I came across this article on Augustine: [Why Do We And St. Augustine Believe “Once Saved Always Saved”?](https://koinos.church/why-do-we-and-st-augustine-believe-once-saved-always-saved/) . The article explains: >Augustine saw in scripture that the fall of Adam resulted in all humans receiving a nature totally depraved so that no one is capable of obedience without God’s grace providing the ability. This is why he uttered his famous prayer, “Lord command what you will and grant what you command.” This view of man’s depravity and God’s grace caused him to reject the idea that believers must maintain their perseverance by their own righteousness. All God’s work of salvation in man is an act of His grace. None of it could be accomplished by the mere will of man, not the beginning steps of repentance and not the perseverance in faith to the end. All of salvation is due to God’s grace alone. This led him to make these affirmations on “once saved always saved,” > >>I assert, therefore, that the perseverance by which we peresevere in Christ even to the end is the gift of God. >> >>It is shown with sufficient clearness that the grace of God, which both begins a man’s faith and which enables it to persevere unto the end, is not given according to our merits, but is given according to His own most secret and at the same time most righteous, wise, and beneficent will; since those whom He predestinated, them He also called. >> >>When the gift of God is granted to them…none of the saints fails to keep his perseverance in holiness even to the end. (In De Perseverantiae). However, in [this debate](https://youtu.be/72TRODe8BdA?t=1411) , Trent Horn quoted a seemingly different passage from Augustine’s [*Treatise on Rebuke and Grace*](https://www.newadvent.org/fathers/1513.htm) : > If, however, **being already regenerate and justified**, he relapses of his own will into an evil life, assuredly he cannot say, I have not received, **because of his own free choice to evil he has lost the grace of God**, that he had received. I would like input from someone well-versed in Augustine’s writings: did Augustine’s views ultimately align with, or contradict, the doctrine of *Eternal Security*? Did Augustine actually believe in the doctrine of “once saved, always saved”?

So how do they know the angel of the Lord is Michael? How do they reconcile this since Michael in the Bible at Daniel 10:13 is described as "one of the chief princes?"

I recently read an argument which was basically 'Paul against Jesus' type and was something like this: Jesus said that He didn't come to abolish the Jewish laws but to fulfill them: > Do not think that I have come to abolish the law or the prophets. I have not come to abolish these things but to fulfill them. ([Matthew 5:17](https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matthew+5:17&version=NET) , NET) And we have this verse in OT: > Any uncircumcised male who has not been circumcised in the flesh of his foreskin will be cut off from his people – he has failed to carry out my requirement. ([Genesis 17:14](https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Genesis+17:14&version=NET) , NET) It is argued that even though Jesus was circumcised, it is not a requirement now for Christians because Paul preached so. What is the Biblical basis for not making circumcision a requirement for Christians?

Which books in the Catholic Old Testament, precede the canonisation of the Hebrew Bible? I understand for example that the *Books of Maccabees* is not part of the Hebrew Bible Canon, but from what I heard, it follows it in time, rather than being rejected from it. So it wouldn't precede it. I know that the Protestant Old Testament Canon is the same one as Jews use today in their Hebrew Bible, and that the Catholic Old Testament Canon has all that plus extra books. So I am wondering if any books in the Catholic Old Testament are so old in origin that they precede the canonisation of the Hebrew Bible / canonisation of the Hebrew Bible used today (which is in the masoretic tradition)? There is a complexity here also, but one that opens up a possible avenue that help address the question. The Septuagint is so old it even precedes Christianity, and it has a number of books not in the modern Hebrew canon. And furthermore, my understanding is that one skilled in biblical hebrew, and ancient greek, that studies the Septuagint carefully, sees that the underlying text it is translating is slightly different in some places, implying that there was a Hebrew version for it. Further backing that up, my understanding is that in the Judean desert, while there's lots of uniformity, (and particularly uniformity within the Torah), still there are different versions/variations of text for various Hebrew books of the bible, in places here and there, small variations. And it has been viewed(perhaps by Emmanuel Tov?), as there being hebrew proto-septuatint and (of course hebrew), proto-masoretic. Moving from that to books. If there were Hebrew proto-masoretic books not in the masoretic canon of today then perhaps we wouldn't know. But it'd be interesting to know if there are Hebrew proto-septuagint books in the Dead Sea Scrolls / Scrolls from the Judean Desert? And perhaps some of those books in Greek form might be in the catholic bible, so would fit what I am asking of any books in the Catholic Bible that precede the canonization of the Hebrew Bible. But perhaps even without considering the DSS/scrolls of the Judean desert, there might be an answer to if any books of the Catholic Old Testament are known to precede canonization of the Hebrew Bible used today?

