What is the LDS church's stance on the curse of Cain? Since the restoration, the LDS Church has taught that certain dark skinned people were cursed to be cut off from the presence of the Lord:

  20 Wherefore, the word of the Lord was fulfilled which he spake unto
  me, saying that: Inasmuch as they will not hearken unto thy words they
  shall be cut off from the presence of the Lord. And behold, they
  were cut off from his presence.

And that their darks skins were a sign of the curse so that they could be recognized as being cursed:

  21 And he had caused the cursing to come upon them, yea, even a sore
  cursing, because of their iniquity. For behold, they had hardened
  their hearts against him, that they had become like unto a flint;
  wherefore, as they were white, and exceedingly fair and delightsome,
  that they might not be enticing unto my people the Lord God did cause
  a skin of blackness to come upon them.

  22 And thus saith the Lord God: I will cause that they shall be
  loathsome unto thy people, save they shall repent of their iniquities.

  23 And cursed shall be the seed of him that mixeth with their seed;
  for they shall be cursed even with the same cursing. And the Lord
  spake it, and it was done.  (2 Nephi 5:21-23)

Today, the official stance of the church is this:

  "Today, the Church disavows the theories advanced in the past that
  black skin is a sign of divine disfavor or curse, or that it reflects
  unrighteous actions in a premortal life; that mixed-race marriages are
  a sin; or that blacks or people of any other race or ethnicity are
  inferior in any way to anyone else. Church leaders today unequivocally
  condemn all racism, past and present, in any form." (Race and the Priesthood)

Does this mean that the Church is disavowing that people of African descent were ever cursed and bore the sign of the curse? Or does this mean that since the curse was lifted, and in 1978 when the Preisthood was officially offered to all worthy males, that the "sign of the curse" was no longer a sign of anything except mortal heritage, and that those spirits being born with those phenotypes today are no longer born to those lines based on premortal favour?

People might assume that all black people are cursed.  Although there are some recorded instances that having black or dark skin is the result of a curse from God, it should under no circumstances always be assumed as such.  This is simply an error of extrapolation.

The statement you quote from LDS.org was, is, and will always be correct.  Black skin is not a sign of divine disfavor or curse.  It is sometimes associated with people who have been cursed in the scriptures, but it does not necessarily signify a curse, hence the claim.

This is what the KJV (the Bible text accepted by the Church of Jesus Christ) says about the mark put on Cain:

  15 And the Lord said unto him, Therefore whosoever slayeth Cain,
  vengeance shall be taken on him sevenfold. And the Lord set a mark
  upon Cain, lest any finding him should kill him.

  Genesis 4:15

It appears the mark was not part of the curse, but rather served as a warning to others so they would not kill him.  Later this mark was indeed used to identify the descendants of Cain so Adam's other descendants wouldn't mix with them.  The descendants of Cain were actually black, and it is implied through the footnotes that this is the same as the mark.  However, this apparent racism was reconciled through Christ:

  33 For none of these iniquities come of the Lord; for he doeth that
  which is good among the children of men; and he doeth nothing save it
  be plain unto the children of men; and he inviteth them all to come
  unto him and partake of his goodness; and he denieth none that come
  unto him, black and white, bond and free, male and female; and he
  remembereth the heathen; and all are alike unto God, both Jew and
  Gentile.

  2 Nephi 26:33

In any case, it would be good to confirm that blacks are in fact descendants of Cain before making assumptions about curses and marks involving Cain.

Members of the LDS faith reconcile apparent discrepancies (particularly in Church teachings) by trusting in God regardless of their doubts and by remembering that the leaders of the Church are imperfect humans.  While the president of the Church is promised never to lead it astray, many many leaders (in ancient times as well as present) have (sometimes even innocently) said and done things that were very incorrect.  Not everything all Church leaders say is doctrine.  This is simply part of the life experience.  As much as we would all like our Church organization to be perfect, it simply isn't, and there's little use in pretending it is.


What does it mean of 1 Corinthians 2:8 1 Corinthians 2:8

  None of the rulers of this world understood it, because if they had,
  they would not have crucified the Lord of glory.

To me, it seems the speaker is saying that all the rulers from every part of the world crucified Jesus somewhere on 33 AD.

Since it doesn't make sense to me, I'm starting to think that either the crucifixion of Jesus on 33 AD is symbolic (Jesus really died on the cross represents that every human has "crucified" Christ within him/her) or [all the rulers from every part of the world crucified Jesus] which is the symbolic one.

But that's only in my own understanding. That's why I post the question here.

Thank you.

To me, it seems the speaker is saying that all the rulers from every part of the world crucified Jesus somewhere on 33 AD.

"But we speak the wisdom of God in a mystery, the hidden wisdom which God ordained before the ages for our glory, which none of the rulers of this age knew; for had they known, they would not have crucified the Lord of glory." (1 Cor. 2:7-8)

The speaker is saying that none of the rulers of this age understood the wisdom of God.

Then he says, if they had known the wisdom of God (the fact that Jesus was indeed the Son of God), they would not have crucified Him.

The last "they" in verse 8 is probably referring to the rulers complicit in Jesus' crucifixion.  3 come to mind.

Herod the tetrarch of Galilee:  "Then Herod, with his men of war, treated Him with contempt and mocked Him, arrayed Him in a gorgeous robe, and sent Him back to Pilate." (Luke 23:11)

Pontius Pilate the governor of Judea: "But they were insistent, demanding with loud voices that He be crucified. And the voices of these men and of the chief priests prevailed. So Pilate gave sentence that it should be as they requested. And he released to them the one they requested, who for rebellion and murder had been thrown into prison; but he delivered Jesus to their will." (Luke 23:23-25)

Caiaphas the high priest and president of the Sanhedrin: "And one of them, Caiaphas, being high priest that year, said to them, “You know nothing at all, nor do you consider that it is expedient for us that one man should die for the people, and not that the whole nation should perish.” Now this he did not say on his own authority; but being high priest that year he prophesied that Jesus would die ... Then, from that day on, they plotted to put Him to death. (John 11:49-51, 53)

"the high priest answered and said to Him, “I put You under oath by the living God: Tell us if You are the Christ, the Son of God!” Jesus said to him, “It is as you said ... Then the high priest tore his clothes, saying, “He has spoken blasphemy! What further need do we have of witnesses? Look, now you have heard His blasphemy! What do you think?”. They answered and said, “He is deserving of death.” (Matt. 26:63-66)


Are there any laid down guidelines to enrich and strengthen Christian faith? I was asked to devise a brief note on how to strengthen and enrich faith in Christianity.

Are there any laid down guidelines in Roman Catholicism as to how this is achieved? If any such documents exists in Protestantism would be also helpful if their basic beliefs are conforming to Nicene Creed.

Broadly here are a few points which can greatly help to strengthen us in our faith:

Know the steps and daily chores of how to persevere in maintaining and enriching one's own faith. See the link provided in comments from @Wikis.
Teaching skills and imparting an in-depth religious knowledge to defend the faith.
Making known to everyone which are the susceptible areas where Satan would initiates his lure, for making us weak in our faith.
Making aware of the uniqueness, strong points and truthfulness of Christianity.
Teaching the hollowness, deceptiveness and errors in other faith. This aspect has been woefully and foolishly kept out of syllabus of our Catechism classes and we are paying a heavy price for it. On the other hand other faiths are solely dependent on this aspect for their propagation since they hardly stand an in-depth scrutiny of their own faith and prosper by deceptively propagating negative information about our faith.
Imparting training on how to strike a conversation with people of other faith so as to make them aware we are on much stronger ground and where they falter readily.
Teaching and exhorting Christians to live their faith in their daily dealings with outside world, especially with non believers and in public. They need to be taught for not to feel awkward in practicing Christian faith in public places.
Teaching Christians to be good example to people of other faith so that as Jesus said ' world would know that we are disciples of Jesus' and not to give an impression that we are not practicing what has been taught by Jesus as was once commented by Mahatma Gandhi.

I am not aware of any official document on similar lines from any of denomination. It highly probable that something on these lines would definitely be available somewhere.


Why can't there be another fall? Some disagree on whether a Christian in this life may fall utterly and lose or forfeit eternal life.  However, most Christians do agree that after death, the Christian is eternally secure in heaven (or the new earth).  And this seems to be well supported in Scripture:

John 10:28 (ESV)
28   I give them eternal life, and  they will never perish, and  no one will snatch them out of my hand.
Revelation 21:4 (ESV)
4   He will wipe away every tear from their eyes, and  death shall be no more,  neither shall there be mourning, nor crying, nor pain anymore, for the former things have passed away.”

So it seems clear that Christians could not be susceptible to another Fall.  My question is, Why?  What is the fundamental reason why Christians would not be susceptible to another Fall or rebellion against God?
Please answer from a Protestant, non-Calvinist perspective.

Possible responses I have considered

There will be no law, and thus no concept of sin

But wouldn't rebellion against God would be considered sin, even apart from a "law"?

After death we no longer have a sin nature, and are thus incapable of sin

But weren't Adam and Eve created without a sin nature, and yet sinned?

Satan will be vanquished, unable to tempt us

But didn't Lucifer rebel without being externally tempted? If we are unable to rebel without a tempter, that implies that we will have less free will than Lucifer and the angels had.

We will be unable to sin, either through lack of free will, or prevention by God

The argument that I usually use and hear for the existence of free will is that God would rather have willful obedience than robotic obedience.  Is God then hedging on this preference for the sake of our eternal souls?

We have already been atoned for by Christ, so if we were to sin, it could not be counted against us

This allows for sin in heaven, which I can't buy.  It contradicts Revelation 21:4 for one thing, and makes heaven imperfect

"If any man be in Christ, he is a new creation."  Saved human beings have an old nature and a new nature.  At death, the old nature is removed entirely, and only the new nature remains.  (This is the "glorification" in the salvation trio of justification, sanctification, and glorification.)  You should not think that this new nature is a return to the nature that Adam and Eve had before the Fall.  Whatever that nature was like, it is gone forever.  "Behold, I make all things new."

