Which early church fathers (pre 500) taught it was possible for a person after their death to hear and receive salvation in Christ Jesus? We know some groups teach the necessity of water baptism to be saved. So for example, for them, a baby born but not baptized would be consigned to hell. Who taught it is possible to be saved even after one died, rather than go to and stay in hell for all eternity?

Some Christian traditions and theologians suggest that there might be an opportunity for repentance and salvation after death. Others reject this view and argue that Scripture teaches salvation must be received in this life. What are the key biblical arguments against the idea of a post-mortem chance for salvation? In particular, which passages are commonly cited to show that the opportunity for repentance ends at death?

Acts 15:29 and 21:25 carry over four requirements from the old testament to apply to gentile Christians - one of which is abstaining from sexual immorality. In Leviticus 20:18, it makes a big deal about having sex with a woman while she's on her period. > If a man lies with a woman during her menstrual period and uncovers her nakedness, he has made naked her fountain, and she has uncovered the fountain of her blood. Both of them shall be cut off from among their people. (ESV) However, Leviticus 15:24 makes it sound more like a ceremonial issue than a sexual immorality issue (which in that case may be a requirement which has passed away under the new covenant). > And if any man lies with her and her menstrual impurity comes upon him, he shall be unclean seven days, and every bed on which he lies shall be unclean (ESV) So the question is, what is the Biblical basis for claiming that a Christian husband is/is not permitted to have sex with his wife when she's on her period?

[Isaiah 42:19](https://biblehub.com/isaiah/42-19.htm) says: > “Who is blind but my servant, and deaf like my messenger whom I send…?” When I read this alongside the rest of Isaiah 42:18–25, I struggle with whether this “servant” is meant to describe: 1. Israel as a spiritually blind people, 2. the prophetic servant/Messiah, or 3. both in different senses. My specific concern is this: If Christians interpret Isaiah 42 as a Messianic prophecy fulfilled in Jesus, how should we understand verse 19 describing the servant as “blind” or “deaf”? Does the text imply any lack of understanding in the servant, or is this metaphor meant in a different way? I’m looking for an explanation grounded in the text and Christian theological interpretation, especially regarding how the “blindness” metaphor can be reconciled with Christian beliefs about Jesus’ perfect obedience and knowledge of God’s law.

According to Mormon Doctrine, Adam and Eve lived in Adam-ondi-Ahman . Which was revealed to Joseph Smith to be located in Missouri (see D&C 116:1 ). This would mean that unless Adam's posterity went on some epic intercontinental journey between Adam and Noah's time, that Noah likely built the ark not too far from Missouri, and sailed it from America all the way to the Eastern Continent. Do Mormons believe the ark was built on the American continent? And that everyone who lived before Noah dwelt in America?

The word 'Saviour' (σωτήρ, *soter*) is used twenty-four times in the Greek New Testament scriptures. Eight times, this refers to 'God'. Sixteen times it refers to 'Jesus', 'Christ', 'Jesus Christ', 'Lord Jesus Christ', and 'The Son'. One notable time, the wording used is 'the great God and Saviour of us, Jesus Christ', Titus 2:13, and here I am quoting the original, literal, in which the Greek idiom known as 'Sharp's rule' should be noted. No other person is called a 'saviour' in the Greek New Testament. Moses is referred to as a 'deliverer', the proper translation for λυτρωτῆς, *lutrotes*, in Acts 7:35, in regard to a national, not a spiritual, deliverance: and Noah is said to have 'saved' his household (from a flood, not a spiritual salvation) in Hebrews 11:7 when God was the Saviour by his warning Noah of the future flood. The salvation of one's own soul ; the salvation from one's own, personal sins; the salvation of oneself in regard to the sin which entered into the world and humanity in general; the salvation of one's body in resurrection: all are the province, solely, of 'God our Saviour' and of 'the God and Saviour of us, Jesus Christ.' In the light of this evidence, why do some suggest that Jesus Christ is not 'God' when the evidence appears to be, very substantially, in favour of the opposite conclusion? The list of eight references to 'God our Saviour': Lk 1:47, 1 Ti 1:1, 2:3, 4:10, Titus 1:3, 2:10, 3:4, Jude 25. The list of sixteen references to Christ as Saviour: Lk 2:11, Jn 4:42, Ac 5:31, 13:23, Eph 5:23, Phil 3:20, 2 Ti 1:10, Titus 1:4, 2:13, 3:6, 2 Pe 1:1, 1:11, 2:20, 3:2, 3:18, 1 Jo 4:14. -------------------------------------- All references and quotations relate to the TR Greek text and to the KJV translation of that text.

1 Timothy 3:16 seems like a pretty straightforward knock-out punch for Trinitarianism. > "And without controversy great is the mystery of godliness: God was > manifest in the flesh[.]" (KJB) How do Biblical Unitarians, who hold Jesus is not God but also hold to a strong view of scripture, explain this verse?

