What is the difference between the first and second resurrection in the book of Revelation? I want to understand What is the meaning of first resurrection and
second resurrection.

Revelation 20:5 KJV

  But the rest of the dead lived not again until the thousand years were finished. This is the first resurrection.

Revelation 2:11 KJV

  He that hath an ear, let him hear what the Spirit saith unto the churches; He that overcometh shall not be hurt of the second death.

Revelation 20:12-13 KJV

  And I saw the dead, small and great, stand before God; and the books were opened: and another book was opened, which is the book of life: and the dead were judged out of those things which were written in the books, according to their works. And the sea gave up the dead which were in it; and death and hell delivered up the dead which were in them: and they were judged every man according to their works.

How is the first resurrection different from the second one?

The two events only differ on two points:

Who is raised.
When they are raised.

Both parties are actually judged equally, and we assume the method of the raising is the same.
The First Resurrection takes place at Christ's coming and consists of the Righteous Christians only.

For the Lord himself shall descend from heaven with a shout, with the voice of the archangel, and with the trump of God: and the dead in Christ shall rise first:
Then we which are alive and remain shall be caught up together with them in the clouds, to meet the Lord in the air: and so shall we ever be with the Lord.
1 Thessalonian 4:16-17

The First and Second Resurrection and the Final Judgement of all souls is detailed further in Rev. 20.

4 And I saw thrones, and they sat upon them, and judgment was given unto them: and I saw the souls of them that were beheaded for the witness of Jesus, and for the word of God, and which had not worshipped the beast, neither his image, neither had received his mark upon their foreheads, or in their hands; and they lived and reigned with Christ a thousand years. [This is who takes part in the First Resurrection. They are those that are in Christ; they are Christians; they are the righteous]
5 But the rest of the dead lived not again until the thousand years were finished. This is the first resurrection. [If there is a 1st resurrection there must be at least a second]

It will be 1000 years after the resurrection of the righteous that the remaining souls, the wicked, will be resurrected for Judgement.

12 And I saw the dead, small and great, stand before God [This is the only place that makes sense for the second resurrection, and we already know from verse 5 that it is 1000 years after the First Resurrection]; and the books were opened: and another book was opened, which is the book of life: and the dead were judged out of those things which were written in the books, according to their works. [After being raised they are judged]
13 And the sea gave up the dead which were in it; and death and hell delivered up the dead which were in them: and they were judged every man according to their works. [Every dead person will be raised at some point]

These verses (the whole book, even) are very poetical, but these verses together show that the wicked dead are indeed resurrected, just as the righteous 1000 years earlier.
Summary
The First Resurrection consists of the Righteous Christians, which will be raised at the end of days upon Christ's coming (1 Thessalonians 4:16-17).
The Second Resurrection will follow 1000 years later (which may be a non-literal 1000 years) and will consist of all the remaining dead (the wicked) (Revelation 20:5).


At the Last Supper what would the disciples make of what Jesus said about partaking of the bread and the wine? Luke 22:15-20 is clear that the cross yet lay ahead of Christ. Then he said, "This is my body which is given for you… This cup is the new testament in my blood which is shed for you”, commanding them to eat and drink.  Did the bread which he broke, speaking of his broken body, and the wine to be drunk, speaking of his shed blood, mean something to the disciples different to their view of those emblems after Jesus’ resurrection, once they started to do that in remembrance of him? Obviously, Jesus HAD to institute that Supper before he died! And Greek tenses may allow for past or present tense to underscore the assurance of what would happen. But on that evening, their partaking of that bread and that wine could never have struck them as being a literal partaking of the actual body and blood of Christ.
For clarity, I am NOT wanting any examination of whether the Last Supper was, technically, the First Supper of a new event for Christians (as opposed to being connected to the Passover seder for Jews). Nor am I wanting comments about which cup was used, when. Those matters are dealt with in existing Stack questions.
A similar question to mine is here, Lutheran response to non-literalist interpretation of the Lord's Supper  ‘What is the Lutheran response to the argument made by some, that Christ couldn't have meant "this is my body" in a literal sense, since he was himself bodily present in the midst of the disciples, in the same upper room, as distinct from the elements?’ The only answer given, from the Marburg Colloquy, 1529, was not helpful.
I am not looking exclusively for the Lutheran response, but for views from all Christians who partake of those emblems themselves within the general fold of Protestantism. This would exclude all who do not partake of the bread and wine passed around at this event. I am not looking for the Catholic view either, not yet, as I may frame another question for them after I have had responses to this one.
My question seeks insights into believers partaking of the bread and wine prior to Jesus’ body being broken and his blood being shed. This only happened once in history and I am not aware of any comments from those few as to how they understood it, compared with how they came to understand it the second time (and thereafter, down the centuries). Now, it could be that there are some ancient Catholic sources that would shed a little light on my question, so I do not preclude those being quoted by Protestants; I just don’t want answers extolling (or disagreeing with) either Catholic or Protestant views of what the emblems came to mean after that ‘First Supper’. My focus is entirely on that ‘First Supper’. So, please help me with a matter that is very narrowly focused, even if the range of answers can come from a very broad school indeed!

The occasion of Last Supper (called so because it was the last earthly supper that Jesus partook of with his apostles) was not on any count the first in which the apostles would hear of Jesus offering his own flesh and blood as their spiritual food. John the Evangelist does not mince words when he writes the following at 6: 47-68 (NRSVCE).

"Very truly, I tell you, whoever believes has eternal life.  I am the bread of life.  Your ancestors ate the manna in the wilderness, and they died.  This is the bread that comes down from heaven, so that one may eat of it and not die.  I am the living bread that came down from heaven. Whoever eats of this bread will live forever; and the bread that I will give for the life of the world is my flesh.” The Jews then disputed among themselves, saying, “How can this man give us his flesh to eat?”  So Jesus said to them, “Very truly, I tell you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you have no life in you.  Those who eat my flesh and drink my blood have eternal life, and I will raise them up on the last day;  for my flesh is true food and my blood is true drink.  Those who eat my flesh and drink my blood abide in me, and I in them.  Just as the living Father sent me, and I live because of the Father, so whoever eats me will live because of me. This is the bread that came down from heaven, not like that which your ancestors ate, and they died. But the one who eats this bread will live forever.”  He said these things while he was teaching in the synagogue at Capernaum. When many of his disciples heard it, they said, “This teaching is difficult; who can accept it?”  But Jesus, being aware that his disciples were complaining about it, said to them, “Does this offend you?  Then what if you were to see the Son of Man ascending to where he was before? It is the spirit that gives life; the flesh is useless. The words that I have spoken to you are spirit and life. But among you there are some who do not believe.” For Jesus knew from the first who were the ones that did not believe, and who was the one that would betray him. And he said, “For this reason I have told you that no one can come to me unless it is granted by the Father.” Because of this many of his disciples turned back and no longer went about with him. So Jesus asked the twelve, “Do you also wish to go away?” Simon Peter answered him, “Lord, to whom can we go? You have the words of eternal life. "

Of course, Jesus and the apostles also had the normal food of Passover on that day , as we see from Mtt 26:26 :

"While they were eating, Jesus took bread,  spoke a blessing and broke it, and gave it to the disciples....."

So, the apostles had been well-oriented into believing what Jesus said about partaking of his body and blood, at the last supper. And they did believe .


What does the Bible teach about "fire" in the phrase "Hell fire"? I was studying today Matthew 5:22(KJV).

  But I say unto you, That whosoever is angry with his brother without a cause shall be in danger of the judgment: and whosoever shall say to his brother, Raca, shall be in danger of the council: but whosoever shall say, Thou fool, shall be in danger of hell fire.

I understand that Dante's Divine Comedy had a substantial influence on our idea of what Hell is, and though I wonder if many any longer believe it to be the place of flames described by Dante, it's still the idea that (I suspect, if we're all honest), most Christians have pop into their heads before they start talking about it.

Therefore, asserting my personal belief that Hell isn't a place of flames, what are the Biblical beliefs or support for the Lord's use of "fire" in this verse?

As you consider this, note that my point of view is that the Lord is proposing (whether literally or figuratively) greater dangers for greater errors of judgement.

Angry without a cause -> danger of judgement (a "crime" against an individual.  Most likely judgment by your brother, family, friends, neighbors etc.)
Name calling without a cause -> danger of the council (a "crime" against society: slander)
Calling someone disobedient/sinful without a cause (Prov 12:15, Ex 20:16, etc.) -> danger of hell fire. (a "crime" against God, bearing false witness, final judgment)

I understand the "hell" part, but what is the Biblical basis for using the descriptor/adjective "fire?"  What idea was the Lord trying to convey?

There is a view known as annihilationism which regards the final penalty as complete extinction of being.  In this view the "fire," if literal, devours the impenitent, thus bringing about their everlasting destruction, or if symbolic stands for that annihilation itself.

A good reference along these lines is the book by Edward William Fudge, The Fire That Consumes: A Biblical and Historical Study of the Doctrine of Final Punishment published by iUniverse.com, Inc.: Lincoln, NE (2001) in which he states on page 428:

  "Eternal fire" is certainly not a temporary punishment which holds any promise of restoration, but it fits very well the idea of everlasting extinction such as befell the cities of Sodom and Gomorrah, as Genesis describes, the rest of the Old Testament reminds, Jesus warns and Jude plainly says.  The phrase argues against restorationism but not against conditionalism.

  "Unquenchable fire" is usually taken to mean perpetual pain, and it might mean that - if we had no Old Testament prophets to explain the language.  There it clearly signifies a divine judgment which cannot be stopped or slowed down until its destruction is complete.

