Do Protestants believe that all sins are equal? I know that Protestants reject the Roman Catholic understanding of "mortal" and "venial" sins. I also know that there's biblical basis for seeing sins as both equal and different.

But how do Protestants explain this?  According to them, are sins equal or different?

Related: How do Protestants understand the "unforgivable" sin?

The consensus among Protestants is that some sins are worse than others, but even the smallest sin deserves God's wrath.  Or, put another way, sins are equally damning, but not equally heinous.  The Westminster Shorter Catechism puts it succinctly:

Every sin deserves God's wrath and curse, both in this life, and that which is to come. (Answer 84)
Some sins [...] are more heinous in the sight of God than others. (Answer 83)

Reformed theologians like Louis Berkhof1 and John Frame2  follow this framework.  So do Baptists like A. H. Strong3 and Wayne Grudem.4  Grudem explains:

In terms of our legal standing before God, any one sin, even what may seem to be a very small one, makes us legally guilty before God and therefore worthy of eternal punishment.
On the other hand, some sins are worse than others in that they have more harmful consequences in our lives and in the lives of others, and, in terms of our personal relationship to God as Father, they arouse his displeasure more and bring more serious disruption to our fellowship with him.

Arminian theologian H. Orton Wiley5 similarly holds that the penalty of sin is "death physical, temporal and eternal," but that the term "penalty [...] must be made to include the consequences of all the various evils included in sin."  He thus describes "degrees of both guilt and penalty as in the case of sins of ignorance or infirmity as over against sins of knowledge."
Anglican W. H. Griffith Thomas6 explains that "[a]ll sin is deadly in that it tends toward death, but there are sins which because they are deliberately committed against light are obviously more injurious to the soul."
Lutheran theologian John Mueller, condensing Franz Pieper's work,7 likewise writes:

Every transgression of the divine Law is rebellion against God and therefore damnable, Gal. 3, 10.  From the viewpoint of damnability therefore we cannot speak of "smaller" and "greater" sins.  Still Scripture itself distinguishes degrees in sinning [....] [and] degrees also in the eternal punishment which the damned will suffer.

References

Berkhof, Systematic Theology, 2.2.4, p252
Frame, Systematic Theology, Chapter 36, p851.
Strong, Systematic Theology, Volume 2, Part V, Chapter VI, pages 656 and 648-650
Grudem, Systematic Theology, Chapter 24, D-4, p501.
Wiley, Christian Theology, Chapter 18
Thomas, Principles of Theology, p230-31
Mueller, Christian Dogmatics, p230


What is the origin and explanation of the Catholic teaching that Mary was and is sinless? Possible Duplicate:
  What is the biblical basis for the Immaculate Conception?

I saw on another post where someone indicated that the Catholic church teaches that Mary was, in fact, sinless at conception and remained sinless for her entire life.

It seems, then, that if she were sinless, she would have her own righteousness and not need salvation.  Furthermore, it seems that she would not be subject to death, since death results from sin.  Jesus' death was proof that He took on Himself our sins, since He had none of His own.

So, what is the origin of this teaching and how are these questions explained in Catholic teaching?

Immaculate Conception

That teaching is known as the dogma of the Immaculate Conception of Mary. It means that she was conceived without original sin and had no inclination to sin as a result of original sin, she had freewill, but was as we will be (hopefully) in Heaven, following our intellect and not our passions.

  The Immaculate Conception

  490 To become the mother of the Savior, Mary "was enriched by God with gifts appropriate to such a role." The angel Gabriel at the moment of the annunciation salutes her as "full of grace".133 In fact, in order for Mary to be able to give the free assent of her faith to the announcement of her vocation, it was necessary that she be wholly borne by God's grace.

  491 Through the centuries the Church has become ever more aware that Mary, "full of grace" through God,134 was redeemed from the moment of her conception. That is what the dogma of the Immaculate Conception confesses, as Pope Pius IX proclaimed in 1854:

    The most Blessed Virgin Mary was, from the first moment of her conception, by a singular grace and privilege of almighty God and by virtue of the merits of Jesus Christ, Savior of the human race, preserved immune from all stain of original sin.

  492 The "splendor of an entirely unique holiness" by which Mary is "enriched from the first instant of her conception" comes wholly from Christ: she is "redeemed, in a more exalted fashion, by reason of the merits of her Son". The Father blessed Mary more than any other created person "in Christ with every spiritual blessing in the heavenly places" and chose her "in Christ before the foundation of the world, to be holy and blameless before him in love".

  493 The Fathers of the Eastern tradition call the Mother of God "the All-Holy" (Panagia), and celebrate her as "free from any stain of sin, as though fashioned by the Holy Spirit and formed as a new creature". By the grace of God Mary remained free of every personal sin her whole life long.

CCC - 490-493

If she were sinless, then it would be because God made her so, i.e. He saved her before or at the moment of her conception.

Assumption

The other part, about her not dying, or at least not dying as we know it is the Catholic dogma of the Assumption of Mary. That dogma was never codified until the 1950's but is a very old tradition;  older even than the apocryphal manuscript that corroborates it.  The reason for her assumption is that she wouldn't feel the effects of sin (age, illness and death - or pain during childbirth). But, as a good Christian, the first Christian, she is thought to have desired to follow her Son in death.  So, at the end of her earthly life, she was assumed into heaven and all this was done according to the will of God, because it was done in accord with the will of God and not against it.

Mediatrix?

There is disagreement, or at least a need for clarification, about what Mary's role is in our salvation.  A lot of Catholics (me included) would like a definition of Mary as the Mediatrix of All Graces, but that hasn't happened yet.  So, that part of your question is more or less up in the air as far as concrete Catholic teaching is concerned.

Needless to say (but I'll say it anyway) in just a few minutes of thinking about a question I doubt you ever considered before, you uncovered 2000 years of mariology (a separate branch of dogmatic theology from soteriology) and the rationale for the two dogmas and the one potential dogma - good job!


What is/are the Hebrew/Aramaic word(s) for "devil" in The Passion of the Christ movie? What is the word used for "devil" in Mel Gibson's movie "The Passion of the Christ" during the scene where Christ is interrogated by the Sanhedrin? The word "devil" appears in the English subtitles three times in this scene as a couple of characters give testimony against Christ. It sounds to me like they're saying "sha-dai-ah."

When I search for what I'm hearing I find El Shaddai, which is the Hebrew word for "God Almighty," not "devil."

I know that the dialog of this film is in Aramaic, Hebrew, and Latin. I can distinguish the Latin dialog from the rest, but I can't distinguish between the Aramaic and Hebrew. I think that Hebrew is used during the Sanhedrin scene.

The words are spoken at approximately 31:30 as the Sanhedrin hears the testimony from witnesses.
One word is Hebrew, שֵׁדִים (shedim), which is translated as “demons” in most English translations. (This is spoken by the second witness, who also speaks the Aramaic cognate.)
Heinrich Friedrich Wilhelm Gesenius wrote,1

The other word is its Aramaic cognate, שֵׁדַיָּא (shedayya), likewise meaning “demons.” (This is spoken once by each of the first two witnesses.)
Marcus Jastrow wrote,2

Both are declined in the plural number.

References
Gesenius, Heinrich Friedrich Wilhelm. Gesenius’s Hebrew and Chaldee Lexicon to the Old Testament Scriptures. Trans. Tregelles, Samuel Prideaux. London: Bagster, 1860.
Jastrow, Marcus. A Dictionary of the Targumim, the Talmud Babli and Yerushalmi, and the Midrashic Literature. Vol. 2. London: Luzac; New York: Putnam, 1903.
Footnotes
1  p. 805
2  p. 1523


If Jesus was sinless then why was he baptized? If Jesus was sinless what is the biblical bases for needing to be baptized by John?

Mark 1:4-5 NIV

  John did baptize in the wilderness, and preach the baptism of
  repentance for the remission of sins. And there went out unto him all
  the land of Judaea, and they of Jerusalem, and were all baptized of
  him in the river of Jordan, confessing their sins.

Jesus' baptism was not a confession of guilt. He fulfilled the rite of baptism because He identified Himself as one of us, taking the steps we are to take. His life of perfect submission here on earth is an example to us.

  Matthew 3 (NKJV)

  14 And John tried to prevent Him, saying, “I need to be baptized by
  You, and are You coming to me?”

  15 But Jesus answered and said to him, “Permit it to be so now, for
  thus it is fitting for us to fulfill all righteousness.” Then he
  allowed Him.


Did St. Thomas Aquinas deny the Holy Spirit proceeds immediately from the Father alone? There have been many attempts from among both Catholic1 and Eastern Orthodox2 theologians to revisit the theology behind the eternal procession of the Holy Spirit from the Father and the Son in light of recent ecumenical dialogue in the past decades following the Second Vatican Council. One of the leading figure important in the dispute on the Latin theology of filioque is St. Thomas Aquinas, respected by both Catholics3 and Eastern Orthodox4.

Among the Latin fathers there are two school of thoughts on filioque:

Monarchical filioque is popularized by St. Anselm of Canterbury and Bl. Duns of Scotus. Whereby the procession of the Holy Spirit from the Father alone is constituted to be principaliter and immediate while the procession through the Son is secondary and mediate.
Diarchical filioque is a popular view among neo-Thomists who reread the procession of the Holy Spirit to be identical from both the Father and the Son. There is no distinction in the procession itself, with the sole distinction is only in respect to the two spirators as they are distinct from one another.

While there is no dispute that Thomas was advancing St. Augustine's filioque, a disagreement in regards to whether or not his filioque is monarchical versus diarchical remain unresolved.  Which of these two camps did he fall into?

1 Rev. Dr. Christiaan Kappes the dean of Ss. Cyril and Methodius Metropolitan Seminary of Byzantine Catholic Church in Pittsburgh has been one among many who popularized a renewal of interest in the Thomist-Scotist debate on the filioque within Catholicism and on its impact on Catholic–Orthodox dialogue.

