texts: What are the main denominations in the world practicing seventh-day Sabbatarianism? What percentage of Christendom do they represent?

texts: I would like to know if there are reputable sources presenting anything close to an exhaustive listing of the main denominations around the world adhering to seventh-day Sabbatarianism. Similarly, are there recent studies estimating the percentage of Christendom that practices seventh-day Sabbatarianism?


texts:
Daniel Chap 8 always confused me. The last (4th) Beast was detailed in Chap 7 and the former 3rd beast detailed in Chap 8. Both detailed beasts had a little horn coming up later but from different scenarios of previous horns.
However Chap 8 explains the 3rd Empire (Chap 7 Leopard) instead as a Goat and in more detail. It's little horn rises out of 4 horns (Generals) taking over (per history) Alexander the Great's empire (at his death). But this little horn isn't said to subdue any previous horns but rather it waxed exceeding great to the south, east, and pleasant land. If one examines history the first sections of Chap 8 seems to be about the Seleucid Empire's Antiochus Epiphanes IV.

But the latter part of Chap 8 also seems to go beyond Seleucid's Epiphanes IV and details more in line with the timeline and happenstance of the 4th (final) beast of Chap 7(?). Other than this said implicit latter section expansion Chap 8 does not specifically mention the 4th beast empire included Daniel Chap 7.

The Seleucid Empire encompassed a good fraction of the same area as the Eastern Roman (4th beast) Empire. But it's confusing to see the little horn out of the 4 horns go on in the latter section of Chap 8 to sound synonymous with the little horn of the Chap 7's 4th beast which subdued 3 of it's previous 10 horns.
 Unless Chap 8 is not referring to the 4th beast at all (timeline or premise) and verse 11 is referencing Israel of Christ's earthly time. And verse 23's latter time is referencing the same? I.e. making Chap 7 more about the end of the times of the Gentiles and Chap 8 more about the cutting off of the messiah and Israel being scattered until the last days?


texts: Does a legal compilation of all laws included in the New Testament exist?

texts: Jews compiled Old Testament laws and found 613 commandments. I wonder if the same kind of compilation exists for the New Testament laws.


texts: Do any sects permit consensual open marriages?

texts:
1 Corinthians 7:4 says:

  The wife does not have authority over her own body but yields it to her husband. In the same way, the husband does not have authority over his own body but yields it to his wife.

If a man sleeps with another woman without his wife's knowledge or consent, that would be adultery. But what if he does so at the behest of his wife, with her knowledge and consent, even instigation, as Abraham did with Hagar at Sarah's suggestion? Is he then relinquishing "authority" over his own body but yielding it to his wife?

I'm interested in an overview of the views of various Christian denominations on this, or other forms of consensual (on the part of both/all parties) open marriages - are there any that consider them to be okay?


texts: What is the biblical basis for the Covenant of Redemption?

texts:
In Covenant Theology the Covenant of Redemption is an eternal agreement made between the members of the Trinity in which the Son of God agrees to become incarnate and die for the the sins of God's people. In return the Father promises to raise the Son back to life and glorify him.

What is the biblical basis for this idea? Answers do not have to show that the Bible uses the term 'covenant' to talk about this, but should show that this agreement was made before time began.


texts: How do Roman Catholics reconcile the apocalyptic sayings of Jesus with his not having returned?

texts:
There are verses in the earlier Gospels that fairly explicitly say that Jesus will return:

"I am," said Jesus. "And you will see the Son of Man sitting at the right hand of the Mighty One and coming on the clouds of heaven." (Mark 14:62, NIV)
"Truly I say to you, there are some of those who are standing here who will not taste death until they see the Son of Man coming in His kingdom." (Matthew 16:28, NIV)

From what I understand, this immediate coming that the earlier Gospels speak about, and Paul's understanding of the imminent return of Jesus, were later ignored by John's gospel.
Since Jesus has not returned, and he has not come with his kingdom, nor has he "come on the clouds of heaven," how are these verses interpreted in Roman Catholicism?


texts:
According to Biblical Unitarianism does belief in the Trinity disqualify one from salvation?
*Note:  this is not asking whether non-trinitarianism is true or whether a trinitarian baptism is valid but whether a trinitarian is saved according to Biblical Unitarian doctrine.


texts: I am a long distance truck driver who prays the Liturgy daily. I have always wondered why the Canticle of Zachariah is part of the daily morning prayer? As I am a bit isolated and unable to take part in an individual church community I have limited access to resources.


texts: Do all churches celebrate communion in the same order (bread-first, wine-second)?

texts:
So, originally, I was going to ask, why do Anglicans serve the bread first, then the wine.  The answer, however, is that it really seems to be the order in Scripture, for as 1 Corinthians 11 says:

  23 For I received from the Lord what I also passed on to you: The Lord Jesus, on the night he was betrayed, took bread, 24 and when he had given thanks, he broke it and said, “This is my body, which is for you; do this in remembrance of me.” 25 In the same way, after supper he took the cup, saying, “This cup is the new covenant in my blood; do this, whenever you drink it, in remembrance of me.” 26 For whenever you eat this bread and drink this cup, you proclaim the Lord’s death until he comes.

Thus, it is bread, then wine.  Still, I keep thinking that way back in my Baptist days (its been 5 years now!) it was the other way - wine first, then bread.

The question then is two-fold:

Are there any traditions that tend to go wine first (if so, which?) and, if that's the case
Why?


texts:
This question is regarding a part of an answer in a question on Hermeneutics.SE,

  Adam and Eve violated all 10 commandments in the garden.

The 10 Commandments (Exodus 20:1-7)

You shall have no other gods before Me.
You shall not make or worship idols.
You shall not take the name of the LORD your God in vain.
Remember the Sabbath day by keeping it holy.
Honour your father and your mother.
You shall not murder.
You shall not commit adultery.
You shall not steal.
You shall not bear false witness against your neighbour.
You shall not covet your neighbour's house, your neighbour's wife, your neighbour's servant, ox or donkey; or anything else that belongs to your neigbour.

How can it be seen that all 10 Commandments were broken within the Garden of Eden?


texts: Did everything Christ did perfectly match what was required for salvation?

texts: I was thinking about Christ's suffering for sinners and am wondering, 'Since everything he did as a man on earth was a form of suffering for the eternal son, did everything he do perfectly match what was required for salvation?' Did his grasp for food and his sleep as a child, required for our salvation? Was everything perfectly matched with what was required, or were some things neutral, or not required?


texts:
This YouTube video identifies Partialism as a heresy. It states that Partialism is the heresy wherein The Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are each described as 1/3 of God. To me, it's a vaguely familiar false understanding of the Trinity; but I can't find any solid information about it.

Are there any historical documents, early Church writings, or documents from a major denomination (Catholicism, Eastern Orthodox, Lutheran, etc.) that assert this idea by this or any other name as a heresy or false understanding of the Trinity?

If the condemnation of this idea can't be pinned directly to a historical document or Church Father, when can we reasonably assert that it was condemned, if ever?

Per Peter Turner, the wikipedia page on Partialism is an occasion of sin. I have not attempted to verify this, but the relevant Wikipedia page is the one on divine simplicity.


texts: Why was it not necessary to break Jesus' legs during crucifixion?

texts:
Jesus was put to death by crucifixion, between two "real" criminals, on a Friday.

Because the Jews wanted the execution to be over by the Sabbath, they had the Roman soldiers "speed up" the process by breaking the legs of the two (still-living) criminals. But they didn't need to do this to Jesus because he was already dead, meaning that his body was "whole" when it was buried.

Why did Jesus die before the other two, who "survived" him? Was it because he was in worse shape than them? (Of note is the fact the he fainted while carrying the cross.)


texts: What is the biblical basis against the idea that Jesus descended into hell?

texts:
Related question: What is the Biblical basis for the concept that Jesus spent time in Hell?

The question linked above provides a number of biblical arguments in support of the "descent into hell" (or "hades") or the "harrowing of hell" referred to in the Apostles' Creed. However, I'm aware that some reject that clause entirely for historical reasons as well as biblical reasons.

What are the biblical arguments used against the descent into hell by Jesus following his death and prior to his resurrection?


texts: Is a Catholic annulment divorce in a Catholic way?

texts:
During an interview with America and La Nación – Argentina’s leading daily, in a response to a question ,  Cardinal Walter Kasper said

  This marriage was a reality, and to say it was canonically null and
  void [... is to say it’s] divorce in a Catholic way, in a
  dishonest way.

The full exchange of that section

  Q. Some have proposed to have an easier and quicker process of annulment of marriage. The Pope has now set up a commission to look at
  the annulment process.

  A. Well, there are situations in which such annulments are helpful and
  can be made. But take the case of a couple who are ten years married
  and have children, in the first years they had a happy marriage, but
  for different reasons the marriage fell apart. This marriage was a
  reality, and to say it was canonically null and void does not make
  sense to me. This is an abstract canonical construction. It’s divorce
  in a Catholic way, in a dishonest way.

The question is: is a 'Catholic annulment' divorce the Catholic way?

The answer will start with the correct terminology and definition, before continuing to explain from Catholic teaching what exactly is 'Catholic annulment' and how and why it is not divorce.


texts: What is the status of "The Will to Believe" among contemporary philosophers?

texts:
My own conversion experience agrees with William James' "Will to Believe" philosophy. To put it briefly, here's a snippet from Wikipedia:

  ""The Will to Believe" is a lecture by William James, first published
  in 1896,[1] which defends, in certain cases, the adoption of a belief
  without prior evidence of its truth. In particular, James is concerned
  in this lecture about defending the rationality of religious faith
  even lacking sufficient evidence of religious truth.

  James' central argument in "The Will to Believe" hinges on the idea
  that access to the evidence for whether or not certain beliefs are
  true depends crucially upon first adopting those beliefs without
  evidence. As an example, James argues that it can be rational to have
  unsupported faith in one's own ability to accomplish tasks that
  require confidence. Importantly, James points out that this is the
  case even for pursuing scientific inquiry. James then argues that like
  belief in one's own ability to accomplish a difficult task, religious
  faith can also be rational even if one at the time lacks evidence for
  the truth of one's religious belief."

