In Genesis 1:28, God commands humanity to “be fruitful, multiply, and fill the earth.” This is a physical multiplication and filling of the world. In the New Testament, Jesus commissions His apostles to “go and make disciples of all nations” (Matthew 28:19), which seems like a spiritual multiplication—filling the world not biologically but with the gospel. Is this seen as a deliberate biblical pattern or typology? In what ways did the apostles fulfill this spiritual fruitfulness and multiplication, and do Christian traditions see a theological link between the original creation mandate and the Great Commission? I’m especially interested in perspectives that view the apostles as spiritually “fruitful” by preaching the gospel and establishing churches across the world.

Revelation 1:8 and 4:8 describe God as the one "*who was, and is, and is to come*", a phrase emphasizing His eternal nature and unchanging presence across time. In contrast, Revelation 17:8 speaks of the beast (often interpreted as representing the devil or a satanic figure), saying it "*was, and is not, and is to come,*" which appears to mimic God’s description but with a distorted twist. **What attribute of God is being emphasized through this triadic formula?** And how does the similar but corrupted version applied to the beast expose the devil's nature as unstable, temporal, or counterfeit? Is this a deliberate contrast showing God's immutability and sovereignty versus the devil's impermanence or false imitation of divine authority?

There are two major frameworks of Biblical Theology in Protestant Christianity: Dispensationaliam and Covenant Theology. Simplistically, Dispensationaliam says there is a big discontinuity between Israel and the Church, while Covenant Theology says there is a great continuity between Israel and the Church. While the Southern Baptist Covention has a mix of Calvinist and Arminian congregations, my understanding is that the seminaries tend to the Calvinist side. Neither Dispensationaliam nor Covenant Theology would sit well with Reformed Baptists, so I was wondering what these seminaries teach. New Covenant Theology is a more recent framework that tries to chart a middle path between Dispensationaliam and Covenant Theology. Do any of the SBC seminaries teach NCT? Or do they teach their own framework that similarly tries to chart a path between the two, but differs in the details? Or do they teach traditional Dispensationaliam or Covenant Theology? The SBC seminaries may not all teach the same framework, but as there are only six, it shouldn't be too hard to summarise what they do.

This is a question particularly for those who believe, based on Biblical data in the New Testament, that the Sabbath is no longer binding for New Covenant Christians since Jesus has fulfilled the Law and has become our rest. Particularly for those of you who hold this theological view (please neglect to answer if you don't hold this view, as the question will not apply to you) how do you interpret Exodus 20:11 in particular, and reconcile it with your theology? I will explain what I mean, and then conclude with my concrete question at the bottom. After the command to observe the Sabbath, Exodus 20:11 in the ESV says: "For in six days the Lord made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that is in them, and rested on the seventh day. Therefore the Lord blessed the Sabbath day and made it holy." This verse begins with the word "for," which can also be translated "because." In other words, it seems God is grounding to the Israelites his command to observe the Sabbath in his creation pattern. Am I missing something? Grammatically, it seems to me God is effectively saying, "because" I myself rested on the 7th day after creation, you therefore are to rest too. Although this is a command in the Old Covenant, under which New Covenant Christians are no longer bound, the grounding in Creation (and the facts of Creation never change, unlike the binding and fulfillment of covenants) could be seen as making this commandment in particular binding on everyone, at all times, forever, even though it is an Old Covenant law. **The fact of God resting on the 7th day will never change, and since this is his grounds for the commandment to observe the Sabbath in Exodus 20, it almost seems as if the Sabbath commandment should be binding on his people, including New Covenant Christians forever.** **Question:** In light of your conviction that the Law is no longer binding on New Covenant Believers, how should we make sense of Exodus 20:11 in particular? I am asking specifically how to reconcile this verse with all the Scriptural data, and not a vague and general debate on Sabbath-keeping. Full disclosure, personally, all my life I believed the Sabbath did not apply to Christians because of all the data in the New Testament on how to view the Law. But I am so lost on how to reconcile my current theology together with a coherent theology from Exodus 20:11.

Was Jesus The Lamb of God or the High Priest (whom offers the lamb as a sacriffice)? John the baptist said " Behold the Lamb of God, which taketh away the sin of the world" John 1:19 And in Hebrews 4:14 it is written "Seeing then that we have a great high priest, that is passed into the heavens, Jesus the Son of God".