2 Dr. David Gilbert, an Eastern Orthodox scholar has been one among many who in the past decade is revisiting the Palamite solution on the theology behind the eternal procession of the Holy Spirit from the Father and the Son in terms of energetic procession.

3 Recognized as a Doctor of the Church in the Catholic Church.

4 Highly praised by Gennadius II Scholarius, a 15th century Greek Patriarch of Constantinople, a Byzantine Thomist, a prophet, and a saint venerated on August 25th in the Greek Orthodox church. "Would O excellent Thomas that you had not been born in the West. Then you would not have needed to defend the deviations of the church there ... you would have been as perfect in theology as you are in ethics." Oeuvres Complètes de Georges Scholarios, eds. Petit, Sidéridès, Jugie (Paris 1928–1936) vol VI, 1.

Before we are exploring whether or not St. Thomas of Aquinas deny the Holy Spirit proceeds immediately from the Father alone, firstly it is important to establish that by the doctrine of the procession of the Holy Spirit from the Father and the Son no Catholics deny the Father alone to be the principaliter of the Holy Spirit. Any Catholics associated the Father together with the Son as the one principle of the Holy Spirit without denying that the Father alone is the principaliter1 while the Son is a principle2, a distinction developed by St. Augustine of Hippo.

Therefore, the Father alone is called author [of both the Son and theSpirit], even though the Son be called principle [of the Spirit] conceptually. [I]deo solus pater auctor dicitur, quamvis etiam filius principium dicatur notionaliter.
St. Thomas of Aquinas, Sentences I:d29:q1(a1).

There are two texts from Summa Theologia that we will be focusing primarily. The first one is from the first book on question 36 at article 2,

For when the Lord says, "No one knoweth the Son, but the Father," the idea of the Son knowing Himself is not excluded. So therefore when we say that the Holy Ghost proceeds from the Father, even though it be added that He proceeds from the Father alone, the Son would not thereby be at all excluded.
St. Thomas of Aquinas, Summa Theologia, I:36:ii(a1).

In here we find a positive affirmation from the Angelic Doctor whereby there will not be any theological difficulty "even though it be added that [the Holy Spirit] proceeds from the Father alone." He is especially respected by his opponents particularly because he honor the interlocutors by representing them with their best arguments. He did this by showing that no contradiction can be found by those insisting that the Holy Spirit in a sense is eternally proceeding from the Father alone and in another sense to be from the Son as later will be shown to be clear.
To put to rest the two extremities among his interlocutors who emphasized the involvement of the Son in the eternal procession of the Holy Spirit at the expense of the sole monarchy of the Father and against those who attributed the procession from the Son in the economy alone to combat diarchy, Aquinas maintain an important distinction. A distinction that was introduced by Augustine to keep the involvement of the Son in the eternal procession of the Holy Spirit in balance with the sole monarchy of the Father who alone is the principaliter of the Holy Spirit. The second important text that explicitly address this distinction is from the same question 36 at article 3,

So, if we consider in the Father and the Son the power whereby the spirate (virtus qua spirant) the Holy Spirit, there is no mean (medium), for this is one and the same power (virtus est una et eadem). But if we consider the persons themselves spirating (spirantes), then, as the Holy Spirit proceeds both (communiter procedat) from the Father and from the Son, the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father immediately (immediate), as from him, and mediately (mediate), as from the Son; and thus he is said to proceed from the Father through the Son (per filium), which has the same meaning.
ibid, ST, I:36:iii(a1).

In this second text, he addressed two important points. The first is the unity of father/son as the one spirator of their Holy Spirit. This is an important point that shows the unity not shared by father/spirit or son/spirit. This unity between the Father and the Son distinguishes the two from their Holy Spirit.3 At the Council of Florence the language "as from one principle" is a reflection of this unitive spiration from the Father and the Son, whereby the Holy Spirit is their Holy Spirit.
The second important point is the crux of the debate whereby he distinguished the immediate procession from the mediate. Had he has in mind that the procession from the Son is identical and in the same sense as from the Father, he would be enforcing the diarchical filioque or the eternal procession immediately from both. The mediation of the Son is a reflection to the fact that the Son is spirating His Spirit as He is receiving Him from the Father, or in another way to see it is that the Father is begetting the Son in order to send His Spirit to rest in the Son. Hence, the spiration of the Holy Spirit is not an after thought but rather inherent in the generation of the Son that He is being begetting so that through the mediation of the Son in that generation the Holy Spirit also proceeding in Him.
To remove any possible misrepresentation or misinterpretation on the doctrine of filioque, St. John Paul II in 1995 commissioned Pontifical Council for Promoting Christian Unity to release an authoritative magisterial statement:

On the basis of Jn. 15:26, this Symbol confesses the Spirit "to ek tou Patros ekporeuomenon" ("who takes his origin from the Father"). The Father alone is the principle without principle (arche anarchos) of the two other persons of the Trinity, the sole source (peghe) of the Son and of the Holy Spirit. The Holy Spirit, therefore, takes his origin from the Father alone (ek monou tou Patros) in a principal, proper, and immediate manner.
The Greek Fathers and the whole Christian Orient speak, in this regard, of the "Father's Monarchy," and the Western tradition, following St. Augustine, also confesses that the Holy Spirit takes his origin from the Father principaliter, that is, as principle (De Trinitate XV, 25, 47, P.L. 42, 1094-1095). In this sense, therefore, the two traditions recognize that the "monarchy of the Father" implies that the Father is the sole Trinitarian Cause (Aitia) or Principle (Principium) of the Son and the Holy Spirit.
This origin of the Holy Spirit from the Father alone as Principle of the whole Trinity is called ekporeusis by Greek tradition, following the Cappadocian Fathers. St. Gregory of Nazianzus, the Theologian, in fact, characterizes the Spirit's relationship of origin from the Father by the proper term ekporeusis, distinguishing it from that of procession (to proienai) which the Spirit has in common with the Son. "The Spirit is truly the Spirit proceeding (proion) from the Father, not by filiation, for it is not by generation, but by ekporeusis" (Discourse 39. 12, Sources chretiennes 358, p. 175). Even if St. Cyril of Alexandria happens at times to apply the verb ekporeusthai to the Son's relationship of origin from the Father, he never uses it for the relationship of the Spirit to the Son (c.f. Commentary on St. John, X, 2, P.G. 74, 910D; Ep 55, P.G. 77, 316D, etc.). Even for St. Cyril, the term ekporeusis as distinct from the term "proceed" (proienai), can only characterize a relationship of origin to the principle without principle of the Trinity: the Father.
That is why the Orthodox Orient has always refused the formula to ek tou Patros kai tou Uiou ekporeuomenon [an unwisely proposed translation of "who proceeds from the Father and the Son"] and the Catholic Church has refused the addition kai tou Uiou [and the Son] to the formula ek to Patros ekporeumenon in the Greek text of the Nicene-Constantinopolitan Symbol, even in its liturgical use by Latins. ...
The doctrine of the Filioque must be understood and presented by the Catholic Church in such a way that it cannot appear to contradict the Monarchy of the Father nor the fact that he is the sole origin (arche, aitia) of the ekporeusis of the Spirit. ...
We are presenting here the authentic doctrinal meaning of the Filioque on the basis of the Trinitarian faith of the Symbol professed by the second Ecumenical Council at Constantinople. We are giving this authoritative interpretation, while being aware of how inadequate human language is to express the ineffable mystery of the Holy Trinity, one God, a mystery which is beyond our words and our thoughts.
PCPCU, The Father as the Source of the Whole Trinity: The Procession of the Holy Spirit in Greek and Latin Traditions (1995). Emphasis by the authors.

In 2003 the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops published an addendum to earlier 1995 Clarification on the Doctrine of Filioque,

No clear record exists of the process by which the word Filioque was inserted into the Creed of 381 in the Christian West before the sixth century.  ... None of these writers, however, makes the Spirit’s mode of origin the object of special reflection; all are concerned, rather, to emphasize the equality of status of all three divine persons as God, and all acknowledge that the Father alone is the source of God’s eternal being. ...
Much of the difference between the early Latin and Greek traditions on this point is clearly due to the subtle difference of the Latin procedere from the Greek ekporeuesthai: as we have observed, the Spirit’s “coming forth” is designated in a more general sense by the Latin term, without the connotation of ultimate origin hinted at by the Greek. The Spirit’s “procession” from the Son, however, is conceived of in Latin theology as a somewhat different relationship from his “procession” from the Father, ...
[T]he Catholic Church, following a growing theological consensus, and in particular the statements made by Pope Paul VI, declare that the condemnation made at the Second Council of Lyons (1274) of those “who presume to deny that the Holy Spirit proceeds eternally from the Father and the Son” is no longer applicable.
USCCB, The Filioque: A Church Dividing Issue?: An Agreed Statement (2013).

Expanding upon its statement 'all acknowledge that the Father alone is the source of God’s eternal being,' it affirms that '[t]he Spirit’s “procession” from the Son, however, is conceived of in Latin theology as a somewhat different relationship from his “procession” from the Father.'
In regards to Medieval fathers, Dennis Ngien wrote:

Thus the filioque, far from dividing the Godhead into two separate sources, safeguards its fundamental unity. Even though the Spirit does not proceed from the Son in the same way as from the Father, it is vitally necessary that we name the Father and the Son together in affirming his procession; otherwise we might exclude the Spirit from the ontologically fundamental unity.
Dennis Ngien, Apologetic for Filioque in Medieval Theology, 31-2.

