When Adam was created, there was no sin in this world. We are told that the wages of sin are death. My assumption therefore would be that prior to sin, nothing died. So this leads me to a bit of a dilemma, is the biocycle (for example composting) death? Below are some commentaries on Genesis 2:15 (from biblehub.com): > To dress it and to keep it.—The first word literally means to work it; > for though a paradise, yet the garden had to be tilled and planted. > Seeds must be sown and the cultivated plots kept in order; but all > this really added to Adam’s happiness, because the adâmâh, as yet > uncursed, responded willingly to the husbandman’s care. The other > word, “to keep it,” implies, however, some difficulty and danger. > Though no unpropitious weather, nor blight nor mildew, spoiled the > crop, yet apparently it had to be guarded against the incursion of > wild animals and birds, and protected even against the violence of > winds and the burning heat of the sun. > Also, there is true pleasure in the business God calls us to, and > employs us in. Adam could not have been happy if he had been idle: it > is still God's law, He that will not work has no right to eat, 2Th > 3:10. > Having prepared the garden for man's reception, the Lord God took the > man. "Not physically lifting him up and putting him down in the > garden, but simply exerting an influence upon him which induced him, > in the exercise of his free agency, to go. He went in consequence of a > secret impulse or an open command of his Maker" (Bush). And put him > into the garden; literally, caused him to rest in it as an abode of > happiness and peace. To dress it. I.e. to till, cultivate, and work > it. This would almost seem to hint that the aurea aetas of classical > poetry was but a dream - a reminiscence of Eden, perhaps, but > idealized. Even the plants, flowers, and trees of Eden stood in need > of cultivation from the hand of man, and would speedily have > degenerated without his attention. And to keep it. Neither were the > animals all so peaceful and domesticated that Adam did not need to > fence his garden against their depredations. **Doubtless there is here > too an ominous hint of the existence of that greater adversary against > whom he was appointed to watch.** This suggests to me that Lucifer may have already been cast down to the earth prior to the creation of man as I cannot see what relevance degradation would have to a perfect creation? Even tilling the soil does not seem at all consistent with the reason why we do it today. We till the soil today because it serves the purpose of keeping weeds at bay and ensuring adequite aeration of the soil, however, surely in a perfect creation, the many animals and creatures that dig would have served this purpose in the biocycle of the garden? It makes me wonder why the need for Adam to cultivate...was it because of the presence of Satan already in the garden adversely influencing God's creation even before Adam and Eve sinned? If the above is true, then this would seem to me to indicate that the universal impact of Lucifer's rebellion had far greater consequences than just the sin of Adam and Eve...it [evil] had already begun to exert his influence even over creation before man sinned...Adam was in fact tending the garden to guard against it. So this seems to suggest to me that the early Eden biocycle may have been at risk of infection by sin outside that of the sin of man. Does this mean the biocycle was a sinful process...it would seem that if Adam needed to tend to the garden (pruning, cultivating, dressing etc), there was in fact a less than adequite cycle of life at the time of his creation. I am not a theistic evolutionist, however, if they were to jump on this bandwagon? Thoughts?

