I Cor 5, Mt 18:15-17 and 2 Thes 3:6-15 speak of disassociating from unrepentant but professing Christians in the local body. Is it biblical to disassociate with an unrepentant Christian from a different church (thus under different leadership) who hasn’t been excommunicated from their own local church? How would a Reformed Protestant church answer this?

I recently found references that suggest both Baptists and Methodists used to believe that Jesus and Michael the Archangel are one and the same. This surprised me because both Baptists and Methodists are Trinitarian and understand Jesus to be the eternal Word of God who was never created. The Bible says that angels are created beings, hence my confusion. Here are some of the references I found: From my Morning and Evening devotionals of Baptist preacher Charles H. Spurgeon (1834-1892) I found this quote (morning October 3) regarding angels, based on Hebrews 1:14, and speaking of the Lord Jesus Christ: >“He it is whose camp is round about them that fear Him; He is the true Michael whose foot is upon the dragon. All hail, Jesus! thou Angel of Jehovah’s presence, to Thee this family offers its morning vows.” From a Spurgeon sermon ‘The Angelic Life’ (22 November 1868) comes this partial quote: >“Our Lord is called an angel. He is the angel of the covenant... We read that Michael and his angels fought against the dragon and his angels, and the dragon was cast down. The fight is going on every day. Michael is the Lord Jesus, the only Archangel.” John Gill, a Baptist pastor (circa 1750) wrote this about Michael the Archangel based on Jude 1:9: >"Yet Michael the Archangel.... By whom is meant, not a created angel, but an eternal one, the Lord Jesus Christ;” I know that Jehovah’s Witnesses believe Jesus, as the Word of God, was created by Jehovah as the mighty spirit creature who was known in heaven as Michael before he came to earth, and that he is still known in heaven as Michael since his resurrection. However, this question is not about the beliefs of Jehovah’s Witnesses, although I welcome any modern, up to date insights they might have about the beliefs of Baptists and Methodists regarding Jesus and Michael. This question is specifically about the beliefs of Baptists and Methodists NOW, as to whether they believe that Jesus and Michael are one and the same, and, if so, how can this be explained in light of the Trinity doctrine. I’m not looking for more old quotes, but for up to date information about Baptist and Methodist beliefs on the person of Jesus and if he is also Michael the archangel. The article 'Who do mainline Protestants believe an “archangel” (such as Michael) to be?' is not specific with regard to what Baptists and Methodists believe about Jesus being Michael the Archangel (or not).

In John 1:18, it seems no one has seen God's face: >No one has ever seen God, but the one and only Son, who is himself God and is in closest relationship with the Father, has made him known. And in Exodus 33:20, it is also mentioned that you cannot see God's face as you will die if you see his face. > "But," he said, "you cannot see my face, for no one may see me and live." Now we know that it is impossible to see God's face as you won't live after it, but somehow Moses saw his face and lived. Exodus 33:11: >The Lord would speak to Moses face to face, as one speaks to a friend. Then Moses would return to the camp, but his young aide Joshua son of Nun did not leave the tent. So did Aaron, Nadab, Abihu and the seventy elders of Israel. Exodus 24:9-11: >Moses and Aaron, Nadab and Abihu, and the seventy elders of Israel went up 10 and saw the God of Israel. Under his feet was something like a pavement made of lapis lazuli, as bright blue as the sky. 11 But God did not raise his hand against these leaders of the Israelites; they saw God, and they ate and drank. Oh, and Abram too. Genesis 12:7: >Then the Lord appeared to Abram and said, “To your descendants I will give this land.” And there he built an altar to the Lord, who had appeared to him. According to the Catholic Church, how did these people see God's face and live even though he clearly says no one can see his face and live?

### Background Mormons believe that the Hebrew Bible was corrupted and had lost many important prophecies and doctrines pointing towards Mormon theology, which were eventually restored by Joseph Smith such as “Genesis 50:33”: > 33 And that seer will I bless, and they that seek to destroy him shall be confounded; for this promise I give unto you; for I will remember you from generation to generation; and his name shall be called Joseph, and it shall be after the name of his father; and he shall be like unto you; for the thing which the Lord shall bring forth by his hand shall bring my people unto salvation. ### Question Did Jesus and the apostles leave the church with a defective Old Testament which lacked important Mormon teachings? Why didn’t Jesus and/or the apostles fix these supposed corruptions in the Hebrew Bible and provide the new church with an accurate reading of the text?

