texts: Are there any churches that claim to be Sola Sciptura that also are pro gay-marriage?

texts:
A friend of mine has posited that it is impossible to be Sola Scriptura and also be pro gay-marriage.

I think he is right in a traditional sense. However, I am curious to know if there any churches that claim to be 'Sola Sciptura' that also are pro gay-marriage?

And if so, do they have any doctrinal statement that addresses the concern that conflict might create for some people.

Answers:

Ben Miller below has answered that the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America claims to be Sola Scriptura and also pro gay-marriage.

Of course, please keep coming with answers if there are other churches that do the same.


texts: Are there other historical accounts of the tower of Babel?

texts: Are there any other historical accounts that document what happened during or shortly after the tower of Babel? I was wondering if there are any other accounts from the people's that were dispersed, and how exactly they reacted to the event and built new cultures with their new languages.


texts:
Possible Duplicate:
  The effect of poison on Christians

How should I understand the following verse?

  Mark 16:18 they will pick up snakes with their hands; and when they
  drink deadly poison, it will not hurt them at all; they will place
  their hands on sick people, and they will get well.

Some context.


texts: What Christian denominations (if any) permit gay marriage?

texts: Which churches have decided to permit gay marriage at a denominational level?


texts: Did Jesus have a divine biological Father?

texts:
I'm LDS.  Our way of looking at Jesus' parentage is that Heavenly Father is his actual biological father, not via intercourse (a virgin shall conceive) but supernaturally via the Holy Ghost implanting the Father's very chromosomes and DNA material into Mary (please forgive clunky biology-speak).

If I understand, evangelicals do not go there.  What exactly is believed about Jesus' biological parentage?  And related, what is it about the Father being biological father that would be offensive or create doctrinal problems?

Edit: the link above doesn't do it for me (as explained in my comment below).  And John 4:24 is no smoking gun.  No one is explaining what unacceptable implications would follow if "Father" were taken literally.  Why can't "Father" mean "Father" as all nature experiences it?  Is it that Father would then have to be considered a created being?  Is it that prevailing trinity ideas would have to be inconveniently reworked?


texts: From a LDS perspective, when does the Holy Ghost get a Physical Body?

texts:
I am looking for where we are told that the Holy Ghost gets a physical body.  I thought it was doctrine that He will get a physical body during the Millennium.  However, I am not able to find a reference.  I went through every verse which has the phrase "Holy Ghost" in the scriptures and did not find it.  Maybe I missed it.  Maybe I need to look at the verses which reference the Holy Ghost with a different name (e.g. the Spirit).  I could not find a reference on https://lds.org ... maybe I did not look long enough.  I see a few discussions on the Internet but no references.  Can you provide a reference which says when the Holy Ghost gets a physical body?

I am assuming that everyone (including the Holy Ghost) which chose Heavenly Father's plan will receive a physical body.  D&C 130:22 shows us that He cannot perform his functions with a physical body.

Perhaps, I am totally wrong and the Holy Ghost will never receive a physical body.  If that is correct, please show me a reference.


texts:
Consider the following scriptures:

  James 1:2 Count it all joy, my brothers, when you meet trials of various kinds, 3 for you know that the testing of your faith produces steadfastness. 4 And let steadfastness have its full effect, that you may be perfect and complete, lacking in nothing.

  Hebrews 11:24 By faith Moses, when he was grown up, refused to be called the son of Pharaoh's daughter, 25 choosing rather to be mistreated with the people of God than to enjoy the fleeting pleasures of sin. 26 He considered the reproach of Christ greater wealth than the treasures of Egypt, for he was looking to the reward.

  Matthew 5:11 “Blessed are you when others revile you and persecute you and utter all kinds of evil against you falsely on my account. 12 Rejoice and be glad, for your reward is great in heaven, for so they persecuted the prophets who were before you.

I could add more to the list, but the point is probably clear enough in these. In many cases, the Bible seems to expect that not only will Christians suffer, but that we need to be suffering.

During the NT period Christians were  "stoned, they were sawn in two, they were killed with the sword. They went about in skins of sheep and goats, destitute, afflicted, mistreated." We know it was a time of persecution - but was that merely descriptive and written for them, or is it perspective, meaning that if one is living an authentic Christian life, we should be expecting these things? Is it accurate to suggest that a wealthy Christian living a life of ease is circumventing the prescribed ordered?

In other words, looking at the whole of Scripture* is it accurate to say that a Christian who is not or has not been experiencing trials, persecution, and other sorts of things that can be called "Suffering," is not actually experiencing the Christian life? Specifically, are there other portions of Scripture I am not properly taking into account, or doctrinal perspectives that would be highly resitant to this claim?

*A good answer to this question would reference other Scripture to either support this as a standard "across the Bible" kind of thing, or present Scripture that would seem to be in opposition. Specifically, I am looking to see if this statement is fairly consistent across Scripture, or if, perhaps, I have qutoed these out of context.  I also would like to know what doctrinal perspectives would be resistant to this.


texts: How can we reconcile Judges 10:13 with Numbers 23:19?

texts:
Numbers 23:19 is very clear that God cannot change his mind and when He says He will do something He will do it.
And yet in Judges 10:13 we see God saying :

  But you have forsaken me and served other gods, so I will no longer save you.

and then He saves them.

I do not want answers from a Open Theist perspective.


texts: What did kids of polygamous Mormon parents call their half-sibling's moms?

texts: Did they refer to them as their step-moms? Their Dad's nth wife? Half-sibling's mom? What was the common terminology used by Mormons back in the day when they practiced polygamy for describing family relationships between mothers and their husband's children from other wives?


texts: How does the Bible explain the existence of fossils that are millions of years old?

texts:
People have been finding fossils for many years. Millions of fossils fill museums and storage vaults around the world, and we've yet to find a single one of a human. This suggests that the animals and plants that became fossilised are from a much earlier time than humans ever existed in.

How does creationism (and the timeline and events of the bible) explain the existence of fossils?


texts: Will people in hell be able to remember people in heaven?

texts:
I've heard many times that once you go to heaven, you'll no longer remember your past life, or those that never made it to heaven.

Does the same apply in hell?


texts:
Why would one choose to pray to an Angel or a Guardian Angel over Jesus at times?

Some people notice that their prayers are answered on some occasions more readily from an Angel or Guardian Angel. Could it be that Angels are sometimes more accessible than Jesus or more specialized for certain tasks?

Why would this be? Since I can't imagine Jesus is busy at times nor can I imagine that he is incapable of anything.

So would this mean that it be His desire for us to form a relationship with the Angels for some reason and if so why?


texts: What changed between the Old and New Testaments?

texts:
In the Old Testament God meted out his justice through people, or he himself meted out justice immediately through his own hands:
All Scripture is quoted from the King James translation.

Exodus 19:12 and 13  And thou shalt set bounds unto the people round about, saying, Take heed to yourselves, that ye go not up into the mount, or touch the border of it: whosoever toucheth the mount shall be surely put to death:  13  There shall not an hand touch it, but he shall surely be stoned, or shot through; whether it be beast or man, it shall not live: when the trumpet soundeth long, they shall come up to the mount.
Exodus 2:12  And he looked this way and that way, and when he saw that there was no man, he slew the Egyptian, and hid him in the sand.
Numbers 14:11 and 12  And the LORD said unto Moses, How long will this people provoke me? and how long will it be ere they believe me, for all the signs which I have shewed among them?  12  I will smite them with the pestilence, and disinherit them, and will make of thee a greater nation and mightier than they.

However, with the advent of Jesus another precept was initiated.

Matthew 5:21 and 22  Ye have heard that it was said by them of old time, Thou shalt not kill; and whosoever shall kill shall be in danger of the judgment: 22  But I say unto you, That whosoever is angry with his brother without a cause shall be in danger of the judgment: and whosoever shall say to his brother, Raca, shall be in danger of the council: but whosoever shall say, Thou fool, shall be in danger of hell fire.

Here we find Jesus not only directing us not to kill, not to even berate them for what they say.
As a Southern Baptist I must wonder why the Same God, would change his Justice imposition so drastically.
Is there any explanation for this in any doctrinal belief in any denomination which addresses this?


texts: Did the pool of Bethesda have healing powers?

texts:
Recently while reading John 5 with my wife's family, we had a discussion about whether the pool of Bethesda really had healing powers. Some said the story is written as if the pool really could heal:

  For an angel went down at a certain season into the pool, and troubled the water: whosoever then first after the troubling of the water stepped in was made whole of whatsoever disease he had. (John 5:4)

Others said that perhaps John was just telling a story and the supposed healing powers of the pool made for great juxtaposition.

I have a hard time believing a spring could have healing powers, and especially only after an angel made some ripples. But I guess some people still believe in healing mineral springs.

Did the pool of Bethesda really have healing powers?


texts: Why at Judges 2:1 does it say the angel of the Lord would never break his covenant he swore to the fathers, Abraham, Isaac and Jacob?

texts:
"Now the angel of the Lord came up from Gilgad to Bochim, And he said, "I brought you up out of Egypt and led you into the land which I have sworn to your fathers; and I said, I will never break My covenant with you." Then at Judges 2:5, "So they named that place Bochim and there they sacrificed to the Lord." Going back to Exodus 20:1-3, Then God spoke all these words, saying, Verse 2, I am the Lord your God, who brought you out of the land of Egypt, out of the house of slavery. Verse 3, "You shall have no other gods before Me."
The covenant referred to can be found at Genesis 17:1-7. "Now when Abram was ninety-nine years old, the Lord appeared to Abram and said to him, "I am God Almighty; Walk befor3e Me, and be blameless, verse 2, And I will establish My covenant between Me and you, And I will multiply you exceedingly." Verse 3, And Abram fell on his face, and God talked with him, saying, verse 4, As for Me, behold, My covenant is with you, And you shall be the father of a multitude of nations. verse 5, No longer shall your name be called Abram, But you name shall be Abraham; For I will make you the father of a multitude of nations.
Verse 6, And I will make you exceedingly fruitful, and I will make nations of you, and kings shall come forth from you. verse 7, And I will establish My covenant between Me and you and your descendants after you throughout their generations for an everlasting covenant, to be God to you and to your descendants after you."
This covenant is further amplified at Genesis 22 where the Lord tested Abraham to sacrifice his son Isaac. At Genesis 22:10 Abraham stretched out his hand, and took the knife to slay his son." Verse 11, BUT the angel of the Lord called to him from heaven, and said, "Abraham, Abraham!" And he said, Here I am." Verse 12, "Do not stretch out your hand against the lad, and do nothing to him; for now I know that you fear God, since you have not withheld your son, your only son from Me."
At verse 15, Then the angel of the Lord called to Abraham a second time from heaven, verse 16, and said, "By Myself I have sworn, declares the Lord because you have done this thing, and have not withheld your son, your only son, verse 17, indeed I will greatly multiply your seed as the stars of the heavens, and as the sand which is on the seashore; and your seed shall possess the gate of their enemies. Verse 18, And in your seed all the nations of the earth shall be blessed, because you have obeyed My voice."
The New Testament at Hebrews 6:13-16 clearly identifies and confirms who swore the oath. "For when God made the promise to Abraham, since He could swear by no one greater, He swore by Himself, verse 14, saying, "I will surely bless you, and I will surely multiply you." Notice what verse 16 states, "For men swear by one greater than themselves, and with them an oath give as confirmation is an end of every dispute.
In taking oaths, men swear by God who is greater than they are. They do so in order to convince other men that they are truthful and intend to abide by their promises.
So getting back to the question? Why does Judges 2:1 say the angel of the Lord would never break his covenant he swore to the fathers?


texts: Which denomination(s) believe(s) there are many heavens?


texts: An image of half a leg on a church wall?

texts:
A little bit of a random question here - I was at a christening this Sunday just gone and on the wall was an image of half a leg with a passage underneath it (not sure what it said) and I don't have a clue what the whole thing meant.

