Which denominations believe that the misfortunes of Jews are a result of "God's curse" for their killing of Jesus? In this answer user Mike made the following statement:

  For the curse they put upon themselves was later brought to pass in
  the actual destruction of their nation which occurred in 70 A.D. Their
  homeless position on the earth did not end until 1948 making the
  punishment so very great.

This possibly also includes the Holocaust (although not mentioned by name) because it directly resulted from the "homeless" position and happened before 1948.

Thus my question is as follows:

What Christian groups consider the destruction of the Jewish nation in 70 AD, the persecutions of the Jews due to their homeless position until the creation of Israel, discrimination of the Jews in Europe, the pogroms in Imperial Russia, the Holocaust and other misfortunes the Jews suffered from Christians a punishment of God for killing Jesus Christ?

Even within Christian groups there are differences among individuals.
I would say that the destruction of Jerusalem by the Romans in 70 A.D. was absolutely a consequence of the corporate sin of Israel, like the destruction of Jerusalem by the Babylonians. No difference, really. Why did God allow the Babylonians to destroy Jerusalem? Because of Israel's sin. There's no need to whitewash this, and Christians shouldn't be ashamed to state this as a fact. If anyone thinks God allowed the Romans to conquer Jerusalem because He was pleased with Israel, such a one is twisted.
During the siege of Jerusalem, there was an interval in which the Roman army under Cestius essentially retreated, giving time for the Christians (who were privy to Jesus' prophetic warning; cp. Matt. 24:16) to escape and flee before the full onslaught of the Roman army destroyed Jerusalem.
In Wars of the Jews, 2.19.7 (§540), the Jewish historian Josephus wrote,

It then happened that Cestius was not conscious either how the besieged despaired of success, nor how courageous the people were for him; and so he recalled his soldiers from the place, and by despairing of any expectation of taking it, without having received any disgrace, he retired from the city, without any reason in the world.

In Ecclesiastical History, 3.5.2-4, the Church historian Eusebius wrote,

2 For the Jews after the ascension of our Savior, in addition to their crime against him, had been devising as many plots as they could against his apostles. First Stephen was stoned to death by them, and after him James, the son of Zebedee and the brother of John, was beheaded, and finally James, the first that had obtained the episcopal seat in Jerusalem after the ascension of our Saviour, died in the manner already described. But the rest of the apostles, who had been incessantly plotted against with a view to their destruction, and had been driven out of the land of Judea, went unto all nations to preach the Gospel, relying upon the power of Christ, who had said to them, "Go ye and make disciples of all the nations in my name."
3 But the people of the church in Jerusalem had been commanded by a revelation, vouchsafed to approved men there before the war, to leave the city and to dwell in a certain town of Perea called Pella. And when those that believed in Christ had come thither from Jerusalem, then, as if the royal city of the Jews and the whole land of Judea were entirely destitute of holy men, the judgment of God at length overtook those who had committed such outrages against Christ and his apostles, and totally destroyed that generation of impious men.
4 But the number of calamities which everywhere fell upon the nation at that time; the extreme misfortunes to which the inhabitants of Judea were especially subjected, the thousands of men, as well as women and children, that perished by the sword, by famine, and by other forms of death innumerable,—all these things, as well as the many great sieges which were carried on against the cities of Judea, and the excessive. sufferings endured by those that fled to Jerusalem itself, as to a city of perfect safety, and finally the general course of the whole war, as well as its particular occurrences in detail, and how at last the abomination of desolation, proclaimed by the prophets, stood in the very temple of God, so celebrated of old, the temple which was now awaiting its total and final destruction by fire,—all these things any one that wishes may find accurately described in the history written by Josephus.

He ends chapter 5, stating,

7 But passing by the particular calamities which they suffered from the attempts made upon them by the sword and by other means, I think it necessary to relate only the misfortunes which the famine caused, that those who read this work may have some means of knowing that God was not long in executing vengeance upon them for their wickedness against the Christ of God.

Read Leviticus 26 and note all the curses Israel would endure because they refused to listen to God. The curses are extremely severe. I guess many simply skim over that as though God made empty threats; He does not.
Finally, there's Deut. 18:15-19. Altough it applies to any prophet of Israel, it is also referring to the Messiah (cp. Acts 3:22, 7:37), the prophet par excellence, who would be "like Moshe." God commanded the Israelites to listen to this prophet because he spoke the words that God put in his mouth. Again, this applies to every prophet, but especially the Messiah who would be a greater prophet than Moshe (contrary to Judaism which says that he will only be "near" Moshe's prophetic degree).
But, pay particular attention to Deut. 18:19, in which it is written, "And it shall come to pass, whoever shall not listen to My words that He shall speak in My name, I will require of him." "Require" doesn't really capture the meaning of the Hebrew.
The Hebrew in this particular context essentially means "exact vengeance" (cp. Gen. 9:5; Ps. 10:4; Eze. 33:6, etc.). Ibn Ezra cited one example of this occurring. He refers to a particular prophet ("man of God") in 1 Kings 13:1 who did not listen to the word of YHVH (1 Kings 13:9). Long story short, this "man of God" --- yes, he was actually a prophet of Israel --- was riding a donkey in the way when God sent a lion to devour him. The donkey, remained unharmed. The man of God, torn to shreds.
Jesus (who was a prophet) repeatedly said that he did not speak his own words but the words of the Father. The Jewish people refused to listen to him. God the Father commanded them to listen, as it is written (Matt. 17:5), "This is My beloved Son in whom I am well pleased; listen to Him!"
Unbelieving Jews are still under the Old Covenant, and the curses of the Law (which they acknowledged in an oath), still remain if they refuse to listen to God. It is certainly true that Jews have suffered countless calamities because of their unbelief. With that being said, it does not excuse those who murdered Jews. God will judge both. I cannot emphasize that enough. Also, do note that it is not only because they (again, not all Jews) had a hand in killing Jesus, but the prophets and other saints of God.

Addressing Anixx's question.
The answer is "no," because man is not aware of God's predeterminate purpose and will.
Regarding Jerusalem during the Babylonian captivity, God said (Jer. 34:2), "I will give this city into the hand of the king of Babylon, and he shall burn it with fire."
God is going to give it. It's His will, His counsel, His purpose.
Yet, Nevukhadne'tzar said (Dan. 4:30), "The king spoke and said, 'Is not this great Babylon, that I have built for the house of the kingdom by the might of my power, and for the honour of my majesty?" ("Babylon" would have also included Jerusalem since they had captured it and incorporated it into their kingdom.)
Nevukhadne'tzar didn't believe in the God of Israel. He conquered Jerusalem with evil intentions, not thinking He was serving the God of Israel. Accordingly, God judged him for the evil he committed.
Likewise, Vespasian, Titus, and all those of Rome who conquered Jerusalem did not believe in the God of Israel, nor did they believe they were performing His will. They did so because of the evil in their heart.
Now, you may say, "What if an individual (e.g., a Christian) does believe in the God of Israel and does believe He is performing the will of God by killing a Jew?"
Well, now we have the true Scottsman fallacy, and unfortunately, it is my response. Any Christian who murders another human being, Jew or Gentile, is going straight to Gehinnam (Gal. 5:21). Oh wait...let me make that more precise. Any individual who calls him/ herself a "Christian," yet murders another human being, is going straight to Gehinnam. Because, anyone who murders another human being is not a Christian. Christ gave a new commandment (John 15:12), "Love one another as I have loved you." He also said, "Greater love has no man than this, that a man lay down his life for his friends" (John 15:13). Nowhere does he advocate killing unbelievers, nor does Paul.
I understand this may not sit well with my Jewish brothers. My ancestors were killed in the Inquisition, burned alive in "autos-de-fe." Many, many of the Jews on Mi Yodeya and here have ancestors who died in the Holocaust. They may have been killed by individuals claiming to be Christians and supposing to do the will of God. What they know of Christians is likely distasteful, and I cannot blame them. I cannot heal those wounds; only God can.
History has shown that many Jews, despite knowing that so-called "Christians" killed Jews in the name of Christ, reaized that such individuals were not Christians at all and did not represent the teachings of Christ. These Jews then later became Christians, most willingly. Again, there is the unfortunate aspect of forced conversion by both Islam and Christianity. While the Qur'an may advocate forced conversions (cp. Qur'an 8:39, 9:29), the New Testament never does. After all, one of the most fundamental teachings of Christ is "forgiveness" and loving one's enemies (thanks to David Stratton and svidgen for their comments on that previous thread of mine).


Crucifixion and the principle of double effect Crucifying Jesus is obviously morally wrong. Being silent on another person's sin is also a sin. God is sinless.

How does, from Roman Catholic perspective, one explain the fact that Jesus didn't stop the Romans from crucifying him, therefore allowing for their sin?

I suppose it has something to do with the principle of double effect, but I don't understand how it works with the "morally evil act can't be used as means" thing.

Jesus' obedience to his Father's will was more important than one more example  of people sinning

His sacrifice paid for their sins, because it pays for all of mankind's sins.  Looked at through the lens of the Satisfaction Theory of Atonement Jesus was about to pay for their sins himself.  The sins of the Roman were but a few of the sins of mankind that called for satisfaction.

  The satisfaction due to God was greater than what all created beings
  are capable of doing, since they can only do what is already required
  of them. Therefore, God had to make satisfaction for himself. Yet if
  this satisfaction was going to avail for humans, it had to be made by
  a human. Therefore only a being that was both God and man could
  satisfy God and give him the honor that is due him.

Jesus' obedience is the opposite of sin.

  CCC 1850 Sin is an offense against God ... Sin is thus "love of
  oneself even to contempt of God." 1(~St. Augustine). In this proud
  self-exaltation, sin is diametrically opposed to the obedience of
  Jesus, which achieves our salvation.(Philippians 2: 6-9)

Note that this answer is a frame challenge, since from the Catholic perspective none of this alleged "double principle" in play.

The Agony in the Garden of Gethsemane

As recorded in all four Gospels, after the Last Supper, Jesus went into the Garden of Gethsemane to pray before he was arrested.  The Gospels present him as confronting his fate, during which prayerful time he asks his Father to take this cup (his looming passion / crucifixion) away.  In the end, he submits to his Father's will.  "Not my will, but yours."  Being obedient to God is not a sin, it is a virtue.

