Some time ago, I attended a friend's baptism. After they had done the baptism, the vicar then moved on to do a christening, or 'CHRIST-en-ing' as they called it. I've never seen an adult being christened before. I just wondered if this was normal in the CofE?

Which authors developed the concepts of antitypes? Why did they choose that kind of language? Which denominations of Christianity think in terms of types and antitypes?

(No hate) I always thought if God knew everything. If he did then he would know that Lucifer would rebel against him and doom humanity. Also if he knew everything, he would have prevent Adam and Eve from eating the forbidden fruit. If he let this all be done because he gave them free will then people can sin because it's their free will . It doesn't make sense for God to put sinners in hell because it(Satan) was his creation.

Some relevant texts: 2 Samuel 7:12-16 , 2 Chronicles 13:5 , Psalm 89:20-37 , 1 Kings 11:36 , etc. It seems that God promises David a *continuous* Davidic line on the throne, without interruption (especially the text in Jeremiah 33:17 ). But this didn't happen because before Jesus' birth, the Davidic line was interrupted with Zedekiah, leaving a near 600-year gap between Zedekiah and Jesus unexplained. How should we interpret God's promise then?

I seem to recall reading in the Bible some years ago that there will come a time when *"sin will be out in the open."* However, I have since tried to find it to no avail. Does this prophecy occur in the Bible; or perhaps, did I find it someplace else? Does anyone know where this may have came from?

Every time I revisit questions about God's nature on Biblical Hermeneutics Stack Exchange I can't help but come out with more doubts than convictions. For example, take a look at the following questions: - [Is Paul suggesting in Eph. 4:6 that Jesus and the Holy Spirit are not God?](https://hermeneutics.stackexchange.com/q/70188/38524) - [Is 2 Corinthians 13:11-14 an assertion that God is three equal Persons?](https://hermeneutics.stackexchange.com/q/55344/38524) - [“Very truly, I tell you, before Abraham was, I am.” - why did the Jews want to throw stones at Jesus for saying this?](https://hermeneutics.stackexchange.com/q/55803/38524) - [What does it mean to be "equal with God" in John 5:18?](https://hermeneutics.stackexchange.com/q/60302/38524) - [What does "equality with God" mean, and how can it be "exploited"? Philippians 2:6](https://hermeneutics.stackexchange.com/q/55612/38524) - [What can we learn about the relationship between "God" and "the Spirit of God" ontologically from 1 Corinthians 2:6-16?](https://hermeneutics.stackexchange.com/q/55640/38524) - [Is the Son second in authority under God the Father? 1 Corinthians 15:24-28](https://hermeneutics.stackexchange.com/q/55872/38524) When questions about Christology, Pneumatology and the nature of God in general can cause so much debate and doctrinal division among Christians, with arguments both for and against each conceivable position, it is very hard for me to accept the idea that one has to embrace a particular doctrinal position about God's nature **as an essential condition for salvation**, as opposed to simply withholding judgement. Personally, I see no other way to hold a strong conviction about the nature of God than God Himself revealing these details about Himself in a crystal clear manner to the individual, through a special revelation. **Question**: Are there any Christian groups or denominations that do not see having a definite doctrinal position on God's nature as essential for salvation, even if they, personally, have one? Or in more colloquial terms, are there any Christian groups or denominations that either lack a definite doctrinal position on God's nature OR believe in one but say *"we believe that God's nature is best described by X, but if you are not sure or have doubts about X, that's okay, you can still be saved"* ? ___ Related: https://christianity.stackexchange.com/q/86199/50422

I am confused about whether or not it was St. John the Baptist who wrote the Book of John in the New Testament. I thought this was a different John who was one of the apostles.

Acts 4:23-31 (ESV): > 23 When they were released, they went to their friends and reported what the chief priests and the elders had said to them. 24 And when they heard it, **they lifted their voices together to God and said**, “Sovereign Lord, who made the heaven and the earth and the sea and everything in them, 25 who through the mouth of our father David, your servant, said by the Holy Spirit, > > “‘Why did the Gentiles rage, > and the peoples plot in vain? > 26 The kings of the earth set themselves, > and the rulers were gathered together, > against the Lord and against his Anointed’— > > 27 for truly in this city there were gathered together against your holy servant Jesus, whom you anointed, both Herod and Pontius Pilate, along with the Gentiles and the peoples of Israel, 28 to do whatever your hand and your plan had predestined to take place. 29 **And now, Lord, look upon their threats and grant to your servants to continue to speak your word with all boldness**, 30 **while you stretch out your hand to heal, and signs and wonders are performed through the name of your holy servant Jesus.”** 31 **And when they had prayed, the place in which they were gathered together was shaken, and they were all filled with the Holy Spirit and continued to speak the word of God with boldness**. This is an account of a powerful visitation of the Holy Spirit to the early church in response to fervent communal prayer. And what was the outcome? Extraordinary power and boldness for preaching and witnessing -- exactly what the church needs to carry out the great commission. With such a powerful divine assistance at the church's disposal, it would seem very strange to me if Acts 4:23-31 were an isolated case. **Question**: Have other group visitations of the Holy Spirit similar to Acts 4:23-31 been reported in church history? If so, what was the aftermath of said visitations? Did revival follow as a result?

