I am trying to find out what the early church fathers had to say about “eternal security” or “assurance of salvation”. By that, I refer to the following Bible verses: >To Him who is able to keep you from falling and to present you before his glorious presence without fault and with great joy... (Jude 24) >...whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life” (John 3:16) >My sheep listen to my voice; I know them, and they follow me. I give them eternal life, and they shall never perish; no-one can snatch them out of my hand (John 10:27-28). >And do not grieve the Holy Spirit of God, with whom you were sealed for the day of redemption (Ephesians 4:30) >For I am convinced that neither death nor life, neither angels nor demons, neither the present nor the future, nor any powers, neither height nor depth, nor anything else in all creation, will be able to separate us from the love of God that is in Christ Jesus our Lord (Romans 8:38-39). From verses such as these, Protestants understand that our eternal security is purchased by Christ, promised by the Father, and sealed by the Holy Spirit. This assurance is experienced by Christians who have the indwelling of the Holy Spirit, whose lives have been transformed as evidence of the new birth and who live for Christ Jesus and who are prepared to die for Him – born-again Christians. I say this not to promote a particular belief but to clarify what I mean by expressions like “eternal security” and “assurance of salvation”. Neither do I wish to enter into a discussion on the theology. I simply want to know what the early church fathers had to say on this subject.

In the following statement in the [Nicene-Constantinopolitan Creed](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nicene_Creed) (AD 381), what exactly does "one" mean *for the framers* (i.e., not to subsequent interpretation)? - **[English](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/English_versions_of_the_Nicene_Creed)** : We [*or* I] acknowledge [*or* confess] **one** Baptism for the remission [*or* forgiveness] of sins. - **[Latin](https://earlychurchtexts.com/public/nicene_creed.htm)** (same as in [Tridentine mass](https://extraordinaryform.org/ExtraordinaryFormTextLandscape.pdf)) : Confíteor **unum** baptísma in remissiónem peccatórum. - **[Greek](https://earlychurchtexts.com/public/nicene_creed.htm)** : ὁμολογοῦμεν **ἓν** βάπτισμα εἰς ἄφεσιν ἁμαρτιῶν· ([transliteration](https://www.lexilogos.com/keyboard/greek_conversion.htm) : homologoũmen **hèn** báptisma eis áphesin hamartiō̃n) Does "one" mean: 1. You can only be baptized one time 1. There is only one way to baptize (with the Trinitarian formula) 1. The catechumen has to accept the one (orthodox) meaning of the creed 1. There is only one authority (orthodox church) that gives the sacrament of baptism 1. Baptized with the One Christ 1. Baptized into One Body of Christ 1. Etc. This question, which is historical in nature, requires the answer to provide a reference to a historical work that the framers *indeed* intended that meaning.

In an answer given here: https://christianity.stackexchange.com/questions/96437/on-inferring-that-the-redeemer-will-spring-from-the-race-of-shem , Paul Chernoch makes the very interesting observation: >Going through the ESV, I checked every verse with the construction "God of X". When X is the name of the person, these are the only names ever used: >- Shem >- Abraham >- Isaac >- Jacob >- Israel >- David >- Elijah >- Hezekiah >- Shadrach, Meshech and Abednego >- Daniel >The last three are references made by foreign kings, with Hezekiah being mocked and the remaining ones being honored, but this honor of being named in a "God of X" construction was not given by a prophet. Even so, Hezekiah was in Jesus' genealogy. >This leaves Elijah alone as not being in the line of the savior. He is the exception that proves the rule: a person being honored by being named in the phrase "God of X" is being granted a title of being an ancestor of the messiah. In Elijah's case, as far as we know, he was childless (the Bible being silent on this), so there would be no confusion. However, Elijah is a type of Christ, as he raised people from the dead. Hence, the conjecture here seems to be (with the explained exception of Elijah): that the phrase "God of X" is used in the Bible, it necessarily implies that "The God of X will be the Son of X." For example, see the fourth item in the list given in https://www.newtestamentchristians.com/bible-study-resources/351-old-testament-prophecies-fulfilled-in-jesus-christ/ ("The God of Shem will be the Son of Shem") I would like to know if anyone can think of a counterexample to Paul Chernoch's observation. More specifically--- QUESTION: Can anyone think of (with the noted exception of the prophet Elijah) an instance where the phrase "God of X" is used and it *does not* imply that "The God of X will be the Son of X"? (Perhaps in some bibles, the phrase "X's God" (or something like it) might be used in certain places.) Thank you.

