What is " Origenism" I ran across this quote in the Catholic Encyclopedia:

  Pope St. Anastasius I

  A pontiff who is remembered chiefly for his condemnation of Origenism.
  A Roman by birth, he became pope in 399, and died within a little less
  than four years. Among his friends were Augustine, and Jerome, and
  Paulinus. Jerome speaks of him as a man of great holiness who was rich
  in his poverty. It was during the time of the barbarian invasions.

I followed the link to "Origenism" and started to read to see why it was condemned, but (and I really hate to admit this) the articles in the Catholic Encyclopedia just confuse me.  There are so many terms that I've never heard, and am unfamiliar with that I end up having to look those up and then looking up others.

So, in a nutshell, I'm looking for a lay-person's explanation of what "Origenism" is, and if it's not obvious when comparing it to traditional teachings, why it was condemned.

According to the Catholic Encyclopedia article on Origen and Origenism, the "sketchy" doctrines are:

Allegorism in the interpretation of Scripture
Origen believed that, being God-inspired and written by human hand, scripture must be interpreted in a manner than is worth of God. As such, some Biblical passages must be interpreted allegorically, lest we think God a tyrannical, blood-thirsty, etc.. It's important to note first, that a strictly allegorical interpretation of scripture was unorthodox. But secondly, Origen apparently took the allegorical interpretation train a little too far according to some. So, even at though allegorical interpretations may be OK, good, and in some cases necessary; Origen himself is an example of how difficult it can be to get off the allegory train. I.e., it's acceptable and good, but it's dangerous; be careful!
Subordination of the Divine Persons
The language in Catholic Encyclopedia is confusing (to me) as to whether Origen is for or against the "sketchy" Trinitarian tendencies of subordinating The Son to The Father or to what extent he believed what he did. But, the Wikipedia article on Subordinationism clarifies it quite succinctly for us:

  Perhaps the most elaborate of advocates in favor of Subordinationism
  was Origen of Alexandria. Origen taught that Jesus was a "DEUTEROS
  THEOS" (second God) He also said the Son was "distinct" from the
  Father. Finally Origen insisted that the Son is other in substance
  than the Father. It should be noticed that some of these same
  references are used to defend the concept of the Trinity. However,
  Subordinationism is not a differentiation or distinction between
  persons in the Trinity. In this regard they agree. Subordinationism
  rather suggests that the Son (and Spirit) are other in substance than
  the Father. (Subordinationism, Pre-Nicean)

Other things I've seem suggest that the extreme material distance placed between the Father and Son in this theology isn't actually Origen's intended understanding. Rather, it's termed Origenism because his ideas paved the way for the more radical, questionable, and non-orthodox understanding. But, I'm not at all 100% sure on that.

The theory of successive trials and a final restoration.
I didn't quite understand which details of the theology are technically part of this questionable doctrine. But, these are listed:

Eternal creation - An infinite number of universes/worlds have been and will be created  infinitely backwards in time and infinitely forward in time.
Intellectual creation - All intellectual entities were created equal. Some of them got bored and became naughty.
Matter exists for the spiritual - More unorthodox, I think, is the subpoint that without matter, the spiritual cannot be. If the matter would cease to be, the spiritual entity it serves would cease to be.
Universal, final restoration - Everything will be returned to its original state of glory and union with God. I.e., hell isn't really eternal, it just seems like it.


Is there any historical evidence of Early Church Christians denying the divinity of Jesus during the 1st and 2nd centuries AD? I'm essentially asking the counter-question to this one. Is there any historical evidence of Early Church Christians (post-New Testament) openly denying the divinity of Jesus in the 1st and 2nd centuries AD? I know that Arianism became a thing in the 3rd century AD, but what about the previous two centuries?

Some clarifications:

Documents published at the time that include unambiguous statements are preferred. By unambiguous statement I mean something like "Jesus is not God, he is not divine, he didn't pre-exist, he was just a human being and nothing more, period."
I'm open to answers that cite the New Testament as a piece of historical evidence, as long as only unambiguous quotes are provided (see previous point).

In the first two centuries CE:
Adoptionism, reflected in canonical epistles, the earliest of which pre-date the writing of the gospels. The letters of Paul the Apostle, for example, do not mention a virgin birth of Christ. Paul describes Jesus as "born of a woman, born under the law" and "as to his human nature was a descendant of David" in the Epistle to the Galatians and the Epistle to the Romans.
Ebionism during the first 2 centuries CE - A majority of the Ebionites rejected as heresies the proto-orthodox Christian beliefs in Jesus's divinity and virgin birth.
Cerinthus in the late first and early second century. He lived in Asia Minor and was deemed heretical by early church fathers (e.g., Irenaeus, Adversus Haereses 1.26.1; Hippolytus of Rome, Refutation 7.21; Eusebius, Ecclesiastical History 3.28–35, 7.25.3). According to these sources, Cerinthus denied the virgin birth, taught that Jesus was a normal human who was exceedingly wise, and that he was empowered by the Christ-spirit upon his baptism.
Gnosticism - the oldest Christian critiques of gnosticism dat from the early 2nd century CE, so it must have been in existence before that, though we have few documents. Most scholars place the origin of Gnosticism around the first century CE. In particular, Marcion preached that the benevolent God of the Gospel who sent Jesus Christ into the world as the savior was the true Supreme Being, different and opposed to the malevolent demiurge or creator god, identified with the Hebrew God of the Old Testament.
Theodotus claimed that Jesus was born of the Virgin Mary and the Holy Spirit as a non-divine man, and though later "adopted" by God upon baptism (that is to say, he became the Christ), was not himself God until after his resurrection


Is it wrong to say Jesus is the God of the Old Testament? Is it wrong to say that Jesus is the God of the Old Testament?

Jesus is God, the Father is God, and the Holy spirit is God.

With this is mind, is it wrong to say Jesus is the God of the Old Testament?

From what I understand, Jesus existed eternally correct?  And Jesus is God and didn't come into being when he was sent on Earth.

There was a group called the marcionites that argued that there are 2 Gods because the God of the OT and the NT are just too different like:

In the OT is says God is One, and that he is not a man.

Let's separate out the different issues:

  Is it wrong to say that Jesus is the God of the Old Testament?

No, it is correct to refer to Jesus as the God of the Old Testament, just as it is right to refer to the Father and Spirit as the God of the Old Testament. One instance of this can be seen in Isaiah 6 where Isaiah sees Yahweh, and in John chapter 12, John references this passage and says it refers to Jesus (John 12:41):

  Isaiah said these things because he saw his glory and spoke of him.

From this text, many Christian theologians believe that the theophanies of the Old Testament (theophanies are instances where God appears) are in fact Jesus, and not the Father or the Spirit.

Now to the next issue:

  From what I understand, Jesus existed eternally correct? And Jesus is God and didn't come into being when he was sent on Earth.

Yes, Jesus eternally exists as God (see John 1:1). However, He did not take upon Himself a human nature until His incarnation. For a fuller treatment of this subject (the pre-existence of Jesus), see the book "The Forgotten Trinity" by Dr. James White.

And next:

  There was a group called the marcionites that argued that there are 2 Gods because the God of the OT and the NT are just too different like

Yep, they did argue that. But the Christian church argued back vociferously, pointing out that God is consistent in both the Old Testament and the New Testament. In both the Old and New Testaments, for example, God is seen to be making judgement against sin (in the judgements in the Old Testament, and the book of Revelation), and also showing mercy and grace (seen in the book of Jonah most clearly in the Old Testament and in the clear proclamation of the forgiveness of sins in the New).


Was Lazarus of Bethany a bachelor? At John 19:26 we read : "When Jesus saw his mother, and the disciple whom he loved standing near, he said to his mother, “Woman, behold, your son!”

We also read at John 11:1-3 "Now a certain man was ill, Laz′arus of Bethany, the village of Mary and her sister Martha. .......  So the sisters sent to him, saying, “Lord, he whom you love is ill.”

We know that there are different words in Greek to express love. My question is: Which word was used in the Greek Bibles to denote the special consideration   that Jesus gave to John and Lazarus, which has been translated as 'love" in English. Was it likely that Lazarus, like Jesus himself and John the Apostle,  was a bachelor ? What do Catholic traditions say on such a state of life in respect to Lazarus of Bethany?

No traditions, East or West, suggest that Lazarus of Bethany was married. The simple fact that there are no legends, traditions or other pious stories to indicate that that Lazarus ever had a wife.

  According to a tradition, or rather a series of traditions combined at different epochs, the members of the family at Bethany, the friends of Christ, together with some holy women and others of His disciples, were put out to sea by the Jews hostile to Christianity in a vessel without sails, oars, or helm, and after a miraculous voyage landed in Provence at a place called today the Saintes-Maries. It is related that they separated there to go and preach the Gospel in different parts of the southeast of Gaul. Lazarus, of whom alone we have to treat here, went to Marseilles, and, having converted a number of its inhabitants to Christianity, became their first pastor.

  According to a tradition of the Greek Church, the body of St. Lazarus had been brought to Constantinople, just as all the other saints of the Palestinian group were said to have died in the Orient, and to have been buried, translated, and honoured there. It is only in the thirteenth century that the belief that Lazarus had come to Gaul with his two sisters and had been Bishop of Marseilles spread in Provence. It is true that a letter is cited (its origin is uncertain), written in 1040 by Pope Benedict IX on the occasion of the consecration of the new church of St.-Victor in which Lazarus is mentioned. But in this text the pope speaks only of relics of St. Lazarus, merely calling him the saint who was raised again to life. He does not speak of him as having lived in Provence, or as having been Bishop of Marseilles. The Catholic Encyclopedia

Whatever the truth of the actual life of Lazarus, there is still a strong Catholic tradition that Lazarus sailed from Palestine in 53 AD and fixed his residence near Marseilles. Again no mention is ever made of Lazarus having a wife, but that he did become the first bishop of Marseilles. Blessed Anne Catherine Emmerich also mentions Lazarus' voyage to Gaul in her revelations.

