As early as today (April 7 2017) the Supreme Court of Russia may ban the religion of Jehovah's Witnesses. This would make it a criminal offense for Jehovah's Witnesses even to meet together to pray. Additionally all of their properties will be seized by the Government. It is suggested that behind the scenes and even openly the Russian Orthodox Church is responsible for inciting this crack down on freedom of religion in Russia. An article in Christianity Today stated in part : > “A ban on Jehovah’s Witnesses is just the beginning in a series of repressions. Society needs an internal enemy to which the government can point in full cooperation with the Russian Orthodox Church,” Cherenkov said. “The silence of Protestants with regard to repressions against Jehovah’s Witnesses will merely unleash a new wave of restrictions and repressions. Additionally see the article from Forbes entitled "An Un-Holy Alliance" [(Un)Holy Alliance: Vladimir Putin, The Russian Orthodox Church And Russian Exceptionalism](https://m.forbes.com/sites/paulcoyer/2015/05/21/unholy-alliance-vladimir-putin-and-the-russian-orthodox-church/?c=0&s=trending) Is the Russian Orthodox Church actually encouraging such intolerance? Update the Russian government has banned Jehovah's Witnesses as an extremist group. (April 20,2017) See: https://www.google.com/amp/mobile.reuters.com/article/amp/idUSKBN17M1ZT

If Jesus is **not** the son of Joseph, but the Son of God, why is it said that Joseph is a descendent of David? If Jesus is the Son of God and the son of Mary, then the man who took care of Mary and her baby could be any man (a descendant of David or not). Hypothetically, if Mary would have been engaged with another man than Joseph, that wouldn't change Jesus, so why does it matter that the "adoptive father" (Joseph) was a descendant of David? In Matthew 1, it says that Jesus is the son of David, because Joseph is the son of David, not because Mary was a daughter of David, as it is stated clearly.

**Q: Do Arminian Protestants agree with Chapter 3 Article 1 of the [Westminster Confession of Faith](http://files1.wts.edu/uploads/pdf/about/WCF_30.pdf)?** We read: > CHAPTER 3 - Of God’s Eternal Decree > > 1. **God**, from all eternity, did, by the most wise and holy counsel of his own will, freely, and unchangeably ordain whatsoever comes to pass: ***yet so, as thereby neither is God the author of sin***, nor is violence offered to the will of the creatures; nor is the liberty or contingency of second causes taken away, but rather established. **The scriptures they use are:** > **[****65****]** (Ephesians 1:11, Romans 11:33, Hebrews 6:17, Romans 9:15, 18) > > ****: (James 1:13, 17, 1 John 1:5) > > ****: (Acts 2:23, Matthew 17:12, Acts 4:27-28, John 19:11, Proverbs 16:33) Do Arminian Protestants find the exegesis of this confession accurate? Why or why not?

In many countries like India, Return of Income Tax due to the Government from the citizens are filed online on the dedicated Tax Portal . Each citizen is required to disclose the income he earned in the just-closed Financial Year , which is counter-checked and assessed by the Tax Authority , mostly by leveraging a tracking system using the Permanent Account Number(PAN) . Now, there are many transactions like those in currency, which may not be tracked through PAN. A tax payer, therefore is tempted to hide some of his income while filing his/her tax return. This kind of tax evasion is a civil offence. But is it a sin from the perspective of the Ten Commandments ? The nearest Commandment one can think of is Thou shall not not steal '. By tax evasion, one does not literally steal' but is saving on tax otherwise due to the Government under the tax regime. My question therefore is: Which of the Ten Commandments becomes a subject of aberration if a Christian evades Income Tax ? Inputs from any denominations are welcome.

Given that Jesus can read minds. Why did God need to observe external behavior to know what was in the heart? In Mark 2:8 it reads > And immediately when Jesus perceived in his spirit that they so > reasoned within themselves, he said unto them, **Why reason ye these > things in your hearts?** and in Deuteronomy 8:2 it reads > And thou shalt remember all the way which the Lord thy God led thee > these forty years in the wilderness, to humble thee, and **to prove > thee, to know what was in thine heart**, whether thou wouldest keep his > commandments, or no.

During the time of Jesus Christ and even before the time of Christ there existed different sects of Jews (the Pharisees, the Sadducees and the Hellenistic Jews) but did they different sect of Jews have a different Old Testament canon or was it all the same?

How did the "dubia cardinals" accuse and respond to Pope Francis's *Amoris Lætitia*?