We see in Matthew 2:1-2 (NKJV) how the Wise Men from the East came to visit Infant Jesus, saying that they had seen his star in the east. But, there is a small issue here: if the Wise men had seen the star in the east and followed it, they would have gone further eastward. If Bethlehem is treated as a base, and if the Wise men came from the East, they had moved westward! Now, some versions of Matthew 2:2 quote the Wise Men as saying that they had seen Jesus' star 'in the rising' that is, not specifying the direction east. One is, therefore, inclined to doubt if the term 'east' has wider connotations, other than just indicating the direction of sunrise, in the scriptures. It has been the tradition of the Church to build a place of worship facing the east. The Ad Orientem method of liturgy literally means 'towards the east'. Many orthodox churches as well as some Catholic Liturgical rites use Ad Orientem in their worship. But in congested cities where new churches get limited space for construction, the orientation of the structure to the east has become an exception rather than a rule. And those of the clergy and the faithful who chose to hold fast to the tradition, find things difficult. But then, do we not need to adapt ourselves to the constraints of modern life, in so far as worship is concerned? In other words, is there a special merit if one faces east while making a prayer? Inputs from scholars of any denomination are welcome.

I (a Christian) have been in several groups and see this argument poised here and there. I believe they get it from the Mormon apologist Blake Olster, but I could be mistaken. However, the problem below is the supposed “issues” with Christology. Any sort of information to help rebut these arguments would be much appreciated. Edit: I did not come up with this question, a Mormon did. I am simply asking for clarification, a new perspective or if there’s something I’m missing. I fully disagree with the below “argument.” It’s fallacious and completely wrong. **The Problem of Christology:** **A. If God is the essentially uncreated and the only one of its kind, then Christ cannot be fully divine.** 1. It is possible for a single person to be at once both fully human and fully divine. 2. Human nature is such that it is essentially created at some time. 3. Divine nature is such that it is essentially uncreated and timeless. 4. A nature defines what is essential to the kind that an individual is. 5. It is impossible for a single person to be both human (created) and also divine (uncreated) natures. (From 1, 2, and 3). (65) Premise #4 entails the denial of #5 and therefore one of them is false. **B. If God possesses essentially attributes that humans cannot possess essentially, then Christ cannot be both human and divine.** 1. God is essentially omnipotent, omniscient and omnipresent (essentially good, immutable, impassible, timeless, a se, etc.) 2. Jesus Christ was and is fully God/divine. 3. Jesus Christ was and is fully human. 4. Necessarily, no human is omnipotent, omniscient, or omnipresent (essentially good, immutable, impassible, timeless, a se, etc.) Whatever God’s nature is, human nature essentially cannot be / Whatever God’s nature is, human nature must be essentially different.

I was raised Catholic. I raised my family Catholic. I made sure they as well as myself did all the sacraments as we were supposed to: we were baptized as babies, had our first holy communion around age 7, and finally the sacrament of confirmation around age 15. We went through all the steps because we were Catholic. Now at the age of 56 I realize I did these things because they were "tradition" and that these were expected from us. We lived on Long Island for 40 years. Moved down South for 16 years. The Catholic church here feels lonely. They don't talk to you if you are not in their clique. After going for 6 straight months every Sunday, sitting in the same seat, still no one said "hello" or "welcome to the church". Then we started attending a Baptist church. The very first day I sat down people came up and said "hello", "welcome", "how are you?" They made me feel they wanted me to be there. Attending the Baptist church, I now understand God and Jesus. I have fully accepted them into my life and heart. I want to do the believers baptism at that church to let every one know that I now have God in my life and heart. Am I allowed? The pastor says yes. I will always be a Catholic in my heart but I consider myself "born again Catholic".

Very simple question really. If the sin of Adam is passed down through the generations, so that all of us are born with a sin nature, how can it be that Jesus was born of Mary (a human being), yet sinless? I'm from a Protestant (specifically Baptist) background, and would be interested in knowing how we explain it. Most churches have rather vague doctrinal statements that don't address subtle issues like this. So I am wondering if there are any common answers to this issue. Good answers will show that the position proposed is accepted by more than just the poster. The only argument I've beard before is that sin is passed via the seed of man, but I find no Biblical support for this, and it sounds like an artificially constructed argument to oppose some Catholic answers to this question which may require the sinlessness of Mary (which would be contrary to the Bible from the Protestant point of view).

I was listening to Pints With Aquinas July 29th episode with Trent Horn , he mentioned that a practice of gamete inter-fallopian transfer is an open question in the Catholic Church. What are the arguments for and against GIFT and what does that have to do with the use of a porous condom within marriage? (where does one even get a porous condom?)

