texts: 1 Timothy 4:1-3 - Are We Still Living in the Great Apostasy?

texts:
1 Timothy 4:1-3:

Amplified Bible (AMP)

  4 But the [Holy] Spirit distinctly and expressly declares that in
  latter times some will turn away from the faith, giving attention to
  deluding and seducing spirits and doctrines that demons teach,

  2 Through the hypocrisy and pretensions of liars whose consciences are
  seared (cauterized),

  3 Who forbid people to marry and [teach them] to abstain from [certain
  kinds of] foods which God created to be received with thanksgiving by
  those who believe and have [an increasingly clear] knowledge of the
  truth.

The question is simple. Are we still living in the great apostasy? This matches quite a few doctrines quite closely.

"Framing" is requested - more explanation of the question given:

The scriptures explained that a great apostasy would occur after the death of the apostles. The apostles acted as a restraint to this (2 Thes 2:6,7).

The apostles of been dead for thousands of years, and christianity has fragmented from one denomination "falling" away from another.

The question thus remains: Are we still living in the apostasy? That is, is there any reason to think it is in any way over?

If christianity.stackexchange can't answer this, then this whole site is just idle chatter of opinion.

This question was strong-armed into being closed because it was too "open ended" and it was requested that this be answered to the bias of a specific denomination, though a factionally based answer goes against the point of the question. Please reference this scripture: 1 Corinthians 1:10


texts: Why did Jesus treat the dove-sellers at the Temple with kindness?

texts:
At John 2:14-16 (NRSVCE) we read:

" In the temple he found people selling cattle, sheep, and doves, and the money changers seated at their tables.  Making a whip of cords, he drove all of them out of the temple, both the sheep and the cattle. He also poured out the coins of the money changers and overturned their tables.  He told those who were selling the doves, “Take these things out of here! Stop making my Father’s house a marketplace!”

We see Jesus adopting a  lenient approach  towards sellers of doves vi-a-vis those selling sheep and cattle. Is it because His parents had offered doves at the time of His own presentation to the Temple (Luke 2:24) ? What do the teachings of Catholic Church reveal on the said ' differential treatment' of Jesus towards various   merchants ?


texts: Does participating in an RCIA class require an initial commitment to convert to Catholicism?

texts: Say that I am not a Catholic, but am interested in learning more about the faith. However, I am not yet sure if I actually want to become Catholic. Would it be possible to participate in a Rite of Christian Initiation of Adults (RCIA) class in order to learn about the faith, even though I am unsure of if I will join it at the end of the class? Or does participating in RCIA require an initial commitment to formally become Catholic at the end of it?


texts: Why do Young-Earth Creationists make such a big deal about the YEC view

texts:
For anyone who's unfamiliar with what the Young-Earth view, here's a starting point.

I want to start out by saying that this question is not about whether or not the YEC view it true.  It's not about whether there is scientific evidence for and/or against, or even neutral.  This is in no way, shape, or form, a question about the validity of the YEC view, or any opposing view.

Specifically, I'm asking why the Kent Hovinds, Ken Hams, and other prominent YEC creationists, and so many Fundamental conservative Christians so married to the YEC view, and so vocal about it.

Most of the people that self-identify as Christians could care less about the issue.  The idea of creation/evolution is a non-issue.  Debating whether the Genesis account of creation and the flood has no bearing on doctrines they care about, from their perspective.  As a matter of fact, many of them consider Creationists to be an embarrassment, and the idea of speaking out on the topic as counter-productive at best, and some think it's downright dangerous.

They open themselves, and as a result, all of Christianity to ridicule because they "refuse to believe science" and stick to ancient stories.

For the record (for the one or two people that don't already know it)  I am one of those people.  I'm a Young-Earth Creationist, so even though the above may sound like I'm attacking the YEC view, that's not why put all that in there.

What I'm looking for is an answer as to why the "Creation Science Evangelists" - the Kent Hovinds, Ken Hams, the ICR, creationtoday.org, and others are willing to go around preaching something that gets them laughed at, ridiculed, and even other Christians wish they'd just knock it off.  Why is it so important to them?  Is there a doctrinal reason, or are they just that stuck in their ways that they're unwilling to change?


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

texts:
The Catholic Church teaches that Peter was the first pope and that papal succession continued down through history to the present day.  However, neither the Orthodox nor the Protestant churches recognize this.

So, what are the biblical arguments (Protestant or Orthodox) against the papacy and papal succession?


texts: How do superiors in a convent deal with the religious who are selective in the choice of food?

texts:
How do superiors in the convent deal with the religious who are selective in the choice of food?

For example, if a religious refuses to eat certain foods prepared for him?


texts: Is prayer to Jesus required for salvation?

texts: According to the Bible, will those who have heard about Jesus (and, perhaps, even believed that Jesus existed or that he had a special role) and yet have never prayed directly to Him (i.e. never addressed Him in prayer by using the name "Jesus") go to hell?


texts: What was Satan's view on the authority of Scripture?

texts: Does the Bible give us any indication about what Satan's own view of the Scriptures and their authority as divine testimony is? Does the way he uses it or the way he responds to those who use it tell us anything about his understanding of their inspiration/authority?


texts: Early Christian responses to suicide (source/text identification)?

texts: I'm looking for a text I read some time ago where an Early Church writer (one of the Patristic Fathers?) responds to an argument regarding suicide put forth by some opponents. IIRC, it goes something like this: "If Christianity is true and this world is a temporary place of suffering prior to the bliss of heaven, why don't all you Christians just kill yourselves?" (Or something to that effect.) The text is the author's response--but I can't recall the text, the author, their response, or where I read it! Any help would be appreciated.


texts: What is the distinction between Consubstantial and One in Being?

texts:
The New Translation of the Roman Missal is going to be put into use in Advent 2011 and there is a change made to the Nicene Creed.

  one in Being with the Father.

is going to be

  consubstantial with the Father

that's a nice new word to teach my CCD class, but what is the difference.  Does this further differentiate the Latin Rite Catholic creed from other Churches (especially Eastern Orthodox) or bring it doctrinally closer?

The change is just in the translation, the original Latin is the same as ever, but there still must be some significance, other than wanting to be more concise.


texts: Are there Christian denominations debating whether Jesus was really the son of God?

texts:
I don't know what others christian denominations say, but it is sure that Catholic Church doesn't pose any doubt that Jesus was the son of God, nor a discussion about this believing is in its agenda.

Abstractly speaking, there is no argument to exclude that God exists, but nowadays more than one doubt arises about the fact that Jesus was the son of God.

So, are there any Christian denominations discussing or debating whether Jesus was really the son of God?

Would believing that Jesus is not the son of God also be denying the existence of God (the God of Abraham)?

In other words, is there any room in Christianity for believing that Jesus was not the literal son of God?


texts: What is the basis for the Catholic teaching that abortion is immoral/sinful?

texts:
What is the doctrinal basis for the Catholic teaching that abortion is immoral?  I understand that these will be based on Scripture, but will likely come from official Catholic documents.

So, I'm specifically looking for an answer from a Catholic doctrinal position rather than a purely exegetical answer (as provided to my previous question).


texts: How often has the Pope asked all Catholics to pray the Rosary?

texts: In the history of the Catholic Church, I know there's been extra days of fasting and prayer called for by the Pope and Bishops, but other than prior to the Battle of Lepanto and today (March 19th 2020, The Solemnity of St. Joseph) at 9:00 PM Rome Time. Has the Pope ever asked all Catholics to pray the Rosary in unity (or as simultaneously as possible prior to mass communication and computerized synchronization)?


texts: Was Augustine opposed to the death penalty?

texts:
In Henry Chadwick's translation of the Confessions, I find him making a surprising claim:

  Like most of the Church Fathers, Augustine was against capital punishment. (page 21)

The context is Augustine's critique of the orator who uses his skill of persuasion without regard for the outcome:

  A man enjoying a reputation for eloquence takes his positions before a human judge with a crowd of men standing round and attacks his opponent with ferocious animosity.  He is extremely vigilant in precautions against some error in language, but is indifferent to the possibility that the emotional force of his mind may bring about a man's execution.

I see nothing there indicating that Augustine is opposed to capital punishment.  And the City of God, Book 1, Chapter 21, suggests the opposite position:

  The same divine law which forbids the killing of a human being allows certain exceptions, as when God authorizes killing by a general law or when He gives an explicit commission to an individual for a limited time. Since the agent of authority is but a sword in the hand, and is not responsible for the killing, it is in no way contrary to the commandment, “Thou shalt not kill” to wage war at God’s bidding, or for the representatives of the State’s authority to put criminals to death, according to law or the rule of rational justice. [emphasis added]

Henry Chadwick has forgotten more about Augustine than I will ever know, so surely there is some basis for his claim that Augustine was against capital punishment.  So:

Do other writings of Augustine indicate an opposition to capital punishment?
Did his views change over the course of his life?
Did he accept capital punishment in theory, but oppose it in practice?


texts: Where did Swedenborg believe man originate from?

texts: The origin of man is thought by some to be through God's creation of Adam and Eve. Some people believe that we originated from lower forms of animals. And some people believe that aliens were the direct progenitors of mankind. Where did Emanuel Swedenborg believe we came from?


texts: How does the Westminster Confession address the paradox of the Bible canon?

texts:
Chapter I, Article IV of the Westminster Confession (1647) reads:

The authority of the Holy Scripture, for which it ought to be believed, and obeyed, dependeth not upon the testimony of any man, or Church; but wholly upon God (who is truth itself) the author thereof: and therefore it is to be received, because it is the Word of God.

This is very similar to Article I in the Chicago Statement on Biblical Inerrancy (1978):

WE AFFIRM  that the Holy Scriptures are to be received as the authoritative Word of God.
WE DENY  that the Scriptures receive their authority from the Church, tradition, or any other human source.

