The Jehovah's witness' version of the bible the NWT translates these verses as: >58 Jesus said to them: “Most truly I say to you, before Abraham came into existence, **I have been**.” 59 So they picked up stones to throw at him, but Jesus hid and went out of the temple. (emphasis added) KJV,ESV,NIV,NRSV,NASB all translate the bold section in v58 as "**I am**", (source ) which on the surface, seems to be a direct reference to the way God revealed himself to Moses at the burning bush: >13 Moses said to God, “Suppose I go to the Israelites and say to them, ‘The God of your fathers has sent me to you,’ and they ask me, ‘What is his name?’ Then what shall I tell them?” 14 God said to Moses, “**I am who I am**. This is what you are to say to the Israelites: ‘**I am** has sent me to you.’” - Ex 3:14-15 NIV (emphasis added, cf. v14 in different versions ) As such, it would seem logical for the Jews to want to stone Jesus for (in their eyes) blasphemy. This Q&A on the biblical hermeneutics site addresses which translation of those particular words is preferable, so I don't wish to re-hash that ground, but to ask, given the sense imparted by the following verse (i.e. that the Jews regarded what Jesus was saying as blasphemous) how can it be logically maintained that Jesus was not referencing the name (or title, or description - that particular distinction should be irrelevant) of God as revealed to Moses at the burning bush and applying it to himself?

I understand that N.T. Wright, an Anglican Bishop, has been promoting this teaching in evangelical churches. [*Source*](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/N._T._Wright) >According to Wright, "Paul in the twentieth century, then, has been used and abused much as in the first. Can we, as the century draws towards its close, listen a bit more closely to him? Can we somehow repent of the ways we have mishandled him and respect his own way of doing things a bit more?" Sounds eminently reasonable to me. However, after reading [this section](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/N._T._Wright#Views) re on his theological views, I found myself somewhat confused, and so I would appreciate a simplified summary of what he says about Justification, Righteousness, Covenant and works of the Law. [This article](https://www.gotquestions.org/New-Perspective-Paul.html) from the *GotQuestions* website presents arguments against the New Perspective on Paul, as does John Piper's 2007 book [The Future of Justification: A Response to N. T. Wright](https://www.amazon.com/gp/product/1581349645) . I understand that Wright has addressed the issue of Justification in his 2009 book [*Justification: God’s Plan and Paul's Vision*](https://www.amazon.com/dp/0830851399) , but I do not have access to it. A very brief summary of his reply can be read in a [2009 interview by Trevin Wax](https://www.thegospelcoalition.org/blogs/trevin-wax/interview-with-nt-wright-responding-to-piper-on-justification/) , where he refers the reader to a fuller response in his book [Paul: In Fresh Perspective](https://www.amazon.com/dp/0800663578) .

A member of my Australian home group told us that he attended a Catholic mass many years ago. He was shocked when the priest consumed the bread and wine, but didn’t give any bread and wine to the congregation during mass. Would this have been a special event that my friend wasn’t aware of and was never explained to him?

The latest 2022 census of Religion in Scotland shows that there has been an increase from 28% of non-religious people in Scotland (in 2001) to 51.1% (in 2022). The largest decrease has come mainly from Protestant denominations with the Church of Scotland having lost 1 million followers since 2001. The census shows that 2,780,980 persons who participated self-identified as having no religious beliefs (51.1%). The total of all the Christians in Scotland who participated in the census is 2,110,405 (38.8%). My specific question relates to the Church of Scotland (which is Protestant) and why 1 million have left the church since 2001. Is there any documentation to explain why this has happened? General apathy and secularism cannot be the reason that the decline in membership is much steeper in the Church of Scotland than in the Catholic Church, for example.

Hans-Joachim Kraus’s monumental work on the Psalms often refers to Hermann Gunkel’s commentary on the Psalms. In his commentary on Psalm 28,2, Kraus writes the following: “H. Gunkel suggests that we supply הביטה: ‘Look up when I lift up my hands. . . . !’” (Hans-Joachim Kraus, Psalm 1-59 (Minneapolis, MN: Crossway, 1993), p. 339). This is suggested to ‘force fit’ a certain meter for verse 2 (“two five-pulse meters”). I couldn’t find a reference anywhere regarding the inclusion of the verb ‘נבט’ (look, consider: (Hiphil)), and the Massoretic Text does not indicate any such variant reading: Basically, I’m looking for any reference of Gunkel’s to his suggested modification to this particular verse in Psalm 28. I believe there are also others examples.

