Origen, in *Contra Celsus*, Book VII , responds to an attack from Celsus: that Christians are just like Jews in rejecting all forms of images without exception. In this rebuttal by Origen, we clearly see that Greek philosophers, specifically Celsus, did not think of idols as 'actual Gods' made of wood, for stone, but as just representations of them only, dedicated to them, in order to facilitate worship. The Greek worship of the gods did not terminate on the physical object or icon, but through them passed into the actual god never resting on the mere medium or icon. The Greek view of images as facilitating higher worship is ridiculed by Origen: >For what reasonable man can refrain from smiling when he sees that one who has learned from philosophy such profound and noble sentiments about God or the gods, turns straightway to images and offers to them his prayers, or imagines that **by gazing upon these material things he can ascend from the visible symbol to that which is spiritual and immaterial.** Celsus in turn ridicules Christians because they “despise without exception all images” and so do not even have any form of God to facilitate their worship. He further argues that this is contradictory the Christian claim that man was made in the mage of God, therefore God can be represented by physical images and Christians have no excuse not to have images. **The question is how did Origen respond to this claim that Christian despised all images without exception just like Jews? Did origin admit such was the case and argue why, or did he think there were actually some images used in the Church to facilitate worship, like Mary or the Cross and that Celsus was simply unaware of them?**

St. Thomas Aquinas is praised globally for his intellect, and such has gained him the merit of being a 'Doctor of the Church'. I am curious about several things though: 1. What are Aquinas's views on what is necessary for the attainment of salvation for the individual? 2. What are Aquinas's views on the nature of moral accountability for heretical opinion and action? 3. How do these views correspond to his view on heretics who are like-minded and like-spirited to the Church in more central matters, such as belief in the Trinity and the upholding of the Sacrament of Baptism? Modern heretics nowadays akin to this category would include the Roman Catholic Church's separated brethren, being Protestants and even more so Orthodox Christians. If Aquinas is silent about this matter, what would be the logical deduction one could make about his views regarding the salvation for baptized heretics who accept the Trinity taking into account his views on the two previous topics? *Note that I am not using the word 'heretic' here in a malicious way but rather in the way that is most useful given the context. The Roman Catholic Church, along with Aquinas, considers those outside of her to be 'heretics', and that is the intended meaning here. This language was used in order to better qualify the views of he who this question is about, being Thomas Aquinas.

The idea of justification seems to come often in Paul, Romans 3:20: > Therefore by the deeds of the law there shall no flesh be justified in > his sight: for by the law is the knowledge of sin Jesus affirms something even more bluntly, John 5:24: > “Very truly I tell you, whoever hears my word and believes him who > sent me has eternal life and will not be judged but has crossed over > from death to life. However, why does justification even matter, and how is it that the justified are not even coming into judgement, since, everything seems to end up in judgement anyways: Romans 2:6 > God “will repay each person according to what they have done.” Jesus (Matthew 7:21): > Not everyone who says to me 'Lord, Lord,' will enter the kingdom of > heaven, but only the one who does the will of my Father in heaven.

I was very confused about this so many times. According to Leonardo da Vinci's painting some said that Jesus was a married man. Does the Catholic Church hide any truth?

Asaph, living in the time of David, was one of the ten elders of Jerusalem and a prophet [1 Chronicles 15:19). He is attributed with several Psalms, including 50 and 74. He speaks of the Day of Judgment, the arrival of the Messiah (Mashiach), and the coming of the Messianic Age. >__Psalm 50:15__: Call to me on the day of distress and I will free you, and you will honor me. > >__Psalm 74:19-21__: Do not give the soul of your Turtledove to a nation [of idolaters]; do not forget the nation of the poor forever. Look to the Covenant, for the dark places of the earth are filled with dens of violence. Let not the downtrodden one turn back in disgrace; the poor and needy will praise your name. If Jesus represents the coming of the Messiah, does this not mean we are in the Messianic Age? However, there is also the Second Coming. Is this a second Messianic Age, a continuation of the first (with the Incarnation), or does Jesus's appearance "not count" as an ushering in of the Messianic Age? To my knowledge, there is little to no evidence from the Hebrew Bible (essentially the Old Testament) on what the Messianic Age would look like in human terms, but it seems clear those following Jesus in his ministries were "walking with God" as other prophets, such as Isaiah, suggeat as part of the Messianic Age.