  (Matthew 26:42). "My Father, if it is possible, let this cup pass me by. Nevertheless, let it be as you, not I, would have it." Then, a little while later, He said, "If this cup cannot pass by, but I must drink it, your will
  be done!"

Agnus Dei

"Agnus Dei, qui tollis peccata mundi, miserere nobis*
(Lamb of God, Who takes away the sins of the world, have mercy on us)

In the Roman Catholic liturgy, the Agnus Dei is a reaffirmation that Jesus, the Lamb of God, takes away the sins of the world.  This is drawn from Scripture:  John 1:29

  The next day he saw Jesus coming toward him and said, “Behold, the
  Lamb of God, who takes away the sin of the world."

That's what Jesus did on the cross: since the Romans were of the world, their sins were an included case.  That's Jesus' role, which he accepts during the Agony in the Garden.  From his arrest to his crucifixion (the passion) Jesus was not able to stop the railroad job that was coming his way.  He knew that ahead of time, based on his prayer in the Garden, and remained obedient to his Father's will.  Trying to stop it would have been in direct opposition to God's will, and thus a sin.
Their sins (the Romans') were paid for by Jesus' sacrifice, as was everyone else's.  From the Catechism.

  CCC 457 The Word became flesh for us in order to save us by
  reconciling us with God, who "loved us and sent his Son to be the
  expiation for our sins": "the Father has sent his Son as the Saviour
  of the world", and "he was revealed to take away sins"

  God takes the initiative of universal redeeming love
  CCC 604 By giving up his own Son for our sins, God manifests that
  his plan for us is one of benevolent love, prior to any merit on our
  part: "In this is love, not that we loved God but that he loved us and
  sent his Son to be the expiation for our sins." God "shows his love
  for us in that while we were yet sinners Christ died for us."

Forgive them Father, for they know not what they do (Luke 23:24)

Even before he was nailed to the Cross, Jesus recognized their sin in putting to death an innocent (per Luke 23:4, even Pilate recognizes Jesus' innocence).

So does he whine about it?  No.  He not only remains obedient to God, He makes an appeal to his Father, asking for them to be forgiven because they did not know what they were doing.  That's (1) loving your enemy, and (2) loving your neighbor as yourself --  at the same time.  If there's any principle of double effect going on, it is one of love, not sin.

The question you ask has some odd assumptions.  It is hardly a sin to be unable to stop someone from sinning when you have not the ability to do so.  (I can't stop someone in Pakistan from committing murder: I haven't the means to do so).  What he did is what he could do, based on his obedience to his Father: take their sins to himself, as was his role, as he takes the sins of all of mankind.

Expiation, featuring Jesus as victim of expiation for human sins, is covered in CCC articles 457, 604, 615-16, 1476, 1992;


Example for children of common sense in the Bible I'm looking for one or more examples, preferably stories, of common sense in the Bible. This is for teaching church children, aged 5-8. Ideally, the story will involve peer pressure, and someone resisting going along with the group.

There are examples of foolishness which I could use, eg:

Aaron and the Golden Calf
Rehoboam's revolt

and numerous others but I'm looking for the opposite, a wise decision. I'm trying to find a situation that children can relate to, so eg Solomon judging between two women wouldn't work. And though I say wise, I'm looking for more like "common sense". That is, sometimes we just need to use the brain God has given us and not wait for Divine Inspiration.

Any stories fit this?

How about the stories of Daniel and his friends where they didn't give in to peer pressure? How about 1 Samuel where Jonathan sides with the David instead of his jealous father? And the story of Joseph where he made the right choice?


According to the Calvinist, why "believe" if something is known absolutely true? From this link:

  Christians have said Scripture is infallible because they have
  believed that God’s Word is incapable of erring and thus contains no
  errors

The above sentences maybe to everyone else is easy to be understood by the Calvinist, but not for me (especially I'm not a Christian).

To me, God's Word is absolutely the truth. So to me it doesn't need to be believed. It's just like there is an ice cube in the fridge, then it doesn't make sense if I say "I believe that ice cube is cold".

To me, the chronological order is like this :
Christians have believed that "X" writing is God's Words.
So, Christians believe that "X" writing is Scripture.
Since God's Words is infallible, then Christians believe that "X" writing is infallible.

So to me, the "believe" is not on the God's Words, but that "X" writing which is believed God's Words. The chronological order is : IF there is a writing which is believed God's Words THEN that writing is infallible. Later on : Because this writing is believed God's Words then this writing is infallible

Another quote from the same link:

  If God never lies, His Word never lies either. We can therefore trust
  it to be free from all error

The same, it's confusing to me as the IF is on "God never lies", while my own chronological order the IF is on "the writing" ---> IF this X writing is God's Words THEN there is no lie in this X writing. (Why the "THEN" is like that ? because God never lies).

Because to me the IF is : IF the writing is believed God's Words then the writing does not endorse anything untrue in the point of view whoever believe that writing is God's Words then it raise a question: *how "God never lies" is the IF ?*

  "The Christians have believed that God’s Word is incapable of erring"

So my question is:
how "God's Words is incapable of erring" is a believe ?

Please ignore the question if the sentence in the quote is just a circular sentence like this :
1. Christians have said Scripture is infallible because they have believed that Scripture is incapable of erring and thus contains no errors
2. If Scripture never lies, Scripture never lies either. We can therefore trust it to be free from all error

You can only be as confident about something as you are confident about the basis for that something. So just as you say, the Christians who believe in the infallibility of scripture believe it, they don't know it like they know that 2 + 2 = 4 or that gravity is real. It's not possible to prove the infallibility of scripture. There's no science that we can do to prove the infallibility of scripture. There's no sound deductive argument to prove the infallibility of scripture. Neither can we prove that the scriptures are inspired by God or are God's word. The best we have is many lines of inductive reasoning that lead us believe that it is most likely that the scriptures are infallible.

If you see Christians saying that they "know" the scriptures are inspired or infallible, don't see that as a scientific or rigid deductive philosophical kind of knowledge, but instead the kind of relational knowledge you have when you say you know your parents or your spouse loves you. This kind of knowledge and belief is grown on the basis of years of experience of reliability.


Is the root of salvation correctly summed up as "Be saved and repent!" or should it be "Repent and be saved!"? In the article below, the phrase "Be saved and repent!" was endorsed. I wish to know what a Reformed Protestant view would be on this. The context for the phrase is this:

The editor wrote an article showing how God's grace does not render his law pointless; that Calvary is not an apology for Sinai, but that Moses and Jesus are on the same team. Abraham and Moses were justified by faith and, "If you want the whole truth, you need a whole Bible." Then he explained how the Ten Commandments were not 'Ten Burdens' to the newly delivered Israelites. "They were rescued, not by meeting God's moral standards, but by God's grace and mercy - the Law would come after their deliverance, not before."

But then came the quote that prompts this question. One of the editor's friends

  "said recently: "The root is salvation by His election and His grace. The fruit is repentance - which lasts until the day one dies. The real formula is "Be saved and repent!" "
  [Source: Sword magazine, March/April 2020 (Vol. 15 No. 2) pp 4-5, article "He ain't heavy... He's my Saviour".]

Yet given how John the Baptist was sent to the nation of Israel to get them to repent and be baptised, in order to then receive salvation in Christ (Matthew 3:1-12), I wish to examine this claimed 'real formula'. Yes, in those verses Jewish religious leaders were commanded to bring forth fruits worthy of repentance, for the axe was laid at the root of the trees not bearing good fruit. Yet does that not prove that the fruit of repentance cannot come until first those Israelites did what John the Baptist commanded - to repent (confessing their sins) and to be baptised? Surely only then would they be prepared to see the kingdom of God that was at hand, and to enter into it by faith? (John 3:5) Would this not make the biblical 'formula', "Repent and be saved!"?

I'm looking for a Reformed Protestant view on this question, NOT a ‘right or wrong’ view. This is NOT a ‘truth’ question. Nor is this a question about how to be saved. It is about the correct order of two events. Are there any published articles or sermons on this from recognised Reformed Protestant theologians? [Source: Sword magazine, March/April 2020 (Vol. 15 No. 2) pp 4-5, article "He ain't heavy... He's my Saviour".] I cannot give a weblink as I received a paper copy of this magazine and, as far as I know, it is not produced on-line.

From the limited quote and from the assumption that the article's author is Reformed, probably the author was emphasizing the election part.  I found the magazine's website but Vol 15 Issue 2 is not online yet and even if it is, access is to subscribers only.

In Reformed ordo salutis (see also comparison of schemes in wikipedia article) Election comes first, then Regeneration, which produces the fruits of Repentance & Faith as our response.  So God needs to do Election and Regeneration first to enable us to respond in repentance and faith.  Since in the Reformed tradition the emphasis is on God's action, it makes sense that the author put these Election and Regeneration saving acts FIRST in the logical order of salvation, which ends in glorification.

Therefore in the quote

  "The root is salvation by His election and His grace.  ... The real formula is "Be saved and repent!",

"Be saved" most likely refers to "election" and "regeneration", which God has to do first in order to repair our Total Depravity (our inability to come to faith), which is consistent with the Reformed view of salvation.

But in the formula "Repent and be saved", "be saved" must have referred to the later stages of salvation in the ordo: justification, adoption, sanctification, preserverance, and glorification.

In this way both quotes are compatible with each other within the Reformed tradition.


Is it valid to use grape juice at Communion? Given that wine was used by Christ at the last supper, is it valid to use grape juice in the remembrance of the Lord's Table?

Yes, wine was most likely used by Jesus during the Last Supper, just as the cups in the Passover Feast are typically wine in today's observances.  Yet, there is not prescriptive command to use wine nor is there any prohibitive command against using grape juice.

If this were a significant issue, then it is reasonable to assume that the Bible would contain either a prohibitive or prescriptive reference somewhere.  After all, there are quite a few books, and Passover (which is what Jesus celebrated as the Last Supper) had been observed since Moses.

So, the conclusion is that it is not a significant issue and neither moral nor immoral to use wine or grape juice.  We do use the fruit of the vine, following the pattern in Passover celebrations, but the presence of fermentation is immaterial.

The remembrance of the death, burial, and resurrection of Jesus Christ is supreme.

I might add that if you happen to live in a desert where no grapes can be grown, it would seem improper to assert that you could not celebrate communion since you would have neither grape juice nor wine.