**Hebrews 1:6** (NIV) says: > when God brings his firstborn into the world, he says, “Let all God’s angels worship him.” My question is for Trinitarians, Modalists and Binitarians: ***Why was it necessary for God to give the command to his already perfectly loyal Angels to worship the second person or mode of the Godhead, whom** (one would assume) **they already always included in their worship?*** Quotes from Creeds or scholars of the different views, making sense out of this, are welcome.

In answering a question on Bible Hermeneutics.SE, Carly Perkins asked, "Why can [Protestants] believe the men who decided which books were in the canon (around 400 A.D.) but not believe what they lived and believed?" I realize that my question is somewhat different from Carly's. What did the people who set the Protestant canon of the Bible believe were the requirements for salvation?

St. Thomas Aquinas presents a good logical proof on how a being called god exists: He is what I assumed he said [this is in my own words]: > Everything in the universe has a cause, without a cause nothing will take place [like Newton's first law]. If we try to question the existence of anything present on the earth, the causes of the causes will lead us to the very creation of earth. Reasoning more, will lead to the formation of the universe. Now the universe, needs a cause for its production. Since everything in this universe is finite, so there must also be a finite number of causes, in this universe, and so there must be a starter cause after which every other causes develops.. that "Starter Cause" is God. Now how do I prove that God is good, or God "is active," or "interferes in human activity"? With this I mean that God [son of God, who is in fact God but a different manifestation] comes onto earth, does miracles, and punishes and blesses, and tells everybody that they are subject to a future judgement. How do I prove that God is not a Deist God, which means that God is merely transcendent in relation to the universe, who doesn't interfere in its working? Some people may reason that since God is the creator, he has a fundamental power to morph things in the universe, but some may ask why. In my atheist friend's language—"Why does god check on the actions of people? why doesn't he chill?" This is all part of some kind of thought experiment to prove logically that God is as He is portrayed in the Bible. Since St. Thomas Aquinas started this "logical thinking" and was a Christian, I decided to ask it in the Christianity Stack Exchange. I myself am not a Christian, but I love studying Christianity and pondering over it.

The book of 3rd Maccabees is included in the Eastern Orthodox canon, a practice which dates back at least to the 85th canon of the Apostolic Canons ratified by the Quinisext Council in 692. I had never heard of the book, nor had I heard the story contained in the book, until I purchased an Eastern Orthodox Bible. Wikipedia devotes a whole paragraph to talking about how it has generally been overlooked by theologians throughout history. **Why have theologians who consider this book canonical not placed greater emphasis on it?** Anyone who reads it cannot deny it is an interesting story, and I am sure that if it is incorporated in the canon, it must also be considered instructive. By contrast, the other deuterocanonical books have received a great deal of attention, as have the books of the protocanon.

>#### Gift of perseverance > >The Gift of perseverance is the doctrine of Augustine of Hippo that persevering in the faith is a gift given by God, but a person can never know if they have the gift. According to Augustine, without having the gift of perseverance a person is damned, even if he seems to have been elected by grace. Augustine himself also believed that Cyprian held a similar view about perseverance being a work of God, and thus foreshadowing the Augustinian view. **Some Calvinists argue that the Augustinian view foreshadows the Calvinist doctrine of perseverance of the saints**. > > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gift_of_perseverance > [Matthew 13:20-21 NASB] 20 The one sown with seed on the rocky places, this is the one who hears the word **and immediately receives it with joy**; 21 **yet he has no firm root in himself, but is only temporary**, and when affliction or persecution occurs because of the word, **immediately he falls away**. > [Luke 8:13 NASB] Those on the rocky soil are the ones who, when they hear, **receive the word with joy**; **and yet these do not have a firm root**; **they believe for a while**, **and in a time of temptation they fall away**. How do advocates of the doctrine of *eternal security*, also known as *once saved, always saved* or *the perseverance of the saints*, explain God’s apparent withdrawal of the gift of perseverance from the individual described in Matthew 13:20-21 and Luke 8:13? In these passages, it seems that God allows a person to be exposed to the gospel, to experience genuine initial joy and even a measure of faith, yet for some reason does not grant them the gift of perseverance (otherwise they would have persevered). In other words, God is permitting this "sheep" to fall away from His hand, or never put this "sheep" in His hand in the first place, but why? Why is God not giving the gift of perseverance to the individual in Matthew 13:20-21 and Luke 8:13?