Is a Catholic who belongs to a political party that supports sins in its party platform excommunicated? Before Vatican II, a Catholic belonging to the Communist Party (or any other association machinating against the Church) was *ipso facto* excommunicated. 1917 Code of Canon Law : >Can. 2335— Those giving their name to masonic sects or other associations of this sort that machinate against the Church or legitimate civil powers contract by that fact excommunication simply reserved to the Apostolic See. 1983 Code of Canon Law : >Can. 1374— A person who joins an association which plots against the Church is to be punished with a just penalty; one who promotes or takes office in such an association is to be punished with an interdict.

According to Christians who believe that salvation can be lost: - What is eternal life? Is eternal life attained *now* (in this life / before death) or at the resurrection? - What is spiritual rebirth? When a Christian is born again, does he/she attain eternal life at that moment? - If salvation can be lost, can salvation be regained? Can we be saved multiple times? If so, would that mean that we can have multiple "born again experiences"? _____ **Related questions** - https://christianity.stackexchange.com/q/12097/50422 - https://christianity.stackexchange.com/q/89603/50422 - https://christianity.stackexchange.com/q/89602/50422

In an attempt to define Protestantism one answer [suggested the following criteria](https://christianity.stackexchange.com/questions/39419/is-non-catholic-non-orthodox-modern-western-denomination-an-ok-definition-of-p) : - an acceptance of the old ecumenical creeds - a focus on the Bible - a rejection of salvation by works - a rejection of the supreme authority of the Catholic Church - a focus on personal response to the gospel It strikes me that this excludes several important denominations that are considered Protestant in everyday parlance. Perhaps the most important is Methodism. The United Methodist Church [defines itself](https://um-insight.net/in-the-church/practicing-faith/omitting-hell-it-s-traditional/) as a "non-creedal" denomination. > Unlike some churches that require affirmation of a strict list of > beliefs as a condition of membership, The United Methodist Church is > not a creedal church... Church founder, John Wesley himself did not > agree with a historic (Athanasian) creed, because he disliked its > emphasis on condemning people to hell. Methodists do use the Nicaean Creed in some of their liturgies, but ministers and members are not required to affirm this or any other of the old ecumenical creeds. Indeed, as the above statement states, Wesley himself did not even agree with the Athanasian Creed let alone affirmations of faith made by the Ecumenical Councils. Those authorities condemned as heretics those who disagreed with their doctrines, yet [Wesley stated](https://johnmeunier.wordpress.com/2010/06/21/who-wesley-would-send-to-hell/) : > I have no authority from the word of God “to judge those that are > without;” (1 Corinthians 5:12) nor do I conceive that any man living > has a right to sentence all the heathen and Mahometan world to > damnation. It is far better to leave them to Him that made them, and > who is ‘the Father of the spirits of all flesh;’ who is the God of the > Heathens as well as the Christians, and who hateth nothing that he > hath made. Wesley and his followers have also been criticized by Calvinist writers of preaching "works righteousness," which would mean they fail to conform with another one of the criteria listed above. This criticism, however, is not accepted by Methodists themselves, while its decision not to require adherence to the historical creeds is clear. That being the case, should Methodism be excluded from the category of Protestantism?

For those who beleive in the doctrine of **O**nce **S**aved **A**lways **S**aved (OSAS). How does one reconcile our need to not only confess our sins, but to ask God for forgiveness for those sins? > Forgive us our trespasses as we forgive those who trespass against us Some might say that in Mathew 6 the word should be translated as "debts" which are not necessarily "sins." Yet the parallel passage in Luke 11 uses the word "ἁμαρτία" which clearly speaks of sin. Question: If we have received forgiveness in full, and it is completed as many would suggest, why would the Lord have us petition (Pray) for our forgiveness when it has already, according to the OSAS doctrine, been freely given and can never be taken away? This question are for the Faith Practices that adhere to 'assurance of salvation' which includes most but not all the ecclesial bodies that broke and continue to break away from the Catholic Church.

