

Defending the Deity of Jesus in the Face of Islam

5/3/2017

0 Comments

 
Wednesdays are for Bits and Pieces
5/3/17
Maas, Korey D., and Adam S. Francisco, eds. Making the Case for Christianity: Responding to Modern Objections. St. Louis: Concordia Publishing House, 2014. Kindle Electronic Edition.  
Chapter 4, “Defending the Deity of Jesus in the Face of Islam.” by Adam S. Francisco, Loc. 1750-2097.

Islam has recently become one of the most clear detractors of Christianity in our world. Not only has there been an increase in public acts of hostility toward Christianity, but Christians observe that Islam vigorously denies historic trinitarian belief (Maas 2014, Loc. 1759). Though Islam speaks favorably of Christianity in some passages Francisco points out that the law of abrogation leaves Islam required to contend against all non-Muslims (Ibid., Loc. 1770).

Francisco observes that modern Muslim apologists such as Louay Fatoohi, have taken a more fact-based approach to their apologetic (Ibid., Loc. 1790). His interpretation of facts runs counter to a great deal of scholarship but does consult documents and facts (Ibid., Loc. 1800); though concentrating on later and non-canonical documents. Drawing on Ehrman’s negative opinion of the New Testament, he rejects the authority of those documents (Ibid., Loc. 1820). From this point, Muslims are able to assert an unreliable New Testament and a reliable account in Islam. The “liberal” Christian scholarship is accepted, hence allowing Islam to have an allegedly accurate picture of Christ (Ibid., Loc. 1867).

In response to this Muslim point of view  Francisco approaches Fatoohi’s methodology (Ibid., Loc. 1883). The “faith-driven” approach he rejects is exactly the one he uses. He prefers information from a greater time distance from the events rather than eyewitnesses.

He dismisses primary sources in favor of secondary ones (Ibid., Loc. 1913). The manuscript evidence for the Gospels is sound, counter to Ehrman’s opinion (Ibid., Loc. 1943).

In conclusion, the evidence of Christianity is clear, counter to the Islamic opinion that Christianity is based only on irrational faith commitments. It is rather the Islamic commitment to the Qur’an which is not based on historical evidence (Ibid., Loc. 1975).

​
0 Comments

The Resurrection of Jesus Christ on Trial

4/26/2017

0 Comments

 
Wednesdays are for Bits and Pieces
4/26/17
Maas, Korey D., and Adam S. Francisco, eds. Making the Case for Christianity: Responding to Modern Objections. St. Louis: Concordia Publishing House, 2014. Kindle Electronic Edition.  
Chapter 3, “The Resurrection of Jesus Christ on Trial: Easter Triumph, Easter Legend, or Easter Fraud?” by Craig A. Parton, Loc. 1286-1749. (This chapter is also called “Lawyers, Trials, and Evidence: Investigating the Resurrection of Christ.”

Craig Parton opens this chapter by observing that a lawyer-eye view of the resurrection is valuable. Lawyers are not normally easily persuaded of a position. They tend to seek out factual evidence. They also seek finality and closure (Maas 2014, Loc. 1304). The evidence must point to the conclusion, and the conclusion will almost certainly be based on probability (Ibid., Loc. 1324).

“Christianity has direct and important links to the world of trial lawyers and verdicts. Christianity is fact-centered and therefore welcomes (indeed insists upon) careful and thoughtful examination” (Ibid., Loc. 1334). Christianity depends upon events. The fact of the resurrection is, according to 1 Corinthians 15, the event which is most critical (Ibid., Loc. 1344). Parton says the burden of proof for the resurrection is on the Christian, as he is positing a deviation from normal events. Further, the Christian’s opponent may not require an impossible standard of proof (Ibid., Loc. 1355).

