What is the biblical basis for praying to Jesus, as opposed to praying to God in the name of Jesus? What is the biblical basis for praying to Jesus, as opposed to praying to God in the name of Jesus?

My question is based on John 14:13–14:

  “And I will do whatever you ask in my name, so that the Son may bring glory to the Father. You may ask me for anything in my name, and I will do it.”

I have used the New International Version here. The English Standard Version is similar. The King James Version likewise says to ask in Jesus' name. The New Living Translation is more emphatic:

  "Yes, ask me for anything in my name, and I will do it!"

The New World Translation likewise says:

  "whatever it is that you ask in my name, I will do this... If you ask anything in my name, I will do it."

The Kingdom Interlinear Translation word for word translation from Greek into English says:

  "If every anything you should ask me in the name of me, this I shall do."

Are there any other Bible verses like that, or verses unlike that (praying to Jesus). Or are there any examples in the New Testament where Jesus' disciples prayed to Jesus?

An Example from the first Christian Martyr
Most certainly the earliest Christians prayed to Jesus, as He Himself taught us to do (He explicitly "[does not mean He will] ask the Father for you," Jn 16:26 but that "[He Himself] will do it" 14:13-14; cf. 5:23).
The words on the lips of the deacon and first Christian martyr, Stephen, as he was being stoned to death were (Acts 7:59b W&H 1881):

Κύριε Ἰησοῦ, δέξαι τὸ πνεῦμά μου!
Lord Jesus, recieve my spirit!

In case you don't understand any Greek, 'Lord' appears in the vocative form here (Κύριε kyr·i·e), meaning He is speaking directly to Jesus, who at this point, of course, is in heaven (Acts 7:55).
An Example from the Most Prolific Apostle in the New Testament
St. Paul, the loyal servant of the Lord, besought the Lord Jesus that this affliction ("thorn in the side") from Satan would not plague him any more (2 Cor 12:8):

ὑπὲρ τούτου τρὶς τὸν κύριον παρεκάλεσα ἵνα ἀποστῇ ἀπ' ἐμοῦ
For this did I thrice beseech the Lord, that he might remove it from me,

However, the Lord elects to have St. Paul endure this suffering for His sake, and by His grace (12:9):

καὶ εἴρηκέν μοι Ἀρκεῖ σοι ἡ χάρις μου· ἡ γὰρ δύναμις ἐν ἀσθενείᾳ τελεῖται. Ἥδιστα οὖν μᾶλλον καυχήσομαι ἐν ταῖς ἀσθενείαις, ἵνα ἐπισκηνώσῃ ἐπ' ἐμὲ ἡ δύναμις τοῦ χριστοῦ
but he said to me, "My grace is sufficient for you: for power is perfected in weakness." Most gladly, therefore, will I rather boast in my weakness, so that the power of Christ might rest on me.

See also 1 Thessalonians 3:11; 2 Thessalonians 2:16-17; Colossians 3:17 etc.
St. John the Apostle Prays the Last Prayer Recorded in the New Testament
The last petition to anyone in the New Testament is to the Lord Jesus directly:

Λέγει ὁ μαρτυρῶν ταῦτα Ναί· ἔρχομαι ταχύ. Ἀμήν· ἔρχου, κύριε Ἰησοῦ
Thus says he that bears witness to these things: I am coming soon. (Amen! Come, Lord Jesus!)

Again, the vocative form of κύριος (Lord) is used, meaning John is speaking directly to Jesus, not expressing his desire that Jesus come to others reading: 'may the Lord Jesus come.'

There are of course other examples, but Jesus' own teaching suffices for this truth that we are to ask Him anything, and He will do it, not merely ask the Father for us. He explicitly rules out that interpretation of His answering prayer.

Bibliography
 https://answersingenesis.org/jesus-christ/jesus-is-god/can-we-pray-to-jesus/


Are non-Anglican Protestant churches ever named after extra-biblical saints? Catholic and Orthodox Churches are often named after saints because we believe in the communion of Saints and like to put our congregations under some sort of patronage.

I've seen Episcopal churches named after St. Francis and St. Dunstan and I'd imagine there are quite a few named after the various awesome Saxon saints.

And I've seen Lutheran Churches named after Biblical Saints (John, Mark, Luke etc...)

I've never seen any traditions in Protestantism (not that it's a thing) that violate this rule, or this custom.

Are there any Protestant churches who name their churches after extra-biblical saints?

As it happens, my local church is named after a saint who wasn't written up by name in the Bible.  He was the founder of our church and his name was Emmanuel Peterson.  (No prizes for correctly guessing whether the church uses his first or last name.)

I also found a non-denominational Protestant church called San Diego First Assembly.  (That's probably cheating since the church was named after the city named after the saint.)

But as you noticed, naming churches after people (at least people not described in the Bible by name) is remarkably rare for Protestant denominations.  The most likely reason is one you alluded to: Protestants have a different view of sainthood than the Orthodox or Catholic traditions.  We have some reason not to put our trust in the names of people no matter who they were.  As Luther said:

  The more I read the books of the Fathers, the more I find myself offended; for they were but men, and, to speak the truth, with all their repute and authority, undervalued the books and writings of the sacred apostles of Christ.

Therefore, we Protestants are far more likely to name our churches after concepts, especially those found in the Bible.  Alternatively, we use strictly descriptive names (cities mostly).


Where can I find a complete set of Ante-Nicene Writings? I am a self-learner and am really interested in the writings of the Christian fathers during the Ante-Nicene period.  I found an great e-book for a few dollars titled "The Complete Ante-Nicene Church Fathers Collection [9 volumes]", and I also found a set of books called "The Early Church Fathers, 38 Volumes."  I'm just not sure whether either of these contains all of the writings found during that period or just a selection of them.  What I'd really like to have is a list of all of the writings discovered during this period, but I can't seem to find it.  Are any of you aware of such a list?  I hope this isn't too loaded a question.

Unless I am mistaken, there has never been an English translation set that encompasses absolutely all the ante-Nicene writings. Most people use ccel.org to read the Ante-Nicene Fathers edited by James Donaldson and Alexander Roberts which, unless I am mistaken, is the most comprehensive English translation set of the ante-Nicene writings. If you want to compile a list of all the ante-Nicene writings, you would probably need to resort to reviewing Jacques Paul Migne’s Patrologiæ Cursus Completus: Series Græca (161 vol.) and Series Latina (220 vol.), but of course, you need to know Greek and Latin.


Do Mormons believe that all spirits are omnipresent? Are all spirits omnipresent? According to Mormon doctrine, God is omnipresent through his spirit, does that mean that all spirits are omnipresent or is the Holy Ghost a special case?

LDS commentary on this question is sparse, but based on the below information I infer that the answer is no.

  “The Holy Ghost as a personage of Spirit can no more be omnipresent in
  person than can the Father or the Son, but by his intelligence, his
  knowledge, his power and influence, over and through the laws of
  nature, he is and can be omnipresent throughout all the works of God
  (Joseph F. Smith, Gospel Doctrine, 61)

In other words, presence is related to knowledge, power, and influence over and through the laws of nature. These are areas where other spirits are deficient.

  Each spirit child of Heavenly Father differs in intelligence. Jesus
  Christ is more intelligent than all of Heavenly Father’s spirit
  children, and His wisdom excels them all. The Pearl of Great Price: Teacher Manual, (2000), 44–46

Because other spirits don't have the perfect intelligence, knowledge, power, and influence of the Holy Ghost, they probably can't have omnipresence either.


Have LDS missionaries stopped preaching door-to-door? Some time ago I read an article such as this one (dated June 25th, 2013), that says that:

  Leaders of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints announced Sunday that missionaries won’t be going door-to-door to evangelize and will instead use the Internet to probe potential new members.

However I recently watched an episode of "Inside Man" (the documentary series) where Morgan Spurlock joined two Mormon missionaries on door-to-door activity. According to this article and information here at IMDb, the particular episode originally aired in May 2014.

Understandably even though the episode aired in May 2014, it was probably taped months earlier. So perhaps the June 2013 decision had not yet been fully implemented.

Or maybe the decision to stop going door-to-door was intended to affect a particular group of missionaries(?)

Anyway so the question I wanted to ask is:
Are Mormon's really planning to discontinue all door-to-door preaching work, or have they perhaps already done so?

The LDS Church has a manual called "Preach My Gospel" that serves as a guidebook for missionary work. It is mostly directed at full-time missionaries, although non-missionaries use it for study or reference as well. As of today, in the ninth chapter, titled "How Do I Find People to Teach?", under the section on "Finding through Your Own Efforts", it provides a list of acceptable activities, which includes the following:

  Go from home to home or talk to people on the streets.

Until that changes, the LDS Church will not be discontinuing all door-to-door preaching work.

It is actually a common misconception that most LDS missionary work is done through door-to-door proselytizing. If you look at some of the other suggestions in the aforementioned chapter of Preach My Gospel, you'll see that it is only one of many suggested ways of finding people to teach. The articles that you cite are referring to the fact that, since 2013, the church has been experimenting with using online proselytizing tools in addition to other methods of finding people to teach.


When did the split in crufix/empty-cross sybolism occur and why did it happen? Today, we have Catholic and Orthodox churches (and a few others) using the crucifix, whereas most Protestant denominations use an empty cross in their symbolism. Did this difference in symbolism arise around the time Martin Luther "created" the Protestant church, or did it happen at a different time? Also, what caused the change of symbol?

In history there have always been reasons to show a crucifix without a corpus.1 Especially in the first four centuries of Christianity it was – because of theological reservations – not possible to illustrate the suffering servant figure of Jesus Christ: They thought that it was not beneficial for the majesty of Christ's divinity.2

Another trail leads us to Calvinism: Also there led a sovereign, bordering to the abstract image of God to a sober view of the cross without a corpus.3

1: Burkard Porzelt, Empirische Religionspädagogik, 175
2: Baudler, 1997, 289
3: Baudler, 1997, 57


Which Christian Churches today teach that a Christian should not pursue a highest post in the state? Which Christian Churches today teach that a Christian should not pursue a highest post in the state (like president, chancellor, prime minister, etc.)

Some Baptists and most Anabaptists preach a strict separation of church and state. Historically, this has precluded many from any type of government involvement.

