From [SEP](https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/theodicies/#FreeWillTheo) : >#### 6. Free Will Theodicy > >With respect to the question of the justification of pain, cruelty, and other evils in relation to God, it is important to acknowledge the significant role played in theistic thought by appeal to the power of human free choice. We have seen above that many of the theodicies on offer rely on it. One prominent way to defend the goodness and other perfections of God in response to the evils of the world is to point out that, after all, God did not bring about the Rwandan genocide or the Holocaust or someone’s sexual assault. Instead, these were caused by human actions, which the theist may suggest were freely chosen by perpetrators. On the free will theodicy, God remains an absolutely perfect being even in light of the suffering in the world, because it is created beings who freely choose to harm each other (and non-human animals and the environment), and none of this is God’s direct doing. What goes wrong in our world is not the fault of God but rather the fault of the wrongdoers who use their power of free will to act badly. The free will theodicist holds that it is a great good that God gave us free will and allows us direct the course of our lives by way our own free choices (Swinburne 1998). The result of the gift of free will to the billions of people on the planet is a whole lot of bad consequences from evil choices, which God is justified in allowing because of the greater good of the gift of free will. > > Several problems face the line of thought that lays all the blame for the pain and suffering in the world on the bad free choices of created beings. One problem is this: even in cases of free actions that cause harm, if God is in control of the universe, then God at least allows the harm to be freely done to the victims by the perpetrators. God’s omnipotence indicates that God could have intervened to prevent a bad choice and could have intervened after the choice to prevent its most harmful consequences. God could cause someone who intends to rape to twist his ankle and fall to the ground, for instance, or to get violently ill, or faint, preventing the intended victim’s assault. In answer to the question of why God did not do that, there must be some good reason. Preserving the stability of natural laws is a good that is sometimes suggested here. (For relevant discussion see Swinburne 1998 and for a contrary view see Sterba 2019.) > > Another problem for the free will theodicy is that not all cases of suffering are brought about intentionally by human free choices, such as damage in the wake of hurricanes and the ravages of inherited diseases. Bad medical outcomes in surgical cases, too, do not always result from malicious intent or professional negligence. When a tornado rips through a town destroying some homes and not others, no human being freely chose for certain houses rather than neighboring ones to be destroyed, and no human being freely brought about the tornado in the first place. > > Another difficulty facing the free will theodicy is this: whereas some philosophers think that free will would be ruled out by the truth of causal determinism (the hypothesis that at each moment there is exactly one future, given the laws of nature and the events of the past), other free will theorists believe that we can act freely even if causal determinism is true. **Arguably it is crucial that the free will appealed to by a free will theodicist must be indeterminist (libertarian) in nature**. (For exploration of indeterminist accounts of free will, see Clarke 2003; Ekstrom 2000, 2019; Franklin 2018; Kane 1996; Mele 2006; O’Connor 2000.) **The free will theodicist thus must maintain that all compatibilist accounts of the nature of free agency, including those provided by Frankfurt (1971), Watson (1975), Fischer (2012), Nelkin (2011), and Wolf (1990), among others, are implausible accounts**. In citing the free will of created beings as the greater good that justifies God in permitting instances of evil or the facts about evil, the free will theodicist also needs to hold that causal determinism is, in fact, false and that we human beings do have **libertarian free will**. Without maintaining these positions, the free will theodicist lacks an explanation for the violence and cruelty in the world that shields God and preserves God’s goodness, since God could have established the initial conditions of the universe and decreed that deterministic natural laws govern all events, so that the events in the world unfolded to include none that are painful, harmful or wrong. **God could have done this even in worlds in which he created free (in a compatibilist sense) rational beings**. > > Here is an additional problem for the theodicy according to which God’s allowance of suffering is due to God’s desire to create beings with **libertarian free will** and to allow creatures to carry out their evil intentions as well as their good ones: such morally significant libertarian free will (in Alvin Plantinga’s (1974) terms)—or what Swinburne (1998) calls serious free will, which is **libertarian free will** with respect to seriously good and seriously evil potential actions—must have immense positive value, in order for it to be sensible to think that a perfect being would decide to create beings with that power. The claim that such serious **libertarian free will** is worth it stands in need of convincing defense. (This issue is addressed in detail in Ekstrom 2021.) Notice that there is a difference between a proposed causal explanation of evil and a divine justification for allowing evil. If the causal explanation for a vast range of cases of evil in our world is human free will, then still, in order to serve as a God-justifying reason for permitting those evils, it has to be a very great outweighing good for God to create beings with serious morally significant free will and not to intervene to prevent the consequences of their wrong choices. My understanding of [Calvinism](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_will_in_theology#Calvinism) is that Calvinists believe in *predestination*. But predestination seems to invalidate libertarian free will, which is a key premise in the Free Will Theodicy. **What is the Calvinist take on the Free Will Theodicy?**

