This answer to the question "Is it still prevalent among Roman Catholics to believe that Christ's physical body is present in the Eucharist?" indicates that, according to a 2019 Pew Research survey, as many as 2/3 of self-described Roman Catholics in the U.S. believe that the bread and wine of the Eucharist are merely symbolic of the body and blood of Christ. > majorities in every age group (including 61% of those age 60 and over) believe that the bread and wine are symbols, not the actual body and blood of Christ. In other words, only 1/3 of those in the U.S. who claimed Roman Catholicism in 2019 believed in transubstantiation (that the bread and wine are transformed into the actual body and blood of Christ). It is assumed in this question that the current numbers somewhat similar. > a new Pew Research Center survey finds that most self-described Catholics don’t believe this core teaching (bread and wine become the body and blood of Jesus Christ). In fact, nearly seven-in-ten Catholics (69%) say they personally believe that during Catholic Mass, the bread and wine used in Communion “are symbols of the body and blood of Jesus Christ.” Just one-third of U.S. Catholics (31%) say they believe that “during Catholic Mass, the bread and wine actually become the body and blood of Jesus.” Do self-professed Roman Catholics who disbelieve transubstantiation actually receive the Eucharist when they participate in communion? What I mean is, does the faith of the individual play any role in the proper reception of the Eucharist or is the actual body and blood of Christ consumed regardless of the individual's personal belief? Another way of asking this question (for clarity) is: When a Roman Catholic who disbelieves transubstantiation receives the Eucharist is it mere bread and wine that is consumed? Is there any benefit or detriment to receiving the Eucharist in disbelief?

Imagine husband and wife conceive but later find out that the child would be severely ill and disabled. The wife wants an abortion but the husband doesn't. The wife decides to abort. What sin does the husband commit in this case?

When engaging with non-believers, including atheists, agnostics, apatheists, pagans, and others, two distinct approaches come to light: The first is the **Apologetics** approach, involving the presentation of a rational case for the truth of Christianity via intellectual arguments and evidence. Noteworthy examples include: - [*Five Proofs of the Existence of God*](https://www.amazon.com/Five-Proofs-Existence-Edward-Feser/dp/1621641333) , by Edward Feser - [*Return of the God Hypothesis: Three Scientific Discoveries That Reveal the Mind Behind the Universe*](https://www.amazon.com/Return-God-Hypothesis-Compelling-Scientific/dp/0062071505/) , by Stephen C. Meyer - [*A Mousetrap for Darwin: Michael J. Behe Answers His Critics*](https://www.amazon.com/Mousetrap-Darwin-Michael-Answers-Critics/dp/1936599910) , by Michael J. Behe - [*I Don't Have Enough Faith to Be an Atheist*](https://www.amazon.com/Dont-Have-Enough-Faith-Atheist/dp/1581345615) , by Norman L. Geisler and Frank Turek - [*Answering Atheism: How to Make the Case for God with Logic and Charity*](https://www.amazon.com/Answering-Atheism-Make-Logic-Charity/dp/1938983432) , by Trent Horn - [*Mere Christianity*](https://www.amazon.com/Mere-Christianity-C-S-Lewis/dp/0060652926) , by C. S. Lewis - [*Warranted Christian Belief*](https://www.amazon.com/Warranted-Christian-Belief-Alvin-Plantinga/dp/0195131932) , by Alvin Plantinga - [*The Case for the Resurrection of Jesus*](https://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B001QOGJY0/ref=dbs_a_def_rwt_bibl_vppi_i0) , by Gary R. Habermas and Michael R. Licona - [*Miracles: The Credibility of the New Testament Accounts*](https://www.amazon.com/Miracles-Credibility-New-Testament-Accounts/dp/0801039525) , by Craig S. Keener The second approach is **Evangelism**, with Spirit and power. The Apostle Paul advocates for this approach in 1 Corinthians 2:1-5: >**1** And I, brethren, when I came to you, did not come with excellence of speech or of wisdom declaring to you the testimony of God. **2** For I determined not to know anything among you except Jesus Christ and Him crucified. **3** I was with you in weakness, in fear, and in much trembling. **4** **And my speech and my preaching were not with persuasive words of human wisdom, but in demonstration of the Spirit and of power**, **5** **that your faith should not be in the wisdom of men but in the power of God**. Considering these two approaches to proselytizing, my question is as follows: Are there established and widely recognized principles in Christianity that guide the decision of when to prioritize the approach of evangelism over apologetics, or vice versa? More specifically, is the preaching of the gospel with Spirit and power in evangelism always the preferred method, relegating the use of sophisticated philosophical arguments often associated with apologetics to a secondary and complementary role?