I admit the question is a bit broad, so let me explain: In many cultures around the world, marriage of first cousins is common. However, the Catholic Church disallows marriage of first cousins (in absence of a special dispensation), and according to Wikipedia , this canon rule has a bit of a convoluted history. On the Protestant side, Luther and Calvin rejected this rule of the Catholic Church on the grounds that it is not Biblically based. However, I have met many Protestants who are anti-cousin marriage, and the general sentiment in American culture is that cousin marriage is morally wrong. I'm curious what the basis of forbidding or being morally opposed to cousin marriage is, within Christian traditions (though opposition to cousin marriage is obviously not universal). How did this idea originate, and is the same logic still applied?

There has been much publicity about the 'Head of the Church of England' praying with the Pope in Rome. But I have not (yet) seen any support for this from the laity of the Anglican communion or from the vicars of the Church of England or from the bishops. Is the 'Head' of the Anglican communion acting on their own (possibly ideological) account or are they acting as representing the whole body ?

The term 'substitutionary atonement' has been used within Trinitarian, Protestant, Reformed Baptist circles for some time, and it is those I wish to examine in this question. But the word 'substitute' does not translate a Greek word found in scripture, nor does the term 'atonement'. The word 'atonement' is found once in the KJV, Romans 5:11, but it is a clear mis-translation of the word καταλλαγην, *katallagen*, in all other places rendered 'reconciliation'. Both words are vague in meaning. Nor does 'substitute' or 'substitution' convey a concept that the apostolic epistles express, the emphasis of the doctrine of Christ being union with Christ (in his sufferings, in his death and in his resurrection) rather than some kind of 'exchange' (another word never found in Greek except μετηλλαξαν, *metellazan*, in Romans 1:26). The word 'atonement' has a weak etymology and an ill-defined concept, its meaning a loose 'at-one' derivation and its application being a very general and overall term for the both the sufferings and death and resurrection of Christ that is never found in the greater precision of the apostolic writings. What exactly is being conveyed by the term ? When was the expression first coined ? What error was being resisted by the introduction of this couplet ? Again, I am looking for a response in regard to Trinitarian, Protestant, Reformed and Baptist usage of the terminology. -------------------------- EDIT upon comment : I believe that 'Christ died for our sins, according to the scriptures'. I believe that 'Christ gave his life a ransom for many'. I believe that 'He bare our sins in his own body on the tree'. I believe that 'he was made sin for us, who knew no sin'. But the scripture never uses the word 'substitute' to express that. I am questioning the terminology, not the doctrine of Christ. Further explanatory EDIT : My concern has always been the *emphasis*. If I have no relationship with Christ, if I am not in union with Him, if I know not his presence before my face when I pray, then *the facts* of his sufferings, death and resurrection are just that - historical facts. The terms 'substitute' and 'exchange' are distant terms. But kinsman-redeemer, for example, (*gaal* in Hebrew) conveys a relationship that exists *before the redemption takes place*, (see the book of Ruth, on this). And one is chosen 'in Christ' (not apart from him) before the foundation of the world. These are my concerns and the reason for my question.

In Ezekiel chapter 4 the prophet was instructed to lie on his left side for 390 days, a day for each year of the sin of Israel, and then to lie on his right side for 40 days for the sin of Judah. What historical period is being referred to here? When did the 390 years begin and end? Also for the 40 year period, when did it begin and end?

What is "Boethius's solution"? I saw it referenced in a comment, but when I tried to Google it, I didn't get a good answer. It has to do with the relationship between God's omniscience and man's free will.

I wonder what the significance is of Jesus having died for our sins, considering that he is God, or at least having known to be God's son. To me right now, that act would have been more significant if Jesus did not believe in an afterlife, let alone believe that he had a significant position in heaven. I am imagining a boss of a company, that decided to also start an internship in that same company. He then lets himself be fired from the internship in order to cover for workers in that department. In the end, he is still the boss and could start another internship, or even fire the person that fired him, or undo the firing entirely. I hope my point is clear, and hope for insight.