Most Christians and leaders seem to quote inspirational verses out of the prophetic books consistently. The issue is that they are taking lots of verses out of context. Recently, I've been wondering how we correctly read the 17 prophetic books. These books seem to only be written for 1. the people at the time 2. descriptions of the Messiah 3. descriptions of The New Heaven and New Earth Outside of this, I have also seen that these prophecies include 1. Double References (Isaiah 14 talking about Satan and a king) 2. Insight into God's Creation (Jeremiah 4) [the Book of Job also does this, but that would of course be poetry and not prophecy] 3. Showing the character and demonstrations of God But what exactly does someone do when they want to read through the Book of Ezekiel or any other book? I have oftentimes been led of the Holy Spirit to see new things in the Prophetic Books, but for the most part, if I have to be honest, it seems like the entire Body of Christ just steers away from these books because of the level of confusion that comes from reading them. Why are they in the Bible? What do they do for New Testament Believers? How does it bring us into the full stature of Christ (2 Timothy 3:16-17)? I understand that there is historical evidence for the prophecies and that we can see what makes God angry, but there has got to be more reasoning behind having 17 books written in this style than just those things. What should I be able to pick up from these books that is beyond what my eyes can see? I cannot find a single answer online, so please know that I did my research before posting here. Thank you.

I am a returning christian with many unanswered questions. I am now seeking the meaning of life through the bible after a positive experience in the Alpha course. Firstly, I am very curious on the purpose, objective and direction of heaven. We cannot be singing praises all eternity. Every Kingdom must have a goal or aim or something similar. What could it be, for eternity is a very long time. Thank you for reading.

Martin Luther lived from 1483 – 1546 and John Calvin from 1509 – 1564. Both thse men wrote about the importance of infant baptism which can be read in The Large Catechism by Martin Luther & Institutes of the Christian Religion by John Calvin Was there a period in the history when all who believed in Christ allowed infant baptism? If it is true who or which sect started/revived "only credo baptism" procedure?

In Luke 2:26 the text states that Simeon would not see death before he had seen τὸν χριστὸν κυρίου (‘the Christ of the Lord’). How can Trinitarian theology reconcile the genitive construction — ‘of the Lord’ — which implies belonging or being sent, without diminishing Christ’s ontological equality with the very Kyrios? (Lk. 2:26 BGT) > καὶ ἦν αὐτῷ κεχρηματισμένον ὑπὸ τοῦ πνεύματος τοῦ ἁγίου μὴ ἰδεῖν θάνατον πρὶν [ἢ] ἂν ἴδῃ τὸν **χριστὸν κυρίου**. Luke 2:26 (KJV) > “And it was revealed unto him by the Holy Ghost, that he should not see death, before he had seen the Lord’s Christ.”

According to fundamental Belief 24: (Christ’s ministry in the Heavenly Sanctuary) the SDA believe that Christ began his investigative judgement in 1844.This they refer to as the end of 2300 days of Daniel's prophecy. Daniel 8:14 NASB >14 And he said to me, “For 2,300 evenings and mornings; then the sanctuary will be [q]properly restored.” In the prophecy Daniel refers to the restoration of the sanctuary which the SDA clear identify as the heavenly sanctuary.But its not clear in Daniel's prophecy which one he was referring to.Should the text be understood from a literal or non literal sense. How can one understand this interpretation of Christ ministry in the heavenly sanctuary?

There is a belief that baptism (in Christianity) should be done later on life (e.g., adulthood), rather than in infancy. However, I do not see any reasonable (?) reason to NOT perform the baptism in infancy. One of the major drawbacks of credobaptism (the way that I understand things) is that the person is deprived of the Holy Spirit two-fold: though the lack of baptism itself, and through the ban for communion (baptism being a major prerequisite for the communion). So, shortly: what is inherently bad about baptizing infants?

I was doing some research and even though could find different resources on devotion to Mary, Mary as the mother of God, I couldn't find anything useful about Mary as mediatrix / "to Jesus through Mary". What did the early church fathers have to say about it?

