Can you give air-kisses to icons in the Eastern Orthodox church instead of physical kisses? Can you give air-kisses to icons in the Eastern Orthodox church instead of physical kisses? I was reading this website, which teaches church etiquette to church-going Christians. The website seems to imply that the kisses are physical kisses, because the writer of the article is concerned with lipstick on the icons. That said, is it okay to give air-kisses? Are chapsticks allowed? What about the etiquette of the non-Christian visitor? Should he kiss the icon too to pay respect to the icon, or is the behavior exclusively for observant Orthodox Christians?

Air kisses are totally fine. The purpose of the kiss is to show reverence to that which the icon portrays, whether it is of Christ, the Theotokos or a Saint. Depending on the ethnicity of the Church you attend, you may see people prostrate (bow fully and touch their hand to the floor), or kneel down and fully touch their head to the floor. Some do this multiple times.

It is important to remember the purpose of this is to give honor to the person portrayed in the icon, and is not, contrary to Protestant thought, to worship the person of the icon as a god.

Anyone may give reverence to an icon, whether through a bow, a kiss, or a nod; in fact there is nothing that a non-Orthodox can't do which an Orthodox can do in the church, except for receiving the mysteries of communion or the other sacraments (confession, marriage, etc.).

In regards to doing a physical kiss with lipstick or chapstick; I'm not positive but will get back to you on that. Here is my deduction for the moment-- if an icon drops to the ground, the Orthodox are instructed to burn it and not throw it away (although most just pick it up, give it a kiss and put it back). It would be pretty awkward to knock an icon off its stand onto the ground, as it would be considered disrespectful to whom the icon portrays. Because of this, I assume that it wouldn't be good to leave lipstick or chap-stick on the icon, but I could be wrong.


What is the basis for the practice of Intinction (the dipping of the bread into wine during the Eucharist)? I understand that Catholics and Methodists employ the practice of Intinction, that is, the dipping of the bread into the wine during the Eucharist.

In my experience, the bread and the wine are always served separately, which seems to follow the pattern set forth in the Bible.

  23 For I received from the Lord that which I also delivered to you,
  that the Lord Jesus in the night in which He was betrayed took bread;
  24 and when He had given thanks, He broke it and said, “This is My
  body, which is for you; do this in remembrance of Me.” 25 In the same
  way He took the cup also after supper, saying, “This cup is the new
  covenant in My blood; do this, as often as you drink it, in
  remembrance of Me.” 26 For as often as you eat this bread and drink
  the cup, you proclaim the Lord’s death until He comes.  1 Corinthians 11:23-25 NASB

So, what specifically is the basis/reasoning/biblical foundation for taking the elements simultaneously rather than individually, with the bread first followed by the wine, which to me appears to be the pattern set forth in Scripture?  When did this practice originate and by whom?

There's an article here that covers the history of intinction quite extensively.  (I apologize that it's a PDF reference.  It's the best article I could find.)

The article starts out like this:

  The common wisdom among opponents of intinction is that it arose after
  the doctrine of  transubstantiation, and was a method of preventing
  Christ's blood from spilling, and that it is associated primarily with
  Roman Catholicism. Although there are elements of truth in this
  assessment, the true history of the practice is a fair bit more
  complicated than that.

In summary, as far as the history goes, there's no consensus on why the practice as started.  The earliest mention of the practice was in the writings of Julius I in 340 A.D.

  In the context of rejecting several irregular  practices regarding the
  Eucharist, he states the following:  But their practice of giving the
  people intincted Eucharist for the fulfillment of communion is not
  received from the gospel witness, where, when he gave the apostles his
  body and blood, giving the bread separately and the chalice separately
  is recorded

There is no mention of the reason for the practice, just that it occurred.

Further, the article states:

  It is not clear how or why intinction first was introduced into the
  church. According to William Freestone, the possibility exists that it
  was a convenience directed towards the administration of the Eucharist
  to the sick, making the bread easier to swallow. However, this was
  usually not our modern practice of intincting the bread into the wine,
  but rather of dipping bread into unconsecrated liquid.  According to
  the Ohio Presbytery Report, the first mention of it is connected to
  paedocommunion, to make the bread easier to swallow by an infant.
  Freestone thinks it more likely that the practice  originated from the
  fear of accident, and then passed over into communion of the sick

The remainder of the paper goes on to document various historical disputes over the practice, some of which are quite fiery.  The dispute isn't really on-topic to the question, but it is worth a read.

In the Catholic Church, intinction seems to be something that is not meant to be common.  I've found several articles (like this one) that state that it " is permitted when done according to Church directives".  It also states "The Church provides that when Communion is given by intinction, it must be planned beforehand.", indicating that it's not something to be taken lightly.  But nowhere does it outline why it should be given, and in what cases.

The only article I could find that had any sort of official support for there answer was this one.

  With reference to the previous section on the theology of intinction
  (i.e., responses to Questions 2 and 3), this study committee found
  strong, compelling biblical and theological support for the practice
  of partaking of the elements separately – of “eating” AND of
  “drinking”. Therefore, intinction is out of accord with Scripture.

  Practical considerations appear to be the primary reasons for
  intinction. During this study, the committee heard a variety of
  pragmatic reasons for the practice, including: (a) it is one of the
  “touch points” for a more meaningful worship, (b) it saves time, (c)
  it takes longer, (d) it may better appeal to those who come from
  church traditions that practice intinction (e.g., Catholic, Orthodox),
  (e) it avoids the Congregationalist practice of distributing the
  elements in the pews, (f) it better enables communion in the
  battlefield, and (g) it is practiced in the PCA.

Again, it points to convenience, or practicality as a reason.

From the Anglican Church:

  Resolutions from 1948

  Resolution 118

  Administration of Holy Communion

  The Conference holds that administration from a common chalice, being
  scriptural and having a spiritual meaning of great value, should
  continue to be the normal method of administration in the Anglican
  Communion; but is of opinion that there is no objection to
  administration of both kinds by the method of intinction where
  conditions require it, and that any part of the Anglican Communion by
  provincial regulation according to its own constitutional procedure
  has liberty to sanction administration by intinction as an optional
  alternative to the traditional method, and that the methods of
  intinction to be adopted or permitted should not be left to the
  discretion of individual priests.

The only guideline appears to be "where conditions require it".  Implying some special set of circumstances where the traditional method is inconvenient or impractical.

I did manage to find one specific example that lists a specific reason:

  Q.      Why does St. Peter’s intinction, rather than using the cup
  like other parishes?

  A.      There are several reasons. We have had some difficulty in the
  past getting a sufficient number of EMHC. And even if we had them,
  numerous EMHC sometimes make for a rather cumbersome crowd in the
  Sanctuary at Communion time. There is the additional problem of
  preparing the proper amount of wine for the Offertory. When the
  Precious Blood is then distributed, we either run out before all have
  received, or have much remaining, which then must be consumed by the
  Priest and/or EMHC. Many people also refrain from receiving the
  Precious Blood of the Lord from the Cup because of hygiene concerns.
  Intinction eliminates these problems.

So (and I'm repeating myself)  it is a matter of practicality for them as well.


How does Absalom's death foreshadow Christ? Absalom dies on a tree (2 Samuel 18). He's rebelled against his father, David, and taken the throne. He'd rallied all Israel to his side. David has fled, but he's sent in his army and they've totally crushed Absalom. Absalom is fleeing into the forest when he gets caught, hangs on the tree, and eventually gets speared to death by Joab (the leader of David's army). Reminds me of Jesus's death on a cross.

After hearing of Absalom's death, David is sad. really sad. So sad he can't even rejoice that he's gotten his kingdom back.

Is there any Christological significance to this scenario? What about David? Does he play a metaphorical role?

IMHO, Christians find way too many "types of Christ" in the Old Testament.

Sure, there are some similarities between the death of Absalom and the death of Christ. But they're pretty strained.

Yes, both of their deaths involved a tree and a spear. Both were called "son of David".

But there are huge differences. Like: Absalom was guilty; Jesus was innocent. Absalom ran from death; Jesus faced death voluntarily. Absalom worked against his father; Jesus was working with his father. Etc etc.

I'm sure you could find parallels to Jesus death comparable to those you list in the deaths of lots of people throughout history. I'm sure I could find a criminal who was executed by hanging, who was a carpenter, and whose father was named "David". Would that make him a type of Christ?

Even in those cases where the parallels are really relevant, I'm not sure what the point is. So there are some analogies between the death of X and the death of Jesus. Interesting, perhaps, but so what? What does this prove?


How diverse or united is Christian history on the imagery of “Father” and “Son”? The original languages of the Bible itself and, to my knowledge, most of Christian history, are replete with the filial language of God being known as a “Father” and Jesus being known as his “Son”. However there are certainly enclaves of folks professing Christianity that claim that this is either given unnecessary focus or is outright misleading. Books have been written that intentionally substitute “mother” and translations are being made that remove the family relationship language altogether.

This is a multi-part question and I’m looking for a broad overview of how these pieces fit together in history, not an argument for or against any position.

When in Christian history is God first introduced as a male “father” figure? Have there been any turning points or changes in this imagery through different ages, regions or languages? Have any church fathers or theologians seen this a core issue to the faith?
Historically, which groups professing Christianity have attempted to deviate from this filial imagery? Have any notable church fathers or theologians advocated for alternate renditions? If so what works did they write and approximately what size following did they attract?
What is the overall (worldwide) view or trend on this issue today? What percentage of translations continue to use the language of father/son to translate the Hebrew and Greek texts of the Bible and what translations use something else?
What modern day movements advocate deviating from this tradition and which (or what kind of) denominations support them? Are there any direct parallels between these groups/translations and historical groups/translations?

