The Old Roman Symbol was a forerunner of the Apostles Creed. The structure seems to imply a dual maternity. I believe in God the Father almighty; and in Christ Jesus His only Son, our Lord, Who was born of the Holy Spirit and the Virgin Mary, Who under Pontius Pilate was crucified and buried, on the third day rose again from the dead, ascended to heaven, sits at the right hand of the Father, whence He will come to judge the living and the dead; and in the Holy Spirit, the holy Church, the remission of sins, the resurrection of the flesh (the life everlasting) Notice what could be understood as a dual maternity: "born of the Holy Spirit and the Virgin Mary". It seems if the Holy Spirit is the Eternal Matriarch of the Eternal Father then the dual-nature of the Son (Son of God; Son of Man) would be easily understood. Is their any evidence in church history that the Holy Spirit was understood as Eternal Matriarch? When Jesus spoke to Nicodemus about being born again of the Holy Spirit, which could be understood then that God's children are born of the Holy Spirit?

I know that the major reformers like Martin Luther, Zwingli, John Calvin, etc. were Roman Catholic priests that became Protestant. According to Roman Catholicism and Eastern Orthodoxy, priests can't ordain other priests, only bishops can ordain priests. The question is: Did Luther, Calvin, and Zwingli have the authority to ordain ministers like elders, presbyters, and deacons since they weren't bishops but rather priests?

*(Pardon the length - my original post was more concise, but wasn't clearly conveying my question.)* Background: ----------- I am currently studying the Spiritual Disciplines at a Protestant seminary. For those unfamiliar with this term, I will give a very brief explanation. Paul instructs Timothy to: > **discipline** yourself for the purpose of godliness... For it is for this we **labor** and **strive** **- 1 Timothy 4:7-10** For example, one Spiritual Discipline which is generally recognized among Protestant theologians is fellowship (or regular church attendance). > let us consider how to stimulate one another to love and good deeds, **not forsaking our own assembling together**, as is the **habit** of some **- Hebrews 10:24-25** Basically the idea is that there are certain **disciplines** which followers of Christ are called to **practice regularly**. Despite the overwhelming witness from "Church Fathers" regarding the extreme importance of such disciplines, many Protestant theologians have called this the **single greatest weakness in modern Protestantism**. *(Complete rejection of the doctrine of Spiritual Disciplines is a very modern position.)* For the record, this is not "works-based salvation"; it is not "earning God's acceptance"; it is not church-mandated religion; it is simply a mature personal response to God's call for followers of Christ to be serious and intentional in following Him in all the ways which He has called us to follow Him. **Please note: My question has nothing to do with *whether* we should practice Spiritual Disciplines, or what *value* they have.** Confession as a Spiritual Discipline ------------------------------------ One commonly recognized Spiritual Discipline is **confession**. The following passage is used to draw attention to the importance of confession. > Therefore, **confess your sins to one another**, and pray for one another so that you may be healed. The effective prayer of a righteous man can accomplish much. **- James 5:16** Although Scripture does not (to my knowledge) explicitly command us to make regular practice of this, the idea behind the Protestant doctrine of Spiritual Disciplines is that we **practice** right behavior intentionally and **diligently**, including things like confession. Rejection of the Catholic implementation ---------------------------------------- My impression is that: - Luther took issue with how the Catholic Church **viewed** confession. (i.e. working your way into right standing with God, intermediary "Priests", etc.) - Luther did **not** take issue with confession as a **practice** (Discipline) - Luther rejected **practices** which he deemed heretical, while retaining others - Somewhere along the line, the **practice** of confession in Protestant churches took a completely different **form** than in Catholicism. (Perhaps when Luther's band split?) - Protestant theologians have long regarded confession as an important Spiritual Discipline - Modern Protestant believers are generally very undisciplined about confession My question ----------- I began to wonder if there might be aspects to the Catholic implementation which Protestants should have retained (from a Protestant perspective, of course). For example, Catholic confession seems to be **any time**, **any sin** (and indeed **every sin**), **private**, **anonymous**, etc. As a Protestant, this sounds like a very good idea - if Protestant churches had such a "booth" available, I wonder if Protestants wouldn't be more disciplined in this practice. I became very curious... Why didn't Protestants just replace the "Priest" with a Pastor, guard against thinking of it as "working your way up to God", and retain the rest of these potentially valuable elements? Furthermore, if a Catholic Priest was a believer, and didn't think of confession as "earning salvation", what would be wrong (from a Protestant perspective) with Catholic confession in that case? **What I am specifically looking for:** - **When** did the Protestant church reject the Catholic **method** of practicing confession? (Again, not the *views*, but the *elements* I just mentioned.) - **Why** were these **methods** originally rejected? - Are there any reasons why the Catholic **methods** should still be rejected **today** (according to Protestant doctrine)? - If not, would a Protestant find value in participating in Catholic confession today? (I am of course asking about the church's doctrinal position, not personal opinions.) - Are there modern Protestant groups which participate in confession at Catholic churches? Thanks!