But nowhere does Scripture define its own composition.
Would not some extra-Biblical source or sources have to be credited here as a relevant "testimony of man or Church" upon which the authority of Scripture itself must somehow depend?  Such sources would include Church Fathers, Church councils, consensus within one's denomination or branch, trust in the Bible publisher(s), or, at the very least, personal belief or intuition.
Is this a valid point? Has it ever been addressed by those who hold to the Westminster Confession?  If so, how is it addressed?


texts: Which prophecies have definitely been fulfilled?

texts:
The Bible (particularly the Old Testament) makes many predictions about the future, often regarding nations or peoples quite distant from those making the prophecy.

If we ignore any arguments about the date of authorship and assume that the prophecy is genuine and predated the event it is describing, which prophecies have been fulfilled according to the generally accepted historical record?

One example would be in Ezekiel 26:12 regarding the city of Tyre:

  They will plunder your wealth and loot your merchandise; they will break down your walls and demolish your fine houses and throw your stones, timber and rubble into the sea.

It is an uncontroversial statement to say that Alexander the Great threw the houses of mainland Tyre into the sea.


texts: According to the Catholic Church, are there levels of spiritual enlightenment in Christianity?

texts:
In Judaism there is the Kabbalah. In other religions there are ways to spiritual enlightenment.
Every religion has its own formula.

From everyone who has been given much, much will be demanded; and from the one who has been entrusted with much, much more will be asked. (Luke 12:48)
I did not receive it from any man, nor was I taught it; rather, I received it by revelation from Jesus Christ. (Galatians 1:11)
was caught up to paradise and heard inexpressible things, things that no one is permitted to tell. (2 Corinthians 12:4)

So are there levels of enlightenment in Christianity? If so, how do we get there? What is the Catholic Church's doctrine on this question?


texts:
In John 1:46-50, Nathanael is introduced to Jesus for the first time.

We know He was Philip's friend from Bethsaida and He was "truly an Israelite in whom there is no deceit"

Where can I find some information about Nathanael besides John 1?
Any passage or book, biography, site...


texts: Did God create the serpent in the Garden of Eden?

texts:
If God created everything in the world then did he also create the serpent who tempted Eve?

Why would he do this? Why would he create something to contended with himself and tempt others to disobey God?

If not how did the serpent get there?


texts: Are supporters of gay rights considered apostates within the LDS Church?

texts:
The official stance of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints on homosexuality is:

  The experience of same-sex attraction is a complex reality for many
  people. The attraction itself is not a sin, but acting on it is. Even
  though individuals do not choose to have such attractions, they do
  choose how to respond to them. With love and understanding, the Church
  reaches out to all God’s children, including our gay and lesbian
  brothers and sisters.

The LDS church is in support of basic civil rights being extended to those who self identify as homosexuals. These rights include equal access to housing, medical care, employment and the like. They are not however in favour of homosexuals joining in marriage or gay cohabitation. This reflects their stance of, "People may not choose who they're attracted to, but they do choose how to act on those attractions."

Recently, because of the supreme court ruling which made gay marriage legal in the USA, in addition to the other countries in which gay marriage was previously legal, the LDS church found it necessary to update their definition of Apostasy to include same-sex cohabitation. Prior to the legalization of same-sex marriages, it was not necessary to be so specific, but in order to address the secular position that homosexual unions should be held in the same regard as traditional unions, the necessity has arisen.

Amongst other questions, in order to receive a temple recommend, an individual must honestly be able to answer in the negative to the following question:

  Do you support, affiliate with, or agree with any group or individual
  whose teachings or practices are contrary to or oppose those accepted
  by the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints?

Supporters of those gay rights which directly affect the definition of the institution of the family, specifically, those who support the institution of marriage between homosexuals, the cohabitation of homosexuals, or the adoption or raising of children by homosexual couples, are literally in support of practices that are contrary to the teachings of the church. They are literally in support of apostate teachings and practices.

Does this updated policy mean that all supporters within the church who believe that gay individuals have the right to live in gay relationships are guilty of apostasy?


texts: Jesus's atonement equivalent to sinners' punishments

texts:
When Jesus went to the cross, he experienced

the ordeal of his arrest
agony for three or so days
The loss of the rest of his natural life

When a sinner sins (without accepting Jesus), he experiences a long time in Hell.

How can Jesus be said to take on the sins of mankind, if the punishments of those sins of mankind exceed the suffering Jesus actually experienced. Why would Jesus not have to personally go to Hell in order to take on the punishment of the sinners?


texts: What has the Bible said about appropriate Sabbath-day worship?

texts:
The Sabbath is important to every Christian, but everyone has varying ideas about what is appropriate.  Instead of opening up the question for debate, I was wondering what the Bible has to say about it.
We all know the 10 commandments where it says:

8 Remember the sabbath day, to keep it holy.
9 Six days shalt thou labour, and do all thy work:
10 But the seventh day is the sabbath of the LORD thy God: in it thou shalt not do any work, thou, nor thy son, nor thy daughter, thy manservant, nor thy maidservant, nor thy cattle, nor thy stranger that is within thy gates:
11 For in six days the LORD made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that in them is, and rested the seventh day: wherefore the LORD blessed the sabbath day, and hallowed it.

Exodus 20: 8-11
Most Christians believe that the 10 Commandments are still valid, so I figure this is a valid statement of the question.
From these verses, we know that on the Sabbath, we should:

Avoid work
Don't require others to work
Worship (hallowed the Sabbath)

What else has the Lord told us to do with respect to Sabbath-day worship?


texts: Does God predetermine all things according to His prescience?

texts:
In "An Exact Exposition of the Orthodox Faith" (ἔκδοσις ἀκριβὴς τῆς ὀρθοδόξου πίστεως) John of Damascus wrote,

  Χρὴ γινώσκειν, ὡς πάντα μὲν προγινώσκει ὁ θεός, οὐ πάντα δὲ προορίζει· προγινώσκει γὰρ καὶ τὰ ἐφ' ἡμῖν, οὐ προορίζει δὲ αὐτά· οὐ γὰρ θέλει τὴν κακίαν γενέσθαι οὐδὲ βιάζεται τὴν ἀρετήν. Ὥστε τῆς θείας προγνωστικῆς
  κελεύσεως ἔργον ἐστὶν ὁ προορισμός. Προορίζει δὲ τὰ οὐκ ἐφ' ἡμῖν κατὰ τὴν πρόγνωσιν αὐτοῦ· ἤδη γὰρ κατὰ τὴν πρόγνωσιν αὐτοῦ προέκρινε πάντα ὁ θεὸς κατὰ τὴν ἀγαθότητα καὶ τὴν δικαιοσύνην αὐτοῦ.

which I translate as,

  It is necessary to understand, while God foreknows everything, yet He does not predetermine everything. For He even foreknows those things that are dependent on us, but He does not predetermine them. For He neither wills evil to occur nor forces virtue, so that predetermination is the work of the divine command of foreknowledge. On the other hand, God predetermines those things which are not dependent on us, according to His foreknowledge. For according to His foreknowledge, God has already forejudged all things according to His goodness and righteousness.

Is John's remark that God does not predetermine all things, only things not within our own power and ability, considered an accepted, orthodox belief by Roman Catholicism? Are there any scriptures that contradict his assertion?


texts: What are the Biblical arguments against modalism?

texts:
Modalism, or Sabellianism, is the belief that the three persons of the Trinity (God the Father, God the Son, and God the Holy Spirit) are simply three "roles" or "modes" of the same person.

This view is labelled as a heresy by many denominations. What are common Biblical and theological arguments against modalism?


texts: Christian folklore, traditions and legends concerning plants?

texts:
With the present situation of the coronavirus affecting many of us, and many sensing the need to be able to get outside and do something, if one’s local restrictions permit it, I would like be able to go out “in the wild” and be able to identify various plants that are either related to Christian folklore and/or Christian symbolisms of some sort.

What got my interest in this subject was when I was doing research on Christian traditions with foodstuffs from around the world.

For example, some time ago I came across an interesting tidbit (at least for me) about Ostrich ferns also known as the fiddlehead fern:

  Fiddleheads or fiddlehead greens are the furled fronds of a young fern, harvested for use as a vegetable.

  The fiddlehead resembles the curled ornamentation (called a scroll) on the end of a stringed instrument, such as a violin. **It is also called a crozier, after the curved staff used by bishops, which has its origins in the shepherd's crook **. - Fiddlehead fern (Wikipedia)

Another more common example can be found in the plant known as St. John’s Wort:

  The common name "St John's wort" may refer to any species of the genus Hypericum. Therefore, Hypericum perforatum is sometimes called "common St John's wort" or "perforate St John's wort" to differentiate it.

  St John's wort is named as such because it commonly flowers, blossoms and is harvested at the time of the summer solstice in late June, around St John's Feast Day on 24 June. The herb would be hung on house and stall doors on St John's Feast day to ward off evil spirits and to safeguard against harm and sickness to man and live-stock. The genus name Hypericum is possibly derived from the Greek words hyper and eikon, in reference to the tradition of hanging plants over religious icons in the home during St John's Day.

Thus my question is as follows: Does there exist a good resource material source book that deals with such plants involving Christian folklore, legends and traditions? Symbolism is likewise included.

If no book truly is out there, I would then prefer an online source of information. For what it is worth, I am not limiting this question to any specific Christian tradition. Any sources in other languages or non English countries are also welcome.


texts: Why can't Jesus periodically visit Earth?

texts:
“But concerning that day and hour no one knows, not even the angels of heaven, nor the Son, but the Father only.

Matthew 24:36

The Gospel of Matthew tells us that Jesus will return someday. All Christians yearn for his return.

But why is Jesus scheduled to return only once at some indefinite time in the future?

Why can't He periodically visit Earth?

Is he "busy" visiting other planets? Does he need to do "chores" in Heaven?


texts:
Is it a title?

And why is merodach written with a lower case "m"?

PS: I came across this name from Jeremiah 52:31 of an NLT Bible


texts: What is the Southern Baptist belief regarding speaking in tongues?

texts:
I have yet to see anyone speaking in tongues in a Southern Baptist church.  Having said that, the lack of speaking in tongues does not necessarily mean that Southern Baptists never speak in tongues or that they do not believe in it as a general rule.  Clearly they seem to avoid it.

