The Apostle Paul said, "All Scripture is inspired by God and is profitable for teaching, for rebuking, for correcting, for training in righteousness, so that the man of God may be complete, equipped for every good work." (2 Tim 3:16-17 HCSB) Now, I am aware of the canonization of the New Testament. This was done some 300 plus years after these letters were written. Now, some of these letters do contain scripture references in them but to call them the word of God. I don't think that was the intent of the writers. Why do scholars today say that the whole Bible is the word of God?

I am trying to understand the Reformed ‘*ordo salutis*’ or order of salvation events and the rationale for the placement of **adoption** in that order. I take this (from Wikipedia) as the Reformed (Calvinist) sequence, which serves as background to my question: - Predestination - Election - Calling (outward and inward) - Regeneration - Faith - Repentance - Justification - **Adoption** - **Sanctification** - Perseverance - Glorification **First**, excepting election in times long past and possibly the extent in time of the inward and outward calls, are most remaining parts of the order simultaneous and so merely ordered logically? Or are they conceived of as both logically and temporally arranged? If some hold to each view, which is the most common? **Second**, Sanctification is a process, so I can accept that it begins before adoption and continues to completion after adoption. My confusion springs from this passage in Ephesians 1:3-10 (ESV): >**3** Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, who has blessed us in Christ with every spiritual blessing in the heavenly places, **4** even as he **chose** us in him before the foundation of the world, that we should **be holy and blameless** before him. In love **5** he **predestined** us for **adoption** as sons through Jesus Christ, according to the purpose of his will, **6** to the praise of his glorious grace, with which he has blessed us in the Beloved. **7** In him we have **redemption** through his blood, the **forgiveness** of our trespasses, according to the riches of his grace, **8** which he lavished upon us, in all wisdom and insight **9** making known to us the mystery of his will, according to his purpose, which he set forth in Christ **10** as a plan for the fullness of time, to unite all things in him, things in heaven and things on earth. It is possible to infer some pairwise ordering of salvation events from the preceding, but by no means sort them all in a coherent way. If “holy and blameless” means sanctification then it is listed here before adoption. That does not require that adoption comes after sanctification, but certainly cannot be used to prove that adoption comes before sanctification. So what is the argument used by prominent Reformed Theologians for putting adoption before sanctification? Galatians 4:1-7 looks promising, but it is tied up in a complex argument, so I am not sure what it proves. Romans 8:18-25 equates adoption with the redemption of our bodies. That seems to speak of us receiving our resurrected bodies, which I would put after sanctification, so more confusion there.

*Quodlibet* III, q. 12 a. 2 co. : >it must be said that every conscience, whether right or erroneous, whether in things evil in themselves or in things indifferent, is obligatory, such that he who acts against conscience sins. > >Latin :
Et ideo dicendum est quod omnis conscientia, sive recta, sive erronea, sive in per se malis, sive in indifferentibus, est obligatoria; ita quod qui contra conscientiam facit, peccat. > >Davies, O.P. & Nevitt transl. :
conscience is always binding, whether it is mistaken or not, and whether it is a question of things evil in themselves or morally neutral. Therefore, it is a sin to act against one’s conscience.

A) Scripture says no force or power can separate us from the Love of God. > "For I am persuaded, that neither death, nor life, nor angels, nor principalities, nor powers, nor things present, nor things to come, Nor height, nor depth, nor any other creature, shall be able to separate us from the love of God, which is in Christ Jesus our Lord. - Romans 8:38-39 B) Some Christians are more separated from the love God (i.e. they love God less than others). If nothing can separate us from God, then why are some Christians more separated from God's love? What is the deciding factor in how much we love God? I suppose the non-Calvinist response would be "our will": Our own love of sin / self-will is what separates us since God's love for us does not change. ### Possible answer(?) Some people have a different level of Faith (from God) > "as God hath dealt to every man the measure of faith. - Romans 12:3 and more/less Sin > "He who is forgiven much loves much" Luke 7:47 However, scripture says faith comes by hearing: > "So then faith cometh by hearing, and hearing by the word of God. - Romans 10:17 This seems to put the burden back on people to decide to "listen" or "sin more" which isn't inline with Reformed theology.

Of the Byzantine texts that Erasmus had at his disposal, where did he come by them? Also, did the Waldenses provide any either directly or indirectly?