In 1928, [*Tradition and the Church*](https://dn790005.ca.archive.org/0/items/traditionchurch00agiu/traditionchurch00agiu.pdf) by Msgr. George Agius, DD, JCD was published. In 2005, the TAN Publishers [revised it somewhat](https://tanbooks.com/products/books/tradition-and-the-church-the-story-of-sacred-tradition-unfolding-through-the-ages/) , adding, among other things, a Publisher's Preface, and republished it. In that preface, one reads on p. xiv: > The only book in English we know of that discusses the nature of Tradition, *Tradition and the Catholic Church* covers most aspects of the nature of Catholic Tradition, and will be a font of tremendous understanding about the sources of our Faith ... **QUESTION**: Does anyone know of any other Catholic books besides the above that were either written in or translated into English which address in depth, Divine Tradition and the Church?

I was on vacation and the only service I had access to was a SCAP service (Sunday Celebration in the Absence of a Priest). Communion was distributed but they were pre-concentrated hosts (no words of institution during the service). Does this count towards the Sunday obligation? And if not, why is it offered?

When did the concept of a holy day of obligation become part of the Catholic Churches code? It would be particularly helpful to include: 1) any early church fathers who argued missing Sunday Mass could be sinful 2) a distinction if the holy day of obligation was originally just for days like Easter, but then was later expanded to Sundays (dating helpful here)

[Steven J. Lawson](https://www.gracechurch.org/leader/lawson/steven%20j) speaking at the 2013 *Strange Fire* conference in a lecture titled [The Puritan Commitment to *Sola Scriptura*](https://www.gty.org/library/sermons-library/TM13-12/the-puritan-commitment-to-sola-scriptura-steve-lawson) ([video here](https://www.watchagtv.com/videos/tm13-12-dvd-edit-720p-updated-graphics-2021-youtube-2160p-4k-ultra-hd) , transcribed by [Mike Riccardi writing at the Cripplegate blog](https://thecripplegate.com/strange-fire-the-puritan-commitment-to-sola-scriptura-steve-lawson/)) seems to express antagonism and criticism toward both concepts: > They claimed to be receiving new revelations, prophecies. And with that they were being led astray into **hyper-emotionalism and mysticism**. > And out of this commitment to be “open and uncautious” to continuing revelation by the Spirit, they were led into all kinds of **mystical experiences and bizarre patterns**, not the least of which was going naked as a sign. > “All of these ways”—referring to the abuses of the Quakers with the inner light, new revelation, **mystical**, intuitive, subjective impulses—“are uncertain, dangerous, useless, and totally unnecessary. … They must be rejected and shunned.” > What is more bizarre than running around half naked is the outlandish claims and freakish actions of so many in today’s **Charismatic movement**. What we saw during the Q&A today is more bizarre than these women who walked around naked. > He was the personal chaplain to Oliver Cromwell. John Owen Addressed Parliament. This brilliant man gave himself to combat **this Charismatic emotional departure from *sola Scriptura* with its new revelations**. And Owen affirmed the deeper issue, which was *sola Scriptura*. > It would be in 1659 that Owen responded by writing one of his most important works: *A Defense of Sacred Scripture against the Fanatics*. I want to zone in on chapter 3, entitled, “On the Perfection of Scripture.” And Owen will state his case for **the lunacy of the charismatic excesses** based upon the sure foundation of the perfection of the Word of God. > It leaves no room for any new revelations. If you are seeking any of **these Charismatic new-revelations**, it is because you have no understanding of the perfection of the written Word of God. Is Steve Lawson using the concepts of *(Christian) mysticism* and the *charismatic movement* almost interchangeably, or at least with enough overlap between the two to be regarded as equally dangerous to the doctrine of *Sola scriptura* as he understands it? More generally, how much overlap is there between [*Christian mysticism*](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christian_mysticism) and the [*charismatic movement*](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charismatic_movement) ? Does a Charismatic Christian necessarily, by definition, believe in the possibility of mystical experiences? Is a Christian mystic necessarily, by definition, open to the possibility of the [*charismata*](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spiritual_gift) ? Are there any nuances between the two concepts, making them, at least in certain contexts, non-interchangeable?