Consider the following scenario: - Yesterday I confessed my sins in a Catholic Church. - Today I commit a grave sin - Tomorrow I get in a car accident and as a result suffer from memory loss - In two days time and thereafter, I no longer remember the sin I had committed two day prior How does the forgotten sin affect one's salvation?

In my previous question *https://christianity.stackexchange.com/q/95830/61679* , I presented the following contradiction: > **Premises** > - P1: God is omnibenevolent > - P2: God is omnibenevolent => God is *not* capable of moral evil > - P3: God has free will > - P4: God has free will => God is capable of moral evil > > **Deductions** > - D1: God is *not* capable of moral evil (from P1 & P2) > - D2: God is capable of moral evil (from P3 & P4) > - Contradiction between D1 & D2 (=> The "missing link" here is *character.* **God has free will, and is fully capable of being tempted and enticed to do evil, but consistently chooses to use that free will in benevolent and righteous ways**. In this, and particularly through the example of the life of his son, Jesus Christ, he teaches us how to use our free will in benevolent and righteous ways as well. Comment: this answer explicitly affirms premises 3 and 4, and implicitly affirms premise 1 and rejects premise 2. [Answer 2](https://christianity.stackexchange.com/a/95949/61679) : > The OP presents a logically valid argument to show a contradiction > between God having free will and God being omnibenevolent. **However,** > **the argument is not sound because premise 2 is false.** > > **Premise 2 (God is omnibenevolent => God is not capable of moral evil)** > **is an untenable definition of omnibenevolent**--it in fact begs the very > question the argument is trying to evaluate. **If God expressed love,** > **provided aid, and sustained life simply because He couldn't *not* do** > **those things, He would be no more benevolent than oxygen, which also** > **sustains life...but is not *benevolent***. > > Oxford languages defines benevolent as "well-meaning and kindly". > Something which sustains life because it is compelled to do so by the > laws of nature may be useful, but it fails to demonstrate any evidence > of benevolence. For a more down-to-earth example, we might consider > how we would feel if someone did a great service for us (oh, how > benevolent!), only to learn that they were coerced into doing so (it > no longer appears benevolent at all). Neither oxygen nor someone > forced into a service project are well-meaning & kindly. It is a > category error to assume Christians use "benevolent" to describe a God > who is loving, merciful etc. because He is compelled to do so. > > God is benevolent *because* He has free will and chooses to do things > that are well-meaning and kindly. Comment: this answer explicitly concedes premises 1 and 3, explicitly rejects premise 2 and is silent about premise 4, although premise 4 is implicitly accepted since it follows logically from accepting P1, ~P2 and P3. In summary, both answers, written by Latter-day Saints, seem to concede all premises except P2, and therefore reject that God is *not* capable of moral evil, which is equivalent to conceding that God *is* capable of moral evil. In short: they believe that God *is* capable of moral evil. And this brings us to James 1:13-15: | James 1:13-15 KJV | | - | | 13 Let no man say when he is tempted, I am tempted of God: **for God cannot be tempted with evil, neither tempteth he any man**: 14 But every man is tempted, when he is drawn away of his own lust, and enticed. 15 Then when lust hath conceived, it bringeth forth sin: and sin, when it is finished, bringeth forth death. | If, according to James, God cannot be tempted by evil, that explicitly contradicts the belief that God *is* capable of moral evil. See this [answer](https://christianity.stackexchange.com/a/95979/61679) for a more elaborate presentation of this objection. How do Latter-day Saints account for James 1:13-15, and how do they reconcile this passage with their understanding of God's omnibenevolence and God's free will? --- **Appendix - Deriving P4 from P1, ~P2, P3** I'm adding this as requested in the comments. Let: - O = God is omnibenevolent - E = God is capable of moral evil - F = God has free will Then the premises can we rephrased as follows: - P1: O - P2: O => ~E = ~O | ~E - ~P2: ~(~O | ~E) = O & E - P3: F - P4: F => E = ~F | E If P1, ~P2, P3 are conceded, then it follows: - E (from ~P2) - P4 = ~F | E (from E) Actually, ~P2 is enough to derive P4. ~P2 entails E, and E entails P4.