What is meant by hot drinks in section 89 of the doctrine and covenant? I know that the LDS are against the taking of any kind of recreational drug including widely legal drugs like tobacco. However, when reading section 89 of the doctrine and covenant there appears to be an explicit ban on "hot drinks". Is this interpreted as referring to tea and coffee or is this a literal ban on warm beverages of all kinds that have no drug properties e.g. peppermint tea or even just hot water?

What is meant by "hot drinks"?

"Hot drinks" refers to tea and coffee.

The LDS Student Manual for the Doctrine and Covenants references a quote from the Prophet Joseph Smith providing this clarification:

  “I understand that some of the people are excusing themselves in using
  tea and coffee, because the Lord only said ‘hot drinks’ in the
  revelation of the Word of Wisdom. …

  “Tea and coffee … are what the Lord meant when He said ‘hot drinks.’”
  (In Joel H. Johnson, Voice from the Mountains [Salt Lake City:
  Juvenile Instructor Office, 1881], p. 12.)

The church has reaffirmed the meaning of "hot drinks" in recent times. For example, see Word of Wisdom on LDS.org:

  latter-day prophets have taught that the term “hot drinks,” as written
  in [D&C 89:9], refers to tea and coffee

While it may seem peculiar now days to single out tea and coffee as "hot drinks," during the temperance movement of the 1830s they were both seen as substitutes for alcohol.


2 Corinthians 2:15-16 - what does this passage mean? Peace, grace and blessings everyone!  I’m new to this board. I look forward to everyone's answer.

  For we are a fragrance of Christ to God among those who are being
  saved and among those who are perishing;to the one an aroma from death
  to death, to the other an aroma from life to life. And who is adequate
  for these things? 2 Cor. 2:15-16

Now my focus is where it says “to the one an aroma from death to death, to the other an aroma from life to life”

What I'd like to know and understand is whether the “death unto death” is a statement referring to those who are “perishing” or to those who are being “saved”?

I may be in the minority, but I believe the "death unto death" is referring to those being "saved" and the "life unto life" to those who are perishing.

I say that base these passages:

  Precious in the sight of the LORD is the death of his saints. Psalm
  116:15

  Truly, truly, I say to you, unless a grain of wheat falls into the
  earth and dies, it remains alone; but if it dies, it bears much fruit.
  John 12:24

  Or do you not know that all of us who have been baptized into Christ
  Jesus have been baptized into His death? Rom 6:3

  For whoever wishes to save his life will lose it, but whoever loses
  his life for My sake, he is the one who will save it. Luke 9:24

It seems to me that understanding our union and death in Christ is what brings "death unto death" which is indeed "precious in His sight" because I believe God wants us to understand that it takes a death to bring real life. The more that we know that nature of Adam was crucified and buried, the more we awaken to our union and oneness with God because of Christ For as in Adam all die, so also in Christ all will be made alive.(1 Cor 15:22) And so to those who are then "perishing" (no knowledge or intimacy with God) the message of the cross and reconciliation can become "life unto life" once they believe and receive the free gift of salvation.

If we believe that it pleases Him that the aroma of those in Christ who minister the message of love and grace brings"death unto death" to those who are "perishing", then I beleive it contradicts what God says to Ezekiel:

  Do I have any pleasure in the death of the wicked,” declares the Lord
  God...Ezk 18:23

Would love to hear what others think.  Thanks!

2 Corinthians 2:15-16 - what does this passage mean?

  2 Corinthians 2:15-16  For we are unto God a sweet savour of Christ,
  in them that are saved, and in them that perish: To the one we are the
  savour of death unto death; and to the other the savour of life unto
  life. And who is sufficient for these things?

Paul uses the human faculty of sensation perception through chemicals in the air we know of as odor. He is saying that there is something distinct about Christians that is specifically discernable to God, the unsaved, and to other Christians.

When God perceives us, he is pleased to consider the life of Christ in us as a sweet reminder of all that is Jesus.

When the unsaved perceive us they also are able to detect something of Christ.

  John 3:19  And this is the condemnation, that light is come into the
  world, and men loved darkness rather than light, because their deeds
  were evil.

  John 15:19  If ye were of the world, the world would love his own: but
  because ye are not of the world, but I have chosen you out of the
  world, therefore the world hateth you.

It may be that the unsaved perceive at some level their own eventual doom and see in Christians that which is odious.

It is also possible for a Christian to perceive another Christian like the encounter of a pleasant smell.

Philippians 4:18  But I have all, and abound: I am full, having received of Epaphroditus the things which were sent from you, an odour of a sweet smell, a sacrifice acceptable, wellpleasing to God.


How can Pharisees turn someone from God if His grace is irresistible? How does Calvinism reconcile these words from Jesus along with its doctrine of irresistible grace (IG)?

  Matthew 23:13,15 ESV But woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! For you shut the kingdom of heaven in people's faces. For you neither enter yourselves nor allow those who would enter to go in. Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! For you travel across sea and land to make a single proselyte, and when he becomes a proselyte, you make him twice as much a child of hell as yourselves.

I bolded the parts that seem to say that it is the Pharisees who are causing these people to turn away.

The reasons why I think this passage and IG are at odds is because if the person being proselytized...

...did not already receive God's IG, and was therefore not elect to begin with, why would Jesus say that the Pharisees make them a child of hell?
...did already receive God's IG, how could any actions from the Pharisee's interfere with that?

The concept of Irresistible grace is summed up this way:

  Although the general outward call of the gospel can be, and often is, rejected, the special inward call of the Spirit never fails to result in the conversion of those to whom it is made. This special call is not made to all sinners but is issued to the elect only! The Spirit is in no way dependent upon their help or cooperation for success in His work of bringing them to Christ. It is for this reason that Calvinists speak of the Spirit's call and of God's grace in saving sinners as being ‘efficacious,' ‘invincible,' or ‘irresistible.' For the grace which the Holy Spirit extends to the elect cannot be thwarted or refused, it never fails to bring them to true faith in Christ! (Steele and Thomas, The Five Points of Calvinism, Defined, Defended, Documented, p 48-49)

The important thing in the passage you quote is that the people are responding not to an inward call, but to an outward one. If they become "twice the child of hell" there could not have been an inward call in the first place.

To answer your addendum, there's no suggestion that the person isn't already a child of hell, they are made worse by the Pharisees. That's the point here. The point of this passage isn't to make a doctrinal statement (so it would be kind of dangerous to infer doctrine from it), but it's to point out the pharisees that their attempts at proselytization are so horrible and backwards they end up pushing their converts further into sin and condemnation than they already were!


Is there any specific difference between a "Christian" and a 'true' disciple of Christ? What is the Biblical definition of "disciple"?

Can you be "merely" a 'follower of Christ' or a 'Christian' and not be a 'disciple'?

Your definition of a Christian seems a bit arbitrary, but one thing I notice is that the whole thing is based on beliefs.  But the word disciple comes from the same root as discipline, which suggests a few things as to its meaning.  Discipleship is not about belief, it's about what you do with that belief.

Much of the Sermon on the Mount, which lays out many of the core principles of the Law of the Gospel, is about self-discipline: controlling not only one's actions but one's very thoughts, not allowing anger to take over even when you've been wronged, etc.  And in Matthew 16: 24 (and this is also mentioned in Mark and Luke) we see:

  Then said Jesus unto his disciples, If any man will come after me, let him deny himself, and take up his cross, and follow me.

So we see that following Christ requires denying oneself, (again with the self-discipline theme,) and taking up their own cross.  And this doesn't mean wearing a cross on a necklace!  To someone living under Roman rule, carrying your own cross was something that a prisoner condemned to death had to do, and the meaning here is clear. It's an extension of denying yourself: you need to be willing to sacrifice whatever is necessary, even your own life, in service to God's plan in order to be a true disciple of Christ.

In Mark 10:21, when talking to a righteous youth who professes a desire to follow him, Jesus gives a slightly different perspective on this:

  Then Jesus beholding him loved him, and said unto him, One thing thou lackest: go thy way, sell whatsoever thou hast, and give to the poor, and thou shalt have treasure in heaven: and come, take up the cross, and follow me.

Here we see the theme of sacrifice associated even more explicitly with discipleship and taking up one's own cross.  It's repeated even more strongly in Luke 14:27-33, with a warning attached:

  27 And whosoever doth not bear his cross, and come after me, cannot be my disciple.

  28 For which of you, intending to build a tower, sitteth not down first, and counteth the cost, whether he have sufficient to finish it?

  29 Lest haply, after he hath laid the foundation, and is not able to finish it, all that behold it begin to mock him,

  30 Saying, This man began to build, and was not able to finish.

  31 Or what king, going to make war against another king, sitteth not down first, and consulteth whether he be able with ten thousand to meet him that cometh against him with twenty thousand?

  32 Or else, while the other is yet a great way off, he sendeth an ambassage, and desireth conditions of peace.

  33 So likewise, whosoever he be of you that forsaketh not all that he hath, he cannot be my disciple.

Jesus makes it clear that he never meant for being a true disciple to be something easy.  It's much more than simple belief; it requires full commitment, self-discipline, and a willingness to sacrifice all that we have for his sake.


Was Jesus The Lamb of God or the High Priest (that offers the lamb as a sacriffice)? Was Jesus The Lamb of God or the High Priest (whom offers the lamb as a sacriffice)?
John the baptist said " Behold the Lamb of God, which taketh away the sin of the world" John 1:19
And in Hebrews 4:14 it is written "Seeing then that we have a great high priest, that is passed into the heavens, Jesus the Son of God".

He was both, but offered Himself, His own body as the perfect sacrifice. The book of Hebrews goes into great details. If you have a little time, read an overview commentary of Hebrews; if you have a medium amount of time, read a study Bible or commentary that goes verse by verse; If you have a lot of time, I strongly recommend the Naked Bible podcast by Dr. Michael Heiser, wherein he breaks down the book in great detail using a lot of knowledge of 1st Century Middle Eastern cultural background, but explains things in laymen's terms. He covers the book of Hebrews over several episodes. If you wish, you could focus on Hebrews 10, which deals specifically with the sacrifice.

Starting from verse 4 (I'm using the NLT):
"4 For it is not possible for the blood of bulls and goats to take away sins. 5 That is why, when Christ came into the world, he said to God,

“You did not want animal sacrifices or sin offerings.
    But you have given me a body to offer.
6 You were not pleased with burnt offerings
    or other offerings for sin.
7 Then I said, ‘Look, I have come to do your will, O God—
    as is written about me in the Scriptures.’”