  According to legend, Mary Magdalene and Lazarus left the Holy Land around 53 A and arrived in Massilia – Marseilles. There, each year on February 2, the local people celebrate the arrival of Lazarus and Mary Magdalene. It is said that they installed themselves in a necropolis, on the south side of the Lacydon river, taking care of the ill and preaching the new faith. After about a decade, Mary Magdalene headed for nearby Sainte Baume, where she invoked St Michael to chase out a monster, the Tarasco, from the cave where she supposedly spent the remaining days of her life.

  Less known is the legend that her sister Martha also came to France. Saint Martha went to Avignon, though she was asked by the people of Tarascon, just south of the city, to appease the Tarasco, which had fled there. By showing the sign of the cross and using Holy Water, she appeased the monster that used to rise out of the waters of the Rhone to devour children and livestock.

  In short, there are several legends which say that the Christianization of France was said to have occurred by those who had witnessed the miracles of Jesus and the Passion themselves. - In the footsteps of the Marys in France

The Golden Legend also recounts the arrival of Lazarus and his companions to Southern France (Gaul).

  According to the thirteenth century Italian chronicler Jacob Voragini, author of The Golden Legend, a handful took to the sea in a rudderless raft later translated as a “radeau.” The passengers included Mary Magdalen, her servant Martilla, Mary Salome, Mary the mother of James, Lazarus (who Jesus had brought back from the dead), Martha (the sister of Lazarus) and Sara, described as a dark Egyptian servant. Without rudder or oars they were guided by the hand of God through the perilous seas if The Golden Legend is correct. They landed at a place named Ratis near Marseilles in France. They took refuge under a “porch” of a temple of the “people of that country.” What Voragini does not say is that it was a temple to three goddesses. He was writing in an era where pagans and their goddesses were forced to assimilate into Christianity. - Legend of the Three Marys


What's is the case for premarital sex being an instance of πορνεία (porneia)? This question is pretty much a spinoff of What does the Bible say about sex before marriage / premarital sex? because its current answer depends on the assumption that premarital sex is πορνεία (commonly translated "fornication"). Not all agree, so I think this assumption is better explicitly questioned.

I've heard some liberal Christians dispute the definition of the Greek word πορνεία (porneia), claiming it doesn't mean premarital sex at all. (An example of such an argument)

What's is the case for premarital sex being an instance of πορνεία (porneia)?

One of the major difficulties here is that just a dictionary definition doesn't cut it, because it's difficult to really know what the Greek word really meant 2000 years ago. The answer probably needs to either be a broad look at the Bible passages using the word, or an academic study on the word's meaning.

Additional information 2011-09-21: The following articles seem interesting, but I can't access the fulltexts. It seems from the publicly-available bits that Dr. Malina might actually have been the first to dispute the meaning of porneia.

Malina, B. Does porneia mean fornication? Novum Testamentum, 1972.
Jensen, J. Does porneia Mean Fornication? A Critique of Bruce Malina. Novum Testamentum, 1978.

The word porneia is often translated as "fornication".

  1 Cor 7:2 (KJV)
  Nevertheless, to avoid fornication, let every man have his own wife, and let every woman have her own husband.

It's worth noting that more modern translations use "sexual immorality" here instead of "fornication" due to the confusion with that given word.

Looking at the English definition of "fornication", we see:

  Dictionary.com
  Fornication

  1.
  voluntary sexual intercourse between two unmarried persons or two persons not married to each other.

Premarital sex is fornication; adultery is fornication; any type of sex where the two people are not married or not married to each other is fornication.

Strong's Concordance gives us the original definition of porneia.

  1) illicit sexual intercourse

  a) adultery, fornication, homosexuality, lesbianism, intercourse with
  animals etc.

  b) sexual intercourse with close relatives; Lev. 18

  c) sexual intercourse with a divorced man or woman; Mk. 10:11,12

This root word includes all forms of sexual acts that are not within the confines of  marriage (a heterosexual one at that).  The study of the word itself shows that anything and everything outside the realm of marriage is a sin.

It's also worth noting that this word is one of the root words for pornography.

Regarding your link
In this answer, I point out the clear and obvious refutation to link that you provided above.  They claim that adultery was a property rights violation against the husband.  However, they ignore the fact that raping a virgin was a property rights violation against the father.  Furthermore, if a woman became married and the husband found no proof of her virginity, he had a right to have her stoned for not being a virgin.  Clearly, premarital sex was explicitly forbidden.


What is the earliest systematic New Testament commentary? Were Origen's commentaries the earliest attempt to systematically exegete the New Testament texts, so far as there is any record?

Origen's commentaries do indeed appear to be the earliest surviving line-by-line, self-contained biblical commentaries.  This becomes evident when we examine his closest competitors.  We'll look first at Greek-speaking authors, and then at Latin.
Greek
About a hundred years before Origen's commentaries were written, Papias of Hierapolis wrote a lengthy work entitled Exposition of the Sayings of the Lord.  Sadly, virtually all of it has been lost, making its contents a matter of some scholarly dispute.  It's likely, though, that the work was primarily a setting down of the oral tradition that Papias knew, and not a systematic exegesis of one or more of the gospels.
Another prolific 2nd-century Greek author was Irenaeus, and in his work Against Heresies he regularly appeals to Scripture to point out the errors of his opponents.  Particularly in Book 4 and Book 5 he focuses his efforts on interpreting the sayings of Jesus and the epistles of Paul, but again, not in a systematic fashion.
Next we turn to the School of Alexandria, out of which came Origen.  Two masters preceded him, Pantænus and Clement of Alexandria.  Of the former no works survive, and none of Clement's surviving works meet our criteria.  But Eusebius speaks of eight volumes by him, called Outlines, that may have been commentaries:

There are another eight volumes of his Outlines, in which he names Pantaenus as his teacher and explains his interpretations of Scripture as well as the traditional (6.13.2, Maier translation)
In the Outlines he has given brief explanations of all the canonical Scriptures, including even the disputed writings. (6.14.1)

But since none of these exist today, we are left to conclude that Origen's commentaries are the earliest we have in Greek.
Latin
Paul J. Griffiths helpfully summarizes the early history of commentaries in Latin:

The first surviving self-contained commentaries on biblical books to have been composed in Latin were by Victorinus of Petrovium (d. 304), who was active in what is today Slovenia [...].  A little earlier in Roman Africa, portions of various polemical works by Tertullian were composed in commentarial form (for example, the fourth book of the Adversus Marcionem, on Luke [...]), even though Tertullian composed no works whose sole purpose is commentary on a particular biblical book. (Religious Reading, 151)

Victorinus of Petrovium died fifty years after Origen, but Tertullian was Origen's contemporary.  And indeed, in Book 4 of Against Marcion, Tertullian works through the Gospel of Luke systematically but polemically.  He wrote this about AD 208, which is around the time that Origen began to produce his commentaries.
Summary
The evidence outlined here indeed suggests that Origen's commentaries are the earliest surviving systematic and self-contained examples of New Testament commentaries.  Earlier commentaries may have been written, but have since been lost.  And though Tertullian wrote what we might fairly consider commentaries, such as one of the Gospel of Luke, they formed parts of his polemical writings, and in any case are dated to roughly the same time as Origen's.


What are the common arguments against theistic evolution? What are the common arguments from Christians against the idea that God used evolution to create Earth over millions of years? This is not a place to argue. I'm interested in a rundown of the common response from Young Earth Creationists. Source your statements whenever possible.

The first would be the lack of death prior to the Fall - as recorded in the creation account in Genesis 1-2: God's creation was "very good", and death was a result of the curse on Adam for sinning (Genesis 3:17-19).

If the written account of the Fall is correct (which I would argue it must be for Paul's profuse arguments through Romans (eg 5:12 "Therefore, just as through one man sin entered into the world, and death through sin, and so death spread to all men, because all sinned") to be sound), then "evolution", as commonly understood with a molecules-to-man transformation, cannot be right.

Romans 8:19-22:

  For the anxious longing of the creation waits eagerly for the revealing of the sons of God. For the creation was subjected to futility, not willingly, but because of Him who subjected it, in hope that the creation itself also will be set free from its slavery to corruption into the freedom of the glory of the children of God. For we know that the whole creation groans and suffers the pains of childbirth together until now.


How does the trial of Jesus compare to the judicial standards of the epoch and of the modern times? I wonder whether Jesus was given enough opportunities to defend himself, whether his trial was fair and whether the investigation was thorough.  I want to know how it compares with typical criminal, political or treason trials of the time, both in Roman empire and worldwide, and also in comparison with the modern times.

No, no and no. But it doesn't matter.

He was guilty of what he was charged of. Blasphemy. Claiming to be God.
The thing he was guilty of did carry a death penalty under Jewish law.
The Jews couldn't actually administer the death penalty, they had to get something to take to the Romans to get clearance.
The Roman governor (Pontus Pilate) operated the trial as a political maneuver to stop a Jewish uprising (of the people that wanted to kill Jesus more so than of Jesus himself). He kept the peace by doing what the mob and religious leaders wanted. No claim was ever made of it being a fair trial.
Nobody stopped to consider the fact that his claim was actually true. The final proof of that was in the pudding, and that wouldn't be served up for three more days.

Nobody has ever claimed the trial was fair or investigation thorough. But nobody cared then and I'm not sure why anybody would care now.


Who exactly is resurrected and reigns in the millennial city in premillennialisim? Who is resurrected at the second coming prior to the commencement of the millennium (according to premillennial theology)? Is it:

All who are saved–alive and dead
NT Christians–alive and dead
Christians who were martyred during the tribulation and/or Christians still alive?

To clarify, I'm not sure if there is consensus on this and I am not sure if there is a different view in either 'historical' and/or 'dispensational' premillennialists. So that may impact the answer somewhat.  If there's disagreement within premillennialism, I'd like an overview of positions.

