If Jesus was merely a man, then God would seem unjust for punishing the innocent Jesus in place of the guilty due to violating the following: 1. Man is to be put to death for his own sin and not for the sin of another (Ez 18:20; Dt 24:16) 2. No man can ransom another or give to God the price of his life (Ps 49:7-9) Moreover, God seems unjust for WANTING to crush the innocent man that is Jesus (Is 53:10; Lk 22:42), regardless of Jesus' willingness to follow the Father's will and lay His life down as a sacrifice. That God could desire and plan to punish/sacrifice an innocent man, His Son no less, for the sins of others would go against His character. The only way I see God being just would be that Jesus is God. Thus, God's plan would not be the unjust sacrifice of an innocent third party but rather the just, noble sacrifice of the self. But if you can show that God is just in sacrificing Jesus even if Jesus isn't God, then please leave an answer down below.

When Elizabeth greeted Mary - >42 ...she exclaimed with a loud cry, "Blessed are you among women, and blessed is the fruit of your womb! 43 And why is this granted me, that the mother of my Lord should come to me?..." - Luke 1:42-43 (RSVCE) Why don't Evangelical Protestants treat Mary with at least this much reverence?

### Background I am intrigued by this conversation between God and Devil in the Book of Job: > "One day the angels came to present themselves before the Lord, and Satan also came with them. The Lord said to Satan, “Where have you come from?” > > Satan answered the Lord, “From roaming throughout the earth, going back and forth on it.” If Job was a historical person and the conversation between God and Devil is the verbatim reproduction of what really happened, I wish to believe that they were not such sworn enemies as we have been trained to believe. I prefer to believe that heaven is the place where the faithful who choose to live for ever with God go, and hell on the other hand, is that state of continued existence which the people who consciously choose to ignore God are assigned to be in. The very fact that those who choose the 'adversary' above God are deprived of God's presence, itself becomes their agony after death. ### Question Has there has been a historical development of the 'image' of devil through the history of the Church?

I often find it helpful to illustrate my point with extreme cases. Let's examine some well-known examples of unbelievers: [Graham Oppy](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Graham_Oppy) , a distinguished atheist philosopher specializing in philosophy of religion; [Peter Atkins](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peter_Atkins) , an atheist scientist highly proficient in Chemistry; [Stephen Hawking](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stephen_Hawking) , a globally recognized atheist theoretical physicist and cosmologist; and [Carl Sagan](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carl_Sagan) , a renowned astronomer and science communicator who identified as an agnostic. For example, on the question of whether God exists, Carl Sagan once said: > An atheist is someone who is certain that God does not exist, someone who has compelling evidence against the existence of God. I know of no such compelling evidence. Because God can be relegated to remote times and places and to ultimate causes, we would have to know a great deal more about the universe than we do now to be sure that no such God exists. **To be certain of the existence of God and to be certain of the nonexistence of God seem to me to be the confident extremes in a subject so riddled with doubt and uncertainty as to inspire very little confidence indeed**. ([source](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carl_Sagan#cite_note-Sagan2006-120)) Graham Oppy was [asked](https://youtu.be/OQv_K9toh2k) the question of what it would take to convince him to believe in God during an interview on *Premier Unbelievable?*. He essentially expressed uncertainty, leaning towards skepticism that a new philosophical argument for God's existence would be persuasive to him, given the countless arguments for God he had already studied. Similarly, when Peter Atkins was [asked](https://youtu.be/dRWIsuEL0Ac) on a different occasion, "*Could anything convince you God exists?*" he responded by stating that he couldn't think of any convincing factor, given his unwavering commitment to naturalism. In light of individuals with such backgrounds—who genuinely grapple with the inability to conceive of anything convincing—I find it challenging to reconcile this reality with the notion that the gift of saving faith in Christ is universally accessible. It's difficult for me to envision someone like Graham Oppy simply "choosing" to embrace and exercise the gift of saving faith in Christ supposedly available to him, or simply "choosing" to become born again. Absent a miracle, direct revelation, or an encounter akin to Acts 9, I genuinely struggle to see how this could plausibly unfold. If the offer of saving faith in Christ is a universal gift from God, does this extend to unbelievers like those mentioned earlier? If the opportunity for saving faith is accessible to all, can committed unbelievers such as Carl Sagan or Graham Oppy also avail themselves of this gift?

Are Catholic schools run by seculars (non-religious laity) a post-Vatican II novelty?

Was there ever a saint who, while living, convinced his or her spouse to enter religious life?