Forensic justification is defined as strictly legal declaration as justified, rather than reckoning or acknowledging someone as righteous to justify him. In other words, a person is declared righteous despite being a sinner, and remain an ungodly sinner, but God overlooks justice for him and let him go. Is it acceptable if we characterize this as a false justification or forged justification - contrary to fact? As if a forged document of righteousness is given by God? And what is the origin of this theological jargon called *forensic justification*, who came up with it? The false justification characterization fits well with Luther's own description. Luther’s “Sermon on Our Blessed Hope ”: >We see grain sowed in the ground. Reason now asks: What happens to the grain in winter that has been sowed in the ground? Is it not a **dead, moldy, decayed thing, covered with frost and snow**? But in its own time it grows from that dead, moldy, decayed grain into a beautiful green stalk, which flourishes like a forest and produces a full, fat ear on which there are 20, 30, 40 kernels, and thereby finds life where only death existed earlier. Thus God has done with heaven, earth, sun and moon, and does every year with the grain in the field. He calls to that which is nothing that it should become something and does this **contrary to all reason**. Can He not also do something which serves to glorify the children of God, even though it is **contrary to all reason?** In another quote: >Conceived in sorrow and corruption, the child sins in his mother’s womb. As he grows older, the innate element of corruption develops. Man has said to sin: ‘Thou art my father’—and every act he performs is an offense against God; and to the worms: ‘You are my brothers’—and he crawls like them in mire and corruption. He is a bad tree and cannot produce good fruit; a **dunghill**, and can only exhale foul odors. He is so thoroughly corrupted that it is absolutely impossible for him to produce good actions. Sin is his nature; he cannot help committing it. Man may do his best to be good, still his every action is unavoidably bad; he commits a sin as often as he draws his breath. (Werke, (Wittenberg Edition), Vol. III, p. 518.) It is surprising that such a traditional fundamental Lutheran theology is not known by most common reformed believers, including Evangelicals; so I'd encourage the Lutherans not to rush in closing the question, but allow everyone to learn despite the disagreements. Neither Luther nor his followers are embarrassed in admitting their theology, and if one rejects them, they should be honestly realize that they reject the traditional reformed theology, rather than being defensive and attempting to censor the studies and debates on these topics. Had it been for N. T. Wright, we wouldn't have known about this, because the Lutheran scholars have responded to Wright's NPP interpretations of Rom 4:5, by defending the traditional view, and only then the laymen like us discovered these beliefs through them. >First, as **many commentators note**, God is here said to do what he forbids judges to do. In a striking parallel to Rom 4:5 the Greek text of Isa 5:23 pronounces a woe on οἱ δικαιοῦντες τὸν ἀσεβῆ (“those who justify the ungodly). In Prov 17:15 “he who justifies the wicked and he who condemns the righteous are both alike an abomination to the LORD.” In Exod 23:7 the Lord himself swears that he will not justify the ungodly. Daniel Wallace writes addressing to Wright's controversy. >Among his many points, Sprinkle notes that in the OT God did not justify wicked people, citing, inter alia, Exod 23.7 and Isa 5.23. In my class on the exegesis of Romans, which I have taught at Dallas Seminary for the past seven years, I have argued that these two texts are key to Paul’s thinking and that the Jews of his day would have realized this. Exodus 23.7 clearly involves legal language. It is this language which lies behind Paul’s points in Rom 3.23–24 and 4.4–5. In v. 7 we see δικαιόω used with ἀσεβής: ‘you shall not justify the ungodly for a bribe’ (οὐ δικαιώσεις τὸν ἀσεβῆ ἕνεκεν δώρων). This can only mean ‘you shall not declare innocent the ungodly for a bribe.’ Three things are significant here: (1) δικαιόω means, in this legal context, ‘declare righteous/innocent’; it does not mean ‘make righteous.’ (2) **The person who might be declared innocent is in fact guilty** (ἀσεβῆ), **precisely the situation we have in Rom 3:23–24.** (3) The word for bribe is δῶρον, a cognate of δωρεάν found in Rom 3:24. It would of course not do for Paul to say that God declares sinners righteous ‘for a bribe,’ so an appropriate substitute is needed—one that is a cognate of δῶρον, but does not use ἕνεκεν or imply anything except that God acts freely when he justifies sinners. δωρεάν is the accusative singular of δωρεά; as such, it is adverbial (always so in the NT) and means ‘freely.’ It is not insignificant that we again see in the LXX of Isa 5.23 the collocation of δικαιόω with ἀσεβής and δῶρον. And again, we see that δικαιόω must almost surely mean ‘declare innocent’ since the pronouncement is made on the ungodly who do not deserve it. Dr. Craig quotes Henri Blocher and D. G. Dunn, >“That God’s righteousness towards the peoples he has created includes wrath and judgment as well as faithfulness and salvation is clearly implicit in the sequences Romans 1:16-18 and 3:3-6.” Those who deny that dikaiōsynē is a forensic term, Dunn says, pay insufficient attention to Romans 4:4-5, “where the forensic background is clear in the allusion to the legal **impropriety** of a judge ‘justifying the ungodly’. . . , and where again the thought is entirely of attributing a righteous status to one who is unrighteous.” Dunn’s point is that Paul’s referring to God as “him who justifies the ungodly” (Romans 4:5) recalls the Old Testament description of the unjust judge who justifies the wicked (Proverbs 17:15), which is an abomination in the Lord’s sight. French theologian Henri Blocher remarks on “the staggering audacity of Paul’s combination of words: God who justifies the ungodly (Rom 4:5) The Cambridge Dictionary defines "impropriety " as: behavior that is dishonest, socially unacceptable, or unsuitable for a particular situation: *financial/legal impropriety allegations of sexual impropriety*.

