texts: What were the reformers' views of biblical inerrancy?

texts:
I have never researched but am very curious what views of Biblical Inerrancy did the reformers generally hold, such as Luther and Calvin?

I found these description about different kinds of views:

Detailed Inerrantists

claim that a commitment to Scripture's inspiration demands that the original copies of the Bible be considered without error, factual or otherwise.

Irenic Inerrantists

agree that the Bible is without error, but believe Scripture itself must determine according to its intent the scope of that inerrancy.

Complete Infallibilists

reject "inerrancy" as a helpful term for describing the total trustworthiness of the Biblical writers' witness, substituting the word "infallible" in its place.

Partial Infallibilists

believe that the authors' intended message is in error at points, but their witness to the gospel is trustworthy and authoritative.

I wonder where among these the Reformers stood, or under a different class altogether? I suspect somewhere between ① and ② but am not sure?  If someone can provide references direct from the reformers writings it would be highly valuable to a good answer. The more detail the better, feel free to post a long answer If you have one. I will read it.


texts: Can an Orthodox Christian of one diocese receive sacraments at a coterminous one, e.g. a Greek Orthodox at an OCA parish?

texts:
I'm presently a confirmed Catholic but am considering conversion to the Orthodoxy. Something I understand of it is that there is no single diocese in America, but multiple overlapping ones for historical ethnic reasons. In my city, there are several OCA parishes, a few Russian Orthodox, a Serbian Orthodox, and the largest is the single Greek Orthodox.

Something I have become used to as a Catholic is that I can attend Mass at any Catholic church and make confession at any Catholic church; this allows me to be a regular parishioner at a small parish but avoid confessing to a priest with whom I have a rapport by going to the cathedral which has a random priest in the confessional daily.

Within the Catholic Church, I've learned, it is allowed for a Roman to receive Eastern Catholic sacraments despite the distinct jurisdictions, but I feel as though this is partly because they're all under the same hierarchy.

Would it be permissible, then, for an OCA parishioner to make confession at the Greek church, or a Serbian to confess at a Russian church, without having to change his affiliation to that diocese?


texts: What does "therefore be as shrewd as snakes and as innocent as doves" mean?

texts:
In Matthew 10:16 we read:

  I am sending you out like sheep among wolves.  Therefore be as shrewd as snakes and as innocent as doves. (NIV)

What does "be as shrewd as snakes and as innocent as doves" mean?


texts: How is Lent observance reconciled with Matthew 6:16-18?

texts:
Jesus says in Matthew 6:

  16 “When you fast, do not look somber as the hypocrites do, for they disfigure their faces to show others they are fasting. Truly I tell you, they have received their reward in full. 17 But when you fast, put oil on your head and wash your face, 18 so that it will not be obvious to others that you are fasting, but only to your Father, who is unseen; and your Father, who sees what is done in secret, will reward you.

In my experience, Lent observance is a very public exercise. Maybe this is just personal experience, but for everyone I know who observes Lent, they are always very forthright, not only about their observance, but about what thing they are giving up for Lent. It seems to me that, based on Jesus instruction in Matthew 6, Lent ought be a very private practice.

Does Roman Catholicism (or anyone else observing Lent) reconcile the public nature of Lent observance with these verses?


texts: Apostolic Succession in the Catholic church

texts:
Wikipedia says:

  In the Catholic Church, the Pope is regarded as the successor of Saint
  Peter, the Apostle.
  cf. Pope | Wikipedia

As someone who isn't Catholic I don't want to argue how true this is or how significant this is.

What I'm interested to know is there an office/title/person in the Catholic church for any of the other 11 Apostles (12 if you include Paul), or is it just Saint Peter because he was the leader of the apostles?


texts: Why is the Lord's Passion read on Palm Sunday (in the Roman Catholic tradition)?

texts:
At Palm Sunday, there are two gospel readings:

Palm Sunday of the Lord’s Passion

The gospel which describes the Procession with Palms
The gospel which described the Lord's passion

Why is the Lord's Passion read on Palm Sunday? Shouldn't the Palm Sunday be a time for joy and rejoicing and the reading of the Passion reserved for the Paschal Triduum?

My question concerns the Roman Catholic tradition.


texts: Demon Possession of Jesus' Time - Today's Diagnosable Mental Disorders?

texts:
Quite a few of the things Jesus and his disciples had to address they had diagnosed as "demons". Today we call things of similar symptoms "disorders".

Epilepsy: Matthew 17:14-16

Multiple Personality Disorder: Mark 5:1-20

For lack of time I cannot give an exhaustive list, yet its easy to find quite a few. Yet I see that "pharmaceuticals" and other drugs tend to be the fallback and treatment.

What connection, if any, exists between the ancient diagnosis and modern ones? Is there any distinctive difference between them?


texts: Why did God want a Tabernacle built by Moses?

texts:
Is there a biblical basis why God wanted a Tabernacle to live among Israel (Exodus 25:8)?

  And let them make me a sanctuary, that I may dwell in their midst.  Exodus 25:8 ESV

What is the significance of the Tabernacle built by Moses?


texts: what differentiates virtuous faith from the faith of extremists

texts:
We all know the biblical passages praising faith, and we have also seen many cases where faith was abused by conmen (or went wrong on its own). What differentiates Christian faith (which seems to imply a belief in things not seen and with no direct witnesses) from the faith of various cults, or of suicidal / murderous individuals who were genuinely persuaded that by killing others they are doing (the same as ours) God's work(think suicide bombers, but also Charles Manson's followers)?

If it's all in the gift that God lovingly gives Christians and withdraws from other groups, then why should society hold suicide bombers accountable for not being the recipients of that gift (and separately why should they not receive the same ticket to heaven as "our" faithful)?

If it's about "crossing the line" and harming others, remember that Abraham fully intended to murder his son, and Moses actually ordered the Levites to murder 3000 israelites for the furtherance of his political power (well, God's power as it is claimed). Who is to say that people who kill abortion doctors haven't received personal instruction from God, or that a mass murdering dictator isn't doing God's work?

There is a very well reasoned, but unfortunately too many-headed question about the meaning of faith which of course received answers that didn't address the full range of topics raised.


texts: Earliest case of pointing to heaven as consolation and hope to loved ones

texts:
I know of a few early church writings that can be understood as saying we go to heaven when we die. But that is not what I'm asking. Rather, I'm looking for the first known case (post NT) where, in the context of consoling those left behind, we are told the deceased is in heaven.

For example, when Paul was reassuring the Thessalonians about those that died before Jesus returned in 1 Thess. 4:13-18 he points them to Christ's second coming and the resurrection.

Said a different way, when did the emphasis on the deceased being in heaven now, rather than their future resurrection, become the message given to those that remain with the intention to give them hope and peace? When do we first see the initial response to grief being "he's at peace in heaven now" rather than "he will be raised again"?

I am representing this as a shift, or change of emphasis, simply due to my research showing the resurrection to be the common response at the time of the NT: 1 Thess 4, 1 Cor. 15, John 11. Regardless how you read those passages, the question remains, when was the emphasis explicitly first placed on heaven.
Again, it must be in this context. Not just speaking generally on what happens after death, or even the author speaking of his own death, but when the author is consoling others.


texts: Is it possible to be both a humanist and a Christian?

texts:
The following definition of a humanist was given by Andrew Copson

As a humanist I try:
• To be rational, looking to science in an attempt to understand the universe
• To be ethical, acting in a way that puts human welfare at the centre of morality
• To recognise the dignity of every individual and treat them with respect
• To find meaning and fulfilment in this one life and help others to do the same

As a Christian, I'm not sure that I would disagree with any of those statements, and I suspect are all fully compatible with all Chalcedonian Christian doctrines and practice.
Even the last point, which is probably the most controversial, is, to my mind, fully biblical.  When Jesus says, "I come that you might have life, and have it more abundantly," it seems really, really close to this.  (Admittedly, the implication of "this one life" is, I am guessing the rejection of an afterlife, but that is something I could be reading into it.)
In fact, my initial reaction is to argue that standard Christian practice should embrace all four of these points. Of course, in fronting that, I want proof.
The question is this - Would a Christian own all four of these points, and if so, why. If not, why not?


texts: According to Catholic beliefs, why did God appear to Elijah as a whisper?

texts:
In the Bible it says:

"As the Lord approached, a very powerful wind tore the mountains apart. It broke up the rocks. But the Lord wasn’t in the wind. After the wind, there was an earthquake. But the Lord wasn’t in the earthquake. 12 After the earthquake, a fire came. But the Lord wasn’t in the fire. And after the fire, there was only a gentle whisper. 13 When Elijah heard it, he pulled his coat over his face. He went out and stood at the entrance to the cave.

Then a voice said to him, “Elijah, what are you doing here?”

So why did God appear in the whisper to Elijah? What would be the theological interpretation?


texts: The Catholic Church professes a belief in the existence of limbo. Although the doctrine on this subject has not yet been defined, does the Catholic Church believe that it is eternal?


texts: In Catholicism, why can deacons not celebrate all sacraments, but only Baptism (and Matrimony)?

texts:
According to this post by an expert in Canon Law, deacons can only celebrate the sacrament of Baptism and Matrimony.

Similarly, Wikipedia states (apparently wrongly) that deacons can only celebrate baptism:

  Deacons, like priests and bishops, are ordinary ministers of the sacrament of Baptism and can serve as the church's witness at the sacrament of Holy Matrimony, which the bride and groom administer to each other (though if the exchange of vows takes place in a wedding Mass, or Nuptial Mass, the Mass is celebrated by the priest and the deacon acts as another witness). Deacons may preside at funeral rites not involving a Mass (e.g., the final commendation at the gravesite or the reception of the body at a service in the funeral home), and may assist the priest at the Requiem Mass. They can preside over various services such as Benediction of the Blessed Sacrament, and they may give certain blessings. They cannot hear confession and give absolution, anoint the sick, or celebrate Mass.

I went to the respective entries in the Canon Law (e.g. Mass celebration here), but they do not state why the restriction (as expected, since it is only law).