Is saying "Jeez(e)!" (also: Geez(e), Jese, Jez, and with lower-case initial) using God's name in vain? According to the *OED*, the U.S. slang interjections Jeez(e and gee (from which comes gee whiz(z , a corruption geewhillikins , itself a corruption of "Jerusalem!") are corruptions of "Jesus!" These are called minced oaths .
🎩-tip Cairnarvon

He starts with a most powerful declaration of the One who became Jesus in the flesh as having being God in the beginning, see John 1:1-14. But from there on in, similar expressions of deity come thick and fast, and with a clarity that seems to be crisper than in the other accounts. I am not asking for a comparison between John’s gospel and the others, but **to seek from Trinitarians of the Protestant group how they would respond to a non-trinitarian accusing John of portraying Jesus differently to the others, perhaps due to an unwarranted bias.** A linked question https://christianity.stackexchange.com/questions/78496/the-statements-of-the-early-church-fathers-regarding-the-doctrine-of-the-trinity does allude to John calling the Word 'God' but it enquires about the early Church Fathers and the formation of the formal Trinity doctrine, not about why the apostle John had his particular emphasis in his gospel. I am not searching out the history of the formation of the doctrine but sticking to why John wrote the way he did. Nor do I want answers majoring on disagreement with my claim that John writes far more clearly about the deity of Christ than do other New Testament writers. That has been dealt with elsewhere on here. Surely nobody will disagree that his first 14 verses are immensely more attention-grabbing as to the deity of Christ than elsewhere in the N.T? If we can take that as understood, **can answers suggest whether or not John’s emphasis on the deity of Christ is too much, or perhaps understood in light of what he wrote in his epistles and in the Revelation of Jesus Christ?** This should not end up as a mere argument about manuscripts (as if John's strong claims can be diluted by questioning the veracity of ancient manuscripts). I hope answerers will grasp that we view the biblical gospel of John as taken, because that is what Protestant Trinitarians do. If anyone disagrees, please post your own question on that!

One aspect of Christian theology that has long puzzled me concerns the internal logic of those sects and denominations – Catholic, Protestant and Eastern Orthodox alike – that affirm belief in a literal Lucifer. In discussions with adherents from various denominations, I have encountered a range of explanations for Satan’s motivations. However, these explanations tend to converge on a common theme: that Satan, consumed by envy and hatred toward both God and humanity, seeks to inflict as much destruction and suffering as possible. Yet this account raises certain difficulties. The portrayal of Satan as an embodiment of unrestrained malice seems to mirror the archetypal villains of literature and popular culture. Figures whose motivations are often exaggerated or simplistic, such as the spiteful fairy or the vengeful antagonist whose actions are driven by little more than resentment or jealousy. The evil, but just misunderstood and socially outcast, witch. The evil antihero in Pocahontas that just wants to annihilate the native tribe for no good reason, only based on incredibly superficial, shallow and hateful grounds. To me, it appears somewhat incongruous that a being described as possessing superhuman intelligence and insight would act with such emotional impulsivity and self-destructiveness. From a logical standpoint one might expect such a being to recognize the futility of opposing an omnipotent deity and to comprehend that rebellion against ultimate goodness is contrary to its own self-interest. The paradox, then, lies in the idea that Satan, though vastly more intelligent than any human being, acts with less rational foresight than the average person. If Satan is fully aware that his defiance will culminate in his own ruin, his continued opposition to God appears irrational, even absurd. Is Satan like those cartoon characters? Maybe *that is* the answer. Maybe Satan is just so blinded with hatred, for no apparent good reason, that he just cannot stop hating human beings and God’s creation. Maybe Satan is like one of those evil caricature in children’s movies, that just wants to destroy everything no matter the cost. Maybe he just cannot reason about his own self-interests. Maybe Satan is a *theological* caricature, a personification of evil in its most absolute and irrational form. Maybe Satan is a caricature of those characters. Or maybe both are a caricature of what we humans identify as the corrupt, destructive, hateful, malevolent and vicious forces of the world – they both take the evils to their respective extremes. To provide some personal context, I approach this question as an atheist and former believer. I lost my faith at the age of sixteen, and since then I have sought to understand Christianity as an intellectual and cultural system rather than as a lived faith. One aspect I found particularly burdensome within my former belief was the tendency of some Christians to use an interpretive framework that cast all events and moral choices as elements within a vast cosmic, constantly raging, struggle between good and evil. While this worldview can offer moral clarity and a sense of taking moral stances, seeing oneself as a “soldier of God” in a colossal war, it can also be profoundly exhausting. It is a mode of understanding existence that definitively do not miss.