In the first chapter of Genesis, it gives us a description of God creating the heavens and earth and it says that on the seventh day he had finished his word and had rested (Genesis 2:2-3), but did any Early Church Father believe that the Creation account in Genesis was allegorical and not literal?

Who changed the name believer to Christians. Are there bible verses calling the followers of Jesus Christ Christian? If yes, were are the verses? If no, who coined the word and under what condition did he coin the word?

According to the Catholic Church, are a married couple permitted to engage in oral sex when sexual problems such as impotence make vaginal sex impossible?

As a Protestant who really tries to abide by the *sola scriptura* principle to subject my understanding of God, His works, and His relation to us under the accepted Protestant canon, I am bewildered on how to choose the "correct" interpretation of key Bible verses relating to competing understanding of key doctrines necessary for my "walk in the spirit" such as Trinity, dual nature of Christ, Original Sin, baptism, justification, union with Christ, sacrament, spiritual gifts, etc. There seems to be many legitimate options, leading to several Protestant theologies on offer, all of which adopt *sola scriptura* : Reformed, Lutheran, Anglican, Methodist, Pentecostal, etc. but each theology seems to be evolving. While a particular theology can then gives me *a responsible interpretation* that leads into a certain position I can then adopt of baptism, sacrament, etc, and while *sola scriptura* correctly subjects these theologies under scriptural authority, **there remains the problem of choosing which theology to use for an individual Christian**. Some key doctrines like the Trinity and the dual nature of Christ seem to require me to trust in the judgment of early councils of Nicaea and Chalcedon to favor one particular interpretation of Bible verses related to God and Jesus. While Kenneth Collins and Jerry Walls in their book [Roman *but Not* Catholic](https://www.amazon.com/dp/0801098939/) offers a way for *sola scriptura* proponents to coherently accept the *binding authority* of those early councils (because nearly all Christians accept them), **there remains the problem of choosing post Reformation councils / confession document to trust**. Should I go with a Reformed church which adopts Westminster Confession of Faith, or with an Anglican church which adopts the 39 articles, or with a Lutheran church which adopts the Augsburg Confession, or with a Methodist church which adopts the United Methodist Confession of Faith? In [an answer to a related question](https://christianity.stackexchange.com/a/72162/10672) we read (emphasis mine): > *Sola scriptura* says there is no guarantee that any doctrine of the church is certain; the only mark of divine certainty is on the scriptures. So our relationship to the scriptures is one of **an ongoing project of investigation** guided by the spirit's insights. As God guides us we may collectively decide that some things which were believed in the past, although they do not directly contradict the scriptures, are weaker exegetically and have unfortunate theological implications compared to alternative interpretations. And **just as we have a measure of skepticism towards earlier generations' traditions and interpretations, so future generations will judge that some of our interpretations and theological theories are unjustifiable as God continues to guide them**. It seems to me that at the end of the day, as a *sola scriptura* believer I only have myself to rely on, combined with: - the assistance of Holy Spirit in my heart, - the binding authority of those early ecumenical councils - several peers that I trust, that they're engaged in the same project as myself, to collaboratively understand God and his scriptures under the Spirit's guidance With the above guidance, **am I then free to choose a theologian I trust** and enlist him/her as one of my peers to help me in my "project of investigation" to choose a responsible interpretation of key Bible verses by reading his/her commentary / book and knowing as much as I can about his/her life as a Christian, and THEN use that guidance to select a church to attend? Is that the correct procedure? It still sounds lonely to me, or do the followers of those "peer theologians" (such as CS Lewis) count as a collective so my position is not solitary? Is this the best that *sola scriptura* can offer, and that means I have to keep a lingering doubt in the back of my mind about my currently chosen position on doctrines that the Protestant churches have differences on? It feels like standing on shifting tectonic plates waiting for an earthquake to happen. So the complete question is: **How do proponents of *Sola Scriptura* choose the "correct" interpretation of key Bible verses to adopt for one's faith life when many responsible exegesis in different faith traditions lead to different interpretations?** ### Real life significance of this question As a Christian we can speculate all day long and thus risk "living in an ivory tower", but the rubber really meets the road when that Christian is married to a spouse that holds the same *sola scriptura* position and but are unable to come to an agreement because they do their own "project of investigation", enlist different "peers" and then strongly decide to go to a different church of a different tradition. For example, one wants to go to a Pentecostal church (with "memorial" understanding of eucharist and double adult baptism, the 2nd one for filling), but the other wants to go to an Anglican church (with "means of grace" understanding of eucharist and infant baptism). Not only about church attendance, how are they supposed to baptize their children? I have seen in some couples that this happens and this became an element in their divorce. Are we supposed to consider this as a **defect** in both of their faiths? In this situation, should a couple who are persuaded to different faith traditions (each claim to have Holy Spirit backing) subject themselves to *sola scriptura* and attempt a compromise? What does this compromise look like since the couple cannot appeal to the Holy Spirit anymore for common ground? Ideally the couple should be "peers" to each other, but what if they cannot even agree on a single external "peer" to include in their "project of investigation"? A high profile real life example of a compromise is that of Prof. Francis Beckwith who [resigned as President of the Evangelical Theological Society](https://www.etsjets.org/announcements/frank_beckwith_resigns) to avoid a conflict of interest because he wanted to return to the Catholic Church. He has been "Catholic friendly" but the catalyst was when his nephew asked if he could be his sponsor when he receives the sacrament of Confirmation, which requires the sponsor to have a good standing in the Catholic Church. (read the full story [here](https://baptistnews.com/article/baylorprofessorbecomescatholicresignsasheadofevangelicalgroup/)) . He was baptized Catholic, but apparently joined his wife's Presbyterian church after marriage. Subsequent to his returning to the Catholic Church, his wife underwent RCIA to become Catholic as well.