This also seems to go hand-in-hand with Jesus' parable about the mustard seed.

I would like to know if any contemporary Christian philosophers have expounded on this idea. Thank you.


texts: How does John Owen account for scriptures which state that justification by faith is not through the law?

texts:
In my previous inquiry regarding the history of the doctrine which states that Jesus Christ, in the days of his flesh, kept the law on behalf of others as 'passive obedience' (which law-keeping is then regarded as 'transferrable' to others) I discovered that John Owen is the first to state this doctrine, as such, and it first appears in creed-form - as far as I have yet found - in the Savoy Declaration of 1658.
I am now interested in what John Owen makes of scriptures which state that justification by faith is not accomplished by means of the works of the law. These scriptures appear to be categorical and are stating that, whether 'actively' or whether 'passively', justification by faith is simply not a matter - at all - of the works and deeds of the law.

... a man is not justified by the works of the law but by faith of Jesus Christ [Galatians 2:16 (a), KJV]

For by the works of the law shall no flesh be justified [Galatians 2:16 (b), KJV]

But that no man is justified by the law in the sight of God, it is evident [Galatians 3:11 (a) KJV]

... for, the just shall live by faith [Galatians 3:11 (b) KJV]

... by the deeds of the law there shall no flesh be justified in his sight [Romans 3:20 (a) KJV]

... for by the law is the knowledge of sin [Romans 3:20 (b) KJV]

Now, the righteousness of God, without the law, is manfested ... [Romans 3:21 (a) KJV]

... even the righteousnss of God by faith of Jesus Christ [Romans 3:21 (b) KJV]

These texts appear to preclude the possibility of any means of justification which involves law.
How does John Owen (or those who were his contemporaries) treat of these texts in the propagation of the concept of Jesus Christ keeping law, during the days of his flesh, in order that others may be justified ?

[NOTE : The concept of Jesus Christ 'fulfilling' the law is another concept. The law is fulfilled by righteous means. But it is not 'fulfilled' by flesh submitting to it, in order to seek justification. There seems to be some confusion on this point. I think scripture is quite clear about this, as the above texts show.]


texts: Is there a trend toward not capitalizing the word "Bible"?

texts:
Just in the past few months, I've been coming across the word bible as a lowercase word. I'm not talking about the word as used in, say, "the fisherman's bible," or such similar uses; rather, the appearance of the word when it clearly refers to the Holy Bible, as in the Judeo-Christian Scriptures.

As a lifelong Christian, I am somewhat concerned (assuming tentatively there is a trend) that the use of the word bible, when referring to the Holy Bible, may be related to a general devaluing of this traditionally sacred book.

My questions, then "Is there a trend toward replacing the capital B in Bible with a lowercase b?"  And are there statistics or facts to support this notion?  (Meaning, is there data that supports the statement that this is a trend that's actually occurring as opposed to my own perception?)


texts: Why do Jehovah's Witnesses refuse to pledge allegiance or salute the flag?

texts:
I have heard that Jehovah's Witnesses are forbidden to recite the Pledge of Allegiance (to the  United States flag) or even to salute it.

What is the basis for this prohibition?  I'm wondering what is so wrong to have a secondary allegiance to one's country, after one's allegiance to God.


texts: What was the impetus for restoring the consecration of virgins for women living in the world in the 20th Century?

texts:
The United States Association of Consecrated Virgins says the following about their sacramental:

The Consecration of a Virgin is one of the oldest sacramentals in the Church, and one of the fruits of Vatican II was the restoration of this profound blessing on virgins living in the world. The promulgation of this restored Rite for women living in the world was on 31 May 1970.

What was the impetus for restoring the Consecration of a Virgin for women living in the world? As it says, this is an old practice, but seems to have fallen out of favor after a time, so I'm curious as to why it came back.


texts: I am currently going through the Rite of Christian Initiation of Adults in order to join the Catholic Church. Do I need to confess the sins I committed before becoming Catholic?


texts: Why is the pace of the “oration” in the Traditional Latin Mass so brisk?

texts: In a recent poll of those who attend the Traditional Latin Mass, a plurality indicated that their main reason for doing so was the reverence of it (The Latin Mass Among Millennials). I can appreciate this in theory. However, whenever I have gone to a TLM or watched one on YouTube, the priest seems to blast through the Latin at lightning speed. Is this actually the cadence at which native Roman speakers used to speak Latin? And if not, isn't it irreverent to say the Latin prayers so quickly, as though one is rushing to get through them without contemplating them?


texts: How to reconcile Aquinas' analogical view of God with God's self-revelation?

texts:
We use language to describe God. However, Aquinas argues in Summa Theologiae that we can only make analogical statements about God, in which our language is incapable of truly grasping or describing God.

And yet, God chose to reveal Himself partly through human language. Hence we have now Church dogmas like the Trinity. Thus, how is it possible to have True Knowledge expressed in words, and simultaneously sustain Aquinas' position that all out statements about God are always and everywhere analogical? Does it mean that in the end we just cannot grasp what our dogmas mean? This is to say, that Revelation about God's nature is in the end all mystery?


texts: Is there a Christian equivalent of Mandala (word or symbol)?

texts:
During a recent visit to Canterbury Cathedral particular circular patterns on the floors (pictured) reminded me of the circular patterns of Mandalas.

I was wondering if these are simply 'for decoration' in the cases pictured or whether there is a Christian equivalent of Mandala or that same style of artwork?


texts: Can a Christian or Jehovah witness change religion?

texts:
I have a boyfriend we are okay and happy to each other until one day he asked my religion. I said I'm a Christian and he said to me that we can't be together because he's a member of JW and I'm not from his church. I said we can find a way and he trust what I said.
My question is can a Christian and unbaptized Jehovah Witness can be marriage? If not can be one of us change religion?
In case someone say that I'm crazy because I'm willing to change a religion just for someone. I just believe that it is not in religion when it comes on God it is about your faith and trust in him.


texts: What is the historical origin of the "Last Supper" expression?

texts:
This is not a question about the meaning (self-explanatory) of the expression, but on its origin. In particular, about who, where, and when.

There seems to be nothing about this around. The New Testament does not mention these words. Wikipedia offers no work on its origin, and I find no online answer for this.


texts: From the Preterist (fulfilled eschatology) perspective, who was "the prince that shall come" of Dan. 9:26?

texts:
This question was asked previously without calling for a particular Christian perspective, and I believe it deserves an answer.  In two parts: How will Christianity identify the prince of the people of Dan. 9:26, and How could the first century Romans be connected to a leader of today before the "end".

So I am asking the same from the fulfilled eschatology perspective in order to be able to provide an answer.


texts: Calvinist Regeneration, Interpreting Colossians 2:12

texts:
I am convinced that the scriptures teach of a God who is completely sovereign in salvation. I am a monergist. I can cite several passages that make me think this way. I think if you look at some of my answers on this SE, you'll see that I'm a Calvinist. However, this does not mean that I'm a blind Calvinist. I arrived where I did by many years of study and internal deliberation. I am having another internal deliberation at this point.

If we examine passages like the first half of Ephesians 2, we see that it was our nature to sin, and that we had the spirit of Satan working within us. In the same place, Paul refers to us as being dead in our sins. By all accounts, it looks to me like plain support of a Reformed interpretation of the doctrine of regeneration. In the first two chapters, we see plainly that we have been unified with Christ: he in our death, and us in His life. Because of this unity we have with Christ, God made us to be alive as He made His Son to be alive (and now, being united with Christ, we are sons and co-heirs with Christ). This all paints a beautiful monergistic picture.

However...

In the course of my studies this past weekend, preparing for a Bible study that I lead, I happened upon this verse:

  In him also you were circumcised with a circumcision made without hands, by putting off the body of the flesh, by the circumcision of Christ, having been buried with him in baptism, in which you were also raised with him through faith in the powerful working of God, who raised him from the dead.
  (Colossians 2:11-12 ESV)

I get it most of this. Most of it still even paints a monergistic picture, with the phrase "circumcision made without hands," and the whole idea of being "raised" from the dead (the imagery being that it doesn't really involve an act of man's will that he should become alive while he is already dead).

But I have a problem with the phrase "raised with him through faith." I see a logical contradiction that I need help working through (and a non-Calvinistic perspective on the passage does not solve the problem).

Dead men cannot have faith (again, read Ephesians 2). We need to be made alive. However, this passage cites that we are raised through faith. What should I make of this contradiction?

I can think of two options:

The reformed interpretation of regeneration is wrong. Men have the capacity to believe in God before they are regenerate (Wesley's idea of Prevenient Grace would therefore be inapplicable). This simply cannot be. Again, those with faith were once under Satan's influence. A house divided against itself cannot stand; we cannot serve two masters. There was nothing in us to make us want to believe.
Faith must be inherent in regeneration. Not tied to it, but faith would be regenerating. This would mean that predestination would be unto faith, and I've read Reformed authors who would quite disagree with this.

I hope I've made the problem clear. I would appreciate some insight.

Edit:

Please allow me to clarify, I welcome explanations from traditions other than Calvinistic/Reformed. However, I would like these to address the basic doctrinal problem I am discussing. Please see @Eric's comment and my answer to his comment to get an idea of what I mean regarding this.


texts: Are the belief in creation and the theory of evolution mutually exclusive? Does holding of one necessarily mean not holding the other? If not please share some examples.


texts: Does the Catholic Church rank the cardinal virtues?

texts:
The three theological virtues which serve as the basic foundation for all others are faith, hope, and love. The cardinal virtues which build upon them are temperance, justice, wisdom, and courage.

