This question is asked in response to this recent question: https://christianity.stackexchange.com/questions/95826/where-does-the-idea-that-faith-must-be-a-condition-for-baptism-originate-from I am trying to find evidence from the writings of Clement, Polycarp, Irenaeus, Ignatius, and Justin Martyr that justification/salvation depends upon undergoing water baptism and that faith in Christ Jesus is not a pre-condition. So far, this is what I have found: >Clement of Rome: “And we, too, being called by His will in Christ Jesus, are not justified by ourselves, nor by our own wisdom, or understanding, or godliness, or works which we have wrought in holiness of heart; but by that faith through which, from the beginning, Almighty God has justified all men; to whom be glory for ever and ever. Amen” (1 Clement, 32). >Polycarp Letter to the Philippians: “... for as much as you know that it is by grace you are saved, not of works, but by the will of God through Jesus Christ.” Unfortunately, I do not have access to relevant and reliable material and would appreciate some help in finding out ***what the early Church Fathers believed about water baptism***. ***I do not want to go beyond A.D. 325 unless that becomes necessary.*** Thank you. EDIT: I have changed the question to focus more on what the early church fathers had to say about baptism, in the hope that will encourage some input from the community.

Arius probably quoted the following: > *Revelation 3:14*: These things saith the Amen, the faithful and true witness, the beginning of the creation of God. > > *Psalm 8:5–6*: thou madest Him > > *Proverbs 8:22–25*: the LORD possessed *[H7069 strongs, get, acquire, create]* me in the beginning of his way, before his works of old... when there were no depths I was brought forth. What other scriptures did Arius use to support his teaching that Jesus was created?

Just the other day, I heard somebody talking politics and contrasted the Roman Catholic church's political influence with "the Evangelical vote". In this sense, as is often done in US media, the word seem to be used as a synonym of 'Protestant'. However I get the feeling there is another layer to this. Where did the term 'Evangelical' come from and how is it distinct from 'Protestant'. Used properly, what group(s) is it generally understood to include or what world view does it describe?

Psalm 2 > 6 Yet have I set my king upon my holy hill of Zion. 7 I will declare the decree: YHWH hath said unto me, Thou art my Son; this day have I **begotten** thee **Question(s) - answer as many as you are willing and able:** - ***What day was this "son" begotten?*** - ***Can we assume this "son" is Jesus?*** - ***Was this the "day" YHWH also enthroned him in v6?*** - ***Can YHWH beget Himself? Do fathers ever beget themselves?*** (If this son is Jesus and Jesus is YHWH) - ***Did Jesus beget a son?*** (If this son is NOT Jesus and Jesus is YHWH). Applicable scripture: Psalm 89 >25 Also I will set his hand over the sea, And his right hand over the rivers. 26 He shall cry to Me, ***‘You are my Father, My God,*** and the rock of my salvation.’ 27 Also I will make him ***My firstborn,** The highest of the kings of the earth.* The author of Hebrews quotes the OT psalm: >Heb1:5 For to which of the angels did He ever say: “You are My Son, Today I have begotten You”? Jesus says about himself: >Luke 22:29 and just as My Father has GRANTED ME A KINGDOM, I grant you And Daniel... >Daniel 7:14 “And to him was **given** dominion, Glory and A KINGDOM, From Strongs: >μονογενής monogenḗs, mon-og-en-ace'; from G3441 and G1096; only-born, i.e. sole:—only (begotten, child).