One other point: angels have another nature altogether, so making comparisons between humans and angels is problematic.  For example, we are told (Hebrews?) that angels don't understand salvation.  They long to look into salvation (so they can understand and worship God better, I suppose), but it escapes them.  We don't know why.  Some hypothesize that they are incapable of repentance, which explains why (apparently) God never redeemed any fallen angels and why (apparently) angels don't fall from time to time.  Once angels choose (goes the theory), they have chosen, and they will never choose otherwise.  It is not a lack of free will; changing their minds is simply not in their nature.


From a Catholic perspective, why did Jesus address Martha in Luke 10:41 by repeating her name? Luke 10:41 presents Jesus as calling Martha by name twice : “Martha, Martha, the Lord answered, “you are worried and upset about many things". In today's usage of the language, we repeat a person's name when (a) he/she is absent on the spot, (b) when we are 'chasing' him/her with the urge to stop, and (c) when we want to wake up him/her from sleep, etc. But we see that Martha was standing face-to-face to Jesus when he repeated her name. I feel that the repetition of Martha's name by Jesus does have a significance.

Are there any authentic interpretations available on the topic, from the perspective of the Catholic Church?

Yes, indeed, the repetition of her name does have significance; Jesus utters no word in vain.

St. Thomas Aquinas, in his Catena Aurea (Golden Chain) of the Fathers' commentaries on the Gospels, reports what St. Augustine wrote commentating on Luke 10:38-42:

  AUG. Martha was as well engaged in ministering to the bodily wants or wishes of our Lord, as of one who was mortal, but He who was clothed in mortal flesh, in the beginning was the Word. Behold then what Mary heard, The Word was made flesh. Behold then Him to whom Martha ministered. The one was laboring, the other at rest. But yet Martha, when much troubled in her occupation and business of serving, interrupted our Lord, and complained of her sister. For it follows, And said, Lord, do you not care that my sister has left me to serve alone? For Mary was absorbed in the sweetness of our Lord’s words; Martha was as preparing a feast for our Lord, in whose feast Mary was now rejoicing. While then she was listening with delight to those sweet words, and was feeding on them with the deepest affection, our Lord was interrupted by her sister. What must we suppose was her alarm, lest the Lord should say to her, “Rise, and help your sister?” Our Lord therefore, who was not at a loss, for He had shown He was the Lord, answered as follows, And Jesus answered and said to her, Martha, Martha. The repetition of the name is a mark of love, or perhaps of drawing the attention, that she should listen more earnestly. When twice called, she hears, You are troubled about many things. that is, you art busied about many things. For man wishes to meet with something when he is serving, and can not; and thus between seeking what is wanting and preparing what is at hand, the mind is distracted. For if Martha had been sufficient of herself, she would not have required the aid of her sister. There are many, there are diverse things, which are carnal, temporal, but one is preferred to many. For one is not from many, but many from one. Hence it follows, But one thing is needful. Mary wished to be occupied about one, according to that, It is good for me to cling close to the Lord. The Father, the Son, the Holy Spirit, are one. To this one he does not bring us, unless we being many have one heart.


Does Sola Scriptura go hand in hand with personal interpretation? I asked this question on Sola Scriptura a few months ago and got the answer that denied my premise that Sola Scriptura is about private interpretation.  Unfortunately, I didn't get a good reason as to why.

The reason I think Sola Scriptura, meaning the Bible is the entire deposit of revelation, necessitates private interpretation is because the Traditions of the Catholic Church are held as cursory, if not just wrong, under it.  Therefore, in Protestantism, any doctrine or dogma as it relates to the Bible lives and dies with the one who reads it and discovers it.  Even if that person starts a movement, followers of that person (Lutherans, Calvinists etc...) are under no obligation to adhere to the doctrines promulgated by the leaders of their traditions or if they can't find them in the Bible themselves then they'll up and leave.

But, to say they just pick up a bible and ask if something is biblical regardless of precedent would be perhaps overstating the truth, but the difference between Catholic Tradition and Protestant precedent is the difference between an American judge following a Supreme Court ruling (binding over the entire nation) and taking under advisement a UN Resolution (binding to only those who acknowledge it as law, i.e. no one).

So what I'm asking is, does any part of Sola Scriptura, as Protestants believe, allow for a biblical dogma to be defined definitively like Hell or Judgement or the Blessed Trinity, or does every young Protestant get to craft in their own mind their conception of Hell and Judgement and the Blessed Trinity based on their own reading of the Bible?

First off, your basic premise is spot on.  As a lifelong evangelical, my biggest gripe with evangelicalism is that we either dismiss or declare heretical anything that is based on "Tradition," ignoring the fact that all readers of Scripture do so with a tradition in mind.  Any theological framework (rapture? trinity? the words don't appear in Scripture!) frames the way that a passage is read, which in turn heavily affects the outcome.

As an example, Isaiah 7:14 is clearly read as a prophecy of Jesus - and the Gospels reinforce that it should. And yet, the context clearly states that it was supposed to be fulfilled immediately.  But, because of tradition, even the Gospel writers also "knew" this was supposed to speak of the Messiah.

As another example, every time a true "Fire and Brimstone" sermon is preached, the fires of hell are quite warm. And yet, the biblical warrant of Hell is limited at best.  (I'm not saying Hell doesn't exist - quite the contrary - but find it in your Bible, you may be surprised how little the Bible talks about it.)

So, in both of these instances, I suggest that the "personal interpretation" is, regardless of what the person may want, heavily guided by a tradition.  What differs are two main points:

The Protestant explicitly rejects the Magisterium.

While they don't voice this, to many Protestants, the Pope is still selling indulgences and banning people from reading the Bible for themselves.  This is patently false, but it informs the worldview.

As such, the typical Protestant exercise in interpreting scripture is to try to analyze it in a vacuum, trying to get back to "the first church," (never mind that even the first churches had their own problems - see Corinth, Ephesus - Rev 2, etc...)  This tradition causes the believer to ask "What would this have meant if X had not been the historical interpretation" which colors the analysis.

The doctrine of the priesthood of all believers was promulgated precisely to fight against this excess.  Traditionally, Protestants think "the priesthood of all believers" means that there is no need for a priest.  Go back to the original doctrine, however, and you'll see that what was meant was that every believer would serve as a priest to everyone else.  Private Interpretation was regularly denounced by Calvin and Luther, precisely because of the bad interpretation that could result.  The priesthood was supposed to be the corrective precisely to private interpretation.

In the end, however, that hasn't worked out terribly well.  The marriage of philosophy and theology and the opening of seminaries to a much wider audience has been the new tradition in which Scripture is read.  It has become traditional to refer to theologians like Ryrie, Scofield, Lewis, LaHaye, etc... instead of the Magisterium, but in the end, we've really gotten back to just having a separate tradition that we cite.

A sizeable number of Protestants would argue that the Left Behind books are built on the exact timeline of the end times "based on Revelations."  Mind you, they can't get more specific than that (because it ain't there folks!), but we have that timeline in our heads and accept it as dogma for all practical purposes.

We'd also say that the Four Spiritual Laws are effectively dogma. Each point in the 4 Spritual Laws has scriptural warrant, yes - but the notion that "this is what it means to be saved" is tradition, not scripture.

To answer your question another way, no you can't define something as dogma strictly by tradition, but you can effectively arrive at the same result.


Did Satan really not understand God's salvation plan? I've always been told that when Jesus died on the cross, he ultimately defeated Satan and won victory over death. Satan was not aware of the secret plan and thought that he had defeated Jesus until Jesus died and he realized what had really been going on.

I don't find that so hard to believe, but I've been thinking about it lately ... Since there are a lot of prophecies about the son of God in the Old Testament -- and Jesus fulfilled them all -- shouldn't it have been quite clear for the Devil that God's plan was to sacrifice his only son, namely Jesus, on the cross to cleanse all of our sins? I figure that he should have the necessary intelligence to come to that conclusion. Or is it something along the lines that he's not able to understand the ways of love and truth, since he hates love and truth and all that is good, and has nothing to do with any of it?

So, my question is: Was Satan really taken by surprise when Jesus died on the cross?

No I don't think he was surprised at all. But that doesn't mean he wasn't disappointed. I'm sure he held out a false hope that things might go his way.

Satan is not omnipotent and could not have known exactly what God was planning, but he would have known and been able to understand the prophecies as well or better than men and it was never any secret that he was going to be crushed. However we must remember how he got to be Satan in the first place. His pride blinded him to think that he could rise and challenge the living God. That kid of pride is debilitating to comprehension and it deludes one into thinking an outcome could be  different than the obvious.

I think this can stand as a warning to Christians because we have the same root of pride in our nature. If we willfully object to the sovereignty of God in our personal lives we will be blinded by this pride.


Does any church believe in Sola Scriptura, but without allowing private interpretation? Is there a protestant church which adheres to Sola Scriptura, but considers rightful interpretation to be made by the church only (or elders, synod, etc.)?

The approach to scriptural interpretation taken by the Anabaptist denominations is that of "community hermeneutic".

Community Hermeneutic means that the community of Christians (the church) is responsible and authorized to interpret the scriptures. This doesn't mean the hierarchy of the church, but all members of the church acting together, and attempting to reach consensus.

In practice this means something like:

The pastor of a congregation preaches a sermon, which embodies his understanding of scripture
The congregation hears the sermon. Because of the pastor's training, they respect his opinions.
The congregation would also meet together in study groups, and each group might come to a slightly different interpretation from the pastor.
The pastor would listen to the interpretations from the groups, and might modify his own understanding as a result. Each group would also hear and respect the interpretations of others.
Representatives of the congregation might also go to a meeting of churches within the denomination, where they presents their church's views, and also allow other churches to inform theirs. They might be called on to form a consensus interpretation for the whole denomination.

No single person, or group of persons, is responsible for forming the interpretation, and no person is excluded from making a contribution to the interpretation. Rather it is the community as a whole that is responsible.

