When you read Numbers 25 and then view the middle east through that lens….. the actions of the middle east don’t feel as extreme. I definitely do not agree with the extremes of the middle east culture, but I am also shocked and dismayed at the extremes of what are written in Numbers 25. Yet God said…. > 4 ……. “Take all the leaders of the people and execute[b] them in broad daylight before the LORD so that his burning anger may turn away > from Israel.” > > 7 …….Aaron the priest, saw this, he got up from the assembly, took a > spear in his hand, 8 followed the Israelite man into the tent,[c] and > drove it through both the Israelite man and the woman—through her > belly. > > 11 …….Aaron the priest, has turned back my wrath from the Israelites > because he was zealous among them with my zeal,[d] so that I did not > destroy the Israelites in my zeal.* > > 17 “Attack the Midianites and strike them dead. 18 For they attacked > you with the treachery that they used against you in the Peor > incident. How do I as a Christian, defend this to a nonbeliever (or someone who questions Christianity). “This” being the fact that the God I serve, directed this….condoned this….. and rewarded this.

The Catholic Church teaches that Peter was the first pope and that papal succession continued down through history to the present day. However, neither the Orthodox nor the Protestant churches recognize this. So, what are the biblical arguments (Protestant or Orthodox) against the papacy and papal succession?

### Background *Sola Scriptura* is commonly defined as follows > **The Bible is the sole infallible source of authority for faith** (alternatively doctrine) **and practice.** Protestant discussions about the scriptural basis for *Sola Scriptura* nearly always involve 2 Timothy 3:16 and other NT verses, but I have not seen Protestants argue for for *Sola Scriptura* on the basis of the Hebrew Bible. ### Question Do Protestants believe the Hebrew Bible/Old Testament taught *Sola Scriptura* prior to the advent of Christianity and the writing of the New Testament? If so, which passages teach this? If not, how do they explain this doctrine only being introduced by the New Testament?

The Sabbath is mentioned about one hundred and forty-five times in the whole Bible (KJV), in the Old Testament the Sabbath is mentioned about ninety times and in almost all the texts it is an instruction to Israel to keep the Sabbath holy. Exodus 31:12 NASB >12 Now the Lord spoke to Moses, saying, 13 “Now as for you, speak to the sons of Israel, saying, ‘You must keep My Sabbaths; for this is a sign between Me and you throughout your generations, so that you may know that I am the Lord who sanctifies you. Exodus 35:1-3 NASB >35 Then Moses assembled all the congregation of the sons of Israel, and said to them, “These are the things that the Lord has commanded you to [a]do: > >2 “For six days work may be done, but on the seventh day you shall have a holy day, a Sabbath of complete rest to the Lord; whoever does any work on it shall be put to death. 3 You shall not kindle a fire in any of your dwellings on the Sabbath day.” But in the New Testament, it is mentioned about fifty-five times and in almost every text it is used as an index or marker of the cycle of the week as well as relative to an event that took place Matthew 12:1 NASB >[a]At that time Jesus went through the grainfields on the Sabbath, and His disciples became hungry and began to pick the heads of grain and eat Luke 6:7 NASB >7 Now the scribes and the Pharisees were watching Him [d]closely to see if He healed on the Sabbath, so that they might find a reason to accuse Him. I picked randomly the above texts but it seems most of them only refer to the Sabbath relative to the events that were taking place. There seems to be no clear instruction to keep the Sabbath in the New Testament. But many churches do teach that Christians are to keep the Sabbath. So what is the Biblical Basis for Christians keeping the Sabbath?

A friend told me that "bad people" are limited when it comes to spreading the Word of God. According to scripture, how, and in what way, does sin hinder one's ability to spread the Word of God?

It's a common trope among craedobaptists that the purpose of baptism is in order to make a public commitment to the Christian faith. For example, here's an excerpt from a *GotQuestions.org* article on baptism: > Christian baptism is the means by which a person makes a public profession of faith and discipleship. In the waters of baptism, a person says, wordlessly, “I confess faith in Christ; Jesus has cleansed my soul from sin, and I now have a new life of sanctification.” It's the only paragraph on the article without a Biblical citation (other than the summary paragraph at the end). I'm curious what the Biblical basis for the idea of "public profession" being associated with Baptism. *Please note I am specifically asking about the association of **public** profession with baptism, not about craedobaptism generally.* (As context, I recently returned to Lutheranism after several years as a Baptist. Even while I was a Baptist, I never felt like I understood the basis for connection of public profession of faith to baptism.)