It is clear that the Orthodox Church and the Assyrian Church of the East are much closer both theologically and geographically than the Catholic Church and the Assyrian Church of the East. **But how different are the first two?** I am asking this as a member of the Orthodox Church who wants to know more about the Assyrian Church of the East. For example, Bishop Mar Mari Emmanuel of the Assyrian Church of the East, who is popular nowadays, said in [this recent video](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4yxEiv1pjC4) at minute 0:10 that he is an "orthodox". Did he mean that he is *theologically* orthodox? I want to emphasize that **this question is about the differences between the Assyrian Church of the East and the Orthodox Church**. The quality and the validity of Mar Mari Emmanuel's speeches and the topic discussed in the video are *not* part of this question. All I can say is that I appreciate very much this man and his teachings. Also, the Catholic Church and the Pope are not part of this question By differences, I mean the **theological, dogmatic and tradition aspects**. For example: - *View on Jesus's Mother*. In orthodoxy, she is a very important figure and we pray to her very often and we call her "The one giving birth to God". I wonder how she is regarded in the Assyrian Church of the East - In Assyrian Church of the East, does the *Holy Spirit come from The Father* as in Orthodoxy, or from The Father and The Son as in Catholicism? - *View on divorce*. In Orthodoxy, divorce is not recommended and is often considered a sin. However, unlike the Catholic church, the Orthodox church allows divorces in extreme cases such as adultery, domestic violence and other things that ruin the marriage. What is the Assyrian Church's view on divorce? - *Are priests allowed to marry?* In Orthodoxy, not only that priests can marry, but *must be married* to become priests through the Holy "Xeirotonía". How is it in the Assyrian church? - Is *iconography* allowed in the Assyrian Church? In other aspects, I see clear similarities between the Assyrian Church and the Orthodox Church such as the priest's clothing and the white long priest's beard.

Inspired by this answer to a previous question , in which the answerer stated: >"For example, the Book of Mormon adds the belief that Adam and Eve could not have children before the Fall." Supported by quoting from 2 Nephi 2:22-23: >And now, behold, if Adam had not transgressed he would not have fallen, but he would have remained in the garden of Eden. And all things which were created must have remained in the same state in which they were after they were created... > >And they would have had no children; wherefore they would have remained in a state of innocence, having no joy, for they knew no misery; doing no good, for they knew no sin. This leads me to ask how could this be true, given that God told Adam and Eve to "Be fruitful and multiply, and fill the earth, and subdue it; and rule over the fish of the sea and over the birds of the sky and over every living thing that moves on the earth." {Genesis 1:28 } It would *seem* that this is a clear contradiction between the *Book of Mormon* and the *Bible*. How does the LDS church address this apparently-blatant contradiction?

Full preterists believe that the last trumpet call took place in AD 70. A very elaborate presentation of this view can be found in Gina's [answer](https://christianity.stackexchange.com/a/83399/50422) in one of my previous [questions](https://christianity.stackexchange.com/q/83071/50422) . A quote from the answer below (with emphasis mine): > [...] The corruptible earthly temple worship also had to put on the incorruptible and be transformed into the pure and perfect temple of our Lord and Savior. **And, it happened when that earthly temple was taken out of the way in AD 70**. > > **The last trumpet call for Jerusalem took place in AD 70 at the hands of the Roman army**. But, there is a last trumpet call for each individual at our own bodily death, & that trumpet call signals either our gathering into heaven, or our judgment. Did the early Church believe the same? Did most early Christians turn into full preterists after the events of AD 70? What were the eschatological views of the early Church towards the end of the first century? Did the early Church's views on eschatology change or remain the same in the centuries that followed?

Matthew 2:23 NIV > and he went and lived in a town called Nazareth. So was fulfilled what was said through the prophets, that he would be called a Nazarene. From what research I have done, it does not seem that any of the prophets who are recorded in the old testament said this, or anything similar. Even the apocrypha does not seem to make reference to this prophecy. Even more troubling, is Matthew saying the prophets, plural, have predicted this, making it even more vexing that it is not written in anywhere in the canon today. What was Matthew referencing here?

