How do Jehovah's Witnesses differentiate Jesus' role in creation from that of a Demiurge? My question comes out of a discussion on this question: How do Jehovah’s Witnesses explain the unique wording of Colossians 1:15-17 in the NWT? For reference, here is the passage (1971 revision):

  15 He is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn over all creation; 16 because by means of him all [other] things were created in the heavens and upon the earth, the things visible and the things invisible, no matter whether they are thrones or lordships or governments or authorities. All [other] things have been created through him and for him. 17 Also, he is before all [other] things, and by means of him all [other] things were made to exist. (Colossians 1 NWT)

Jehovah's Witnesses say Jesus is "a god." That is, a lesser god; yet one who has a role in creation:

  In [the] beginning the Word was, and the Word was with God, and the Word was a god.
  (John 1:1 NWT)

  The last book of the Bible identifies Jesus as “the beginning of the creation by God.” (Revelation 3:14) Jesus is “the firstborn of all creation.” That is so “because by means of him all other things were created in the heavens and upon the earth, the things visible and the things invisible.” (Colossians 1:15, 16) Yes, Jesus was the only one directly created by God himself.1

Jehovah ("God") created Jesus ("a god") who was the means by which all other things were created. Conceptually, this is much the way a Gnostic would describe God's work of creation. For example, Valentinus was a Christian Gnostic theologian who attributed creation to a Demiurage:

  The image of Demiurge usually portrayed in the Sethian texts is negative. Apart from anti-Jewish and anti-Christian polemic there are some internal reasons for this, specifically the function of the psychic (soul) element represented by the Demiurge. This element is not, as for Valentinians and other Christian Gnostics, the seat of free will, but a moment (that of animation) in the hylic dimension and, like it, destined to perdition. This is the radical difference from the Valentinian Demiurge, the latter being a representative of the psychic element that is also called upon to participate in the work of salvation.2

Valentinus' second century mythology was complex, but the idea of a Demiurge who created the material world can be found 500 years earlier in Plato's Socratic dialogue Timaeus (c. 360 BC)3

How do Jehovah's Witnesses differentiate Jesus' role in creation from that of a Demiurge?

1. Watchtower Online Library
2. Giovanni Filoramo, A History of Gnosticism, translated by Anthony Alcock, Basil Blackwell, 1990, p. 84
3. Demiurge

Before reading this question, I had never heard of the term "demiurge," nor am I very familiar with philosophical terms, but I'm familiar with the Bible and the beliefs of Jehovah's Witnesses (since I am one), so I can answer based on the brief explanation given on Wikipedia of a Demiurge.
Jehovah's Witnesses do not believe Jesus is a (co-)creator. Rather, we believe according to the Scriptures that everything (besides Jesus himself) was created "through" Jesus. (John 1:3, 10; Col. 1:16; 1 Cor. 8:6)

Not a co-Creator. The Son’s share in the creative works, however, did not make him a co-Creator with his Father. The power for creation came from God through his holy spirit, or active force. (Ge 1:2; Ps 33:6) And since Jehovah is the Source of all life, all animate creation, visible and invisible, owes its life to him. (Ps 36:9) Rather than a co-Creator, then, the Son was the agent or instrumentality through whom Jehovah, the Creator, worked. Jesus himself credited God with the creation, as do all the Scriptures.—Mt 19:4-6
— Insight on the Scriptures, "Jesus Christ"

Therefore, the role of Jesus in creation could be likened to the role that Moses played in the writing of the Law (John 1:17), or that the angels played as God's messengers. Jesus was not the originator of the creative power or ideas, but he followed God's instructions as God's "master worker." (Prov. 8:30)
When Jesus was accused by the Jews of "making himself equal to God," Jesus' response greatly clarified Jesus' role in relation to God, his Father.

John 5:19 — Therefore, in response Jesus said to them: “Most truly I say to you, the Son cannot do a single thing of his own initiative, but only what he sees the Father doing. For whatever things that One does, these things the Son does also in like manner.

Rather than viewing Jesus as a creator or an artisan (a demiurge), Jehovah's Witnesses view Jesus as the instrument of the one Creator and Artisan — Jehovah God.


What Christians connected the Great Schism and Crab Nebula Supernova (1054 A.D.)? What Christians connected the occurrence of the Great Schism* and the Crab Nebula Supernova, which both occurred around the middle of 1054 A.D.?

This question is not about Christians speculating in astrology—a form of divination, which is unlawful foreknowledge of future events.**

This question is related to how Christians have applied Genesis 1:14,

  …let them [i.e., the stars] be for signs…

to the 1054 supernova—namely, how they saw the supernova as a sign, not of a future event, but of, for example, God's displeasure at the Great Schism.

* Also called the "Eastern Schism" or "East-West Schism"

** St. Thomas Aquinas defines astrology as when "one desires to foreknow the future that cannot be forecast by their [i.e., the stars'] means." (Summa Theologica II-II q. 95 a. 5, "Whether divination by the stars is unlawful?"). Basically, "to know with certitude future human actions" by means of the stars is unlawful because humans have freewill, which the influence of the stars cannot take away; "to foreknow those future things that are caused by heavenly bodies" is "neither an unlawful nor a superstitious divination." (ibid., corpus).

The Chicago Tribune has an article that proposes some theories on why the observation of the supernova went mostly unnoticed in Europe. The article mentions the significance of the date with respect to the Church:

  Another reason the lack of records of the supernova is so puzzling is that 12 days after it first appeared in the sky, the Christian church began its final East-West split into the Roman Catholic and Eastern Orthodox Churches. Astronomical events were believed to foreshadow developments on Earth, making it unlikely that the appearance of a new star so near the time of such a major event would go unrecorded.

This source seems to imply that the contemporary sources who might have commented were silent on the matter.

The connection, however, has not been lost on everyone. This letter on fivedoves.com relates the two events intimately, though perhaps presumptuously:

  In heaven, the Great Schism of 1054 AD is marked by a supernova explosion creating the beautiful Crab Nebula and witnessed visually by both Chinese and European astronomers. The supernova appeared visible to the unaided human eye during daylight hours in July 1054 at approximately the same time as the eastern bishops voted to remove themselves from communion with the Roman Bishopric.


Why is "Battle Hymn of the Republic" considered to be a patriotic hymn in the United States? "Battle Hymn of the Republic" is a well-known hymn written around the time of the United States civil war (1861–1865). It is often performed at patriotic events in the United States, like political party conventions and presidential inaugurations.

Because it speaks of battle, it would have been poignant to soldiers during the civil war when it was written, but the text doesn't seem to have much, if any, patriotic imagery – like mention of country, or flags, or an ode to the homeland. Its imagery seems to be mostly Biblical – Christ coming in glory, his triumph over sin, and truth advancing. Paul used this kind of imagery extensively in the New Testament to talk about the war against sin and loyalty to Christ.

The closest to USA-specific imagery I can find is the mention of Christ being born "across the sea," but of course that is just as applicable in Canada, Guatemala, Tonga, or Australia as it is in the United States.

Why, so many years after the civil war, is this song considered to be a patriotic hymn?

If you look into the history of the hymn, you'll see that it was published around the time of the Civil War (to the tune of a song about the abolitionist insurrectionist John Brown). The (militant) abolitionist sentiment is clearly expressed in the original line:

  As He died to make men holy, let us die to make men free

So, although I could imagine that many Christian people could sing this song and be edified, by taking the militant language allegorically, the historical origins of the hymn, and its subsequent frequent use in American patriotic contexts, creates a strong association with American patriotism.


How does the Catholic church explain Matthew 19:9, which seems to allow divorce in case of sexual misconduct? Matthew 19:9 (NIV)

  I tell you that anyone who divorces his wife, except for sexual
  immorality, and marries another woman commits adultery.

On a simple examination, it seems to imply that sexual immorality, for example,  adultery,  constitutes grounds for divorce.

Yet this is not the Catholic interpretation. What is the Catholic explanation of this verse?

Good question! In the New American Bible (Revised Edition), which is the translation authorized by the U.S. Council of Catholic Bishops for use in the United States, Matt. 19:9 reads:

I say to you, whoever divorces his wife (unless the marriage is unlawful) and marries another commits adultery.

(Note: you don't specify which translation you're using; that would be helpful information.)
It would be interesting to know what the original Greek says; I may search for or post a question on Biblical Hermeneutics about that.
The NABRE has a note on the verse, referring to a note on Matt. 5:31–32. That note reads:

(Unless the marriage is unlawful): this “exceptive clause,” as it is often called, occurs also in Mt 19:9, where the Greek is slightly different. There are other sayings of Jesus about divorce that prohibit it absolutely (see Mk 10:11–12; Lk 16:18; cf. 1 Cor 7:10, 11b), and most scholars agree that they represent the stand of Jesus. Matthew’s "exceptive clauses" are understood by some as a modification of the absolute prohibition. It seems, however, that the unlawfulness that Matthew gives as a reason why a marriage must be broken refers to a situation peculiar to his community: the violation of Mosaic law forbidding marriage between persons of certain blood and/or legal relationship (Lv 18:6–18). Marriages of that sort were regarded as incest (porneia), but some rabbis allowed Gentile converts to Judaism who had contracted such marriages to remain in them. Matthew’s “exceptive clause” is against such permissiveness for Gentile converts to Christianity; cf. the similar prohibition of porneia in Acts 15:20, 29. In this interpretation, the clause constitutes no exception to the absolute prohibition of divorce when the marriage is lawful.

Thus, it appears that Catholic interpretation of this particular passage considers the statement in Matthew to refer to a specific situation present uniquely in Matthew's community at the time, and thus not applicable generally, and gives precedence to the alternate statements on divorce present in the other synoptic gospels.
The Catechism of the Catholic Church agrees with this interpretation:

Divorce is a grave offense against the natural law. It claims to break the contract, to which the spouses freely consented, to live with each other till death. Divorce does injury to the covenant of salvation, of which sacramental marriage is the sign. Contracting a new union, even if it is recognized by civil law, adds to the gravity of the rupture: the remarried spouse is then in a situation of public and permanent adultery:

If a husband, separated from his wife, approaches another woman, he is an adulterer because he makes that woman commit adultery; and the woman who lives with him is an adulteress, because she has drawn another’s husband to herself.

