When in a biblical passage, such as Gal. 1:8--- > But though we, or an angel from heaven, preach a gospel to you besides that which we have preached to you, let him be anathema. or when an Ecumenical Council, such as the Council of Trent, declares, for example (on Justification): > 18. If any one saith, that the commandments of God are, even for one that is justified and constituted in grace, impossible to keep; let him be anathema. Can we (from a Catholic perspective) justly conclude that the matter in question is either a matter of faith or morals, and therefore, cannot be rescinded by the Catholic Church?

The Bible teaches that we should seek truth and avoid falsehoods. However, when it comes to things like the shape of the earth, most Christians rely on information from governments or scientists, since none of us have personally verified it by traveling to space. If a Christian sincerely believes something that is false (like the earth being flat or round), before it has been revealed to them or verified firsthand, is that considered heresy, or just ignorance? At what point does holding a false belief cross into spiritual error? I'm especially interested in how this applies when the belief doesn’t directly affect one’s salvation or core doctrines. Is believing in a scientifically incorrect idea — even unknowingly — a form of heresy in the eyes of the Church or Scripture?

According to fundamental Belief 24: (Christ’s ministry in the Heavenly Sanctuary) the SDA believe that Christ began his investigative judgement in 1844.This they refer to as the end of 2300 days of Daniel's prophecy. Daniel 8:14 NASB >14 And he said to me, “For 2,300 evenings and mornings; then the sanctuary will be [q]properly restored.” In the prophecy Daniel refers to the restoration of the sanctuary which the SDA clear identify as the heavenly sanctuary.But its not clear in Daniel's prophecy which one he was referring to.Should the text be understood from a literal or non literal sense. How can one understand this interpretation of Christ ministry in the heavenly sanctuary?

The truths Jesus spoke are recorded in the Gospels, and referred to by the Apostles as they continued the new church Jesus began. These unambiguous facts require no special interpretation. 1. Father… that they know you, the only true God. John 17:3 - Jesus eliminates himself from being God - 'only' means no other apart from the Father. 2. The Father has life in himself, so he has granted the son also to have life in himself. John 5:26 - Jesus, allegedly as God, can never not have life in himself. 3. I go to my Father and your Father, to my God and your God John 20:17 - Jesus has a God, rendering him a lessor god at the very least. 4. the Father is greater than I John 14:28 - The construct of co-equality is rendered contradictory 5. no one knows the son except the Father, and no one knows the Father except the son Matt 11:27 - The holy spirit is excluded in this special relationship. **Question. Why are these crucial declarations of Jesus ignored by contradictory doctrines about a tri-personal God?** The popular practice of using various misappropriated proof-texts attempting to validate a trinity is of no consequence as they do not 'cancel out' Jesus' truths. Specially interpreted proof-texts used to suggest Jesus IS God are in contradiction with Jesus' words.

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)) .

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.

Why is the doctrine that a Christian subscribes to such as Trinitarianism, Unitarianism, Methodists, Baptists et cetera so important when someone like Abraham was justified on faith alone? God told him to leave and he did and it was accorded him righteousness: *Genesis 15:6* >Abraham believed the Lord, and he counted it to him as righteousness. Paul also reinforced that salvation is by faith alone: *Romans 4:3* >Abraham believed God, and it was credited to him as righteousness.” The two instances above actually seem to teach that believing in Jesus is what actually saves people and not whether or not they were Trinitarian or Unitarian since faith is universal to all Christian denominations. The Jewish saints of the OT who came after Moses did not seek a reason as to why God who is "one" uses the word "us" to refer to Himself; they did not care about doctrine yet they were saved, so why is it so important now?

There are objections made that scripture does not explicitly state that 'Jesus Christ is God' and I see many arguments to and fro about this matter. However it *was* preached, by Paul as soon as he started preaching, that Jesus Christ is the Son of God. And this was the reason that Jesus was crucified because it was claimed (but not proved) that he, himself, stated this in public. Of course, Peter said, privately, that Jesus was the Christ, the Son of the Living God ; and was not rebuked for so saying, rather Jesus said that this was the rock on which his church would be built. That Jesus Christ is the only begotten Son is clearly stated in the bible and that he is equal to God, being in form, God. And that he is God manifest in flesh. And that the eternal life which was with the Father was manifested. And that God was the Logos who was also in the beginning with God. But some do not see these things, in scripture, and arguments are constantly raised against such scriptures being used to express Trinitarian faith. I notice that Peter's faith was only confirmed after he had, first of all, been under the ministry (a ministry of repentance) of John the Baptist. He it was to whom Jesus came and those disciples (John and Andrew at the time) who followed John, first, were then told to Behold the Lamb of God ; and the only way to do that was to follow the one who was walking onwards, further. (John 1-3.) Thus those who do not submit, first, to the words of John the Baptist, in a baptism of repentance, will not actually follow Jesus, the Lamb of God, the one who will voluntarily be sacrificed. They will follow what they call 'jesus' but it will not, actually, be the Son of God. Note what 'Son' clearly means : only begotten and equal. For if one does not perceive the depth of one's sins ; the profundity of transgressing against the Almighty ; the absolute necessity that sins against the Eternal warrant an eternal response ; that crimes against the Most High cannot possibly be eradicated by other than Divine means . . . . . then they will simply not appreciate the need of a Divine Saviour, a Mediator between Deity and humanity, who possesses all the attributes of Deity and all the attributes of humanity that he might resolve eternal justice against mortal human beings. So I ask of Protestant Trinitarians, in their expressing the doctrine of Christ, whether they think they should continue to argue a point that scripture does, not, as such, state. And whether they should not dig deeper and see that the problem is one of lack of repentance and not one of religious argument ? My question is asked of Protestant Trinitarians who wish to enlighten others regarding the doctrine of Christ.