There are a few examples of this kind of yearning in the Old Testament: Exodus 33:17-18 KJV > 17 And the Lord said unto Moses, I will do this thing also that thou hast spoken: for thou hast found grace in my sight, and I know thee by name. 18 And he said, **I beseech thee, shew me thy glory**. Psalm 63:1-3 KJV > O God, thou art my God; early will I seek thee: my soul thirsteth for thee, my flesh longeth for thee in a dry and thirsty land, where no water is; 2 **To see thy power and thy glory**, so as I have seen thee in the sanctuary. 3 Because thy lovingkindness is better than life, my lips shall praise thee. Psalm 27:4 KJV > One thing have I desired of the Lord, that will I seek after; that I may dwell in the house of the Lord all the days of my life, **to behold the beauty of the Lord**, and to enquire in his temple 1 Kings 18:36-38 KJV > 36 And it came to pass at the time of the offering of the evening sacrifice, that Elijah the prophet came near, and said, Lord God of Abraham, Isaac, and of Israel, **let it be known this day that thou art God in Israel**, and that I am thy servant, and that I have done all these things at thy word. 37 Hear me, O Lord, hear me, **that this people may know that thou art the Lord God**, and that thou hast turned their heart back again. 38 Then the fire of the Lord fell, and consumed the burnt sacrifice, and the wood, and the stones, and the dust, and licked up the water that was in the trench. In the New Testament, the closest to this kind of yearning can be found in Acts 4, although the emphasis here has more to do with the spreading of the gospel: Acts 4:24-31 KJV > 24 And when they heard that, **they lifted up their voice to God with one accord**, and said, Lord, thou art God, which hast made heaven, and earth, and the sea, and all that in them is: 25 Who by the mouth of thy servant David hast said, Why did the heathen rage, and the people imagine vain things? 26 The kings of the earth stood up, and the rulers were gathered together against the Lord, and against his Christ. 27 For of a truth against thy holy child Jesus, whom thou hast anointed, both Herod, and Pontius Pilate, with the Gentiles, and the people of Israel, were gathered together, 28 For to do whatsoever thy hand and thy counsel determined before to be done. 29 **And now, Lord, behold their threatenings: and grant unto thy servants, that with all boldness they may speak thy word**, 30 **By stretching forth thine hand to heal; and that signs and wonders may be done by the name of thy holy child Jesus**. 31 And when they had prayed, the place was shaken where they were assembled together; and they were all filled with the Holy Ghost, and they spake the word of God with boldness. A similar sentiment is expressed by Paul: 1 Corinthians 2:1-5 KJV > And I, brethren, when I came to you, came not with excellency of speech or of wisdom, declaring unto you the testimony of God. 2 For I determined not to know any thing among you, save Jesus Christ, and him crucified. 3 And I was with you in weakness, and in fear, and in much trembling. 4 And my speech and my preaching was not with enticing words of man's wisdom, **but in demonstration of the Spirit and of power**: 5 That your faith should not stand in the wisdom of men, but in **the power of God**. In Christian mystical traditions, is it common to seek and long for the manifestation of God's power and glory? ---- **Definition of *Christian Mystical Traditions*** A good source on this topic is [List of Christian mystics - Wikipedia](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Christian_mystics) . I will quote the introduction of the article, and refer the reader to the article itself for a very comprehensive list of Christian mystics throughout history. > Christian mysticism refers to the development of mystical practices and theory within Christianity. It has often been connected to mystical theology, especially in the Roman Catholic and Orthodox Christianity (both the Eastern Orthodox and Oriental Orthodox traditions). > > The attributes and means by which Christian mysticism is studied and practiced are varied. They range from ecstatic visions of the soul's mystical union with God to simple prayerful contemplation of Holy Scripture (i.e., Lectio Divina). > > The experiences of mystics are often framed within theological approaches to God, such as Quietism, Pietism, etc.; therefore, in order to aid in the understanding of Christian mysticism, this list includes some philosophers, theologians, anonymous theological books, religious groups and movements whose ideas and practices have had an influence on Christian mystics and the Christian mystical experience. The Wikipedia article on [Christian mysticism](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christian_mysticism) also identifies important concepts and categories associated with Christian mysticism, such as Alexandrian mysticism, Monasticism, Desert Fathers, Neo-Platonism, Mystical theology, Cataphatic and apophatic mysticism, Meditation and contemplation, Threefold path, Katharsis, Theoria, Theosis, Alternate models (Augustine, Meister Eckhart, Teresa of Avila, Evelyn Underhill), Latin Catholic mysticism, etc. In the case of Protestantism, the article [Mysticism and the reformation: a brief survey](https://www.ajol.info/index.php/actat/article/view/146059) presents an interesting overview on the topic: > A number of influential theologians over the past two centuries have denied that Protestant Christianity has a place for mysticism understood as the mingling of the divine and human natures. Today a more adequate understanding of the mystical element of Christianity as a deeper awareness of God’s presence in the life of believers suggests a new evaluation of the relation of Protestantism and mysticism, beginning Martin Luther, and continuing with figures like Johann Arndt, and a number of the “Spiritual Reformers,” such as Andreas Karlstadt, Sebastian Franck, Valentin Weigel, as well as the theosophical Lutheran Jacob Boehme. This essay is designed to reopen the question of the relation between Protestantism and mysticism. Another viewpoint is presented by the article [Caring for Contemporary Mystics: Pentecostalism and the Mystical Worldview](https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/full/10.1177/1939790919888843) : > Pentecostals can be understood as contemporary Christian mystics, and doing so can aid one in both understanding and caring for them. The task of understanding them is facilitated by this category in that it allows one to inhabit a different mindset from what is typical in contemporary settings. Pentecostalism and charismatic movements work out of distinct, fundamental claims that together work as a kind of worldview, one that operates from a hyperawareness of God’s presence and a sensed empowerment of the mystic’s self. The task of caring for them should honor these claims all the while being open to the Spirit’s presence and work.