While there is only one spiration the procession is differentiated between immediate from the source and mediate through the channel, similar to how water propagate from the fountain through the river.4 St. Anselm of Canterbury says:

The Son and the Holy Spirit have their being from the Father—but each in a different way: one by generation, the other by procession, so that they are thus distinct from one another. ... For even if for no other reason were the Son and the Holy Spirit distinct, this alone would suffice.
St. Anselm of Canterbury, De Processione Spiritus Sancti, I

1 The Father as the principle without principle in Latin is principium non de principio.
2 The Son is a principle from the principle, in Latin is principium de principio.
3 Because the Holy Spirit does not have the property to spirate, He has no paternal/filial namesake but rather called as a neuter common to the Father and the Son as their Holy Spirit.
4 Ss. John of Damascus and Anselm of Canterbury illustrated the eternal procession of the Holy Spirit from the Father through the Son with an analogy of water flow from the spring through the river to the lake.


By what authority does the Catholic church have priests? What does the Catholic church consider their priesthood? Is it a power and authority to administer the church or is it a brotherhood of people who follow Christ?

Since Christianity, in general, is based on Jewish tradition and they have a tradition of a priesthood like the Levites who pass down their authority from generation to generation. Does the Catholic church have a similar tradition?

Basically, can anyone just set themselves up as a priest or is there someone that has to ordain them? And if that is so, who originally gave this authority to the Catholic Church to ordain priests?

According to the Catholic Church, Christ gave authority to the disciples, which they in turn gave to their disciples, and so on.
Today, to become a Priest in the Catholic Church you must be called to the Sacrament of Holy Orders by the Holy Spirit.

Holy Orders is the sacrament through which the mission entrusted by Christ to his apostles continues to be exercised in the Church until the end of time: thus it is the sacrament of apostolic ministry. (CCC 1536)
Integration into ... [the Priesthood] was accomplished by ... a religious and liturgical act which was a consecration, a blessing or a sacrament. [This] sacramental act ... integrates a man into the order of bishops, presbyters, or deacons, and goes beyond a simple election, designation, delegation, or institution by the community, for it confers a gift of the Holy Spirit that permits the exercise of a "sacred power" which can come only from Christ himself through his Church. [I]t is a setting apart and an investiture by Christ himself for his Church. The laying on of hands by the bishop, with the consecratory prayer, constitutes the visible sign of this ordination. (CCC 1538)

In essence, a man senses the call of the Holy Spirit to Holy Orders (to become a priest) and consults his local Bishop who ensures this call is genuine, then makes a visible sign by laying on of his hands the called man.
Regarding similarities to the Levitical Priesthood "The liturgy of the Church ... sees in the priesthood of Aaron and the service of the Levites, as in the institution of the seventy elders, a prefiguring of the ordained ministry of the New Covenant." (CCC 1541) In other words, yes, the Catholic Church believes its priesthood is modeled after the Levitical Priesthood, or rather, the Catholic priesthood is the fulfillment that the Levitical Priesthood was modeled after.
In summary, the priesthood is more than a brotherhood of Christ. It is indeed the hands and feet of Christ, having Christ's authority to bless and curse, which was handed to the apostles by Christ himself and has continued in succession to this day in the priesthood of the Catholic Church.

Further reading:

The Sacrament of Holy Orders - Catechism of the Catholic Church, p2s2c3a6
Priesthood - New Advent
The Sacrament of Holy Orders - catholicism.about.com
Holy Orders (Catholic Church) - Wikipedia
Does the Priest have the Power to Forgive Sins - Christianity Stack Exchange


What is the difference between 'Hell', 'Sheol', 'Hades' and 'Gehenna'? In Western imagination, Hell is a place of everlasting torment and suffering for the wicked. Brunlesschi's painting in Florence's Duomo illustrates it well:

The word 'Hell' itself, however, doesn't appear much in the Bible, and where it does, there are seeming differences from this popular narrative.  The terms that are used: 'Sheol', 'Hades' and 'Gehenna' may differ from this notion.

Specifically, in what ways do each of these terms commonly translated as Hell differ from what the 'average person' in modern day America thinks of Hell?  Biblically, what are the differences amongst these terms? How is each term for a 'hell' used, and how do they differ from each other?

Michael A. Knibb says, in 'Life and death in the Old Testament', published in The World of Ancient Israel: Sociological, Anthropological and Political Perspectives, pages 403-5, that at death the individual was placed in the grave, but he was at the same time thought to go down to the realm of the dead, to Sheol, as that realm is most commonly named in the Old Testament. He says the dead were believed to continue in existence in Sheol, albeit in a very weak and reduced state. The Old Testament concept of the realm of the dead as a place of darkness, in which the dead lead a shadowy existence, cut off from men and God, unable to praise God and indeed unable to do anything, seems quite similar to the pagan concept of Hades. The early Christian pseudepigraphal Ascension of Isaiah speaks of Jesus descending to sheol to rescue the righteous dead before reascending to the highest heaven (there were seven heavens).

Alan Millard says in Discoveries from the Time of Jesus, page 38, that a steep-sided valley to the south of Jerusalem, was probably the site of their refuse tip, where they could dump what they did not want, possibly throwing it over the edge of the valley, and set it on fire.  He says even if flames were not always shooting out, the piles of rubbish would always be smoking and smouldering.  Much of what was not burnt, or would not burn, gradually decomposed, as worms and insects gnawed and burrowed, or corrosion and rust ate into it. That valley was named the Valley of the Sons of Hinnom, or just the Valley of Hinnom, in Old Testament times. By the first century, its name had been put into Aramaic as  Gehenna and had become a common Jewish word for hell. Uta Ranke-Heinemann says, in Putting Away Childish Things, page 236, Gehinnom (Gehenna) owed its ill repute to the child sacrifices that are supposed to have been offered up in the fire there.  The Jewish Encyclopedia says the valley was deemed to be accursed, and "Gehenna" therefore soon became a figurative equivalent for "hell." We see a New Testament reference to Gehenna in Mark 9:47, although this is commonly (eg KJV) translated as 'hell fire'.

Our word 'hell' is from Norse mythology, where it is the realm of Hel, the goddess of death, but is not a place of punishment. Wikipedia tells us that Achaemenid era (648–330 BCE) Zoroastrianism developed the abstract concepts of heaven and hell, as well as personal and final judgement, all of which are only alluded to in the Gathas. Hell did not properly enter the Jewish faith, but the Zoroastrian concept is believed to have strongly influenced Christianity. In later Christian tradition Satan ruled hell and suffered there himself, but neither point is clear in the New Testament. Uta Ranke-Heinemann says (ibid, page 236) Matthew is the main gospel to makes Jesus use hell as a threat. She cites Georg Baudler, who says (Theologie der Gegenwart) all the divine tribunals and images of Hell that appear in Jesus' parables are later interpolations, and in some cases they actually wreck the structure of the original parable.


Did the Father and Holy Spirit become man? According to Trinitarian theology, the second person of the triune god became man. The second person of the triune god is also fully god, and since there is only one god, the second person of the triune god is the only god.

The first person of the triune god is also fully god. Since there is only one god, he is also the only god.

The third person of the triune god is also fully god. Since there is only one god, he is also the only god.

Since the only god became man, and the triune god cannot be divided, according to Trinitarian theology, did the first and third persons of the triune god also become man?

Thomas Aquinas deals with this question in Third Part, Question 3, Article 4: "Can one Person assume without another?"

He argues that the assumption of a human nature implies two things in Article 2:

  in the word assumption two things are signified--to wit, the principle and the term of the action. Now to be the principle of the assumption belongs to the Divine Nature in itself, because the assumption took place by Its power; but to be the term of the assumption does not belong to the Divine Nature in itself, but by reason of the Person in Whom It is considered to be.

This distinction between the "principle" (the Divine Nature) and the "term" (associated with the Second Person of the Trinity) then plays out in Article 4:

  Now the act of assumption proceeds from the Divine power, which is common to the three Persons, but the term of the assumption is a Person, as stated above (Article 2). Hence what has to do with action in the assumption is common to the three Persons; but what pertains to the nature of term belongs to one Person in such a manner as not to belong to another; for the three Persons caused the human nature to be united to the one Person of the Son.

A Reformed theologian, Louis Berkhof, similarly writes:

  It was not the triune God but the second person of the Trinity that assumed human nature. For that reason it is better to say that the Word became flesh than that God became man. At the same time we should remember that each of the divine persons was active in the incarnation. (ST, 3.2.1.B.1.a)


According to Trinitarianism, is Jesus God Almighty? First of all I want a Trinitarian answer.

Is it proper to say that Jesus is God Almighty? The Scriptures are very clear but they (and the church fathers) are very clear that the Father is God Almighty and they never call Jesus "Almighty". I struggle to understand the doctrine of the Trinity...I know that the Father is God, the Son is God and the Holy Spirit is God and they are distinct persons, but I struggle to understand how they can be "one being".

I see that the scriptures teach an economic trinity, that the Son comes from the Father, eternally being born of the Father and he shares his substance of being God. But the Son is not as Almighty as the Father since his will is fully dependent on the will of the Father, and his existence comes from the Father eternally. And the Holy Spirit comes from the Father and the Son eternally.
Is this an orthodox understanding of the trinity? And yet the problem is...how can the Father, Son and Holy Spirit be one God since they all come from the Almighty God, the Father?

Please don't call me a heretic...I am just trying to understand the truth. If someone can prove any other way of understanding the Trinity, in harmony with the Scriptures, I am open to change my understanding.
God bless!

EDIT : Tertullian :

  We, however, as we indeed always have done and more especially since we have been better instructed by the Paraclete, who leads men indeed into all truth, believe that there is one only God, but under the following dispensation [economy], as it is called, that this one only God has also a Son, His Word, who proceeded from Himself, by whom all things were  made, and without whom nothing was made. Him we believe to have been sent by the Father into the Virgin, and to have been born of her – being both Man and God, the Son of Man and the Son of God, and to have been called by the name of Jesus Christ; we believe Him to have suffered, died, and been buried, according to the Scriptures, and, after He had been raised again by the Father and taken back to heaven, to be sitting at the right hand of the Father, and that He will come to judge the quick and the dead; who sent also from heaven from the Father, according to His own promise, the Holy Ghost, the Paraclete, the sanctifier of the faith of those who believe in the Father, and in the Son, and in the Holy Ghost. That this rule of faith has come down to us from the beginning of the gospel.”