It seems as early as Deuteronomy 32:6 that God is addressed as Father: Do you thus repay the LORD, you foolish and senseless people? Is not he your father, who created you, who made you and established you?
Historically, it appears that (at least for people who claimed Christ) that it was gnostics that primarily held a view that God was the Father, the Spirit was the "Mother", and Jesus was the Son. For some background on this an article written by a feminist to support her view of God as "mother" - http://www.womenpriests.org/body/pagels.asp.
Don't know percentages but it appears that Todays NIV and NRSV are the main versions that go the gender neutral route. - http://www.bible-researcher.com/links12.html
Unfortunately modern liberal protestants in general go this route (of course there are others). I've seen this in the Lutheran Church as well as the Methodist church. They go to great lengths to remove any reference to God as Father. They have changed the Trinity from Father, Son, and Holy Spirit to The Creator, The Redeemer, and the Sustainer. They have changed popular hymns to remove any reference to gender.

Fortunately Scripture is clear on this matter. First we know Jesus was male, secondly Jesus who is the Son, calls God the Father, and calls the Holy Spirit "He". This wasn't just men calling God the Father, but it was Jesus the Son of God and God Himself. We don't have freedom to try to change God's Word, especially when God calls Himself that.

  John 16 5“But now I am going to Him who sent Me; and none of you asks
  Me, ‘Where are You going?’ 6“But because I have said these things to
  you, sorrow has filled your heart. 7“But I tell you the truth, it is
  to your advantage that I go away; for if I do not go away, the Helper
  will not come to you; but if I go, I will send Him to you. 8“And He,
  when He comes, will convict the world concerning sin and righteousness
  and judgment; 9concerning sin, because they do not believe in Me;
  10and concerning righteousness, because I go to the Father and you no
  longer see Me; 11and concerning judgment, because the ruler of this
  world has been judged.

A good article for reference - http://www.bible-researcher.com/inclusive.html


What did Charles Hodge teach about theology as science? John Owen says in the second chapter of his Biblical Theology (page 8 as published in English by SDG),

  As the subject matter of theology is largely God Himself, it is as infinitely far removed from the methodology of science as the sciences themselves are from nonexistence.

This is not a minor point to Owen, but is integral to his whole approach to theology. I was intrigued, then, when a friend of mine told me that Charles Hodge begins his systematic theology by asserting that theology is a science. Given that these two are both considered giants with Reformed theology, I was intrigued! I have not read any Hodge myself, but as someone with a background in linguistics and philosophy, I am not ready to assume that they meant the same thing when they said science, particularly since they were separated by several centuries.

Is it true that Hodge taught that theology is a science? If so, did he explain what he means by science, and did he cite any other theologians as teaching this as well? What was his argument for this conclusion? (As a bonus, I'm also interested in who among the Old Princetonians agreed with him.)

I can't seem to find any measurable difference between Owen and Hodge on this topic.  Hodge does not even mention the word 'science' in his bible commentaries but in his book Systematic Theology he does.  Here he starts his book in part by explaining what he means by 'theology'.  Some say, theology is the 'science of religion', some say the 'science of the supernatural', etc. but Hodge prefers to say:

  We have, therefore, to restrict theology to its true sphere, as the science of the facts of divine revelation so far as those facts concern the nature of God and our relation to him, as his creatures, as sinners, and as the subjects of redemption. All these facts, as just remarked, are in the Bible. (Systematic Theology 1.19, Charles Hodge)

What Hodge really meant by accepting the term science as used by various others others was simply to justify the need for the systemization of knowledge derived from scripture.  Just as natural science does from facts in nature. Basically, although natural and theological sciences do not really overlap, they both need to 'systemize facts' they observe to derive understanding. They can't just leave things in there natural setting without make dogmatic deductions as a system. Otherwise a chemist could never predict the outcome of a chemical reaction, or an astronomer predict the location of a comet years to come.

John Owen and Hodge do also both agree that theology and science have a slight overlap under the title of natural theology. This just to accept that the heavens declare God's glory and his attributes of power and wisdom. These facts of nature manifest a lesser theology then scripture does.

Or as Hodge puts it:

  All these facts, as just remarked, are in the Bible. But as some of them are revealed by the works of God, and by the nature of man, there is so far a distinction between natural theology, and theology considered distinctively as a Christian science. With regard to natural theology, there are two extreme opinions. The one is that the works of nature make no trustworthy revelation of the being and perfections of God; the other, that such revelation is so clear and comprehensive as to preclude the necessity of any supernatural revelation.  (Systematic Theology 1.19, Charles Hodge)


Magnitude of the earthquakes of the Book of Revelation I live in Chile, which is a country where 2 of the biggest 5 earthquakes occurred since humans measure earthquakes. The biggest occurred in 1960 and it was 9.6 in Richter scale(the soil cracked and big objects like houses were almost jumping) and the 5th biggest occurred in 2010 and it was 8.8 in Richter scale. The Tsunami produced after the earthquake of 1960 killed people even in other countries like Japan and Hawaii. So, when I read the Book of Revelation and see, for example:

  12 I watched as he opened the sixth seal. There was a great
  earthquake. The sun turned black like sackcloth made of goat hair, the
  whole moon turned blood red,
  Rev 6:12

And others like:

  5 Then the angel took the censer, filled it with fire from the altar,
  and hurled it on the earth; and there came peals of thunder,
  rumblings, flashes of lightning and an earthquake.
  Rev 8:5

And:

  13 At that very hour there was a severe earthquake and a tenth of the
  city collapsed. Seven thousand people were killed in the earthquake,
  and the survivors were terrified and gave glory to the God of heaven.
  Rev 11:13

Among others, I wonder about the magnitude of these earthquake, because I have experienced great and severe earthquakes here. The problem is small earthquakes here can be considered as severe and great in other countries.

Do any groups or doctrinal systems provide particulars on how strong of a quake or what kind of increase in quake frequency signifies the end times?

In the Seventh Day Adventist Church*, there is no shortage of making connections to real historical events and the seals and other events in Revelation. Particular to your question, the SDA church has made connections to real earthquakes (and other "cosmic events") and a few of the seals. With that, we can infer "how big" the earthquake should be, or rather, was.

Adventists have an historic view of eschatology. That means that they think the book of Revelation is a prophetic record of the entire history of the Church from its writing to the Second Coming of Christ. They also believe that seals represent an era in Christian history; they are not exact, shortly executed events (typically). So they do have some opinions on actual historical earthquakes being events that Revelation was indeed talking about. These events are often quoted to show that a certain point in history was in a particular seal era.see video Source 1

Among them are the 1755 Lisbon Earthquake, New England's Dark Day of 1780, and A meteor shower in 1833. [Wikipedia source] see video Source 2

Now the Lisbon Earthquake is estimated at about 8.7 magnitude. The Lisbon Earthquake, by measure of how many people and lands were affected, was certainly no small event; countless people were affeted by it and tens of thousands perished because of it. It was a massive earthquake no matter where you live and what you are used to. With this in mind, you might infer that the SDA would say that a "massive earthquake" should be in this range.  However, to SDA's, it is not necessarily the severity of the event itself that signal the event as a "cosmic sign".

A "cosmic sign" is better recognized by people's reaction to it. In general, they look to see if the event caused a turning to God (out of fear). The Adventists quickly recognize that the time frame they mark as the era of the 6th seal was also a time of heightened religious interest. Some of those eras are called by secular historians The Enlightenment and also the Great Awakening. see video Source 4 & 6

Video Sources

I was lucky enough to find this lecture on YouTube that supports what I have said about SDA doctrine and belief.

Starting about 14 minutes in: "The seals are a countdown to God [The Second Comming]". He describes the seals as eras.
Starting about 17 minutes in: He Justifies that the 6th seal cannot be an instanteaneou event.
Starting about 20 minutes in: The speaker just finished reminding the listeners that the "time, times, and half a time" from Daniel is the Dark Ages Church, which they say officailly ended its reign in 1798 (according to SDA's) then says that they should begin seeing the signs described in the sixth seal. He then explicitly states the Lisbon Earthquake of 1755 as on of the signs.
Starting about 25 minutes in: Mentions that people ran to the Churches for protection during the Lisbon Earthquake, but perished anyway. He then begins to discuss New England's Dark Day.
Starting about 30 minutes in: He beings to discuss the Lionid Showers in 1833.
Starting about 32 minutes in: He says that the opening of the 6th seal was a time during which people's religious interests were excited and awakened (The Enlightment). Also, he states explicitly that the 6th seal was not an instantaneous event.
Starting about 35 minutes in: He mentions an earthquake in Chile (thought you might be personally interested).

Additional lecture source

*Disclaimer: The SDA is quite unique in a great deal of it's doctrines, especially eschatology. The greater portion of Christianity would either disagree with the above or weigh in no opinion at all.


How broad and inclusive is the definition of service in exhortations to serve one another? In the following quote how is "serve" understood by various Christian traditions?

  As each has received a gift, use it to serve one another, as good stewards of
  God's varied grace: whoever speaks, as one who speaks oracles of God; whoever
  serves, as one who serves by the strength that God supplies - in order that in
  everything God may be glorified through Jesus Christ." 1 Peter 4:10-11

Is service thought of as limited to the usage of spiritual gifts; or does gift in this context rightly refer to any of the varied blessings that we receive from God that can be used to help others, such as professional and personal skills?

According to the interpretations I'm most familiar with (mainly fundamentalist/Evangelical Churches, such as Baptist and non-denominational "Bible churches") the answer is "It's all-inclusive".  it includes anything and everything we can do to help others, demonstrate love, and see to their needs.  Financially, spiritually, emotionally, every possible way.

This stems from basic Biblical principles and application of passages such as the following:

  Colossians 3:22-24 (KJV)

  22 Servants, obey in all things your masters according to the flesh;
  not with eyeservice, as menpleasers; but in singleness of heart,
  fearing God: 23 And whatsoever ye do, do it heartily, as to the Lord,
  and not unto men; 24 Knowing that of the Lord ye shall receive the
  reward of the inheritance: for ye serve the Lord Christ.

The interpretation being that we are to serve others at all times because doing so is also service to the Lord.  We honor God in all acts of service.