As mentioned in one of the suggestions, perhaps it would be more profitable to elicit a response from those who hold this view.


How does the Catholic Church identify and collect relics? I have been told that all major Catholic churches contain within the altar a relic of a saint. Given that saints are not declared until long after the death of the person in question, and many saints die in less than favorable conditions, how does the Church go about verifying and collecting relics?

St. Maximilian Kolbe would be a good example of a saint whom we will never be able to identify any of his first degree relics, since he was burned in a Nazi concentration camp during World War II.  However, there are many 2nd and 3rd degree relics.

Relics are the remains of a saint. They are classified according to degrees. First degree relics are physical remains of a saint. They are most typically bones. Second degree relics are objects or items that touched a saint while he was alive. The relics of Christ's Passion would be second degree relics. Third degree relics include anything that touched other relics. Normally, it is the bones of the saints and the relics of Christ's Passion that are mentioned among the relics.

Catholic Forum - Relics
The perfectly preserved body parts of lots of European saints aren't going to be transferred to the Americas any time soon and we've got a lot of work to do to increase our output of saints.
The Code of Canon Law says:

The ancient tradition of placing relics of martyrs or other saints under a fixed altar is to be preserved, according to the norms given in the liturgical books.

Can.  1237 - §2.
So, what do the liturgical books about the degree of relics for altars?
I skimmed over this liturgical book and you can skim it over yourself, but it doesn't say anything about the degree of the relics.  It does however say that relics of martyrs are preferred and that only recognizable body parts can be placed in sight.  Otherwise, they're put in a box (as a reliquary) under the altar.  The altar must be fixed in place so that everyone knows that the relics are there.
I've got to remember to ask what we've got for a relic in my parish. I hope someone remembers.  Hopefully a priest will show up and give you a better answer.


What is a Miracle and does it require Faith? I was reading Matthew 8 today and I was pondering upon the verse (verses 8-13) interaction between Jesus and a certain centurion. To summarize, the centurion tells Jesus that his servant is paralyzed and he then asks if he will speak only a word and that will be sufficient for his servant's healing. Jesus after commending him for his faith sends him on his way and the centurion finds his servant healed that very hour. Would this encounter be considered a miracle, an act of God, or are they one in the same? I ask because if it was a miracle did it hinge on the centurion's faith or not? Another scenario could easily be thought up that doesn't involve faith such as an atheist going to a rock concert, gets into a 10- car pile up and is the only survivor. Would that be a miracle or just plain luck? I wish to know what a miracle is, whether it requires faith, and are we as a society using the word "miracle" wrong.

Thanks

The word "miracle" comes from a Latin word which might be translated more directly as "wonder". It's a thing which causes you to be amazed. In this broader sense, yes, both the atheist and the centurion can be said to have experienced something miraculous.

There are four words in the Greek of the New Testament that give a more Christian nuance to the idea of a miracle; these are dynameis (Strong's G1411: mighty powers, or works of great power), terasin (Strong's G5059: wonders, things which cause you to take notice), semeia (Strong's G4592: signs/symbols, something that helps you know what something is), and erga (Strong's G2041: actions, things that someone does). Let's handle these in reverse order.

Acts of God

When the New Testament talks about "acts of God" (erga tou theou), it is usually about normal people acting in a way that is godly and expresses His will. In this sense the centurion was certainly performing an act of God when he laid down his authority in faith before Jesus to beg a healing. It is not 100% clear whether explicit faith of this sort is necessary: Christian denominations are in my experience divided on whether people from other religions are capable of unintentionally doing the will of God due to acting justly, fairly, moderately, or kindly. (These things are talked about for example in the model of Christianity given us in Titus 2-3 as well as in many other instances.)

However we are more unified by scripture in one particular way which somewhat overrides this, also discussed in Titus briefly but expanded in much greater depth in Romans 3: that such good works are insufficient. So even if these are acts of faith, they do not give us the justification before God of having a clean soul -- whatever your denomination views that goal as being.

So this idea that we have in our modern language that something was an "act of God" is not really called that in the Bible. Instead the "acts of God" are really "Godly works": things that we do as a part of our new relationship with God.

In the legal vernacular an "act of God" is just one of those things which no human has causal responsibility for, like if your house gets hit by a bolt of lightning. Probably neither of these are "acts of God" in this sense: the 10-car pileup was probably caused by someone's recklessness and the servant was probably paralyzed due to some sort of physical trauma or accident which ultimately come down to someone's responsibility or another -- but perhaps it could have instead been a congenital defect or something, who knows.

Signs and Wonders

Here we get something far more meaty. Jesus's act is performed to indicate that He is a Prophet. His acts of healing are part of showing people that he is who he claims to be. These structure, for example, the gospel of John.

However I must here confess certain limitations of my own understanding. There are certain scriptures that are against the existence of signs; for example Jesus rebukes the Pharisees twice in Matthew by saying, "An evil and adulterous generation seeks for a sign, but no sign will be given to it except the sign of the prophet Jonah." The first time he explicates that it will simply be his death and resurrection. This is after these people have presumably seen Jesus perform miracles in Matt 12. We see some similar dissent in 1 Cor 22:24 that Jews are demanding signs and providing such signs is not the Christian approach. Furthermore, signs are not a 100% proof, though they are often used that way; see for example Matt 24:24 which says that false prophets will be doing great signs and wonders to lead people astray from the truth; but 2 Cor 12:12 has Paul saying 'The signs of a true apostle were performed among you with utmost patience, with signs and wonders and mighty works,' which I think is him insisting "I have been extremely generous with you!" but also seems to indicate that the "signs and wonders and mighty works" should make them realize that he is a "true apostle."

So I don't know exactly how to interpret all of this. In any case, it is straightforward to define a "signs miracle" as something which points to the power and authority of Jesus, as when someone heals in the name of Jesus or when Jesus heals the afflicted. The 10-car pileup obviously isn't a miracle in this sense. However, since false prophets will do signs, I am not sure it is an explicit requirement that one have faith to do them.

Jesus's act also inspires awe in us, startling us, shocking us out of our everyday world. Skipping around the Bible to see how this word is used, we find frightful situations "the sun shall be turned to darkness and the moon to blood," what appears to be an earthquake in Acts 4:31, and such. So those are wonders. I really think that these both need to be lumped together: these things are signs because they are wondrous.

And I think that awe is in many ways the kernel of faith. We hear of the faithful in the Old Testament described as people who "fear God". In Shinto, for example, anything that instills a great awe is called a kami, their notion of a (possibly-needing-veneration) spirit; in Indian religions they speak of "darśana", a spiritual sort of vision (awe?) that attends the actual beholding of something of power. So if awe is the kernel of all of these different faiths, then saying that something is a "wonder" is expressing some sort of faith -- it's just a question of where it's directed, whether productive (from our Christian perspective, at God) or unproductive (at self, false idols, evil).

Works of Great Power

That brings us to this last notion, but it's the most important one. 1 Cor 12:6, "there are varieties of activities, but it is the same God who empowers them all in everyone," literally could be saying "energizes" (erga comes from the singular ergon, which ultimately is where we get our word "energy"; the word "empowers" here is translated from "energematon" inward-energy-imbuing. It's not Christians who heal others, say, but Christ who heals others through our laying on hands. The power comes from Jesus directly; we are just proxies who have been empowered by Him. The things that we do, if they show power beyond what we ourselves have to offer, become these expressions of God's great power. Some of these are things that we are patiently awaiting in an age to come (Hebrews 6:5 uses dynameis this way); some are authority in the present over demons and illness (Luke 9:1); some are simply the power in the gift of God that we might be saved by our belief (Romans 1:16).

There are lots of expressions of God's raw power and how it can fill us, and the place it has carved for us to inherit (Ephesians 1).

I do not think that this is very strongly expressed by the chance survival of the atheist, but it might be. That same Ephesians 1 says, "In him we have obtained an inheritance, having been predestined according to the purpose of him who works all things according to the counsel of his will." Who am I to say that He didn't save the atheist, and might have even had a plan for him?


Was the dogma of the Immaculate Conception formulated in response to someone challenging Mary's ability to bear a perfect Son? I read that dogma is the church's way of explaining supernatural events in scripture

Since I have been doing research on the question of how a perfect Jesus could be born of a descendant of Adam, it occurred to me that the Immaculate Conception dogma may have come about in this way.

Is it recorded anywhere that a challenge was made regarding Mary being imperfect, thus not able to bring forth the Savior, and the early fathers responding to this with the dogma that explains the supernatural way this could be accomplished?

It's important to distinguish between three different, but related, beliefs:

Belief in the sinlessness of Mary (that is, that she never actually committed a sin)
Belief in the sanctification of Mary (that is, that she was through the intervention of God cleansed of original sin)
Belief in the immaculate conception of Mary (that this sanctification occurred specifically in the instant of Mary's conception)

Expression of the first two of these beliefs seems to date (as the Catholic Church interprets tradition) at least as far back as the early third century (making them about as old as the expressed belief that God is Three Persons in One Trinity). The third belief took a great deal longer to settle—Thomas Aquinas asserted the first two of these beliefs, but (because of his Aristotelian understanding of prenatal development) not the third. Based on some of your comments elsewhere, Pam, I'm presuming that you're primarily concerned about the first, closely associated, pair of beliefs. In which case your questions become:

Was there a heresy, or at any rate an asserted belief, in the Church—early or later—to the effect that Jesus could not have been the Savior if he were not born of a perfect woman?
If so, was the doctrine of the sinlessness and sanctification of Mary developed in response to such a belief?