I've tried Googling about it but got nothing remotely close.

Is it something multiple churches have or could it of been specific to that one church?

-- Added Location --

It's a Roman Catholic Church. The location is St Johns Church in Bridgnorth, United Kingdom - Website


texts: Reformed Theology, Pentecostalism, and Charismatic Movement on The Holy Spirit

texts:
To a first degree approximation, is the following correct?

Reformed Theology: Spiritual gifts ceased after the apostolic age. The gifts were important to setup the initial church, but after the initial church was setup, they were no longer necessary.

Pentecostalism: People who believe that spiritual gifts are still being handed out. Furthermore, upon openly declaring this belief, they either voluntarily or involuntarily left their (cessation of holy gifts) church to a (holy gifts still exist) church.

Charismatic: People who believe that spiritual gifts are still being handed out. However, they stay with their church rather than leave.

Context

Somewhat confused after reading the different Wikipedia entries on Pentecostalism and the Charismatic Movement.

Note:

Contrary to previous questions; I'm actually not looking for resources; I'm merely trying to understand the distinctions when people throw these terms around.


texts: How do those who hold doctrines that God is omnipotent and omniscient answer what 1 Corinthians 1:25 implies?

texts:
1 Corinthians 1:25 reads:

  1 Corinthians 1  (NIV)
  25  For the foolishness of God is wiser than human wisdom, and the weakness of God is stronger than human strength.

If Paul believed that God was omniscient and omnipotent I find his word choices quite odd. How can an omniscient God have any foolishness? Would not all His thoughts and actions be equally founded in Wisdom of the highest level? Likewise, how can an omnipotent God have any weakness? Would not all His abilities carry the same weight of the Almighty God?

So for those that hold the doctrines that God is omnipotent and omniscient how do they explain what this verse implies?


texts: How does the life of Muhammad, the Prophet of Islam, compare to the standards of the Bible?

texts:
Muhammad claimed to be God's Prophet, even God's Last Prophet.  As such his life should measure up as a godly life.  Using only the most approved Muslim sources, the Qur'an, and the most highly regarded Hadith i.e. the Sahih Bukhari, the Sahih Muslim and Sunan Abu Daud, and Guillaume's "Life of Muhammed" how does Muhammad's life compare with the standards of the Bible?  Or how does his life compare with the life of our Lord Jesus?  Is there anything to cause us to doubt his status as a prophet?

I am not really interested in his teachings.  I appreciate that is very important, but other questions can address that.  I just want to have answers about his behaviour.


texts: What is the role of the Three Persons of the Godhead in creation?

texts:
Genesis 1:26, New International Version (NIV) reads:

  Then God said, “Let us make mankind in our image, in our likeness, so that they may rule over the fish in the sea and the birds in the sky, over the livestock and all the wild animals, and over all the creatures that move along the ground.”

This is the first instance in Genesis in which  God addresses Himself as "us". Was God the Father addressing both the Holy Spirit and the Son, or was He addressing only the Holy Spirit of whom  mention is made at Genesis  1:2?


texts: Original number of angels and fallen angels

texts: How many angels left with Lucifer when God banished them from heaven?


texts:
Exodus 24:9-11

  9 Moses and Aaron, Nadab and Abihu, and the seventy elders of Israel
  went up
  10 and saw the God of Israel. Under his feet was something
  like a pavement made of lapis lazuli, as bright blue as the sky.
  11 But God did not raise his hand against these leaders of the
  Israelites; they saw God, and they ate and drank.

Here we see that Moses and others saw God with their own eyes.

But later, Moses was not allowed to see God's face.

Exodus 33:18-23

  18 Then Moses said, “Now show me your glory.”

  19 And the Lord said, “I will cause all my goodness to pass in front
  of you, and I will proclaim my name, the Lord, in your presence. I
  will have mercy on whom I will have mercy, and I will have compassion
  on whom I will have compassion. 20 But,” he said, “you cannot see my
  face, for no one may see me and live.”

  21 Then the Lord said, “There is a place near me where you may stand
  on a rock. 22 When my glory passes by, I will put you in a cleft in
  the rock and cover you with my hand until I have passed by. 23 Then I
  will remove my hand and you will see my back; but my face must not be
  seen.”

If Moses already saw the face of God, then who's face was he not allowed to see?

Who was covering Moses and preventing him from seeing God?

Were there two people?. Or Maybe three?


texts: Did the authors of the Westminster Standards accept Roman Catholic baptisms as valid?

texts:
In the original version of the Westminster Standards, a highly regarded Protestant doctrinal statement, there's a line that is particularly famous:

  There is no other head of the Church but the Lord Jesus Christ. Nor can the Pope of Rome, in any sense, be head thereof; but is that Antichrist, that man of sin, and son of perdition, that exalts himself, in the Church, against Christ and all that is called God. (Confession, 25.6)

However, in my experience in churches holding to the Westminster Standards, baptisms performed by Roman Catholics are normally considered valid.  That is, if an adult seeking entry into a Presbyterian church was baptized as an infant by a Roman Catholic priest, he will not be "baptized again" – his RC baptism is considered valid.

But it seems unlikely that this was the view of the Westminster Divines, given their view of the pope.  So, I wonder: did the authors of the Westminster Confession regard Roman Catholic baptisms as valid?

If yes, they apparently believed that (1) the pope is the Antichrist and yet (2) those voluntarily aligned with him and under his authority (RC priests) can perform valid baptisms.  How is this apparent contradiction explained?

Another possible explanation is that they didn't accept Roman Catholic baptisms, but as later generations became less willing to accept the "Pope is Antichrist" statement, it has become more common in today's Reformed churches to accept RC baptisms.

What did the Westminster Divines think about the validity of Roman Catholic baptisms?  How was that view informed by their view of the papacy?


texts: Does Catholicism teach that Jesus was a theistic evolutionist?

texts:
If evolution is true, then the Bible’s account of the creation of the first man, Adam (Genesis 1:26–27; 2:18–24), would be, at best, a story meant to teach a moral lesson but not intended to be taken literally.

Given that the Catholic Church appears to take a "theistic evolution" position, does it (and if it does, where does it) formally teach that Jesus in fact held that belief?


texts: Why isn't the Eucharist of protestant churches considered valid by non-protestants?

texts: The Catholicism and Orthodox churches do not recognize the Eucharist of protestant churches. Why not?


texts: For Jehovah's Witnesses, what are the ingredients to the bread and the wine?

texts: I am wondering what ingredients do the Jehovah's Witnesses use in the bread and the wine. I talked to one of my friends who is a active member of the Jehovah's Witness religion but was not satisfied with her answer.


texts:
I am told, repeatedly, with great intensity and sincerity that YHVH / the LORD is kind and merciful, forgiving of all sins.

Now, I read the Bible enough. God's main demonstrations of power seem to be, in chronological order,

Smiting the enemies of israel
Smiting those who offend his prophets (in one case, a bunch of kids who made fun of Elijah's bald spot)
Smiting those who worship other gods

Often after a natural or man-made disaster, we get a major evangelical religious figure saying that this is the Lord smiting us 'cause we made Him mad.

Now, this behavior in which God partakes would not be permissible for a human being:

If an army officer did this he'd be court-martialed
If a politician did this he'd be voted out/impeached
If a civilian did this he'd be arrested

What is it about the LORD that justifies actions that aren't justifiable for humans?


texts: What are arguments supporting "rapture" theory?

texts:
By "rapture theory" I mean that coming of Christ happens in two phases with some time between "rapture" of the church and the coming itself.

In an answer to my question it was mentioned that "rapture" theory is not the only considerable interpretation of Bible.

Before I thought that "rapture" theory is the only interpretation, but now I doubt.

To help me to decide on my theology, please list all Bible verses supporting "rapture theory". I also would like to hear arguments against this theory (but supporting coming of Christ in one "phase").


texts: How were the footnotes in LDS scriptures created?

texts:
The LDS scriptures have footnotes at the bottom of every page of every book. How were they made? That seems like an incredible amount of cross referencing for people to do.

I am aware that there are several classic, exhaustive Bible encyclopedias that are thoroughly annotated and they're absolutely huge. Its an impressive feat. Even though the LDS footnotes aren't quite that involved, they do span/cross-reference the Bible and three other books of scripture.

Who compiled these references? How was it done? (Was it a manual process or did computers suggest the bulk of the references?)


texts: What is the earliest surviving reference to the Paschal Greeting?

texts:
It's common in some traditions to greet one another with a "Paschal Greeting" on Easter, such as "Christ is risen," with the response "He is risen indeed."

The custom seems to have originated in the Eastern Orthodox church, and apparently they have the tradition that Mary Magdelene gave the paschal greeting to Emperor Tiberius (d. AD 37).  And the biblical reference often cited is Luke 24:34 ("The Lord has risen indeed").

