Jeremy Camp is a contemporary Christian artist known for music that deals with faith, suffering, and hope. His song "He Knows" contains the lyric: >All the bitter weary ways Endless striving day by day You barely have the strength to pray In the valley low And how hard your fight has been How deep the pain within Wounds that no one else has seen Hurts too much to show All the doubt you're standing in between And all the weight that brings you to your knees He knows He knows Every hurt and every sting He has walked the suffering This lyric suggests that Christ understands not just our physical suffering, but also our internal struggles and doubts. The song is often described as encouraging and biblically grounded. I’m seeking to understand what biblical and theological principles should be applied to evaluate whether such a song is inspired by the Holy Spirit. I’m not looking for personal opinions on musical style, but for scripturally grounded criteria such as alignment with biblical truth, spiritual fruit, and edification of the Church.

What does teaching morality result in?

In 2 Kings 2:11, Elijah is taken up to heaven in a chariot of fire and horses of fire, a dramatic and supernatural departure. In contrast, Acts 1:9 describes Jesus (the Son of Man) ascending to heaven in a cloud, a more serene and symbolic image. Why are these two ascensions portrayed so differently in Scripture? From a theological or symbolic standpoint, does the fiery chariot imply greater honor and glory for Elijah, or does the cloud signify a higher divine status for Jesus? How do Christian traditions interpret the differences in these departure scenes? I’m especially interested in answers that consider biblical symbolism, typology, and theological meaning within the broader narrative of Scripture.

There is a related question here: hermeneutics.stackexchange.com/questions/56196/… We are told in various imagery that Messiah would come in the line of David and be a branch or rod that sprouts from Jesse's roots: > And there shall come forth a rod out of the stem of Jesse, and a Branch shall grow out of his roots: And the spirit of the Lord shall rest upon him, the spirit of wisdom and understanding, the spirit of counsel and might, the spirit of knowledge and of the fear of the Lord; - Isaiah 11:1-2 > Hear now, O Joshua the high priest, thou, and thy fellows that sit before thee: for they are men wondered at: for, behold, I will bring forth my servant the Branch. - Zechariah 3:8 > And speak unto him, saying, Thus speaketh the Lord of hosts, saying, Behold the man whose name is The Branch; and he shall grow up out of his place, and he shall build the temple of the Lord: - Zechariah 6:12 Later, in Revelation, we are told that Jesus is the root of David: > And one of the elders saith unto me, Weep not: behold, the Lion of the tribe of Judah, the Root of David, hath prevailed to open the book, and to loose the seven seals thereof. - Revelation 5:5 And then Jesus himself claims to be both the root and the offspring of David: > I Jesus have sent mine angel to testify unto you these things in the churches. I am the root and the offspring of David, and the bright and morning star. - Revelation 22:16 This is much like when Jesus asked about whose son the Christ is "“How is it then that David, in the Spirit, calls him Lord, saying, “‘The Lord said to my Lord, “Sit at my right hand, until I put your enemies under your feet”’? If then David calls him Lord, how is he his son?” (Matthew 22:43-45). For those who believe Jesus did not pre-exist his incarnation, How can Jesus be the root of David if he is David's offspring?

How do people who believe in the theology of The Holy Trinity respond to these clear differences between God and Jesus Christ? | # | The Father | Jesus Christ | |----| -------- | -------------- | |1.| God is not put to the test (Deut 6:16)| Jesus was put to the test in the wilderness| |2.| God is not mocked(Gal 6:7) | Jesus was mocked on the cross, *save us and yourself, he is calling Elijah*| |3|God has immortality and cannot die | Jesus died first and received the breath of life from God| |4|God has been seated on that throne for all eternity| Jesus is seated at the right hand of that throne and not on it, *One Sat On it*| |5|God knows the end from the beginning | Jesus does not know the time of his second coming, *not even the angels but the Father* | The differences above show that Jesus Christ received the breath of life from God like the two witnesses of The Book of Revelation and indeed he is the *Suffering Servant*. *Isaiah 53:4-6* >However, it was our sicknesses that He Himself bore, And our pains that He carried; Yet we ourselves assumed that He had been afflicted, Struck down by God, and humiliated. 5 But He was [c]pierced for our offenses, He was crushed for our wrongdoings; The punishment for our [d]well-being was laid upon Him, And by His wounds we are healed. 6 All of us, like sheep, have gone astray, Each of us has turned to his own way; But the Lord has caused the wrongdoing of us all To [e]fall on Him. And surely a servant is not greater than his master who is God. As a Christian, I do believe in the words Jesus said that , *he did not know of the second coming, not even the angels but the Father*, if Jesus denied this knowledge then he is not *omniscient* and hence not God, If I deny those words, I make the Lord Jesus Christ a liar, which he is not and never will be. How do Trinitarian Christians respond?