Does the Catholic church have or condone any sort of official ranking system for the virtues? There are numerous minor virtues which flow out from the cardinal virtues- is there a map or chart which organizes and shows the causal connection?


texts: Where can one access Aland's 23rd edition which was used for the first edition of the New American Standard Bible (NASB)?

texts: Where can one access Aland's Novum Testamentum Graece, 23rd edition, which was used for the first edition of the New American Standard Bible (NASB), according to this PDF?


texts:
In him we have redemption through his blood, the forgiveness of
  sins, in accordance with the riches of God's grace. (Ephesians 1:7, NIV)

  He is so rich in kindness and grace that he purchased our freedom with
  the blood of his Son and forgave our sins. (Ephesians 1:7, NLT)

  You belong to your father, the devil, and you want to carry out your
  father's desires. (John 8:44, NIV)

Oxford definition of Redeem

  Save (someone) from sin, error, or evil

  Gain or regain possession of (something) in exchange for payment

  Pay the necessary money to clear (a debt)

  Free (oneself or another) from slavery or captivity by paying a ransom

From Wikipedia on Redeemer

  In Christian theology, Jesus is sometimes referred to as a Redeemer.
  This refers to the salvation he is believed to have accomplished, and
  is based on the metaphor of redemption, or "buying back". Although the
  Gospels do not use the title "Redeemer", the word "redemption" is used
  in several of Paul's letters. Leon Morris says that "Paul uses the
  concept of redemption primarily to speak of the saving significance of
  the death of Christ." The English word redemption means
  'repurchase' or 'buy back', and in the Old Testament referred to the
  ransom of slaves (Exodus 21:8). In the New Testament the redemption
  word group is used to refer both to deliverance from sin and freedom
  from captivity.

What I understood from above sources is that once we were the property of God but because of Adam and Eve, we are now the property of Satan or Sin. Now Jesus offered his blood to buy us back from the hands of Satan/Sin. What I don't understand here is why Jesus had to pay the price. If God is all powerful, He should be able to rescue us from the slavery of Satan/Sin, without the need to pay anything. Why did Jesus have to pay the price? Is it because

God cannot rescue us from Satan/Sin forcefully because Satan is almost as powerful as God. For instance, US cannot simply go and take back the American prisoners in Afghanistan forcefully. There must be some negotiations or the ransom paid.
There is some kind of Universal Law that God cannot violate, that a sinless one must die for the sinners.
God had made a Law that a sinner must go to Hell and He cannot violate it or doesn't want to. Hence, God sent His Son to pay the price in order to satisfy Himself.


texts: What are the main differences between the Baptist and Pentecostal traditions?

texts: What do these two movements disagree on? Also what are the differences in the way each group seeks to study and understand the Bible?


texts: History of the doctrine of religious vocation in Catholic Church

texts:
I am reading Aquinas and I am puzzled by his view on religious vocation and common view in the Church today (I will for sake of simplicity call it a modern view) about religious vocation.

In On the perfection of spiritual life and in his Summa Theologiae the Angelic Doctor expresses his view on religious vocation (I will for sake of simplicity call it traditional view of religious vocation). I do not mean to start fights about modernism in the Church and all that but I just use these terms because they seem fitting to me. Let me contrast some differences between Aquinas view of religious vocation and modern view of religious vocation. To make things clear, although I dislike the term "religious vocation" let me try to define it.

Religious vocation = some kind of invitation or calling from God to life as diocesan priest or to life in some religious order.

Modern. These are just some statements that seem to be approved and agreed by common opinion in Church today (I do not exclude possibility that I have limited experience of common people and priests and therefore have a wrong picture of what is common opinion today, however, it seems to be that not so small number of people in the Church would agree with these statements).

One should take long time to discern his religious vocation.
Life in married state and in a state of religious order or in priesthood are equally good ways to sainthood, you just need to discern which one of these God wants you to take.
One can know God's will for his particular state of life via prayer and whether he feels peace (or something like that) when he prays or somewhere else.
Calling to religious vocation typically involves some kind of event where God is manifest or some deep experience of God.

Traditional. These are some statements that would (it seems to me) say 700 years before today be approved and agreed in common opinion of the Church.

There is no need for long discernment process for religious vocation.
Marriage is less perfect way of following our Lord, where poverty and celibacy are more perfect and better way.
One can not know God's will directly and with certainty about one's particular state of life.
Called to religious vocation are really all who are able to and (without serios and obvious impediments like missing a hand) willing to take it, and typically it does not involve some special feeling or manifestation of God to assure that one ought to take it.

These are just some points that seem to very different to me, so my question is, what are some arguments for both views? Did the Church ever, in her magisterial documents, speak about this? What happened historically that the modern view took its place in common opinion of people and priests today?


texts: What is the Baptist response to 1 Corinthians 7:14 if the children are believers but the parents are not?

texts:
"For the unbelieving husband is sanctified by the wife, and the unbelieving wife is sanctified by the husband: else were your children unclean; but now are they holy." (1 Corinthians 7:14 KJV)

"For the unbelieving husband has been sanctified through his wife, and the unbelieving wife has been sanctified through her believing husband. Otherwise your children would be unclean, but as it is, they are holy." (1 Cor 7:14 NIV).

Taking these two assumptions about Baptist theology:

that young children must either believe in the Gospel and are saved, or not believe in the Gospel and are not saved, without there being any 3rd option

that the belief of young children is 100% independent of the belief of their parents; it is entirely up to them whether they believe or not

Therefore,

given a situation where a young child comes to believe in the gospel through a family friend, though his parents do not, how can this be reconciled with 1 Cor. 7:14? It is a contradiction of "salvation by faith alone" (made clear throughout the NT) to be "unholy" ("unclean," depending on translation) and a believer at the same time.

One Baptist with whom I spoke said that Paul is using the word "holy" to mean "having been somehow influenced by someone who is holy." But as far as I know the word "holy" throughout the Bible always refers to "being of good standing with God" and not just "influenced." If Paul had meant that, I feel he would have used different wording.
There are some answers here: Does Christianity allow for believing on someone else's behalf?,
but none of them are specifically from a Baptist perspective.
I also already looked through these: https://biblehub.com/commentaries/1_corinthians/7-14.htm


texts: Do non-christians of other religions have salvation or not beacuse they don't believe Christ is Lord?

texts: i mean in this question that many people  don't believe he died and don't believe he is the true lord :Do other people of other religions have salvation if they do not believe in salvation by Jesus?


texts: How does the Bible teach us to direct our prayers?

texts:
In a recent Pentecostal prayer meeting I attended, one member, who was a leader in the church, began his prayer with "Holy Spirit, please...", offering up requests for healing, instruction, and gracious distribution of faith.

I was a bit surprised, as I'm familiar with Biblical instruction for (and myself say) prayers directed to "Our Father in Heaven."

What is an overview of the practices of Christian denominations regarding the proper direction of prayer?


texts: According to authoritative Catholic exegetes, does 2 Cor. 6:14 forbid Christians from working with non-Christians in the workplace?

texts:
St. Paul, 2 Cor. 6:14:

  Bear not the yoke with infidels. For what participation hath justice with iniquity? or what society is there between light and darkness?

According to authoritative Catholic exegetes such as the Fathers of the Church,does this forbid Christians from working with non-Christians in the workplace?


texts:
This Freakonomics podcast had an interesting discussion about a guy who challenged an atheist to sell his soul. The guy who bought claimed to be a Christian. The trope, of course, goes back a long way - its not called a Faustian bargain for nothing.

The question, however, is this. Is a man's soul something that belongs to him in the first place? Leaving aside for a minute that of the redeemed--namely those "bought by the blood of Christ," I wonder if the unsaved actually have possession of their own soul, and if so, if they would have rights to transfer it to another.

If not, then it would beg the question, what right does God have to redeem it. Own it, I could understand, since he made it--but how could he transfer it from someone else?

If a person does own their own soul, what is the mechanism by which it can be transferred? How would one know? What rights would adhere thereto?

In other words, does Faust actually make sense in Christian framework?


texts: Is man born in God's image, or was that just Adam?

texts:
I have noticed many Christians say 'we were born in God’s image', but the scripture seems to imply that men are 'born in the image of their Father, the Devil?'

For example:

  This is how we know who the children of God are and who the children of the devil are: Anyone who does not do what is right is not a child of God; nor is anyone who does not love his brother. (1 John 3:10)

Which is it then, is man created in God’s image after the fall, or the Devils, or neither?


texts: What is the Order of the Resurrection of the Dead?

texts:
It seems we have the resurrection in order.
However, my question is how and when are these categories of persons resurrected?

Those who died under the Old Covenant
Those who die in the New Covenant
Those who are alive at the coming of Jesus.  1Thess 4:17
The bible speaks of the Ressurection of the Souls beheaded for the gospel. Rev 20:4 -5

I desire answers that give an overview of major Christian positions regarding this question.


texts: Epiphaneus: “Martyrdom of Peter and Paul”

texts:
I’m researching a particular subject in Epiphanius’ writings and have found every often listed reference except one, despite a long, wearying search in every nook and cranny of Google.

This reference is entitled Martyrium Petri et Pauli in Latin, possibly (also) entitled Martyrdom of Peter and Paul in English.

Chapter 1 alone would suffice, but I MUST see the actual text in the original Greek, if possible. Regrettably, I have seen no further bibliographical details.


texts: What is an overview of non-literal methods of interpreting the Bible in Christianity?

texts:
Following my viewing of this superb discussion between the previous Archbishop of Canterbury and Richard Dawkins:

Dialogue with Richard Dawkins, Rowan Williams and Anthony Kenny (YouTube)

. . . I understood that Archbishop Rowan Williams interpreted the Genesis creation account not perhaps as literal but to be understood as a theme: God created everything and created man in His image.

What is an overview of Christian approaches to the Bible that utilize a non-literal method of interpreting the various texts of the Bible?