8 First, Christ said, “You did not want animal sacrifices or sin offerings or burnt offerings or other offerings for sin, nor were you pleased with them” (though they are required by the law of Moses). 9 Then he said, “Look, I have come to do your will.” He cancels the first covenant in order to put the second into effect. 10 For God’s will was for us to be made holy by the sacrifice of the body of Jesus Christ, once for all time.

11 Under the old covenant, the priest stands and ministers before the altar day after day, offering the same sacrifices again and again, which can never take away sins. 12 But our High Priest offered himself to God as a single sacrifice for sins, good for all time. Then he sat down in the place of honor at God’s right hand. 13 There he waits until his enemies are humbled and made a footstool under his feet. 14 For by that one offering he forever made perfect those who are being made holy.


What kind of clothes did Jesus wear? There are a couple references in the Gospels indicating what Jesus wore, but not many. His undergarment was 'seamless' according to John 19:23.  He also may have had the 'fringes' or 'tassels' of the garment that Jews wore, as we see a woman touching a 'fringe' of his outer garment in Mathew 9:20.  Many think this indicates that he followed this  Mosaic law with regard to dress:

  The Lord said to Moses,  “Speak to the Israelites and say to them: ‘Throughout the generations to come you are to make tassels on the corners of your garments, with a blue cord on each tassel. (Numbers 15:37-38, NIV)

However, if Jesus wore these tassels, they would not have been like those 'extra long ones' wore by the Pharisees, for Jesus said:

  “Everything they do is done for people to see: They make their phylacteries wide and the tassels on their garments long. (Matthew 23:5, NIV)

So, here are some references to lead to various sub-questions:

Did Jesus wear sandals? Would he have worn a Jewish turban outside?
Would anyone one notice that he was a teacher by his dress, or was he just a regular looking guy?
Or, is this all mere speculation and unanswerable?

The question is, if we were casting a Jesus movie, what clothes did Jesus most likely wear as a combined set? The question is not pointed at 'one' specific article, but the combination of articles and the impression, if any, that they would make on a stranger, whether Jew or Gentile.

Note: A related question about the phylacteries or tefillin can be found here.

From the Gospel of John, we learn that He wore sandals:

  "...He is the one who comes after me, the thongs of whose sandals I am not worthy to untie.”

John 1:27

He also wore a single piece undergarment, and apparently four other items of clothing:

  When the soldiers crucified Jesus, they took his clothes, dividing them into four shares, one for each of them, with the undergarment remaining. This garment was seamless, woven in one piece from top to bottom.

John 19:23


When and why did Protestantism begin moving away from liturgy? I have been to some Protestant churches that have a liturgy on Sunday mornings (Lutherans, Presbyterians, etc) but most of the churches I've attended do not (Baptist, Assembly of God, etc). By liturgy, I mean specific readings, usually chosen according to a church calendar, from a pool of shared, historical literature compiled by the church over time.

When and why did Protestants who follow the 'sing a few songs and then listen to the Pastor give a sermon' tradition abandon the liturgy in favor of worship music followed by a sermon? I am not asking about praying the hours throughout the day but rather about the church service.

The simplifying or outright dismantling of liturgies has been in train since the beginning of the Reformation, particularly as it started to unfold in Switzerland under Huldrych Zwingli. From the linked Wikipedia article:

  Shortly before Easter (1525), Zwingli and his closest associates requested the council to cancel the mass and to introduce the new public order of worship...The sermon was the focal point of the service and there was no organ music or singing.

They still did describe the order of service as a liturgy, but there was a radically new conception of what that meant.

In many ways, Zwingli was more "Protestant" than Luther - his rejection of the concept of the real presence in the Eucharist and limiting communion services to four times a year was a major step towards a "de-liturgized" service.


Was the flood of Noah global or local? Genesis 7 and 8 describes the flood of Noah, and says in part:

  The waters rose and increased greatly on the earth, and the ark floated on the surface of the water. They rose greatly on the earth, and all the high mountains under the entire heavens were covered. The waters rose and covered the mountains to a depth of more than fifteen cubits. Every living thing that moved on land perished—birds, livestock, wild animals, all the creatures that swarm over the earth, and all mankind. Genesis 7:18-21 NIV

"Common sense" seems to suggest this must have been a local flood (otherwise, where did all that water go?) but the text seems to indicate that it covered the entire earth.

Which was it, and why?

It's a global flood. There are several logical points why.

First, the gathering of all of the animals in the world would be useless, if the Flood was only a local flood. If the Flood was only local, not all of the animals would drown, and thus, bringing all the animals of the World on the ark would have been a useless act.

Secondly, if the Flood was only local, would all the people die? Obviously not. There'd be other people in the world that wouldn't have died besides Noah.

Thirdly, if the Flood was only local, why did Noah have to spend 100 years to build a massive ark, when all he had to do, was merely pack his bags and walk to some other place on Earth?  Consequently, why build a massive 400 ft. Ark, if it's only a local flood?

Lastly if the Flood was local then did God break his promise not to Flood the world again? Hasn’t the Mesopotamian Valley been flooded many times since Noah?

Now, the major problem that you posed, was that , where did all the water go?

Edit:, Due to Caleb's statement, I looked it up, and found this:

  Even if the glaciers and ice caps melted, the oceans would only rise some 70 m (230 ft), yet Mt Everest rises 8,848m (29,029 ft) above sea level.

  It may surprise you to learn that we don’t need any more water to cover the earth. There is already enough.

  The reason water doesn’t envelop the globe now is that the earth’s surface is uneven. The ocean basins sit low and the continents sit high. Some mountains are especially high and some ocean trenches are very deep, but these extremes do not account for a large percentage of the earth’s surface (see graph).

  If the earth’s surface were even, then there is enough water in the oceans to cover the globe to a depth of about 3 km.

  This suggests that, during the Flood, the ocean floor moved vertically relative to the continents, something mentioned in the Bible (Psalm 104:8 NASB).

  In the first half, the pre-Flood ocean basins rose and the pre-Flood continents eroded down until water covered everything.

  That does not mean the earth’s surface would have to be completely even. The ocean basins would have only had to rise enough for the water to cover everything.

  Then, in the second half of the Flood, other parts of the earth’s crust sank. The water flowed off our continents into new ocean basins. Movement of the earth’s crust at this time also pushed up new mountain ranges, including the one that is home to Mt Everest.1

  So where did all the water go? It is in the ocean.

Just for the reader, Psalm 104 : 6-8 states:

  Thou coveredst it with the deep as [with] a garment: the waters stood above the mountains.

  7 At thy rebuke they fled; at the voice of thy thunder they hasted away.

  8 They go up by the mountains; they go down by the valleys unto the place which thou hast founded for them.


Was St. Patrick a really Roman Catholic and did he keep the 7th day Sabbath? Does anyone have a  historical reference  that Saint Patrick actually kept the seventh day Sabbath and was not a Roman Catholic?

The life of St. Patrick in a nutshell is that he was the son of well-to-do Roman citizens living in Britannia, captured by Irish raiders, sold into slavery, eventually returned to home after finding his calling, was sent to Rome, became a bishop and was sent back to convert Ireland.  None of this well known history passed down through the ages corroborates that he was

Not a Latin Catholic (he was born in Britannia, which was a Roman Province )

  He had for his parents Calphurnius and Conchessa. The former belonged to a Roman family of high rank and held the office of decurio in Gaul or Britain.

Didn't give a hoot about Sunday. He certainly cared about Easter Sunday (which in good Catholic tradition considers the Sabbath to start on Saturday night) because that was the day he threw the gauntlet down with the Druids.

  On Easter Eve, in that year the feast of the Annunciation, and on the summit of the hill kindled the Paschal fire. The druids at once raised their voice. "O King", (they said) "live for ever; this fire, which has been lighted in defiance of the royal edict, will blaze for ever in this land unless it be this very night extinguished." By order of the king and the agency of the druids, repeated attempts were made to extinguish the blessed fire and to punish with death the intruder who had disobeyed the royal command. But the fire was not extinguished and Patrick shielded by the Divine power came unscathed from their snares and assaults. On Easter Day the missionary band having at their head the youth Benignus bearing aloft a copy of the Gospels, and followed by St. Patrick who with mitre and crozier was arrayed in full episcopal attire, proceeded in processional order to Tara.

You can read all about him in the Old Catholic Encyclopedia this movie about him was pretty good (about par for quality when it comes to saint movies).


How could Jesus get through locked doors? Since Jesus tomb was empty, he obviously arose in his material body, and throughout the Bible references to shutting the door at night, is the same as us locking the door at night since it is obvious in Acts 12:13-16 that Peter was unable to open the door until someone inside opened it for him.
Acts 12:13-16, KJV

13  And as Peter knocked at the door of the gate, a damsel came to hearken, named Rhoda.
14  And when she knew Peter's voice, she opened not the gate for gladness, but ran in, and told how Peter stood before the gate.
15  And they said unto her, Thou art mad. But she constantly affirmed that it was even so. Then said they, It is his angel.
16  But Peter continued knocking: and when they had opened the door, and saw him, they were astonished.

Yet in John 20 He appears inside a locked door in his physical body since Thomas was physically able to touch him.
John 20:26-27, KJV

26  And after eight days again his disciples were within, and Thomas with them: then came Jesus, the doors being shut, and stood in the midst, and said, Peace be unto you.
27  Then saith he to Thomas, Reach hither thy finger, and behold my hands; and reach hither thy hand, and thrust it into my side: and be not faithless, but believing.

Great question! I'm sure it was a miracle because John would not have bothered to mention the locked doors otherwise.

  On the evening of that first day of the week, when the disciples were together, with the doors locked for fear of the Jewish leaders, Jesus came and stood among them and said, ‘Peace be with you!’

John 20:19

So how did it happen? Jesus clearly had a physical body:

  And while they still did not believe it because of joy and amazement, he asked them, ‘Do you have anything here to eat?’ They gave him a piece of broiled fish, and he took it and ate it in their presence.

Luke 24:41-43

So how did Jesus just appear  in a different location? Well, this is not the only time in Scripture this has happened:

  When they came up out of the water, the Spirit of the Lord suddenly took Philip away, and the eunuch did not see him again, but went on his way rejoicing. Philip, however, appeared at Azotus and travelled about, preaching the gospel in all the towns until he reached Caesarea.