Some form of pietism and Puritanism are definitely identifiable within the spiritual practice of Evangelicals today, whether theologically they identify as Pentecostal, Wesleyan, Reformed, or Lutheran (in reverse order of appearance). Evangelical theologian Donald Bloesch [identifies 4 characteristics of Evangelical pietism](https://cameronshaffer.com/2022/04/16/evangelicalism-and-pietism-versus-confessionalism/) : - Conversion experience - Bible only for spirituality [typically meditated upon in private or small groups] - Moral earnestness - Social consciousness Two streams of centuries-earlier spirituality are often cited by scholars as the precursors of the current Evangelical practice, described as a fusion by Baptist scholar [Lewis Drummond](https://archives.sbts.edu/the-history-of-the-sbts/our-professors/lewis-drummond/) in his 1980 paper [The Puritan-Pietistic Tradition: Its Meaning, History, and Influence in Baptist Life](https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1177/003463738007700404) : 1. Various streams deriving from [**Pietistic Lutheranism**](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pietism) (excluding fringe ones like the Quakers) flowering in German, Switzerland, Scandinavia, and the Baltics, which can be traced to Martin Luther himself (early 16th century). See [Chapter One: Arnold's Protestant Heritage](https://archive.org/details/pietistsprotesta0000erbp/page/10/mode/2up) of [Peter C. Erb](https://www.librarything.com/author/erbpeter) 's 1989 book (based on his dissertation) [Pietists, Protestants, and mysticism : the use of late Medieval spiritual texts in the work of Gottfried Arnold (1666-1714)](https://www.amazon.com/dp/0810822814) for the story of the early origin of Lutheran Pietism. 1. **Puritan spirituality** of various ecclesiastical stance (but mostly Reformed) starting in the late 16th century with those who were dissatisfied with insufficient reformation in the Church of England, which then flowered outside England in Netherlands and North America. (For an intro see the "Puritan Spirituality" section of ["Chapter 1: Who were the Puritans"](https://www.academia.edu/1803192/Who_Were_the_Puritans_) of the 2004 book [The Devoted Life: An Invitation to the Puritan Classics](https://www.amazon.com/dp/0830827943) edited by Kelly M. Kapic and Randall C. Gleason). My question is for a short history of **how did the 2 types of spirituality from 2 major Protestant theological traditions made their way and got transformed into the characteristic Evangelical spirituality we see in Evangelical churches today**. The answer needs to identify the elements of the practice (such as the 4 above) and show how each element is re-appropriated from the 2 streams into Evangelicalism through a process of theological integration.

Reliabilism is defined by several sources as follows: > Reliabilism is an approach to the nature of knowledge and of justified belief. **Reliabilism about justification, in its simplest form, says that a belief is justified if and only if it is produced by a reliable psychological process, meaning a process that produces a high proportion of true beliefs**. A justified belief may itself be false, but its mode of acquisition (or the way it is subsequently sustained) must be of a kind that typically yields truths. Since random guessing, for example, does not systematically yield truths, beliefs acquired by guesswork are not justified. By contrast, identifying middle-sized physical objects by visual observation is presumably pretty reliable, so beliefs produced in this manner are justified. Reliabilism does not require that the possessor of a justified belief should know that it was reliably produced. Knowledge of reliability is necessary for knowing that a belief is justified, but the belief can be justified without the agent knowing that it is. > > Source: https://www.rep.routledge.com/articles/thematic/reliabilism/v-1 > One of the main goals of epistemologists is to provide a substantive and explanatory account of the conditions under which a belief has some desirable epistemic status (typically, justification or knowledge). **According to the reliabilist approach to epistemology, any adequate account will need to mention the reliability of the process responsible for the belief, or truth-conducive considerations more generally**. Historically, one major motivation for reliabilism—and one source of its enduring interest—is its naturalistic potential. According to reliabilists, epistemic properties can be explained in terms of reliability, which in turn can be understood without reference to any unreduced epistemic notions, such as evidence or knowledge. > > Source: https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/reliabilism/ > A broadly reliabilist theory of knowledge is roughly as follows: > >> One knows that p (p stands for any proposition—e.g., that the sky is blue) if and only if p is true, one believes that p is true, and one has arrived at the belief that p is true through some *reliable* process. > > A broadly reliabilist theory of justified belief can be stated as follows: > >> One has a justified belief that p if, and only if, the belief is the result of a reliable process. > > Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reliabilism Do any Christians adopt a reliabilist approach to their belief in God and Christianity? That is to say, are there any Christians who believe that there is a *reliable process* through which one can reliably arrive at the conclusion that God exists and that Christianity is true? --- NOTE. There is a similar question concurrently asked on Philosophy Stack Exchange: [Can a reliabilist have a reliably justified belief in God?](https://philosophy.stackexchange.com/q/113311/66156)