From this I understand that the Father is the One True God (THE BEING of God) and he shares the same being to the Son and the Holy Spirit

Yes. Within the text of the “Athanasian Creed” is the following statement:

Similarly, the Father is Almighty (omnipotent); the Son is Almighty (omnipotent); [and] the Holy Spirit is Almighty (omnipotent). And yet, there are not three Almighties (omnipotents), but one Almighty (omnipotent).
Similiter omnipotens Pater, omnipotens Filius, omnipotens [et] Spiritus Sanctus. Et tamen non tres omnipotentes, sed unus omnipotens.


Do most Christian scientists have a Literal Creationist viewpoint? I have been thinking a lot about creation lately, and I am just curious as to whether most scientists believe the literal account or if they believe in some form of theistic evolution.

I can't find any more specific polling, but from this ongoing Gallop Poll:

Only 40% of all Americans believe in a strict Young Earth Creation model (be that Genesis or otherwise) - the majority support some form of theistic evolution or natural evolution.

When you look at those with post-graduate education, nearly 50% hold a theistic evolution view, with 25% supporting a naturalistic evolution view and only 22% supporting a young earth model.

If we take "scientists" to mean those with a post-graduate degree involved in the active study of some natural science, then it would a reasonable (though quite unscientific) assumption to say that the majority of scientists their post-graduate peers and support the evolutionary model, either from a theistic standpoint or a naturalistic one.

This obviously isn't firm evidence either way - there is some evidence that those in the natural sciences have higher rates of religious belief than those in more social sciences, but not to any extreme degree, and it would be a stretch to claim that scientists reject evolution at a higher rate than the general populace.

It's also only looking at American data, but outside of Islamic countries, you're only going to see more support for evolution.


Does God forgive those who take his name in vain? Christianity teaches the forgiveness of sins by God, but Exodus 20:7, one of the Ten Commandments, says:

  "You shall not take the name of the LORD your God in vain; for the
  LORD will not hold him guiltless that takes his name in vain."

Does this mean that breaking the commandment should be taken as unforgivable by God?

If this sin is unforgivable what implications does that have at the time of judgement?

The only place in the Bible where any sin is mentioned as being unforgivable is in Matthew 12:

  Matthew 12:31-32 (NLT)
  31 “So I tell you, every sin and blasphemy can be forgiven—except blasphemy against the Holy Spirit, which will never be forgiven. 32 Anyone who speaks against the Son of Man can be forgiven, but anyone who speaks against the Holy Spirit will never be forgiven, either in this world or in the world to come.

Now the question is if taking God's name in vain is blasphemy or speaking against the Holy Spirit. Personally, I say that it is not because you are not targeting the Holy Spirit, so to speak. I don't quite have Scriptural backup for that, but this answer and that answer on this question generally indicate that the answer to that new question is "no".


Are the any Christian denominations that have doctrines in place that prohibit a national flag in the worship space? I am somewhat troubled by the presence of an American flag anywhere in a sanctuary / worship space. This sentiment is especially stark when said flag shares the same space / level as an altar.

I would like to see Christian doctrine / canon / by-laws or some other citation where this is prohibited, if at all.

For the Catholic Church, there are no universal norms (i.e., neither in Canon Law, nor in the various liturgical books) that prohibit national flags in the sanctuary (i.e., the space where the celebration of the Eucharist actually takes place). As a result, the norms regarding the use of flags, if any, are set by the diocesan bishop.

Generally, the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops has discouraged the use of national flags (and the U.S. is a country in which flags in the sanctuary have become relatively common), but there is no prohibition as such.

(The source for this is chiefly an article by Edward McNamara, L.C., from Zenit.org. To see the relevant section, scroll down to the paragraph beginning “Several readers asked about….”)


Catholic baptized in another church A catholic wanted to have her baptism blessed under full water method. The Church is not familiar with this , so she had a evangelical church do it. So, her local Catholic priest forbid her from receiving communion. She was not aware of the consequences of minor excommunication. Now, what can she do to go to Communion again?

We don't have all the information to be sure what is going on, but here are some likely scenarios.

The Catholic Church has no objection to baptism by immersion. It's a completely valid means of baptism, and Catholics do understand it. However pouring and sprinkling are considered equally valid. Moreover most Catholic churches are not equipped for immersion baptism. If your friend specifically requested baptism by immersion then the priest may have declined out of practicality.

Additionally the Catholic church considers baptism a one time thing.  If your friend was previously validly baptized then the priest will have declined to baptize again. Doing so would be a sign that the first baptism was invalid, which would go against fundamental beliefs.

The issue therefore was likely not being baptized by immersion, but deciding to get a major events in their Christian Life done in a church other than the Catholic one. This is not really consistent with a full commitment to the Catholic church, or a belief that it is the best church. Getting baptized in another church will have been taken as a decision to join that church , and by implication leave the Catholic church. The other church will have taken it that way. Joining another church makes you ineligible to take communion in the Catholic church.

If this immersion baptism happened a long time ago and your friend now wants to join the Catholic church, that should not be a problem. She will have to go through formal acceptance into the Catholic church, but that will likely not involve another baptism.

If your friend truly did not understand the implications of what they were doing then they should talk to their priest to sort it out. However that is very unlikely. The other church will likely have insisted on some instruction before baptism, and that will have included implications for membership. They will also have assured themselves that your friend follows Evangelical  beliefs, which would be different from Catholic beliefs. The Catholic priest would certainly have explained the implications if the question had come up.


Do mainstream believers believe there was a large interval of time that elapsed between the fall of angels and God speaking creating the universe? Lucifer willed to become "like the most high." Do mainstream believers agree that there was an invisible war in the spiritual realm that was an interval of time before God spoke creating our known universe?

I read the book The Invisible War which supports this theory, however I also heard Hank (the bible answer man) say he didnt support this.

All Christians can glean from Scripture is that Lucifer was an angel, got proud, opposed God, and was cast out for it.  There is simply no data to say anything about the when, where, or why of those events.

Even what was stated above is only a tangential case at best. The entire "Lucifer falling out of heaven" narrative is not one that is explicit in Scripture.  Indeed, the three closest references are:

Ezekiel 28

  “You were the signet of perfection,[a]
      full of wisdom and perfect in beauty.
  13 You were in Eden, the garden of God;
      every precious stone was your covering,
  sardius, topaz, and diamond,
      beryl, onyx, and jasper,
  sapphire,[b] emerald, and carbuncle;
      and crafted in gold were your settings
      and your engravings.[c]
  On the day that you were created
      they were prepared.
  14 You were an anointed guardian cherub.
      I placed you;[d] you were on the holy mountain of God;
      in the midst of the stones of fire you walked.
  15 You were blameless in your ways
      from the day you were created,
      till unrighteousness was found in you.
  16 In the abundance of your trade
      you were filled with violence in your midst, and you sinned;
  so I cast you as a profane thing from the mountain of God,
      and I destroyed you,[e] O guardian cherub,
      from the midst of the stones of fire.
  17 Your heart was proud because of your beauty;
      you corrupted your wisdom for the sake of your splendor.
  I cast you to the ground;
      I exposed you before kings,
      to feast their eyes on you.
  18 By the multitude of your iniquities,
      in the unrighteousness of your trade
      you profaned your sanctuaries;
  so I brought fire out from your midst;
      it consumed you,
  and I turned you to ashes on the earth
      in the sight of all who saw you.
  19 All who know you among the peoples
      are appalled at you;
  you have come to a dreadful end
      and shall be no more forever.”

Isaiah 14:

  “How you are fallen from heaven,
      O Day Star, son of Dawn!
  How you are cut down to the ground,
      you who laid the nations low!
  13 You said in your heart,
      ‘I will ascend to heaven;
  above the stars of God
      I will set my throne on high;
  I will sit on the mount of assembly
      in the far reaches of the north;[c]
  14 I will ascend above the heights of the clouds;
      I will make myself like the Most High.’
  15 But you are brought down to Sheol,
      to the far reaches of the pit.

Luke 10:

  17 The seventy-two returned with joy and said, “Lord, even the demons submit to us in your name.” 18 He replied, “I saw Satan fall like lightning from heaven. 19 I have given you authority to trample on snakes and scorpions and to overcome all the power of the enemy; nothing will harm you. 20 However, do not rejoice that the spirits submit to you, but rejoice that your names are written in heaven.

Of the two in the Old Testament, these are actually prophecies directed against the King of Tyre - although many for historical reasons see an allusion to Satan in this.  The last one, in the NT, explicitly references Satan, but this appears to be a present day thing, not related to the Fall from Heaven at all.

So, where do we get the narrative? John Milton's Paradise Lost is the most famous telling of the narrative, but the origin of the story is unknown.

As to the timing involved, there is simply no data on which to make any claim in one direction or another.  Many believe that all of this occurred before the Creation of Man, since the Serpent in the Garden clearly wanted man to fall - but beyond that, much in the same way physicists can only speculate about existence a few billionths of a second after the Big Bang, there is simply no data, no framework, and no information to say any more.


Do any Christian denominations forbid pronouncing the Tetragrammaton? In Judaism it has been a taboo to pronounce the four letter name of God. It was never explicitly said when reading the Jewish scriptures. Do any forms of Christianity have a similar approach?