What is the Biblical justification that God controls every detail of the future (as accepted by Reformed Theology)? I'm sure that this has been asked, but I can't find it. Tim Keller cites two verses from Proverbs 16. >The plans of the heart belong to man, but the answer of the tongue is from the Lord. - Proverbs 16:1 >The heart of man plans his way, but the Lord establishes his steps. - Proverbs 16:9. I think I have found both a better exposition of my question and the answer here - https://christianity.stackexchange.com/q/4098/102058 My thanks to Mike Borden for giving me the word, "sovereignty", which led me to this question and answers.

> And, behold, the word of the LORD came unto him, saying, This shall not be thine heir; but he that shall come forth out of thine own bowels shall be thine heir. And he brought him forth abroad, and said, Look now toward heaven, and tell the stars, if thou be able to number them: and he said unto him, So shall thy seed be. And he believed in the LORD; and he counted it to him for righteousness. - Genesis 15:4-6 > What shall we say then that Abraham our father, as pertaining to the flesh, hath found? For if Abraham were justified by works, he hath whereof to glory; but not before God. For what saith the scripture? Abraham believed God, and it was counted unto him for righteousness. Now to him that worketh is the reward not reckoned of grace, but of debt. But to him that worketh not, but believeth on him that justifieth the ungodly, his faith is counted for righteousness. - Romans 4:1-5 > This only would I learn of you, Received ye the Spirit by the works of the law, or by the hearing of faith? Are ye so foolish? having begun in the Spirit, are ye now made perfect by the flesh? Have ye suffered so many things in vain? if it be yet in vain. He therefore that ministereth to you the Spirit, and worketh miracles among you, doeth he it by the works of the law, or by the hearing of faith? Even as Abraham believed God, and it was accounted to him for righteousness. - Galatians 3:2-6 Does Reformed Theology (RT) assert that God made/caused/enabled Abraham to believe the promise God made in a primary fashion? What I mean is, one might say that the giving of a promise creates an opportunity for the choice to believe without directly causing that belief to occur in the same way that the prohibition in the Garden of Eden created an opportunity for Adam to choose but God didn't make Adam disobey. I think that RT affirms the latter (please correct me if I'm wrong). Does RT reject the former and assert that Abraham in no way would or could have believed unless God enabled/gave that ability to him? If yes (which I am sort of expecting) then a good answer will explain why real choice occurred in Genesis 3 but not in Genesis 15 and also whether God activated something latent in Abraham or gave him something brand new. In other words, did Adam's ability to make an actual choice disappear from humanity, go dormant, or something else? Bonus points for explaining (if yes) why Abraham's first act with his God-given faith was to ask for proof of God's re-iteration of his promise from Genesis 12:7. If God gave Abraham faith to believe (which Abraham played no part in), why was it a faith that doubted? > And he said unto him, I am the LORD that brought thee out of Ur of the Chaldees, to give thee this land to inherit it. And he said, Lord GOD, whereby shall I know that I shall inherit it? - Genesis 15:7-8

Polycarp is said to be a student of the Apostle John. Yet he never mentions it in his epistle, nor does he quote the Gospel of John. Why is that?

There is a song I like from a source that I trust, called ‘God of Wow ’ that has as its very first line ‘You have no birthday’ and that stops me from sharing or using it. My objection is that although it is true that God is eternal and birthday-less, but it seems to me that the external God did take on having a birthday because of the incarnation where Jesus was conceived and birthed. I understand what the song means, but is this a legitimate phrase? I am asking from a Nicene-Christian perspective.

Can you tell me how to determine the date of Memorial in a certain year?

It is my impression that across denominations that [compatibilism](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Compatibilism) is the dominant position and answer to the question of divine sovereignty and human free will. The main alternative is [libertarian free will](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Libertarianism_(metaphysics)) , which states that humans have totally free wills with no control (or maybe even no influence) by God. (The other alternative to compatibilism is total determinism, but that is not generally considered compatible with Christianity.) When it comes to the Bible, Christians have historically believed that God [inspired the writing of the scriptures](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biblical_inspiration) , but in a way that left the human author utilising their full creative capabilities. This has been called the "dual authorship" of the scriptures: when we ask who wrote the Bible, we can truly say both its human authors and God. This doctrine fits perfectly with compatibilism; it can be seen as just one particular application of how divine and human wills coexist. So how do those who reject compatibilism explain the inspiration of scripture? Can they also uphold the dual authorship of scripture? Can they uphold the doctrine of Biblical inerrancy/infallibility, or do they say that only when the Biblical authors wrote down a direct divine revelation (such as Habakkuk 2) is the text without flaw?

Bit of a darker question but it really needs to be asked for some people, sometimes individuals have really been struggling with faith in themselves and Jesus. How can one resolve this question. Do Scriptures have any clues how to deal with this?