Some Christian denominations reject infant baptism, usually on the grounds that young children cannot profess their faith, or understand the significance of baptism. It logically follows from this that an intellectually disabled adult who can't profess faith or understand baptism should not be baptised, either. This is obviously problematic: life in Christ is meant to be open to all. How might a baptist respond?

### Background of the question **Bible and Philosophy together** The Bible is not a strictly philosophical text (although the Wisdom books in the Bible can arguably be called ancient Hebrew philosophy), yet there are many assertions about the nature of God that *invite* humankind to reflect *further* on humanity's (or a single human being's) **relationship with God**, that makes Christian philosophy a legitimate enterprise while remaining **truthfully** grounded in Biblical ***narrative* and *concrete*** revelation, since the philosophical mode is necessarily ***atemporal* and *abstract***. In this view, 1. proper Biblical exegesis (as [*salvation history*](https://www.crosswalk.com/faith/bible-study/what-is-salvation-history.html)) focusing on our *relationship with God* and on *redemption + sanctification + glorification* of humanity as **God relates with humankind *in time* and *in the flesh*** can work hand in hand with 2. *atemporal* reflections by our **God-given Intellect** to probe the depth of our existence & psychology, using all the faculties of our human psyche (which is ***our saved flesh***): passion, reason, will, happiness, purpose, emotions, memory, etc. One such Biblical assertion about the nature of God is the famous passage Isa 55:8-11 that has been used and abused in the service of *both* orthodoxy *and* heresies (such as Word of Faith), so it's not surprising that the *Catholic Culture* article cited below also cites that passage plus how Boethius works out Isa 40:22 philosophically. **Boethius and his definition of divine eternity** Humankind is created "tuned" for *both* narrative *and* atemporal reflection of God and Nature, which explains why Boethius's [*On the Consolation of Philosophy*](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/On_the_Consolation_of_Philosophy) remains popular maybe because Boethius was one of the most successful Christian thinkers who applied *both* Biblical truths and Philosophy to the human psyche. One sign of his continued relevance: in Nov 2024 Baptist historical theologian Gavin Ortlund reminded the faithful how Boethius is [The Most Neglected Theologian in All Church History](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FYcIfZeXbe0) For those new to Boethian divine eternity concept, it's important get his definition right (from [Book V prose 6](https://www.exclassics.com/consol/consol.pdf)) . One translation: > “Eternity is the complete, simultaneously-whole, and perfect possession of interminable life.” (*aeternitas est interminabilis vitae tota simul et perfecta possessio*) Modern proponents use the Flatland analogy to help explain the relationship between the two horizons (eternal and temporal), before using it for many applications. For example, a major 21st century proponent of the Boethian solution, Eleonore Stump, also uses the analogy to explain Boethian relation of the 2 horizons before applying it of to flesh out *in psychological terms* how God is present to us and how God loves us **from His eternity to our time** (see her 2013 paper [*Omnipresence, Indwelling, and the Second-Personal*](https://philarchive.org/archive/STUOIA)) . Notice how the topic is *also* the #1 *narrative* theme in the Bible (namely, our personal relationship with God) and the paper illustrates how we can do proper **INTEGRATION** between what the Bible says (in its own mode of discourse) and the *atemporal* philosophical and psychological reflections **within our psyche** during our earthly life-span of about "70 years" (Ps 90:10), taking cues from how the Biblical Wisdom books *themselves* (Job, Psalms, Ecclesiastes, etc.) did these reflection in the ancient (Near Eastern) philosophical mode. **Boethian solution for "foreknowledge" and free will** Boethian concept of eternity is also often used to solve the problem of divine foreknowledge and free will, an enduring solution popularly called the "Boethian solution" outlined in [Book V prose 3-5](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/On_the_Consolation_of_Philosophy) (see https://christianity.stackexchange.com/questions/111145/what-is-boethiuss-solution) that spells out *precisely* how God "might" from his *Eternal Horizon* interacts with us in the *Historical Horizon* in a way that preserves *both* Providence *and* free will. (I said "might" to acknowledge that philosophical thinking is *necessarily* speculative, although *grounded in the reality God created*, but also *necessary* to provide ourselves a good rational defense of the faith.) I still need to find a good, more rigorous paper on this, preferably one that compares this solution with a more common solution in terms of [compatibilism](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Compatibilism) , but a brief description can be found in [this *Catholic Culture* article](https://www.catholicculture.org/commentary/never-failing-present-boethius-on-gods-eternity/) and [Gavin Ortlund's *Truth Unites* video](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FYcIfZeXbe0&t=467s) starting at minute 7:47. --------------- ### The question Sorry for the long (but necessary introduction) but my question is this: **how would proponents of the ["Boethian Solution"](https://christianity.stackexchange.com/questions/111145/what-is-boethiuss-solution) (to solve the foreknowledge problem for human free will) give a *better* Biblical exegesis** than those who use the Bible to object, such as in [this answer](https://christianity.stackexchange.com/a/111146/10672) : > This theory contradicts the scriptural concepts which Paul expresses, namely foreknowledge, predestination and election. Of course **the answer needs to compare 2 Biblical exegeses** of the verses used to show how the one for the proponents is *the better and more responsible* exegesis. Example: the answer should avoid relying on the ambiguity of meaning by *mere citing* of open-ended phrasing of verses such as Isa 55:8-11, either by the **pro camp** (such as the *Catholic Culture* article above) or (on the other extreme) by the **opposing camp** (such as many Christians who use the same verses for *dismissing* the possibility of philosophical thinking on Biblical themes).

