While the concept may have existed far prior, a recent discussion has left me wondering - What is the earliest documented usage of the term "Sola Scriptura" in Christian writings. I am not interested in articulation of the concept, but instead of the first documented usage of this specific and actual phrase in reference to the doctrine (not just coincidental usage) - so please be sure to include a quote in your answer.

> Till we all come in the unity of the faith, and of the knowledge of the Son of God, unto a perfect man, unto the measure of the stature of the fulness of Christ What denominations have advanced an explanation about what the "unity of the faith" spoken of by Paul in Ephesians 4:13 (above) means, and how it will be brought about?

I had always considered that the wearing of sackcloth and ashes was a particularly a Hebrew penance tradition. In Jonah the Ninevites, who were decidedly not Hebrew, wore sack cloth and ashes per the kings order. The King of Nineveh was not Hebrew either. So how did this decision to wear sackcloth and ashes as a symbol of penance occur so readily to the Ninevites?

Ezekiel 18:19-20 NKJV : > 19 “Yet you say, ‘Why should the son not bear the guilt of the > father?’ Because the son has done what is lawful and right, and has > kept all My statutes and observed them, he shall surely live. 20 The > soul who sins shall die. The son shall not bear the guilt of the > father, nor the father bear the guilt of the son. The righteousness of > the righteous shall be upon himself, and the wickedness of the wicked > shall be upon himself. Ezekiel 18:19 says the reason the son cannot bear the guilt of the father is because the son has done what is lawful and right. Since Jesus is sinless (1 Peter 2:22) how can he bear the guilt of anyone? Similarly how can our wickedness be upon Jesus (2 Corinthians 5:21), if as per verse 20, it must be upon ourselves?

In the realm of Christian theology, different faith traditions and denominations utilize distinct terminology to signify key events in the conversion process of non-believers. Examples of such terms I'm aware of include the *new birth* or *born-again* experience, which emphasizes a transformative experience in accepting Jesus Christ, and receiving the *light of faith*, highlighting the illumination that comes through faith, in contrast to the *light of reason* that everyone has access to, including non-believers. Less formally, I've even heard expressions such as 'having an *aha* moment'. What other terms or phrases do various Christian traditions employ to express unique aspects of the conversion journey for those who were previously non-believers? I'm particularly interested in learning about both commonalities and differences in the terminology employed by different faith traditions in Christianity.

Currently I am doing a school project on why I believe **Sacred Tradition should be used along with Scripture**. What are some examples of Sacred Tradition throughout Church history? I would guess that the Rosary and the Marian Dogmas be considered Tradition but would traditions like the accounts of the Apostles' deaths and the account of Mary's birth be put in the category of Sacred Tradition? What are also some other examples of what the Catholic Church means by Sacred Tradition?

I realise there are some significant theological differences between LDS, Catholicism and Protestantism, mainly to do with the Trinity and the person of Jesus Christ. LDS doctrine recognizes Jehovah as the pre-mortal name of Jesus, who was created as a spirit son, before coming to earth as God the Son incarnate. This official [LDS article](https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/ensign/1988/03/comparing-lds-beliefs-with-first-century-christianity?lang=eng) says that after the deaths of Jesus Christ and the Apostles apostasy became widespread and “lasted until Heavenly Father and His Beloved Son appeared to Joseph Smith in 1820 and initiated the restoration of the fulness of the gospel.” I understand that the Church does not accept various creeds from the fourth and fifth centuries A.D. and that those creeds do not reflect the thinking or beliefs of “the New Testament church”. From this I can only conclude that they are neither Catholic nor Protestant. What then is the foundation for this “New Testament church”? Is it based on the New Testament of the Holy Bible, or is it based on other sources? If it is based on other sources, please name them. Edit: Please note I want the official LDS answer to this question, especially as to the basis of their "New Testament Church".

A question came up recently as to which Protestant churches do not accept the first six Ecumenical Councils. This leads to related questions as to the definition of "Protestant." And that, in turn, leads to the question "who decides whether a church is Protestant or not?" For this site, the tag "Protestantism" is: > a broad tradition referring to the churches which > broke from the Roman Catholic Church during the 16th Century and those > that descended from them. This leaves the door open to a large range of churches and leaves open the question as to whether any church that evolved from a Reformation tradition may be considered Protestant: for example those of the Second Great Awakening in the United States (including the LDS and Seventh Day Adventists) or small Oriental Sects that emerged from the activities of various Protestant missionaries in the 20th century. I have decided for purposes of this question not to seek an answer to the question "which post-Reformation churched should be *considered* Protestant." That would be an opinion-based question and various answers might exclude churches that consider themselves to be Protestant. Therefore the question is: Which post-Reformation Churches consider themselves to be Protestant? ------------- *Note*: Perhaps someone else could try to create a question about the definition of Protestantism that would not be closed as opinon-based.