I am studying a Agnus Dei made of rock crystal of the 16th century. The piece / pendant has a little center door that opens and inside a fragment of the blessed wax (Agnus Dei) is found. What is this little door for? The Agnus Dei with a door was it used for a special purpose or by a certain type of person?

Between Clement of Rome, Irenaeus, Polycarp, Papias, and Ignatius what are some actual doctrinal disagreements? In your response, please list the relevant writings of the Church Fathers with citations in the usual format such as "Cyprian, *Epistle* 54:14" (Author, *Book* chapter#:section#, see [helpful article](https://jimmyakin.com/2020/08/how-to-decode-mysterious-church-father-citations.html)) .

If there are unmistakable events or experiences that prove "true" salvation, how would we then be able to discern a deceptive event or experience that was administered by Satan? Isn't this why faith is required instead of visible proof? I believe it protects us from the power of Satan, "the god of this world" and master of deception, along with his false "ministers of righteousness". **2 Corinthians 4:3-4** >But if our gospel be hid, it is hid to them that are lost: 4 In whom the god of this world hath blinded the minds of them which believe not, lest the light of the glorious gospel of Christ, who is the image of God, should shine unto them. **2 Corinthians 11:13-15** >For such are false apostles, deceitful workers, transforming themselves into the apostles of Christ. 14 And no marvel; for Satan himself is transformed into an angel of light. 15 Therefore it is no great thing if his ministers also be transformed as the ministers of righteousness; whose end shall be according to their works. Please provide actual scripture from our apostle Paul's epistles (Romans through Philemon) that states where we will experience an immediate event or experience that would confirm our eternal salvation aside from having faith alone in Jesus Christ and the work that He completed on the cross on our behalf.

Which denominations, past and present, would be insulted by opening a statement with premise "when Jesus created the world..", and why? ---------- _background for this is firstly the whole creational account given in the Bible, but which lastly is not limited to Genesis; I do not want to specify John 1:3, or Genesis 1, or anything else here, because different denominations make different arguments based on different approaches to the text; **I am wondering what words in the 5-word phrase exactly may be disturbing for some groups and what arguments they create to sign the phrase "when Jesus created the world" as false** or heretical_

The Pew Research Center's Religious Landscape Study frequently highlights distinctive trends among **historically Black Protestant (HBP) denominations** in the United States. For example, the 2023-24 study identified HBP as the only Christian group where a majority believed that **moral behavior requires a belief in God**, a view that contrasts sharply with other Christian categories and the general U.S. population (Pew Research Center, "Religion and Views of Right and Wrong ," 2023-24 survey). What are the key factors (e.g., **theological/doctrinal emphases**, **historical experiences**, specific **cultural values**, or **sociological dynamics**) that contribute to this distinctive proportion of adherence to this belief? In short, where does the HBP coupling of **being a moral person** with **believing in God** come from? **Majority of adults in the historically Black Protestant tradition say believing in God is necessary to be moral** *%who say ...* | |It is possible to be
moral and have
good values
without believing
in God|It is necessary to
believe in God in
order to be moral
and have good
values|Don't know/
Refused| |--|:--:|:--:|:--:| |**All U.S. Adults**| 68% | 30% | 2%=100% | |**Religiously affilliated**| 60 | 38 | 2 | |Christian|58|40|2| | Protestant|55|42|3| | *Evangelical*|51|46|2| | *Mainline*|71|27|3| | *Historically Black*|40|57|3| | Catholic|62|37|2| | Orthodox Christian|67|39|3| | Latter-Day Saint (Mormon)|73|23|3| |Other Religions|78|21|1| | Jewish|82|16|2| | Muslim|52|46|2| | Buddhist|79|19|1| | Hindu|73|26|1| |**Religiously unaffiliated**|88|11|1| |Atheist|98|2|1| |Agnostic|98|1|Note: Figures may not add to 100% due to rounding. Source: conducted July 17, 2023-March 4, 2024. **PEW RESEARCH CENTER**

Yet 1 John 1:9 is widely taught as conditional forgiveness for the Christian when the passage of 1 John 1 is directed as an invitation to Gnostic Jews to become believers.