Both dispensational and historic premillennialists hold that all Christians who died or were raptured prior to the beginning of the millennium will reign with Christ during it.

One standard dispensational commentary, the Moody Bible Commentary, describes two groups of people that will reign with Christ in its treatment of Revelation 20:

  Verses 4a-b refer to the Church saints resurrected at the rapture, who rule and reign with Jesus.  After this, John saw the resurrection of another group, the tribulation saints, those who had been beheaded (martyred) during the tribulation for resisting idolatry. "They came to life" means that their bodies had now been joined, through resurrection, to their souls that were already in heaven.  They also "reigned with Christ."

This commentary views both of these groups as part of the "first resurrection":

  The phrase "this is the first resurrection" (v. 5b) summarizes the experience of all believers, including those martyred in the tribulation.

Prominent Dispensationalist John MacArthur says in a sermon on this passage:

  So you've got resurrected Old Testament saints, you've got resurrected saints who followed Jesus during His lifetime, you've got resurrected New Testament saints, and now you've got resurrected Tribulation saints and it's all the resurrected saints who reign. They came to life and reigned with Christ a thousand years. [emphasis added]

Historic premillennialists like Wayne Grudem see things similarly.

  After that time of tribulation at the end of the church age, Christ will return to earth to establish a millennial kingdom. When he comes back, believers who have died will be raised from the dead, their bodies will be reunited with their spirits, and these believers will reign with Christ on earth for one thousand years. [...] The believers who have been raised from the dead, and those who were on the earth when Christ returns, will receive glorified resurrection bodies that will never die, and in these resurrection bodies they will live on the earth and reign with Christ. [bold added]

Given the disagreement over the finer points of interpretation of Revelation, it's quite likely that some espousing premillennialism will diverge from this position.  But it's significant that these prominent proponents of their respective eschatological views agree that all dead and raptured Christians will reign during the millennium.

Grudem's summary is found in his Systematic Theology, chapter 55, page 1112.  The notes from Moody Bible Commentary are found in the section on Revelation 20:4–6.  I cleaned up the formatting and made several unmarked omissions of parenthetical remarks when quoting from the latter.


What is the understanding of "an evil spirit from the LORD tormented him"? In 1 Sam 16:14-23 (RSVCE), David Plays the Lyre for Saul, the passage opens

  14 Now the Spirit of the LORD departed from Saul, and an evil spirit from the LORD tormented him.

God is said to be infinitely good, intelligent, wise, just, holy, etc. [cf. The Nature and Attributes of God | New Advent].

Given these perfections of God, what is the understanding of "an evil spirit from the LORD tormented him"?

Needless to say, in keeping with the criteria for acceptable questions and answers, this question is not eliciting personal opinions but scholarly and/or authoritative exegesis.

Different translations describe the spirit in different ways:

NIV, KJV, NASB, ISV - Evil
ESV - Harmful
NLT - Tormenting
YLT - Spirit of Sadness

However all these translations agree that this Spirit was sent from the Lord. So to stay with your question, how could a loving God send an evil spirit to torment?

He could for the very same reasons he sent a worldwide flood: it was His divine way to deal with the sin of that time, of that moment. Saul was rebelling and this was his de facto punishment.

Dave Miller, Apologetics Press:

  As Keil and Delitzsch maintained: “This demon is called ‘an evil spirit (coming) from Jehovah,’ because Jehovah had sent it as a punishment” (1976, 2:170). John W. Haley added: “And he has a punitive purpose in granting this permission. He uses evil to chastise evil” (1977, p. 142). Of course, the reader needs to be aware of the fact that the term for “evil” is a broad term that need not refer to spiritual wickedness. In fact, it often refers to physical harm or painful hardship (e.g., Genesis 19:19; 2 Samuel 17:14). source

Habakkuk had this very same question for God when it was clear that God was allowing the wicked nation of Babylon to punish Judah. God responded with this:

  Habakkuk 1:5 ESV Look among the nations, and see; wonder and be astounded. For I am doing a work in your days that you would not believe if told.

...and then gave Habakkuk his rebuke for Babylon:

  Habakkuk 2:8 ESV Because you have plundered many nations, all the remnant of the peoples shall plunder you, for the blood of man and violence to the earth, to cities and all who dwell in them.

Basically, God's great plans extend beyond the painful moment. God had a plan to rescue Judah from Babylon/Persia just like God had a plan for Saul in sending the evil spirit, even though neither made sense at the time. If you continue reading the chapter in 2 Samuel you'll see that it is through this evil spirit that Saul has his first encounter with his royal successor, David.


Where did Jesus stay during his 3.5 year ministry? The Bible says all people went to their home but Jesus went to the Mount of Olives and came back to the temple early in the morning.

  but Jesus went to the Mount of Olives. At dawn he appeared again in the temple courts, where all the people gathered around him, and he sat down to teach them.  (John 8:1–2, NIV)

On another occasion Jesus said:

  Jesus said to him, "The foxes have holes and the birds of the air have nests, but the Son of Man has nowhere to lay His head." (Matthew 8:20, NASB)

What was his dwelling like? Where did He stay during his ministry?

It's pretty clear from reading the Gospels that Jesus did not have a 'fixed abode' during his ministry. He moved around from place to place. He certainly stayed on some occasions with supporters. On other occasions it is probable he slept outside.

There are a number of occasions where Jesus is recorded as staying at the Mount of Olives, notably during visits to Jerusalem. It seems his preference was to come to Jerusalem only during the day, and to stay at the Mount of Olives (a short walk outside Jerusalem) for the night. The home of Mary, Martha and Lazarus was on the Mount of Olives, and he may have stayed there.


Do most Advent Christians hold to eternal security? Is there a predominant view among Advent Christian Church members (a.k.a First-day Adventists) regarding the doctrine of Perseverance of the Saints, sometimes called "eternal security"?

I know this is late but I will try to answer.  No, there is no predominant belief among Advent Christian Churches as to perseverance of the saints.  This is strange because even though the majority of the pastors attended the same college, taught by the same professors, it never really filtered to the churches they served right out of college.  Now that the college has been gone since 1986, the next generation of church members now under the discipleship of those pastors from their college do believe it, it's probably most likely those congregations do believe it now.

Also, it is probably more predominant in the NE than in the SE of the country.


What is the "new doctrine" that Leo Tolstoy mentions in *Anna Karenina*? In Leo Tolstoy's novel Anna Karenina (1873-1877), there's a point where the author refers to a "new doctrine" that was fashionable among the Russian upper classes. The following extract is from Part 5, Chapter 22 (translated by Nathan Haskell Dole, 1899), in which Anna's husband Alexei is comforted by Lidia Ivanovna.

"How can you be ashamed of what is the highest degree of Christian perfection? He who humbles himself shall be exalted. And you cannot thank me. Thank Him, pray to Him for help. In Him alone we can find peace, consolation, salvation, and love".
She raised her eyes to heaven, and began to pray, as Alexei Aleksandrovitch could see by her silence.
Alexei Aleksandrovitch listened to her, and this phraseology, which before seemed, not unpleasant to him, but extravagant, now seemed natural and soothing. He did not approve of this new ecstatic mysticism. He was a sincere believer, and religion interested him principally in its relation to politics; and the new doctrine which arrogated to itself certain terms, for the very reason that it opened the door to controversy and analysis, had aroused his antipathy from principle.
[...]
But nevertheless, the countess's help was to the highest degree useful to him. Her affection and esteem were a moral support to him, and, as it gave her great consolation to think, she almost succeeded in converting him to "Christianity"; in other words, she changed him from an indifferent and lukewarm believer into a fervent and genuine partizan of that new method of explaining the Christian doctrine which shortly after came into vogue in Petersburg. It was easy for Alexei Aleksandrovitch to put his faith in this exegesis. [...] Thus he saw no impossibility or unlikelihood in death existing for unbelievers and not for him, that because he held a complete and unquestioning faith, judged in his own way, his soul was already free from sin, and that even in this world he might look upon his safety as assured.
It is true, Alexei Aleksandrovitch dimly felt the frivolity, the fallacy, of this presentation of the faith.

Which particular "new doctrine" and movement is Tolstoy referring to? It is described as having a mystic element, evidently with some connection to humility and prayer, and also, for believers alone, the assurance of salvation, with a form of perfectibility or sinlessness.
Tolstoy himself refers to it as frivolous and fallacious, so presumably it diverges from his own religious views; it's also evidently not the mainstream position of the Russian Orthodox Church. Historically speaking, we are in late nineteenth-century Russia, among the upper crust of society, and perhaps in St Petersburg specifically.

He most likely was referring to the movement of Slavophilism.

Tolstoy was excommunicated from the Orthodox church because of his rejection of the Hegelian and Slavophilia influences that were prevalent1 throughout the 19th century.

This would explain why he saw this as a "frivolous and fallacious" view on faith.

The basic premise behind this view is as follows:

Because of the corruption of the Catholic church though pagan traditions and their desire for unity at the expense of the individual Christians freedom. And equally because of the protestant rejection of all church unity in favor of the individuals freedom; the Russian Orthodox Church was the holder of true and unpolluted Christianity.2

Hegel, is responsible for the view that mind and spirit can co-exist and unite despite the 'inherent' conditions between the two (which goes beyond the duality  of persons as espoused by Kant). Its of significant historical importance that his view developed in Germany and would contribute to the rise of the Marxist movement in Russia.

When applied to religion the above mixing resulted in a frame of thought that idealized the traditions and customs of Russia as an 'inner-truth' while the west and its constitutions and democracies were an 'external-truth'. Meaning the one was developed from within and represented all that was good, while the other (often associated with politics -yet another nod towards Marxism) was enforced by external rules and laws.

 I wanted to make special attribution to:

1 - The Oxford Companion to Christian Thought

2 - This essay on upbeatlearning.com


Do any independent sources exist mentioning Jesus' miracles performed and the people He performed them on? I'm aware that there are credible historical texts that reference Jesus and His general path, independent of the Bible.