Nonetheless, what is the Southern Baptist belief regarding speaking in tongues?


texts: As a protestant, may I participate in the Eucharist (Communion) when visiting a Catholic church?

texts: I think the title sums it up.  I'm a protestant Christian, and have many Catholic friends. When I visit their churches, is it permissible for me to participate in the Eucharist/Communion ceremony by partaking of the bread and wine?


texts: Is the Tamil name Savari derived from the name Xavier?

texts: I want to know whether Savari is the Tamil Christian male name for Xavier?


texts: Is there any evidence that people of Jewish descent came to the Americas before the birth of Christ Jesus

texts:
While doing research into a question about the Aztec and Mayan peoples I found an article from the official web site of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints which suggests that Jesus appeared to people of Jewish descent in the American continents:

  “Jesus spent His mortal life near Jerusalem, teaching the Jews of His gospel. However, Jesus also taught people of Jewish descent in another land: the American continents...   The Book of Mormon is a book of scripture that details God’s teachings to people who lived in the Americas from about 600 BC to AD 400.” Source: https://www.comeuntochrist.org/blog/what-jesus-christs-visit-to-the-americas-means-to-us

According to the Book of Mormon, Jesus Christ had twelve Nephite disciples.  Apparently, Jesus visited the New World after his death and resurrection.  Moroni was the last Nephite prophet, historian, and military commander who supposedly lived in the Americas in the late fourth and early fifth centuries. He is later known as the Angel Moroni.

History records how Christianity was brought to the Aztecs and Mayans by the Spanish conquistadors after 1517.  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spanish_colonization_of_the_Americas

But is there any evidence that people of Jewish descent came to the Americas before then or that Jesus Christ brought the gospel to native peoples living in the Americas?

EDIT:  Regarding the article on archaeological evidence to support the events recorded in the Book of Mormon, although the question (and the answer) is interesting, it does not answer my question.

I am inclined to agree with the conclusion by Mason Wheeler that “a large corpus of evidence exists which, while not enough to conclusively prove the truthfulness of the Book of Mormon... definitely demonstrates that the book is worthy of serious attention and consideration.”

However, I disagree with his assertion that “(they haven't even managed to do that with the Bible, so it would be unfair to hold another work that claims to be scripture to such a high standard).”  What’s good enough to support the truthfulness of the Bible is good enough to support the truthfulness in the Book of Mormon, but archaeology is not the proof I seek.

What evidence is there to support the claim that Jesus "taught people of Jewish descent in another land: the American continents"?


texts: What is the Biblical basis for the concept that demons have an odor?

texts:
I've seen that in Pentecostal and Charismatic churches while doing (what I would call a type of) exorcism some claim to smell the demon. They express the smell as "sour" or something rotten.

Bible Knowledge describes the smell as putrid and toxic and also like burning sulfur.

Oral Roberts claimed he could smell them in a person, and Tom Brown Ministies says it's type discernment.

According to Let Us Reason, Joyce Meyer described the smell as a "stench."

Is there any biblical scripture that explicitly or implicitly suggests that demons have any odor?


texts: According to Reformed Theology how can we saved by Grace 'Alone' and Faith 'Alone'?

texts:
Two of the Five Solas are:

Sola Gratia: Salvation by Grace Alone
Sola Fide: Justification by Faith Alone

If salvation is by "grace alone", how can "faith alone" be added as well? Only one of these two should be chosen in order to use the term "alone". From scripture grace and faith work together, e.g.:

... we have also obtained access by faith into this grace in which we stand ... (Romans 5:2, ESV)
For by grace you have been saved through faith. (Ephesians 2:8, ESV)

Suppose someone builds a bridge over a chasm to rescue a group of hikers from a great disaster, and announces to all hikers that the bridge has been built. Arriving on the safe side, someone tells the hikers: "You arrived here only through the goodwill of the bridgebuilder", and "You arrived here only because you actually crossed the bridge". How logical is that? Clearly, the two must work together (and not together, although separately alone)?


texts: From a Roman Catholic point of view, what should a Protestant chaplain do for a dying Catholic?

texts:
As a Protestant chaplain (but not on staff at any institution), I have wondered what is appropriate (from a Roman Catholic point of view) to do spiritually for a dying Catholic, assuming that a priest isn't available and won't be available before he/she dies. My primary concern is in not offending the person's Catholic family members by doing anything that they might later consider inappropriate.

Is there any guidance on this in Catholic Canons or other official Catholic Church teachings?


texts: Is there any substance to the claim that Origen supported reincarnation?

texts:
Origen of Alexandria is considered one of Christianity's greatest systematic theologians, and it is said that he was a believer in reincarnation.

Is there any substance (textual evidence) to the claim that Origen supported reincarnation?


texts: How did Psalm 124 become associated with the Holy Innocents?

texts:
The Holy Innocents are the children mentioned in Matthew's gospel (2:16-18) as having been murdered by Herod. Many churches celebrate a Feast of the Holy Innocents, or Childermass, on one of the days following Christmas Day.
Psalm 124 (or 123 in the Vulgate) is often chosen as an appointed reading, for example in the Evangelical Lutheran Church of America, the Church of England, and the Roman Catholic Church. Here's verse 7 in the KJV and the Vulgate:

Our soul is escaped as a bird out of the snare of the fowlers: the snare is broken, and we are escaped.
Anima nostra sicut passer erepta est de laqueo venantium: Laqueus contritus est, et nos liberati sumus.

Musical settings include those by Michael Haydn (offertory Anima nostra, MH146, performed here by the Vienna Boys Choir) and Palestrina (Anima nostra sicut passer).
I was wondering when and why this psalm text became associated with Matthew's story.
It is well-represented now in the lectionaries of several different churches, as shown above, but it does not seem to be referenced in the earliest such texts. For example, the fifth-century Leonine Sacramentary refers to Jeremiah 31:15 (which is clearly directly relevant, since Matthew quotes it!) but not to this psalm. In other words, who decided, and on what basis, that the psalm was a good match for the Holy Innocents?


texts: What is this box that can be found in Catholic churches?

texts: Please see the picture below. What is this 'box', gilded perhaps, that can be found in Catholic churches? Some make a genuflection before it, and even the Pope bows reverentially before it. What is its history and significance? What's kept in it? What is the name and purpose of the lamp beside it? Does the the 'box' have any scriptural basis? In the answer, please make a reference to the Church law that governs this box.


texts: How old was Moses when he parted the Red Sea and how old was he when he wrote the ten commandments

texts: I'm trying to write a timeline of Moses's greatest achievements and this is all I haven't found so far. If you know what the two ages of Moses are in relation to these two events, please let me know, that would be great!


texts: What is the basis for the belief among some LDS/Mormons that children in their pre-mortal existence choose who their parents will be?

texts:
I saw on an LDS-releated site recently where an LDS member indicated the belief that children in their pre-mortal existence choose who their parents will be.  After seeing this, I recalled hearing the same thing many years ago as well.  It seems, then, that this belief is present among at least some LDS members, even if it is not official teaching.

What, then, is the basis of this belief?  Is it official doctrine?  Are there references to this teaching in the D&C or any other Mormon Scripture or reference?


texts: Did the Church Fathers ever reference the six jars of wine at the Wedding in Cana as symbolising the six followers of Jesus at the wedding?

texts:
John 1 describes in some detail Jesus calling his first five disciples - Andrew, Simon, Philip, Nathanael and presumably John.
John 2 1-2 says that Jesus' mother was at the wedding and Jesus was there with his disciples. So there were six followers of Jesus at the wedding (his mother and five disciples), and six jars filled with the new wine.
The passage here forms a beautiful contrast with Jeremiah 13; 12-14 where people are also referred to as jars of wine. In the Jeremiah passage the people described were the prophets, priests and the kings who sat on David's throne, as well as all the people of Jerusalem. They were all sentenced to destruction.
At the wedding at Cana one man, who was a prophet, priest and the king who would sit on David's throne, filled jars with a wine of blessing instead of destruction. It was as if the old wine of God's judgement a ran out at the wedding, and was replaced with the new wine of His blessing.
I wonder if this, the first sign that Jesus did, set the pattern for the rest of Jesus' ministry - he filled the 12, then the 70, then the 3,000 at Pentecost. And these people, like the jars of new wine filled to the brim at the wedding, (John 2:7) went on to share the new wine they carried with others, spreading the gospel of the Kingdom far and wide.
Incidentally the amount of wine Jesus created (approximately 150 gallons) was enough to give 3,000 people a good measure. Could it be that Jesus was looking all the way to Pentecost when he created the wine?
This all makes sense to me, but I've not seen this referenced anywhere else, so I would be curious to know if other people have found anything in church history like this?


texts: Does the Catholic Church consider not administering a feeding tube passive euthanasia?

texts: If a person was near death due to a severe head injury, but now only completely incapacitated (as in, unable to respond to stimuli; eyes open, but not tracking; not able to speak or swallow), is it OK to withhold giving that person a feeding tube?  Does it matter what the odds for improved health are? And, if it is not OK, how does anyone benefit from the person's continued survival?


texts: What does "Throwing Pearls to Swine" (Matt 7:6) mean?

texts:
So This is Christ delivering the 'Sermon on the Mount'. And I think he's talking about how to deal with other people because In the same passage, Christ talks about Taking the beam from your own eye, before removing the mote from your brother's eye.

The verse directly after:

  Do not give dogs what is holy; do not throw your pearls before swine. If you do, they may trample them under their feet, and then turn and tear you to pieces. (Matt 7:6)

It seems to say don't preach the Gospel (what is holy, and was is -precious as- pearls) to the Dogs and Swine, which I can only imagine as Sinners. But I don't think that is correct! Because the Lord preached to Sinners, and even said that he came for sinners - and not the righteous. (Luke 5:32)

So is the (Holy things/Pearls) not the Gospel?