I wonder which is the origin of these restrictions, i.e why the deacon cannot celebrate some sacraments. Is this part of the Tradition? I am particularly interested in the celebration of Mass. In fact, since deacons can be married, allowing deacons to celebrate Mass is a proxy for "married priests". This could perhaps be one of the reasons against it?


texts: Was Pilate also the father of the son who was healed by Jesus in John 4?

texts: I am new to Christianity, but I have read the Gospel of John and have watched a movie about Jesus. Was the Pilate in John 18:28 the same man whose son Jesus healed in John 4:46?


texts: In Marian Consecration, does invincible ignorance apply to grace as well as sin?

texts:
So, I consecrated myself to Mary about 12 years ago following St. Maximilian Kolbe's formula.   What I didn't realize until yesterday night, reading "33 Days to Morning Glory" in preparation of my re-consecration along with my wife's, was that whatever I said to the effect of "I'll offer up my terrible headaches for the suffering in Sudan" was supposed to be spiritually derailed by Our Lady's intercessory powers.

Now, I'm speaking purely of spiritual realities and whatever St. Louis de Montfort's idea of Marian Consecration; and in that, did I unknowingly give away my spiritual ability of "deferring graces" (I'm not sure if that's a thing, but whatever people talk about when they say "offer it up" is what I mean) or did I retain the ability?

Also, was my consecration in some way inauthentic through not fully being aware of what I was doing?


texts:
Was the Assumption of Mary a belief in the early church? If so, where's the evidence?

The Assumption of the Blessed Virgin Mary into Heaven at the end of her earthly life is a defined dogma of the Catholic Church. On November 1, 1950, Pope Pius XII, exercising papal infallibility, declared in Munificentissimus Deus that it is a dogma of the Church "that the Immaculate Mother of God, the ever Virgin Mary, having completed the course of her earthly life, was assumed body and soul into heavenly glory." As a dogma, the Assumption is a required belief of all Catholics; anyone who publicly dissents from the dogma, Pope Pius declared, "has fallen away completely from the divine and Catholic Faith."

The question is asked because the Bible is silent about this matter.


texts: What is the Biblical basis for the belief that God cannot be manipulated?

texts:
What the Biblical basis for the belief that God cannot be manipulated?

My attempts so far:

Job 42, 2
Psalm 115, 3

I am looking for something that indicates that God cannot be manipulated more explicitly, e.g. by no magic practices.


texts: Why is Origen considered a Church Father, but not a saint?

texts: I've heard and read in "Worlds Made by Words: Scholarship and Community in the Modern West" (book by Anthony Grafton, page 222) that Origen was considered a Church Father but not a Saint by either the Roman Catholic or Eastern Orthodox Church?  Why is this so?


texts: How close is the English word "father" compared to the original word used by Jesus in the Lord's Prayer?

texts:
Jesus is said to have used the Aramaic word ABBA in the Lord's Prayer. The word was perhaps used by children to address their father and was similar to what toady's children address their father as Daddy. In a few languages besides English, I have seen that the word used is the one which has more formal and literary usage than the word Daddy which in many ways expresses the bond between the children and their earthly father.

I would like to know what exactly the word used to address the Heavenly Father in the Lord's Prayer in ancient English was. Are there any authentic studies available from the side of Catholic Church on the passage, from ancient times to the modern,  of the Lord's Prayer with specific reference to the way of addressing it uses ?


texts: According to trinitarians, especially Protestants, who is Wisdom in Proverbs?

texts:
In general, Wisdom can be (and is, and was) identified as Jesus. However, there is this verse:

  Proverbs 8:22 (NLT)
  22 "The Lord formed me from the beginning,
             before he created anything else."

Hold on a moment...I thought God the Son wasn't created, having coexisted with God the Father since before time? How is the identity of Wisdom established as being that of the Son and how is Proverbs 8:22 handled? If it makes a difference, I grew up Wesleyan, so I'd prefer Protestant doctrines although Catholic or Orthodox doctrines would be interesting too.


texts: Has there been any explanation given on the murder of Joan of Arc?

texts: Joan of Arc was burned as a heretic. Now she is a saint. How does the Roman Catholic Church explain this? It turned out that the Roman Catholic Church has murdered its own saint? Has any logical explanation ever been offered for this?


texts: Why is the feast of the Visitation not transferred when impeded by Corpus Christi?

texts:
When a feast falls on a Sunday, it is transferred to the Monday.

This year, the feast of the Visitation (31 May) was impeded by the solemnity of Corpus Christi (in most places). However, today, 1 June, is kept as the memoria of Justin Martyr, and the feast of the Visitation is omitted.

Why is the Visitation not transferred to 1 June when impeded by Corpus Christi?

(I am, obviously, talking about the ordinary form Catholic calendar.)


texts: Why do most Bible translations bowdlerize the Tetragrammaton?

texts:
The Hebrew text of the Bible contains the Tetragrammaton many many times. This is used as a name, not as a title. And yet, the vast majority of Bible translations render this as LORD, not as a name. Prominent exceptions are the Jerusalem Bible, which uses Yahweh, and the New World Translation, which uses Jehovah, the traditional rendering in English. There are very few translations which transliterate or otherwise retain the Tetragrammaton in their text.

I believe that the intent of most translators is to imitate Jewish practice of not pronouncing the Divine Name; however, Jews do write the name in their holy texts. Similarly, Catholic practise is not to pronounce the Name, but the Catholic Jerusalem Bible still contains it in written form. Why do most translations omit it?


texts: If you promise or swear to do something evil or sinful, do you have an obligation to fulfill that promise? I know this is probably a silly question, but it's been bothering me. My main biblical source on this that I could find is Leviticus 5:4–5: "Or if a soul swear, pronouncing with his lips to do evil, or to do good, whatsoever it be that a man shall pronounce with an oath, and it be hid from him; when he knoweth of it, then he shall be guilty in one of these. 5 And it shall be, when he shall be guilty in one of these things, that he shall confess that he hath sinned in that thing:". I think it's implied that you shouldn't fulfill an evil promise either, but I"m not sure. I'd really like some help understanding the verse and with addressing this question.


texts: What are the different views on the nature of 'hellfire'?

texts:
Fire as understood by physical humans consumes and destroys the fuel that it ignites and then goes out. The  unredeemed soul is what many religions teach will be tormented eternally in fire of hell. Given the concept of fire in physical world it seems that the fire that does not consume must be taken as not literal by our physical ability to comprehend but must mean something else and the scary pictures of Dantes inferno are artist conceptions based on physical understanding.

I would like an overview of various hellfire beliefs as to what kind of fire torments the spirits that are said to be tormented in hell.


texts: What is the Biblical basis for multiple judgments after death?

texts:
I recently heard a talk on the notion of "multiple judgments"; the idea is one is initially judged simply on the fact of their salvation - did that person put their life in Christ's hands and accept Him as savior. If yes, that person is accepted into Heaven. If no, that person is cast off.

Then, I heard of more judgments after this - essentially, being judged on what one "accomplished" based on what they had available. This seems to contradict the idea in Ephesians 2:8 of faith saving someone, not works:

  For by grace you have been saved through faith. And this is not your own doing; it is the gift of God

There may have been more judgments that I heard, but I was so perplexed by this and didn't recall anything else.

My question is: Besides the initial judgement of salvation, what is the Biblical basis for multiple judgments, and are those judgments based on "merit" or "good works"?


texts:
What happened to Joseph, the father of Jesus, given that the last time he was mentioned in the story of Jesus was "Jesus' finding in the temple" (Luke 2:41-52) after which he is never mentioned again right up to the death of Jesus Christ?

So I want to ask, was he dead before then, or did the Bible just exclude him from the whole story, because I've not found any verse in the Bible that talks about his death or anything after Jesus' finding in the temple?


texts: Are there or have there been any Christian traditions that follow Kosher food laws?

texts:
Kosher food laws are part of Judaism, from which Christianity grew.

But what Christian denominations or traditions follow, or historically have observed Kosher food laws?


texts: Just over a decade ago there was much hype in the media about the Toronto Blessing, a phenomenon that began at Toronto Airport Church and subsequently spread from there. What is it? Is it still happening?


texts: How does the Bible differentiate between sickness and sin?

texts:
Jay Adams is probably the most pre-eminent Christian counselor who is still living. His nouthetic style of counseling, as explored in books such as Competent to Counsel, The Christian Counselor's Handbook and others makes him very well known and respected in the Christian Counseling community.

In his book Solving Marriage Problems, he makes an interesting claim:

  Calling drunkenness a "disease" or a "sickness" rather than a "sin" may seem to thema gracious act, but it is just the opposite. You cannot be more gracious than God. To call drunkenness a "sickness" is to take away hope; there is no pull that will cure such a "disease". But if, as the Bible says, drunkenness is a sin, then there is real hope, because Christ Jesus came not only to free us from the penalty but also from the power of sin. (Solving Marriage Problems, p14)

This strikes me as contrary to worldly ways of thinking to say the least - namely there seems to be an implicit assumption of mine that is challenged here.

I've long held alcoholism - or at least the genetic predisposition towards it - to be a disease. As a disease of the body, I see this as somehow "less than sin" because, in fact, it is a biological process put in place by God. In the same way that just about every Christian more mature than Fred Phelps doesn't view "blackness" as a sin, I've always assumed that any biological function is simply a fact, and not a "sin."

Interestingly, Adams seems to then fight his own hypothesis, though, saying:

  When, however, there may be an organic reason for any problem, the counselor should always advise the counselee to have a thorough medical evaluation. ... Because organic problems, which result from Adam's sin and the subsequent curse, are not themselves sin, Christian counselors must become thoroughly acquainted with their symptoms and advise counselees accordingly.

But therein lies the rub - Adams has made and I have made an assumption that a thing cannot be both a disease and a sin.  It is definitely my gut feeling, but I don't know how I could biblically prove that point.

So, here's the question - What biblical texts or traditions would bear on the proposition that "Diseases and sins are separate things."  In other words, how could I make either the claim that "If something is a disease, it is not at the same moral level as sin" or "Just because something is a disease, doesn't mean it's a sin."


texts:
In spirit of Easter coming up: Where did Jesus go after he arose from the grave?

He was spotted walking, then.....?

If he went to Heaven after rising, how long did he stay on earth and why not stay to help us out? Does the Bible address this?