(CCC, paragraph 2384. The quoted section is cited as "St. Basil, Moralia 73, 1".)
This is why the Church is so forcefully against divorce.


What is the "Magnificat"? I heard my pastor use the term "Magnificat" when preaching in the book of Luke about Mary today. What is the Magnificat?

The Magnificat (also known as the Canticle of Mary) is the section of scripture found in Luke 1:46-55, in which Mary the mother of Jesus praises the Lord.

The term "Magnificat" comes from the Latin translation of the first line: "Magnificat anima mea Dominum" which means "my soul magnifies the Lord".


Why does God choose the tiniest paintbrush to do his detailed work? When Christ went to Golgotha to be crucified, on his way there he chose Simon of Serene, a humble man, and a complete stranger, to carry His cross.

Before that God chose Mary and Joseph to be Son of Man's earthly parents who were just simple people. So why did God choose simple people like them?

Similarly, He chose St. Bro. Andre of Canada to do His impossible work. St. Bro. Andre was a little educated man. Had no wealth or money. He was a doorman. How could he do such huge task? He asked himself a thousand times probably. But he did it.

My question is why does God choose the tiniest paintbrush to do his detailed work?

There are many rich people who are honest and have human elements and attributes. Wouldn't they have done the same task in a more authoritative way?

Your question is fully answered by the Apostle Paul :

Ye see your calling, brethren, how that not many wise men after the flesh, not many mighty, not many noble, are called: But God hath chosen the foolish things of the world to confound the wise; and God hath chosen the weak things of the world to confound the things which are mighty;And base things of the world, and things which are despised, hath God chosen, yea, and things which are not, to bring to nought things that are:
That no flesh should glory in his presence. [I Corinthians 1:26-29, KJV.]

All of the praise and the honour and the glory in justification, redemption and salvatuon - and in all the work and administration of God in connection to it - is due to God alone and not to that which comes of flesh and blood.


If Adam and Eve were exempt from death, why did they need to eat? Genesis 2:17 gives the implication that Adam and Eve were exempt from death prior to eating from the tree of knowledge, and indeed many literalists take this view.

  but you must not eat from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, for when you eat from it you will certainly die.

If Adam and Eve could not die, what would be the purpose of them eating, according to those that believe the premise?

Presumably there is purpose to food other than just maintaining life.

Revelation describes the New Jerusalem, which is generally equated with Heaven, the place where the saved will spend eternity. And according to Revelation 22:2, in this city, "In the middle of its street, and on either side of the river, was the tree of life, which bore twelve fruits, each tree yielding its fruit every month." So there is food in Heaven, even though everyone there is presumably living as an immortal soul.

Likewise at the Last Supper, Jesus said, Matthew 26:29, "But I say to you, I will not drink of this fruit of the vine from now on until that day when I drink it new with you in My Father’s kingdom.” As he died the next day, he must have been talking about something that would happen after his resurrection, when he presumably did not need food and drink to live. Also after his resurrection, he ate food on at least one occasion: Luke 24:40-43, "When He had said this, He showed them His hands and His feet. But while they still did not believe for joy, and marveled, He said to them, “Have you any food here?” So they gave Him a piece of a broiled fish and some honeycomb. And He took it and ate in their presence." (John 21 also describes Jesus having breakfast with the disciples after his resurrection, though I find that on reading it carefully, it doesn't explicitly say that HE ate anything.)

At a minimum, people enjoy eating food. I certainly do. If some pill was invented that would provide all our caloric and nutritional needs more cheaply and conveniently, I think it very likely that most people would still eat food frequently just for the pleasure of the taste and the feeling of fullness.

Beyond that I think we can only speculate. Just because you won't die without something doesn't mean that it doesn't give you other benefits.


Who was Luke in the bible? I have seen his name appear in

"Luke, the beloved physician, and Demas, greet you." (Colossians 4:14).

What more do we know about the author of the book of Luke? Where did he come from? Was he a doctor?

A collection of information on him is here, some of it is kergyma (oral tradition): http://orthodoxwiki.org/Apostle_Luke

The first paragraph reads:

  The holy, glorious and all-laudable Apostle and Evangelist Luke is the
  author of the Gospel of Luke, the companion of the Apostle Paul (Phil
  1:24, 2 Tim 4:10-11), and is numbered among the Seventy Apostles. He
  was a native of Syrian Antioch and a physician, and is the founder of
  iconography.

According to tradition, he painted the first icon as we think of them, it is called 'Directress' and it is of the Theotokos (Mother of God) holding the child Christ.


According to Catholicism, is there hope for people to get saved after they're dead? Do Catholics believe that there is hope for salvation after death?

If they do not have faith in Jesus as the messiah before they die, is there any hope for them?

There are no chances after death.

  1021 Death puts an end to human life as the time open to either
  accepting or rejecting the divine grace manifested in Christ.592 The
  New Testament speaks of judgment primarily in its aspect of the final
  encounter with Christ in his second coming, but also repeatedly
  affirms that each will be rewarded immediately after death in
  accordance with his works and faith. The parable of the poor man
  Lazarus and the words of Christ on the cross to the good thief, as
  well as other New Testament texts speak of a final destiny of the
  soul--a destiny which can be different for some and for others.

  1022 Each man receives his eternal retribution in his immortal soul at
  the very moment of his death, in a particular judgment that refers his
  life to Christ: either entrance into the blessedness of heaven-through
  a purification594 or immediately,595 -- or immediate and everlasting
  damnation.

CCC on life everlasting

However, the Catholic Church does not teach that you need to be Catholic, or believe in Jesus to be saved. People, who through no fault of their own have never heard of Jesus, or the Catholic Church and live as best they know how have the hope of salvation. However, God desires all people to be members of his Church, so we are called to evangelize.

  845 To reunite all his children, scattered and led astray by sin, the Father willed to call the whole of humanity together into his Son's Church. The Church is the place where humanity must rediscover its unity and salvation. The Church is "the world reconciled." She is that bark which "in the full sail of the Lord's cross, by the breath of the Holy Spirit, navigates safely in this world." According to another image dear to the Church Fathers, she is prefigured by Noah's ark, which alone saves from the flood.334

  "Outside the Church there is no salvation"

  846 How are we to understand this affirmation, often repeated by the
  Church Fathers? Re-formulated positively, it means that all salvation
  comes from Christ the Head through the Church which is his Body:

  Basing itself on Scripture and Tradition, the Council teaches that the Church, a pilgrim now on earth, is necessary for salvation the
  one Christ is the mediator and the way of salvation; he is present to
  us in his body which is the Church. He himself explicitly asserted the
  necessity of faith and Baptism, and thereby affirmed at the same time
  the necessity of the Church which men enter through Baptism as through
  a door. Hence they could not be saved who, knowing that the Catholic
  Church was founded as necessary by God through Christ, would refuse
  either to enter it or to remain in it

  847 This affirmation is not aimed at those who, through no fault of
  their own, do not know Christ and his Church:

  Those who, through no fault of their own, do not know the Gospel of Christ or his Church, but who nevertheless seek God with a sincere
  heart, and, moved by grace, try in their actions to do his will as
  they know it through the dictates of their conscience - those too may
  achieve eternal salvation.

  848 "Although in ways known to himself God can lead those who, through
  no fault of their own, are ignorant of the Gospel, to that faith
  without which it is impossible to please him, the Church still has the
  obligation and also the sacred right to evangelize all men."

CCC on the Church


Do young earth creationists believe that God has a body? Young earth creationists believe that the bible should be read literally.

Adam and Eve hear God's footstep. That means God must have foot and his foot step emit sound waves. That means God has a body.

Is it what YEC believes too?

The point of the question is, if YEC believes that the creation story is literal, do they also interpret the idea of hearing God's footstep literally too? The latter implies that God has a body, or at least a foot, and the foot is physical enough to emit sound waves when hitting the ground.

Here is an answer from one young Earth creationist.
Apparently you got your Scripture from the Hebraic Roots version of the Bible, or the New revised King James version since these are the only versions I know of which say:

Genesis 3:8  HRS  And they heard the sound of YAHWEH Elohim walking up and down in the garden at the breeze of the day. And the man and his wife hid themselves from the face of YAHWEH Elohim in the middle of the trees of the garden. And YAHWEH Elohim called to the man and said to him, Where are you? And he said, I have heard Your sound in the garden, and I was afraid, for I am naked, and I hid myself.
Genesis 3:8 NRKJV  And they heard the voice of יהוה Elohim walking in the garden in the cool of the day: and Adam and his wife hid themselves from the presence of יהוה Elohim amongst the trees of the garden. And יהוה Elohim called unto Adam, and said unto him, Where art thou? And he said, I heard thy voice in the garden, and I was afraid, because I was naked; and I hid myself.

All of the other 15 versions that I have in my study Software all say 'heard the voice' as in the King James translation
King James translation:

Genesis 3:8 through 10  And they heard the voice of the LORD God walking in the garden in the cool of the day: and Adam and his wife hid themselves from the presence of the LORD God amongst the trees of the garden. And the LORD God called unto Adam, and said unto him, Where art thou? And he said, I heard thy voice in the garden, and I was afraid, because I was naked; and I hid myself.

Apostolic Bible Polyglot:

Genesis 3:8 through 10  And they heard the voice of the LORD God walking in2 the paradise at dusk. And hid both Adam and his wife from the face of the LORD God in the midst of the tree of the paradise.  And God called Adam, and said to him, Adam, Where are you? And he said to him, your voice I heard while walking in the paradise, and I feared, for I am naked, and I hid.