How do we get that “Sexual Immorality” equals “Sex outside of marriage?” I cannot find Old Testament law stating it is forbidden. I can only find where sex outside of marriage, along with sexual immorality,gets termed as fornication. I also hear the word Porneia translates as sex outside of marriage. My Strongs defines it as Deriving from harlotry (includ. Adultary and incest); fig. Idolatry

Here is a simple summary of the purpose of the first six councils: >1. FIRST COUNCIL OF NICAEA (325) – Affirmed the deity of Christ. The false doctrine of Arianism was rejected and affirmed the apostles’ teaching of who Christ is—the one true God and the Second Person of the Trinity, with the Father and the Holy Spirit. >2. FIRST COUNCIL OF CONSTANTINOPLE (381) – Clarified the nature of the Holy Spirit and dealt a fatal blow to Arianism. It sharpened the distinctions between the Eastern and Western branches of the church. When the Great Schism occurred centuries later, one of the primary disagreements was the hierarchy of Rome and Constantinople. >3. COUNCIL OF EPHESUS (431) – Clarified the nature of Christ’s personhood. The false teaching of Nestorianism was repudiated and also denounced (and rejected) Pelagianism and re-affirmed the Nicene Creed. The decision to condemn Nestorianism caused an immediate split in the Eastern Church, creating several splinter groups. Some of these survive today, including the Assyrian Church of the East and Chaldean Catholicism. >4. COUNCIL OF CHALCEDON (451) – Clarified the teaching concerning Christ’s nature and person, including the “hypostatic union.” The false doctrine of monophysitism was rejected. The Council produced the “Chalcedonian Definition,” which affirms that Christ is “the same perfect in Godhead and also perfect in manhood; truly God and truly man.” >5. SECOND COUNCIL OF CONSTANTINOPLE (553) – Confirmed the conclusions of the first four councils. >6. THIRD COUNCIL OF CONSTANTINOPLE (680–681) – Clarified the nature of Christ’s will. I have left out the seventh ecumenical council (the SECOND COUNCIL OF NICAEA in 787) because it established guidelines for the veneration of images. Some Protestants reject this council, while accepting the Council of Hieria of 754, which rejected the veneration of icons. Do Protestant denominations broadly accept the authority of these councils and agree with the theological views as presented in the first six ecumenical councils? I ask because I read an article that said Protestants recognise the first six, although they do not hold those decrees in the same regard as Catholics. Is there a general acceptance by Protestants of the first six ecumenical councils? Or are some parts rejected by Protestant denominations?

There are many Christian pastors, scholars, and theologians who are positive they have the correct interpretation of the unpardonable sin. There isn’t a universal interpretation that everyone agrees on. I assume they all take into account verses such as John 7:37-38, 1 John 1:8–9, Hebrew 7:25, John 6:44, and Romans 10:9-10 when forming their interpretations. Questions 1. Can it be correctly said that all interpretations by pastors and theologians on the unpardonable sin, involve a rejection of Jesus within the interpretation, or involve non-repentance? I don’t believe any interpretation to be correct if it implies that after said interpretation occurs, one could be denied by our Lord if they repent and believe in their heart that Jesus is Lord and they call on His Name. Based on so many other verses, that interpretation is just unBiblical. 1. If some pastors or theologians think otherwise, do they ever attempt to explain their view of the unpardonable sin and how it would hermeneutically fit within the rest of scripture, without contradictions? Looking for common ground within interpretations of this sin by theologians and pastors. I know of folks who are terrified they may have accidentally committed this sin. (I asked these similar questions in a different community on this site but didn’t get a lot of answers due to it being the incorrect community, I think by the site’s guidelines, to ask in.) The unpardonable sin verse I have been referring to is Matthew 12:31-32: >**31** And so I tell you, every sin and blasphemy will be forgiven men, but the blasphemy against the Spirit will not be forgiven. **32** Anyone who speaks a word against the Son of Man will be forgiven, but anyone who speaks against the Holy Spirit will not be forgiven, either in this age or in the age to come.