Acts 8:39-40

Here the Spirit of the Lord performed a miracle.

Furthermore, we also read that Jesus also could suddenly disappear (Luke 24:31):

  Then their eyes were opened and they recognised him, and he disappeared from their sight.

Whether Jesus Himself in His resurrected body could perform miracles by Himself (which I suspect) or whether The Holy Spirit did it for Him, the conclusion must be - it was a miracle.


Are menstruating women considered ritually impure in Christianity? In certain religions, women are considered as ritually impure during their menstrual cycles. They are asked not to participate in sacred rituals etc during those times.

Is it the same in Christianity? Are menstruating women considered ritually impure in Christianity?

Please cite from the Holy scriptures to prove your claims.

Ritual purity is a familiar concept in Christianity due to its importance to the Israelite sacrificial system as described in the Old Testament. The vast majority of Christian churches however do not believe that this kind of physical ritual purity applies to Christianity. Ritual purity is understood to have been a physical metaphor for the spiritual purity which is required of Christians. The words of Jesus in Matthew 15 are the clearest place to see how Christians understand this:

Matt 15:10-11, 16-20 (NIV): Jesus called the crowd to him and said, “Listen and understand. What goes into someone’s mouth does not defile them, but what comes out of their mouth, that is what defiles them.”
“Are you still so dull?” Jesus asked them. “Don’t you see that whatever enters the mouth goes into the stomach and then out of the body? But the things that come out of a person’s mouth come from the heart, and these defile them. For out of the heart come evil thoughts—murder, adultery, sexual immorality, theft, false testimony, slander. These are what defile a person; but eating with unwashed hands does not defile them.”

The Christian sacrament of baptism can be seen as the last vestige of ritual purity for most Christians: this ritual is performed once as an initiating rite into the church, symbolising the complete and lasting purity which they receive from Christ through the gospel.
One exception is the Ethiopian Orthodox Tewahedo Church, which maintains many of the Jewish laws, and does prohibit menstruating women from entering the church.


How does the view of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints about Jesus Christ differ from Protestant Trinitarian Christology? The Protestant Trinitarian view of Jesus Christ is that he is the only-begotten Son of God – begotten, not made.  He is of one substance with the Father by whom all things were made.  He is the Word of God who was with God in the beginning and who is God (John 1:1). He came down from heaven and was incarnate by the Holy Spirit, born of the Virgin Mary, and dwelt among us (John 1:14). He is both fully human and fully divine.  He was bodily resurrected from the dead and has ascended into heaven, from whence he came, and is seated at the right hand of God the Father.  As he ascended into heaven, so shall he return, in great power and glory, and accompanied by all the heavenly hosts, to judge and to rule.

Please note that Protestant Trinitarians believe there is only the One Being of God and that the pre-mortal Jesus was never born as a spirit son of God.

This is NOT about trying to establish who might be theologically right and who is wrong, nor is it a question seeking to establish any particular version of “truth”.   I’m on a fact-finding mission, and not trying to start a theological war.  Please give a biblical basis in support of beliefs held.

My question is how does the view of Latter Day Saints about Jesus Christ, the Son of God, differ from the view held by Protestant Trinitarians of the person of Jesus Christ, the Son of God.

Edit for clarification: As requested by Alex Strasser, here are specific questions I seek information on. Please be aware these are not additional questions but are all part and parcel of LDS Christology:

Was Jesus created?

Is Jesus part of the One Being of God?

When Jesus came to earth was he God incarnate?

Was Jesus resurrected as a spirit creature or did he ascend into heaven with a physical body?

As far as I can gather from the official LDS website links here, this is what they believe about Jesus:
https://www.lds.org/scriptures/gs/god-godhead?lang=eng&letter=g

Father in Heaven: The Father of the spirits of all mankind. Jesus is his Only Begotten Son in the flesh. Man has been commanded to obey and give reverence to the Father and to pray to him in Jesus’ name.

God the Son: The God known as Jehovah [in the O.T.] is the Son, Jesus Christ… he is the eldest of the spirit children of Elohim [who is not the same deity as the one known in the Bible as Jehovah]… it was actually Jesus who was the Creator under the direction of God the Father [Elohim].

Jesus Christ:   https://www.lds.org/scriptures/gs/jesus-christ?lang=eng

Jehovah: https://www.lds.org/scriptures/gs/jehovah?lang=eng&letter=j
They say the name ‘Jehovah’ denotes “the eternal I AM.” Jehovah is said to be the premortal Jesus Christ and came to earth as a son of Mary (Mosiah 3:8; 15:1; 3 Ne. 15:1–5).

Michael the Archangel: https://www.lds.org/scriptures/gs/michael?lang=eng&letter=m
The name by which Adam was known in the premortal life. He is called the Archangel. In Hebrew the name means “Who is like God.”

Adam: https://www.lds.org/scriptures/gs/adam?lang=eng&letter=a   Adam is the Ancient of Days and is also known as Michael (Dan. 7; D&C 27:11; 107:53–54; 116; 138:38). He is the Archangel and will come again to the earth as the patriarch of the human family, preparatory to the second coming of Jesus Christ (D&C 29:26).

They seem to teach that it was Michael who was put on earth as Adam, and Michael was one of three gods who created this planet. Adam is said to be the incarnation of a god who is ‘related’ to man.  Brigham Young said on April 9, 1852

  “When our father Adam came into the Garden of Eden, he came into it
  with a celestial body, and brought Eve, one of his wives, with him. He
  helped to make and organize this world. He is Michael, the Archangel,
  the Ancient of Days about whom holy men have spoken – He is our Father
  and our God, and the only God with whom we have to do… the earth was
  organized by three distinct characters, namely Elohim, Jehovah and
  Michael, these three forming a quorum… (Journal of Discourses
  1:50-51).

It is essential to grasp this, prior to reading the Temple endowment ritual where three LDS priests represent Elohim, Jehovah and Michael, for they depict Jehovah and Elohim to be separate beings; Michael to be a god; Michael made incarnate in the person of Adam, thus, Adam is a god incarnate.

Their teaching about Adam has a direct bearing on their Christology as they claim that Jesus was the natural born child of Adam and Mary:

  “When the Virgin Mary conceived the child Jesus… he was not begotten
  by the Holy Ghost. And who is his Father? He is the first of the human
  family. Jesus our elder brother, was begotten in the flesh by the same
  character that was in the garden of Eden.” (Young, in Journal of
  Discourses 1:50-51)

As Adam is believed by them to be a god incarnate, then this god is said to have had sex with Mary, to produce Jesus in the flesh. Their doctrine of pre-mortal existence is needed to make sense of this, but I do not want to digress by launching into that.

Summary: This answers your question, ‘Was Jesus created?’ with an emphatic ‘Yes’.

As for your question, ‘Is Jesus part of the One Being of God?’ it is difficult to answer because LDS Christology has more than one Being of God. As has been shown from their quotes, Elohim existed before Jehovah did; the Archangel Michael is also said to be a god, as is Adam. I can only suggest that the Trinitarian phrase, “the One Being of God” has no place in LDS theology as they have more than one God. “The One Being of God” in Christianity is one Being who subsists in three uncreated, co-equal persons. That is not the LDS understanding although they would say Jesus is “part of” God’s Being! Just not in the Trinitarian sense.

The answer to your question, ‘When Jesus came to earth, was he God incarnate?’ requires knowing what God the LDS speak of here. They say Jesus was the God Jehovah in his pre-mortal existence, so that Jehovah incarnated in the human form of Jesus. Yet because they do not take Jehovah to be the only true God of the Bible, this is seen to be at odds with Trinitarian doctrine.

The answer to your last question, “Was Jesus resurrected as a spirit creature or did he ascend into heaven with a physical body?” appears to be that Jesus has a resurrected physical body, according to their scripture in Alma 11:42-43. Verse 43 speaks of the general resurrection of the dead, saying, “The spirit and the body shall be reunited again in its perfect form, both limb and joint shall be restored to its proper frame, even as we now are at this time.” As Jesus’ resurrection is the ‘template’ for all other human resurrections, it would appear that this also applies to his resurrection.


Are there any Christian denominations that don't believe Jesus is the only way to salvation? While answering another question, I made a statement that I thought was universal in Christianity:

  Jesus is the only route to heaven; without him, you go to hell.

Are there Christian denominations that disagree with this statement?  If so, which ones and why do they disagree with this statement?

Catholics believe that Only those baptised in Jesus' name will go to heaven.

But we also believe that

  God has bound salvation to the sacrament of Baptism, but he himself is not bound by his sacraments. ccc 1257

So, there is hope for:

People who never have heard of Jesus, even those born before him.
Children or catechumens who die before baptism.
People who die a holy death, but lived a bad life.

These people receive a different kind of the same Baptism one would receive in a Church, and it's all done through Christ.


Are there any Christians who only accept the gospels? Have there ever been historically, or now, Christians who have only accepted either the Gospels, just one of them, or a synthesis/redaction of the four Gospels as being truly inspired or in some other way most basic to being a Christian?

If so, what were their most salient arguments?

Perhaps there are/were others, but the 'Jesus Christians' are the closest sect I'm aware of that matched your description (they are of relatively recent history - beginning in the early 1980s until officially disbanding in 2010: although their website is still being maintained and updated, so perhaps reports of their demise are premature). While not completely denying the inspiration of other scriptures, they placed much lesser value on them than the words of Jesus.

One of the striking consequences of their distinctive beliefs was the emphasis they place on 'living by faith' by not taking on salaried employment, and believing this is the normative pattern for all true followers of Christ and additionally the positive promotion of celibacy (marriage not forbidden, but classed as an inferior option).

Overall, I would describe them as a bit like Protestant Franciscan friars except for not recognising any authority beyond the words of Jesus and their groups interpretation of them and being highly sectarian (at least the two Jesus missionaries I encountered in 2005 gave me that impression).


A.W. Pink and the Tripartite Theory of Man Related

I have asked a similar question on Philosophy.SE.

Background

Reading Arthur W. Pink's pamphlet Regeneration: Or, the New Birth recently, I was surprised to find that he had a tripartite view of man; and even more surprised to see the nuance in the way he related this to the doctrine of regeneration.