American Standard version:

Genesis 3:8  through 10 And they heard the voice of Jehovah God walking in the garden in the cool of the day: and the man and his wife hid themselves from the presence of Jehovah God amongst the trees of the garden. And Jehovah God called unto the man, and said unto him, Where art thou? And he said, I heard thy voice in the garden, and I was afraid, because I was naked; and I hid myself.

I have omitted the other versions for brevity since they are almost exact clones.
The original Hebrew Text in literal translation is almost the same as the Hebraic Roots version. However, at first I thought that from that to footsteps was a very large leap. But it being somewhat of a lazy Sunday after Church I took some time to consider it, and slowly the mind seemed to connect that to some other passages.
In Genesis Chapter 18, Abraham pleads with one of the three angels; who come to his tent, concerning the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah. so I decided to look up that in the Hebraic Roots version and to my surprise I found:

Genesis 18:32 and 33  And he said, I pray, let not YAHWEH be angry that I may speak only this time; perhaps ten will be found there. And He said, I will not destroy because of the ten. And when YAHWEH had finished speaking to Abraham, He left. And Abraham returned to his place.

And even though it says YAHWEH and not  YAHWEH Elohim compared to the King James version;

Genesis 18:32 and 33  And he said, Oh let not the Lord be angry, and I will speak yet but this once: Peradventure ten shall be found there. And he said, I will not destroy it for ten's sake. And the LORD went his way, as soon as he had left communing with Abraham: and Abraham returned unto his place.

I have for some time felt that this was actually the pre-incarnate Jesus to whom Abraham was speaking. and the premise for that was:

John 8:58  Jesus said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Before Abraham was, I am.

Also backing that up is the knowledge that With God there is no such thing as time, since time itself demands that there be something previous and something after the present, and with Eternity there is neither past nor future , there is only present.
So it is probable that Jesus being Eternal would be there at Creation, which lends credence to John 1:1 through 3

In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. The same was in the beginning with God. All things were made by him; and without him was not any thing made that was made.

What seems to become possible is that just as John stated Jesus was the creator, in his pre-incarnate person and it was the pre-incarnate that walked with Adam in the cool of the evening.
So to answer your question about having a body, providing my interpretation is not as illegitimate as an eleven dollar bill; that  would be that it is both pre-incarnate Jesus (יהוה) God the father (YAHWEH Elohim) in Jesus Resurrection body, and for that matter may also include the Holy Ghost as many of us subscribe to the concept of the Trinity.
perhaps that is something we will need to ask God when we get there, assuming that we will still care about the answer then.


Did the pool of Bethesda have healing powers? Recently while reading John 5 with my wife's family, we had a discussion about whether the pool of Bethesda really had healing powers. Some said the story is written as if the pool really could heal:

  For an angel went down at a certain season into the pool, and troubled the water: whosoever then first after the troubling of the water stepped in was made whole of whatsoever disease he had. (John 5:4)

Others said that perhaps John was just telling a story and the supposed healing powers of the pool made for great juxtaposition.

I have a hard time believing a spring could have healing powers, and especially only after an angel made some ripples. But I guess some people still believe in healing mineral springs.

Did the pool of Bethesda really have healing powers?

I don't believe there is such a thing as a "perfect" translation of scripture, but there is an interesting thing to note about the verse you mention. One of the English translations I personally trust the most is the ESV. If you try to look this verse up in an ESV Bible you will find that it skips from verse 3 to 5.

Wait, what!?!

According to their footnote and the Study Bible commentary there is a significant problem with the manuscripts for this passage in that the phrase in question is not found in the earliest known manuscripts. The translators made the following judgement call:

  The statement in the ESV footnote about an angel of the Lord stirring the water and the first person who stepped in being healed is found in some early manuscripts, but not the earliest. Therefore the omitted verse 4 should not be considered part of Scripture, although v.7 (which is in all manuscripts) shows that people believed something like what this statement reports.

I do not know much about this particular passage of scripture, but I think it's reasonable to interpret the whole business with the pool to be a folk tradition rather than a valid source of magic healing. I do not know of any recorded evidence of specific/significant/verifiable miracles stemming from the pool, although I don't know that we can rule out the possibility just on principle.

I believe it is important to note that in all cases of healing, the healing stems from God and the focus of our attention should always be on Him rather than whaver medium He chose to use to reveal that healing. One example of this can be seen here:

  Matthew 9:20-22 (ESV)
  20 And behold, a woman who had suffered from a discharge of blood for twelve years came up behind him and touched the fringe of his garment, 21 for she said to herself, “If I only touch his garment, I will be made well.” 22 Jesus turned, and seeing her he said, “Take heart, daughter; your faith has made you well.” And instantly1 the woman was made well.

I think the important thing to note about this passage is that it was not Jesus garment that provided healing, but Jesus power to heal that He chose to bestow upon the woman on account of her faith in Him (not in His garment).


Does the Catholic Church teach that some who died before Christ are still in Limbo? Why? In Dante's Inferno, the Poets (Homer, Ovid, Horace, Lucan, etc) and other figures are portrayed as residing in Limbo. Ostensibly, during the crucifixion of Jesus, he entered Limbo and took with him to heaven such figures such as Abel, Noah, Moses, Abraham, David, etc. Virgil states to Dante that:

  (Canto IV, Lines 31-39) You do not question what souls these are that suffer here before you? I wish you to know before you travel on that these were sinless. And still their merits fail, for they lacked Baptism's grace, which is the door of the true faith you were born to. Their birth fell before the age of the Christian mysteries, and so they did not worship God's Trinity in the fullest duty. I am one of these.

Does this depiction—in which the Roman poets (and perhaps others who died before Christ's death) still reside in Limbo even while others such as Adam and the Jewish patriarchs were led forth in the Harrowing of Hell—accurately reflect current Catholic theology?

If so, why is it that these good men were not brought out of Limbo? Does Catholic theology make any statements on such matters?

In Dante's story, those who were in Limbo but taken to Heaven were

  the shade of our First Parent [Adam], Abel his son, and that of Noah; of Moses the Legislator, and obedient Abraham the Patriarch; David the King; Israel with his father, and his sons, and Rachel, for whom he did so much; and many others

(Canto IV, lines 55–61)

These appear to be those of the Jewish people and their forebears who knew God (as for example Adam and Abel) and who worshiped Him obediently ("obedient Abraham").

Homer, Horace, Ovid, Lucan, and Virgil, on the other hand, were pagans; "they worshiped not God aright" (Canto IV, line 38), and Dante cites this as the reason they were not taken up to Heaven.

The Catholic Church, nowadays, doesn't say much about Limbo; the term does not appear in the 1992 Catechism. In 2007, the International Theological Commission (a body of Catholic theologians overseen by the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith) issued a document titled "The Hope of Salvation for Infants Who Die Without Being Baptized". This document is the most wide-ranging discussion of the question of Limbo that has been issued since the Second Vatican Council. Certain news stories published just before the document was released reported that it "closed the doors" of Limbo and concluded that Limbo did not exist; that conclusion was premature, but certainly the Church has recently focused much more on the hope that those who died without baptism, especially without the possibility of baptism, may somehow attain salvation:

  Our conclusion is that the many factors that we have considered above give serious theological and liturgical grounds for hope that unbaptised infants who die will be saved and enjoy the Beatific Vision.

("The Hope of Salvation", paragraph 102)

So how does this apply to the patriarchs, the noble pagans, and the Harrowing of Hell? The Catechism states:

  Scripture calls the abode of the dead, to which the dead Christ went down, "hell" - Sheol in Hebrew or Hades in Greek—because those who are there are deprived of the vision of God. Such is the case for all the dead, whether evil or righteous, while they await the Redeemer: which does not mean that their lot is identical, as Jesus shows through the parable of the poor man Lazarus who was received into "Abraham's bosom": "It is precisely these holy souls, who awaited their Savior in Abraham's bosom, whom Christ the Lord delivered when he descended into hell."

(paragraph 633; the last quotation is taken from the Roman Catechism)

Who, then, are the "just"? Might they include these "noble pagans" Dante refers to? Again, the Catechism has something to say:

  The Bible venerates several great figures among the Gentiles: Abel the just, the king-priest Melchisedek - a figure of Christ - and the upright "Noah, Daniel, and Job". Scripture thus expresses the heights of sanctity that can be reached by those who live according to the covenant of Noah, waiting for Christ to "gather into one the children of God who are scattered abroad".

(paragraph 58)

These of course do not, and could not, include the great poets Dante refers to. Nevertheless, as the Church begins to reflect on the great mercy and salvific will of God, it may hold out hope that they, too, are somehow saved.


How did Elijah know he was going to be taken up to heaven? How did Elijah know that he was about to be taken by God?
How did Elisha know this was going to happen?
I could not find anything prior to 2 Kings 2:1 when Scripture states that Elijah was going to be taken up, and 2:9 when Elijah asks what he can do for Elisha before he is taken.

Scripture does not say. The closest thing we get is this:

  and Jehu the son of Nimshi you shall anoint king over Israel; and Elisha the son of Shaphat of Abel-meholah you shall anoint as prophet in your place. —1 Kings 19:16 NASB

God tells Elijah to anoint Elisha in his place, implying that it would not be long before Elijah was finished with his time as God's prophet. I found this commentary that mentions Elijah knew beforehand, but I could not find a Scriptural reference.


A Question Regarding the Relationship between God and Messiah As for the Messiah, of him God says,

  And I will set up one shepherd over them, and he shall feed them,
  even My servant David; he shall feed them, and he shall be their
  shepherd. And I the Lord will be their God, and My servant David
  prince among them; I the Lord have spoken. (Ezekiel 34:23-24)

In a related passage ...