Although it can be very difficult to prove a negative, I'm not aware of any belief in the early Church that Jesus could not have been God, the Messiah, or the Savior had he been born of a sinful woman (that is, either a woman who had in fact sinned or a woman "stained" by original sin). It would seem that the appropriate response to such a belief would be to reiterate that indeed Jesus could have been born of such a woman. And in fact in the 13th century Aquinas argued for this very statement. Questioning "Whether the matter of Christ's body should have been taken from a woman?" (Summa Theologica, Third Part, Question 31, Article 4), he anticipates that some people will object that:

those who are conceived of a woman contract a certain uncleanness: as it is written (Job 25:4): "Can man be justified compared with God? Or he that is born of a woman appear clean?" But it was unbecoming that any uncleanness should be in Christ: for He is the Wisdom of God, of whom it is written (Wis. 7:25) that "no defiled thing cometh into her." Therefore it does not seem right that He should have taken flesh from a woman.

Aquinas' response is:

There is no uncleanness in the conception of man from a woman, as far as this is the work of God. ... But if there were any uncleanness therein, the Word of God would not have been sullied thereby, for He is utterly unchangeable. Wherefore Augustine says (Against Five Heresies v): "God saith, the Creator of man: What is it that troubles thee in My Birth? I was not conceived by lustful desire. I made Myself a mother of whom to be born. If the sun's rays can dry up the filth in the drain, and yet not be defiled: much more can the Splendor of eternal light cleanse whatever It shines upon, but Itself cannot be sullied."

In other words, Aquinas maintains, it was indeed possible for Christ to have been born of sinful woman; Christ's glory would not have been diminished thereby. But, he states elsewhere, it would have been inappropriate:

God so prepares and endows those, whom He chooses for some particular office, that they are rendered capable of fulfilling it, according to 2 Cor. 3:6: "(Who) hath made us fit ministers of the New Testament." Now the Blessed Virgin was chosen by God to be His Mother. Therefore there can be no doubt that God, by His grace, made her worthy of that office. ... But she would not have been worthy to be the Mother of God, if she had ever sinned. First, because the honor of the parents reflects on the child, according to Prov. 17:6: "The glory of children are their fathers": and consequently, on the other hand, the Mother's shame would have reflected on her Son. Secondly, because of the singular affinity between her and Christ, who took flesh from her: and it is written (2 Cor. 6:15): "What concord hath Christ with Belial?" Thirdly, because of the singular manner in which the Son of God, who is the "Divine Wisdom" (1 Cor. 1:24) dwelt in her, not only in her soul but in her womb. And it is written (Wis. 1:4): "Wisdom will not enter into a malicious soul, nor dwell in a body subject to sins."
We must therefore confess simply that the Blessed Virgin committed no actual sin, neither mortal nor venial; so that what is written (Cant 4:7) is fulfilled: "Thou art all fair, O my love, and there is not a spot in thee," etc.

In other words, there's no indication I can find that the doctrine was formulated in response to an assertion that Jesus couldn't have been born of a sinful woman. Instead, it seems to have followed reflections on the glory of Christ, and what a woman who truly deserved the title of Theotokos would be like.


The meaning of "The Other" in the writings by pope John Paul II In a letter by pope John Paul II I found the following quote where he talks about God as 'the Other'. I know this term is used in phenomenology and by Levinas, Lacan and perhaps others, but I was wondering to which thinker, theologian or area of philosophy or theology he was referring to when he uses 'the Other' instead of God. Does he (or other prominent catholics) use this term in other letters or books?

  We must confess that we all have need of this silence, filled with the presence of him who is adored: in theology, so as to exploit fully its own sapiential and spiritual soul; in prayer, so that we may never forget that seeing God means coming down the mountain with a face so radiant that we are obliged to cover it with a veil (cf. Ex 34:33), and that our gatherings may make room for God's presence and avoid self - celebration; in preaching, so as not to delude ourselves that it is enough to heap word upon word to attract people to the experience of God; in commitment, so that we will refuse to be locked in a struggle without love and forgiveness. This is what man needs today; he is often unable to be silent for fear of meeting himself, of feeling the emptiness that asks itself about meaning; man who deafens himself with noise. All, believers and non - believers alike, need to learn a silence that allows the Other to speak when and how he wishes, and allows us to understand his words.

-- John Paul II, Orientale Lumen 16 (1996)

OP quoting John Paul II "All, believers and non - believers alike, need to learn a silence that allows the Other to speak when and how he wishes, and allows us to understand his words."
The meaning of "the Other" in context would refer to a believer's or non-believer's God.


Phonetic sound of Uzziah I am searching for a bible character whose name starts with the short u or /ʌ/ sound for my project. Can I use the name Uzziah? Or is there any other bible character whose name has the short u or /ʌ/ sound. Please advise.

I am so glad to have found this site.

There are these three other biblical names with the short u or /ʌ/ sound ( and all has a beautiful meaning):

Uzziel

Uriah

Uriel


How do we identify false teachers? But false prophets also arose among the people, just as there will also be false teachers among you, who will secretly introduce destructive heresies, even denying the Master who bought them, bringing swift destruction upon themselves. -2 Peter 2:1

My question is: How can you tell if a teacher is a "false teacher"?

Please support your answer with Scripture.

1 John is really the 'discernment' Epistle showing many ways that false teachers can be identified.  The main thing is to look at the life and doctrine of a teacher to ensure they stick to the basic Christ centred ideas and life of love. The basic rules are:
False teachers do not love Christians and they live in wickedness. Real Christians know how sinful they are, confess their daily sins, but do not love the world. Real Christians love God, as proven in their love of those who believe in Christ for the forgiveness of their sins, that is God's children.

If we claim we have not sinned, we make him out to be a
liar and his word is not in us. (1 John 1:10)

The Lord's daily prayer included 'forgive us our sins' (Math 6:12). Every Christian knows that they sin every day because nobody loves God with all the heart, soul and mind, which is the greatest command. (Math 22:37)

Whoever says, “I know him,” but does not do what he commands is a liar, and the truth is not in that person. (1 John 2:4)

Some may seem correct in doctrine, but live in open sin. For example they may say it is alright to commit adultery, practice homosexuality, or the worship of someone other than God, which is idolatry, etc. Such a person is like the Devil appearing as an angel in word, but betrayed in action.

Anyone who claims to be in the light but hates a brother or sister is still in the darkness. (1 John 2:9)

A Christian cannot hate another person in the intense way that this implies. It is impossible for a born again; regenerate should to be filled with hate because God’s Spirit remains in them. This especially holds true for our attitudes towards any who belie in Christ for the forgiveness of their sins. This is the ‘brother or sister’ being mentioned. Therefore churches and cults, that consider their denomination as the only group that will be saved, are built upon false teachers. Paul says; let such teachers be ‘accursed’ even if they were a Pope, Saint, Apostle, or even an Angel. (Gal 1:8) Anyone who genuinely believes in Christ, proven by their love of all the others who also believe, will have eternal life. (John 3:16, 1 John 5:11-13)

Do not love the world or anything in the world. If anyone loves the world, love for the Father is not in them. (1 John 2:15)

Anyone who puts money, sex, career, worldly status, or religious status before the gospel loves the world and is not a Christian.  (1 John 2:16)

Whoever does not love does not know God, because God is love. (1 John 4:8)

This cuts to the spirit of all true Christians. The Holy Spirit is a loving Spirit so if that Spirit is within a soul, that soul will love others.  When somebody loves us we can tell. Not only does this help us discern our own attitudes but if somebody seems right in doctrine but is always angry, impatient, not kind, jealous of others, bragging all the time, always argumentative, selfish, or any other non-loving characteristic, the Bible seems to say we should switch channels and listen to someone else. They are clanging gongs (1 Cor Ch 13)

False teachers deny the incarnation of Christ in one way or another. They either deny the Father, Son, or Holy Ghost, or they deny the incarnation, or atoning sacrifice of sin on the cross. They might deny the whole gospel by thinking their good works will save them rather than Christ.  Real Christians believe that God assumed human nature in Christ, and that by faith in Christ alone we have eternal life.

Who is the liar? It is whoever denies that Jesus is the Christ. Such a person is the antichrist—denying the Father and the Son. (1 John 2:22)
This is how you can recognize the Spirit of God: Every spirit that acknowledges that Jesus Christ has come in the flesh is from God. (1 John 4:2)

The gospel hinges on believing that the eternal Son of God took on human nature to offer his soul and body for the punishment of your sin, and my sin. In fact faith is this one statement determines who Christians are and who liars are.

And this is the testimony: God has given us eternal life, and this life is in his Son. Whoever has the Son has life; whoever does not have the Son of God does not have life. I write these things to you who believe in the name of the Son of God so that you may know that you have eternal life. (1 John 5:11–13)

A Christian can be sure they have eternal life by relying on the death of Christ for their forgiveness. If they rely on their own works by being a good moral person, or being baptised into a specific church, they may still yet go to hell.

In the end, discernment is easy for those who have the Holy Spirit. Jesus said:

By their fruit you will recognize them. Do people pick grapes from thornbushes, or figs from thistles? (Matt 7:16)

The Bible lists the fruit of the Spirit as love, joy, peace, etc. (Gal 5:22) The nature of fruit corresponds to the type of tree from which it grows, and all Christian have been engrafted into Christ as the root, who’s life is our sap and nutrient. Naturally this fruit is not just the attitude but also the doctrine of justification in Christ by faith apart from the works of the law, as is the argument of the entire Bible.