For example: - it seems the church fathers unanimously were in agreement that owning slaves isn't a sin *per se* except for a few such as Gregory of Nyssa, but modern Christians though, strongly oppose this view. - Church fathers were unanimous on contraception being wrong, but many Christians disagree with this. - Church fathers seemed to unanimously believe Women were in many ways inferior to Men. **What are some other things most modern Christians disagree with the church fathers on, i e. opinions they held pretty unanimously?**

We read in Lev 6:12-13 (NIV) : > The fire on the altar must be kept burning; it must not go out. Every morning the priest is to add firewood and arrange the burnt offering on the fire and burn the fat of the fellowship offerings on it. The fire must be kept burning on the altar continuously; it must not go out. The churches of Catholic denomination which have the Holy Eucharist present in the Tabernacle, have the tradition of keeping the altar lamp on 24x7. It is not clear if the practice owes its origin to Lev 6. If that be so, the altar lamp should be kept on even if the Holy Eucharist is not present, say, in small parishes where Holy Mass is said by a visiting priest only on Sundays. Similarly, churches of non-Catholic denominations where the Holy Eucharist is not kept, can also have the lamp burning provided there is an altar .My question therefore is: Does any non-Catholic denomination maintain Altar Lamp, following Lev 6:12-13 ?

In Oration 40, towards the end, a translation from newadvent.org is as follows: > But not yet perhaps is there formed upon your soul any writing good or > bad; and you want to be written upon today, and formed by us unto > perfection. Let us go within the cloud. Give me the tables of your > heart; I will be your Moses, though this be a bold thing to say; I > will write on them with the finger of God a new Decalogue. Exodus > 38:28 I will write on them a shorter method of salvation. And if there > be any heretical or unreasoning beast, let him remain below, or he > will run the risk of being stoned by the Word of truth. I will baptize > you and make you a disciple in the Name of the Father and of the Son > and of the Holy Ghost; and These Three have One common name, the > Godhead. And you shall know, both by appearances Matthew 28:19 and by > words that you reject all ungodliness, and are united to all the > Godhead. Believe that all that is in the world, both all that is seen > and all that is unseen, was made out of nothing by God, and is > governed by the Providence of its Creator, and will receive a change > to a better state. Believe that evil has no substance or kingdom, > either unoriginate or self-existent or created by God; but that it is > our work, and the evil one's, and came upon us through our > heedlessness, but not from our Creator. Believe that the Son of God, > the Eternal Word, Who was begotten of the Father before all time and > without body, was in these latter days for your sake made also Son of > Man, born of the Virgin Mary ineffably and stainlessly (for nothing > can be stained where God is, and by which salvation comes), in His own > Person at once entire Man and perfect God, for the sake of the entire > sufferer, that He may bestow salvation on your whole being, having > destroyed the whole condemnation of your sins: impassible in His > Godhead, passible in that which He assumed; as much Man for your sake > as you are made God for His. Believe that for us sinners He was led to > death; was crucified and buried, so far as to taste of death; and that > He rose again the third day, and ascended into heaven, that He might > take you with Him who were lying low; and that He will come again with > His glorious Presence to judge the quick and the dead; no longer > flesh, nor yet without a body, according to the laws which He alone > knows of a more godlike body, that He may be seen by those who pierced > Him, Revelation 1:7 and on the other hand may remain as God without > carnality. Receive besides this the Resurrection, the Judgment and the > Reward according to the righteous scales of God; and believe that this > will be Light to those whose mind is purified (that is, God — seen and > known) proportionate to their degree of purity, which we call the > Kingdom of heaven; but to those who suffer from blindness of their > ruling faculty, darkness, that is estrangement from God, proportionate > to their blindness here. Then, in the tenth place, work that which is > good upon this foundation of dogma; for faith without works is dead, > James 2:17 even as are works apart from faith. This is all that may be > divulged of the Sacrament, and that is not forbidden to the ear of the > many. The rest you shall learn within the Church by the grace of the > Holy Trinity; and those matters you shall conceal within yourself, > sealed and secure. At the end of this paragraph there is a reference to knowledge only gained after initiation into the Church, and of the need to conceal that knowledge. What could St. Gregory have been talking about? I noticed that in this creed of sorts Gregory does not talk about Communion - could it be that the Eucharist, and the mystery of eating the flesh of Christ, was the mystery that Christians could not speak about to outsiders/the uninitiated? The one reference I have found in that oration to the Eucharist is a somewhat vague > Remember how poor you once were, and how rich you were made. One in > want of bread or of drink, perhaps another Lazarus, is cast at your > gate; respect the Sacramental Table to which you have approached, the > Bread of Which you have partaken, the Cup in Which you have > communicated, being consecrated by the Sufferings of Christ. As this oration appears to be directed to those about to undergo the Sacrament of Baptism, this could still fit in with my theory that the true "trans-subtantiated" nature of the Bread and Cup that is celebrated before the Sacramental Table is only revealed to the initiated. A further side note or post scriptum - what does St. Gregory mean by the "Festival on the illustrious Day of the Holy Lights"?

