From what I understand, Calvin not only taught, but effectively systematized the doctrine of "predestinarianism," which holds that: >God for His own glorification, and without any regard to original sin, >has created some as "vessels of mercy", others as "vessels of wrath". >Those created for hell He has also predestined for sin, and whatever faith >and righteousness they may exhibit are at most only apparent, since all >graces and means of salvation are efficacious only in those predestined for >heaven. (From the Catholic Encyclopedia article on predestinarianism .) 1. Is strict Calvinism so extreme that it says God created certain souls as "vessels of wrath" destined for destruction? 2. If so, then what criteria did Calvin say a person could use to determine whether they personally were created for salvation or destruction?

In the words of the blessed apostle Saint Paul (cf. Philippians 2:5-9): > 5 Let this mind be in you, which was also in Christ Jesus: 6 Who, being in the form of God, thought it not robbery to be equal with God: 7 But made himself of no reputation, and took upon him the form of a servant, and was made in the likeness of men: 8 And being found in fashion as a man, he humbled himself, and became **obedient unto death, even the death of the cross**. 9 Wherefore God also hath highly exalted him, and given him a name which is above every name. Is according to the obedience of Christ unto death, in contrast with the disobedience of the first Adam (which was also for death, cf. Genesis 2:17), that Christ fulfilled the Law and was exalted above all creation. Meditating on what this obedience was, I encoutered this theological opinion in an [article](https://learn.ligonier.org/articles/obedient-unto-death) : > What theologians are trying to do when they distinguish between the active and passive obedience of Christ is point to a very real distinction between different aspects, or different dimensions, of the one life of Christ. Throughout His entire life, Christ fulfilled the Moral Law. But so would Adam have done if sin had not entered the world when he sinned. **It’s the entrance of sin that brings in a new, darker dimension to the obedience required of Man: he must now submit to God’s holy judgment as a result of his transgression. So when Christ comes as the Second Adam, it won’t suffice for Him simply to live the holy life that unfallen Adam ought to have lived. The Second Adam’s obedience also means submitting humbly to the awesome divine verdict on human sin.** but it goes further, saying: > He was submissive throughout His life as He underwent all the hardships and sorrows of a sinless man in a fallen world. But His submission to His Father’s judgment on our sin reached its apex on the cross. **Prior to this, Christ had only walked in the outer shadow of judgment, so to speak, still enjoying the light of His Father’s face. On Skull Hill, He entered the innermost darkness when He cried out, “My God, why have You forsaken Me?” Yet still He embraced the darkness with a submissive spirit — a Son obeying His Father’s purpose, at one with the Father in His redemptive design**. Of course, this is not a Catholic opinion, and it's indeed Catholic doctrine that Christ, in His human nature, had the beatific vision of the Father at all moments of His earthly life, including on the cross. Reading the first part that I quoted, I come to the contemplation that Christ's obedience to the Law, the Eternal Law that emanates from the Father, has really this twofold meaning: Christ fulfilled the Law firstly in virtue of his holy life, out of love to the Father, but secondly, because man sinned, and the punishment of sin is the spiritual death (i.e. eternal separation of God), and because sin requires atonement according to this Law, then, in obedience to this decree of the Father and out of love for us, Christ provided in himself this atonement on our behalf, through His passion and consequently death on the cross. Now, because of the second part that I quoted (and rest), I have the impression that the article was pointing to the view of atonement by penal substition, which is contrary to the Catholic theology (at least, to the consensus of the Church). **My first question is**: According to Catholic theology/teaching, is my reading of the first part wrong, valid or there is no saying on this particular view. Again, my reading is not of penal substition, but on this reflection of the twofold aspect of Christ's obedience. **My second (and main) question is**: What are the main theological opinions within the (Catholic) Church about the nature of the obedience of Christ? It was obedience to the Law of the covenant of Moses? To the Eternal Law of the Father, the Divine Justice? To, specifically, the plan of human redemption of the Father? Every of these at once? I apologize if this question appears to be too simple (I have not completed my catechism yet, if this can serve as an excuse), but what I'm really searching is how to run away from the simplistic view that "he was obedient fulfilling the Father's redemption", or something like that, and to go more deeply in this mystery. God bless.