What is the doctrinal or Scriptural basis for a central Church authority? As explained in a previous question, one Baptist Distinctive is the rejection of a central Church authority (whether an individual or a governing body).  Instead, we hold fast to the autonomy of the local Church.

This has been my view, and coming from this perspective, I wonder what the doctrinal basis is for having a central authority.  This could be answered from the perspective of any denomination that does have a central authority.  This is not intended to be an argument for or against the validity of any claim.  I would, however, ask that the responses be supported, either by scriptures, or by official Church statements, or other supporting documentation.

I realize that different groups may have different, or common answers, and that there may not be one "right" answer, but rather several "right" answers.  If I need to pick a denomination for the question to be valid, I will certainly do so.

A good article about the nature and structure of the Church according to Catholic doctrine can be found here. In short the Catholic view is:

The Church was instituted by Christ as one organization, not many
The church was hierarchic from the beginning. Local churches frequently sought approval from the central authority (the Apostles) even in Apostolic times, and church leaders were appointed by leaders from outside the local congregation.

The Anglican church disagreed with the Catholic church not on the desirability of a central organization, but only on whether national churches should be answerable to the worldwide church.


How do non-Sabbatarians interpret Revelation 14:12? Revelation 14:12 (KJV)

12 Here is the patience of the saints: here are they that keep the commandments of God, and the faith of Jesus.

I've seen Sabbatarians bring up this verse of Revelation as evidence that true Christians should keep the commandments of God, including the Sabbath commandment (Exodus 20:8-11). In fact, in a related question posted on Hermeneutics.SE, the most upvoted answers tend to agree that Revelation 14:12 at least includes the 10 commandments (but possibly more). If that's true, then the Sabbatarian has a solid point here.
How do non-Sabbatarians interpret Revelation 14:12?

There is therefore now no condemnation for those who are in Christ Jesus. For the law of the Spirit of life has set you free in Christ Jesus from the law of sin and death. For God has done what the law, weakened by the flesh, could not do. By sending his own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh and for sin, he condemned sin in the flesh, in order that the righteous requirement of the law might be fulfilled in us, who walk not according to the flesh but according to the Spirit. For those who live according to the flesh set their minds on the things of the flesh, but those who live according to the Spirit set their minds on the things of the Spirit. For to set the mind on the flesh is death, but to set the mind on the Spirit is life and peace.
For the mind that is set on the flesh is hostile to God, for it does not submit to God's law; indeed, it cannot. Those who are in the flesh cannot please God. You, however, are not in the flesh but in the Spirit, if in fact the Spirit of God dwells in you. Anyone who does not have the Spirit of Christ does not belong to him. - Romans 8:1-9

In light of much of what the New Testament and Jesus Himself has to say about Love and about the Law and the Prophets:

“You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind. This is the great and first commandment. And a second is like it: You shall love your neighbor as yourself. On these two commandments depend all the Law and the Prophets.” - Matthew 22:37b-40

A new commandment I give to you, that you love one another: just as I have loved you, you also are to love one another. By this all people will know that you are my disciples, if you have love for one another.” - John 13:34-35

Owe no one anything, except to love each other, for the one who loves another has fulfilled the law. For the commandments, “You shall not commit adultery, You shall not murder, You shall not steal, You shall not covet,” and any other commandment, are summed up in this word: “You shall love your neighbor as yourself.” Love does no wrong to a neighbor; therefore love is the fulfilling of the law. - Romans 13:8-10

It is fair to conclude that those saints in Revelation 14:12 have kept the commandments of God, not in the letter of the Law but in Love.


Is there a difference between prayer and petition? Philippians 4:6 uses two words, possibly implying a difference between prayer and petition. Can someone explain what this difference is?

  Philippians 4:6 (NIV)
  6  Do not be anxious about anything, but in every situation, by prayer and petition, with thanksgiving, present your requests to God.

A petition, just as it is in the political arena, is a request to a sovereign to take some action.  Any request made of God, is thus a petition. Prayer, on the other hand, is any communication with God.

As such, all petitions presented to God are delivered as prayer, but there are forms of prayer (glorification, confession, thanksgiving) that are not petitions.

Going to the Greek, we see it is:

  παντὶ τῇ προσευχῇ καὶ τῇ δεήσει μετὰ εὐχαριστίας

παντὶ = in all things

τῇ προσευχῇ = in prayer

καὶ = and

τῇ δεήσει μετὰ εὐχαριστίας = in petition with thanksgiving.

As such one could parse the verse as "in all things .. by prayer (petition with thanksgiving) present your requests to God" as an equally accurate rendering.  This seems like an instrumental construction, meaning that petitions and thanksgiving would be how the prayer is done.

Again, in short - your petition is a kind of prayer, but it is not the only kind of prayer there is.


Are all the elect raptured before the Tribulation, according to Calvinists? From this link:

It seems inconsistent for God to promise believers that they will not
suffer wrath and then leave them on the earth to suffer through the
wrath of the tribulation.
If the Bible is interpreted literally and consistently, the
pre-tribulational position is the most biblically-based
interpretation.

And this link:

At that moment, the world will have no born-again believers anywhere.

Does it mean there will be no more of God's elect?
I mean something like this :
Before the creation, God has 100 elects, humans who will be in heaven.
Not one of the 100 elects will taste the tribulation.

Matthew 24:31 And he will send out his angels with a loud trumpet
call, and they will gather his elect from the four winds, from one end
of heaven to the other

80 elects already died before the Rapture. The rest, 20 elects are raptured.
No more the elect, no more believer to the rest of the future after the Rapture, before the Millennial Kingdom.

Most Reformed/Calvinist churches are Amillennial.1 For Amillennials the "millennium" is a symbol for the entire church age, and there is no single time which we could call the "Great Tribulation". Instead there will be times of tribulation throughout this age. The second coming of Jesus is not seen as a complex multi-part event like the pre- and mid-tribulationists do, but just a single time of Jesus' return, the resurrection of the dead, and judgement.

1 The exceptions would generally be Reformed Baptists, who are often Premillennial, but could also be postmillennial. Amongst the Reformed Baptists there's probably lots of diversity about the Tribulation; it is not a clear dividing doctrine unlike credobaptism or Reformed Theology's doctrine of salvation.


Which denominations allow abortions, and why? Are there any Christian denominations that allow abortion? What (Biblical) argumentation do they use to justify this?

Protestant Denominations

Wikipedia states that Protestant denominations that support abortion rights include the United Church of Christ, the United Methodist Church, the Episcopalian Church, and the United Presbyterian Church, the Episcopal Church, the Presbyterian Church (USA), The United Church of Christ, The United Methodist Church, and the Lutheran Women's Caucus. It says the American Baptist Churches USA, Episcopal Church, Evangelical Lutheran Church of America, the Presbyterian Church (USA) and The United Church of Christ consider abortion permissible under certain restricted circumstances. The United Church of Canada has opposed legal sanctions against abortion since 1990, and the Uniting Church of Australia has accepted the right to abortion since 1992. The Church of Latter Day Saints states, "Some exceptional circumstances may justify an abortion, such as when pregnancy is the result of incest or rape, when the life or health of the mother is judged by competent medical authority to be in serious jeopardy, or when the fetus is known by competent medical authority to have severe defects that will not allow the baby to survive beyond birth."

Catholic Church

Although the Catholic Church is firmly opposed to abortion from the time of conception, this was not always the case. Pope Innocent III (1198-1216) stated that a monk who had persuaded his mistress to have an abortion was not guilty of murder as long as the foetus had not yet been animated, which took place 40 days after conception for a boy, 80 for a girl, a definition Roman Canon law maintained until 1869. Pope Gregory XIII (1572-1585) declared that it was not murder to abort an embryo of less than 40 days, although this was overturned by his successor, Sixtus V. A few years later, Gregory XIV modified the Apostolic Constitution Effraenatam (‘without restraint’) of Pope Sixtus V so that the penalty for abortion did not apply until ensoulment at 40 days. Pope Pius IX restored the penalty to the time of conception.

Religious Tolerance, while not a primary source, states, "Various church authorities and popes placed the time at:

At a specific time into pregnancy (40 days, 80 days, 116 days), or
Quickening (when the woman first feels the fetus move), or
At conception."

Readily accessible online Vatican references include:-

This link which is the fourth-century Apostolic Constitutions (Book VII) - written as if by the apostles - published by the Catholic Church. Under the heading 'The Prohibition of Conjuring, Murder of Infants, Perjury, and False Witness', in the context of abortion, it states "everything that is shaped, and has received a soul from God, if it be slain, shall be avenged ..." This is a reference to ensoulment, which I mentioned above: the thinking was that ensoulment took place when the foetus developed human shape or quickened (began to move in the womb).

Under the heading Abortion, New Advent, denies that the rules have ever changed, states that the Church 'has made it [prohibition] more definite. As to the penalties she inflicts upon the guilty parties, her present legislation was fixed by the Bull of Pius IX "Apostolicae Sedis".' The second paragraph states, "It was long debated among the learned at what period of gestation the human embryo begins to be animated by the rational, spiritual soul, which elevates man above all other species of the animal creation and survives the body to live forever. The keenest mind among the ancient philosophers, Aristotle, had conjectured that the future child was endowed at conception with a principle of only vegetative life, which was exchanged after a few days for an animal soul, and was not succeeded by a rational soul till later; his followers said on the fortieth day for a male, and the eightieth for a female, child. The authority of his great name and the want of definite knowledge to the contrary caused this theory to be generally accepted up to recent times."