  The kings of the earth set themselves, And the rulers take counsel
  together, Against the Lord and against His Anointed. (Psalm 2:2)

As indicated by the first verse, The Lord alone will be worshiped as God, while the Messiah, as the servant of God, lives with the people.

As indicated by the second verse, the Lord and the Messiah are mutually exclusive, and not the same being.

How is this apparent contradiction explained in the light of New Testament allusions to the Messiah's divinity?

In Dan 7:14 we see the Son of Man is coming to take the everlasting kingdom. In the subsequent verses termed as the interpretation we see in verse 22 it is the Ancient of Days who is coming. This tells me the ancient of days and the Son of Man are the same.

In traditional Judaism, they have a picture of G-d as a composite of potencies called sephirot. Different combinations can form different faces of G-d. They are all divine and are none are independent of each other yet we have examples in their literature where one speaks to another. Not all are credited with creation. Pro 3:19  The LORD by wisdom hath founded the earth; by understanding hath he established the heavens. 1Co_1:24 tells us this wisdom is Messiah. We have an entire proverb (8) which deals with wisdom and alludes to its deity and power to save. It also states it (wisdom) is understanding, alluding to their combination in creation (v 19).

When we impose on G-d the limitations of a physical world (where something has one nature, one presence, one spacial dimension, etc.) we are always going to have a difficulty.

But even in nature we have examples of duality. An amoeba can change shape and when it reproduces by meiosis, one cannot say that this part is the parent and that part is the child, they are both identical even though they occupy different places in space.


Do Jehovah's Witnesses have a systematized way of finding specific types of persons? Do Jehovah's Witnesses have a systematized way of finding specific types of persons?

Jehovah's Witnesses are known by their hallmark door-to-door proselytizing. But what I am interested in is the fact that their choices on which door to knock may not be random but planned. Perhaps, a group of Jehovah's Witnesses may specialize in ministering to specific ethnic groups and then try to find persons that may belong to the ethnic groups, even within the United States. If anybody appears interested, then they may launch a series of "Bible Studies" as a way to proselytize every prospective convert on a case-by-case basis, as well as supporting their own doctrines and rejecting others.

Practice will vary from place to place. I live in the middle of Ireland. I’ll try to describe general principles, but this may work out differently in different areas. Each congregation of Jehovah’s Witnesses has its own “territory” (roughly analogous to a parish in other denominations, perhaps). That territory will then be subdivided into maps.

The territory of my former congregation covered a few towns and a very large rural area. This is partly because of population demographics: Ireland tends to have a lot of one-off scattered houses in the countryside, while in the UK people are more likely to live in towns and villages. In Germany, I believe, even farmers tend to live in villages, and they commute to their farms in the morning. In Ireland, though, it’s quite common to have houses in the middle of nowhere which have nothing to do with a farm: people just like living in rural areas. Our maps, then, covered different types of territory. A person working such a map would be expected to cover the whole thing: houses and businesses alike. They would keep a record of people not at home, and attempt to call back at a different time of day.

Of course, some people prefer doing different types of work. Some of the urban maps had a note on them: “Businesses on this map are included on a separate business map.” A person working such a map would cover only the houses, leaving the businesses. (I was working on redividing the territory and creating new maps; the business maps were never actually prepared before I left the Witnesses. I assume they have some now.)

There are cases where things would work differently. The most obvious example is when congregations serving different language groups have overlapping territory. In this case, people might try to specifically seek out speakers of the language they are targeting. On one occasion, my mother (an ISL/English interpreter) and a couple of visiting Deaf Witnesses went out specifically looking for Deaf people.

Of course, not all witnessing activity takes place from door to door. In street witnessing, it is relatively easy (and fairly instinctive, actually) to pick out particular people who look more approachable, by whatever metric you use.

I suspect that more targeted witnessing happens in more populated areas, generally. In a rural area, once you’ve spent an hour travelling to the place, you’re going to try to get to everyone.


How do Trinitarians explain the almost exclusive use of singular pronouns to refer to God in the Bible? In thousands of instances in the Bible, pronouns used to describe God are singular. Every instance is singular except possibly 4. These possibilities all occur in the Old Testament.
For unitarians, those 4 instances are typically explained as God referring to himself and his angelic court. Two unitarian articles that put this forth are The Testimony of Singular Pronouns from OneGodWorship.com and Let Us Make Man from BiblicalUnitarian.com.
As the latter article concludes,

"Understanding the “us” texts like this does not in any way damage the
massive evidence from the singular pronouns, yet it satisfactory
explains the verses in their context."

How do Trinitarians explain the heavily weighted use of singular pronouns to refer to God in the Bible, if God is 3 persons?

If I might put this in simple language, the Trinitarian position is that there is one God, and he exists in three persons.
It is entirely correct, grammatically and philosophically, to refer to God in the singular pronoun. He is One. This is true even if he consists of Father, Son and Holy Spirit.
It is worth pointing out that the English language (and any other human languages) were not designed to describe a being who is at the same time singular (one God) and also plural (three persons). Any choice of language or pronouns is going to be to some extent inaccurate.
Even if this were not the case, the singularity of the pronoun is not an indication against the Trinity. In English group nouns take the singular case: "There is a committee. It reviews applications." "It" is a singular pronoun, and while in English it is gender-neutral, that is not the case for all languages.  Similarly: "I joined the team. It plays football.". I believe Hebrew and Greek take the same approach.


Do the Orthodox and Catholic Churches allow participation in each others' services? Is it alright for an Orthodox christian to go into a Catholic church and vice versa? That is:

Does either Eastern Orthodox or Catholic teaching object to occasional participation of an Eastern Orthodox Christian in a Catholic service (Mass)? What about occasional participation of a Catholic in an Eastern Orthodox service (Divine Liturgy)?

From a Catholic point of view, there is no problem with (a) a Roman Catholic attending an Orthodox Divine Liturgy and receiving communion or (b) an Orthodox attending a Roman Catholic mass and receiving communion. This is, however, restricted to circumstances when a Roman Catholic mass is unavailable.

The Orthodox position is different; Roman Catholics would not be permitted to receive communion in an Orthodox church and Orthodox would not be permitted to receive in a Roman Catholic church.

I've had surprising difficulty finding documentation for this, but here's an EWTN article explaining the Catholic position and here's an Orthodox Church of America page explaining the Orthodox position. They aren't exactly the best sources imaginable, but they are accurate in my experience.


What does the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints teach about who Jesus is and where He came from? From the answer to another question, someone suggested that the LDS (Mormon) church teaches that Jesus is distinct from God—that though He is a part of the Godhead, the Godhead is not a Trinity defined by the "Three-in-One" idea.

What specifically, then, does the LDS Church teach about who Jesus is and where He came from?  Is He eternal, not eternal, uncreated, created?

The below is pulled from The Araonic Priesthood Manual 3: Lesson 1 The Godhead

  Jesus Christ is—

  The Firstborn Son of Heavenly Father in the spirit.
  The Only Begotten Son of Heavenly Father in the flesh.
  The Creator of heaven and earth under Heavenly Father’s direction.
  The Savior and Redeemer of mankind.

Mormons believe we are all the spirit children of Heavenly Father, Jesus is our older brother in spirit.
Kind of self explanatory
If the Godhead means 3 distinct Individuals, one of them was responsible for the physical creation of the earth. Going further on this point would be a whole different answer.
This is, as far as I know, the common denominator among all christian denominations.

So that is who the Mormons believe he is, as far as created, Mormons believe all spirits are created, thus given #1 above, Heavenly Father Created Jesus. I would like to note though that from what I have learned the definition of Created to a Mormon is a bit different than to many other christian groups.

As far as eternal, President Ezra Taft Benson 13th President of the LDS Church said "Life is eternal. We are eternal beings." If we are eternal then Jesus is Eternal.


What mainstream sects object to infant baptism? I recently had an interesting discussion with a person who did piercing for a living at one point in time in his life. He told me that the shop he worked had a policy where the would not pierce a baby's ears. To him it was an issue of ethics. He told me that the shop he worked for would only pierce a girl's ears if she was at least 5 years of age and only if the child / girl specifically asked for it herself.
I have done some soul searching and I have come to realise that this issue of ethics has come to encompass my views on infant baptism as well. I don't believe that any person has the right to choose to have another baptised. It is to me a deeply personal decision that everyone must come to ass they become of age.
Ultimately I would like to share what religious beliefs I may have with my children, but I must give them the chance to become Richard Dawkins, junior if that is what they want to become (Even if that would to happen it would grieve me.)
I'm just wondering what kind of denomination holds these beliefs or a reasonable facsimile thereof. My upbringing was entirely secular so I'm completely ignorant on how a person would choose a church. This issue is important to me, if I do ever get the chance to have a child.

Paedobaptism is the practice of baptising infants.  The Roman Catholic Church, Eastern Orthodox Churches, Coptic and Oriental Orthodox Churches, Lutheran Churches, Anglican and Episcopal Churches baptise infants.
Credobaptism, or adult baptism, is the practice of baptising only believers.  Baptists and Anabaptists, as well as many nondenominational Evangelical churches reject infant baptism.  The following denominations say that belief must precede baptism and infants cannot believe.

Baptists
Pentecostals
Churches of Christ
Christadelphians
Jehovah's Witnesses
Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints (LDS/Mormons)

As for U.K. Methodist churches (which are similar in many respects to the Church of England), please read this article: https://www.methodist.org.uk/our-faith/life-and-faith/life-events/baptism-and-confirmation/
Reformed Protestant groups such as the Presbyterian Church in America practice infant baptism, but unlike the Roman Catholic Church, does not teach that such baptism saves the child. Instead, it teaches that infant baptism is a covenant sign and does not save, just the same as Old Testament circumcision was a covenantal sign that did not save.  Lutheran Churches, like the Roman Catholic Church, practice infant baptism and maintain that such baptism saves the child.
Christian denominations that oppose infant baptism would include the Baptists, Churches of Christ, and Pentecostal groups. They would deny infant baptism by saying that belief must precede baptism and that infants cannot believe.