I am not a member of the Anglican Community but have not failed to notice that, for a long time, British media has been showing up some terrible goings-on with some of the Church of England clergy, whose gross misconduct, over many years, has been effectively swept under the carpet by their ‘superiors’. My concern now leads to a question, based on news this year of the opposite appearing to now be done: decent clergymen who believe in upholding sound doctrine being castigated as *“a potential threat to children”*, simply because certain biblical teachings are taught. This issue was reported on this website: https://freespeechunion.org/justin-welby-plainly-wrong-over-egregious-blacklisting-of-gender-critical-chaplain/ Earlier information I received from **The Christian Institute** indicates what is going on, behind the scenes, that has so influenced the Church of England that it is now going to have to either ditch some of their theological doctrines or ditch the new “Critical Theory” it is embracing. See http://www.the.ci/CriticalTheoryLT and http://www.the.ci/ChallengingTruth or watch their videos http://www.the.ci/CriticalTheoryWatch What kind of a pass have things come to that clergy upholding the Church of England’s doctrinal stance where it now appears to clash with certain aspects of Critical Theory, are deemed a threat, and suspended from office? **What are those clergy to do?** ***What should members of the Church of England do to support decent clergy who uphold biblical doctrines in word, and by deed?***

I heard a quote somewhere that described a biblical character who "saw the light" and was "blinded" and "crawled" his way through a certain location. Who is this referring to?

