Genesis 27 > 15And Rebekah took the finest clothes in the house that belonged to > her older son Esau, and she put them on her younger son Jacob. 16She > also put the skins of the young goats on his hands and on the smooth > part of his neck. 17Then she handed her son Jacob the tasty food and > bread she had made. > > 18So Jacob went to his father and said, “My father.” > > “Here I am!” he answered. “Which one are you, my son?” > > 19Jacob said to his father, “I am Esau, your firstborn. I have done as > you told me. Please sit up and eat some of my game, so that you may > bless me.” > > 20But Isaac asked his son, “How did you ever find it so quickly, my > son?” > > “Because the LORD your God brought it to me,” he replied. In the description above, Jacob and his mother clearly conspire to steal Esau's birthright blessing. We also remember that Jacob took advantage of Esau's hunger by selling him a pot of stew for his birthright prior to this. Jacob even lies when asked how he managed to get the game so soon telling his father that God provided it. 1. How does one reconcile that Jacob obtained the birthright with conspiracy, lies and deceit? In considering your answer note Isaiah 61...particularly Verses 10&11 > The Year of the LORD’s Favor (Luke 4:16–30) > > 1The Spirit of the Lord GOD is on Me, > > because the LORD has anointed Me > > to preach good news to the poor. > > He has sent Me to bind up the brokenhearted, > > to proclaim liberty to the captives > > and freedom to the prisoners,a > > 2to proclaim the year of the LORD’s favorb > > and the day of our God’s vengeance, > > to comfort all who mourn, > > 3to console the mourners in Zion— > > to give them a crown of beauty for ashes, > > the oil of joy for mourning, > > and a garment of praise for a spirit of despair. > > So they will be called oaks of righteousness, > > the planting of the LORD, that He may be glorified. > > 4They will rebuild the ancient ruins; > > they will restore the places long devastated; > > they will renew the ruined cities, > > the desolations of many generations. > > 5Strangers will stand and feed your flocks, > > and foreigners will be your plowmen and vinedressers. > > 6But you will be called the priests of the LORD; > > they will speak of you as ministers of our God; > > you will feed on the wealth of nations, > > and you will boast in their riches. > > 7Instead of shame, My people will have a double portion, > > and instead of humiliation, they will rejoice in their share; > > and so they will inherit a double portion in their land, > > and everlasting joy will be theirs. > > 8For I, the LORD, love justice; > > I hate robbery and iniquity; > > in My faithfulness I will give them their recompense > > and make an everlasting covenant with them. > > 9Their descendants will be known among the nations, > > and their offspring among the peoples. > > All who see them will acknowledge > > that they are a people the LORD has blessed. > > > 10I will rejoice greatly in the LORD, > > > > my soul will exult in my God; > > > > for He has clothed me with garments of salvation > > > > and wrapped me in a robe of righteousness And the description Paul gives us in Hebrews chapter 4:16 > 16Let us therefore come boldly to the throne of grace, that we may > obtain mercy and find grace to help in time of need. There seems to be a similarity there, Jacob covered his true identity with skins and the saved do the same in the judgement. However Jacob doeent appear to me to have walked in boldly before his father...he was terrified he might be found out! Also, after the blessing was given and the deception revealed, Jacob spent many years in excile fearing for his life...he was worried his brother would find him and kill him. It seems to me that the blessing did not serve any purpose for Jacob until he recieved the forgiveness of his brother many years later (God changed his name to Israel around that time). Given the above, how do we reconcile that Jacob clearly engaged in sinful behaviour in order to recieve the promise of salvation and thatin the example given in Hebrews, a little trickery is still manifest in that we take on those same sheep skins seemingly to hide our true nature and obtain grace?

In short: **Are Baptists generally for or against going to war?** It seems Baptists have a general freedom in their personal beliefs. Is there a general consensus on going to war or avoiding it?