He says, "Man was a tri-partite being" before the Fall. But the Fall "does not mean that either his spirit or soul, or any part thereof, ceased to be, for in Scripture 'death' never signifies annihilation, but is a state of separation." (p. 16 in my copy, which is printed by the Bible Truth Depot, Swengel, Pa.)

But he goes on to say (referencing Galatians 5 and similar passages), "The 'flesh' refers to the degenerate state of man's spirit and soul and body, as the 'spirit' refers to the regenerate state of the spirit and soul—the regeneration of the body being yet future." (18, italics original) This would be a tripartite view much more palatable to those who hold to bipartite view. (The tripartite theory I am more familiar with, associated with Pentecostalism, teaches that at regeneration the spirit is regenerated but not the soul.)

Question

In what works does Pink deal with this doctrine further? The only other work I've read by him is The Attributes of God. How does he distinguish between the soul and the spirit, and what functions does he ascribe to each? What other theologians would agree with this brand of tripartite anthropology?

Other places Pink mentions his tripartite view of man are:

Gleanings in Genesis, p. 107

"Is it not clear then that the ark divided into three stories more than hints at our threefold salvation in Christ? The salvation which we have in Christ is a threefold one, and that in a double sense. It is a salvation which embraces each part of our threefold constitution, making provision for the redemption of our spirit, and soul, and body (1 Thes. 5:23); and further, our salvation is a three tense salvation—we have been saved from the penalty of sin, are being saved from the power of sin, we shall yet be saved from the presence of sin."

The Great Change

“Man was created a tripartite being, composed of “spirit and soul and body” (I Thess. v, 23). That is unmistakably implied in the Divine account of his creation: “God said, Let Us make man in Our image, after Our likeness” (Gen. i, 26); the Triune God made man a trinity in unity! And when man fell, he continued to be a tripartite being: no part of his being was extinguished, no faculty was lost when he apostatized from God. It cannot be insisted upon too strongly that no essential element of man’s original constitution was forfeited, no component part of his complex makeup was annihilated at the Fall, for multitudes are seeking to hide behind a misconception at this very point. They would fain believe that man lost some vital part of his nature when Adam ate of the forbidden fruit, and that it is the absence of this part in his descendants which explains (and excuses!) all their failures.”


Who learned that Abraham would even sacrifice his son in Genesis 22:11? Most translations say that "Now I know that you fear God" and I refers to the angel in the previous verse.

But Open Theists say that God is learning, that "I" refers to God, but I don't see that in the translations.

Is there any evidence of this belief, that "I" refers to God, in the text?

The Patristic View

The Church Fathers teach that the Angel of Lord is God, specifically the Son.

The earliest Patristic reference I know of is Justin Martyr's Dialog with Trypho. Justin says to Trypho:

  And I continued: “It is again written by Moses, my brethren, that He who is called God and appeared to the patriarchs is called both Angel and Lord, in order that from this you may understand Him to be minister to the Father of all things, as you have already admitted, and may remain firm, persuaded by additional arguments. The word of God, therefore, [recorded] by Moses, when referring to Jacob the grandson of Abraham, speaks thus: ‘And it came to pass, when the sheep conceived, that I saw them with my eyes in the dream: And, behold, the he-goats and the rams which leaped upon the sheep and she-goats were spotted
  226
  with white, and speckled and sprinkled with a dun colour. And the Angel of God said to me in the dream, Jacob, Jacob. And I said, What is it, Lord? And He said, Lift up thine eyes, and see that the he-goats and rams leaping on the sheep and she-goats are spotted with white, speckled, and sprinkled with a dun colour. For I have seen what Laban doeth unto thee. I am the God who appeared to thee in Bethel Dialog LVIII

Irenaeus identifies the Son with the Angel that guided Abraham:

  With regard to Christ, the law and the prophets and the evangelists have proclaimed that He was born of a virgin, that He suffered upon a beam of wood, and that He appeared from the dead; that He also ascended to the heavens, and was glorified by the Father, and is the Eternal King; that He is the perfect Intelligence, the Word of God, who was begotten before the light; that He was the Founder of the universe, along with it (light), and the Maker of man; that He is All in all: Patriarch among the patriarchs; Law in the laws; Chief Priest among priests; Ruler among kings; the Prophet among prophets; the Angel among angels; the Man among men; Son in the Father; God in God; King to all eternity. For it is He who sailed [in the ark] along with Noah, and who guided Abraham; who was bound along with Isaac, and was a Wanderer with Jacob; the Shepherd of those who are saved, and the Bridegroom of the Church; the Chief also of the cherubim, the Prince of the angelic powers; God of God; Son of the Father; Jesus Christ; King for ever and ever. Amen. Fragment 53

Athanasius identifies the Angel of the Lord with the Word

  And none other than God blessed Abraham and Isaac; and Isaac praying for Jacob, said, ‘May God bless thee and increase thee and multiply thee, and thou shalt be for many companies of nations, and may He give thee the blessing of Abraham my father.’ But if it belong to none other than God to bless and to deliver, and none other was the deliverer of Jacob than the Lord Himself and Him that delivered him the Patriarch besought for his grandsons, evidently none other did he join to God in his prayer, than God’s Word, whom therefore he called Angel, because it is He alone who reveals the Father. Which the Apostle also did when he said, ‘Grace unto you and peace from God our Father and the Lord Jesus Christ Against the Arians, 3.25.13

and

  But if at any time, when the Angel was seen, he who saw it heard God's voice, as took place at the bush; for 'the Angel of the Lord was seen in a flame of fire out of the bush, and the Lord called Moses out of the bush, saying, I am the God of your father, the God of Abraham and the God of Isaac and the God of Jacob ,' yet was not the Angel the God of Abraham, but in the Angel God spoke. And what was seen was an Angel; but God spoke in him. For as He spoke to Moses in the pillar of a cloud in the tabernacle, so also God appears and speaks in Angels. So again to the son of Nun He spoke by an Angel. But what God speaks, it is very plain He speaks through the Word, and not through another. And the Word, as being not separate from the Father, nor unlike and foreign to the Father's Essence, what He works, those are the Father's works, and His framing of all things is one with His; and what the Son gives, that is the Father's gift. Against the Arians, 3.25.14


According to "continuationists" what explains the 1900 year hiatus? Do "continuationists" (who believe that the signs and wonders of Acts 2 never ceased) explain the apparent 1900 year hiatus as divine sovereignty dispensing early rain then and latter rain now or as 1900 years of a lack of faith and/or understanding?

I'm a Continualist.    Continualism is the just the assumption that the supernatural gifts never disappeared from the Church in the way that Cessionists describe (People who claim that the gifts "died out with the original apostles").    Many traditional Christians like Orthodox and Catholics are defacto unofficial continualists by virtue of their official theology (they believe in saints through history have done various miracles and possessed other supernatural gifts of healing, prophesy etc.).

There are different opinions on the Pentecostal revival:

A) Some see it as being a legitimate work of the Holy Spirit.   (This is some of the reason why the Catholic Charismatic movement took place during the time of Vatican II of the 1960s where Ecumenicism between Protestants was also under way.   Catholics began attending Full Gospel churches and brought Pentecostalism back with them in their Churches.    This made the bishops nervous but was ultimately accepted by the Church hierarchy as something that was beneficial to the Church, but they started their own movement within Catholicism so Catholics would not adopt other Protestant beliefs that were at odds with official dogma and the Magisterium).

B) Others like many Eastern Orthodox will interpret it as being a kind of delusion.   There is a Russian Orthodox term known as Prelest (Spiritual Delusion) that describes when demons grant supernatural gifts to people to feed their pride and so that they may lead themselves and others into heresy and eventual destruction.  That sort of opinion is common among Eastern Orthodox. A monk who convert to Orthodoxy (from Buddhism) named Seraphim Rose wrote a number of anti-Charismatic books and pamphlets.   There however are a number of converts to Orthodoxy who come from Pentecostal and Charismatic churches.  Some of these people have even become clergy, writers and pundits in the Orthodox Church.   Anyway some of these formerly Charismatic Orthodox,believe the movement to be positve, but also flawed or incomplete (Their background set the stage for them to seek Orthodoxy where they claim to have found "The Fullness of the Faith").

C) Personally I believe the Pentecostal revival is something that is both Spiritual (Of God and at times Satan), but also "Socially Constructed".    By Socially Constructed, I mean the assumption that "spiritual gifts disappeared until 1900" is a reality that was originally created by believing in the assumptions of Cessionism (That I believe are historically and Biblically wrong).    So in other words, it was not that the Gifts totally disappeared, but that Protestants have made an interpretation of history in that direction (By ignoring and disregarding the Church History, and hagiographies of Ancient and Medieval times etc.)


Are there legitimate saints not documented in western hagiology? In Croatia the patron saint of Vukovar is Saint Bonus/Sveti Bono. There's nothing in any English Catholic encyclopedia but Croatian wikipedia lists the following facts:

Martyred under Decian (or was it Valens?) in the third century
There's an inscription of his name on a street in Rome.
His body was donated to the people in Vinkovski by Benedict XIV

How common is it for saints of one region to be "left out" in the English hagiographies?

The Roman Martyrology for August 1 says:

Likewise at Rome, upon the Latin Way, [in the third century,] the holy martyrs Bonus the Priest, Faustus, and Maurus, and nine others, of whom it is written in the Acts of holy Pope [St.] Stephen [I].
Romæ, via Latína, sanctórum Mártyrum Boni Presbýteri, Fausti et Mauri, cum áliis novem; qui in Actis sancti Stéphani Papæ describúntur.

cf. also p. 228 of this Roman Martyrology
Pope St. Stephen I reigned from 253-257, during which time Valerian was emperor.


Was Christ's suffering unusually harsh for the standard of the Roman times? I can understand the political reasons behind His execution. What I can't really understand is why did the Romans go through such a lengthy and gruesome process. I know crucifixion used to be a somewhat common penalty at the time but every time I read the accounts of it I am overcome with a sense of exaggeration, of unbounded excess. Was it so important for the rulers to make an example?

