texts:
CCC-135:

  The Sacred Scriptures contain the Word of God and, because they are inspired, they are truly the Word of God.

I don't understand the sentence above, because (to me) "contain the Word of God" has a different meaning than "are the Word of God".

Although I will ask how "the application" with the Bible according to the Lutherans, I do agree when this Lutheran link wrote the Bible is the Word of God, not contains the word of God.

My understanding of these terms is as follows:
A. "The Bible is the Word of God" means that all the words written in the Bible are the Words of God.
B. The Bible contains the Word of God = not all the words written (or we read) in the Bible are the Words of God.

Then A can't be also B at the same time (or vice versa)
It must be A if not B ---or--- B if not A.

the Bible contains the Word of God, not is the word of God
---or---
the Bible is the Word of God, not contains the word of God

Since CCC-135 sentences wrote that A is also B at the same time ---> [(B) The Sacred Scriptures contain the Word of God - (A) The Sacred Scriptures are the Word of God], I am asking how a Catholic would see this as internally consistent. Thank you.


texts: What is the difference between a denomination and a movement?

texts:
I grew up raised in an Apostolic(Oneness-)Pentecostal church that affirmed O.S.A.S., I was always told our denomination was Pentecostal, but I see some refer to Pentecost as a movement, and U.P.C. as a denomination. What is the difference? Is one an umbrella term for all who affirm a particular title in the name of their doctrinal beliefs group?

e.g. Would a Southern Baptist Church and a Calvary Baptist both be called: baptist in movement, but Southern Baptist for the denomination and Calvary Baptist for the denomination?


texts: Has the Catholic Church made any comparative study of the faith of Martha vis-a-vis that of Mary?

texts:
At Luke 10:40-42 we read : " But Martha was distracted with much serving; and she went to him and said, “Lord, do you not care that my sister has left me to serve alone? Tell her then to help me.” But the Lord answered her, “Martha, Martha, you are anxious and troubled about many things;  one thing is needful. Mary has chosen the good portion, which shall not be taken away from her.”

But, at John 11:20, we see Martha taking the lead role in the events which  lead to the resuscitation of Lazarus by Jesus : " When Martha heard that Jesus was coming, she went and met him, while Mary sat in the house "

My question is: Has the Catholic Church made any comparative study of the faith of Martha vis-a-vis that of her sister, Mary, though the words of Jesus at Luke 10: 42 would have one believe that Mary was better  at expressing her faith?


texts: Is one's predestination influenced by one's parents?

texts:
This question regards the reformed doctrine of predestination.

Predestination states that God, even before the child has been born, decides whether the child is saved.

Is there any biblical evidence as to whether this decision is dependent upon the actions of the parent? [I.e. God chooses to give zealous parents a saved child; and parents that he doesn't like very much an unsaved child]?


texts:
I was raised roman catholic for the first 13 years of my life. The rest I spent agnostic of religion after I read the bible. Books like Leviticus made me very upset. Now I heard that this doesn't actually get preached in most churches, and a lot of people call themselves Christian because they believe in certain values rather than believing the bible word for word.

I'm very interested in getting to know how much of what actually gets preached matches with things I believe in. I want to figure that out by going to a couple of masses. From my religious youth I have learned that everyone is welcome in a church, but a lot of things are considered rude, like wearing a hat as a male or not standing or kneeling at the appropriate times (if you're able to).

Now my question is, is it considered impolite or rude in any way if I take notes during preaching? The goal of the notes is being able to study the preaching afterward.  Is there any Catholic teaching that would make this wrong or improper?


texts:
Until recently I was under the impression that Catholics are unanimous in their beliefs and don't have the kind of fragmentation that Protestants have.

But I’ve learned that there are several small groups/institutions within the main church.

There are traditionalist catholics that reject reforms of Vatican council.
There are breakaway churches that maintain same doctrines but do not submit to authority of Rome. Then there are terms like Conclavist Catholics and Sedevacantists (I have no idea what it means I'm not knowledgeable on the subject).

My question is - In the 2000 years of history what significant factions have existed within the Catholic church? How have they been different from each other?


texts: How do Christians who believe in evolution understand Original Sin?

texts:
As I understand, many Christians nowadays accept evolution. There are such Christians in most major denominations and inside these denominations exist different traditions and groups of believers, so I understand that there may be different theories in those traditions for how to combine evolution with Christianity. Those theories may broadly be called Theistic Evolution. There may also be individual ideas which are not part of the teaching of a specific denomination, but are plausible theories in which some of the Christians believe, which I am also ready to explore.
Do those who are Christians and accept evolution at the same time, think that there was no Adam and Eve? If so, does this mean that there was no original sin?
What are the main modern theories how to understand Original Sin (The idea that the humankind changed after the first sin and that people as children of Adam and Eve bear the consequences of this first sin) when believing in evolution at the same time?


texts: Why are Mormon Temples Ceremonies kept secret from non-Mormons?

texts:
Even though only priests were allowed into the Temple in the Old Testament, all of the ceremonies and furnishings were described in great detail in the Old Testament for anyone, Jew or Gentile alike, to read and understand.

However the details of Mormon Temple Ceremonies are kept secret, and, in fact, non-Mormons are prevented from even entering Mormon Temples. The LDS website says

  You can talk about what the interior of the temple looks like, and you can freely share the feelings you have in the temple. However, temple covenants and ordinances, including the words used, are too sacred to be discussed in detail outside the temple. By avoiding discussion of these sacred things outside the temple, we protect them from mocking, ridicule, or disrespect. Do not be casual when talking about your experiences in the temple. (lds.org)

What is the reason for keep the ceremonies secret? Why are they considered 'too sacred'?


texts: According to Seventh Day Advent theology when does the 2300 evenings and mornings in Daniel 8:13-14 begin?

texts:
Daniel 8:13-14 NIV

13 Then I heard a holy one speaking, and another holy one said to him, “How long will it take for the vision to be fulfilled—the vision concerning the daily sacrifice, the rebellion that causes desolation, the surrender of the sanctuary and the trampling underfoot of the Lord’s people?”
14 He said to me, “It will take 2,300 evenings and mornings; then the sanctuary will be reconsecrated.”

I have heard that according to SDA theology that the 2300 evenings and mornings began in 457BC and have been interpreted as years instead of days
My question is how they get to this date?


texts: How do Biblical Unitarians interpret Malachi 3:1-5?

texts:
Malachi 3:1-5 (ESV):

“Behold, I send my messenger, and he will prepare the way before me. And the Lord whom you seek will suddenly come to his temple; and the messenger of the covenant in whom you delight, behold, he is coming, says the LORD of hosts. 2 But who can endure the day of his coming, and who can stand when he appears? For he is like a refiner's fire and like fullers' soap. 3 He will sit as a refiner and purifier of silver, and he will purify the sons of Levi and refine them like gold and silver, and they will bring offerings in righteousness to the LORD. 4 Then the offering of Judah and Jerusalem will be pleasing to the LORD as in the days of old and as in former years.
5 “Then I will draw near to you for judgment. I will be a swift witness against the sorcerers, against the adulterers, against those who swear falsely, against those who oppress the hired worker in his wages, the widow and the fatherless, against those who thrust aside the sojourner, and do not fear me, says the LORD of hosts.

Trinitarians usually interpret Malachi 3:1-5 as evidence that Jesus is Jehovah, by picking up on the fact that Jehovah is speaking in the first person about himself, but then it turns out that the one who came was Jesus. For more details, here are two examples of this kind of exegesis on the passage, taken from the hermeneutics site. Of course, this way of exegeting Malachi 3:1-5 totally contradicts the Christological views of Biblical Unitarians.
How do Biblical Unitarians exegete Malachi 3:1-5?


texts: Does the Chicago Statement meaningfully support a doctrine of Biblical inerrancy?

texts:
The Chicago Statement on Biblical Inerrancy makes the statements:

  WE AFFIRM  that inspiration, though not conferring omniscience,
  guaranteed true and trustworthy utterance on all matters of which the
  Biblical authors were moved to speak and write (Article IX).

  WE AFFIRM  that inspiration, strictly speaking, applies only to the
  autographic text of Scripture, which in the providence of God can be ascertained from available manuscripts with great accuracy (Article X).

  We further affirm that copies and translations of Scripture are the
  Word of God to the extent that they faithfully represent the original
  (ibid.).

Thus, the Chicago Statement draws a distinction between the "autographic text of Scripture", which is inerrant; and  "copies or translations of Scripture", which may not be.

It would seem, therefore, that it has little practical bearing on everyday Bible-readers, since they are reading "copies and translations" and not actually the "autographic text of Scripture".  It states that believers can rely on these copies and translations to the extent that they "faithfully represent the original", but how does one ascertain that what they are reading does, in fact, "faithfully represent the original", without appeal to some extra-Scriptural authority such as a Church, tradition, or other human source (viz. Article I).

How do prominent supporters of the Chicago Statement (e.g. Evangelical Theological Society) address this criticism?


texts: Are there any Christian sects that say salvation is based, in whole or in part, on your response to Jesus on Judgment Day?

texts:
I recently had a conversation with a Christian who believes that our choices during this life are not the only factors affecting salvation. Rather, God will be very lenient about our Earthly behavior, given that many of us are prevented for various reasons from seeing him clearly. So God's final decision will be heavily influenced by the choice we make when we have formally met him in Heaven, and have understood everything we need to understand. At that point, we can decide whether to accept his lordship or not. If we do, we go to Heaven. If we don't, we don't.

This Christian said he does not claim any particular sect. Are there any sects of Christianity that teach anything like this? I've never heard any such salvation theory.


texts: Is there precedent for a carnivorous interpretation of Genesis 1:30?

texts:
Hugh Ross and others of the old-Earth creationist organization Reasons to Believe, who claim to have a literal interpretation of Genesis, believe that Adam and Eve were vegetarian before the Fall (Genesis 1:29), but that carnivorous animals of today were carnivorous then as well. They say that Genesis 1:30:

  And to every beast of the earth and to every bird of the heavens and to everything that creeps on the earth, everything that has the breath of life, I have given every green plant for food.” And it was so.

is stating that all of Earth's major ecosystems are based on green plant life, and is not saying that all animals were herbivores.