The Tetragrammaton ('Hashem', The Name) was written many times in the Hebrew Scriptures without vowels, therefore YHWH could not be pronounced by anyone without knowledge of the vowel points. Nor was it encouraged, out of concern not to break the second of the Ten Commandments. When it came to the Christian Scriptures, they were originally written in koine Greek, and the equivalent of the Tetragrammaton never even occurred once. Of the more than 5,000 available copies of ancient Greek Christian Scripture manuscripts (MSS), some from as early as 200 C.E., there are no MSS that show any evidence of the Tetragrammaton.

However, there are no superstitious views about any need to refrain from translating the Tetragrammaton into other languages, for Christians to read or to pronounce. Of course, it remains true that no Christian would wish to take The Name of God in vain, but it is not the pronunciation that is the problem here. We all know that it is pronounced in different ways in different languages.

A Dominican monk, Raymundus Martini, was commissioned by the Pope to translate the Latin Vulgate Bible into German. That’s when ‘Jehova’ first appeared. In German, the 'J' is pronounced ‘Yah’. 'Jehova' is first recorded in 1270 in Martini's book "Pugeo Fideli".

It was William Tyndale who first used Jehovah in English, as a new word, once the letter 'J' had been introduced into the English alphabet in the early 1500s. Tyndale produced his translation of the Pentateuch in 1530. There are many old hymns (particularly in the Protestant tradition) where the name of God, Jehovah, is sung - usually with reference to Hebrew (Old Testament) events. YHWH is often viewed as God's OT (or, covenant) name. There is no taboo in Christianity against pronouncing God's Name.


What is the will of the Father according to the LDS vewpoint? True and False Disciples

  21 “Not everyone who says to me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ will enter the kingdom of heaven, but only the one who does the will of my Father who is in heaven. 22 Many will say to me on that day, ‘Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in your name and in your name drive out demons and in your name perform many miracles?’ 23 Then I will tell them plainly, ‘I never knew you. Away from me, you evildoers!’   MATTHEW 7:21-23

Jesus is here stating that many will attempt to justify themselves according to what they have done (verse 22); but He clearly says it is only those who do His will who will be saved.

The Bible clearly says that the will of God is:

  John 6:38-40

  For I have come down from heaven, not to do my own will but the will of him who sent me. And this is the will of him who sent me, that I should lose nothing of all that he has given me, but raise it up on the last day. For this is the will of my Father, that everyone who looks on the Son and believes in him should have eternal life, and I will raise him up on the last day.”

Therefore; what will the Mormon faithful say to Jesus when at the "pearly gates" so to speak...why should he let you in to the kingdom?

There is not just one answer to this, but rather a combination of many things that we do to allow us to be "swallowed up in the will of the Father." What will allow us to enter the "Pearly Gates" is our actions and the direction we are heading. If we strive to do our best, it will allow the Atonement of Jesus Christ to cleanse us so we can enter therein.
Scripturally I think these verses help us to understand how we can submit ourselves to the Father's will. We must become like Jesus Christ as  1 John 3:2-3 explains:

2 Beloved, now are we the sons of God, and it doth not yet appear what we shall be: but we know that, when he shall appear, we shall be like him; for we shall see him as he is.
3 And every man that hath this hope in him purifieth himself, even as he is pure.

and within the Book of Mormon, Moroni 7:47-48,

47 But charity is the pure love of Christ, and it endureth forever; and whoso is found possessed of it at the last day, it shall be well with him.
48 Wherefore, my beloved brethren, pray unto the Father with all the energy of heart, that ye may be filled with this love, which he hath bestowed upon all who are true followers of his Son, Jesus Christ; that ye may become the sons of God; that when he shall appear we shall be like him, for we shall see him as he is; that we may have this hope; that we may be purified even as he is pure. Amen.

After a great sermon was given by the Prophet King Benjamin, in the Book of Mormon, his people said the following:

2 And they all cried with one voice, saying: Yea, we believe all the words which thou hast spoken unto us; and also, we know of their surety and truth, because of the Spirit of the Lord Omnipotent, which has wrought a mighty change in us, or in our hearts, that we have no more disposition to do evil, but to do good continually.

These individuals were changed by the Word of God, so much so they had no more desire to do evil and were will to subject themselves to the Will of the Father.

5 And we are willing to enter into a covenant with our God to do his will, and to be obedient to his commandments in all things that he shall command us, all the remainder of our days, that we may not bring upon ourselves a never-ending torment, as has been spoken by the angel, that we may not drink out of the cup of the wrath of God.

King Benjamin was thrilled, as this was the reaction he wanted:

7 And now, because of the covenant which ye have made ye shall be called the children of Christ, his sons, and his daughters; for behold, this day he hath spiritually begotten you; for ye say that your hearts are changed through faith on his name; therefore, ye are born of him and have become his sons and his daughters.
8 And under this head ye are made free, and there is no other head whereby ye can be made free. There is no other name given whereby salvation cometh; therefore, I would that ye should take upon you the name of Christ, all you that have entered into the covenant with God that ye should be obedient unto the end of your lives.
9 And it shall come to pass that whosoever doeth this shall be found at the right hand of God, for he shall know the name by which he is called; for he shall be called by the name of Christ.

We will not be allowed to enter the "Pearly Gates" of Heaven just because we belong to The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. It takes purification and sanctification by the Power of the Atonment of Christ.
The Prophet Alma taught:

32 For behold, this life is the time for men to prepare to meet God; yea, behold the day of this life is the day for men to perform their labors.
33 And now, as I said unto you before, as ye have had so many witnesses, therefore, I beseech of you that ye do not procrastinate the day of your repentance until the end; for after this day of life, which is given us to prepare for eternity, behold, if we do not improve our time while in this life, then cometh the night of darkness wherein there can be no labor performed.

I would recommend you read the first bullet point under additional reading, this is the most recent sermon on this topic, given by an Apostle of the Lord.
Additional Reading:

David A Bednar: If Ye Had Known Me, 2016
Neal A Maxwell: Swallowed up in the will of the father, 1995
Submitting our Will to the Father's, 2004


The Genesis gap and Re-creation I have stumbled on this essay (The Genesis Gap) on the site ichthys from which I am quoting a passage:

  ....5. The Timing of the Satanic Rebellion: Finally, it should be
  mentioned that, in addition to the compelling reasons listed above for
  placing Satan's rebellion within the time frame of the Genesis Gap
  (that is, between original creation and the eventual re-creation of
  the earth – a period of unspecified length), there is, in fact, no
  other period in which it can reasonably be located. After the angels
  sing for joy with obvious relief at earth's re-creation (and the sea's
  restriction: Job 38:4-11), the temptation of Adam and Eve by Satan
  follows their creation in apparently rapid succession, leaving scant
  time for Satan's own fall and seduction of a large portion of angelic
  kind (Genesis 1-3; see Part 1 of this series).

  III. Creation and Re-Creation:  Before all else, God created the
  heavens and the earth. Genesis 1:1

  Genesis 1:1 describes the original creation of the heavens and the
  earth.

The author , who seems extremely competent and well-informed, holds up the idea that  there have been 2 separate creation of the world, the original one of Eden, followed by the revolt of the angel(s) which caused the revolt of man , and a second, the actual earth and universe, after the first had been destroyed

  .....As we have seen, however, the second verse of the Bible, Genesis
  1:2, is split grammatically from verse one with an abrupt, adversative
  construction. Verse two propels us untold eons forward in time from
  the original, awesome act of creation, and moves us to the other side
  of the Genesis Gap, describing for us the state of the universe as it
  existed before God re-created the earth:

  But the earth came to be ruined and despoiled – darkness lay upon the
  face of the abyss while God's Spirit brooded over the surface of its
  waters. Genesis 1:2

  Original creation had been marred by Satan's revolt, and cast into
  darkness by God's judgment upon the rebellious angels. In order to
  make the universe habitable once more for creatures with physical
  bodies (the attempted possession of which was a major issue in Satan's
  pre-fall propaganda, it will be remembered from Part 1 of our study),
  a re-creation of the earth was essential. Genesis 1:3 - 2:3, the
  account of the seven days, is a description of this renewal of the
  heavens and the earth. The objective behind this process of the seven
  days is also quite clear: the creation of Man. Everything God
  accomplishes within the period of re-creation is specifically designed
  to make life supportable for this His second category of creature
  possessing free will:

  The Seven Days of Re-Creation....

the essay consists of four extended articles which make an easy and interesting reading. I have never heard of this hypothesis, and ask you expert to give an assessment of the reliability of the quotations but most of all ond the validity of the theory.

It makes a lot of sense, and surely solves a lot of problems arising from the usual interpretation of the Bible description, in which the presence of satan in the garden is inexplicable, unjustifiable, unbelievably illogical and totally absurd.

But the main problem is that a second re-creation is absolutely necessary because it is literally impossible that this material world with decaying matter and inert mass etc, can possibly have been the location of Eden.
Has this idea ever gained currency? what are its weak points ?