Johannah Haney says in The Abortion Debate, at page 24, 'In the fourth century A.D., Saint Augustine said, "Abortion could be viewd as murder only if the fetus was judged a 'fully formed' human. [Forty] days for males and 80 days for females. This meant that abortion was not murder but "a grave form of birth control."' Pope Innocent III said that abortion before quickening was still wrong, but a lesser sin. In the fifteenth century, St. Antonius, archbishop of Florence, said that abortion should be permitted in early pregnancy to save the life of the pregnant woman.

Wolfgang Müller says in The Criminalization of Abortion in the West that abortion was first defined as a 'crime' in the modern sense in the writings of twelfth-century teachers at the emerging schools of ecclesiastical (or canon) and Roman law. Gratian authored the oldest canonistic textbook, circa 1140, that the killing of a human foetus would constitute homicide and warrant identical punitive measures. Gratian said the humanity of unborn life was not the immediate result of conception but occurred when the embryo acquired limbs and human shape. At page 84, Muller says,  "Gregory XIV fully restored Gratian's distinction between two phases of life in the maternal womb and varying penalties for each of them, ending a moment of apostolic rejection that lasted for two and a half years, from 1588 to 1591.

Merritt and Merritt say in When Does Human Life Begin?, at page 22, that "as late as 1261 CE, Pope Innocent III wrote a letter ruling on the case of a Carthusian monk who had arranged for his female lover to obtain an abortion. The pope decided, consistent with canon law, that the monk was not guilty of homicide if the fetus was not animated."

Biblical References

Norman L. Geisler gives biblical arguments in support of abortion in Christian Ethics at pages 136-7, but does not necessarily endorse them:

Genesis 2:7 declares that man “became a living being” only after God gave him life. Since breathing does not occur until birth, it is argued that the unborn are not human until they are born.
Job 34:14-15 says that if God “withdrew his spirit and breath, all mankind would perish.”  Here again, since life is connected with breath, it is reasoned that there is no human life before breath.
Isaiah 57:16 refers to “the breath of man that I [God] have created.”  This also seems to make the beginning of breath the point of the creation of a human being.
Ecclesiastes 6:3-5 declares that “a stillborn child” comes into the world “without meaning, it departs in darkness, . . . it never saw the sun nor knew anything.” This is taken to indicate that the unborn are no more than the dead, who also know nothing but lie in the darkness of the grave (9:10).
Matthew 26:24 records Jesus' statement about Judas that “it would have been better for him if he had not been born.”  The implication drawn from this is that human life begins at birth.  Otherwise, Jesus would have said it would have been better for him never to have been conceived.


How did Luther view 'confessing intentional sins' to a priest for forgiveness? The Catholic church at the time of Luther  had refined what they called the sacrament of penance.  It consisted in contrition (genuine remorse for one’s sins), confession (to the priest), and satisfaction (making good, on the priest’s orders, what had been done wrong). Its formal aspect consisted in the absolution given by the priest, while the effective aspect consisted in receiving the forgiveness of sins.. This was typically done in a confessional, a booth where this exchange took place.  Technically, the Priest was only mediating the forgiveness which only Christ provided.

Did Luther have a minor alteration in his view of confession and penance, or a major one after being born again?

Originally Luther believed that confession to a priest was a holy sacrament. After being what he called 'born again', which is often referred to as his Tower Experience, he began to see confession and penance differently.
Early in the reformation he still maintained that it was still a sacrament, along with Baptism and the Lord's Supper, but the priests involvement was almost meaningless in his explanation, as they were there as mere mouth pieces to declare the gospel of forgiveness, which 'any child' could just as easily do considering the fact it is only reminding sinners of the gospel.
Here he argues that it does not really matter who you confess to:

A pope or bishop does nothing more than the lowliest priest. Indeed where there is no priest, each individual Christian—even a woman or child—does as much. For any Christian can say to you, “God forgives you your sins, in the name,” etc., and if you can accept that word with a confident faith, as though God were saying it to you, then in that same faith you are surely absolved.
It follows that the keys or the authority of St. Peter is not an authority at all but a service; and the keys have not been given to St. Peter but to you and me. The keys are yours and mine. (Luther's Works Vol 35.16)

Yet luther had many suspicions and detestations of the way many people used this practice not truthfully acting as a mere mouthpiece but to torment the consciences of those who foolishly sought the help of blind priests. . To Luther they were trying to make it a matter of works, as opposed to the free gospel which the priest should merely affirm:

A number of people have been teaching us that we should, and must necessarily, be uncertain about absolution, and doubt whether we have been restored to grace and our sins forgiven—on the grounds that we do not know whether our contrition has been adequate or whether sufficient satisfaction has been made for our sins. And because this is not known, the priest cannot at once assign appropriate penance.  Be on guard against these misleading and un-Christian gossips. The priest is necessarily uncertain as to your contrition and faith, but this is not what matters. To him it is enough that you make confession and seek an absolution. He is supposed to give it to you and is obligated to do so. What will come of it, however, he should leave to God and to your faith. You should not be debating in the first place whether or not your contrition is sufficient. Rather you should be assured of this, that after all your efforts your contrition is not sufficient. This is why you must cast yourself upon the grace of God, hear his sufficiently sure word in the sacrament, accept it in free and joyful faith, and never doubt that you have come to grace—not by your own merits or contrition but by his gracious and divine mercy, which promises, offers, and grants you full and free forgiveness of sins in order that in the face of all the assaults  of sin, conscience, and the devil, you thus learn to glory and trust not in yourself or your own actions, but in the grace and mercy of your dear Father in heaven. (Luther's Works Vol 35.15)

After some more thought, as some years passed, his detestations became clearer to him, not only did he no longer consider it a sacrament but fully made known his thoughts about the Papal abuse of it.  In an Exhortation of Martin Luther to All the Clergy Assembled at Augsburg for the Diet of 1530 he made his final sentiments known about the confessional, confessions and penance. As is usual in the world of Luther the practices of the church seemed to have become so horribly perverse but we do not have much history to work from other than to take his word for it as a former monk and teacher.
Concerning Confessionals

My dear man, was not this, too, a blasphemous trade fair, invented in every respect for the sake of money? As if God had not before through the gospel given all such things freely to all the world, or as if God had forbidden these things, and they were the mighty men who could sell the commandments of God for money. The gospel must be nothing and God must be their merchandise.  (Luther's Works Vol 34.19)

Concerning Confession

I consider one of the greatest plagues on earth whereby you have confused the conscience of the whole world, caused so many souls to despair, and have weakened and quenched all men’s faith in Christ.
(Luther's Works Vol 34.19).

Concerning Penance

That is the very worst and hell itself! If one were to forgive and remit all abominations, one can never forgive you for this one. This doctrine has filled hell and has troubled the kingdom of Christ more horribly than the Turk or the whole world could ever do. For you taught us that we should by our own works make satisfaction for sin, even against God. And that was called repenting of sin. You have nowhere given so much emphasis to contrition and confession, although you have made works of them also. Now what else does it mean to say, “You must make satisfaction for your sins,” than to say, “You must deny Christ, renounce your baptism, blaspheme the gospel, reproach God for lies, disbelieve the forgiveness of sins, tread underfoot Christ’s blood and death, dishonor the Holy Spirit, and go to heaven by your own effort with such virtues”? Alas, where are the tongues and voices which can say enough about this? (Luther's Works Vol 34.20)


What did Jesus mean by "this generation will certainly not pass away.." in Matthew 24:34? Matthew 24:34 says "I tell you the truth, this generation will certainly not pass away until all these things have happened.".

I am a Christian, and it is my duty to seek out truth, not plainly accept what I hear or what other people say it is. So I've read this verse, and it really had me confused. Taking it by word and its plain meaning. I can read this as:

'this generation' = people He was talking to
'these things' = judgement day/end times

It's clearly obvious that 'this generation' have already passed away, his disciples/followers/people at that time are already dead by now, and the world hasn't come to an end yet. What does this verse really mean?

The word "generation" there in Greek is γενεα (genea), which can also refer to a family, stock, nation. (Strongs, definition 2b) The NASB also has a footnote here next to "generation" saying "Or race".  I've always interpreted it, therefore, as meaning that the Jewish people will continue to exist until the second coming.

Another form of the same word, γενος, is used in 1 Peter 2:9 where the KJV says "But ye are a chosen generation..." and the NASB, NRSV, ESV, pretty much all the modern translations, say "But you are a chosen race..."

Some people object to this interpretation because of the other verses that are clearly talking about the people of that time not dying until they see the kingdom come.

Matthew 16:28 "Verily I say unto you, There be some standing here, which shall not taste of death, till they see the Son of man coming in his kingdom."

Mark 9:1 "And he said unto them, Verily I say unto you, That there be some of them that stand here, which shall not taste of death, till they have seen the kingdom of God come with power."

Luke 9:27 "But I tell you of a truth, there be some standing here, which shall not taste of death, till they see the kingdom of God."

But I maintain that these are about the coming of the kingdom in the form of the establishment of the church on Pentecost, whereas Matthew 24:34 is about the end of the world.  And so I believe they are speaking about different groups of people.  You will notice also that these other verses don't use the word "generation."


At what point did the Eastern Church start self-identifying as the Orthodox Church? The Great (East-West) Schism was a massive trainwreck centuries in the making and centuries in its outworking. At what point in the process did the Eastern Church start identifying itself as the Orthodox Church in exclusion to the Roman See?

I'm not interested in what event caused this to theoretically happen, but when the Orthodox Church started using this particular terminology to refer exclusively to itself.

This is one of a number of related questions I intend to ask regarding the Great (East-West) Schism, terminology and self-identication of the resulting Churches.