Who are the Dogs/Swine? And How do I know who is the Dog/Swine?


texts: How does scholars' denial of the possibility of NT autographs affect the Christian doctrines of biblical inerrancy and infallibility?

texts: Modern textual critics have adopted the Coherence-Based Genealogical Method as opposed to the traditional Local Text-Types Theory (reflected in the updated NA28 standard text). Along with this shift in approach to textual criticism comes a belief that it is impossible to reproduce an an "autograph" of any New Testament writing - only an "initial text" (Ausgangstext) can be constructed which is only the hypothetical reconstruction of a text that stands at the beginning of a textual tradition. How does this affect the traditional Protestant Christian beliefs in scriptural inerrancy and infallibility, particularly for those traditions that continue to use the Nestle-Aland (and future UBS) texts for scholarly study of the Greek New Testament?


texts: Do Christian concepts of fellowship allow for a congregation to welcome atheists to participate in their community?

texts:
Due to family issues, I have come to distance people from me, mainly because the family issues made me a rough person and I am not "easy" to hang around. For the same reasons, I was never close to the Church or God. Now, being an adult and understanding the world, I find it hard to believe in any kind of religious creed. I am, in fact, an atheist.

My question here is: is it considered wrong (by the same religious communities) to seek the company of religious communities (for example, going to the meetings of Jehovah's Witnesses) if it's for the sole purpose of feeling less lonely?

*I am not excluding that I may, with time, find that particular religion suitable for me.


texts: What Christianity thinks about the God of present day Judaism?

texts:
I read here that most of the modern Christians believe in a Triune God and Consider Jesus to be  the God in trinity.  I was wondering What Christianity thinks about the God of present day Judaism , as they believe in a strictly monotheistic non trinitarian version of God as believed by the people at the time of Jesus and people before Jesus.

Is there a scope for accommodating the  monotheistic belief of Jews in God along with the trinitarian belief of Christians?


texts:
How do those who believe in the immortality of the soul explain Leviticus 21:11?

  Leviticus 21:11 Hebrew OT: Westminster Leningrad Codex

  וְעַ֛ל כָּל־|נַפְשֹׁ֥ת מֵ֖ת| לֹ֣א יָבֹ֑א לְאָבִ֥יו וּלְאִמֹּ֖ו לֹ֥א
  יִטַּמָּֽא׃

  He shall not go in to any dead bodies nor make himself unclean,
  even for his father or for his mother (ESV)

The ESV reads "dead bodies". However, the Hebrew literally reads "dead soul."


texts: What was the explanation for why Catharism identified the Old Testament God as Satan?

texts:
According to the a Wikipedia article on Catharism (a Gnostic Christian movement in the 12th to 14th centuries):

  The idea of two Gods or principles, one being good and the other evil, was central to Cathar beliefs. The good God was the God of the New Testament and the creator of the spiritual realm, contrasted with the evil Old Testament God—the creator of the physical world whom many Cathars, and particularly their persecutors, identified as Satan.

I find the statement about the Old Testament God being identified as Satan to be really surprising. How was this explained? I'm especially interested how references to Satan were handled (e.g. the book of Job) and how any "good" actions from God were interpreted.

One point I would like clarification on is that modern Christians (say, Catholics) generally consider Satan a powerful being, but not a god. What was it in Cathar theology that "elevated" Satan to the level of an evil God? Was he just the most powerful evil being they knew of and so he must be the same Old Testament God that they viewed as evil?

It's kind of a long shot in that this information may not exist, but I would love to know how they viewed God having Old Testament heroes of faith, like Enoch, Moses, and Elijah, not taste death. I figure having a soul be released without having to die would be very interesting to them.


texts: Does Paul ever actually quote Jesus anywhere?

texts: Is it true that Paul did not quote Jesus a single time in the entire New Testament (of which he wrote 50%)?


texts: Do non-Catholics ever have the priest visit the sick parishioners and deliver them communion?

texts:
Do non-Catholics ever have the priest visit sick parishioners and deliver them communion?

I don't know, but I think it's pretty cool that Catholics have this sort of pastoral care built into their system, and I am wondering whether or not non-Catholics do a similar sort of thing where the priest/pastor/minister would visit the sick parishioners or congregants and give them communion because the sick individuals could not come to Mass but would nevertheless like to receive the Eucharist. What other denominations do this?


texts: Is there biblical evidence that the New Earth is our final destination?

texts:
In Revelation 21 we learn that following the resurrection Christians will inhabit a restored Earth called "The New Earth."

What biblical evidence exists that this is the final destination for humanity and not simply part of an "infinite finale" series of events in which there are cycles of history similar to the ones that we are currently experiencing?


texts: What is the basis that many mainstream Christian groups justify labeling groups like the Mormons and Jehovah Witnesses as Non Christians?

texts:
If there is no clear definition stemming from the Bible of what makes one a Christian, how does mainstream Christianity justify labeling groups like the Mormons and Jehovah Witnesses as Non Christians?

Members from both groups seem to take a more active role in spreading Christ's message of salvation than do the most rooted mainstream Christian church members, based off of their missionary efforts even though some of their doctrines do not conform to the norms as held by most Christians. There is evidence enough to come to their doctrinal conclusions, even if we disagree with them.

So is non normative theology enough for mainstream Christianity to label others as non-Christian?


texts: Which scripture was Paul quoting in 1 Corinthians 15:45?

texts:
Paul says while teaching about resurrection of the dead  and resurrected body:

  1 Corinthians 15:45 (NET)
  So also it is written, “The first man, Adam, became a living person”; the last Adam became a life-giving spirit.

It is clear reference from some scripture to Jesus which Paul is referring. Which book or writings Paul was referring here?


texts: Looking for a passage about God forbidding that a census be taken

texts:
Years ago, reading the Bible, I came across a passage where God forbade that a census be taken.  I don't remember where that was, but would like to find it again.
Looking at an online concordance, I found plenty of references where God commanded a census be taken, mostly for compiling a list of military age males (who could then be called upon to form an army).  But none forbidding a census.


texts: How do sola fide adherents explain The Parable of the Ten Virgins?

texts:
In Matthew 25:1-12 we read about ten young ladies (a bridal party) eagerly awaiting the arrival of the groom.  Five of them run out of oil and have to go buy more, missing the groom's arrival and thus be excluded from the wedding feast.  The groom is universally seen as representing Jesus, the women are seen as representing individual believers, and the oil is generally seen as representing God's grace.  (See my analysis on the parable and especially the symbolism of the oil.)

A surface reading would seem to indicate that all the women were nominally believers in Jesus, but someone of them did not properly prepare for his arrival (i.e. for their death or Jesus' Second Coming).  This would suggest that there is more to salvation than faith alone - an aspect that can be "bought".

How do sola fide adherents explain this passage?  A good answer should cite published commentary by notable advocates of salvation by faith alone.


texts:
Matthew 6:6 (NIV) says:

  But when you pray, go into your room, close the door and pray to your Father, who is unseen. Then your Father, who sees what is done in secret, will reward you.

Does this mean that prayer should only be performed in private? If so, why do christians pray collectively in churches and at other gatherings?


texts: The Trinity as one being of one substance

texts: Is there scripture in the Bible that says that God is one being of one substance, as taught by the Nicene and Athanasian creeds and philosophies of men?


texts: What are the biblical arguments that the Bible canon is NOT closed?

texts:
Related: What are the biblical arguments that the Bible canon is closed?

Most people are familiar with the warning in the Book of Revelation:

  "And if any man shall take away from the words of the book of this
  prophecy, God shall take away his part out of the book of life, and
  out of the holy city, and from the things which are written in this
  book." Revelation 22:19

Many people assume this scripture refers to the Bible canon as a whole, and therefore claim that the Bible is the fullness of God's Word and that direct revelation from God is closed. The Catholics also believe that there is no more direct revelation, they believe that the Bible is the fulness of God's written Word, but they rely on Tradition, which is passed down through apostolic succession, for the interpretation of scripture, and believe scripture and Tradition combined provide them with a fullness of truth. Then there are other denominations that claim the heavens are not closed and that God continues to provide new revelations to prophets on earth, and that the Bible is not the complete word of God, and therefore rely on other books in addition to the Bible as well as new revelations—as they are revealed—for a fullness of truth.

What are the biblical arguments that the Bible canon is not closed?

Note: When I say "Bible canon" I mean to communicate canonical books or scriptural canon, not changing the books within the Bible, but receiving new books and revelations as scripture that compliment the Bible.


texts: In the Lord's Vineyard what does the grafting teach (Jacob 5)?

texts:
Jacob 5 in the Book of Mormon is a beautiful parable of Jesus Christ working in his Vineyard to save the children of God. It is prophetic in teaching how he works.

Here are some symbols involved:

Vineyard: The world
Lord: Jesus Christ
Tame olive tree: House of Israel
Wild olive tree: Gentiles
Branches: Groups of people
Servant(s): Prophets and those that serve the Lord
Fruit: Lives of people
More info here ...

Jacob 5:55-56 teaches about some of the grafting the Lord does to save his vineyard after the fruits have become bad. We see later how effective this is. The grafting is part of how he saves the fruit.

  Jacob 5:55-56

  55 And it came to pass that they took from the natural
  tree which had become wild, and grafted in unto the natural trees,
  which also had become wild.

  56 And they also took of the natural trees which had become wild, and
  grafted into their mother tree.

What is happening here with the people symbolized and what does it teach?


texts: When is it okay to curse people in the name of the Lord?

texts:
2 Kings 2:23-24

  From there Elisha went up to Bethel. As he was walking along the road,
  some boys came out of the town and jeered at him. “Get out of here,
  baldy!” they said. “Get out of here, baldy!”  He turned around, looked
  at them and called down a curse on them in the name of the LORD. Then
  two bears came out of the woods and mauled forty-two of the boys.

Not that I would consider doing so... except for that guy who cut me off this morning on the freeway. :)  This just comes across as against Christianity as I know it.


texts: The local Presbyterian Church has a sign outside offering an Alpha Course. I'm sure I've heard of the same course being offered by the Roman Catholic Church. So is the Alpha Course a very general Mere-Christianity-type thing, or is it customised to each denomination, or are the two Alpha courses completely unrelated?


texts: How do Quakers know when to start and stop their church meetings?

texts: Worship meetings of the Religious Society of Friends (or "Quakers") are spent in silence unless people are moved by the Holy Spirit to act. This seems clear enough, however, I do not understand how a worship service comprised singularly of this practice would start or finish. How do congregants know that the worship has finished? How do they know that it is about to/has started?


texts: Is Communion still Communion under only the species of wine?

texts:
I was reading in the Youcat that

  Communion only under the species of bread is also a full communion with Christ

I was always under the impression that both the bread and the wine when consecrated were both the Body Blood Soul and Divinity of Jesus, therefore it was valid and acceptable to receive Our Lord one way or the other or both.