Mennonites and the Amish, for example, in being called out of the world, believe they should have nothing to do with elected or high office.


Why do adherents to the priesthood of all believers still have organized congregations? I might be making some naive assumptions here, but I have a hard time seeing what the purpose of congregations are in the context of priesthood of all believers.

As I understand it, priesthood of all believers basically says that all people have direct and equal access to God, as well as equal privilege and authority to minister. What then is the purpose of congregating? Why are those congregations well organized?

The purpose of congregational gathering is not exclusively to provide the laity access to someone who can be a mediator between them and God, so the assumption that the priesthood of all believers is mutually exclusive is invalid.

Gathering as a congregation has many purposes, including mutual edification, encouragement toward love and good deeds, instruction in the word, serving one another, community, etc.

So, the biblical idea that we all have one Mediator between us and God in no way precludes the call to fellowship with one another.


What is the eastern Catholic and Eastern Orthodox understanding of mortal and venial sin? In western Catholicism, there is an idea that if you commit a grave sin with full consent and full knowledge that it is grave, it becomes a mortal sin. You loose your state of grace and are set on a trajectory for Hell. You are forbidden to receive the Eucharist unless you go to confession.

I'm wondering what the eastern Christian understanding is, particularly eastern Catholic, because they are bound to accept the mortal/venial sin distinction but I understand they don't emphasize it in the same way as western Catholics do. What is the eastern understanding of mortal sin?

There is no such distinction between "mortal" and "venial" sin in the fashion you suggest within the Eastern Orthodox Church, but it must also be understood that sin, as well as the related concepts of grace and free will, is understood completely differently in the Orthodox Church.
Sin, within the Eastern Orthodox Church, is seen as a spiritual disease - a disease that we inherit as a result of man's Fall in Paradise.  It is seen more as a sickness to be treated than a crime to be punished.
A dogmatic definition of "sin" is provided in John's first Epistle - the definition that also appears in one of the few formal "catechisms" of the Orthodox Church (The Longer Catechism of Philaret, Metropolitan of Moscow):  αμαρτια εστιν η ανομια - "sin is lawlessness" (1 John 3:4).  In the Latin: peccatum est iniquitas - "sin is iniquity".
Venerable Bede (672-735), who is considered a Church Father in both the Eastern Orthodox and Roman Catholic Church writes:

The force of this thought is grasped more easily in the Greek language
in which the Letter is written, since in that language iniquity is
called ἀνομία, which implies something done, as it were, against the
law or without the law, since in Greek νόμος means law.  When John
says therefore, Everyone who commits sin also commits iniquity, that
is, ἀνομίαν, and sin is iniquity, he clearly suggests that by every
single sin we act against the law of God, according to the saying of
the Psalmist, I have counted all sinners on earth as transgressors
[Psalm 118:119 LLX].  For all who commit sin are guilty of
transgression, that is, not only those who reject the known precepts
of the written law which have been given them, but also those who
whether through weakness or negligence or even ignorance destroy the
innocence of the natural law which we received in the first-created
man.
Commentary on the Seven Catholic Epistles (tr. Dom David
Hurst), pp.187-188

The Orthodox Christian monk and theologian Justin Popović (1894-1979) further explains this as follows:

Sin defiles man and his being, which is in the divine image of God and God-given.  It is the fundamental impurity, proto-impurity, and
the origin of all impurities.  Purity is, in reality, purity from sin
and its impurities.  That is holiness.
For such purity, such holy purity, is the divine law of man's being.
This purity is achieved and maintained by living in goodness in love,
in prayer, in righteousness, in meekness, in fasting, in
self-restraint, and in the rest of the virtues of the Gospel - simply
put, in holiness, conceived of as the synthesis and unity of all the
holy virtues and grace-filled energies.  In opposition to purity, to
holiness as law, to the divine law of man's being, stands sin as the
first and fundamental lawlessness.
Commentary on the Epistles of St. John the Theologian, p.39

While certain sinful acts - which we might refer to as specific "sins" - reflect a graver spiritual condition than others, there is really no systematic categorization of them as exists within the Roman Catholic Church.
I cannot really comment on the doctrine on sin that Uniates hold, but I would be surprised if it held to Eastern Orthodox rather than Roman Catholic doctrine.  The two theologies are quite distinct.  I am assuming that if there is a lighter emphasis on the mortal/venial distinction it is a residual influence of Eastern Orthodoxy.
(As a footnote, I attended high school at the Benedictine Abbey where Dom David, the translator of Bede's commentary above, was a novice at the time.  I was surprised to encounter him in print decades later as an Orthodox convert).


At the second coming, will Jesus descend in the same body or will he be reborn again? All of us know that Jesus had ascended to God the father after he had resurrected, we know that he will come again at the end of time to judge the people and found the kingdom of God on earth.

The question is, will he descend as an adult man as he ascended to God the father, or will he be reborn again as an infant in a new incarnation?.

Note: there are many who claimed to be incarnations or reincarnations of Jesus, some of them belong to new Christian denominations, look: Wikipedia List of people claimed to be Jesus

Esoteric Christianity like Liberal Catholic Church adopts reincarnation and oneness of god who is both transcendent and immanent and accept Tritheism as three persons in that one God,i.e: the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit are manifestations of that one transcendental immanent God. Look: The Liberal Catholic Church and  Liberal Catholic Church (Wikipedia)

I would like answers to be biblically based, it's preferred to be by scholars of Christianity, especially of orthodox Christianity.

At the second coming, Jesus will descend or he will reborn again?
The biblical answer is Jesus will descend on His Second Coming just like when He ascended with clouds.

"For the Lord himself will descend from heaven, with a cry of command, with the archangel's call, and with the sound of the trumpet of God. And the dead in Christ will rise first."(1Thessalonians4:16)
“Look, he is coming with the clouds,”
and “every eye will see him,
even those who pierced him”;
and all peoples on earth “will mourn because of him.”
So shall it be! Amen. (Revelation 1:7)

The question is, will he descend as adult man as he ascended to God the father or will he reborn again as an infant in new incarnation?.
The biblical answer is NO. The scriptures does not teaches reincarnation.

"It is appointed for men to die once."(Heberews9:27)

And the Catechism of the Catholic Church teaches the following;

1013 Death is the end of man's earthly pilgrimage, of the time of grace and mercy which God offers him so as to work out his earthly life in keeping with the divine plan, and to decide his ultimate destiny. When "the single course of our earthly life" is completed,586 we shall not return to other earthly lives: "It is appointed for men to die once."587 There is no "reincarnation" after death.

To put more clarity, why Jesus will not be reborn again is, the Second Coming of Christ speak of His coming as the Just Judge. The key is the word Parousia.
For all the bible verses and apologetic explanation please see the link below;
The Parousia: Christ's Second Coming


Was Jesus circumcised and did he eat pork? I know Jesus was a Jew. Jews are circumcised and don't eat pork. Was Jesus circumcised and did he eat pork?

If so, why are these two things not primary ingredients of Christianity?
I thought, to be a good Christian you have to be like Jesus.

From Luke 2:21, we know that Jesus was circumcised, as it states there

  At the end of eight days, when he was circumcised, he was given the name Jesus...

But we also have Peter's teaching in Acts 10:28:

  "You know yourselves that how unlawful it is for a Jew to associate with or to visit any one of another nation, But God has shown me that I should not call any man common or unclean".

As to whether Jesus ate pork, we have neither record, nor good reason to presume  that he did, but we don't really know for certain.

We do however, have record of Peter's vision in Joppa (Acts 11:1-9) where, when Peter protested against the eating of unclean things that were on the sheet which was lowered from heaven, by stating that an unclean thing had never entered his mouth, that the voice from heaven rebuked Peter, saying "What God has cleansed you must not call common".

As to why circumcision and the refusal to eat pork in particular, and adherence to Jewish dietary laws in general are not "primary ingredients of Christianity," note that while it is true that the way to be a good Cristian is to be like Jesus, first note that in the teaching on salvation in Matthew 25 (vv 31 ff.), where the King is separating the sheep and the goats, the separation was on what they did for other people. What they ate or whether they still had a foreskin is not reported to have mattered much.

Furthermore, if these external characteristics were "primary ingredients of Christianity", and if to be a good Christian one had to be like Jesus, would it not necessarily follow that to be a good Christian one must become an itinerant, unemployed Jewish carpenter? Or a vertically challenged tax collector (Zacchaeus)? Or an unemployed fisherman (several of the apostles)?


What is the earliest claim that Jesus Christ kept the law of Moses on behalf of others? J N Darby and William Kelly, those responsible for the Plymouth Brethren movement in the mid to late 1800s, did not accept the concept that, during his earthly life, Jesus Christ kept the law on behalf of believers. Referring to the ‘righteousness of God’ (Note: not that of Jesus Christ) JND states :

It is His own (God’s) righteousness which is upon the believer (1)

I can find, myself, nothing in the early Church Fathers, and nothing in the writings of the Reformers on the subject.
John Calvin in his Institutes (1560) writes :

… since, as God only, he (Christ) could not suffer, and, as man only, could not overcome death, he united the human nature with the divine, that he might subject the weakness of the one to death as an expiation of sin, (2)

The Helvetic Confession (1564) states :

Therefore, because faith receives Christ our righteousness and attributes everything to the grace of God in Christ, on that account justification is attributed to faith, (3)

…  but the righteousness of Christ, or rather, he imputes faith in Christ to us for righteousness. (3)

Although the Helvetic Confession refers to ‘the righteousness of Christ’ (a collocation never found in scripture) the phrase is qualified by ‘or rather’ and it is made clear that ‘faith in Christ’ is in view, not the idea that Christ kept the law on behalf of anyone.
In 1647 the Westminster Confession contains the wording :

Those whom God effectually calleth, He also freely justifieth:a not by infusing righteousness into them, but by pardoning their sins, and by accounting and accepting their persons as righteous, not for anything wrought in them, or done by them, but for Christ’s sake alone; nor by imputing faith itself, the act of believing, or any other evangelical obedience to them, as their righteousness, but by imputing the obedience and satisfaction of Christ unto them. (4)

Here the words ‘imputing the obedience … of Christ’ occur but without a definition of what that actually means. In context, one would expect it to mean what Calvin means, that is to say, Christ’s obedience to the Father in offering himself up to sufferings and death.
It is only when we come to the modified form of the Westminster Confession - the Savoy Declaration of 1658 that we have the words :

by imputing Christ's active obedience to the whole law, and passive obedience in his death for their whole and sole righteousness, they receiving and resting on him and his righteousness by faith (5)

This definitive wording (active and passive obedience) is most probably the influence of John Owen who was involved in the preparation of the Savoy Declaration and who, himself, states :

… the obedience of Christ unto the law, and the imputation thereof unto us, are no less necessary unto our justification before God, than his suffering of the penalty of the law, and the imputation thereof unto us, unto the same end. (6)

Is it so that, until 1658, the Christian Church did not teach this doctrine in such a stated form ?
Does such a concept appear in any of the writings of the pre-Nicene or post-Nicene fathers ?
Does such a concept appear in the writings of the Reformers ?
Is this, solely, a ‘Puritan’ doctrine ?