The others so far:

How do the Eastern Orthodox view using the term 'catholic', particularly in regard to Roman Catholicism?
What is the Roman Catholic view on using the term 'orthodox', particularly in regard to Eastern Orthodoxy?
At what point did the Roman see start self-identifying as the Catholic Church?

First of all we need to get some meanings cleared out: as per the Wikipedia entry "The Eastern Orthodox Church considers itself to be both orthodox and catholic" meaning right-worshipping and universal. This is what the words catholic and orthodox mean. The question is regarding the labeling of the  Eastern Church as Orthodox.

The term Orthodox Church was first used as an identifier of the Eastern Church, by Roman Catholic theologians and scholars in the years following the Great Schism, with the intention of mocking what they perceived as rigidity and extremely strict adherence to the precepts of right worship, or, orthodoxy.

However, the Eastern Church did not consider this to be pejorative at all, but rather pretty descriptive of their approach (and also pointing fingers back at the West's non-orthodoxy) so they've embraced it.

As you can probably see, it's impossible to pinpoint an exact moment in history when this identification started to take place as it was not decreed officially in any way. It just started to spread around in the years after the Schism.

PS: I can't remember where exactly I have read this so unfortunately I can't provide a proper reference, it was an Orthodox book for sure though.


What is the Biblical basis to declare that 'justice necessitates the resurrection of the body'? I found a very good description of what the human conscience is:

  Conscience is nothing but that judgment which men do make, and which they cannot but make, of their moral actions with reference unto the supreme future judgment of God. (Owen, J. (1855). Vol. 22: An Exposition of the Epistle to the Hebrews, Volume 5)

Following human conscience to the judgment brings a question about our common sense of justice. One question I have is, ‘Does a resurrection from the dead to the judgment instinctively necessitate the appearance of the body?’ In addition to the ‘appearance of the soul’, does justice necessitate that ‘our body’ appears before God’s tribunal to receive the penalty, or reward, which it deserves for the sins we have ‘done in the body’?

I know the Bible declares the necessity of the resurrection upon the grounds that Christ is resurrected, but what is the Biblical basis to say justice also makes it a necessity for the resurrection?

The Final Judgement that determines that the wicked are to be cast into the Lake of Fire is detailed in Rev. 20.

5 But the rest of the dead lived not again until the thousand years were finished. This is the first resurrection. [If there is a 1st resurrection there must be at least a second]

It will be 1000 years after the resurrection of the righteous that the wicked will be resurrected for Judgement before being cast into the Lake of Fire.

12 And I saw the dead, small and great, stand before God [This is the only place that makes sense for the second resurrection]; and the books were opened: and another book was opened, which is the book of life: and the dead were judged out of those things which were written in the books, according to their works. [After being raised the dead are judged]
13 And the sea gave up the dead which were in it; and death and hell delivered up the dead which were in them: and they were judged every man according to their works. [Every dead person will be raised at some point]
14 And death and hell were cast into the lake of fire. This is the second death. [The punishment is then executed]

It is very poetical in nature, but these verses together show that the dead are indeed resurrected, just as the righteous, shortly before being judged then cast into the Lake of Fire, the second death. Some do argue that the resurrection is not bodily, however, they are a small minority.
I don't think justice necessitates the resurrection, unless you adhere to Annihilationism. It just happens to be the order that it will be done according to the Bible. I currently have a related question about why the wicked are raised only to suffer eternal hell because it seems unnecessary to me to give the wicked a body unless punishment has something to do with the body.


How do opponents of Decision Theology distinguish themselves from Universal Salvation? There is a tradition, perhaps strongest in Lutheranism, that opposes what it calls "Decision Theology".  Biblical support for opposing Decision Theology would come in passages like, "No one can say Jesus is Lord except by the Holy Spirit," "faith is a gift", and the seemingly involuntary conversion of Paul.  The existence of a tradition of denying our ability to choose Christ on our own is a verifiable historical fact.  I don't wish to debate it with this question.

When discussing Decision Theology in evangelical circles, I often see them react as if the only viable alternatives involve predestination and a lack of personal responsibility.  It is clear that the Lutheran tradition of opposing Decision Theology is not mere predestinationism.  I don't wish to debate that either.

A careful reading of this tradition would not confuse it with predestination.  But the strongest practitioners of this tradition almost sound as if they were advocating Universal Salvation.  The hearer is invited to celebrate what Christ has done for them, rather than "accepting" it.

Question: how have opponents of Decision Theology distanced themselves from Universal Salvation?  (Sources: Confessions, sermons, seminary training, etc?)

pteranodon, Your question is vast. It covers at least two doctrines in the bible—Conversion and Justification, each of which deserves much time in explaining.  But, if you are willing, I'd like to tackle your query.
Defining Decision Theology
Divine Monergists (Lutherans & Calvinists) use the term "decision theology" to describe a particularly Arminian view of conversion in which a person is confronted with Jesus (who he is and what he has done for that person) and then makes use of his will (makes a decision) to be a Christian or not.  Years ago the Southern Baptist Convention put out a pamphlet which pictured conversion this way:  God has cast his vote; he wants you in heaven.  But Satan has also cast his vote; he wants you in hell.  You have the ability to cast the 'tie-breaker'.  What will your vote (decision)be?  If you'd like a current explanation of this, just look at the SBC website:

A. Regeneration, or the new birth, is a work of God's grace whereby believers become new creatures in Christ Jesus. It is a change of heart wrought by the Holy Spirit through conviction of sin, to which the sinner responds in repentance toward God and faith in the Lord Jesus Christ. Repentance and faith are inseparable experiences of grace.
Repentance is a genuine turning from sin toward God. Faith is the acceptance of Jesus Christ and commitment of the entire personality to Him as Lord and Savior. (http://www.sbc.net/bfm2000/bfm2000.asp)

Notice in this explanation of conversion the Holy Spirit terrifies you as you become aware of your sin and the consequences of sin (hell). Then you respond (decide) toward God. So also, in the next paragraph one 'accepts' (decides) to commit himself to Jesus.
Conversion
When Lutherans use the word, 'conversion' we speak of that instant and moment in which a person is an unbeliever and then is given faith to both know and trust in the Triune God.  I make this distinction since many especially in evangelical/arminian church bodies make becoming a Christian a process.  For Lutherans there is an instant and a moment in which a person is an unbeliever and then becomes a believer.
In conversion, God uses his word to create faith in a person's heart.  God is the one who chooses a person and creates faith in his heart through his word.  A person is not able to use his will in conversion because, through the fall into sin, his will is the very thing that needs to be converted.  In showing this from scripture two points are usually made to back this up from scripture:

The far-reaching effects of sin (so that a person is dead, blind, an enemy of God, without any ability to know God or come to him and decide for him):  Is 65:1; Mt 7:18; Lk 6:43,44; Jn 3:6; 6:44; Ro 3:11; 8:7; 10:20; 1 Cor 2:14; 12:3; Eph 2:1; Col 1:21; 2:13
Conversion is entirely a work of God:  1 Peter 1:23; Rom 10:17, James 1:17-18; Ac 11:21; Jn 6:44; 1 Cor 12:3; Philip 2:13; Col 2:13; Dt 29:4; Jr 32:39; Eze 36:26; Ac 26:16–18; 2 Cor 4:6; Eph 1:17; 2:5; Philip 1:6; 2:13.

For an exhaustive treatment of this, I invite you to walk through Article II in the Formula of Concord:  (http://bookofconcord.org/sd-freewill.php)
Justification
Lutherans have always upheld the doctrine of Justification.  Justification is the teaching in the bible that one is "declared not guilty" or "declared righteous" in Christ.  The doctrine of Justification has an objective and subjective sense to it.  Objectively God has declared the entire world 'not guilty.' (Rom 3:20-24;4:5;5:16,18; 2 Cor 5:18, 1 Pet 3 18, 1 John 2:2, 2 Peter 2:1 et al)  Subjectively, God has declared individuals (me!) not guilty (Gal 2:20; Mt 9:2; Lk 7:47,48; 18:14).
Again, the book of Concord is an excellent resource to look into this further:  (http://bookofconcord.org/sd-righteousness.php)
Conversation/Confusion
Where these two doctrines come together and are criticized by many Evangelicals/Arminians is the deduction that if God chooses people and declares the world 'not guilty', then everybody must get into heaven.  This is not what Lutherans teach.  While the credit for being being justified and given faith is given to God (and him alone), it is possible for a person to be given faith and then fall away.  For God's word is powerful, but not irresistible.  In this case the cause and blame for being an unbeliever (and ending up in hell) is the person's, not God's.(Jr 15:7; 25:5,7; 35:15,17; Ho 11:5,6—Mt 23:37; Ac 7:51; 2 Chr 24:19; 30:6–10; 36:13; Ne 9:29; Jr 5:3–5; Jr 23:14; Eze 13:22;)  Again, the above two articles cited from the book of Concord give a more exhaustive treatment of this. And it might be good to back up even further and walk through article I (original sin) too.
Your question does also deal with the doctrine of election too.  But, I thought this would be a decent beginning in answering your question.  The doctrine of election is covered in Article XI in the formula of Concord (http://bookofconcord.org/sd-election.php) And, I thoroughly encourage you to read through that at well.  It does a beautiful job of bringing so many of these issues together.

Pastor Steve Bauer (http://stevebauer.us)


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

The exact meaning of "free will" is greatly contested, especially as it interacts with the sovereign power and foreknowledge of God. I understand your question as seeking evidence for early Christian thought, other than in the content of the Bible itself.

In the early church, several authorities wrote on the topic, in support of human freedom, including the following.