I'm interested in answers particularly from Evangelicals who might disagree with this idea, as well as those who agree with it. I'm especially interested in theological considerations — i.e. does this misunderstand the Trinity. Essentially the thought came to me, **if the Son is fully God, do those who have *never heard*** the Jewish name of the Messiah (Joshua, meaning the Lord saves) or the exact details of his virgin birth, death, and resurrection, **nevertheless believe in him** (for salvation) **when they trust in 'God' to forgive/save them?** This excludes those who reject Christ explicitly (ie. orthodox Islam). This would not be a universalist position, but a form of inclusivism. More like a psychological/conceptual faith in the Messiah/Christ/Savior. I'm looking for arguments for/against, as well as relevant verses/examples/doctrines. A similar question was asked here , but this gives it a trinitarian/soteriological bent. For a practical consideration, Don Richardson (*Eternity in their Hearts*) notes a number of peoples geographically and intellectually isolated from Christianity/Judaism for centuries that had an underlying monotheism, and belief that this 'creator' was going to set things right if they only waited for special messengers bringing a special 'book'. Would their 'waiting for salvation' be comparable to some in Israel during the intertestamental period, waiting for the Messiah?

Not rightly dividing the word of truth is a major source of confusion in Christianity today.

While listening to a video of "Ready to Harvest" (a great neutral viewpoint denomination YouTube channel), he said something very briefly that made it sound like Seventh-Day Adventists don't believe in hell, which I wasn't aware of, I was only aware of their view of soul sleep. So for clarification, what is the SDA view of hell?

This is certainly not found in the New Covenant of Jesus yet it is prevalent in Christian teachings, media, and reading materials.

The Protestant Marko Latvakoski of "The Mission of God" (or a certain "Cory Cornelius"), in the context of Apocalypse 13 supposedly being fulfilled, claims : >Pope Leo XIV declared, “We must dissolve the barriers between faiths {ONE WORLD THEOLOGY} to achieve lasting peace on earth.” Did Leo XIV say this? Latvakoski/Cornelius continues: >The Antichrist is said to perform great acts in the name of peace, seducing the world into worshiping as one. Pope Leo’s unprecedented interfaith push has set off alarm bells for believers everywhere. >

Considering the language of 1 John 1, this passage is clearly not addressed to believers, yet is widely mistaught in Christendom. 1 John 1:9 KJV >If we confess our sins, he is faithful and just to forgive us our sins, and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness.

The question is stemming from what looks like a complete blanket of grace not only concerning the reception of salvation, but also being applied to the process of sanctification without limitations. There are different views on the grace that is gifted and exactly what it applies to. For example evangelicalism applies total grace to salvation and sanctification, even if someone is apostate, while others don't do that. Others limit grace to those who stay in repentance. What are the main differences concerning grace between church factions and how do they justify their beliefs according to their doctrine and scripture? Philippians 2:12 - "Therefore, my beloved, as you have always obeyed, not as in my presence only, but now much more in my absence, work out your own salvation with fear and trembling" There are some passages like Ph 2:12 that make it sound like grace being attached to sanctification is conditional based on obedience. This is not about what grace is, but how it's taught differently and applied from denomination to denomination.

There is much discussion in secular academia about the possibility/impossibility of Christ being Deity. But there are also sects *within religious circles* who dismiss the idea of Christ really being Deity! Some of those sects fly their flag under the banner of ***Christianity.*** Since the word "Christian" is commonly defined as "one who is a faithful disciple of Christ", then it follows that such a one should believe all that Jesus claimed, ***including His claim to Deity.*** (Also recognized as such by the Apostles.) >Anyone who has seen Me has seen the Father...Believe Me when I say that I am in the Father, and the Father is in Me... (John 14:9, 11) >My Father is always at work to this very day, and I too, am working.
For this reason the Jews tried all the harder to kill Him...He was even calling God His own Father, making Himself equal with God. (John 5:17-18) >He is the [visible] image of the invisible God, the firstborn of all Creation. For by Him all things were created: things in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or powers or rulers or authorities; all things were created by Him and for Him. He is before all things, and in Him all things hold together. (Colossians 1:15-17) >For in Christ all the fullness of the Deity lives in bodily form... (Colossians 2:9) >The Son is the radiance of God's glory and the exact representation of His Being, sustaining all things by His powerful Word. (Hebrews 1:3) >Jesus said to those who believed on Him, "***If you continue in My word***, then you are My disciples indeed." (John 8:31) Since Jesus's "word" included His claim to Deity, can a person ever be called a "Christian" who does not subscribe to believing Jesus is God? ***What is the consensus of Evangelical Protestants in this matter of importance?*** Can sects that deny the Deity of Christ still be considered under the umbrella of "Christianity"? or be considered a "Christian religion"?