Crucifixion was somewhat common in that time, as your question points out. The issue I think you are hinting at is maybe Christ's beatings by the Sanhedrin and Romans before His crucifixion. The first is that the Sanhedrin heard Him blaspheme right in front of them and would have stoned him on the spot according to their laws, but it is apparent they were not allowed to execute. The other beatings occurred after he was handed over to the Romans. Pilate had Him beaten and lashed before handing Him over to the mob for execution. There is an old and common argument that Pilate did not want to execute Christ because he was under the impression that His followers may revolt, so instead he had Him beaten, hoping the punishment would be enough to appease the mob. Obviously it was not. So it might be possible that severe beating before being crucified was uncommon, so perhaps Christ did suffer more in this respect. However, according to Matthew, Jesus was flogged after Pilate agreed to hand Him over to the mob knowing full well what they were going to do to Him. Perhaps then a flogging before execution was common. Other beatings occurred when He was under the care of the cruel guards. They mocked him and put thorns on his head. I would think this kind of treatment was common, but I have no source.

After the mob took over Christ was apparently made to carry the very cross He was to be hung from all though the city. I have read in certain places that this may have been anywhere from one half to three miles. Considering if was under the jurisdiction of the Pharisees (mob) at this time I tend to think that this part of his suffering was uncommon. Even until recent times, typically the executed were disgraced after their execution by desecrating the body. Crucifixion in itself yields this result; the bodies were often left there long after death. What has also been common throughout the ages is dragging the body behind a horse or staking all or parts of it, like the head, in the middle of the town.

While on the cross it seems that Christ actually suffered less, relatively. The first point is that he died much more quickly than was typical. Crucifixion was designed to prolong suffering for days, and Christ passed within a half day. To hurry death they would break the legs so that asphyxiation would come quickly (there is kind of a long explanation here of the mechanics and the biology that is not in the scope of the question). But they did not break his legs.

Summary

Before sentenced to execution Christ suffered severe beatings, which is not really uncommon for the time, but he was beaten by several parties all wanting to exact their own justice on Him. One party wanted to stone Him but were not allowed, another was maybe hoping to save His life to appease the mob, and the other by cruel guards. He was sentenced to crucifixion anyway by the mob that also disgraced Him by making Him carry His own cross through the town. Considering He was already weak from the beatings this was probably a very difficult task. However, while on the cross it seems Christ's suffering was relatively less because he died in less than a day when it was typically days to die.

With that I would say He suffered more before the actual hanging because multiple parties 'wanted a piece of Him'. He suffered more still, being disgraced before He was even put on the cross. However, He suffered less on the cross because He lived less than a day and they did not break His legs.

Sources

Wikipedia on crucifixion covers much that supports what I have said above including prolonging death and desecration of the body after death.

Matthew 26 begins the story of Jesus' arrest (26:47), beatings (26:67), handing over to the mob and further beatings (27:26, 27:30) and crucifixion (27:35).


What does it mean that all scripture is God-Breathed? In 2 Tim 3:16, Paul writes

  All scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking,
  correcting and training in righteousness (NIV)

  All Scripture is breathed out by God and profitable for teaching, for
  reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness (ESV)

Does this mean that all scripture (the whole Bible) is from God and of equal importance, or are there some parts of the bible which we need to take more seriously than others?

For example, are Jesus' words more important than Paul's?

I'm looking for a Protestant/Evangelical point of view, but I'm interested in others too.

The phrase "God-breathed" is a translation of the etymological roots of the Greek θεόπνευστος. Most English versions of the Bible translate this Greek word as "inspired by God". ("Inspire" is derived from the Latin word inspiratio, which like πνευστος, originally denoted breath or spirit.)

There is no consensus on what it means to say that all Scripture is inspired, even among Evangelical Protestants. In an essay titled How Can The Bible Be Authoritative? Evangelical Anglican scholar N.T. Wright dispenses with the notion of the Bible as a collection of "timeless truths", in which each verse is authoritative on its own.

  A regular response to these problems is to say that the Bible is a repository of timeless truth.  There are some senses in which that is true.  But the sense in which it is normally meant is certainly not true.  The whole Bible from Genesis to Revelation is culturally conditioned.  It is all written in the language of particular times, and evokes the cultures in which it came to birth.  It seems, when we get close up to it, as though, if we grant for a moment that in some sense or other God has indeed inspired this book, he has not wanted to give us an abstract set of truths unrelated to space and time.  He has wanted to give us something rather different, which is not (in our post-enlightenment world) nearly so easy to handle as such a set of truths might seem to be.

Rather, Wright recommends reading each Bible book as a book, rather than a set of verses. Only in this way can we understand the context of what God has to say to us.

  In private reading, and in informal group meetings, we need again to experiment with new ways of reading scripture.  Anyone who has heard an entire biblical book read, or even acted (think of Alec McCown on Mark, or Paul Alexander on John; I have heard the same done with Galatians, and very impressive it was, too) will realize that such things as chapter-divisions, or almost any divisions at all, can be simply unhelpful.  We need to recapture a sense of scripture as a whole, telling and retelling stories as wholes.  Only when you read Exodus as a whole (for example) do you realize the awful irony whereby the making of the golden calf is a parody of what God wanted the people to do with their gold and jewels . . . and only by reading Mark as a whole might you realize that, when the disciples ask to sit at Jesus’ right and left hand, they are indeed asking for something they do not understand.

Wright argues that thinking of inspiration in terms of inerrancy or infallibility can lead us into traps, but that we can avoid these traps by taking the Bible seriously as a whole.

  If we really engage with the Bible in this serious way we will find, I believe, that we will be set free from (among other things) some of the small-scale evangelical paranoia which goes on about scripture. We won’t be forced into awkward corners, answering impossible questions of the ‘Have you stopped beating your wife?’ variety about whether scripture is exactly this or exactly that. Of course the Bible is inspired, and if you’re using it like this there won’t be any question in your mind that the Bible is inspired. But, you will be set free to explore ways of articulating that belief which do not fall into the old rationalist traps of 18th or 19th or 20th century. Actually using the Bible in this way is a far sounder thing than mouthing lots of words beginning with ‘in—’ but still imprisoning the Bible within evangelical tradition (which is what some of those ‘in—’ words seem almost designed to do).

But rather than giving a single answer about how God speaks to us through Scripture, Wright insists that whenever we truly engage with the Bible and seek to understand what God has to say to us, we find that God not only speaks to us but transforms our lives.

  The Bible, clearly, is also to be used in a thousand different ways within the pastoral work of the church, the caring and building up of all its members.  Again, there is much that I could say here, but little space.  Suffice it to note that the individual world-views and God-views of Christians, as much as anybody else, need to be constantly adjusted and straightened out in the light of the story which is told in scripture.  But this is not to say that there is one, or even that there are twenty-one, ‘right’ ways of this being done.  To be sure, the regular use of scripture in private and public worship is a regular medicine for many of the ills that beset us.  But there are many methods of meditation, of imaginative reading, ways of soaking oneself in a book or a text, ways of allowing the story to become one’s own story in all sorts of intimate ways, that can with profit be recommended by a pastor, or engaged in within the context of pastoral ministry itself.  Here, too, we discover the authority of the Bible at work: God’s own authority, exercised not to give true information about wholeness but to give wholeness itself, by judging and remaking the thoughts and intentions, the imaginations and rememberings, of men, women and children.


Is there assurance of salvation in Catholicism? Among some Protestant groups such as Evangelicals and Pentecostals, it is a very common question to ask "Are you saved?" or "Are you born again?". They say that the moment you believe in Jesus Christ, confess your sins, ask for forgiveness and have the peace of forgiveness, you are saved. The evidence of Salvation is then found in the life of the person through repentance, change in character, desire for God and His word, desire to share the gospel, etc.

Do Catholics also have Assurance of Salvation?

At what point in their life can they say that they are saved and will go to Heaven?

Or, do they strive their whole life in order to have Salvation?

No, the doctrine of assurance is contrary to Catholic teaching. In fact, it was specifically rejected by the Council of Trent:

  If any one saith, that he will for certain, of an absolute and infallible certainty, have that great gift of perseverance unto the end,-unless he have learned this by special revelation; let him be anathema. (Sixth session, Canon XVI)

For Catholics, the virtues that you list (repentence, change in character, desire for God and his Word, desire to share the Gospel, etc) are not only subsequent to salvation but actually an essential part of justifying faith.

For Catholics, the destination of the person after death is determined at the point of death. This is known as the Particular Judgement (as opposed to the Last Judgement at the end of time):

  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 purification or immediately, -- or immediate and everlasting damnation. (CCC §1022)


What is the Biblical basis for Limited Atonement? Calvin, among his other points, includes the point that Atonement is Limited; i.e., that Christ's death was sufficient for all but only effective for the elect.

What is the Biblical basis for this doctrine?

Limited Atonement Defined

Limited atonement is defined in the Canons of Dort:

  The Second Main Point of Doctrine: Christ's Death and Human Redemption Through It

  Article 3: The Infinite Value of Christ’s Death

  This death of God’s Son is the only and entirely complete sacrifice
  and satisfaction for sins; it is of infinite value and worth, more
  than sufficient to atone for the sins of the whole world.

  Article 7: Faith God’s Gift

  But all who genuinely believe and are delivered and saved by Christ’s
  death from their sins and from destruction receive this favor solely
  from God’s grace—which God owes to no one—given to them in Christ from
  eternity.

  Article 8: The Saving Effectiveness of Christ’s Death

  For it was the entirely free plan and very gracious will and intention
  of God the Father that the enlivening and saving effectiveness of his
  Son’s costly death should work itself out in all the elect, in order
  that God might grant justifying faith to them only and thereby lead
  them without fail to salvation. In other words, it was God’s will that
  Christ through the blood of the cross (by which he confirmed the new
  covenant) should effectively redeem from every people, tribe, nation,
  and language all those and only those who were chosen from eternity to
  salvation and given to him by the Father; that Christ should grant
  them faith (which, like the Holy Spirit’s other saving gifts, he
  acquired for them by his death). It was also God’s will that Christ
  should cleanse them by his blood from all their sins, both original
  and actual, whether committed before or after their coming to faith;
  that he should faithfully preserve them to the very end; and that he
  should finally present them to himself, a glorious people, without
  spot or wrinkle.

  Article 9: The Fulfillment of God’s Plan

  This plan, arising out of God’s eternal love for the elect, from the
  beginning of the world to the present time has been powerfully carried
  out and will also be carried out in the future, the gates of hell
  seeking vainly to prevail against it. As a result, the elect are
  gathered into one, all in their own time, and there is always a church
  of believers founded on Christ’s blood, a church which steadfastly
  loves, persistently worships, and here and in all eternity praises him
  as her Savior who laid down his life for her on the cross, as a
  bridegroom for his bride.