This question is based on [chapter 23](https://archive.org/details/searchforchristi0000hans/page/790/mode/2up?view=theater) of the 1988 book by R.P.C. Hanson - *The Search for the Christian Doctrine of God: The Arian Controversy, 318-381*. "RH" in the quotes below refers to this book. He describes the conditions leading up to the Council of Constantinople in 381 in that chapter. Theodosius' Edicts ------------------ In the year before that council, emperor Theodosius made the Trinity doctrine the state religion of the Roman Empire and outlawed all other forms of Christianity. His edicts describe the theology of the Roman Empire as follows: > “In February 380 … His subjects were ordered to believe 'the single > divinity of Father, Son and Holy Spirit within (sub) an equal majesty > and an orthodox (pia) Trinity'. Heretics would be punished.” (RH, 804) > > “On January 10th (381 - still before the council meeting) Theodosius issued an edict ... The correct Nicene faith was described … as: 'He who professes the > Nicene faith … who confesses God Almighty and Christ his Son in one > Name … who does not blaspheme the Holy Spirit … by denying him … the > undivided substance … of the pure Trinity” (RH, 805) My question is, which theologian advised Theodosius? Clearly, it was a Pro-Nicene theologian but Hanson describes two factions in the pro-Nicene camp in the period leading up to Theodosius’ edicts. The question is, which of those two factions advised Theodosius? The Two Factions ---------------- “Determined, but sadly ineffectual efforts were made by Basil of Caesarea to bring about reconciliation and consensus in the East and between the East and the West between the years 371 and 377.” (RH, 797) However, that was not limited to disagreements between Pro-Nicene and Anti-Nicenes. Hanson's focus is specifically on two factions within the Pro-Nicene camp. He spends a few pages on what he calls an “apparently fruitless interchange between these two eminent men (Damasus and Basil)." (RH, 800) Both of them were pro-Nicene. The leaders of the one faction were mainly Damasus, bishop of Rome, and Athanasius. On the other side was mainly Basil, bishop of Caesarea. For example: > Hanson refers to an “apparently fruitless interchange between these > two eminent men (Damasus and Basil).” (RH, 800) Hanson says that the dispute was partly due to personalities: > “We have already had occasion to remark upon at once the resemblance > and the incompatibility of their temperaments.” Basil described > Damasus as “a haughty man.” (RH, 800) “Simonetti says of Damasus, > 'authoritarian and superficial.” (RH, 800) But I will show below that the main reason for this split within the Pro-Nicene camp was that Damasus and Athanasius were one hypostasis (One Reality or Person) theologians while Basil believed in three hypostases (three Realities or Persons). Evidence of Conflict -------------------- The following confirms that Damasus and Basil opposed one another: > Damasus stated “that Basil's letters addressed to the West were > returned as unacceptable.” (RH, 798) > > “A confession of faith (was sent) from Damasus which Basil was to sign > without altering a single word.” “Basil replied to this demand in a > polite but biting letter.” (RH, 798) Basil and Athanasius also opposed one another: > “Basil writes letters to Athanasius asking him to approach Damasus and > assist Basil's overtures. None of them was answered and nothing came > of them.” (RH, 797) Three Hypostases ---------------- The following shows that, while Damasus was a one hypostasis theologian, Basil and his friend Meletius believed in three hypostases: > In a letter to Basil, “Damasus sent a very cool reply … conveying a > considerable theological statement on the ousia and the personae which > deliberately avoided making any statement about **the three hypostases**. > It was the adhesion of Basil, Meletius and their followers