References:

The Anabaptist Network
Graceworks
Mennonite Brethren Herald


What is the Biblical basis for Universal salvation? Universal salvation, or universal reconciliation is the belief that God will eventually reconcile Himself with every immortal soul. That is, everyone will be saved. This doctrine has a long history. It's always been a minority view, but there have been proponents since, at least, the third century.

It seems to me that this belief quite clearly contradicts the teaching of the Bible. For example, reading 2 Thess 1:7-9 (NLT):

  And God will provide rest for you who are being persecuted and also for us when the Lord Jesus appears from heaven. He will come with his mighty angels, in flaming fire, bringing judgment on those who don’t know God and on those who refuse to obey the Good News of our Lord Jesus. They will be punished with eternal destruction, forever separated from the Lord and from his glorious power.

Now, clearly it can't be this simple, since there have been a lot of people that believed in Universal salvation. Origen, for example, probably knew the scripture quite well.

What are the Biblical arguments for Universal salvation?

Therefore, as one trespass led to condemnation for all men, so one act of righteousness leads to justification and life for all men. —Romans 5:18

For in him all the fullness of God was pleased to dwell, and through him to reconcile to himself all things, whether on earth or in heaven, making peace by the blood of his cross. —Colossians 1:19-20

so that at the name of Jesus every knee should bow, in heaven and on earth and under the earth, and every tongue confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father. —Philippians 2:10-11

For God has consigned all to disobedience, that he may have mercy on all. —Romans 11:32

English Standard Version (ESV)

Also see "St. Paul's Universalism".  This is the fifth chapter of The Inescapable Love of God by eminent Christian Universalist and Philosopher Tom Talbott.  In this chapter, he makes a case for Universalism from Paul's writings, especially Romans.
You can find more free chapters from Talbott's book here (scroll to the bottom).
As for 2 Thessalonians 1:9, a universalist would probably translate it:

They will be punished with destruction of the age to come — destruction from the presence of the Lord and from the glory of his might.

The word for "from" here (apo) is ambiguous.  It can mean that those punished are punished away from the Lord, or simply that the punishment comes from the Lord; that is, it is administered by Him.
There has been some controversy over the meaning of the terms translated as "eternal punishment" (aionios kolasin).  For this I would point you here. In summary, the terms used by the biblical authors to describe eschatological punishment are different from the terms used by those who believed in never-ending torment/imprisonment (the pharisees).  There is a discussion of the contemporary usage of aionios and kolasin.  Aionios is often used to describe a period of time of finite length (though it could be very long), and kolasin is typically used to describe punishments administered for corrective purposes.
EDIT: I just noticed that the word used in the 2 Thessalonians verse is olethron.  Kolasin is used elsewhere, like in the parable of the sheep and the goats.
One last thing. Pithy arguments posted on a Q&A site hardly do an entire theological viewpoint justice, so you should probably look into reading a book.
And if you are looking to buy just one book on biblical universalism, I would highly recommend Gregory MacDonald(a.k.a. Robin Parry)'s The Evangelical Universalist, which gives a universalistic exegesis of the Bible as a whole. And it has a whole chapter on Revelation!  Unfortunately, it doesn't have free chapters like Talbott's book (which I consider second best choice), but you can read reviews here (Also see Amazon sneak peek).
(I am not affiliated with any of the books I have referenced/recommended here)


What is the source of this quote testifying Mary's assumption? In the article, The Assumption of Mary: A Belief since Apostolic Times of EWTN it states:

  At the Council of Chalcedon in 451, when bishops from throughout the Mediterranean world gathered in Constantinople, Emperor Marcian asked the Patriarch of Jerusalem to bring the relics of Mary to Constantinople to be enshrined in the capitol. The patriarch explained to the emperor that there were no relics of Mary in Jerusalem, that "Mary had died in the presence of the apostles; but her tomb, when opened later . . . was found empty and so the apostles concluded that the body was taken up into heaven."

What is the source of this spurious quote?

According to Shoemaker's Ancient Traditions of the Virgin Mary's Dormition and Assumption pp. 68-69, it's from the Euthymiac History:

  Perhaps the most famous of these traditions is a brief work known as the Euthymiac History. This legend was interpolated into the second of John of Damascus’ homilies on the Dormition* at an early point in their transmission, where it is identified as a quotation from ‘the third book of the Euthymiac History, chapter 40’. Its inclusion in these, ‘the most celebrated of all the ancient homilies for the feast of the Dormition’, ensured that it was the most widely circulated of the late apostle traditions.150 The Euthymiac History, as quoted in John’s homily, describes an incident that is supposed to have occurred during the events of the council of Chalcedon. While Juvenal[, the Patriarch of Jerusalem,] and the other bishops of Palestine were present for the council, the imperial couple, Pulcheria and Marcian, enquired about the relics of the Virgin Mary, asking that Mary’s remains be sent to the imperial capital, in order to protect it. In response, Juvenal briefly narrates the events of Mary’s Dormition, explaining why there are actually no bodily relics to be had. There is, however, he tells them, another kind of relic that he could send. Three days after Mary’s burial, Juvenal explains, the apostle Thomas finally reached Jerusalem, and, having missed the events of Mary’s Dormition, he requested that the tomb be reopened, so that he might pay his respects (not out of doubt, I might emphasize). When the apostles opened the tomb, they were startled to find no body, but instead only Mary’s funeral robe. Juvenal then concludes by referencing the passage from Ps.-Dionysius’ The Divine Names discussed above, after which the imperial couple requests that Juvenal send them the garment. When Juvenal returns home to Jerusalem, he fulfils their request, and Marcian and Pulcheria enshrined the robe in the church of Blachernae, the Constantinopolitan church that housed this famous relic. It is difficult to date this tradition, and we do not know whether it arose sometime before or after the Islamic conquest. We know only that the legend developed sometime between 550 and 750, making it a potential witness to the earliest development of the Dormition traditions.

*St. John Damascene's homily is referenced in Pope Pius XII's 1950 definition of the dogma of the Assumption, Munificentissimus Deus, §§21-22.


What is the biblical support for the original sin being an infinite sin? I have heard a few times recently things like "an infinite sin debt requires an infinite Savior".

What is the biblical basis for coming to the conclusion that Adam's sin was infinite?

I don't know if "infinite sin debt" has a more precise definition in some traditions, but as a concept, I'd say that the "infinite debt" alludes to the idea that the debt we owe because of sin is too large ever to be repaid.

  Hebrews 10:4 (NASB)
  For it is impossible for the blood of bulls and goats to take away sins.

The Hebrews writer says more about the idea in the entire chapter, but this is the thesis as far the question is concerned. Everyone has sinned (Ro 3:23). There is nothing we can do that will undo or make up for our sins (e.g. animal sacrifices, personal righteousness–Eph 2). In this sense, our sin (and the sin of Adam) could be thought of as infinite.

I don't think the saying you quoted is as much a precise statement of a specialized doctrine as much as it is a memorable, pithy statement in praise of Jesus.


Why did John the Baptist exist? Did he have any purpose besides Baptizing Jesus? I realize this question is somewhat vacuous, since one could ask:

"Why do the OT prophets exist? Why wasn't the story just: Eve + Adam eat from the tree of knowledge of good + evil. Then, God, immediately sends Christ down, who dies for humanity's sins, QED."

Nevertheless, what is the purpose of John the Baptist's existence / ministry, given that it occured in the same time period as Christ?

There is a very significant even of John Baptizing Jesus:

Matthew 3:13-17

  13 Then Jesus came from Galilee to the Jordan to be baptized by John. 14 But John tried to deter him, saying, “I need to be baptized by you, and do you come to me?”
  15 Jesus replied, “Let it be so now; it is proper for us to do this to fulfill all righteousness.” Then John consented.
  16 As soon as Jesus was baptized, he went up out of the water. At that moment heaven was opened, and he saw the Spirit of God descending like a dove and alighting on him. 17 And a voice from heaven said, “This is my Son, whom I love; with him I am well pleased.”

Besides that, what is John the Baptist's contribution/significance/utility to Christianity?

I can think of a few reasons but there are probably much more.

First, as Jesus was not ordained by the existing authorities and seemed on the surface to take things in a different direction from the Old Testament, a forerunner which was prophesied to herald his coming, not only fulfills prophecies of Elijah's return but creates a smooth transition from the Old to the New Covenant where the prophets directly lead up to the entire end of all their prophecies in Christ. What I mean is John was like a typical prophet denouncing sin and calling for repentance with a kind of rugged Old Testament asceticism and harshness, somewhat different from the meek and mild Jesus that pronounced peace and grace.  When the Jews questioned Jesus on how he derived his authority to preach and to heal (since he was not recognized by the 'authorities' of tradition) he asked them what they thought of John the Baptists (Mark 11:29). The question was intending to show them that they were so cowardly (not admitting that they did not believe in John the Baptists among the crowd) that they were not worth responding to, but still the connection to the Baptists is made regarding recognition of an 'authority', besides the direct testimony of God the Father of course.

Second, that a great prophet such as John was, in his humbly recognizing Jesus as so much greater, properly introduced the Messiah. (Matthew 3:11)

Third, his baptism of the Jews by John was a kind also used to convert Gentiles to Judaism, so like Elijah he was making a great call to repentance communicating to everyone, even those who thought they were holy, must prepare for full repentance and be prepared to receive the Messiah.  This mission was like Elijah.

Fourth, The idea that Elijah would come just before the Messiah (literally Elijah, not someone like him) was completely expected by rabbinic tradition, so the fulfilled prophecy was no small matter, even though, as many of the other fulfilled prophecies, we're not fulfilled in ways expected, as a whole they became a strong testimony on Christ's authenticity.


Do curses have any impact or effect on Christians? Christians believe that Jesus saved us by His blood. Since God is the only true God and through Jesus we have victory over Satan, it is claimed that we do not have to fear on curses.

But I hear many others says and even written books saying curses have effect on our lives and we need to deal with it. Is that correct in the New Testament era?