  Rejection of the Errors

  Having set forth the orthodox teaching, the Synod rejects the errors
  of those

  Who teach that God the Father appointed his Son to death on the cross without a fixed and definite plan to save anyone by name, so
  that the necessity, usefulness, and worth of what Christ’s death
  obtained could have stood intact and altogether perfect, complete and
  whole, even if the redemption that was obtained had never in actual
  fact been applied to any individual.
  Who teach that the purpose of Christ’s death was not to establish in actual fact a new covenant of grace by his blood, but only to acquire
  for the Father the mere right to enter once more into a covenant with
  humanity, whether of grace or of works.

I have quoted three articles and a rejection of two errors, but for a fuller definition of limited atonement, click the link and read all nine articles and a rejection of seven errors.

Other Names for Limited Atonement

You can see above, in article 3 juxtaposed with articles 7-8, that the atonement is "sufficient to atone for the sins of the whole world" but that the cross "should effectively redeem from every people, tribe, nation, and language all those and only those who were chosen from eternity to salvation and given to him by the Father." This has been summarized by many apologists as, "sufficient for all, efficient for only the elect."

Therefore the atonement is not "limited" in its power, but in its purpose. It's common for opponents of reformed theology to advance the argument that a limited atonement means the cross wasn't "powerful" enough to achieve the purpose of the salvation of every person; that's not the case. God's purpose was to save the elect, and that purpose was accomplished on the cross.

To better capture the fact that the atonement's purpose was to redeem a "particular" people and that it is "definite" in its scope, some have begun calling it by other names:

particular redemption
definite redemption
actual atonement
intentional atonement
definite atonement

Direct Biblical Support

Now for the meat.

It's all throughout the Gospel of John that Christ died for his "people" or his "sheep" and not for everyone else:

  John 6

  37 Everyone whom the Father gives me will come to me, and the one who
  comes to me I will never send away. ... 39 Now this is the will of the
  one who sent me—that I should not lose one person of every one he has
  given me, but raise them all up at the last day.

  64 But there are some of you who do not believe. ... 65 Because of
  this I told you that no one can come to me unless the Father has
  allowed him to come.

  John 10: The Good Shepherd

  11 I am the good shepherd. The good shepherd lays down his life for
  the sheep. ... 14 I am the good shepherd. I know my own and my own
  know me. ... 26 But you refuse to believe because you are not my
  sheep. 27 My sheep listen to my voice, and I know them, and they
  follow me. 28 I give them eternal life, and they will never perish; no
  one will snatch them from my hand.

  John 17: Jesus Prays to the Father

  6 I have revealed your name to the men you gave me out of the world.
  They belonged to you, and you gave them to me, and they have obeyed
  your word. ... 9 I am praying on behalf of them. I am not praying on
  behalf of the world, but on behalf of those you have given me, because
  they belong to you.

In Matthew 1:21 we see the same idea, of God saving "his people":

  She will give birth to a son and you will name him Jesus, because he
  will save his people from their sins.

God's chosen people is Israel, or the church. In reformed theology, a continuity between the two is recognized, so that the "true Israel" and the "invisible church" is the same as the "elect." The scriptural support for this idea is beyond the scope of the current question, but it's worth mentioning since Peter said in Acts 5:31 that Christ died for Israel:

  God exalted him to his right hand as Leader and Savior, to give
  repentance to Israel and forgiveness of sins.

It is also the teaching of Paul that Christ died for "the church":

  Acts 20:28

  Watch out for yourselves and for all the flock of which the Holy
  Spirit has made you overseers, to shepherd the church of God that he
  obtained with the blood of his own Son.

  Ephesians 5:25

  Husbands, love your wives just as Christ loved the church and gave
  himself for her.

This is consistent with the song the saints sing in Revelation 5:9-10:

  At the cost of your own blood you have purchased for God persons from
  every tribe, language, people, and nation. You have appointed them as
  a kingdom and priests to serve our God, and they will reign on the
  earth.

John Owen contends in his classic defense of limited atonement The Death of Death in the Death of Christ that Romans 8 supports the doctrine:

  Romans 8:34

  Who is the one who will condemn? Christ is the one who died (and more
  than that, he was raised), who is at the right hand of God, and who
  also is interceding for us.

  Owen's Commentary in The Death of Death

  That he died for all and intercedeth for some will scarcely be
  squared to this text, especially considering the foundation of all
  this, which is (verse 32) that love of God which moved him to give up
  Christ to death for us all; upon which the apostle infers a kind of
  impossibility in not giving us all good things in him; which how it
  can be reconciled with their opinion who affirm that he gave his Son
  for millions to whom he will give neither grace nor glory, I cannot
  see.

Consistency with Other Doctrines

There is one other point to consider. I could have titled this section "indirect Biblical evidence." The fact is that rejecting limited atonement would make for an inconsistent system of theology. The following two quotes should demonstrate what I mean.

A. A. Hodge says in his book The Atonement:

  Every form which it is possible for the General Atonement Theory to
  assume necessarily involves the hypothesis that in its essential
  nature the Atonement effects only the removal of legal obstacles out
  of the way of the salvation of men, making God reconcilable, not
  actually reconciling him; making the salvation of all men possible,
  not actually saving any. But the Scriptures teach that Christ actually
  came to save those for whom he died ... Again the Scriptures decleare
  that the effect of Christ's death is reconciliation and justification.
  ... The design of Christ, moreover, was to secure for those whom he
  died the direct effect of remission of sins, peace with God, and
  deliverance from the curse of the law, from wrath, from death, from
  sin, &c. ... But to make salvation possible, to make possible
  purification, deliverance, reconciliation, is something very different
  indeed from actually saving, purifying, delivering or reconciling. No
  man has the right to empty the glorious terms in which the gospel is
  revealed of all their saving power.

Hodge cites Matthew 18:11; Luke 19:10; Romans 5:10; 2 Corinthians 5:21; Galatians 1:4, 3:13, and 4:5; Ephesians 2:14-16; 1 Thessalonians 1:10; 1 Timothy 1:15; Hebrews 2:14; and 1 Peter 1:18.

Robert Morley similarly said in his book Studies in the Atonement:

  When Christ lived, died, was buried, arose, ascended, and sat down at
  the right hand of the Majesty on high, we are told that the ones for
  whom He did these things are to be viewed as being in such a life
  union with Him as their covenant head and representative that it is
  said that they lived, died, were buried, arose, ascended and sat down
  at the Father's side 'in Christ' (Rom. 6:1-11; Gal. 2:20; 6:14; Eph.
  2:5-6).

  To say that Christ died for all is to say that all died in Christ. It means that unbelievers are to be told that they have been crucified
  with Christ, been buried with Christ, have been resurrected with
  Christ and have ascended and sat down with Christ. This position is so
  manifestly false that it should grieve the child of God even to
  consider it.

For more on the "consistency" point, visit the link to the Canons of Dort and scroll to "Rejection of the Errors" under the second main point.

All scripture quotes are from the NET. I closely consulted this article by Brian Schwertley to write this answer. The article is excerpted from a broader work.


Who are the many nations that Abraham was called by God, 'the father' of? Who are these nations that Abraham was father of, according to God's words?

Gen 17:5 (NIV)

  5 No longer will you be called Abram[a]; your name will be
  Abraham,[b] for I have made you a father of many nations.

  Footnotes:
  a. Abram means exalted father.
  b. Abraham probably means father of many.

As you can see; from this Patriarch lineage depiction taken from the book of Genesis, Abraham was indeed the father of many Nations.

There are some Things worthy of notice which many are not aware of:

Abram had a second wife named Keturah and had six sons by her, and possibly daughters.

Rebecca was Isaac's cousin.

Basemath/Mahalth was Esau's cousin.

Not shown on this chart are some facts which are cogent to your question that are available in other records of that Era.

The Ishmaelites are the predecessors of the Bedouin tribes.

The Edomites and the descendants of Abraham through Keturah, are the Arabic Nations.

( it is the opinion of some that the line through Keturah is the Palestinians, but there are apparently no known records to verify that claim).

The animosity between the Arabic Nations and Israel stems from:

Genesis 25:29 through 34  And Jacob sod pottage: and Esau came from the field, and he was faint: 30  And Esau said to Jacob, Feed me, I pray thee, with that same red pottage; for I am faint: therefore was his name called Edom. 31  And Jacob said, Sell me this day thy birthright. 32  And Esau said, Behold, I am at the point to die: and what profit shall this birthright do to me? 33  And Jacob said, Swear to me this day; and he sware unto him: and he sold his birthright unto Jacob. 34  Then Jacob gave Esau bread and pottage of lentiles; and he did eat and drink, and rose up, and went his way: thus Esau despised his birthright.

The point of contention is that Jacob stole Esau's birthright and that the land all belonged to Esau as the firstborn son.


What does "labor or cost of a godly life" mean? Richard Baxter, the famous Puritan writer, wrote:

  In a word, that in all your neglects of duty, your sticking at the supposed labor or cost of a godly life, yea, in all your cold and lazy prayers and performances, conscience might tell you how unsuitable such endeavors are to the reward; and that Christ and salvation should not be so slighted. (Source)

What does he mean by this?

"your sticking at the supposed labor or cost of a godly life"

I think sticking at here is meant in the sense "To scruple at; to hesitate to accept or believe, to demur to, take exception to, be deterred by" (OED, stick v.1, PV2.1 to stick at) or "To be impeded or brought to a stand at (a difficulty)" (ibid., PV2.2). This sermon was written by Richard Baxter, a non-conformist; one of the OED's citations is to his fellow non-conformist John Bunyan, who wrote in The heavenly foot-man (1688):

  They who will have heaven must not stick at any difficulties they meet with, but press, crowd, and thrust through all that may stand between heaven and their souls.

Likewise here, the people being addressed in the sermon are said to be deterred or hindered by the supposed labor or cost of a godly life. That is, they are reluctant to lead a godly life because they perceive it as being too difficult or costly. They have "cold and lazy prayers and performances" and continually give in to their temptations. Baxter calls on his audience:

  The next time you go prayerless to bed, or about your business, conscience might cry out, Dost thou set no more by Christ and thy salvation?

He believes the labor and cost to be worthwhile, in view of the reward.