Amidst the 70s War protests, Feminist "bra burning, Sexual revolution, Hippie rebellion, New Age infusion, and Drug abuse, there arose the **Jesus Revolution** movement! Instead of going along with the cultural motto, *Tune in, turn on, drop out*, there were heard shouts of *Praise the Lord!* and worship singing accompanied with guitars, in the city parks--as well as baptisms in the fountains! The phenom took over America so much that the **Face of Jesus** even made it on the cover of TIME magazine! So, was this all just an adjunct to the hippie culture of the 70s, or was it a genuine break-away movement that became a life of its own? And since it was Christian based, did it benefit Christianity by producing lasting commitments to the principles of the Christian religion? That is, was there: - a rise in church attendance - increase in spiritual worship - more charitable giving - unity among the church family - establishment of new church congregations - respect for the older generation - change in moral life-style - greater desire to do Bible study - established prayer life Was this movement a genuine, religiously beneficial phenomenon for the Christian Church? Were existing denominations edified, as well as new congregations created that enlarged the Kingdom of God? What do the registry documents of denominations reveal concerning new membership?

*To be clear right from the start: I have noted that some people do not believe in the doctrine of trinity, namely "three personas, one nature", but* **my question is not about whether the doctrine is true!** *It is about* **understanding the doctrine.** *Thus this is not a question of opinion.* ---------------------------------------------------- I have heard multiple times the doctrine that Jesus, Father, and Holy Spirit are personas of God or "one God in three Divine persons" (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trinity) . According to Wikipedia: > The three persons are distinct, yet are one "substance, essence or nature". In this context, a "nature" is what one is, whereas a "person" is who one is. But what does this mean? Sometimes it is compared with water also having three appearances, gas, liquid and ice, but I have been told that this is an example of [Modalistic Monarchianism](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Modalistic_Monarchianism) , which, as I have been told is a heresy according to one of the large early church councils. I do not have evidence for any of that because I am recalling from memory and are happy for corrections if I got something wrong. In any case, I see that [for instance at the baptism of Christ, the Father, Son and Spirit are all distinctly present and interacting.](https://christiantoday.com.au/news/the-trinity-is-like-waterand-other-bad-analogies.html) So I see how this is [not like water](https://www.apostolictheology.org/2014/02/why-trinity-is-not-like-water-in-any-way.html) . Quoting https://christiantoday.com.au/news/the-trinity-is-like-waterand-other-bad-analogies.html : > Other bad analogies > > If water is inadequate, there are a wide array of alternative analogies we can turn to in modern theological parlance. Eggs are one, yet comprise yolk, shell and albumen. The sun comprises the sun itself, its light and its heat. > > These are likewise erroneous or even heretical. Each part of the egg make up only one portion of the whole—the yolk is not the fullness of the egg. Yet the orthodox view is that each person of the Trinity is fully divine. Similarly, light and heat are simply creations of the sun, yet it is the heresy of Arianism to claim that the Son or Spirit are mere creations of the Father. Ok, so I see what we do not mean when talking about the trinity. But what *do* we mean? In that context I am not so much looking for a good analogy, but instead of a good explanation of the terms "nature" and "person" in the context of the trinity and in order to understand the trinity. It seems to me that if those words cannot be defined properly, there is no point in using them in the first place, because that would be the same as stringing together syllables without meaning. In that case I would prefer to say "Jesus, Father, Spirit are distinct and one at the same time and we don't know how that is possible." without introducing fancy words like "nature" or "persona". To be honest, it actually sounds misleadingly similar to "three gods", because a friend of mine and I also have the same "nature" of being human and are two different persons. **EDIT:** I was asked to clarify what is unique of my question. In contrast to https://christianity.stackexchange.com/questions/41928/are-father-son-and-holy-spirit-explicitly-identified-as-persons-in-any-writi I would like to get definitions of the words "persona" and "nature" and use these definitions to explain the term "three personas, one nature".

The concept of "being filled" with the Holy Spirit is mentioned multiple times in the New Testament, and according to the book of Acts it appears to have been a crucial aspect of the early Christian life. According to **Catholicism**: - What does it mean to be "filled" with the Holy Spirit? - What are concrete and practical ways by which Christians can be filled (and stay filled) with the Holy Spirit? _______ For those interested in the Protestant perspective: https://christianity.stackexchange.com/q/86595/50422

John 5:18 says > "Because of this, the Jews tried all the harder to kill Him. Not only > was He breaking the Sabbath, but He was even calling God His own > Father, making Himself equal with God." Biblical Unitarians typically interpret this passage as the Jews being incorrect in claiming Jesus was making Himself equal with God, as a theme in John is people not understanding what Jesus is saying or who He is (this is made clearer at John 8). Do Trinitarians agree that at this point in John's Gospel the Jews had adequate grounds to make the claim that Jesus was making Himself equal with God?