Argument: > If God is the Creator, He cannot be perfect. For either God created the world desiring it or not desiring it. If he did not wish it, it implies that he does not have total control over his actions, therefore he is not perfect. If he wanted to, either the creation suited him in the long run or not. If it didn't suit him, then he lacked something that suited him, then he wasn't perfect. If it didn't suit him, he has acted against his ultimate interests, so he is irrational, and therefore not perfect. How can I counterargument this?

According to Matthew 2:23 Luke 1:4 Jesus is a Galilean from ""Nazareth"", Galilee was part of "Israel" not Judah/Judea, Galilee was a Roman province and the Tetrarchy of Herod Antipas.. Therefore, non-Jew/Judeans G2453 "Israelites" lived there, arguably during the Roman era as well.. Christ is clearly of the house of Judah, however it's also quite clear that Mary is also of the tribe of Levi(Luke 1:5, Luke 1:36), and King David was also related to Ephraim 1 Samuel 17:12, Micah 5:2-3, Ruth 1:1-2.. So, Judah, Levi, Ephraim.. So, why do Christians totally ignore Biblical Scholars and constantly claim he is a Jew? Ask me for examples..

My question is spawned from the Church of Christ doctrine. I go to a Church of Christ university and our chapel is fully a Capella. However I've been raised baptist and music was always a part of every service. My school has tried to teach that since we are not instructed to use instruments, we CANNOT use instruments. Although not pastors or anything, I've heard some Church of Christ disciples say that the only instrument God ever made is the human voice. From what I've read around the internet, some say it's tradition , others say that since God hasn't told us we can then we can't (I've heard this called the "null argument"). Personally I believe God is more about "Do Nots" instead of focusing on "Dos" when it comes to how we live our lives. According to this table at Wikipedia , there are 12 important facts conveyed in the 10 commandments (no matter how you group them together). Of those 12 facts, 9 of them are "Do Nots." Am I wrong to believe that if we're not specifically told to do something, it's allowed? I'm not trying to be overly literal, I understand there are blanket statements that do affect many things we are not specifically told not to do.

>"Let your women keep silence in the churches: for it is not permitted unto them to speak; but they are commanded to be under obedience, as also saith the law. And if they will learn any thing, let them ask their husbands at home: for it is a shame for women to speak in the church." (1 Corinthians 14:34-35). Here is another one. >"But I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to usurp authority over the man, but to be in silence. For Adam was first formed, then Eve. And Adam was not deceived, but the woman being deceived was in the transgression." (1 Timothy 2:12-14). I asked my mom once about this and she explained that when the holy spirit descended, both men and women received it. And this gives us many different gifts such us prophesying, singing and preaching. I understood her but what I could not ask her was that, Corinthians and Timothy came after the holy spirit descended in Acts. In Africa you cannot keep on asking challenging questions to the elderly as it might be seen as disrespect. Someone help me here.

Recently someone informed me that it was hypocritical to call myself Christian, and to be against many progressive/liberal policies (the specific argument was about US-run welfare) So my question: is it hypocritical to call myself a Christian and not support welfare programs?

Theistic evolution holds that God used evolution to create mankind. It seems to follow then that this view must also hold the creation account in Genesis to be unhistorical. So, Adam and Eve may have been people, but were perhaps the first humans whose parents were pre-human. According to those who reject it, what are the Biblical and theological problem with theistic evolution?

I know that Catholics believe in the Immaculate Conception. What is that? Is this the same as the virginal conception of Jesus?