I am looking for answers based on biblical references.

There are many kinds of curses, and Christians are certainly affected by some.

The first curse against any humans is found in Genesis 3:17:

  To Adam he said, “Because you listened to your wife and ate fruit from the tree about which I commanded you, ‘You must not eat from it,’

  “Cursed is the ground because of you;
     through painful toil you will eat food from it
     all the days of your life.

Clearly all humans, including Christians, live under this curse.

Another type of curse is the so-called "Generational Curse:"

  Our ancestors sinned and are no more,
     and we bear their punishment. Lamentations 5:7 (NIV)

I think it's clear that this affects Christians, too.  Not only in the way scripture talks about these generational curses, but in every-day life.  Drug-addicted parents tend to have children with drug addictions--or other related social problems.  And the cycle is very hard to break!

I think the question you're really getting at is, are curses "cast" by one person on another, effectual against Christians.

Proverbs 26:2 says:

  Like a fluttering sparrow or a darting swallow,
     an undeserved curse does not come to rest.

Proverbs is not always considered to be "hard and fast truths," though, and more "words to live by," so this may not mean that "undeserved curses" are never effectual. It's also unclear (at least to me) what type of curse this is actually referring to.

This article contends that Christians can be affected by curses (or other demonic/occult practices, such as fortune telling), especially when they open themselves up to such influences.  But that through Christ, we can always overcome these attacks and negative influences.

As a personal side note, for which I have no references yet (I'll try to add some later):

Most Christians believe in spiritual warfare in one form or another.  If spiritual warfare is a reality, then surely calling upon demons to harm Christians would be an act of spiritual warfare.  And while I believe Christ can always overcome these attacks, I don't believe that always means Christians will never experience the effects of these attacks.


How do Calvinists account for Calvin's statements on atonement? Calvinism gets its name from John Calvin. One of the tenets of Calvinism is "Limited Atonement", the idea that Christ died for the elect, not for all mankind. However, this does not appear to be what Calvin taught. I'm reading "Death by Love" and in one of the chapters it talks about this and provides several quotes from Calvin on the subject (see below.)

In his commentary on Galatians 5:12 Calvin said:

  It is the will of God that we should seek the salvation of all men without exception, as Christ suffered for the sins of the whole world.

In his commentary on Colossians 1:14 Calvin said:

  By the sacrifice of his death all the sins of the world have been expiated.

In his commentary on Romans 5:18 Calvin said:

  Though Christ suffered for the sins of the whole world, and is offered through God's benignity indiscriminately to all, yet all do not receive him.

Calvin also said:

  The word "many" is often as good as equivalent to "all." And in fact our Lord Jesus was offered to all the world. For it is not speaking of three or four when it says: "God so loved the world, that he spared his only son . . ." Our Lord Jesus suffered for all and there is neither great nor small who is not inexcusable today, for we can obtain salvation in him. Unbelievers who turn away from Him and who deprive themselves of Him by their malice are today doubly culpable, for how will they excuse their ingratitude in not receiving the blessing in which they could share by faith.

In his commentary on Hebrews Calvin said:

  To bear the sins means to free those who have sinned from their guilt by his satisfaction. He says "many" meaning "all," as in Romans 5:15. it is of course certain that not all enjoy the fruits of Christ's death, but this happens because their unbelief hinders them.

Calvin also said:

  By His mediation God is satisfied and appeased, for He bore all the wickedness of all the sins of the world.

How do Calvinists account for Calvin's own position on atonement, which appears to be at odds with the position of Calvinism?

I see three questions beneath your one question, and I will handle them each separately.

Are Calvinists allowed to disagree with Calvin?

First of all, they get their name from him because they are believed to be in accord with him on most/all doctrine, not because they get their doctrine from him, although he is of course a highly esteemed and respected theologian. So in that sense, if Calvin taught something different than Calvinists, who cares? Many of them would care, but more because they want to know why they hold a different position than he does than because they need to agree with him. He is not a prophet.

The most important question for a Calvinist is not, "Does John Calvin teach limited atonement?" but rather, "Does the Bible support limited atonement?"

Do Calvinists disagree with Calvin?

Calvin's views of limited versus universal atonement are controversial. Both sides of the debate claim him. The quotes you provided in the question are sufficient context for seeing why he's claimed by the "universal" side. The article John Calvin's View of Limited Atonement by Roger Nicole concludes, after examining both sides' claims, that Calvin actually held to limited atonement and gives several reasons, mainly having to do with Calvin's strong covenantalism, trinitarianism, and belief in penal substitutionary atonement. Calvin also often stresses that Christ secured blessings "for the elect." None of it is a slam dunk, but Nicole says one passage (from a treatise written against one Tilemann Heshusius) "deserves special attention":

  I should like to know how the wicked can eat the flesh of Christ which
  was not crucified for them, and how they can drink the blood which was
  not shed to expiate their sins.

His strongest argument, in my opinion, is this:

  A historical difficulty appears when we attempt to explain how
  Reformed thought moved so quickly from Calvin’s alleged endorsement of
  universal atonement to the very emphatic support of definite atonement
  by all but one or two of the delegations at the Synod of Dort. What
  happened in these fifty-five years to cause the Reformed community to
  make such a drastic shift?

But ultimately, I don't know if Calvin believed in limited atonement or not. There are two confounding issues here:

Calvin used Biblical vocabulary and left himself open to interpretation on some issues in much the same way Scripture itself is open to interpretation.
The controversy hadn't even happened yet! How could he have defined his position on a debate that hadn't taken place? So we're left guessing as to his position. Either his thought is more consistent with one position or with the other, but the question hadn't yet been formally considered. (However, the Wikipedia article does mention that there is support for the doctrine in theologians predating Calvin. But just like him, they didn't seek to define their support or opposition to limited atonement -- they merely held to a theological system that supported it and that showed in their writings.)

Why do Calvinists hold to limited atonement?

From a theological point of view, Calvinism is a systematic theology. John Hendryx of Monergism.com says that it is impossible to deny limited atonement and at the same time affirm unconditional election. R.C. Sproul says that four-point Calvinists always, on investigation, turn out to be "no-point Calvinists." The "L" in TULIP is one cog in a well-oiled machine, as they say.

From a historical perspective, as with all confessional forms of Christianity, time revealed new challenges to the system that needed to be answered. Jacob Arminius placed himself in opposition to Calvin and the system of theology expressed in the Belgic Confession and Heidelberg Catechism. The Dutch church needed to figure out, together, how to respond to his challenge. So they drew up the Articles of Dort, now remembered for giving us the five points of Calvinism, which answered the five points given in the Articles of Remonstrance. The development of the doctrine of limited atonement was simply a fleshing-out of the theological system developed by Calvin and his successors.


Has the Catholic church ever voiced its view on the possibility of aliens' existence? Has the Catholic church ever acknowledged such a possibility as not contradicting the Bible? Or has it once said that the whole idea of aliens is absolutely non-Biblical as the humans are the center of God's creation or something like that?

So, once again: Has the Catholic church ever voiced its view on the possibility of aliens' existence?

The Roman Catholic Church has made no claims about the existence—or lack thereof—of extraterrestrial lifeforms, preferring instead to let astrobiologists and other members of the scientific community make that determination.
However, a number of Vatican astronomers over the years have theorized about the existence of such beings. Most notable among them is Father Jose Funes, director of the Vatican Observatory, who spoke to the L'Osservatore Romano (the Vatican newspaper of record) in 2008:

Father Funes said it was difficult to exclude the possibility that other intelligent life exists in the universe, and he noted that one field of astronomy is now actively seeking "biomarkers" in spectrum analysis of other stars and planets.

He even speculated that extraterrestrials might not bear the mark of original sin:

Asked about implications that the discovery of alien life might pose for Christian redemption, Father Funes cited the Gospel parable of the shepherd who left his flock of 99 sheep in order to search for the one that was lost.
"We who belong to the human race could really be that lost sheep, the sinners who need a pastor," he said.
"God became man in Jesus in order to save us. So if there are also other intelligent beings, it's not a given that they need redemption. They might have remained in full friendship with their creator," he said.

In 2009, when the Church hosted a conference to discuss astrobiology, Funes spoke out again:

"The questions of life's origins and of whether life exists elsewhere in the universe are very suitable and deserve serious consideration," said the Rev. Jose Gabriel Funes, an astronomer and director of the Vatican Observatory.

Another Vatican scientist at the same conference, Brother Guy Consolmagno, speculated even further:

He said he was "comfortable" with the idea of alien life and asked if he would baptise an alien, he replied, "Only if they asked."
"I'd be delighted if we found life elsewhere and delighted if we found intelligent life elsewhere," he said.
"But the odds of us finding it, of it being intelligent and us being able to communicate with it - when you add them up it's probably not a practical question.
"God is bigger than just humanity. God is also the god of angels."
He said the characteristics synonymous with having a soul - intelligence, free will, freedom to love and freedom to make decisions - may not be unique to humans.
"Any entity – no matter how many tentacles it has – has a soul," he said.
However machines were unlikely to be smart or human enough to have souls.

As they are under the employ of the Church, it's likely what they have said is at least nihil obstat, but definitely not dogmata.


According to Catholicism what happens to young children who die before being baptized? John 3:5 is as follows:

  Jesus answered, “Very truly I tell you, no one can enter the kingdom
  of God unless they are born of water and the Spirit.

In the light of that, what happens to those who die before being baptized ? For example, what happens to a baby who dies in the womb of his/her mother ? Or a 5 year old child ? Basically, someone who is not mature enough to reason.

Thomas Aquinas hypothesised that a merciful God would not consign innocent babies who died without being purged of Original Sin through baptism, to hell. Aquinas said these innocents must dwell in limbo, a place between heaven and hell, alongside virtuous but unbaptised pagans such as Plato and Moses, born before Jesus had come to explain things. Thus limbo became a Catholic tradition and had Church approval as such.