**What would Catholics have in a religious bug out kit in their homes if the events that the three days of darkness actually becomes real, as expressed by several Catholic mystics?** I am very much into the Great Outdoors, so I always have an [EDC kit](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Everyday_carry) with me when I am out camping or hiking in the wilderness. This has inspired me to ask this question here as a sort of Catholic EDC kit for those Catholics that are more traditional minded or even very Marian minded Catholics. Catholic Stigmatists and Mystics like Blessed Anna Maria Taigi (1769—1837) have spoken about the three days of darks that will befall mankind as something that will inevitably happen to the human race. What do Catholic saints, mystics and stigmatists recommend that the faithful keep on hand in their homes in the event that the three days of darkness actually becomes a reality. Any other things that the faithful must do in order to remain as safe as possible during these days are also welcome.

> No one knows the one-hundredth part of sin that clings to his soul. This quote is [frequently attributed to Calvin](https://www.google.com/search?q=No+one+knows+the+one-hundredth+part+of+sin+that+clings+to+his+soul+calvin) , but I can't find a specific citation or reference. Did Calvin actually say this, or something like it? Or has it been misattributed to him, perhaps as someone else's pithy summary of Calvin's teachings? Can anyone trace the origin of this quote or notion?

John the apostle wrote to the early church and expressed the visions which had been given to he, himself, alone, in the revelation of Jesus Christ, given by God. That revelation contained letters to seven churches which were viewed as lampstands with the Son of man seen 'in the midst'. These churches were all subject to the apostle John. *There was unity of teaching.* These churches were singular in the districts in which they existed. *There was no schism.* Many denominations today admit of differences within their numbers. Many allow of their participants following different 'ministeries' and 'leaderships'. If such a state as that seen in Revelation is not real, today, then is it a fact that the Son of man is not 'in the midst' of much of what professes to be the 'church' ? True, he is in the midst where but two, or three, are gathered in his name. Even if it is but one household within a district. Or like-minded persons meeting in a place where many 'churches' exist but none are truly naming Jesus Christ and properly identifying him. My question is adressed to Protestant Trinitarians. Does any Protestant Trinitarian gathering, anywhere, specifically profess to be gathered to the same state and condition as the seven churches addressed by John ? For if gatherings do not so profess, then by so much they are admitting that the Son of man is not 'in their midst'. --------------------------------- Edit, for clarity, regarding comment : There was, indeed, the beginnings of schism at Corinth, as you refer, in the first epistle. This was corrected by apostolic authority and was largely absent by the time the second epistle was completed. Thereafter Paul's writings and the gospel accounts, together with Peter's epistles, Hebrews, James and Jude, were widely available. So by the time John wrote there was a unity *which is very noticeable indeed* in the content of the seven missives to the seven churches. My question is, Who claims to have such a unity, right now, and who, thus, can say that the Son of man is in their midst ?