to this > doctrine of the hypostases which caused Damasus … to suspect them of > heresy.” (RH, 798) The Bishop of Antioch ===================== The two factions disagreed about who the rightful bishop of Antioch was. This also reveals that the dispute was primarily about the number of hypostases in the Godhead. Damasus and Athanasius supported Paulinus because he was a 'one hypostasis' theologian, while Basil opposed Paulinus for that same reason. Damasus’ support for Paulinus: ------------------------------ > In 375, Damasus wrote a letter which “constituted also an official > recognition of Paulinus, not Meletius, as bishop of Antioch.” (RH, > 799) > > Paulinus was “Marcellan/Sabellian.” (RH, 799) He derived “his > tradition in continuity from Eustathius who had been bishop about > forty years before” (RH, 800-1). > > "The fragments of Eustathius that survive present a doctrine that is > close to Marcellus, and to Alexander and Athanasius. Eustathius > insists **there is only one hypostasis**.“ (LA, 69) Athanasius’ support for Paulinus: --------------------------------- Basil and Athanasius also disputed over who the rightful bishop of Antioch was; Meletius or Paulinus: > “Basil would not desert Meletius and Athanasius would not recognize > him (Meletius) as bishop of Antioch.” (RH, 797) > > Paulinus “was recognized as legitimate bishop of Antioch by > Athanasius. Later, Athanasius' successor Peter extended the same > recognition to him and persuaded Damasus to do the same.” (RH, 801) Damasus was a generation younger than Athanasius but note the link in the previous quote between them through Athanasius' successor Peter. This is confirmed by the following quote: > “In May 373 Athanasius died, Peter his successor was driven out, fled > to Rome, and proceeded to poison the mind of Damasus against Basil and > Meletius.” (RH, 798) Basil opposed Paulinus ---------------------- But Basil opposed Paulinus because Paulinus taught only one hypostasis: > “Paulinus was a rival of Basil's friend and ally Meletius. … Basil > suspected that Paulinus was at heart a Sabellian, believing in only > one Person (hypostasis) in the Godhead. Paulinus' association with the > remaining followers of Marcellus and his continuing to favour the > expression 'one hypostasis' … rendered him suspect.” (RH, 801) This quote also confirms that Basil believed in three hypostases. See also my question: [Did the Cappadocians teach one or two substances?] Support for Marcellans ====================== The theologies of Damasus, Athanasius, and Basil are also reflected in their support or opposition to the Marcellans. The ”watch-word” of “these disciples of Marcelius … had always been 'only one hypostasis in the Godhead'.” (RH, 802) Since they believed in only one hypostasis, Damasus and Athanasius supported the Marcellans: > Basil wrote a letter which “contained some shafts directed at Damasus > because of his toleration of Eustathius and the Marcellans.” (RH, 799) > > “Basil was never sure in his own mind that Athanasius had abandoned > Marcellus of Ancyra and his followers.” (RH, 797) > > “In a letter written to Athanasius he (Basil of Caesarea) complains > that the Westerners have never brought any accusation against > Marcellus.” (RH, 802) > > “About the year 371 adherents of Marcellus approached Athanasius, > presenting to him a statement of faith. … He accepted it and gave them > a document expressing his agreement with their doctrine.” (RH, 801) The Question ------------ So, given these two factions within the Pro-Nicene camp; one supporting three hypostases (Basil and Meletius) and one supporting only one hypostasis (Athanasius and Damasus), on which of these two factions did Theodosius rely for his theology? Given Theodosius' description of the Trinity doctrine in the imperial edicts, was Theodosius' theology similar to Damasus' one hypostasis theology or Basil's three hypostasis theology?