John 2:22

  After he was raised from the dead, his disciples recalled what he had
  said. Then they believed the Scripture and the words that Jesus had
  spoken.


texts: What is the biblical basis for group prayer?

texts:
Mathew 6:6 "But when you pray, go into your room and shut the door and
  pray to your Father who is in secret. And your Father who sees in
  secret will reward you."

I've been curious about this recently, how much prayer is done in public and in groups and how this verse can seem conflicting to that. I know there is some prayer done by churches, the apostles, and giving thanks for meals. But I couldn't find much evidence to say about how that group prayer was done, how private it was, and how much of it was aloud. For example, the following verse is a group is good but that doesn't mean they were even praying out loud?

  Acts 1:14"All these with one accord were devoting themselves to
  prayer, together with the women and Mary the mother of Jesus, and his
  brothers."


texts: The Catholic Church is renowned for its solid stance on codemning the use of artificial contraception.  However, outside of Catholicism, What is the biblical argument that contraception in marriage is acceptable?


texts:
I have to admit this one's personal for me.  A friend of mine from years back has become a member of a Church that self-identifies as "The Crossing".

I've been able to find some information on the Church via multiple Google result hits, but everything I'm finding is solely from an individual, specific, local Church.  (Example)

I'm very interested in knowing the history of this Church.  Is it considered a denomination?  Is each Church independent? Is the doctrine sound (or at least in-line with standard protestant evangelical theology)?  From what I've been able to dig up it looks like a Church similar to  Evangelical Free Churches - doctrine based on salvation by faith alone, but with a strong focus on doing good works, community involvement, and the expression of Christian love.  It also looks to be quite liberal in the teachings, and likely the music, and the focus on "being a good person".

Does anyone know of the background - the origins and underlying teachings, and is this considered a "denomination" in the same way "Assembly of God" Churches are?  Or is this more of a free-thinking, liberal movement that is loosely organized?


texts: Is there a name for the belief that God is not omniscient, but rather is "learning" how to deal with humanity?

texts:
A Lutheran pastor told me that she believes God is not omniscient (and that this was a Greek concept later applied to God), but rather that God is in a process of "learning" how to deal with humanity. She elaborated her belief by explaining the following:

The way that God has dealt with humanity has changed over time. First a flood, then Mosaic Law, then Christ's sacrifice. She also sees a growing Christian acceptance of things that were historically classified as a sin (notably homosexuality) as a continued sign of God learning.
God has changed his mind, which suggests that he received new information and thus does not know all (e.g. Exodus 32:14 NRSV "And the Lord changed his mind about the disaster that he planned to bring on his people.")
If humans were created in God's image, the fact that original sin entered through them suggests that God did not know that this would be a consequence (otherwise, he might have chosen either to not create them or to change the circumstances so that they would not have sinned).

She did however seem to think that God had some unchanging qualities, such as that he was benevolent. I suppose that an alternative way to interpret her view is that if these qualities are changeable, then God has not changed them and is not inclined to change them.

Answers as to the validity or orthodoxy of this doctrine are probably best served in other questions. For now, I'd like to know if there is a name for this view.


texts: What do Quakers believe about war and serving in the military?

texts:
It seems that I once heard that Quakers are pacifists, but I'm not sure if that's just a rumor or not.

What is the Quaker doctrine regarding war and killing people as a soldier in the military?  If they think it is wrong, what is the biblical basis for this belief?

Also, do their beliefs extend to being a soldier in the military under any capacity (such as a chaplain, for example)?


texts: Meaning behind skull at the base of a cross?

texts:
I recently visited the Museum of Russian Icons on vacation and while there I came across many icons that portrayed the crucifix with a skull at the base of cross (example).

What is the significance behind the skull at the base of a crucifix?


texts: Is there any biblical reference to a third temple being built?

texts: In referrence to to end times; does the Bible say anywhere that a third temple will be built?


texts: Is it valid to baptize multiple persons at once?

texts:
To take an extreme example, if a person is on a plane that's about to crash, and she wishes to perform a baptism that is valid according to the Catholic Church (and therefore valid according to the many other churches that have the same practices of baptism), should she open the nearest water bottle and:

Say "I baptize you all in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit" while splashing the water towards the heads of the intended recipients of baptism, thus baptizing at least those who had not already been baptized? Or should she:
Say "I baptize you in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit" while pouring the water onto the head of the nearest person, and then proceed to the next person, and so on until death,

because the first option would not be a valid baptism? (Assume that this person is a child that cannot hope to land the plane, that she believes in the same God as Catholics, that she intends to bring the recipients of baptism into the fullness of Christ's Church, that air pressure is lost leaving no more-competent passenger conscious, and that the would-be recipients are a large number of lapsed family members, some of which have been putting baptism off for so long that there is reason to believe that their desire for baptism is at least questionable...)

Put a bit more plainly:

If a Catholic wishes to administer a valid baptism to many people in danger of death, must she baptize each person separately, or can she baptize all of them in one act, and what would be the correct form for doing so?


texts: Where did the idea of the Trinity come from?

texts:
As noted here about 1 John:

  The passage is called the Johannine Comma and is not found in the
  majority of Greek manuscripts.

Which implies that this has been recently added to scripture.  It is also discussed here on hermeneutics.SE.  It also happens to be the only place in the Bible which directly addresses the Trinity as one.  With that in mind, where did the idea of the Trinity come from and where else is it supported?

This is the only place in the bible where it mentions that the three are one:

1 John 5:7-8, KJV

  For there are three that bear record (witness) in heaven, the Father,
  the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one. And there are
  three that bear witness in earth, the spirit, and the water, and the
  blood: and these three agree in one.

VS

1 John 5:7-8, ESV

  For there are three that testify: the Spirit and the water and the
  blood; and these three agree

The three are mentioned elsewhere in the bible, but not as one.  As JoaoRodrigues pointed out:

Matthew 28:19 ESV

  Go therefore and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in
  the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit,

However the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit can be distinct here - not homoousian.


texts: In the history of the Catholic Church, has the Sunday obligation to go to Mass ever been dispensed of due to some serious communicable disease?

texts:
Has the Sunday obligation to go to Mass ever been dispensed of due to some serious communcable disease?

I am interested in knowing if Rome (the pope) ever permitted the faithful to refrain from going to Sunday Mass due to some communicable disease or other historical serious circumstances due to disease?

I am aware that the sick and infirm are dispensed of this holy obligation, but I would like to know if this ever extended to an entire region or area? I will deliberately exclude Catholic soldiers during times of wars.

A few years ago, in our diocese, the bishop suppressed the sign of peace for certain length of time due to the avian flue epidemic. But the sign of peace is already optional during the celebration of the Mass.


texts: Are wives still called to be a "help meet" for their husbands?

texts:
Genesis 2:18(KJV)

  And the Lord God said, It is not good that the man should be alone; I
  will make him an help meet for him.

Within the broader Christian tradition, are wives still called to help their husbands in their work for the Lord, such as in the home and in the husband's ministry? (I don't mean that they should be employed at the same job as their husbands.)

From what I see, many wives do not support their husbands' ministry, but either have their own non-overlapping ministry, or simply are not interested in participating for other reasons, such as preferring more worldly pursuits.

Does the Bible teach elsewhere that this helper role should be a fundamental aspect of being a Christian wife today?


texts: Is Thomas More's reading of "This is my body" a literal one by modern standards?

texts:
Thomas More, whose birthday it is today (7 February),
was a strong defender of Catholic eucharistic theology.
In his Answer to a poisoned book (1533),
a reply to a Zwinglian
tract probably written
by George Joye,
he wrote:

  I shall, beside all such spiritual expositions
  as this man useth therein by way of allegories or parables,
  declare you the very literal sense of those words,
  "My flesh is verily meat, and my blood verily drink":
  so that that ye may see thereby
  that our saviour verily spake and meant,
  not only such a spiritual eating as Master Masker
  saith he only meant,
  but also the very bodily eating and drinking
  of his very flesh and blood indeed. 1

The basic dispute
depends upon what the meaning of the word "is" is,
in the words of institution, and
in other passages
like the one quoted (John 6:55).
Zwingli and Joye thought it meant "signifies".
More asserts (among other arguments) that since Jesus had a body of flesh and blood,
"This is my body" admits a literal reading,
unlike when Jesus elsewhere says that he "is" a vine, a door, and so on.
He says that although there are also symbolic meanings,
a literal one cannot be wholly dismissed, since that would mean ignoring the plain words.
Moreover, although one has to go to some effort to explain how it's possible (how Christ's body can be present in the Eucharist, at many places and times, appear as bread, etc.), it's more acceptable to believe in miracles than to remove all literal meaning from "is".

At first glance this seems to be the same kind of argument
made by Biblical literalists today about many other passages. Does More's reasoning - that it is necessary to find some plain reading if at all possible - count as a "literal" argument, according to a modern understanding about what that means? What rules or safeguards are present in the modern approach, whereby self-described literalists today are generally not led to consider transubstantiation a viable option in this case, when supernatural explanations are accepted in other cases?

1. The answer to the first part of the poysoned booke
whych a nameles heretike hath named the supper of the Lord, 1.3. In The workes of Sir Thomas More ... in the Englysh tonge (London, 1557), p1042.
Spelling and punctuation modernised by me.


texts: The chronology of Genesis in relation to language

texts:
Based on the following verses...

Genesis 10:5
(From these the maritime peoples spread out into their territories by their clans within their nations, each with its own language.) The Hamites

Genesis 10:31
These are the sons of Shem by their clans and languages, in their territories and nations.

Genesis 11:1
Now the whole world had one language and a common speech.

...can we assume (or is it simply a fact) that Genesis is not chronological?


texts: Why are the same palms used on Palm Sunday used for Ash Wednesday services the next year?

texts:
In the Episcopal church, the traditional source of ashes on Ash Wednesday comes from the burnt remains of the previous year's Palm Sunday fronds. How did this practice originate, and what is the theological significance of the sign?

Additionally, do other denominations practice this?


texts: What is the difference, if any, between elders and priests in the LDS church?

texts:
Inspired by this other question which asks about how there are quite a few priests in the Mormon church.

In my case most (if not all) of the Mormons that I have met all had a lapel that identified them as an "elder" (which, according to this Wikipedia article seems to be a different position than "priest").

Also this other question seems to indicate that an LDS ward (congregation) can also have quite a few elders.