Parton describes the New Testament as a document of established reliability (Ibid., Loc. 1385). The New Testament presents the resurrection as an established fact. Rejections of miracles, such as resurrection, because miracles do not happen, is self-contradictory. There is evidence of inexplicable events, including this one (Ibid., Loc. 1407). What other evidence is important? Parton notes that these are early, apparently eyewitness accounts, affirming the disappearance of Jesus from the tomb, and his appearance to his followers. The contrary accounts are all a generation or more later (Ibid., Loc. 1429). Explanations which reject the resurrection require evidence which is not present and which appears less likely than the resurrection (Ibid., Loc. 1461).

Parton next pursues the significance of the resurrection. “In Jesus Christ we find the announcement that, though we have brought about our own doom by our cosmic rebellion against God, God himself has acted to effect a reconciliation wholly incapable of being effected by sinful man” (Ibid., Loc. 1486). Jesus’ own interpretation of the resurrection he accomplished is of greater validity than the interpretation of his critics. In this matter, presented as a matter of life and death, we would expect them to be a definitive interpretation (Ibid., Loc. 1501). Jesus is the one qualified to interpret his own actions.

The resurrection and the New Testament’s required interpretation of it obligates us to align our hopes and beliefs with this event and its results (Ibid., Loc. 1511). Parton leaves us with an extensive bibliography related to the evidence for the resurrection.

​
0 Comments

The New Testament Gospels as Reliable History

4/19/2017

0 Comments

 
Wednesdays are for Bits and Pieces
4/19/17
Maas, Korey D., and Adam S. Francisco, eds. Making the Case for Christianity: Responding to Modern Objections. St. Louis: Concordia Publishing House, 2014. Kindle Electronic Edition.  
Chapter 2, The New Testament Gospels as Reliable History.” by Mark A. Pierson, Loc. 671-1285.

The reliability of the accounts of Jesus as found in the canonical Gospels is of great importance. It does not matter how good the teachings are philosophically if they are not genuine. “If it can be shown that the New Testament is not historically reliable, Christianity will have been dealt a fatal blow” (Maas 2014, Loc. 681). “That Christians do believe in a mythical or legendary Jesus is precisely what skeptics have claimed for centuries, with ever-increasing intensity” (Ibid., Loc. 691). Pierson considers the starting point of critics, particularly Bart Ehrman. Ehrman’s presuppositions show through clearly in his commentary. He assumes that miracles do not occur, thus rejects biblical accounts of the supernatural (Ibid., Loc. 717). Pierson counters that a historian must accept the most plausible explanation of events, which is sometimes that a miracle may have happened (Ibid., Loc. 734). Ehrman also assumes that a writer with a theological concern cannot write reliable history (Ibid., Loc. 739). Yet historians regularly provide accurate reports of events they feel strongly about (Ibid., Loc. 755).

Pierson next turns his attention to the scholarly methods of form criticism and redaction criticism (Ibid., Loc. 765). In their purest form, these methods help determine the best interpretive methods and the most accurate text of a narrative. When used by scholars such as Ehrman they assume significant alterations to a narrative in the period prior to the text which reaches us (Ibid., Loc. 776). Pierson observes that there is simply no evidence to support such a view.

“One of the standard positions held in the academy is that the New Testament authors transformed the Jesus of history (the real Jesus) into the exalted Christ of faith (the Jesus worshiped by later Christians)” (Ibid., Loc. 835). Therefore, Ehrman seeks to get behind the Gospels to find the real Jesus. Pierson counters that the real Jesus was apparently the Jesus of faith or people would never have believed or remembered him. Pierson goes on to consider Ehrman’s self-contradictory criteria for accepting accounts as reliable (Ibid., Loc. 862). Effectively the criteria become arbitrary at best.

Another method of interpretation is viewed as “the historical argument.” What happens if we consider the New Testament accounts in the same light we use for other texts? Pierson evaluates this approach “according to three categories: the integrity of texts themselves; the reliability of their content; and extra-biblical support” (Ibid., Loc. 883). Pierson discusses the high reliability of the text based on the manuscript evidence (Ibid., Loc. 900). The content of the New Testament, rather than being eroded by variants, is affirmed by consistent content (Ibid., Loc. 930). It is also clear that there were very early accounts of eyewitnesses to the production of the Gospels and the work of their authors (Ibid., Loc. 956). The texts were also developed in a culture with very strong oral traditions. It is unlikely that the content would be corrupted easily (Ibid., Loc. 1018). Furthermore, the fact that Jesus is even mentioned in secular accounts at all is surprising (Ibid., Loc. 1045). Yet he is mentioned by other sources, as are other disputed events, such as the Roman census of Luke 2 (Ibid., Loc. 1060), Pilate’s governorship, and the crucifixion.