Was the sin of Adam and Eve caused by partial ignorance? Before the fall they were ignorant about the shame of nakedness.

Scripturally speaking, we know that apostleship was one of the most important offices in the early Church: > 28 And **God has appointed in the church first apostles**, second prophets, third teachers, then miracles, then gifts of healing, helping, administrating, and various kinds of tongues [1 Cor 12:28 ESV] > > 11 And **he gave the apostles**, the prophets, the evangelists, the shepherds and teachers, 12 to equip the saints for the work of ministry, for building up the body of Christ, [Ephesians 4:11-12 ESV] > > 19 So then you are no longer strangers and aliens, but you are fellow citizens with the saints and members of the household of God, 20 **built on the foundation of the apostles** and prophets, Christ Jesus himself being the cornerstone, [Ephesians 2:19-20 ESV] > > 11 I have been a fool! You forced me to it, for I ought to have been commended by you. For I was not at all inferior to these super-apostles, even though I am nothing. 12 The signs of **a true apostle** were performed among you with utmost patience, with signs and wonders and mighty works. [2 Cor 12:11-12 ESV] However, the term "missionary" is not strictly speaking a Biblical term (as far as I'm aware), and it typically denotes someone who is sent somewhere (usually an unevangelized area) to carry out some specific service(s) related to the expansion of God's kingdom. However, the concept of apostle is also sometimes more loosely understood as "sent one", which to my ears sounds pretty much the same as a missionary, so the distinction between the two terms becomes a bit blurry. What is the difference between an *apostle* (as understood by the early Church, and as recorded in Scripture) and a *missionary* according to Pentecostal & Charismatic Christianity? ____ Related: https://christianity.stackexchange.com/q/48591/50422

There is general agreement that Satan had already rebelled when Eden was created and that Eve sinned just a few hours/days after creation. Are there any hypotheses about how satan got into Eden immediately after its creation? It's rather unbelievable that he was admitted there after he had been banned from Heaven. Secondary questions with no answers are: how could he take the shape of a serpent, speak Eve's language, convince her etc.

The concept of "fivefold ministry" comes from Ephesians 4:11-13: > 11 And he gave **the apostles, the prophets, the evangelists, the shepherds and teachers**, 12 to equip the saints for the work of ministry, for building up the body of Christ, 13 until we all attain to the unity of the faith and of the knowledge of the Son of God, to mature manhood, to the measure of the stature of the fullness of Christ [ESV] Are there any denominations that believe that the totality of the fivefold ministry is available to women? In other words, are there any denominations that believe that the existence of female pastors, female teachers, female evangelists, female prophets and female apostles is entirely within the realm of possibility in modern times? **Note:** for reasons for not conflating spiritual gifts and church offices (some make this distinction), see https://christianity.stackexchange.com/q/90856/50422 ___ **Related**: https://christianity.stackexchange.com/q/90741/50422