Now, the International Theological Commission says:

  It is clear that the traditional teaching on this topic has concentrated on the theory of limbo, understood as a state which includes the souls of infants who die subject to original sin and without baptism, and who, therefore, neither merit the beatific vision, nor yet are subjected to any punishment, because they are not guilty of any personal sin. This theory, elaborated by theologians beginning in the Middle Ages, never entered into the dogmatic definitions of the Magisterium, even if that same Magisterium did at times mention the theory in its ordinary teaching up until the Second Vatican Council. It remains therefore a possible theological hypothesis. However, in the Catechism of the Catholic Church (1992), the theory of limbo is not mentioned.

So, if you were taught the catechism before 1992, or enquired more fully before Vatican II, you could have been told about limbo and assured that it is real, but you would not easily find such a teaching now. Nevertheless limbo is undoubtedly a strong Catholic tradition, has been taught by the Church and had Church approval, even though it never entered into the dogmatic definitions of the Magisterium.

Since Vatican II, the Catholic Church has begun to move away from its former teachings about limbo and treat it as no more than a hypothesis, and there have been suggestions that the hypothesis will eventually be abandoned. Recent Catholic theological speculation tends to stress the hope, though not the certainty, that unbaptised infants may attain heaven instead of the supposed state of limbo.


Crucifixion, why the son? I'm very confused. I understand why Jesus died for us on the cross to pay for all of our sins and I understand how there had to be a virginal birth, so that Jesus could be perfect and without sin.

I'm so lost though as to why when God paid for our sins, the son had to do it? Why not the father? Is it related to the redemption covenant? I only briefly looked at that earlier. I'm new to the Bible and haven't looked in-depth at that yet.

Some believe (Lutherans for example, and me - I am Episcopalian) that Jesus is God incarnate, therefore it is not the son at all, but God that is hanging on the cross. But if you must, consider John 10:18

“No one has taken it away from Me, but I lay it down on My own initiative. I have authority to lay it down, and I have authority to take it up again. This commandment I received from My Father.”

Christ has chosen to accept the assignment and can also refuse. Even He has free will. Free to come and go as it were.


Once a believer, always a believer? Possible Duplicate:
  Once saved always saved. Is eternal security Biblical?

Recently, I had a conversation with a (new) friend that started off with him telling me how he had been a devout Christian, perhaps even a believer (to use some Christianese), but had lost his faith due to later events. This struck me as a bit odd, because I had always thought that once you had put your faith in Christ, then you could never lose it. I went hunting for the verse that I was thinking of (and that he confirmed as existing), but couldn't find it. So...was I right? Is it true that once you put your faith in God and Jesus, then you can never lose it, especially under persecution?

To clarify, I'm more interested in whether someone else can cause you to lose your faith as opposed to you turning away from God. The "Once saved always saved." question deals with people turning away from God, but does not deal with other people "causing" a deconversion.

Biblically-based answers are prefered.

There are numerous stories of strongly religious Christians converting to atheism or various non-Christian religions.

There are also a whole slew of Bible quotes about losing faith listed here.  Here's one in particular from 1 Thessalonians 3:5-6 (ESV):

  5For this reason, when I could bear it no longer, I sent to learn about your faith, for fear that somehow the tempter had tempted you and our labor would be in vain. 6But now that Timothy has come to us from you, and has brought us the good news of your faith and love and reported that you always remember us kindly and long to see us, as we long to see you—

I'd say it's very possible to lose faith.

Edit: though people are not mostly given credit for making others fall from faith, there are a few passages in the link above.  For example, 2 Timothy 2:16-18 (ESV):

  16But avoid irreverent babble, for it will lead people into more and more ungodliness, 17and their talk will spread like gangrene. Among them are Hymenaeus and Philetus, 18who have swerved from the truth, saying that the resurrection has already happened. They are upsetting the faith of some.


According to Orthodox Christianity, did God die on the cross at Calvary? According to Orthodox Christianity Jesus was in his entire earthly life both God and man. I accept fully that Jesus the man indeed died on the cross, but did Jesus the God die also? Did, in effect, God die on the cross at Calvary?

From the Orthodox POV, the answer is unequivocally yes.

The Orthodox understand John 1:14 literally:

  And the Word became flesh and dwelt among us, and we beheld His glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father, full of grace and truth. (NKJV) [Emphasis mine]

The Word of God, the Second Person of the Trinity, became flesh. Not had flesh. Not wore flesh. Became flesh. The Orthodox Study Bible attaches the following note to John 1:14

  The Word became fully human without ceasing to be fully God. He assumed complete human nature: body, soul, will, emotion, and even mortality -- everything that pertains to humanity except sin. [Emphasis mine]

The Word assumed even our mortality. This is expressed in the Symbol of Faith (Nicene Creed)

  [We believe] in one Lord Jesus Christ, the Son of God, the Only-begotten, begotten of the Father before all ages; Light of Light: true God of true God; begotten, not made; of one essence with the Father, by Whom all things were made; Who for us men, and for our salvation, came down from the heavens, and was incarnate of the Holy Spirit and the Virgin Mary, and became man; And was crucified for us under Pontius Pilate, and suffered, and was buried; And arose again on the third day according to the Scriptures;

Jesus Christ, true God from true God, ... became man ... was crucified for us under Pontius Pilate, and suffered, and was buried. It is hard to understand that in any way other than 'God died.' There is no change in subject, no way to separate a god-soul from a man-body. The Only Begotten Son became man and died.

From the Council of Ephesus (3rd Ecumenical Council)

  If anyone shall not confess that the Word of God the Father is united hypostatically to flesh, and that with that flesh of his own, he is one only Christ both God and man at the same time:  let him be anathema.

The flesh is his, the Word of God, own. You asked

  I accept fully that Jesus the man indeed died on the cross, but did Jesus the God die also?

Orthodoxy does not permit this division. There is no Jesus the man and Jesus the God. There is only Jesus Theanthropos, Jesus the God-man. The Council of Ephesus forbade ascribing some attributes to Christ's humanity and other to His Divinity. That is, the mortality that Christ assumed from humanity must be applied, through the Hypostatic Union, to his Divinity as well. Again from Ephesus:

  If anyone shall divide between two persons or subsistences those expressions (φωνάς) which are contained in the Evangelical and Apostolical writings, or which have been said concerning Christ by the Saints, or by himself, and shall apply some to him as to a man separate from the Word of God, and shall apply others to the only Word of God the Father, on the ground that they are fit to be applied to God:  let him be anathema.

As part of the Liturgy of St John Chrysostom, (the weekly worship service), the priest prays in reference to the Bread and Wine, Body and Blood:

  Tremble, O man, as you behold the divine Blood.
  It is a burning coal that sears the unworthy.
  The Body of God both deifies and nourishes me:
  It deifies the Spirit and wondrously nourishes the mind.

The Body and the Blood are clearly considered divine.

Consider also anathemas of the Second Council of Chalcedon, which the Orthodox accept as Ecumenical and binding:

  Anathema III: If anyone says that God the Word who performed miracles is one and Christ who suffered is another, or says that God the Word was together with Christ who came from woman, or that the Word was in him as one person is in another, but is not one and the same, our Lord Jesus Christ, the Word of God, incarnate and become human, and that the wonders and the suffering which he voluntarily endured in flesh were not of the same person, let him be anathema.

That is, God the Word suffered in the flesh. From the Anathema IV it is clear that the Orthodox consider the flesh of Christ to be united to the Divinity of God the Word:

  But the holy Church of God, rejecting equally the impiety of both heresies, recognizes the union of God the Word with the flesh according to synthesis, that is according to hypostasis. For in the mystery of Christ the union according to synthesis preserves the two natures which have combined without confusion and without separation.  [Emphasis mine]

The Orthodox can say without question that God died. Note, however, that this in no way implies that God ceased to exist or ceased to function. However, He, through the Hypostatic Union, suffered death, having His Soul separated from His Flesh.


According to Jehovah's Witnesses, how many of the 144 000 have already been identified? Jehovah's Witnesses believe1 that 144 000 of their number are different to the rest in that they will go to heaven, whereas the rest (presumably several million) will live on paradise Earth.

I'm wondering how near to complete they believe that they are now, eg 25%, 50%, 99%? And do they keep records on the 144 000 so that they can answer this exactly?

1 References: TRiG's answer and Wikipedia.

Anointing of the 144,000 began at Pentecost, 33c.e., and continues down through our day.

The scriptures show the angels are holding back the final judgement against wicked humankind until 144,000 individuals from earth are sealed. (Rev 7:1-4).

Being Anointed is not the same as being sealed.

Anointing is the invitation.

Sealing is the stamp of approval from God that the individual proved faithful to his calling.

Those who have been anointed through history have had God bear witness that they are invited to join Jesus to rule as kings & priests over the earth.  God does the final sealing if someone anointed proves faithful to their calling. Since only God knows who has been faithful it is impossible to determine what percentage has been filled.

(That being said, Jehovah's witnesses are convinced we are living deep in the last days. It would only make sense the number is very close to being filled)

Regarding your question about records kept, every year at the Memorial observance of Christs death (Nisan 14), Jehovah's witnesses in every country around the world gather together to reflect on Jesus sacrifice and obey his command to "keep doing this in remembrance of me".  Bread and wine is passed, But only those anointed actually partake. Attendants globally record the number of those who partake, and those numbers are published annually in the yearbook of Jehovah's witnesses.

(FYI, in 2016, 20,085,142 attendented the Memorial observance globally, while only 18,013 partook).

For further information on this subject please follow the links below:

https://wol.jw.org/en/wol/d/r1/lp-e/2016045#h=13:171-13:663

https://wol.jw.org/en/wol/pc/r1/lp-e/2013844/0/0


What is the oldest historical evidence of the Sabbath commandment? What does history say about the practice of keeping the Sabbath holy? What is the oldest historical evidence of this commandment? Can we find evidence of Sabbath keeping prior to the Israelites and/or in other cultures?

At the very latest, in Babylonia, which is where exiles from the Kingdom of Judah picked up their own month names as well.