We see in Mtt 19:21( NRSVCE), the definitive answer Jesus gave to the rich young man who had come to him seeking eternal life: >Jesus said to him, ‘If you wish to be perfect, go, sell your possessions, and give the money to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven; then come, follow me.’. Note the instructions that Jesus gives: first, sell the material possession and then give the proceeds to the poor. In case the man was asked to lease out , free of rent, his property say agricultural land to poor farmers, he would be in a position to review his decision and reclaim the property on a later date. But, selling up means that he would have no further claim on the property. No wonder the young man left sad- faced ! Many Catholic churches across the world have significant measure of real estate holdings, much of which may have been received on donation at the time of the church-construction from the then rulers and benefactors. Administrative rules and regulations of the area have come to curtail their possession to a great extent. Of course, locally constructed churches incur expenses on upkeep and salaries of staff, which they meet out of the revenue from immovable property. So, you can never expect a church administration to sell out its property and distribute the proceedings to the poor. But then, was the 'Sell up and Serve formula' that Jesus prescribed, the outcome of a stand-alone incident ? My question is: what is the significance of Jesus' formula of 'Sell up and Serve' in Matthew 19 to Church- run organisations ?

Why did God rest on the seventh day? Resting on the seventh day is from the biblical creation story in Genesis. After creating the world in six days, God rested on the seventh, which is seen as a model for humans to follow—a rhythm of work and rest. It's not so much about God needing a break, but about teaching the importance of rest and reflection.

I recently took a "plunge" into the Jewish SE and noticed a very strong anti-christian sentiment from some of the active and "vocal" members. Some of this was my own reaction, but when viewed by others they agreed (in varying amounts) that it was anti-christian. To be fair, they are supposed to not allow the temptation of idolatry even start at all. (To the point of not even enjoying the physical beauty of a church) They view the New Testament as "sly" and "sneaky" full of references to make the jewish people seem lesser or cursed. As well as many other things. Some of this was likely due to a generalization against Christians, because of bad people who twisted scripture one way or the other. That type of thing does happen and it is invariably a regrettable fruit of having no spiritual guidance. And as much fun as it would be to "rip apart" the protestants or the "crusaders" that is not going to help anyone either. (And yes, nazi's were evil, stalin was also evil and worse, ho hum, off topic) I can understand the original animosity from Jews towards Christians. After all we are "jewish heretics" from their perspective. And that part is perfectly understandable. And I can understand the early church being very hostile towards jewish religious leaders, considering they had been hunted by them before that, and they outright rejected the Messiah. But... I mean... oh just read some of it and maybe it makes a little bit of sense why they feel like they have been "persecuted" for 2000+ years. > St John Chrysostom: Adversus Jedaeos (Against the Jews) Homily 1. > I > > (4) And so I wanted again today to engage in that contest. *For if the enemies of the truth never have enough of blaspheming our Benefactor, we must be all the more tireless in praising the God of all.* But what am I to do? Another very serious illness calls for any cure my words can bring, an illness which has become implanted in the body of the Church. We must first root this ailment out and then take thought for matters outside; we must first cure our own and then be concerned for others who are strangers. > >(5) What is this disease? The festivals of the pitiful and miserable Jews are soon to march upon us one after the other and in quick succession: the feast of Trumpets, the feast of Tabernacles, the fasts. There are many in our ranks who say they think as we do. Yet some of these are going to watch the festivals and others will join the Jews in keeping their feasts and observing their fasts. I wish to drive this perverse custom from the Church right now. My homilies against the Anomians can be put off to another time, and the postponement would cause no harm. But now that the Jewish festivals are close by and at the very door, if I should fail to cure those who are sick with **the Judaizing disease**. I am afraid that, because of their ill-suited association and deep ignorance, *some Christians may partake in the Jews' transgressions*; once they have done so, I fear my homilies on these transgressions will be in vain. For if they hear no word from me today, they will then join the Jews in their fasts; once they have committed this sin it will be useless for me to apply the remedy. > >(6) And so it is