My gluten intolerant mother-in-law told me this so I'm not entirely sure if it's just true or not.  I for sure that Christ is fully present in both, but I don't know if it is valid or acceptable to only receive Him in the wine.

The passage in the Youcat may have been in reference to bringing Communion to the sick, so in that case, it's not normal for an Extraordinary Minister to carry around a chalice to bring to shut-ins.


texts: How and when do I take God's word literally?

texts:
Every time I talk to a non-believer, they reference several things that they think make their argument stronger.

When I talk about what God says for us not and not to do, they bring up things like "God tells us not to shave our heads," to which I say that God was speaking to people like Moses and the principal of faith comes in; if you follow God, no matter what he says, then great things will happen. (The passages referenced are found in Corinthians, around chapter 11)

How do I explain that God is often meteorically talented (if and only if I'm right here), and that sometimes we don't need to take EVERYTHING he says literally?

How do I tell if he is telling something that should be taken word for word?


texts: How did Luther and Calvin view Christian perfectionism?

texts: The question is as simple as the title.  Some Christians believe we can enter a state without sin.  How did Luther and Calvin view that kind of concept?


texts: How voluntary is original sin in Adam's descendants?

texts:
In this article, in the § "How Voluntary," the Catholic Encyclopedia goes into detail to show that Original Sin is somehow voluntary.
But I don't understand the reasoning. Can someone more theologically minded either go through it step by step for me or explain it in a way that is easier for me to understand?
Here is the particular passage (under the section "how voluntary" in the article linked above):

Being a distinct person I am not strictly responsible for the crime of
another; the act is not mine. Yet, as a member of the human family, I
am supposed to have acted with its head who represented it with regard
to the conservation or the loss of grace. I am, therefore, responsible
for my privation of grace, taking responsibility in the largest sense
of the word. This, however, is enough to make the state of privation
of grace in a certain degree voluntary, and, therefore, "without
absurdity it may be said to be voluntary"

I am thinking that living in America, a hyper-individualistic country, has sort of blinded me to this "law of solidarity, admitted by common sentiment, which attributes to children a part of the shame resulting from the father's crime."
Although the modern Catechism downplays this, the idea seems to still be present when it says that original sin "is proper to each individual," (CCC 405).
The council of Trent says that it "is in each one as his own (Session V, first decree, point 3)," which I take "proper to each individual" to mean.
I saw this explanation on another forum, which seems to be recapitulating what St. Thomas says to account for it:

"When our father acts as an individual, we are not guilty of his sin;
but when our father acts as representative of the family, of which we
are a member, then the whole family sins with the father. It's this
sense in which we have sinned with Adam, in the sense that he acted
not just as an individual man, but as representative of the whole
human race."

To summarize (as this is all rather confused):
How is original sin voluntary at all?
How is original sin in each one of us as if it were our own?
Was it the case that we were all obscurely present in Adam? The father analogy doesn't make any sense to me at all. If my father sins, his sin is his own, even if he acts as representative of the family. Is "acting as representative of the family" somehow fundamentally different?
What really perplexes me about this is that it seems to make acceptable something which I had thought was a modern misinterpretation of original sin, racial shame. It seems like, if we are truly guilty of the sins which we have no consciousness of, as long as they were committed in the past by someone who acted as our representative, then modern white people, or at least the descendants of slave-holders, truly inherit a sin which is somehow voluntary for them (and possibly even present in us as if it were our own?).


texts:
I am following the morning and evening prayers as guided in the Anglican Book of Common Prayer.

In both the morning and evening services there is a section which states:

  " IN Quires and Places where they sing, here followeth the Anthem " (Book of Common Prayer 1662).

What is the Anthem alluded to here?


texts: Were Annanias and Saphira guilty of the "unforgiveable" sin?

texts:
In Acts 5 we are presented with the account of Annanias and Saphira.
Summary

they sold a piece of property, and then determined to lie to the Apostles and the Holy Spirit about its value, and give only a portion of the sale to the church
they were struck dead for conspiring to lie to the Holy Spirit
they were NOT struck dead for giving only a portion of the sale to the church

Question
Were Annanias and Saphira guilty of blaspheming the Holy Spirit, and thus ineligible to be saved and/or "lose" their salvation?
I ask not to try to determine if they will be in heaven (the record does not give an indication), or to try to speculate too much, but because I wonder if there is a Biblical argument to be made that this is a prime example of the unforgiveable sin (which, as a Calvinist, I would say meant their "salvation" was never "real" in the first place, and it was only an act).
If it is not, are there any given examples of such a sin in the Bible?


texts:
There seems to be an apparent discrepancy in Mark 2:26, Jesus is rebuking the Pharisees for complaining that his disciples are picking the heads of grain on the Sabbath:

Mark 2:26

  26 How he went into the house of God in the days of Abiathar the high priest, and did eat the shewbread, which is not lawful to eat but for the priests, and gave also to them which were with him?

The story he is referring to is in 1 Samuel:

1 Samuel 21:1-6

  1 David went to Nob, to Ahimelek the priest. Ahimelek trembled when he met him, and asked, “Why are you alone? Why is no one with you?” 2 David answered Ahimelek the priest, “The king sent me on a mission and said to me, ‘No one is to know anything about the mission I am sending you on.’ As for my men, I have told them to meet me at a certain place. 3 Now then, what do you have on hand? Give me five loaves of bread, or whatever you can find.” 4 But the priest answered David, “I don’t have any ordinary bread on hand; however, there is some consecrated bread here—provided the men have kept themselves from women.” 5 David replied, “Indeed women have been kept from us, as usual whenever I set out. The men’s bodies are holy even on missions that are not holy. How much more so today!” 6 So the priest gave him the consecrated bread, since there was no bread there except the bread of the Presence that had been removed from before the LORD and replaced by hot bread on the day it was taken away.

The problem here is that Jesus when referencing the story says 'Abiathar', and in 1 Samuel 'Ahimelek' is the priest.

It seems a pretty clear cut case of a discrepancy, but can this be harmonized? Or did Mark just simply make a mistake?


texts: What is the Biblical basis of the idea that men can be given authority to forgive sins?

texts: This question is inspired by the question What is the Old Testament basis to the idea that only God can forgive sins? What is the Biblical basis (Old or New Testament) for the idea that men can be given the authority to forgive sins?


texts: What was the makeup of beliefs during the time of the 325 Councile of Nicaea

texts:
Around the time of the 1st council of Nicaea (325), what was the makeup of Bishops at the time?

I read that 1800 people attending this council, but was this a fair cross-section of followers of Jesus or was it influenced in one direction or another?

I heard that at around 360, the dominant understanding of Jesus was more of an adoptionist belief, is this true historically?

After people were exiled and executed and books burned, when was the creed established as the dominant creed and pretty much no-one else believed otherwise?


texts:
Prior to this new-fangled electronic thing called the internet, people who were looking to find a particular verse in the Bible resorted to a manual index called a concordance.  In such a book, keywords would be listed alphabetically, and every verse using that keyword would then be listed.

The most famous example is Strong's Concordance of the Bible.

My question is, who was the first person to come up with the idea of making such a valuable tool in the first place?


texts: What is meant by a new heaven and new earth?

texts:
I often hear people talking about going to heaven but it seems more like we are destined for a new earth..

From my understanding in John's revelation, the afterlife consists of a new heavens and a new earth, and we end up on the new earth, where God dwells.

  (Rev 21:1)  And I saw a new heaven and a new earth: for the first
  heaven and the first earth were passed away; and there was no more
  sea.

  (Rev 21:2)  And I John saw the holy city, new Jerusalem, coming down
  from God out of heaven, prepared as a bride adorned for her husband.

  (Rev 21:3)  And I heard a great voice out of heaven saying, Behold,
  the tabernacle of God is with men, and he will dwell with them, and
  they shall be his people, and God himself shall be with them, and be
  their God.

What did John mean when he said "new heaven" and "new earth" in this passage?


texts: In Moses' time, would freeing a slave be harmful to the slave?

texts:
Exodus 21:26 is about letting a slave go free if they are injured by their owner. This appears to be a good thing, but I'm also wondering if it would be detrimental to a slave to be freed when they have now lost an eye.

I guess I see slavery at that time as similar to employment of today.  The Hebrews were to treat their slaves well.  It's not really that different from having a job in today's world - except room and board was provided.  So would freeing a slave be like firing an employee, and then the former slave having to go find a new owner?

Am I entirely wrong in my understanding of this culture?


texts: How is Gods judgement of man fair when he judges them without considering their deeds?

texts:
In America, our judicial system is built on the idea that a man is assumed innocent, and then proven guilty with evidence.

In contrast, Paul wrote:

  Romans 9 10-18: ...there was Rebekah also, when she had conceived twins by one man,
  our father Isaac; 11 for though the twins were not yet born and had not
  done anything good or bad, so that God’s purpose according to His
  choice would stand, not because of works but because of Him who calls,
  12 it was said to her, “THE OLDER WILL SERVE THE YOUNGER.” 13 Just as it
  is written, “JACOB I LOVED, BUT ESAU I HATED.”

  14 What shall we say then? There is no injustice with God, is there? May it never be! 15 For He says to Moses, “I WILL HAVE MERCY ON
  WHOM I HAVE MERCY, AND I WILL HAVE COMPASSION ON WHOM I HAVE
  COMPASSION.” 16 So then it does not depend on the man who wills or the
  man who runs, but on God who has mercy. 17 For the Scripture says to
  Pharaoh, “FOR THIS VERY PURPOSE I RAISED YOU UP, TO DEMONSTRATE MY
  POWER IN YOU, AND THAT MY NAME MIGHT BE PROCLAIMED THROUGHOUT THE
  WHOLE EARTH.” 18 So then He has mercy on whom He desires, and He
  hardens whom He desires.