​
0 Comments

Defending the Existence of God

4/12/2017

0 Comments

 
Wednesdays are for Bits and Pieces
4/12/17
Maas, Korey D., and Adam S. Francisco, eds. Making the Case for Christianity: Responding to Modern Objections. St. Louis: Concordia Publishing House, 2014. Kindle Electronic Edition.  
Chapter 1, “Defending the Existence of God.” by Joshua Pagan, Loc. 258-670

Christianity claims “an infinite, personal God beyond the universe who created it, sustains it, and who acts within it in a supernatural way” (Maas 2014, Loc. 265). Pagan defends a Christian view of a transcendental God against the contrary view of the New Atheists, using Richard Dawkins as an exemplar. Dawkins views faith as something which cannot justify itself and for which no evidence can be found (Ibid., Loc. 283). Pagan introduces the Kalam Cosmological Argument which gives rational warrant to religion (Ibid., Loc. 287).

The argument, in short, is that things which begin to exist have a cause, so the universe had a cause (Ibid., Loc. 295). To deny the major premise, “All things that begin to exist have a cause,” requires a universe that “came from nothing and was caused by nothing (Ibid., Loc. 323). Pagan illustrates that the scientific community broadly accepts the idea of causality. Even in quantum physics the vacuum is not empty (Ibid., Loc. 339).

The minor premise states that ‘the universe began to exist” (Ibid., Loc. 354). All credible models of the universe show that it is not eternally existing. Arguments for infinitude can work theoretically but they always fail in practice (Ibid., Loc. 377).

We are left, then, with a first cause. The argument must still be made for a personal creator (Ibid., Loc. 416). The only way a cause can be timeless and an effect temporal is for the ca a personal agent (Ibid., Loc. 422). We could also have an argument for personal agency based on the fact that creation was not necessary. It therefore shows volition (Ibid., Loc. 432). In fact, any pursuit of an origin of something pre-existent will fail (Ibid., Loc. 454). This is a normal pattern in investigations and must be allowed for cosmology as well.

​
0 Comments

Apologetics?

4/5/2017

0 Comments

 
Wednesdays are for Bits and Pieces
4/5/17
Maas, Korey D., and Adam S. Francisco, eds. Making the Case for Christianity: Responding to Modern Objections. St. Louis: Concordia Publishing House, 2014. Kindle Electronic Edition.  

Foreword - Gene Edward Veith (Loc. 60-149)

Apologetics is the task of “defending Christianity from those who attack it” (Maas 2014, Loc. 60). There is much attack today, so likewise much demand for apologetics. Veith observes that many people criticize Christianity for often contradictory reasons (Ibid., Loc. 67).  “This book is a collection of essays that defend Christianity from the various charges against it that are being made today” (Ibid., Loc. 79). Veith goes on to speak briefly about some of the various articles and contributors. The overall focus of the book is a discussion which finds its final answers in Jesus and his works in our place (Ibid., Loc. 18).

Introduction - Korey D. Maas (Loc. 150-257)

Maas identifies a post-era with increasing shifts which lead to great diversity of knowledge and faith (Maas 2014, Loc. 157). In many ways it is like the world into which Jesus was born. he observes, “it is perhaps not surprising that the century following the death of the last apostle would come to be known as the golden age of Christian apologetics” (Ibid., Loc. 171). A significant difference is the antitheism we find today (Ibid., Loc. 178). Maas asserts that the apologist does not “argue people into the faith” (Ibid., Loc. 186). but does present a clear defense for the Christian faith. Christianity makes many truth claims which can be investigated and defended. This book provides readers with case studies showing apologetic methods (Ibid., Loc. 232).