Also taking in mind that service is an expression of love:

  Mark 12:30-31 (KJV)

  30 And thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with
  all thy soul, and with all thy mind, and with all thy strength: this
  is the first commandment. 31 And the second is like, namely this, Thou
  shalt love thy neighbour as thyself. There is none other commandment
  greater than these.

  Matthew 5:46-48 (KJV)

  43 Ye have heard that it hath been said, Thou shalt love thy neighbour,
  and hate thine enemy. 44 But I say unto you, Love your enemies, bless
  them that curse you, do good to them that hate you, and pray for them
  which despitefully use you, and persecute you; 45 That ye may be the
  children of your Father which is in heaven: for he maketh his sun to
  rise on the evil and on the good, and sendeth rain on the just and on
  the unjust. 46 For if ye love them which love you, what reward have ye?
  do not even the publicans the same? 47 And if ye salute your brethren
  only, what do ye more than others? do not even the publicans so? 48Be
  ye therefore perfect, even as your Father which is in heaven is
  perfect.

If service is an expression of love, and we are to love our enemies as much as our neighbors, it follows that we are to serve without reservation, even those that we find despicable.

Long story short, there is no Biblical reason to expect that there is a limit to how we are to serve.  We should follow Christ's example, and put others before ourselves, as the ultimate expression of Agape love.

More on the subject from the same perspective can be found at Christia.Net

Excerpt:

  Christ is the best example of demonstrating Christian servanthood the
  way it is meant to be in God's eyes. Being a true servant is seeing
  people as opportunity for a relationship rather than just as needy
  people we walk by every day. Being able to see them with Christ's eyes
  will show them His presence within the depths of our hearts. Serving
  others is one of the most effective ways to lead them to the Lord.
  Many forget or ignore this command of the Christian life, but it is
  best to show others Christ through actions rather than words. "Let
  nothing be done through strife or vainglory; but in lowliness of mind
  let each esteem other better than themselves. Look not every man on
  his own things, but every man also on the things of others. Let this
  mind be in you, which was also in Christ Jesus: Who...made himself of
  no reputation, and took upon him the form of a servant" (Philippians
  2:3-5,7).


What are the consequences of suicide according to the Roman Catholic church? What are the consequences of suicide according to the Roman Catholic church? Are there exceptions or special penalties?

Since the soul is in a state of mortal sin at the time of death for someone who commits suicide, it would seem that the consequence must necessarily be damnation.

However here is what the catechism says:

  Suicide

  2280 Everyone is responsible for his life before God who has given it
  to him. It is God who remains the sovereign Master of life. We are
  obliged to accept life gratefully and preserve it for his honor and
  the salvation of our souls. We are stewards, not owners, of the life
  God has entrusted to us. It is not ours to dispose of.

  2281 Suicide contradicts the natural inclination of the human being to
  preserve and perpetuate his life. It is gravely contrary to the just
  love of self. It likewise offends love of neighbor because it unjustly
  breaks the ties of solidarity with family, nation, and other human
  societies to which we continue to have obligations. Suicide is
  contrary to love for the living God.

  2282 If suicide is committed with the intention of setting an example,
  especially to the young, it also takes on the gravity of scandal.
  Voluntary co-operation in suicide is contrary to the moral law.

  Grave psychological disturbances, anguish, or grave fear of hardship,
  suffering, or torture can diminish the responsibility of the one
  committing suicide.

  2283 We should not despair of the eternal salvation of persons who
  have taken their own lives. By ways known to him alone, God can
  provide the opportunity for salutary repentance. The Church prays for
  persons who have taken their own lives.


Was there an official Church of England response to the 2002 survey of clergy beliefs? A 2002 survey of nearly 2000 Church of England clergy uncovered some worrying statistics:

a third doubted or disbelieved in the physical resurrection
only half were convinced of the truth of the virgin birth
more than 75 percent believe in the Trinity, with the very troublesome implication that 20 percent didn't in some way

Was there an official response to this survey or others like it, either to refute the numbers, or to initiate measures that might improve the proportion of clergy who can uphold the church's official doctrines with enthusiastic integrity?

(PS: If anyone could find the official survey report that would be helpful - I can only find news reports, and some blogs who question how the survey's results are being reported.)

The survey in question was commissioned by a group called "Cost of Conscience". This is, or was,  a group within the Church of England which was originally opposed to the ordination of women priests, and later to lady bishops. It also aimed to protect the interests of persons opposed to women priests, for example by campaigning for the right of parishes to refuse to accept a lady vicar, and by campaigning for financial compensation for clergymen who resigned believing they could not, in conscience, remain in a Church which ordained women.

The survey was carried out in late 2001 and early 2002. Participants were not made aware who had commissioned the survey. The first results were published in July 2002 with some other results published at various times, sometimes in New Directions magazine. The early results focussed  on the extent of opposition to lady bishops. (Women priests were introduced in 1994 and bishops in 2015.) Subsequent ones showed that lady vicars were much less likely than gentleman vicars to say they "believed without question" in many of the doctrines of Christianity. Also, those most likely to support women bishops, were least likely to believe without question in Christian doctrines.

Some details of the survey can be found on this site.

Cost of Conscience said:

  The Copyright of the Survey belongs to Cost of Conscience.

  Given the importance of the findings, and the doubts which they raise about the accuracy of current thinking, the Committee of Cost of Conscience believes that it would be a mistake to publish it too hastily or all at one go.

  Our policy therefore is to release such findings as have a bearing on matters of particular interest at any given moment, and to write a series of articles in New Directions during the coming months which will gradually help to build up an accurate picture of whether and how opinion is changing.  For example, with General Synod in York due to hear the Presentation of Bishop Nazir-Ali's Report on the Progress of his Commission on Sunday 7th July we thought it appropriate to reveal some of the attitudes towards women bishops.

It added:

  If there is sufficient demand thereafter a publication of the Survey in its entirety will be considered.

I am not aware that it ever was published in its entirety, it certainly was not at the time.

This selective publication of the survey, presumably only those parts most favourable to Cost of Conscience's viewpoint, was a major criticism of it. Legally they may have held the copyright, they paid for it, but the many clergy who had taken time out from busy lives to complete it felt it should have been published in its entirety. They would not have completed it otherwise, and certainly not, in many cases, if they knew it would be selectively published to serve the interests of a particular agenda.

Another very major criticism, in relation to the questions on beliefs, was the choice of responses. The possible responses were:

  believe without question

  believe but not sure I understand"

  mostly believe

  not sure I believe this

and

  definitely don't believe.

Any response other than "believe without question" was interpreted by Cost of Conscience to as indicating doubt or disbelief. The only sound answer was "believe without question".

In logic, questioning something is not the same as doubting it. It is possible to believe something without fully understanding it. That, indeed, has been the position regarding the Trinity of many very eminent and perfectly orthodox  theologians. If  "believe without question" and "believe but not sure I fully understand" were mutually exclusive, it would perhaps be most surprising that 70% of vicars claimed they "fully understood" the doctrine of the Trinity. Wesley said expecting a man to understand God was like expecting a worm to understand a man (to which many add expecting a man to understand a woman).

If the survey had been released in full we might know how many actually said they definitely don't believe. This was not released initially, and I do not think it was ever released.

I am pretty sure that no official response to the survey was given.

Nevertheless there were and are  undoubtedly a number of vicars who did not, and do not,  believe in aspects of Christian doctrine; and this issue highlighted in the statistics was a matter of great concern. Perhaps partially in response to the survey there was a movement to establish tribunals at which vicars who professed openly not to accept Christian doctrine could be accused and, if found "guilty" defrocked. Although there was widespread support for this in principle there was also some concern over these proposed "heresy trials" and more and more members of the clergy began to worry about how tight the net might be drawn.

For these tribunals to be established a measure would first have to be approved by each House of the General Synod, then considered by the Ecclesiastical Committee of the UK Parliament and then approved  by the Parliamentary  Houses of Commons and Lords, and assented to by the Queen. In July 2004 the House of Bishops and the House of Laity both voted overwhelmingly in favour, but the House of Clergy voted against by a majority of 4 votes.Reference:


What kind of star was shining when Jesus was born? After they had heard the king, they went on their way, and the
  star they had seen when it rose went ahead of them until it stopped over the place where the child was. When they saw the star, they were overjoyed. On coming to the house, they saw the child
  with his mother Mary, and they bowed down and worshiped him. Then they
  opened their treasures and presented him with gifts of gold,
  frankincense and myrrh. (Matthew 2:9-11, NIV)

I have never seen a star the moves and that can stop above a particular place. In fact, when I travel at night in a bus or train, the faster I move, the faster the moon and stars appear to follow me. I can't comprehend how exactly a single star can show a particular location and appears to stop over a particular house. If you think that a particular star is exactly above you, just keep on moving and wherever you go it will follow you and it will always be right above you, no matter where you are.

The star that shined during the birth of Jesus didn't seem to be a normal star. It might not be a star at all! A star that moves and so strange that even the wise men from the east followed it because they believe that it was a sign of the birth of a new king.

What kind of star was shining at the birth of Jesus?

How have scholars explained this?

The Star which led the wise men was a new Heavenly body.
Matthew chapter 2:KJV

2  Saying, Where is he that is born King of the Jews? for we have seen his star in the east, and are come to worship him.
7  Then Herod, when he had privily called the wise men, enquired of them diligently what time the star appeared.

The Star may not have been a Star, but a (messenger of God) which shined like a Star.
Matthew 2:9  KJV

When they had heard the king, they departed; and, lo, the star, which they saw in the east, went before them, till it came and stood over where the young child was.