One way to defend the christian God here is to say Paul is just speaking of Jacob and Esaus relative stations in earthly life, and that only that aspect of their lives was predetermined. But that idea is invalid with regard to verses 14-18 which connect Jacob and Esau's example to Pharaohs, in which Pharaoh's damnation was predetermined. Also, the declaration "I will have mercy on whom I have mercy" contradicts that idea. It is clear then, from these verses, that Paul is boasting that God judges people based on his whim, not a trial.

Another way to defend the christian God, which I've heard, is "God doesn't have to sound fair by human reasoning." But human reasoning is all we have, to use to make decisions about what we believe. Also what's fair or not is known by everyone by instinct. We all know judgement cannot happen without considering some action which is being judged. Not requiring Gods judgement to be just according to us is forgoing any understanding of God.


texts:
The question of who goes to heaven and who to hell seems to result in very different answers depending on which tradition the Christian answering belongs to. Some traditions, especially evangelical Christians, seem to hold belief in God/Jesus to be the only important factor, while other christians seem to also put value on the actions one has done in life.

The most common answer I heard (from liberal Christians) is that we can't know for sure who goes to heaven and who to hell, and that hell hopefully is even empty.

What are the official positions of the major traditions on whether only faith can prevent one from going to hell, or if the deeds you perform in life might also get you into heaven, even if you don't believe in the Christian God?


texts:
AFAIK the the writers of the NT are only Matthew, Mark, Luke, John, Paul, James, Peter and Jude.

The writing of the other apostles, Andrew, Philip, Bartholomew, Thomas, Matthias, Simon abd James why are they not included as a gospel of the Bible?

I mean, according to the Bible they are inspired by the Holy Ghost and their writing must be also a source for truth, why are their writings or teachings not included at all?

And who is the author of Hebrews in the NT?


texts:
Was Phoebe a deacon?

The NIV/NLT translators seem to think deacon:

  Romans 16:1 (NIV) I commend to you our sister Phoebe, a deacon of the church in Cenchreae.

Furthermore, when I read the qualifications for a deacon in 1 Timothy 3, I see that a deacon should clearly be a man:

  1 Timothy 3:8–12 (ESV) Deacons likewise must be dignified, not double-tongued, not addicted to much wine, not greedy for dishonest gain. They must hold the mystery of the faith with a clear conscience. And let them also be tested first; then let them serve as deacons if they prove themselves blameless. Their wives likewise must be dignified, not slanderers, but sober-minded, faithful in all things. Let deacons each be the husband of one wife, managing their children and their own households well.

Most other translations call Phoebe a "servant" instead of "deacon", however the greek word for deacon in both passages is διάκονος. I'm not sure what to make of this.


texts: what is "the argument" of Jesus in Luke 24:39?

texts:
Luke 24:39 Look at my hands. Look at my feet. You can see that
  it's really me. Touch me and make sure that I am not a ghost,
  because ghosts don't have bodies, as you see that I do."

I'm in the middle of a discussion with one of a Sola Scriptura church member.
He said that the word "ghost" there means "demon/satan" not "ghost of a dead man".

I ask him why ?
He said it is because the Bible say "there's no such thing as ghost of a dead man". (Hebrews 9:27). So, any kind of an appearance (seen by human) which cannot be touch, then it's certainly the demon in disguise as someone thought ever live on earth by the living, he continued.

If I directly put that "demon" word in a verse, it becomes like this :

  Luke 24:39 Look at my hands. Look at my feet. You can see that
  it's really me. Touch me and make sure that I am not a demon,
  because demons don't have bodies, as you see that I do."

To me, logically the argument will be something like this :
Because you can touch me - then I'm not a demon (in disguise)
If I'm a demon (in disguise) - then you can not touch me.

He said yes, the argument is like above.

For another reference,

  Luke 24:37 They were startled and frightened, thinking they saw a
  ghost.

Assuming that the meaning of the word "ghost" in the verse above is the ghost of a dead man, then to me the conclusion is : on what they saw, they thought it's the ghost of Jesus.

change to "demon" :

  They were startled and frightened, thinking they saw a demon.

Then (following on what the member of the SS Church said) my conclusion is : on what they saw, they thought it's a demon in disguise as Jesus.

The question :
Is there any reference from Sola Scriptura Church's father (for example, Martin Luther) on what this Sola Scriptura Church member said ?


texts:
Which Christian sects do not beleive in original sin?
(Just like many sects do not beleive in Trinity.)


texts:
I was just reading this answer which stated that a person could be Catholic without having gone through confirmation:

Catholics recommend that this is done to infants. 1

If that is the case, that a Catholic baptism alone makes a person a Catholic, and if they are generally baptized as such as infants, it would stand to reason that there would be many people who may be technically considered Catholic by no choice or even memory of their own. Is that actually the case?

So, if a person were baptized Catholic as an infant, for instance, perhaps lost his parents or was adopted, and then later grew up not knowing this, if this fact were somehow brought to his attention and those of the Catholic assembly, would they be considered Catholic, up to such point that the person intentionally renounced this?

As a follow up question, if this is actually the case, are there some people who the Catholic Church believes to somehow have a better standing with God, from childhood, through no thought or action of their own? If it's not up to the child, and if it does bestow some favor, then would there be any reason not to try to force every child into this if the opportunity arises? If not, is it withheld to punish the child for the sake of the parents' choices?

Citation:

http://www.scborromeo.org/ccc/para/1250.htm


texts: Did John Bunyan believe in predestination and irresistible grace?

texts:
This particular question is concerned with John Bunyan's stance, rather than the stance of Pilgrim's Progress, which is addressed in a related question.

I learned of Pilgrim's Progress through reading works of reformed theologians (many of who highly recommended Pilgrim's Progress), and thus I assumed that Pilgrim's Progress also believed in predestination.  I'm no longer sure of that, and I'm not even sure if John Bunyan himself believed in predestination. (Wikipedia doesn't seem to say either way)

Thus, the question: did John Bunyan take a stance on predestination and irresistible grace?


texts:
My question is kind of similar to this one, but more specific. There's a lot of conflicting information on the internet regarding diluting the holy water. Some people suggest that the water must be comprised of more than 50% originally blessed water to be considered "holy".

None of the sources seemed to suggest that it is "50% holy" then, though; to the contrary, "holiness" of the water is supposed to be a boolean property. This would imply that holy water obtained by 50-50 dilution and contact with originally blessed holy water is different to the originally blessed holy water. Specifically, that all the properties of the original water are kept, except the ability to be diluted with non-blessed water.

This is my understanding basing on some public findings though; I was struggling to find any real canonical source that would definitely answer all of my questions.


texts: What is the biblical basis for dual-covenant theology?

texts:
Dual-covenant theology, or two-covenant theology, holds that there are two covenants in effect—one, the Old Covenant (with the Mosaic Law) applying to Jews, and the second, the New Covenant (through Jesus), applying only to Gentiles.

I've heard some dismiss this doctrine as a politically correct attempt to make Christianity "less antisemitic."  But among its proponents, what are the biblical arguments made on its behalf?

I'd like to see arguments from both Old and New Testaments, if possible.  If there are arguments that rely on translating particular verses differently than what is traditional, those would be great to include as well.


texts: What is the Biblical basis for accepting Feminist Christian Theology which says we should use female pronouns for God?

texts:
Feminist Philosophy of Religion: Feminist philosophy of religion is a recent development within Western philosophy that poses feminist questions about religious texts, traditions, and practices, often with the aim of critiquing, redefining, or reconstructing the entire field in light of gender studies... And because it is feminist, it must promote the elimination of gender inequality and take into account the multiplicity of human bodies, desires, and differences that are mapped onto the site of religion. https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/feminist-religion/

Christian feminism is an aspect of feminist theology which seeks to advance and understand the equality of men and women morally, socially, spiritually, and in leadership from a Christian perspective... These theologians believe that God does not discriminate on the basis of biologically determined characteristics, such as sex and race. Their major issues include the ordination of women, male dominance in Christian marriage, recognition of equal spiritual and moral abilities, reproductive rights, and the search for a feminine or gender-transcendent divine... The term Christian egalitarianism is sometimes preferred by those advocating gender equality and equity among Christians who do not wish to associate themselves with the feminist movement. Women apologists have become more visible in Christian academia. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Feminist_theology#Christianity

What is the Biblical basis for accepting Feminist Theology with regard to the following topic:
Replacing male pronouns for God with gender-neutral terms: Feminist theology often criticizes the use of male pronouns for God; referring to God as “He,” “Him,” or “Father” degrades the status of women. The alternative is to refer to God only using gender-neutral terms such as the Divine or to balance the offending terms with female equivalents such as She, Her, and Mother.
Linked:  What is the Biblical basis for rejecting Feminist Christian Theology which says we should use female pronouns for God?


texts: What is the biblical basis for considering gender to be purely physical/biological?

texts:
In my other question, I asked what the biblical basis was for considering gender to not be merely physical, but also present in a person's soul and/or spirit.  However, there are some who believe that gender is purely physical, so it seems necessary to ask that question as well.