Here are two examples of what I might mean by "non-literal interpretation" in particular stories in the Bible:

Noah's ark: not perhaps to be read as a literal historical account, but rather as a story in which God offers salvation to all those who will "come aboard the ship of faith"
Samson and Delilah: Samson's power was "cut off" through the temptation of a woman


texts: Is it best not to mention a denomination or branch when talking to a person who belongs to a different one?

texts:
I learn that it is best to avoid talking about politics with others, because people holding different political views can easily become hostile towards each other.

As an Atheist, I was wondering a similar question: when talking to people of a denomination or branch, is it generally better to avoid mentioning other churches of different denomination or branch?

I am asking about rule of thumb, and it is not uncommon to meet people of

Protestants and Catholics
Within Protestants,  Presbyterians, Methodists, Baptists, ...,
within Presbyterians, Methodists, or Baptists, there is also distinction between Mainline and Evangelical.


texts: According to universalist Christians, is ill-will directed towards the devil virtuous?

texts:
Having heard of the arguments put forth by Origen regarding universal salvation to an extent that includes even the devil, I have recently been considering the inverse, that is, the possibility of the Enemy’s permanent damnation.
For theologies given to that premise, does it ever follow that hatred and contempt and ill-will, prohibited by Jesus when  directed at your neighbors/enemies may be a virtue when directed at spiritual enemies such as demons and/or of Satan himself?


texts: What if Israel had accepted Jesus as their Lord? (Catholic perspective)

texts:
Reading Romans 11:11-12

  Did they stumble so as to fall beyond recovery? Not at all! Rather, because of their transgression, salvation has come to the Gentiles to make Israel envious. 12 But if their transgression means riches for the world, and their loss means riches for the Gentiles, how much greater riches will their full inclusion bring!

Is there a theological base, from a Catholic perspective, that would allow for an answer to the following question?

God from an evil brought forth a greater good. What would have happened if Israel had accepted Jesus as their Lord? Would there have been an even greater good than the present one? Or in line with what we may read earlier, in Romans 9:13: "Just as it is written: 'Jacob I loved, but Esau I hated.'"


texts: Has Protestantism relegated the scripture to be the 'Subordinate Standard'?

texts:
It was very necessary for the early church to stand against doctrinal errors, such as Arianism and Sabellianism but, in the doing so, some chose to state a creed (the Athanasian Creed), rather than simply make reference to original scripture and it could be argued that the Athanasian Creed came to be regarded as 'scripture'.

Since the seventeenth century the Westminster Confession (and in its other forms, the Savoy Declaration and similar) has become the so-called 'subordinate standard' by which serious Christians (who acknowledge doctrinal issues and acknowledge the necessity of taking a stand on them) state their doctrine.

But is it the case, over the past few centuries, that the Westminster Confession has, in fact, become 'The Standard' and that the scripture has been relegated to a subordinate place ?

The Free Presbyterian website argues :

  When a Confession corresponds to Scripture as an account of the Church’s understanding of what the truth of God is, it is quite out of place to suggest that requiring allegiance to the Confession is interfering with allegiance to the Word of God. For those who recognise the authority of God’s Word as the revelation of His will in every matter, a Confession of Faith is not a substitute for Scripture but a necessary expression and summary of what Scripture teaches.

FP Church.org

The Free Church of Scotland states :

  Ever since the earliest days of the church, Christians have laid out their beliefs in brief ‘creeds’ or ’confessions’ in an attempt to summarise essential Christian truths and to guard the church from error. These statements are always secondary to the Bible but they are enormously helpful. A full summary of our teaching is found in the Westminster Confession of Faith.

Free Church of Scotland.org

The Church of Scotland goes even further :

  The full Confession of Faith was agreed upon by the Assembly of Divines at Westminster and examined and approved in 1647 by the General Assembly of the Church of Scotland and ratified by Acts of Parliament in 1649 and 1690.

Church of Scotland.org

[Note the word "ratified"...OED 'To confirm or validate (an act, agreement, gift, etc.) by giving formal consent, approval, or sanction.']

So the first requires my 'allegiance' to the WC.

The second say that 'a full summary of their teaching is within it' (thus, they have not added to their teaching for three hundred and seventy years).

And the third advise me that the British Government have 'ratified' it.

Has, indeed, the Westminster Confession been accepted as 'The Standard' in the Protestant assemblies, to which the text of scripture must take a subordinate place ?


texts:
In Luke 11:29 we have Jesus saying:

  "...no sign will be given to [this generation] except the sign of Jonah."

Yet Jesus had just cast out a demon. Did He say this because the people in His midst were "seeking from Him a sign from heaven" and He felt his present miracles should be sufficient? In that case, why weren't his current miracles enough? Jesus also mentions "your sons cast them out." Was this common practice in His day? Is that why the casting out of demons wasn't enough for the crowd in order to prove He was the Christ?


texts: Is Pre-Adamism considered heretical by any mainstream denominations?

texts:
I came across an article on the existence of Pre-Adamite beings. The article refutes their existence but claims it is a belief held by "many evangelicals". As far as I can find, no major denomination endorses this teaching. Nor could I find any official statements addressing/rejecting it at all.
Do any mainstream denominations have a stance on this issue?


texts: Did any medieval Catholics believe in the possibility the repentance was possible immediately after death?

texts:
Did any medieval Catholics have a pious belief that immediately after death, God gave people a last chance to repent of their sins and thus save their immortal soul from going to hell for all eternity?

I recently came across the following tidbit about St. Padre Pio in which he affirmed his own belief that repentance immediately after death was possible.

  "I believe that not a great number of souls go to hell. God loves us so much. He formed us at his image. God loves us beyond understanding. And it is my belief that when we have passed from the consciousness of the world, when we appear to be dead, God, before He judges us, will give us a chance to see and understand what sin really is. And if we understand it properly, how could we fail to repent?" - Close encounters of a special kind with Padre Pio: The Souls in Purgatory, The Guardian Angel, the devil.

This got me thinking of what a priest that once told me some years ago: “Some Catholics in the Middle Ages (500 AD - 1500 AD) had a pious belief that immediately after sinners had died, Our Lord gave them a final chance to repent!”

The priest in question is no longer amongst us and I have never known him to state something like this erroneously.

Can anyone find any references from any Catholic sources about the possible existence of this pious belief during the Middle Ages?


texts: How does a biblical literalist interpret the tale of David and Goliath?

texts:
Affable Geek's answer to What does it mean to interpret the Bible literally? mentioned the possibility of non-literalists interpreting the story of David and Goliath as a "tale that grew in the telling."  This reminded me of something I read many years ago in a Bible commentary.

It mentioned that several odd discrepancies exist in the details surrounding the story of David and Goliath, making it appear as if another story had been clumsily inserted into the middle of the text by some scribe. Unfortunately, the book was borrowed and I no longer have it, and I don't remember all the points that were made, but the one I remember clearly, because it was so blatant, was how David, once he volunteered to fight Goliath as Israel's champion, was introduced to King Saul as if for the first time, even though he had been serving in the King's court as a musician for quite some time prior to this.

Of course a literalist must necessarily reject this idea that the story is full of later interpolations.  How would one account for the apparent discrepancies in the story of David and Goliath, then?


texts: Does Jesus do for Gentiles what the Torah does for Jews?

texts:
In this review of the book Paul was Not a Christian by Pamela Eisenbaum, Jewish magazine author Judith Schulevitz writes:

  Paul Was Not a Christian is the title of a book published this fall; what he was—and never stopped being—according to New Testament scholar Pamela Eisenbaum and the revisionists she echoes was a law-abiding Jew.

And later:

  Paul is supposed to be the genius who overcame Jewish particularism and invented religious universalism, but the new Paul [of Paul was not a Christian] didn’t do that. He didn’t believe that the Jewish God stopped being Jewish. Nor did he think Jesus superseded God’s covenant with his chosen people. [Paul taught that] What Jesus mainly did was die for the goyim: “What Torah does for Jews, Jesus does for gentiles,” writes Eisenbaum.

Are there proponents of a Christian viewpoint that paraphrase or conclude from Paul's writing the same as Eisenbaum: "what the Torah does for Jews, Jesus does for Gentiles"?

Do any conclude from Paul's writings that Jesus has a role, position, ministry, office, or authority in the kosmos in addition to being the way for Gentiles to enter the Kingdom of God?

Any answers should include citations of Paul's writings and commentary on them.


texts: Why did Paul want God to repay Alexander the metalworker?

texts:
In II Timothy 4:14-15, Paul writes:

  Alexander the metalworker did me a great deal of harm. The Lord
  will repay him for what he has done. You too should be on your
  guard against him, because he strongly opposed our message.

Paul wants God to repay Alexander the metalworker. In other words Paul wants him to be punished. Why Paul wants a man he hates to suffer? Paul very well knows what a "Christian Love" is, and What Jesus did to those who treated him enemies.

Is there any specific reason why he did so?


texts: From a Reformed perspective, does retroactive prayer makes sense?

texts:
From a reformed perspective, that God is outside of time, does it make sense to pray for something that already happened? Or, can a prayer cause God to impact time in a retroactive way?

An example could be: let's say your wife will be travelling to some other country from 3pm to 6pm. At 6:30pm you don't have any news about her, so you pray something like: "God, please take care of her, and I ask you that, if this is your will, no bad thing had happened".

Does this prayer makes sense from a reformed perspective? I mean, since God works outside of time, could you pray for something that already happened?

If this makes sense, have the Bible or the tradition any example of this kind of prayer?

If there is disagreement in reformed views about this question, a good answer would contain an overview of the differences.

Disclaimer

I'm not asking if "the act" of praying retroatively is OK, because this is a matter of opinion. What i'm asking is: "is praying for something that already happened theologically accurate, taking in consideration the reformed view of predestination and God's relationship with time?"


texts: What will New Earth, New Heavens and New Jerusalem really be like according to Catholicism?

texts:
Revelation:21 talks about the New Earth and New Heavens. It also talks about the holy city New Jerusalem. Various physical aspects of this city is described by St. John.