Whatever it as it could not have been a Star as we know them since to us a Star is actually a distant Sun, and this Star was low enough that it could guide them and move to where Jesus was. The wise men may have deemed it a Star for lack of any other descriptive of it's phenomena.
It should also be noted that King Herod asked them when the Star appeared, and if that Star were to have appeared where it could be seen by everyone, why was Herod not aware of it.
The Bible does not tell us that the Shepherds saw the Star:
Luke chapter 2:9 through 18 KJV

9  And, lo, the angel of the Lord came upon them, and the glory of the Lord shone round about them: and they were sore afraid.
10  And the angel said unto them, Fear not: for, behold, I bring you good tidings of great joy, which shall be to all people.
11  For unto you is born this day in the city of David a Saviour, which is Christ the Lord.
12  And this shall be a sign unto you; Ye shall find the babe wrapped in swaddling clothes, lying in a manger.
13  And suddenly there was with the angel a multitude of the heavenly host praising God, and saying,
14  Glory to God in the highest, and on earth peace, good will toward men.
15  And it came to pass, as the angels were gone away from them into heaven, the shepherds said one to another, Let us now go even unto Bethlehem, and see this thing which is come to pass, which the Lord hath made known unto us.
16  And they came with haste, and found Mary, and Joseph, and the babe lying in a manger.
17  And when they had seen it, they made known abroad the saying which was told them concerning this child.
18  And all they that heard it wondered at those things which were told them by the shepherds.

Since the birth of Jesus was such an Earth changing event it seems to me that announcing with a shining Angel would fit just right with what I know of God


Are there any Christian denominations that believe in sex and marriage in the afterlife? After an interesting set of articles put forward in  the chatroom,  I'm curious to know if any christian denominations have said a marriage can continue in heaven, and if the conjugal act continues in heaven.

PS. I find the topic interesting but I am one of the Christians that believe marriage and sexual feelings vanish after death.

The LDS Church teaches that while not all marriages are eternal (see Luke 20:34-35), but that a marriage which is sealed is, and will continue in heaven. Additionally parents that are sealed to their children will still play a parental role in the afterlife.

As for what marriage will be like in the next life, we do not know, but some sources suggest that those in the celestial kingdom will be able to keep having children forever (if this process is the same or different is similarly up to speculation).


Why did Martin Luther change his surname from ‘Luder’ to ‘Luther' very early in his career? I was surprised to find out ‘Luther’ is not Martin Luther’s original surname but ‘Luder’ is. The Greek word έλεύθερος that was the origin of his Latin name was Eleutherius. You can see ‘uder’ does not quite sound as good as ‘uther’. You can hear the sound of the Greek word here: click on the speaker sign to listen

I have read that in the fall of 1517 he changed his name. So what would make Luther get so fussy about his name so that he wanted it to match the original Greek more audibly?

According to a book by James Nestingen,

  On Luther's "Gospel discovery," his "tower experience," I agree with Nestingen (and Lohse) that it probably coincided with his name change from Luder the Luther, "a small change based on the Greek word for freedom, elutherius. I see the similarity as too exceptional simply to explain Luther's name change as merely a respelling from Low/Middle German to High German.

http://www.amazon.com/Martin-Luther-James-A-Nestingen/dp/0800697146

The reason for choosing a word related to "freedom" has to do with the freedom offered by the Gospel.


What was Paul's "revelation" (mentioned in Galatians 2:2)? Then after an interval of fourteen years I went up again to Jerusalem with Barnabas, taking Titus along also. It was because of a revelation that I went up; and I submitted to them the gospel which I preach among the Gentiles.  - Galatians 2:1-2, NASB

I am wondering what Paul's revelation was?  Do we have any scripture, tradition, or writings from church fathers which might help answer this?

The revelation was most likely simply a directive from God to go up to Jerusalem to talk with the apostles. This is the most natural way to read the verse, and there would be nothing surprising about this conclusion on the basis of the rest of Paul's life, since he was an apostle.

An apostle had to be someone who had seen Christ directly with his eyes. This is evidenced in the choosing of a replacement for Judas. It is also shown in this chapter itself; Paul is arguing that he has apostolic authority on the basis of the fact that he has had a revelation of Jesus Christ (1:11-12). Thus, he is an apostle not because he was sent by men, nor even commissioned by (authorized) men on behalf of God (this is the usual interpretation of 1:1). See also 1:16. Thus Paul says of himself elsewhere, "Last of all, as though I had been born at the wrong time, I also saw him."

Other examples of specific revelations he received:

His conversion story, when he sees Christ face-to-face
His apparent reference to himself in the "I know a man who has caught up into third heaven" passage
His distinction in 1 Corinthians 7 between his own apostolic wisdom and the revelation he has directly from Jesus
The Spirit's revelation to him of his sufferings in Jerusalem
The Spirit's preventing him from going into Asia at one point (there may be a different interpretation of this)

Therefore, given that the Lord seems to have spoken to him not only at his conversion and not only to teach him doctrine, and given that the context is that he had been gone for fourteen years without seeing any need to go to Jerusalem (2:1), it seems extremely likely that the revelation was a specific direction that he ought to go up to Jerusalem and confer with the apostles, particularly James, Peter and John (2:9).


What does Lutheranism teaches in regard the eastern orthodox doctrine of theosis? In the Eastern Orthodox church, there is this doctrine and practice of one's divination, of "becoming more and more like God".

This practice/doctrine seem to come from the so called 'desert fathers' and/or 'cappadocian fathers'.
How is such doctrine viewed in Lutheranism? Or did Luther ever wrote anything in regards to this?

It is inaccurate firstly, to say that "[t]his practice/doctrine seem to come from the so called 'desert fathers' and/or 'cappadocian fathers".

Rather, the amount of quotes from the writings of church fathers shows that the focus of the incarnation of Christ is directly related the believers' deification.

Justin Martyr, a second-century apologist, is one of the earliest witnesses to explicitly teach that man may become God in God's salvation.

  Let the interpretation of the Psalm be held just as you wish, yet
  thereby it is demonstrated that all men are deemed worthy of becoming
  “gods,” and of having power to become sons of the highest....
  (Dialogue with Trypho)

Shortly after, Irenaeus of Lyon:

  For we cast blame upon Him, because we have not been made gods from
  the beginning, but at first merely men, then at length gods; although
  God has adopted this course out of His pure benevolence, that no one
  may impute to Him insidiousness or grudgingness. He declares, “I have
  said, Ye are gods; and ye are sons of the Highest.” (Against Heresies,
  Bk. IV, ch. 38, sec. 4)

Clement of Alexandria uses Psalm 82:6 to show that our sonship in Christ is synonymous with our becoming God:

  Accordingly this grace is indicated by the prophet, when he says, “I
  said that ye are gods, and all sons of the Highest.” For us, yea us,
  He has adopted and wishes to be called the Father of us alone, not of
  the unbelieving. (Protreptikos 12)

  Being baptized, we are illuminated; illuminated, we become sons; being
  made sons, we are made perfect; being made perfect, we are made
  immortal. “I,” says He, “have said that ye are gods, and all sons of
  the Highest.” (Paedagogus, Bk. I, ch. 6)

I think these are sufficient and you can get more from Athanasius, Gregory of Nyssa, Palamas, John of Damascus and so on.

Regarding the question, there are traces of deification found in Luther passages that seem to support the Finnish claim (Mannermaa and his counterparts) on deification at the center of Luther's theology.

In the Christmas sermon of 1514:

  Just as the Word became flesh so is it necessary that the flesh become
  the Word. For the Word becomes flesh precisely so that the flesh can
  become Word. In other words, God became man so that man may become
  God. Thus power becomes powerless so that weakness may become
  powerful. The Logos put on our form and manner, image and likeness, so
  that he might clothe us with his image, form and likeness. Therefore,
  wisdom became foolish, so that foolishness might become wisdom. And so
  with regard to all other things that are in God and us, in everything
  he assumes ours, so that he might confer onto us his …

The second from a 1525 sermon:

  And so we are filled with “all the fullness of God.” This phrase,
  which follows a Hebrew way of speaking, means that we are filled in
  all the ways in which God fills; we are filled with God, and he pours
  into us all his gifts and grace and fills us with his Spirit, who make
  us courageous. He enlightens us with his light, his life lives in us,
  his beatitude makes us blessed, and his love causes love to arise in
  us. Put briefly, he fills us in order that everything that he is and
  everything he can do might be in us in all its fullness, and work
  powerfully, so that we might be divinized throughout -

In Christ Present in Faith: Luther's View of Justification, Tuomo Mannermaa speaks of this reality:

  Because faith means a real union with Christ, and because in Christ
  the Logos is of the same essence as God the Father, therefore the
  believer’s participation in the essence of God is also real....

In other words, justification by faith is not merely forensic but involving a union of the divine life. It is not something that we are convinced of in our
mind; it is something that we receive when we are joined to the Lord as one spirit (1 Cor. 6:17). When the living Christ indwells us, His faith becomes our faith. We believe because He is faithful, and He cannot deny Himself in us
(2 Tim. 2:13). In our organic union with Him, His faith becomes our faith, and our faith is His faith.

The "happy exchange" according to Luther involves Christ's assumption of our sin and our assumption of His righteousness. In his Commentary on the Epistle to the Galatians, Luther speaks of this exchange in relation to faith and to our union with Christ. He says:

  Faith connects you so intimately with Christ, that He and you become
  as it were one person. As such you may boldly say: “I am now one with
  Christ. Therefore Christ’s righteousness, victory, and life are mine.”
  On the other hand, Christ may say: “I am that big sinner. His sins and
  his death are mine, because he is joined to me, and I to him.


Are there any Christian groups that follow Matthew 23:9? I was reading in Matthew and saw a fascinating command, directly from Jesus:

  Matthew 23:9 (NWT)
  Moreover, do not call anyone your father on earth, for one is your Father, the heavenly One.

Are there any Christian doctrines or denominations that currently practice this doctrine of not calling anyone on Earth a "father"?

Aside from the Jews for Jesus, I think all Christians take this the way Jesus meant it whether they know it or not.

I won't copy and paste my answer from What is the Roman Catholic view on Matthew 23:9?, but the gist of it is, the Pharisees took pride in calling Abraham their Father, and the pride is what Jesus is doing away with.