I previously asked this question: https://christianity.stackexchange.com/questions/101789/is-the-holy-spirit-a-necessary-presupposition-for-repentance What became apparent from that question, however, is that there are many opinions or views on what "repentance" exactly means. So we need find out: 1. What is repentance? 1. What are the various types of repentance? Here are what I can come up with, but feel free to correct me or provide your own definitions. 1. **Repentance as a Non-Believer/Separated from God** To declare a new-found faith in God, confess sins, express genuine remorse, seek God's forgiveness, and commit to transforming one's life according to God's will. - *Example:* A person who has lived without faith comes to believe in God, acknowledges their past wrongdoings, asks for divine forgiveness, and begins to live in accordance with biblical teachings. - *Biblical Example:* The Sinful Woman Anointing Jesus' Feet (Luke 7:36-50) A sinful woman, known in the city, comes to Jesus, weeps at his feet, anoints them with perfume, and wipes them with her hair. Jesus acknowledges her many sins and forgives her, indicating her repentance and sorrow. 2. **Repentance as a Believer with the Holy Spirit** To be convicted of sin by the Holy Spirit, confess it, express sincere remorse, seek forgiveness, and cease the sinful behavior, allowing the Holy Spirit to guide and strengthen the transformation. - *Example:* A believer feels the Holy Spirit's conviction about a specific wrongdoing, confesses it, feels deep sorrow, asks for forgiveness, and relies on the Holy Spirit to overcome the sin. - *Biblical Example:* Peter's Repentance After Denying Jesus (Luke 22:54-62) Peter, a believer and a disciple of Jesus, is convicted by the Holy Spirit after he denies Jesus three times. He remembers Jesus' prediction, feels deep remorse, and weeps bitterly. Peter's repentance leads to a transformation guided by the Holy Spirit, ultimately strengthening his faith and resolve to follow Jesus more faithfully. 3. **Repentance as a Believer on One's Own Initiative** To personally recognize a sin, confess it to God, show genuine remorse, ask for forgiveness, and make a conscious effort to stop the sinful behavior, seeking God's help and strength. - *Example:* A believer realizes they have sinned, confesses it privately to God, feels deep regret, asks for forgiveness, and takes deliberate steps to avoid repeating the sin. - *Biblical Example:* The Conversion of the Prodigal Son (Luke 15:11-32) The prodigal son recognizes his sinful ways after leaving his father and squandering his inheritance. He declares his newfound resolve to return to his father, confesses his sins, expresses genuine remorse, and seeks forgiveness. Upon his return, he is welcomed and forgiven by his father, symbolizing the transformation of his life under God's will. **Other Notes:** 1. Repentance is **not** forgiveness! Humans repent; God forgives and convicts. 2. For each of the provided definitions above, is there another word than "repentance" whose meaning has a better fit with the definition? 3. To repent all sins (particularly those that one is usually not aware of), conviction of the Holy Spirit is necessary. 4. In my opinion, repentance after receiving the Holy Spirit is still necessary. The Holy Spirit does not prevent you from sinning and you can still leave God. 5. I don't mind opinions and definitions from other denominations. While reaching consensus is difficult, we still can learn from other denominations. The accepted answer will be the one that has the most precise and the most biblically well-founded definitions. My question: **Are my definitions accurate? What other definitions of the word "repentance" are there and how valid are they?**

Modalism, or Sabellianism , is the belief that the three persons of the Trinity (God the Father, God the Son, and God the Holy Spirit) are simply three "roles" or "modes" of the same person. This view is labelled as a heresy by many denominations. What are common Biblical and theological arguments against modalism?

I was debating with my Jewish friend on the messiah and one of his objections was that the messiah would be from the direct linage of David and that the messiah could not be adopted into the linage, especially the messianic linage, how would you respond to this?