In light of ongoing global events—such as wars (e.g., the conflict involving Russia), geopolitical instability, and widespread moral and social upheaval—many Christians interpret these as signs that the “end times” are approaching. My questions are twofold: Imminence of Christ’s return: Within mainstream Christian theology, do these kinds of events meaningfully support the belief that Christ’s return is near? How have passages such as Matthew 24; Luke 21; 1 Thessalonians 5:1–6; and Revelation 6–16 traditionally been understood in relation to historical events versus recurring patterns throughout history? Christ’s presence before the Parousia: Is there any biblical basis for the idea that Christ is presently “walking the earth” prior to His return, possibly until all believe in Him as the Christ? How do texts like Matthew 28:20 (“I am with you always”), John 14–16 (the coming of the Holy Spirit), Acts 1:9–11, and Revelation 1:12–18 inform orthodox interpretations of Christ’s presence now versus His future, visible return? I am seeking answers grounded in Scripture and recognized Christian interpretive traditions (e.g., patristic, Catholic, Orthodox, or Protestant), rather than speculative or purely contemporary prophetic claims.

Notable examples include: - [Does God Exist? William Lane Craig vs. Christopher Hitchens - Full Debate [HD]](https://youtu.be/0tYm41hb48o) - [The God Debate II: Harris vs. Craig](https://youtu.be/yqaHXKLRKzg) - [Does Math Point to God? William Lane Craig + Graham Oppy](https://youtu.be/8WE1y00bwCU) - [Is the Kalam Sound? Graham Oppy vs. Andrew Loke](https://youtu.be/a8NrTv-Durc) - [Are There Any Good Arguments for God? Ed Feser vs Graham Oppy](https://youtu.be/m-80lQOlNOs) - [William Lane Craig and Sean Carroll | "God and Cosmology" | 2014 Greer Heard Forum](https://youtu.be/X0qKZqPy9T8) - [DEBATE: Theism vs Atheism | Jonathan McLatchie vs Alex O’Connor](https://youtu.be/rnIQFI1pYLM) - [DEBATE Matt Dillahunty Vs Cliffe Knechtle | Is Christianity True? | Podcast](https://youtu.be/aAg3H1LU1Yw) - [Is Belief in the Resurrection Unreasonable? Mike Winger vs. Matt Dillahunty](https://youtu.be/Z2FGgkubhZM) - [Is belief in the Resurrection reasonable? Trent Horn Vs Matt Dillahunty Debate](https://youtu.be/7V6UNSvHVDM) Given the well-established practice among (some) Christians of engaging in formal intellectual debates with atheists and skeptics to defend core tenets of the Christian faith, such as the existence of God and the resurrection of Jesus, through philosophical arguments, reason, and evidence (as the examples above illustrate), what is the biblical basis for this? The New Testament enumerates various spiritual gifts and ministries (1 Corinthians 12:4-11, Ephesians 4:11-13, Romans 12:6-8), but I am unaware of any ministry fitting the role of a "professional intellectual debater." --- **Note**: there is some overlap with my previous question *https://christianity.stackexchange.com/q/100436/61679* , although the focus here is on the debate aspect, and the scope is broader in terms of what can be defended (resurrection of Jesus, miracles, etc.)

In Matthew 11, Jesus is questioned about whether he is the messiah. Instead of answering directly, in Matthew 11:45 Jesus points to his deeds. The deeds he lists are messianic signs according to passages in Isaiah 26:19, 35:5-6 and 61:1. However, one evidence that Jesus offers is not named in Isaiah or in any other prophet as a messianic sign (as far as I can tell). That miracle is the cleansing of lepers. In my research, I found sources that say that it was a Rabbinical tradition of that time that only the messiah could cleanse a leper. Yet in studying one messianic passage more closely, I wonder if I have found indirect Biblical evidence for that being a messianic sign. > And a highway shall be there, and it shall be called the Way of > Holiness; **the unclean shall not pass over it**. It shall belong to those > who walk on the way; even if they are fools, they shall not go astray. > > - Isaiah 35:8 The “unclean” above could mean only the morally wicked, but in the Old Testament it would seem to also include anyone who was ritually unclean. If the promise of a safe highway, a safe passage through the terrors of life, was denied the ritually unclean like lepers, then they would be excluded from the blessings of the messianic age. To fully participate, they would need to be cleansed. Have any theologians proposed Isaiah 35:8 as supplying the prophetic basis to Jesus’ statement in Matthew 11 concerning the cleansing of lepers, making it a messianic sign?

What is the Biblical justification that God controls every detail of the future (as accepted by Reformed Theology)? I'm sure that this has been asked, but I can't find it. Tim Keller cites two verses from Proverbs 16. >The plans of the heart belong to man, but the answer of the tongue is from the Lord. - Proverbs 16:1 >The heart of man plans his way, but the Lord establishes his steps. - Proverbs 16:9. I think I have found both a better exposition of my question and the answer here - https://christianity.stackexchange.com/q/4098/102058 My thanks to Mike Borden for giving me the word, "sovereignty", which led me to this question and answers.