Is there any historical or linguistic precedent for this interpretation? In other words, did any Jewish or early Christian scholars interpret Genesis 1:30 as anything like this? If so, what linguistic subtleties do they point to that results in a carnivorous interpretation of 1:30, but a non-carnivorous interpretation of the preceding verse?


texts: What is the basis of the non catholic denominations to hold catholics as Idolaters

texts:
I was reading this article on an authoritative bible site . I was wondering what is the doctrinal bases to hold Catholics as Idolaters

Here is the excerpt:

  Life Magazine, reporting the ceremonies in Ottawa, Canada, in June,
  1947, at the Marian Congress, pointed out that a great procession of
  devout people knelt and kissed the foot of the giant statue of Mary
  "Until the paint wore off its toes." Pictures in L'Europeo, an Italian
  newspaper, of April 5, 1947, shows that devout Catholics in Naples
  continue to crawl at full length on their stomachs before the images
  of their Madonnas and lick the ground with their tongues on their way
  to the statues. Some years ago, the New York Department of Health was
  compelled to put a stop to this practice among the Italian people in
  the Bronx, because it resulted in so many cases of tetanus. Such
  idolatry!


texts: In the Catholic Church, what is the explanation for having, and the history behind Principal Co-Consecrators?

texts:
When researching for an answer, I wanted to provide a link to Pope Bl. Pius IX.

He was ordained Bishop 28 Oct 1919 by Principal Consecrator: Archbishop Aleksander Kakowski † Archbishop of Warszawa {Warsaw}.

I was surprised to see other two Principal Co-Consecrators.

Isn't one Bishop enough to ordain and consecrate a candidate a Bishop?

The question

What is the purpose of the Principal Co-Consecrators?

In Church history, what is the explanation for having, and the history behind having Principal Co-Consecrators? Who decreed it and when?


texts: What was the significance of Jesus' instructions to the disciples at Transfiguration?

texts:
We see the instruction given to the three disciples who accompanied Jesus to the site of Transfiguration
at  Mtt 17:19 :

  As they were coming down the mountain, Jesus ordered them, “Tell no
  one about the vision until after the Son of Man has been raised from
  the dead.

But then, we also see at Mtt 26:63-64,  Jesus publicly disclosing his divinity to the High Priest during his trial:

  But Jesus was silent. And the high priest said to him, “I adjure
  you by the living God, tell us if you are the Christ, the Son of God.”
  Jesus said to him, “You have said so. But I tell you, hereafter you
  will see the Son of man seated at the right hand of Power, and coming
  on the clouds of heaven.”

Now, it would have been really hard for the three disciples to keep to themselves the secret regarding Jesus' Transfiguration, between the period of his death and resurrection, knowing that such a disclosure would bring a ray of hope to the other disciples who had lost heart at the loss of their Master.

My question therefore, is: was there a special significance to the instruction of Jesus to the disciples who witnessed his transfiguration ? What do the teachings of Catholic Church say about it ?


texts:
Fairly straightforward question:  In the LDS Church, who decides where to place new Churches, and how?  Are there specific criteria? Is there a process for determining whether a Church can be supported?

I'd imagine that the process has something to do with how many believers there are in a community.  I know that witnesses go out everywhere, and in my experience, I attended LDS services in a high school gym, and there was talk about a "real Church" being established, but I never really thought about it in detail, so I didn't ask.  I'd guess that there's a criterion for how many believers are in an area to make it worthwhile to place the building there.  (After all, people can be taught just fine in a high-school Gym.  A building seems to be a convenience rather than a need.)

What is the actual process, and if there are criteria, what are they?


texts: Who first distinguished between the inerrancy of the Bible and the inerrancy of the original autographs?

texts:
It's common these days among those who believe in the inerrancy* of the Bible to limit the statement to the original manuscripts.  For example, the Chicago Statement reads:

  We affirm that inspiration, strictly speaking, applies only to the autographic text of Scripture [...]. We further affirm that copies and translations of Scripture are the Word of God to the extent that they faithfully represent the original.

Augustine apparently saw matters similarly:

  If we are perplexed by an apparent contradiction in Scripture, it is not allowable to say, The author of this book is mistaken; but either the manuscript is faulty, or the translation is wrong, or you have not understood. (Contra Faustum, 11.5)

Who is the first Christian to specifically distinguish between the inerrancy of the copied and/or translated biblical text, and the inerrancy of the original autographs?

* Note that I'm defining "inerrancy" broadly, so that it includes both Evangelical and Catholic understandings of the doctrine.


texts: What is the biblical basis or precedent for restricting women from serving in war?

texts:
In the United States, the Secretary of Defense just lifted the ban on women in combat.  Many Christians seem to oppose this idea and believe that women should not be put in combat.

What is the biblical basis or precedent for this position?


texts: Is there a generally accepted term for "Christians in Communion with the Bishop of Rome"?

texts:
Roman Catholic is a title given to the Latin Rite of the Catholic Church.

By this definition, therefore, the term Roman Catholic explicitely excludes the Eastern Rites of the Church, even though these are fully part of the same religion, in full communion with the Bishop of Rome, and are distinguished only by a different structure to their prayers and services. They have the same beliefs. However, the Anglican Ordinarates, which also have a different liturgical calendar and worship structure, nonetheless count as part of the Latin Rite (and therefore, presumably, as Roman Catholic):

While the personal ordinariates preserve a certain corporate identity of Anglicans received into the Catholic Church, they are canonically within the Latin Church and share the same theological emphasis and in this way differ from the Eastern Catholic churches, which are autonomous particular churches.

Hmm. So what is a generic term for this religion? We can’t call it simply Catholicism, because that has a broader meaning, including Christians who definitely do not accept the authority of the Pope:

I am an Anglican. Specifically, I am an Anglo-Catholic, which means that I believe the Anglican Church is part of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church, that its threefold ministry is the threefold ministry of the Catholic Church, and that I am just as Catholic as you are. If you say “Catholics believe the Pope is infallible when speaking ex cathedra”, I’m going to be in the corner with my hand in the air jumping up and down shouting “excuse me, I don’t”.

We seem to have come to an impasse.
Wikipedia resolves the impasse by saying that Roman Catholic is not in fact a synonym of Latin Rite Catholic.

Catholic Church most often refers to:

The Roman Catholic Church, i.e. the Latin Rite (Western) and the 22 Eastern Catholic Churches in communion with the Bishop of Rome (the Pope)
Those churches which, collectively, claim apostolic origins and historical traditions of Catholicism, but not necessarily in the Roman tradition, including the Orthodox and Anglican churches
Most broadly, the Christian Church in general (in English the uncapitalized form of “catholic” is used in this sense; this is the sense that some attach to the phrase in the Apostles’ Creed)

By this definition, the Roman Catholic Church includes both the Eastern and Western branches of the church in communion with the Pope. This contradicts the opening quote. It also gives us an answer to the question: Christians in communion with the Bishop of Rome are Roman Catholics. This makes sense, but is it how the language is actually used? Certainly Peter Turner seems to disagree: he uses the term differently. Perhaps a well-referenced dictionary would be the best source for this. I certainly wouldn’t take the Wikipedia definition as definite fact, not least because it’s hotly disputed on the article’s talk page.
For what it’s worth, Collins gives:

Roman Catholic Church: the Christian Church over which the pope presides, with administrative headquarters in the Vatican Also called: Catholic Church, Church of Rome
Catholic Church:

short for Roman Catholic Church
any of several Churches claiming to have maintained continuity with the ancient and undivided Church

This seems unhelpful.


texts: When was it first said in Christianity by a Church Father that heretics must be tortured physically?

texts: This question is very similar to the one I had asked before: "When was it first said in Christianity by a Church Father that heretics must be put to death?", however, there is still a difference. In this question I am not looking at the approval of taking someone's life, but rather at the first known case of an approval (by any Church father) of inflicting physical tortures on heretics, perhaps, accompanied by cutting off some parts of their bodies (tongues, noses, hands, etc)


texts: Why are babies dressed in white during a Roman Catholic christening?

texts: Why are babies dressed in white during a Roman Catholic christening (aka baptism)? Is the color symbolic or anything? Can any other color be worn? Similarly, are there some sort of color restrictions for adult converts?


texts: What is the Catholic Church's position on recreational marijuana use?

texts: Several US states have passed voter initiatives to allow recreational marijuana use for adults.  What is the Catholic Church’s official position on this issue?


texts: Besides the LDS church, do any other churches believe there will be a restoration of all things?

texts: The scriptures speak of a restoration of all things, Elias coming back to restore all things, and a dispensation of the fullness of times (Eph. 1:10, Acts 3:21, Matt. 17:11). Besides The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints (LDS church), does any other church believe these scriptures were fulfilled?


texts: Who uses the term "God-talk", and what do they mean?

texts:
I've seen many books and articles that use the word God-talk. This seems, often, to be used as a friendlier alternative to theology, which comes from the Greek θεός (theos) for God, and λόγος (logos) for word, talk, discourse, etc., and therefore meaning something like God-talk. Some examples from a Google Books search are:

The End of God-Talk: An African-American Humanist Theology, Anthony B. Pinn (OUP, 2012)
Racism and God-talk: A Latino/a Perspective, Rubén Rosario Rodríguez (NYU Press, 2008)
Doing girlfriend theology: God-talk with young women,  Dori Grinenko Baker (Pilgrim Press, 2005)
Sisters in the Wilderness: The Challenge of Womanist God Talk, Delores Williams (Orbis, 1993)
Sexism and God-Talk: Toward a Feminist Theology, Rosemary Radford Ruether (Beacon Press, 1983)

It looks like this term is mainly being used by authors in feminist, womanist, and mujerista theology; African-American theology; LGBT and queer theology; and so forth.