However, I'm curious to know, do any of those specifically describe the miracles performed by Jesus?

Are there any independent established sources that mention the miracles performed and the people He performed them on?

Eusebius in the third century wrote against Celsus's second century attack on Christianity (which only survives today in quotations from Eusebius). Celsus claims Jesus performed miracles by sorcery. He seems to accept that Jesus did perform miracles, he just disputes the source of Jesus' power.

The Talmud also calls Him a sorcerer: "The master said: Jesus the Nazarene practiced magic and deceived and led Israel astray." (Sanhedrin 107b)

I don't know how early (or late) the dates are on the Talmudic references, so I don't know if they're affirming that He did perform miracles based on reliable testimony (that they actually know He did) or if it's just a reaction to the Christians' claim, in which case they chose to accept the testimony of the Christians concerning His acts but they deny that He is divine.

If we accept Jesus' resurrection as one of His miracles, there is a bit more. The Gospel of the Hebrews mentions it (second century work, I believe; not certain we can claim it's an independent source) and Justin Martyr (second century) in his Dialogue with Trypho wrote that the Jewish leaders were still claiming the disciples stole the body in his day (which means they affirmed the tomb was empty).


Do paedobaptists suggest that a baptised infant is really 'born again'? This question is for Protestant Trinitarians and addresses the divide among the various denominations of Protestantism, particularly Presbyterianism, Congregationalism and Anglicanism, who baptise infants rather than adults.
I was, myself, 'baptised' as an infant, but late in infancy as my father was a Church of Scotland clergyman in the remote Highlands of Scotland and was not permitted to baptise his own child, so the matter was delayed and I remember it vividly at the age of five. But after conversion at the age of sixteen I volunteered to be baptised in a Baptist assembly (and my father graciously attended).
Among all the arguments to and fro about circumcision and 'sanctification' it is still not clear to me if those who baptise infants actually claim that the child is 'born again' in the various senses in which that term is used in the New Testament, that is to say : born from above (anothen); born anew (anagennao) ; born again (paligenesis) ; born of God ; and born of water and Spirit.
What exactly do paedobaptists believe is happening (in New Testament terms) during the ritual of placing water on a baby ?
And if they regard it so (that this is genuine 'new birth') then can such infants not be recovered if they (initially) reject the gospel in childhood since that would be regarded (in New Testament terms) as being a castaway, having been 'born again' only to reject Christ ?

You will probably find different denominations have a slightly different flavour to this answer. To put my cards on the table, I come at this from an Anglican perspective.
My first point would be, what do credobaptists think is going on in communion and how is that different to paedobaptists? Most of the credobaptists I know, if I understand correctly, do not think that baptism washes away sin - that event has happened with conversion; baptism is just the sign. It's the same with paedobaptists as well. I don't think that anyone from protestant churches would actually say that baptism and regeneration were one and the same event.
I know of people who were baptised as teenagers, then went away from faith, then came back to it later in life. I can't see how this is really different from being baptised as a child and then going away from faith before coming back to it.
According to Lee Gatiss' booklet "From Life's First Cry: John Owen on infant baptism and infant salvation", infant baptism is not so much about affirming faith but rather "the promise and covenant of God" (p. 24). John Owen argues from the fact that, since children of believers are part of God's covenant, they should be considered within God's covenant people and therefore have a right to the sign of baptism.
So he says:

This is why impenitent sinners are not to be baptised, because not having the reality they have no right to the sign. But he goes on to say that if the sign is denied to believers' infants then that implies (by the same logic) that God is denying them the reality of salvation too - "and then all the children of believing parents dying in infancy must, without hope, be eternally damned." ... It is certainly  not that for Owen baptism is essential for salvation, but rather that if God desires the sign of salvation to be withheld it must be because he withholds salvation itself from such infants. [My emphasis] (p. 30)

I would say, paedobaptists baptise infants who are too young to profess faith because they belong within the covenant people of God. This isn't tying in baptism with regeneration, but rather - by virtue of belonging they have a right to the sign of belonging.
So my answer to your final question is - yes, infants baptised who then go away from Christ can be recovered and do not need re-baptism. (In the Church of England we have an order "re-affirmation of baptismal vows" which is often used for occasions when someone comes back to faith but is already baptised). In fact I would suggest that to go away from Christ in New Testament terms is an eternal thing: someone can go away but then come back again. The final moment of being cast away and rejecting Christ doesn't happen until death.
Additionally: I saw this Twitter thread yesterday and I think you might find it helpful. He quotes Herman Witsius:

God has given that pledge to pious parents that they may regard their little ones as the children of God by gracious adoption, until, when further advanced, they betray themselves by indications to the contrary and that they may feel not less secure regarding their children dying in infancy than did Abraham and Isaac of old.


In Catholic Church History, when, why and by whom did the four living creatures become associated with the four evangelists? In the Catholic Church history, when, why, and by whom did the four living creatures become associated with the four evangelists?

And what is the reasoning behind this association:

Matthew = Man
Mark = Lion
Luke = Ox
John = Eagle

The second century church father Irenaeus was probably the first.
Against Heresies: Book III
Chapter XI-Proofs in Continuation, Extracted from St. John's Gospel. The Gospels are Four in Number, Neither More Nor Less. Mystic Reasons for This.

It is not possible that the Gospels can be either more or fewer in number than they are. For, since there are four zones of the world in which we live, and four principal winds, while the Church is scattered throughout all the world, and the “pillar and ground”  [ 1 Tim. iii. 15. ] of the Church is the Gospel and the spirit of life; it is fitting that she should have four pillars, breathing out immortality on every side, and vivifying men afresh. From which fact, it is evident that the Word, the Artificer of all, He that sitteth upon the cherubim, and contains all things, He who was manifested to men, has given us the Gospel under four aspects, but bound together by one Spirit. As also David says, when entreating His manifestation, “Thou that sittest between the cherubim, shine forth.” [ Ps. lxxx. 1.]  For the cherubim, too, were four-faced, and their faces were images of the dispensation of the Son of God. For, [as the Scripture] says, “The first living creature was like a lion,”  [ Rev. iv. 7.]  symbolizing His effectual working, His leadership, and royal power; the second [living creature] was like a calf, signifying [His] sacrificial and sacerdotal order; but “the third had, as it were, the face as of a man,”—an evident description of His advent as a human being; “the fourth was like a flying eagle,” pointing out the gift of the Spirit hovering with His wings over the Church. And therefore the Gospels are in accord with these things, among which Christ Jesus is seated. For that according to John relates His original, effectual, and glorious generation from the Father, thus declaring, “In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.” [ John i. 1.]  Also, “all things were made by Him, and without Him was nothing made.” For this reason, too, is that Gospel full of all confidence, for such is His person. But that according to Luke, taking up [His] priestly character, commenced with Zacharias the priest offering sacrifice to God. For now was made ready the fatted calf, about to be immolated for the finding again of the younger son. Matthew, again, relates His generation as a man, saying, “The book of the generation of Jesus Christ, the son of David, the son of Abraham;”[ Matt. i. 1, 18.]  and also, “The birth of Jesus Christ was on this wise.” This, then, is the Gospel of His humanity; for which reason it is, too, that [the character of] a humble and meek man is kept up through the whole Gospel. Mark, on the other hand, commences with [a reference to] the prophetical spirit coming down from on high to men, saying, “The beginning of the Gospel of Jesus Christ, as it is written in Esaias the prophet,”—pointing to the winged aspect of the Gospel; and on this account he made a compendious and cursory narrative, for such is the prophetical character. And the Word of God Himself used to converse with the ante-Mosaic patriarchs, in accordance with His divinity and glory; but for those under the law he instituted a sacerdotal and liturgical service. Afterwards, being made man for us, He sent the gift of the celestial Spirit over all the earth, protecting us with His wings. Such, then, as was the course followed by the Son of God, so was also the form of the living creatures; and such as was the form of the living creatures, so was also the character of the Gospel. For the living creatures are quadriform, and the Gospel is quadriform, as is also the course followed by the Lord. For this reason were four principal (καθολικαί) covenants given to the human race: one, prior to the deluge, under Adam; the second, that after the deluge, under Noah; the third, the giving of the law, under Moses; the fourth, that which renovates man, and sums up all things in itself by means of the Gospel, raising and bearing men upon its wings into the heavenly kingdom.

http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/anf01.ix.iv.xii.html#fna_ix.iv.xii-p39.2
Cherubim represented the seasons in other Ancient Near Eastern symbolism.

The church Father Irenaeus said the human face of the third beast represented Matthew, the eagle of the fourth the gospel of Mark, the ox of the second Luke, and the lion of the first being John. Victorinus said the man pictured Matthew, the lion Mark, the ox Luke, and the eagle John. Augustine identified the lion with Matthew, the man with Mark, the ox with Luke, and the eagle with John. Athanasius referred the man to Matthew, the calf (i.e., ox) to Mark, the lion to Luke, and the eagle to John. Seemingly, almost every combination has been suggested.15
From this passage is derived the familiar symbolism of the four Evangelists; Mark seated on a lion, Luke on a steer, Matthew on a man, and John on an eagle.16

http://www.spiritandtruth.org/teaching/Book_of_Revelation/commentary/htm/topics/four_gospels.html
Here is the reasoning of Victorinus in his commentary on the Apocalypse. I think he is the first to match the order you give.