The verses read like this: >13 When Jesus came to the region of Caesarea Philippi, he asked his disciples, “Who do people say the Son of Man is?” 14 They replied, “Some say John the Baptist; others say Elijah; and still others, Jeremiah or one of the prophets.” 15 “But what about you?” he asked. “Who do you say I am?” 16 Simon Peter answered, “You are the Messiah, the Son of the living God.” 17 Jesus replied, “Blessed are you, Simon son of Jonah, for this was not revealed to you by flesh and blood, but by my Father in heaven. 18 And I tell you that you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church, and the gates of Hades will not overcome it. 19 I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven; whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven.” 20 Then he ordered his disciples not to tell anyone that he was the Messiah. [[NIV](http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matthew+16&version=NIV)] I am familiar with how Catholics interpret this passage and often quote it as the reason the Papacy exists and is ordained by Jesus himself. However, the verse is perplexing to me because it does seem to imply some sort or emphasis on Peter being special to the Church, but Protestants reject the Papal authority, so how would they interpret this passage? I am looking for the answer that speaks from most Protestants, since I think most Protestants agree that the Papacy does not have the authority it claims. Perhaps if Martin Luther or another famous reformer had anything to say on it would be good.

I recently had a debate with one of my friends in which he asked "Why would a good and just God not make salvation dependent on ethics, but rather on gullibility, as the Christian God has?" and I couldn't provide him with an honestly good answer, and in fact it's a question that I need an answer to as well. In Christian teaching we are taught that 'man is saved through faith and grace' and while there are scriptures that put emphasis on morality and service, that aspect seems to downplayed, and in fact there are some denominations in which you can be saved wholly by faith. What I'm getting at is that Morality seems to play a Robin to Faiths Batman. Is morality really important in Christianity?

Which denominations interpret these verses as *not* permitting divorce in the case of adultery, for those in a valid marriage? >St. Matthew 5:32
But I say to you, whosoever shall dismiss his wife, **excepting the cause of fornication (*porneia*)**, maketh her to commit adultery. And he that shall marry her that is dismissed, committeth adultery. >St. Matthew 19:9
And I say to you, that whosoever shall dismiss his wife, **but for fornication (*porneia*)**, and shall marry another, committeth adultery: and he that shall marry her that is dismissed, committeth adultery. For example, the Catholic Church calls these "exceptive clauses ." In other words: fornication does not make a marriage.
It also seems these exceptive clauses could refer to "diriment impediments ," which prevent there from ever being a marriage in the first place; examples of diriment impediments being incest, perpetual impotence, vow of chastity/celibacy, etc.). Note: I am not asking about the Catholic interpretation of Matt. 5:32 and 19:9, as this question here does , but which denomination(s) interpret those verses similarly to the way the Catholic Church does.

St. Thomas Aquinas, *Summa Theologica* II-II q. 78 a. 1 co., says that usury is to sell the use of a consumable good separately from the consumable good itself: >To take usury for money lent is unjust in itself, because this is to sell what does not exist, and this evidently leads to inequality which is contrary to justice. In order to make this evident, we must observe that there are certain **things the use of which consists in their consumption**: thus we consume wine when we use it for drink and we consume wheat when we use it for food. Wherefore in such like things the use of the thing must not be reckoned apart from the thing itself, and whoever is granted the use of the thing, is granted the thing itself and for this reason, to lend things of this kin is to transfer the ownership. Accordingly if a man wanted to sell wine separately from the use of the wine, he would be selling the same thing twice, or he would be selling what does not exist, wherefore he would evidently commit a sin of injustice. On like manner he commits an injustice who lends wine or wheat, and asks for double payment, viz. one, the return of the thing in equal measure, the other, the price of the use, which is called usury. > >On the other hand, there are **things the use of which does n̲o̲t̲ consist in their consumption**: thus to use a house is to dwell in it, not to destroy it. Wherefore in such things both may be granted: for instance, one man may hand over to another the ownership of his house while reserving to himself the use of it for a time, or vice versa, he may grant the use of the house, while retaining the ownership. For this reason a man may lawfully make a charge for the use of his house, and, besides this, revendicate the house from the person to whom he has granted its use, as happens in renting and letting a house. But that explanation makes no sense to me. Just because the use of wine consists in its destruction, I do not see how this implies that the sale of the use of wine also implies the sale of the property itself. I see no significant difference between using a house as a dwelling and using wine for drinking. If the sale of the use of the house can be separated from the sale of the property itself, then the sale of the use of the wine can also be separated from the sale of the property itself.