I am curious about how this term originated and became popular, especially in relation to the communities just mentioned, and about what its connotations are, in contrast to "theology". (For example, I have a rough impression that "God-talk" covers any kind of talking about God in everyday life, as opposed to theology which is done in an academic or formal setting, but this is only an impression without evidence.)


texts: Why do we have to make the Sign of the Cross physically?

texts: Every time we go to the church, we can make like multiple signs of the cross during the mass. Is it wrong if I make my sign of the cross by just speaking or with my mind other than doing it repeatedly with my hand?


texts:
Is there any historical evidence that the early church believed in the divinity of Jesus? What about the first century? What about the second century (and so on)? Was the belief in the divinity of Jesus widespread? Was it the norm or the exception? Can we find reliable answers to these questions in the historical records?
Answers to this question should provide clear unambiguous evidence of post-New Testament writings which teach the divinity of Jesus.


texts: What is the basis for the practice of Intinction (the dipping of the bread into wine during the Eucharist)?

texts:
I understand that Catholics and Methodists employ the practice of Intinction, that is, the dipping of the bread into the wine during the Eucharist.

In my experience, the bread and the wine are always served separately, which seems to follow the pattern set forth in the Bible.

  23 For I received from the Lord that which I also delivered to you,
  that the Lord Jesus in the night in which 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 He took the cup also after supper, saying, “This cup is the new
  covenant in My blood; do this, as often as you drink it, in
  remembrance of Me.” 26 For as often as you eat this bread and drink
  the cup, you proclaim the Lord’s death until He comes.  1 Corinthians 11:23-25 NASB

So, what specifically is the basis/reasoning/biblical foundation for taking the elements simultaneously rather than individually, with the bread first followed by the wine, which to me appears to be the pattern set forth in Scripture?  When did this practice originate and by whom?


texts: Is the dignity of man pertains to his soul only or to the wholeness of his being meaning body & soul?

texts:
The Teaching of Tradition that support the Council of Trent interpretation on death penalty cited the reflections or teaching of St. Thomas Aquinas and St. Augustine:

"They will never be beasts, but they can behave like beasts. "And if they behave like beasts, their dignity will suffer loss", while their personhood remains. Therefore we destroy the body, and leave the soul in God's hands, it is an appeal to the Highest Court. There is a difference between the dignity we have being made in God's image and the dignity of our bodies which are NOT made in God's image, and aka Catholic underlines it." – (St. Thomas Aquinas himself and St. Augustine himself quoted from comment of other user)

From above teachings, I found a lot of reflections not yet certain or are open for better understanding like:

They will never be beasts, but they can behave like beasts. (Is an admission of conditional behavior).

"And if they behave like beasts, their dignity will suffer loss,” while their personhood remains. (The words "will suffer loss" again is not certain and will have difficulty to guarantee that a soul really has lost its dignity in the absence of human faculties as we are commanded not to judge in Matthew7:1).

Therefore we destroy the body, and leave the soul in God's hands, it is an appeal to the Highest Court. (The wordings can be clearly seen "as an appeal a prayer only subject to the Wisdom & Providence of God", so they are recognizing that Tradition does not have a Final Say on ending one's life).

But, the most troubling one is the teaching separating the dignity of man soul to the dignity of the his body.

“There is a difference between the dignity we have being made in God's image and the dignity of our bodies which are not made in God's image,"

This particular phrase on Tradition seems emphasizing the physical body is not made in God's image only the soul.
My understanding is the soul animates our body and while it is our soul that will be judge in the end by God,the Church teaches the resurrection of our bodies.So, our judged soul will be reunited to our resurrected bodies.
My question, what is the scriptural basis of the teaching that the dignity of the soul is separate from his body?
I'm looking for Catholic Church Teaching that will expound and put clarity on the issue of the inherent dignity of man (body & soul), which the Council of Trent said "will suffer loss" that is put now to better understanding under Pope Francis "that man's dignity is not lost even after committing a very serious crimes."


texts: What is the relationship between God the Father and the Holy Spirit?

texts: Jesus clearly identifies His relationship with God the Father; he is the “only begotten Son of the Father”.  What Biblical evidence do we have identifying the relationship between God the Father and the Holy Spirit?  How does the Bible differentiate the Holy Spirit from the Father?


texts: Gospel writers who were not disciples of Jesus

texts: Where did Mark and Luke get information about life of Jesus to write Gospel?


texts: Washing of feet - Is it a part of Communion?

texts:
I am asking this with reference to this question about communion.

Does any church practice the "Washing of feet" ceremony before the "eating of bread and drinking of wine"?
If no, what is the justification given for this?

I am looking for biblical reasons why this is not done (if that is the case, as the linked question seemed to indicate)


texts: What reforms did Erasmus seek for the church?

texts:
I've long wondered about this. Wikipedia's article on Erasmus notes:

  While he was critical of the abuses within the Church and called for reform, he kept his distance from Luther and Melanchthon and continued to recognise the authority of the pope. Erasmus emphasized a middle way, with a deep respect for traditional faith, piety and grace, and rejected Luther's emphasis on faith alone. Erasmus therefore remained a member of the Catholic Church all his life. Erasmus remained committed to reforming the Church and its clerics' abuses from within. He also held to Catholic doctrines such as that of free will, which some Reformers rejected in favour of the doctrine of predestination. His middle road approach disappointed and even angered scholars in both camps.

So what "abuses" was he critical of, and what kinds of "reforms" did he want?


texts: Do saints and church fathers generally make the claim that most people go to a hell of everlasting torment?

texts:
In the videos of the Catholic YouTube channel / media enterprise "Church Militant", they often make the claim that most people go to hell, and that hell is a place of everlasting unbearable torment. This claim is supported by quotes from a number of saints and apparitions.

Other Catholic sources describe hell very differently, for example, arguing that we can hope that all people are saved and no-one goes to hell, or that hell is a matter of being distant from God, rather than literally burning in a fire and such. "Church Militant" claims that these interpretations are basically heresy and contradict what the church has always taught about hell.

My question focuses on these aspects:

The large majority of people go to hell.
Hell is a place of fire and "physical" torment.
This torment lasts forever with no hope of salvation.

Are there any writings from church fathers or important saints, including prominent apparitions, that contradict any of these aspects? If so, are these a small fringe opinion, or have they had a significant role in Catholic thought and theology? I am particularly interested in pre-modern and pre-Reformation sources.


texts: Do messianic Jews claim to be the beneficiaries of the new covenant now?

texts:
Do messianic Jews say that the following is true in their lives?:

  NIV Jer 31:
  33b: ...“I will put my law in their minds
  and write it on their hearts.
  I will be their God,
  and they will be my people.
  34No longer will they teach their neighbor,
  or say to one another, ‘Know the Lord,’
  because they will all know me,
  from the least of them to the greatest,”

We are told in Hebrews 10:9-18 (and elsewhere) that Jesus ratified the new covenant with the houses of Israel and Judah when he died. It appears that the new covenant speaks of a pan-Israeli supernatural knowledge  of the Torah rather than individual knowledge involving teaching that I've not heard any express as being realized in modern times.

What do messianic Jews say about the outworking of the new covenant? Was it fulfilled in apostolic times and now gone? Is it active now? Or will it be active in the future?


texts: Why do Mormons wait until the age of 8 to baptize their children?

texts: What is the doctrinal basis for this practice?


texts:
Therefore you shall be perfect, just as your Father in heaven is perfect. (Matthew 5:48 NKJV)

So, God expects us to be perfect. What is meant by "perfect"? How can any human be without error, this side of heaven?


texts: Reason for drawing water at unusual time

texts:
John 4:5-8
New Living Translation (NLT)
5: Eventually he came to the Samaritan village of Sychar, near the field that Jacob gave to his son Joseph.
6: Jacob’s well was there; and Jesus, tired from the long walk, sat wearily beside the well about noontime.
7: Soon a Samaritan woman came to draw water, and Jesus said to her, “Please give me a drink.”
8: He was alone at the time because his disciples had gone into the village to buy some food.

So according to my water drawing knowledge, people used to draw water once in the day and once in the night.

Genesis 24:11
New Living Translation (NLT)
11: He made the camels kneel beside a well just outside the town. It was evening, and the women were coming out to draw water.

My knowledge is further reinforced by that fact that no one else in the village was with the Samaritan woman to draw water. It seems a bit too convenient for Jesus. Why was the woman drawing water at the middle of the day?


texts: Where can I find official documents of Buenos Aires' Eucharistic Miracle?

texts:
I want to study the Eucharistic Miracle that happened in Buenos Aires, 1996. Does someone know if there are some official documents of the Vatican, or another Catholic Church authority?

I just find information in blogs, videos, and other non-official pages.


texts: Why do Catholics ask for things from an omniscient and omnibenevolent God?

texts:
Prayer as praise is rational. It makes sense for people to tell a loving God that they love him too. But I don't understand why Catholics ask things of a God who is omniscient (“all knowing”), omnipotent (“all powerful”) and omnibenevolent (“good”). Given His omniscience, He knows what each of us wants and what is best for each us, and, given His omnibenevolence, He is already doing what is best for each of us. None of us can be sure that what we want is best for us or best for others. God knows that rational believers understand all these things and so, if my reasoning is correct, He also knows and they know that it would be irrational of them to ask Him for anything.

Praise is rational, but requests seem irrational. Yet even the Old Testament prophets and Jesus asked for things from God (understanding that Jesus too was God, but we can leave that puzzle aside for this question as it only adds complexity).

If the rationality of prayer as requests can't be justified, then it threatens a foundational feature of Catholic belief and practice. Perhaps someone here can provide the explanation I am looking for.


texts: Is it a common view among Christains that Satan is the lord of this world?

texts:
As I drove past a church (not sure the denomination) on a country road, the sign out front read "Satan is the lord of this world. Be careful!" Is this a widely accepted view?

If so, how do we explain Matthew 28:18-20 where a resurrected Jesus says "All power in heaven and on earth has been given to me"?


texts: Does Any Connection Between St. Jeanne Jugan and St. John Vianney Exist?

texts:
In Francois Trochu's definitive biography of St. John Vianney, ``The Cure of Ars,'' the Little Sisters of the Poor is mentioned by the Saint to a young girl who wishes to enter that Order at Lyons.
Mgr. Trochu also wrote a full-length biography of Jeanne Jugan (published 1950 or so) prior to her beautification by Pope John Paul II in 1982 and canonization by Pope Benedict XVI in 2009.
St. Jeanne Jugan's The Little Sisters of the Poor had its beginning in 1839 at Saint-Servan in Brittany and expanded to other parts of France within 10 years. St. John Vianney was assigned as a parish priest to Ars in 1819 (or thereabouts) and died there in 1859.
Ars is over 800 kilometres from Brittany, while Lyon is a little over 11 kilometres from Ars. In light of his work at Ars, it seem unlikely if not impossible for St. John Vianney to have ever visited Brittany.
But the charity of St. Jeanne Jugan and St. John Vianney towards the poor are strikingly similar (especially between St. Jeanne's House of the Cross and St. John's Providence) and I would like, if possible, to identify a connection between these two champions of the poor if one exists.
My question is: Does anyone know if St. Jeanne Jugan ever met the Cure of Ars; and if so, can the circumstances and a definite reference be provided?
Thank you.


texts: In the context of 1 Corinthians 7:10-15, is a Christian free to remarry if his Christian spouse falls away from God and divorces?

texts:
1 Corinthians 7:10-15 does not mention about fallen away or disfellowshiped spouses.