I've recently thought of an argument that might undermine Christianity but I'm not sure if I simply reinvented a super old argument that already has a refutation or it's a novel one (probably not), but I would like to know if there is any way to refute or counter it (there is also a possibility that I might just be confused about certain ideas or topics so that would also serve as an objection if I misunderstood something in the construction of the argument itself). The argument is as follows: **(1)** It is possible to be saved without belief in Jesus **Proof of (1):** When the Israelites left Egypt and embarked on the Exodus and the Joshua conquests, they had the Tabernacle as the sacred space. Then during the United Monarchy, they had the First Temple. However, there was a 71 year period of exile and Babylonian captivity where there was neither a Tabernacle nor the Temple. This is from 586 BC - 515 BC according to contemporary scholarly accounts. Since God desires us all to be saved and there is nothing preventing Him from that, He would enable innocent people born during this period (keep in mind that the [average lifespan was approximately 52 +/- 15.29](https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2625386/#b4) according to Griffin, 2008, which means that there would certainly be people who were born and died without ever having access to a traditional means of repenting and being saved and this is at a time when Jesus has not arrived yet) to repent and be saved if He is all good. Hence, since He is perfect and all-good and desires us to be saved, He would enable us to have an option to save ourselves even without the Holy Temple AND without a Tabernacle. The people who lived during this period as per the logic would have no more or less chance and ability to be saved than anyone born at a later date for God is not unfair and unjust, particularly to those who are innocent. **Supplementary Addition:** In the 'Old Testament', no where does it say that sacrifice (including Jesus sacrificing himself on the cross) is the *only* way to atone for sins. It is not necessarily even the best way in every case. **Conclusion 1**: If it's possible to be saved without belief in Jesus as per (1), then there is no reason to convert anyone to Christianity specifically. **(2)**: Because the Necessarily Existing Being (God), also known by terms such as *Ipsum Esse Subsistens*, *Actus Purus*, Unconditioned Reality, God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob, etc. never does anything unnecessary or arbitrary for that would entail a definitional contradiction as well as a problem in the Divine essence, He would never develop Christianity to save us all for it is not necessary as per (1). **Proof of (2)** (Minor Side Note:) I tried to put this into a single paragraph form though I could write 20 pages on this to properly show you how it would work. For anyone interested, watch [this video](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UTEkuo4i3N0) to perhaps give you a better idea as to what this is about if you don't understand it. This is not essential to the argument so much as I am more concerned about (1), so I'd rather have that be the focus in the refutation than this, which I am confident and able to defend. But a super rough broken-down sketch would go as follows: Since in the context of the Necessarily Existing Being, essence is identical to His existence, God cannot not exist. It also follows that since He is not contingent/dependent (as an existent), He cannot contain any composition and thus is Absolutely Divinely Simple (see different approaches as to how different Christian scholars tried to square the Trinity with this. As a side tip: avoid any Christian scholar who tries to do nonsense like deny that there is an existent which is Necessary). Also God since He is perfect and immaterial and thus not bound to time of physics, cannot undergo change. Since making arbitrary and unnecessary choice would either lead to internal contingency as He would have the ability to make a selection from choices or it would lead to external contingency (which would require essentially saying that things just popped up into existence, and would violate the principle of sufficient reason), neither of these options are possible. Hence it is not possible that God's choice is arbitrary in His divine essence. Any action which could possibly be arbitrary or unnecessary is not possible and can be understood as an irrational anthropomorphic projection on the behalf of the person. Moreover God's actions can never be arbitrary since the Divine essence cannot undergo change. Therefore, God would never arbitrarily or unnecessarily create Christianity as a means of having people save themselves if Christianity is unnecessary since people can be saved through other means. **Conclusion 2**: If it's possible to be saved without belief in Jesus as per (1) and God does not arbitrarily do anything unless it would be an impossibility (logical impossibility, contradiction) for it to be otherwise as per (2), then it follows that Christianity is an impossibility. I hope that everything is clear from this. I would really appreciate a thorough refutation. If I made any spelling mistakes, etc. also let me know because I just wanted to write this up quickly from my rough notes and then have it tested against different people to see what objections can be made.

Was listening to a sermon on K-WAVE from Calvary Chapel on the radio. The pastor stated that "globalization" was a mark of the beast and that it signifies Jesus will be returning soon. What's the biblical definition of globalization and why is it the mark of the beast?

Will the saved still face judgement? I was wondering whether this is true given that Jesus said thw following words. *John 5:24-25* >Truly, truly, I say to you, whoever hears my word and believes him who sent me has eternal life. He does not come into judgment, but has passed from death to life.

Many depictions of the nativity have both the shepherds and the wise men at the stable on the night of Jesus' birth. However, it is commonly held that the wise men did not arrive until several months after the birth of Jesus. What specifically is the basis for this belief?

Can anyone link me to a source for Christian meal foods that can be linked to a particular day in the life of Jesus and particular events in the lives of Christian saints. In the event that such sources do not exist can anyone point out if such cases are adequately known to exist? Allow me to make three suggestions as to what I am getting at. - 1. At Easter, it is traditional amongst some Christian to eat lamb in remembrance that Chris the Lamb of God rose from the dead. - 2. The day after Jesus's resurrection Jesus ate broiled fish and honey from the comb. That is right on Easter Monday. (Luke 24:42-43) - 3. On the fourth Friday of Lent, in Oaxaca,Oaxaca, Mexico there is celebration of the [Samaritan woman](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Samaritan_woman_at_the_well) who gave water to Jesus. The Catholic Church has this part of the Gospel read at mass this day. The custom of the day involves churches, schools and even businesses to give passers-by water and fruit drinks in honour of the biblical events recounted this day at mass. I am not limiting this to events of the New Testament, but may be from the lives of saints. I welcome input from any Christian denominations