I was listening to *Pints With Aquinas* this evening where Dr. Richard DeClue, a professional theologian, not a priest, was interviewed, but he didn't want to comment on some _motu proprio_ (probably [_Traditionis Custodes_](https://www.vatican.va/content/francesco/en/motu_proprio/documents/20210716-motu-proprio-traditionis-custodes.html)) citing there were "canonical penalties" for doing so. What is a "canonical penalty"? Does it affect the laity or more the priests and religious? And what exactly constitutes an act that requires someone to be canonically penalized?

Did Athanasius and the Nicene Fathers, in their condemnation of Arius, draw the conclusion that the personage which Arius is actually describing (and whom he, presumably, worshipped) is really the one generally called ‘The Devil’ and that, therefore, Arius could be categorised as a ‘Devil Worshipper’ ? 1. The historical context 2. Athanasius’ account of the excommunication of Arius 3. Arius’ own description of what he calls ‘Christ’ and the ‘Word’ 4. The inference, from scripture, of whom Arius is actually describing 5. The question of what, specifically, was ever documented of the one Arius worshipped. ================================================================================ 1. Charles Lee Irons (1), in the synopsis of The Biblical Basis of Eternal Generation , recounts the history of Arius’ denial of the eternal and divine existence of the Son of God : > Throughout the fourth century, the church fathers were engaged in a bitter debate with Arianism, and it was within the context of that debate that they clarified the church’s doctrine of the Trinity. Arianism was the view that the Son is a sub-deity **who did not always exist** but was created by God as the first and most glorious being in the universe, “the firstborn of all creation.” Arians affirmed the pre-existence of Christ — He existed as the Logos before His virgin birth. But they **denied the eternal pre-existence of Christ**. They said there was **a time when He did not exist**, and that before His generation, He did not exist. They said He was **created out of the things that do not exist**. They say that although He is the most glorious and first creature made by God, and can even be called “God” in some sense because of His exalted honor and divine glory, He falls on the creature side of the Creator-creature distinction. 2. Athanasius of Alexandria records the event of the excommunication of Arius in his Discourses Against the Arians , in the First Discourse chapter 1 and paragraph 7 : >For this was why the Ecumenical Council, when Arius thus spoke, **cast him from the Church,** and **anathematized him**, as impatient of such irreligion. And ever since has Arius's error been reckoned for a **heresy** more than ordinary, being known as Christ's foe, and harbinger of Antichrist 3. In the same First Discourse - chapter 2, paragraphs 5 and 6, Athanasius exposes what Arius describes of the person which he (that is, Arius) calls ‘Christ’, as follows : > … the Word of God Himself was made out of nothing … (sic) > > … and, once (meaning ‘once upon a time’ - Edit) he was not … (sic) > > … though (he) is called God, yet is he not ‘very God’ … (sic) 4. If one examines Arius’ own description against scriptural references, it becomes clear that there **is** a person answering to that description. *But it is not Jesus Christ, the only begotten Son of God, born of the virgin Mary.* Since a person is being described, by Arius, who is ‘the firstborn of creation’ (that is to say, the first creation - Edit) and ‘the first created spirit’ and ‘who once was not’ and ‘who was made out of nothing’ - then that is the person who, in scripture, is called ‘the son of morning’ and ‘Lucifer’, Isaiah 14:12-15, who said ‘I will be like the most High’; and the person who is the first - created - spirit identified by scripture (in both Genesis and Job) that is to say the Serpent in Eden, and the person who, as one of the sons of God, requested of God that he be a ‘satan’ (an adversary) to Job; and is the same person who tempted Jesus in the wilderness being called a ‘Tempter’ and ‘Diabolos’ ; and is elsewhere called *Antidikos* (1 Peter 5:8) *Anomos* (2 Thessalonians 2:8) *Poneros* (1 John 2:13,14) and the Dragon (Revelation 12:3). In short, this is the ‘Angel of Light’ described by the apostle Paul : >... For such are false apostles, deceitful workers, **transforming themselves into** the apostles of Christ.And no marvel; for Satan himself is transformed into an **angel of light**. [I Corinthians 15:45 KJV] 5. Then is it the case that either Athanasius or the Nicene fathers drew this conclusion in their opposition to Arius and their excommunication of him at the Ecumenical Council in 325 AD, either specifically at the time, in their condemnation of him, or thereafter in publications denouncing him ? Did they ever assert that Arius was actually describing - and worshipping - the ‘Devil’ ? ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------- (1) Charles Lee Irons, PhD, is an adjunct professor at California Graduate School of Theology.