If a baptized believing spouse falls away from God and leaves the church, into which group of people does this new situation moves to: the two believers group or the group of believers married to unbelievers?

What would be the conclusion of this, would the faithfull believer be free to remarry?


texts: What significance do Catholics see in the fact that Adam and Eve 'knew each other' only after original sin?

texts: From a Catholic perspective, what can be said about the fact that Adam and Eve 'knew each other' only after original sin?


texts: According to the Catholic Church, is there any indirect mention of purgatory in the Gospels?

texts: While the Gospels make a number of references to eternal damnation, they do not appear to directly mention purgatory, which is a strong precept of the Catholic faith. My question therefore is: according to the Catholic Church, are there verses in the Gospels which indirectly refer to the existence or otherwise of purgatory?


texts: According to universalists, why should we obey God?

texts: If universal reconciliation is true- so that everybody will eventually come to know God because of his son Yeshua, and therefore nobody will have their flesh burned forever and ever- why should we obey God?


texts: Is there a doctrine that God grants revelation in layers?

texts:
I've heard my school religion teachers say that God didn't reveal his true intent to humans all at once.

The Old Testament doesn't talk about heaven or hell.
The Trinity concept is not revealed in Old Testament--at least,
not prominently.
Polygamy and slavery are against God's will, but are not prohibited
in the Old Testament.

The idea is that humans were not yet ready to accept the greater truth, so God did not reveal the more correct idea.

Is this a standard Christian doctrine?

If so, what is its name? Gradual revelation?


texts: Why Sarah was angry to Abraham about Hagar

texts: Why Sarah blamed Abraham when it was she who suggested to Abraham to take Hagar? I find Sarah's anger here to be unreasonable when it was her fault in the first place.


texts: If God only forgives our sins at the Sacrament of Penance, why do ask forgivness in prayer?

texts: In Catholicism and Orthodoxy, forgiveness of sins is only attained at the Sacrament of Penance. What then is the role to pray that God would forgive us our sins? Why pray Our Father, or ask of this at the liturgy?


texts: I have heard recently that both Reformed and Roman Catholic eschatologies are at least somewhat derived from Augustine's views. Is this accurate?


texts: When the humans' freedom of choice was firstly stated in Christianity?

texts: When and where was it firstly stated in the history of Christianity that a human being has a personal freedom of choice and that God respects it?


texts: Has "angels walking among men" been invoked to solve theological problems?

texts:
Hebrews 13:2

  Do not forget to show hospitality to strangers, for by so doing some people have shown hospitality to angels without knowing it.

This passage states that one reason to be nice to "humanoids" (my term) that you meet is that some of them may be angels in disguise, instead of ensouled human beings.

Q: Has this concept ever been invoked by prominent theologians as an answer to solve any theological problems?

Here is an example of the type of problem that could be solved by "angels among men". I just saw a pastor tweet that we have such a shallow view of God's love. I immediately thought of all the suffering from hunger and torture. Sometimes I hope that the bad guys have full culpability for their sins, but the humanoids they are abusing were instead angels walking among men, somehow able to take it or not lose their soul with a hateful response.


texts:
Is it possible for an Eastern Rite Catholic to change over to the Roman Rite and become ordained as Latin Rite priest?

Is it possible for a layperson of an Eastern Catholic Rite (say the Melkite Rite) to change rites and become a seminarian studying to be a priest in the Roman Rite, I would like to know the process that is involved in changing rites so one can enter the seminary as a Latin Rite seminarian. Perhaps one would have to be bi-ritual? Any resources into this matter would be greatly appreciated.

According to the comment from agapewolf on Roman Catholic children and the Melkite Rite, there is a cursory mention of "paperwork" in reference to the chaldean rite.

However, according to Babies can receive the Eucharist in the Orthodox Church, why do Catholic children have to wait?: the differences between Eastern Rite Churches in commiunion with Rome are merely pastoral and neither doctirnal nor dogmatic.  So I feel there is not much friction in this respect.

But according to this EWTN article: Orthodox priest to Catholic priest, vice versa, it seems to be up to the bishop (based on the 4th answer).

Nothing I have found seems to give a clear answer on this.  Any proper explanation is well appreciated. And feel free to point me toward more credible resources, as I am no expert on this matter.

Any references as to what protocols are in place by Rome would be greatly appreciated.


texts: How do you defend the first clause of the Kalam Cosmological Argument?

texts:
I have a question pertaining to the first premise of the Kalam Cosmological Argument (KCA).

If someone says that just because everything in the universe needs a cause that doesn't mean that the universe does. How would we further defend the first premise?

And second if they say "It is possible a time-space manifold has existed eternally" how would I respond?


texts: Is there any biblical support for the Church to allow Governments to close churches and prevent public worship?

texts:
There is a basic Bible principle for Christians to obey the laws of the authorities that govern them:

Let everyone be subject to the governing authorities, for there is no authority except that which God has established. The authorities that exist have been established by God. Consequently, whoever rebels against the authority is rebelling against what God has instituted, and those who do so will bring judgment on themselves. For rulers hold no terror for those who do right, but for those who do wrong. Do you want to be free from fear of the one in authority? Then do what is right and you will be commended. (NIV Romans 13:1-3)

The purpose of governing authorities is to establish laws to protect each member of society from destructive behaviour which might threaten the survival of the whole society.  But what about situations where government imposes laws which prevent Christians from coming together to worship publicly or to preach the good news of the Gospel?  When the apostles disobeyed the religious leaders and refused to stop preaching the gospel, they were thrown in jail.  Did that shut them up?  No!
>Peter and the other apostles replied: “We must obey God rather than men!” (Acts 5:29)
This earned them a flogging, but at least Gamaliel’s intervention spared them from being killed.
But what about situations where government law prevents Christians from coming together to worship, pray, sing and partake of communion in church?  King Darius issued a decree that any man who prayed to any god other than himself was to be thrown into a den of lions (Daniel chapter 6).  Daniel broke that decree by continuing to pray three times a day in front of an open window, where he could be seen praying to God.  I realise that isn’t quite the same situation as churches in England (for example) during the current lockdown, but it’s got to the stage where police have authority to prevent public worship in situations where the laws are being disregarded.  They did this recently and stopped a baptismal service from taking place.
The motivation for preventing public gatherings is well understood – it’s to prevent the spread of the Covid pandemic.  There is no suggestion that social distancing should be ignored by Christians and this question is not about civil disobedience.  It’s about the line that may have to be drawn if government authorities introduce laws that ban public worship, which includes preventing Christians from partaking at the Lord’s Table – Communion.

Jesus commanded us to “do this in remembrance of me” (Luke 22:19).

What Bible principles apply in 2020 (and presumably for some time to come) with regard to how Christians should respond to any legislation that results in the closure of Churches thereby preventing like-minded believers from gathering together for worship, prayer, singing hymns and partaking of Communion?
A precedent has already been set which could result in churches becoming impotent. No, this isn't about "persecution" from governments. It's about "where do we go from here" now that Catholic and Protestant churches have seemingly caved in from the word go and are only now waking up to the consequences of being unable to function as God intended them to.
P.S. Last week 120 UK church leaders (from a variety of denominations) asked for a judicial review on the basis of unlawful closure of religious buildings.
P.P.S. With regard to the Church of England, it seems that Justin Welby is going to take a year out (a sabbatical) in spring 2021.  I wonder if any other church leaders are contemplating similar action.  More to the point, I wonder how that will help church members who are isolated, alone and distressed.


texts: Protestant explanation of an immortal spirit

texts:
Some Christian denominations think that the spirit is not immortal and that death is like sleeping.

When Christ comes back he would resurrect the dead bodies from within the ground (like God made Adam from the earth).

  Revelation 20:5-6 The rest of the dead did not come to life until the
  thousand years were ended. This is the first resurrection. 6 Blessed
  and holy is the one who shares in the first resurrection! Over such
  the second death has no power, but they will be priests of God and of
  Christ, and they will reign with him for a thousand years.

My questions are -

If the spirit is immortal what is the meaning of second death? The first death is death of body. Can the spirit also die?
If we go to heaven when we die how does the resurrection work? Would our spirits be taken from heaven and reinserted into a body?


texts: Mormon view of the wrong action committed by angels according to 1 Peter, 2 Peter, and Jude

texts:
I noted from an earlier question that, according to Mormons, the "Sons of God" that married "daughters of men" in Genesis 6 were human males.

Based on this I had wanted to ask about three New Testament passages that seem to refer to some wrong actions committed by spirit beings or angels.

The passage at 1 Peter 3:19,20 seems to say that the action happened at the time of Noah:

  19 By which also he went and preached unto the spirits in prison; 20
  Which sometime were disobedient, when once the longsuffering of God
  waited in the days of Noah, while the ark was a preparing, wherein
  few, that is, eight souls were saved by water.

The passage at 2 Peter 2:4,5 seems to say pretty much the same as above, but refers to the creatures as "angels" rather than "spirits":

  4 For if God spared not the angels that sinned, but cast them down to
  hell, and delivered them into chains of darkness, to be reserved unto
  judgment; 5 And spared not the old world, but saved Noah the eighth
  person, a preacher of righteousness, bringing in the flood upon the
  world of the ungodly;

And the passage in Jude 6 and 7 seems to relate their action to the fornication and "going after strange flesh" in Sodom and Gomorrah:

  6 And the angels which kept not their first estate, but left their own
  habitation, he hath reserved in everlasting chains under darkness unto
  the judgment of the great day. 7 Even as Sodom and Gomorrha, and the
  cities about them in like manner, giving themselves over to
  fornication, and going after strange flesh, are set forth for an
  example, suffering the vengeance of eternal fire.