I recently came across the idea of identifying the angel Michael as Jesus. I'm surprised I hadn't heard it before. Wikipedia documents it as common to Seventh Day Adventists and Jehovah's Witnesses. I'm not interested in biblical support of this theory; there are several other questions in that vein with good answers. I'd like to know more of its origin. Sub-questions to help guide what I'd consider a good answer: - How old is this idea? Wikipedia says "early Protestants", but cites John A. Lees (1939) who in turn cites Ernst Wilhelm Hengstenberg (1849) who doesn't appear to have a source beyond himself. They are far too recent to be "early Protestants". - Who (or what group) came up with the idea? - If it started with the adventists , how did it spread to Jehovah's Witnesses? - Do any orthodox forks* of Christianity accept the idea? - Do any orthodox forks* of Christianity explicitly reject the idea? (I'm surprised not to see it mentioned in the Catholic Encyclopedia.) \* **fork**: picture the christian religion as a road. Way back, promoters of Arianism were a fork in the road that dead ended fairly quick. The Protestants led many forks in the road. Mormons are yet another fork in the road. EDIT: Re: "early protestants". I just found a reference by John Calvin in his Commentaries on Daniel vol. 2, pg 243 . > Some think the word Michael represents Christ, and I do not object to > this opinion. [...] But as this is not generally admitted, I leave it > in doubt for the present [...] and there's a bit more in chapter 12 , but so far I haven't found who he is referencing by "some". Calvin does go on to defend associating Michael with Christ.

Many Christians of different denominations have reported encounters with demon-possessed individuals. Catholic exorcists are an obvious example. In the mission field, reports of demonic possessions in the [10/40 Window](https://christianity.stackexchange.com/questions/82874/how-often-do-missionaries-report-encounters-with-demonic-activity-while-deployed) are not unheard of. An interesting first-hand account by a SDA missionary can be found [here](https://youtu.be/Lh3l9FaRbpM) . Even Baptist pastor John Piper has had his [fair share](https://youtu.be/0SK07TY1uh0) of experiences with the exorcism of demon-possessed people. Have Jehovah's Witnesses ever reported similar encounters with demon-possessed individuals in the mission field or in other contexts?

Several years ago I heard in a sermon (from John MacArthur I think) that, corresponding to Daniel 12:3 where it says those who have insight will shine like stars, that our ultimate reward in heaven will be the capacity to radiate the glory of God in all eternity. It was something like that. I have heard the teaching two other times, perhaps from preachers who got it from MacArthur or his source. This idea has captivated me for quite a few years. Can any of you help me find more information on this topic and possibly help in understanding whether this is a valid idea? Thank you.

The angel Gabriel foretells what many Christians interpret to be the Great Tribulation, followed by salvation of the saints and the judgment of the wicked. **Daniel 12:1-3** >“At that time Michael shall stand up, The great prince who stands watch over the sons of your people; And there shall be a time of trouble, Such as never was since there was a nation, Even to that time. And at that time your people shall be delivered, Every one who is found written in the book. 2 And many of those who sleep in the dust of the earth shall awake, Some to everlasting life, Some to shame and everlasting contempt. 3 Those who are wise shall shine Like the brightness of the firmament, And those who turn many to righteousness Like the stars forever and ever. How is arch-angel Michael standing up for Israel(or the new Israel) and triggering the apocalypse if he is not Jesus himself?

If being a non-Christian is a sin, and if Jesus died for all of our sins, why should non-Christians go to hell?