**Introduction:** Merriam-Webster defines New Israel as “the Christian fellowship of believers: the Christian Church.” The relationship of Israel and the Church has been debated for centuries and various theologies have emerged. For example, ***replacement theology*** teaches that the church has replaced Israel in God’s plan and that the many promises God made to Israel are fulfilled in the Church instead—Old Testament prophecies are allegorized in order to make them applicable to the church. ***"Spiritual Israel"*** is a term sometimes used to suggest concepts related to replacement theology. Contrary to replacement theology, ***dispensationalism*** teaches that, after the rapture (1 Thessalonians 4:13–18), God will restore Israel as the primary focus of His plan. Others believe that ***the church is distinct from Israel***, and the church is an entirely new creation that came into being on the day of Pentecost. **The reason for my question** is not to argue for or against any of these conflicting views. I have been asked to answer a very specific question, namely, ***does the Bible refer to Christian gentiles or the Church as "New Israelites", "New Israel" or "Spiritual Israel"?*** It may be that the early church fathers wrote about the relationship between Israel and the Church and it would be helpful to know who may have said what. However, being a Christian of the Protestant persuasion, I prefer to stick to what the Bible says. Nonetheless, in order to respond to the question I have been assigned, I would appreciate any helpful input regarding this specific question. Thank you. P.S. If the tags I have selected can be improved upon, feel free to make suggestions.

I want to learn Biblical Theology by myself, but I don’t know the appropriate textbook to start. Though I’m not a student from Westminster Theological Seminary, I still want to read what students there read. So, I want to know something about the required readings for courses on the Gospels at the Westminster Theological Seminary.

It's said that most influential medieval work on angelic order was written by Pseudo-Dionysius the Areopagite. How much authority do his works still hold and what's the metaphysical foundation and necessity for the existence of Angels?

Why do theologians and philosophers suppose a connection between God's **Infiniteness or Finiteness** and **Omnipresence,** and Problem of **Evil**? Proponents of God's Finiteness (like William James), suppose that this explains why Evil present in the World. Proponents of God's Infiniteness (like most theologians and philosophers) say: He is Omnipotent, and Omnipresent, so He should be Infinite. Let's examine these rationally: Christian Scholars **usually** allude to God an **Infiniteness**, i.e: space (not matter) is infinite, and God fills the whole space, hence He is Infinite. Also, God is Eternal (infinity in time). Look, for example, **Thomas Aquinas**, on (**Infinity of God**), on **encyclopedia.com.** I searched much more in the Bible to find Verses or passages that hint to Infiniteness of God, especially in **Space and Consciousness**, I couldn't find. To be accurate, there are two passages that hint to God's Omnipresence, i.e: **Psalms 139:7-12, and Hebrews 4:13**. Omnipresent doesn't mean Infinite in Space and Consciousness. All that it may means is that the Omnipresent God Permeates His creation; His creation=the World+the Living Beings. Thus, God is Omnipresent in His Creation. Finite in Space and Consciousness doesn't mean lack of Omnipotence and Presence of Evil. I.e: doesn't justify the Presence of Evil. Those philosophers who looked upon Evil from narrow scope. Evil is required as part of involution that precedes evolution, also, it may be considered as byproduct of **FREEDOM** granted to Human Beings. Of course God is Infinite in Time, i.e: He is Eternal. I.e: He **can't**, and **couldn't** die. In philosophy there are many philosophers who assume God's Finiteness, e.g: **Charles Renouvier** and **William James.** Could you, please, give me Biblical evidences for God (Finiteness) or (Infiniteness) in Space, and Consciousness?

I have read Dante's Inferno and was wondering how Theologically sound some of the points-of-view really are? Now I know Dante's Inferno was not written by a priest or anyone really involved in any sort of real church. So it could be that it was never really meant to be considered as anything but a flight-of-fancy,but still the religious imagery is so vivid and profound that I cannot seem to shake the idea that these where the cherished beliefs of the writer. What shook me is the idea that the well-meaning pagan would go to hell. This struck me as an odd belief when the Bible mentions that those who don't have the law are still governed by it, their conscience bearing witness. This seems to me to be at odds with what the Bible teaches. I guess Dante did not believe in the salvation of infants either. The second issue that struck me is how bad the sin of suicide is considered in this book. Now we know suicide is often a result of very real mental disease. The idea that these people would be denied entry into heaven as a matter of principle over a disease they may not have any control over, does not strike me as the actions of an all-good and loving God. Now again this work may very well not be endorsed by any church, but still the theological implications may be worth discussing as there exist the real chance that some may people reading may consider it doctrine.