Believer's baptism is one of several distinctive doctrines associated closely with the Baptist and Anabaptist traditions, and their theological relatives.  Among these are the members of the Restoration Movement.  Churches associated with Pentecostalism also practice believer's baptism.

In many nondenominational Evangelical, Baptist and Pentecostal churches, a ritual known as child dedication.  However, unlike baptism, the rite is centered upon the parents, who dedicate the child to God and vow to raise him or her in a God-fearing home. Although Dedication often occurs at the same age as infant baptism, it is not considered a replacement for baptism nor is it considered salvific for the child.

The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints completely rejects infant baptism. Little children are considered both born without sin and incapable of committing sin. They have no need of baptism until age eight when they can begin to learn to discern right from wrong, and are thus accountable to God for their own actions. People completely incapable of understanding right from wrong, regardless of age, are also considered as not accountable for their actions, and are not baptized.

In the Seventh-day Adventist Church, immersion baptism is not required for membership. However, if a person feels that he has received new information that makes a difference and/or has experienced a reconversion, it is available if he wants it.

Source: Believer's baptism (Wikipedia)


If miracles stopped after the Apostles, then why are there admonitions to pray over people? There are a number of groups who believed that after the time of the Apostles, God withdrew miracles from the world (please correct me if that is the wrong understanding). But the book of James clearly says,

  Is anyone among you sick? Let him call for the elders of the church, and let them pray over him, anointing him with oil in the name of the Lord. (James 5:14, ESV)

For those who believe miracles were limited to the times of the Apostles, then why does James say this? Why would there be an anointing if no miracles are even possible? Or do I misstate their definition of miracles?

It is important to distinguish between cessation of spiritual gifts being bestowed on individuals, and cessation of all miraculous events entirely. Cessationists consider the first case (individual bestowment of spiritual gifts) to have ceased, but not all miraculous events entirely.
See B. B. Warfield's Counterfeit Miracles, in the section titled Faith Healing:

  "In the healing of every disease of whatever kind," writes Doctor
  Henry E. Goddard, "we cannot be too deeply impressed with the Lord's
  part of the work. He is the operator. We are the co-operators. More
  and more am I impressed that every patient of mine who has ever risen
  up from his sick bed onto his feet again has done so by the divine
  power. Not I, but the Lord, has cured him. And it is this fact that
  the Lord does so much, that gives to different systems of healing
  their apparent cures. He has healed many a one in spite of medicine,
  in spite of mental healers, in spite of ignorance, in spite of
  negligence and poor and scanty food. Nineteen out of twenty cases of
  grippe will get well without doing anything for it, if we are willing
  to bear it until that time. Pneumonia, even, is what the physician
  calls a self-limiting disease, and many cases will recover alone if we
  are willing to run our chances with it. The arm may drop into boiling
  water and become scalded. Nine times out of ten it will take care of
  itself and heal. But if that arm is mine it is going to have an
  outward application which will make it feel better the moment it
  touches it. And more important by far, it is going to be dressed
  aseptically to prevent blood poisoning. It might get well itself,
  probably would; but it is going to have my little co-operation, the
  most intelligent that I can render, that the Lord may have the open
  door through which He can come in and bless it." It is the very spirit
  of James, I take it, that speaks in this Christian physician. If you
  are sick, you will use means, all the means that exist; but you will
  use the means in the name of the Lord, and to Him you will look for
  the issue. (172–173)

In short, cessationists hold that the sovereignty of God is such that all healing of any sickness is the result of God's working, and also hold to the miracle of salvation as the pre-eminent form of still-continuing miracle. Indeed, the miracles that have ceased are those apostolic-era gifts used only for the purpose of spreading the gospel in the early church; those that were bestowed on individuals, rather than purely by God's working.

In James 5:14, no individual has been bestowed with a gift of healing. Rather, with prayer foremost, and secondarily medical care in the form of anointing of oil (historically considered to have medicinal value), a group of the elders of the church were to care for the unwell individual. The hope is that God would then miraculously heal the individual. However, this is quite a different circumstance to that of the apostles and those granted the gift of healing, who could "at will" heal anyone they chose.

With that in mind, cessationists would encourage this practice (perhaps not with oil specifically, but the best available medical care), but would not consider any of the elders to have been bestowed any spiritual gift of healing in the event of a miraculous healing.

It is worth noting that John Calvin, in his commentary on James 5, considered the anointing with oil, prayer, and resulting healing to be an apostolic sacrament which has passed. This is no longer the predominant position among cessationists, to the best of my knowledge. However, even at the time he wrote, others considered the anointing with oil to be medical (a common view today as well), and thus only the prayer was efficacious, in as much as God chose to heal the sick in that instance.


Where does the word 'Eloheim' originate from? Elohim being referred to as the Father whom is a God

  When one speaks of God, it is generally the Father who is referred to; that is, Elohim. - God (The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints).

Eloheim associates with multiple 'Gods' in this particular article

Enrichment Section A: Who Is the God of the Old Testament (The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints)

  The word Elohim is a plural form of the Hebrew word for God, although
  modern scholars agree that it should be taken as a singular noun even
  though the im ending is a plural form. Joseph Smith, however,
  indicated the significance of the plural form:

  “If we pursue the Hebrew text further, it reads, … ‘The head one of
  the Gods said, Let us make a man in our own image.’ I once asked a
  learned Jew, ‘If the Hebrew language compels us to render all words
  ending in heim in the plural, why not render the first Eloheim
  plural?’ He replied, ‘That is the rule with few exceptions; but in
  this case it would ruin the Bible.’ He acknowledged I was right.

  “In the very beginning the Bible shows there is a plurality of Gods
  beyond the power of refutation. It is a great subject I am dwelling
  on. The word Eloheim ought to be in the plural all the way
  through—Gods. The heads of the Gods appointed one God for us; and when
  you take [that] view of the subject, it sets one free to see all the
  beauty, holiness and perfection of the Gods.” (Teachings, p. 372.)

In this specific case Joseph Smith is referring to Genesis where it says

  'Let us make man in our own image' - Genesis 1:26

So it is evident that he is using Genesis as the core of the word 'Eloheim'. In the original Hebrew manuscripts; the writer uses the word Elohim

  ’ĕ·lō·hîm (אֱלֹהִ֖ים)

From my research it seems 'Eloheim' doesn't exist in the Hebrew nor English vocabulary (I could be very wrong, so please correct me if so). Now let us consider if this was a typo - Why would the Father be referred to the same as the plurality of Gods?

Also note how the 'learned Jew' said it would ruin the Bible, so it is evident he is talking about the Bible in this context.

With all this in mind, where does the word 'Eloheim' originate from?

There seem to be two basic questions here:

  In the original Hebrew manuscripts; the writer uses the word Elohim....From my research it seems 'Eloheim' doesn't exist in the Hebrew nor English vocabulary.

Of course, in the "original Hebrew" manuscripts, no vowels were written, so technically no distinction could be drawn between these two forms. On the other hand, in the Masoretic Text (to which vowel pointings were added in the Middle Ages, and on which all modern translations are substantially based) I can confirm that there is no word that would be transliterated eloheim. In fact, the only word with the consonants אלהים is pointed every time as the OP indicated: אֱלֹהִים (ʾelohîm).

While transliteration schemes differ, neither the Wikipedia article on Romanization nor the SBL guidelines suggest that chireq-yod may be transliterated ei (rather: iy or î). However, as noted in a comment, English spelling was not standardized at the time Joseph Smith wrote this, much less transliteration from Hebrew. This is exemplified in this collection of Smith's writings where Genesis 1:1 is given:

  בְּרֵאשִׁ֖ית בָּרָ֣א אֱלֹהִ֑ים אֵ֥ת הַשָּׁמַ֖יִם וְאֵ֥ת הָאָֽרֶץ
  Berosheit baurau Eloheim ait aushamayeen vehau auraits (Smith)
  Bereʾshit baraʾ ʾelohim ʾet hashshamayim weʾet haʾarets (simplified modern transliteration)

There are numerous letter choices in there which don't make sense to me (mostly vowels), but he was obviously working with different standards.

OP further asks:

  Why would the Father be referred to the same as the plurality of Gods?

This is a vexed question about which no few books have been written. The basic answer is that this is just a quirk of how the Hebrew language works. A few supporting points:

This word is not unique. Other words translated as singular include חִטִּים (chittim, "wheat"), מַ֫יִם (mayim, "water"), שָׁמַ֫יִם (shamayim, "sky"), and תַּנִּינִים (tanninim, "dragon"), among others. As one respected Hebrew grammar puts it (p. 468):

  [The plural] used, quite broadly, to designate things which, while having a real unity, also express plurality in some way. Thus in a compound object one may consider the component elements, in an extended object the various parts, in a particularly perfect being the multiplicity or the intensity of the being, or even in something abstract the multiplicity of manifestations. Thus in Hebrew one may distinguish the plurals of composition, of extension, of excellence or of majesty, of intensity, and of abstraction.

The authors include ʾelohîm as a "plural of excellence or majesty". See also the older but still valuable discussion by Gesenius on the topic.
Although plural in form, ʾelohîm, when it unambiguously refers to the God of Israel, is consistently used with singular verbs. Pronouns pointing to ʾelohîm are also consistently singular.1 This is a strong basis on which to tranlate it as singular in English.
The OP quotes an LDS source suggesting that the term should be rendered "Gods". This is based on the false premise that "the Hebrew language compels us to render all words ending in heim in the plural".

On the other hand, occasionally trinitarians are heard making claims about the plurality of the Godhead based on morphology of this word. From a linguistic and textual perspective, I am aware of no basis for this, and the phenomenon is adequately explained as above.