I'm interested in learning about the origins and evolution throughout Church history of manifestations such as shaking, trembling, jerking, contorting, collapsing or fainting attributed to the Holy Spirit (i.e., not due to a diagnosed medical condition). For further context, I posted a related question asking for the neurological and psychological causes of these manifestations on [Psychology.SE](https://psychology.stackexchange.com/questions/25631/is-there-a-scientific-explanation-for-dramatic-body-shaking-and-trembling-in-rel) . Feel free to check it out. For illustrative purposes, here are two testimonials about these manifestations that were recorded in 1995 during the first few months after the beginning of the [Brownsville Revival](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brownsville_Revival) : - Brownsville Revival - Alison Ward Testimony - August 18, 1995 - Amy Elizabeth Ward Mercy Seat Alison Ward Brownsville Revival Pensacola FL I understand that events such as the [Toronto Blessing](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Toronto_Blessing) (1994) and the [Brownsville Revival](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brownsville_Revival) (1995) have played a very influential role in promoting these manifestations the last two or three decades, but, what about the past? Were these relatively recent events pioneer regarding these manifestations or can we find older records of similar manifestations in Church history? What are the oldest records? ______ Update: according to [Wikipedia](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slain_in_the_Spirit) the oldest records of these manifestations in Protestantism would pertain to the [First Great Awakening](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_Great_Awakening) that took place in the 18th century. However, it would seem very strange to me if there were no records prior to that. Is it truly the case that there are no records of these manifestations during the first 17 centuries of Christianity and that they suddenly began to take place from the 18th century onward? If so, why?

Objection: 1. If God exists, He is immutable. 2. If God exists, he is merciful. 3. An immutable being cannot be affected by any event (since God is not subject to change). 4. A merciful being must be affected by certain events (to be merciful one must feel pity). 5. Therefore, it is impossible for an immutable being to feel mercy. 6. Therefore, God does not exist. Is this really contradictory? How can this objection be refuted?

Bible commentators generally believe that Christians will be rewarded for good works at the Bema judgement. I am unclear of the purpose of judging my evil/bad/worthless works after I am already saved and in Heaven. Is the purpose of that judgement to make the immortal me ashamed, guilty, or is it to make me fully aware of the extent of grace? Guilt and shame do not seem to belong in Heaven.

God revealed a lot about the end times through the prophet Daniel during the Babylonian exile. The first revelation about the **eternal future kingdom of Christ** is shown to the king via a dream where the king saw a statue with different metals in different sections of the body and then the king sees a rock cut with **no human hand** that crashed the end times kingdoms of men, of course the head of gold was **Babylon** then the chest of **Silver** was the **Medo-Persian** empire, the thighs of **Bronze** was the **Macedonian empire**, the legs of iron was **Rome** and the feet which was a mixture of clay and iron is the **current world order** where there are weak and strong nations. Then the king being moved by the statue in his dream decided to build a golden image and ordered all his subjects to worship it, anyone who defied this command was to be killed by being thrown into the furnace of fire. In the book of Revelation, there is a similar test based on worship where there is an earth beast that causes the inhabitants of the earth to make an image to an earlier beast called the sea beast and also here, there is an order similar to that Nebuchadnezzar gave where who ever refuses to worship this image is to be put to death. Am going to draw parallels between the two incidents. 1. In both, there are people who are loyal to God and refuse to worship the images where Daniel and his friends refused to worship Nebuchadnezzar's image and the saints also refuse to worship the earth beast image. 2. In both, there is an image made and people are ordered to worship it. 3. In both, there is a powerful king or governmental figure that has powers and orders men to be killed. In the case of Daniel it was Nebuchadnezzar, in the case of Revelation it is the Earth Beast. My question, could this golden image scene during the Babylonian exile have been a prophecy detailing the Earth Beast scene in code?

[Luke 18:18-30 (NIV)](http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Luke%2018:18-30&version=NIV) tells the story of the "rich young ruler" who asked Christ what he must do to inherit eternal life: > 18A certain ruler asked him, “Good teacher, what must I do to inherit eternal life?” ... > > 22 ...[Jesus] said to him, “You still lack one thing. Sell everything you have and give to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven. Then come, follow me.” My understanding of Calvinism is that salvation (from the Calvinist perspective) is entirely a work of God, and no human can do anything, even including "accepting" the gift of salvation, to affect their salvation. These instructions from Jesus appear to contradict this concept. Jesus seems to be offering to the ruler some concrete actions he could take to ensure his salvation. Granted, based on the ruler's reaction, his heart was in the wrong place, as he was unwilling to do what Christ commanded. So really, Christ's commandment was not about the act of giving away possessions, but about the state of the man's heart. But if the truth is that the man was powerless to affect his salvation, wasn't Christ in effect lying by suggesting the ruler _could_ do these actions (and change his heart) in order to achieve eternal life? What is the Calvinist interpretation of this (and other similar) stories?