But here I'm interested in finding the earliest surviving historical record of this custom.  For example, in which church father do we first learn about the Mary Magdelene / Emperor Tiberius tradition?  Or does an earlier church father describe Christians greeting each other on Easter in this way?

A related question focuses on when the custom was adopted in Anglicanism, not its historical origin: What is the origin among the Church of England of the Paschal Greeting?


texts: What is meant by "faith and morals" with regards to papal infallibility?

texts:
There are plenty of questions in this site about infallibility (e.g. here, here, and here). All of them take for granted a certain definition of "faith and morals", which is the area upon which doctrines are to be potentially considered infallible. But, what precisely is meant by faith and morals? In other words, which is the precise and demarcated scope of infallibility?

The Catholic Encyclopedia on this same topic is far from clear. Faith and morals are words that can be colloquially stretched significantly, so it is essential to me that there is theological clarity on what exactly the Church means.

Having a precise demarcation we can then analyse the full range of potential areas of infallibility. For example, regarding "moral" issues like paying taxes, polluting the environment, being in the army, gambling, etc; or "faith" issues like the number of wings of angels (if any), the day Moses died (for a potential "Feast of Moses"), whether the rich go to heaven or not, etc.


texts:
Here is a thread answering how Catholic Priests get assigned to parishes.

How is this done for Orthodox Priests? What is that process and does a newly ordained priest have any say over his assignment? I'm specifically interested in the process for OCA, but Greek and Antiochian information also appreciated.

Say for instance, his wife had strong family ties in a certain state.  Could he request assignment in a certain state?  How likely is that request to be granted?


texts:
Hosea (NLT)

  1:2-3 When the LORD first began speaking to Israel through Hosea, he
  said to him, "Go and marry a prostitute, so that some of her children
  will be conceived in prostitution. This will illustrate how Israel has
  acted like a prostitute by turning against the LORD and worshiping
  other gods." So he married Gomer daughter of Diblaim, and she conceived and
  bore him a son.

  3:1 Then the LORD said to me, "Go and love your wife again, even
  though she commits adultery with another lover. This will illustrate
  that the LORD still loves Israel, even though the people have turned
  to other gods and love to worship them."

Did Hosea fall in love with the prostitute or he was simply forced to marry her?

Was God forcing Hosea to love her? Is it even possible?

Did Hosea really fall in love with her ultimately?


texts:
Luke 16:25 But Abraham replied, 'Son, remember that in your lifetime you received
  your good things, while Lazarus received bad things, but now he is
  comforted here and you are in agony.

Link to verse in BibleHub

Does it allow us to understand that Spiritism is correct? Your suffering in this life will define what will happen to your soul?

Edit

I'm just curious to understand if there is a relation with your current wealth/poor life and the life after death. This text, in my opinion, is in accordance with the Spiritism, roughly speaking, the way you live your current life will dictate what happens in the next one.


texts: What is the basis for Lutheran single predestination, as opposed to double predestination?

texts:
I was reading this question, What were the main doctrinal disagreements between Luther and Calvin?, and one of the differences between the two was Calvin believed in double predestination, while Luther believed in single predestination.

So according to my understanding:

Double Predestination – God mandates who goes to Heaven AND Hell,
Single Predestination – God mandates ONLY who goes to Heaven.

Could somebody give a Lutheran support for single predestination?

Related Question: What is the basis for Calvinist double predestination, as opposed to single predestination?

EDIT: I realize that my idea of Single predestination is, in fact, the definition of Calvinist Double predestination. Would the answer kindly provide a concise definition of Lutheran Single Predestination in addition to support?


texts:
Almost every Christian I meet believes in something a bit different.

Is there an official set of things you are supposed to believe in order to be considered a Christian? If so, who decides what goes on that list list and what doesn't?


texts: Do any Catholic or Orthodox churches claim to have relics of Noah's Ark? (As one might have a piece of the True Cross, for example.)


texts: Is it possible to be a Christian by birth?

texts: My parents are both Christians. When we were kids they always took us to church. Does that make me a Christian?


texts:
This is perhaps slightly related to this question, and specifically this answer which points out that "the worship of angels [is] false doctrine ... praying to angels arguably may not be worship, [but] in my mind the line is far too fine."

So we have, perhaps, a caution to pray/speak to angels.  But can angels, under normal circumstances, speak to us?  I am excluding, for the sake of this question, situations in which angels are physically manifest, and speak to us verbally.

What evidence exists in the Bible that angels either can or cannot speak to us this way?

And if the abilities/rules governing God-fearing angels is distinct from fallen angels/demons, what are the differences?


texts:
My friend and I were talking about the four types of love the Greeks distinguished, and my friend said God's love is purely Agape. But doesn't God wants to be friend with each of us? And doesn't God love us as a "Father"? I think God has Phileo love and Storge love for us as well as Agape, and I also think that in heaven, our love towards the others will be Phileo, Storge and Agape mixed together. So my questions are:

Do Catholics believe that God has Phileo and Storge love for us, as well as Agape?
Will our love for others in heaven be Phileo and Storge, as well as Agape (three mixed together)?


texts: What is the Reformed perspective on "All people are called by God to salvation in Christ"?

texts:
The quote in the title is taken from paragraph 16 of the JOINT DECLARATION
ON THE DOCTRINE OF JUSTIFICATION by the Lutheran World Federation and the Catholic Church. Is such a statement consistent or inconsistent with Reformed doctrine? If judged to be consistent, is it necessary to qualify the statement for it to fully harmonize with relevant doctrines?


texts: How do Protestants reconcile their confession of the Athanasian Creed with sola scriptura?

texts:
It must be admitted by Protestants that only the most banal of the 44 assertions of the Creed of Athanasius appear in the pages of scripture and that its authority is Catholic tradition, justified with inferences rather than explicit assertions, and yet they claim "sola scriptura". Isn't it more accurate to say that they essentially have treated the Creed as if it were canonized and authoritative in itself?

In other words, aren't they being disingenuous? Shouldn't they say, "sola scriptura plus the Creed of Athanasius"? Or rather, more broadly, "sola scriptura plus Catholic tradition"?

VERY related post


texts: Are there any Christian Churches or communities that teach same-sex marriage is a right? On what biblical basis?

texts:
Are there any Christian Churches or communities that teach same-sex marriage is a right? On what biblical basis do they base their teaching?

A couple of examples will do for an answer.


texts: Are there Catholic guidelines on naming of children?

texts: Catholics in India, for the last few generations, have been following a unique practice of naming  their children. The children are invariably given the baptismal name after a saint; but  once they enter school, many children are given Indian names which hardly have any resemblance to the baptismal name, and which eventually become their official name. Many of such official names owe their origin to names of natural forces like sun, light, wind etc. and of objects like precious stones , flowers etc.   I would like to know whether Catholic Church has issued instructions, at any point of time, on how Catholic couples should name  their children on baptism and thereafter.


texts: Are there other biblical examples of people turning into pillars of salt?

texts: Are there more instances, in the Bible, of people turning into pillars of salt (Gen. 19:26) and does it have a specific meaning?


texts: Thomism, Natural Law and our Fallen Nature

texts:
One of the foundations of Thomistic philosophy is Natural Law, which at its basis holds that "committing evil does not accord with human nature". (Thomas Storck, "Four Sins that Cry to Heaven."   New Oxford Review, vol. 77, no. 6, July/August 2010).

On the other hand, a basic Christian Biblical doctrine is that we humans have a sinful nature, that is, that we have a propensity towards sin. In Augustinian philosophy, humans are "inescapably predisposed to evil prior to any actual choice, and unable to not sin"1.

It has always seemed to me that in appropriating Aristotle to Christianity, St Thomas Aquinas had committed himself to a Pelagian heresy.

Is there a contradiction between Augustinian and Thomistic anthropologies? And if there is, how, if at all, is it to be resolved?

1. cf. Total depravity | Wikipedia.


texts: Is Deism in Christianity possible? If so, what does it look like?

texts:
In short, Deism is more or less that God exists but has not really an interaction with humanity. He just gave a set of natural laws by which he governs people.

Now, Jesus came to Earth as the incarnated God ascended from above, so by this there seems to be a direct interaction between God and human kind. Does this mean that Deism isn't really possible in Christianity even though in the 18th Century it developed within Christian countries?

Was this perhaps more about God and not so much with Jesus involved?

If it can exist how was/is this argued?

I'm not sure is any denomination has a particular view on this, but if necessary the vision of the RCC would be welcome.


texts: Why did God create us so that it is in our nature to sin?

texts:
There are many questions that circle around the following question but the exact wording is important - therefore it is, to the best of my knowledge, not a duplicate!

In many of the answers given to similar questions the following is stated:

  God has perfect free will but He will never sin because it is not in
  His nature.

My question
Obviously we haven't defined our nature ourselves but we were created with a certain nature. Obviously it is in our nature to sin. When God created us in His image why did He take the free will-part but not the it is not in our nature to sin-part? The catastrophic consequences were clear to Him being omnipotent.

NB
I am not looking for speculative answers but answers that are firmly based on scripture.

NB 2
This question is being asked from a Protestant Christian perspective (sola scriptura).


texts: What arguments were made against William Carey's missions efforts?

texts:
I am aware that William Carey's efforts to form a missions society and travel overseas as a missionary were opposed by some of his Calvinist (or hyper-Calvinist) Baptist peers.

I'm vaguely aware of their arguments, such as "the Great Commission only applied to the apostles," but I'm looking for a better understanding of a) their arguments and b) the biblical basis for those arguments.

An ideal answer would quote, summarize, and reference the writings of Carey's opponents, and not merely rely on the writings of Carey and his friends.

In summary: What arguments did William Carey's opponents make against his overseas missions efforts, and on what biblical basis did they make them?


texts: Was Mary’s appearance to St. James the Greater in year 40 AD an apparition or bilocation?

texts:
Tradition has it that the Blessed Virgin Mary, sometime before  her bodily Assumption into heaven, appeared to the Apostle St. James the Elder while he was living and preaching in Spain.

After Pentecost, the 12 Apostles dispersed to preach the Gospel all over the world. St. James the Greater, on one of his apostolic journeys, preached in the Iberian Peninsula in modern-day Spain.

St. James was discouraged that the pagans of that land were not responding to the Gospel and converting to Christianity. He had only a handful of converts to show for his labors. In the face of what he thought was failure in his mission, he prayed with his disciples by the Ebro river in modern day Zaragoza.