From George Barna Research the following statistics were submitted. Only 16% of those professing Trinity belief held valid views. This graph is drawn from two Christian surveys. The data from 2014-2022 is from thestateoftheology.com, and the 2025 survey is from George Barna at the Cultural Research Center. All surveys had a minimum of 2,100 participants. What is causing this dramatic decline? Source below. - [Most Americans—Including Most Christian Churchgoers— Reject the Trinity](https://georgebarna.com/2025/04/most-americans-including-most-christian-churchgoers/)

I did some prior research on the Catholic doctrine on the use of contraceptives and condoms and learnt that they differ greatly with some protestant denominations on this subject and the Pope did publish an encyclical detailing the position of the Catholic church on this matter. *Casti Connubii (1930) by Pope Pius XI* >“Since, therefore, openly departing from the uninterrupted Christian tradition some recently have judged it possible solemnly to declare another doctrine regarding this question, the Catholic Church, to whom God has entrusted the defense of the integrity and purity of morals, standing erect in the midst of the moral ruin which surrounds her, in order that she may preserve the chastity of the nuptial union from being defiled by this foul stain, raises her voice in token of her divine ambassadorship and through Our mouth proclaims anew: any use whatsoever of matrimony exercised in such a way that the act is deliberately frustrated in its natural power to generate life is an offense against the law of God and of nature, and those who indulge in such are branded with the guilt of a grave sin.” Was this inspired by the Biblical basis where God commanded all human beings to be fruitful, to multiply and fill the whole world or there are more Bible passages that support this doctrine? *Genesis 1:28* >“Be fruitful and multiply and fill the earth and subdue it.” Would prefer an answer from followers of the Catholic faith.

The Eastern Orthodox Church (Greek Orthodox) considers ***(a) Scripture, (b) Tradition, and (c) Ecumenical Councils***, as a basis for determining and establishing doctrines (beliefs). However there are many Councils in the history of Christendom, with varied acceptance. Protestants generally accept the results of "the First Four." While the Roman Catholic religion accepts almost two dozen (21), and counting! How many does the Orthodox accept-along with its Holy Scriptures and Tradition of the Patristic Elders-for determining doctrines? And is there a ***reason(s)*** given for why only such a number? Would the Church accept the findings of a ***new Ecumenical Council***, if one were to be held in modern times?

The question is above. The term Sola Scriptura: Belief that Scripture is the final and only infallible authority for the Christian in all matters of faith and practice. While there are other authorities, they are always fallible and the must always be tested by and submit to the Scriptures. The Adherents are generally speaking Reformed Protestants/Evangelicals --- Please note, This is not directed at those who believe in **solo** scriptura: The Belief that Scripture is the sole basis and authority in the life of the Christian. Tradition is useless and misleading, and creeds and confessions are the result of man-made traditions.

My common sense tells me that there must be many such churches, but I'm having a hard time finding concrete examples on the web where this is officially stated in their doctrinal statement of faith. Does anyone know concrete examples that can be backed up with references? _______ Note: by "keeping the Sabbath" I mean from Friday sunset to Saturday sunset, according to Exodus 20:8-11 (ESV)'s instructions: > 8 “Remember the Sabbath day, to keep it holy. 9 Six days you shall labor, and do all your work, 10 but the seventh day is a Sabbath to the Lord your God. On it you shall not do any work, you, or your son, or your daughter, your male servant, or your female servant, or your livestock, or the sojourner who is within your gates. 11 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. Isaiah 58:13-14 (ESV) sheds more light on this commandment: > 13 “If you turn back your foot from the Sabbath, from doing your pleasure on my holy day, and call the Sabbath a delight and the holy day of the Lord honorable; if you honor it, not going your own ways, or seeking your own pleasure, or talking idly; 14 then you shall take delight in the Lord, and I will make you ride on the heights of the earth; I will feed you with the heritage of Jacob your father, for the mouth of the Lord has spoken.” ____ Related: https://christianity.stackexchange.com/q/89124/50422

*Above: Arian Unity, Tritheist Trinity, & Modalist Trinity* 1 John 5:7-8 ESV > **[]** > For there are three that testify **[]**: the Spirit and the water and the > blood; and these three agree. 1 John 5:7-8 NKJV > **[For there are three that bear witness in heaven: the Father, the Word, > and the Holy Spirit; and these three are one.]** And there are three that > bear witness **[on earth]**: the Spirit, the water, and the blood; and these > three agree as one. The Johannine Comma or Johannine Gloss, the inserted portion of 1 John 5:7, only appears in published Bibles after the year 1520—thanks to the efforts of the Roman Catholic translator Erasmus. Does the Johannine Comma found in 1 John 5:7 teach the Trinitarian doctrine of Modalism or Tritheism?