This question is scoped to those who believe that: - We have [libertarian free wills](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Libertarianism_(metaphysics)) - We will retain our free will in Heaven - We will be sinless in Heaven **Question**: If Heaven demonstrates that it is possible to live in a world where (1) there is no sin and (2) everyone has free will, then why did God not create a world like that to begin with? The Garden of Eden was a place where Adam & Eve had free will but could sin (in fact, they did), whereas Heaven (after Jesus' second coming) will be a place where everyone will have free will and yet will never sin. Is there a fundamental difference between the nature or the setting of Adam & Eve and the nature or the setting of the saints in Heaven? If so, why?

What is an overview of moral theories in Christianity? From my own research, I know of at least three: 1. [Divine Command Theory](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Divine_command_theory) . Wikipedia presents the following summary: > Divine command theory (also known as theological voluntarism) is a meta-ethical theory which proposes that an action's status as morally good is equivalent to whether it is commanded by God. The theory asserts that what is moral is determined by God's commands and that for a person to be moral he is to follow God's commands. Followers of both monotheistic and polytheistic religions in ancient and modern times have often accepted the importance of God's commands in establishing morality. 2. [Divine Motivation Theory](https://link.springer.com/referenceworkentry/10.1007/978-1-4020-8265-8_1523) , by Linda Zagzebski. Here is an excerpt from the paper: > Divine Motivation Theory (DMT) is a form of theologically based moral theory proposed by Linda Zagzebski. The theory defines all moral properties of persons, acts, and outcomes of acts in terms of God’s motives. God’s motives are states such as love and compassion, states that are motivating, and that are emotions or similar to emotions. She proposes that these states constitute the metaphysical and conceptual basis for moral value. Given traditional assumptions about the nature of God, the theory combines moral realism with divine noncognitivism. > > According to DMT, persons and their qualities are good in so far as they are like God or imitate God in the relevant respect. Human motives are good in so far as they are like the divine motives as those motives would be expressed in finite and embodied beings. Human virtues are those traits that imitate God’s virtues as they would be expressed by human beings in human circumstances. Outcomes get their moral value by their relation to good and bad motivations. For example, a state of affairs is a merciful one or a compassionate one or a just one because the divine motives that are constituents of mercy, compassion, and justice respectively aim at bringing them about. Acts get their moral value from the acts that would, would not, or might be done by a being who imitates God in the relevant circumstances. God’s own goodness and the rightness of God’s own acts follow immediately from the theory since God himself is the supreme standard of all moral value 3. [Christian Hedonism](https://www.desiringgod.org/topics/christian-hedonism) , by John Piper, which to me sounds a bit like a Christianized version of Utilitarianism: > Christian Hedonism is the conviction that God’s ultimate goal in the world (his glory) and our deepest desire (to be happy) are one and the same, because God is most glorified in us when we are most satisfied in him. Not only is God the supreme source of satisfaction for the human soul, but God himself is glorified by our being satisfied in him. Therefore, our pursuit of joy in him is essential. > > Christian Hedonism claims that the Christian life should be the pursuit of maximum joy in God — joy both in quality and quantity. Fullness of joy and joy forevermore (Psalm 16:11) are found only in him. Are there other moral theories in Christianity?

I have heard that people with black skin had been denied certain things in the Mormon Church until the past 30 years or so and that this has something to do with the Curse of Cain. What has been the historical teaching of the LDS Church regarding the Curse of Cain and dark-skinned people? What are the references in the Book of Mormon and other Mormon Scriptures that address this issue?