There is a reason this guy sounds like he is privy to some other revelation about two creations we all don't know about: what he is saying is nowhere actually taught in the text. Of course any number of theories can be read into Genesis' ambiguous statements all too easily.
Let's look at what he says, highlighting everywhere he assumes what he's trying to prove:

The Timing of the Satanic Rebellion: Finally, it should be mentioned that, in addition to the compelling reasons listed above for placing Satan's rebellion within the time frame of the Genesis Gap (that is, between original creation and the eventual re-creation of the earth – a period of unspecified length), there is, in fact, no other period in which it can reasonably be located. After the angels sing for joy with obvious relief at earth's re-creation (and the sea's restriction: Job 38:4-11), the temptation of Adam and Eve by Satan follows their creation in apparently rapid succession, leaving scant time for Satan's own fall and seduction of a large portion of angelic kind (Genesis 1-3; see Part 1 of this series).
III. Creation and Re-Creation: Before all else, God created the heavens and the earth. Genesis 1:1
Genesis 1:1 describes the original creation of the heavens and the earth.
.....As we have seen, however, the second verse of the Bible, Genesis 1:2, is split grammatically from verse one with an abrupt, adversative construction. Verse two propels us untold eons forward in time [ha!] from the original, awesome act of creation, and moves us to the other side of the Genesis Gap, describing for us the state of the universe as it existed before God re-created the earth:
But the earth came to be ruined and despoiled – darkness lay upon the face of the abyss while God's Spirit brooded over the surface of its waters. Genesis 1:2
Original creation had been marred by Satan's revolt, and cast into darkness by God's judgment upon the rebellious angels. In order to make the universe habitable once more for creatures with physical bodies (the attempted possession of which was a major issue in Satan's pre-fall propaganda, it will be remembered from Part 1 of our study), a re-creation of the earth was essential. Genesis 1:3 - 2:3, the account of the seven days, is a description of this renewal of the heavens and the earth. The objective behind this process of the seven days is also quite clear: the creation of Man. Everything God accomplishes within the period of re-creation is specifically designed to make life supportable for this His second category of creature possessing free will:
The Seven Days of Re-Creation....

(brackets mine)
That's pretty embarrassing. As you can see, he is just coming to Genesis with a doctrine of two creations, and then reading it into the maleable first chapter. There is nothing to refute—if you already accept his doctrine, Genesis has to be read in light of it; if not, you'll not actually find two creations in Genesis anywhere.
A key mark of heretics is peculiar translations of particular verses ("In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was a god" comes to mind).
Notice how he translates Genesis 1:2 to suit his doctrine: "But the earth came to be ruined and despoiled."
This is laughable. For starters, תהו and בהו don't mean 'ruined and despoiled.' He needs them to mean that for his doctrine of a former world having been destroyed by evil or something. Particularly heinous/laughable is translating one of these words 'despoiled.' Despoiled, according to Merriam-Webster, means:

to strip of belongings, possessions, or value

Needless to say, this well exceeds the basic meaning of the word, and implies some agent which brought such desolation about, but which is nowhere actually indicated in the text.
But more greviously, he claims verse 2 is " split grammatically from verse one with an abrupt, adversative." This is, to put it lightly, complete garbage. For a start, in Hebrew ו wa (and/but) can be either adversative or copulative—and most of the time it is copulative (and; even, in the case of an appositive usage). Whether to translate/understand this as and or but is purely based on context, and how you understand the passage in light of it. So to beg the question and translate this as 'but' because (he has assured us) there is an extreme 'adversative, abrupt' part of the story to be told, is nonsense.
He claims this desolate state was, not before God has formed things in it, but it had 'come to be' this way—something nowhere stated in the text. Here he translates יהתה ([she] was—referring to the feminine noun ארץ meaning earth) as 'she became.' While this word can mean this in other contexts, there is no contextual reason when one reads the text to infer a previously 'un-desolate' earth! It's clear with the 'in the beginning' we are getting the run down of the creation: "In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth." What isn't clear is that between this sentence and the next, this had been ruined by evil and so had 'become' this way. As you read the next few verses it becomes evident that this is just its state before He marked out seas and the land and created trees and animals on it.
I call this 'concordance translating,' where someone picks up a nice little concordance and fancies themselves a translator, and begins to assure us of new meanings of already understood texts—not so coincidentally coinciding with their new theology, which is on offer. If you want this showcased in an entire translation of the Bible, read the NWT. It is the most wooden, stick your foot in the door of every 'well its possible to translate it this way,' theologically driven, non-translations out there.


What is the purpose of describing who is son of who? In many excerpts of the Bible one can find an extended description of a person and his respective descendents. What's the purpose of this? Is it supposed to give an idea of how much time passed between two important facts? Is it supposed to preserve the origin of man? The genealogic tree is a lot more objective than most of the facts narrated in the sacred book. There must be a good reason for this.

Genesis, 5:21-24

  21 When Enoch had lived 65 years, he became the father of Methuselah. 22 After he became the father of Methuselah, Enoch walked faithfully with God 300 years and had other sons and daughters. 23 Altogether, Enoch lived a total of 365 years. 24 Enoch walked faithfully with God; then he was no more, because God took him away.

In many cultures, genealogy roots a person in who they are. By saying, "so and so is the son of so and so," you are establishing an identity.  As the old saying goes, "we don't want nobody nobody sent."

In the specific case of Genesis 5 & 10 (sometimes called "the Table of Nations"), however, there is a very interesting theological point being made.  Namely, the Israelites were a nobody.

In many creation myths, the creation myth is set up in such a way as to highlight the fact that the culture that came up with it has pre-eminence amongst the peoples. In Babylonian myths, for example, the Mesopotamians were the firstborn among creation. In Egyptian creation myths, the same holds true, and the pattern is repeated in many places.

What is different about Genesis is that Abraham is kind of a nobody. He's not always the firstborn of the firstborn of the firstborn.  He's just another guy in creation.

What makes him different is that God chose him to say, "through you I will bless all nations."  The Jewish scriptures are remarkable in their lack of ethnocentricity.  As you state, these genealogies are very objective in their fact taking stance.


Early Church Fathers and "Q" Starting with the early church, a large portion of Christian tradition has held the Augustinian hypothesis which believes that Matthew's Gospel was the first to be written, then Mark's, then Luke's, and subsequently John's, with each writer having some knowledge of the others' writing.

Since the 19th century however, many biblical scholars have rejected Augustinian hypothesis (namely that Matthews Gospel was the first to be written) in favor of Markan priority. On top of this, they assert that Matthew and Luke's Gospels have used Mark's as a source from which both draw virtually identical narrations (see The Synoptic Gospels). Under this hypothesis, those portions of Matthew and Luke that are in agreement but do not appear in Mark are believed to have been borrowed from an alternate source commonly referred to as "Q"

"Q" as a tangible fragment or codex has never been discovered within the field of archaeology and paleography however. Many biblical scholars defend "Q's" lack of tangible existence due to many portions of scripture being lost or edited.

However, one group certainly must have recorded an alleged Gospel as important as "Q" would have been, and that group is the Early Church Fathers.

So, do any Early Church Fathers record of another Gospel similar in content to those portions of Matthew and Luke that do not appear in Mark?

As has been discussed in the comments of the OP, the likelihood that sources or "accounts" (Luke 1:1) which the Gospel writers may have used as references, being documented, is scanty at best. That being said, there exists at least some evidence from one church Father that has been used to promulgate the potential of what could be "Q."

The church father in question is none other than Papias of Hierapolis (roughly 60-130 CE).
Although some sources claim Papias' writings survived through the middle ages, they certainly have not made it into the 20th and 21st centuries.1
Thankfully, we have some portions of Papias' writings seemingly quoted verbatim by Eusebius of Caesarea in his "Ecclesiastical History".

Eusebius quoting Papias' writings pertaining to the origins of the Gospel of Matthew:

  "Therefore Matthew put the logia in an ordered arrangement in the
   Hebrew language, but each person interpreted them as best he could."
  - Eusebius of Caesarea, "Ecclesiastical History"  3.39.14-17

The translation of the word "logia" in the english ("λόγια" in the Greek), is the main point of contention. In non-Christian contexts, the word was traditionally interpreted as "oracles", however 19th century biblical scholarship argued "logia" was better interpreted "sayings." 2
This interpretation has given credence to the notion that Papias is really referring to a "sayings" gospel like that of the the Gospel of Thomas or "Q" that Matthew incorporated into his Gospel.

Although not the strongest of arguments, this case does at least give potential to an ECF's acknowledgement of a source used by Matthew that would've contained content similar to what "Q" is theorized to contain.

Sources:

Harnack, Adolf (1893). Geschichte der Altchristlichen Litteratur bis Eusebius. 1. p. 69
Lührmann, Dieter (1995). "Q: Sayings of Jesus or Logia?". In Piper, Ronald Allen. The Gospel Behind the Gospels: Current Studies on Q. pp. 97–116.


Is abortion okay if it is medically necessary? I'm sure that most of us agree that abortion is sinful and certainly not okay...most of the time. However, I'm thinking of two rare circumstances that may be exceptions.

The mother would die but the baby would (probably) live if an abortion is not performed.
The mother AND the (still-living) baby would die if an abortion is not performed.

Does the Bible (or some other significant work) provide any perspective on these questions?

This is a difficult topic. Some biblical references would help to understand how God views an unborn child:

God views the life of a child as precious even during the very early stages of development after conception:

Psalms 139:13-16

  For you created my inmost being;    you knit me together in my
  mother’s womb. 14 I praise you because I am fearfully and wonderfully
  made;    your works are wonderful,    I know that full well. 15 My
  frame was not hidden from you    when I was made in the secret place,
  when I was woven together in the depths of the earth. 16 Your eyes saw
  my unformed body;    all the days ordained for me were written in your
  book    before one of them came to be.

God stated that a person would be called to account for injury to an unborn child:

Exodus 21:22,23

  If people are fighting and hit a pregnant woman and she gives birth
  prematurely[a] but there is no serious injury, the offender must be
  fined whatever the woman’s husband demands and the court allows.

It's a very serious sin to willfully take a human life for any reason not authorized by God:

Genesis 9:6

  Whoever sheds human blood,    by humans shall their blood be shed; for
  in the image of God    has God made mankind.

Exodus 20:13

  “You must not murder.”

So the life of a child is very valuable in God's eyes. If a medical decision must be taken between mother's or child's life, this is up to the couple. If the doctors inform the parents that the child will be born with medical problems, this is no reason to murder the child.