(1) J N Darby Outline of the Epistle to the Romans :  Chapter (2-4) : Para 40
(2) John Calvin Institutes 2.12.3 1560 (Definitive Latin edition)
(3) Helvetic Confession  Chapter 15 on Justification
(4) Westminster Confession  Chapter 11 on Justification
(5) Savoy Declaration Chapter 11 on Justification
(6) John Owen (from The Works of John Owen, vol. V.) Quoted from The Doctrine of Justification by Faith though the Imputation of the Righteousness of Christ; Explained, Confirmed, and Vindicated (1677),

This is the earliest extra-biblical clear statement I have found so far.

Christ therefore ransomed from the curse of the law those who being subject to it, had been unable to keep its enactments. And in what way did He ransom them? By fulfilling it. And to put it in another way: in order that He might expiate the guilt of Adam’s transgression, He showed Himself obedient and submissive in every respect to God the Father in our stead… - St. Cyril of Alexandria (378 – 444 AD) – Commentary on Luke

1 Peter 3:18 "For Christ also suffered once for sins, the righteous for the unrighteous, that he might bring us to God, being put to death in the flesh but made alive in the spirit," is a more indirect declaration wherein one must make the leap that he was righteous by keeping the Law.


What is the argument against the ICOC doctrine of "Disciples Baptism"? The International Church of Christ, as I understand, teach the idea of "Disciples Baptism", which is distinct from both "Believer's Baptism" and "Infant Baptism".  It teaches that people who are just believers can not be baptized, but only believers who have attained to a certain level of discipleship where they can be considered disciples.

What, is the argument against this specific teaching?

There are two main arguments against it.

One argument is that it is fairly arbitrary to decide how far advanced in
discipleship someone needs to be in order to be baptized. Whatever
level you set, there will be some who never attain that level of
discipleship - however normal Christian doctrine would say that
those people are nonetheless true Christians and members of the
church. Likewise some may attain that level of discipleship and then
fall from it.
The main argument however is that the Bible is full of examples of people
who were baptized as soon as they were converted. Acts 2, Philip and
the Ethiopian in Act 8, and a whole host more.


Is it historically inaccurate that Jesus is usually portrayed as European looking? Is it historically inaccurate that Jesus is usually portrayed as European looking, having certain facial and bodily features (muscular)?

Would most people follow Him if he did not look white or was heavy set? It almost seems like a trick sometimes to get certain people to believe.

Does the Bible say anything about his physical appearance and how we are to physically think of Him?

vs.

(A special on PBS about scientists who put together a large study to determine what Jesus looked most like, and it is not how he was usually pictured.)

With regards to ethnicity and geography, the direct answer to this is a big Yes, it is wrong. Bethlehem is in Palestine, Asia. The borders of this nation is the red sea, Egypt, Lebanon Jordan, the Dead Sea and Syria, (varied with time). The closest picture we could estimate should be that of an Arab or middle eastern.

Theories that Jesus was European were forged, and claims that he was black, partly because Jesus lived as a small boy in Egypt, are inaccurate as well.

  "...the angel of the Lord appeareth to Joseph in a dream, saying,
  Arise, and take the young child and his mother, and mother and flee
  into Egypt...that it might be fulfilled which was spoken of the Lord
  by the prophet, saying, Out of Egypt have I called my son." (Matthew
  2:13-15).

These claims do not have any  concrete scientific bases and are purely subjective.

Nowhere in the bible is was Jesus physically described apart from the transfiguration. We are only told of his descent Solomon and David, all from Israel and over 14 generations afterwards.

  "And Jesse begat David the king; and David the king begat Solomon of
  her that had been the wife of Urias; And Solomon begat Roboam; and
  Roboam begat Abia; and Abia begat Asa;....And Jacob begat Joseph the
  husband of Mary, of whom was born Jesus, who is called Christ."
  (Matthew 1:6-16)

The names couldn't be European either.

Another possible answer also by logic is that God could not give him any look different from the people around him.

Let's assume that Christ was born in Eastern or West Africa where you can find the darkest people on earth. For Him to live an exemplary life so that people wouldn't find it a big deal doing what he did, he must have had the looks of blacks, not white to look strange for his black society to think it takes something supernatural to live a righteous life.

Remember that the society could not doubt him as the son of Joseph, the carpenter.

  "Is not this the carpenter’s son? is not his mother called Mary? and
  his brethren, James, and Joses, and Simon, and Judas?" (Matthew
  13:55).

Remember Jesus hungered, slept, wept and got angry to prove his earthly being. The best assumption is that, in the Middle-east, he would be born Middle-eastern as some sort of placebo to win friends and followers.


Why did God create evil? I form the light, and create darkness; I make peace, and
  create evil; I, the Lord, do all these things.

  Isaiah 45:7

Why did god create evil and then punish people for doing evil when he made all this things possible (such as creating evil in the first place, and making humans able to do evil things)?

Can anyone clear this up?

This question was not answered yet. I'm clearly asking here WHY did God create evil, and I'm not asking if he created evil.. because the verse I sighted already is claiming that God Created Evil.. I'm just asking for any biblical sources of reason why would he create evil?

Does The Bible Say God Created Evil (Sin)?

  KJV: I form the light, and create darkness: I make peace, and create evil: I the LORD do all these [things].

This generates some confusion, because the "evil" God creates does not necessarily match our definition of "evil" (more on this in the next section). We can try reading other translations and commentaries on the verse to gain some insight. A good source for comparison and commentary of individual verses is biblehub.com. The Hebrew word ra` (Strong's H7451), there translated as "evil" in KJV  is translated as "calamity" (in NKJV, KJV 2000, ESV, and NASB), "disaster" (in NIV, HCSB, and ISV), "woe" (in RSV)  and "bad-times" (in NLT). It is commonly believed to be referring to punishment, and not unrighteousness (see Matthew Henry Commentary for Isaiah 45:5-10).
An example of a similar usage can be found in Genesis 19:19, where ra is again translated as "evil" in KJV but in more modern translations (including ESV, NASB, NIV, and others) the word is often translated as "disaster" (the context being Lot fleeing the impending judgement and destruction of Sodom & Gomorrah).

  KJV: Behold now, thy servant hath found grace in thy sight, and thou hast magnified thy mercy, which thou hast shewed unto me in saving my life; and I cannot escape to the mountain, lest some evil[H7451] take me, and I die:
  NIV: Your servant has found favor in your eyes, and you have shown great kindness to me in sparing my life. But I can't flee to the mountains; this disaster[H7451] will overtake me, and I'll die.

I hope this points out that "evil" does not equal sin in all cases, especially in older translations/versions of the Bible. And in particular, "evil" does not equal sin in Isaiah 45:7, and the Bible does not say that God created sin.

But If God Created All Things Doesn't That Include Evil?
For a non-doctrinal answer (at least as far as possible), first consider the definition of evil. What is evil? If we are talking about evil as sin, then we can define evil to be unrighteousness.

Evil (by Biblical definition of sin) is unrighteousness, the absence of righteousness, just as darkness is the absence of light. Darkness and evil are not anything, and cannot be created, they are by definition the absence of their "opposites". Therefore, God did not create evil (sin and unrighteousness), evil simply exists wherever God is absent (not followed).

For further reading check:  What is the definition of evil?

Why Does God Allow Evil?
The answers to this differ fundamentally based on doctrinal beliefs, mainly dependent on the view of free will.

Assuming that we have free will, evil (unrighteousness) is a byproduct of our free will whenever we choose to do something contrary to the nature of God.
So the question then becomes "why do we have free will?" This is yet another source of doctrinal differences, but one common reason is because when we choose to do God's will, we give honor and glory to God. This honor is all the more meaningful because it was our choice, we were not compelled like a marionette puppet to do it. Furthermore, without the option of unrighteousness and sin, there would be no point to Christ's sacrifice, and no need for forgiveness and redemption.


How would different Protestant denominations reconcile Matthew 5:19 with the notion of being saved by grace? Whosoever therefore shall break one of these least commandments, and shall teach men so, he shall be called the least in the kingdom of heaven: but whosoever shall do and teach them, the same shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven. -- Matthew 5:19 (KJV)

My understanding as a nondenominational protestant is that we are saved by receiving God's grace through faith in Jesus (Galatians 3:10-11, Galatians 3:13, Ephesians 2:8-9, etc.). However, Matthew 5:19 makes things a little bit hairy in that it seems to be saying that we still ought to follow the Law despite the fact that we can't be saved by following the law.

What is an overview of how different Protestant denominations would reconcile these passages?