Is "elder" a separate official position from "priest" and if so, how
are they different?
Are these two positions mutually exclusive or can a person be
officially both?


texts: Are Christians supposed to be like-minded?

texts:
Brotherly love is a commandment: 1 John 4:20,21 …and this commandment have we from him, That he who loveth God love his brother also.

Brotherly love is a Christian trademark: John 13:35 By this shall all [men] know that ye are my disciples, if ye have love one to another.

The early church coexisted predominantly in harmony while under great threat of physical harm: Throughout the book of Acts (1:14; 2:1; 2:46; 4:24; 5:12; 7:57; 8:6; 12:20; 15:25; 18:12; 19:29) the early Church is said to be in “one accord”.  Paul in Romans 15:6 admonishes his followers: “That ye may with one mind [and] one mouth glorify God, even the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ”.

There was a oneness of “Spirit”: 1Corinthians 12:13 For by one Spirit are we all baptized into one body, whether [we be] Jews or Gentiles, whether [we be] bond or free; and have been all made to drink into one Spirit.  Also see: (1Corinthians 4:12; Ephesians 2:8; Ephesians 4:4; Philippians 2:2)

Today there are some 41,000 Christian Denominations in the World according to: http://christianity.about.com/od/denominations/p/christiantoday.htm.

Has their ever been any significant historical movements within Christianity to reverse the splintering?

Modern Christians seem to accept that a oneness of Spirit is an impossibility, are there any current movements within Christianity towards reconciliation and a common accord?

Most Christians await the return of Jesus Christ, are there any denominations that are concerned about His reaction to what He finds?


texts: Does the Catholic Church teach there is only one person?

texts:
I’ve stumbled upon a person who has made a few interesting claims. According to her, among others:

  Other people are only another physical form of yourself.

  There exists only one unposseded [by ego] and indivisible mind.

  In Truth, that is in the opposite of what we are presently in, we are one in Christ. We are thence one spirit of Christ and the body we don is temporary. So, as the apostles were saying, there is no female, slave, child… However the physical body must perceive something and perceives what it believes in. As in the beginning there was Adam and Eve as one. As there are branches in the vine but there is one vine.

  For anyone, who wishes to think reasonably and wisely, [the one unpossesed and indivisible mind] is the mind of Holy Spirit. For those who prefer to let themselves be possessed by a separate mind (located in the brain – egoistic ego), Holy Spirit is inaccessible and their thinking by the so-called brain is, euphemistically speaking, a dissimulation of thinking.

(The above quotations are literally the statements she has made, I only made effort to translate them into English, hopefully the translation is faithful to the original claims.)

This person, who maintains these assertions, claims to be a Christian, and a consequent and radical one. For me, such assertions rather looked as if they were rooted in New Age or Buddhism rather than Christianity, so I asked her which Church does she belong to. To my astonishment, she said she was a Catholic. She further maintains that the above assertions are a result of her own studies of truth, of the more accurate and more faithful reading of the Bible, of the praying experience of befriended Catholics, and also that these claims are, in part, kind of a revelation that is testified by miracles.

To my knowledge, according to (almost?) all major denominations of Christianity, God, creating humans and angels, has created many persons, distinct from Himself and distinct from each other. Claiming that all humans are in fact one person, who is God, and that any other perception is an illusion of the physical brain that is possessed by ego, seems to me to either be an outright heresy or, at best, some unwarranted religious syncretism, attempting to mix in foreign philosophical systems (New Age? Buddhism?) into Christianity. Claiming that all people are “one spirit of Christ” seems to me to border blasphemy.

Or, maybe, am I wrong? After all, I do not have any official documents issued by the Church to disprove this person’s claims.

Therefore, since she claimed to be a Catholic, may I ask:

Does the Catholic Church teach what she claimed?
Does the Catholic Church teach something opposite to what she claimed, and therefore by definition one cannot maintain such assertions and be a Catholic at the same time?
Does the Catholic Church not teach anything in this matter, and therefore every Catholic is free to believe whatever they choose?


texts: What is the biblical basis for the Athanasian Creed's statement that believing in the Trinity is necessary for salvation?

texts:
The Athanasian Creed states:

  Whosoever will be saved, before all things it is necessary that he hold the catholic faith. Which faith except every one do keep whole and undefiled; without doubt he shall perish everlastingly. And the catholic faith is this: That we worship one God in Trinity, and Trinity in Unity; Neither confounding the Persons; nor dividing the Essence. . . . He therefore that will be saved, let him thus think of the Trinity.

  Furthermore, it is necessary to everlasting salvation; that he also believe faithfully the Incarnation of our Lord Jesus Christ. . . . This is the catholic faith; which except a man believe truly and firmly, he cannot be saved.

I think the biblical basis is easy to establish for the idea that believing the incarnation is necessary for salvation, but what is the biblical basis for the idea that believing in the Trinity is necessary for salvation?


texts: How is the doctrine of the trinity substantiated?

texts:
In an answer it was said that Jesus never says he is God or 'God the Son' as part of a trinity (reformatted):

He has a God - the same (creator) God as all humans.

John 5:44 -- the one and only God
2 Cor 1:3, Eph 1:3, Col 1:3, 2 Cor 11:31, Rom 15:6, Rom 1:7 -- the God of our Lord Jesus
1 Pet 1:3 Heb 1:8-9 -- God anointed Jesus
Rev: 1:1, 1:6, 3:12 -- even ascended, Jesus still has the same God of him and of us

Jesus often refers to his Father and God in an equivalent manner:

"You have loved me and have believed that I came from God. I came from the Father and have come into the world." (John 16:27)
I am ascending to my Father and your Father, to my God and your God. (John 20:17)
a man who has told you the truth that I heard from God. (John 8:40)

This got me thinking: What is the logical argumentation for the doctrine of trinity?
It does not seem to be directly stated in the bible as a doctrine, although it seems - in a way - kind of obvious to me when reading, e.g. the gospel of John in one go. However, "seems obvious" is hardly a good argument.


texts: If unconditional election is true do we worship God in vain?

texts: According to the teaching of Unconditional Election, God has already chosen who is saved and who is condemned. If we have no control over whether we receive or reject grace, someone can never truly know if they are saved or condemned. Therefore why does a Calvinist continue to worship and serve God if they don't know if they will be saved? Aren't they worshiping God in vain?


texts: Music Ministry in Evangelical Free Church of America

texts: I have a desire to start a Music Ministry in an EFCA local assembly that sings to recorded Contemporary Praise and Worship music. How long should I be committed to this assembly before being allowed to exercise my gift?


texts: What is the basis for the Roman Catholic teaching regarding the Sin of Presumption?

texts:
The Roman Catholic Church teaches that there is something called the Sin of Presumption, which states that it is a sin for one to believe that he or she is assured of his or her salvation.

It seems to follow, then, that one must be, at least to some degree, uncertain of his or her salvation.

What is the basis for this doctrine, including a biblical basis?


texts: What feast does Paul refer to in 1 Corinthians 5:8?

texts:
What feast is Paul referring to?

  Therefore let us keep the feast, not with old leaven, nor with the leaven of malice and wickedness, but with the unleavened bread of sincerity and truth. (1 Corinthians 5:8 NKJV)


texts: What is the difference between justification and sanctification?

texts:
Christians use the terms justification and sanctification a lot, but it's not always clear where one concept leaves off and the other picks up.

What do Protestants generally say is the difference between these two ideas? What is the Biblical justification* for having two distinct terms?

* Sorry, I couldn't help myself


texts: Meaning of the original Hebrew of "thou shall not" in the ten commandments

texts:
I noticed that in German (Luther's translation) it says "Du sollst nicht" for "thou shall not."  To me, this sounds more like "thou should not," which makes more sense to me, because if the Almighty says "thou will not" or even "thou may not" it stands to reason that to do so would be impossible.  Saying "thou should not" makes more sense to me because it implies that you have the ability to disobey.

I guess I am sort of asking for a short lesson on ancient Hebrew grammar of, as well as the original Hebrew (and English transliteration) of "Thou shalt not" as it is used in the ten commandments.

I apologize if this is off-topic.  I appreciate if anyone could answer or direct me to a good link.


texts: How far do most Christians accept Plato's 'the Forms'?

texts:
I asked a question on Plato's the Forms to Justin Welby (using films as an example of what might reflect God- after all, if Plato was correct, everything reflects something perfect and heavenly).
I got no response from him, but this was what his secretary wrote:

"I’m a bit rusty but recall that Plato considers that there is a perfect ’ heavenly’ model for everything we experience here.  A former Archbishop of Canterbury who was a New Testament theologian, Michael Ramsey, suggested something more startling.  He said, “God is like Christ and in him there is no un-Christ-like-ness at all”.  Does that not stand the platonic ideal on its head?

To expand that concept, it means that there is nothing hidden in the nature of the Almighty (whom we cannot see) which is different from the nature of Jesus as revealed or manifested to human beings.  There are lots of other hints here and now: our appreciation of beauty, the sense of awe which both attracts and repels (see Rudolph Otto on “The Idea of the Holy”) but nothing compares with God as one of us.  The opening words of St John’s Gospel and the Letter to the Hebrews are startling in their vision.  The first employs the Greek idea of ‘Word’ reaching fulfilment in Christ, and the second refers to the culmination in Christ of a preliminary series of revelations.  Very exciting."

Is this the general belief of Christians?
Aren't 'all things' met via Jesus (for instance, what pleasure counts as a 'Jesus' thing and what doesn't?)


texts: What does "labor or cost of a godly life" mean?

texts:
Richard Baxter, the famous Puritan writer, wrote:

  In a word, that in all your neglects of duty, your sticking at the supposed labor or cost of a godly life, yea, in all your cold and lazy prayers and performances, conscience might tell you how unsuitable such endeavors are to the reward; and that Christ and salvation should not be so slighted. (Source)

What does he mean by this?


texts:
In the 1983 revised Code of Canon Law, there is not mention of Freemasonry. It is not explicit in Can. 1374 whether Freemasonry is one of the associations prohibited to Catholics.

  Can. 1374 A person who joins an association which plots against the
  Church is to be punished with a just penalty; however, a person who
  promotes or directs an association of this kind is to be punished with
  an interdict.