In summary, 2nd century Logos-theology taught that God's Logos was always part of God but later became a distinct Person. In 4th-century Nicene theology, the Son is the Father's only Mind. In Arian theology, the Father and Son are two distinct Minds. Did the Nicenes or the Arians follow the Logos-theologians in this regard? To explain in more detail: When the Church became Gentile dominated in the second century, the Apologists explained Jesus Christ as the Logos of Greek philosophy. In this philosophy, the Logos always existed as part of God but became a hypostasis (a distinct Person or Existence) when God decided to create. Through the Logos, the high God created and communicated with the creation: > “Ever since the work of Justin Martyr, Christian theologians had > tended to use the identification of the pre-existent Son with some > similar concept in contemporary Middle Platonism as a convenient > philosophical device” (Hanson, p 22-23). > > “They used to great effect several features of contemporary Greek > philosophy to enable them to construct their doctrines of God. They > identified the pre-existent Christ, thought of as manifesting himself > on critical occasions throughout the history of the Jewish people, > with the nous or **Second Hypostasis** of contemporary Middle > Platonist philosophy, and also borrowed some traits from the divine > Logos of Stoicism (including its name).” (Hanson Lecture ) > > "Greek-speaking theologians of the early fourth century had three > words for something that really exists, and exists in itself, as > distinguished from an accident or a quality. The words are ousia, > hypostasis, and hyparxis. ... As the fourth century progressed, > hypostasis became, more and more, the one term that was the center of > controversy." (Lienhard ) Logos-theology remained the dominant teaching right into the fourth century: > "The theological structure provided by the Apologists lasted as the > main, widely-accepted, one might almost say traditional framework for > a Christian doctrine of God well into the fourth century, and was, in > differing form, the basic picture of God with which the great majority > of those who were first involved in the Arian Controversy were > familiar and which they accepted" (Hanson ). Almost all delegates to Nicaea in 325 were from the East and the East maintained Logos-theology: > “Around 250–300 attended, drawn almost entirely from the eastern half > of the empire” (Ayres, p. 19). > > "The great majority of the Eastern clergy (at Nicaea) were ultimately > disciples of Origen. … they were simply concerned with maintaining the > traditional Logos-theology of the Greek-speaking Church" (Frend, > W.H.C. The Rise of Christianity. See also, Bible.ca). Alexander and Athanasius taught that the Son is the Father's only Logos or Wisdom. In other words, only one Logos existed: > “In Alexander, and in Athanasius … Christ is the one power and wisdom > of the Father” (Ayres, p. 54). > > Alexander stated that if, as Arius claims, there once was when the Son > was not, then “there was once when God was without wisdom, power, > brightness, and so on” (Anatolios, p. 87). > > Athanasius argued similarly that the Son is “present with Him (the > Father) as his Wisdom and his Word” (Ayres, p. 46). > > Athanasius wrote: “There is no need to postulate two Logoi” (Hanson, > p. 431), meaning two minds. > > “He (Athanasius) is appalled at the Arian statement that the Son > exercises his own judgment of free-will” (Hanson, p. 428). Origen, Arius, and the 'Arians' taught two Logoi. In other words, the Father has His own mind apart from the Son: > Origen argued that “Father and Son are two … in subsistence > (hupostasis), but are one in likemindedness, harmony … and … will” > (Williams, p. 132), implying two distinct minds. > > “Arius also talks of two wisdoms and powers, speaking of a Logos that > was not distinct from the Father's hypostasis, after whom the Son is > designated Word” (Ayres, p. 55). “God's own power and wisdom is the > source of Christ.” “The proper power of God Himself … is natural to > him and coexistent with him unoriginatedly” (Ayres, pp. 53-54, quoting > Asterius, a prominent early Arian). > > Asterius, a prominent early Arian, wrote: “There are … two Wisdoms, > one God's own who has existed eternally with God, the other the Son > who was brought into existence. … There is another Word in God besides > the Son” (Hanson, p. 13). My question is, therefore, did the Nicenes or the Arians follow second-century Logos-theology? The Nicenes taught one mind and the Arians two. Did Logos-theology teach one or two minds (Logoi)? I put a similar question to Bryan Litfin, a theologian who wrote in Logos-theology. He said: > The general idea of the Logos Theology is that there is only one > mind, which belongs to God. ... In his one, single mind, there is an > eternal existence which goes by several names. In particular, it can > be called Word, or Wisdom. What happens in Christian theology, due to > the 2nd century Logos Theologians, influenced by Stoicism and by > John's Prologue, is that the abstract Word/Wisdom of God comes to be > "hypostasized" as a separate Person, the Second Person of the Trinity. > He only becomes a Son when God decides to create the cosmos. Then > later, he becomes incarnate for salvation (at the virginal > conception). So the Word/Wisdom is eternal, residing in the eternal > mind of God. But Sonship is temporal, and so is Incarnation. If I understand this correctly, it seems to say that in Logos-theology, there is only one mind in God, which means that the Nicenes followed Logos-theology in this regard, while the Arians deviated from Logos-theology. Further insight will be appreciated.