Let's say a Christian grew up in a non-Baptist Reformed church and was baptized as an infant. This Christian went through a catechism and confirmation during his youth (12-15 yr. old) and in the process came to a *personal conviction* and *personal decision* to make Christ his Lord and Savior. The pastor (the catechist) knew this and because of that he decided that the candidate is ready for confirmation. In the confirmation ceremony he declared his faith in the Lord Jesus Christ publicly to the congregation and by that ceremony became a full member of the church and was allowed to take communion. (See [this answer](https://christianity.stackexchange.com/a/90330/10672) for the meaning of Confirmation for a pedobaptist Reformed church). This Christian now goes to another church, a Baptist church that practices adult full immersion, which also holds the same Reformed theology apart from baptism. Knowing the personal history of this Christian, **what is the typical Reformed Baptist church policy on this?** I can think of a few options: 1. Ignore the infant baptism and the confirmation completely, and treat this person like other baptism candidates 1. Consider the infant baptism invalid since an infant cannot make a conscious declaration of faith, so have him re-baptized 1. Do not require adult baptism, but require the person to do the remaining important element, such as making a public confession and taking a class (to update the theology) so he can then become an elder later 1. Recognize the combination of Infant baptism + Confirmation ceremony to be equivalent to adult baptism since all the elements (baptism using Trinitarian formula, declaration of faith, public announcement, admittance to membership + communion) were believed and performed within the same Reformed theology framework. In implementing the policy, can you also give an **overview of pastoral approaches** in Baptist churches for people who fit the case study above, i.e. were baptized as infants, catechized, confirmed, and became member of a pedobaptist Reformed church?

There is a C. S. Lewis quote from *The Lion, the Witch, and the Wardrobe* that resembles a famous quote by St Augustine. Here is St. Augustine: > The very thing which is now called the Christian religion was with the ancients, and it was with the human race from its beginning to the time when Christ appeared in the flesh: From then on the true religion, which already existed, began to be called the Christian That quote comes from St. Augustine’s *Retractations* I.12.3. There is scriptural support for Augustine’s assertion. St Paul in his mission to the Greeks famously instructed the Athenians (in Acts 17.23) declaring, “for as I was passing through and considering the objects of your worship, I even found an altar with this inscription: “To the unknown god.” Therefore, the One whom you worship without knowing, Him I proclaim to you.” I very clearly recall encountering a meme some time ago citing C. S. Lewis’ *The Lion, the Witch, and the Wardrobe* which captured the above sentiment perfectly. C. S. Lewis wrote something to the effect of (trying to recall in my own words): > “You worship another deity but it is the Christian God in disguise.” Or: > “We worship the same God, just a different name.” My question for all of you: Is any one familiar enough with C. S. Lewis’ material (fiction or even non-fiction) to find an actual reference to this quote by C. S. Lewis that I am trying to describe? I’ve spent hours combing through Google search terms trying to find this quote / meme by C.S.Lewis. No dice.

Are Christian (Catholic) men allowed to cover their head? I've told no they can't, because Paul said not too, or some say yes, because Jesus himself did, and what Paul says didn't matter, but if a man is praying in private can he not cover his head? Wouldn't it be respectful for a man to cover his head in the presence of God and follow the ways of Jesus?

I was going to respond to a question along similar lines I saw here but apparently I don't have a reputation yet so I can't respond.. So, here I am.. I already know the answer better than most who will respond I bet, but I'd like to see what a high reputation can add to the discussion, please bring verse.. Kind regards P.S. Apparently I can't create new tags without a 300 reputation either.. I better get busy... ha

Paul Says He Is Of "The Stock Of Israel, Of The Tribe Of Benjamin, An Hebrew Of The Hebrews", Why Does He Also Call Himself A "Jew"/G2453? Philippians 3:5 Circumcised the eighth day, of “”the stock of Israel, of the tribe of Benjamin, an Hebrew of the Hebrews””; as touching the law, a Pharisee; Rom 11:1“I say then, Hath God cast away his people? God forbid. For I also am an Israelite, of the seed of Abraham, of the tribe of ""Benjamin"" Acts 21:39 But Paul said, I am a man which am a Jew/G2453 of Tarsus, a city in Cilicia, a citizen of no mean city: and, I beseech thee, suffer me to speak unto the people. 40And when he had given him licence, Paul stood on the stairs, and beckoned with the hand unto the people. And when there was made a great silence, **he spake unto them in the Hebrew tongue**, saying I am looking for a specific verse, you should know this..