In *A Grief Observed* ([pdf here](https://www.samizdat.qc.ca/arts/lit/PDFs/GriefObserved_CSL.pdf)) , Lewis makes reference to God as a clown (page 7): > And this separation, I suppose, waits for all. I have been thinking of H. and myself as peculiarly unfortunate in being torn apart. But presumably all lovers are. She once said to me, ‘Even if we both died at exactly the same moment, as we lie here side by side, it would be just as much a separation as the one you’re so afraid of.’ Of course she didn’t *know*, any more than *I* do. But she was near death; near enough to make a good shot. She used to quote ‘lone into the Alone.’ She said it felt like that. And how immensely improbable that it should be otherwise! Time and space and body were the very things that brought us together; the telephone wires by which we communicated. Cut one off, or cut both off simultaneously. Either way, mustn’t the conversation stop? > > Unless you assume that some other means of communication — utterly different, yet doing the same work, would be immediately substituted. But then, what conceivable point could there be in severing the old ones? Is God a clown who whips away your bowl of soup one moment in order, next moment, to replace it with another bowl of the same soup? Even nature isn't such a clown as that. She never plays exactly the same tune twice. C. S. Lewis describes the loss of his wife in terms of their communication being severed upon her death before he expresses his frustration with God and his apparent arbitrariness in his dealings with mankind. Lewis assumes another type of communication other than time, space, and physicality (body) which brought he and Joy together but what could he (Lewis) have been possibly thinking regarding another type of connection? The soup analogy throws me a bit in attempting to follow his reasoning here. Could someone unravel his logic for me?

I want to know what are arguments that singing national anthems do not count as worship. Public perception and interpretation is not an issue, if public perception equates murdering child in womb by mother as form of freedom, abortion does not loses it status of sin. So, without using public perception and secular interpretation or popularity as argument, can it be proven why singing national anthems does not count to worship as there are even idols representing countries like Germania, Motherland Russia, Marianne, etc. This practice of representing justice, freedom as idols is Pagan. Whether, its popular does not mean it would lose its Pagan origins. Even after this why would a state require praise by its subjects to sing its glory daily in some way or form. Basically, I am seeking for any Christian sect answer that has zero issues with singing national anthem. (So, not a sect directed question but still why?) **Does present acceptance of anthems also imply approval of anthems in past which involved praise of pagan gods in ancient times? Presently, they are of secular nature** (Not a slippery slope even in World War II there was anthem for worship of imperial Japanese emperor, ignorance to historic facts would not justify a cause despite its popularity)

There has historically been opposition by Fundamentalists to the "Social Gospel" presented by Liberal churches in the early 20th Century, and an emphasis placed on the "Gospel of Grace" by Conservative denominations in response. Since both the Old Testament and the New Testament spoke of "social activism", and both Testaments spoke of "Faith for pleasing God", are these two Gospels simply ***two sides of the same coin***? [Zechariah 7:9-10, James 1:27] Are they both two different facets of the grand Kingdom of God? Or are they mutually incompatible? One or the other being "a different Gospel" Paul warned about in Galatians 1? If compatible, how do they relate? [And by extension, how then can liberal and conservative churches relate?] Is the word "social" as referring to social reform in the Bible, to be only redefined in modern times, as synonymous with "secular"? Can there be a Christian social reform as well?

I feel silly asking this because I feel like it should be obvious. Why did Jesus need to die for our sins? I am asking because this part of Christianity still confuses me. I thought Judaism taught that we will go to heaven if we believe in Judaism, but after a purification (by fire??) of our earthly sins. So Jesus' dying also guaranteed that we would go to heaven, but weren't believers guaranteed entry into heaven to begin with? So does that mean that Jesus sacrificed himself on the cross so we would not have to go through the purification process? Is this the reason he died on the cross? Otherwise we all could have just become Jews and went through the purification process to go to heaven. Please help me understand what I am missing because I feel this can't be right.