So, what is the biblical basis/argument/rationale that supports the idea that gender is something that is only physical/biological and does not have any presence in a person's soul or spirit?


texts: Why were Anabaptists called Anabaptists?

texts: Anabaptism, according to the OED, means "a second baptism, re-baptism", but the answer to this question says that Anabaptists only baptize once. Why were Anabaptists called Anabaptists, then?


texts: I heard that Xmas is a secular way of "taking Christ out of Christmas".  When and why did this practice originate?  Is there any truth to the claim that it has a secular or "un-Christian" origin?


texts: When Friday asks "Why God no kill the devil?" is Robinson Crusoe's response in line with Anglican theology?

texts:
In Daniel Defoe's novel Robinson Crusoe, the titular character rescues a man from captivity and, since they initially can't communicate, decides to call him "Friday" because that was the day of the week he rescued him.
He eventually teaches Friday about Christianity and finds that although he readily accepts Crusoe's explanations of God and Jesus, he finds the devil to be more difficult to accept. He also asks a question that Crusoe finds very surprising (emphasis mine):

After this I had been telling him how the devil was God’s enemy in the hearts of men, and used all his malice and skill to defeat the good designs of Providence, and to ruin the kingdom of Christ in the world, and the like.  “Well,” says Friday, “but you say God is so strong, so great; is He not much strong, much might as the devil?”  “Yes, yes,” says I, “Friday; God is stronger than the devil—God is above the devil, and therefore we pray to God to tread him down under our feet, and enable us to resist his temptations and quench his fiery darts.”  “But,” says he again, “if God much stronger, much might as the wicked devil, why God no kill the devil, so make him no more do wicked?”  I was strangely surprised at this question

After pretending at first not to hear him in order to buy time, and reflecting on the fact that he isn't really qualified to answer such deep religious questions, Crusoe comes to this explanation (emphasis mine):

By this time I had recovered myself a little, and I said, “God will at last punish him severely; he is reserved for the judgment, and is to be cast into the bottomless pit, to dwell with everlasting fire.”  This did not satisfy Friday; but he returns upon me, repeating my words, “‘Reserve at last!’ me no understand—but why not kill the devil now; not kill great ago?”  “You may as well ask me,” said I, “why God does not kill you or me, when we do wicked things here that offend Him—we are preserved to repent and be pardoned.”  He mused some time on this.  “Well, well,” says he, mighty affectionately, “that well—so you, I, devil, all wicked, all preserve, repent, God pardon all.”  Here I was run down again by him to the last degree

His final frustration seems to be over the fact that the devil isn't expected to repent and be pardoned, unlike they are, and decides to change the subject.
Assuming that Robinson Crusoe is Anglican*, is his response in line with Anglican theology (either at the novel's publication in 1719 or today)?

* Elsewhere in the novel, Crusoe mentions that Friday became a Protestant. Since Crusoe is from England, I'm going to assume that both Crusoe and Friday are more specifically Anglicans. Note that author Daniel Defoe was born to Presbyterian dissenters and he himself attended a Unitarian church, but given that there was persecution of non-Anglicans at the time that the fictional Crusoe doesn't face in this novel or the sequels when he returns to England, I'm just going to simplify this and assume he is Anglican.


texts: What happens to those souls who have not been--nor ever will be--exposed to the teachings of the Bible?

texts: My question relates to those who have only ever known one teaching which was derived from their birth religion, especially those who live secluded lives, far from society, and have their own spiritual beliefs.


texts: According to the RCC, is supporting abortion the same sin as having an abortion?

texts:
According to the RCC is supporting abortion the same sin as having an abortion?

(Not talking about the doctor. But supporters of the act of abortion.)


texts: How do Mormons understand 2 Nephi 5:16 in light of 2 Nephi 5:15?

texts:
In Book of Mormon, the text in 2 Nephi 5:15 says (emphasis mine):

  15 And I did teach my people to build buildings, and to work in all
  manner of wood, and of iron, and of copper, and of brass, and of
  steel, and of gold, and of silver, and of precious ores, which were in
  great abundance.

The next verse, 2 Nephi 5:16, then continues (emphasis mine):

  16 And I, Nephi, did build a temple; and I did construct it after the
  manner of the temple of Solomon save it were not built of so many
  precious things; for they were not to be found upon the land,
  wherefore, it could not be built like unto Solomon’s temple. But the
  manner of the construction was like unto the temple of Solomon; and
  the workmanship thereof was exceedingly fine.

So it looks like that while verse 15 states that various valuable things (gold, silver, and other precious ores) where of great abundance, verse 16 states that such things were not found upon the land.

Question:
Is this a contradiction or is there some other way to understand this?

[Update]
To the question regarding the materials used on Solomon's temple, the following materials are referred to in the various verses of 1 Kings chapter 6 and chapter 7:

Various kinds of wood (juniper, cedar, etc.)
Gold (used for overlaying the walls and ceilings, among other things)
Silver
Brass (or copper)
Stone


texts: What is the Magisterium of the Catholic Church and what power do they have?

texts:
Does the Magisterium of the Catholic Church hold equal power with the Pope in decision and statement making? Are they the Catholic Church's 'think-tank'? Do they advise the Pope on matters spiritual, or does the Pope advise them? Why don't we ever hear about them ie.' The Magisterium are working on the Latin Vulgate today and came upon what appears to be some insightful new revelation'.

Can the Pope make decisions against what the Magisterium says, or do they all have to be in agreement for any statement to be made, in public, or a binding statement from 'the chair'.


texts: How does the view of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints about Jesus Christ differ from Protestant Trinitarian Christology?

texts:
The Protestant Trinitarian view of Jesus Christ is that he is the only-begotten Son of God – begotten, not made.  He is of one substance with the Father by whom all things were made.  He is the Word of God who was with God in the beginning and who is God (John 1:1). He came down from heaven and was incarnate by the Holy Spirit, born of the Virgin Mary, and dwelt among us (John 1:14). He is both fully human and fully divine.  He was bodily resurrected from the dead and has ascended into heaven, from whence he came, and is seated at the right hand of God the Father.  As he ascended into heaven, so shall he return, in great power and glory, and accompanied by all the heavenly hosts, to judge and to rule.

Please note that Protestant Trinitarians believe there is only the One Being of God and that the pre-mortal Jesus was never born as a spirit son of God.

This is NOT about trying to establish who might be theologically right and who is wrong, nor is it a question seeking to establish any particular version of “truth”.   I’m on a fact-finding mission, and not trying to start a theological war.  Please give a biblical basis in support of beliefs held.

My question is how does the view of Latter Day Saints about Jesus Christ, the Son of God, differ from the view held by Protestant Trinitarians of the person of Jesus Christ, the Son of God.

Edit for clarification: As requested by Alex Strasser, here are specific questions I seek information on. Please be aware these are not additional questions but are all part and parcel of LDS Christology:

Was Jesus created?

Is Jesus part of the One Being of God?

When Jesus came to earth was he God incarnate?

Was Jesus resurrected as a spirit creature or did he ascend into heaven with a physical body?


texts: Why are LDS missionaries instructed to stay away from bodies of water?

texts:
I saw a post recently asserting that LDS missionaries are specifically instructed to stay away from bodies of water and are discouraged from swimming at all.  I had never heard anything like this before.

Is this true?  If it is, is it just applicable while a person is serving as a missionary?  What is the basis for this instruction?


texts: Why Does Herod Say He Had Beheaded John the Baptist When He Knows He's in Prison? (Mark 6)

texts:
In discussing what King Herod had heard about Jesus, in Mark 6:16-17, it says:

  But when Herod heard this, he said, “John, whom I beheaded, has been raised from the dead!” For Herod himself had given orders to have John arrested, and he had him bound and put in prison.

If you continue reading verse 14 through verse 29, it's clear that Herod knows John is still in prison. In fact, he doesn't behead him until verses 27-28. Why would he then say he had been raised from the dead knowing he is still alive?

All I could come up with is that this sequence is not in chronological order. Are verses 14-16 the result of what happens in 16-29?


texts: Regarding doubt, how do we apply Romans 14 in difficult situations?

texts:
Rom 14:23  But he who doubts is condemned if he eats, because he does not eat from faith; for whatever is not from faith is sin.  (NKJV)

The normal interpretation of this text is that if you’re unsure about the rightness of what you’re doing, you shouldn’t do it. This creates many practical and even ethical difficulties, some of which I’ll give examples for below.

Some people are prone to doubt, some are analytical, and some are both of these things.

Especially if you have both of these traits, you can be led to inaction - which itself can create doubt; after all, we’re told to redeem the time.

1) The text in Romans 14 follows after a definite clarification that certain things are not a sin (v.14-15, 20). Yet, its readers are to abstain from that thing if they have doubt. Thus, is it not talking about doubts that arise from textual interpretations? That seems highly unlikely; I don’t hear of totally non-textual things being doubted, such as whether it’s a sin to turn over a rock during daylight.

2) What about instances where your non-action due to doubt leads to someone else’s suffering? Imagine being a police officer, and then at the final moment being struck with doubt: do I not shoot this perpetrator because I know he’ll probably go to hell? And even though not shooting him means that his victim will die?

3) Consider cases where a person is doing a good deed with righteous motivation behind it. But, there’s some aspect of it that he doubts. An example from my life: I’m an author, and I write Christian poems. But, I may make doctrinal errors in my poems. I can’t be certain I didn’t, so should I not publish them?

4) Practically, a doubting personality can doubt almost anything – and he may even have verse(s) in mind to support his reason for doubting. What this can lead to is a person that becomes totally burned out and depressed, because everything he wants to do is wrong. After all, he’s not redeeming the time. Or, he’s not redeeming it in the most efficient way. Note: both the Sabbath and Ecclesiastes show us that we’re not meant to be driven this hard. And also imagine a person who accepts that fact; now, he may doubt where to draw the line: how long should his break be, and how should he spend it?

5) And perhaps most powerfully: imagine someone that doubts all options. He may believe it’s acceptable to marry, but remain unsure if it’s right for him (1Co 7). He may even doubt that it’s right for him to stay single, due to burning with desire (v. 9). Yet, he may question if that burning rises to the level of justifying the conclusion that he must certainly marry (if able). But, he may interpret his society as one which has a ‘present distress’ (v. 26) that would lead Paul to recommend against marriage. So, among the only options (single vs married) – he doubts. Action (marrying) and inaction (staying single) both cause doubt. He is, as the text says, 'condemned' no matter what he does.

6) As an alternative to the same problem that 5 presented, consider carrying a handgun. He might doubt both options: not carrying means he can't help others, but he believes he should be ready to lay down his life (put himself at risk, in this case) to save another person. On the other hand, it could harm his testimony; in our political climate, many would be offended. My reason for including this second example is to point out that there's no end to the number of things where both action and inaction can be doubted.

How do we interpret the text, in light of the difficulties which the normal interpretation creates? And to do so without making the text to mean nothing at all?


texts: What is the Catholic Church's position on a divorced man attending services

texts: I would like to join a Catholic church with my 13 year old son. I am a 47 year old man that was divorced in 2006. If I’m able to, I would like to find a Catholic church for my son and to attend services, take communion, and be able to confess. I would also like to attend a Sunday type school or bible study with my son to get him up to speed on his faith. Am I able to accomplish this as a divorced man in this day and age?


texts:
According to Catholicism, How does one know if God is calling him to be a priest?