From the Wikipedia article [Trial of Joan of Arc](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trial_of_Joan_of_Arc) : > Several questions of a theological nature followed, including this one: > >Question: Do you know whether or not you are in God's grace? > >Joan: If I am not, may God put me there; and if I am, may God so keep me. I should be the saddest creature in the world if I knew I were not in His grace. > >The question was a deliberate attempt to entrap her, **since the Church's doctrine held that no one could be certain of being in God's grace**; and yet answering 'no' could also be used against her because the judge could claim she had admitted to being in a state of sin. QUESTION: Specifically, in reference to *since the Church's doctrine held that no one could be certain of being in God's grace*, where may I actually find the Catholic Church officially having promulgated the doctrine referred to here? Was it promulgated by a particular Pope? Council? Is it part of official Catholic Dogma? *de Fide*? something lesser? I am looking for an official declaration of doctrine. Thank you.

Exodus 25:10 says: > 10 “Have them make an ark[b] of acacia wood—two and a half cubits long, a cubit and a half wide, and a cubit and a half high. **My question is**: Given that - 2.5 + 1.5 + 1.5 = 5.5 cubits, which is half the measure of 5, 3 and 3 (which are equal to 11 when added), and - 11 being a Triangular number that is equal to 66, and the sum of the Ark that is 66 also, what is the important significance of 66 other than its being found in the middle of 62 and 70 in Daniel 9? The only explanation I can come up with is that the five book of Moses, which has 187 chapters in total, are the knowledge and the wisdom of the hand of G-D and the Holy fire or the burning bush, and any women can't approach the Holy Ark or be in the temple where the Ark is present other than a person who is selected by the Creator. Hebrew alphabets have 22 letters, which is 11×2 and the triangular number is 23 × 11 = 253. 23 × 11 - 6 × 11 = 187. 5     9     13 17    21    25 29    33    37 41    45    49 53    57    61    17+45=62   21+45=66    25+45=70   41+21=62   45+21=66    49+21=70 62+66+70=198      66+66+66=198 62+70=132   66÷11=6 66÷11=6  66÷11=6 132÷2=66        11+6=17  11+6=17  11+6=17 17+41=58   21+45=66    25+49=74 5+53=58     9+57=66    13+61=74 58+66+74=198  58+74=132  132÷2=66 66+66+66=198  66÷11=6  66÷11=6  66÷11=6 11+6=17  11+6=17  11+6=17 1+2+3+4+5+6+7+8+9+10+11=6×11 An angel goes to a woman who will be pregnant and that her son will have an 11'th hour ministry and he saw saw dreams that came to pass.

If a Church of England member has never been baptized, then there are pathways to receive this sacrament . You can only be baptized once . What happens if a Church of England member is *unsure* and *cannot prove either way* whether they were baptized in infancy? Can they be baptized now? The usual sources of proof - certificate, parish registers - are unavailable or destroyed, and there is no-one living who would be able to recall the original baptism.

Do Biblical Unitarian churches also baptise in the Name of God, Jesus and the Holy Spirit? Which words are used? Please specify the concrete denomination in your answer, as this may be handled differently. ---------- P.S. Found on this site: https://christianity.stackexchange.com/questions/91174/what-is-the-wording-used-for-christadelphian-baptism Christadelphians are one particular biblical Unitarian denomination.