The First Marian Apparition in Church History: Our Lady of the Pillar

ap·pa·ri·tion
ˌapəˈriSH(ə)n/
noun
noun: apparition; plural noun: apparitions

a ghost or ghostlike image of a person.

bi·lo·ca·tion
ˌbīlōˈkāSHən/
noun
noun: bilocation; noun: bi-location

the supposed phenomenon of being in two places simultaneously.

Understanding the meaning of an apparition, it implies that Mary appears like a"ghost or ghost like image of the person".

The year was 40 AD, how can Mary appear like a ghost if she still alive?

It would seem that a bilocation is the more acceptable word, like what happens to other well known saints like St.Padre Pio.

My question is according to Catholicism, how can Mary appears in a ghostform or like a spiritual being when She is actually still very much alive.

The story of the above article somehow implied Mary has a capability to travel in space not common to mortal bodies.

I'm looking for Catholic perspective and early Church Father explanation on Mary's apparition gifts while still alive.


texts: What does it mean when Jesus cannot be separated from the Father and the Holy Ghost?

texts:
What is the word which means that the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost cannot be separated?  When we receive Holy Communion, the Host contains Jesus,
the Father, the Holy Ghost, and all that God created because God is omnipresent in all creation, so everything comes with the Host, most importantly, Jesus' Body, Blood, Soul, and Divinity!  But there is a word for this and I cannot remember what it is.  Can you please help?


texts: Calvinism: Does God force people to be saved?

texts:
Calvinists often object to the criticism that their doctrine teaches that God forces men to be saved against their will. From what I've read, Calvinism teaches that God changes a man's nature and desire so that it is the man's utmost will that he become saved. In this sense, it seems technically true that Calvinism does not teach that God saves men against their will. However, I'm wondering if this is just a semantic argument on the part of the Calvinist?

The doctrine of total depravity teaches that men (even elect men) despise God in their natural state. In order for a man to love God, he must first be supernaturally regenerated. But God-hating men do not desire to be regenerated. It is not their will that their will be changed. It is not their desire to desire God. Thus, even though salvation may not be forced, I don't understand how any Calvinist could claim that the act of regeneration is not a forceful act accomplished against the will of the recipient, which (at the moment immediately preceding regeneration) is inclined to hate God utterly.

Since regeneration leads inescapably to salvation (with some Calvinists even claiming that the two events occur at the same moment in time), it seems like a semantic argument to claim that God doesn't force men to be saved against their will. He may not force them to become saved, but if he forces them to become regenerate and regeneration leads inescapably to salvation, then are Calvinists simply dodging the issue when they claim that their doctrine does not teach that men are saved against their will? Am I correct in asserting that traditional Calvinist doctrine teaches that regeneration is forceful?


texts: Did Luther ever acknowledge that his Catechism would require textual changes as language evolves?

texts:
In the preface of Luther's Small Catechism, Martin Luther warns twice that people should be taught a fixed version of important church doctrine and that not a syllable should be changed (emphasis mine):

The honored fathers understood this well, and therefore they all consistently used one form of the Lord’s Prayer, the Creed, and the Ten Commandments. We should do as they did by teaching these materials to the young and the common man without altering a single syllable and by never varying their wording when presenting or quoting them year after year. […]
Second, after they have well memorized the text (of the catechism), then explain the meaning so that they understand what they are saying. Do so again with the help of these charts or some other brief uniform method of your choosing; adhere to it and do not change a single syllable, as said above concerning the text, taking your time with it. For it is not necessary to teach everything at once, but one thing after the other. After they understand well the meaning of the First Commandment, proceed to the Second, and so on, otherwise they will be too overwhelmed to the point of remembering nothing.

Luther must have been well aware that language changes over time; he insisted on having the Bible available in the common German people spoke instead of using the Latin Bibles that would have been more accessible to the people of a thousand years ago.
Did Luther ever acknowledge that his Catechism, or any of the other things like the Lord's Prayer, would need to have textual changes as well? At some point, the


texts: Why call men on earth 'father' when Christ forbids it?

texts:
Jesus forbids his disciples from calling anyone on earth 'father' as they have a Father in heaven.

Why do some organisations encourage their congregations to call their congregational leaders 'father'?

Is it an admission that their organisation does not result in their congregations drawing near to the Father of the Lord Jesus Christ ?

  And call none your father upon the earth: for one is your Father, which is in heaven. Matthew 23:9 KJV.


texts: What happens to people outside Earth on the second coming?

texts:
When Jesus returns, or the rapture,etc, and we having the events surrounding it, the bible says the whole earth will see it, day or night. Does the bible mention what happens to humans not on Earth, from space stations to the Moon and Mars (as current plans want to see humans on the Moon and on Mars before 2050.

Reference: Luke 31:35 (ESV) "For it will come upon all who dwell on the face of the whole earth."


texts: Why is the use of certain common words offensive?

texts:
Why does writing words such as "hell" and "damn" trigger internet filters that insert asterisks into my writing? What is it about these words that makes them offensive to the point that people use substitutes like "heck" and "darn", sometimes in situations that sound very childish? (Double hockey sticks, anyone?)

They're used in the bible as standard words.
They're not vulgar, sexual, or disgusting like other swear words.
They're not "using the Lord's name in vain".

I agree they're strong words when wielded and not nice when directed at someone ("damn you"; "go to hell"), but on what basis do Christians consider them "cussing" in casual speech ("I had a hell of a time", "my damned car won't start") when used passively?

For people who are sensitive to these words, are other forms like "hellish" or "damnable" acceptable, or is it just the four-letter format? Is it less acceptable in speech than in writing?

Maybe I just need to be educated about what is the actual Christian definition of cursing.

Edit: There are 3 votes to close this and a suggestion to move it to a language site. I don't want to presume but I'm guessing it's because some are offended: Even the title has been sanitized! This is exactly what I want to understand... And I'm not asking about "certain common words": I'm specifically asking about "HELL" and "DAMN" which are Christian terms, and I thought I was clear that I'm asking about it in the sense of regular usage, not when used as curses. Is there cause for offense in these words because they can be used as curses or is it something inherent in them? Please believe me, I'm not trying to be confrontational, I genuinely want to understand the nature of these words in our common culture.


texts: What is the precise manner of expressing the relationship of the humanity (human nature) to the divine person of the Son?

texts:
For example, are any of the following statements correct?

The humanity subsists in the Divine Person of the Son.
The humanity substands the Divine Person of the Son.
The divine person of the Son substands the humanity.
The divine person of the Son subsists in the humanity.

Note: "Humanity" (Latin humanitate or Greek ανθρωπότης is synonymous with "human nature." It does not mean "human person."

Or, are none of them? If not, what is the precise way to express the relationship using the English verb "subsist" and/ or "substand"?

Clarification: The English verb "substand" and its related conjugations would be a precise translation of the Latin verb substare and its related conjugations and the Greek verb ὑφίστασθαι and its related conjugations. "Substand," like substare and ὑφίστασθαι, simply means "to stand under." A ὑπόστασις (hypostasis) is technically something that stands under or is the basis of accidents.

Boethius, in Book III of his Liber de Persona et Duabus Naturis Contra Eutychen et Nestorium, wrote,

  "For what the Greeks say as οὐσίωσις and οὐσιῶσθαι are what we call subsistentia and subsistere. What they [say as] ὑπόστασις and ὑφίστασθαι are what we translate as substantia  and substare."

It's a rare word, and probably one constructed to convey the meaning of substare and ὑφίστασθαι as accurately and precisely as possible into English in the realm of philosophy.

The Fathers of the English Dominican Province use it in their English translation of the Summa Theologica.

For example, Part I, Question 29, Second Article, Response to Objection 5:

  Reply to Objection 5: The individual composed of matter and form substands in relation to accident from the very nature of matter.


texts: What is the standard length of assignments for Catholic priests in parishes?

texts: A priest at my parish is leaving next year. It seems that six years may be somewhat standard. Is six years a local, national (American), or worldwide time frame for any given priest in any given Catholic parish? Excluding the bishops and deacons. Our pastor is there for 12 years; I would guess this "double-term" is particular for pastors in larger parishes but again I am not sure.


texts: Did God's curse on Cain extend to only Cain, Cain's descendants or to everyone?

texts:
When God cursed Cain for killing Abel, did that curse extend to Cain's offspring, to Cain alone, or to everyone? God tells Cain:

  "And now you are cursed from the ground, which has opened its mouth to receive your brother's blood from your hand. When you work the ground, it shall no longer yield to you its strength. You shall be a fugitive and a wanderer on the earth.” Genesis 4:11-12 ESV

Later in Genesis, when tracing the genealogy of Cain's younger brother Seth, this next verse seems to indicate that the ground was cursed for everyone, not just Cain or his direct descendants?

  "When Lamech had lived 182 years, he fathered a son and called his name Noah, saying, “Out of the ground that the Lord has cursed, this one shall bring us relief from our work and from the painful toil of our hands.” Genesis 5:28-29


texts: Were Jews allowed to sacrifice to the LORD at altars other than at the tabernacle and temple?

texts:
I am familiar with the references in Leviticus and Deuteronomy that legislated that the sacrifices were to occur only where the LORD had chosen to "put His name." He evidently had put His name with the ark of the covenant. Therefore, sacrifice could only occur at the tabernacle and then later at the temple in Jerusalem after the ark was moved there.

However, what do you make of 1 Kings 18 & 19?

  Then Elijah said to all the people, “Come near to me.” So all the people came near to him. And he repaired the altar of the LORD that was broken down. And Elijah took twelve stones, according to the number of the tribes of the sons of Jacob, to whom the word of the LORD had come, saying, “Israel shall be your name.” Then with the stones he built an altar in the name of the LORD; and he made a trench around the altar large enough to hold two seahs of seed (I Kings 18:30–32, NKJV).

Elijah repaired an altar to the LORD on Mount Carmel that was broken down.

Then there is the 1 Kings 19 reference illustrating that altars (plural) dedicated to the LORD had been known of in the Northern Kingdom of Israel in Elijah's day and even prior to his time, albeit that they had been torn down at the time of Elijah's words.

  So he said, “I have been very zealous for the LORD God of hosts; for the children of Israel have forsaken Your covenant, torn down Your altars, and killed Your prophets with the sword. I alone am left; and they seek to take my life” (I Kings 19:10, NKJV).

And again...

  And he said, “I have been very zealous for the LORD God of hosts; because the children of Israel have forsaken Your covenant, torn down Your altars, and killed Your prophets with the sword. I alone am left; and they seek to take my life” (I Kings 19:14, NKJV).