that I hasten to anticipate this danger and prevent it. This is what physicians do. They first check the diseases which are most urgent and acute. But the danger from this sickness is very closely related to the danger from the other; since the Anomians impiety is akin to that of the Jews, my present conflict is akin to my former one. And there is a kingship because the Jews and the Anomians make the same accusation. And what charges do the Jews make? That He called God His own Father and so made Himself equal to God. The Anomians also make this charge-I should not say they make this a charge; they even blot out the phrase "equal to God" and what it connotes, by their resolve to reject it even if they do not physically erase it. > >II > >But do not be surprised that I called the Jews pitiable. They really are pitiable and miserable. *When so many blessings from heaven came into their hands, they thrust them aside and were at great pains to reject them. The morning Sun of Justice arose for them, but they thrust aside its rays and still sit in darkness.* We, who were nurtured by darkness, drew the light to ourselves and were freed from the gloom of their error. **They were the branches of that holy root, but those branches were broken. We had no share in the root, but we did reap the fruit of godliness.** From their childhood they read the prophets, but they crucified him whom the prophets had foretold. We did not hear the divine prophecies but we did worship him of whom they prophesied. And so they are pitiful because they rejected the blessings which were sent to them, while others seized hold of these blessing and drew them to themselves. Although those Jews had been called to the adoption of sons, they fell to kinship with dogs; we who were dogs received the strength, through God's grace, to put aside the irrational nature which was ours and to rise to the honor of sons. How do I prove this? Christ said: "It is no fair to take the children's bread and to cast it to the dogs". Christ was speaking to the Canaanite woman when He called the Jews children and the Gentiles dogs. Note "The Root" referred to above is from the common practice of grafting, branches can be grafted onto different roots and different fruit bearing trees. Similar to this verse: Romans 11:18 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**. >III > >Many, I know, respect the Jews and think that their present way of life is a venerable one. This is why I hasten to uproot and tear out this deadly opinion. I said that the synagogue is no better than a theater and I bring forward a prophet as my witness. Surely the Jews are not more deserving of belief than their prophets. "You had a harlot's brow; you became shameless before all". Where a harlot has set herself up, that place is a brothel. But the synagogue is not only a brothel and a theater; it also is a den of robbers and a lodging for wild beasts. Jeremiah said: "Your house has become for me the den of a hyena". He does not simply say "of wild beast", but "of a filthy wild beast", and again: "I have abandoned my house, I have cast off my inheritance". But when God forsakes a people, what hope of salvation is left? When God forsakes a place, that place becomes the dwelling of demons. > >(2) But at any rate the Jews say that they, too, adore God. God forbid that I say that. N**o Jew adores God! Who say so? The Son of God say so. For he said: "If you were to know my Father, you would also know me. But you neither know me nor do you know my Father". Could I produce a witness more trustworthy than the Son of God?** > >(3) If, then, the Jews fail to know the Father, if they crucified the Son, if they thrust off the help of the Spirit, **who should not make bold to declare plainly that the synagogue is a dwelling of demons? God is not worshipped there. Heaven forbid! From now on it remains a place of idolatry.** But still some people pay it honor as a holy place. Now I get that St. Chrysostom was... upset to put it mildly. And I think I have not done us much favors by quoting it. But to my understanding he is not saying that he "held a nation" or "held a faith" responsible, and that is not how they used the word "jew" and "race" 2000 years ago either... But given how ... inflammatory this subject can be. It is hard to find any proper information, because if you search for it you overwhelmingly get results based on the modern climate. Ultimately the question I have are the following: 1. Is christianity in the modern sense "anti-semitic"? I don't believe so. 2. Is early christianity "anti-jew"? I feel like it has to be... A defense for St. John Chrysostom, the most outspoken church father against "jews" would be nice. But that is a historical issue. Answers should include your personal theological inclination at the start or end, so things are clear and easy to understand. (aka: which church are you from?) Note: I did not pick a particular denomination, this is because I am out of tags. Answers from the perspective of churches who have apostolic succession are preferred, but if a protestant has an answer I won't refuse.