The Reformed tradition would say that we are still required to keep the law, even though we are not saved by our works. God still wants us to do what He has commanded us to do, even though we are never justified on the basis of our works. Our motivation is different than those who are not saved, because rather than doing works as an attempt to save ourselves, instead, we do good works out of gratitude to God and a desire to love and serve Him. As Christ says in John 14:15, "If ye love me, keep my commandments."
Belgic Confession of Faith, Article 24

We believe that this true faith, produced in us by the hearing of
God’s Word and by the work of the Holy Spirit, regenerates us and
makes us new creatures, causing us to live a new life and freeing
us from the slavery of sin. Therefore, far from making people cold
toward living in a pious and holy way, this justifying faith, quite to
the contrary, so works within them that apart from it they will never
do a thing out of love for God but only out of love for themselves and
fear of being condemned. So then, it is impossible for this holy faith
to be unfruitful in a human being, seeing that we do not speak of an
empty faith but of what Scripture calls “faith working through
love,” which moves people to do by themselves the works that God has
commanded in the Word. These works, proceeding from the good root of
faith, are good and acceptable to God, since they are all sanctified
by God’s grace. Yet they do not count toward our justification— for by
faith in Christ we are justified, even before we do good works.
Otherwise they could not be good, any more than the fruit of a tree
could be good if the tree is not good in the first place. So then, we
do good works, but not for merit— for what would we merit? Rather, we
are indebted to God for the good works we do, and not God to us, since
God “is at work in [us], enabling [us] both to will and to work for
his good pleasure” — thus keeping in mind what is written: “When you
have done all that you were ordered to do, say, ‘We are worthless
slaves; we have done only what we ought to have done.’“ Yet we do
not wish to deny that God rewards good works— but it is by grace that
God crowns these gifts. Moreover, although we do good works we do not
base our salvation on them; for we cannot do any work that is not
defiled by our flesh and also worthy of punishment. And even if we
could point to one, memory of a single sin is enough for God to reject
that work. So we would always be in doubt, tossed back and forth
without any certainty, and our poor consciences would be tormented
constantly if they did not rest on the merit of the suffering and
death of our Savior.

Heidelberg Catechism, Q&A 86 and 87

Q. Since we have been delivered from our misery by grace through
Christ without any merit of our own, why then should we do good works?
A. Because Christ, having redeemed us by his blood, is also restoring
us by his Spirit into his image, so that with our whole lives we may
show that we are thankful to God for his benefits, so that he may be
praised through us, so that we may be assured of our faith by its
fruits, and so that by our godly living our neighbors may be won over
to Christ.
Q. Can those be saved who do not turn to God from their ungrateful and
unrepentant ways?
A. By no means. Scripture tells us that no unchaste
person, no idolater, adulterer, thief, no covetous person, no
drunkard, slanderer, robber, or the like will inherit the kingdom of
God.

Canons of Dort, Article 13

In their awareness and assurance of this election, God’s children
daily find greater cause to humble themselves before God, to adore the
fathomless depth of God’s mercies, to cleanse themselves, and to give
fervent love in return to the One who first so greatly loved them.
This is far from saying that this teaching concerning election, and
reflection upon it, make God’s children lax in observing his
commandments or carnally self-assured. By God’s just judgment this
does usually happen to those who casually take for granted the grace
of election or engage in idle and brazen talk about it but are
unwilling to walk in the ways of the chosen.

Presbyterians hold to this same position:

I. Good works are only such as God has commanded in His holy Word,
and not such as, without the warrant thereof, are devised by men, out
of blind zeal, or upon any pretence of good intention.
II. These good works, done in obedience to God's commandments, are the
fruits and evidences of a true and lively faith: and by them
believers manifest their thankfulness, strengthen their
assurance, edify their brethren, adorn the profession of the
Gospel, stop the mouths of the adversaries, and glorify God,
whose workmanship they are, created in Christ Jesus thereunto,[
that, having their fruit unto holiness, they may have the end, eternal
life.
III. Their ability to do good works is not at all of themselves, but
wholly from the Spirit of Christ. And that they may be enabled
thereunto, beside the graces they have already received, there is
required an actual influence of the same Holy Spirit, to work in them
to will, and to do, of His good pleasure: yet are they not
hereupon to grow negligent, as if they were not bound to perform any
duty unless upon a special motion of the Spirit; but they ought to be
diligent in stirring up the grace of God that is in them.
IV. They who, in their obedience, attain to the greatest height which
is possibly in this life, are so far from being able to supererogate,
and to do more than God requires, as that they fall short of much
which in duty they are bound to do.
V. We cannot by our best works merit pardon of sin, or eternal life at
the hand of God, by reason of the great disproportion that is between
them and the glory to come; and the infinite distance that is between
us and God, whom, by them, we can neither profit, nor satisfy for the
debt of our former sins, but when we have done all we can, we have
done but our duty, and are unprofitable servants: and because, as
they are good, they proceed from His Spirit, and as they are
wrought by us, they are defiled, and mixed with so much weakness and
imperfection, that they cannot endure the severity of God's
judgment.
VI. Notwithstanding, the persons of believers being accepted through
Christ, their good works also are accepted in Him; not as though
they were in this life wholly unblamable and unreproveable in God's
sight; but that He, looking upon them in His Son, is pleased to
accept and reward that which is sincere, although accompanied with
many weaknesses and imperfections.
VII. Works done by unregenerate men, although for the matter of them
they may be things which God commands; and of good use both to
themselves and others: yet, because they proceed not from an heart
purified by faith; nor are done in a right manner, according to
the Word; nor to a right end, the glory of God, they are
therefore sinful and cannot please God, or make a man meet to receive
grace from God: and yet, their neglect of them is more sinful and
displeasing unto God.

Westminster Confession of Faith, Chapter 16

The Reformed Baptists hold to this same position:

Good works are only such as God hath commanded in his Holy Word, and not such as without the warrant thereof are devised by men out of
blind zeal, or upon any pretence of good intentions.

These good works, done in obedience to God's commandments, are the fruits and evidences of a true and lively faith; and by them believers
manifest their thankfulness, strengthen their assurance, edify their
brethren, adorn the profession of the gospel, stop the mouths of the
adversaries, and glorify God, whose workmanship they are, created in
Christ Jesus thereunto, that having their fruit unto holiness they may
have the end eternal life.

Their ability to do good works is not at all of themselves, but wholly from the Spirit of Christ; and that they may be enabled
thereunto, besides the graces they have already received, there is
necessary an actual influence of the same Holy Spirit, to work in them
to will and to do of his good pleasure; yet they are not hereupon to
grow negligent, as if they were not bound to perform any duty, unless
upon a special motion of the Spirit, but they ought to be diligent in
stirring up the grace of God that is in them.

They who in their obedience attain to the greatest height which is possible in this life, are so far from being able to supererogate, and
to do more than God requires, as that they fall short of much which in
duty they are bound to do.

We cannot by our best works merit pardon of sin or eternal life at the hand of God, by reason of the great disproportion that is between
them and the glory to come, and the infinite distance that is between
us and God, whom by them we can neither profit nor satisfy for the
debt of our former sins; but when we have done all we can, we have
done but our duty, and are unprofitable servants; and because as they
are good they proceed from his Spirit, and as they are wrought by us
they are defiled and mixed with so much weakness and imperfection,
that they cannot endure the severity of God's punishment.

Yet notwithstanding the persons of believers being accepted through Christ, their good works also are accepted in him; not as though they
were in this life wholly unblameable and unreprovable in God's sight,
but that he, looking upon them in his Son, is pleased to accept and
reward that which is sincere, although accompanied with many
weaknesses and imperfections.

Works done by unregenerate men, although for the matter of them they may be things which God commands, and of good use both to
themselves and others; yet because they proceed not from a heart
purified by faith, nor are done in a right manner according to the
word, nor to a right end, the glory of God, they are therefore sinful,
and cannot please God, nor make a man meet to receive grace from God,
and yet their neglect of them is more sinful and displeasing to God.

London Baptist Confession of Faith 1689, Chapter 16

Anglicans hold to this same position:

Although the Law given from God by Moses, as touching Ceremonies and
Rites, do not bind Christian men, nor the Civil precepts thereof ought
of necessity to be received in any commonwealth; yet notwithstanding,
no Christian man whatsoever is free from the obedience of the
Commandments which are called Moral.

39 Articles, Section 7

and:

Albeit that Good Works, which are the fruits of Faith, and follow
after Justification, cannot put away our sins, and endure the severity
of God's judgement; yet are they pleasing and acceptable to God in
Christ, and do spring out necessarily of a true and lively Faith;
insomuch that by them a lively, Faith may be as evidently known as a
tree discerned by the fruit.

39 Articles, Section 12

General Baptists don't really have a common confession to examine, and also have a variety of viewpoints on the issue.
The United Methodist Church holds to this same position:

We believe good works are the necessary fruits of faith and follow
regeneration but they do not have the virtue to remove our sins or to
avert divine judgment. We believe good works, pleasing and acceptable
to God in Christ, spring from a true and living faith, for through and
by them faith is made evident.

United Methodist Confession of Faith, Article 10

The Lutheran Church holds to this same position:

Also they teach that this faith is bound to bring forth good
fruits, and that it is necessary to do good works commanded by God,
because of God's will, but that we should not rely on those works to
merit justification before God. For remission of sins and
justification is apprehended by faith, as also the voice of Christ
attests: When ye shall have done all these things, say: We are
unprofitable servants. Luke 17:10. The same is also taught by the
Fathers. For Ambrose says: It is ordained of God that he who believes
in Christ is saved, freely receiving remission of sins, without works,
by faith alone.