Justin Martyr in his First Apology (written at some point between 147 and 161AD), says: "But lest some suppose, from what has been said by us, that we say that whatever happens, happens by a fatal necessity, because it is foretold as known beforehand, this too we explain. [...] Unless the human race have the power of avoiding evil and choosing good by free choice, they are not accountable for their actions, of whatever kind they be. [...] For not like other things, as trees and quadrupeds, which cannot act by choice, did God make man: for neither would he be worthy of reward or praise did he not of himself choose the good, but were created for this end; nor, if he were evil, would he be worthy of punishment, not being evil of himself, but being able to be nothing else than what he was made."
Irenaeus in Against Heresies 4.37 (c. 180 AD) says: "God made man a free [agent] from the beginning, possessing his own power, even as he does his own soul, to obey the behests of God voluntarily, and not by compulsion of God. For there is no coercion with God, but a good will [towards us] is present with Him continually. [...] All men are of the same nature, able both to hold fast and to do what is good; and, on the other hand, having also the power to cast it from them and not to do it. [...] It is in man's power to disobey God, and to forfeit what is good; but [such conduct] brings no small amount of injury and mischief. [...] And not merely in works, but also in faith, has God preserved the will of man free and under his own control."
Origen devotes the third book of De Principiis (c. 212 - 215 AD) to the free will doctrine. At the beginning of the Latin text is the firm statement, "It is undoubtedly indicated that it is within our own power to devote ourselves either to a life that is worthy of praise, or to one that is worthy of censure."

Aside from these philosophical treatments, there are writings of the post-apostolic generation which indicate of a role for human will in choosing to do good or evil.

The letter of Clement to the Corinthians (c. 70 - 96 AD?) exhorts readers to live a virtuous life; in 62.1 he characterizes the faithful as "those who are willing to make [the journey]" (τοις θελουσιν ... διευθυνειν [την πορειαν αυτων]), where the Greek θελουσιν comes from the verb ἐθέλω or θέλω, indicating wishing/wanting/desiring.
The Didache, or Teaching of the Twelve Apostles (date very contested, perhaps 50 - 120 AD) contrasts "the way of death" with "the way of life" and suggests that it is up to the individual not to be led astray from the true teaching. Didache 6.1-2 is translated by Robert Kraft as "Beware lest anyone cause you to wander from this way of teaching, since such a one teaches without regard to God. For if you can bear the whole yoke of the Lord, you will be perfect; but if you cannot, do what you can."
The letter of Barnabas (70 - 131 AD) says that the one who follows God's commands will be rewarded, but the one who chooses the opposite will be destroyed (21.1). The word for this chooser is "ἐκλεγόμενος", from "ἐκλέγω" (pick/select/choose). It may still refer to God's choice, though; compare Ephesians 1:4 where the same word is used for God's foreordained choice of the elect.


Are there other denominations that believe in pre-human existence? I was wondering whether the pre-human existence of a believer was accepted among any christian groups/denominations other than Mormons, or are Mormons the only group that believe in a pre-human existence.

I noticed a few Mormons quoting Jeremiah 1:5 as support for their belief in the pre-human existence of a child of God.

  “Before I formed thee in the belly I knew thee; and before thou camest forth out of the womb I sanctified thee, and I ordained thee a prophet unto the nations.” (Jeremiah 1:5 KJV)

I feel that this verse is more about God's omniscience rather than our pre-human existence.

So are the Mormons alone in this belief, or are there Christian denominations that also believe in a pre-human existence?

There are no other common Christian denominations that believe in a pre-mortal existence of man.

There are instances of individual Christians with this belief.
Clementine, quoting Peter, said in Clementine Recognitions:

Last of all He made man whose real nature, however, is older and for whose sake all this was created.

Origen of Alexandria (ca. 200 AD) believed in a pre-mortal existance. He used it primarily to explain the disparities of mortal circumstances. Otherwise, according Origen, God would be a respecter of persons to give such varying circumstances of birth.
English poet William Wordsworth wrote in Intimations of Immortality that we forget our previous life when we are born.

Our birth is but a sleep and a forgetting:
The Soul that rises with us, our life's Star,
Hath had elsewhere its setting,
And cometh from afar:
Not in entire forgetfulness,
And not in utter nakedness,
But trailing clouds of glory do we come
From God, who is our home:
Heaven lies about us in our infancy!

And various other Christians have said something similar to "we come from God", though typically this means God put us here, not that we had a pre-life in the presence of God.

FYI, Biblical references besides Jeremiah 1:5 commonly quoted in support of this belief are men rejoicing at the creation of the Earth:

Where wast thou when I laid the foundations of the earth? declare, if thou hast understanding.
Who hath laid the measures thereof, if thou knowest? or who hath stretched the line upon it?
Whereupon are the foundations thereof fastened? or who laid the corner stone thereof;
When the morning stars sang together, and all the sons of God shouted for joy?
Job 38:1-7

and the inquery referencing a blind man's own pre-mortal righteousness

And his disciples asked him, saying Master, who did sin, this man, or his parents, that he was born blind?
John 9:2

(Of course, there are alternative interpretations of these verses.)


Is there any institution that has translated or is translating the Bible to Indian languages from Textus Receptus? I know there is one Hindi translation by William Carey but that is such an old translation that the Hindi used in that is no longer spoken in India.

There is a relatively recent Nepali translation by the Trinitarian Bible society, as described in this news item. The gospel of John can be downloaded from here (pdf). Thanks to davidlol for the link.

In Hindi, I could only find this old 1851 Bible described on Reddit,  translated the Bible from the Textus Receptus in 1851 by William Carey and others.

  The Presbyterian Mission Press published a complete Hindi translation in 1851 that used the received text for the NT. William Carey played a key role in its early development. You can download electronic versions from archive.org.

And indeed,this page on Archive.org has a Hindi Bible you can read or download.


Is God still in the process of creation? In view of John 5:17;

Joh_5:17  But Jesus answered them, My Father worketh hitherto, and I work.

And the fact that Hubble shows us that new stars, etc. are forming in the Cosmos, it would appear that Creation is an ongoing process.

How does this compare with;

Gen 2:2  And on the seventh day God ended his work which he had made; and he rested on the seventh day from all his work which he had made.

The traditional Christian view on this is that God completed the work of creation in six days (whether you take that literally or metaphorically). However he is still in the business of sustaining his creation. The Catechism of the Catholic Church says in 301:

  With creation, God does not abandon his creatures to themselves. He not only gives them being and existence, but also, and at every moment, upholds and sustains them in being, enables them to act and brings them to their final end. Recognizing this utter dependence with respect to the Creator is a source of wisdom and freedom, of joy and confidence:

In other words, without God's continual work, nothing could continue to exist. It's a separate kind of work from the work of Creation.

As Ryan Frame says, the discovery of new stars does not mean that they were created recently. Also the birth of new stars (or animals, or people for that matter) doesn't imply new creation. God had set in motion at the time of creation the mechanisms by which they are created (coalescing matter clouds, sexual reproduction). That was the work of creation. The bringing-to-birth is the work of sustainment.

Additional references to show that this view is not limited to Catholics:

Answers in Genesis
Mennonite Articles of Faith
Brethren in Christ
Anglican Catechism


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

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

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

  [...]

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

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

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

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

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

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

   17"Thou shalt make thee no molten gods.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Those aren't the words written on the second stone tablets.

The original tablets were written by the Lord:

  Exodus 24:12 (ESV)
  The LORD said to Moses, "Come up to me on the mountain and wait there, that I may give you the tablets of stone, with the law and the commandment, which I have written for their instruction."

Compare to the passage referred to in the question. The Lord says he will write the tablets, but the commandments cited in the question are left for Moses to write:

  Exodus 34:1 (ESV) [emphases mine]
  The LORD said to Moses, "Cut for yourself two tablets of stone like the first, and I will write on the tablets the words that were on the first tablets, which you broke.

  Exodus 34:27 (ESV) [emphases mine]
  And the LORD said to Moses, "Write these words, for in accordance with these words I have made a covenant with you and with Israel."

After the Lord gave the original ten commandments (Exodus 20), he also gave other commandments (Exodus 20:23-23:33). A similar thing happened here: there were other things that the Lord said to Moses, besides just writing the new tablets.

The quite logical explanation is, then, that the Lord wrote the new tablets and gave them to Moses. Then the Lord spoke other words and told Moses to write them down. The content of the tablets is not recorded in Exodus for a second time, since the content was the same as originally.


Do Jehovah's Witnesses have membership fees or how are they funded? I was given an invite to a convention by Jehovah's Witnesses. It says on the bottom "FREE ADMISSION" and "NO COLLECTIONS TAKEN" and the couple who gave it to me had mentioned that there are quite a few conventions around USA.

Considering the cost of renting the convention sites, and what other costs there may be, I got curious on how their meetings are funded. The questions I would like to ask:

Do Jehovah's Witnesses do collections in any other meetings, or have
they ever done so in the past?
Do they have membership fees or other automatic/mandatory fees (such
as mandatory purchase of books or study material), or have they have
such in the past?

I would prefer an answer from a Jehovah's Witness.

I'm one of Jehovah's Witnesses.

Jehovah's Witnesses have always been financed by voluntary, anonymous donations. All speakers and those in the ministry work are unpaid. They find that soliciting money is a major cause of corruption in churches, and have made it a theological point to let people make their donations a matter of personal choice.