Is this city and the New Earth and New Heavens (new universe) physical places as far as Catholics must understand?
(St. John specially emphasises on the dimensions of the city in 'human measurements' which should imply that the city is a very physical place just as this earth)

Moreover, in (Isa. 65:21-23) Bible very literally says that the righteous people will even "build houses and plant vineyards" in the New creation. Shouldn't this imply that the New creation and New Jerusalem will be just as physical?

Some people also say that many aspects of human work and creativity (such as artists, musicians and other good works directed only for God's purpose) will also continue in the New Earth, because work was a part of God's original creation and it will be part of his coming New Creation also.

Is this also true? In (Mic. 4:3) it is said that “They will beat their swords into plowshares and their spears into pruning hooks”. This must imply that there will be work in New Earth too, must it not?(Works without 'thorns and thistles')

Will there also be human creations like technology etc.?

What does the Church say about it?


texts:
I often hear that man was created perfect.

Yet Genesis 3:7 says that "they knew that they were naked." Additionally, Genesis 2:25 says they were "naked yet not ashamed."

Also, Genesis 2:18 says that the man was "alone," and God said that this was "not good."

Finally, there were times in Genesis 3 when God was not present and the man was separated from him as God had to appear in the garden.

I don't understand how one can conclude that man was created perfect when he was "naked," "alone," and separated from God at times. It seems as though man was initially created incomplete at best.

What is the Biblical basis for man being created perfect, or for man not being created perfect?

Thanks for your scripture-based thoughts on this.


texts: Who has the power to annul marriages in the Catholic Church?

texts: Do Catholic priests with the faculty of performing marriage also get to perform annulments, or does that need referral to the bishop?


texts:
It seems to be incredibly important to numerous "brands" of Christianity that Jesus be God. So much so, that traditions that reject the deity of Christ are often dismissed as heretical by orthodox Christians.

Why is this so important? Why couldn't the Messiah just be a man?

The most common reason I here is that the sacrifice had to be perfect. The Messiah had to be God because only God is perfect.

And yet (some? all?) Catholics believe that Mary was also perfect. Why couldn't she be the sacrifice? If God could make a regular human being perfect without them  being God, isn't the Christ's deity superfluous?

Is there a deeper reason that Jesus had to be God that is compatible with the sinlessness of Mary?

EDIT: In an effort to clarify...

I'm just wondering why the Messiah had to be God. Some people say it's because he had to be perfect. But if the Catholics are right (if Mary was sinless) then God could have just created the savior sinless (without him being God.), so I'm wondering if there's a deeper reason that the Messiah had to be God


texts: Are there circumstances where to "love your neighbor as yourself" also means you put him ahead of you?

texts:
Do any scriptures help to determine if when asked for financial assistance you should give them money if you know they have more money than you, a better car, nicer house, spend more money eating out, etc.

Also if someone at work asks you to help them. You have your career to worry about as well as theirs, but what if they ask you to assist them then that person doesn't give you credit and they later earn a promotion not you?

I am asking from a Protestant upbringing where I was taught you help others but don't ask for help yourself.


texts: Which groups of Christians hold signs about Jesus or Christianity in public, and why?

texts:
I often see people standing on the sides of the road holding signs that say things like "Trust Jesus".

Is this something that Christian groups do regularly? Is it specific to a particular denomination?

What is the intent of doing that? What is the motivation that these people have?


texts: What is the role of the Holy Spirit in the Roman Catholic church? When I search online, I mostly find stuff about filioque. But I want to know specifically what he does. What is his role? How does he affect our salvation?


texts:
Preparing for a service at our church, I was reading Luke 8:22-25 when Jesus was asleep in the boat, is woken by his disciples and calms the storm. The same story is also told in Mark 4:35-41 and Matthew 8:23-27.

I had always assumed that Jesus and the disciples are on the Sea of Galilee, however it never says what sea they are crossing. Although not the greatest source ever, Wikipedia also says it happened on the Sea of Galilee.

My question is, how do we know that it is the Sea of Galilee? And if it isn't, is there other alternatives that it could be?


texts: If God know everything prior to its happen then was God unable to know that Adam and Eve will sin? If He knew then why did He kept that there?

texts: God knows everything. He must have known that Adam and Eve will sin. So why did He knowing that they will sin made that situation to happen?


texts: Do Lutherans now consider the followers of Zwingli and Calvin to be their brothers in Christ?

texts:
Do Lutherans now consider the followers of Zwingli and Calvin to be their brothers in Christ and members of the Body of Christ?

From here I found out that Luther did not believe that Zwingli was saved. What about the followers of Luther in these days? Do they consider Calvinists and Zwinglinists as their brothers in Christ?


texts:
According to the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, on the entry for “Eternity,” §3 (“The Eternalist View”), it is stated,

  So, beginning with Augustine and Boethius, many thinkers have held the view that God exists apart from time, or outside time.

In which writing(s) did Augustine assert that God exists outside of time? (The English translation and Latin text are preferred.)


texts: What did the Centurion mean by ' the word '?

texts:
In Luke 7: 6-7 (ESV), we read about "the word" in the faith of the Centurion story:

  "And Jesus went with them. When he was not far from the house, the centurion sent friends, saying to him, “Lord, do not trouble yourself, for I am not worthy to have you come under my roof. 7 Therefore I did not presume to come to you. But say the word, and let my servant be healed."

The submission of the Centurion , with some changes, is used in the form of a prayer heralding the administration of  Holy Communion in the Catholic Church (Latin rite). I am however, curious to know what the Centurion meant by "the word."

Did he mean  a single word in Hebrew, Greek , Latin or Aramaic  which could be translated as "let him be healed," or did he use the term  in a larger connotation?

What is the Catholic Church's perspective on the meaning of "the word?"


texts:
In this verse Hebrews 2:7 it says that we are a little lower than the angels.

My question is, if Jesus (God) took the human nature and this way he shared his divinity with the human nature. Doesn't this make human nature above all the angelic natures? Even equal to God nature? Jesus give us a hint in Psalm 82:6. And here Peter says how he shares his divinity with us.
 2 Peter 1:3-11

Can we imagine how the angels must have felt when Jesus decided to take the human flesh? Their God was leaving them and bringing His glory to us and not to angels...

My second question is can the fallen angels be saved if Jesus would become an angel and dies for them?

Because it's not anywhere as a teaching I'm not requiring a specific denomination point of view. If this question can only be answered hypothetically, I'm here to argue that there are scriptures that tells us something so we can avoid hypothetical answers.


texts: How do Jehovah's Witnesses understand Hebrews 1?

texts: Hebrews 1:4–14 contrasts Jesus with the angels.  How do groups like Jehovah's Witnesses, who see him as an angel, understand these verses?


texts:
'Orthodox' with a capital has a specialised meaning, regarding the Eastern Orthodox Church, but its uncapitalised meaning (which is not necessarily a matter of Christianity and neither the English word, nor the Greek, is found in the Holy Bible) is :

  Of, belonging to, or in accordance with the accepted theological or ecclesiastical doctrines of a particular religion.

Oxford English Dictionary

When used of Christian doctrine or Christian practice, I would expect - speaking for myself - that 'orthodox' would therefore mean the same as 'apostolic'. I would expect that what is stated by the apostles in the four gospel accounts and various epistles reliably attributed to the apostles would be what is considered to be 'orthodox' by those who follow Jesus Christ.

And it would be my expectation that each generation - including my own generation - would look back to that foundation in order to be assured as to what is 'orthodox'.

Paul says, in I Corinthians 3:10,11 :

  According to the grace of God which is given unto me, as a wise masterbuilder, I have laid the foundation, and another buildeth thereon. But let every man take heed how he buildeth thereupon.For other foundation can no man lay than that is laid, which is Jesus Christ.

I understand by this that Paul laid the foundation in his preaching, and we have the reliable record of his epistles. Thereafter, all others are to build (each in their own generation) upon the foundation that is already laid.

Some, in their lifetime, will build something solid which will withstand the fire. Some will heap up wood, hay and stubble, which will be burnt. Yet they themselves will be saved, albeit without a permanent, personal, legacy, I Corinthians 3: 12,13.

Is the above what Protestant churches would regard as 'orthodoxy' ?

Or have I misunderstood its application within Protestant Christianity >


texts: I have seen a symbol on my way to work and am wondering what it means. It is a flag with a Red Cross on a black background and there is a red upside down triangle in the upper right corner that touches the cross. Is it just a variation of the Christian Flag?


texts: Why should a sinner suffer forever in hell fire?

texts:
In my little knowledge I believe any form of punishment is a way of curbing crimes or wrong doings and for others to learn not to do wrong. When this life ends some would be in heaven and the rest in hell fire as punishment for their wrong doings.

My question is why should there be punishment forever since there is no one to learn from these people any more and they cannot even repent? Why not just annihilate them and be remembered no more?

What am I missing? Is my understanding of punishment different? How does Christian doctrine approach the issue of the duration of hell? What purpose do they see it serving that makes it an eternal necessity? What basis do they cite for their understanding?


texts: How many New Testament Manuscripts do we have from the period between the first century and the fourth century?

texts:
How many early New Testament Manuscripts do we have from the first four centuries of the Christian faith?
(It does not have to be a complete manuscript of a book to count)


texts: Why didn't Mary tell Joseph what Gabriel had said to her?

texts:
From Gabriel's visitation of Mary in Luke 1:26-38, ending with this famous line:

  "I am the Lord's servant," Mary answered. "May your word to me be
  fulfilled." Then the angel left her.

And also a dream Joseph was given from Matthew 1:18-25:

  But after he had considered this, an angel of the Lord appeared to him
  in a dream and said, "Joseph son of David, do not be afraid to take
  Mary home as your wife, because what is conceived in her is from the
  Holy Spirit. She will give birth to a son, and you are to give him the
  name Jesus, because he will save his people from their sins."