What I would like comments on is if the sacrifices were supposed to take place wherever the tabernacle was located, prior to the temple in Jerusalem, then why had these altars to the LORD been built at various places? Elijah seems to comment on their being torn down as a bad thing. However, Hezekiah and others present the tearing down of these altars as a good thing, even if the altar was not dedicated to an idol but to the LORD.

At first glance, it seems the theory that all sacrifices had to be at the tabernacle (before the temple being built) may not be entirely correct. One could say perhaps that 1 Kings 3:2 provides the answer:

  Meanwhile the people sacrificed at the high places, because there was no house built for the name of the LORD until those days. And Solomon loved the LORD, walking in the statutes of his father David, except that he sacrificed and burned incense at the high places. Now the king went to Gibeon to sacrifice there, for that was the great high place: Solomon offered a thousand burnt offerings on that altar. At Gibeon the LORD appeared to Solomon in a dream by night; and God said, “Ask! What shall I give you?” (I Kings 3:2–5, NKJV).

But then, one may still be left with the difficulty of explaining why Elijah is lamenting that these altars were torn down, for the temple in Jerusalem was certainly built in his day!

And then there is also the matter of the altar built by Reuben, Gad and the half tribe of Manasseh in Joshua 22. Those on the east side of the Jordan had to clarify that it was merely a replica of the altar before the tabernacle, and not a substitute altar for sacrifice and burnt offering. Had it been such it looks like a civil war was going to break out.

Any thoughts or insights you could share on this perceived dilemma would be appreciated. Thanks!


texts: Why does Genesis record only 10 names from Adam to Noah?

texts:
Genesis 5 (NIV)

  And Adam lived one hundred and thirty years, and begot a son in
  his own likeness, after his image, and named him Seth. After he begot
  Seth, the days of Adam were eight hundred years; and he had sons and
  daughters. So all the days that Adam lived were nine hundred and
  thirty years; and he died.

  Seth lived one hundred and five years, and begot Enosh. After he begot Enosh, Seth lived eight hundred and seven years, and had sons
  and daughters. So all the days of Seth were nine hundred and twelve
  years; and he died.

  Enosh lived ninety years, and begot Cainan. After he begot Cainan, Enosh lived eight hundred and fifteen years, and had sons and
  daughters. So all the days of Enosh were nine hundred and five
  years; and he died.

  Cainan lived seventy years, and begot Mahalalel. After he begot Mahalalel, Cainan lived eight hundred and forty years, and had sons
  and daughters. So all the days of Cainan were nine hundred and ten
  years; and he died.

  ......

Genesis 5 lists the genealogy of Adam as Adam, Seth, Enosh, Cainan, Mahalalel, Jared, Enoch, Methuselah, Lamech and Noah. Ten in all. Though each of these men had other sons and daughters, their names are not recorded.

Why are only ten names recorded and the rest are ignored?

Does this imply that these ten men were more important than others?


texts: Are Roman Catholics required at any time to bow down to statues or images?

texts:
Are Roman Catholics required at any time to bow down or make obeisance to or kiss statues, images, icons, etc. (i.e., inanimate objects)?

If so, is it considered a sin not to?


texts: What is the Catholic view of the rapture?

texts: What is the Roman Catholic view of the rapture? Does the Catholic church accept the idea that people will be caught up in the air to meet Christ? If not, how do they interpret 1 Thessalonians 4:17?


texts: Why were verses taken out of the Bible when it was being formed? Was there any major stuff taken out?

texts: I've heard that during the Roman times (AD) when the Bible was first being put together that a lot of texts and scriptures weren't allowed to go into the Bible. I just wondered why this would be and if there were any major scriptures taken out? (By major I mean stuff that would actually redefine the Bible itself).


texts: Why the English version of rosary doesn't insert the mystery in Hail Mary prayer?

texts:
In many languages, countries when people pray rosary they insert the mystery in Hail Mary after saying Jesus. It is used officially in public places by everyone.
For example:

Hail, Mary, full of grace,
the Lord is with thee.
Blessed art thou amongst women
and blessed is the fruit of thy womb, Jesus who was scourged at the pillar,
Holy Mary, Mother of God,
pray for us sinners,
now and at the hour of our death.
Amen.

Why wasn't this custom adopted in English speaking countries? This makes praying rosary faster and easier to forget the mystery you are currently praying or can tend to make the prayer a vain repetition.
Some asked for the list of common things:
(Google translation)
1 The joyful rosary:

Jesus, whom you conceived by the Holy Spirit
Jesus, with whom you visited Elizabeth
Jesus, whom you bore in Bethlehem
Jesus, whom you presented in the temple
Jesus, whom you found in the temple

2 Sorrowful rosary

Jesus who sweated blood for us
Jesus, who was flogged for us
Jesus, who was crowned with thorns for us
Jesus, who carried a heavy cross for us
Jesus who was crucified for us

3 The glorious rosary

Jesus who rose from the dead
Jesus who ascended to heaven
Jesus, who sent the Holy Spirit
Jesus, who took you to heaven, Virgin
Jesus who crowned you in heaven

4 The luminous

Jesus, who was baptized in the Jordan
Jesus, who revealed his divine power in Cana
Jesus, who proclaimed the kingdom of God and called for repentance
Jesus who revealed his glory on the Mount of Transfiguration
Jesus, who instituted the Eucharist


texts: Is song a critical component of worship or something that we've just borrowed from example?

texts:
As a follow-up to this previous question:

What is the biblical basis for singing in church?

Would worship be incomplete without song? Though their are examples of worship through song in the bible that doesn't necessarily mean to me that singing is a crucial component of worship.

Is it possible that it is entirely contextual?

For example, before the jukebox in bars we had drinking songs (aside: many of which have lent their tunes to the hymns churches sing today). That was just the standard form of communal entertainment at the time.

Maybe singing was just a convenient expression of communal worship in the early church and we've interpreted it to mean that we have to sing in every church service.

Does anyone see any flaws (biblically-based or otherwise) with this perspective?

P.S. I don't mean to rag on music. I happen to love the music in my church (so long as I can't hear myself sing :) ).


texts:
Tim Keller talks about a god of relativism (small g) in his book Hidden Christmas.

This is an interesting phrase that feels familiar but I can't quite tie it down to a common term. (On the tip of my tongue).

My attempt at it is: Little-brother-style rebellion against authority seeking justice by affirming everyone and not seeking intellectual integrity and finding boundaries in mutual self-validating self-authority.

My question is: What is the Christian (or commonly used) term for "god of relativism" (small g) in Tim Keller's book Hidden Christmas?


texts: Is there a concept of Christian State in Christianity?

texts: In some of my other questions, I have read that State and church are kept separate in Christianity. I am curious to know, is there any concept of Christian state where Biblical laws and doctrines are enforced or facilitated? Or simply Christians are never supposed to strive for a Christian state?


texts: What does 'do not be overrighteous' mean in Ecclesiastes?

texts:
What does the following verse mean?

  Do not be overrighteous, neither be overwise -  Why destroy yourself? (Ecclesiastes 7:16, NIV)

The Bible often asks us to be righteous (Psalm 106:3, Matthew 5:20) so why is Solomon's request contradicting with the other verses?


texts: How did the author of Jonah know about this conversation?

texts:
In Jonah 4:9 we read a dialog between God and Jonah:

  But God said to Jonah, Do you have a right to be angry about the vine?
  I do, he said. I am angry enough to die. But the LORD said, You have
  been concerned about this vine, though you did not tend it or make it
  grow. It sprang up overnight and died overnight. But Nineveh has more
  than a hundred and twenty thousand people who cannot tell their right
  hand from their left, and many cattle as well. Should I not be
  concerned about that great city?

How did the author of this passage know the exact conversation?


texts: What is the biblical basis used by Reformed theologians to argue that all those dying in infancy are saved?

texts:
In American Presbyterianism and Reformed theology more generally, one of the controversial issues has been the fate of children dying in infancy.  The Westminster Confession of Faith reads:

  Elect infants, dying in infancy, are regenerated, and saved by Christ (10.3)

The Confession thus leaves open the possibility that some infants are not elect and therefore not saved, and historically this has incited significant debate.  In 1903 the PCUSA adopted a declaratory statement affirming universal salvation of those dying in infancy, against the opposition of "old school" theologians like B. B. Warfield.  But Warfield only opposed making the position a confessional standard; personally he actually agreed with it:

  For myself, I believe with all my heart that all dying in infancy are saved, and I believe that I can prove it from Scripture. ("Does the Confession Need Revision?" II)

To me this view seems problematic because Reformed theology typically holds that adults who never hear the gospel are unsaved.  So universal salvation of deceased infants would mean that some of the children of these adults go to heaven, despite neither the infants nor the adults ever having the opportunity to hear the gospel.  Why do Reformed theologians think they would be treated differently?

Other questions here deal generally with the question of infant salvation, so I'll be very specific here:

According to Reformed theologians, what is the biblical basis for the idea that all those who die in infancy are saved?

Reformed theologians could include the Presbyterian opponents of Warfield, but I'm most interested in the arguments made by conservatives like Warfield.
I'm looking for biblical basis.  Saying "it wouldn't be fair" isn't going to cut it, unless the Bible is used to make this argument by these Reformed theologians.
I'm not interested in the basis for some dying infants being saved – I want to know the basis for all dying infants being saved.
I'm not interested in the "how" – whether dying infants have faith or not is not relevant; only that they are saved.

Related questions (and why they aren't duplicates):

What do Protestant churches teach about the fate of deceased infants?

This is an overview question, not a biblical basis question.

How is the view of guaranteed salvation for infants justified?

Similar, but is wider in scope, allowing for non-biblical and non-Reformed answers.  For example, the conclusion of the accepted answer is extremely questionable from a Reformed perspective.

What is the Biblical basis for asserting that infants can have faith in Christ under a Calvinistic framework?

Similar, but two key differences: (1) there is a difference between infants having faith vs. simply being saved (my question is more general in this sense) and (2) my question refers to the idea of all infants being saved, while this question does not address that point.


texts: Is there anything like a curse on some people?

texts:
I was having a debate with one of my friend on whether God exists,
and I was in support of this statement..  Then he asked if there is a real God, then why there is so much differentiations without any deed they have done..

For instance many babies are born with disabilities and some people are born with homosexual genes, so how can they cure themselves, because it is by birth,  and not a psychological disorder.