What were the views of the Church Fathers on Jews and Judaism during the Patristic Era? I am currently learning about the holocaust in History class right now. It was mentioned that during the Middle Ages, some Christians were anti-semitic. I wondered how the Early Church (Pre-Schism) and the Church Fathers viewed Jews and Judaism. I've looked at a few sources and see that some were against the Jewish religion because it wasn't Christianity. It hasn't mentioned anything about the Jewish ethnic group but I guess it's possible that it means both. I still am unsure on what is true so my question is what was the early church and church father's views on Jews and Judaism?
Addendum: After a suggestion, I would like to rephrase the question and only ask: What was the Church Father's views on Jews and Judaism during the Patristic Era?

Here is a small excerpt (108.2.3) of "Dialogue with Trypho the Jew", a writing by Justin Martyr in approximately 160 C.E.:
You also accuse Him [Jesus] of having taught the same godless, wicked, and criminal teachings which you bring up in condemnation of all those who everywhere confess Christ to be their teacher and the son of God.  Moreover, not even now, after your city has been conquered and your country laid waste, do you repent, but dare to curse Jesus and all who believe in Him.


What is the difference between belief and faith, from a Protestant perspective? I want to know what is the difference between belief and faith from a Protestant perspective. Can anyone explain this to me?

The understanding that I am most familiar with - a Protestant understanding, if it matters, is that "belief" is an intellectual belief, while "faith" is a matter of trust that leads to action.

This can be summed up in an illustration of Charles Blondin, a  tightrope walker who asks a crowd if they believe that he can safely walk a wheelbarrow across Niagara Falls on a tightrope.  Many in the crowd ask who believes that he can do this, and of course, most say that they do.  Then he asks who is willing to get into the wheelbarrow.  Only those whose "belief" reaches the point of faith will get in.

This is similar to how it's explained by many, many, Christian groups, and while I can't claim that the understanding is universal, it is quite common.  For example, The Feral Apologist has an article explaining the difference here.  They put it like this:

  How are we, as Christians, to understand our faith? We need to first
  discover the meaning of the word “faith” in the Bible, and how that
  meaning is somewhat different from the meaning many attach to it
  today. To avoid the cultural baggage associated with the term, let’s
  look at the Greek words that are used in the New Testament and
  translated as “faith.” There are three primary forms of this word in
  Greek, the noun form pistis, the adjective form pistos, and the verb
  form pisteuo. Each form’s meaning is a variant of the word “trust.”
  Hence pistis is “a trust” in someone or something, pistos is
  “trusting” as applied to someone adjectivally, and pisteuo literally
  means “I trust.” It is important to keep this in mind because we have
  often misunderstood these words (translated as “faith”) in our culture
  to be, not variants of the word trust, but variants of the word
  belief, used in an intellectual sense. It is true that some places in
  scripture, such as James 2:19, the verb form is rightly translated as
  “believe” because of contextual issues and what James was trying to
  accomplish. In other places, such as John 14:1, a variant imperative
  form of the verb is translated as Jesus’ exhortation to “trust” in
  him. When we encounter the word “faith” in scripture then, our default
  understanding should be that it means “trust.”

Faith Baptist Church, in New jersey also uses the Blondin story in one of their devotionals on the subject. The devotional says this:

  The historical stunts of Blondin help us understand what it means to
  have "faith". First of all, faith is not mere intellectual assent. If
  anyone in the crowd truly believe that Blondin could cross the raging
  Niagara with someone in the wheelbarrow, he or she would have
  volunteered to ride along. "Faith" always means that we are really
  trusting someone or something. "Faith" is more than the words of
  mental assent as the words that were shouted by the crowds lining the
  shores of Niagara. To say, "We believe" means that we believe not only
  with our head, but with our heart and our wills. Faith means that we
  believe that God can do what He has said and that we believe it so
  thoroughly that we are willing to fully act upon it. Faith does not
  mean that we believe God can do it, but that God can do it with us in
  that "wheelbarrow".


How could David enter the congregation of the Lord when he was descended from Ruth the Moabitess? I want to ask a question about Ruth the Moabitess and King David.

  Deuteronomy 23:3
  An Ammonite or Moabite shall not enter into the congregation of the LORD; even to their tenth generation shall they not enter into the congregation of the LORD for ever:

And Ruth was a Moabitess, AND, the great grandmother of King David.

  Ruth 1:22
  So Naomi returned, and Ruth the Moabitess, her daughter in law, with her, which returned out of the country of Moab: and they came to Bethlehem in the beginning of barley harvest.

MY QUESTION IS

Logically, how can David be lawfully accepted 'into the congregation of the Lord' (let alone, be selected by the LORD to be King of Israel,) when he was clearly only 3 generations away from Moab heritage?

I am searching for any scriptural explanation, which would justify David being accepted 'into the congregation of the Lord', taking into account the clear "even to their tenth generation" prohibition of Deuteronomy 23:3.

And, doesn't Jewish heritage follow the mother?

Naomi fled from the famine in Judah to live in Moab with her husband and two sons. Her two sons eventually married Moabite wives including Ruth. Naomi’s husband and sons eventually died and she decided to return to her homeland. Ruth clung onto her with a pledge that ‘your people will be my people and your God will be my God.’ (Ruth 1:16). Though she was a Moabite, Ruth was ‘acquired’/purchased by Boaz, the guardian/kinsman redeemer of Naomi’s family (Ruth 4:9-10).  Scripture says, “the Lord enabled her to conceive, and she gave birth to a son” (see vs 13, NIV) - Obed, who was David’s grandfather. In a short genealogy of David (see Ruth 4:21-22), Boaz is listed as the father of Obed, the father of Jesse, the father of David. This was in line with Jewish culture where children are the offspring of their fathers and not their mother. Indeed throughout history, Jewish men did marry or produce children from captive or slave non-Jewish women and the off-spring became Jewish because of their fathers. So technically, Obed, the grandfather of David, was the son of Boaz and not Ruth.


How do Catholics justify confessing to a priest? Roman Catholic churches have a practice where congregational members confess their sins and the like to a priest in a confessional. As I was saying to a friend a couple days ago, the practice doesn't make sense to me as Jesus is our High Priest, and as such, we don't need to go through another man.

  Hebrews 4:14-16 (NLT)
  14 So then, since we have a great High Priest who has entered heaven, Jesus the Son of God, let us hold firmly to what we believe. 15 This High Priest of ours understands our weaknesses, for he faced all of the same testings we do, yet he did not sin. 16 So let us come boldly to the throne of our gracious God. There we will receive his mercy, and we will find grace to help us when we need it most.

Thus, my question is: what is the (Roman) Catholic justification for this practice?

To clarify, I'm talking about confessing to the priest, essentially putting them in the position of being the mediator between the confessor and God, despite Hebrews saying that we need no other mediator than Jesus.

Sacred tradition in Catholicism makes the Sacrament of Penance and Reconciliation the pathway by which life in Christ is possible.  In the United States at least, before receiving first communion, children must first go to reconciliation.  All Catholics who are conscious of mortal sin, must confess their sins before receiving communion.  In fact, the only other way to "have life within you", to a Catholic is to get Baptized, then be hit by a bus (or desire Baptism in some way and be hit by a bus (or to stop someone from being hit by a bus and be hit by a bus *))

In any event, our justification is that Jesus told his disciples to do this:

  John 20:21-23 (NIV)

  21  Again Jesus said, “Peace be with you! As the Father has sent me, I am sending you.” 22  And with that he breathed on them and said, “Receive the Holy Spirit. 23  If you forgive anyone’s sins, their sins are forgiven; if you do not forgive them, they are not forgiven.”

He didn't tell Mary Magdalene to do this, he didn't tell His Blessed Mother to do this, he didn't tell Pontius Pilate to do this, he didn't tell the Pharisees to do this, he didn't tell Lazarus to do this, he didn't tell Jarius to do this, he didn't even tell John the Baptist to do this.

In one sense, yeah, he's telling us to do this, but in another sense.  The sense that the Pharisees knew in Mark 2:7:

  Mark 2:7 (NIV)
  7  “Why does this fellow talk like that? He’s blaspheming! Who can forgive sins but God alone?”

He's saying, when you forgive sins, they are GONE.  That's what a priest tells you in confession.  He tells you, that in God's eyes, your sins are no more. You could still be thrown in jail for them,  you may still have to pay up in purgatory for them, but whatever you did is forgiven forever.  Our sin has eternal significance, so do Christ's words in Matt 16:19

  Matthew 16:19 (NIV)
  19  I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven; whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven.”

The power that the apostles confer to their successors, the Bishops and their helpers, the priests, has the eternal significance of both bringing down Jesus to be with us in the Holy Sacrament of the Altar and acting In Persona Christi to forgive sins in the confessional.

Also, priests themselves have no inherent right to hear confessions.  Priests are given the faculties to do so from the Bishop of the diocese they are stationed in. But there are extraordinary circumstances in case of emergency and also times like World Youth Day when priests from all over the world will congregate when any priest will hear your confession.

But, regardless of the priest, the person making the confession must have Contrition which can come in two forms

Fear of God's punishment (imperfect contrition)
Desire to love God and please him (perfect contrition)

If they don't have these things, then they're not truly forgiven, there's no magic involved here.  There is only forgiveness and Jesus. The priest sort of recedes into the background here.  He's incredibly helpful because he often gives you great advice anonymously and freely. But the forgiveness part, that's all the Holy Spirit.

*buses are not sacramental in nature and have no ecclesiastical significance, I bring them up solely for the visual.


Should biblical laws apply to non-Christians? Obviously a lot of Christians want to have biblically based laws in the society, in effect requiring everybody to follow biblical morals. But the opposite is also a popular view among Christians: as non-believers are not saved either way, we shouldn't make it our problem whether they sin little or much.

Which is it, and why?

It's unclear to me whether you're asking for an answer that relates to political or governmental policy, or how we ought to behave as individual Christians.  But to address the latter, 1 Corinthians 5:12-13 I believe is relevant:

  12 What business is it of mine to judge those outside the church? Are you not to judge those inside? 13 God will judge those outside. “Expel the wicked person from among you.”