What did St. Athanasius believe about the Papacy and are there any special mentions of the *bishop of Rome* in his writings?

Does anyone know where I can find an English translation of a book containing Karl Barth's sermons from 1934 to 1948, [*Fürchte dich nicht! - Predigten aus den Jahren 1934 bis 1948*](https://archive.org/details/frchtedichnichtp0000bart/page/n5/mode/2up) , published in 1949?

There's some movement to a "restored" order for the reception of the Sacraments of Initiation, but with some sort of assumption that it should be received as early as age seven. I was listening to the Catholic Man Show [episode on teenagers](https://open.spotify.com/episode/5fuDGFpVtJnyYO5V4xZT7k?si=9983967898bc43a3) one of the hosts said that he didn't know the answer to this question and didn't get back to answering it. I teach a Confirmation class to high schoolers, the kind of material we go cover would go way over the heads of seven year olds (it barely resonates with teenagers), so I don't wholly understand how the same sort of formation would be possible for younger kids and as far as I can tell there is absolutely no formal preparation for confirmands in the Latin Rite as it currently stands. When I watch a movie like, the Song of Bernadette or hear stories about St. Therese, where these saints received the sacraments of initiation as teenagers, I have to think that the old ways were best. However, the normal age for confirmation hasn't really changed has it - or was there a period when Confirmation was received at an earlier age?