  Let each one do just as he has resolved in his heart, not grudgingly or under compulsion, for God loves a cheerful giver. —2 Corinthians 9:7

At Kingdom Hall meetings, there are two donation boxes in the rear of the hall which people may choose to put money in. One box is for paying for local congregation expenses (such as electricity and water bills), and the other box is for contributing to worldwide expenses (such as for printing literature, Kingdom Hall construction work, or branch office expenses). The congregation is kept informed about local expenses and account balances, but donations are never solicited or mandatory. People can also donate online at jw.org.

At conventions, there are usually contribution boxes here and there in the concourse areas. At least in the United States, there is usually also at least one contribution box that also has a credit/debit card reader beside it. The convention expenses are paid for by worldwide donations.

For more information on  and the history of how Jehovah's Witnesses have handled monetary matters, there's Chapter 18 - How Kingdom Activities Are Financed from one of the more recently released books, God's Kingdom Rules.

There's also the FAQ: How Is the Work of Jehovah’s Witnesses Financed?


What is the earliest manuscript of the Gloria in excelsis Deo (Greater Doxology) hymn? What is the earliest manuscript of the Gloria in excelsis Deo (Greater Doxology) hymn?

According to Adrian Fortescue's The Mass: A Study in the Roman Liturgy, "§6. Gloria in Excelsis", p. 238, the Gloria in excelsis

  is found first [in Greek] in St. Athanasius' treatise: de Virginitate1 as part of morning prayer (with Ps. lxii, and the Benedicite) and in the [Greek Old and New Testament manuscript, the] Codex alexandrinus (Vth cent.).21. C. 20 (P.G. xxviii, 275). The authenticity of this work, long disputed, now seems more generally admitted. See Eichhorn : Athanasii de vita ascctica testimonia (Halle, 1886) pp. 27 seq., and especially von der Goltz in Texte und Untersuchungen, N.S. xiv, 2 a.2. As an appendix to the psalms at the end.

cf. also "Psalter" and my answer to the question "How did the Catholic Church function logistically/liturgically prior to the invention of the printing press?"


Was Charles Haddon Spurgeon a five-point Calvinist? I think so, but some articles online indicates that he was a Fullerist.

If so, was "Fullerism" orthodox?
Ex: here.

Any thought?

There is no doubt but that Spurgeon was a five point Calvinist:

http://weecalvin1509.blogspot.co.uk/2013/08/chsindex.html

Spurgeon's own quotes affirming all the 5 points together and each of the 5 points individually. As for Andrew Fuller - In the foreward of his book on the Sovereignty of God, AW Pink described Fuller as "eminent and honored." See:

http://weecalvin1509.blogspot.co.uk/2013/05/carey.html

Hope this helps.


What is the significance of verb choices in Genesis 1? I was surprised recently when I read Genesis 1 again, and noticed how inactive God is during the creation process.  I mean that from a literary standpoint, not a literal one... bear with me. :)

Below is a summary of the creation actions described in Genesis 1:

1:1 -- God created heavens and earth

One

1:3 -- there was light

Two

1:4 -- God separated light and dark

Three

1:7 -- God made vault
1:9 -- it was so
1:11 -- it was so
1:12 -- the land produced

Four

1:15 -- it was so
1:16 -- God made two great lights
1:17 -- God set them

Five

1:20 -- God created sea creatures, and winged birds
1:22 -- God blessed them

Six

1:24 -- it was so
1:25 -- God made wild animals
1:27 -- God created mankind, he created them, he created them
1:28 -- God blessed them

I find it interesting the verb choice used here.  A few observations:

4 of the 6 creation days use passive voice to describe creation events. The phrase "It was so" occurs 4 times, in addition to the passive phrases "there was light" and "the land produced." (I know that "produced" is not technically a passive verb, but it doesn't show God's active involvement in the process here.)
The verb "create" is used only 5 times--and three of those times are in the same verse, to describe the same action (verse 1:27). The verb "make" is used an additional three times (1:7, 1:16, 1:25)
God blesses sea creatures and birds, and humans, and tells them to be fruitful and multiply. But not land-animals.

My primary question is: What is the significance of the verb "create" during the creation account?  It's only used to describe the creation of "the heavens and the earth," "sea creatures and birds," and "humans" (and it's used three times to describe humans).  I can see the creation of humans as special and distinct, and therefore worthy of special attention in the form of repeating that God created humans.  But what's so special about fish and birds?

And a secondary question is: What's the significance of the use of passive voice in the creation account?

And finally: Am I reading too much into this?  :)

What is the significance of the verb "create" during the creation account?

To answer this question I believe we first need to understand why Genesis was written.

The research that many exegestes, such as James K. Hoffmeier's “Some Thoughts on Genesis 1 & 2 and Egyptian Cosmology”, have done conclude that it was written to reject the Egyptian Cosmology (Creation Mythology).

These creation myths are greatly explained in this article: Genesis 1-2 In Light Of Ancient Egyptian Creation Myths by Tony L. Shetter.

Since I don't believe I could explain this any better I'll just quote the summary of the article:

  In conclusion, the author/redactor(s) of the Genesis creation accounts
  share certain concepts of the makeup of the world with other ancient
  Near Eastern cultures. However, it is especially with Egypt’s
  worldview that the author/redactor(s) are familiar. Evidence for this
  lies in the many allusions to Egyptian creation motifs throughout the
  Genesis creation accounts. But, rather than being a case of direct
  borrowing, they demythologize the Egyptian concepts and form a polemic
  against the Egyptian gods. Thus, they elevate Yahweh-Elohim as the one
  true God, who is transcendent and who is all powerful. He speaks his
  desire and it comes to pass. He does not require the assistance of
  other gods to perform the acts of creation. He alone possesses the
  power and means necessary to effect the creation of the world.


Is there a term for a theological principle that if a New Testament text is unclear about something, that point is not important for salvation? One view is that a significant number of theological issues re Christianity are debated because they are debatable. So, this view says, a relevant text might admit of multiple plausible interpretations, or weighing different texts against each other can lead to different plausible conclusions, and so on.
Is there a term for a theological principle that if the New Testament texts appear to be unclear about something, therefore that point is not important for salvation?
Note: this isn't a question about whether the relevant texts in fact are unclear, whether multiple interpretations are equally valid, and so on. It's a question about whether there's a term for this sort of theological principle.

It's a corollary of the Protestant doctrine of the clarity or perspicuity of scripture, that the essentials of faith are explained in the scriptures so clearly that anyone can understand them. As the Westminster Confession says

WCF 1.7: All things in Scripture are not alike plain in themselves, nor alike clear unto all; yet those things which are necessary to be known, believed, and observed, for salvation, are so clearly propounded and opened in someplace of Scripture or other, that not only the learned, but the unlearned, in a due use of the ordinary means, may attain unto a sufficient understanding of them.

Now something in the scriptures may not be necessary for salvation, but that's not the same as saying that it's unimportant. The previous paragraph of the WCF helps us honour the whole of the Bible through its phrase "the whole counsel of God":

WCF 1.6: The whole counsel of God, concerning all things necessary for his own glory, man's salvation, faith, and life, is either expressly set down in scripture, or by good and necessary consequence may be deduced from scripture: unto which nothing at any time is to be added, whether by new revelations of the Spirit, or traditions of men. ...

So many things which are important for God's glory and for mankind's faith and life are taught in the scriptures but not necessarily with the same clarity as the core principles of salvation.


What are "all things" in "Let all things be tested, keep to what is good"? 1 Thessalonians 5:21 reads:

Put all things to the test: keep what is good [GNT]
Prove all things; hold fast that which is good [KJV]

What is "all things" here?

It continues verse 20; the entire statement is: "Do not despise prophecies, but test everything; hold fast what is good."

I would interpret this to mean that we are specifically dealing with prophets and prophecy here. When someone prophesies, we are not to outright reject them but to test the prophecy. If is is from God we should never let it go. If it is merely the words of a person speaking in place of God, we must ignore them entirely (Jeremiah 23).

Also see 1 John 4:1:

  "Beloved, do not believe every spirit, but test the spirits to see whether they are from God, for many false prophets have gone out into the world."

1 Corinthians 14:22:

  "But prophecy is a sign not for unbelievers but for believers."


Jesus teaching about the Trinity Are there any verses in the bible where Jesus is quoted teaching or supporting the trinity?

In the following Scriptures, Jesus speaks of the separation of persons of the Trinity:
John 5:30 through 32 KJV

30  I can of mine own self do nothing: as I hear, I judge: and my judgment is just; because I seek not mine own will, but the will of the Father which hath sent me.
31  If I bear witness of myself, my witness is not true.
32  There is another that beareth witness of me; and I know that the witness which he witnesseth of me is true.

John 17:21  KJV

That they all may be one; as thou, Father, art in me, and I in thee, that they also may be one in us: that the world may believe that thou hast sent me.

There are a total of 15 places where Jesus spoke of the separation of the Father and the Son, and in the following Scripture Jesus is promising to send an entirely different Deity than those two:
John 14:16  KJV

And I will pray the Father, and he shall give you another Comforter, that he may abide with you for ever;

and in the following Scripture he identifies that Deity as the Holy Spirit:
John 14:26  KJV

But the Comforter, which is the Holy Ghost, whom the Father will send in my name, he shall teach you all things, and bring all things to your remembrance, whatsoever I have said unto you.

This event prophesied by Jesus took place at Pentecost:
Acts 2:1 through 4    KJV

1  And when the day of Pentecost was fully come, they were all with one accord in one place.
2  And suddenly there came a sound from heaven as of a rushing mighty wind, and it filled all the house where they were sitting.
3  And there appeared unto them cloven tongues like as of fire, and it sat upon each of them.
4  And they were all filled with the Holy Ghost, and began to speak with other tongues, as the Spirit gave them utterance.