As I an from a Hindu background, and I just received Lord Jesus as my Savior, (not having sufficient knowledge of bible to answer him).

So can someone suggest me some verses on bible which says about these things....


texts: How do Evangelicals explain when Paul writes "I, not the Lord"?

texts:
Paul writes in 1 Corinthians 7:10 (NKJV):

  Now to the married I command, yet not I but the Lord: A wife is not to depart from her husband

In verse 12 Paul writes:

  But to the rest I, not the Lord, say: If any brother has a wife who does not believe, and she is willing to live with him, let him not divorce her.

How do Evangelicals explain this in line with scripture inspired by God?


texts:
Muslim here; I'm not particularly familiar with Christianity (so bear with me please).  In Islam, we have hadith:

  A hadith is one of various reports describing the words, actions, or habits of the Islamic prophet Muhammad.

Question: Is there a Christian equivalent of the Muslim hadith, but for narrations relating to Jesus?

I'm aware of narrations relating to Jesus in the Bible, such as curing leprosy:

  And Jesus put forth His hand and touched him, saying, “I will: be thou clean.” And immediately his leprosy was cleansed. -- Matthew 8:3

But this isn't exactly equivalent, as a hadith is ordinarily of the form "Muhammad said/did this", and is separate from the Qur'an.

Searching for hadith on this site reveals Does Christianity have any other books besides the Bible that the disciples use for following?, but this is about books, rather than narrations.  Searching for "christian equivalent of hadith" or "christian narrations of jesus" wasn't helpful.


texts: Which heresy did Spurgeon accuse Pusey of?

texts:
I have been asked to explain what Charles Spurgeon meant when he said "Puseyism" was heretical.  Apparently, Charles Spurgeon brought this up in his sermons.

I have done some initial research and found out that Edward Pusey was Regius Professor of Hebrew at the University of Oxford. He was one of the main promoters of the Oxford Movement.

What I can't find is any reliable source/link to any sermon given by Charles Spurgeon where he describes "Puseyism" as heretical. I don't have much time in which to respond and so I would be grateful for any insights/links/articles that shed light on what Charles Spurgeon thought about "Puseyism".


texts: What is the role of the Holy Spirit in the Thomistic understanding of vocation?

texts:
What is the role of the Holy Spirit in the Thomistic understanding of vocation and how is the action of the Holy Spirit manifest when one is being called to religious state?

Related questions:

History of the doctrine of religious vocation in Catholic Church

Catholic doctrine on spiritual vocation

Whether Ignatian spiritual exercises are good for the discernment of vocation according to Thomistic understanding of vocation?


texts: What are the different "Marks of the Church" of Christian denominations?

texts:
In the Catholic Church, the "Marks of the Church" are what's in the Nicene creed. That she is one, holy, catholic and apostolic. I've seen that the Westminster Catechism has different marks spelled out.

What does every Major branch of Christianity whose has "Marks of the Church" claim those marks to be?

This is a crestomathy-request, so every answerer who attempts to answer this question should include, within reason, every mark of every church.


texts: Is Jesus speaking from Himself or is the Holy Spirit speaking through Him?

texts:
When Jesus spoke, are the words recorded His own as the Messiah, or those of God delivered through Him by his Holy Spirit? How can we distinguish?

Jesus and the Holy Spirit who filled Him sometimes operated independently. When the woman who had bleeding for twelve years touched Jesus’ cloak and was healed (Luke 8:44-47) Jesus said, ‘Who touched me?’ and, ‘Someone touched me; I know that power has gone out from me.’

A distinction also seems implicit in Luke 12:10: ‘Everyone who speaks a word against the Son of Man will be forgiven, but anyone who blasphemes against the Holy Spirit will not be forgiven.’

And for us, then and now: ‘At that time you will be given what to say, for it will not be you speaking, but the Spirit of your Father speaking through you.’ (Matthew 10:19-20)

So how do we interpret such as Jesus saying ‘before Abraham was born, I am!’? (John 8:58). Is Jesus saying He is God, or is God saying I am God through his Holy Spirit?


texts: A question about practising Christianity against authority

texts:
Romans 13:1-2 (RSV)

  1 Let every person be subject to the governing authorities. For there is no authority except from God, and those that exist have been instituted by God. 2 Therefore he who resists the authorities resists what God has appointed, and those who resist will incur judgment.

Suppose a government legally forbids their citizens to practise Christianity (i.e. Catholicism, Protestantism, etc.). According to the verses above, would someone who practises Christianity in this context be resisting God?


texts: Do Mormons believe that Jesus was not begotten by Holy Spirit but by Adam?

texts:
This question is about this section in Journal of Discourses, Vol 1, p.50 (approx. half-way down the page):

  When our father Adam came into the garden of Eden, he came into it
  with a celestial body, and brought Eve, one of his wives, with him. He
  helped to make and organize this world. He is Michael, the Archangel,
  the Ancient of Days! about whom holy men have written and spoken—He is
  our Father and our God, and the only God with whom we have to do.
  Every man upon the earth, professing Christians or non-professing,
  must hear it, and will know it sooner or later. They came here,
  organized the raw material, and arranged in their order the herbs of
  the field, the trees, the apple, the peach, the plum, the pear, and
  every other fruit that is desirable and good for man; the seed was
  brought from another sphere, and planted in this earth. The thistle,
  the thorn, the brier, and the obnoxious weed did not appear until
  after the earth was cursed. When Adam and Eve had eaten of the
  forbidden fruit, their bodies became mortal from its effects, and
  therefore their offspring were mortal. When the Virgin Mary conceived
  the child Jesus, the Father had begotten him in his own likeness. He
  was not begotten by the Holy Ghost. And who is the Father? He is the
  first of the human family; and when he took a tabernacle, it was
  begotten by his Father in heaven, after the same manner as the
  tabernacles of Cain, Abel, and the rest of the sons and daughters of
  Adam and Eve

I chose to include a rather large section to show that the term "Father" is in the section used only about Adam. The question I have is however only about this part in above text:

  When the Virgin Mary conceived the child Jesus, the Father had
  begotten him in his own likeness. He was not begotten by the Holy
  Ghost. And who is the Father? He is the first of the human family;

From other postings at this site (such as in the accepted answer to this question) I understand that the Mormon church does not officially view material in the Journal of Discourses as doctrine.

On another hand it looks like above section contains text that is currently viewed as part of the official doctrine, such as the concept that Adam is also Archangel Michael.

For this reason I wanted to ask about the statement, that seems to be made above, that Jesus was not begotten by the Holy Spirit but by Adam.

Does the Mormon church currently believe that Adam made Mary pregnant?
If this is the case, is Adam viewed as having been in the flesh or
as a spirit being when he made Mary pregnant?


texts: Was there a non-Augustinian response to universalism in the early Church?

texts:
Most are aware of Augustine's abandonment of his universalism and his later adoption of eternal conscious torment in literal fire. His rejection of universalism is ultimately founded upon a predestination of the elect and a passive reprobation of the damned for the purposes of accomplishing God's love and justice.

In contemporary debates, however, universalists are not only rebutted by Augustinians like Thomists and Calvinists, but are also rebutted by non-Augustinians like Molinist and Arminians.

Were there any teachers in the early Church who offered theological arguments against universalism which were not Augustinian?


texts: Why is "Battle Hymn of the Republic" considered to be a patriotic hymn in the United States?

texts:
"Battle Hymn of the Republic" is a well-known hymn written around the time of the United States civil war (1861–1865). It is often performed at patriotic events in the United States, like political party conventions and presidential inaugurations.

Because it speaks of battle, it would have been poignant to soldiers during the civil war when it was written, but the text doesn't seem to have much, if any, patriotic imagery – like mention of country, or flags, or an ode to the homeland. Its imagery seems to be mostly Biblical – Christ coming in glory, his triumph over sin, and truth advancing. Paul used this kind of imagery extensively in the New Testament to talk about the war against sin and loyalty to Christ.

The closest to USA-specific imagery I can find is the mention of Christ being born "across the sea," but of course that is just as applicable in Canada, Guatemala, Tonga, or Australia as it is in the United States.

Why, so many years after the civil war, is this song considered to be a patriotic hymn?


texts: What are the arguments that Acts was written prior to 70 AD?

texts:
What are the reasons, whether theological or secular, for concluding that the book of Acts was written prior to 70 AD?

Please also view the related question What are the arguments that the book of Acts was written after 70 AD?


texts: How does Catholic Church explain John 1:31?

texts:
At John 1:30-31  (NRSVCE) we see John the Baptist introducing Jesus to the crowd:

  "This is he of whom I said, ‘After me comes a man who ranks ahead of me because he was before me.’  I myself did not know him; but I came baptizing with water for this reason, that he might be revealed to Israel."

John's mother Elizabeth was a relative of Mary, mother of Jesus (Lk 1:36) . As such, both John and Jesus would have known each other from childhood. Apparently, John's saying "I myself did not know him.."has a deeper meaning. My question therefore, is: How does the Catholic Church explain the statement of John the Baptist that he did not know Jesus ?


texts: According to the Catholic Church is the ordering of the events in the Gospels (prior to the Passion) important to understanding salvation?

texts:
I really love The Chosen, but I noticed that the chronology of some of the events, when certain parables were told, etc.  Teaching the Lords Prayer to children prior to public ministry, these are all very interesting ideas and a wonderful take on Jesus' mission.
For instance, I had to go and look up when the Parable of the Net was told (Matthew 13), that's certainly after Peter and Andrew started following him,  I'm not poking holes in The Chosen, I'm just wondering if the Catholic Church or prominent theologians who would be acceptable to the Catholic faith, would consider the ordering of the events in the public ministry of Jesus to be of import to salvation?


texts:
What is the significance to the number 3 in the Bible? There is already a question about the number seven, but no one said anything about 3.

Here are a few 3's I came up with:

The Trinity (Godhead) is 3 in one
Peter denies knowing Jesus 3 times and later says he loves him 3 times
Jesus rose on the 3rd day
Both 777 and 666 consist of 3 digits
"holy, holy, holy" is the Lord God Almighty (Isaiah 6:3 and Revelation 4:8)

There are probably more that I can't think of right now. I just looked up 777 and it's not even in the Bible, so I don't know where that came from but I heard it somehow represents God.