In *Acts 2:38–39 (ESV)*, Peter says: >“Repent and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins, and you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit. For the promise is for you and for your children and for all who are far off, everyone whom the Lord our God calls to himself.” Some Christian traditions—such as the Reformed, Anglican, Lutheran, and Catholic—practice infant baptism (paedobaptism), while others—such as Baptist and Pentecostal churches—practice believer’s baptism (credobaptism). How do these two traditions each interpret this passage (and similar texts) when justifying their baptismal practices? In particular, how do they understand the phrase “for you and for your children,” and how does it fit into their broader theology of baptism?

A recent talk by Father Bob Pierson 1 quoted Joseph Ratzinger (as he then was, now Pope Benedict XVI) as saying that the individual conscience *must* overrule ecclesiastical authority. I was intrigued by Pierson's claim and looked up the original source, which is an early commentary2 on [*Gaudium et spes*](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gaudium_et_Spes) , specifically its [Article 16](http://www.vatican.va/archive/hist_councils/ii_vatican_council/documents/vat-ii_cons_19651207_gaudium-et-spes_en.html) . I've put the section quoted by Pierson in italics. > For [Newman](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Henry_Newman) , conscience represents the inner complement and limit of the Church principle. *Over the pope as the expression of the binding claim of ecclesiastical authority there still stands one's own conscience, which must be obeyed before all else, if necessary even against the requirement of ecclesiastical authority.* This emphasis on the individual, whose conscience confronts him with a supreme and ultimate tribunal, and one which in the last resort is beyond the claim of external social groups, even of the official Church, also establishes a principle in opposition to increasing totalitarianism. Genuine ecclesiastical obedience is distinguished from any totalitarian claim which cannot accept any ultimate obligation of this kind beyond the reach of its dominating will. I am finding the final sentence quite difficult to parse. It seems like he is saying that *genuine* ecclesiastical obedience *does* accept a controlling role for conscience. But then it sounds like one can simultaneously disobey and "genuinely obey", which is odd. Elsewhere in the text, Ratzinger speaks about natural law and the Golden Rule as standards to diagnose and reshape the "erroneous conscience", and it surprised me that he doesn't also mention the Church there. Overall, I think I am missing something basic which would help me to understand what he means in the passage above. So: **What relationship between conscience and Church authority does the Pope actually envisage?** I'm looking for answers that draw on his other writings, up to the present day - in particular, sources that illuminate what he personally thinks, as opposed to those which are primarily about what the Church as a whole accepts. 1. [Video and transcript here](http://www.dailykos.com/story/2012/06/12/1099517/-Awesome-Priest-slams-Catholic-Church-on-MN-amendment-says-Catholics-CAN-vote-no) ; I'm linking to Daily Kos because they're the only site I can find which provides a text transcript, not because I endorse Pierson, Kos, etc. The original talk was on homosexual civil marriage, but this question is **emphatically not**; I'm not asking whether he's right or wrong, just using his quotation to ask a different question.
2. Monograph by Joseph Ratzinger collected in *Commentary on the Documents of Vatican II*, volume 5, ed. Herbert Vorgrimler (Herder and Herder, 1969). Translated by W. J. O'Hara from *Das Zweite Vatikanische Konzil, Dokumente und Kommentare* (1968). The quoted text starts on page 134.

Did any of the Church Fathers write explicitly on the connection between the Church and the New Jerusalem. Did any say that the Church *IS* the New Jerusalem? If so, in a nutshell, what did they say? Can anyone point me to specific resources? Thank you.