I'm interested in whether there was an early Church Father who ***explicitly*** drew the connection that Trinitarians commonly draw today: the connection between Jesus' "**I am**" statement, found in **John 8:58** and God Almighty calling Himself the "**I am**" in **Exodus 3:14**. I would be interested in any Trinitarian answer that holds on to the Chalcedonian creeds. **When did the Church start drawing this connection?** I couldn't find such an **explicit** reference to such a connection being made by any of the 1st to 3rd-century Church Fathers in my research and am wondering if I'm missing something.

In the Sermon on the Mount, Jesus says >“Blessed are the peacemakers, for they will be called children of God” (Matthew 5:9). However, in some situations, people might use deception to bring about peace — for example, concealing the truth to prevent violence or lying to stop conflict. From a Protestant theological perspective, would such a person still be considered a “peacemaker” in the sense Jesus describes in Matthew 5:9? Or would the use of deceit disqualify them from that blessing, given the biblical prohibitions against lying (e.g., Proverbs 12:22; Ephesians 4:25)?

This question regarding whether the Catholic Church considers the Assyrian Church of the East to be heretics made me wonder: are *any* Christians outside the Catholic and Orthodox churches *not* considered heretical by the Catholic Church?

How did the early church fathers accepting the doctrine of the Trinity regard Christians who didn't accept the doctrine of the Trinity? By early I'm mean 2nd century or before. Constantine changes the picture of government interference. My understanding is they accepted them as Christians but heretical (a schism). But I'm not familiar enough with the church fathers to answer this. Related: https://christianity.stackexchange.com/questions/107892/as-a-jewish-believer-in-jesus-i-view-him-as-my-messiah-the-son-of-god-but-not

I think Romans is clear about law, and transgression, here is my understanding, if anyone wanted to answer feel free, or comments welcome. The law is a negative, nothing to do with the promises of God, no righteousness for the law, righteousness is through faith. So we hear about those of the law, that they are not heirs of the promises of life. **What does the law do, or serve as ?** It shows wrath in man, that is what the law works, transgression, and where there is no law, ( by faith) there is no transgression. > Romans 4:13 For the promise, that he should be the heir of the world, > was not to Abraham, or to his seed, through the law, but through the > righteousness of faith. 14 For if they which are of the law be heirs, > faith is made void, and the promise made of none effect: 15 Because > the law worketh wrath: for where no law is, there is no transgression So where there is no law there is no transgression, which is precisely what Romans 4:4-8 speaks, how those who do not work ( not in the law/not in transgression.) believe on Him who justifies the ungodly. ( Their faith is counted as righteousness.) Those in the law ( where there is transgression, by man working wrath) work, their reward is not of grace, they are IN DEBT. ( as many as are of the WORKS of the law/Cursed is every one THAT CONTINUES NOT in all things which are written in the book of the law to do them.) David also described the blessing of the man unto whom God imputes righteousness without works testifying, blessed are they whose iniquities are forgiven, and whose sins are covered. Blessed is the man to whom the Lord will not impute sin. ( the law works wrath, works transgression, where there is no law there is no transgression, as told clearly in this same passage, where righteousness without works is imputed, the man is blessed, whose iniquities are forgiven, whose sins are covered/ believing the promises of God is where there is no transgression/faith is imputed as righteousness.) > Romans 4:4 Now to him that worketh is the reward not reckoned of > grace, but of debt. 5 But to him that worketh not, but believeth on > him that justifieth the ungodly, his faith is counted for > righteousness. 6 Even as David also describeth the blessedness of the > man, unto whom God imputeth righteousness without works, 7 Saying, > Blessed are they whose iniquities are forgiven, and whose sins are > covered. 8 Blessed is the man to whom the Lord will not impute sin. > > Galatians 3:10 For as many as are of the works of the law are under > the curse: for it is written, Cursed is every one that continueth not > in all things which are written in the book of the law to do them.

So I am not asking about Mary and Joseph's genealogy. I am asking about their children's descendants. So Jesus's siblings' children, their children's children, etc. Whenever I search for this, I only receive results about their family history genealogy. So essentially, what happened to Jesus's nieces and nephews?

By conditionalist doctrine, I mean the belief that hell is the destruction of those souls that go there, rather than the everlasting torment or eventual purification of said souls.

In Romans 7:12–14, Paul writes that the law is “holy, righteous, and good,” yet he also emphasizes that it cannot save humanity from sin. How have theologians, especially in the Protestant tradition, reconciled this apparent tension?

My question is for protestant Christians. If salvation is by grace alone through faith alone in Christ alone, then what does 2 Thessalonians 2:13 mean by saying that people are saved by the sanctification of the Spirit and believing the truth?

In its article on the decline of human life spans, [CreationWiki](http://creationwiki.org/Human_longevity) states, >Interestingly, Noah died only two years before Abraham was born. Unfortunately for readers they provide no biblical support. What is the biblical basis for this claim?