Not that the Gospels should necessarily be intertwined in such a manner, but if you read:

  John 8:48-58 (NIV)
   48  The Jews answered him, “Aren’t we right in saying that you are a Samaritan and demon-possessed?”
     49  “I am not possessed by a demon,” said Jesus, “but I honor my Father and you dishonor me. 50  I am not seeking glory for myself; but there is one who seeks it, and he is the judge. 51  Very truly I tell you, whoever obeys my word will never see death.”
   52  At this they exclaimed, “Now we know that you are demon-possessed! Abraham died and so did the prophets, yet you say that whoever obeys your word will never taste death. 53  Are you greater than our father Abraham? He died, and so did the prophets. Who do you think you are?”
   54  Jesus replied, “If I glorify myself, my glory means nothing. My Father, whom you claim as your God, is the one who glorifies me. 55  Though you do not know him, I know him. If I said I did not, I would be a liar like you, but I do know him and obey his word. 56  Your father Abraham rejoiced at the thought of seeing my day; he saw it and was glad.”
   57  “You are not yet fifty years old,” they said to him, “and you have seen Abraham!”
     58  “Very truly I tell you,” Jesus answered, “before Abraham was born, I am!”

Jesus calls Abraham 'your father' because the Jews about Him called Abraham 'our father'.

Throughout the Gospels, Jesus stresses that God is Our Father and that's what's really important.


Can you explain this Free Will / Predestination illustration? I've heard multiple preachers explain Free Will and Predestination with this illustration:

  Free Will and Predestination are like a door. The side of the door toward us says, "Free Will." Once you go through the door you turn around and see that the other side says, "Predestination."

Could someone that understands what this illustration means explain it to me?

The point of the illustration is to reconcile God's sovereignty in salvation with man's free will to choose salvation.  I believe it originated from H.A. Ironside:

  It has been pictured in this way. Here is a vast host of people hurrying down the broad road with their
  minds fixed upon their sins, and one stands calling attention to yonder door, the entrance into the
  narrow way that leads to life eternal. On it is plainly depicted the text, "Whosoever will, let him
  come." Every man is invited, no one need hesitate. Some may say, "Well, I may not be of the elect,
  and so it would be useless for me to endeavor to come, for the door will not open for me." But God's
  invitation is absolutely sincere; it is addressed to every man, "Whosoever will, let him take of the
  water of life freely" (Rev. 22: 17). If men refuse to come, if they pursue their own godless way down
  to the pit, whom can they blame but themselves for their eternal judgment? The messenger
  addressed himself to all, the call came to all, the door could be entered by all, but many refused to
  come and perished in their sins. Such men can never blame God for their eternal destruction. The
  door was open, the invitation was given, they refused, and He says to them sorrowfully, "Ye will not
  come unto Me, that ye might have life." ... [But some will say], "I am going inside: I will accept the invitation;
  I will enter that door," and he presses his way in and it shuts behind him. As he turns about he finds written on the inside of the door the words, "Chosen in Christ before the foundation of the
  world.

  H.A. Ironside, In the Heavenlies (Ephesians), pages 27-28

The illustration distinguishes the cause of salvation into two perspectives: the perspective of man, and the perspective of God.  The idea is that from our perspective, we use our "free will" to choose to be saved.  And from God's perspective, God uses his sovereignty to choose who will choose salvation.

The point of the illustration is to defend against the the objection to Calvanism that if predestination is true, then not everyone who wants to be saved can be saved.  This illustration counters this by arguing that everyone who wants to be saved can - because everyone who wants to be saved was predestined to be saved.  It attempts to reconcile the notion that anyone who wills to be saved can be saved, with the notion that God chooses who will be saved.


Maintaining the number of Disciples Acts 1:24-26;  And they prayed and said, “You, Lord, who know the hearts of all men, show which one of these two You have chosen, to occupy this ministry and apostleship from which Judas turned aside to go to his own place.” And they drew lots for them, and the lot fell to Matthias; and he was added to the eleven apostles.

Why did they want to have 12 disciples? There is a question about it but I wish to know the importance of having 12 Disciples.  Why could not there be only 11 Disciples.  I have tried a few websites but none gave any information about this.

The early Church Fathers taught that the twelve Apostles corresponded to the twelve tribes of Israel, even though each Apostle was not from a different tribe.  For example:

  To these He gave authority to preach the Gospel, being twelve in
  number, corresponding [lit. in witness to] to the twelve tribes of
  Israel.

  The Epistle of Barnabas (late 1st/early 2nd cent.)


What does 'orthodox' mean, in practice? 'Orthodox' with a capital has a specialised meaning, regarding the Eastern Orthodox Church, but its uncapitalised meaning (which is not necessarily a matter of Christianity and neither the English word, nor the Greek, is found in the Holy Bible) is :

  Of, belonging to, or in accordance with the accepted theological or ecclesiastical doctrines of a particular religion.

Oxford English Dictionary

When used of Christian doctrine or Christian practice, I would expect - speaking for myself - that 'orthodox' would therefore mean the same as 'apostolic'. I would expect that what is stated by the apostles in the four gospel accounts and various epistles reliably attributed to the apostles would be what is considered to be 'orthodox' by those who follow Jesus Christ.

And it would be my expectation that each generation - including my own generation - would look back to that foundation in order to be assured as to what is 'orthodox'.

Paul says, in I Corinthians 3:10,11 :

  According to the grace of God which is given unto me, as a wise masterbuilder, I have laid the foundation, and another buildeth thereon. But let every man take heed how he buildeth thereupon.For other foundation can no man lay than that is laid, which is Jesus Christ.

I understand by this that Paul laid the foundation in his preaching, and we have the reliable record of his epistles. Thereafter, all others are to build (each in their own generation) upon the foundation that is already laid.

Some, in their lifetime, will build something solid which will withstand the fire. Some will heap up wood, hay and stubble, which will be burnt. Yet they themselves will be saved, albeit without a permanent, personal, legacy, I Corinthians 3: 12,13.

Is the above what Protestant churches would regard as 'orthodoxy' ?

Or have I misunderstood its application within Protestant Christianity >

Overall, orthodoxy is pretty loosely defined.  You may well find protestants (again, a very wide group) to come to different conclusions.  But I think in general orthodoxy is understood as teaching which falls within the bounds of what has always been considered the Christian faith.  So then what falls in that range? It is really the content of some of the great definitional statements of the church:

The Apostle's Creed
The Nicene Creed
The Formula of Chalcedon
The Athanasian Creed

Within these statements there is much defined, but also much left undefined.  For example, you will search those statements in vain trying to answer questions of:

which eschatological system is correct
should baptism be administered to infants or those who can give a credible expression of their faith?
what is the proper church government
what is the relationship between God's sovereignty and man's free will
what is the current status of Israel

Many other questions could be added to that list.  The idea is that you could have, say, a Calvinist who believes in infant baptism and covenant theology who has strong disagreements with a dispensational Arminian who only baptizes believers, but they could both acknowledge one another as brother/sister in Christ within the bounds of orthodoxy.

I hope that helps.


Why would Jesus begin to be called the Son of God? The angel answered, “The Holy Spirit will come on you, and the power of the Most High will overshadow you. So the holy one to be born will be called the Son of God. (Luke 1:35, NIV)

This verse seems to suggest that Jesus will begin to be called the Son of God after he is born, rather than always being the Son of God as the doctrine of the Trinity teaches.

How should we understand this verse?

The Begetting of the Son in the Virgin

It’s explicit in Luke 1:35 that the Virgin conceives by the Holy Spirit that is why her offspring will be called “God’s Son”.

There was no human father involved. It’s just the Holy Spirit and the Virgin as recorded in the Bible:

“She [Mary, the Virgin] was found to be with child through the Holy Spirit” (Matthew 1:18 NIV)

Hence, Gabriel is right when he proclaimed that the Holy offspring to be begotten in Mary will be called “God’s Son” because the one she conceives is the pre-existent offspring of the Father without human father just as John also firmly believes ( John 1:1-18).

Matthew concurs with Luke, the one begotten in the Virgin is “the God [who is] with us” (Matthew 1:23).

The begetting of God’s own Son in the Virgin through the Holy Spirit is a messianic prophecy (Isaiah 7:14).

Again, the reason why the one to be begotten in the Virgin will be called “God’s Son” is because of lack of human father to be involved because it is already having a Father who is God himself.

Gabriel believes that the One the Virgin conceives is without a human father but is conceived only through the Holy Spirit and that the one the Virgin conceives is God’s own pre-existent Son that is why the offspring will be called “ God’s Son” not “Joseph’s son” as soon as it was conceived.

The Son of God was named Jesus just as expected. The One the Virgin conceives and gives birth to is a one person with two unmixed, united and distinct natures: divine and human as the Chalcedonian Creed affirms.


How would a Calvinist interpret Matthew 13:37-40? (37) He answered, “The one who sows the good seed is the Son of Man.
  (38) The field is the world, and the good seed is the sons of the
  kingdom. The weeds are the sons of the evil one, (39) and the enemy
  who sowed them is the devil. The harvest is the end of the age, and
  the reapers are angels. (40) Just as the weeds are gathered and burned
  with fire, so will it be at the end of the age.

Here is my personal interpretation of this passage:
1. Jesus is the one who sows the sons of the kingdom
2. Devil is the one who sows the sons of the evil one
3. God let the sons of the kingdom and the sons of the evil one live together

4. At the end of the age, the sons of the kingdom are sent to heaven and the sons of the evil one are sent to hell.

Assuming that my interpretation above is correct, I am facing a "dead end" in an effort to connect it with the election before the beginning of the age.

If in the beginning there were already two different beings who sow and two different kinds of seed, how is this consistent with election?

for example like this illustration :

There is a box.
There are two people placing balls in a box, Mr. X and Mr. Y. From Monday to Saturday, Mr. X places white balls in the box while Mr. Y places black balls in the box. Mr. X lets the white and black balls sit together in the same box. On Sunday, Mr. X burns the 90 black balls and play with his 10 white balls.

I am confused on how to apply a kind of election event before the "filling the box with white balls" event take place, but I can apply it on Sunday ---> On Sunday, Mr. X choose the white balls from all the balls in the box.

Assuming my interpretation above is consistent with Calvinist theology, how do Calvinists reconcile it with unconditional election?