One of these visitations must have happened before the other and it's not clear to me which since they are from different authors of the Gospel. Are we to infer that Joseph did not relate this to Mary, and that she kept quiet as well? If so, why? I don't believe that either was asked to keep the visits to themselves.


texts: Is there any historical evidence of the gifts of healing in operation by the second Century?

texts: I was wanting to know if any of the church fathers have documented anything concerning the gift of healing with eye witness testimony or the gift of Miracles being in operation by the second century?


texts: Is the gender of the Holy Spirit, feminine or masculine?

texts:
I know the Holy Spirit (רוח הקודש) is usually referred to as masculine. But, what is the reason for that?

The Hebrew word רוח (ruach; "wind; spirit") is one of the few words that is sometimes used as masculine (cp. Eccl. 1:6; 1 Kings 19:11), although it is mostly used as feminine.

In other Hebrew literature, such as the targumim, the Shekhina (שכינה), which some believe to be the equivalent of the Holy Spirit, is also feminine.

Therefore, I find it questionable that all the persons of the Trinity are considered male in gender. Personally, I think connecting more to the feminine side of god can lead to a softer and more understanding and open approach, whereas connecting too much to the male side might lead in my view to a judging, hard, and maybe sometime, even aggressive religious approach.

This place seems to agree with my observation: "Gender of the Holy Spirit"


texts: Do any copies of the Gutenburg Bible still exist?

texts: Could you actually buy a Gutenburg Bible? Assuming you got enough cash, do they actually come up with for sale?


texts: Has a Pope ever encouraged separated or civilly-divorced spouses to strive toward reunion?

texts: Has a Pope ever encouraged, such as in an official letter or audience, separated spouses to strive toward reunion?


texts: How do Young Earth Creationists explain artifacts dated to 20,000 years ago or more?

texts:
Many creationists and Christians believe the earth is around 6000 years old. I am taking art history and some of the artifacts or pieces of art that were created by humans back then had been carbon dated back to 10,000 to 20,000 years ago or even longer.

How do Young Earth Creationists explain this?


texts: Did Casting Crowns ever say why they chose their name?

texts:
To put it another way, did Casting Crowns ever say what the inspiration for their name was? A friend thought "casting" meant making, as in pouring metal into a mold and casting crowns that way. I've always thought it was "casting" in the sense of throwing it, as in casting crowns away. The only support I have for my idea is

  Revelation 4:10-11
  10 the twenty-four elders fall down before him who sits on the throne and worship him who lives for ever and ever. They lay their crowns before the throne and say:

  11 “You are worthy, our Lord and God, \
      to receive glory and honor and power, \
  for you created all things, \
      and by your will they were created \
      and have their being.”

I took a look at Wikipedia's page, but they don't say anything about how or why the name was chosen. So, how and/or why did they choose that particular name?


texts:
I have several questions regarding the main questions.

The reason I'd like to know what the heaven is like, is because I'm wondering why would people rebel against God? I mean I'm thinking heaven as a perfect place.. Including the one who rules it (GOD). Why would anyone rebel against God? How bad can it be? Why would anyone choose any less.

And of course to be able to know if we want to go to heaven or not, we must first know whats in there for us. Like what are the conditions in heaven? What if a person was born with no limbs... and die, will he spend eternity like that? How about what if a person had a face surgery because he was born physically mutilated will the surgery be canceled and spend his life as is? Do we actually have physical images? do we have personalities? do we have like houses or we just stand all together? what are things we do in heaven? besides praise and worship? if we do stop praise and worship does that mean we have a schedule on doing praise and worship?


texts:
Matthew 12 ESV

  A Tree Is Known by Its Fruit

  33  “Either make the tree good and its fruit good, or make the tree
  bad and its fruit bad, for the tree is known by its fruit. 34  You
  brood of vipers! How can you speak good, when you are evil? For out of
  the abundance of the heart the mouth speaks. 35  The good person out
  of his good treasure brings forth good, and the evil person out of his
  evil treasure brings forth evil. 36 I tell you, on the day of judgment
  people will give account for every careless word they speak, 37 for by
  your words you will be justified, and by your words you will be
  condemned.”

In this context, does being condemned by the words you speak conflict with salvation by grace?  So if you're saved by grace, Jesus would step in and say, "he accepted my sacrifice, his sins are forgiven."  Who would this message be for?  Non-believers would go to hell if their words are good or bad.


texts: Did Jacob Arminius and/or the remonstrants believe they were in agreement with John Calvin?

texts: In a comment on another question on this site, a user says that the Remonstrants thought they more faithfully represented Calvin and Augustine's teaching than did those who eventually convened the Synod of Dort. So, according to their own words, did Arminius or Episcopius or other Remonstrants believe they agreed with Calvin's teachings on soteriology, or did they concede that they disagreed with him?


texts:
In 1 Timothy 5:21 we read:

  I charge you, in the sight of God and Christ Jesus and the elect angels, to keep these instructions without partiality, and to do nothing out of favoritism. 1 Timothy 5:21 (NIV)

My understanding is that a Reformed Protestant would use the word "elect" to describe Christians predestined by God to be saved from their sin, and brought into His kingdom . I'm not aware of any biblical evidence that angels have gone through that process, so it seems odd for Paul to use that word here.

How would a Reformed Protestant understand Paul describing angels as elect?


texts: Did CS Lewis see 'pleasure' as being the purpose of our existence?

texts:
In 'The Great Divorce' a character asks, destraught, why she was born and a spirit replies, "for infinite joy!"
Is that what CS Lewis thought the meaning of life was? Ultimate joy? Is there any other thing he said to back up this idea of what he thought? It would seem odd if such a clever, philosophical man (in my opinion) ignored the BIG 'meaning of life' question entirely!


texts: Has the Church stated any advantages or reasoning or prompting to re-formulating positively the Catholic Church's salvation doctrine?

texts:
The Church in Catechism of the Catholic Church: "Outside the Church there is no salvation", 846, has re-formulated positively "Outside the Church there is no salvation", often repeated by the Church Fathers to mean that all salvation comes from Christ the Head through the Church which is his Body.

Looking at St. Vincent of Lerins' description for what is truly and properly 'Catholic', in The "Vincentian Canon", AD 434 (3) "Now in the Catholic Church itself we take the greatest care to hold that which has been believed everywhere, always and by all.", it would appear that the Church would be very hesitant and reluctant to re-formulate any of its doctrines especially when it was often repeated by the Church Fathers.

The question is what has the Church stated as the advantages or reasoning or prompting to the re-formulation?


texts: What is the biblical basis for the argument against the Catholic teaching on the primacy of Peter?

texts:
The Catholic Church uses, for example, the following NT passages in support of its teaching on the primacy of Peter:

Mt 16:13-20.
Lk 22-31-34.
Jn 21:15-23.

What is the biblical basis that argues against these passages as supporting the Catholic teaching on the primacy of Peter, and what others argue against the aforementioned Catholic teaching?

Related: What are the biblical arguments against the papacy and papal succession?

Background: This question was prompted by the comments exchange following this bruisedreed's answer.


texts: What is the Biblical basis for the belief that there are humans in heaven now?

texts:
Most Christians believe that Enoch, Elijah, Moses, the thief on the cross who was pardoned by Jesus and all the saints who were resurrected during the crucifixion were all translated to heaven.

What is the Biblical evidence for this belief?


texts: Why does the Salvation Army not administer the sacraments of baptism and the Lord's Supper?

texts:
While reading a book on Reformed theology (The Shorter Westminster Catechism, by G. I. Williamson), I came across a brief criticism of the Salvation Army's views on the sacraments:

  A very different view is held by such groups as the Salvation Army.  They do not administer the sacraments at all.  They hold regular worship service, but do not observe baptism or the Lord's Supper. (284)

I had previously thought of the Salvation Army as simply a parachurch organization, but to me such groups would not "hold regular worship service."  And Williamson's view seems to be confirmed by Wikipedia, which refers to the organization as a "Christian church" and a "denomination."

Strangely, the tradition that the SA grew out of, Methodism, does administer these sacraments. So my question is: why does the Salvation Army not administer baptism and the Lord's Supper? I have a couple guesses:

The SA sees itself as a church but does not accept the typical biblical arguments (e.g., Matthew 28:19, 1 Corinthians 11:23–26) for the ongoing nature of these sacraments
The SA sees itself as a parachurch organization and recommends that its members also join a church that administers the sacraments

Are either of these accurate?  Or a combination, or something else entirely?  Whatever the answer, I'd especially like to see evidence from official documents or the published views of its leaders through its history.


texts: According to Catholicism, why did God lower Himself so much for the specks of dust like us?

texts:
St. Paul said, "It is through suffering that we find strength."

St. Augustine said, "My heart is restless until I find abode in You."

And not only that God wanted to feel how humans feel the love with their senses so much that He emptied Himself so He can understand that.

But most humans were not like that.

So why did God lower Himself so much for the specks of dust like us?


texts: Did all disciples of Christ's apostles consider priesthood a sacrament?

texts: Is it true that all the disciples of Christ's apostles (including Paul) considered (in their writings of the 1st and 2nd centuries) the priesthood one of the sacraments?


texts:
In Revelation Song, Jesus is portrayed as sitting on "Heaven's Mercy Seat" at God's right hand.  I'm trying to get a handle on what that is. (At 1:07, we praise 'Him who sits on Heaven's Mercy Seat"  At 3:22, Jesus is explicitly identified)

My understanding is that the Mercy Seat is where God resides, and I think it might even be the Ark of the Covenant - but if that is the case, it seems as though it should be associated more with God the Father than God the Son.  Is this just a case of Phillippians 2 (At the name of Jesus every knee shall bow) or is there more? Or, am I just misinterpreting "Him who sits on Heaven's Mercy Seat?"