What were the beliefs of the Syriac Christians in Arabia at the time of the Islamic prophet? I have heard that these [Nazarene Christians](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nazarene_(sect)) (Christians of the city of [Najran](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Najran)) did not believe that Jesus was crucified similar to the Muslims. That claim was made by a Christian apologist, but I do not get the angle as the Qur'an clearly mentions that there are Christians who believe that Jesus was crucified as it says about the crucifixion: "it was made to appear to them"

Having read an article in the British November 2024 *Evangelical Times* newspaper on this question, I was heartily in agreement with it till halfway through, thus giving rise to my question. Very briefly, the writer clearly showed from scripture that we are all doomed to fall under God’s judgment unless our union with Adam changes to union with Christ (Romans 5:14). But then I was troubled to read an interpretation of that chapter ***claiming we are “saved through the obedience of Christ.”*** The writer subscribes to the *Westminster Confession of Faith* that this was Christ perfectly keeping the Law on our behalf. (XIX.5 & 6) Yet the writer then admitted that: > [Many Christians] “still find the pull of legalism to be powerful… Is > my Christian living up to standard? Am I doing well enough to remain > on track for heaven?” *Evangelical Times*, article [‘Joined to the wrong man’](https://www.evangelical-times.org/joined-to-the-wrong-man/) p.10, Vol. 58 No.11 He says such questions are inapplicable as it is who we are united to that determines eternal destinies – and that is true – but my question is, What ***enables*** anyone to be transferred from being united to Adam to Christ? (I am not asking *whether* we are joined to Adam - this question is for those in the Reformed Protestant category, for whom that is a given.) I thought Romans chapter 5 spoke of our “being justified ***by his blood***… reconciled ***by the death of his Son***… saved ***by his life***” (vs. 9-10). When it speaks of obedience, it is Christ having been ***“obedient unto death, even the death of the cross”***, surely? **Is there anywhere in the entire Bible that states we have union with Christ through his obedience to the Law?** Yet if people believe that, is it no wonder they get pulled into legalistic doubts?

This paper [*The Priority of Mandaean Tropes Generally Considered Derivative of Christian and Islamic Influences*](https://www.academia.edu/32005295/The_Priority_of_Mandaean_Tropes_Generally_Considered_Derivative_of_Christian_and_Islamic_Influences) seems to show that [Mandaenism](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mandaeism) influenced a lot of Christianity and Islam, as we see many parallels between the texts, instead of the reverse claim (which the paper calls "standard model") that Islam and Christianity influenced the *Ginza Rabba* text. **How would Christianity evaluate whether this claim is correct?**

CATECHISM OF THE CATHOLIC CHURCH SECOND EDITION > 103: For this reason, the Church has always venerated the Scriptures as she **venerates the Lord's Body**. She never ceases to present to the faithful the bread of life, taken from the one table of God's Word and Christ's Body.

So says Matt. 19:24--- > It is easier for a camel to pass through the eye of a needle, than for a rich man to enter into the kingdom of heaven. QUESTION: I would like to know who (if any) among the **non-royal laity** have been canonized by the Catholic Church who died a natural death (i.e., not martyred) as a lay person in an economic state that might be considered well-to-do or better? (I am interested in canonized Saints who fit this criteria; nevertheless, if anyone is aware of a well-to-do individual whose cause for Sainthood has been opened, I would like to know of that individual(s) as well.) *Remark:* I have not been able to think of one such individual. I know that the Ven. Leo Dupont was born wealthy and did many wonderful things with his money, much of which he spent on charitable and pious endeavors. I don't believe that he died poor. However, he still has not been declared a Saint in the Catholic Church.

Belief in an immortal soul seems quite common in Christianity although some denominations do not seem to believe in this. What specific scriptures, and scriptural arguments, are used by those that do not believe in humans having an immortal soul separate from the body? **Update:** this is not a duplicate of this other question because this one is specifically asking for support for the opposite viewpoint. Additionally the other question has only answers which support the idea that humans **do** have a soul. If this **has** to be scoped to a particular denomination, I choose Jehovah's Witnesses.

For reference, here's Luke 13:28, ESV: > In that place there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth, when you see Abraham and Isaac and Jacob and all the prophets in the kingdom of God but you yourselves cast out. All remaining references to the place of weeping and gnashing of teeth leads to the idea that "that place" is hell. References are as follows: >Matthew 8:12 > >But the subjects of the kingdom will be thrown outside, into the darkness, where there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth.” >Matthew 13:42 > >They will throw them into the blazing furnace, where there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth. >Matthew 13:50 > >and throw them into the blazing furnace, where there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth. >Matthew 22:13 > >“Then the king told the attendants, ‘Tie him hand and foot, and throw him outside, into the darkness, where there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth.’ >Matthew 24:51 > >He will cut him to pieces and assign him a place with the hypocrites, where there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth. >Matthew 25:30 > >And throw that worthless servant outside, into the darkness, where there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth.’