|Passage (KJV) | Content | | - | - | | Matthew 7:21-23 | 21 Not every one that saith unto me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdom of heaven; but he that doeth the will of my Father which is in heaven. 22 Many will say to me in that day, Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied in thy name? and in thy name have cast out devils? and in thy name done many wonderful works? 23 And then will I profess unto them, I never knew you: depart from me, ye that work iniquity. | | Matthew 24:24 | 24 For there shall arise false Christs, and false prophets, and shall shew great signs and wonders; insomuch that, if it were possible, they shall deceive the very elect. | | Mark 13:22 | 22 For false Christs and false prophets shall rise, and shall shew signs and wonders, to seduce, if it were possible, even the elect. | |2 Thessalonians 2:8-12 | 8 And then shall that Wicked be revealed, whom the Lord shall consume with the spirit of his mouth, and shall destroy with the brightness of his coming: 9 Even him, whose coming is after the working of Satan with all power and signs and lying wonders, 10 And with all deceivableness of unrighteousness in them that perish; because they received not the love of the truth, that they might be saved. 11 And for this cause God shall send them strong delusion, that they should believe a lie: 12 That they all might be damned who believed not the truth, but had pleasure in unrighteousness. | | Revelation 13:13-14 | 13 And he doeth great wonders, so that he maketh fire come down from heaven on the earth in the sight of men, 14 And deceiveth them that dwell on the earth by the means of those miracles which he had power to do in the sight of the beast; saying to them that dwell on the earth, that they should make an image to the beast, which had the wound by a sword, and did live. | | Revelation 16:14 | 14 For they are the spirits of devils, working miracles, which go forth unto the kings of the earth and of the whole world, to gather them to the battle of that great day of God Almighty. | | Revelation 19:20 | 20 And the beast was taken, and with him the false prophet that wrought miracles before him, with which he deceived them that had received the mark of the beast, and them that worshipped his image. These both were cast alive into a lake of fire burning with brimstone. | I've encountered Christians who highlight passages like Matthew 7:21-23, 24:24, Mark 13:22, 2 Thessalonians 2:8-12, Revelation 13:13-14, 16:14, 19:20, which describe the end times as witnessing an increase in miracles. However, they note that these miracles are attributed to Satan rather than God, Christ, or the Holy Spirit. They stress that this phenomenon is accompanied by the dissemination of false doctrine. Do these passages imply that all miracles during the end times will be of Satan? How do Christians who believe in present-day miracles performed by God reconcile this belief with the aforementioned passages? --- **On the relevance of the question** I believe this question is very relevant, given the fact that many Christians believe in present-day miracles that are (purportedly) performed by God, and so it would be terrible news for them to come to realize that all those miracles are in fact deceptive tricks of Satan. Hopefully this is not the case. Notable advocates of contemporary miracles by God include: - Adam Blai, author of [The Catholic Guide to Miracles: Separating the Authentic from the Counterfeit](https://www.amazon.com/Catholic-Guide-Miracles-Adam-Blai-ebook/dp/B095F243JF/) . - Craig S. Keener, author of [Miracles Today: The Supernatural Work of God in the Modern World](https://www.amazon.com/Miracles-Today-Supernatural-Modern-World-ebook/dp/B08MXZVXLW/) and [Miracles: The Credibility of the New Testament Accounts](https://www.amazon.com/Miracles-Credibility-New-Testament-Accounts/dp/0801039525) . - J. P. Moreland, author of [A Simple Guide to Experience Miracles: Instruction and Inspiration for Living Supernaturally in Christ](https://www.amazon.com/Simple-Guide-Experience-Miracles-Supernaturally/dp/0310124190) . - Lee Strobel, author of [The Case for Miracles: A Journalist Investigates Evidence for the Supernatural](https://www.amazon.com/Case-Miracles-Journalist-Investigates-Supernatural/dp/0310259185) . - R. Douglas Geivett & Gary R. Habermas, authors of [In Defense of Miracles: A Comprehensive Case for God's Action in History](https://www.amazon.com/Defense-Miracles-Comprehensive-Action-History/dp/0830815287/) . - Sam Storms, author of [Practicing the Power: Welcoming the Gifts of the Holy Spirit in Your Life](https://www.amazon.com/Practicing-Power-Welcoming-Gifts-Spirit-ebook/dp/B01HAKH4UQ/)