Is it correct for a Catholic [or a Freemason] to believe that the ban on Catholics becoming Freemasons may have been lifted?


texts:
As the title states. God commanded people to kill in the Old testament, does he still command people to kill today?

There are people who claim God commanded them to Kill. Is this legit? Or is there clear evidence in the Bible that goes against this?

Examples of God commanding people to Kill in the Old Testament:

  1 Samuel 15:3 Now go and smite Amalek, and utterly destroy all that
  they have, and spare them not; but slay both man and woman, infant and
  suckling, ox and sheep, camel and ass.

  NUMBERS 21:3 The Lord gave the Canaanites over to Israel, who
  "completely destroyed them and their towns."

  NUMBERS 31:17-18 God commanded Moses to kill all of the male Midianite
  children and "kill every woman who has slept with a man, but save for
  yourselves every girl who has never slept with a man." The virgins
  were presumably raped. (NOTE: How could the soldiers know which women
  were virgins?)

There are lots of sources out there:

http://www.evilbible.com/Murder.htm
http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Examples_of_God_personally_killing_people
http://www.thethinkingatheist.com/page/bible-atrocities

I understand that most of this makes sense in context of the Old Testament. But what about people who kill today and say God commanded them to? Is this legit? Can we deny their claim?


texts: What is depicted on this small piece of artwork with Mary and the Apostles?

texts:
Another piece in the belongings of my late grandmother may she rest in peace.

This particular piece is a very beautiful piece in my opinion. This is a part of 7 pieces in total.

Can anyone tell me what is depicted here?


texts: According to the Catholic Church, should 'vaccine passports' be contrary to Natural Moral Law?

texts: I've read a lot of shocking stories lately from Lifesitenews and the like about the age of vaccine passports.  I think they just assume that the reader will have an innate revulsion to them and don't go into whether or not a thing is morally justifiable. So for that purpose, I'm asking here. According to the constant tradition of the Catholic Church, the interpreter of the Natural Moral Law (which is written on the hearts of all men and women and "expresses the dignity of the person and determines the basis for his fundamental rights and duties"), does a "vaccine passport" comport with human dignity?


texts: How do Old-Earth Creationists explain Romans 5:12-19?

texts:
Old Earth Creationism incorporates evolution, which requires natural selection, which requires death. If death pre-dated Adam, then death pre-dated sin. How then do Old Earth Creationists explain Romans 5:12, which says that death did not pre-date sin?

  Therefore, just as sin entered the world through one man, and death through sin, and in this way death came to all men, because all sinned. (NIV)


texts: How do Protestants view the prophecy and birth of Jesus

texts:
The prophecy
Isaiah 7:14 (NIV)

Therefore the Lord himself will give you a sign: The virgin will conceive and give birth to a son, and will call him Immanuel.

The fulfilment of the prophecy
Matthew 1:20-23 (NIV)

20 But after he had considered this, an angel of the Lord appeared to him in a dream and said, “Joseph son of David, do not be afraid to take Mary home as your wife, because what is conceived in her is from the Holy Spirit.
21 She will give birth to a son, and you are to give him the name Jesus, because he will save his people from their sins.”
22 All this took place to fulfill what the Lord had said through the prophet:
23 “The virgin will conceive and give birth to a son, and they will call him Immanuel” (which means “God with us”).

There is some controversy surrounding these passages where Jewish and some Christian faiths believe that the virgin in Isaiah 7:14 may not be a virgin, and not only that, but she names her son.
Isaiah 7:14 (RSV)

Therefore the Lord himself will give you a sign. Behold, a young woman shall conceive and bear a son, and shall call his name Imman′u-el.

Interestingly, the RSV quotes Isaiah 7:14 in Matthew 1:23 to say

Behold, a virgin shall conceive and bear a son, and his name shall be called Emman′u-el

How does the Protestant faith view these passages?  Was Jesus' birth foretold in Isaiah 7:14?


texts: According to Eastern Orthodoxy, does Matthew 17:20 apply to all people?

texts:
In Matthew 17:20, Jesus said:

  "Because you have so little faith. Truly I tell you, if you have faith as small as a mustard seed, you can say to this mountain, 'Move from here to there,' and it will move. Nothing will be impossible for you."

In my understanding, Jesus said these words to his apostles, not to all the people.

Jesus gave power to his apostles to cure people and to remove demons. After they failed to remove a powerful demon Jesus told them to have faith as little as a mustard seed. His words were in this context, and not towards all people.

Is this interpretation correct, according to Eastern Orthodoxy? Does this quote (Matthew 17:20) apply to all the people or just only to his apostles?


texts: If Latter-Day Saints (Mormons) don't believe in a Holy Trinity, then who do they believe is God?

texts:
It's a pretty well-known fact that Latter-Day Saint members (aka Mormons) do not believe in the Holy Trinity, i.e., that God, Christ and the Holy Ghost are 'one'.  So what exactly do they believe in, when it comes to the nature of God?

Along these lines, how can they understand scriptures that state Christ and God are one?


texts: How can 1 Corinthians 15:3 be reconciled with Calvinism and limited atonement?

texts:
I have been studying the 5 Points of Calvinism (TULIP) for some time and I can say that I accept 4 out of 5.

My biggest problem with Calvinism is the doctrine of Limited Atonement that says Jesus died only for the elect. I find this view highly opposed to the Scriptures. I tried pretty hard to reconcile this doctrine with Scripture but it was too hard, there are too many places where it says that Jesus died for the whole world/all/everyone and those can be explained. What really made me lose faith in this doctrine is Paul telling to the Corinthians what the GOSPEL is:

  1 Corinthians 15:1–4 (NIV)
  Now, brothers and sisters, I want to remind you of the gospel I preached to you, which you received and on which you have taken your stand. 2 By this gospel you are saved, if you hold firmly to the word I preached to you. Otherwise, you have believed in vain.  3 For what I received I passed on to you as of first importance: that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures, 4 that he was buried, that he was raised on the third day according to the Scriptures,

It is clear that the gospel contains "Christ died for our sins". "OUR" in this context can refer to the elect but this preaching of the gospel was made before they accepted it so Paul told them (before they accepted it) that Jesus died for their sins.

So when we preach the gospel it is clear that we should say "Jesus died for your sins".

Some will say that Calvinists that believe the doctrine of Limited Atonement believe in a false gospel. I won't dare to say this for I know there are a lot of godly people who are Reformed (James White, Jeff Durbin, Paul Washer, etc)

Is there any way to reconcile 1 Corinthians 15:3 with Reformed Theology?

Thank you very much for taking the time to read this. :)


texts: According to Catholicism how does a person discriminate between hearing the true word of God versus a hallucination or a demon?

texts:
How does the Catholic Church answer this question:

Suppose you hear God make you a commandment, how do you differentiate that from either your own internal monologue or from an imposter angel or demon, a hallucination or of the word of God himself?

I don’t mean to ask advice for myself, but in a general sense, how does a person differentiate between the word of God as many describe hearing in the bible from an illusion or an imposter.


texts: Can dogma ever be modified, and how does this relate to papal infallibility?

texts:
I have two questions related to the concept of dogma in the Catholic church. I appreciate any guidance. Also, references would be helpful.

Is there any point in the history of the Roman Catholic Church where the actions of the Pope and or the magisterium undermine the dogma of papal infallibility (i.e. instances which contradict the teaching of the papal infallibility)?
Can a dogma develop? That is, can a certain dogma be established, and be modified afterwards? If so, has this happened before in the Roman Catholic Church?


texts: Did Luther consider Erasmus an unbeliever, and if so, why?

texts:
The introduction to Luther and Erasmus: Free Will and Salvation mentions that Luther called Erasmus an unbeliever:

  [Luther's] letters and the gossip of his Table Talk are littered with scorn of Erasmus as a trifler with truth, a scoffer at religion, an unbeliever. (page 2)

Perhaps this shouldn't be surprising, given Luther's penchant for speaking his mind, and Erasmus's humanism.  Nonetheless, Erasmus was a committed Roman Catholic and a major biblical scholar.

Thus, I'm wondering: did Luther actually explicitly call Erasmus an unbeliever?  Where in his writings?  And if so, did he do so merely on the basis that he was a Roman Catholic (i.e., he considered any Roman Catholic to be unsaved) or on some other basis?


texts: What differentiates a priest, a clerk, a capellanus, a subdeacon and a rector?

texts:
I have been looking at the list of rectors of Eversholt church, Bedfordshire, from the Bedfordshire Archives Service Catalogue. The various people listed there are each described as one of: (with dates through which this description appears)

  clerk (1290-1702)
  priest (1331-1493)
  subdeacon (1227-1293)
  rector (1374-1680)
  capellanus (1420?-1507)

and from 1680 onwards:

  B.A.
  M.A.
   B.D.
  A.M.

I'm guessing that BA, MA and BD are degree qualifications. AM is a latin version of MA. How do the other titles differ?

Some follow up questions are asked at How do I interpret this list of mediaeval rectors?


texts: Did the Gospel Standard Baptists and the (original) Plymouth Brethren comment on unity between themselves?

texts:
It seems to me a great shame that the Gospel Standard Baptists, in the days of such as J C Philpot, during the mid 19th century, did not have some kind of unity with the early movement of the Plymouth Brethren, in the days of J N Darby.

Both movements separated within their original bodies because of the controversy regarding the Eternal Sonship of the Lord Jesus Christ (I am quoting the title of J C Philpot's book on the subject).

The Plymouth Brethren split from what then became the Taylor Brethren (who said that Christ was only 'son' by virtue of incarnation) and the Gospel Standard Baptists were so-called because, after separation from other baptists for the same reason, they rallied to a publication, the Gospel Standard.

Both movements had their faults, but had they joined in unity, it seems to me, they would (one hopes) have been the means of correcting, or at least curbing, the faults of one another.

Is there any evidence, historically, that they had any thoughts of unity with one another ?


texts: According to Old Testament, how long did Saul reign as king?

texts:
According to Old Testament scripture, how long did reign Saul as king of Israel?
Various hebrew scholars list this time between 7 and 20 years.  Where does this variation come from?


texts: What is an overview of Pentecostal views on killing in war?

texts:
I've often heard from skeptics of Christianity, "Look at the many atrocities done in the name of Jesus in places like the Crusades. How can you claim that Jesus is loving?" I know that these claims are preposterous. Look at all the many more wonderful good works done in Jesus' name! But that's beside the point. The Old Testament often speaks of wartime and killing those who occupied Israel in ancient times, but war is rarely mentioned in the literal sense in the New Testament.