As a Calvinist can a person reject the will of God?

I found this interesting partial quote from today’s Morning & Evening devotional by Charles Spurgeon. It’s about the “Covenant of Grace”: >Jesus is the representative head of His people. In Adam every heir of flesh and blood has a personal interest, because he is the covenant head and representative of the race when considered under the law of works; so under the law of grace, every redeemed soul is one with the Lord from heaven, since He is the Second Adam, the Sponsor and Substitute of the elect in the new covenant of love. Then I found this interesting snippet which, speaking of the pre-incarnate Jesus Christ, the Mediator, suggests that from eternity the covenant settlements of grace were decreed, ratified, and made sure forever. My curiosity has been piqued. Is the expression “covenant of grace” about the Abrahamic covenant established by God? Or is it about the “New Covenant” introduced by Jesus? Is this “an everlasting covenant”? I invite answers from Protestants on this topic, mainly because Spurgeon was a Baptist minister. I would appreciate a short overview (links to articles would suffice) of all the covenants established by God and whether any of them are everlasting. Edit: As suggested, this question is about Covenant Theology

Christogram (Latin: Monogramma Christi) is a monogram or combination of letters that forms an abbreviation for the name of Jesus Christ, traditionally used as a religious symbol within the Church. As of today, two Christograms namely Chi Rho (XP) and IHS are in use, the former having an artistic look and the latter, a plain look. There is however, an intertwined version of IHS seen in some ancient churches like St Martin's in Northern France. My question is: **Are there other Christograms that were used by early Christians but are no more in use?**

The "Spiritual Second Coming" concept is easily found in the Bible. This is the "restoration" of man's relationship with God as is mentioned in Acts 1:6. Acts 1:6 KJV >When they therefore were come together, they asked of him, saying, Lord,will thou at this time restore again the Kingdom to Israel? This is recognized by most Christians as an event that they refer to as the "Coming of the Holy Spirit". The "Physical Second Coming" concept which I believe to be unscriptural, persists even though Peter, in His first two sermons in the book of Acts (2:38 and 3:20), clearly illustrated that Jesus comes to believers the Second time "through" the Holy Spirit, Hebrews 9:28. Acts 2:38 >Then Peter said unto them, Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost. Acts 3:19-21 ASV >**19** Repent ye therefore, and be converted, that your sins may be blotted out, when the times of refreshing shall come from the presence of the Lord; **20** And he shall send Jesus Christ, which before was preached unto you **21** whom the heaven must receive until the times of restoration of all things, whereof God spake by the mouth of His holy prophets that have been from of old. Hebrews 9:28 >So Christ was once offered to bear the sins of many; and unto them that look for him shall he appear the second time without sin unto salvation. References used as a basis for a "Physical Second Coming concept" are based on an insecure foundation of sand, summarized by using the phrase "these concepts are the interpretation of "Dreams, visions and allegories'". The addition of a "Physical Second Coming" concept constitutes an addition to scripture, Revelation 22:18. Revelation 22:18 >For I testify unto every man that heareth the words of the prophecy of this book, If any man shall add unto these things, God shall add unto him the plagues that are written in this book:

Can manifest heretics be occult non-heretics?

The concept can be found in several Christian sources: - [GOD’S PROMISES AREN’T AUTOMATED, THEY’RE ACTIVATED](https://www.redeemercoast.church/blog/2021/1/22/gods-promises-arent-automated-theyre-activated) - [3 Keys to Activating God’s Promises in Your Life](https://faithisland.org/bible/3-keys-to-activating-gods-promises-in-your-life/) - [Activating the Promises of God: Unlock the Power of the Bible & Empower Your Life](https://www.amazon.com/Activating-Promises-God-Unlock-Empower-ebook/dp/B0CR31XPYS/) - *"Perhaps they did not believe that such a simple action could **trigger the promised healing**. Or perhaps they willfully hardened their hearts and rejected the counsel of God’s prophet."* *"The principle of **activating** blessings that flow from God is eternal.* [...] *In fact, it can be seen in heaven because small acts of faith are required to **ignite God’s promises**."* *"I invite you to faithfully **activate heavenly power to receive specific blessings from God**. Exercise the faith to strike the match and light the fire. Supply the needed oxygen while you patiently wait on the Lord. With these invitations, I pray that the Holy Ghost will guide and direct you so that you, like the faithful person described in Proverbs, will “abound with blessings.” I testify that your Heavenly Father and His Beloved Son, Jesus Christ, live, are concerned with your welfare, and delight to bless you, in the name of Jesus Christ, amen."* (source: [Abound with Blessings](https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/general-conference/2019/04/41renlund?lang=eng)) For those who teach the idea of "activating" God's promises, what Biblical support do they see for this, and what conditions and nuances are delineated concerning the promises that can be "activated," "triggered," or "ignited"? In exploring this concept, I seek to understand the scriptural teachings regarding the dynamic relationship between faith and the realization of divine promises. What specific conditions or principles does the Bible outline for believers who seek to actively engage their faith to unlock, set in motion, or bring to fruition the promises bestowed by God?