The author's name given in the book is as follows: Roslyn D'Onston. I saw a footnote in reference to this book while doing some reading so I looked it up. I was happy to find that the work was public domain where I live so I got a digital copy free of charge. I was also happy to read the following on Google: "This work has been selected by scholars as being culturally important, and is part of the knowledge base of civilization as we know it." All seemed fine and well up to this point and I enjoyed reading through the translation of the Gospels and accompanying notes. As I often do, I decided to Google the author to learn more. That's where things got extremely weird. Apparently, this fella was involved in the occult and was suspected in the murders related to Jack the Ripper. As in...he was suspected to BE Jack the Ripper! You just can't make this stuff up, I guess. Anyway, due to the Jack the Ripper connection, I can't find much of anything about the author and his education/theology. He seems to understand Greek reasonably well and even mentions prominent scholars of the time by name (like Bishop Westcott). I'm just wondering if anyone here knows more about his background and credibility. Wikipedia's article on [Robert Donston Stephenson](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_Donston_Stephenson) and *The Guardian*'s article ["New Ripper suspect's ritual killings obeyed occult decree"](https://www.theguardian.com/uk/2002/jul/28/humanities.books) links him to D'Onston. I'm not very well informed on news sources and their credibility so maybe these are way off base. The Guardian article claims that D'Onston published the Patristic Gospels and then was never seen or heard from again.

***Jehovah’s Witnesses take a neutral stance in politics and in the military.*** Participating in politics or becoming a member of the armed forces is a serious offence that can result in a baptised Witness being disfellowshipped from the organisation. This article explains why Jehovah's Witnesses will not engage in warfare and says, in part: >Christians chose to remain politically neutral. No injustice or threat to them or the country in which they lived justified taking part in military action. (["Is War Compatible With Christianity?"](https://www.jw.org/en/publications/magazines/wp20091001/Is-War-Compatible-With-Christianity/) , Watchtower October 2009) Shepherd the Flock of God (2011) Elder’s Manual – includes the following as a disfellowship offence: >No 19 – Non-neutral activities (involvement in politics and the military) – Pay Attention to Yourselves and to All the Flock (ks91-E) p.96 >No 20 – Military service and non-military service including working casual work (certain civilian work has recently been made a conscience matter Watchtower 96 5/1 p.20) – Pay Attention to Yourselves and to All the Flock (ks91-E) p.96 I can understand why being trained to kill and using weapons to kill the enemy can be deemed as a serious offence, resulting in disciplinary action being taken. ***But how does political neutrality affect employment that is NOT connected with the military?*** What if a Jehovah’s Witness is employed as a civilian within, for example, the police or a political department within Government? Take someone working in public office in the finance department, or in administration, or as a secretary/stenographer. Would that level of employment be viewed as a serious offence? P.S. This question, asked in 2017, deals mainly with being conscripted into an army but does not deal with the question of employment within an organisation deemed to have political links: https://christianity.stackexchange.com/questions/57385/have-jehovahs-witnesses-always-been-politically-neutral

According to this pro-Sabbatarian source , Ignatius' statement, normally translated thus, is incorrect (emphasis mine): > If then those who had walked in ancient practices attained unto newness of hope, **no longer > observing sabbaths but fashioning their lives > after the Lord's day**, on which our life also > arose through Him and through His death > which some men deny -- a mystery whereby > we attained unto belief, and for this cause we > endure patiently, that we may be found disciples of Jesus Christ our only teacher.​ This translation contrasts observing Sabbaths with focusing on the Lord's Day. However, the Sabbatarian source linked to above says that "day" is not in the original (I take it that the translation above must believe it's implied), and that "those who had walked in ancient practices" were the Old Testament prophets. Since the Old Testament prophets *did*, in fact, keep the Sabbath, he says the translation above is incorrect and that the following translation is better (emphasis mine): > If then those who had walked in ancient practices attained unto newness of hope, **no longer > {Judaically} keeping sabbaths but according to the > Lord's way of life**...​ This would suggest that it isn't a contrast between the Sabbath and the Lord's Day but rather a contrast between observing the Sabbath Judaically (perhaps legalistically?) and observing the Sabbath according to the Lord's way. Which translation is better? Is it accurate that "those who had walked in ancient practices" are the Old Testament prophets (the assumption on which the second translation is based), or are they perhaps the first-century Christians/apostles observing the Lord's Day (which would favor the first translation)?

We read in Mtt 27:48 how a person standing by the cross , runs to get sour wine for Jesus to drink, after the Lord cries aloud in Aramaic. Jn 19:29 states that a jar of sour wine was there. It was to this jar that the person ( could be a soldier) was running. Now, sour wine or vinegar has the properties to quench thirst and also to kill pain. Calvary having been a place where crucifixion was regularly held, there is a possibility that a jar of sour wine was permanently kept somewhere nearby in a shaded place. The shelf- life of vinegar being good, there was no problem with its getting spoilt. Nor would someone steal it. As a matter of fact, the jar would serve as the source of last drink to the crucified convicts. (It is also clear from Mtt 27:34 where Jesus refuses the gall- mixed wine offered to him before the crucifixion ).In other words, Jesus was made to share his last drink before his death , with criminals. But one seldom comes across writings on the issue. My question therefore is : Are there any apocryphal writings of writing by scholars,on the last drink that Jesus had on the cross ?