Augsburg Confession, Article 6

and also:

Our teachers are falsely accused of forbidding Good Works. For
their published writings on the Ten Commandments, and others of like
import, bear witness that they have taught to good purpose concerning
all estates and duties of life, as to what estates of life and what
works in every calling be pleasing to God. Concerning these things
preachers heretofore taught but little, and urged only childish and
needless works, as particular holy-days, particular fasts,
brotherhoods, pilgrimages, services in honor of saints, the use of
rosaries, monasticism, and such like. Since our adversaries have
been admonished of these things, they are now unlearning them, and do
not preach these unprofitable works as heretofore. Besides, they
begin to mention faith, of which there was heretofore marvelous
silence. They teach that we are justified not by works only, but
they conjoin faith and works, and say that we are justified by faith
and works. This doctrine is more tolerable than the former one, and
can afford more consolation than their old doctrine.
Forasmuch, therefore, as the doctrine concerning faith, which ought
to be the chief one in the Church, has lain so long unknown, as all
must needs grant that there was the deepest silence in their sermons
concerning the righteousness of faith, while only the doctrine of
works was treated in the churches, our teachers have instructed the
churches concerning faith as follows:—
First, that our works cannot reconcile God or merit forgiveness of
sins, grace, and justification, but that we obtain this only by faith
when we believe that we are received into favor for Christ's sake, who
alone has been set forth the Mediator and Propitiation, 1 Tim. 2:5, in
order that the Father may be reconciled through Him. Whoever,
therefore, trusts that by works he merits grace, despises the merit
and grace of Christ, and seeks a way to God without Christ, by human
strength, although Christ has said of Himself: I am the Way, the
Truth, and the Life. John 14:6.
This doctrine concerning faith is everywhere treated by Paul, Eph.
2:8: By grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of your selves;
it is the gift of God, not of works, etc.
And lest any one should craftily say that a new interpretation of
Paul has been devised by us, this entire matter is supported by the
testimonies of the Fathers. For Augustine, in many volumes,
defends grace and the righteousness of faith, over against the merits
of works. And Ambrose, in his De Vocatione Gentium, and elsewhere,
teaches to like effect. For in his De Vocatione Gentium he says as
follows: Redemption by the blood of Christ would become of little
value, neither would the preeminence of man's works be superseded by
the mercy of God, if justification, which is wrought through grace,
were due to the merits going before, so as to be, not the free gift of
a donor, but the reward due to the laborer.
But, although this doctrine is despised by the inexperienced,
nevertheless God-fearing and anxious consciences find by experience
that it brings the greatest consolation, because consciences cannot be
set at rest through any works, but only by faith, when they take the
sure ground that for Christ's sake they have a reconciled God. As Paul
teaches Rom. 5:1:Being justified by faith, we have peace with God.
This whole doctrine is to be referred to that conflict of the
terrified conscience, neither can it be understood apart from that
conflict. Therefore inexperienced and profane men judge ill
concerning this matter, who dream that Christian righteousness is
nothing but civil and philosophical righteousness.
Heretofore consciences were plagued with the doctrine of works,
they did not hear the consolation from the Gospel. Some persons
were driven by conscience into the desert, into monasteries hoping
there to merit grace by a monastic life. Some also devised other
works whereby to merit grace and make satisfaction for sins. Hence
there was very great need to treat of, and renew, this doctrine of
faith in Christ, to the end that anxious consciences should not be
without consolation but that they might know that grace and
forgiveness of sins and justification are apprehended by faith in
Christ.
Men are also admonished that here the term "faith" does not
signify merely the knowledge of the history, such as is in the ungodly
and in the devil, but signifies a faith which believes, not merely the
history, but also the effect of the history—namely, this article: the
forgiveness of sins, to wit, that we have grace, righteousness, and
forgiveness of sins through Christ.
Now he that knows that he has a Father gracious to him through
Christ, truly knows God; he knows also that God cares for him, and
calls upon God; in a word, he is not without God, as the heathen.
For devils and the ungodly are not able to believe this article: the
forgiveness of sins. Hence, they hate God as an enemy, call not upon
Him, and expect no good from Him. Augustine also admonishes his
readers concerning the word "faith," and teaches that the term "faith"
is accepted in the Scriptures not for knowledge such as is in the
ungodly but for confidence which consoles and encourages the terrified
mind.
Furthermore, it is taught on our part that it is necessary to do
good works, not that we should trust to merit grace by them, but
because it is the will of God.  It is only by faith that
forgiveness of sins is apprehended, and that, for nothing.  And
because through faith the Holy Ghost is received, hearts are renewed
and endowed with new affections, so as to be able to bring forth good
works.  For Ambrose says: Faith is the mother of a good will and
right doing.  For man's powers without the Holy Ghost are full of
ungodly affections, and are too weak to do works which are good in
God's sight.  Besides, they are in the power of the devil who
impels men to divers sins,  to ungodly opinions, to open crimes.
This we may see in the philosophers, who, although they endeavored to
live an honest life could not succeed,  but were defiled with many
open crimes. Such is the feebleness of man when he is without faith
and without the Holy Ghost, and governs himself only by human
strength.
Hence it may be readily seen that this doctrine is not to be
charged with prohibiting good works, but rather the more to be
commended, because it shows how we are enabled to do good works.
For without faith human nature can in no wise do the works of the
First or of the Second Commandment.  Without faith it does not call
upon God, nor expect anything from God, nor bear the cross, but seeks,
and trusts in, man's help.  And thus, when there is no faith and
trust in God all manner of lusts and human devices rule in the heart.
Wherefore Christ said, John 15:5: Without Me ye can do nothing;
and the Church sings:
Lacking Thy divine favor,
There is nothing found in man,
Naught in him is harmless.

Augsburg Confession, Article 20


If God controls our decisions, does this mean we don't have free will? This was originally part of this question  However, it's really a separate line of logic (and therefore a different question, imo).  If others prefer, I can remerge this into the original.

God is omniscient.  He truly, literally knows everything.  God knows whether or not I will sin.  God can (and does) direct certain people to prevent them from choosing one way or another.

Exodus 4:21 (NIV)

  The LORD said to Moses, “When you return to Egypt, see that you perform before Pharaoh all the wonders I have given you the power to do. But I will harden his heart so that he will not let the people go.

Clearly, this is an instance where God stepped in and prevent Pharaoh from making the decision.

Since he controls decisions and knows what decisions I will make, do I truly have free will?  Or do I only have free will in the inconsequential things (which isn't really free will, after all)?

From a purely practical standpoint, ie removing all theological considerations for a moment, we have free will. I can decide to get up and have a glass of water right now. I can flex and relax the muscles in my fingers to make a fist or open my hand. Perceptually I am controlling my body, my thoughts, and making decisions. When I interact with other people, I perceive an ability to formulate my responses independently of their interaction with me.
Whether I have complete free will, limited free will, or all my actions are predetermined, I cannot perceive anything beyond this immediate moment, and I cannot perceive active outside interference with my free will, and therefore the only logical way to act is as if I have free will. The many verses in Scripture instructing us to behave, choose, and think certain ways seems to back this up - for example:

Jos 24:15 NIV  But if serving the LORD seems undesirable to you, then choose for yourselves this day whom you will serve, whether the gods your forefathers served beyond the River, or the gods of the Amorites, in whose land you are living. But as for me and my household, we will serve the LORD."
Pro 1:10 NIV  My son, if sinners entice you, do not give in to them.

And yes, I am aware of other passages which support predestination and would seem to contra-indicate free will. My only point is regardless of the flow of time and causality from God's perspective, we don't have this eternal or future perspective available to us and must practice making the best choices assuming that we do have free will.


What are the protestant arguments against a sacramental economy? Given that all the 7 sacraments (Baptism, Confirmation, Holy Eucharist, Marriage, Holy Orders Anointing of the Sick and Reconciliation) are each explicitly mentioned in the Bible as commands put forth by Christ and/or practiced by the apostles and established in the earliest traditions of the Church.  On what grounds did early protestant reformers decide that participation in the seven sacraments weren't essential in forming, guiding and preserving the Church?

Definition of sacramental economy from Catholic Catechism CCC 1076

Abstract
Protestants do perform many of the rites that the Catholic church considers Sacraments, but only two, Baptism and Communion, are considered Sacraments by the majority of Protestants.  These two are the only two rites that are conducted using the formula given to us by Jesus.

Luther, as is usual, took the first step:

We have now finished the three chief parts of the common Christian doctrine. Besides these we have yet to speak of our two Sacraments instituted by Christ, of which also every Christian ought to have at least an ordinary, brief instruction, because without them there can be no Christian; although, alas! hitherto no instruction concerning them has been given.—The Large Catechism IV, 1

Luther suggests here that without Baptism and the Sacrament of the Altar (i.e.  Holy Eucharist), there can be no Christian.  This criteria leaves out Marriage, since many Christians have not and will not be married.
(I don't know were that particular criteria comes from however.  The Bible doesn't explicitly establish rules for what is considered a "Sacrament".)

He also rejects sacramental penance (i.e. Reconciliation) at the start of his 95 Theses:

Our Lord and Master Jesus Christ, when He said Poenitentiam agite, willed that the whole life of believers should be repentance.

This word cannot be understood to mean sacramental penance, i.e., confession and satisfaction, which is administered by the priests.

Yet it means not inward repentance only; nay, there is no inward repentance which does not outwardly work divers mortifications of the flesh.

The argument here (which is fleshed out in later points) seems to be that confession is not limited to a rite performed by a priest and is therefore not a sacrament.  (There is some confusion here since Luther seems to label repentance as "the third Sacrament" in The Larger Catechism IV, 74, but in 75 he clarifies that "it is really nothing else than Baptism.")

Joseph Stump's An Explanation of Luther's Small Catechism states there are three criteria for a rite to be labeled a Christian Sacrament:

The Command of Christ;

The Use of Earthly Elements;

The Communication of a Heavenly Gift.

Note that these are not explicitly stated by Luther himself, however.  If I recall correctly, this was the criteria I was taught in my Evangelical Covenant confirmation.

For many Protestants, however, the fundamental issue with Sacraments in general is that we reject a specialized priesthood.  In the Old Testament, priests were set aside from the Levites, who were themselves set aside from within Israel, which was itself a people set apart by God.  According to the New Testament, these distinctions have been removed:

As you come to him, a living stone rejected by men but in the sight of God chosen and precious, you yourselves like living stones are being built up as a spiritual house, to be a holy priesthood, to offer spiritual sacrifices acceptable to God through Jesus Christ.—1st Peter 2:4-5 (ESV)

Exactly what this passage means practically is a matter of dispute, but many Protestants view the "priesthood of all believers" to mean that all believers have direct access to God via Christ, our High Priest.  (I know that the Catholic Church does affirm the "priesthood of all believers", but I don't understand the position myself.  Please correct and forgive me if I mischaracterize here.)  We submit to the authority of Christ Jesus and to each other, but not a church hierarchy.  While we often do have some form of church structure, it is usually seen as a practical, social construct and not as a result of Apostolic Succession.  Therefore, the distinction between Sacraments and ordinary Christian rites are less clear.  Some traditions eliminate the distinction altogether.