I found a new verse, John 8:44

  You belong to your father, the devil

So Jesus is saying that the devil claimed them before they were created. Jesus informed them that they never came from God and they are certainly going to hell.

Based on my own understanding, the parable in Matthew means something like this :
1. In the beginning there are two beings, God and the Devil. Each of them has their own children. God's children are the sons of the kingdom, the Devil's children are the sons of evil.

After the creation, God "sows" His good seeds (the sons of the kingdom) into the world - and the Devil (God's enemy) also "sows" his weeds (the sons of the evil) into the world. God let the weeds grow together with His good seeds.
At the end, God separates his wheat from the Devil’s weeds. He keeps the wheat and burns the weeds.

I do not see how 1 could have occurred before creation without 2 and 3 also having been planned before creation.

Let’s go back to the ball illustration. Mr. X puts his white balls into the box for 6 days, but before he began putting balls into the box, he developed his plan:

He determined that Mr. Y will put black balls into the box over the same six days.
He will allow both kinds of ball to mix together.
On Sunday, he will remove the white balls from the box.

Is this how the Calvinist thinks of election with regard to the parable in Matthew? Thank you.

The Calvinist understanding is that election occurs before anyone is even created. So, in your ball analogy, before the balls are created, God first determines how many there will be, which ones will be saved, and when they will be saved. He then creates them, and allows their sinful nature and Satan's working to plunge them into damnation. He then saves those He previously decided to save (election). Mr. X decides how many balls will become white on Sunday, then creates all of them white, they become black from their own efforts, and then during the week Mr. X colours some of them white.
The Canons of Dort (a standard Reformed summary of what the Bible teaches on certain subjects) says in Article 7 the following:

Election is God’s unchangeable purpose by which he did the following:
Before the foundation of the world, by sheer grace, according to the free good pleasure of his will, God chose in Christ to salvation a definite number of particular people out of the entire human race, which had fallen by its own fault from its original innocence into sin and ruin. Those chosen were neither better nor more deserving than the others, but lay with them in the common misery. God did this in Christ, whom he also appointed from eternity to be the mediator, the head of all those chosen, and the foundation of their salvation.
And so God decreed to give to Christ those chosen for salvation, and to call and draw them effectively into Christ’s fellowship through the Word and Spirit. In other words, God decreed to grant them true faith in Christ, to justify them, to sanctify them, and finally, after powerfully preserving them in the fellowship of the Son, to glorify them.
God did all this in order to demonstrate his mercy, to the praise of the riches of God’s glorious grace.
As Scripture says, “God chose us in Christ, before the foundation of the world, so that we should be holy and blameless before him with love; he predestined us whom he adopted as his children through Jesus Christ, in himself, according to the good pleasure of his will, to the praise of his glorious grace, by which he freely made us pleasing to himself in his beloved” (Eph. 1:4-6). And elsewhere, “Those whom he predestined, he also called; and those whom he called, he also justified; and those whom he justified, he also glorified” (Rom. 8:30).

It is worth noting that Matthew 13:37-40 is understood by the Calvinist to be referring to the church. John Calvin in his Commentary on Matthew says the following:

He had formerly said that the kingdom of heaven resembles a man sowing. The mode of expression is unusual, but plainly means, that the same thing happens with the preaching of the Gospel as usually takes place in the sowing of fields; the tares grow, up along with the wheat One peculiarity, however, is pointed out by him, when he says that the sowing of tares in the field was effected by the trick of an enemy. This is intended to inform us that, when many wicked men are mingled with believers, this is no accidental or natural occurrence, as if they were the same seed, but that we must learn to charge the blame of this evil on the devil. Not that, by condemning him, men are acquitted of guilt; but, in the first place, that no blame whatever may be laid on God on account of this fault which arose from the agency of another; and, secondly, that we may not be surprised to find tares frequently growing in the Lord’s field, since Satan is always on the watch to do mischief. Again, when Christ says, not that the ministers of the word sow, but that he alone sows, this is not without meaning; for though this cannot be supposed to be restricted to his person, yet as he makes use of our exertions, and employs us as his instruments, for cultivating his field, so that He alone acts by us and in us, he justly claims for himself what is, in some respects, common to his ministers. Let us, therefore, remember, that the Gospel is preached, not only by Christ’s command, but by his authority. and direction; in short, that we are only his hand, and that He alone is the Author of the work.


Was Jesus was sent to speak to the Jews only? Matthew 15:24 KJV

  But he answered and said, I am not sent but unto the lost sheep of the
  house of Israel.

I understand that he was talking specifically to a lady who was begging (successfully) for her daughter.  However, is Jesus trying to say that his message is only for the Jews to hear?  Does this conflict with Romans 10:12?

Romans 10:12 KJV

  For there is no difference between the Jew and the Greek: for the same
  Lord over all is rich unto all that call upon him.

If Jesus said He was not sent except to the lost sheep of the house of Israel, then that is certainly true.  If we don't accept Jesus' own words as true, then it would be difficult to imagine what the qualifications for acceptance would be.

So, yes, Jesus was sent to the lost sheep of the house of Israel.  That does not mean, however, that Jesus, the eternal Son of God, did not come ultimately to save the entire world.  His mission was quite strategic.  It has been well said, that "Jesus loved the world, preached to the multitudes, and gave His life to 12 men."

He came to the Jews as their Messiah, yet His strategy was to reach the entire world.  Incidentally, that strategy is working quite well, and Christianity continues to spread even in the harshest and remotest of places.

God's plan from the beginning was to have a world full of people who reflected His image and who were in a relationship with Him.  His purpose has remained the same throughout time.  Becoming flesh in the virgin birth and presenting Himself as the Jewish Messiah to the Jewish people was just a part of that plan for all people.


Why don't young-earth creationists just explain things (usually considered as miracles) as miracles? I've observed some young-earth creationists attempt to link the worldwide flood of Noah's day with melting icebergs. While not critical of the science behind such an explanation, I would really like to know why young-earth creationists, in addition to a strictly literal approach, don't also leave any room for miracles in their explanations of things that are commonly regarded as miracles. Why don't they say at least "I don't know" instead of creating the faulty science?

It is always better to admit you don't know than to make something up, especially when it comes to speaking about God!
The idea that God fills in the gaps of our knowledge with his miracle super powers is called the 'God of the Gaps.' It has the problem of making God look like he decreases while our knowledge increases. It also does not adequately account for the doctrine of providence: Christians believe that all that happens is due to the hand of God. Things that happen because of the regular scientific laws are not somehow independent of God while miracles show how God acts; no instead everything is directly the act of God. But because God is an orderly being, he chooses to act in such a predictable way that we can categorise his acts into the laws of nature. The miracles are the irregular times when he decides to act outside his normal patterns, but they are ultimately no different from his other acts.
The YEC movement arose after evolution and scientific naturalism became the dominant scientific paradigm. The movement does not disagree with any data gathered by scientists, or with any real scientific laws/theories/models. Their disagreement with mainstream science is how to extrapolate from the data we have gathered in the present into the distant past. So they'll say that both sides have data X and theory Y, but their assumptions A & B differ, which is why mainstream science says some rock is 3 billion years old and the YEC scientists say it is only a few thousand years old. So even though they have no direct theological relevance, the YEC movement spends a lot of time developing models they believe are scientifically plausible for the cosmology they believe in. This doesn't mean they never say that miracles have happened, just that when the Bible doesn't explicitly say one did happen, and when they can come up with a model that doesn't need a miracle, they'll usually go with such a model.


What is the biblical basis for the belief that people do not go to heaven or hell immediately when they die? Touch poignantly stated in a now closed question,

But if people are already in heaven this means that there really isn't much reason for Jesus Christ to return, because all those that believe in Him are already in heaven.
If Jesus Christ will return and all those that have faith in Him will be raised and be priests with Him for a thousand years, why make it seem as if the deceased are already in heaven? If someone dies and goes to heaven before the Last Judgement, what need is there for him to be judged at the final judgement? Hasn't he already been judged righteous if he is in heaven?

In The Bible and the Future, Anthony Hoekema states that since Augustine, Christians have believed that the souls of those who die either rest peacefully, in the case of Christians, or are afflicted, in the case of the damned, after death until the resurrection. However, in my experience, it is nearly universally held among Protestants and Evangelicals that upon death, the soul ascends to Heaven in the case of the believer, or descends to Hell in the case of the unsaved. Hoekama also asserts that both Calvin and Luther believed in an intermediate state between death and resurrection, with Luther holding to a doctrine that the soul "sleeps", and Calvin positing that the believer experiences an "incomplete" bliss.
While I am aware that views on the exact characteristics vary among those who admit an intermediate state, I am interested in how arguments that people do not immediately "go to Heaven" or "go to Hell" are framed in a biblical context, especially those that claim that existence in Heaven or Hell commences only after the bodily resurrection and the great "White Throne" judgement.
What are the biblical bases given for belief that people do not go to Heaven or Hell immediately after death?