Some Protestants and Catholics believe that the "Angel of the LORD" mentioned in several Old Testament narratives is not merely a created angel but a manifestation of God—specifically understood by many as the pre-incarnate Christ. This is often described using the theological term theophany (meaning an appearance of God), though the term itself does not appear in Scripture. For instance: > It seems when the definite article “the” is used, it is specifying a unique being, separate from the other angels. The angel of the Lord speaks as God, identifies Himself with God, and exercises the responsibilities of God (Genesis 16:7-12; 21:17-18; 22:11-18; Exodus 3:2; Judges 2:1-4; 5:23; 6:11-24; 13:3-22; 2 Samuel 24:16; Zechariah 1:12; 3:1; 12:8). In several of these appearances, those who saw the angel of the Lord feared for their lives because they had “seen the Lord.” Therefore, it is clear that in at least some instances, the angel of the Lord is a theophany, an appearance of God in physical form….whether the angel of the Lord was a pre-incarnate appearance of Christ (Christophany) or an appearance of God the Father (theophany), it is highly likely that the phrase “the angel of the Lord” usually identifies a physical appearance of God. (Protestant apologetics site GotQuestions.org ) A Catholic “Dictionary” describes the term “theophany” like this: > A direct communication or appearance by God to human beings. Instances: God confronting Adam and Eve after their disobedience (Genesis 3:8); God appearing to Moses out of a burning bush (Exodus 3:2-6); Abraham pleading with Yahweh to be merciful to Sodomites (Genesis 18:23). These theophanies were temporary manifestations. They were not like the Incarnation, which, though it began in time, will continue for all eternity. One such “theophany” in the form of “the angel of the Lord” is found in Zechariah: > Then he showed me Joshua the high priest standing before the Angel of the LORD, and Satan standing at his right hand to oppose him. (Zechariah 3:1 - NKJV) Many Protestant and some Catholic scholars interpret this account as a theophany—an appearance of God in the Old Testament. In particular, some suggest that the figure identified as the Angel of the LORD may be a pre-incarnate manifestation of the second person of the Trinity, later revealed in the New Testament as Jesus Christ. > This angel was Christ, or the Logos, mentioned Zechariah 1:11, and called the Lord in the following verse (Benson Commentary) > standing before the Angel of the Lord; not any created angel, but Christ the Angel of God's presence, who is called Jehovah, Zechariah 3:2 is the rebuker of Satan, and the advocate of his people; (Gill’s Exposition of the Entire Bible) Interesting with this account is the following utterance by this “angel of the LORD” in Zechariah 3:2 > And the LORD [the Angel of the LORD speaking as the LORD] said to Satan, “The LORD rebuke you, Satan! The LORD who has chosen Jerusalem rebuke you! Is this not a brand plucked from the fire (Zechariah 3:2 NKJV) Why does GOD in the form of the second person of the Trinity, manifesting Himself as the Angel of the LORD not rebuke Satan, but asks YHWH (the LORD) to do so? The Archangel Michael in Jude 9 uses a phrase closely resembling Zechariah 3:2—“The Lord rebuke you”—when disputing with the devil. While not a word-for-word quote (wording differs slightly across Hebrew and Greek), the parallel strongly echoes the rebuke found in the Old Testament passage: > Yet Michael the archangel, in contending with the devil, when he disputed about the body of Moses, dared not bring against him a reviling accusation, but said, “The Lord rebuke you“ (Jude 9 NKJV) Could it be that the Angel of the LORD similarly “dared not bring against him (Satan) a reviling accusation” in Zechariah 3:2? If so, how could He be GOD? What other reason could there be NOT to rebuke Satan? One possible answer is found in 2 Peter 2:11 > whereas angels, who are greater in power and might [than humans], do not bring a reviling accusation against them before the Lord. This would suggest that the Angel of the Lord does have the same level of authority granted by GOD YHWH than many other Angels. It would mean that “the Angel of the LORD” is neither God nor the second person of the Trinity. How do those that hold to the position of “the Angel of the Lord” in Zechariah 3:1-2 being Christ pre-incarnate/God reconcile this? Why does the AOTL not rebuke Satan but asks YHWH/the LORD to do so?

There is a religious group that believes that angels were pre-existent as humans. While researching the Scriptures to refute that, I found this quote, which confirms what I personally found in my own study: >Though the doctrine of angels holds an important place in the Word of God, it is often viewed as a difficult subject because, while there is abundant mention of angels in the Bible, the nature of this revelation is without the same kind of explicit description we often find with other subjects developed in the Bible: Every reference to angels is incidental to some other topic. They are not treated in themselves. God’s revelation never aims at informing us regarding the nature of angels. https://bible.org/article/angelology-doctrine-angels I didn't find anything of usefulness to this topic in the OT. This is what I found so far in the NT, with why I think the verses address the nature of angels: Matt. 13:38-39: "The field is the world; the good seed are the children of the kingdom; but the tares are the children of the wicked one; The enemy that sowed them is the devil; the harvest is the end of the world; and the reapers are the angels." This is about the final judgement, of all the men on earth. How can the angels, then, be the reapers? Matt. 16:27 "For the Son of man shall come in the glory of his Father with his angels; and then he shall reward every man according to his works." This implies that the angels are a separate class of creation than man. Matt. 22:30 "For in the resurrection they neither marry, nor are given in marriage, but are as the angels of God in heaven." This says they are as the angels in heaven: that is, *like* them, not that they *become* them. Matt. 24:36 "But of that day and hour knoweth no man, no, not the angels of heaven, but my Father only." This is saying no man knows, no angel knows, only the Father knows, differentiating the beings. Luke 12:9 "But he that denieth me before men shall be denied before the angels of God." Luke 20:36 "Neither can they die any more: for they are equal unto the angels; and are the children of God, being the children of the resurrection." equal unto - become *like* angels, not *become* angels. 1 Cor. 4:9 "For I think that God hath set forth us the apostles last, as it were appointed to death: for we are made a spectacle unto the world, and to angels, and to men." 1 Cor. 6:3 "Know ye not that we shall judge angels? how much more things that pertain to this life?" Indeed, many believe that man will ultimately be higher than the angels. Two separate orders of creation. Heb. 2:16: "For verily he took not on him the nature of angels; but he took on him the seed of Abraham." 2 different natures. Jude 1:6 "And the angels which kept not their first estate, but left their own habitation, he hath reserved in everlasting chains under darkness unto the judgment of the great day." Kept not their first estate. Not their second estate. Now my question: since the OT really didn't address, as far as I could see (and I welcome anyone else's findings), I wondered if, and what, the ancient Jewish scholars wrote about concerning the nature of angels. They might have been privy to lost documents, or just understood the Hebrew differently than we do today. I am not looking for denominational positions, just really information that any OT or ancient religious history scholars on this site might have. Thanks.