According to Wikipedia, the doctrine of [Perseverance of the saints](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Perseverance_of_the_saints) is: > [...] a Christian teaching that asserts that **once a person is truly "born of God" or "regenerated" by the indwelling of the Holy Spirit, they will continue doing good works and believing in God until the end of their life**. On the other hand, the doctrine of [Eternal Security](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eternal_security) is defined as follows: > Eternal security, also known as "once saved, always saved", is the belief that **from the moment anyone becomes a Christian, they will be saved from hell, and will not lose salvation**. **Once a person is truly "born of God" or "regenerated" by the indwelling of the Holy Spirit**, nothing in heaven or earth "shall be able to separate (them) from the love of God" (Romans 8:39) and thus **nothing can reverse the condition of having become a Christian**. So it appears that *Perseverance of the saints* is about unshakable **sanctification** after true conversion, whereas *Eternal Security* is about unshakable **salvation** after true conversion. So there appears to be a very subtle distinction between the two doctrines. **Question**: are there any denominations that believe in one doctrine while denying the other? Is it even possible to endorse one doctrine without endorsing the other?

There are many theodicies that I have personally encountered while thinking about the Christian faith. One is the Irenaean “greater-good theodicy” or “greater-good defense”. The Irenaean theodicy maintains that the world represents the best of all possible environments because it provides the conditions necessary for human moral and spiritual maturation. In most formulations of this theodicy, creation is viewed as unfinished insofar as human beings have not yet reached their full potential. The experience of evil and suffering is thus understood as needed for the process of human development, serving as the context in which individuals grow toward moral and spiritual completeness. Assuming this explanation, what was the purpose of the Holocaust? What greater good comes out from the Christian deity letting over 13 million people – among these about six million ethnic Jews – be tortured, raped and gassed to death by national socialists? Potentially making a few former national socialists feeling regret and coming to Jesus? The believer would then be forced to square that logic with the internal framework of a just deity. Some Christian scholars reject the Irenaean theodicy (e.g., D. Z. Phillips, who I believe was the first scholar to offer this exact argument against appeals to any greater good), because of these difficulties. A few explanations have been offered to me, apart from the “saving souls” defense. Another is the “soul-making” theodicy, that the Christian deity wants us to discover and embrace virtues like courage, charity, and a willingness to sacrifice out of free will. Scholars like C. Robert Mesle accurately point out that these seem valuable *only* because evil and suffering exist. If persecution, starvation and suffering were abolished, those particular actions would no longer be needed and so would lose their value. Therefore if soul-making explains suffering only as a means to produce such virtues, it is unclear what would be lost in a world without suffering. Therefore it seems that we are left with a deity that values virtue development, as a principle, higher than preventing or relieving the effects of a genocide, or a deity that values instrumentally valuable virtues higher than intrinsically valuable virtues. It also seems to reduce human lives to mere pawns in a grandiose cosmic plan, in which the individual and the value of the individual are completely set aside in order to for the Christian deity to achieve a collective plan for humanity. In a way, Irenaeus made God the ultimate utilitarian. A third defense I have encountered is the appeal to mystery or magic, which is an utterly defeating and non-meaningful response that does not explain anything and shuts down the conversation by moving the problem into the unknowable. I am curious to what different Christian sects and denominations view this issue, and if there are other ways to rescue the Irenaean defense without ending up in any of the three aforementioned categories.

Some modern interpreters speculate that the “image of the beast” in Revelation 13:14–15 could refer to advanced technology such as humanoid robots or AI systems that appear to “speak” and exercise authority. Are there any established Christian denominations or theological traditions (historic or contemporary) that officially or commonly interpret the “image of the beast” as referring to robots, artificial intelligence, or other technological constructs? If so: - What is the scriptural basis they use for connecting Revelation 13 with AI or robotics? - How do they interpret the phrases “give breath to the image” and the image “speaking”? I’m looking for answers grounded in recognized denominational teachings, published statements, or works by theologians representing those traditions—not purely personal speculation.

Is the Blessed Virgin's universal mediation of all graces definable as dogma? Can she be called "Mediatrix of All Graces"?

Is the Blessed Virgin's title of "Co-Redemptrix" definable as dogma? Can she be called a co-redeemer with Christ?

In some Reformed/Calvinist circles, a theological framework called the [Federal Vision](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_Vision) (FV) has led to significant internal debate over the true nature of the covenant between God and man, and, by extension, the role of faith and works in justification and salvation more generally. I'm currently reading a book by an FV opponent, David J. Engelsma, called [*Federal Vision: Heresy at the Root*](https://books.google.com/books?id=SqTGMQEACAAJ) . In chapter 6 he seems ready to address the following challenge: > Some of the proponents of the federal vision are decisional regenerationists; others hold to presupposed regeneration. How can you say that both hold to the same view of the covenant? But Engelsma's response does not shed much light on the difference between these views – he simply continues to group them together and critiques FV more generally. That's less than satisfying, so my question here is: **according to FV proponents, what are the perceived differences between decisional regeneration and presupposed regeneration views?** What impact do these differences have on the doctrine of the covenant held by different FV proponents?