Luther seems to have been convinced of the then-novel historicist view of Revelation because it made sense to him the Antichrist figure was the then-installed Pope. At the same time, he did not recognize his/Paul's Jesus in the Revelation and said "I can in no way detect that the Holy Spirit produced it." He even put Revelation at the end of his "The Bible" to indicate that it was the text in which he had the least confidence. Does Luther ever explain his apparent inconsistency in his regard for the value of what was written in Revelation? My question is based on the history provided by Dr. Bruce Gore in this video . This question seems appropriate to ask since Luther's estimation of the Pope as THE Antichrist was the largely the impetus of Protestantism and the horrific Thirty Years War . Since this accusation, the once unquestioned Catholic Church became a pariah to a great deal of Protestantism. "A Mighty Fortress Is Our God," arguably Luther's most famous hymn was also arguably a battle hymn against the Papacy: >LYRICS: 1 A mighty fortress is our God, a bulwark never failing; our helper he, amid the flood of mortal ills prevailing. For still our ancient foe does seek to work us woe; his craft and power are great, and armed with cruel hate, on earth is not his equal. >2 Did we in our own strength confide, our striving would be losing, were not the right Man on our side, the Man of God's own choosing. You ask who that may be? Christ Jesus, it is he; Lord Sabaoth his name, from age to age the same; and he must win the battle. >3 And though this world, with devils filled, should threaten to undo us, we will not fear, for God has willed his truth to triumph through us. The prince of darkness grim, we tremble not for him; his rage we can endure, for lo! his doom is sure; one little word shall fell him. >4 That Word above all earthly powers no thanks to them abideth; the Spirit and the gifts are ours through him who with us sideth. Let goods and kindred go, this mortal life also; the body they may kill: God's truth abideth still; his kingdom is forever! How does Luther explain this momentous accusation without contradicting himself about Revelation?

Quoting from [this site](https://carm.org/annihilationism/what-is-soul-sleep/) : > Soul sleep is the teaching that when a person dies that his soul "sleeps" until the time of the future resurrection. In this condition, the person is not aware or conscious. What are the biblical arguments against soul sleep?

Notable apologist and writer C. S. Lewis once wrote that "the doors of hell are locked on the inside". This indicates that people place themselves in hell, not that God places them there. What is the biblical basis for this claim?

Let's say that a Christian serial killer has murdered many people who happened to not be Christians. Would God be just by sending the Christian serial killer to Heaven, while sending his victims to Hell? I am looking for answers from the perspective of Christians who believe that Hell exists (non-universalists).

I have heard a story about Mary being the "Ever Virgin" and it started out with her parents presenting her at the temple as a virgin and she stayed a virgin for the rest of her life, even after giving birth to Christ. My question: **Did the Herodian Temple have virgins similar to temple dedicated to some of the Greek gods and goddesses?**

I know very little of the Christian Faith or of any other faith for that matter, but this question struck me as relevant maybe not just to Christianity but also to all faiths as a whole. Penal systems on the Earth are there to create order in society and breaking the laws under a particular system have "degrees of penalty" such as a bank robber would be given 10 years in prison whereas an adolescent who stole from a gumball machine outside the local store would only be given a slap on the wrist and told not to do it again. In both these cases the crime was theft but they are not judged equally. So why is God's judgment of man so extreme: either man gets eternal bliss or eternal pain? Why does even the *slightest* transgression of God's law is punished the same as a *greater* transgression?

Jesus taught that we undergo a judicial process before being sent to Hell during our earthly lifetimes. > Mt 5:22 But I say unto you, That whosoever is angry with his brother without a cause shall be in danger of the judgment: and whosoever shall say to his brother, Raca, shall be in danger of the council: but whosoever shall say, Thou fool, shall be in danger of hell fire. Then He said we would remain there until we set things right. > Mt 5:26 Verily I say unto thee, Thou shalt by no means come out thence, till thou hast paid the uttermost farthing.