So what is the significance to the number 3?


texts: To whom should we pray? To the Father or the son Jesus or the Holy Spirit?

texts:
While praying how should we pray? Should we praise the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit and to whom should we ask? To the Father or the Son or the Holy Spirit?

  John 14:14 (ESV) says
  If you ask me anything in my name, I will do it.

Does that mean we should ask only to Jesus. Or is that not a matter if we ask any one of them, since they act together?

I afraid we should not bypass any one of them. Or, is just closing the prayer by saying "In the name of the Father, Son and the Holy Spirit I ask" fine?


texts: On what basis is Genesis 1 said to be Hebrew poetry?

texts:
I've heard several knowledgeable people state that Genesis 1 is using Hebrew poetic language, but I recently ran across some counter arguments against the view that Genesis 1 contains poetry in the original language.*

What basis do interpreters use to support their idea that Genesis 1 is using poetic language? I am Catholic and thus am interested in anything consistent with that Tradition.

*Those arguments included the idea that Hebrew poetry appears to repeat ideas twice in the same statement; however it then only then addressed other parts of Genesis, as if it were assumed that if Gen 1 is poetry, the whole book must be.


texts: I have found many articles and discussions online regarding the Canons of Dort but have yet to find who was actually instrumental in formulating this document. Can anyone tell me or link to some information about that?


texts: Was this teaching (of soul existing before a birth) condemned by the Church?

texts:
What's the official name (if any) of the teaching that the soul of a man exists even before he is conceived and that at the moment of conception his soul gets simply "connected" to his newly conceived body as opposed to the idea of the soul of a man being created at that very moment?

Is it true that this teaching was deemed by the Church (Catholic or Orthodox or by the Church before 1054) as a heresy and, thus, was condemned?

EDIT:
In case it is important, I am talking about the teaching that the soul of each human was at one point created by God - perhaps, all of the humans' souls were created at once - prior to his or her physical birth on this earth.


texts:
The new testament talks of not being yoked with unbelievers -

  2 Corinthians 6:14 "Do not be yoked together with unbelievers."

The old testament forbids intermarriage with other nations -

  Deuteronomy 7:3 "Do not intermarry with them. Do not give your
  daughters to their sons or take their daughters for your sons."

For modern day Christians, is there any reason where marrying a non Christian is a good idea?


texts: Where does Marsilio Ficino write that all nations refer to God with a four-letter name?

texts:
I have seen quoted in the name of Marsilio Ficino (1433-1499), also spelled Marcellus Ficin, that all nations of the world worship a God whose name is spelled with four letters. Does anybody know where this might occur in Ficino's writings and if there has been any discussion of Ficino's assertion?
The source where I saw this quoted was in The Concilliator by Rabbi Manasseh ben Israel of Amsterdam (1604-1657), see here on Google Books.


texts: Did Thomas Merton write "I see no contradiction between Buddhism and Christianity" ? If so, in which writing?

texts:
Did Thomas Merton write the following:

  "I see no contradiction between Buddhism and Christianity"

If so, in which writings?

I read this in many places such as this one but am unable to find the original writing of Merton in which it is mentioned.


texts:
I hope you will allow me to ask another question. We all know that there are many harsh statements in the Bible (Matthew 12:31-32, Hebrews 10).

Sometimes, these harsh statements are along the lines of "If such and such a condition is fulfilled, then there is no hope left for such and such a person to whom the condition applies" - i.e. the implication is that such and such a person is doomed to hell.

My question is: Sometimes, a given person does not even know if he or she has fulfilled one of those conditions. To my knowledge, people have tried to give explanations of these scenarios, but I do not know if there is a total, definitive, absolute, verdict, on what these conditions actually are that doom someone to hell without hope.

In life, we usually do not know things with absolute certainty, and a certain amount of belief in positive outcomes of uncertain events is usually needed to preclude a descent into total nihilism. Colloquially, one might say that as long as a person believes there is light at the end of the tunnel, he or she would be able to pick himself or herself up the next day and make an attempt to continue walking with God.

But if this person is faced with uncertainty over eternal salvation, can it trigger nihilism and despair?

Is there ever a situation (or can there be such a situation) where fear over damnation to hell due to the scenarios described led a person who need not have borne such fear, to descend to unnecessary nihilism and hence give up on Christianity with the attitude "well, since I am already condemned unconditionally, what is the point of seeking God any longer?"

(It is true that no one can really be sure of having been condemned unconditionally by the scenarios in Matthew 12 and Hebrews 10, but what if pessimism led the person to progress from the idea that he or she might have committed an unforgivable sin to a belief that he or she had committed it, with the resulting nihilism described above?)


texts: 1 John 5:3 — What are "his commandments?" and how are they "not heavy?" (Protestantism)

texts:
1 John 5:3 (DRB) For this is the charity of God, that we keep his commandments: and his commandments are not heavy.

Cf. Mt. 11:30.

Question

According to Protestantism, to what commandments does "his commandments" refer, and what does St. John mean by they "are not heavy?"


texts:
In the Old Testament, God asked Joshua to set aside six cities where those accused of manslaughter may flee to for protection  against their avenger!

7 And they appointed Kedesh in Galilee in mount Naphtali, and Shechem in mount Ephraim, and Kirjatharba, which is Hebron, in the mountain of Judah.

8 And on the other side Jordan by Jericho eastward, they assigned Bezer in the wilderness upon the plain out of the tribe of Reuben, and Ramoth in Gilead out of the tribe of Gad, and Golan in Bashan out of the tribe of Manasseh. (Joshua 20: 7-8).

Are there presently any Protestant Christian Churches that both actively and legally practice the "Law of Sanctuary" somewhere in our world? If so, what are the reasons for doing so?


texts: How many modern day pages were lost by Martin Harris?

texts:
The "lost 116 pages" were the original manuscript pages Joseph Smith translated. These pages were lost by Joseph Smith's scribe Martin Harris during the summer of 1828 and are presumed to have been destroyed.

These lost 116 pages were handwritten on the paper of the day.  If these pages were printed in the Book of Mormon as modern pages, how many pages would this be?

Zarahemla Research Foundation gives the following description of the pages.

  Description of the Original Manuscript. The paper used for the
  Original manuscript was called "foolscap." Foolscap originally
  referred to a watermark of a jester's cap on writing paper. This term
  came to apply to writing paper which generally measured 12" to 13-1/2"
  wide by 15" to 17" long, whether or not it carried a watermark. The
  surviving Original manuscript pages are of two sizes and three kinds
  of paper-one, a coarse mesh machined paper, the others of finer
  handmade texture.

I am not sure how to take this description and turn it into the number of modern Book of Mormon pages.

In other words, I would like to know what percentage of the Book of Mormon was lost.


texts: Is there any explanation from the early church Fathers as to why there is no record of the Apostles being baptized?

texts: I never really noticed this before but it does seem odd that everyone is to be baptized in the name of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit, yet it does not appear that the Apostles were. At least there is no event of their baptism recorded in scripture.  Is there any early explanation of why from church Fathers?


texts: If God doesn't tempt us, why does the Lord's Prayer petition Him to "lead us not into temptation"?

texts:
Matthew 6:9-13 Jesus instructs us:

“This, then, is how you should pray:
“‘Our Father in heaven,
hallowed be your name,
your kingdom come,
your will be done,
on earth as it is in heaven.
Give us today our daily bread.
And forgive us our debts,
as we also have forgiven our debtors.
And lead us not into temptation,
but deliver us from the evil one.’"

But James 1:13-14 says:

When tempted, no one should say, “God is tempting me.” For God cannot be tempted by evil, nor does he tempt anyone; but each person is tempted when they are dragged away by their own evil desire and enticed.

If God doesn't tempt us, why does the Lord's Prayer petition Him not to lead us into temptation?


texts: Which liturgical rites (forms of Mass) are presently used in the Roman Catholic Church?

texts:
A liturgical rite is a way to celebrate the Mass. At least for the purpose of this question I will assume this meaning of the term.

The standard way Mass is celebrated by Roman Catholics is in the Roman Rite. This normally refers to celebration of the Mass originally based on the Missale Romanum from 1970 as commissioned by Pope Paul VI (there have been recent modifications); this happens (always?) in the local language. The so-called extraordinary form of the Roman Rite is the Tridentine Mass, celebrated in Latin, nowadays according to the Missale Romanum of 1962.

Aside from these two liturgical rites (which some will say are technically just two forms of a single rite), I have seen mention of others, such as the Ambrosian Rite, Anglican Use, and Zaire Use. Which forms of Mass (rites) are presently used within the Roman Catholic Church? How can one characterize them, and where are they used?


texts: Why was Ham cursed for seeing his father naked?

texts:
In Genesis 9:22-25, Ham's son Canaan was cursed because Ham saw his father (Noah) naked. The punishment seems excessive indicating there is more to the passage than meets the eye.
What did Ham do to cause Noah to curse his son, Canaan?


texts: What is a Pacifist interpretation of the Cleansing of the Temple?

texts:
13 When it was almost time for the Jewish Passover, Jesus went up to Jerusalem. 14 In the temple courts he found people selling cattle, sheep and doves, and others sitting at tables exchanging money. 15 So he made a whip out of cords, and drove all from the temple courts, both sheep and cattle; he scattered the coins of the money changers and overturned their tables. 16 To those who sold doves he said, “Get these out of here! Stop turning my Father’s house into a market!” 17 His disciples remembered that it is written: “Zeal for your house will consume me.” - John 2:13-17 NIV

This passage can easily be read to be a "violent" reaction from Jesus.  Leaving aside Niebuhr and pontifical statements against Christian Pacifism, how do Christian Pacifists interpret and apply this passage of scripture?


texts: How would Biblical Unitarians answer the questions of Proverbs 30?

texts:
Proverbs 30:2-4 says:

Surely I am too stupid to be a man. I have not the understanding of a man. I have not learned wisdom, nor have I knowledge of the Holy One. Who has ascended to heaven and come down? Who has gathered the wind in his fists? Who has wrapped up the waters in a garment? Who has established all the ends of the earth? What is his name, and what is his son's name? Surely you know!

There is a related question here:  https://hermeneutics.stackexchange.com/questions/38937/who-is-he-and-what-is-the-name-of-his-son-proverbs-304  and, though the question seeks to ascertain the name and existence of the son from OT sources alone, many of the answers indicate that the trinitarian view incorporating the NT renders Jesus as either the one who fulfills the first 5 questions or as the son.  A few answers and comments seem to hold that the questions are entirely rhetorical and the point is to not answer them.
How do Biblical Unitarians answer the six questions posed in these verses?