Have you noticed that the devil is not mentioned in the Old Testament? There is a serpent in Genesis 3 yes, but is it the devil? Nowhere does God call it that. In fact in Genesis 2 it says that God created all the host of heaven and the host of the earth - and everything was good. But the devil is not good? Now someone will bring in Revelation 12 where we are told by John that the serpent is the devil and he is cast out of heaven by Michael and his angels through the blood of the Lamb and the word of their testimony. But is this literal? Are we truly understanding this scripture? Does an Arch angel (which many believe Michael is) need the blood of the Lamb? And this war took place after the birth of the Messiah according to Revelation 12;1-5, then the 'devil' was only cast to the earth after the Messiah's resurrection (caught up to the throne of God in verse 5) and could not have been the serpent in Genesis 3. In Genesis 4:7 God warns Cain, not against the devil, but against sin. The devil does not feature as an enemy of Israel in the Old Testament at all and never as an enemy of God. "Satan" (satan in Hebrew) is not the name of a person or being, it is not a proper noun. In fact "satan" in Hebrew is just a noun and means an adversary.Look at how it is used in Numbers 22;32. If you use a concordance and look at all the places that this Hebrew word is used in the Old Testament, it is used to refer to human beings (1 Kings 11:14, 23, 25), the angel of the Lord (Numbers 22;22)and even to God Himself (compare 1 Chronicles 21;1 and 2 Samuel 24:1). In the book of Job, this Hebrew noun is "hasatan" which means "the adversary". What this actually means is that in the midst of the sons of God who presented themselves before God, there was an adversary. In the 400 years between Malachi and Matthew something happened in the belief system of the Jewish people because all of a sudden in the New Testament there is this being called the devil which has no basis in the Old Testament, in the Torah or in the Jewish belief system of the Old Testament. Where does this concept of a devil infiltrate the New Testament authors belief system? and Why?

So in popular Christian belief, which, afaik, is popular amongst Catholics, and Protestants, Satan is termed the king of hell and will torment his followers who will be sent there due to his deceivement forever. However, there is also a simultaneously existing concept of Satan being tormented in the lake of fire as mentioned in the following verse: > And the devil who had deceived them was thrown into the lake of fire and sulfur where the beast and the false prophet were, and they will be tormented day and night forever and ever." - Revelation 20:10 (ESV) How does this reconcile? Is Satan the one tormenting his followers or is he being tormented himself? If so, who is tormenting him and his followers? Are they all thrown in the said "lake of fire" or just Satan, the false Prophet, and the beast? Do note that I am not a Christian, so please take anything that I said with a grain of salt. I would appreciate the clarifications.

Defense of the Augsburg Confession XXIV recognizes and does not prohibit mentioning the dead. In my church, we have a local service to commemorate the departed that were deported during second world war. But I'm too ashamed to ask the pastor at this point what exactly do be believe about this topic. Do Lutherans "pray" for the dead? If so, what does it mean for us?

I've been listening to this pastor from AoC Network that has been talking about Hades as there is/was a place of torment and a place of peace, before Christ's resurrection. This is where people who God deemed as men of God or Godly men and women went before the resurrection of Jesus on the Cross. He says he believes (because the bible is not clear on this subject) that people who have died now days who have not had the opportunity to know enough about Jesus or know who he is, can make a decision to invite Jesus into their heart to be their savior, this is where they go. This sounds like the Catholic belief in Purgatory. I know the Bible isn't clear on the matter of "The Bosom of Abraham" in today's world, but I've been taught that "The Bosom of Abraham" was closed off when Jesus came back for his disciples after his death and brought them to heaven with Him. Now, this pastor from AoC says he believes that the Hades that *was* called "The Bosom of Abraham" (which this pastor describes as a place of peace) still exists (but of course is *not* called "The Bosom of Abraham" because Abraham is up in heaven,) for those who have not heard of Jesus or had the opportunity to accept his free Gift of Salvation, i.e Babies who are unborn and those who die as infant babies who cannot know Jesus yet, because they cannot understand yet. My question is: "Does the side of Hades that was once "The Bosom of Abraham" still exist? Is this what the Catholic's call Purgatory, and where is this found in the Bible?"

In the Wikipedia page about Jubilee, an anonymous writer added the following text : > "Jesus declared a Yovel by referencing Isaiah in 27 A.D., i.e. the 1666 year of entry into Canaan and the 34th 49 year Yovel Cycle according to the present day Samaritan Calendar." I would like to know whether this claim has any evidence, so that I know whether to keep it in that page or remove it.