I've frequently engaged in discussions about Christianity that have revolved around free will, particularly with regards to predestination (and recently as of writing this question, sinlessness) and the term is one often tossed around without being defined. When pushed for a more precise definition, people will often answer in different ways, giving definitions that contradict each other and thus lead to confusion. Personally, when I use the term I am generally referring to libertarian free will (LFW for short) , which is fairly well defined, and if someone else says that's the definition they're using I can be confident we're on the same page, ie we mean the same thing when we say "free will". Are there any other "forms" of free will like LFW, with a relatively clear objective definition, that are used within Christianity or exclusive to it? The main attribute I'm looking for is (consistent) usage; if there's a very clear definition used solely by the churches in a small village in Finland, or by a handful of scholars, that's still a valid answer but not as helpful as one more widely known.

This development in German universities in the 1800s is not to be confused with today’s “Critical Theory” (just in case anyone reading the 1990 quote below thinks they are akin.) This question deals with a new approach to Scripture – examining the text critically, scientifically even, as all other ancient texts should be treated. It was at total odds with the venerable Dean Burgon who declared, > “The Bible is none other than the Word of God: not some part of it, > more, some part less; but all alike, the utterance of Him who sits > upon the Throne; - absolute, faultless, unerring, supreme.” J.W. > Burgon, *Inspiration and Interpretation, Seven Sermons before the > University of Oxford in 1860-61*, p.89 Although today’s “Critical Theory” does impact on the Church, it is political, not theological, being a German idea started in Germany in 1923 that is a mixture of Marxism and postmodernism being fronted as ‘social justice’. Having cleared that up, ***here now is the quote that my question is based upon:*** > “In its own eyes, historical-critical theology wants to lend > assistance to the proclamation of the gospel through an interpretation > of the Bible that is scientifically reliable and objective. There is, > however, a monstrous contradiction between what it says it wants to > do, on the one hand, and what it actually does, on the other. It does > not further the proclamation of the gospel – in fact, it actually > prevents it.” Eta Linnemann, 1990 Dr. Linnemann was a ‘follower’ of Rudolph Bultmann and a teacher of higher criticism in the university system of West Germany but I cannot find the book she wrote which this quote apparently comes from (which is in a translation of: *Historical Criticism of the Bible*) **Can anyone** pad this quote out to **give reasons for such a drastic reversal? In what ways would Higher Criticism prevent the proclamation of the biblical gospel, as claimed? What is “this monstrous contradiction”** Dr. Linnemann hints at?

According to [Acts 4:32-37](http://www.biblestudytools.com/nrs/acts/passage.aspx?q=acts+4:32-37) , the early Christians pooled all their possessions and had no private ownership. Is there any record of how long this lasted, and why it ended?

This question is a spin-off of the previous discussion *https://christianity.stackexchange.com/q/95830/61679* . Therein, the top [answer](https://christianity.stackexchange.com/a/95831/61679) stated: > This question is answered directly in the text of the Bible. > > 14 Seeing then that we have a great high priest, that is passed into the heavens, Jesus the Son of God, let us hold fast our profession. > > > > 15 For we have not an high priest which cannot be touched with the feeling of our infirmities; but was in all points tempted like as we > are, yet without sin. > > > > -- [Hebrews chapter 4](https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Hebrews%204&version=KJV) > > The "missing link" here is *character.* God has free will, and is > fully capable of being tempted and enticed to do evil, but > consistently chooses to use that free will in benevolent and righteous > ways. In this, and particularly through the example of the life of > his son, Jesus Christ, he teaches us how to use our free will in > benevolent and righteous ways as well. To which I replied: > Then one could ask the follow-up question *"then why did God not create human beings which are free and have perfect character?"* After noticing that the author of the top answer is a Latter-day Saint, I would like to know how the LDS denomination addresses the question. So my question for Latter-day Saints is: Why did God, according to Latter-day Saints, opt to create human beings with imperfect characters and vulnerability to evil, instead of bestowing them with perfect characters immune to evil like His own from the very beginning?

In John 19:30, we see Jesus giving up his Spirit on the Cross after saying: " It is finished " . In Contemporary English Version, the words appear as " Everything is done" . So, by giving up his life on the Cross, Jesus completed the Mission of Salvation entrusted to him. But, Jesus rises again on the third day and we have St Paul saying that but for the Lord' s Resurrection, we would still remain sinful (1 Cor 15:17). One is therefore, intrigued if the salvific work of Jesus would have remained incomplete, had he not risen again. But then, why did Jesus say " Everything is done " just before he died on the cross ? My question therefore, is: Was the Resurrection of Jesus part and parcel of the Salvific Mission ? Inputs from scholars of any denomination are welcome.