One of my close friends has recently taken to believing in a pre-trib rapture, and out of respect for her, I've tried my best to understand why she believes it. I've seen the texts which the pre-tribulationists use to support their views (mainly 1 Thess. 4:13-19, 1 Corinthians 15:50-58, John 14:1-3, Matt 24, Rev. 3:10, and many others) and heard their arguments but I'm still perplexed by how the logic works. I can see how, if you already had the idea of a pre-tribulation rapture, you might think some or all of those verses support that interpretation. However, what I can't see is how you anyone came up with the idea in the first place. Clearly, someone did, since there has not been a continuous tradition of pre-tribulationists and the evidence that anyone at all held that view before the 19th century is pretty scanty. So, what I want to understand is how did the idea of a pre-tribulational rapture originate (or re-originate, if the pre-tribbers are correct and it was the original doctrine)? How does one get to the idea of a pre-tribulational rapture without already having it in your mind? To be clear about what I'm asking (I don't think it's a duplicate of https://christianity.stackexchange.com/questions/7239/what-scripture-is-used-to-support-a-pre-tribulation-rapture) : I want to know how one would use Scripture to build up the picture of the pre-tribulational rapture, i.e. that Jesus will return in a secret way to gather the church off the earth and we all go into heaven prior to the seven-year Tribulation period, during which many (all?) ethnic Jews will become believers, after which Jesus will return in glory and destroy the anti-Christ and rescue the faithful Jewish believers. If you read the Bible with no pre-conceived notions of the eschaton, what kind of reasoning would lead you to believe that it teaches this timeline?

What is the basis in the Scripture for the doctrine that those who haven't received salvation during their physical life, especially those who heard of Christ and yet chose not to pray to Him, will still have a chance to get saved after their physical death?

Some Christian traditions and theologians suggest that there might be an opportunity for repentance and salvation after death. Others reject this view and argue that Scripture teaches salvation must be received in this life. What are the key biblical arguments against the idea of a post-mortem chance for salvation? In particular, which passages are commonly cited to show that the opportunity for repentance ends at death?

The JW book "*What Does the Bible Really Teach *" asserts that (the blood of the) "covenant, or contract, makes it possible for 144,000 faithful Christians to go to heaven (p207). and "These 144,000 Christians, including Jesus’ faithful apostles, are raised to life in heaven" (p74). This question seeks the Biblical basis for this (apparent) "144,000" limitation on how many Christians can go to heaven, particularly given Rev 7:9, > "After this (the sealing of the 144,000), I looked, and behold, a great multitude which no one could count, from-out-of every nation and all tribes and peoples and tongues, standing before the throne and before the Lamb, having-been-previously-clothed in white robes, and palm branches in their hands. (Rev 7:9) Notice that the subsequent context suggests this event occurs in heaven: >...all the angels had-been-standing around the throne and the elders and the four living creatures; and they fell before the throne upon the faces of them, and they worshiped the God. (Rev 7:11) > > ... these (the ones in white robes) are the [ones] coming from-out-of the great tribulation, and they have washed the robes of them and made them white in the blood of the Lamb. Because-of this, they are before the throne of the God; and they serve Him day and night in the temple of Him... (Rev 7:14-15) Apparently, an uncountable number are observed holding palm branches... in white, washed-in-the blood robes... from out of the great tribulation... standing before the throne of Jehovah (in heaven)... serving Him night and day in His temple. This report seems to conflict with only 144,000 believers going to heaven. In answering this question, please do not address why 144,000 is considered literal, or that "144,000" are sealed on their foreheads during the 6th seal (Rev 7:4), or a similar "144,000" are subsequently observed in heaven during the 7th seal (Rev 14:1). These have been addressed elsewhere on this site. This question seeks the Biblical basis for the specific (~144,000) **limitation**, when Rev 5:7-15 suggests the number is uncountable. An acceptable answer needs to harmonize this (apparent) conflict, without introducing non-scriptural information, ignoring anything relevant or contradicting other scriptures.

Are there degrees of punishment in hell as there are apparently degrees of reward in heaven? 2 Corinthians 3:12-15 seems to point pretty clearly to reward in heaven, but I find no parallel degree of punishment in hell, as described, for example, in Dante's *The Inferno*.

Many individuals die never having heard the Gospel. Some illustrative examples are: pretty much everyone who was born before Jesus, individuals contemporary to Jesus but who were too far away at the time to hear about him (e.g. Native Americans and all tribes from the Pre-Columbian era during the first and many subsequent centuries), isolated jungle tribes in Africa and the Amazon, and [uncontacted peoples](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uncontacted_peoples) in general. How do different denominations across Christianity view the problem of individuals dying without ever having heard the Gospel's salvation message? What is the biblical basis in each case? *Note that this is an overview question: answers must summarise the positions of several different major Christian branches, and if possible even some of the smaller ones as well.* EDIT: I recently realized there is a decent overview of Christian viewpoints in the article https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fate_of_the_unlearned . Just linking this to complement the already excellent answers to this question.

My friend is a Progressive Christian who says that the bible doesn't condemn or even mention sex outside of marriage in the bible. Is this true? If not, what is the Biblical basis for condemning sex outside of marriage?

I understand that the Roman Catholic Church teaches that Mary is the eternal virgin in that she never had sexual relations with Joseph (or any other man)--either before or after the miraculous conception of Jesus. What Biblical evidence is there that contradicts this doctrine?

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.

### 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).