1 There are rare exceptions, one of which is quoted in the question: Gen 1:26. This text deserves special attention; see the Q&A on Hermeneutics.SE. For the more general issue, see also Why is Elohim translated as God rather than gods in Genesis 1:1?, which covers much of the same ground as this one.


God's sacrifice to himself If the Father and Son are both God, and the Son sacrificed himself to the Father, wouldn't that conclude that God sent himself inside of Mary and then sacrificed himself to himself? Now God saving us from himself is logically sound, but as for the previous sentence I have a hard time understanding the sacrifice issue. Thanks.

Christian theology has long distinguished 'being' and 'person' God is 'one being' but there are three three persons who are that one God. Take for example the Nicene Creed:

  I believe in one God, the Father Almighty, Maker of heaven and earth,
  and of all things visible and invisible.

  And in one Lord Jesus Christ, the only-begotten Son of God, begotten
  of the Father before all worlds; God of God, Light of Light, very God
  of very God; begotten, not made, being of one substance with the
  Father, by whom all things were made.

  Who, for us men for our salvation, came down from heaven, and was
  incarnate by the Holy Spirit of the virgin Mary, and was made man; and
  was crucified also for us under Pontius Pilate; He suffered and was
  buried; and the third day He rose again, according to the Scriptures;
  and ascended into heaven, and sits on the right hand of the Father;
  and He shall come again, with glory, to judge the quick and the dead;
  whose kingdom shall have no end.

  And I believe in the Holy Ghost, the Lord and Giver of Life; who
  proceeds from the Father [and the Son]; who with the Father and the
  Son together is worshipped and glorified; who spoke by the prophets.

  And I believe one holy catholic and apostolic Church. I acknowledge
  one baptism for the remission of sins; and I look for the resurrection
  of the dead, and the life of the world to come. Amen.

Notice how it express a belief in one God, but also that there are three persons (Father, Son and Spirit) who are that one God.

When it comes to the incarnation, the father sent the son.

When it comes to the cross the son died to satisfy the wrath of the father.

So, whilst in one sense it is true to say God sacrificed himself to appease his wrath - that action was possible because God is trinity.


What did Jesus say about the end times? Between the fighting in Israel, blood moons, and the Harbinger, there has been a lot of chatter about the end times on my radar lately. Natural disasters are, too, discussed as omens of the end. I have tried not to bother too much with it, but I'm curious.

What did Jesus have to say about the end times? Did He give specifics, or discuss it in parables? I do recall Him saying that no one (Himself included) knows when it will be... But does He give any indication as to what will happen?

Jesus' most clear statements on the end times are in Matthew 24.  You can see for yourself what He said.

I don't see anything about "blood moons" here, but this passage is far from the only passage in Scripture that addresses the end times.  A full answer addressing eschatology would be far* too large to this site.  Many books have been written on the subject, so I'm sticking to Jesus' words, as asked.

  1 And Jesus went out, and departed from the temple: and his disciples
  came to him for to shew him the buildings of the temple.

  2 And Jesus said unto them, See ye not all these things? verily I say
  unto you, There shall not be left here one stone upon another, that
  shall not be thrown down.

  3 And as he sat upon the mount of Olives, the disciples came unto him
  privately, saying, Tell us, when shall these things be? and what shall
  be the sign of thy coming, and of the end of the world?

  4 And Jesus answered and said unto them, Take heed that no man deceive
  you.

  5 For many shall come in my name, saying, I am Christ; and shall
  deceive many.

  6 And ye shall hear of wars and rumours of wars: see that ye be not
  troubled: for all these things must come to pass, but the end is not
  yet.

  7 For nation shall rise against nation, and kingdom against kingdom:
  and there shall be famines, and pestilences, and earthquakes, in
  divers places.

  8 All these are the beginning of sorrows.

  9 Then shall they deliver you up to be afflicted, and shall kill you:
  and ye shall be hated of all nations for my name's sake.

  10 And then shall many be offended, and shall betray one another, and
  shall hate one another.

  11 And many false prophets shall rise, and shall deceive many.

  12 And because iniquity shall abound, the love of many shall wax cold.

  13 But he that shall endure unto the end, the same shall be saved.

  14 And this gospel of the kingdom shall be preached in all the world
  for a witness unto all nations; and then shall the end come.

  15 When ye therefore shall see the abomination of desolation, spoken
  of by Daniel the prophet, stand in the holy place, (whoso readeth, let
  him understand:)

  16 Then let them which be in Judaea flee into the mountains:

  17 Let him which is on the housetop not come down to take any thing
  out of his house:

  18 Neither let him which is in the field return back to take his
  clothes.

  19 And woe unto them that are with child, and to them that give suck
  in those days!

  20 But pray ye that your flight be not in the winter, neither on the
  sabbath day:

  21 For then shall be great tribulation, such as was not since the
  beginning of the world to this time, no, nor ever shall be.

  22 And except those days should be shortened, there should no flesh be
  saved: but for the elect's sake those days shall be shortened.

  23 Then if any man shall say unto you, Lo, here is Christ, or there;
  believe it not.

  24 For there shall arise false Christs, and false prophets, and shall
  shew great signs and wonders; insomuch that, if it were possible, they
  shall deceive the very elect.

  25 Behold, I have told you before.

  26 Wherefore if they shall say unto you, Behold, he is in the desert;
  go not forth: behold, he is in the secret chambers; believe it not.

  27 For as the lightning cometh out of the east, and shineth even unto
  the west; so shall also the coming of the Son of man be.

  28 For wheresoever the carcase is, there will the eagles be gathered
  together.

  29 Immediately after the tribulation of those days shall the sun be
  darkened, and the moon shall not give her light, and the stars shall
  fall from heaven, and the powers of the heavens shall be shaken:

  30 And then shall appear the sign of the Son of man in heaven: and
  then shall all the tribes of the earth mourn, and they shall see the
  Son of man coming in the clouds of heaven with power and great glory.

  31 And he shall send his angels with a great sound of a trumpet, and
  they shall gather together his elect from the four winds, from one end
  of heaven to the other.

  32 Now learn a parable of the fig tree; When his branch is yet tender,
  and putteth forth leaves, ye know that summer is nigh:

  33 So likewise ye, when ye shall see all these things, know that it is
  near, even at the doors.

  34 Verily I say unto you, This generation shall not pass, till all
  these things be fulfilled.

  35 Heaven and earth shall pass away, but my words shall not pass away.

  36 But of that day and hour knoweth no man, no, not the angels of
  heaven, but my Father only.

  37 But as the days of Noah were, so shall also the coming of the Son
  of man be.

  38 For as in the days that were before the flood they were eating and
  drinking, marrying and giving in marriage, until the day that Noe
  entered into the ark,

  39 And knew not until the flood came, and took them all away; so shall
  also the coming of the Son of man be.

  40 Then shall two be in the field; the one shall be taken, and the
  other left.

  41 Two women shall be grinding at the mill; the one shall be taken,
  and the other left.

  42 Watch therefore: for ye know not what hour your Lord doth come.

  43 But know this, that if the goodman of the house had known in what
  watch the thief would come, he would have watched, and would not have
  suffered his house to be broken up.

  44 Therefore be ye also ready: for in such an hour as ye think not the
  Son of man cometh.

  45 Who then is a faithful and wise servant, whom his lord hath made
  ruler over his household, to give them meat in due season?

  46 Blessed is that servant, whom his lord when he cometh shall find so
  doing.

  47 Verily I say unto you, That he shall make him ruler over all his
  goods.

  48 But and if that evil servant shall say in his heart, My lord
  delayeth his coming;

  49 And shall begin to smite his fellowservants, and to eat and drink
  with the drunken;

  50 The lord of that servant shall come in a day when he looketh not
  for him, and in an hour that he is not aware of,

  51 And shall cut him asunder, and appoint him his portion with the
  hypocrites: there shall be weeping and gnashing of teeth.

  King James Version (KJV)

Also, from Luke 21: (This time NIV)

  5 Some of his disciples were remarking about how the temple was adorned
  with beautiful stones and with gifts dedicated to God. But Jesus said,
  6 “As for what you see here, the time will come when not one stone will
  be left on another; every one of them will be thrown down.”

  7 “Teacher,” they asked, “when will these things happen? And what will
  be the sign that they are about to take place?”

  8 He replied: “Watch out that you are not deceived. For many will come
  in my name, claiming, ‘I am he,’ and, ‘The time is near.’ Do not
  follow them. 9 When you hear of wars and uprisings, do not be
  frightened. These things must happen first, but the end will not come
  right away.”

  10 Then he said to them: “Nation will rise against nation, and kingdom
  against kingdom. 11 There will be great earthquakes, famines and
  pestilences in various places, and fearful events and great signs from
  heaven.

  12 “But before all this, they will seize you and persecute you. They
  will hand you over to synagogues and put you in prison, and you will
  be brought before kings and governors, and all on account of my name.
  13 And so you will bear testimony to me. 14 But make up your mind not to
  worry beforehand how you will defend yourselves. 15 For I will give you
  words and wisdom that none of your adversaries will be able to resist
  or contradict. 16 You will be betrayed even by parents, brothers and
  sisters, relatives and friends, and they will put some of you to
  death. 17 Everyone will hate you because of me. 18 But not a hair of
  your head will perish. 19 Stand firm, and you will win life.

  20 “When you see Jerusalem being surrounded by armies, you will know
  that its desolation is near. 21 Then let those who are in Judea flee to
  the mountains, let those in the city get out, and let those in the
  country not enter the city. 22 For this is the time of punishment in
  fulfillment of all that has been written. 23 How dreadful it will be in
  those days for pregnant women and nursing mothers! There will be great
  distress in the land and wrath against this people. 24 They will fall
  by the sword and will be taken as prisoners to all the nations.
  Jerusalem will be trampled on by the Gentiles until the times of the
  Gentiles are fulfilled.