Where did Arius learn his theology? Did he rely on specific theologians that wrote before him? Origen? Clement of Alexandria? Lucian of Antioch? Were his ideas based on the Bible or on Greek philosophy? Was he part of a specific school of thought or did he develop an entirely new system?

Numerous miracles and theophanies in the New Testament make clear the Christ was perceived to be divine. A range of epithets were used across the books, such as "Son of the Living God" Matthew 16:16, as well as the beautiful and famous words of John 1:1. What I would like to explore is: as miraculous as it all was, some components of the pre-existing requirements of the "messianic prophecy" were not fulfilled. Clearly, Christianity and Judaism are distinct, but the New Testament transpires in a Jewish setting nonetheless. Let us not forget that the disciples themselves were Jewish. The requirements of how to recognize the messiah seem to date back over 2,500 years. The Old Testament as well as portions of other books, such as the [Book of Zephaniah](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Book_of_Zephaniah) enumerate the principal prerequisites (not exhaustive): - A male descendant of the Jewish King David - Human (no hypostasis) - A great military and political leader - Able to rebuild the Temple in Jerusalem - Ruler over humanity So perhaps it's less about whether or not Christ *could* do these things, presumably he could. It's more about, given that he did not or was not, the disciples adapted their understanding of what the messiah really is without needing those things in the above list for affirmation.

Question

Given the geographic and socio-religious context placing the events of the New Testament in an ancient Israel deeply steeped in traditional/Rabbinical teachings, what evidence do we have (scriptural, scholarly, or otherwise) to help us understand how or why the disciples were able to accept Christ as Messiah while not undertaking the rigorous check-the-box exercise that they were most likely at least familiar with? **Note:** The context and translation accuracy from/into Koine Greek for Μεσσίας is relevant here, but for simplicity's sake we can speak in generalities as there seems to be plenty of references to Christ as the Messiah throughout the New Testament or at least hinting at as in the case of John 1:19.

According to Trinitarians, is the Holy Spirit quenched and grieved by those who deny His personhood and Christ's deity? If so, would that mean that people who do not believe in the deity of Christ and the personhood of the Holy Spirit **cannot** possibly experience the fullness of the Spirit, because the Holy Spirit will never fill someone who is permanently grieving and quenching Him? **Note**: an interesting article discussing what it means to grieve and quench the Holy Spirit is the following: https://www.gotquestions.org/grieve-quench-Holy-Spirit.html .

In Mtt 12:32-33, Jesus speaks about the Sin against the Holy Spirit. He elaborates that blasphemy against the Son of God will be forgiven, but that against the Holy Spirit will not be. Now, forgiveness of a sin presupposes a pardoning authority. Let us presume that God the Father is the pardoning authority for blasphemy against the Son. A doubt naturally arises as to who the pardoning authority for sin against the Holy Spirit is: the Father, or the Son, or the Holy Spirit himself, or all the Holy Trinity put together ? My question therefore is : According to the Trinitarian and Non- Trinitarian precepts, who is the pardoning authority for Sin against the Holy Spirit.

Matthew 24:34 says "I tell you the truth, this generation will certainly not pass away until all these things have happened.". I am a Christian, and it is my duty to seek out truth, not plainly accept what I hear or what other people say it is. So I've read this verse, and it really had me confused. Taking it by word and its plain meaning. I can read this as: - 'this generation' = people He was talking to - 'these things' = judgement day/end times It's clearly obvious that 'this generation' have already passed away, his disciples/followers/people at that time are already dead by now, and the world hasn't come to an end yet. What does this verse really mean? According to modern Protestant scholars.

Jehovah's Witnesses are well known for avoiding most if not all religious holiday celebrations. Most reasons center on the apparent linkage of these celebrations with various pagan celebrations and feasts celebrated by non-Jews before Jesus came to earth and established Christianity. What specifically do JWs say about the Easter holiday and its origins and what (if anything) the Bible has to say about celebrating Easter?