By "in other cultures," I'll take this to mean that you're looking for non-Judeo-Christian answers.
And first off, let's define what we mean by "prior to the Israelites." Per Encyclopedia Britannica:

The earliest record of the reading of a “Torah book” is provided by the narrative describing the reformation instituted by King Josiah of Judah in 622 BCE following the fortuitous discovery of a “book of the Torah” during the renovation of the Temple.

That's our starting point.
Sumeria (~2600-2100 BC?)

[...] there is every probability that [the Hebrew Sabbath] had its origins in Babylonia. In that country, however, it was not the rest-day ending the seven-day week [...] but was due to the festival of the full moon on the 15th day of the month, when the earth's satellite 'rested' for a while at the height of his brilliancy. [...] The word by which the Babylonian Sabbath is designated is the somewhat rare term sappatu or sabbatu [...] u-hut-allum, from the Sumerian u-hul-gala, which they translated by umu limnu, "evil day[,]" [was] the 7th, 14th, 21st, and 28th days of every month, so that, as the Babylonian months had 29 or 30 days each, every month consisted of seven days each, and one of nine or ten days, according to the length of the month. [...] The following is a paragraph given by hemerologies for the observance of the seventh day of the month as a sabbath:

The 7th day is a holy-day (nubattu) of Merodach and Zer-panitu--an acceptable day, an evil day (u-hulgallu). The shepherd of the great tribes (nisi rabati) shall not eat salted meat cooked over the embers, he shall not change his body-clothing, eh shall not be clothed in white, he shall not offer a sacrifice. The king shall not ride in a chariot, he shall not talk victoriously. The seer shall not make a declaration with regard to a sacred place. A physician shall not touch a sick man. It is not suitable to make a wish.

Source: Encyclopedia of Religion and Ethics, James Hastings, ed.,  page 889-890 of the book/912 of the scan. Forgive me, as there are many accents on the Akkadian(?) words there that I am not able to easily reproduce. (Note: Source is from 1918.)
To me, that last bit sounds strikingly like an Orthodox Jewish Sabbath.
However, I'm wildly unsure of the year here. Wikipedia calls the Babylonian calendar a successor to a 21st century BC Sumerian calendar. The Sumerians were definitely into sevens (source page 1, source page 2):

The Sumerians not only regarded seven as the perfect number, but even recognized seven-day periods, prototypes of the week. As early as 2600 B.C. Gudea, able priest-king of Lagash, built a seven-roomed tower temple and dedicated it with a seven-day festival. [...] Seven-day periods are mentioned also in the Assyro-Babylonian epic of Gilgamish, whose origins go back to the third millennium B.C., or to Sumerian times. [...]

The source then goes on to describe the 7th, 14th, etc. days as evil days, as previously mentioned.
Deir el-Medina, ancient Egypt, ~1550-1080 BC
(Estimated years from Wikipedia)
The Egyptians constructed their year into months of three ten-day periods called decades, plus a five-day intercalary month.

A reconstruction of a festival calendar of Deir el-Medina, however, has been  compiled by Wolfgang Helck by utilizing references to working and inactivity in the  administrative documents pertaining to the royal artisans’ community. [...] Helck  collated  the references to  working  and inactivity into  tables  and,  by  analysing these, he was able to conclude that the ninth and tenth days of a decade were ‘as a  rule’  work-free.

Source, page 39 of the paper/45 of the PDF. The source then lists 17 feasts that would have also been work-free.
However, I'm not sure that this really counts, as I don't see a reference to keeping the 9th and 10th days holy per se.
Assyro-Babylonia, 7th century B.C.
In any case, it seems pretty widely-accepted that the Jewish calendar got their month names after the period of Jewish exile in Babylon (source). Here's part of the text of a "Assyro-Babylonian epic of creation," which includes Sumerian material (quoted here).

Then Marduk assigned to the moon god
Control of the night and said:
'Each month your tiara of beauty
Shall shine on the evening's head.
For you shall measure the cycles;
Six days you shall show horns of light;
The seventh your crown shall be finished;
The fourteenth both halves shall be bright.


Why is there a modern misconception about Christianity and Science? Those of us who care to look into history even the slightest can see that both devout Christian laymen and Christian leaders have been make scientific strides for almost two millennia. Some examples will be sited below. In spite of these facts, I often hear claims from secularists along the lines of "Christians may donate to [insert medical cause here], but an atheist is the one who finds the cure to [insert modern medical issue here]." And, similarly, but not the same: "Medieval Christians are responsible for a lack of scientific advancement in that era."

So, if people like Gregor Mendel (https://www.google.com/#q=Gregor+Mendel) and Georges Lemaitre (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Georges_Lema%C3%AEtre) were doing scientific work, why is there this huge misconception that Christianity was against and/or is currently against Scientific discovery? Specifically, my question is, which recent (last 300 years or so) writings can be attributed to creating and perpetuating this divide in spite of historical evidence which supports that devoted Christians did important scientific work in their day, and how have they been so convincing for the general public (on both sides) in spite of all of this readily-available historical evidence?

Note: Perhaps the second part of my question is more opinion-based, but I am interested in some speculation as to why these writings would have such a powerful effect, whether from S.E. users or from another source.

The essence of any answer to your question must emphasize that the misconception about Christianity and science is very modern. It is modern secularists that desire to rewrite history by making claims that Christianity's job, as it were, is to hinder scientific advancement. For every example they cite, like the church vs. Galileo (his observations proved the earth was not the center of the universe), there are thousands more that prove otherwise. Many of these can be found in secular shows on the History channel. In a recent example about the Dark Ages (sorry can't remember the shows name) they concluded that, without the church keeping reading and writing alive, the Dark Ages could easily have lasted much longer. So any arguments that assert some general obstruction by Christians of scientific advances pre-Darwin are weak. I could go on: the USA exists because of good Christian men; the country's oldest university, Harvard, was founded to train clergy...

After Darwin, it became much easier to inflate the conflict between the Christian and secular worldviews since the secularists could "explain" away life without relying on God. Christians in those times felt just as threatened as those who convicted Galileo of heresay. Look at any modern astronomy text to see this taken to its ultimate absurdity - that the Big Bang started itself. They have to overlook a big contradiction born of the laws of physics (an external force is required to change a system in equilibrium). Fortunately, the archaeological evidence of the past hundred years and the biological evidence since DNA was discovered has disproved macro-evolution (that one species can evolve into another). This has finally begun to turn the tide against evolution but it is still taught in classrooms and promoted by secularists as fact. After the Garden of Eden fiasco, truly evolution has to be Satan's biggest win.

Which brings me to the bottom line answer to the question of "Why?". The problem is not that the secularists are stupid or are ignoring the compatibility of the Bible, Christianity, and science. The problem is that they are blind. The Bible points this out many, many times. Man's soul was corrupted by sin because he wanted to do things his way and not God's way. Until that is fixed, there will always be misconceptions about Christianity by those who oppose it.

Your question is not simple and so my answer is not short. I hope it added something positive to the discussion.


In which writings does Tertullian apply the concept of satisfaction to salvation? Everett Ferguson, in Church History, I.21.IV, cites Tertullian (d. ~240) as a proto-satisfaction theory of atonement thinker:

  The sacrificial or satisfaction theory had an initial statement by Tertullian, but found its classic formulation in Anselm.

Where in Tertullian's writings does he make this "initial statement"?  Which of his writings indicate an early form of satisfaction theory, as opposed to other theories of atonement?

Tertullian uses the word "satisfaction" in several writings, but never, according to J. N. D. Kelly, to refer to Christ's atoning work on the cross.  Kelly writes:

  Tertullian has the theory that good deeds accumulate merit with God, while bad deeds demand 'satisfaction'—we observe the introduction of this important conception into Christian thought. Taken in conjunction with his doctrine of original sin, it might have enabled him to deal in a fresh way of his own with the problem of atonement. In fact, however, while using his ideas about satisfaction to explain the restoration of relations between the individual sinner and God, he altogether fails to apply them to the mediatorial role of Christ. (177)

Instead, Tertullian's uses of "satisfaction" come primarily in the contexts of repentance and good works, particularly baptism and martyrdom, which allow Christians to make satisfaction to God.  This theme is most prominent in De Paenitentia ("On Repentance").  For example, people can make satisfaction to God through repentance or to the devil through apostasy:

  Thus he who, through repentance for sins, had begun to make satisfaction to the Lord, will, through another repentance of his repentance, make satisfaction to the devil, and will be the more hateful to God in proportion as he will be the more acceptable to His rival. (5.9)

Along these lines, repentance is described as the "price" of pardon:

  Further, how inconsistent is it to expect pardon of sins (to be granted) to a repentance which they have not fulfilled! This is to hold out your hand for merchandise, but not produce the price. For repentance is the price at which the Lord has determined to award pardon: He proposes the redemption of release from penalty at this compensating exchange of repentance. (6.4)

Again emphasizing that the Christian makes the satisfaction:

  You will show your gratitude to the Lord by not refusing what the Lord offers you. You have offended, but can still be reconciled. You have One whom you may satisfy, and Him willing. (7.14; emphasis added)

In 8.9 he connects the more formal act of confession with satisfaction, and develops the idea more extensively in the following chapter, making it take the place of God's wrath:

  This act, which is more usually expressed and commonly spoken of under a Greek name, is exomologesis, whereby we confess our sins to the Lord, not indeed as if He were ignorant of them, but inasmuch as by confession satisfaction is settled, of confession repentance is born; by repentance God is appeased. [...] All this exomologesis (does), that it may enhance repentance; may honour God by its fear of the (incurred) danger; may, by itself pronouncing against the sinner, stand in the stead of God's indignation, and by temporal mortification (I will not say frustrate, but) expunge eternal punishments. (9.2, 9.5)

A similar argument is made in De baptismo, 20, that confession of iniquties "make[s] satisfaction for our former sins."  And in De Oratione, 7.1, he argues that God accepts penitence instead of "the death of the sinner."