When I medidate on the Passion of Christ, I end up falling into the same doubts about the atonement, which I want to ask. The Catholic Church denies the penal substitutionary atonement, i.e. the notion Jesus presented himself before the Father so that he may be punished on our behalf. Instead, to atone for an offense is to offer to the Offended something that He loves equally or even more than He hated the offense, and so, because sin is an offense to God, the Church teaches that the sacrifice of Christ to the Father is this offering on our behalf, which, in virtue of Christ being the Son of God, is more pleasing to the Father than the whole collective of sin of humankind. Furthermore, the suffering, crucifixion and death of our Lord were meritorious of all grace to us, this making sense of the seven sacraments, the sacramentals and the spiritual authority of binding and losing of the Church. **My question:** I admit that my doubts, and thus my question, is half driven by emotions. My doubt is this: "Sacrifice" in more general terms can just mean offering for the sake of the one to whom we offer, e.g. I can offer to God my time in prayer and meditation, or my intellect in faith, or my will in obedience, for the sake that He, being God, is the ultimate object of my desire. Then why is it that Christ's sacrifice needs to be in the sense of Christ giving His life to suffer and die on the cross, instead of just an offering of Himself in a less bloodshed way? I know that God could save us in any other way, for He is omnipotent, and that He chose the cross because He thought of it as the fittest way. However, on this I came to another facet of my doubt, i.e. when Christ was on the Gethsemane He said: > Father, if it is possible, let this cup pass from me, but not as I will but as You will. implying that His death on the cross was of the will of the Father. So, how can the Father is pleased in the sacrifice of His Son that He wills? For, when I imagine my son sacrificing for the sake of another, I truly understand and can't help but to love my son for it, but not as my son sacrificing himself for the sake of my will. Again, this is half driven by feelings, but these often get in the way of my spiritual life so I want a way to resolve this. I appreciate any comment, and God bless.

**Question:** Does God, according to Calvinism, command people *He has specifically given neither the ability nor choice to do so* to repent and believe in Christ *or be damned?*1, 2 And if so, why? --- Scriptures such as as 1 Corinthians 10:13 come to mind: >(NASB) No temptation has overtaken you but such as is common to man; and God is faithful, who will not allow you to be tempted beyond what you are able, but with the temptation will provide the way of escape also, so that you will be able to endure it. The inverse of which means God would be *unjust* to tempt (or let suffer temptation rather: James 1:13) and *not* give any means of escape. Thanks in advance. --- 1 By 'choice' I don't mean a 'creaturely will' as James White puts it, but a will that can choose salvation or damnation with the help of God post Fall (in the sense of refusing salvation in the case of damnation; and in the sense of accepting Christ and all that means in the case of salvation). I specify this as a 'creaturely will' which God *invented to specifically not choose* salvation does not meet the definition of 'was given the choice to be saved,' since such a choice was never even theoretically possible. Choice is here assumed to mean there is more than one *really possible* outcome (else choice is defined as 'you are free to do exactly what I tell you and nothing else.' 2 By 'ability' I mean the real and not merely theoretical capacity and power to do or perform some thing.

According to Catholicism and Eastern Orthodoxy, which Apostle is believed to have celebrated the Eucharist first? The question is quite simple. Is there any tradition of any apostle in particular who is believed to be the first to say mass, following the Resurrection of Christ? I am not overly confident that such a traditional belief exist within either Eastern Orthodoxy or Catholicism! One may use references from Sacred Scriptures, the Early Church Fathers or other sources if applicable like the writings of recognized Christian mystics, like Catherine of Siënna to help find an answer.

I think I know at least 2: Abraham and Moses. Are there any others? Were the Prophets just inspired or did any of them talk to God?

I heard it many times from some Christians and even preachers that God created us to worship and praise Him. I think this idea came from the fact that Psalms contain many phrases like *"Praise the Lord"* and many words related to worship. I'm still not convinced with verses from Psalms that the **main purpose** of creating us was to praise and worship God. The purpose of creating human, as I see from Genesis 1:28 is to *multiply, fill the earth and subdue it.* Is there any verses from the Bible that clearly indicates we were created mainly to praise and worship God?