What is an overview of Assemblies of God / Pentecostal views of killing in war, or of war in general?


texts:
I found this website that basically says that some if not all of the gospel could have been written in Hebrew.

Is this theory supported today and by whom? Scholars and school of though would be appreciated.

I know that the article quote sources, but they are getting old (1991 for the earliest). Is there more recent development on this question.


texts: What is the Lutheran view on sovereign election?

texts: My understanding is that Lutherans have some doctrine of sovereign election/predestination, yet they also affirm unlimited atonement and that some do go on to shipwreck their faith. What are the mechanics of how these doctrines interplay in confessional Lutheran theology?


texts: According to YEC, did all plants and trees survive the Great Flood? If so, how?

texts:
We read:

Genesis 6:17-21:

17 I am going to bring floodwaters on the earth to destroy all life under the heavens, every creature that has the breath of life in it. Everything on earth will perish. 18 But I will establish my covenant with you, and you will enter the ark—you and your sons and your wife and your sons’ wives with you. 19 You are to bring into the ark two of all living creatures, male and female, to keep them alive with you. 20 Two of every kind of bird, of every kind of animal and of every kind of creature that moves along the ground will come to you to be kept alive. 21 You are to take every kind of food that is to be eaten and store it away as food for you and for them.”

Genesis 7:1-4:

1 The Lord then said to Noah, “Go into the ark, you and your whole family, because I have found you righteous in this generation. 2 Take with you seven pairs of every kind of clean animal, a male and its mate, and one pair of every kind of unclean animal, a male and its mate, 3 and also seven pairs of every kind of bird, male and female, to keep their various kinds alive throughout the earth. 4 Seven days from now I will send rain on the earth for forty days and forty nights, and I will wipe from the face of the earth every living creature I have made.”

Genesis 7:14-16:

They had with them every wild animal according to its kind, all livestock according to their kinds, every creature that moves along the ground according to its kind and every bird according to its kind, everything with wings. 15 Pairs of all creatures that have the breath of life in them came to Noah and entered the ark. 16 The animals going in were male and female of every living thing, as God had commanded Noah. Then the Lord shut him in.

Genesis 7:20-23:

20 The waters rose and covered the mountains to a depth of more than fifteen cubits. 21 Every living thing that moved on land perished—birds, livestock, wild animals, all the creatures that swarm over the earth, and all mankind. 22 Everything on dry land that had the breath of life in its nostrils died. 23 Every living thing on the face of the earth was wiped out; people and animals and the creatures that move along the ground and the birds were wiped from the earth. Only Noah was left, and those with him in the ark.

I think it is quite reasonable to deduce from the above that God did not instruct Noah to bring plants and trees into the Ark. Furthermore, "every living thing on the face of the earth was wiped out". Now, even if the Jew did not consider plants to be living creatures, God knew that they are (because, well, they are). Thus, it is reasonable to think that if the Great Flood happened, all of the plants and trees died too. Even the aquatic plants died (presumably), because as the sea level rose, they were too far below it to capture sunlight to produce photosynthesis (plus the sky was covered in clouds). And yet, we read in Genesis 8:10-11, several days after the flood stopped:

10 He [Noah] waited seven more days and again sent out the dove from the ark. 11 When the dove returned to him in the evening, there in its beak was a freshly plucked olive leaf! Then Noah knew that the water had receded from the earth.

So, how come an olive tree did not die during the flood, if all the surface of the earth was under water for more than 40 days? Or is it that God repeated what He did in the third day of creation? Genesis 1:11:

Then he commanded, “Let the earth produce all kinds of plants, those that bear grain and those that bear fruit”—and it was done.


texts: Why did Pilate insist on writing 'Jesus of Nazareth, King of the Jews'?

texts:
From John 19 (KJV):

19 And Pilate wrote a title, and put it on the cross. And the writing was JESUS OF NAZARETH THE KING OF THE JEWS.
20 This title then read many of the Jews: for the place where Jesus was crucified was nigh to the city: and it was written in Hebrew, and Greek, and Latin.
21 Then said the chief priests of the Jews to Pilate, Write not, The King of the Jews; but that he said, I am King of the Jews.
22 Pilate answered, What I have written I have written.

The chief priests appear to be protesting at what Pilate has written, presumably because it appears to be affirming what they wish to deny. They ask him write instead that 'he said, I am King of the Jews' - notably they do not ask him to remove the title altogether, or to write a denial.
Why does Pilate affirm what he has written?


texts: Does the Jerusalem Bible teach that Adam had a wife before Eve?

texts:
A Friend told me that the Jerusalem Bible says that Adam had a wife before Eve, she was only together with the devil and not with Adam, so God took her away and created Eve from Adam's Rib.

I am a Catholic of Heart and do not know the Jerusalem Bible. Can you please enlighten me? My grandson's girlfriend is telling these stories, and I have the feeling this family tries to brainwash him.

Please help!


texts: How are the different covenants related to or different from each other?

texts:
In church traditions that subscribe to Reformed theology it is common to refer to God's relationship to men in terms of covenants -- agreements between God and His people in which God makes specific promises and demands.

Most commonly, a "covenant of works" and a "covenant of grace" are referenced. What are the defining features of these and how do they relate? Are they wholly different or variations on a theme? Also, what is the "covenant of redemption" and how does it relate to the other two?


texts:
Put God’s Kingdom First
22 Jesus said to his followers, “So I tell you, don’t worry about the
things you need to live—what you will eat or what you will wear. 23
Life is more important than food, and the body is more important than
what you put on it. 24 Look at the birds. They don’t plant, harvest,
or save food in houses or barns, but God feeds them. And you are worth
much more than crows. 25 None of you can add any time to your life by
worrying about it. 26 And if you can’t do the little things, why worry
about the big things?
27 “Think about how the wildflowers grow. They don’t work or make
clothes for themselves. But I tell you that even Solomon, the great
and rich king, was not dressed as beautifully as one of these flowers.
28 If God makes what grows in the field so beautiful, what do you
think he will do for you? That’s just grass—one day it’s alive, and
the next day someone throws it into a fire. But God cares enough to
make it beautiful. Surely he will do much more for you. Your faith is
so small!
29 “So don’t always think about what you will eat or what you will
drink. Don’t worry about it. 30 That’s what all those people who don’t
know God are always thinking about. But your Father knows that you
need these things. 31 What you should be thinking about is God’s
kingdom. Then he will give you all these other things you need.
Don’t Trust in Money
32 “Don’t fear, little flock. Your Father wants to share his kingdom
with you. 33 Sell the things you have and give that money to those who
need it. This is the only way you can keep your riches from being
lost. You will be storing treasure in heaven that lasts forever.
Thieves can’t steal that treasure, and moths can’t destroy it. 34 Your
heart will be where your treasure is.

After reading this it is obvious to ask - is going to work everyday putting God's kingdom second?
Would we have enough to survive if we all did missionary work?
What is the image Jesus wants us to follow here?


texts: How do Jehovah Witnesses support scripturely the idea that humans will live on earth after death?

texts:
A Jehovah Witness and I spoke the other day and he explained to me that JWs believe that we'll live on earth after we die.

What scripture, if any, do they use to back this belief?


texts: What purpose do angels serve (Protestant)?

texts: If God is omnipotent and can help His children in any situation and in any place, why does He have angels do His will? As I recall, angels are spirit like God.


texts:
I read about the Council at Jerusalem (the first council despite Council of Nicaea):

  "It seemed good to the Holy Spirit and to us not to burden you with
  anything beyond the following requirements: You are to abstain from
  food sacrificed to idols, from blood, from the meat of strangled
  animals and from sexual immorality. You will do well to avoid these
  things." Acts 15:28-29 NIV

In particular on the diet issue, I have 2 questions:

What do you mean blood and strangled meat? Means it undercooked food?
Which doctrinal segments follow this principle today (I say this because I am a Christian / Reformed and we eat undercooked meat).


texts:
"Your heart became proud on account of your beauty, and you corrupted your wisdom because of your splendor. So I threw you to the earth; I made a spectacle of you before kings" - Ezekiel 28:17

This verse can be considered as a quote about the first 'sin' in the entire biblical timeline. After the occurrence of which, Satan was formed. I would like to know more details about the evil 'pride' indicated in this verse, which existed even before Satan. Does this 'evil' have a personality? How it was capable of running its root into a splendorous and powerful creation of God - Lucifer?


texts: What will be the indication that God accepted Jesus' sacrifice on our behalf

texts:
In the OT when the high priest exited the holy of holies alive it was an indication that the blood sacrifice on behalf of the sinner had been accepted by God.
What is the indication that God accepted Jesus' sacrifice on our behalf.
Was it after the resurrection when he showed himself to believers or will it be when he shows himself at the second coming?


texts: What is the significance of the message “every case must be established by the testimony of two or three witnesses” in 2 Corinthians 13:1?

texts:
In 2 Corinthians, Paul mentioned that it was the third time he was going to visit the people there, and he added that "As the scriptures say, the facts of every case must be established by the testimony of two or three witnesses".

2 Corinthians 13:1-2 (NLT)
1 This is the third time I am coming to visit you (and as the Scriptures say, “The facts of every case must be established by the testimony of two or three witnesses”). 2 I have already warned those who had been sinning when I was there on my second visit. Now I again warn them and all others, just as I did before, that next time I will not spare them.

I was trying to understand what Paul is trying to say when he mentioned “The facts of every case must be established by the testimony of two or three witnesses” in 2 Corinthians 13:1.
What is the significance of the message “The facts of every case must be established by the testimony of two or three witnesses” ?


texts: What does it mean to pray in Jesus' Name?

texts:
A few times in the book of John, Jesus instructs us to pray "in His Name".  What does this mean?  How do we know if we are praying in His name?  How would we not be praying in His name?

I don't believe this is using "In Jesus' Name, Amen" as the closing line of our prayers.