I am reading *An exorcist tells his story*, and in it the author discusses guardian angels. The author says the following (translated by Google translate from Italian): > They are our great allies, we owe them so much and it is a mistake that so little is said about them. Each of us has his guardian angel, a faithful friend 24 hours a day, from conception to death. He protects us incessantly in soul and body; and we, for the most part, don't even think about it. **We know that even nations have their own particular angel** and this probably also happens for every community, perhaps for the same family, even if we are not sure of this. According to the Catholic Church, do all nations have their guardian angels?

Can there be valid Apostolic Succession in multiple churches, such as Orthodox, Anglican, Church of the East, and Coptic Church? If so, how do Catholic church reconcile this with it's belief in being the only one true church?

The bible teaches many things about Jesus. - Where he came from - Who he came from - When he originated - What he was How do we know what the most important aspect of Jesus is from the bible with reference to salvation?

When I read through Luther's writings awhile back, I noticed he said the pope was the antichrist. I thought this was just some of Luther's usual hyperbolic rhetoric. However, I've learned that many (almost all?) of the major Protestant used to have that as a part of their doctrinal statement. For example, the Westminster confession of faith used to have: > There is no other head of the Church but the Lord Jesus Christ; nor can the Pope of Rome, in any sense, be head thereof; but is that Antichrist, that man of sin, and son of perdition, that exalts himself, in the Church, against Christ and all that is called God. I believe the presbyterian and lutheran churches also used to have something similar. Not sure about methodists, but I have read Wesley claimed the pope is the antichrist. Maybe this was never an important topic for the baptists. So, it looks like until fairly recently (late 1800s, early 1900s) the pope being the antichrist was pretty important for most Protestants. Was that the case? If so, why was it so central? If it was so central, what suddenly changed that made all Protestants cease to claim the pope is the antichrist? Why is it no longer an important doctrine?

According to Catholic doctrine regarding the Eucharist, the objects that look like bread and wine are instead literally Christ's body, blood, soul and divinity. In which case, when a Catholic eats the object that looks like bread, but is really God, is it correct to say that the Catholic is eating God, within the context of Catholic beliefs regarding the eucharist? This seems a corollary of calling Mary the mother of God. When she conceived a little baby that appeared to be a normal human, but was in actual fact God, she was given the title "Mother of God". Similarly, when a Catholic eats an object that appears to be bread, but is really God, it seems like they are literally eating God, so would be called "eaters of God" in a similar fashion. UPDATE: This question is different than "On the Eucharist and Human Digestion? ". The digestion question is asking about the process, how does the body interact with the Eucharistic substance after it is eaten. My question is a syntactical question, not about the process, asking whether it is syntactically correct to say that Catholics literally eat God.

Not sure if this was Jerimiah or another prophet (or I may be making it up entirely). The king was preparing to fight the invasion, and was delivered a message from the lord not to fight with arms. The king responds with something emotional along the lines of you would have the city/nation destroyed. To be clear, it was not Jeremiah 38:4 > Then the officials said to the king, “This man ought to die, for he is discouraging the warriors who remain in this city, as well as all the people, by speaking such words to them; this man is not seeking the well-being of these people, but their ruin. Probably no anything from Isaiah either.

In the helpful answers to my other question, [Do all nations have guardian angels?](https://christianity.stackexchange.com/questions/96308/do-all-nations-have-guardian-angels) , it was determined that nations can indeed have a guardian angel. But according to the Catholic Church, can a nation fall under the dominion of a demon? Is there any evidence that suggests that this can be possible?

1 Corinthians 7:36-38 says: > But if any man thinks he is behaving improperly toward his virgin, if > she is past the flower of youth, and thus it must be, let him do what > he wishes. He does not sin; let them marry. Nevertheless he who stands > steadfast in his heart, having no necessity, but has power over his > own will, and has so determined in his heart that he will keep his > virgin, does well. So then he who gives her in marriage does well, > but he who does not give her in marriage does better. NKJV Is Paul saying here that the fathers have authority to decide whether to marry off their daughters? If yes, does he have to consult his daughter or is it fully up to the father?