Finally there is an important distinction between Baptism and Communion compared to the other possible Sacraments: Jesus himself gave us the formula (or words) we use to practice them.  For Baptism:

And Jesus came and said to them, “All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me. Go therefore and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, teaching them to observe all that I have commanded you. And behold, I am with you always, to the end of the age.”—Matthew 28:18-20 (ESV)

And for Communion:

For I received from the Lord what I also delivered to you, that the Lord Jesus on the night when he was betrayed took bread, and when he had given thanks, he broke it, and said, “This is my body which is for you. Do this in remembrance of me.” In the same way also he took the cup, after supper, saying, “This cup is the new covenant in my blood. Do this, as often as you drink it, in remembrance of me.” For as often as you eat this bread and drink the cup, you proclaim the Lord's death until he comes.—1st Corinthians 11:23-26 (ESV)

As far as I can tell, the other potential Sacraments were not commanded by Christ in the same way.  Therefore, while we do practice marriage, ordination, visitation of the sick and dying, repentance, and confirmation (along with many other rituals), we don't view these as equal in significance to the rites instituted by Christ Jesus.


What is the biblical argument against baptism by sprinkling/pouring? What is the biblical basis for the idea that it is wrong or incorrect to baptize by sprinkling or pouring the water? Growing up as a baptist I heard this all the time.

Related, but opposite: What is the biblical basis for baptism by sprinkling?

The argument from scripture centres firstly around the meaning of the original word which we translate as baptize in english:

Strong's Concordance
baptizó: to dip, sink
Original Word: βαπτίζω
Part of Speech: Verb
Transliteration: baptizó
Phonetic Spelling: (bap-tid'-zo)
Short Definition: I dip, submerge, baptize
Definition: lit: I dip, submerge, but specifically of ceremonial dipping; I baptize.
HELPS Word-studies
907 baptízō – properly, "submerge" (Souter); hence, baptize, to immerse (literally, "dip under"). 907 (baptízō) implies submersion ("immersion"), in contrast to 472 /antéxomai ("sprinkle"). - Biblehub.com (emphasis added)

It was the same word used to describe the dyeing process used at the time - cloth would be steeped (fully immersed) in dye.
Secondarily regarding what it signifies and what is therefore the most appropriate analogy:

3 Or don’t you know that all of us who were baptized into Christ Jesus were baptized into his death? 4 We were therefore buried with him through baptism into death in order that, just as Christ was raised from the dead through the glory of the Father, we too may live a new life. - Romans 6:3-4 NIV (emphasis added)

Baptism signifies our being buried with Christ - we have died to sin and our old life - and are raised to life new life in Him. Full immersion expresses this in a way that sprinkling does not.
Finally, there is no explicit biblical example of anyone being 'baptized' (using a wider  - ie. non-biblical - definition of the word) by sprinkling. You have to make up your mind whether to read implicit permission for sprinkling by synthesizing other scriptural doctrines, or reject it as a tradition from men.


What do non-Calvinists believe about Proverbs 21:1 Proverbs 21:1 says

The king's heart is like channels of water in the hand of the LORD; He turns it wherever He wishes.

This seems to imply that kings (and perhaps everyone else too) don't have freewill, but that God determines their decisions. How do non-Calvinists view this verse?

This verse does not stand alone.  As is the case with many of the proverbs the entire thought is expressed in two (or more) verses:

The king's heart is a stream of water in the hand of the LORD; he turns it wherever he will. Every way of a man is right in his own eyes, but the LORD weighs the heart. - Proverbs 21:1-2

These verses highlight two critical features.  1) The ability of humans to choose for themselves, 2) God's sovereign ability to judge and use those choices as He wills.
The King's heart is like a stream of water; it has an energy and a direction.  The way that he directs that energy is what he has determined (in his own eyes) to be right.  However, it is God and not man who is in charge of the ultimate outcome.
We see this very clearly demonstrated in the story of Joseph (Genesis 37-50), whose brothers sold him into slavery.  Years later those same brothers found themselves standing before Joseph who was now high in command of Egypt.  Through all of the difficulties he endured due to his brother's evil intentions Joseph was able to see that the sovereign hand of God had orchestrated a plan to rescue his father's household from devastation by famine, and he famously said to them:

As for you, you meant evil against me, but God meant it for good, to bring it about that many people should be kept alive, as they are today. - Genesis 50:20

And we now can look back and see how this deliverance from famine became slavery in Egypt, which became deliverance from Egypt, which became the establishment of Israel, which became the advent of Jesus Christ, the world's Savior.
Evil was intended and God brought forth good, indeed.


How do Catholics explain the stance of Pope Paul VI on contraception? Pope Paul VI, in his Humanae Vitae (1968)said that, "It is always intrinsically wrong to use contraception to prevent new human beings from coming into existence." (source)

The words of the Pope are explicit. He said that contraception (= preventing new human beings from coming into existence)was always intrinsically wrong. In other words, every form of contraception must have always been intrinsically wrong per the Pope's very own words.

How do Catholics explain the stance of Pope Paul VI on contraception?

NOTE

This is not about the natural or artificial kinds of contraception. This question focuses on the encyclical of the Pope entitled "Human Life" (1968).

Natural contraception leaves open the chance that life may begin due to some unforeseen occurrence like out of monthly cycle an egg was released that could be at the right place at the right time. Artificial contraception involves the woman or man taking direct action to prevent the occurrence of pregnancy at which point sexual union  becomes a selfish act.
The Church also says that artificial contraception is morally wrong, because each and every sex act can occur only between husband and wife and must be directed toward two ends: love and life, that is, the intimate unity between the man and woman (love) and possibly procreating another human being (life). Conception and pregnancy don’t have to occur each time, but no man-made barriers should prevent what God may intend to happen.


Must all Mormons marry and have children? Mormonism believes "that God’s [first] commandment for His children to multiply and replenish the earth [Gen. 1:28] remains in force". Does this mean all Mormons must marry and have children? Or can some be perpetual virgins? What about infertile or childless marriages?

Does this mean all Mormons must marry and have children?

'Must' is a strong word, Mormons believe in agency: the ability and privilege God gives us to choose and to act for ourselves. As with all commandments, Mormons believe we have a choice, however, if we want the blessings, promises, or protection a commandment brings then we should/will make the choice to keep God's commandments.
If a Mormon wants to attain exaltation, the highest glory of the celestial kingdom, then they must marry, be sealed, and live faithfully to their covenant.1
The Family Proclamation restates the command given in Genesis 1:28 for families:

to multiply and replenish the earth

and while there is not a specific blessing attached to this command, we know that God blesses us for keeping the commandments. So if you want the potential blessings yes.2

Or can some be perpetual virgins?

Yes, because Mormons believe in agency, no if they want the same blessings and promises to those who are sealed.

What about infertile or childless marriages?

God knows the intents and desires of our hearts.3 Mosiah 4:24-25 says:

24 And again, I say unto the poor, ye who have not and yet have sufficient, that ye remain from day to day; I mean all you who deny the beggar, because ye have not; I would that ye say in your hearts that: I give not because I have not, but if I had I would give.
25 And now, if ye say this in your hearts ye remain guiltless, otherwise ye are condemned; and your condemnation is just for ye covet that which ye have not received.

This lets us know that God will judge us based on our desires. So if we have righteous desires but are unable to act on them for some reason we can still attain the blessings.

President Harold B. Lee relied on these scriptures in another example:
“[Women] who have been denied the blessings of wifehood or motherhood in this life—who say in their heart, if I could have done, I would have done, or I would give if I had, but I cannot for I have not—the Lord will bless you as though you had done, and the world to come will compensate for those who desire in their hearts the righteous blessings that they were not able to have because of no fault of their own.” (Ye Are the Light of the World, Salt Lake City: Deseret Book Co., 1974, p. 292.)4

Because in the context of the LDS Church, where the family is celebrated as the fundamental unit of society, childlessness can be an especially difficult challenge. There are many articles to address those facing infertility:

Faith and Infertility By Melissa Merrill
Faith and Infertility An Ensign Online Exclusive
Many more

1 https://www.lds.org/scriptures/dc-testament/dc/131.1-4
2 D&C 130:20-21, D&C 14:7
3 Hebrews 4:12-13 and https://www.lds.org/scriptures/tg/god-omniscience-of?lang=eng
4 The Desires of our Heart


What is the general Baptist stance on pacifism? In short: Are Baptists generally for or against going to war?

It seems Baptists have a general freedom in their personal beliefs. Is there a general consensus on going to war or avoiding it?

I am a Baptist and my husband is a Baptist preacher. I will answer your question, but first let me state that yes, with many questions, you will find that Baptist have no consensus. Why? Because we believe in "Individual Soul Liberty" which can be defined as
"Every individual, whether a believer or an unbeliever, has the liberty to choose what he believes is right in the religious realm. No one should be forced to assent to any belief against his will. Baptists have always opposed religious persecution. However, this liberty does not exempt one from responsibility to the Word of God or from accountability to God Himself.
Romans 14:5, 12; 2 Corinthians 4:2; Titus 1:9" as quoted from this site http://www.garbc.org/about-us/beliefs-constitution/baptist-distinctives/

We also believe that believers who study God's word, will grow; and at different stages of growth may interpret God's word differently.  We will not have full understanding until we get to heaven.

So we do not dictate what others believe. We point members and non-members to the the Word of God. Those who know Christ as their Savior can be guided by the Holy Spirit, if they maintain their fellowship with God. Those who don't know Jesus as their Savior , can be guided by what God has made obvious in the universe, although in the end, all men will fall short, because we are all sinners.
So what does this have to do with being a pacifist?
We point to God's Word and we look at it in context, and how it relates to the whole picture of God presented in the bible.
Yes, God says "You shall not commit murder". However, this is generally interpreted as premeditated, revengeful murder, committed out of selfishness.

There are many places where God commands His people to go to war and even to kill off all who are not His people. (in that area and time - not a as principle for every believer)
In 1 Samuel 15:3 Samuel the prophet tells Saul the king that the Lord says," Now go and attack Amalek, and utterly destroy all that they have, and do not spare them. But kill both man and woman, infant and nursing child, ox and sheep, camel and donkey.’”
Then in verse 9 it says, "But Saul and the people spared Agag (the King of the Amalek) and the best of the sheep, the oxen, the fatlings, the lambs, and all that was good, and were unwilling to utterly destroy them. But everything despised and worthless, that they utterly destroyed."
And in verse 19  Samuel says to Saul,
" Why then did you not obey the voice of the Lord? Why did you swoop down on the spoil, and do evil in the sight of the Lord?”
In verse 33, Samuel, the prophet kills Agag.
From this passage and other similar passages, we can see God is not opposed to any and all murder at anytime,by anyone.