  25 “There will be signs in the sun, moon and stars. On the earth,
  nations will be in anguish and perplexity at the roaring and tossing
  of the sea. 26 People will faint from terror, apprehensive of what is
  coming on the world, for the heavenly bodies will be shaken. 27 At that
  time they will see the Son of Man coming in a cloud with power and
  great glory. 28 When these things begin to take place, stand up and
  lift up your heads, because your redemption is drawing near.”

  29 He told them this parable: “Look at the fig tree and all the trees.
  30 When they sprout leaves, you can see for yourselves and know that
  summer is near. 31 Even so, when you see these things happening, you
  know that the kingdom of God is near.

  32 “Truly I tell you, this generation will certainly not pass away
  until all these things have happened. 33 Heaven and earth will pass
  away, but my words will never pass away.

  34 “Be careful, or your hearts will be weighed down with carousing,
  drunkenness and the anxieties of life, and that day will close on you
  suddenly like a trap. 35 For it will come on all those who live on the
  face of the whole earth. 36 Be always on the watch, and pray that you
  may be able to escape all that is about to happen, and that you may be
  able to stand before the Son of Man.”

  37 Each day Jesus was teaching at the temple, and each evening he went
  out to spend the night on the hill called the Mount of Olives, 38and
  all the people came early in the morning to hear him at the temple.


According to Calvinism, what should one do if one doubts their election? What does the reformed church teach in terms of what to do, or pray for, if one begins to suspect that they are not predestined for salvation.

And if they are in fact not elected by God, does the church have a process for them to discover this about themselves, or are they to continue in hope even though there is no chance of salvation?

Just because a person is a long time church member does not mean they belong to Christ Jesus or that they have put their faith and trust in Him.  There are many people who say they are Christians but who have never experienced the new birth.  Forgetting about Calvin for one moment, born-again Christians look to Christ Jesus and believe in this promise in John 6:37-40:

All that the Father gives me will come to me, and whoever comes to me I will never drive away... I shall lose none of all that he has given me... everyone who looks to the Son and believes in him shall have eternal life, and I will raise him up at the last day.

No if’s, no but’s and no maybe’s.  If a person has been born-again then they have the indwelling of the Holy Spirit and that is their assurance.  If they have the indwelling of the Holy Spirit, then they begin to produce the fruit of the spirit.  A transformed life is evidence of the new birth.   As for seekers who have not yet come to saving faith in Christ Jesus, and who look for assurance, then this extract from a sermon preached by Baptist minister Charles H. Spurgeon on the subject of Election may be helpful:

Many persons want to know their election before they look to Christ, but that is not possible; it is only to be discovered by "looking to Jesus" (Hebrews 12:2). Do you feel yourself to be a lost, guilty sinner? Go straight to the cross of Christ, and tell Jesus so, and tell Him that you have read in the Bible, "Whoever comes to me I will never cast out" (John 6:37). Tell Him that He has said, "The saying is trustworthy and deserving of full acceptance, that Christ Jesus came into the world to save sinners" (1 Timothy 1:15). Look to Jesus and believe on Him, and you shall make proof of your election directly, for as surely as you believe, you are elect.
If you will give yourself wholly up to Christ and trust Him, then you are one of God's chosen ones; but if you stop and say, "I want to know first whether I am elect", you do not know what you are asking. Go to Jesus, just as you are, in all your guilt. Leave all curious inquiry about election alone. Go straight to Christ, and hide in His wounds, and you shall know your election. The assurance of the Holy Spirit shall be given to you, so that you shall be able to say, "I know whom I have believed, and I am convinced that he is able to guard until that Day what has been entrusted to me" (2 Timothy 1:12).
Christ was at the everlasting council - He can tell you whether you were chosen or not; but you cannot find it out in any other way. Go and put your trust in Him, and His answer will be, "I have loved you with an everlasting love; therefore I have continued my faithfulness to you" (Jeremiah 31:3). There will be no doubt about His having chosen you when you have chosen Him.  (Source: Charles H. Spurgeon’s devotional Morning and Evening, morning 17 July)

This, I believe, expresses the Reformed Protestant view.  As the article says, if a person doesn’t know whether they are part of God’s elect then they need to go to the cross and turn to Christ Jesus, the author and finisher of our faith (Hebrews 12:2-3).  Assurance is experienced by the indwelling of the Holy Spirit, by whom the believer realises that they have been adopted into God’s family:

Romans 8:9, 11, 14:16: “And if anyone does not have the Spirit of Christ, he does not belong to Christ...  And if the Spirit of him who raised Jesus from the dead is living in you, he who raised Christ from the dead will also give life to your mortal bodies through his Spirit, who lives in you...  because those who are led by the Spirit of God are sons of God... And by him we cry, ‘Abba, Father.’  The Spirit himself testifies with our spirit that we are God’s children. “
1 Thessalonians 1:4-6: “For we know, brothers loved by God, that he has chosen you, because our gospel came to you not simply with words, but also with power, with the Holy Spirit and with deep conviction... you welcomed the message with the joy given by the Holy Spirit.”
2 Timothy 1:12: “I know whom I have believed, and am convinced that he is able to guard what I have entrusted to him for that day.”

It is possible for a believer to back-slide, to grieve the Holy Spirit and to become spiritually sick, but that does not mean they are no longer part of God’s elect or that they have lost their salvation.  It means they need to repent and turn to the great physician and cry out for help:

2 Peter 1:1-10: His divine power has given us everything we need for life and godliness through our knowledge of him who called us by his own glory and goodness...  But if anyone does not have them, he is short-sighted and blind, and has forgotten that he has been cleansed from his past sins. Therefore, my brothers, be all the more eager to make your calling and election sure.”

I confess I find all this talk about Calvin and the Elect confusing.  I am a Christian of the Reformed Protestant persuasion but I do not follow Calvin.  I follow Christ and I believe what the Bible tells us.  Here is a brief summary regarding the biblical basis for the believer’s assurance of salvation:

I have been saved – in the past – from the penalty of sin – by a crucified Saviour: “For in this hope we were saved" (Romans 8:24). “For it is by grace you have been saved, through faith – and this not from yourselves, it is the gift of God” (Romans 2:8).
I am being saved – in the present – from the power of sin – by a living Saviour: "For the message of the cross is foolishness to those who are perishing, but to us who are being saved it is the power of God" (1 Corinthians 1:18).
I shall be saved – in the future – from the presence of sin – by a coming Saviour: "Since we have now been justified by his blood, how much more shall we be saved from God's wrath through him!"  (Romans 5:9)

Regeneration is an on-going process but the Christian who belongs to Christ Jesus can be assured that Jesus shall lose none of all that the Father has given him: “everyone who looks to the Son and believes in him shall have eternal life, and I will raise him up at the last day” (John 6:37-40).


What is the difference between the Trinitarian concept of God and the Mormon concept of God? Just curious. Hope I can get helpful feed back.

In Wikipedia page, Christian Denomination, we see Mormonism as a Nontrinitarian Denomination. Explaining that:

  Mormons see themselves as believing in a Godhead comprising the
  Father, Son, and Holy Ghost as separate personages united in purpose.

On a separate page, God in Mormonism, explains that The Father in the Godhead is the same Jewish God, Elohim that we know.

Basically, unlike the trinity, most Mormons believe that:

  the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost are not said to be one in
  substance or essence; instead, they remain three separate beings, or
  personages, completely united in will and purpose as one God


What's up with churches and guitars in this joke from The Big Bang Theory? From The Big Bang Theory S10E12:

Mary: Thank you, God, for the food we are about to receive and for the nourishment of our bodies and bless the hands that prepared it. Amen.
Sheldon: Given that your hands prepared it, isn't that a little self-serving?
Mary: You start changing the words to the prayers, next thing you know, you're in a church with a guitar.

Not sure if this is to do with Christianity or some TBBT inside joke I'm missing like Sheldon changes words to prayers at home and then later changes words to prayers in church.

Simply put:

Contemporary worship services stereotypically include both free-form prayers and music accompanied by guitars.
Traditional worship services stereotypically include the recitation of set prayers, and do not use guitars.

In the joke, Mary makes a slippery-slope argument: that if she diverges from what is "traditional" in one area (changing the words of her set prayer), everything "traditional" is threatened (guitars will be used in worship).

More fully explained, the joke makes sense when we crudely divide Christian worship services into two groups: liturgical and non-liturgical.

The defining characteristic of liturgical worship services is that the order of events is predefined, or scripted, and improvisation is avoided.  But the stereotype of liturgical worship is that it is formal and antiquated.  Most relevant to the joke, liturgical worship often includes the recitation of a written prayer.  Furthermore, the musical accompaniment in liturgical worship, if there is any at all, is often limited to an organ, piano, or bells, to the exclusion of guitars and drums.

In non-liturgical worship, more improvisation is permitted during the worship service.  The minister's prayers are more likely to be extemporaneous (made up on the spot).  And in many non-liturgical worship services, different instruments are used, such as guitars.

Historically, the transition away from reciting prayers and toward extemporaneous prayers occurred long ago in many Christian denominations.  In many of those churches the more recent transition has been to move away from traditional musical forms (hymns, etc.) and toward contemporary forms, often accompanied by a guitar.

Thus Mary is making a slippery-slope argument: that if she changes the form of her prayer, soon guitars will appear in the worship service.

Of course, the joke relies on a stereotype of liturgical worship – in reality, there are many liturgical worship services where guitars and set prayers coexist.  And in at least most liturgical traditions, prayers said at home may be freer and more extemporaneous than those said during the worship service, so Mary wouldn't be doing anything wrong by modifying her prayer.