In Apostles' Creed , the name of Pontius Pilate is forever associated with the infamy of being Jesus Christ's persecutor. >I believe in God, the Father almighty, >creator of heaven and earth. > >I believe in Jesus Christ, God’s only Son, our Lord, >who was conceived by the Holy Spirit, >born of the Virgin Mary, >**suffered under Pontius Pilate,** >was crucified, died, and was buried; >he descended into hell. >On the third day he rose again; >he ascended into heaven, >he is seated at the right hand of the Father, >and he will come to judge the living and the dead. > >I believe in the Holy Spirit, >the holy catholic and apostolic Church, >the communion of saints, >the forgiveness of sins, >the resurrection of the body, >and the life everlasting. Amen. My question is, why did the authors of the Apostles' Creed include Pontius Pilate as the one who killed Jesus, and not Judas Iscariot or the Pharisees? From this resource I found (which I am not sure presents a convincing argument), quoting Fr. Hardon, it is because > it has been “apostate Christians who have used the State to crucify > the martyrs of Christianity.” > > Pilate symbolizes the sufferings and persecution of the Church, which > is the Mystical Body of Christ. That doesn't seem to explain much. Even if this explanation is true, one can still ask why did the *Apostle's Creed use Pilate to symbolizes the sufferings and persecution of the Church? Why not use someone or the Roman Empire else*? So, why did the authors of the Apostle's Creed pen Pontius Pilate as the one who killed Jesus, and not Judas Iscariot or the Pharisees?

The phrase “May God save the Queen” (or “...the King,” depending on the reigning monarch) is famously part of the British national anthem and is regularly used in royal ceremonies and public prayers. It reflects a deep-rooted tradition in the United Kingdom, where the monarch also holds the title of Supreme Governor of the Church of England. According to Anglican theology, what is the basis for invoking God’s saving help on the monarch? How does this relate to Anglican understandings of divine providence, the God-ordained nature of civil authority (e.g., Romans 13:1–7), and the Church’s duty to intercede for rulers (e.g., 1 Timothy 2:1–2)? Does this phrase carry a spiritual significance regarding the monarch’s role, or is it mainly a formal civic expression? I’m looking for answers grounded in Anglican theological thought and liturgical practice, rather than purely historical or political explanations.

> **[John 20:29 ESV]** Jesus said to him, “Have you believed because you have seen me? Blessed are those who have not seen and yet have believed.” > > **[Matthew 16:4 ESV]** An evil and adulterous generation seeks for a sign, but no sign will be given to it except the sign of Jonah.” So he left them and departed. > > **[Romans 8:24–25 ESV]** 24 For in this hope we were saved. Now hope that is seen is not hope. For who hopes for what he sees? 25 But if we hope for what we do not see, we wait for it with patience. > > **[2 Corinthians 5:6-7 ESV]** 6 So we are always of good courage. We know that while we are at home in the body we are away from the Lord, 7 **for we walk by faith, not by sight**. Some Christians cite passages like these to argue that we should not pursue experiences but should believe purely by faith, without seeing. Yet this raises the question of what exactly counts as "seeing" in the sense that Jesus seems to caution against. The Bible contains numerous examples that could easily be described as forms of "seeing," and yet there appears to be nothing wrong with those instances. For example: * The Apostle Paul's conversion, in which he saw Jesus on the road to Damascus (Acts 9) * The Apostle Paul's visit to the third heaven (2 Corinthians 12) * The transfiguration of Jesus, witnessed by Peter, James, and John (Matthew 17) * Stephen's vision of Jesus standing at the right hand of God, which led to his martyrdom (Acts 7:54–60) * Peter's vision of a great sheet descending with all kinds of animals (Acts 10) * Peter being rescued from jail by an angel (Acts 12:3–19) * The Apostle John's vision of the Son of Man (Revelation 1) * Jesus's response to John the Baptist, pointing to visible miracles as confirmation of his identity (Luke 7:22): *“Go and tell John what you have seen and heard: the blind receive their sight, the lame walk, lepers are cleansed, and the deaf hear, the dead are raised up, the poor have good news preached to them.”* * The early church's experiences of powerful outpourings of the Holy Spirit (Acts 2, Acts 4) * Joel's prophecy about dreams, visions, and the outpouring of the Spirit (Joel 2:28) * And others. There seems, then, to be a tension between two ideas. On one hand, some passages appear to warn against a kind of "seeing" that runs contrary to faith. On the other hand, the Bible includes many examples of "seeing" — visions, revelations, and experiences — especially among believers in the New Testament. **So my question is: is there any agreement or consensus among Christians about what kind of "seeing" Jesus warns against (i.e., the sort of "seeing" that undermines faith), and whether there are other forms of "seeing" or experience that are legitimate, valid, and even desirable to pursue?**