“And round about the throne were four living creatures.”] The four living creatures are the four Gospels.
7–10. “The first living creature was like to a lion, and the second was like to a calf, and the third had a face like to a man, and the fourth was like to a flying eagle; and they had six wings, and round about and within they were full of eyes; and they had no rest, saying, Holy, holy, holy, Lord Omnipotent. And the four and twenty elders, falling down before the throne, adored God.”] The four and twenty elders are the twenty-four books of the prophets and of the law, which give testimonies of the judgment. Moreover, also, they are the twenty-four fathers—twelve apostles and twelve patriarchs. And in that the living creatures are different in appearance, this is the reason: the living creature like to a lion designates Mark, in whom is heard the voice of the lion roaring in the desert. And in the figure of a man, Matthew strives to declare to us the genealogy of Mary, from whom Christ took flesh. Therefore, in enumerating from Abraham to David, and thence to Joseph, he spoke of Him as if of a man: therefore his announcement sets forth the image of a man. Luke, in narrating the priesthood of Zacharias as he offers a sacrifice for the people, and the angel that appears to him with respect of the priesthood, and the victim in the same description bore the likeness of a calf. John the evangelist, like to an eagle hastening on uplifted wings to greater heights, argues about the Word of God. Mark, therefore, as an evangelist thus beginning, “The beginning of the Gospel of Jesus Christ, as it is written in Isaiah the prophet;”[Mark i. 3. ]  The voice of one crying in the wilderness,” [Isa. xl. 3. ] —has the effigy of a lion. And Matthew, “The book of the generation of Jesus Christ, the son of David, the son of Abraham:” [  Matt. i. 1. ]  this is the form of a man. But Luke said, “There was a priest, by name Zachariah, of the course of Abia, and his wife was of the daughters of Aaron:” [ Luke i. 5. ]  this is the likeness of a calf. But John, when he begins, “In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God,” [  John i. 1. ] sets forth the likeness of a flying eagle. Moreover, not only do the evangelists express their four similitudes in their respective openings of the Gospels, but also the Word itself of God the Father Omnipotent, which is His Son our Lord Jesus Christ, bears the same likeness in the time of His advent. When He preaches to us, He is, as it were, a lion and a lion’s whelp. And when for man’s salvation He was made man to overcome death, and to set all men free, and that He offered Himself a victim to the Father on our behalf, He was called a calf. And that He overcame death and ascended into the heavens, extending His wings and protecting His people, He was named a flying eagle. Therefore these announcements, although they are four, yet are one, because it proceeded from one mouth. Even as the river in paradise, although it is one, was divided into four heads. Moreover, that for the announcement of the New Testament those living creatures had eyes within and without, shows the spiritual providence which both looks into the secrets of the heart, and beholds the things which are coming after that are within and without.

http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/anf07.vi.ii.iv.html


Is it possible to be without grace? I heard that it is only through the gift of God's grace that we have the impulse to do good and that it is always with us - but the source that I heard this from was questionable, and in the context of Catholicism.

This got me thinking about the concept of grace in general, and when it applies, so this is a question of applicability.

In general Christian theology is it possible to be without God's grace? Either withdrawn/withheld/forfeited from a person or place.

What is the general overview, and are there specific sub-areas of interest to pay attention to in these matters?

Welcome to Christianity.SE !  Since you're a veteran of the SE networks you will soon realize that you will need to do some work to make the question acceptable to this forum.
It looks like you are new to Christianity and are sincere in trying to understand it more.
So as a Christian who has been around (i.e. know the framework, not saying I'm better morally than you) I try to provide a general preliminary answer which for now I hope can help guide you to edit your question.
First, "grace" is a highly technical theological term that different denominations define differently (just see wikipedia), so you'll have to tighten your question accordingly (see the tour).  But for the sake of this answer, I'll just define it as the undeserved gift from God to us so we can overcome the effect of the Fall to attain the goodness of life that God intended us to have.
Secondly, theologians will distinguish different types of grace for different kind of gifts.  Understandably different denomination will categorize them differently.  To specifically tailor this answer to your questions, I'll divide it into 2 kinds:

Common Grace: Grace for Christians and non-Christians alike, such as:

God's providential care in creation
God's providential restraint of sin through civil authorities
God putting conscience in a person
Natural abilities implanted in human beings to produce cultural advancements

Special Grace: Grace for Christians only, which we will need to accept Jesus in faith as well as to persevere through the sanctification process (a joint effort between Holy Spirit and us) until we become truly holy and "fit for heaven"

Armed with the above working definitions, here are the answers to your questions:

I heard that it is through the gift of God's grace that we have the impulse to do good and that it is always with us - but the source that I heard it from was questionable.

Most denominations will say that the impulse to do good, let's call it "goodwill", is an inherent part of human nature, which in turn is created by God to do good.  Therefore, it's part of the original design, and thus can arguably fall under "Common Grace" for denominations who define grace that way.  If that's the case, the impulse (although marred by sin) will always be with us because God will preserve creation until the Day of Judgment.
But denominations differ on whether the acts resulting from that goodwill can be properly called "good" without the existence of "Special grace" and without the person being "born again".  For example, in the Catholic schema, a good act is "meritorious" only under certain condition.
Thirdly, most denominations will say that "Special grace" is needed for salvation, so no one can save him/herself with "Common grace" alone.  Also, most denominations will say that "free will" (an aspect of "Common grace") will always be with us to make us responsible to accept / deny Christ despite the free will itself has been heavily compromised due to sin.

So this is a question of applicability.

In Christian theology is it possible to be without God's grace?

Since life itself is due to Common Grace, it is not possible.  For Special Grace, I think all denominations will also say that we will not survive in our sanctification journey without grace.  In addition, in Catholicism you can lose your "state of grace" due to mortal sin; so if you die in that state you don't go to heaven.

Are there places where it is withheld?

In denominations that believe in predestination, Special Grace is given only to the elect.

People for whom it has been withdrawn?

Depends on the denomination.  But most will blame it on us, not on God's initiative (for example, see here).  Basically, if one decides to continue further and further into sin, this is what St. Paul say God will do: Romans 1:18-32.

Do animals have the same grace?

Special Grace is only for human beings.  Animals enjoy God's goodness of creation, but we do not even categorize it under Common Grace.  In general the term "grace" doesn't apply to animals.  God may have a "redemption plan" for animals, but it's not revealed to us, so we don't know.  Humans are supposed to care for them, though (per mandate in Genesis 1:26-28), so we need to treat them well while using them for our benefit.  So if they DO receive "grace", it's through their "official caretaker": humans.

Do the various graces always apply albeit in different ways and intensities?

In Special Grace, different denominations will define the dynamics differently, mostly in response of the Christian's engagement with God and the Christian's spiritual life.  In Catholicism for example, there is a well-defined subdivisions of "special grace", sacraments to confer them, spiritual states of a person affected by different types of sin, etc.  This is where denominations will give wildly different answers.
I hope the above helps.  I will edit the answer once the question is more specific.


What is a word to describe someone who is not a Protestant? I've been wondering for a while if there is a word (or concise phrase) that can be used to mean someone who is not Protestant. Something that specifically groups Catholics, and Eastern Rite followers (Orthodox churches). But hopefully that does not include such groups as the Mormons or Jehovah's Witnesses for example (which are not Protestant nor even trinitarian/monotheistic). Is there such a term? Is there one that does include these last two groups?

The obvious choice would be "non-Protestant", but is there a better term than this? Since, technically, atheists and Muslims are also non-Protestants.

edit:

In the comments, I propose a term that could convey that message, but that seems to be getting a different usage:

Patriarchal Churches

Which then makes me wonder if something like

Patriarchal Rite Churches

would be a good candidate to describe this grouping. I don't think I've ever heard of a Protestant denomination having a Pope or Patriarch. Even the hierarchical ones.

I believe the correct answer is that there is no such term that has attained any significant level of recognition.

That said, the largely unrecognised terms Ancient-rite Christians / Ancient-rite Churches may be suitable for what you are seeking although they wouldn't exclude Oriental Orthodoxy if that is an important distinction.

We could no doubt multiply potential alternatives eg. Pre-Reformation Churches, Apostolic Successionists, 7-Council Churches (Adherants of the Seven widely recognised Ecumenical Councils); but they are, in the main, no less problematic and considerably clumsier, including your suggestions of Patriarchal Churches / Patriarchal Rite Churches which could perhaps be viewed as technically descriptive, but are more likely to be confusing given the very different roles Patriarchates now play within the Traditions in question.

For almost any term you select, there will most likely be Traditions, sects or denominations that will challenge it's validity - eg. considering where the Czechoslovak Hussite Church fits in is always going to be problematic.


What is the origin of the Mormon Temple Ceremony and how has it changed throughout the years? I understand that there is a difference between being a Mormon and being a Temple Mormon (one who has gone through the Temple Ceremony at least once and maintains Temple worthiness).

I also understand that it is quite similar to the Masonic Temple Ceremonies and that Joseph Smith was himself a mason.

Where exactly, then, did this Temple Ceremony come from?  Has it changed throughout the years and, if so, how specifically has it changed?

There are more than one LDS Temple covenants.

These include:

Baptism (for the dead)
Endowment (including washing and anointing on first visit)
Confirmation
Ordination to higher offices of the priesthood (and ordination to Elder on behalf of the dead)
Marriage and eternal family sealings

I'm assuming you're referring to the endowment covenant.

From the lds.org page on Temples (under Additional Information):

  One ordinance received in the temple is called the endowment. The word endowment means "gift," and the temple endowment truly is a gift from God. The ordinance consists of a series of instructions and includes covenants to live righteously and follow the requirements of the gospel. The endowment focuses on the Savior, His role in Heavenly Father's plan, and the personal commitment of each member to follow Him.

From the Wikipedia article on Endowment:

  The endowment was instituted by founder Joseph Smith, Jr. in the 1840s with further contributions by Brigham Young and his successors. The ceremony is performed in Latter Day Saints' temples, special places dedicated specifically for the endowment and certain other rituals sacred to Mormons, and is closed to all but worthy Mormons. There was a brief period during the construction of the Salt Lake Temple where a small building referred to as the Endowment House was used to perform the ritual. The endowment is currently practiced by the LDS Church, several denominations of Mormon fundamentalism, and a few other Mormon denominations. The LDS Church has simplified its ceremony from the way it existed in the 19th century, and has removed some of the more controversial elements.