If one is contemplating being a diocesan priest, what is the normal way one should do things in order to determine his discernment towards this call?

Is there a different approach taken for those who are considered late vocations?

For example take my own circumstances:

Earlier in my life, I ran after the highest level of education and tried very hard to achieve it. But after 20 years of effort, I obtained a certificate. I ran after every secular thing that there is. Nothing seems to attract me. So I am just wondering how does one knows if God is calling him to be a priest and what steps does one normally take to find out in the Catholic Church? What should one do?


texts: In this movie regarding the life of St. Therese of Lisieux, the girl who wants to become a saint, there is a scene wherein she changes the color of her clothing and headdress after participating some time at the monastery. What is the meaning of this color change that marks her becoming a nun?


texts: How do creationists explain some recent hominid discoveries

texts:
Recent discoveries of more than 15 complete fossilised skeletons of a newly defined early human designated Homo naledi are yet to be dated, but scientists say their primitive features, small brains and small statures mean they are probably at least 2 million years old.

National Geographic provides a very detailed coverage of the naledi find.

I would be particularly interested in how Young Earth Creationists explain early human species such as Homo naledi. I am not just looking for an explanation of their apparent age, because on one view, these near-human fossils should not even exist.


texts: Prevenient Grace - Negative Responses to Scriptural Examples of It

texts:
See what I mean by "Prevenient Grace" in the first question I asked relating to this topic.

If your understanding of scripture leads you to believe the doctine of Prevenient Prace is not supported in the Bible, what are your responses to some of the proof texts used to prove/explain the concept of Prevenient Grace?

Some examples, I believe are:

Cornelius coming to the Peter even though apparently not yet a Christian in Acts 10
Luke 19:10
Titus 2:11: "For the grace of God that brings salvation has appeared to all men."
John 6:44: "No man can come unto me, unless the Father who hath sent me, draw him..."
John 16:18 "And He, when He comes, will convict the world concerning sin and righteousness and judgment;"

etc.

I'm looking less for opinions and more for evidence/rationale supported by the larger context of Scripture, historical setting, background, etc.


texts:
Was the Son begotten continuously or just once?

This question revolves around the begetting of the Son before the creation of the universe NOT his incarnation.

Was the Son begotten continuously forever?

Or

Was the Son begotten once forever?


texts: Which portion of Revelation is the Rapture?

texts:
The Rapture is the belief that believers will be “caught up” into the clouds, to meet the Lord in the air. Jesus will take away the faithful followers on earth, who patiently waited for His return. In the Book of Revelation, there are two visions of the coming of Jesus, the harvest of the earth (Rev 14) and the rider on the white horse (Rev 19). I’m interested to know whether there have been studies by scholars on the Book of Revelation in order to find the concept of the Rapture.

Which part of Apostle John’s vision is interpreted as the Rapture?

(Note: I'm asking this because my answer to the previous question (Is “Rapture” mentioned in the Book of Revelation?) had 2 downvotes, which made me assume that my answer was wrong!)


texts: When a Jehovah's Witness is reinstated how does the congregation react?

texts:
When a disfellowshipped person takes the steps necessary to be accepted back into the Jehovah's Witness faith an announcement is made to the congregation informing all of the reinstatement of this person into the fold.

How is such an announcement worded and how is the congregation supposed to react to the news?


texts: What did Peter, James and John see on the Mount of Transfiguration?

texts:
During a Bible discussion for seekers last week, one of them asked a question that led me to ponder this questions.

As I understand it, the body of Moses (not Elijah since he never died) should still have been in the grave at the time of the Transfiguration of Jesus--and would be pretty decomposed at that point.  However, his spirit (and probably souls) would have been in Paradise at that time--still separated from his body until the resurrection at the last day.

  And after six days Jesus took with him Peter and James, and John his
  brother, and led them up a high mountain by themselves. 2 And he was
  transfigured before them, and his face shone like the sun, and his
  clothes became white as light. 3 And behold, there appeared to them
  Moses and Elijah, talking with him.   Matthew 17:1-3 ESV

If that is true, then what exactly did Peter, James and John see on the Mount of Transfiguration?  Did they see the spirit of Moses?  Can our spirits be seen with physical eyes?  Were the disciples perhaps allowed to see spiritual things as Elisha appears to have done in 2 Kings 6?

  When the servant of the man of God rose early in the morning and went
  out, behold, an army with horses and chariots was all around the city.
  And the servant said, “Alas, my master! What shall we do?” He said,
  “Do not be afraid, for those who are with us are more than those who
  are with them.” Then Elisha prayed and said, “O Lord, please open
  his eyes that he may see.” So the Lord opened the eyes of the young
  man, and he saw, and behold, the mountain was full of horses and
  chariots of fire all around Elisha.  2 Kings 6:15-17 ESV

As a side note, the rich man and Lazarus presumably "saw" each other as well.

I'm looking for the Protestant understanding of this.


texts: Trying to understand Original Sin in light of OT

texts:
From what I understand so far, is that Adam's sin of eating from the tree is past down and everyone born has this sin on their record.

This Sin is only washed away if one is Baptized, so if a child born dies at say 6 months will go to Hell because they have this Sin.

Women suffer labor pains because of this Sin, and men are put in charge over them.  Men will toil on earth because of this Sin until the end of time.

God is also just and this sin has to be paid for.

The Old Testament makes no reference to this sin, in fact it teaches that you will not bear the burden of anyone else.  How is this fact reconciled?  Was this original Sin only for Christians and not for the previous generations?

Do Catholics believe that God is not able to forgive Sin?


texts:
The Bible speaks of the Nephilim as the offspring of the “sons of God and daughters of men” in books such as: Genesis, Enoch, and a couple others. It does explain that they bred from evil beings, but it doesn’t specify if they themselves were evil or not, and even if they were supposed to be “evil”.

Were they all evil?


texts: How can Dietrich Bonhoeffer's inclusion of non-Christians be explained theologically?

texts:
I remember seeing a documentary about the life of Dietrich Bonhoeffer. One scene that was very interesting revolved around his leading a worship service in a transport between prisons, for all the prisoners, were he made some sort of special gesture to include non-Christian prisoners as well.

Can anyone describe this event in greater detail.  And could it be said to represent

some sort of use of worship as evangelism, (perhaps analogous to a small Billy Graham crusade)
a change in his beliefs to that of universal salvation,
or a belief in the appropriateness of interfaith worship under
extreme circumstances?


texts: The statements of the early Church Fathers regarding the doctrine of the Trinity (pre-Nicea)

texts:
In an article answering Georg Kaplan's 1 denials of the Trinitarian doctrine, Ken Temple states :

Even if the early Church had never applied the title θεός to Jesus, his deity would still be apparent in his being the object of human and angelic worship and of saving faith; the exerciser of exclusively divine functions such as creatorial agency, the forgiveness of sins, and the final judgment; the addressee in petitionary prayer; the possessor of all divine attributes; the bearer of numerous titles used of Yahweh in the OT; and the co-author of divine blessing.
Faith in the deity of Christ does not rest on the evidence or validity of a series of ‘proof-texts’ in which Jesus may receive the title θεός but on the general testimony of the NT corroborated at the bar of personal experience.147
Apologetics and Agape - Wordpress - March 19, 2018

Nevertheless he publishes a list of texts as an example.
However what attracted my attention and what prompts my question is his answer to the objection that the doctrine of the Trinity was formed in later centuries than the early church and the objector claims that the early church knew nothing of it until Nicea.
So Ken Temple further states :

... Ignatius, Irenaeus, Tertullian, Origen, and Athanasius and Hillary and others had expressions of the Trinity in centuries (and at the same time – Athanasius and Hillary) before Gregory of Nyssa. Ignatius is clear on the Deity of Christ in early second century (around 107-110 AD) and has a simple expression of the Trinity.

So, Ken Temple then quotes from Ignatius (writing in 107-110 AD), which I shall not copy, it is in the linked document.
But all he says of Tertullian is :

Also, Tertullian, around 190-220 AD, used the basic words, “Trinitas Unitas” (three in one) and “persona” (the Latin equivalent of hypostatis) over 1 century before the Cappadocian Fathers, as did Origen around 250 AD.

My question is - Are there more susbstantial references available on this subject from Tertullian and Origen and Irenaeus ?

1 Georg Kaplan, a professed Unitarian, seems to be linked to the pseudonyms 'Gregory Blunt' and 'Thomas Pearne'. (Although, elsewhere it is spelt 'Kaplin').
Edit : Comment suggests that this is a third layer of pseudonym.


texts: Which churches today send the most missionaries?

texts:
Was the early church a missionary church? Matthew 28:19-20 leads me to believe it was:

  Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of
  the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost:

  Teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you:
  and, lo, I am with you always, even unto the end of the world. Amen.

Can we take this to mean that if Jesus Christ's church is on the earth today that it should still be involved in missionary work (ie. teaching all nations, baptizing them, and teaching them to observe the commandments)?

If so, which churches today are the most missionary-minded (in terms of the number of missionaries they send)?


texts: If we can't fully comprehend God, how can we ever know that what we believe is true?

texts:
For my thoughts are not your thoughts, neither are your ways my ways,
  declares the Lord. For as the heavens are higher than the earth, so
  are my ways higher than your ways and my thoughts than your thoughts.
  Isaiah 55:8-9

This question is a bit philosophical.

It has been told so many times that we cannot fully understand God. We know our knowledge is so limited. And we have also stumbled upon problems in the Bible that we know not the answers to, like the problem of evil for example. We never get the whole picture of anything ever since we are not omniscient.

With all of those things considered, what gives us (flawed human beings) the right to even believe in anything? To teach anyone even anything at all? We might misinterpret things. And is it right to teach anyone something we might misinterpret when it comes to a matter of life and death? Why not teach them possibilities instead so they can choose them for themselves? Why not let us say that "we don't know", that things are not ever sure, that we don't fully believe in anything because we are not capable to know anything at all?