Related themes, though not always the specific word "satisfaction," appear in other writings, such as Scorpiace, in which Tertullian argues that the sufferings of martyrs "pay" for spiritual benefits.  In chapter 6, the martyr pays with his "flesh and life" in order to receive blessings from God.  Martyrdom and the baptism of blood serve as "second supplies" of grace for those who sin following their conversions.  He concludes:

  For, strictly speaking, there cannot any longer be reckoned ought against the martyrs, by whom in the baptism (of blood) life itself is laid down. Thus, "love covers the multitude of sins;" and loving God, to wit, with all its strength (by which in the endurance of martyrdom it maintains the fight), with all its life (which it lays down for God), it makes of man a martyr. (6)

As Kelly notes, and Jaroslav Pelikan agrees, Tertullian does not connect the concept of satisfaction to Christ's death.  But Kelly notes the possibility of a "germ" of substitution doctrine in Scorpiace (7), "It is Christ who gave Himself up for our offences," and Pelikan points to a passage in De Pudicitia, where the merit earned by martyrs is compared to that earned by Christ:

  Let it suffice to the martyr to have purged his own sins: it is the part of ingratitude or of pride to lavish upon others also what one has obtained at a high price. Who has redeemed another's death by his own, but the Son of God alone? For even in His very passion He set the robber free. For to this end had He come, that, being Himself pure from sin, and in all respects holy, He might undergo death on behalf of sinners. Similarly, you who emulate Him in condoning sins, if you yourself have done no sin, plainly suffer in my stead. If, however, you are a sinner, how will the oil of your puny torch be able to suffice for you and for me? (22.4)

Conclusion

Thus we see that Ferguson's summary has merit.  Tertullian does introduce the concept of satisfaction to soteriology, but he does not clearly extend it to refer to an objective work of Christ.  G. D. Dunn argues that his focus was instead on the problem of sinful Christians, and quotes F. W. Dillistone:

  Tertullian did not attempt to construct a doctrine of atonement in terms of his own particular interests for it was not an age for systematic theological exposition. Rather was it a period, especially in the West, of applying the Christian revelation to the urgent practical problems with which the Church had to deal. In Tertullian's time no problem was more poignant, even agonizing than that of how to deal with the weaker members of the fellowship who fell victim to open and grievous sins.

Sources and further reading:

Dillistone, F. W., The Christian Understanding of Atonement, 187
Dunn, G. D., "A Survey of Tertullian's Soteriology," Sacri. Erudiri 42 (2003): 61–86
Kelly, J. N. D., Early Christian Doctrines, 177
Pelikan, Jaroslav, The Christian Tradition: A History of Development of Doctrine, I, 147–48


Is Belief in the Historical Accuracy of Gospels a prerequisite to Christianity? Is it a requirement of the faith that all adherents must believe in the literal flow of events as conveyed by the Bible surrounding the life of Jesus Christ?  Is it possible for someone to accept his teachings as presented, while still doubting or even disbelieving entirely some or all of the events presented therein?  Is it necessary to be fully convinced in the events of the Passion, the betrayal of Judas, and all of the events contained therein to be a Christian?  If not, were is the line drawn?  Is it necessary to believe that Jesus actually walked on water, or can that tale be accepted as a morality tale without accepting that it literally happened?

Personally, I do believe all events portrayed actually happened.

However I do not think there is any requirement in Christianity that you understand or even believe everything just perfectly so -- cross your t's and dot your i's -- in order to be saved. You can not be convinced of the exact details in the gospel accounts and still believe in Jesus as savior. Do you or do you not believe that He is Lord, the only way to the Father, the one who secured God's forgiveness for your sins? If so then there is lots of grace for our doubts and confusions.

My question in return would be: Why? What is the point? Also, how did you get there? Let's take the walk-on-water example. If you believe Jesus is who he said he is, something had to convince you of that. If the accounts we have of His miracles are to be distrusted and discarded, how are we to trust the accounts of His teachings about being the only savior of men? If his disciples fabricated the story of His walking on water, what business have we to trust the teachings they spread throughout the area in the years following?

There is room in Christianity for all manner of mis-directed beliefs. Our salvation depends on the person and works of someone else, not our own. We would all be damned if we had to get every detail right. However, if we HAVE been saved, I think it is part of our calling to learn as much about Him as we can as rightly as we can. There is no excuse for deliberate disbelief or being picky-choosy just because you don't LIKE something that He taught.


What is the difference of the 10 commandments from other Biblical laws? What distinction do The 10 Commandment have over other rules in the Bible?

Is breaking any of The 10 Commandments an immortal, unforgivable sin while other sins are not?

I just want to know the difference; why is there in a "top 10" list?

From a Baptistic perspective, there is very little difference between the 10 commandments and the other 603 rules and regulations of the Torah.  Note: I'm specifically not addressing the extent to which the law of Moses still applies, as it is well covered elsewhere

While the 10 commandments are a succinct guide to right behavior, their popularity really only stems from that point.  Taking a step back, most of the other Torahic Law deals with ceremonial functions - and if its choice between remembering "Don't Steal" and whether one needs to present a bull offering or a grain offering, which one would you promote?  Likewise, the priest needs to know what's leprosy and what not, but "Don't commit adultery" has a much wider applicability.

A cursory reading of Leviticus will show that the bulk of the Torah concerns not how a person should act, but rather what kinds of offerings and atonements should be made to resolve things.  Sure, there's the ScapeGoat, Baldness, rules about what does and does not constitute incest - but there's actually far less about personal behavior even in "the Law" than you might expect.

Indeed, when Jesus was asked, what is the most important, he didn't say "the 10 commandments."  Rather,

  Matt 22:34 Hearing that Jesus had silenced the Sadducees, the Pharisees got together. 35 One of them, an expert in the law, tested him with this question: 36 “Teacher, which is the greatest commandment in the Law?”

  37 Jesus replied: “‘Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind.’ 38 This is the first and greatest commandment. 39 And the second is like it: ‘Love your neighbor as yourself.’ 40 All the Law and the Prophets hang on these two commandments.”

His answer reflects several established Talmudic traditions:

The Schema (Hear O Israel, the Lord your God is One) is the primary law.  Everything else stems from it.
The 10 Commandments themselves divide neatly into two categories:

the first 4 (in Protestant numbering) are about how you love God (No other Gods, idols, No Blasphemy, Sabbath)
the other 6 are about how you love others (Don't steal, lie, kill, cheat on your spouse, covet)

What Jesus did was to emphasize the fact that love undergirds all of this.


In what way does God derive pleasure from us? Philippians 2:13:

  For it is God who is at work in you, both to will and to work for His good pleasure.

I understand that this question deals with infinite concepts and it's impossible for us to comprehend the mind of God as Isaiah 55:8 says:

  For my thoughts are not your thoughts, neither are your ways my ways," declares the LORD.

Nevertheless, I feel I must seek an answer from which to base the purpose of my own actions.  I am looking for opinions from others supported by philosophical reasoning or historical references, not necessarily facts straight from the bible.

This question is in a way asking why god created life at all. I've seen this question answered with a simple "because it pleases him," but that just doesn't seem satisfactory to me.

My hunch is that God created as an extension of his loving nature.  1 John 4:8 says that "God is love", and I know of no other scripture where God is described in such a way.  It's clear to me that this love is referring to a love for others (rather than self-love) so that would be complete with the existence of the Trinity with no call for angels or man.  For this reason, I feel angels and man were created with the intent of us taking part in this love and also showing his love as perfect by redeeming us despite our rebellion.

As 2 Corinthians 12:9 says:

  And he said unto me, My grace is sufficient for thee: for my strength is made perfect in weakness

TLDR: In what way does our ultimate existence please God?  My tentative theory is that we are used to show his love as perfect and to take part in that love.

I would only speculate from scripture a few simple answers. It is apparent that in Christianity it is important that we identify God as our "Father" through Christ, in fact it is God's will that we know him as our Father through Christ so it is apparent that God wanted children. God is love and he loves his servants the angels but what greater vessel for him to pour his love into than if he were to have children?  The bible says we are heirs of God, so he being a infinitely wealthy king wanted heirs to bless and shower in his dazzling riches. It brings him pleasure to give his children there good pleasure just as a earthly father gets pleasure in his children's delight.

In short God did not just want servants that will worship him, he wanted a family to love and be loved by (of there own free will).


Which order/choir of angels did Satan most likely belong to before he fell? In the Summa Theologica Thomas Aquinas answers that Satan could have belonged to either the lower grade of angels or to the higher angels before he fell.

According to Catholic texts, which of the orders/choirs of angels revealed in the Bible did Satan most likely belong to before he fell?

Then there are those (like myself) who will argue whether he has either truly fallen or not yet. However, here is the Christian (assuming Catholic as well) hierarchy of angels, and the likeliness of Satan being/not being one based on Scripture, and not opinion:

First Heirarchy (Highest)
Seraphim - it's possible, I suppose, however Ezekiel 28 tells us he was a Cherubim. First noted in Isaiah 6:1-7.
Cherubim - The most likely, and supported by Scripture assuming Ezekiel 28 is about Satan. First noted in Eden in Genesis 3:24, also guard God's Throne in Ezekiel 28:14–16
Thrones/Ophanim - If they are angelic beings meant to care for the thrones, or make up the thrones themselves I am not quite sure. However, given that they are one of the two, I doubt myself that this is what Satan is. Noted first in  Daniel 7:9, and again by Paul in Colossians 1:16.

Second Heirarchy (Middle)
Dominations - They regulate the duties of the lower angels, and are described in Eph. 1:21 and Col. 1:16. This could be suitable as an order in which Satan belonged, hence his amassing an army.
Virtues - Their primary duty is to supervise the movements of the heavenly bodies in order to ensure that the cosmos remains in order. While this could make sense as well, it seems unlikely. One of them not doing their job sounds like it'd be noticeable. They are described in Ephesians 1:21.
Powers - They are the bearers of conscience and the keepers of history. They are also the warrior angels created to be completely loyal to God. Some believe that no Power has ever fallen from grace, but another theory states that Satan was the Chief of the Powers before he Fell (see also Ephesians 6:12). Their duty is to oversee the distribution of power among humankind, hence their name.