Baptist believe the bible teaches that all national leaders,whether good or evil are appointed by God, and the job of the national government is to protect the people. Therefore, under the right circumstances, going to war can be obedience to God, especially if it is what is generally considered self-defense.
However, if a believer felt strongly that what the government was doing went against God's word, then we would say that individual should not violate his conscience. Always obey God first, then man's laws.

To explain why most Baptist believe in fighting just wars, I am including a sermon printed the Baptist Faith and Message, a publication of the Southern Baptist Fellowship. http://www.lifeway.com/Article/Foundations-faith-peace-and-war

You will find plenty of Bible verse to back up the position in the article.  I do not consider myself a pacifist. One of my son's is a police officer, and may someday have to kill in the line of duty. As long as he follows both man's and God's principles, I do not believe he would be wrong in God's eyes.

God looks at the heart, (our motives-why we do things), and God cannot be fooled even though we deceive ourselves.


Did Mary know she was sinless, according to Roman Catholic teaching? The Roman Catholic Church teaches the Immaculate Conception that asserts Mary was conceived without sin and remained sinless for her entire life.

Assuming this to be true, did Mary know that she was, in fact, sinless, while everyone else was not?  It seems that this would have been obvious.  If so, it seems should would probably have expected that God had already selected her for a special purpose.  However, she sounds surprised at the angel greets her as a "favored one":

  Now in the sixth month the angel Gabriel was sent from God to a city in Galilee called Nazareth, 27 to a virgin engaged to a man whose name was Joseph, of the descendants of David; and the virgin’s name was Mary. 28 And coming in, he said to her, “Greetings, favored one! The Lord is with you.” 29 But she was very perplexed at this statement, and kept pondering what kind of salutation this was.  Luke 1:26-29 NASB

So, again, my question is, according to Roman Catholic doctrine, did Mary always know that she was sinless?  Or did she come to know that later at some point?  If she knew she was sinless, did she realize earlier that she had been set aside for a special purpose?

Did Mary realize that she was sinless before the Annunciation?

No. If I cannot remember my sins, the only reasonable conclusion is that I forgot my sins, or that I was ignorant of having sinned, not that I was without sin. The same is true of Mary. She could not have known that her life so far had been free of sin, even if she could not remember any sins. (Furthermore, the doctrine that Mary was without sin applies to Mary's entire life, including the unknown future.)

So it would certainly not have been obvious that she was free of sin, and she would not have expected that God had selected her for the purpose in question. That was the very point of the greeting and the Annunciation: to inform Mary of something that she could not have known without revelation.

Did others realize that Mary was sinless?

It is impossible for others to realize this based on a person's actions. To have never sinned is something far beyond having lived a righteous life. Many sins are internal and therefore hidden, and many actions that seem sinful might be good. Those who knew Mary would have thought very well of her, but without divine revelation they could not have considered her to be without sin.

Why did Mary react as she did to the greeting?

The greeting was spoken by Gabriel, an angel. Clearly, it was very serious.
Gabriel calls her by the name "kecharitoméne", which means "full of grace" (Redemptoris Mater 8), and not by her proper earthly name, "Mary". Naming a person in this way is common even today (Smith, Baker, Sawyer...), and it was certainly common in the Bible (Abram, Abraham, Sarah, Jacob...). However, Mary is troubled by this particular name. She understands the language, so she knows what was meant. She did not ask for clarification of why she was being called by this name (as she did when the Angel revealed that she would conceive, though she was and planned to remain a virgin). Still, the name did weigh very heavily upon her.
Mary had great humility. When Catholics say the Rosary with the Joyful Mysteries in mind, when the Annunciation is remembered, the prayer is "for the love of humility"). When a humble person is told that she is favored, she typically reacts with genuine surprise and perhaps confusion, because she has not until that point been imagining herself as favored. Most people might be very happy to be told that they are favored by anyone, but Mary just begins to think deeply about what God's message means.

Did it never occur to Mary, at any point in her life, that she was free of sin?

She could only come to have such a belief as a direct result of divinely-revealed knowledge, which may have included the revelation that she was the Mother of God (she was very much aware of this). Even then, she would have been aware of such knowledge only after the Annunciation (see the first question). Furthermore, there is no Church teaching (that I have been able to find) that suggests that the thought "I am sinless" had occurred to Mary. She does not dwell on attempting to recall past sins, and instead seems to spend much of her time contemplating what God is telling her.


Why didn't God forgive Saul when he asked for it? In 1 Samuel 15:24-25 (NIV):

  24 Then Saul said to Samuel, “I have sinned. I violated the Lord’s
  command and your instructions. I was afraid of the men and so I gave
  in to them. 25 Now I beg you, forgive my sin and come back with me, so
  that I may worship the Lord.”

Saul seems to have recognized his sin and repent/ask for forgiveness. However, he wasn't forgiven which can be seen in some verses later when the LORD rejected him and "the Lord regretted that he had made Saul king over Israel." (v. 35)

Does the concept of repentance/ask for forgiveness only work in New Testament time?

You appear to be reading this into the text. It doesn't say that God didn't forgive him. Samuel had to make it clear that Sauls sin cost him his crown, so he wouldn't go to worship with Saul. Once this was established, we see Samuel soften and respond to Sauls second plea to go and worship in v30. Therefore we see God forgives on a personal level, but that doesn't mean there is no price for our sin. I hope this is helpful.


Does the Pope teach infallibly ONLY when he speaks ex cathedra? The Vatican Council (opened on 8 December, 1869) defined as "a divinely revealed dogma" that "the Roman Pontiff, when he speaks ex cathedra — that is, when in the exercise of his office as pastor and teacher of all Christians he defines, by virtue of his supreme Apostolic authority, a doctrine of faith or morals to be held by the whole Church — is, by reason of the Divine assistance promised to him in blessed Peter, possessed of that infallibility with which the Divine Redeemer wished His Church to be endowed in defining doctrines of faith and morals; and consequently that such definitions of the Roman Pontiff are irreformable of their own nature (ex sese) and not by reason of the Church's consent"1 - Source: Explanation of papal infallibility | Infallibility | New Advent.

1. cf. Denzinger 1839 And so We, adhering faithfully to the tradition received from the beginning of the Christian faith, to the glory of God, our Savior, the elevation of the Catholic religion and the salvation of Christian peoples, with the approbation of the sacred Council, teach and explain that the dogma has been divinely revealed: that the Roman Pontiff, when he speaks ex cathedra, that is, when carrying out the duty of the pastor and teacher of all Christians by virtue of his supreme apostolic authority he defines a doctrine of faith or morals to be held by the universal Church, through the divine assistance promised him in blessed Peter, operates with that infallibility with which the divine Redeemer wished that His church be instructed in defining doctrine on faith and morals; and so such definitions of the Roman Pontiff from himself, but not from the consensus of the Church, are unalterable.

The question is, does the Pope teach infallibly ONLY when he speaks ex cathedra? Are there instances when a Pope has taught infallibly but not precisely as according to the definition by the Vatican Council? If so, what are some examples?

Ex cathedra is the means by which a pope defines dogma.
Infallible means "not prone to err."

The First Vatican Council says a pope cannot err when defining dogma. This does not imply he's prone to err when not defining dogma, nor does it mean he must speak ex cathedra to be inerrant.

Encyclicals, for example, are inerrant; otherwise, the Church would demand the faithful to assent to what might contain error, and the Church cannot lead one into error because the Church is indefectible. From Pope Pius XII's Humani Generis:

  Nor must it be thought that what is expounded in Encyclical Letters does not of itself demand consent, since in writing such Letters the Popes do not exercise the supreme power of their Teaching Authority. For these matters are taught with the ordinary teaching authority, of which it is true to say: "He who heareth you, heareth me";[Luke, X, 16] and generally what is expounded and inculcated in Encyclical Letters already for other reasons appertains to Catholic doctrine. But if the Supreme Pontiffs in their official documents purposely pass judgment on a matter up to that time under dispute, it is obvious that that matter, according to the mind and will of the Pontiffs, cannot be any longer considered a question open to discussion among theologians.


What characteristics does the Great Tribulation have in JW eschatology? I had asked this question regarding LDS eschatology and thought that I ask the same one from Jehovah's Witnesses point of view. I can see however that there's this other question where the answer touches on some of the points, so I want to take my question on a slightly different route.

Do Jehovah's Witnesses have a doctrinal opinion on why Great
Tribulation is called "Great Tribulation", i.e. what makes it a
Great Tribulation? Are the reasons spiritual, economical, or
something else?
Do Jehovah's Witnesses have any official beliefs on how long the
Great Tribulation is expected to last?

Forgive me if I am unable to specifically answer your first question because I don’t know what you mean by “spiritual, economical, or something else.”  What I have done is research a Watchtower article dealing with the issue of the Great Tribulation and the events leading up to Armageddon:
Watchtower 15 July 2015: “Your Deliverance Is Getting Near”!   http://wol.jw.org/en/wol/d/r1/lp-e/2015523?q=deliverance&p=par

14 What will happen after Gog of Magog starts the attack on God’s people? Both Matthew and Mark record the same event: “[The Son of man] will send out the angels and will gather his chosen ones together from the four winds, from earth’s extremity to heaven’s extremity.” (Mark 13:27; Matt. 24:31) This gathering work does not refer to the initial ingathering of anointed ones; nor does it refer to the final sealing of the remaining anointed ones. (Matt. 13:37, 38) That sealing happens before the outbreak of the great tribulation. (Rev. 7:1-4) So, what is this gathering work that Jesus mentions? It is the time when the remaining ones of the 144,000 will receive their heavenly reward. (1 Thess. 4:15-17; Rev. 14:1) This event will take place at some point after the beginning of the attack by Gog of Magog. (Ezek. 38:11)
16 Once all the 144,000 are in heaven, the final preparations for the marriage of the Lamb can begin. (Rev. 19:9) But something else will happen before that joyous event. Remember, shortly before the remaining ones of the 144,000 are taken to heaven, Gog will attack God’s people. (Ezek. 38:16)...  Together with his 144,000 co-rulers in heaven, Jesus will come to the rescue of God’s people here on earth.