There's a Christian podcast on YouTube named [*A Stronger Faith*](https://www.youtube.com/@AStrongerFaith/) , which also has a [website](https://www.astrongerfaith.org/) . The podcast focuses on interviewing Christians about their spiritual experiences, conversion experiences, their testimonies, and so on. The host is [Stacy McCants](https://www.astrongerfaith.org/about) . My question is motivated by Stacy's reference to John 17:3 in this [short video](https://www.youtube.com/shorts/5Ctpqezp0Nk?feature=share) : > You can experience God, so whatever doubts you might have in your mind of "am I just believing something that I've been taught because just in case there really is a hell I don't wanna go there" or have an encounter and experience him. You experienced God. People kind of get in our comments sometimes and talk about "don't be trying to go for the emotional experiences." I think God wants us to experience him. I think a lie of the enemy is that we should not seek experiences with God. That it should just be from an intellectual "just get the book, believe what the book says" perspective. And I can't read what Jesus said in John 17:3 and then say he doesn't want us experiencing him. He says "this is eternal life, that they know you, the one true God, and Jesus Christ, whom you have sent." Not that they know *about* you, and *about* Jesus. He says that they *know you*, and know his son. You cannot know somebody without experiencing them. Stacy posits that you cannot know someone without experiencing them. If we apply this to God, then John 17:3 would implicitly suggest that eternal life involves knowing God and Jesus, which, by his logic, means we ought to experience God and Jesus. Interestingly, Stacy McCants's podcast *A Stronger Faith* largely revolves around spiritual or supernatural experiences shared by the Christians he interviews. I suspect Stacy is a charismatic Christian, which might suggest a charismatic bias in his interpretation of John 17:3. **What are the Catholic Church and Eastern Orthodox Church's interpretations of John 17:3? Is knowing God and Jesus typically understood as involving experiences, and if so, what kinds of experiences are usually understood to be implied?** **Are there significant differences and/or similarities between both churches as to how they interpret John 17:3?**

> And Darius the Mede received the kingdom, being about sixty-two years old. [Daniel 5:31] I have read much about the possible identities of Darius the Mede; to me, the most convincing alias is that of Gabaru (mentioned in Nabonidus Chronicle column iii line 20). However, there are a number of other theories, and it causes me to wonder: _Who exactly was Darius the Mede?_ I know we cant know for sure (?), but what would make the most sense, in light of our faith?

In providing a Reformed Theology answer to a question on God's sovereignty, [@Sampson writes](https://christianity.stackexchange.com/a/4102/10672) : >Further, God's decree does not strive against man's will, in that man is forced into doing all that God decrees man will do, but instead man's will is determined by the decree. We willingly do that which God has decreed we will do (yet not necessarily that which God has prescribed). From a Reformed Theology point of view, what is the difference between "decreed" and "prescribed"? **Answer** I have extracted the following from Anne's answer - "Decreed" is God's unavoidable will. "Prescribed" is the rules God gives to men to follow. So, it goes like this - God gives mankind a rule to follow. God decrees that "John" will violate that rule. God arranges that John's free will cause him to violate the rule (sin). John's free will causes him to sin. God punishes John for this sin. God is not the author of sin.

State-sanctioned Protestant Christianity in China — the Three-Self Patriotic Movement — is a bit of a mystery to me. I'm wondering to what extent the Communist Party censors the Christianity taught therein. This is a difficult question for this site (due to the lack of an accepted "orthodoxy"), so I'm trying to get at that by looking at objections raised by the "other Christians" in China. A 2017 article from The Gospel Coalition states: > Yes, Christianity in China is legal, and yes, churches can meet publicly under the TSPM banner. But this comes with consequences. The TSPM reserves the right to censor and control their churches to the extent they deem necessary and appropriate. > Granted, things used to be much worse than they are in 2017. In days past, certain biblical books were forbidden as texts of exposition (mainly end-time ones like Daniel and Revelation), evangelism wasn’t allowed, the gospel couldn’t be boldly proclaimed, and so on. Apparently the teaching isn't so restricted now, although the idea that "real Christians" in China are underground is still widely circulated among expatriate Chinese Christians, and the house church movement there is still going strong. Are there specific doctrinal issues that have been raised in objection to TSPM that fuel the ongoing house church movement? I realize that everything in China is ambiguous and the answer probably varies by region, city, and individual churches, but I'm hoping that specific evidence can be adduced from the testimony of Christian leaders who have objected to TSPM teachings. Note: this was a difficult question for me to figure out how to ask on this site, but I think it's an important topic that is oddly missing from C.SE as far as I have been able to find. (I'm hereby rescuing the tag [tag:china], but also I kind of think the tag [tag:three-self-patriotic-movement] deserves to exist...) If others have ideas about how this can be edited to better fit the format of this site, please do help.