In *Cur Deus Homo*, Anselm provides an argument primarily in natural theology (as I understand it, anyway) for the proposition that the divine nature assumed a human nature for itself, without confusion of natures (modulo the Chalcedonian credo, then). The argument goes something like: 1. Humanity should redeem itself. 2. Only God can redeem humanity. 3. Should-implies-can (roughly; you could also say, "If something to be done is right/good, then there is a way to do it"). 4. Therefore God could in some way exist also in human form. I personally like and accept this line of reasoning, owing greatly to my preconversion acceptance of (3). In fact, my conversion came about in part because of the above reasoning. Now I say "in part," in part(!) because I thought there was a way to adapt Anselm's argument to the question of the Resurrection. First, sometimes John 3:16 is translated such that it says "shall not perish" instead of "will not perish." I don't know the original Greek words there, so this is a gap in my reasoning, but the idea is that the Bible is saying there that there are circumstances in which we can say that someone **should** be resurrected. (The Bible also talks about a "right to be the children of God": John 1:12.) Secondly, then, let us suppose (this is a hypothetical, but we who believe would discharge the antecedent re: Jesus Christ) that there was someone who was very good, perfect in fact. If this perfect person died, would we be able to say that this person *should* be resurrected? That it would be right and good for this person to come back from the dead? Then via (3) from Anselm's argument, we would get, "Therefore, it is possible for this perfect being to be resurrected." And if it was possible, and appeared to be actual, why would we think it was untrue that it had turned out to be actual? Or is Anselm's kind of reasoning too flawed in general? He was, after all, as far as I know, the one who came up with the first [ontological argument](https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/ontological-arguments/) . But I am attracted to that argument, too, so I don't know...

He said, "In the beginning, the head of the Gods called a council of the Gods: and they came together and concocted a plan to create the world and people in it." Joseph Smith Jr., Journal of Discourses, vol. 6, pg5. He also said, "Sons of God who exalt themselves to be Gods, even from before the foundation of the world, and are the only Gods I have reverence for." (Joseph Smith, History of the Church, vol, 6, Pp. 473-479. One more quote, "We have imagined and supposed that God was God from all eternity. I will now refute that idea, and take away the veil, so that you may see...he was once a man like us... (Smith, Teaching of the Prophet, pp. 345,346.) How do the Mormons reconcile these statements from what the Bible teaches? Mark 12:32, "And the scribe said to Him/Jesus Christ, "Right, Teacher, You have truly stated that He/the Lord God is ONE: And there is no one else besides Him." Or Psalm 90:2, "Before the mountains were born, Or Thou didst give birth to the earth and the world, Even from everlasting to everlasting, Thou are God."

In this thesis there are many assertions made. One of them is that the teachings of Charles Taze Russell, as regarding the return of Christ being 'multi-staged', shares a common origin with the pre-tribulational, pre-millenial theory of the 'rapture' that is becoming prevalent in many Protestant denominations. This theology is often called Dispensationalism and is becoming very common within Evangelical congregations such as non-denominational churches, Baptist, Pentecostal, and other charismatcs, especially in America. This 2016 survey indicates that nearly half of American Evangelical pastors believe and teach premillenialism and 36% are pretribulational as well. The survey included Baptist, Lutheran, Methodist, and Pentecostal churches. This question is directed more towards a theological school of thought than any particular denomination. If I must ask of a denomination then I am asking primarily of those denominations which hold to Dispensational theology; particularly those teachings of a multi-staged return of Christ with the first return being invisible. How do these theologies reconcile the apparent common source of theirs and the Jehovah's Witness eschatology with their strong opposition to the bulk of JW theology? There is no assertion being made that Protestant dispensationalists and Jehovah's Witnesses believe the same thing eschatologically, but that the two eschatologies appear to share the same origin. To be clear, I am asking Protestant dispensationalists to respond regarding the common roots of dispensational eschatology and Jehovah's Witness eschatology alleged in the thesis linked above.

Particularly among Protestant traditions, it is common to classify books and classes that cover broad looks at theological issues as either 'Biblical' or 'Systematic'. Sometimes this is even extended to categorize theologians. What is the difference between these arrangements or systems? Are they in conflict or competition with each-other, or are they complimentary in some way?

"For in him dwelleth all the fulness of the Godhead bodily." - Colossians 2:9

I’ve attended numerous churches in both RCA and UCC denominations in which RCA had a very literal take on the crucifixion and resurrection where the UCC church has a very allegorical approach. Excluding talking about this specific instance I’m asking about why there is a difference in how it was taught. ** Why is the RCA church more literal in scripture where the UCC church is allegorical?** I’ve noticed during switching denominations specifically RCA reformed church of America and UCC united church of Christ, RCA seems to have a more literal translation of scriptures to which is applied to daily life. UCC on the other hand has taken a more allegorical and symbolic approach. *I edited the question to exclude asking about specific events in the Bible and focused it more on the observed differences in how Christianity is taught*

My understanding of biblical theology is that it is a theological understanding that is presented by a book of the Bible. Does it automatically become systematic theology when you pull from another book of the Bible if that other book is written by the same author?