So, biblically then, what exactly is the Mercy Seat? Where can I read about it, and more importantly, what does it mean for Jesus to be sitting on it?


texts: How did the disciples of John the Baptist pray?

texts:
Luke 11:1 (NIV) One day Jesus was praying in a certain place. When he
  finished, one of his disciples said to him, “Lord, teach us to pray,
  just as John taught his disciples.”

Since John the Baptist was the forerunner of Jesus who prepares the way for Jesus, there are many similarities between their ministries. John taught his disciples how to pray. Jesus also taught his disciples how to pray. But there is less information on the pattern of the prayer taught by John. If  Jesus taught "May your kingdom come", then John might have taught "Prepare us for your coming kingdom" or something like that.

Is there any source outside the Bible or some traditions?


texts:
I often hear people thank God about how their prayer being answered such as in competition. But what I'm thinking is, the winner is not absolutely the only one that prayed. I believe everybody in the competition pray and hope to win too. So, in this condition, only one person's prayer will be answered.

So, how does God decide which person's prayer to answer? Is it based on how hard s/he prayed, or how much s/he deserved it? or is it according to His will only?

If none of them pray, will the result be the same?


texts: Clarifications on the concept of Trinity according to Catholic creed

texts:
I'm trying to understand what the correct understanding would be according to Catholic teachings.

From what I understand the concept of Trinity is 3 persons who are one and the same.  Is this correct?

So from this understanding, would you say God(Father) sent Jesus or would you say God(Father) is Jesus also?

I was reading a catholic website and it was describing their beliefs and it mentioned that Jesus will sit at the right hand of God(Father).

Is Jesus God or not?  And is he All-Knowing like God?

Thank you.


texts: What does "Altare privilegiatum" mean exactly today?

texts:
Does anyone know what "Altare privilegiatum" means today?

I mean, in former times it meant that the altar was privileged and one can get an indulgence.
I also know, that for some of those altars, there had some renewals to be done by the Holy See.

But what's the meaning of that today?
A lot has changed even in church. Does this have any meaning at all today?

If so, what's the meaning?


texts: Is choosing to commit sin a possibility in Heaven?

texts:
According to the Bible 'sin' by definition is anything that is against God! Which is why God cannot commit sin [Hebrews 6:18; Titus 1:2], not that He doesn't choose to commit sin. This is because God cannot do anything against Himself [2Tim.2:13]. In other words, it is impossible for God to sin.
However, when we think of the creation we sin because we have the freedom to choose between good and bad. Adam and Eve committed sin because of that freedom. If we assume that they sinned because of the tempter then this is not the case when Satan sinned while being in the very presence of God! Therefore, a free being/entity can commit sin even when that being/entity has no sinful  nature internally or a sinful tempter externally.
All those who enter into Heaven or the presence of God and enjoy eternal life will have free-will. But the question is what makes them not to sin again like Satan or other angels that were sent out from God's presence because of their sin?


texts: What is the original appearance and sound of the Nicene Creed?

texts: There are numerous places on line where one can see the modern Greek text of the creed and hear it read.  I would like to know how differently the original 4th century text would appear in a contemporary manuscript, and how differently it would sound if verbalised by one of the original authors.


texts: When and why did the ancient church no longer care about offending a brother?

texts:
Anyone reading the New Testament becomes aware that the early church would avoid practices that offended their brother, out of a spirit of love.  For example, even if it was not technically wrong to eat meat purchased in a market, that might have been originally been a sacrifice to an idol, where it offended a brother's conscience, a believer should avoid exercising his freedom in love.  This subject is described more fully here.

I am naturally interested in symbols and have posted a few questions about them. For example, here you can find discussion about how Jews hated every kind of human image, even on coins as 'graven images' were idolatry, if indicating any kind of power.

Also, I discovered that the modern halo can be traced back as far as ancient Canaanite and Babylonian Son worship. The brightness behind the head being the Sun. This was a common pagan symbol that seems to have been adopted by the ancient church around  the fourth century AD. At first it was only depicted in art for the divine nature of Jesus and then various versions spread to many other objects such as esteemed saints and Mary, etc. For details one can refer here.

The question is, as these pagan traditions were so fully detestable by Jewish ethics, even possibly more than eating unclean meat,  why such a aggressive introduction of so many things that would offend?  I can only imagine that some Jewish Christians still existed in the 4th century. Besides, even today many, if not most, Protestant Christians are deeply troubled in their consciences over the practice of praying to Saints, using religious icons, etc. So why would Paul say avoid even meats that 'seemed unclean' due to idolatry, according to a weaker brothers faith, but in the fourth century anything and everything that might appear as joining a golden calf to the worship of God was not only no longer shunned but lovingly embraced? Without even questioning the actual ethics of the individual practices, and even generously and falsely pretending it is the weak conscience that is offended, still it begs the question: 'Why no longer care about a brother's conscience?'

Note: Please avoid condemning specifc practices, or justifying specific practices that are offensive to many Christians.  My question is being raised at a higher level, which respects how a brother treats the offended. The actual offences are not central to this current question.


texts: Did Christians stop the practice of Berith (Brith, Bris?) immediately?

texts: Did Christians stop the practice of Berith (Brith, Bris?) immediately and based on which scripture?


texts: Is 1 Corinthians 15:27 problematic for trinitarians?

texts:
Bible hub has several translations of 1 Corinthians 15:27.
NKJV reads

  For “He has put all things under His feet.” But when He says “all things are put under Him,” it is evident that He who put all things under Him is excepted

To me, as a non trinitarian, this scripture seems to support the idea that Jesus as a unique spirit creation of Jehovah occupies a lesser position than the Almighty Jehovah but is at the same time in a superior position to every other being in heaven and on earth.

I’m sure the Christians who believe Jesus is co-equal with the Father have an explanation of this verse too.

How do trinitarians interpret and explain it?


texts: What does "proceeds" mean to Eastern Orthodox?

texts:
The Eastern Orthodox Nicene Creed says:

  I believe in one God, Father Almighty, Creator of
  heaven and earth, and of all things visible and invisible.

  And in one Lord Jesus Christ, the only-begotten Son of
  God, begotten of the Father before all ages;
  Light of Light, true God of true God, begotten,
  not created, of one essence with the Father
  through Whom all things were made.
  Who for us men and for our salvation
  came down from heaven and was incarnate
  of the Holy Spirit and the Virgin Mary and became man.
  He was crucified for us under Pontius Pilate,
  and suffered and was buried;
  And He rose on the third day,
  according to the Scriptures.
  He ascended into heaven
  and is seated at the right hand of the Father;
  And He will come again with glory to judge the living
  and dead. His kingdom shall have no end.

  And in the Holy Spirit, the Lord, the Creator of life,
  Who proceeds from the Father, Who together with the
  Father and the Son is worshipped and glorified, Who
  spoke through the prophets.
  In one, holy, catholic, and apostolic Church.
  I confess one baptism for the forgiveness of sins.
  I look for the resurrection of the dead,
  and the life of the age to come.
  Amen.

But what about God? It says God "proceeds" from God. According to Merriam-Webster Dictionary, proceed means:

  Full Definition of proceed
  intransitive verb

  1:  to come forth from a source :  issue

  2 a:  to continue after a pause or interruption
  b:  to go on in an orderly regulated way

  3 a:  to begin and carry on an action, process, or movement
  b:  to be in the process of being accomplished

  4:  to move along a course :  advance

According to Eastern Orthodox, what does "proceeds" mean?


texts: Did the early Church Fathers have a complete agreement on how to interpret 1 Peter 3:18-20?

texts:
Did the early Church Fathers have a complete agreement on how to interpret 1 Peter 3:18-20 or did they also have some differences in the way they interpreted these words by Peter? I specifically mean the words highlighted in the verses below:

  For Christ also suffered once for sins, the righteous for the unrighteous, that he might bring us to God, being put to death in the flesh but made alive in the spirit, in which he went and proclaimed to the spirits in prison, because they formerly did not obey, when God's patience waited in the days of Noah, while the ark was being prepared, in which a few, that is, eight persons, were brought safely through water. (1 Peter 3:18-20 ESV)

Who are the spirits?
What is the prison?
What exactly did Jesus proclaim to them?


texts: Why couldn't Adam and Eve keep both commandments?

texts:
I hope this question is unique here, but I assure you I have searched and have not yet seen it. (This question is close, but not quite the same.)

Adam and Eve were given two commandments: 1) Multiply and replenish the earth, and 2) not eat of the forbidden fruit. From what I understand, some Christian denominations believe the commandments to be paradoxical; one cannot be kept without breaking the other.

Within the scope of those Christian denominations which view the two commandments as both impossible to keep while in the Garden of Eden: Why couldn't they keep both of these commandments, for surely they would have if they could?


texts: What does the Bible say about birth control?

texts:
This is my first question here! I'm Christian and I've read the Bible for a while, but I haven't seen anything related to birth control.

I know that Paul says that husband and wife can agree to refrain from sexual intercourse for a while, whenever it is for dedicating more time to pray. But I don't know something more specific. On the other hand, God calls us to sexual purity, so I'm a bit confused about it.


texts: While on the cross, was Jesus abandoned by every human?

texts:
There are numerous Christians hymns and references in Christian literature that Jesus was "forsaken by all mankind, yet to be in Heaven' enthroned", etc.
In essence, there is this powerful image of Christ hanging crucified on the cross bearing the sins of all mankind, totally abandoned. (cf. Mark 15:34)
The Gospels, however, at least the Gospel of John, presents the apostle John and Mary the mother of Jesus present at the crucifixion (cf. John 19:26–27), showing somehow that not every human betrayed or forsaken Christ.
Are the Christian hymns a simple exaggeration to make a point, or was Jesus indeed literary forsaken by all humans? If so, how are we to interpret the passages cited in John's Gospel?


texts: Rather straight forward question. There have been multiple men declared antipopes. Is it different each time, or generally the same set of circumstances that causes this?


texts: How do the Dead Sea Scrolls impact modern apologetics?

texts:
I understand that the 1946 discovery of almost a thousand ancient texts in caves on the West Bank has had a significant impact, I'm just trying to figure out what specific changes the discovery has had for apologetics. What do the Scrolls tell us about biblical authentication?