I would like to know how does Calvinism differ from Independent Fundamental Baptist teachings. If someone can point main differences in a form of points (f.e. 1st point, 2nd point and so on for Calvinism, and then the same for Baptists). I would also like to know their Definition of Faith and exegesis. I would very much appreciate if you could be specific and thorough in your answers. Thank you. I know that it could be found on internet, but it is very hard to find the right examples (maybe organizations is a better word; or churches), so I plead for your help.

Christians believe Jesus is God's son (God forbid) ontologically, yet they can't answer begetting is a biological process and continue to use filial terms literally? The question is why such huge contradictions in their foundational belief? Accordingly, their criticism on quranic refutation which is not directly addressing them "How can he have a son without consort (female)" is false. Can they address this?

"Now the angel of the Lord came up from Gilgad to Bochim, And he said, "I brought you up out of Egypt and led you into the land which I have sworn to your fathers; and I said, I will never break My covenant with you." Then at Judges 2:5, "So they named that place Bochim and there they sacrificed to the Lord." Going back to Exodus 20:1-3, Then God spoke all these words, saying, Verse 2, I am the Lord your God, who brought you out of the land of Egypt, out of the house of slavery. Verse 3, "You shall have no other gods before Me." The covenant referred to can be found at Genesis 17:1-7. "Now when Abram was ninety-nine years old, the Lord appeared to Abram and said to him, "I am God Almighty; Walk befor3e Me, and be blameless, verse 2, And I will establish My covenant between Me and you, And I will multiply you exceedingly." Verse 3, And Abram fell on his face, and God talked with him, saying, verse 4, As for Me, behold, My covenant is with you, And you shall be the father of a multitude of nations. verse 5, No longer shall your name be called Abram, But you name shall be Abraham; For I will make you the father of a multitude of nations. Verse 6, And I will make you exceedingly fruitful, and I will make nations of you, and kings shall come forth from you. verse 7, And I will establish My covenant between Me and you and your descendants after you throughout their generations for an everlasting covenant, to be God to you and to your descendants after you." This covenant is further amplified at Genesis 22 where the Lord tested Abraham to sacrifice his son Isaac. At Genesis 22:10 Abraham stretched out his hand, and took the knife to slay his son." Verse 11, BUT the angel of the Lord called to him from heaven, and said, "Abraham, Abraham!" And he said, Here I am." Verse 12, "Do not stretch out your hand against the lad, and do nothing to him; for now I know that you fear God, since you have not withheld your son, your only son from Me." At verse 15, Then the angel of the Lord called to Abraham a second time from heaven, verse 16, and said, "By Myself I have sworn, declares the Lord because you have done this thing, and have not withheld your son, your only son, verse 17, indeed I will greatly multiply your seed as the stars of the heavens, and as the sand which is on the seashore; and your seed shall possess the gate of their enemies. Verse 18, And in your seed all the nations of the earth shall be blessed, because you have obeyed My voice." The New Testament at Hebrews 6:13-16 clearly identifies and confirms who swore the oath. "For when God made the promise to Abraham, since He could swear by no one greater, He swore by Himself, verse 14, saying, "I will surely bless you, and I will surely multiply you." Notice what verse 16 states, "For men swear by one greater than themselves, and with them an oath give as confirmation is an end of every dispute. In taking oaths, men swear by God who is greater than they are. They do so in order to convince other men that they are truthful and intend to abide by their promises. So getting back to the question? Why does Judges 2:1 say the angel of the Lord would never break his covenant he swore to the fathers?

I am trying to establish whether early church fathers such as Irenaeus and Justin Martyr understood the expression “born of water” in John 3:5 to mean water baptism. Are there any writings up to and including the ante-Nicene church fathers that support the view that a person has to be baptised in water in order to enter into the kingdom of heaven? [This article](https://www.gotquestions.org/born-of-water.html) presents two views of what John 3:5 means. One is that “born of water” refers to physical birth and that is how Nicodemus interpreted the words of Jesus. He questioned how such a thing could happen to a grown person. Jesus said that a person had to be “born of water and the Spirit”. >The other perspective is that “born of water and the Spirit” refers to spiritual cleansing. The re-birth, or the new birth, which means to be “born again”, is a spiritual rebirth. Whereas people once-born have physical life, a person twice-born has eternal life (John 3:15–18, 36; 17:3; 1 Peter 1:23). **How does the Catholic Church interpret the expression “born of water”?**

Are there any Christian denominations that teach a complementarian view of opposite-sex marriages (the husband should lead and the wife should submit), while also recognizing same-sex marriages? If so, do they teach that one spouse in a same-sex marriage should submit to the other, or that both have equal roles?

I was watching a video series on the Rosary at a men's group this morning and they were talking about all the popes on the walls at the [Basilica of St. Paul Outside the Walls](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Basilica_of_Saint_Paul_Outside_the_Walls) and it was mentioned that it was super cool that all the Popes were on the walls - I think the portraits of the Popes roughly matches what is [on the scrollbar of the vatican.va site](https://christianity.stackexchange.com/q/86360/10672) . What I'm wondering (and this is not wholly idle speculation because maybe when they run out of space we'll be at the last Pope and that'll mark the eschaton) is how many spaces do they have left and is there a plan for where they'd put popes if they do run out of space? I've never been there before so maybe I'm off base and there are choirs of popes and they won't have a problem for 3000 years, but I think the question can still be answered either way.