  Whatever you ask in my name, this I will do, that the Father may
  be glorified in the Son.  If you ask me anything in my name, I
  will do it.  John 14:13-14 ESV

  You did not choose me, but I chose you and appointed you that you
  should go and bear fruit and that your fruit should abide, so that
  whatever you ask the Father in my name, he may give it to you.  John
  15:16 ESV

  In that day you will ask nothing of me. Truly, truly, I say to you,
  whatever you ask of the Father in my name, he will give it to you.
  Until now you have asked nothing in my name. Ask, and you will
  receive, that your joy may be full.  "I have said these things to you
  in figures of speech. The hour is coming when I will no longer speak
  to you in figures of speech but will tell you plainly about the
  Father. In that day you will ask in my name, and I do not say to
  you that I will ask the Father on your behalf; for the Father himself
  loves you, because you have loved me and have believed that I came
  from God.  John 16:23-27 ESV

Interestingly, there are other things that refer to "in Jesus' name':

  Whoever receives one such child in my name receives me  Matthew 18:5
  ESV

  For where two or three are gathered in my name, there am I among them.
  Matthew 18:20 ESV

  Many will come in my name, saying, 'I am he!' and they will lead many
  astray.  Mark 13:6 ESV


texts:
This is a question I asked based on problems I struggle with as someone raised Catholic as part of a generation taught more about science than any generation before me. I can't simply ignore science. So I ask this fundamental question:

If I were to sit down with my wife and watch TV, it would be a form of pleasure and bonding we share together, which is not a sin. But if I were to have sex with my wife without the intention to procreate, it would be considered a sin by the Catholic Church.

In science today, we have proven that love is not some magical thing, it's a biological mechanism triggered chemically, and emotionally (emotion also being a biological mechanism).

  The conventional view in biology is that there are three major drives
  in love – sex drive, attachment, and partner preference. The primary
  neurochemicals (neurotransmitters, sex hormones, and neuropeptides)
  that govern these drives are testosterone, estrogen, dopamine,
  oxytocin, and vasopressin. (Source : Wikipedia, see it's own citations 1-7 which are largely peer-reviewed scientific journals).

According to studies, part of this biological mechanism that causes two people to become emotionally and romantically attached to each other is induced during sexual intercourse.

  In humans and bonobos, the female undergoes relatively concealed
  ovulation so that male and female partners commonly do not know
  whether she is fertile at any given moment. One possible reason for
  this distinct biological feature may be formation of strong emotional
  bonds between sexual partners important for social interactions and,
  in the case of humans, long-term partnership rather than immediate
  sexual reproduction.
   (Source: Wikipedia, with citation to Encyclopedia of Human Relationships.

If a couple is financially or legally unable to procreate, and does not have sex for this reason, that chemically induced biological bond is never refreshed. In other words sex is scientifically proven to strengthen the bond between husband and wife.

So as a student of science, you can see why I have difficulty understanding this teaching of the Catholic Church.

Why does God not approve of a loving married couple enjoying pleasure and passion together via sex, for the sake of strengthening their bond as a couple? Has the Catholic Church responded to the argument that sex between a married couple can strengthen their emotional bond? Is there any official literature or doctrines that address this argument specifically?


texts:
I know there is a verse that states this I will edit it in after I will find it.

But also we have these verses:

  Psa 8:4 What is man, that thou art mindful of him? and the son of man,
  that thou visitest him?  Psa 8:5 For thou hast made him a little lower
  than the angels, and hast crowned him with glory and honour.

So we know God created both angels and men but here it states man are created "lower" than angels.

So in what aspects are men God's greatest creation. Power, intelligence ?

Or can this be interpreted as the reason for which men is the "crown" of his creation ?


texts: Why did Elizabeth keep herself hidden while pregnant?

texts:
In Luke 1:24-25 we read:

  24 After these days his wife Elizabeth conceived, and for five months she kept herself hidden, saying, 25 “Thus the Lord has done for me in the days when he looked on me, to take away my reproach among people.”

Why did she keep herself hidden? Certainly something to do with the fact that she was barren and isn't any more... But why would that cause her to hide this fact?


texts: Why are there passages in the Gospels where the Apostles are not present?

texts:
In the Bible, in several passages, the Apostles narrate events that they where not participating in. For example, the story of the woman at the Well and the conversation between Jesus and Pilate.

The Apostles were not present during these interactions, how did they know about them? How did they know they happened in the first place?

In the case of Pilate, Jesus died after that, so I think he didn't have the opportunity to tell the Apostles what had happened, even after his resurrection!


texts: What happens if the Pope is automatically excommunicated?

texts: Some actions incur automatic excommunication.  While it is debated whether a Pope can lose the office via heresy, what happens if a pope commits a sin other than heresy, such as abortion or violating the seal of confession, which carries an equal penalty?  Is the Pope subject to the automatic excommunication?  If so, would the election of a new Pope be called for?  What would then happen (in terms of the Papacy) if the excommunicated Pope repented and rejoined the church?


texts:
I was reading about Jesus Christ and his miraculous birth, and this question came to my mind:

Would have or did the virgin Mary worship Jesus, after his birth or after his death (according to those who hold that Jesus is God)?


texts:
Tomorrow is the first Friday in Easter and in the Catholic Church Fridays are days of penance.  If a person usually does something small, like not continuously munch on things while at his desk, in Ordinary time and during Lent,  is that person permitted (or obligated) to not do those things during Easter?

I know it's one of those things that has to be up to one's conscience, but would a well formed conscience do well to rejoice during the season of Easter rather than continue the same routine they carry during other seasons?


texts:
According to Luke 16:13 (ESV):

  No servant can serve two masters, for either he will hate the one and love the other, or he will be devoted to the one and despise the other. You cannot serve God and money.

It seems to me that God gave us the desire to pursue certain things for a reason to begin with, so being successful and enjoying your career isn't necessarily a sin in and of itself. Is this the correct attitude?

How can a Christian keep God in the center of his or her life and properly enjoy worldly ambitions (such as a successful career)? Is there anything wrong with being focused on your career?


texts: According to Jehovah’s Witnesses why did John write the words found in John 1:1?

texts:
Jehovah's Witnesses translate John 1:1 as:

" In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was a god."

whereas its more generally translatedas something like :

"In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God."

i.e. the NWT adds the word "a". This is justified because the Greek language of the first century did not have an indefinite article, and they feel that this rendering of the verse makes it more consistent with the rest of the bible (which they see as teaching that Christ is an Archangel, rather than a person within the Godhead).

If this is the case, why do they think John used this phrase? That is what was he trying to communicate?

If John is simply trying to say that Christ was with God, and through him all things were created, this clause could be removed from the sentence- and the passage would become clearer, because Johns Greek speaking audience wouldn't have to wonder if John means Jehovah or simply some lesser god.

Additionally this would avoid all the problems that they see as coming from the miss-translation of the verse being used to support trinitarianism

EDIT:

This Question is flagged as similar to another. The difference is subtle- that one asks what textual support is there for the verse, this asks, assuming that the JW understanding of the scriptures and Johns intentions are true, why John would write the verse as it is - appearing to endorse at least the divinity of Christ.


texts: Did Luke provide other writings under a different name?

texts: Luke was considered to be a prolific writer, but I cannnot find any other information on this aspect of his life.


texts: When is it too late to ask for salvation?

texts:
What does the Bible say about when is it too late to ask for salvation?

There are many death bed conversion stories. One of the most momentous conversions in Western history was that of Constantine I, Roman Emperor and later proclaimed a Christian Saint.

Is there any supporting evidence that we can or cannot obtain salvation after death?


texts: Is there a digitized version of the Tyndale Bible available?

texts: Is there any websites that have a digitized version of William Tyndale's Bible online?


texts: What is the difference between being filled by the Holy Spirit and being indwelt by the Holy Spirit?

texts:
The book of Acts talks about people "being filled" with the Holy Spirit at various times.  There is also the concept of being indwelt by the Holy Spirit.  From the perspective that asserts these are, in fact, two different things, what specifically is the biblical distinction (from a biblical literalist perspective)?

Can someone be indwelt by the Holy Spirit but not filled with the Holy Spirit?


texts: In what order should the books of the (Protestant) Bible be read?

texts:
The Bible is probably one of the most historically significant books for the Western civilization, so it should be a worthwhile read for many a literature geek.

In which order should it be read, then? Cover-to-cover is hardly a good order, as the New Testament is more significant for western culture and Christianity than the Old Testament (which comes first). I'm looking for the preferred order for a first-time reader.

For reference, the books of the Bible are listed on Wikipedia. Answerers may assume a Protestant Bible, but ones based on others with two testaments are welcome, too.


texts:
Is it possible to avoid hell by self mutilation?
Jesus repeatedly, clearly and unambiguously directs us towards self mutilation to avoid hell,  Jesus does not qualify these words as a parable.  if we choose to dismiss these words of Jesus as untrue hyperbolic exaggeration can we also dismiss Jesus claim that hell exists as hyperbolic exaggeration?

Mark 9:47 And if your eye causes you to stumble, pluck it out. It is better for you to enter the kingdom of God with one eye than to have two eyes and be thrown into hell.
Matthew 5:30 if your right hand causes you to stumble, cut it off and throw it away. It is better for you to lose one part of your body than for your whole body to go into hell.
Matthew 18:8 If your hand or your foot causes you to stumble, cut it off and throw it away. It is better for you to enter life maimed or crippled than to have two hands or two feet and be thrown into hell.


texts:
What is a formal ontological definition of the nature of God according to the doctrine of the Trinity? Are the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit ontologically independent entities, each one being particulars of universal divine attributes? If so, wouldn't that mean 3 Gods instead of 1 God? Or should we understand God as one entity comprised of 3 "sub-entities"? But then what would it mean that "the Father is God", "the Son is God", "the Holy Spirit is God"? What does it mean ontologically that "X is God" according to Trinitarianism?
Take for example what the Athanasian Creed postulates: "So likewise the Father is Lord; the Son Lord; and the Holy Ghost Lord. And yet not three Lords; but one Lord". Is "Lord" being used here as an entity, as a predicate over entities, or what?