According to the LDS church, the endowment ceremony was revealed to Joseph Smith by God.  According to church detractors, the endowment ceremony was based on the Masonic initiation ceremony.

As to the specific changes, the Wikipedia Endowment article has a section at the bottom called "Later modifications by the LDS Church".  It's too long a section to quote in the answer.


From where did the Pearl of Great Price come and how did it become recognized as Scripture in the LDS church? The LDS church recognizes, among other writing, a book called The Pearl of Great Price.  What is the origins of this work and how did it become accepted as Scripture by the LDS church?  Also, do any other groups recognize this work as Scripture?

The Pearl of Great Price is not a cohesive book in the same way as the Old and New Testaments, the Book of Mormon or the Doctrine and Covenants are.  It serves as more of a "miscellaneous" collection: two significant elements from the unfinished Joseph Smith Translation of the Bible (the books of Moses (excerpted from the start of Genesis) and "Joseph Smith--Matthew" (towards the end of the Gospel of Matthew)), one translation of an ancient document not found in the Bible (the Book of Abraham), Joseph Smith's personal retelling of the sacred events that led up to the founding of the church (Joseph Smith--History), and a short set of simple declarations by Joseph Smith about basic LDS doctrines that has been accepted by the church as a canonical declaration of belief (the Articles of Faith.)

According to BYU's Encyclopedia of Mormonism article on the subject, it was originally published in 1851 by the president of the British Mission as a response to requests for more information about the church, and at the time it contained several other revelations which have since been moved to the Doctrine and Covenants.  It was accepted by the church as an official, canonical collection of scripture in 1880.

The article doesn't mention anything about LDS offshoot sects accepting it as scripture.  The Wikipedia article mentions that it is accepted by "some other Latter Day Saint denominations," but does not elaborate or provide any references on the subject.


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

LDS theology explains the idea of heaven in terms of kingdoms of glory. The highest celestial kingdom being the place where God resides and the place where the faithful followers of Christ will dwell after the resurrection. LDS description of Heaven


On what basis do Protestants extend the New Covenant to include gentiles? Given "sola scriptura" and the explicit assertions in scripture regarding the participants in the covenant ("the houses of Israel and Judah") how do Protestants justify teaching it to be for gentile Protestants?

Jer 31:31 KJV - 31 Behold, the days come, saith the LORD, that I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel, and with the house of Judah:
Heb 8:8 KJV - 8 For finding fault with them, he saith, Behold, the days come, saith the Lord, when I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel and with the house of Judah:

Isn't this overreach that is contrary to sola scriptura?
Update for clarification
I'm not concerned that the gospel only applies to Jews (gentiles do have "access by faith into the grace") but rather the covenants:

Rom 9:4 ASV - 4 who are Israelites; whose is the adoption, and the glory, and the covenants, and the giving of the law, and the service of God, and the promises;

I'm seeking maybe a "theodicy" about gentiles and the new covenant from a representative "Reformer" and why, since they are all about "sola fida" and "sola scriptura" do they commandeer the explicitly Jewish new covenant as well?

1. The New Covenant is the Gospel of the Cross

Luke 22:19-20: And he took bread, and when he had given thanks, he broke it and gave it to them, saying, “This is my body, which is given for you. Do this in remembrance of me.” And likewise the cup after they had eaten, saying, “This cup that is poured out for you is the new covenant in my blood.”

From these verses we can see that the Lord's Supper was instituted as a sign of the New Covenant, and the New Covenant is Jesus' giving of his own body and blood on the cross. The New Covenant is the Gospel: the good news of the forgiveness of sins and reconciliation to God through being united to Jesus in his death and resurrection. And as the New Testament clearly teaches in so many places that the Gospel is for all peoples, including Gentiles, so we know that Gentiles are included in the New Covenant. But the mechanisms by which Gentiles are included is a little less clear, so let's look at that now.
2. Adopted as Abraham's spiritual children
There is a lot of disagreement among Christians over the relationship between the Church and Israel, ranging from the Church completely replacing Israel, to the two existing in parallel with little to connect them. I won't try to give a full overview of this issue, instead I'll just focus on one chapter, Romans 4. In this chapter Paul highlights that Abraham was declared righteous before he was circumcised, meaning that faith is prior to law. The true heirs of Abraham are not his physical descendants, but his spiritual descendants, who share his faith. If this is true for the Abrahamic Covenant, then even more so for the New Covenant.

Romans 4:11-13: He received the sign of circumcision as a seal of the righteousness that he had by faith while he was still uncircumcised. The purpose was to make him the father of all who believe without being circumcised, so that righteousness would be counted to them as well, and to make him the father of the circumcised who are not merely circumcised but who also walk in the footsteps of the faith that our father Abraham had before he was circumcised. For the promise to Abraham and his offspring that he would be heir of the world did not come through the law but through the righteousness of faith.
Romans 4:16-17: That is why it depends on faith, in order that the promise may rest on grace and be guaranteed to all his offspring—not only to the adherent of the law but also to the one who shares the faith of Abraham, who is the father of us all, as it is written, “I have made you the father of many nations”—in the presence of the God in whom he believed, who gives life to the dead and calls into existence the things that do not exist.

3. United with Christ in his death
A third way in which we can understand Gentiles being part of the New Covenant is our doctrine of Union with Christ. More than any other covenant, the New Covenant is the covenant of Jesus Christ. We are united to him in his death and resurrection, so the life of the Christian is the life of Jesus. As Jesus was in every sense a Jew, both spiritually and biologically, the Gentiles who live in Jesus share his Jewish life and participation in the New Covenant.

Romans 6:1-11: What shall we say then? Are we to continue in sin that grace may abound? By no means! How can we who died to sin still live in it? Do you not know that all of us who have been baptized into Christ Jesus were baptized into his death? We were buried therefore with him by baptism into death, in order that, just as Christ was raised from the dead by the glory of the Father, we too might walk in newness of life. For if we have been united with him in a death like his, we shall certainly be united with him in a resurrection like his. We know that our old self was crucified with him in order that the body of sin might be brought to nothing, so that we would no longer be enslaved to sin. For one who has died has been set free from sin. Now if we have died with Christ, we believe that we will also live with him. We know that Christ, being raised from the dead, will never die again; death no longer has dominion over him. For the death he died he died to sin, once for all, but the life he lives he lives to God. So you also must consider yourselves dead to sin and alive to God in Christ Jesus.


Obligation to get married with partner? Are Catholics obligated to get married with their partner (i.e., Is the Catholic faith against domestic partnerships)?

My understanding is that it depends on what kind of actual relationship exists between the "partners", that they're trying to seal with a domestic partnership.

If these are two people in a romantic relationship, and if they're planning to have sex, then the teaching is pretty squarely that they should get married first. Really married, as in the Sacrament, with all its special graces and built-in pastoral guidance; a secular judge signing a paper can't administer that.

If they're not planning to have sex - if they're not interested in each other that way - but are contemplating a civil domestic partnership for other reasons (tax purposes maybe?) then I think the main problem would be scandal-related. In other words, if a third party someone looks at these "partners", and hears that they're in a domestic partnership, will the third party assume that they're having sex out of wedlock? Do you end up setting an example that "normalizes" sex out of wedlock, even if you're not doing it?

(This is, from what I understand, the same issue a lot of Catholics have with romantic partners "moving in together"; even if you're both staying chaste, what will everyone else assume?)


How is Gods judgement of man fair when he judges them without considering their deeds? In America, our judicial system is built on the idea that a man is assumed innocent, and then proven guilty with evidence.

In contrast, Paul wrote:

  Romans 9 10-18: ...there was Rebekah also, when she had conceived twins by one man,
  our father Isaac; 11 for though the twins were not yet born and had not
  done anything good or bad, so that God’s purpose according to His
  choice would stand, not because of works but because of Him who calls,
  12 it was said to her, “THE OLDER WILL SERVE THE YOUNGER.” 13 Just as it
  is written, “JACOB I LOVED, BUT ESAU I HATED.”

  14 What shall we say then? There is no injustice with God, is there? May it never be! 15 For He says to Moses, “I WILL HAVE MERCY ON
  WHOM I HAVE MERCY, AND I WILL HAVE COMPASSION ON WHOM I HAVE
  COMPASSION.” 16 So then it does not depend on the man who wills or the
  man who runs, but on God who has mercy. 17 For the Scripture says to
  Pharaoh, “FOR THIS VERY PURPOSE I RAISED YOU UP, TO DEMONSTRATE MY
  POWER IN YOU, AND THAT MY NAME MIGHT BE PROCLAIMED THROUGHOUT THE
  WHOLE EARTH.” 18 So then He has mercy on whom He desires, and He
  hardens whom He desires.

One way to defend the christian God here is to say Paul is just speaking of Jacob and Esaus relative stations in earthly life, and that only that aspect of their lives was predetermined. But that idea is invalid with regard to verses 14-18 which connect Jacob and Esau's example to Pharaohs, in which Pharaoh's damnation was predetermined. Also, the declaration "I will have mercy on whom I have mercy" contradicts that idea. It is clear then, from these verses, that Paul is boasting that God judges people based on his whim, not a trial.

Another way to defend the christian God, which I've heard, is "God doesn't have to sound fair by human reasoning." But human reasoning is all we have, to use to make decisions about what we believe. Also what's fair or not is known by everyone by instinct. We all know judgement cannot happen without considering some action which is being judged. Not requiring Gods judgement to be just according to us is forgoing any understanding of God.

Comparing the representative democracy of America with the kingdom of God is an unparalleled category error.  The entire reason American jurisprudence holds a person innocent until proven guilty is because we assume that we are not privy, at the outset, to all of the pertinent facts.  You may accept this or not but the Scripture declares that God knows the end from the beginning.  God is not awaiting the disclosure of temporal evidence in order to render righteous judgement.