The famous verse 1 Timothy 2:12 is widely referenced in discussions regarding women church leaders: > I do not permit a woman to teach or to have authority over a man; she > must be silent. My specific question is when Paul says "I do ..." why is this seen as instructional to the global church by those who hold that view, rather than him recounting what _he_ does? Is Paul viewed as inerrant when he _does_ give instruction?

In the beginning when God instituted marriage, He commanded Adam and Eve to multiply and fill the whole world. Both the Old and New Testaments are initiated by marriage contexts, Adam and Eve were married and Jesus who is the savior is born into a marriage headed by Joseph and Mary. These two contexts show how marriage is of value in the scripture. *Genesis 1:28* >Then God blessed them, and God said to them, “Be fruitful and multiply; fill the earth and subdue it; have dominion over the fish of the sea, over the birds of the air, and over every living thing that moves on the earth.” When God said those words, it meant every human being who is capable of marriage should fulfill that obligation to populate the world, but then Paul taught that marriage is optional, and one should be married when overcome with passion. Why would marriage be optional when every man is commanded to leave his parents and be joined to his wife? *Genesis 2:24* >Therefore a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, and they shall become one flesh. Genesis 2:24

When confessing mortal sins do you have to name specific instances or just the sin in general? For example, if the sin was endangerment of human life and you did this in different ways on two completely unrelated occasions, would you have to describe them both or could you just say endangerment of human life?

In The Wesleyan Quadrilateral we see Wesley had four ways of reflecting on a passage: * Scripture * Tradition * Reason * Experience If I squint a bit - this seems to follow Aristotle's Modes of Persuasion : 1. Logos from Reason 2. Ethos(Authority) from Tradition 3. Pathos(Emotion) from Experience My question is: **What were the origins of The Wesleyan Quadrilateral?**

I assume the Jehovah's Witnesses church has structure and organization for its membership. Who are the leaders of the Jehovah's Witnesses, and what is their role? From whom do members receive guidance and counsel?

I was recently reading Hebrews 3:7 and was struck by how remarkble it is that the author attributes Psalm 95 directly to the Holy Spirit. Similarly, Hebrews 1 attributes many other OT passages to God directly. And most famously, 2nd Timothy 3:16 says that all Scripture (presumably referring to the OT) is "God-breathed". Modern Christians (including myself) of most denominations would be perfectly comfortable saying similar things of the NT, either that it is divinely inspired or quoting it as "the Holy Spirit says..." **I am wondering, when was this belief in divine inspiration of the NT explicitly stated?** To be clear what I mean by "explicit", I am not referring to the inference that might be made from 2nd Peter 3:16 and 1st Timothy 5:18 calling other parts of the NT "Scripture". I am also not referring to the belief that the quotations of Jesus are spoken by God, as that would be an affirmation of his divinity (or at the very least, his status as a prophet) and not of the divine origin of the Bible itself. I am looking for some instance where a Christian writer expressly says that some part of the New Testament was spoken by God or the Holy Spirit, when (in context) it is not a quotation from God, Jesus, or the Holy Spirit. Something akin to the example either of Hebrews 3:7 with a specific statement, or 2nd Timothy 3:16 with a blanket declaration of divine origin and authority for some or all of the NT. ***Edit in response to some confusion:*** This is a historical question, not a theological question. I am not asking *whether* the NT is inspired, nor am I asking what in the NT leads the reader to believe that, but rather I am asking when (that we have direct evidence of) this inspiration was first recognized.

How do Calvinists explain Luke 19:41-44: > 41 And when he drew near and saw the city, **he wept over it**, 42 > saying, “Would that you, even you, had known on this day the things > that make for peace! But now they are hidden from your eyes. 43 For > the days will come upon you, when your enemies will set up a barricade > around you and surround you and hem you in on every side 44 and tear > you down to the ground, you and your children within you. And they > will not leave one stone upon another in you, because you did not know > the time of your visitation.” Why would Jesus weep for non-elect people if He Himself willfully passed over them when He elected people unto salvation before the foundation of the world?

I would like to expand my theological library, but I don't have a strong background in Reformed theology. Which theological term dictionaries are most commonly used in academia? Thanks in advance.