​
0 Comments

    ​Help Fuel This Ministry by Clicking Here!

    All the work of Wittenberg Door Campus Ministry, including this blog, is supported by the generosity of people like you. Please consider joining our team of prayer and financial supporters. Read more here!
    Please Note: The opinions presented in blog posts are not necessarily those of Wittenberg Door Campus Ministry. Frequently we report on contrary views, often without comment. Please chime in on the discussion.

    About Throwing Inkwells

    When Martin Luther was dealing with struggles in his life he once saw what appeared to be an angelic being. Not trusting that he was going to be informed by someone other than the God revealed in Scripture, he took the appearance to be untrustworthy and hurled his inkwell at it. The chipped place in the plaster wall is still visible at the Wartburg Castle, though apparently the ink stain on the wall has been refreshed periodically by the caretaker.

    Blog Feeds

    RSS Feed

    Want to keep up with what's happening at Wittenberg Door? Subscribe to our mailing list!

    Categories

    All
    1 Corinthians
    1 John
    1 Kings
    1 Peter
    1 Samuel
    1 Thessalonians
    1 Timothy
    2019-02-feb
    2 Chronicles
    2 Corinthians
    2-john
    2 Kings
    2 Peter
    2 Samuel
    2 Thessalonians
    2 Timothy
    3-john
    Academic-success
    Acts
    Advent 1
    Advent-1-a
    Advent-1b
    Advent-1c
    Advent 2
    Advent-2-a
    Advent-2b
    Advent-2c
    Advent 3
    Advent-3-a
    Advent-3b
    Advent-3c
    Advent 4
    Advent-4-a
    Advent-4b
    Advent-4c
    Akagi 2016
    Alesso-2009
    Alexander 1999
    Allegory
    Allitt-2010
    All Saints' Day
    Alon 1996
    Amos
    Anaphora
    Anointing
    Anunciation
    Apollinaris Of Hierapolis
    Apostolical Constitutions
    Aristides Of Athens
    Aristotle
    Aryeh 2021
    Ascension Day
    Ash Wednesday
    Athenagoras Of Athens
    Audet 1996
    Augustine
    Bakker 1993
    Balabanski 1997
    Bammel 1996
    Baptism
    Baptism Of Christ
    Baptism-of-the-lord-b
    Bardy 1938
    Baron 2019
    Baron & Maponya 2020
    Bauckham 1984
    Bauckham 2006
    Bauckham 2007
    Beale 1984
    Belief
    Belonging
    Ben-Amos 1999
    Betz 1996
    Biesenthal 1893
    Bigg 1904
    Bigg 1905
    Blogcation
    Blomberg 1984
    Boehme-2010
    Botha 1967
    Botha 1993
    Braaten 2007
    Bruce1988
    Bruce-1988
    Bryennios
    Butler 1960
    Caneday 2017
    Canonicity
    Capon1998
    Capon-1998
    Carr 2010
    Carson-1991
    Carson-moo-2005
    Catholicism
    Cerfaux 1959
    Chilton 1984
    Chrismation
    Christmas-1b
    Christmas-1c
    Christmas Dawn
    Christmas-day
    Christmas Eve
    Christmas Midnight
    Chronicles
    Circumcision And Naming Of Christ
    Cody 1995
    Colossians
    Conditions
    Confession Of Peter
    Confessions
    Connolly 1932
    Connolly 1933
    Connolly 1934
    Constanza-2013
    Cooper & Lioy 2018
    Costa 2021
    Court 1981
    Culley 1986
    Cyprian
    Daly 1978
    Daniel