**Unique Catholic Blessings of local Churches?** Just as I asked this question concerning Catholic feasts of local Churches, I would like to know if some readers here know of any local blessings attached to a local church, diocese or region which have been approved by the Catholic Church? I am interested in more historical blessings, even if they are no longer in vogue or usage.

Possible ways to understand "***virginity***" : - Some people may define it as no sexual event whatsoever. - Some may define as not having intercourse with a male. - Some may define it as not participating in any intimate acts with a male. - Some may define it as an intact hymen. I have a problem with the last one, since a lot of girls are not born with a hymen, or the hymen can be damaged in sports activities. I can't see a logical reason to think that the Blessed mother was definitely born with one or didn't damage it with non sexual physical activity. **So, what exactly does the Catholic Church mean by the "Virginity" of Mary?**

[Luke 1:26-26](http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Luke%201-2&version=NIV) : > **26** In the sixth month of Elizabeth’s pregnancy, God sent the angel Gabriel to Nazareth, a town in Galilee, **27** to a virgin pledged to be married to a man named Joseph, a descendant of David. The virgin’s name was Mary. Many other Bible verses talk about Mary's virginity, even to the point that the Catholic church teaches she was a virgin her entire life*. What evidence exists (either Biblical or extra-Biblical) to support the claim that she was indeed a virgin at the time of Jesus' conception? *This question is _not_ asking whether Mary was a perpetual virgin; only for evidence that she was a virgin at the time Jesus was conceived.

There is a Catholic Church near where I lived called "**Mary Queen of the Universe**" (Link) . It seems from their website it's a shrine for Mary. The name of this does not make much sense to me if it is a Christian church. How is she the Queen of the Universe? I have never seen this in the Bible (any translation). All I can think of is the marriage supper of the Lamb for all the believers in the end, not just Mary. Where did they come up with this title? Is the title "Queen of the Universe" something found in established Catholic teaching? Also, if it is an established title, what does it mean?

The JW book "*What Does the Bible Really Teach *" asserts that (the blood of the) "covenant, or contract, makes it possible for 144,000 faithful Christians to go to heaven (p207). and "These 144,000 Christians, including Jesus’ faithful apostles, are raised to life in heaven" (p74). This question seeks the Biblical basis for this (apparent) "144,000" limitation on how many Christians can go to heaven, particularly given Rev 7:9, > "After this (the sealing of the 144,000), I looked, and behold, a great multitude which no one could count, from-out-of every nation and all tribes and peoples and tongues, standing before the throne and before the Lamb, having-been-previously-clothed in white robes, and palm branches in their hands. (Rev 7:9) Notice that the subsequent context suggests this event occurs in heaven: >...all the angels had-been-standing around the throne and the elders and the four living creatures; and they fell before the throne upon the faces of them, and they worshiped the God. (Rev 7:11) > > ... these (the ones in white robes) are the [ones] coming from-out-of the great tribulation, and they have washed the robes of them and made them white in the blood of the Lamb. Because-of this, they are before the throne of the God; and they serve Him day and night in the temple of Him... (Rev 7:14-15) Apparently, an uncountable number are observed holding palm branches... in white, washed-in-the blood robes... from out of the great tribulation... standing before the throne of Jehovah (in heaven)... serving Him night and day in His temple. This report seems to conflict with only 144,000 believers going to heaven. In answering this question, please do not address why 144,000 is considered literal, or that "144,000" are sealed on their foreheads during the 6th seal (Rev 7:4), or a similar "144,000" are subsequently observed in heaven during the 7th seal (Rev 14:1). These have been addressed elsewhere on this site. This question seeks the Biblical basis for the specific (~144,000) **limitation**, when Rev 5:7-15 suggests the number is uncountable. An acceptable answer needs to harmonize this (apparent) conflict, without introducing non-scriptural information, ignoring anything relevant or contradicting other scriptures.

# Problem description # A protestant made the following two arguments about the assumption of Mary: 1. A catholic that doesn't accept the assumption of Mary will be excommunicated from the Catholic church 2. A catholic must believe in the assumption of Mary ---------- # Questions # - Are these arguments correct? - Is the assumption of Mary a salvific issue for Catholics? - If it's not a salvific issue why is it "good" to believe in it as a Catholic? The last question was asked from a Catholic perspective.

I'm not sure how to express the relationship that Catholics have with the Virgin Mary, so please excuse the word "faith" in the question title. **Giving Mary praise** I understand that Mary gave birth to Jesus. But, isn't Jesus God in human form? He is the Alpha and the Omega. He chose Mary to give birth to his human body, right? So if Mary was chosen by God, and we know that Mary is incapable of doing anything on her own, why give her so much praise? Is she not just another servant like the rest of us? **Intercession** When one asks the virgin Mary to intercede for us, I'm confused. Isn't that the role of Jesus, that the curtain to the Holy room was torn because Jesus is now our intercessor between us and God? We may now go directly to Jesus, so why have Mary do this for you? I am seeking the Catholic viewpoint on this.