As for any timeline, there is no indication in the following publication as to how long the Great Tribulation will last.  No dates are given, just this breakdown of events leading up to the Great Tribulation, which will culminate in the battle of Armageddon when God’s enemies are destroyed:
God’s Kingdom Rules (2014) Chapter 21 pp 222-230 – Timeline of Events pp 224-225:

”Before the Kingdom comes to put an end to its enemies, several significant events will take place.”

The precursor of the Great Tribulation will be a proclamation of peace and security.  This is to be followed by the final sealing of the remnant of anointed Christians.
The Great Tribulation begins with an attack on religion by the Wild Beast of Revelation (which is the United Nations).
Events leading up to Armageddon include celestial phenomena,  pronouncement of judgment on the enemies of God’s Kingdom by the Son of Man [Jesus], the all-out attack of Gog of Magog [Satan] on Jehovah’s people and then the gathering of the anointed ones.
These things happen before Armageddon, at which point the Great Tribulation ends.  The grand finale of the Great Tribulation is the execution of judgment at Armageddon.
Chapter 21 concludes with the following advice on how to prepare for and survive the Great Tribulation:

Survival will depend on obedience.   Such instructions come to us through the congregation arrangement.  Reference to Isaiah’s Prophecy – Light for All Mankind 1, pages 282-283.


What is the Christian perspective on the description of God? My pastor (Calvary Chapel) referred to God as His father, then once said that God is everywhere and in everything (i.e. - inside each person) and then that God is Love.

So now I am confused as to what God is.

How does Christianity describe God? If that is not agreed upon, what are the main Christian doctrines on what God is?

For example, if God can be with/inside everyone at the same time and hear all our different individual prayers at the same time, is it wrong to think of Him as a sole entity, like being just a father to me? Should Christians view God as a multidimensional or unquantifiable being?

What is the Christian perspective on the description of God?

The following recent books are very popular and explore the topic. I have read the first two and heard some sermons from the third.

Books:
The Attributes of God by A. W. Tozer
Knowing God J.I Packer
The Attributes of God by A.W. Pink

Tozer's sermons are easily found, for example here.

http://www.sermonaudio.com/sermoninfo.asp?SID=8130752728

Common ideas or 'attributes of God, go as far back as bible commentary, and many different sorts of commentators surprisingly agree on most of them.

The first key concept of God  is that he is infinite and has no boundaries. The infinitude of God is central to the name God told Moses to use:

  Exodus 3:14
  God said to Moses, “ I am who I am. This is what you are to say to the Israelites: ‘ I am has sent me to you. ’"

'I AM' implies infinity. God always was. This means therefore, whatever God is He is so without any limit, having no beginning.  This leads to the second primary concept, he is ineffable and incomprehensible.  This means we can never fully explain Him as the finite can't comprehend the infinite.

Although there are few books fully dedicated to the subject, all Bible commentators recognize these attributes when encountering them in a particular bible verse. Attributes, based on what the Bible say’s about God are always explained from an ' I AM' perspective. For example, the Bible say’s God is wise, therefore, He is infinitely wise.

One attribute always leads to another. If He is infinitely wise then He must be infinite knowing. Otherwise his wisdom would have a limit or boundary. He could be fooled over things He did not anticipate.

Common attributes:

Powerful - this often implies all powerful, that is all power is derived from Him. He is therefore the sustainer, that is all things are held together by Him. This includes all molecules an even the Devil himself.

  Colossians 1:17
  He is before all things, and in him all things hold together.

Omnipresent - that is He is everywhere but the universe cannot contain Him.

  Psalms 139:7-8
  Where can I go from your Spirit?
  Where can I flee from your presence?
  8 If I go up to the heavens, you are there;
  if I make my bed in the depths, you are there.

Omniscient - that is all knowing, past and future.

  Hebrews 4:13
  Nothing in all creation is hidden from God’s sight. Everything is uncovered and laid bare before the eyes of him to whom we must give account.

All wise - He knows the most perfect means for achieving the most perfect ends, using the most prefect ways. He knows the end from the beginning.

  Romans 11:33
  33 Oh, the depth of the riches of the wisdom and knowledge of God!
  How unsearchable his judgments,
  and his paths beyond tracing out!

Self Sufficient - that he needs nothing or anyone in any sense. Kind of implied by the name 'I Am' or possibly Psalm 50:10-12 might be a good reference.

Transcendent - that is His excellence, value and glory rises infinitely beyond anything. This is self evident everywhere in the Bible.

Good - that is he desires the utmost good of all creatures (there is controversy among theologians on what this means because Calvin in one sense restricted goodness, love and grace to the elect). I think that was a critical error on his part, though on most subjects I usually agree with him.

Merciful and Full of Grace (this is the most controversial) I take mercy to be preventing judgment for the purposes of His grace. Also implies pity and understanding of our weakness without grace. Grace, that He is infinitely willing to provide His endless riches at Christ's expense.

  Deuteronomy 4:31
  For the Lord your God is a merciful God; he will not abandon or destroy you or forget the covenant with your ancestors, which he confirmed to them by oath.

  Romans 3:23-24
  for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God, 24 and all are justified freely by his grace through the redemption that came by Christ Jesus.

Holy - that is perfectly without sin. I take this actually to men 100% loving, without any hate whatsoever. (Most theologians would prefer other wording, stinking to just pure whatever else they think pure might be) Example: Leviticus 19:2

Just - that is never showing any partiality or favoritism but able to perfectly discern what is fair. Example: Deuteronomy 32:4

Other attributes can be added to the list, almost whatever is good in a person, God is so perfectly. Virtually every page of the Bible assumes one or more of these attributes.

The Bible argues that all mankind can understand some of  God's attributes like His eternal power:

  Romans 1:20
  For since the creation of the world God’s invisible qualities—his eternal power and divine nature—have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that people are without excuse.

Some attributes such as his love and grace seem only perceived by faith.

Other attributes may be manifest specifically by the incarnation, in the God-Man. For example God's empathy is difficult to perceive in the The bible, except when reading the gospels ad witnessing how much empathy Jesus had for those that were suffering.

Some like Tozer argue that no attribute can be greater than another as they are all infinite. Others disagree noting that love is greater than patience and kindness, since they are just subsets of love.  Therefore, 1 John 4:8,  'God is love.' really implies the 'essential attribute'. If it wasn't how do we explain that when we try to be like Him, we are to put love on top?


What is the Biblical Basis for a Good person going to hell simply for not believing? The scenario is as follows:

Believer, average life, many mistakes/sins. Asks forgiveness and tries everyday to be better. Goes to heaven.
Non-believer, better life than the believer, fewer mistakes than the believer, tries everyday to be better, succeds more than the believer, knows he has done some bad things in life, regrets them, but doesn't believe in anything because he never witnessed anything supernatural in life so he has no reasons to. Goes to hell.

This scenario was put to debate by a co-worker and I tried to explain how you cannot be saved by your own deeds, but didn't succed to actually give a good argument, so I'm asking for help.

For all the non-believers this scenario is "not fair" as why would a better person go to hell just for not believing.

Can anyone give some biblical explanations / paragraphs to explain this. Or maybe the premises are wrong?

Romans 3:23 (NIV) for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of
  God

No one is righteous. Better is not enough. God demands 100% holiness. No one can achieve that. Therefore, we need the Blood of Jesus Christ. Only in Jesus, can we have salvation.

  Romans 5:12 (NIV) Therefore, just as sin
  entered the world through one man, and death through sin, and in this
  way death came to all people, because all sinned—

We are all doomed to go to Hell whether we like it or not, whether we are better than others or not. Jesus died for us so that by believing in his death and resurrection, we may be saved.

For this reason Christians are given the command to preach the Gospel to the whole world.

  Matthew 28:19-20 (NIV)
  19 Therefore go and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in
  the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, 20 and
  teaching them to obey everything I have commanded you. And surely I am
  with you always, to the very end of the age.”


In what sense is Jesus understood to be "the only begotten son of God" in LDS teaching? In a comment made on a previous question I asked, someone directed me to Moses 1:35 in the Pearl of Great Price.  I read the context and saw Moses 1:32–33, which interested me as well.  The text is as follows:

And by the word of my power, have I created them, which is mine Only Begotten Son, who is full of grace and truth.
And worlds without number have I created; and I also created them for mine own purpose; and by the Son I created them, which is mine Only Begotten.

In LDS teaching, Lucifer and Jesus are spiritual brothers, and, indeed, we are all brothers of both Jesus and Lucifer—both of whom are our elder brothers.
So, in what sense, then, is Jesus the Only Begotten Son of God according to LDS teaching, when in the pre-mortal life Elohim did have multiple sons (and daughters)?

I had to go do a little looking around to see how the phrase "Only Begotten Son" as it appears in the Bible is interpreted in other denominations. It appears that there is some disagreement.

Within LDS theology, here is how the term is used in the Book of Mormon and also in the Doctrine and Covenants. Usage of the term "Only Begotten Son" is pretty consistent across all these references.

Simply enough, Latter-day Saints understand "Only Begotten Son" to mean that Christ is the only literal, physical Son of God. He is divine and set apart in that very symbolic and important way.

The LDS Bible Dictionary makes an interesting point about the use of the term "Son of God" that makes reference to being The Only Begotten (emphasis my own):

  It does not appear from the Gospels that our Lord frequently applied this title to Himself (but see Matt. 27:43; Luke 22:70; John 5:25; 9:35–37; 10:36; 11:4), though we often find it used by others in speaking to Him (Matt. 14:33; 16:16; Luke 4:41; John 1:49; 11:27); and of Him (Mark 1:1; John 3:18; 20:31). But there is ample proof that He claimed to be the Son of God in a sense that was true of Him and of no one else (see Matt. 11:27 [Luke 10:22]; Mark 13:32). He speaks of Himself as Son of God, and of others as sons of God, but there is not a single passage in which the sonship of others is spoken of as being the same thing as His own. So too He speaks of “my Father” and “your Father,” but never of “our Father.” (The Lord’s Prayer is no exception, as it was intended for the disciples’ use.) There is a consistency in scripture, ancient and modern, that Jesus Christ is literally the Son of God the Father, being the Only Begotten of the Father in the flesh. See Jacob 4:5; D&C 20:21; Moses 6:52, 54, 57.