Who has ascended to heaven and come down?
Who has gathered the wind in his fists?
Who has wrapped up the waters in a garment?
Who has established all the ends of the earth?
What is his name?
What is his son's name?


texts: Explain similarities and differences in "sinless from the womb " for James, John the Baptist and Mary

texts:
My perusal of this site has enlightened me to these three cases where a person is spoken of as being sinless from the womb.

According Catholic Church were all three born sinless?

1) Mary according to the Church cleansed of all stain of sin from conception.

2) John the Baptist cleansed during the visit from Mary while he was in the womb.

3) Recently I read here Origin of the story that James had knees as hard as a camel's, because of praying
in a great answer that according to Eusibius quoting Hegesippus  that James brother of Jesus was sinless from his mothers womb.

As that was a new one on me I am asking if the Catholic Church states that all three were in fact born sinless and what similarities and differences are there among these.


texts: Is this a mistake in The Book of Mormon?

texts:
From Alma 24:19:

  ... and thus we see that they buried their weapons of peace, or they
  buried the weapons of war, for peace.

Apparently the author meant "weapons of war" but wrote "weapons of peace" instead.

If the author made this mistake, why not simply overwrite it instead of using this phraseology? Or if a translator/scribe made this mistake, still: why not overwrite it to correct it? After all, the Book of Mormon is written; it's not like it's a transcript of a speech with words that can't be taken back.

For bonus points: does similar phraseology appear in the Bible?


texts: The Power of Satan over Believers and Unbelievers

texts:
In tormenting Job, Satan had to ask God for permission concerning what he could do (economic damage, family, health).

Before sifting Peter, Satan had to ask Jesus for permission.

Question:

For believers, is there some time mark after which Satan needs to ask for permission (i.e. ask for permission after conversion, but not before?)
Does the Bible indicate anywhere whether Satan needs to ask God for permission before dealing with Unbelievers? [I suspect the answer might be yes, given that permission was requested even for entering animals (i.e. the pigs going off the cliff)].


texts:
In John 19 verses 33-36, it is written that

  The Jews therefore, because it was the preparation, that the bodies should not remain upon the cross on the sabbath day, (for that sabbath day was an high day,) besought Pilate that their legs might be broken, and that they might be taken away. Then came the soldiers, and brake the legs of the first, and of the other which was crucified with him. But when they came to Jesus, and saw that he was dead already, they brake not his legs: But one of the soldiers with a spear pierced his side, and forthwith came there out blood and water. And he that saw it bare record, and his record is true: and he knoweth that he saith true, that ye might believe. For these things were done, that the scripture should be fulfilled, A bone of him shall not be broken

Modern medical experts explain the "blood and water" to actually be separated hemoglobin and plasma, the two major constituents of whole blood, which separate after death.

Then Luke, a physician himself, wrote in his gospel account, chapter 22, verse 44:

  And being in an agony he prayed more earnestly: and his sweat became as great drops of blood falling down to the ground.

Key words:  "egeneto ho hidros ... haimotos" - "became the sweat ... blood" in the Interlinear.

So the question is in the title:  Could Jesus have sweated actual blood in the garden of Gethsemane?


texts: Would men have ever sinned if Satan did not tempt Eve in the garden in the first place?

texts:
I talked with one of our fellowship members who had not been attending services recently. I then asked him how his spiritual life is. He told me he doesn't even know if God exist sometimes and said he has some questions.

One of his questions was that "Why didn't God destroy Satan before he could ever tempt Eve? If God destroyed evil (Satan), we wouldn't be evil right now. Why would God not destroy Satan at the cost of many innocent lives?"

He holds the view that:
1) Evil in men would not have existed if Satan had not tempted Eve.

2) Satan could not have tempted Eve if God had destroyed Satan before.

3) Would-be-innocent lives have been lost.
If God would have killed Satan, Eve would not have been tempted, hence we would not be evil and we would be innocent.

MY VIEWS

https://youtu.be/s8Mv1pcyGlo

From this video, I have understood that the essence of every sin from the beginning is when we desire something more than God.

Also, I know God is not destroying Satan yet for His own Glory.

But I think we have to deal with this question.

*Would Adam and Eve have eaten the apple if Satan wasn't there to tempt them?

*Would sin be in men if Satan was not in the picture?

*Would man be capable of coming up with sinful thoughts without Satan?

(I am a Baptist I guess.Bit of charismatic. I never really identified to any denomination. I am not a Mormon or Catholic.)


texts: According to Pentecostals, when were names added to the Book of Life?

texts:
According to Pentecostals, are names added to the Book of Life anywhere in the Bible (after Creation)?

I see only examples of names remaining in or being wiped out. I don’t see names being added.

  “The one who conquers will be clothed thus in white garments, and I will never blot his name out of the book of life. I will confess his name before my Father and before his angels.”
  Revelation 3:5 ESV

In order to never be blotted out it’s implied you were already written in. When was it written in?

What is the Pentecostal Charismatic view?


texts: Will family members get to visit each other if separated into different kingdoms in heaven?

texts:
I have been told by my LDS bishop not to fear losing family members forever. I know that the family is very important to Heavenly Father and his Son, but how important is it really?

Will we get to visit our families in heaven if we are separated into different kingdoms,  such as the Celestial, Terrestrial, and Telestial kingdoms? Will only people from the Celestial get to visit others, or could family members in the Telestial visit someone in the Celestial?

I have always had the fear of losing family because we won't be able to visit each other in heaven. I have also had the fear that I might be the person to be in one of the lower kingdoms.

I would like an answer based on LDS traditions and beliefs.

I would also like to consider this question as to how could I answer it based on LDS beliefs if someone else asked me about it.


texts: Why wasn't the Logos included in the Nicene Creed?

texts:
When the First Ecumenical Council was summoned by Emperor Constantine I at Nicea, in 325 CE, Eusebius of Caesarea came with his local Creed, convinced that it would be accepted, or anyway used as a basis for general Creed of the Catholic Church. Here it is:

“We believe in One God, the Father Almighty, the Maker of all things
visible and invisible. And in One Lord Jesus Christ, the Word of
God [ho logos tou theou], God from God, Light from Light, Life
from Life, Son Only-begotten, first-born of every creature, before all
the ages, begotten from the Father, by Whom also all things were made;
Who for our salvation was made flesh, and lived among men, and
suffered, and rose again the third day, and ascended to the Father,
and will come again in glory to judge the quick and dead. And we
believe also in One Holy Ghost” (Eusebius of Caesarea, Letter on the
Council of Nicaea, @ Catholic Encyclopedia – emphasis added)

If that phrase had been included in the Nicene Creed (without any pre-existent personal overtone, but simply stating that ho logos tou theou, in accordance with John 1:14, "became flesh", sarx egeneto – the logos being an essential attribute of the One and Only God - it would have clarified the Catholic doctrine on this essential point without resorting to the unbiblical "consubstantial" (homoousios)
Then why wasn’t the Logos included in the Nicene Creed?


texts: Which is the distribution of daily hours for Western (e.g. Benedictine) monks?

texts:
I've been searching for some reference to the "usual" distribution of hours in terms of sleep, prayer, reading, working, etc for Western monasteries but cannot find a good reference online. I've computed a distribution based on this website but it's very sketchy. I know things vary by rule (Benedictine vs others), by date (Second Vatican Council shortened the Divine Office), local customs, etc. But any rough measure would be of help. My attempt so far for a normal day (no Sunday, no Feast, ...):

Work: 5 hrs
Reading: 2 hrs
Prayer (Mass + Divine Office): 6 hrs
Rest: 8hrs
Communal time (eating, meetings, etc): 3 hrs

Is anyone aware of a more "official breakdown" of this? Or perhaps can compute a better distribution?
PD: it's also true that in medieval times an hour wasn't fixed in 60 minutes but varied by the time of the year, a practice inherited from roman times.


texts: What are the major views on Adam's motivation to sin given that he was not deceived?

texts:
I'm interested in finding out what the major views are on Adam's motivation to sin if he was not deceived?

The biblical understanding of Abraham being willing to sacrifice his son was that he believed God would make it right (Hebrews 11:19).
Jesus loved us so much that, even though He knew we would fall into sin, He created everything anyway: Because He knew and wanted to redeem us even with that happening.
Jesus is the "last Adam" (1 Cor 15:45). Is Adam a 'type' of Christ? Is Adam a 'first Christ' (not really a 'Christ' / Saviour, but a foreshadow, or symbol or similar) ?

So, given the above, if Adam was not deceived (1 Tim 2:14), if he was really not deceived, then why eat the fruit?


texts: What are all the different species of intelligent beings that God has created?

texts:
According to scripture, what intelligent life has God created in addition to humans, angels, and demons? One example I can think of are the 4 living creatures talked about in Revelation. Then there's Cherubim, Seraphim, etc... Is there anything else?

  Revelation 4:6-8 ESV And around the throne, on each side of the throne, are four living creatures, full of eyes in front and behind: the first living creature like a lion, the second living creature like an ox, the third living creature with the face of a man, and the fourth living creature like an eagle in flight. And the four living creatures, each of them with six wings, are full of eyes all around and within, and day and night they never cease to say, “Holy, holy, holy, is the Lord God Almighty, who was and is and is to come!”

I'd love an answer that contained the creature, where they're mentioned in scripture, and what we know about them or what they do. I'm fine with considering the prophetic visions of creatures because we don't know if those are to be taken literally or not.

Edit: I expanded the wording of the question just a little bit.


texts: In what manner did Christian baptism differ from ritual washing as part of Jewish Teshuva (repentance.)

texts:
When one believes in Christ as Lord and King, and undergoes a water baptism,  in what document is the method described? What immediate effect did this baptism have? How does this baptism compare to the method that the Judeans underwent as part of teshuva, and what was the immediate benefit to the person of this ritual?

I wondered this because IFAIK from the text, only five disciples were  baptized by John the Baptist in the Jordan, and none was baptized by Jesus.


texts: Sex outside of marriage is a sin. But what about "less than sex"?

texts:
Inspired by Is masturbation a sin?

This is a tough subject that I've grappled with my whole life.  It's clear in God's word that sex outside of marriage (adultery) is a sin.

But, what is acceptable if sex isn't?

More clearly, I expect that kissing isn't a sin.  But how far beyond kissing is allowed?  How far is "too far"?