    Danielou 1956
    Davids 1984
    Davis 1995
    DeHalleux 1996
    Dehandschutter 1995
    Deuteronomy
    Didache
    Diversity
    Divine Fellowship
    Dix 1933
    Dix2005
    Dix-2005
    Doane 1994
    Draper
    Draper 1984
    Draper 1989
    Draper 1995
    Draper-1996
    Draper-1997
    Draper-2000
    Draper-2006
    Dube 2016
    Due 2003
    Easter-2
    Easter-2a
    Easter2b
    Easter-2c
    Easter-3
    Easter-3a
    Easter-3b
    Easter-3c
    Easter-4
    Easter-4a
    Easter-4b
    Easter-4c
    Easter-5
    Easter-5a
    Easter-5b
    Easter-6
    Easter-6a
    Easter-6b
    Easter-6c
    Easter-7
    Easter-7a
    Easter-7b
    Easter-7c
    Easter-b
    Easter-day
    Easter-monday
    Easter-sunday-a
    Easter-sunday-c
    Easter-sunrise
    Easter-tuesday
    Easter-wednesday
    Ecclesiastes
    Eleutheria2014
    Elman-1999
    Ephesians
    Epiphany
    Epiphany-1c
    Epiphany-2-a
    Epiphany-2c
    Epiphany-3-a
    Epiphany-3b
    Epiphany-3c
    Epiphany-4-a
    Epiphany-4b
    Epiphany-4c
    Epiphany-5-a
    Epiphany-5b
    Epiphany-5c
    Epiphany-6-a
    Epiphany-6c
    Epiphany-7-a
    Epiphany-c
    Epistle Of Barnabas
    Esther
    Eucharist
    Eve-of-the-circumcision-of-christ
    Exodus
    Exodus-20
    Experiential Reading
    Eybers 1975
    Ezekiel
    Ezra
    Fagerberg1988
    Fagerberg-1988
    Farrell-1987
    Flew-2007
    Flusser-1996
    Forde-2007
    Fraade-1999
    France-2007
    Galatians
    Garrow 2004
    Gender
    Genesis
    Gero 1977
    Gibbins 1935
    Gibbs 2006
    Glover-1958
    Goga & Popa 2019
    Gonzalez-2010
    Good-friday
    Gospels
    Grosvener-schaff-1885
    Grosvenor-1884
    Guardian-of-jesus
    Habakkuk
    Haggai
    Hagner 1984
    Harnack-1884
    Harris 1887
    Harris 1984
    Hearon 2004
    Hearon 2010
    Hebrews
    Heilmann 2018
    Henderson1992
    Henderson-1992
    Henderson 1995
    Hezser 2010
    History
    Hoffman-1986
    Holy Cross Day
    Holy-innocents
    Holy-saturday
    Horsley 2010
    Hosea
    Hutchens2013
    Hymes-1994
    Ignatius Of Antioch
    Infertility
    Isaiah
    Jaffee-1999
    James
    James Of Jerusalem
    James The Elder
    Jefford 1989
    Jefford 1995
    Jeffreys-1986
    Jeremiah
    Jerome
    Job
    Joel
    John
    Jonah
    Jones & Mirecki 1995
    Joseph
    Joshua
    Jude
    Judges
    Jungmann-1959
    Justin Martyr
    Kelber-1987
    Kelber-1995
    Kelber 2002
    Kelber 2010
    Kelber & Sanders 2010
    Kevil
    Kings
    Kleinig-2013
    Kloppenborg 1979
    Kloppenborg 1995
    Koch2010
    Kok 2015
    Kolb2000
    Kolb-2000
    Kolbarand2008
    Kolb-arand-2008
    Kurekchomycz2009
    Lake 1905
    Lamentations
    Last-sunday-of-the-church-year
    Last-sunday-of-the-church-year-a
    Last-sunday-of-the-church-year-b
    Last-sunday-of-the-church-year-c
    LaVerdiere 1996
    Layton 1968
    Lectionary
    Lent-1
    Lent-1-a
    Lent-1b
    Lent-1c
    Lent-2
    Lent-2-a
    Lent-2b
    Lent-2c
    Lent-3
    Lent-3-a
    Lent-3b
    Lent-3c
    Lent-4
    Lent-4-a