Possibly related to above passages (but not part of this question) is this one in 1 Corinthians 6:3:

  Know ye not that we shall judge angels? how much more things that
  pertain to this life?

What wrongful action by spirit beings do these passages refer to?


texts: Is there any reference regarding the use of these extra-biblical sources in Mennonite congregations?

texts:
Background

A few years ago, a concern was raised by a member of a local Mennonite congregation about the use of citations from the Shepherd of Hermas. At the time, the concern was alleviated when it was mentioned that the Mennonite council endorsed its use as a secondary text.

Recently, the concern was raised again. This time the member would like a citation or reference in order to substantiate either the endorsement, repudiation, or neutrality toward this text by Mennonite Bretheren.

Question

Does anyone have a cite or reference that discusses whether and to what extent the following extra-biblical sources are considered appropriate for teaching and instruction for Mennonite congregations?

Epistle of Barnabas,
The Shepherd of Hermas
The First Epistle of Clement to the Corinthians,

Any citation or reference either supporting or repudiating these texts from a Mennonite denomination or organization is requested.


texts: Must something be unprovable to permit faith in it? Is it possible to have faith in something which is certain provable fact? If something is proven beyond any doubt can you still have faith in it? How?


texts: Did some Christian sects ever hold the opinion that ritual slaughter was obligatory, before the 10th century?

texts:
Like this question, I am curious about whether Christian doctrines used to hold the opinion that a ritual slaughter (with it rules and conditions) had to be done when slaughtering animals, historically speaking.

In Islam (and Judaism) there are prohibitions about eating dead animals, which haven't been slaughtered in a certain way. Muslims may for instance eat meat if the animal was slaughtered by a Christian if it was slaughtered in accordance with those rules.

If Muslims were allowed to eat meat slaughtered by Christians, that should imply that the Christians did have a method of ritual slaughtering. (Because according to the Islamic principles, a Muslim may only eat meat which has been slaughtered right according to some special conditions or rules, therefore if a Muslim may eat meat slaughtered by Christians it should imply that the Christians did ritual slaughtering, if not their meat wouldn't be allowed for Muslims. But it is.)

Are there any known Christian school of thoughts or historical evidences that Christians used to slaughter in a specific way, and that they prohibited certain meat (not slaughtered right or for instance swine)?

In order to make the question less broad, I am looking for the early period of Christianity, up to the 10th century (but around the 6th century is preferable). The place could of course also be factor so I am adding these into the equation: Arabia, Egypt, Jerusalem, Iraq.


texts: What is the historical origin of this hat [image] - worn by Pope Ratzinger

texts: Can anyone explain the origin — i.e., when it was first used, the Pope who wore it the first time and when, its name —  of that red hat worn by Pope Ratzinger?


texts:
Was it and is it a common Christian belief to say that the 5 books of the Torah were written by Moses?
Is there anything in the New Testament or by church fathers (that might be of relevance to Catholics), on the subject. Any difference between Protestants and Catholics on the question?
Was it mainstream belief before the documentary hypothesis, and is it still mainstream belief now?


texts: Why did the blood sacrifice in Genesis take place as acceptable to God?

texts: I have asked pastors where is it commanded by God to have a blood sacrifice as an offering in Genesis since that is the beginning.  It doesn't seem to be explained until Leviticus.  Can someone please tell me if God commanded this to be done in Genesis? Where in Genesis was it commanded that sacrifice was necessary.  From what I am reading it appears to be open as an interpretation.


texts: How do deniers of Jesus' preincarnate existence interpret John 17:5?

texts:
`And now, glorify me, Thou Father, with Thyself, with the glory that I had before the world was, with Thee; [John 17:5, YLT]

And now, O Father, glorify thou me with thine own self with the glory which I had with thee before the world was. [John 17:5, KJV]

And now, Father, glorify me in your own presence with the glory that I had with you before the world existed. [John 17:5, ESV]

At face value, this verse appears to be saying 1) that Jesus already existed before the creation of the world, 2) that He was in a glorified form and 3) that He was with the Father at that time. The top answers on this related question from Hermeneutics.SE arrive at the same conclusion. Of course, deniers of Jesus' preincarnate existence do not accept this conclusion, so they must interpret John 17:5 differently. How do they interpret this verse?

Note: a related discussion on Hermeneutics.SE for the interested reader: Is there room for interpreting John 17:5 as Jesus having notional/ideal pre-existence in light of 2 Timothy 1:9?


texts: Why do some people consider Jeshurun to be an end-times figure?

texts:
I realize that the prevailing interpretation is that Jeshurun is another name for Israel. However some people think that Jeshurun refers to some type of end-times figure. What reason do they have to think that?

  Deu 32:15  But Jeshurun grew fat and kicked. You grew fat, thick, and satisfied. Then he forsook God who made him, and lightly esteemed the Rock of his salvation.


texts: Biblically, is there such a thing as innocent by reason of mental defect?

texts:
Possible Duplicate:
  What does the Bible say about people with mental illness?

Have a friend in Christ who is black/white; all are responsible for their actions all the time.  "Mental illness" is a modern construct that is not Biblical.  Saul, etc. suffered due to their sin.

Suspect her point confuses the "I'm sad, need some excitement so I'll shoot somebody" with "I don't want to live anymore 'cause everyone hates me."

If a schizophrenic purposely quits taking meds and then hurts someone--yeah I think they're culpable.  If they hurt someone before they're diagnosed, then I don't think they should be held criminally liable.

Depression, for me, is a bit trickier.

Crux (IMHO): Does the Bible support idea that some mental illness is NOT sin and is there a circumstance when a person is not responsible for their actions (outside of knowlingly creating an altered state of being i.e. drunk, taking drugs, etc.)?


texts: Did God change the DNA and genetics of Adam's rib?

texts:
I recently read an article which talked about Mitochondrial DNA, and it placed quite a bit of emphasis on how different female DNA was from male DNA. It even went so far as to say that Mitochondrial DNA could be traced back to one single female who was the source of all female DNA.

But Genesis 2 says:

  And the LORD God caused a deep sleep to fall upon Adam, and he slept: and he took one of his ribs, and closed up the flesh instead thereof; And the rib, which the LORD God had taken from man, made he a woman, and brought her unto the man. And Adam said, This is now bone of my bones, and flesh of my flesh: she shall be called Woman, because she was taken out of Man. (Genesis 2:21-23, KJV)

But if God used the same DNA and Genetic signature in the rib, why would the woman not then have been an exact duplicate of Adam?

(As this is largely an issue for Creationists) How have Creationist apologists explained these verses?


texts: Why are the ten commandments in Exodus 34 different?

texts:
The first stone tablets with the ten commandments were smashed by Moses, so God created a second set of stone tablets that were supposed to contain the same commandments as the smashed tablets. But the actual text of the second set of commandments that follows in Exodus 34 is different from the original commandments.

Why is this second set different from the original ten commandments?

  Exodus 34  (KJ21)
      And the LORD said unto Moses, "Hew thee two tablets of stone like unto the first, and I will write upon these tablets the words that were in the first tablets which thou brokest.

  [...]

   11Observe thou that which I command thee this day. Behold, I drive out before thee the Amorite and the Canaanite, and the Hittite and the Perizzite, and the Hivite and the Jebusite.

   12Take heed to thyself, lest thou make a covenant with the inhabitants of the land whither thou goest, lest it be for a snare in the midst of thee.

   13But ye shall destroy their altars, break their images, and cut down their Asherah poles.

   14For thou shalt worship no other god; for the LORD, whose name is Jealous, is a jealous God,

   15lest thou make a covenant with the inhabitants of the land and they go a whoring after their gods, and do sacrifice unto their gods, and one call thee and thou eat of his sacrifice,

   16and thou take their daughters unto thy sons, and their daughters go a whoring after their gods, and make thy sons go a whoring after their gods.

   17"Thou shalt make thee no molten gods.

   18"The Feast of Unleavened Bread shalt thou keep. Seven days thou shalt eat unleavened bread, as I commanded thee, in the time of the month of Abib; for in the month of Abib thou camest out from Egypt.

   19"All that openeth the womb is Mine, and every firstling among thy cattle, whether ox or sheep, that is male.

   20But the firstling of an ass thou shalt redeem with a lamb; and if thou redeem him not, then shalt thou break his neck. All the firstborn of thy sons thou shalt redeem. And none shall appear before Me empty.

   21"Six days thou shalt work, but on the seventh day thou shalt rest; in plowing time and in harvest thou shalt rest.

   22And thou shalt observe the Feast of Weeks of the firstfruits of wheat harvest, and the Feast of Ingathering at the year's end.

   23Thrice in the year shall all your menchildren appear before the Lord GOD, the God of Israel.

   24For I will cast out the nations before thee and enlarge thy borders; neither shall any man desire thy land when thou shalt go up to appear before the LORD thy God thrice in the year.

   25"Thou shalt not offer the blood of My sacrifice with leaven, neither shall the sacrifice of the Feast of the Passover be left until the morning.

   26The first of the firstfruits of thy land thou shalt bring unto the house of the LORD thy God. Thou shalt not boil a kid in his mother's milk."

   27And the LORD said unto Moses, "Write thou these words, for according to the tenor of these words I have made a covenant with thee and with Israel."

   28And he was there with the LORD forty days and forty nights; he neither ate bread nor drank water. And He wrote upon the tablets the words of the covenant, the Ten Commandments.


texts: What is the Biblical basis that individual gifts can be revoked by God?

texts:
Some in the modern healing movements claim 'continued authority' for themselves and their ministry based upon the belief that God 'never' recalls a gift he has given to a person (such as wisdom, healing, etc.), or the office to which they were called (such as Apostle or Teacher, etc.).  From what I can tell the argument is produced to hold duty bound,  anyone who believes 'one' of their miracles to be true, to accept their office and all their miracles to be true 'always', because God never 'revokes' a particular individual gift or calling within the ministry.