Regarding the specific passages that OP has pointed to, there's a lot going on here that needs to be weighed into the discussion.  Primarily, the entire context of chapters 9-11 of Romans has to do with God's sovereign choice of a nation; an entire people group, therefore it is somewhat out of context to reduce what is being said merely to God's judgement of an individual.

  I am speaking the truth in Christ—I am not lying; my conscience bears me witness in the Holy Spirit— that I have great sorrow and unceasing anguish in my heart. For I could wish that I myself were accursed and cut off from Christ for the sake of my brothers, my kinsmen according to the flesh. They are Israelites, and to them belong the adoption, the glory, the covenants, the giving of the law, the worship, and the promises. To them belong the patriarchs, and from their race, according to the flesh, is the Christ, who is God over all, blessed forever. Amen. - Romans 9:1-5

Even though individual names are mentioned in the passage it is very common for names to represent entire nations.  Israel, in fact, is what Jacob's name was changed to and the Scriptures are replete with examples of the entire nation being referred to by both names.  The same is true of Esau.  The exact passage from Genesis that Paul refers to in this text is very clear that this is exactly what is going on:

  And the LORD said to her, “Two nations are in your womb, and two peoples from within you shall be divided; the one shall be stronger than the other, the older shall serve the younger.” - Genesis 25:23

It is critical, then, to keep a tight grip on this context as one investigates what Paul is saying.  It is clear in Scripture that God did not select Israel to be His chosen people because of any intrinsic quality that they had.

  It was not because you were more in number than any other people that the LORD set his love on you and chose you, for you were the fewest of all peoples, but it is because the LORD loves you and is keeping the oath that he swore to your fathers, that the LORD has brought you out with a mighty hand and redeemed you from the house of slavery, from the hand of Pharaoh king of Egypt.  - Deuteronomy 7:7

In fact, it is also clear in Scripture that God's mercy is continually extended towards His people despite their behavior

  “For I the LORD do not change; therefore you, O children of Jacob, are not consumed. From the days of your fathers you have turned aside from my statutes and have not kept them. Return to me, and I will return to you, says the LORD of hosts. - Malachi 3:6-7

Secondly, it is noteworthy that the passages quoted by the OP have much to do with sovereign choice and mercy.  There is no mention of judgement in the strictest sense.  What we see is Paul asking a rhetorical question about whether it is unjust of God to sovereignly dispense mercy and compassion.  The implication that the flip side (judgement or condemnation) are also in view is not faulty because mercy is always, only given where condemnation is due; mercy is undeserved.  Paul's point is that, where perfect justice is represented (remember that Paul has already demonstrated that the whole world is guilty before God), it is not unjust for God to show mercy wherever He will.  However, it is faulty to assume that God's withholding of mercy is unfair or unfounded.  Mercy deserved is no mercy at all, it is payment.

This is why Paul brings Pharaoh into the conversation.  Pharaoh is named as the representative head of Egypt, which nation was raised up by God in order to rescue His people from famine and strengthen them in number and to enslave that same people so that God could demonstrate His power and favor toward Israel in delivering them in miraculous fashion from the power of Pharaoh (Egypt).  God hardened Pharaoh's heart and Pharaoh also hardened his own heart but the salient point is that Pharaoh and indeed all of Egypt were wicked and idolatrous.  To suppose that God's hardening of Pharaoh's heart, as regarding the release of the enslaved Israelites, was unjust is to completely disregard the baseline condition of enmity towards God which characterized Pharaoh's heart to begin with.

Finally, assuming that a finite, created being can ever comprehend justice on a Divine, omniscient scale and thus rightly use that scale to accurately measure the infinite Creator is the highest hubris.  A dog can put it's head out the window and enjoy a car ride but it will never understand the internal combustion engine nor critique it's design or operation.

  But who are you, O man, to answer back to God? Will what is molded say to its molder, “Why have you made me like this?” Has the potter no right over the clay, to make out of the same lump one vessel for honorable use and another for dishonorable use? - Romans 9:20-21

Two different vessels made of the same lump of clay.  The vessels have different uses as the Potter sees fit but the formative lump is the same ruined, sinful clay.  The giving or withholding of mercy has nothing to do with justice.


What did Christian authors of the 7th - 15th centuries say about the Muslim claim of Gospels being direct revelations from God? According to the Quran, God revealed the Gospels (which it calls Injeel) to Jesus, just like He revealed the Quran to Muhammad, and Torah to Moses, but the New Testament doesn't have any books that can be called God's revelation in the first person to humans. Gospels are biographies that are believed to be written by people inspired by God.

My question is did early Christian authors point out this issue? Any references would be very helpful.

Briefly, here are some of the claims made in the Qur’an about Jesus, the Torah or Law of Moses, the Gospel and where they came from:

“Lo! We did reveal the Torah, wherein is guidance and a light” (Surah 5:44a; 2:87).
“And We caused Jesus, son of Mary, to follow in their footsteps, confirming that which was (revealed) before him in the Torah, and We bestowed on him the Gospel wherein is guidance and a light, confirming that which was (revealed) before it in the Torah - a guidance and an admonition unto those who ward off (evil)” (Surah 5:46).
“It is He Who sent down to thee (step by step), in truth, the Book, confirming what went before it; and He sent down the Law (of Moses) and the Gospel (of Jesus) before this, as a guide to mankind, and He sent down the criterion (of judgment between right and wrong)” (Surah 3:3).
“If thou wert in doubt as to what We have revealed unto thee, then ask those who have been reading the Book from before thee: the Truth hath indeed come to thee from thy Lord: so be in no wise of those in doubt. And be not thou of those who deny the revelations of Allah, for then wert thou of the losers” (Surah 10:94-95; 16:43).

The New Testament was completed 500 years before Muhammad received the Qur’an yet Muslims claim the Bible has been corrupted, and so the Bible must be wrong.  It is worth pointing out that when discrepancies in a historical document are alleged, the burden of proof rests on the newer text.  On the question of authenticity and accuracy, an article I found says this:

“In conclusion, many Muslims believe that the Quran contains the literal words of Allah which have been perfectly preserved and transmitted through the ages. Muslims make this claim not based on Islamic history as I have investigated and discussed above, but purely as a statement of faith. I discovered that once the Quran was standardized, there were minor variations over time due to the various readings and transmissions of the Quran; these variations were in addition to the dots and vowel marks that were added over time. When it comes to the Injeel, it is clear from the history of its transmission, that the variations in it are more than those in the Quran. However, I was able to conclude that neither one was 100% pure, and that the variations in the Quran or the Injeel have not altered the teachings of Mohammad or Isa respectively.  At this juncture I was satisfied that the word of God as revealed in the Injeel had not been altered.”  Source: https://www.answering-islam.org/Authors/Farooq_Ibrahim/trustworthy3.htm
Some Muslim scholars have suggested the Injil may be the Gospel of Barnabas or Gospel of Thomas. More commonly, Muslim scholars have argued that the Injil refers to a text now lost or hopelessly corrupted. For example, Abdullah Yusuf Ali, whose translation of the Qu'ran is among the most well known in English, wrote: “The Injil (Greek, Evangel equals Gospel) spoken of by the Qur'an is not the New Testament. It is not the four Gospels now received as canonical. It is the single Gospel which, Islam teaches, was revealed to Jesus, and which he taught. Fragments of it survive in the received canonical Gospels and in some others, of which traces survive (e.g., the Gospel of Childhood or the Nativity, the Gospel of St. Barnabas)."  More information here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gospel_in_Islam

With regard to the Gospel of Barnabas, it was most likely written by a fifteenth-century European who wrote inaccurately about the life of Jesus (Isa).  The original Barnabas lived during the first century and was not one of the original twelve disciples of Jesus as the Gospel of Barnabas mistakenly claims.  Here is a short extract from an article on the Gospel of Barnabas:

“If the Gospel of Barnabas were written in the first century, it would have been quoted in other documents of the same time period. It is not cited, however, a single time in works of either the church fathers or Muslim clerics until the fifteenth century. Those who claim the early authorship of the Gospel of Barnabas may be referring to the Epistle of Barnabas—a first-century book, though not divinely inspired.  A reading of the Gospel of Barnabas clearly shows that it was written neither in Jesus’ time nor shortly thereafter, as alleged. It contains far too many historical errors. The Gospel of Barnabas contains quotations from Dante Alighieri, references to an edict from Pope Boniface, and descriptions of feudalism. Therefore, scholars place the date of authorship around the fifteenth century.”  Source: https://www.gotquestions.org/Muslim-Barnabas.html

The gospel of Thomas is a Coptic manuscript discovered in 1945 at Nag Hammadi in Egypt. This manuscript contains 114 sayings attributed to Jesus. Some of these sayings resemble sayings found in the Gospels of Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John. Other sayings were unknown until their discovery or even run counter to what is written in the four Gospels.  Here is a short extract from an article about the Gospel of Thomas:

“The gospel of Thomas was not written by Jesus' disciple Thomas. The early Christian leaders universally recognized the gospel of Thomas as a forgery (and it) was rejected by the vast majority of early Christians. The gospel of Thomas contains many teachings that are in contradiction to the biblical Gospels and the rest of the New Testament... The gospel of Thomas is a Gnostic gospel, espousing a Gnostic viewpoint of Christianity. The gospel of Thomas is simply a heretical forgery, much the same as the gospel of Judas, the gospel of Mary, and the gospel of Philip.”  Source: https://www.gotquestions.org/gospel-of-Thomas.html

I can find no reliable Christian source that concurs with the Islamic view that Jesus was given “the Gospel” (whatever that might be) by God.  The four New Testament Gospels are accounts of the life, the teachings and the words of Jesus.  They were inspired by God, just as the rest of the New Testament was inspired by God.   The Jesus (Isa) of the Qur’an bears no resemblance to the Jesus of the New Testament.  And that’s because Jesus was much more than a good man or a prophet. C.S. Lewis explains the Christian view of Jesus in these words:

"I am trying here to prevent anyone saying the really foolish thing that people often say about Him: I’m ready to accept Jesus as a great moral teacher, but I don’t accept his claim to be God. That is the one thing we must not say. A man who was merely a man and said the sort of things Jesus said would not be a great moral teacher. He would either be a lunatic — on the level with the man who says he is a poached egg — or else he would be the Devil of Hell. You must make your choice. Either this man was, and is, the Son of God, or else a madman or something worse. You can shut him up for a fool, you can spit at him and kill him as a demon or you can fall at his feet and call him Lord and God, but let us not come with any patronising nonsense about his being a great human teacher. He has not left that open to us. He did not intend to. ... Now it seems to me obvious that He was neither a lunatic nor a fiend: and consequently, however strange or terrifying or unlikely it may seem, I have to accept the view that He was and is God."