    Lent-4b
    Lent-4c
    Lent-5
    Lent-5-a
    Lent-5b
    Lent-5c
    Lessing2014
    Lessing-2014
    Leviticus
    Lincoln-1885
    Lindemann 1997
    Literary Character
    Liturgy
    Livesey 2012
    Long-2009
    Lord-1986
    Lord-1987
    Lord's Prayer
    Luke
    Luther
    Maas-2014
    Maccoull-1999
    Maier 1984
    Malachi
    Manuscripts
    Mark
    Marty-2016
    Martyrdom Of John The Baptist
    Martyrs
    Mary Magdalene
    Mary Mother Of Our Lord
    Mason-1998
    Massaux 1993 (1950)
    Matthew
    Matthias
    Mazza 1995
    Mazza-1996
    Mazza 1999
    Mbamalu 2014
    McDonald 1980
    McDonnell & Montague 1991
    McKean 2003
    Mcknight-2014
    Micah
    Middleton 1935
    Milavec 1995
    Milavec-2003
    Milavec2012
    Miller 2019
    Missional
    Mitch-2010
    Mitchell 1995
    Molina-evers-1998
    Monday-in-holy-week
    Montenyohl-1993
    Morris-1992
    Motyer-1993
    Mueller-2006
    Muilenburg 1929
    Music
    Nahum
    Nehemiah
    Neufeld-1999
    Newsletter
    Newtestament
    New Testament
    Niditch-1995
    Niditch 2003
    Niebuhr 1956
    Niederwimmer-1982
    Niederwimmer 1995
    Niederwimmer-1996
    Numbers
    Obadiah
    Oldtestament
    Old Testament
    Olsen-1986
    Ong-1987
    Ong-1988
    Ong-1995
    Oralit
    Orality
    Ordination
    Orphan-hosting
    Osborne-2002
    Osborne-2013
    Ozment1980
    Ozment-1980
    Palm-sunday
    Palm-sunday-a
    Palm-sunday-c
    Pardee 1995
    Parks-1986
    Passionb
    Patterson 1995
    Pearce-1993
    Pentateuch
    Pentecost-10a
    Pentecost-10b
    Pentecost-10c
    Pentecost-11a
    Pentecost-11b
    Pentecost-11c
    Pentecost-12a
    Pentecost-12b
    Pentecost-12c
    Pentecost-13a
    Pentecost-13b
    Pentecost13c
    Pentecost-13c
    Pentecost-14a
    Pentecost-14b
    Pentecost-14c
    Pentecost-15
    Pentecost-15a
    Pentecost-15b
    Pentecost-15c
    Pentecost-16
    Pentecost-16a
    Pentecost-16b
    Pentecost-16c
    Pentecost-17a
    Pentecost-17b
    Pentecost 17C
    Pentecost-18a
    Pentecost-18b
    Pentecost 18 C
    Pentecost-19a
    Pentecost-19b
    Pentecost 19 C
    Pentecost-1a
    Pentecost-20a
    Pentecost-20b
    Pentecost 20 C
    Pentecost-21a
    Pentecost-21b
    Pentecost 21 C
    Pentecost-22a
    Pentecost-22b
    Pentecost 22 C
    Pentecost-23a
    Pentecost-23b
    Pentecost 23 C
    Pentecost-24a
    Pentecost-24b
    Pentecost-24-c
    Pentecost-25b
    Pentecost-25-c
    Pentecost-26b
    Pentecost-26-c
    Pentecost-2a
    Pentecost-2b
    Pentecost-2c
    Pentecost-3a
    Pentecost-3b
    Pentecost-3c
    Pentecost-4a
    Pentecost-4b
    Pentecost-4c
    Pentecost-5a
    Pentecost-5b
    Pentecost-5c
    Pentecost-6a
    Pentecost-6b
    Pentecost-6c
    Pentecost-7a
    Pentecost-7b
    Pentecost-7c
    Pentecost-8a
    Pentecost-8b
    Pentecost-8c
    Pentecost-9a
    Pentecost-9b
    Pentecost-9c
    Pentecost-b
    Pentecost-c
    Pentecost Eve
    Pentecost Monday
    Pentecost Sunday
    Pentecost Tuesday
    Petersen 1994
    Peterson2010
    Peterson 2010