Introduction
I intend to show that the concept of a universal realm for all, outside Heaven, where all await the resurrection (Waiting in the Grave, WitG hereafter) is united against other beliefs such as the belief we go Straight to Heaven (StH), that we cease to exist entirely with no afterlife or others such as purgatory/limbo.
While there are variations in WitG, they are all largely formed on the basis of common scripture and with the common concept that our focus should be on awaiting the resurrection as our reward, as our glorification and as a requisite for our eternal life with Christ. Their differences are not so much greater than any differences that occur among StH models.
Preconceptions
What makes this such an expansive topic is that it involves understandings of several key words and concepts that are contrary to the popular understandings of today. Concepts of the grave, hades or hell, life or soul, and heaven or paradise are subtly involved and must be well defined in order to understand the interpretations.
First, permit me to review, as concisely as I can, the foundational suppositions of those who hold to WitG as we build to the biblical evidence. I could simply list the bible chapter and verse references, but your question is asking for the biblical basis of an argument alternative to StH; not just the verses but how they are understood by those who believe WitG.
I will refer now to an eminent article written roughly 100 years ago by Elder Cortland Matthew Keach (1887-1925) titled "Do the Saints Go to Heaven when They Die?" (exact date written unknown). I encourage you to read the entire article in whole, but I will be drawing on it frequently as it is grounded firmly in scripture. He addresses many possible objections (arguments and scripture that StH present) that are beyond my scope here.
What is Heaven?
When one asks "Do people go directly to heaven or hell at the moment of death?" there is an implied definition of heaven that must be clarified.
Heaven is often depicted as the place of our eternal reward with God by StH, though when asked, the resurrection will be given lip service. WitG disagrees with this in all variations. Those who see this Heaven as a temporary waiting place may find they agree with WitG much more than they perhaps realized.
The more critical reader may see Heaven as the place that God dwells. It is outside creation or God dwells there temporarily, unseen, until he makes his home with us. Revelation 5:10, 11:15
What is Hell?
Likewise, we must address what this hell is. It is not really addressed in the OT, but we see it in the NT. However, in the NT Greek we must distinguish between three different terms translated hell: Hades, Gehenna and Tartarus. More on this: What is the difference between 'Hell', 'Sheol', 'Hades' and 'Gehenna'?
Those who hold to WitG understand Hades as was used by NT authors as the Greek language counterpart to Sheol, as we will see later when we compare their usage in scripture.
The final "Hell" of the second death after resurrection and judgment is reference to by Gehenna. The use Tartarus is admittedly unusual and beyond our scope here.
Old Testament Intermediate State
The OT see's death as a physical state. When one dies you are "gathered to your fathers" not in a spiritual sense, but literally, physically, in a grave shared by your fathers. There may be a figurative or even spiritual aspect of this as well, as Sheol better represents.
Sheol is the realm of death, located in the lower parts of the earth, though it is also used to speak of the state of death. It is simply where dead people are in a physical and abstract (or spiritual) sense.
Gathered to Family in Grave
Gen 25:5, Deut 31:16, 1 Ch. 17:11, 2 Ch. 34:28
Man being dead “in the Dust”
Job 17:16, Psa 7:5, Ecc 3:20,  Is 26:19, Daniel 12:2,
Sheol as State or Realm of Death
Gen 37:35, Num 16:30,33, 1 Sam 2:6, Job 7:9, 11:8, 14:13, 17:16, 21:13, Psa. 6:5. 9:17, 16:10, 30:3, 49:14-15, 86:13, 88:3, 89:48, 139:8. 141:7, Prov. 5:5, 7:27, 9:18, Isa. 7:11, 14:9
Notables:

Job 17:16 connects Sheol to “dust” and Ecc. 3:20 says “All go to one place. All are from the dust, and to dust all return. Daniel 12:2 Says we will awake from the dust.
Psalm 139:8, Job 11:8, Isa 7:11, Amos 9:2 make irrefutable distinction between Heaven and Sheol.
Job 14:13 Suggests Sheol is where Job expects to be until God “remembers” him (in the resurrection?) Also see Psa 49:15, Daniel 12:2

Hades used in same way
Matt 11:23, 16:18, Luke 10:15, 16:23, Acts 2:27 (Quote of Psa 16:10), Rev 20:13, 14
Notes:

Hades is again down not up in heaven
Abraham's bosom is identified with Hades by Jesus in Luke 16 (not Gehenna as Judaism describes it)
When quoting the Hebrew Sheol in the NT, Hades is used in Greek translation (the LXX does the same throughout the OT)

Abraham's Bosom
In the Second Temple Judaism concept of Abraham's Bosom there was a part of Sheol where the righteous would be greeted by Abraham (or Adam in earlier versions) and enjoy “paradise” while the unrighteous experienced discomfort. This is of great interest when we understand that the Sadducee denied the resurrection. They saw this paradise as their final rest while the Pharisee's saw it as a place of waiting for the resurrection. (Matt 22:23-32, Mark 12:18-27, Luke 20: 27-38, Acts 23:6-8) Does this sound familiar?
Early Church
The Early Church theologians and apologists seem to focus on the resurrection as the hope of the believer. The concept of looking forward to heaven after death is totally foreign, and even understood as denying the resurrection! This makes sense when we read Christ's rebuke of the Sadducees' denial of the resurrection and understand the early church would have connected an eternal “paradise” or “heaven” as subverting a future resurrection.
Justin Martyr
Justin Martyr is as emphatic on this topic as he is on any. In Dialogue with Trypho chapter 80 he says:

For if you have fallen in with some who are called Christians, but who do not admit this [truth], and venture to blaspheme the God of Abraham, and the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob; who say there is no resurrection of the dead, and that their souls, when they die, are taken to heaven; do not imagine that they are Christians,...

And his description of the intermediate state sounds a lot like Sheol/Abraham's Bosom:

The souls of the pious remain in a better place, while those of the unjust and wicked are in a worse, waiting for the time of judgment. [Dialogue with Trypho Chapter 5.]

Conceptual Argument
Some arguments for WitG are not taken out of just one “proof text”.
Christ brings our reward to us in the resurrection after his second coming
Isaiah 62:11

“Behold, your salvation comes;
behold, his reward is with him,
and his recompense before him.”

1 Cor 4:5

Therefore do not pronounce judgment before the time, before the Lord comes, who will bring to light the things now hidden in darkness and will disclose the purposes of the heart. Then each one will receive his commendation from God.

Isaiah 26:19-21

Your dead shall live; their bodies shall rise. You who dwell in the dust, awake and sing for joy! For your dew is a dew of light, and the earth will give birth to the dead.

This is both the reward for good and for evil:
Revelation 22:12

“Behold, I am coming soon, bringing my recompense with me, to repay each one for what he has done.

Revelation 20:12

...And the dead were judged by what was written in the books, according to what they had done.

Daniel 12:1b-2

...But at that time your people shall be delivered, everyone whose name shall be found written in the book.
2 And many of those who sleep in the dust of the earth shall awake, some to everlasting life, and some to shame and everlasting contempt.

The Saints are not with Christ until his return
Other passages such as 1 Thess. 4:13-17 show us, if read carefully, that at the trumpet the dead rise and those who are alive are gathered with them to be with the Lord forever. This is often used to support StH but logically it cannot be so! For if the promise of being with him forever does not start until the trumpet and Christ's coming, how can the dead already be in heaven before his coming?  As we see in John 14:3

And if I go and prepare a place for you, I will come again and will take you to myself, that where I am you may be also.

Also often used by StH, this passage shows instead that the saints, alive or dead, are not taken to be with Christ until after he comes again. And where is Christ that we may be with him? Here! For he has come again at that point!
It will be noted that this then starts to enter the realm of the debate on the Rapture. It is common for WitG adherents, such as Adventist groups and LDS, to deny a “secret rapture” and hold to it referring to a literal gathering of the saints to Christ at Jerusalem, as a corroborating doctrine. It is my personal opinion based on study of theological history, that the idea of StH has directly lead to the concept of the secret rapture by necessity in order to avoid the WitG understanding.
Where are they? David, Samuel, Jesus
When David's first son with Bathsheba dies at birth, David exclaims “I shall go to him, but he will not return to me.” And yet where did David go upon dying? Peter tells us in Acts 2:34, when arguing that scripture prophesied of Jesus, “For David did not ascend into the heavens”. Unless we are going to say Peter was wrong, and David did go to heaven and the psalm attributed to Jesus really was about David?
Also, when Saul consults the witch of Endor (1 Sam 28:13), the spirit identified as Samuel says, “tomorrow you and your sons shall be with me.” Either this is a false spirit from Hell (who gives Saul correct prophecy) or Samuel and Saul and his sons are together in heaven or hell. Would it really be Samuel's place to promise Saul heaven?
Jesus words to the thief on the cross (Luke 23:43) make far greater sense when one considers the “paradise” he is referring to is the peaceful, temporary rest of the dead, not an eternal existence in heaven. For we are told by Christ after he was resurrected (John 20:17) that “Jesus said to her, “Do not cling to me, for I have not yet ascended to the Father” and Paul confirms in Ephesians 4:8-10 “In saying, “He ascended,” what does it mean but that he had also descended into the lower regions, the earth?” Unless we are to say that Christ ascended to heaven as StH would claim, then returned with his resurrection only to ascend again and that we are truly awaiting his third coming? (Indeed, the fourth, after the secret rapture?)
Common Variations
Abraham's Bosom/Paradise
As mentioned before, still held by some in Judaism. However, even modern Orthodox Judaism see “heaven” as after the resurrection! Still held by some in similar form as described by Justin Martyr (had a recent conversation confirming this or unconsciousness is the general belief of the Amish).
Unconsciousness of the Dead/Soul Sleep
Some believe that the consistent pattern of being compared to sleep in the OT and NT, combined with the OT descriptions of a knowledge-less Sheol points to an unconscious or semi-unconscious dream-like awareness in the intermediate state.
Best known are the Seventh-Day Adventists, but there are some other smaller denominations such as the Advent Christian Church (related in origin to the 7th Day, but are fairly normal evangelical denomination).
Jehovah Witnesses
Jehovah Witnesses believe the dead cease to exist, but are remembered by God. Their argument uses similar scripture and plays out very similar to that of unconsciousness of the dead.
Latter Day Saints
The LDS believe in a "Spirit World" Again, the focus is on a realm where spirits await the resurrection. Very similar to Abraham's Bosom with a few peculiarities that make it worth mentioning separately.
WitG before Christ, StH after
There are some, with no official denominational stance that I'm aware of, that hold to the idea that Sheol and Abraham's Bosom existed prior to Jesus' resurrection, but that afterward he took or sent the saints to heaven and the reprobate to hell.
This is a common compromise among theologians and pastors familiar enough with the Old Testament that they cannot deny the strength of the concept of Sheol as we examined earlier, but wish to hold to a StH view.
Conclusion
Doctrinal history shows the concept of a holding place for the souls of the dead awaiting the resurrection is the view at least by the Second Temple period Judaism, if not earlier, and then the early church. Variations are based largely on the nature of our state there, be it conscious or unconscious, or in comfort or discomfort, on it's division, whether all are in the same place or it divided in two or more sections, or on the nature of man himself, immortal or not. But these particulars do not deviate enough from the basic concept to not be united in their supporting scriptures. There is a wealth of scripture speaking on the human state after death but prior to Christ's second coming and the resurrection for those willing to look.