The Upper Room is associated with the word "cenacle". >The term "cenacle" refers to a small faith-sharing group, particularly in the context of the Roman Catholic Church. It is derived from the Latin word "coenaculum," meaning dining room, and is historically associated with the site where Jesus held the Last Supper with the apostles. The cenacle is also the location where the Holy Spirit descended upon the apostles on Pentecost, making it a significant site in Christian tradition. Since cenacle is associated with Jesus at the Last Supper, where Jesus was seen as teaching the Apostles how to consecrate the bread and wine, it follows that the Apostles at the Upper Room, during the 50 days preparation, had celebrated the First Holy Mass. The possibilities is high, as we know that during the consecration of the bread and wine, the Holy Spirit will come down to sanctify it, and so, the descent of the Holy Spirit at the Upper Room, is because of the First Celebration of the Holy Mass. And the Book of Acts described the Apostles as if they were drunk, correlating with drinking the wine, like in the Last Supper. **Is there a Catholic writings, pointing to the Upper Room, where the first celebration of the Holy Mass, and the Apostles or Apostle acting as the Bishop/Priest celebrant, was believed to occured?**

**Do Unitarian Universalist churches acknowledge the possibility that the Quran may be the inspired Word of God?** **Wikipedia** states the following, but I desire to know if Unitarians nowadays hold the Qur’an as being inspired from God. > **Approach to sacred writings** > > Originally, both Unitarianism and Universalism were Christian denominations, and U.U.s still reference Jewish and Christian texts. Today, the Unitarian Universalist approach to sacred writings, including the Christian Bible and Hebrew Scriptures, is taken more broadly: > > > While Unitarianism and Universalism both have roots in the Protestant Christian tradition, where the Bible is the sacred text, we now look to additional sources for religious and moral inspiration ... . We celebrate the spiritual insights of the world’s religions, recognizing wisdom in many scriptures. > > > When we read scripture in worship, whether it is the Bible, the **Dhammapada** , or the **Tao Te-Ching** , we interpret it as a product of its time and its place, ... not to be interpreted narrowly or oppressively ...[S]cripture is never the only word, or the final word. > > > From the beginning we have trusted in the human capacity to use reason and draw conclusions about religion ... [E]ach of us ultimately chooses what is sacred to us. > > Unitarian Universalists regard the texts of the world's religions as venerable works of different peoples attempting to understand and explain 'the mystery' and 'the sacred' that surrounds all human existence and experience. They treat with respect the scriptural works of peoples of all religions or spiritual backgrounds.

I'm hoping someone can refer me to a graphic, flowchart or even a list of when various Christian denominations formed. For example, a biggie is the Lutheran church breaking off from the Catholic church. Or the Anglican church splitting off from the Catholic one. Will appreciate any help, thank you.

I have done a fair amount of research but am still very confused about the difference between the two, the Churches of Christ and the Congregational Churches. I know of the United Church and Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints, but that is not what I am referring to with the Churches of Christ. Are they the same thing? Are they different? In what way are they different? If anyone has any knowledge regarding this, please share. Thank you very much!

I’ve attended numerous churches in both RCA and UCC denominations in which RCA had a very literal take on the crucifixion and resurrection where the UCC church has a very allegorical approach. Excluding talking about this specific instance I’m asking about why there is a difference in how it was taught. ** Why is the RCA church more literal in scripture where the UCC church is allegorical?** I’ve noticed during switching denominations specifically RCA reformed church of America and UCC united church of Christ, RCA seems to have a more literal translation of scriptures to which is applied to daily life. UCC on the other hand has taken a more allegorical and symbolic approach. *I edited the question to exclude asking about specific events in the Bible and focused it more on the observed differences in how Christianity is taught*

Rabbi Yosef Massas (1892–1974) writes in responsa *Mayim Chaim* vol. 2 (*Yoreh Deah* §108:2) that he spoke to a Christian (possibly Catholic) priest who claimed that they only worship the One God and that when they say that Jesus was a son of *Elohim* this means "angel" not "God". Accordingly, this sect believed that Jesus was a son of an angel, not son of God. Does anybody know of a Christian denomination/sect which fits this description? (Rabbi Massas lived in Morocco and in Algeria if that helps)

Background = Out of pure curiosity, I wanted to know if, somewhere, there is an authoritative chart of core beliefs/tenets held in common, and opposing beliefs, of the largest (by professed believer count) Christian [denominations](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christian_denomination) . I am not sure if this is the best forum to ask this in. If so let me know and preferably point me to a better forum. However, this was the first forum that came to mind for me. My intention is that of fact finding and research. Question = Is there a resource that accurately and succinctly describes the differences and similarities between the majority of Christian denominations? Note: Unless it is significant, I am not asking about the granularity of different [rites](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Catholic_particular_churches_and_liturgical_rites)

Are there denominations that emphasize apologetic sermons?