    Philemon
    Philippians
    Philosophy
    Picirilli 1988
    Pick 1908
    Pieper1924
    Pieper 1924
    Pieper 1968
    Piper 1947
    Powell 2000
    Prayer
    Preaching
    Presentation Of Our Lord
    Proctor 2019
    Proper-19c
    Proper-20c
    Proper 21C
    Proper 22C
    Proper 23C
    Proper 24C
    Proper 25C
    Proper 26C
    Proper 27C
    Proper 28C
    Prophets
    Proverbs
    Psalm
    Psalms
    Quinquagesima
    Quintilian
    Rabbinic Character
    Real Presence
    Receptivity
    Reed 1995
    Reformation
    Reformation Day
    Reinhartz 2018
    Resurrection
    Revelation
    Rhetoric
    Rhoads 2010
    Richardson & Gooch 1984
    Riggs 1995
    Ritual Meal
    Romans
    Rordorf 1996
    Rosenberg 1986
    Rosenberg 1987
    Rosenfeld-levene-2012
    Rueger-2016
    Russo 1994
    Ruth
    Sacrament
    Sacrifice
    Saenger 1999
    Sailhamer1992
    Sailhamer-1992
    Sale 1996
    Samuel
    Scaer2004
    Scaer-2004
    Schaff 1886
    Schaff 1888
    Schaff 1889
    Schaff 2014
    Schaff-2014
    Schollgen
    Schwarz 2005
    Scriptural Usage
    Seeliger 1996
    Septuagesima
    Sermon
    Sexagesima
    Simon And Jude
    Smith-2009
    Smith 2018
    Sommerville-2006
    Songofsongs
    St. Andrew
    Stark 1997
    St. Barnabas
    St. Bartholomew
    St. John
    St. John The Baptist
    St Luke
    St Mark
    St Matthew
    St. Matthias
    St Michael And All Angels
    St. Paul
    St. Peter And Paul
    St Philip And St James
    Strawbridge 2017
    St. Stephen
    St. Thomas
    St. Titus
    Sunday Of The Passion
    Tatian
    Taylor 1888
    TDNT
    Teaching
    Telfer 1939
    Tertullian
    Textual Comparison
    Textual Integrity
    Theophilos 2018
    Theophilus Of Antioch
    Thielman 2010
    Thursday In Holy Week
    Timothy
    Titus
    Transfiguration
    Transfiguration-a
    Transfigurationb
    Transfiguration-c
    Trinity 1
    Trinity 10
    Trinity 11
    Trinity 12
    Trinity 13
    Trinity 14
    Trinity 15
    Trinity 16
    Trinity 17
    Trinity 18
    Trinity 19
    Trinity 2
    Trinity 20
    Trinity 21
    Trinity 22
    Trinity 23
    Trinity 3
    Trinity 4
    Trinity 5
    Trinity 6
    Trinity 7
    Trinity 8
    Trinity 9
    Trinity-a
    Trinity-b
    Trinity-c
    Trinity Sunday
    Tsang 2009
    Tuckett
    Tuesday In Holy Week
    Tuilier 1995
    Twelftree 1984
    Two Ways
    Ty 19
    Van Der Merwe 2017
    Van Der Merwe 2019
    Van Der Watt 2008
    Van De Sandt 2002
    Van De Sandt 2007
    Van-de-sandt-2010
    Van-de-sandt-2011
    Van De Sandt & Flusser 2002
    Van Deventer 2021
    Varner 2005
    Vatican II
    Veith1993
    Veith-1993
    Veith-sutton-2017
    Vikis-Freibergs 1997
    Visitation
    Voobus 1968
    Voobus 1969
    Warfield 1886
    Wasson & Toelken 1998
    Wednesday In Holy Week
    Wenham 1984
    Wenham 1992
    Weston-2009
    Wilson2011
    Wilson-2011
    Wilson20113470b5cf10
    Wolmarans 2005
    Wright 1984
    Young 2011
    Ysebaert-2002
    Zechariah
    Zephaniah

Proudly powered by Weebly