Cessationism is the belief held by some protestants that the miraculous gifts of the Holy Spirit, such as prophecy, do not occur in present day. The general thinking is that these gifts "ceased" at the completion of the canon, closing any new revelation. What is the basis for this belief? I'm interested in Biblical, logical, empirical and historical arguments.

Arguing against the teaching that Jesus is a created being, some point out that calling him the firstborn of all creation (Colossians 1:15) does not mean the first created. The trinitarian will often say that had the scripture intended to say Jesus is the first created thing the word Protoktistos would have been used rather than prototokos. Then they state that the word Protoktistos is never used in connection with Jesus. My question is: Can you cite examples in the scriptures where the word Protoktistos is used? I would like to compare the places it is used with the places where prototokos is used.

Is there a difference between Augustinianism and (Five Points) Calvinism as they relate to the doctrine of salvation? If so, what is the difference?

> Pascal contends that a rational person should adopt a lifestyle consistent with the existence of God and actively strive to believe in God. The reasoning behind this stance lies in the potential outcomes: if God does not exist, the individual incurs only finite losses, potentially sacrificing certain pleasures and luxuries. However, if God does indeed exist, they stand to gain immeasurably, as represented for example by an eternity in Heaven in Abrahamic tradition, while simultaneously avoiding boundless losses associated with an eternity in Hell. > > (source: [Pascal's wager - Wikipedia](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pascal%27s_wager)) > Let us now gather together all of these points into a single argument. We can think of Pascal’s Wager as having three premises: the first concerns the decision table of rewards, the second concerns the probability that you should give to God’s existence, and the third is a maxim about rational decision-making. Specifically: > > 1. Either God exists or God does not exist, and you can either wager for God or wager against God. The utilities of the relevant possible outcomes are as follows, where f1, f2, and f3 are numbers whose values are not specified beyond the requirement that they be finite: > | | *God exists* | *God does not exist* | | :-: | :-: | :-: | | ***Wager for God*** | ∞ | f1 | | ***Wager against God*** | f2 | f3 | > 2. Rationality requires the probability that you assign to God existing to be positive (and finite). > 3. Rationality requires you to perform the act of maximum expected utility (when there is one). > 4. Conclusion 1. Rationality requires you to wager for God. > 5. Conclusion 2. You should wager for God. > > (source: [Pascal’s Wager - Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy](https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/pascal-wager/)) Is there any biblical basis for encouraging non-believers to consider embracing Christianity with the hopeful anticipation that, if it proves to be true, they may experience the promised reward of an afterlife characterized by eternal bliss in Heaven and avoid a potential infinite loss of an eternity in Hell? Note: I'm asking this question as a follow-up to https://christianity.stackexchange.com/q/99793/61679 ---- **Appendix** *Pascal's views on faith and reason* > **Pascal begins by painting a situation where both the existence and non-existence of God are impossible to prove by human reason**. So, supposing that reason cannot determine the truth between the two options, one must "wager" by weighing the possible consequences. Pascal's assumption is that, when it comes to making the decision, no one can refuse to participate; withholding assent is impossible because we are already "embarked", effectively living out the choice. > **Inability to believe** > Pascal addressed the difficulty that reason and rationality pose to genuine belief by proposing that "acting as if [one] believed" could "cure [one] of unbelief": >> But at least learn your inability to believe, since reason brings you to this, and yet you cannot believe. Endeavor then to convince yourself, not by increase of proofs of God, but by the abatement of your passions. You would like to attain faith, and do not know the way; you would like to cure yourself of unbelief and ask the remedy for it. Learn of those who have been bound like you, and who now stake all their possessions. These are people who know the way which you would follow, and who are cured of an ill of which you would be cured. Follow the way by which they began; by acting as if they believed, taking the holy water, having masses said, etc. Even this will naturally make you believe, and deaden your acuteness. > > (source: [Pascal's wager - Wikipedia](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pascal%27s_wager))

I was wondering where I can find the actual simple online reasons for the removal of the "accepted" verses in the KJV, in the ESV bible version listed on this site, because I have not found them so far, Thanks. https://www.scionofzion.com/esv_exposed.htm

Why do Jehovah's Witnesses travel in pairs instead of a group and go proselytizing door-to-door? What is the typical arrangement (friend and friend, sister and sister, brother and brother, husband and wife, etc.)? Are these people paid by the Watchtower to minister?