Of course many (if not most) denominations believe that what they teach and believe as doctrine critical to salvation is, in fact, critical to salvation. Most denominations also teach and believe many doctrines that they will admit as being 'secondary' and debatable or uncertain. Often a doctrine critical in one denomination is secondary in another. In my experience most official members of particular denominations, while not asserting that only they are completely correct, would be comfortable as classifying their denomination as 'the most correct'. Most folks would not assert that *only* their denomination can attain salvation however, since theirs is *most correct*, they would be comfortable asserting that, when all come to face to face with God, they will all come 'round to that *most correct* view. My question is: Are there denominations that officially teach that God will have respect toward one denomination over another such that one denomination gets a 'blanket pass' based upon membership whereas others might undergo individual evaluation?

Well, I know this question sounds a bit provoking, but I want to collect reasons to refute that Christians can be Nazis as well. I recently had a debate with someone who noted that the German population was overwhelmingly Christian at the time, concluding that the Nazi ideology could likely be seen to be Christian or at least compatible with Christianity. While that statistic might be true on paper, the question here is whether the conclusion that Christians could also be Nazis can actually be made? => *Were the Nazis "real" Christians?* If the answer is no, does that mean that the statistics used in the Wiki article paint an inaccurate picture of what a Christian is? How so? One of the most intuitive arguments will probably be that Christians at the time that also were part of the Nazi ideology, were not "true" Christians. A possible counter to that is the No Scotsman Fallacy . *Can, and if so, how can the No Scotsman Fallacy be refuted in this case?* Since there is already a related question regarding the catholic perspective I am interested in the protestant perspective. Although I don't mind other or more general viewpoints. **Edit** Since the definition of "real Christian" has been expected: For the scope of this Question, a real Christian is someone who: - practices the teachings of the Bible to the best of his ability - does not practice Christianity out of mere tradition, habit, or cultural peer pressure. - Does not apply syncretism to his belief (Considering the discussion in the comments, I probably need to add, that culture and traditions that are generally viewed as Christian but have a pagan origin are not counted, as most people have forgotten that origin and still celebrate something like Christmas as a Christian tradition. Syncretism in this case is focused on beliefs and direct consequences in action from that foreign belief. E.g. the need to go into battle to get into Valhalla because Norse Gods exist, while also compassionately helping a person that was robbed and hurt, because that is how God said you should show love towards your neighbor. So for all intents and purposes, let's say "obvious syncretism" that mixes beliefs that are either almost or directly antithetical to each other.) ***In the scope*** of ***this question*** this is **not** a Christian: - A person that has *faith* (because that is difficult if not impossible to find out) - A person that is saved (because only God ultimately knows that for each specific individual) - A person who rewrites the Bible to fit his belief - A person who kills Christians for the reason that they are Christian - A person that **only** has a Church Membership Just to make sure: The question is about whether we can call people that officially were Christian during the nazi era really Christian, given the atrocities committed by the Germans at the time. Since those people are now mostly dead, it is difficult/impossible to verify if a person had faith, meaning a relationship with God including receiving the Holy Spirit, etc. Therefore we have to make our conclusions from the actions taken by those people because those are recorded and recordable.

How can there be so many denominations of Christianity? Christianity is solely based on the Bible, so how can multiple faiths come from it?

I'm looking for reputable books for a thorough summation (and/or defense) of beliefs for the Methodist, Pentecostal, Baptist, and Presbyterian (or, more broadly, reformed) denominations. Any suggestions?

We have on Wikipedia, a tabular statement of the numbering systems adopted in regard to the Ten Commandments, by different traditions. One can see a telling difference in the numbering pattern. For instance, the Commandment against adultery appears at No.6 in the Augustinian division followed by Roman Catholics, Lutherans, etc. whereas it appears at No.7 in the Septuagint version followed by Eastern Orthodox and Reformed Christians. With more communication and dialogue taking place not only between various denominations , but between Christianity and other religions in the modern era, it is expedient to draw up a unified numbering of the Commandments. Has anyone ever attempted a unified numbering of Ten Commandments, applicable to all traditions and denominations?