In other words, regardless of whether Biblical laws would be helpful for non-Christians, as Christians it's not our place to pass judgment; we ought to leave that for God.


For those who don't believe baptism is required for salvation, when, scripturally, does someone die with Christ? Paul recites as part of an early creed.

2 Timothy 2:11 ...If we have died with him, we will also live with him;...

Here it seems that our living with Christ is conditioned on us having died with Christ. The only place in the scriptures where we are described as uniting ourselves with Christ's death, I am aware of, is through baptism:

Romans 6:3-5 3 Do you not know that all of us who have been baptized into Christ Jesus were baptized into his death? 4 We were buried therefore with him by baptism into death, in order that, just as Christ was raised from the dead by the glory of the Father, we too might walk in newness of life.
5 For if we have been united with him in a death like his, we shall certainly be united with him in a resurrection like his.

(*See also Colossians 2:12 and surrounding verses)
(I've significantly edited my question for greater clarity based on responses below)
For those who do not believe in baptism for salvation please answer specifically the following questions:

Do you believe it is necessary to have died and been buried with Christ in order to be saved? If not please provide a biblical basis for why not.
Do you believe that we are not buried with Christ at baptism?
If not, what is the biblical basis for believing that we are not united with Christ's death at baptism?
If you believe that we died with Christ at belief (or at some other time), what is the biblical basis for claiming that our moment of death with Christ is the moment we first believed in Jesus Christ specifically or some other specific moment?

Anyone who says that baptism is required for salvation must therefore be saying that baptism in some way has an essential effect for the person's salvation.
Those who say baptism isn't required for salvation generally say that it is symbolic of the real salvation effects of the death and resurrection of Christ. (Though many churches teach a Sacramental view, in which God does truly act through the sacraments, even though those acts are distinct from Christ's once-for-all mediatorial work accomplished by his death and resurrection.)
There are multiple views of what it means for us to be United to Christ, but the doctrine is most prominent in Reformed Theology, and in Reformed Theology it is the Holy Spirit who unites us to Christ, in faith. So the Westminster Confession says

WCF 11.4: God did, from all eternity, decree to justify the elect; and Christ did, in the fullness of time, die for their sins and rise again for their justification; nevertheless they are not justified until the Holy Spirit doth, in due time, actually apply Christ unto them.

WCF 11.1: Those whom God effectually calleth, he also freely justifieth: not by infusing righteousness into them, but by pardoning their sins, and by accounting and accepting their persons as righteous; not for any thing wrought in them, or done by them, but for Christ's sake alone; not by imputing faith itself, the act of believing, or any other evangelical obedience to them, as their righteousness; but by imputing the obedience and satisfaction of Christ unto them, they receiving and resting on him and his righteousness by faith; which faith they have not of themselves, it is the gift of God.


What do Evangelical Christians consider "the traditions" to be in 1 Thessalonians 2:15? Therefore, brethren, stand fast, and hold the traditions which ye have been taught, whether by word, or our epistle.

What are these "traditions" to Evangelicals?

At the time Paul wrote his first letter to the Thessalonian believers, the canon of Scripture was incomplete. Its completion came decades after Paul's death and the death of many of the eyewitnesses to the life and ministry of Jesus (e.g., Peter, James, and John, Jesus' "inner circle" of disciples). Until the completion of the canon, then, what the apostles taught other believers through both the spoken and written word became the tradition to which the early believers were to hew.

Once the apostles began to write under the influence of the Holy Spirit, I imagine believers almost immediately began copying what the apostles had written. Those who could read and write would use those writings to teach other believers who perhaps could not read or write. Either way, by oral and/or written communication the early church clung to (and then propagated) what they believed to be the accurate and reliable teaching of the apostles. I imagine some of the copies of "Scripture" became pretty dog-eared very quickly as they passed from person to person and perhaps from local churches to other local churches.

It almost goes without saying that the Holy Spirit was active in the whole process of communicating God's word, first through the apostles, and then through the apostles' converts, some of who became elders in local churches and passed the apostles' teaching on to faithful men and women who would teach others. Paul said to Timothy:

  "The things which you have heard from me in the presence of many witnesses, entrust these to faithful men who will be able to teach others also" (2 Timothy 2:2 NASB Updated).

And so it went. Generation after generation entrusted to faithful men what they had heard (and later, read) in the presence of first-hand witnesses initially, and then second-hand witnesses later on. Without the aid of the Holy Spirit and the gifts he bestowed on the early Christians, however, that faithful passing on of the traditions based on the apostles' teaching would never have happened.

  "And . . . [Jesus] gave [to the church] some as apostles, and some as prophets, and some as evangelists, and some as pastors and teachers, for the equipping of the saints for the work of service, to the building up of the body of Christ; until we all attain to the unity of the faith, and of the knowledge of the Son of God, to a mature man, to the measure of the stature which belongs to the fullness of Christ" (Ephesians 4:11-13).

Just a few short decades after Jesus' resurrection and ascension, Christians had spread the glad tidings (like good Evangelicals!) far and wide, throughout Judea and Samaria and to the uttermost parts of the then-world, in obedience to their Lord's command to go and make disciples of all people groups.

Today, there are as many traditions among Christians as there are denominations, including those Christians who actually believe they are non-denominational! Despite the multiplicity of traditions, however, the vast majority of true Christians, despite their denomination loyalties, find common ground and agreement in a handful of non-negotiable doctrines and teachings found in the Judeo-Christian Scriptures. A short list of them would include at least the following:

the deity of Jesus Christ, who alone is and ever shall be the image of the invisible God, sharing all the attributes of both the Father and the Spirit
the virgin birth of Jesus, the "seed of the woman," and his sinless life
the sacrificial and substitutionary death of our Lord, the Lamb of God, on behalf of a world of sinners
the resurrection of Jesus from the dead, his ascension to the Father's right hand in glory, and his coming again for his bride, the holy catholic church
salvation by God's grace through faith alone, which begins with personal regeneration by the Holy Spirit and culminates with the resurrection of the body and eternal life in the presence of God and the holy angels in a kingdom without end

I have undoubtedly omitted--unintentionally for the most part--some crucial doctrines and teachings. One in particular concerns the nature and purpose of the holy Scriptures. Suffice it to say that the vast majority of true Christians believe the Bible was supernaturally inspired by the Holy Spirit, and in its entirety is sufficient for all matters of both faith and practice.

Granted, how various Christian groups interpret the Scriptures is a nettlesome issue, especially for those whose minds are made up. One of the marks of spiritual maturity, however, is the ability to agree to disagree agreeably with those who "rightly divide the word of truth" just a little bit differently than we do, particularly on what could be called "grey issues" or issues of lesser importance than the non-negotiable ones I've listed above. A very short list of these could include

water baptism, particularly when, where, how, why, and by whom
the Lord's Supper (aka communion, the Eucharist, breaking of bread), particularly when, where, how, why, and by whom
the number of sacraments and their relative significance
church polity, or governance, whether of a single, independent church or an entire denomination composed of thousands of local assemblies of Christians worldwide
behaviors which are sometimes proscribed by a given church or churches but which are not explicitly dealt with in Scripture, behaviors which could potentially be stumbling blocks to a "weaker" Christian, but could also be engaged in by "stronger" Christians who have the freedom of conscience before the Lord to do so

In conclusion, tradition plays an important part in the ongoing life of the local church. Determining what traditions should be kept and guarded and what traditions should be replaced when they outwear their usefulness is seldom an easy task and balancing act. To avoid unnecessary schisms, perhaps all Christians, at least once a day for the rest of their lives should recite those famous words from a 17th century tract on Christian unity written by Rupertus Meldenius during the Thirty Years War:

  "In essentials, unity; in non-essentials, liberty; in all things, charity."


Receiving the Holy Spirit after conversion Acts 8:14–17 How would [Southern] Baptist (SBC) churches explain Acts 8:14–17 in the giving of the Holy Spirit after initial conversion or belief? It had always been my understanding that the argument was the Holy Spirit was given to each believer at the moment of faith.

Are we indwelt by the Spirit when we believe and if so why were the apostles needing to pray for them to receive Him?

  Acts 8:14–17
  14 Now when the apostles at Jerusalem heard that Samaria had received the word of God, they sent to them Peter and John, 15 who came down and prayed for them that they might receive the Holy Spirit, 16 for he had not yet fallen on any of them, but they had only been baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus. 17 Then they laid their hands on them and they received the Holy Spirit. ESV, © 2001

I would not say that this answer explains away what could be a "2nd blessing", but it is the interpretive basis for that conclusion.  The answer lies in the hermeneutic "examples found in historic narrative are not necessarily normative for the Chruch".  Simply stated, just because it happened once does not mean it's supposed to happen that way every time.  The classic case of when this hermeneutic is ignored is the Appalachian Snake Handlers who think that because Paul was bit by a deadly viper, "however, shook off the creature into the fire and suffered no harm" (Acts 28:5) then all Believers should be able to do the same thing.  Unfortunately there has been as many as 120 confirmed deaths from snakebite in this group of people.

So, by applying this hermeneutic, the reader must agree that certainly Peter and John had to pray for and lay hands on this group of believers before the Holy Spirit came upon them, but is there any other evidence, particularly in the epistles, that would lead to the conclusion that the receiving of the Holy Spirit is only (or even usually) accomplished this way?

When we examine the rest of the New Testament, there doesn't appear to be much to support that.

For example, Paul wrote a lot of letters to the Church, explaining a lot of theology and giving a lot of instruction on how things are to be done.  There does not seem to be anything he wrote about a "2nd Blessing".  However, he did write "Anyone who does not have the Spirit of Christ does not belong to him" (Rom 8:9). So evidently, if you belong to Jesus then you have the Holy Spirit.

I trust that I am accurately stating the cessationists take on it.