Obviously during Christ's time and maybe even before there existed different sects of Jews who held to different beliefs, but was there any sects of Jews who accepted the Deuterocanon was scripture or part of the Old Testament canon?

I'm currently working on a Bible Study Titled "from believer to follower" Closer to God through his Word. I actually can't find one Instance where us saints/disciples, etc. are called believers! I realize the word is in some translations of the Scriptures, BUT when I look up the original word, it's actually just "brethren." Seems the translators themselves chose to use the word believer(s). Is there anywhere in Scripture where the original form and language refers to us as believers? Thanks for any help you can provide!

Did any heretical sect believe that money evil or that it is sinful to use money?

Did Thomas Aquinas write anything about hermaphrodites? I have not been able to find his opinions on the matter.

We Jesus instructing his disciples in Lk 10:1-5: > After this the Lord appointed seventy-two others and sent them two by two ahead of him to every town and place where he was about to go. He told them, ....... “When you enter a house, first say, ‘Peace to this house " Though the "Shalom" instruction was given only to the 72 disciples, all members of the community are likely to have adopted the practice. The practice over a long period of time, may have been replaced by other forms of Christian salutations like Praise the Lord, and even by secular salutations like Good Morning. My question therefore is: Did the members of Early Church practice the salutation of "Peace to this House", as had been taught by Jesus in Luke 10:5? Inputs from any denomination are welcome.

After the Splintering of the Protestant Revolt, there have been many men who are famous as Pastors and Preachers even up to the present day, the Billy Grahams the Joel Olstiens, John McArthurs, an Ellen G. White and so on. My questions is, are there any famous Biblical Pastors before the 15th century that were not Catholic or Catholic-Orthodox priests or bishops or members of the Catholic or Catholic Orthodox Churches? Someone who for example, did not celebrate the traditional sacrament of the Mass?

A story [broke recently](https://www.ncregister.com/cna/breaking-vatican-dismisses-father-frank-pavone-from-priesthood) that Fr. Frank Pavone, a priest (forever like Melchizedec of old, but apparently no longer in the eyes of the Catholic Church) who ran/runs an organization called priests for life (although he was the only member of the clergy I'd ever seen officially associated with the organization) was laicized with only “blasphemous communications on social media” and “persistent disobedience of lawful instructions of his diocesan bishop,” being used as the explanations. There's quite a bit of Internet whataboutism going on here with regard to dissident priests of a liberal bent so I'm wondering what authority would be required for his dismissal. The Catholic Register says [only the pope can do it](https://www.ncregister.com/cna/canon-lawyer-on-father-pavone-s-dismissal-from-priesthood-only-the-pope-can-issue-a-decision-without-appeal) but I'm asking if the authority can be transferred to a nuncio or a bishop under the authority of the Pope or if it's the Pope himself.

Where in the New Testament (if at all) does it say that Christians do not have to abide God’s commandments from the Old Testament?

According to the catholic doctrine, Jesus is "true God and true human." That nature of Him was taken in order to redeem the humanity of sin. My question is: > Since he is God since all times, did he _become_ true human in the incarnation or he was already man before it? If He has became human there, and now He is human also nowadays due to His simple and eternal attributes, excent (indifferent, alien, unaffected, etc) of time and space: **Wouldn't He has to been human since all times since He lives in eternity?**