The prooftext for this belief is often this:

  for God’s gifts and his call are irrevocable. (Romans 11:29, NIV)

It seems obvious that this proof text is a wresting of scripture rather than an exegesis.  My question is what is the biblical basis for concluding on an individual basis gifts and callings can most definitely be revoked.

Note: This question is not related to eternal security.  There are those in the healing movements that support Calvinism and some support Arminianism. This subject is not within the scope of the question.


texts: If a person uses a "Plan B" contraceptive to prevent pregnancy without knowing it may inhibit implantation, is he a murderer?


texts: Who decides if a verse is literal and what parts of the Bible metaphorical?

texts:
Just to be clear, I'm not asking what parts of the Bible are literal and what parts aren't. I just want to know who decides which view verses are supposed to be followed and which ones are like obsolete.

For example, verses like these are not followed anymore.

Leviticus 19:27:

  You shall not round off the side-growth of your heads nor harm the edges of your beard.

Leviticus 11:8, which is discussing pigs:

  You shall not eat of their flesh nor touch their carcasses; they are unclean to you.

Genesis 38:9-10:

  Onan knew that the offspring would not be his; so when he went in to his brother's wife, he wasted his seed on the ground in order not to give offspring to his brother. But what he did was displeasing in the sight of the Lord; so He took his life also.

Leviticus 19:28:

  You shall not make any cuts in your body for the dead nor make any tattoo marks on yourselves: I am the Lord.

Leviticus 19:19:

  You are to keep My statutes. You shall not breed together two kinds of your cattle; you shall not sow your field with two kinds of seed, nor wear a garment upon you of two kinds of material mixed together.
  Likewise, I want women to adorn themselves with proper clothing, modestly and discreetly, not with braided hair and gold or pearls or costly garments.

So I'm wondering how can people choose to disregard these verses anymore and still be a Christian... if so, then why is it still in the Bible? Who decides if something from the Bible is obsolete? Because as what I have observed, people tend to disregard parts of the Bible if it doesn't fit the current trend anymore like the haircut thing and the fabric matching... So is it people who decides that these verses are "OK" not to follow?


texts: How old is the doctrine of a sinless Mary?

texts: What are the oldest known writings that state that Mary was without sin?


texts: What function does a Council actually serve in Calvinism?

texts:
Calvin begins his Antidote1 with the following word (Preface):

The name of Sacred Council2 is held in such reverence in the Christian Church, that the very mention of it produces an immediate effect not only on the ignorant but on men of gravity and sound judgment. And doubtless, as the usual remedy which God employed from the beginning in curing the diseases of his Church was for pious and holy pastors to meet, and, after invoking his aid, to determine what the Holy Spirit dictated, Councils are deservedly honored by all the godly. There is this difference, however, — the vulgar, stupified with excessive admiration, do not afterwards make any use of their judgment, whereas those of sounder sense allow themselves, step by step, and modestly, indeed, but still allow themselves to inquire before they absolutely assent. And so it ought to be, in order that our faith, instead of rashly subscribing to the naked decisions of men, may submit to God only.
...

I see one glaring contradiction here:

"Men of sound judgement" consider [General] Councils "Sacred" and, if they are "godly," they "honor" said Councils, since their teaching is what "the Holy Spirit dictated" and in fact are "the normative remedy which God employ[s]" for combating heresy ("curing the diseases of his Church").

"However," a Council's teaching can be rejected ("[not submitted to]") on the nebulous and subjective ground of its being against "their judgement" and "sounder sense," in which case the teaching is deemed actually "the ... decisions of men" and not God.

I like to think of myself as having a basic grasp on logic. So when I read this, the gist is:

Councils have the authority to agree with me, because God is behind them. Only have the power to agree with me, because ones who don't are no Councils at all, but the decisions of men; and because they agree with me, God is behind them (question-begging).

Of course it's clear to see this is logically incoherent and fallacious—but my point is that it is the necessary conclusion of the above.
What am I missing here? How aren't Councils hereby portrayed as no-more-important-opinions-than-any-believers' simply stated 'louder,' in bigger numbers (in some caess), and with more insistence (bullying)? (It's 'bullying' if it's not legitimate authority taking punitive measures (such as excommunication/anathema).
P.S. Even though this question is primarily to do with Calvinism, answers from a similar or identical stance on the basic role and meaning of Councils are welcome to answer it as well.
NOTE: Nothing I have asked or said or ever will ask or say is asked with an intentionally offensive, or disingenuous spirit. Any offense caused is therefore neither intended nor my fault—in addition to being, by definition, a misreading of my question.
Thanks in advance.

1 i.e. to the Council of Trent
2 i.e. as an institution in general


texts: What was Anselm's biblical basis for his theory of atonement by satisfaction?

texts: Upon which Bible verses did Anselm base his satisfactory theory of atonement?


texts: How can a Pope be chosen from outside the conclave?

texts:
It is well known that the cardinals can choose any baptised male Catholic to be the new Pope, though they typically choose one of their own, and that the election is held under strict conditions of secrecy.

What procedure is followed when the chosen candidate is not one of the cardinals already in the conclave, and how is secrecy maintained?


texts: Can people pray with those from other denominations?

texts:
I recently read an interview with some Russian Orthodox priest, and he was very critical on the matter of common prayers with Catholics or protestants. Basically he said that in Russian Orthodox church there is a ban for such things.

Do people from Catholic or Baptist churches think the same way? Can you pray together with Russian Orthodox Christians for example?


texts: What official statements represent Christianity's position on the Gospel of Barnabas?

texts:
The Gospel of Barnabas is a text that has turned up in the form of 16th century manuscripts in Italian and Spanish. The text claims to be the witness of Jesus' disciple Barnabas, however its content runs quite contrary to Christian doctrine in every major tradition that I know of.

Secular media, however, loves to trumpet its claims and it periodically makes the rounds in pop culture. Sometimes it is touted as an alternate rendition of the Biblical New Testament account (either to be considered the true one if you discount the NT or a bogus one if you trust it). While the media doesn't tend to cover this, most scholars recognize that it's teachings are hugely divergent from those of Christianity.

What Christian traditions have come down with official statements with direct bearing on this text either approving or rejecting it's claims? What secondary positions (creeds, confessions, etc) could be shown to directly address it? Have any Christian traditions ever given it's teaching any authority?


texts: How many prophecies in the Old Testament are about Jesus?

texts:
From what I’ve ‘heard’ at times there are select prophecies in the Old Testament that are apparently a reference to Jesus.

Are there only a select few, if so which are they? Or are they a truly boundless list which does not bare mentioning.


texts: What miracles were performed during the beatification and canonization processes of Mother Teresa?

texts:
Mother Teresa was recently recognized as a Saint. The process of canonization (becoming a saint) involves the performing of a miracle. From Wikipedia:

  If the Venerable was not a martyr—all non-martyrs are "confessors" as they "confessed" or bore witness to their faith by how they lived their lives—it must be proven that a miracle has taken place by his or her intercession: that is, that God has shown a sign that the person is enjoying the Beatific Vision by God performing a miracle in response to the Blessed's prayers.

The first such miracle results in the person's beatification, recognized with the title "Blessed". The second such miracle results in the person's canonization, recognized with the title "Saint".

What were the miracles that were performed during the beatification and canonization processes of Mother Teresa?


texts: Gregorian Chant - Is it merely a form of music, like Hymns, or is there a deeper meaning?

texts: The title says it all.  Is Gregorian Chant merely a style of music, or is there some deeper meaning behind it?  Does it serve some special purpose, or have a usage beyond being a form of worshiping God through song?


texts: What was the reason and the contents of the title pages "Old Testament" and "New Testament" in the earliest codex (extant or not)?

texts:
By dividing the collection of books in the Bible into "Old Testament" and "New Testament", the compiler of the books of the Bible made a strong theological statement that something "old" has passed away and that we are in the "new" era with a new covenant instituted by God.

This question is a follow up to another question: When did the insertion of title page for Old Testament and New Testament started which didn't quite cover:

the contents of the title pages,
the reason why they are included,
the earliest codex which included them (in whatever language, Greek, Latin, Syriac, Coptic, etc.)
the first Christian group who did this.

Besides the 4 questions, I'm also interested in:

whether any church father had mentioned about the practice of grouping the 2 library of books by names equivalent to "old" and "new"

so these type of information is in scope.  The practice almost certainly did not start with the original 12 apostles, nor even the 2nd generation.  Even before the canon was finalized, I would think the title pages could have appeared already, which we could learn only from a church father's writing.

While the reason for "old" and "new" separation is obvious (the coming of Jesus is the reason), another type of information that is also in scope for this question is:

detailed theological description of what's old and what's new in a church father's writing,

which may later have given rise to the insertion of the title pages in the codex.

One motivation for this study is as a background to early church father's understanding on what elements of the Torah were no longer relevant and how they were settled.  For example, most denominations now teach that Christians need to obey the ten commandments not because it was part of the Mosaic covenant, but because Jesus "re-covenanted" those commandments under the new covenant (i.e. same elements, new contract), which explains why the Sabbath rule in the new covenant is different than in the old.

Lately, Christian scholars are more sensitive when using the term "old testament", especially when collaborating with Jewish scholars or when their audience includes Messianic Jews.  They prefer to use the term "Hebrew Bible" or the "Tanakh".  For sure, the Masoretic manuscripts shared by both Jews and Christians would certainly did not include the "Old Testament" title page.  But a lot of early Jews became Christian, how would they see their Scripture?  For those who could read Hebrew / Septuagint, would that group called their Scripture "old" as well?


texts: Is there a modern translation of the critical text of the Bible into Classical Latin?  Preferably it would be very literal, and the Apocrypha isn't necessary.


texts: Do 'Bible Christians' find paraphrasing the Bible distasteful?

texts:
This might be a meta question, but I really mean it in a scholarly way.  Does paraphrasing the Bible for conversational use make Sola Scriptura folks cringe?

I'm not even sure what my Church thinks about it, other than improperly quoting the New American Bible too much is a copyright violation. But as for Bible Only Christians who believe that the Bible is the inspired word of God and are of the mentality that the Bible is the Mother of the Church rather than the other way around, should I take the extra effort and state what the Bible says correctly, or is it OK to paraphrase or change words around to draw out a particular meaning or just make it more readable or conversational?