When did the early Christians celebrate the second Easter? Did it fall on the same day as the Jewish Pasch (Sabbath day / Saturday) or on the next day (Sunday)?

I have heard the arguments for and against an extended time of worship at the start of a church service. My question, though, is more historical. **Where did this approach to sung worship originate; as opposed to songs or hymns interspersed throughout the service?** For example, every charistmatic/pentecostal church I've been to, in more than one country, has the same basic structure (half an hour or so of sung worship, then the sermon, then maybe another song or two at the end). There must be a common root for that somewhere. Did some worship leaders get together once and discuss it? Or did some megachurch do it, and then it was copied from there? Or did churches start to copy rock concerts and then it became the norm? Or something else? **Where did this specific idea of having a "worship set" at the start of the service come from?**

Questions specifically on the Jehovah's Witnesses faith on contraception: 1. Do Jehovah's Witnesses allow contraception? 2. What forms do they allow? 3. What are their arguments for allowing (or not allowing) contraception? On question #2 I am mostly curious on what the Bible describes Onan as doing in Genesis 38:8,9 . Is that allowed or not and why? Genesis 38:8,9: > Then Judah said to Onan, “Sleep with your brother’s wife and fulfill > your duty to her as a brother-in-law to raise up offspring for your > brother.” 9 But Onan knew that the child would not be his; so whenever > he slept with his brother’s wife, **he spilled his semen on the > ground** to keep from providing offspring for his brother.

Tertullian becoming a Montanist is the key factor why he wasn't considered a Church Father and a Saint, although he is considered an important ecclesiastical writer (*cf*. [wikipedia, 3rd paragraph](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tertullian)) . Why did this great early apologist become a heretic?

The Catholic Church is strongly against contraception. Most Protestants nowadays accept it; I gather it was less common in the past. Of course it's possible that Protestants have just given in to worldly things here, but I don't buy that. However, I'm not quite sure that contraception can be seen as allowed by default, either. There should be either biblical or rational reasons for allowing contraception; I expect there to be both. What are they?

I've searched through most other missionary threads and have not found a decent answer to this. I am familiar with LDS/Jehovah's Witness' definitions of missionaries, usually as proselytizing missionaries going door to door attempting to convert people from one religion to theirs. While I was perusing the other threads about missionaries, specifically the one here: https://christianity.stackexchange.com/questions/25252/which-churches-today-send-the-most-missionaries I came across an interesting point that someone made. J Dawg's answer on the thread said something to the effect of "Mormon and Jehovah's Witness missionaries aren't really missionaries as they don't do *so and so*" So my question is, why is there a discrepancy in what people think missionaries should be? I feel like the bible outlines this pretty clearly in Matthew: Matthew 28:19-20 (KJV) > 19 Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost: > 20 Teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you: and, lo, I am with you alway, even unto the end of the world. Amen. As per Kris's comment, here is the definition of missionary I am looking at: >A missionary is a member of a religious group that is sent into an area in order to promote its faith or provide services to people, such as education, literacy, social justice, health care, and economic development. Under the definition of missionary provided, why do many denominations not consider LDS/JW "missionaries" to be missionaries?