As someone who wants to be competent in apologetics, what should I know about the Dead Sea Scrolls?


texts: What is the Biblical basis for Jesus Christ being a created being according to Jehovah’s Witnesses?

texts: Jehovah’s Witnesses believe that Jesus Christ is a created being. What is the Biblical basis for this position?


texts: Historically, what would happen if a church could not afford or provide wine for the sake of the Eucharist?

texts: I assume that at some point in the 2000 year history, there were churches that found it hard to obtain wine at some point. What did the church teach could or should be done in these situations?


texts: Where can I find the text of "Prayer" by Father Faber?

texts: I'm reading a book from the 1920's that mentions Father Faber's book "Prayer" as a good reference on the two main forms of contemplation in the 15th century.  It claims that "Prayer" was then available in any Catholic book shop, but searching today I find no references to it.  Has this text been collected in some other compilation of Faber's writing, or is there a catalog for this kind of text that I might have overlooked?


texts: A little more about natural law, the rules and punishment within natural law?

texts:
There are some things about the natural law (in Christian perspective), which I do not understand. If I have understood it right, then the natural law is based on our conscience, like everyone know that killing is wrong.

If natural law is based on conscience we received from God, should not we all act alike? That it's just based on luck? Like if you have a wealthy family that gives you everything you want, then you're just stupid if you steal, but if you on the other hand steal to support you're family, then you perhaps feel like it's you'r only hope?


texts: Mormonism doctrine of a flesh & bones God

texts:
How do Mormons explain the apparent contradiction to their belief that God the Father has a body of flesh and bones found in the paralleled scriptures below;

  John 4:24
  God is a Spirit...

  Luke 24:
  ... a spirit does not have flesh and bones...

My question is inspired by the article link below:

Does God the Father Have a "Body of Flesh and Bone"?

Thank you.


texts: What is the most important tradition in the Catholic Church?

texts: I am doing a school project on Sacred Tradition and was wondering what Catholics view the most important Sacred Tradition to be. I was thinking that it would be Eucharist because it is the actual body and blood of our Lord. But then since tradition is equal to scripture in terms of authority, they all are equally important right?


texts: What is the Biblical basis for idolatry being "things" we put higher than God?

texts:
In at least the Evangelical circles I'm involved in, we often suggest that "modern idolatry" is idols of the heart - things we put before God - and is described as the same as idolatry that is described in the Bible.  Often it is defined as "elevating good things to God things" or "putting something in the place of God."

As an illustrative example, we often say that an "idol" of Americans can be the "American Dream."  Or work.  Or marriage.  Or whatever, you get the picture.  We often say that what we "put our thought toward," "seek comfort from," or "place our trust in" might be signs that we have an idol of the heart.

The supportive explanations I've heard mostly center on commonalities between "modern idolatry" and idolatry of the Bible ("graven images"); both replace God with something (your source of comfort, what you desire, etc).  However, it strikes me as odd that the Bible explicitly talks about graven images... I can't imagine our "modern idolatry" is really new; I'm sure the Israelites had things that they put before God that weren't graven images.  If that (and I'm not saying it is) is the only support; I'm sure we could create commonalities in a lot of things to defined sins if we tried.  I also find it concerning to redefining something if God has defined it a certain way.

My question then is how do we, Biblically, come to the conclusion that this is idolatry?  What is the Biblical basis for it?  Have I overlooked some important verses?


texts: How should Christianity respond to the person who defames it?

texts:
In a Christian country (where the Christian law is obeyed), if a person insults Jesus, makes fun of him and defames the Bible, How should the Government, Church and Christians respond (according to Christianity)? Is there a punishment like death, torture or at least deportation?

PS: I am not sure if the tag is relevant, feel free to edit.


texts: Does Deuteronomy 17:18 prevent bible translation copyright

texts:
Many modern bible translations are published with copyright claims. However published in the work is not only permission but a command to make a copy. This can be found in.

Deuteronomy 17:18

  And it shall be, when he sitteth upon the throne of his kingdom, that
  he shall write him a copy of this law in a book out of that which is
  before the priests the Levites:

You might argue that this only applies to Kings. However Revelation 5:10 makes us all kings:

  And hast made us unto our God kings and priests: and we shall reign on
  the earth.

It seems to me that if the translators wanted to copyright their translations they would have to leave Deuteronomy 17:18 out. However they all include it and it appears at least on face value to superseded their copyright notice.

Is this a valid legal argument? Has this has ever been tested in a court of law? And if so what was the outcome?


texts: How are ectopic pregnancies supposed to be dealt with according to the Catholic Church?

texts:
The Catholic Church is against abortion in all cases, except, I've heard, where the life of the mother is at serious risk and the child has no chance of survival.  A good example of this would seem to be the case of an ectopic pregnancy, where the human embryo implants in the mothers fallopian tube.

But some actual forms of abortion would seem to violate respect for the human person, forming in the wrong place by no fault of his or her own.  So, in the end what means are licit for dealing with ectopic pregnancies?


texts: What was John Wesley's view on Original Sin?

texts: John Wesley was a supporter of free will and in opposition to Calvinism which taught predestination... What was his view on Original sin since by logic the baby is predestined to sin by just being born, no free will?


texts: Why is Christianity so popular in (South) Korea?

texts:
So, in my world travels with missionaries, it seems like a missionary, if he/she doesn't come from North America, is next most likely to come from Korea*. In seminary, the proportion of Anglos & Koreans way beat out any other group. And, in my neck of the woods (Northern Virginia, just outside Washington DC), it seems like there are Korean churches all over the place.

This all stems from the fact that South Korea has a huge Christian population.

My question is, why?

What is it about the history, culture, economy, whatever of (presumably South) Korea that has made it so receptive to the Gospel?  I know that Catholic missionaries were there in the 1600s, but they've been a lot of places.  What (other than "the Holy Spirit") accounts for the tremendous receptivity and growth?

Along these lines, I'm curious

a. If there is any particular denominational emphasis (it seems like a fair number Presbyterians, but I don't know that)

b. If it is confined to South Korea or if the communist North has experienced similiar things
and

c. What the underlying causes are for this growth...

*Note: Totally unscientific claim.  Just my experiences in Europe & Central Asia.


texts: Why does God use an army of Angels to fight against evil when he could do it himself?

texts:
Many places in the Bible talk about a heavenly host or army of angels. Why does God use an army to fight against devil and evil spirits, when he is the powerful creator? Matthew 19:26 says, all things are possible with God. It really makes me to think "are Devils equal to God in power"?.

Here are a few examples that speak about the army of God (Angels):

Psalm 35:5-6, Matthew 13:41, II Kings 6:14-17, Revelation 12:7-8


texts: What is the biblical evidence for God's omnipotence and omniscience?

texts: Does God tell us in the bible he is omnipotent and omniscient, or are these attributes which (Greek?) philosophers and theologians merely ascribed to him?


texts: Does 1 Corinthians 9:27 contradict the doctrine of "The Perseverance of the Saints?"

texts:
At First Corinthians 9:24-27, the Apostle Paul writes:

  Do you not know that in a race all the runners run, but only one receives the prize? So run that you may obtain it. Every athlete exercises self-control in all things. They do it to receive a perishable wreath, but we an imperishable. So I do not run aimlessly; I do not box as one beating the air. But I discipline my body and keep it under control, lest after preaching to others I myself should be disqualified.

How is this verse understood by people who believe in the doctrine of perseverance, such as those in the Reformed tradition?


texts: What are the main theological differences between Reformed Baptists and other Baptists?

texts:
I have recently met people who are Reformed Baptist. However, I'm having a hard time understanding what their major beliefs are, especially in comparison to other Baptists. The Wikipedia article gives a good overview of the history of the group, but doesn't summarize the major theological beliefs.

Do they still hold to the defining Baptist tenet that only adult baptism is valid? Are there other major differences between them?


texts: Was Satan created to accuse, or has he assumed that role in rebellion?

texts:
What is an overview of Evangelical Protestant doctrines concerning Satan's intended job before he fell?

That is, is it his divinely ordained office to act as an accuser in the same manner that the destroyer carries out his office (cf Rev 9:11), or is Satan's action of accusing rebellion against God?


texts: In the Catholic Church, other than cardinals, are there any other prelates that may don red cassocks?

texts: In the Catholic Church, the clerical dress (cassock) of cardinals is scarlet red in color. Are there any other catholic prelates who may don red cassocks?


texts: When and how can a pope revoke the decrees of an ecumenical council?

texts:
I recently learned that Pope John XXI revoked a decree passed at the Second Council of Lyon (1274).  The Catholic Encyclopedia reads:

  Gregory X, to avoid a repetition of the too lengthy vacancies of the papal see, caused it to be decided that the cardinals should not leave the conclave till the pope had been elected. This constitution which inflicted certain material privations on the cardinals if the election was too long delayed, was suspended in 1276 by Adrian V, and a few months later revoked by John XXI.

In another article, the CE says that John XXI's action was done "with the consent of the cardinals," but it's not clear to me if such consent was strictly necessary.

The Second Council of Lyon was the fourteenth ecumenical council, and I thought that ecumenical councils were binding.  But it doesn't sound like this revocation is seen as problematic in Catholicism.  Why not?  Under what conditions is it acceptable for a pope to revoke an ecumenical council's decrees?


texts: How Does Catholicism Refute the Reasons Muslims Claim That Jesus Was Not Crucified?

texts:
Muslims say Jesus didn't claim to be God.

My question is Twofold:

1) When a Muslim objects to the teaching that Christ was crucified, what is their given reason that anyone ever attempted to crucify Jesus?

2) What proof does the Catholic Church present to refute or nullify those reasons Muslims give that anyone tried to crucify Jesus?