There are a multiplicity of contemporary claims regarding Jesus made by folks who refer to themselves as Christian. 1) Jesus was and is both God and man. 2) Jesus was and is only man 3) Jesus was an angel, became a man, and is an angel again. (Or was and is both.) 4) Jesus was a man and now is God. These are, perhaps, not all of the options and certainly not all of the nuances. What I have not come across is a contemporary claim that Jesus was God only and not really man at all. Docetism is one form of the sort of thing I am referring to but I am unaware if Docetism is still alive under the umbrella of claimed Christianity: > In the history of Christianity, docetism (from the Koinē Greek: δοκεῖν/δόκησις dokeĩn "to seem", dókēsis "apparition, phantom"1 ) was the doctrine that the phenomenon of Jesus, his historical and bodily existence, and above all the human form of Jesus, was mere semblance without any true reality.[3] Broadly it is taken as the belief that Jesus only seemed to be human, and that his human form was an illusion. - Wikipedia I have seen articles describing "docetic christianity " wherein the importance of being led of the Spirit becomes so magnified that human responsibility to any sort of biblical hermeneutic disappears: > On this view, it becomes unimportant whether Jesus lived or died according to the Gospel records. What matters is the ethical and existential message of the stories about him; how the story affects my understanding of myself. This begins to sound like what I have seen described as Christian Atheism in practice, but theologically cannot be since Christian Atheism denies the existence of God: Are there any contemporary denominations who claim to be Christian and whose theology holds that Jesus was God only and not really human?