For instance, not that there are a lot of Protestants in my Catechism class, but if I were to just say, without a bible open to the chapter and verse, "Jesus says, Love one another as I have loved you".  I've got no idea if that's exactly what Jesus said, but I know he said something like that.  So, if in conversation with a Bible Christian, if I don't have the Bible open, can I say anything to them without pointing out the chapter and verse?


texts: Denominations that interpret Matthew 5:32 & 19:9 as NOT permitting divorce in the case of adultery?

texts:
Which denominations interpret these verses as not permitting divorce in the case of adultery, for those in a valid marriage?

  St. Matthew 5:32But I say to you, whosoever shall dismiss his wife, excepting the cause of fornication (porneia), maketh her to commit adultery. And he that shall marry her that is dismissed, committeth adultery.

  St. Matthew 19:9And I say to you, that whosoever shall dismiss his wife, but for fornication (porneia), and shall marry another, committeth adultery: and he that shall marry her that is dismissed, committeth adultery.

For example, the Catholic Church calls these "exceptive clauses." In other words: fornication does not make a marriage.It also seems these exceptive clauses could refer to "diriment impediments," which prevent there from ever being a marriage in the first place; examples of diriment impediments being incest, perpetual impotence, vow of chastity/celibacy, etc.).

Note: I am not asking about the Catholic interpretation of Matt. 5:32 and 19:9, as this question here does, but which denomination(s) interpret those verses similarly to the way the Catholic Church does.


texts:
A common function of the Holy Spirit in the salvation of sinners, according to Catholicism, mainstream Protestantism, and the Reformed Church, among others, is derived from passages like the following:

(John 6:44 NASB) "No one can come to Me unless the Father who sent Me draws him; and I will raise him up on the last day.
(2 Timothy 2:24-26 NASB) "The Lord’s bond-servant must not be quarrelsome, but be kind to all, able to teach, patient when wronged, with gentleness correcting those who are in opposition, if perhaps God may grant them repentance leading to the knowledge of the truth, and they may come to their senses and escape from the snare of the devil, having been held captive by him to do his will."
(Matthew 16:15-17 NASB) He said to them, “But who do you say that I am?” Simon Peter answered, “You are the Christ, the Son of the living God.” And Jesus said to him, “Blessed are you, Simon Barjona, because flesh and blood did not reveal this to you, but My Father who is in heaven."
(2 Corinthians 2:12-14)  Now we have received, not the spirit of the world, but the Spirit who is from God, so that we may know the things freely given to us by God, which things we also speak, not in words taught by human wisdom, but in those taught by the Spirit, combining spiritual thoughts with spiritual words. But a natural man does not accept the things of the Spirit of God, for they are foolishness to him; and he cannot understand them, because they are spiritually appraised.

From these passages and others like them, the Christian groups above have commonly established certain functions of the Holy Spirit in the salvation of the individual:

It is by the Holy Spirit that the individual becomes aware of their sin.
It is by the Holy Spirit that the individual gains knowledge of the identity of the Son of God- Jesus Christ.
It is by the Holy Spirit that the individual acquires the desire to follow Jesus Christ in word and deed.
It is by the Holy Spirit that the individual is enabled to act toward this knowledge and desire.
The Holy Spirit dwells within the convert as a guarantee of their salvation, empowering them to act according to Jesus' commandments regarding Christian living.

However, Swedenborg does not acknowledge that a person needs to know that Jesus Christ is the Son of God, nor desire to follow Jesus Christ in word, nor to adopt Christian living1, in order to be saved.
With these things in mind, my question is,
"What is the role of the Holy Spirit in Swedenborg's soteriology?"

1. For the purpose of this question, let us regard the aspects of Christian living to be the worship of Jesus Christ in word and deed, Christian education, ministry to the Body of Christ, and evangelism of the Gospel of Jesus Christ.


texts: Why did Paul Thank God he didn't baptize some individuals?

texts:
In his first letter to Corinth, Paul notes that he is thankful he did not have to baptize some individuals.

  14: I thank God that I did not baptize any of you except Crispus and Gaius

  15: so no one can say that you were baptized in my name.

  16: (Yes, I also baptized the household of Stephanas; beyond that, I don't remember if I baptized anyone else.)

  17: For Christ did not send me to baptize, but to preach the gospel--not with wisdom and eloquence, lest the cross of Christ be emptied of its power.
   - 1 Corinthians 1:14-17

Why is Paul glad of such a thing if in the book of Mark Jesus commands:

  'Whoever believes and is baptized will be saved, but whoever does
  not believe will be condemned.' - Mark 16:16

And Peter:

  Peter replied, "Repent and be baptized, every one of you, in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins. And you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit. - Acts 2:38

Does this mean:

Paul didn't want to be glorified (v.15)
Their faith was so strong that Paul did not need to baptize them? (i.e. is baptism considered a work in this context? ('lest the cross of Christ be emptied of its power.' or Ephesians 2:18))
They would get baptized later because of their strong faith & commitment to Christ
Something else? How should this verse be interpreted?

In-other words, Is Paul fulfilling his duty as a disciple?


texts: What is the basis for King Melchizedek actually being Jesus? Where did this idea come from?

texts:
I have heard people state that King Melchizedek was actually Jesus.

What is the biblical basis for this idea? Where in church history did this idea begin?


texts: Do Anglicans have the minor orders of subdeacon, acolyte, exorcist, lector, and door-keeper (porter), like in the Catholic Church (cf. Council of Trent ses. 23 ch. 2), and the major order of deacon? (I know they claim to have the priesthood.)


texts:
I think it is a tradition to have a Brass Band in almost every church in the Salvation Army. I see them performing on many occasions like Easter Sunday and Christmas. Here is a sample image (source):

Another image (source):

What is the importance of Brass Band in the Salvation Army?

Is it compulsory for a Salvation Army church to have a brass band?


texts: If a Catholic priest absolves my sins without taking a confession, does it still count?

texts:
This is a question about Catholicism, specifically Confession.

I intended to go to confession with my priest, but he was running late since Confession was just before Mass, and he told me to come back the next day. I did, and he didn't have me confess my sins; he only absolved me, since he was still in a rush. I want to trust that the absolution was valid, but I didn't have to say a word. Does this still count?


texts:
As a Catholic, I believe that I received a greater outpouring the Holy Spirit at Confirmation.

  Baptism, the Eucharist, and the sacrament of Confirmation together constitute the "sacraments of Christian initiation," whose unity must be safeguarded. It must be explained to the faithful that the reception of the sacrament of Confirmation is necessary for the completion of baptismal grace. For "by the sacrament of Confirmation, [the baptized] are more perfectly bound to the Church and are enriched with a special strength of the Holy Spirit. Hence they are, as true witnesses of Christ, more strictly obliged to spread and defend the faith by word and deed." - Catechism of the Catholic Church

However, my understanding is that for Lutherans, confirmation is a more of an affirmation of baptism.

Do Lutherans and Catholics have the same beliefs regarding the purpose of Confirmation?


texts: What is the biblical basis against euthanasia?

texts:
It seems like the majority of Christian denominations oppose euthanasia, although I can't imagine it's universal.

What is the biblical basis against euthanizing terminally ill and those who are diagnosed as brain dead?


texts: Does the divine name YHWH (יַהְוֶה) apply equally to all Persons of the Trinity? (Catholic/Nicene perspective)

texts: According to the Catholic Church (and other Nicene Churches), does the divine name YHWH (יַהְוֶה) apply equally to all Persons of the Sacred Trinity?


texts: Who was the target audience of the Book of Job?

texts:
The Book of Job is one of my favourite books in the Bible, especially for its lesson that even in suffering, you can still persevere and be a victor for Christ.

So I'm wondering, was the Book of Job written to inspire "everyman" believers (or possibly Israelites who tried to remain faithful to Yahweh) during their periods of martyrdom and suffering?

I can see the link between it, especially when Satan is described as being the instigator of multiple scenarios (Job 2, John 15:18-27, 2 Corinthians 4:4).

But that's just my theory so it'd be nice if there are any helpful answers.


texts: Are there any Christians who understand Daniel 10 implying that there is an evil spirit prince over each country?

texts:
The angel (I believe it is Gabriel) says:

  "Soon I must return to fight against the spirit prince of the kingdom
  of Persia, and after that the spirit prince of the kingdom of Greece
  will come."  (Daniel 10:20; NLT)

This assumes an evil spirit ruler over both countries and possibly more.  Are there any Christians1 who understand Daniel 10 implying that there is an evil spirit prince over each country?

1. Any Christian meaning a particular Church or group, etc.


texts: Do we find any (even hazy) references in non-Jewish traditions about Jesus, as promised saviour?

texts:
God prepared Jewish people throughout their history and moulded them according to His requirement so that they become ready for accepting His Saviour for all the mankind. Even then many of His chosen people failed to recognise Jesus as promised Saviour.

Since Jesus was supposed to be the saviour for all humanity, there is every possibility that God would want to reveal His plan of saving humanity, to other non Jewish people around the world. Hence it is likely that God would make aware to other non-Jewish people also, for a need of a saviour for this world. So it is possible that such revelation did came to many other groups of people around the world, yet the same was most probably misinterpreted in the subset of their geographical as well as regional belief system.

One such instance that comes to my mind is close resemblance in some of the details, between Jesus and Krishna. The recording of these details was close to the period (century) of Prophet Isaiah, when very clear references to birth of Jesus were revealed.  While there is no evidence to back up the claim that this story of Krishna was of the events that had already happened, it is surely a shaded reference to Jesus who was to come somewhere in future. It is highly possible that over the years, it was presumed by these groups of people, that whatever was revealed has already come to pass, because of their ignorance of God’s actual plan in that region of the world.

So are there any other such references in non-Jewish traditions where the manifestation Jesus Christ was prophesised?


texts: I converted to the Presbyterian faith from a Catholic upbringing a while back and have always wondered - but never had anyone to ask - why Catholics use "Trespassers" in the Lord's prayer (Please forgive our trespasses, as we forgive our Trespassers) and the Presbyterians use "Debtors".  I'm sure someone has to have asked this question somewhere before me :-)


texts: What happened to Nebuchadnezzar's kingdom during his punishment

texts:
Reading Daniel 4:29–33, I understand that Nebuchadnezzar was punished by God due to his pride.