**Background**: I had a discussion with my church leadership and their position is that without the Holy Spirit there can be no repentance. **The issue in more detail**: My proposal was to do a service where a big chunk of the service is dedicated to writing down your sins, asking God for forgiveness, and throwing that paper in the fire afterwards. I know it's a bit confrontational but I thought, given how important repentance is for the relationship with God, I thought dedicating a service with a special event might be a good idea. - Their objection was that repentance is something that cannot be planned in a service, because to do repentance you need the Holy Spirit, which you cannot control. - My position is that repentance is an act that you as a person do by confessing your sins and asking God for forgiveness. If the Holy Spirit is active and convicts one of sin, then that is nice but it still starts with oneself. I would even go so far as to say that for a full repentance you *do* need the Holy Spirit because one is blind to one's own sin, but I don't think you need the Holy Spirit to start repenting. **Biblical examples**: - In the story of the prodigal son I don't see a passage where the Holy Spirit convicted the son. He found himself in the dirt, went back to his father and showed remorse, and asked for forgiveness. (Luke 15:14-21) - David, when confronted by the prophet Nathan, asked for forgiveness for killing Uriah, which he did without the Holy Spirit. (2 Samuel 12:13) - The Parable of the Tax Collector does not mention the Holy Spirit or anything similar. The important part here is having a remorseful and a humble heart. (Luke 18:9-14) - The guy next to Jesus at the cross also only asked to think of him when Jesus goes to heaven. (Luke 23:40-42) To repeat: I am not saying that the Holy Spirit does not convict people of sin but I do not think He is necessary for repentance. Hence my question: **Is the Holy Spirit necessary for starting repentance?** ----- Edit (since I was asked about the denomination for this question): We are a small church that would classify as Charismatic. However, I am open to and I value the opinions of all denominations, since I think that is one good way to find the actual truth. Furthermore, I think this topic should be basic enough that we can find a consensus beyond a single denomination.

I know that the Patriarch of Constantinople has no binding authority over individual bishops and there is no doctrine of infallibility, but what about the authority that bishops and priests have over lay Orthodox Christians? Are there any teachings one can dissent from or rules one can break and remain in communion? In general, is there more room for divergent viewpoints than there is in the Catholic Church?

Today President Obama came out as the first U.S. president to support gay marriage. In his address, he even quoted scripture to support his change of view. Love him or hate him, it seems clear that he has struggled personally over the issue, which leads me to think that Obama probably personally opposes homosexual behavior, but has come to the conclusion that permitting homosexual marriage is the right thing, and even the Christian thing to do. This question is not about Obama's motives or his personal feelings. I simply bring this up as context, and to help explain the same intellectual struggle I'm dealing with personally. I suspect many Christians find themselves in a similar situation of opposing homosexual behavior, but feeling caught in the debate over whether their moral/personal objection to homosexuality ought to have the force of law. So for this question, I am seeking answers from the view point that homosexual behavior is a sin (there are [many](https://christianity.stackexchange.com/questions/121/what-does-the-bible-say-about-homosexuality) [other](https://christianity.stackexchange.com/questions/381/why-do-some-christians-believe-it-is-moral-to-be-a-homosexual) [questions](https://christianity.stackexchange.com/questions/1086/does-god-create-some-people-heterosexual-and-others-homosexual) that deal with this issue already, so please don't debate this issue here). My question, then, is: *Given that homosexual behavior is considered a sin, what is a Christian's justification for the legal prohibition against homosexual marriage?* I'm hoping for answers that cite Biblical principles, or at minimum theological and doctrinal principles. I'm not interested in "slippery slope" arguments. Strictly "social" justifications ("I don't want my kids growing up in that sort of society," "Legal marriage benefits exist because traditional marriage helps society in ways that homosexual marriage does not," etc), may be valid reasons to have such a view, but I don't consider them *Christian justification*, so I would ask that such answers be omitted here (unless they can some how be tied specifically into Christian doctrine). I'm also curious what, if anything, makes the homosexual marriage issue distinct among other moral issues that are legal, but not condoned by Christian teaching. Adultery, sex outside of marriage, pornography, strip clubs, gambling, smoking, etc. Should a Christian oppose the legality of all of these things as well?

I'm just wondering because I grew up in an Islamic family in Iran and I became a Christian when age 23. Will people who were circumcised in this life (like myself) be circumcised in the next life? Or will we be whole in heaven? Because I really don't want to spend all of eternity missing a body part. Sorry if this sounds like a troll question but I actually genuinely am curious about it.

Some Protestants adhere to the Westminster Confession of faith. This quotation "our full persuasion and assurance of the infallible truth and divine authority thereof, is from the inward work of the Holy Spirit, bearing witness by and with the Word in our hearts." How does the Holy Spirit bear witness to our hearts the infallible truth and divine authority of the Bible? How would one describe and discern that experience? How would one experience such a witness? Thank you.

Was he created evil or did he become evil? If he was someone else and then became evil, when did this happen?