Traditional Christianity teaches that the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are three distinct persons, coequal, coeternal, of the same substance, and all fully divine. The Holy Spirit is the same being referred to in the New Testament as the God's Spirit (e.g., 1 Corinthians 2:11, Ephesians 4:30) and as Christ's Spirit (e.g., Galatians 4:6, Philippians 1:19, 1 Peter 1:11), and in one place with both titles (Romans 8:9). My understanding of the Jehovah's Witnesses is that they believe God the Father to be fully divine and eternal, but Jesus Christ is his first creation, gifted with semi-divinity. What do they teach about the Holy Spirit? A good answer will address, directly or by clear implication, whether or not the Holy Spirit is: - eternal - eternally/ontologically distinct from God the Father - ontologically divine - a person - one and the same as the Spirit of Christ A good answer will address anything else that a standard JW articulation of the doctrine of the Holy Spirit would address and will use Watchtower sources.

Hosea 3:4-5 says that there will be a period of time that the children of Israel will have no king, nor sacrifices, nor *efod* or *terafim*. It also promises a restoration of Israel after this period: > כִּ֣י ׀ יָמִ֣ים רַבִּ֗ים יֵֽשְׁבוּ֙ בְּנֵ֣י יִשְׂרָאֵ֔ל אֵ֥ין מֶ֙לֶךְ֙ וְאֵ֣ין שָׂ֔ר וְאֵ֥ין זֶ֖בַח וְאֵ֣ין מַצֵּבָ֑ה וְאֵ֥ין אֵפ֖וֹד וּתְרָפִֽים > אַחַ֗ר יָשֻׁ֙בוּ֙ בְּנֵ֣י יִשְׂרָאֵ֔ל וּבִקְשׁוּ֙ אֶת־יְהֹוָ֣ה אֱלֹהֵיהֶ֔ם וְאֵ֖ת דָּוִ֣יד מַלְכָּ֑ם וּפָחֲד֧וּ אֶל־יְהֹוָ֛ה וְאֶל־טוּב֖וֹ בְּאַחֲרִ֥ית הַיָּמִֽים > For the children of *Yisra᾽el* shall remain for many days, having no king, nor prince, nor sacrifice, nor pillar, nor *efod*, nor *terafim* > afterwards the children of *Yisra᾽el* shall return, and seek the Lord their G-d, and David their king; and shall come trembling to the Lord and his goodness in the latter days (Koren T'nakh) What time period is being mentioned here? There have been a few times where there has been no king of Israel, which is Hosea referring to according to Protestants?

In many ways, Dispensational and Lutheran theology are opposite to one another. For instance, Lutherans tend to revere church history while dispensationalists tend to disparage it; dispensationalists clearly divide the spiritual and physical, while Lutherans see them overlap in the sacraments, etc. So my question might seem absurd on the face of it. However, I have noticed one interesting similarity: in discussions with other Protestants, both groups commonly make as a core point to their argument the accusation that their opponent is not sufficiently *literal* in their interpretation of Scripture. For Dispensationalists, their main difference with other Christians is in their interpretation of the prophecies and covenants in the Bible. They take the prophecies and covenant promises literally and accuse others of unnecessarily spiritualizing. For Lutherans, their main difference from other Protestants is in their understanding of the Sacraments. They take what the Bible says about Baptism and Communion literally, while accusing other Christians of unnecessarily spiritualizing. **The similarity in the kind of argument is striking to me, which is why I'm curious if anyone holds to a Dispensational interpretation of prophecy but a Lutheran interpretation of Sacraments.** I haven't heard of it, but it seems like someone who really sticks to their guns on the "we must take all things literally" might have no other choice. Or alternatively, someone who finds that argument persuasive in one context might find it persuasive in the other too. Of course, this kind of argument is fairly run-of-the-mill in Christian disagreements, but it's orders of magnitude more common in these two contexts. I have not seen it so heavily used for any other distinctive opinion, except Young Earth Creationism, and I already know there's a lot of YEC in both Dispensationalism and in Lutheranism. (And to be perfectly clear, I'm not asking whether Lutherans or Dispensationalists are correct on either issue.)