What is the origin of the story of the Apostle John surviving being dipped in boiling oil? What is the earliest record of the Apostle John being placed in boiling oil and miraculously living? I can't find any scriptural mention of the story. The only reference I have is Tertullian:

"Since, moreover, you are close upon Italy, you have Rome, from which there comes even into our own hands the very authority (of apostles themselves). How happy is its church, on which apostles poured forth all their doctrine along with their blood; where Peter endures a passion like his Lord's; where Paul wins his crown in a death like John [the Baptist]'s; where the Apostle John was first plunged, unhurt, into boiling oil, and thence remitted to his island-exile."
The Prescription Against Heretics, Ch. 36

The earliest extant reference to John being thrown in boiling oil from Tertullian, c. 200.  His casual mention of the event suggests that it was a widely known story during his day, although it is hard to say by what amount of time the story predates Tertullian.

If the story has any basis in fact, it is usually assumed to have taken place late in the reign of Domitian (81-96).  The only book of the New Testament that directly covers church history, The Acts of the Apostles, ends in about 61.  Assuming Johannine authorship of I John, II John, and III John, all three would predate the boiling incident.  The remaining Johannine literature - Gospel of John and Revelation - would not be expected to mention it either. Thus, we would not expect the story to be mentioned in the Bible, even if it is true.


Do all churches celebrate communion in the same order (bread-first, wine-second)? So, originally, I was going to ask, why do Anglicans serve the bread first, then the wine.  The answer, however, is that it really seems to be the order in Scripture, for as 1 Corinthians 11 says:

  23 For I received from the Lord what I also passed on to you: The Lord Jesus, on the night he was betrayed, took bread, 24 and when he had given thanks, he broke it and said, “This is my body, which is for you; do this in remembrance of me.” 25 In the same way, after supper he took the cup, saying, “This cup is the new covenant in my blood; do this, whenever you drink it, in remembrance of me.” 26 For whenever you eat this bread and drink this cup, you proclaim the Lord’s death until he comes.

Thus, it is bread, then wine.  Still, I keep thinking that way back in my Baptist days (its been 5 years now!) it was the other way - wine first, then bread.

The question then is two-fold:

Are there any traditions that tend to go wine first (if so, which?) and, if that's the case
Why?

It appear that you have technically answered your own question by reminiscing to your Baptist days when you received wine first and then bread, so no, not all churches celebrate communion in the same order.

I think a deeper question would be whether any churches establish as doctrine the order of the elements. I am not aware of any that do, but there is always a chance that a group on the fringes has elevated this issue above others.

I think more likely if any churches have an official position on the order of the element it's most likely to establish consistency in the order of liturgy, rather than for some doctrinal reason. In general, most churches receive either the elements simultaneously or bread first, wine second to follow the order of 1 Cor 11. Since it is most natural to read this passage during liturgy, it is most natural to receive the elements in this order.


Why is Jesus at the center of everything If you look through the Bible we know that Jesus is at the center of everything both in the old and new testament.

I have some clues like him being beloved or as a reward of what he suffered.

  John 3:35

  The Father loveth the Son, and hath given all things into
  his hand

and

  Philippians 2:8-9

  8 And being found in fashion as a man, he humbled himself, and became
  obedient unto death, even the death of the cross.

  9 Wherefore God also hath highly exalted him, and given him a name
  which is above every name

I feel my clues are not concrete or complete so I would like a broader view or complements.

Reason 1

According to reformed theology, the Bible is about the Glory of God.
Jesus is God.
Thus, the Bible is about Jesus.

More concretely, some would go so far as to state that the Elect is the father's gift to the Son (I'm not sure if this can be scripturally verified). That would be further reason for the Bible focusing on Christ.

Reason 2

Without Jesus, these would be no forgiving of sins. Without the forgiving sins, the Bible would be a very different book.


Secular Music and Christian Standards? I am asking this question because I don't know if I'm being correct or too legalistic.
I don't have a problem listening to secular music without sinful lyrics, for example: "She loves you" by the Beatles. However, I don't feel comfortable listening to music where a man says to his wife "I can't live without you" or "You are my everything". Every time that I listen to those lyrics, it comes to my mind that God is our everything and we cannot live without him (instead of a person).
All the Christians that I asked told me that those lyrics will be sinful only if I live by its standards, but I think that God won't be happy if He sees his son/daughter listening a song where a person is giving the position of God to another person.
Do any denominations have a standard when it comes to listening to (modern) secular music?
I hope am not too legalistic in regards to this question?

Philippians 4:8 is an excellent guide when considering whether the lyrics in a song, or the words in a book, or a television programme, are appropriate for a Christian to read/see:

Finally, brothers, whatever is true, whatever is noble, whatever is right, whatever is pure, whatever is lovely, whatever is admirable—if anything is excellent or praiseworthy—think about such things.

It is the lyrics that determine whether a song is “acceptable” for a Christian to listen to. If anything leads you to think about or get involved in something that does not glorify God, it should be avoided.  Source: https://www.gotquestions.org/secular-music.html

Songs that ask us to imagine there’s no heaven, and that there is no God (for example) fail to focus our minds on things from above and are dishonouring to God.  However, within the bounds of Christian liberty it is up to individuals to exercise their conscience in such matters.  Nobody has any right to tell you what you should, or should not listen to, read or watch.  If your conscience troubles you, then act accordingly.
Having said that, this sort of question is likely to be closed because Christianity Stack Exchange is not in the business of giving pastoral advice.  Please take our tour to find out what sort of questions are allowed, and how to avoid asking questions that will attract opinions (which is what I’ve done – oops!)  https://christianity.stackexchange.com/tour


Lazarus and the rich man's table Luke 16:21
What kind of table is this that the crumbs can fall from? I thought they were basically on the floor sitting on or around something spread out on which food was set.

During the first century A.D. and the time of Christ, wealthy Jews had adopted the Persian, Chaldean, Arabic and Roman customs of reclining on couches at a low table when holding special suppers or feasts.  The Romans had three couches on three sides of a square table.  The fourth side was left open for servants to assist in serving.  The guests would recline, resting on the left arm with the lower body stretched out.  This is how the woman could take her place behind Jesus to wash his feet (See Luke7:36-38)

With regard to the story of the rich man and Lazarus (Luke 16:19-21), the account describes how the rich man was clothed in purple.  He undoubtedly was wealthy enough to entertain lavishly and so his guests would no doubt recline on couches around a low table.  Crumbs will fall from a low tale to the floor.

The first link describes how Jews adopted the eating styles and customs of other nations and the second link gives an illustration of Jesus and his disciples reclining on couches round a low table.

https://www.bible-history.com/links.php?cat=39&sub=477&cat_name=Manners+%26+Customs&subcat_name=Eating+Customs

https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=eating+furniture+Romans+Jews+first+century+AD&tbm=isch&source=iu&ictx=1&fir=JqpELiIlU-YSRM%253A%252CiVgZBhxN6zRmJM%252C_&usg=__LdX-O-MLSJ6PrbqIEe55vX_0YHU%3D&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwj0-tbG_ebbAhVNalAKHRm9AKgQ9QEIfDAI#imgrc=QjfZcLHrWGFzzM:

P.S. I did not downvote your question.


How could Adam and Eve lose their just standing before God if it was given to them as a Grace and not earned? I have often heard pastors, internet preachers especially, repeat that, "We did nothing to earn our salvation and there is nothing that we can do to lose it" or something to that effect. These are generally pastors who accept the doctrine of eternal security or Once Saved Always Saved.

I believe we can agree that our first parents, who were in a state of original justice, had done nothing to earn that initial state and that it was a gift of God by virtue of his perfect creation. But if they had done nothing to earn their state of justification before the fall, how is it that they could lose it?

I'm scoping this question to those who accept Once Saved Always Saved and believe in the historicity of Adam and Eve as the original parents of the human race.

Reformed Protestant theology, which includes the doctrines of justification by faith alone and the perseverance of the saints (the inability to lose said justification) regard salvation to be necessary for mankind as a result of the sin of our "first parents".

That is to say, Adam and Eve did not receive "salvation" nor were they "justified" before the fall, because justification refers to the forgiveness of transgressions and the restoration of right standing with God, and salvation refers to that from the wrath of God that results from sin and is accomplished solely by the atoning work of Messiah. Adam and Eve did not "lose" salvation by their sin- they had not received salvation because before their sin, there was no condemnaiton from which they required salvation and no atoning sacrifice was called for. Likewise, they had not been justified because they, unlike their descendants, were not in a state where they were separated from God because of sin but alternatively already occupied the very state of perfection to which justification restores the sinner.

From Luther's commentary on Genesis 3:

  In the preceding chapter [of Genesis], we were taught the manner in which man was created on the sixth day; that he was created in the image and after the likeness of God, that his will was good and perfect, and that his reason or intellect was also perfect, so that whatsoever God willed or said, that man also willed, believed and understood... Universal experience indeed shows us all these calamities [caused by the fall]; but we never feel the real magnitude of them until we look back to that unintelligible but real state of innocency,
  in which there existed the perfection of will, the perfection of reason and that glorious dignity of the nakedness of the human body. When we truly contemplate our loss of all these gifts and contrast that privation with the original possession of them, then do we, in some measure, estimate the mighty evil
  of original sin...

  Wherefore, as I said, let us never extenuate, but rather magnify that
  mighty evil, which human nature has derived from the sin of our first parents; then will the effect he that we shall deplore this our fallen state and cry and sigh unto Christ our great Physician, who was sent unto us by the Father for the very end that those evils, which Satan has inflicted on us through sin, might by him be healed, and that we might be restored unto that eternal glory, which by sin we had lost.

To utilize Luther's analogy, salvation and justification are the forms of healing and results of the treatment of our Divine Physician, Jesus Messiah. Before the fall, Adam and Eve were not saved or justified, but they were perfectly healthful in both the physical and spiritual sense, not yet requiring the work of that Physician until after sin had inflicted upon them its grave injury.

So, to say that Adam and Eve lost salvation or justification in the manner of speaking meant by the doctrine of the perseverance of the saints or to ask how such were lost is to commit a categorical error. It is only after the fall that the human race needed to be saved from the incurred wrath and restored into right standing with God.