The doctrine of the queenship of Mary, is the belief that once Mary had passed away and ascended to heaven, that she was crowned as the queen of heaven and given a special and exalted role as the queen of heaven. People who belief in this doctrine (i.e Orthodox and Catholic Christians) normally quote from Revelation 12:1-5 in order to prove this, but did any of the Early Church Fathers believe that Revelation 12:1-5 was speaking about Mary?

Having just asked this question of Roman Catholicism, which included a fairly lengthy attempt at defining the "simplicity that is in Christ" (2 Corinthians 11:3) from a biblical perspective and, in response to an immediate comment, I would like to ask this: According to Roman Catholicism, what is meant by this phrase "the simplicity that is in Christ" which Paul was concerned that the Corinthian minds were being corrupted from? > But I fear, lest by any means, as the serpent beguiled Eve through his subtilty, so your minds should be corrupted from the simplicity that is in Christ. 2 Corinthians 11:3

What was clear enough has become muddled for reasons unknown about Origen. We can speculate the resurgence of the idea of universal salvation is one reason for Origen's rise. >In the seventeenth century, the English Cambridge Platonist Henry More (1614 – 1687) was a devoted Origenist and, although he did reject the notion of universal salvation, he accepted most of Origen's other teachings. -wiki- >A few of his views were unorthodox, to the point that later generations debated whether he was a saint or a heretic. ... For instance, Origen believed in the pre-existence of souls and that one’s status in the present world was proportional to one’s commitment to God during this pre-existence. His negative attitude toward the material world wasn’t much different than that of the Gnostics he so strongly opposed. He also considered the Trinity a ranking, not an equality, and believed that everyone, even demons, would one day be forgiven and purified by God. These claims were key to his being declared a heretic by various councils in the centuries after his death. -source- So, what does the earlier church (pre 1054) believe about Origen?

A few times questions about “Blasphemy Against the Holy Spirit” have been asked on this site and then closed as either “off topic” since they are interpretative per denomination, or closed as “duplicate” which then links to a different closed question. To try to remedy this, since I believe it’s an important topic to discuss, I am curious how various denominations interpret this “unforgivable sin”. > How is “Blasphemy against the Holy Spirit” interpreted by various denominations? > What are some of the key disagreements between various denominations on this topic? > What do they [an aforementioned denomination] use as supporting evidence for their interpretations? An answer of any specific denomination is helpful, you (of course) don’t have to answer how each and every denomination interprets this.

Inspired by [an answer](https://christianity.stackexchange.com/questions/774/what-does-the-bible-say-about-bad-words/788#788) to one of my other questions, what is the proper meaning of 1 Thessalonians 5:22? * [KJV](http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=1%20Thessalonians%205:22&version=KJV) > Abstain from all appearance of evil. * [NIV](http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=1%20Thessalonians%205:22&version=NIV) : > reject every kind of evil. * [NKJV](http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=1%20Thessalonians%205:22&version=NKJV) > Abstain from every form of evil. I am most familiar with the first translation, as was the poster of the answer that inspired this question. But is that an accurate translation?

So my husband asked me how I would feel about him joining the navy, granted he wouldn’t actually be going on a ship to fight he would be working in construction for the navy but not harming anyone, I am a little conflicted about it because we want our own house and not have to worry so much about finances. He recently lost his job and the way this economy is; it’s hard for him to get work right now. Neither of us are baptized but at the same time we are wanting to get closer to Jehovah and hopefully get baptized but I jus thought since he wouldn’t be going to war and just be doing construction that it would be okay?

On my reading of a Anton Gill's 1989 book "The journey back from hell ", he speaks briefly about JWs in the concentration camps. According to Gill, one of the issues the Nazis had with this group was their unwillingness to do military service. Videos like this and this by Amnesty International indicates that they still rather suffer the consequences of prison and difficulties in finding employment than do military service, at least in South Korea. What would the consequences be for a Jehovah's Witness, from their religious organization, if they join a military? Would the person be excommunicated or disfellowshipped if this is found out? (In case it makes a difference, I am asking about a scenario where the person is unrepentant.)

It is a precept of the Catholic Church for one to attend Holy Mass on Sundays and Holy Days of obligation. I have not received a uniform answer to the following question, so I pose it here hoping that someone who is certain of an answer may post it: How late can a person arrive at Mass, say on a Sunday, in order for that Mass to fulfill that person's obligation to assist at Mass? *Note:* One person told basically told me: *up to the Consecration*; another said *before the Gospel reading*.