During his punishment, did his kingdom cease to exist or was there a new king?  Who was in charge of his position during his madness?


texts: Scriptural arguments against Prosperity Theology

texts: Beyond the arguments that claim prosperity theology misinterprets the meaning of the passages it uses to support it, what are some of the main scriptural-based references that would be used in a theological discussion against prosperity theology?


texts: What kind of food is Jesus referring to at Luke 22:16?

texts:
We read at Lk 22:14-16 (NRSVCE):

"When the hour came, he took his place at the table, and the apostles with him. He said to them, “I have eagerly desired to eat this Passover with you before I suffer; for I tell you, I will not eat it until it is fulfilled in the kingdom of God.”

Jesus does eat with his disciples after the resurrection (Lk 24:42). So, it is not the mundane food that He  is referring to. As for Passover meal, one could not expect it being served  in Heaven. My question therefore, is: What kind of food is Jesus referring to in Lk 22:16 when He says that He will not eat it until it is fulfilled in the Kingdom of God? What does the Catholic Church have to say on the subject?


texts: In "take up your cross daily" what does "cross" refer to?

texts:
Then he said to them all: “Whoever wants to be my disciple must deny themselves and take up their cross daily and follow me. (Luke 9:23)

What does Jesus mean here? What kind of cross is he referring to?


texts: What is the reason to genuflect when the Incarnation is mentioned?

texts:
At Mass during the recitation of the Nicene Creed and when praying the Angelus, it is common (or required?) for the congregation to bow or genuflect (bend one knee) during these lines:

For us men and for our salvation He came down from heaven: By the power of the Holy Spirit, He was incarnate (born) of the Virgin Mary, and became man.
the Word was made Flesh and dwelt among us

Why do we genuflect during those lines and not do anything special when other very important aspects of our faith are mentioned?


texts: Is the English translation of "Book of Mormon" ever revised or updated, and if so, on what basis given that the golden plates have disappeared?

texts:
The English used in the initial translation of the book of Mormon is KJV-esque English. I'm wondering if there have ever been new English translations as time goes by, and as the English language has developed?

If so, what are these translations based off, considering we no longer have access to the golden plates? Would it just paraphrase the original translation, but in modern English?


texts: What are the main differences between Jehovah's Witnesses and Biblical Unitarians?

texts:
What are the main differences between the two? I know that both reject the trinity and the divinity of Jesus, but that's about it. I'm particularly interested in knowing their doctrinal differences (if any) with regards to the following points:

Christology,
Pneumatology,
The nature of God,
Soteriology,
The nature of humans (what happens to us when we die),

and any other important doctrinal aspects in which they part ways.


texts:
Throughout the New Testament there seems to be a distinction drawn between grace and works, it is almost as if one salvation question is “who you are” and the second salvation question is “what have you done”.  On the one hand, we know we are saved by grace not by works, and yet we read that only the "doers" of the will of the Father will enter Heaven.

It seems as if there are two salvation questions: Have you received God’s grace by faith, are you born anew with the Holy Spirit and as such a child of God’s? The second seems to be as a child of God’s and with the availability of the Holy Spirit, is the Spirit of God bearing out Jesus Christ through your life's work?

Examples from Scripture:

Beginning with Jesus chastising Nicodemus in John 3:5,6 Jesus answered, Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born of water and of the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God. That which is born of the flesh is flesh; and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit.

Grace to the Gentiles: Acts 15:8-10 And God, which knoweth the hearts, bare them witness, giving them the Holy Ghost, even as he did unto us; Now therefore why tempt ye God, to put a yoke upon the neck of the disciples, which neither our fathers nor we were able to bear?

Ephesians 2:5 Even when we were dead in sins, hath quickened us together with Christ, (by grace ye are saved;)…2:8,9 For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God: Not of works, lest any man should boast.

2 Timothy 1:9 Who hath saved us, and called us with an holy calling, not according to our works, but according to his own purpose and grace, which was given us in Christ Jesus before the world began

In contrast Jesus says: Matthew 7:21 Not every one that saith unto me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdom of heaven; but he that doeth the will of my Father which is in heaven.

1Corinthians 3:13-15 Every man's work shall be made manifest: for the day shall declare it, because it shall be revealed by fire; and the fire shall try every man's work of what sort it is. If any man's work abide which he hath built thereupon, he shall receive a reward. If any man's work shall be burned, he shall suffer loss: but he himself shall be saved; yet so as by fire.

Revelation 21:7 He that overcometh shall inherit all things; and I will be his God, and he shall be my son. But the fearful, and unbelieving, and the abominable, and murderers, and whoremongers, and sorcerers, and idolaters, and all liars, shall have their part in the lake which burneth with fire and brimstone: which is the second death.

Is there any historical references within Christianity where the salvation of the soul by grace and the salvation of ones life works are differentiated (realizing that they are related)?  It certainly seems that 1 Corinthians 3:15 differentiates these perspectives: (If any man's work shall be burned, he shall suffer loss: but he himself shall be saved).  It seems the "new birth" assures entrance into God's kingdom and the "works" born of faith in the will of God the Father determines how much of ones life will will enter into the Kingdom of God, is this correct?


texts:
Estimates vary widely of the minimum viable population for humans to stably reproduce without being subject to significant detrimental effects of inbreeding. Minimum estimates (e.g., for space colonisation) usually range in the dozens to hundreds, but most general estimates for Earth repopulation err on the safe side and choose numbers well into the thousands.

In light of the fact that the MVP of humans is certainly greater than two, we cannot interpret the story of Adam and Eve as a literal account, unless other divine provisions were made after the Fall in order for humans to be able to make it on their own. Is there consensus among Biblical scholars about this?


texts: Why is the Gospel of Thomas considered heretical by Nicene Christians?

texts:
I've seen in a few places the Gospel of Thomas described as Gnostic and thus heretical. I've seen people dismiss it as heretical but never going into the details of why that is the case. Why is the gospel of Thomas considered heretical?

I have read the text, it seemed quite interesting to me, shares much of the material from other gospel texts and as the form is a sayings gospel leaves much to interpretation; I don't think it would be difficult for even pretty stringently orthodox people to interpret it to their satisfaction. Although you could construe it in a number of ways, you could say that for lots of works that are considered canonical. It certainly doesn't seem any more different from the synoptic gospels than is the Gospel of John. The dating might be questionable but that doesn't make it doctrinally unsound surely otherwise Ephesians could not be canonical. The only saying that even seems to hint at gnosticism to me is 114 and that is known to be a later addition to the text.

To be clear I'm referring to the sayings gospel not the infancy gospel.


texts: Hearing Bell sounds - What does the Bible say about bells?

texts:
Recently I have heard many bell sounds during times of heavy spiritual warfare & physical troubles. I know i'm not crazy because I've had relatives and friends hear them as-well. They come from multiple directions and have been heard at multiple locations.

What is the biblical significance of bells and what symbolism does it carry?


texts: What is the basis for the Swedenborgian view that the most common concept of God in Christianity (the Trinity) is a belief in three gods?

texts:
The vast bulk of Christian denominations, representing the overwhelming majority of Christians, subscribe to the doctrine of the Trinity, which, boiled down to its essence, is "one God in three Divine Persons."

Non-Christian monotheists such as Jews and Muslims sometimes charge Christians with believing in three gods (a form of polytheism) based on this trinitarian doctrine.

However, even within Christianity, at least one group, the Swedenborgians, views trinitarianism as a belief in three gods, or tritheism.

What is the basis for the Swedenborgian view that the Trinity of Persons is a belief in three gods?


texts: What is the SBC's stance on what/how salvation is/works?

texts:
What is the Southern Baptist Convention's stance on what salvation is and how it works?

Is there an official doctrine?

Is it challenged by prominent members?


texts: What is this (presumably Catholic) uniform?

texts:
Yesterday, at a restaurant in Rome, at the table next to mine, there were seated four people: a Catholic priest (in a kind of cassock), two lay people, and the woman in the photo, who apparently wears some kind of religious uniform (as well as a crucifix on a chain) that I couldn't recognise.

Does anyone know which uniform is this?


texts: Where did Jesus go after he died at the cross?

texts:
Possible Duplicate:
  Did Jesus spend time in Hell between the crucifixion and resurrection?

In the dutch traditional creed, is written that Jesus went down to hell. And sometimes people say Jesus overcame the grave, the death or hell.

But also, Jesus says to the thief next to him at the cross that he will be in paradise with him today.

I'm wondering, where was Jesus' soul/spirit or whatever when his body was in the grave?


texts: Is there a biblical basis for the division caused by theology?

texts:
Is there a Biblical basis for the division caused by various theologies?

Let us take James into account:

  James 1:26-27
  If any man among you seem to be religious, and bridleth not his tongue, but deceiveth his own heart, this man's religion is vain.
  Pure religion and undefiled before God and the Father is this, To visit the fatherless and widows in their affliction, and to keep himself unspotted from the world.

As well as Paul:

  1 Corinthians 1:10
  Now I beseech you, brethren, by the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that ye all speak the same thing, and that there be no divisions among you; but that ye be perfectly joined together in the same mind and in the same judgment.

In reading these, I'm sure we can all agree that we are, in fact, not doing either of these at all. We have Catholics, Lutherans, Mormons, JWs, and many many more - all doing and saying and teaching different things. This becomes problematic for some people who are trying to learn the Truth (emphasis on that capital T), and many people incredibly devoted to what is (or appears to be, rather) wrong will quote such verses as 1 Corinthians 14:33 - however you will find someone do this, then immediately go and contradict Scripture itself.

There are many, many denominations out there - and I'm sure an equal or greater amount of theologies. And if my usage of the term theology appears off, that's because theology today does not do what it was supposed to. Instead of studying God, much of it (from personal observation) is finding out "what the book means to you". God did not inspire the Bible to appeal to each individual, but to His people.

So, is there a Biblical basis for the division it is causing?


texts: What is the biblical basis for salvation by faith alone (sola fide)?

texts:
One of the key issues in the Reformation was the doctrine of Sola Fide, that is, that salvation is by faith alone, apart from works.

What, then, is the biblical basis for this belief?