In case the question ends up getting closed as off-topic: https://philosophy.stackexchange.com/questions/79273/are-there-any-publications-that-attempt-to-give-a-formal-ontological-definition


texts: Did everyone go to hell before Jesus died for our sins?

texts:
I've seen a couple of answers in this site which explained the meaning of "Jesus died for our sins". In these answers I gathered that Jesus (a representation of God himself) died so we could be without sin. Specifically this bit:

"Jesus died for our sins in that He paid the penalty for our sins. As you point out, this does not mean we stop sinning. What it does mean is that the penalty incurred by our sins is satisfied by the payment made by Jesus Himself."

And this quote:

"For God so loved the world that he gave his only Son, so that everyone who believes in him might not perish but might have eternal life. For God did not send his Son into the world to condemn the world, but that the world might be saved through him. Whoever believes in him will not be condemned, but whoever does not believe has already been condemned, because he has not believed in the name of the only Son of God. "

It sounds like the sacrifice of Jesus unlocked eternal life (=heaven) for us all, and that now we can actively seek to deserve it. What happened to everyone that lived before this sacrifice? It seems like they couldn't have been saved before this event. Assuming there were people who lead a good life in this lot, were they transferred somehow?

Mentioned questions:

https://christianity.stackexchange.com/a/8794

https://christianity.stackexchange.com/a/16246


texts: What doctrines are based on 1st Timothy 4:14 when hands are laid on a believer?

texts:
In 1st Timothy 4:14 (Recovery Version) some elders laid hands on Timothy:

  Do not neglect the gift which is in you, which was given to you by means of prophecy with the laying on of hands of the presbytery.

What are the different views on why mentioning the action of laying on of hands was significant? What are the different things the action could have conferred to the recipient? Is the same "gift given to you" found other places in Scripture?


texts: Why have a photo of the bishop in the sacristy?

texts:
In many (most? all?) Catholic sacristies, there is a photograph of the diocesan bishop, and often one of the Pope.

Why?

(Authoritative sources preferred to anecdote.)


texts: According to Catholicism, can the saints be given the title "co-mediator of Grace"?

texts:
If Mary is "Mediatrix of all Graces" is it possible to say the saints are "Mediators of certain graces", according to Catholicism?

E.g., the patron saint of finding lost things is a co-mediator who specifically dispenses the grace of finding lost things.


texts: What substitutes for prayers for the Pope's intentions during sede vacante?

texts: One of the requirements one must meet to obtain an indulgence is to pray for the intentions of the pope. When there's no pope, what's the substitute? I guess it's the conclave and the next pope, but I don't know the exact rules on this.


texts: Are politicians who are integral to passing pro-abortion laws automatically excommunicated from the Catholic Church?

texts:
According to this article,

"Any Catholic accomplice in the act of procuring an abortion, even
though not specifically mentioned in Canon #1398, receives the same
penalty of automatic excommunication. Here an accomplice is one who
assists in such a way that the heinous act would not have been
committed without his assistance."

If a politician votes for legislation that passes, say, that legalizes abortion in some capacity, is that politician therefore automatically excommunicated from the Catholic Church?


texts: What is the corruption Mormons believe will infect their church before the second coming?

texts:
Doctrine & Covenants 112:23-26 reads (emphasis mine):

Verily, verily, I say unto you, darkness covereth the earth, and gross darkness the minds of the people, and all flesh has become corrupt before my face.  Behold, vengeance cometh speedily upon the inhabitants of the earth, a day of wrath, a day of burning, a day of desolation, of weeping, of mourning, and of lamentation; and as a whirlwind it shall come upon all the face of the earth, saith the Lord.
And upon my house shall it begin, and from my house shall it go forth, saith the Lord; first among those among you, saith the Lord, who have professed to know my name and have not known me, and have blasphemed against me in the midst of my house, saith the Lord.

If I read this prophecy correctly, everyone on earth has become corrupted (or unclean, see 1 Nephi 10:21, etc.) including members of the LDS Church, that this corruption will be the justification for vengeance, and that vengeance will begin with the Church and then proceed to the rest of the Earth.
Which, to simplify, sounds like the Lord will clean His house1 before He cleanses the world.
What do the scriptures2 and/or Church leaders suggest is the corruption the Lord is speaking about?

1 This revelation was received in 1837, after the 1836 dedication of the Kirtland temple.  It could be argued that "house" refers specifically to the Kirtland temple, or temples in general.  However, setting aside the fact that the LDS Church no longer owns the Kirtland temple and presupposing the Lord had more in mind that a single geographical location when discussing the need to cleanse people from sin, I'm electing to interpret "My house" as "My church."  If scripture or Church leaders suggest otherwise, I'm open to correction.
2 The LDS Scriptures include the Holy Bible, the Book of Mormon, the Doctrine & Covenants, and the Pearl of Great Price.


texts:
There are numerous instances in the Bible where Jesus drives out demons from people who were possessed by them. If we take a general view of these events during the ministry of Jesus, we find that there were a number of such miracles performed by Jesus apart from other miracles. Sometimes these demons were themselves testifying about who Jesus was.

Recently we saw even Pope Francis performing what was called as exorcism on one of the visitors to him. So we can say that it is something similar to what Jesus was doing during His ministry.

The question is why this practice of driving out of demon is not very common nowadays in Christianity? And Is there any methodology according to Bible to drive out demons from possessed people?


texts: Does the Bible support the concept of male spiritual headship?

texts:
What I mean by this is a little beyond "Wives submit to your husbands."  In Joshua 7:22-25 Joshua stones and burns the entire family of Achen, including his children, after he sins by keeping back some of the loot from Jericho when God commanded it all be destroyed.  Was Joshua in sin because he did this or was this a right response?  God certainly blessed them right after this with victory over Ai.
Also Exodus 20:5-6 (NJKV) states:

...For I, the Lord your God, am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children to the third and fourth generations of those who hate Me, but showing mercy to thousands, to those who love Me and keep My commandments.

On a more practical note according to a study reported in Baptist Press:

[If] a child is the first person in a household to become a Christian, there is a 3.5 percent probability everyone else in the household will follow[.]
If the mother is the first to become a Christian, there is a 17 percent probability everyone else in the household will follow.
But if the father is first, there is a 93 percent probability everyone else in the household will follow.

Does this point to a leadership of a father that goes beyond simple moral or financial and moves into the distinctively spiritual?


texts: Are there any historical examples of Binitarianism?

texts:
This is a term I coined myself (and do not advocate) but within Christian history most if not all of the ways someone could be a Trinitarian heretic found historical expression. I'm wondering if there are any who would acknowledge that there is one essence and two persons: the Father and the Son and that each of the persons have a spirit or the essence has a single spirit that is not a person.

Again, for clarity, I believe this would be heresy, but I am surprised that I have never heard anyone advocate this position as it seems like a selective reading of the relevant passages could get you there just as well as any of the other Trinitarian heresies.


texts: CS Lewis said time continues in Heaven...Peter Kreeft says that is exists more as a 'point'...which is right?

texts: In Letters to Malcolm, CS Lewis says, as we are finite, so time will always exist as progression with the past falling away behind us. Peter Kreeft seems to follow Lewis on most views and yet seems to suggest in both his books on Heaven, that time is more of a 'point' ('all swallowed up as one', if you will) rather than spread out. I find this most peculiar as he quotes Lewis whilst writing these chapters on time! Do I misunderstand Kreeft or Lewis? Or are they genuinely (for surely the first time ever!) on different sides of the debate here?


texts: What non-canonical texts do Eastern Catholic liturgies use?

texts:
There are some books considered to be canonical by (some) Eastern Orthodox and Oriental Churches, but not by the Latin Church. E.g. 3+4 Maccabees.
The Eastern Catholic Churches kept their own spirtitual heritage despite the union with Rome.

If the canon of the Vulgate is valid for the whole Church as suggested here (after Trent), are there other "traditional" books used in the (liturgies of) Eastern Catholic Churches? What status do they have?


texts: Did Thomas Pearne do anything other than contradict Granville Sharp?

texts:
Granville Sharp (1735 - 1813) see Wikipedia is famous for his stoical labours in eradicating slavery and for his energetic achievement in re-patriating former slaves to Sierra Leone. Although he has a memorial in Westminster Abbey, I would suggest that he also well deserves a statue to himself in Bristol. (And I am informed that there is now a vacant space for one in that city).
Above and beyond such admirable exploits, Granville Sharp found the time and the energy to write numerous books on Christian matters, notably his studiously researched book on the Greek article and how an understanding of its use is necessary to properly appreciate passages of the bible that refer to the Deity of Jesus Christ.
His findings on the subject are commonly called Sharp's Rule.
This labour of love was fiercely opposed by one Thomas Pearne who deliberately hid behind the pseudonym 'Gregory Blunt' - an obvious mockery of the name of the noble Granville Sharp.
I have been attempting to research Thomas Pearne and I would have liked to make a link to Wikipedia, but I cannot find anything to link to. In fact I can find nothing - anywhere - about Thomas Pearne. He appears (to me, at the present time) to have left no footprint on earth other than in the guise of 'Gregory Blunt' and his adversarial writings against the good Granville.
Can anyone point me in the direction of any worthy achievements or any documents worth reading, other than the contradictory communications made against Sharp, under the blunt pseudonym, which caused the good Granville to have to laboriously answer, publicly, on the behalf of his own researched findings ?

EDIT : See @Lesley 's comment below which indicates at least six letters were sent to Granville Sharp by Thomas Pearne, under the pseudonym 'Gregory Blunt', every single one of them being adversarial.


texts: Where did the idiom "asking Jesus into your heart" come from?

texts:
Where did the idea of "asking Jesus into your heart" come from? That figure of speech is not explicitly from the bible or probably even early church history. Can anyone find its first use and maybe why it's become so pervasive?

I'm looking for something like "Pastor John Smith used the saying once at a conference in 1850" or something like that. I can assume that people use the bible to come up with this phrase. I'm wondering more about the historical origin of its usage.


texts: How do the (Roman) Catholic Church and the (Anglican) Church of Uganda view "wife inheritance"?

texts:
There is a cultural practice in parts of Africa in which a young widow is required to marry her dead husband's brother, male cousin or other relation. This is sometimes referred to as wife inheritance.

The two main Christiam denominations in Uganda are the (Roman) Catholic church and the (Anglican) Church of Uganda. Do these have any objection to, or concerns about,  this practice? If so, on what grounds?