Could Jesus have sweated actual blood in the garden of Gethsemane? In John 19 verses 33-36, it is written that

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

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

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

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

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

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

Yes. Modern medical knowledge confirms the condition and the cause reported by the physician Luke using the word egeneto to describe how sweat became blood.

Turns out that recently the National Institutes of Health issued this report:

A Curious Case of Sweating Blood  (ncbi.nlm.nih.gov)

Excerpt:

  Hematohidrosis is a very rare condition in which an individual sweats blood. It may occur in an individual who is suffering from extreme levels of stress. Various causative factors have been suggested like component of systemic disease, vicarious menstruation, excessive exertion, psychogenic, and unknown causes. Fear and intense mental contemplation are the most frequent causes.

Taken in context it is clear he was certainly in "intense mental contemplation."

In studying the Interlinear of this section, the answer seems to be that his sweat becomes blood drops:

Luke 22 Interlinear

Written by the physician Luke, "egeneto ho hidros ... hiamotos" - "became the sweat...blood"


How did Karl Barth justify his relationship with Charlotte von Kirschbaum? I recently learned that Karl Barth, while he was married, had a decades-long romantic relationship with his personal assistant, Charlotte von Kirschbaum.  She actually moved into the Barths' home in 1929, straining the family.

I'd like to know how Karl Barth justified this relationship.  After a few internet searches and my own recollections of Barth's theology, the following possibilities come to mind:

Barth did not have a sexual relationship with von Kirschbaum, and therefore did not think that he was committing adultery
Barth, who argued that the Bible "contains" the Word of God, did not consider the prohibition of adultery in the Ten Commandments as "the Word of God" and therefore not binding
Barth could not overcome his love for von Kirschbaum, and thus considered it acceptable.

Which of these arguments, or others that I might be missing, did Barth use?  How did Barth justify his relationship with von Kirschbaum?

A 2017 Christianity Today article about this very issue was written by Mark Galli shortly after his own Karl Barth biography was published.  As curiousdannii suspected, he did use dialectical tension to justify it, part of the discussion by Christiane Tietz in Theology Today, of the personal letters Barth wrote to von Kirschbaum from 1925–1935.

A lot more details, analysis, and paraphrases from Tiez's article can be found in a very well-written blog article here.  The blog article in turn highly recommends a "book review" of Charlotte von Kirschbaum and Karl Barth, 1998 which actually not so much a book review since 85% of it is about relevant external history of their relationship.


If the word "Brother" is ambiguous as far as The Bible is concerned, can we be named Brothers of Jesus Christ? According to Catholicism and some evangelical denomination in order to give justifications the perpetual virginity of Mary, they affirm that the word "Brother" in the Bible is ambiguous and include cousin and relatives. But if that is the case, can we really be named brothers of Jesus? or we should be just cousins or relatives of Christ?

"Brother" is not vague, but it does have multiple subsenses. These are usually distinguished quite clearly, and Protestants who reject the perpetual virginity of Mary would say that those who argue for it have to go to great lengths to get misinterpret the verses which indicate otherwise. But that's a whole nother topic, and we don't need to get into it to answer this question.
Adoption is a major Biblical theme, and the Bible clearly says many times that we are Jesus's brothers and sisters.

Mark 3:33-35: He replied to them, “Who are my mother and my brothers?” Looking at those sitting in a circle around him, he said, “Here are my mother and my brothers! Whoever does the will of God is my brother and sister and mother.”
Romans 8:15-17: For you did not receive a spirit of slavery to fall back into fear. Instead, you received the Spirit of adoption, by whom we cry out, “Abba, Father!” The Spirit himself testifies together with our spirit that we are God’s children, and if children, also heirs—heirs of God and coheirs with Christ—if indeed we suffer with him so that we may also be glorified with him.
Romans 8:29: For those he foreknew he also predestined to be conformed to the image of his Son, so that he would be the firstborn among many brothers and sisters.
Galatians 4:4-7: When the time came to completion, God sent his Son, born of a woman, born under the law, to redeem those under the law, so that we might receive adoption as sons. And because you are sons, God sent the Spirit of his Son into our hearts, crying, “Abba, Father!” So you are no longer a slave but a son, and if a son, then God has made you an heir.
Ephesians 1:5: He predestined us to be adopted as sons through Jesus Christ for himself, according to the good pleasure of his will,
Hebrews 2:11-12: For the one who sanctifies and those who are sanctified all have one Father. That is why Jesus is not ashamed to call them brothers and sisters, saying:
I will proclaim your name to my brothers and sisters;
I will sing hymns to you in the congregation.


In John 17:19, what is Jesus referring to specifically regarding His sanctification, and how does this then apply to us being sanctified? John 17:19 (NASB)

  19 For their sakes I sanctify Myself, that they themselves also may be
  sanctified in truth.

Is this sanctifying of Jesus in reference to his crucifixion, his resurrection, his ascension, or something else entirely?

Is our, in turn being sanctified, according to this specific passage, referring to our justification, the indwelling of the Spirit for our growth and maturity, our glorification on the last day, or something else entirely?

You can use this translation or another if you think it will better help to explain the meaning of these words within this verse.

Jesus' ultimate sanctification occurred at the cross. The cross was the primary reason Jesus came to earth: to die, the just for the unjust, that he might bring us to God (1 Peter 3:18).

Unlike all the members of the human race who are born to live (though ultimately they will one day die), Jesus as the God-Man was born to die. We know, of course, his death was not the end of the story; rather, it was just the beginning. After his resurrection and ascension to heaven, the Scripture tells us that Jesus

  ever liveth to make intercession for [us] (Hebrews 7:25).

Jesus as the Son of God could simply not die. Along with the Father and the Holy Spirit, Jesus is eternal. His priesthood, likewise, is eternal, and it was not based on his genealogy, since Jesus came not from the priestly line according to the flesh, but from the tribe of Judah (Hebrews 7:14). His priesthood, we are told, resembles the priesthood of Melchizedek, who the book of Hebrews tells us was

  Without father, without mother, without genealogy, having neither beginning of days nor end of life, but [was] made like the Son of God [and therefore] he remains a priest perpetually (v.3).

In verse 16 of the same chapter, the writer tells us Jesus became this perpetual high priest

  by virtue of the power of an indestructible life (Hebrews 7:16)

Jesus as the Son of Man, however, could die if he chose to do so. When Governor Pilate foolishly said to Jesus on the day he was crucified,

  "Do you not know I have the authority to release you, and I have authority to crucify you?" (John 19:10),

Jesus told Pilate,

  "You would have no authority over Me, unless it had been given you from above, for this reason he who delivered Me to you has the greater sin" (v.11).

Jesus' sanctification by his Father from eternity past meant that no one could take Jesus' life from him. Of a truth, Jesus said

  "I lay down my life--in order to take it up again" (John 10:17).

Jesus' willingness to lay down his life pleased his Father. The prophet Isaiah tells us,

  But the LORD was pleased To crush Him, putting Him to grief; If He would render Himself as a guilt offering, He will see His offspring; He will prolong His days, And the good pleasure of the LORD will prosper in His hand (53:10).

Jesus' willingness to lay down his life for the sheep--you and me--not only demonstrated his love for sinners, but it demonstrated his love for his Father, and in turn it engendered anew the Father's love for him (see John 10:17a).

Sanctification, of course, is the process of being set apart by God for a specific purpose. The prophets, priests, judges and kings of the Old Covenant were set apart by God for a specific calling or purpose. Prophets foretold and forth-told God's will and word; priests interceded for themselves and the people through their service within Israel's sacrificial system; judges often delivered God's people from threatened extinction at the hands of their enemies; and kings reigned over the people in righteousness--that is, when their hearts were committed to God and God alone.

Today, God's will for his children is that they, too, be sanctified,  in the sense that they separate themselves from sin and become useful in the service of their king. As Paul tells us in 2 Timothy,

  . . . if anyone purifies himself from these things, he will be a special instrument, set apart, useful to the Master, prepared for every good work (2:21 CSB, my emphasis).

Jesus, on the other hand, did not need to separate himself from sin, since there was no sin in him (see John 8:46). However, at the cross

  [God] made Him who knew no sin to be sin on our behalf, so that we might become the righteousness of God in Him (2 Corinthians 5:21).

In gratitude to God, then, for what Jesus has done on our behalf at the cross, the least we can do is to consider ourselves dead to sin and alive to God and to his good and acceptable and perfect will for us (Romans 12:2). As we submit ourselves to God, his sanctifying work in our hearts will progress, albeit sometimes in fits and starts, until one day it culminates in our glorification (see Romans 8:29-30).

In conclusion, from eternity past, Jesus was set apart by God to become the one and only Lamb of God, who taketh away the sin of the world (John 1:29, 36). In so doing, Jesus fulfilled the roles of both prophet and priest. Moreover, one day he will fulfill his roles of both judge and king: the judge of all mankind, and the King of kings and the Lord of lords,

  so that at the name of Jesus EVERY KNEE WILL BOW, of those who are in heaven and on earth and under the earth, and that every tongue will confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father (Philippians 2:10, 11).