**Introduction** Arius believed that Jesus was a creature, a created god. What did he write about John 1:1? Or if there is no such extant manuscript, how would he interpreted ''the Word was God'' in John 1:1 based on his Christology? > Arius was was a Libyan presbyter and ascetic, and priest in Baucalis > in Alexandria, Egypt. His teachings about the nature of the Godhead in > Christianity, which emphasized God's uniqueness and the Christ's > subordination under the Father,and his opposition to what would become > the dominant Christology, Homoousian Christology, made him a primary > topic of the First Council of Nicaea, which was convened by Emperor > Constantine the Great in 325.'' (Source ). > > In the beginning was the Word and the Word was with God, and > the Word was God. John 1:1 (ESV) ---------- **Question** What was the stance of Arius on the third clause of John 1:1?

Master Jesus was crucified on a tree, according to Apostle Peter. >**Acts 5:30** 30 The God of our fathers raised up Jesus, whom ye slew and **hanged on a tree**. >**Acts 10:39** 39 And we are witnesses of all things which he did both in the land of the Jews, and in Jerusalem; whom they slew and **hanged on a tree**: >**Acts 13:29** 29 And when they had fulfilled all that was written of him, **they took him down from the tree**, and laid him in a sepulchre. >**1 Peter 2:24** 24 Who his own self bare our sins in **his own body on the tree**, that we, being dead to sins, should live unto righteousness: by whose stripes ye were healed. On some accounts, He was crucified on the cross. >**Matthew 27:40** 40 And saying, Thou that destroyest the temple, and buildest it in three days, save thyself. If thou be the Son of God, come down **from the cross.** >**Matthew 27:42** 42 He saved others; himself he cannot save. If he be the King of Israel, let him now come down **from the cross**, and we will believe him. >**Mark 15:30** 30 Save thyself, and come down **from the cross.** >**Mark 15:32** 32 Let Christ the King of Israel descend now **from the cross**, that we may see and believe. And they that were crucified with him reviled him. >**Luke 23:26** 26 And as they led him away, they laid hold upon one Simon, a Cyrenian, coming out of the country, and **on him they laid the cross**, that he might bear it after Jesus. >**John 19:19** 19 And Pilate wrote a title, and put it **on the cross**. And the writing was JESUS OF NAZARETH THE KING OF THE JEWS.

According to Catholicism is the separation of certain Marian titles a possible manner of procuring a theological definition in favour of the title Mary Mediatrix of all Graces? I have never been in favour of using the title of Mary Co-Redemptrix, but I can still see a glimmer of hope that the title of Mary, Mediatrix of All Graces could one day be defined. The title of Mary Co-Redemptrix does have more theological entanglements to get defined, whereas the option of Mary, Mediatrix of All Graces could possibly be defined theologically in the future, though not without nuance and theological interpretation. We all know that these titles have been out here for a long time and some popes have favoured some such Marian devotional titles. However, modern popes are not always in favour of them. Notably the Holy See has just come out with the document [***Mater Populi Fidelis***](https://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/documents/rc_ddf_doc_20251104_mater-populi-fidelis_en.html) which discourages the usage of certain Marian titles. Both titles od Mary Co-Redemptrix and Mary Mediatrix of All Graces are mentioned. However the title of Mary Co-Redemptrix is more strongly worded not to be used. If the title Mediatrix of all graces could be disassociated from other modern Marian titles, could the possibility of a future dogma be reached? One interesting note that makes this possibility more real is that the Catholic Church has historically permitted a mass to be said in honour of Mary under the title of Mediatrix of All Graces. > In Belgium eight years later, Redemptorist priest François Xavier Godts wrote a book, De definibilitate mediationis universalis Deiparae (“On the definability of the universal mediation of the Mother of God”), proposing precisely that it be defined that Mary is Mediatrix of all graces. In April 1921, Désiré-Joseph Mercier, Cardinal Archbishop of Mechelen, Belgium wrote to his brother bishops in support of this. > > In response to petitions from Belgium, including one signed by all its bishops, the Holy See approved in 1921 an annual celebration in that country of a feast day of Mary Mediatrix of All Graces. In printings of the Roman Missal from that date until 1961, the Mass of Mary Mediatrix of All Graces was found in the appendix *Missae pro aliquibus locis* (Masses for Some Places), but not in the General Roman Calendar for use wherever the Roman Rite is celebrated. Other Masses authorized for celebration in different places on the same day 31 May were those of the Blessed Virgin Mary Queen of All Saints and Mother of Fair Love and Our Lady of the Sacred Heart of Jesus. The Belgian celebration has now been replaced by an optional memorial on 31 August of The Virgin Mary Mediatrix. - [Mediatrix of all graces](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mediatrix_of_all_graces) To my knowledge this mass has not been abrogated. I am not aware of any mass ever being allowed for Mary Co-Redemptrix. Perhaps someone can enlighten me? Thus I ask the question: **Have any Catholic theologians favoured the possibility of defining Mary Mediatrix of All Graces, while keeping the titles of Mary Co-Redemptrix a practical impossibity, due to its more complex misunderstandings and confusion?**

Is it Catholicism? Or conservatives that believe this? It might be from Dante’s Inferno or something. Not specifically mentioned in the Bible. There is the story of Lazarus and the rich man in hell but it doesn’t talk about a window. IIRC the idea goes when you get to heaven you can eat steak at a restaurant next to a window where you can see and enjoy with satisfaction watching your enemies burn in hell. I didn’t make up this idea. Just trying to find where it came from. I found a comment on it: "One of St Thomas Aquinas' key features of heaven was that it had a window so you could enjoy the suffering in hell"

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