Does Acts 15:21 assume new believers would learn and follow the law from synagogues on sabbath? Acts 15:19-21 (NIV, Emph mine)

  19 “It is my judgment, therefore, that we should not make it difficult for the Gentiles who are turning to God. 20 Instead we should write to them, telling them to abstain from food polluted by idols, from sexual immorality, from the meat of strangled animals and from blood. 21 For the law of Moses has been preached in every city from the earliest times and is read in the synagogues on every Sabbath.”

This verse is used for and against observing law. Seems like this could mean either, "There are enough people following Moses and observing the law, so no need for more people to follow the law." or "The law is repeated in synagogues and new believers will go to synagogues, so they'll learn and follow them later."

I don't think this is saying the Gentiles should have to learn the law of Moses.  Quite the contrary, I believe it is saying they should not have to be burdened with the law of Moses.

Earlier in Acts 15 Peter asks why should the Gentiles be required to follow the law the Jews have.

  Acts 15:10-11 NIV
  10 Now then, why do you try to test God by putting on the necks of
  Gentiles a yoke that neither we nor our ancestors have been able to
  bear? 11 No! We believe it is through the grace of our Lord Jesus that
  we are saved, just as they are.

When contrasted with this, I would understand James response in verses 19-21 to be saying most of the law of Moses would be an extreme burden on the Gentiles, considering even the Jews who heard the law weekly were not able to uphold it.


How are justification and sanctification related to salvation? Among Evangelicals there are subtle differences in emphasis on how justification relates to sanctification (e.g., Ordo Salutis vs. Historia Salutis).1 My question is not about those subtle differences.

How does a person's being justified and sanctified2 relate to that person's salvation? If salvation is solely related to justification, would sanctification be merely accidental to it, or is sanctification necessary for salvation?

Please leave comments

1 Both Lutherans and Calvinists do teach the order of salvation, but the former prioritize justification first by locating sanctification consequently second in the logical sequence while the later prioritize mystical union with Christ whereby both justification and sanctification happened simultaneously in the person justified.

2 While Lutherans emphasized that sanctification follows justification and Calvinists emphasized both justification and sanctification follow mystical union with Christ. This question treat the two views neutrally by not asking how the two relate to one another. But instead it asks how the two relate to salvation? Which is a neutral question given the two groups would differ on how are justification and sanctification relate to one another.

JUSTIFICATION: BEING DECLARED RIGHTEOUS

Think of justification as a legal term, which is--in a sense--what it is.

God, the judge of all humankind, has every right to demand satisfaction for our having broken his laws. We are culpable, each one of us, and as the Scripture says,

  "Behold, all souls are mine; as the soul of the father, so also the soul of the son is mine: the soul that sinneth, it shall die.

And,

  "The soul that sinneth, it shall die . The son shall not bear the iniquity of the father, neither shall the father bear the iniquity of the son: the righteousness of the righteous shall be upon him, and the wickedness of the wicked shall be upon him"
  (Ezekiel 18:4; and 18:20 KJV).

Each of us, therefore, has what might fairly be called a sin debt. We deserve to be cast into debtor's prison until someone pays our debt. The good news is that Jesus, through his cross-death, burial, and resurrection, paid our sin debt in full. The bill of particulars against us was nailed, as it were, to the cross where God's Lamb bore away the sin of the world. When we believe in our heart that Jesus died for our sins, God declares us righteous.

In other words, the judge of all humankind says to us,

  "Not guilty! Your debt has been paid in full!"

By being declared righteous in God's sight (which is what justification is), our sins are imputed to Christ, and his righteousness is imputed to us. This "double imputation" is perhaps what the apostle Paul was thinking of in 2 Corinthians 5:21,

  "[God] made [Christ] who knew no sin to be sin on our behalf, so that we might become the righteousness of God in Him" (NASB, Updated).

Justification, then, is a work of God, from beginning to end. All we need do on our part is believe it is so. When we do, we are then saved by faith. I guess you could say that justification is for each of us the starting point of salvation.

SALVATION: STEPPING FROM DARKNESS INTO THE LIGHT OF LIFE

Whether or not we can pinpoint the exact date and time of our conversion, saving faith is the first step through the narrow gate and onto the narrow path leading to life (see Matthew 7:13-14). The narrow gate is a metaphor for saving faith, in part because one of the requirements of entering by that narrow gate is repentance. Repentance is hard but worth it. I think Jesus likens saving faith to a narrow gate because repentance requires us to become small in our estimation--which is the essence of humility--so that God's grace and mercy can loom large.

Once we humble ourselves under the mighty hand of God, we can be assured that God will exalt us, if not in time, then in eternity. Positionally, in fact, once we are saved, God has

  "made us alive together with Christ--by grace you have been saved--and raised us up with him and seated us with him in the heavenly places in Christ Jesus" (Ephesians 2:5b-7 ESV).

We are seated together with Christ because the work of salvation was accomplished when Jesus cried out with a loud voice from the cross:

"It is finished!" (John 19:30, where the phrase is one word in Greek; namely tetelestai--finished, accomplished).

In other words, there is nothing else Jesus needs to do, nor is there anything else we need to do to be saved, for Jesus has done it all. He and we are therefore seated, which is to say we are at rest. No more struggling is needed on our part to earn God's salvation, since we already possess it freely by faith. Our standing in Christ is assured.

SANCTIFICATION: THE NARROW ROAD LEADING TO LIFE

The "narrow path" Jesus referred to in Matthew chapter 7 is the working out of our faith through the process of sanctification. As Paul put it,

  ". . . work out your salvation with fear and trembling; for it is God who is at work in you, both to will and to work for His good pleasure" (Philippians 2:12-13).

Centuries ago, the Reformers were known to say:

  "Justification is by faith alone, but not by a faith that is alone."

While Christians cannot ADD a whit to the salvation God proffered to us, he does expect us to

  "be transformed by the renewing of [our] minds" (Romans 12:2).

The goal of this transformation is conformity to Christ.

  "For those whom He foreknew, He also predestined to become conformed to the image of His Son, so that He would be the firstborn among many brethren" (Romans 8:29 NASB Updated).

This renewal is a life-long process through which we become more Christ-like. God does not expect us to become clones of his Beloved Son; rather, he wants us to

  ". . . put on the Lord Jesus Christ, and [not to] give thought to the flesh to do its desires" (Romans 13:14 BBE, my emphasis).

I suggest that when we "put on Christ" we in effect put to death our fleshly desires. As we allow the life of Christ to inform and shape our lives through our yieldedness to the Holy Spirit, we begin to reflect Christ's character, attitudes, and perspectives, and we find ourselves engaging in some of the "greater works" of which Jesus spoke (see John 14:12).

James, Jesus' half-brother, in the letter bearing his name, struck the correct balance when he said under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit,

  "faith without works is dead" (2:26).

Christians are saved by faith. As we grow from spiritual babies into fully grown adults in the faith, however, God expects us to prove that we have saving faith. Think of the good works in which we engage as fruit of the Spirit of Christ who indwells us (see John 15:1-5). Simply put: works do not save us; they simply prove we are saved. Moreover, even our good works are of no avail if they are done in the power of the flesh. Jesus reminds us,

  ". . . for apart from me you can do nothing" (John 15:5b).

In order to qualify for rewards at the Judgment Seat of Christ (see 1 Corinthians 3:10-15, and 2 Corinthians 5:10), our works' motives must first be tested by the purifying fire of God's judgment. The wood, hay, and weeds will be burned up. Those are the works done in the power of the flesh or for the glorification of us and not God (see Matthew 6:2, 5, and 16). The works which survive the flames of judgment are the gold, silver, and precious stones. Those are the works done in the power of the Spirit and for the glory of God.

CONCLUSION

In conclusion, salvation is a gift of God's grace. It is received by faith, and it is "worked out" by faith. The working out of our faith contributes not one scintilla to God's salvation. If it did, we would have grounds for boasting (Ephesians 2:8-9). Our sanctification, on the other hand, is a lifelong process of transformation, and when submit consistently and faithfully to the sanctifying work of the Spirit of Christ within us, we are assured that our

  "entrance into the eternal kingdom of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ will be abundantly supplied to [us]" (2 Peter 1:10-11 NAS).

That will be our reward for sanctification: an abundant entrance into the eternal kingdom; or as other versions put it, a "rich entrance" into God's kingdom. In that sense, then, God's salvation has a future aspect or component to it. That is, salvation is not only a once and for all transaction between us and God (i.e., our sin for his righteousness, our old things for his new creation, and our death for his life), but it is also

  "a salvation ready to be revealed in the last time" (1 Peter 1:5).

At that time, according to the apostle's Peter's long view of salvation, we will be

  "obtaining as the outcome of [our] faith the salvation of [our] souls" (1 Peter 1:9)

Until then, through all the highs and lows of life, which include the occasional and even "besetting" sin (Hebrews 12:1), the continually maturing Christian believer, who is a mere clay pot, is nevertheless being transformed into a vessel which is both fit for the master's use and also a thing of beauty. As Paul put it,

  "All of us are looking with unveiled faces at the glory of the Lord as if we were looking in a mirror. We are being transformed into that same image from one degree of glory to the next degree of glory. This comes from the Lord, who is the Spirit" (2 Corinthians 3:18 CEB).

And,

  "Now in a great house there are not only articles of gold and silver, but also others of wood and of earthenware; and some are for specially honourable, and others for common use. If therefore a man keeps himself clear of these latter, he himself will be for specially honourable use, consecrated, fit for the Master's service, and fully equipped for every good work" (2 Timothy 2:20-21 WNT).