Third Heirarchy (Lowest)
Principalities - Their duty also is said to be to carry out the orders given to them by the Dominions and bequeath blessings to the material world. Their task is to oversee groups of people. They are the educators and guardians of the realm of earth. Like beings related to the world of the germinal ideas, they are said to inspire living things to many things such as art or science.
Archangels - The word "archangel" comes from the Greek ἀρχάγγελος (archangělǒs), meaning chief angel, a translation of the Hebrew רב־מלאך (rav-mal'ákh) [11] It derives from the Greek archō, meaning to be first in rank or power; and angělǒs which means messenger or envoy. The word is only used twice in the New Testament: 1 Thessalonians 4:16 and Jude 1:9. Only Archangels Gabriel and Michael are mentioned by name in the New Testament. It's possible he could have been one of these, but they seem rather loyal to God in the stories.
Angels - well, you know - the plain ones apparently. I think we can all agree he was not a "regular" angel if anything.

You can read more about them here, which expands on Pseudo-Dionysius the Areopagite's book De Coelesti Hierarchia (On the Celestial Hierarchy) and Thomas Aquinas' Summa Theologica.


What is the distinction between Justification and Salvation? (Orthodox/Greek/Eastern View) As a practicing Christian, my only hope is for salvation through Jesus Christ.  I note that scripture addresses salvation, and that in Paul's letters being justified is proclaimed to be of importance.  I have spotty understanding, at best, of Greek/Eastern Orthodox doctrines/beliefs and how they differ from what is familiar to me: Catholic teaching and belief.

If I am to be saved, must I be justified?  I don't think that the two words mean the same thing.

The issue of justification arises in verses like Luke 18:11-14(NAB):

  11 The Pharisee took up his position and spoke this prayer to himself,
  'O God, I thank you that I am not like the rest of humanity - greedy,
  dishonest, adulterous - or even like this tax collector.
  12 I fast
  twice a week, and I pay tithes on my whole income.'
  13 But the tax
  collector stood off at a distance and would not even raise his eyes to
  heaven but beat his breast and prayed, 'O God, be merciful to me a
  sinner.'
  14 I tell you, the latter went home justified, not the
  former; for everyone who exalts himself will be humbled, and the one
  who humbles himself will be exalted."

What is the distinction between being saved and being justified?

This question is asking for the Greek/Eastern Orthodox view on the distinction.

Salvation (σωτηρία)

Like non-Orthodox, Orthodox believe that salvation culminates in the attainment of eternal life in God.  The path to this attainment in the Orthodox view, is one of purification and ascetical effort on the believer's behalf, cooperating with the grace of God (synergia), keeping in mind that nothing unclean can enter the Kingdom of God (Ephesians 5:5, Revelation 21:27).  Entrance into the Kingdom "necessarily requires purity of soul, a garment of holiness, without which no man shall see the Lord (Hebrews 12:14)"1.  This is in contrast to what Orthodox see as an overly juridical understanding of salvation in the west, which - Orthodox hold - is contrary to the beliefs held by the Church Fathers.

A more concise definition is offered by Monk Damascene, Abbot of the American Orthodox Monastery of St. Herman in Platina, California:  "The Orthodox Church takes a maximalist approach to salvation, seeing it as a process which ends in deification (theosis)"2.  Quoting a contemporary at St. Tikhon's Seminary, Harry Boosalis, Fr. Damascene writes:

  For the Orthodox Church, salvation is more than the pardon of sins and
  transgressions.  It is more than being justified or acquitted for
  offenses committed against God.  According to Orthodox teaching,
  salvation certainly includes forgiveness and justification, but is by
  no means limited to them.  For the Fathers of the Church salvation is
  the acquisition of the Grace of the Holy Spirit. To be saved is to be
  sanctified and to participate in the life of God - indeed to become
  partakers of the Divine Nature (2 Peter 1:4)3

There are quite a few criticisms leveled at these views.  Some will maintain that Orthodox are confusing salvation with sanctification.  Others have basically accused the Orthodox Church of pelagianism - a 5th century heresy (fought viciously by Augustine) that minimized the role of God's grace in one's salvation.  I think, however, that the root of almost all disagreements with Orthodox soteriology come from having a completely different understanding of grace, free will, and the consequences of man's fall.

Grace, in the Orthodox understanding, is not something that is created or dispensed by God, but is essentially the energy of God - to borrow a term used by Gregory Palamas.  It is not, again in the Orthodox understanding, something that is turned on and off or given and withdrawn by God, but is something that is always present.  The degree to which man experiences God's grace depends on his spiritual state and how disposed he is or is not to cooperate with it.  Blessed are the pure in heart, for they shall see God (Matthew 5:3) comes close to summarizing this view in a single Bible verse.

The above puts the fall of man in the Garden in a distinct light.  Whereas western Christianity (Roman Catholicism and most Protestant confessions) hold to a doctrine of "original sin" as a guilt that was inherited for Adam's offense, the east understands this sin not in terms of guilt but of illness.  Western confessions generally hold that the effect of Adam's fall was the withdrawal of God's grace, whereas Orthodoxy holds that the effect of Adam's fall was serious impairment to his ability to experience God's grace.  These are perhaps subtle distinctions, but when extrapolated lead (I think) to understanding salvation either in terms of restitution or in terms of rehabilitation.

It is interesting to note in this context that the root of the Greek word for "salvation" (sōtēria) is the verb σωζω (sōzō), which is usually translated as "save", but is also the word meaning "heal" (e.g. If I may touch but his clothes, I shall be healed - Mark 5:28).

Justification (δικαιοσύνη)

"Justification" and "righteousness" are signified by the same word in Greek - δικαιοσύνη (dikaiosynē).  The verb form (e.g. Luke 18:14) can mean "to justify" or "to make righteous".  This can be interpreted in a legal sense, as is favored in most western exegesis (e.g. someone is "made right with the law", "justice", etc.), but it can also refer to an existential change.

This distinction was pointed out by the recently reposed Orthodox writer, (Bishop) Dmitry Royster of Dallas:

  The terms "just" (Greek dikaios) and "justified" (dikaioō) are
  obviously related terms, the first usually being translated as
  "righteous" and sometimes as "just", and the second as "justify"; a
  third related word dikaiosynē is most often translated as
  "righteousness".  There exists a problem among interpreters,
  especially our contemporaries, concerning the relationship among these
  three: most reject the possibility of translating the verb dikaioō
  as "to make righteous", using rather "to justify", and doing so in a
  juridical sense, that is, as of being acquitted of guilt before God's
  tribunal.4

Bishop Dmitry goes on to explain well (I think) the difference between the Orthodox and non-Orthodox understanding of "justification":

  It is a fundamental tenet of the faith that any righteousness or
  justification of a man is the fruit of God's grace poured out on him
  by the work of Jesus Christ, which culminates in the sacrifice of the
  Cross and Resurrection (2 Corinthians 1:9-10; Philippians 3:9-10).
  This granting of grace is the work of the Holy Spirit (Ephesians 5:9).
  Misunderstanding seems to arise from opposing God's act of justifying
  or "rendering a man righteous" to the attainment of righteousness (1
  John 3:7) by the man of faith.  A man or a woman is not a passive
  recipient of God's grace; his or her response to God's gift is the
  "doing" of good works.  As the Apostle points out to the Ephesians
  (2:8), we have been saved (His part) by faith (our part); we have
  become a new creation (2:10) specifically for good works.5

This is not to say that a juridical interpretation of "justify" is not entirely warranted, but the Orthodox understanding is not that one is declared righteous, but rather that one becomes righteous by the grace of God.  There is nonetheless a tie-in to the juridical interpretation, in that we (according to Orthodox belief) will be judged according to our works.  This seems clear in the Orthodox understanding of such Scriptures as the Last Judgement description by Christ (Matthew 25:36-41), as well as Scriptures such as found in Revelation (20:12):

  And the dead were judged out of those things which were written in the books, according to their works.

(See also Psalm 62:12, Job 34:11, Matthew 16:27, Romans 2:6, Revelation 22:12)

Some of the above makes Orthodoxy a hard sell for other Christians.  The constant awareness of one's sinfulness and the compulsion to continually "do" something about it does not sit well with other Christian faiths.  What is misunderstood about Orthodoxy is that this asceticism is not for God's benefit - i.e. it is not a "work" to earn salvation. But it is, rather, a work for one's own benefit - something intended to instill humility and spiritual poverty (cf Matthew 5:3) that forces one to abandon the wisdom of the world (1 Corinthians 3:9) and turn toward God, eventually relying on His grace and not one's own strength.  That turning - and perhaps repeated re-turning - toward God is understood within Orthodoxy to be the true meaning of μετάνοια, or repentance.

1. Michael Pomazanski, Orthodox Dogmatic Theology (3rd ed.), p.199
2. Ibid.
3. Ibid., p.199n
4. St. Paul's Epistle to the Romans: A Pastoral Commentary, p.58
5. Ibid.


2 cities called Caesarea? This may be in the wrong forum but I’ll try. I google searched this at length yesterday but my search terms must be lacking something as the mystery got worse not better. We’re there more than one city or town in late 2nd Temple period called Caesarea? Caesarea, Caesarea-Philippi, Caesarea Maritimia? The geography is confusing as well as the names/descriptions.

I know we have well credentialed experts here somewhere so while you’re chuckling at the dumb question pls help me

Yes these are two different cities:

Caesarea Philippi, literally "Philip's Caesarea"; Ancient Greek: Καισαρεία Φιλίππεια Kaisareía Philíppeia) was an ancient Roman city located at the southwestern base of Mount Hermon.

Caesarea Maritima, Greek: Παράλιος Καισάρεια Parálios Kaisáreia), formerly Strato's Tower, also known as Caesarea Palestinae, was an ancient city in the Sharon Plain on the coast of the Mediterranean, now in ruins and included in an Israeli national park