My understanding is that the concept of Hell can have multiple interpretations. Some see it as a temporary purgatorial state or as a state of separation from god. My question focuses on Christian beliefs where Hell is characterized as a place of eternal conscious torment. Do Christians holding such beliefs see the idea of infinite torment in response to finite sin as generally compatible with that of a loving, just, or benevolent creator? Is there a consensus on how to reflect on this issue? What bothers me about the idea of eternal punishment is that it would actually be better for a person to die as soon as they are baptized, since that would drastically reduce the possibility of being sentenced to Hell. The person might end up in Heaven anyway, but getting a few comparatively fleeting conscious moments in exchange for a higher risk of infinite pain looks to be an insanely poor deal. (For the sake of argument, we may ignore the denominations which believe that damnation is pre-determined)

I just heard on [the loopCast](https://open.spotify.com/episode/72M8UH1L74eYIRfh2R9Ngn?si=8875c901459745a0) that the Jefferson diocese banned the following hymns from use at churches: - All Are Welcome - Ashes - Bread of Life - Celtic Alleluia - Covenant Hymn - For the Healing of the Nations - God Has Chosen Me - Haleluya! We Sing Your Praises - Led By the Spirit - Many and Great - Table of Plenty - Three Days https://diojeffcity.org/blog/2024/10/28/decree-prohibiting-certain-hymns-and-listing-suggested-mass-settings/ I understand the banned composers are under suspicion of some sort of malfeasance, but what was the reason for banning these songs? I don't love many of them, but I do love "Table of Plenty" - especially the John Michael Talbot version. Are these songs just bad for liturgy or are they bad in general? And what in particular is bad about each of these songs?

A mortal sin requires 3 things: grave matter, full knowledge, and deliberate consent. As finite beings, we cannot fully know God--this is stated by the apophatic tradition which includes Aquinas and Dionysus the Areopagite. Thus, we cannot know with absolute certainty what God considers a grave matter. The Catholic Church has not put together an infallible list of grave matters. Even if we were sure that God considered something a grave matter, we could not be absolutely sure that any specific act is an example of that grave matter. Stabbing someone in one instance is murder; in another, it is surgery. Is sex with a concubine adultery? We cannot know all the subconscious drives or instincts which contribute to any of our decisions. We are not in absolute control of our actions. Much of our choice is based on unconscious survival instincts of which we are not aware inherited from our ancestors. Untreated PTSD can trigger violent acts. We don't know how much systemic or cultural forces are contributing to our choice. For instance, stealing drugs when there is no national program to reduce prices might be a mitigating factor. I might not be aware of my racism because I'm living in a racist community. We can't overcome our limited knowledge of God. We can't fully know the nature of any specific act. Psychology and social science show we are not in full control of any of our decisions. No amount of deliberation can overcome unconscious or cultural forces. We cannot, of our own will, overcome concupiscence. Therefore, finite beings cannot fulfill the conditions for mortal sin. Right?

If a person wasn't repentant (sorry for their sins and living sinfully still) when they got baptized/confirmed/received the Eucharist in a cathedral but later on they repent (feel sorry for their sins) do all they have to do now is go to confession? Are they a valid catholic? Can you cite some sources too if you can please. Thanks.

[Leonard Susskind - Wikipedia](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leonard_Susskind) : > Leonard Susskind (/ˈsʌskɪnd/; born June 16, 1940) is an American theoretical physicist, Professor of theoretical physics at Stanford University and founding director of the Stanford Institute for Theoretical Physics. His research interests are string theory, quantum field theory, quantum statistical mechanics and quantum cosmology. He is a member of the US National Academy of Sciences, and the American Academy of Arts and Sciences, an associate member of the faculty of Canada's Perimeter Institute for Theoretical Physics, and a distinguished professor of the Korea Institute for Advanced Study. Susskind was interviewed for the program [Closer to Truth](https://closertotruth.com/video/susle-002/?referrer=8041) , where he explained his reasons for *agnosticism* regarding the question of God’s existence. The video lasts 7 minutes (you need to click on the *Long Video* option in the *FORMATS* section), but below is my attempt to summarize the essence of his reasons for being agnostic: > Susskind is agnostic about God because, if God exists, He remains hidden behind a metaphorical "curtain" of knowledge. In front of this curtain lies all the scientific understanding we have accumulated from studying nature, while behind it are open questions we have yet to answer—such as the origin of the universe, what happened before the Big Bang, and so forth. Susskind believes we currently have no way to investigate these mysteries, including the concept of God. For him, God is a hypothesis that cannot be confirmed or falsified by any known scientific means. Since the question of God remains undecidable and beyond our current ways of acquiring knowledge, Susskind remains agnostic. Are there Christian responses to this agnostic perspective, which views God as a mysterious hypothesis hidden "behind a curtain" and beyond the reach of scientific investigation? What might Christians suggest to someone like Susskind, a theoretical physicist, as a meaningful way to "investigate" God beyond the limits of scientific inquiry?