> [Hebrews 6:4-6 NASB] 4 **For it is impossible, in the case of those who have once been enlightened and have tasted of the heavenly gift and have been made partakers of the Holy Spirit**, 5 **and have tasted the good word of God and the powers of the age to come**, 6 **and then have fallen away**, to restore them again to repentance, since they again crucify to themselves the Son of God and put Him to open shame. > [Hebrews 10:26-31 NASB] 26 For if we go on sinning willfully after receiving the knowledge of the truth, there no longer remains a sacrifice for sins, 27 but a terrifying expectation of judgment and the fury of a fire which will consume the adversaries. 28 Anyone who has ignored the Law of Moses is put to death without mercy on the testimony of two or three witnesses. 29 How much more severe punishment do you think he will deserve who has trampled underfoot the Son of God, **and has regarded as unclean the blood of the covenant by which he was sanctified, and has insulted the Spirit of grace**? 30 For we know Him who said, “Vengeance is Mine, I will repay.” And again, “The Lord will judge His people.” 31 It is a terrifying thing to fall into the hands of the living God. > [2 Peter 2:20-22 NASB] 20 For if, **after they have escaped the defilements of the world by the knowledge of the Lord and Savior Jesus Christ, they are again entangled in them and are overcome, the last state has become worse for them than the first**. 21 **For it would be better for them not to have known the way of righteousness, than having known it, to turn away from the holy commandment handed on to them**. 22 It has happened to them according to the true proverb, “A dog returns to its own vomit,” and, “A sow, after washing, returns to wallowing in the mire.” And other similar passages: > [Galatians 5:1-5 NASB] It was for freedom that Christ set us free; therefore **keep standing firm and do not be subject again to a yoke of slavery**. 2 Look! I, Paul, tell you that if you have yourselves circumcised, Christ will be of no benefit to you. 3 And I testify again to every man who has himself circumcised, that he is obligated to keep the whole Law. 4 **You have been severed from Christ**, you who are seeking to be justified by the Law; **you have fallen from grace**. 5 For we, through the Spirit, by faith, are waiting for the hope of righteousness. > [Luke 8:13 NASB] Those on the rocky soil are the ones who, when they hear, receive the word with joy; and yet these do not have a firm root; **they believe for a while**, **and in a time of temptation they fall away**. > [Matthew 13:20-21 NASB] 20 The one sown with seed on the rocky places, this is the one who hears the word and immediately receives it with joy; 21 yet he has no firm root in himself, **but is only temporary**, and when affliction or persecution occurs because of the word, **immediately he falls away**. > [John 15:5-6 NASB] 5 I am the vine, you are the branches; the one who remains in Me, and I in him bears much fruit, for apart from Me you can do nothing. 6 **If anyone does not remain in Me, he is thrown away like a branch and dries up; and they gather them and throw them into the fire, and they are burned**. > [Romans 11:18-22 NASB] 18 do not be arrogant toward the branches; but if you are arrogant, remember that it is not you who supports the root, but the root supports you. 19 You will say then, “Branches were broken off so that I might be grafted in.” 20 Quite right, they were broken off for their unbelief, but you stand by your faith. Do not be conceited, but fear; 21 for if God did not spare the natural branches, He will not spare you, either. 22 See then the kindness and severity of God: **to those who fell, severity, but to you, God’s kindness, if you continue in His kindness**; **for otherwise you too will be cut off**. > [1 Corinthians 9:24-27] 24 Do you not know that those who run in a race all run, but only one receives the prize? **Run in such a way that you may win**. 25 Everyone who competes in the games exercises self-control in all things. So they do it to obtain a perishable wreath, but we an imperishable. 26 Therefore I run in such a way as not to run aimlessly; I box in such a way, as to avoid hitting air; 27 **but I strictly discipline my body and make it my slave, so that, after I have preached to others, I myself will not be disqualified**. > [Revelation 3:5 NASB] The **one who overcomes** will be clothed the same way, in white garments; and **I will not erase his name from the book of life**, and I will confess his name before My Father and before His angels. > [Revelations 22:19 NASB] and if anyone takes away from the words of the book of this prophecy, **God will take away his part from the tree of life and from the holy city**, which are written in this book. How were passages typically quoted to refute OSAS interpreted by the early Church? You can find more passages here: * https://christianity.stackexchange.com/q/87015/117426 * https://christianity.stackexchange.com/q/12097/117426

Ruminator's question https://christianity.stackexchange.com/q/108102/117426 prompted me to compile a list of [Biblical passages](https://christianity.stackexchange.com/a/108109/117426) that discuss mysteries, hidden knowledge, secrets of the Kingdom, and related themes, as well as God's willingness to invite seekers to search these things out. Ruminator also assembled an extensive collection of passages in his own [answer](https://christianity.stackexchange.com/a/108106/117426) on the theme of mystery in the Bible. Interestingly, some of the answers and comments in the linked question appear to advocate a kind of cessationist position, suggesting that everything has already been revealed in the Bible, and therefore no mysteries remain to be disclosed (or so they seem to argue). With this in mind, I am interested in an overview of doctrines from various denominations—including Catholicism, Eastern Orthodoxy, and Protestantism—regarding the possibility of God revealing mysteries to spiritual seekers today. It is evident from the Bible that God has certainly revealed mysteries to individuals in the past—for example, Paul's experience of the third heaven in 2 Corinthians 12:2-4, where he received revelations not recorded in Scripture. The question, however, is whether this possibility is still considered viable today, doctrinally speaking, and what conditions, if any, are believed to govern access to such mysteries. Would it be reasonable for a spiritual seeker to earnestly desire the revelation of mysteries today, according to different denominations?

Is circumcision still relevant as a criteria for salvation? Can one make heaven without passing through circumcision?

In 1 John 5:16–17, John distinguishes between “sin that leads to death” and “sin that does not lead to death”: >If you see any brother or sister commit a sin that does not lead to death, you should pray and God will give them life. I refer to those whose sin does not lead to death. There is a sin that leads to death. I am not saying that you should pray about that. All wrongdoing is sin, and there is sin that does not lead to death. (NIV) What are some biblical or practical examples of sins that would fall under the category of “sin that does not lead to death,” and how should Christians approach them in prayer and fellowship?

I am a Russian Orthodox Christian, and I know other Russian Orthodox Christians who consider a woman's menses to be impure. As a woman, this monthly bleeding is not saying that I am evil or bad during that time. I am simply not pure. Here is a good explanation of this. However, I know we Orthodox Christians plan our weddings around the bride's menstruation cycle, because she should be completely pure at that time. Do other Christian denominations do this too?