I am curious to learn which (if any!) sects/denominations/cults of christianity are totally against reducing human suffering related to illnesses via medical science. I believe this is significantly different then the other more general question on this site. A negative example: I am aware that the Jehovah's Witness are against blood transfusions, this would be an example of what I am NOT looking for due to the fact that the opposition is limited in scope to just blood transfusions. To my knowledge the following denominations have issues with "SOME" aspects of medical treatments. But none of them are "fully opposed" which is what I am asking for. - The Amish (do not have doctrinal opposition to medical care, but tend to favor natural remedies) - The Assembly of God - Bapticostal Church (West virginia) - "Christian Science" (Possibly opposed to all, but not clear in my search) - Church of God (some congregations are fixated on faith healers) - Church of the first born (Religious based neglect of children, but not of medical treatments in general or as a whole) - End Time Ministries (Child related, medical care related to children, but not adults) - Faith Assembly (Child related only) - One Mind Ministries (Child related exorcism) - True Followers of Christ Church (Oklahoma, medical neglect of children only, not adults, not universally) - Unleavened Bread Ministries (Wisconsin, child dies of untreated diabetes... seems limited to children again) #### One that is close that I found is "The Church of Christ, Scientist" The Church of Christ, Scientist, for example, is a denomination that promotes healing of physical and mental illnesses and disorders through prayer. They do compromise somewhat in the case of broken bones. There are many cases of apparently preventable deaths due to reliance on faith healing by Christian Scientist. Due to the broken bones aspect it doesn't seem to fit my criteria... ---

Like almost all churches, the Church of England and even more the wider Anglican Communion is struggling to come to terms with the vocal and growing minority of, in their own terms, "non-heteronormative" people, within the church as well as within the wider society. This concerns gender-fluidity/changes as well as homosexuality. The issue is contentious within and between the congregations. This question is motivated by [another question](https://christianity.stackexchange.com/questions/104499/how-can-anglican-clergy-be-suspended-without-pay-for-teaching-what-the-anglica?noredirect=1#comment300641_104499) : What should an Anglican priest do who cannot in good conscience represent the more libertarian stance of their church regarding the fairly broad complex of sexual identity, gender fluidity, homosexuality etc. In one specific case cited, a priest was put on leave after opposing in a sermon what he perceived as LGBT indoctrination bordering on coercion by a sexual education charity at a primary school. The OP of that question perceived a mismatch between the more conservative official doctrine of the Church as opposed to their more libertarian actions. The question claimed that the priest was "upholding the Church of England’s doctrinal stance". I tried to find out what that official stance might be. There is a long Wikipedia page about the wider Anglican community's [struggle to deal with homosexuality](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homosexuality_and_the_Anglican_Communion) , and it is clear that the *factual* opinion spectrum, even just on this relatively narrow topic, is very wide. But what is the *official* doctrine? I read passages of the [Book of Common Prayer](https://www.churchofengland.org/prayer-and-worship/worship-texts-and-resources/book-common-prayer) , "a key source for its doctrine": - The [ordination vow](https://www.churchofengland.org/prayer-and-worship/worship-texts-and-resources/book-common-prayer/ordaining-and-consecrating-0) did not seem to contain anything that directly would compel a priest to oppose LGBT... advertising. - There is a [enumerated list of relatives that must not marry](https://www.churchofengland.org/prayer-and-worship/worship-texts-and-resources/book-common-prayer/table-kindred-and-affinity) ; homosexuality is not mentioned there, most likely because it didn't cross anybody's mind. - [The Form of Solemnization of Matrimony](https://www.churchofengland.org/prayer-and-worship/worship-texts-and-resources/book-common-prayer/form-solemnization-matrimony) talks about man and woman respectively husband and wife throughout. Whether the absence of same-sex marriage is to be taken as a prohibition or whether it simply didn't cross anybody's mind is, I suppose, up to debate. Is there more in the official, binding doctrine that would compel a priest to resist his superiors in LGBT... issues as a matter of doctrinal principle?

Sorry if I'm a bit wordy, I'm a bit new to apologetics and am trying to understand church history. This is something I struggle to understand a bit. With Catholicism, you have the Pope as a unifying force and a lot of ecumenical councils that lay out the rules of infallibility. So it's usually easy to determine if someone agrees with "Catholic theology" or not. With Lutherans and other Protestant groups, the rules are less strict, and they tend to see "the church" as more universal. But then there's Orthodox, a group that believes they are the one true church and even in some form of "no salvation outside the church." But how does the Orthodox church decide which teachings one must accept to be Orthodox? Oriental Orthodoxy accepts three councils as infallible, and I think most Orthodox accept seven. But I don't really see explicit Orthodox doctrine on which parts of these councils are infallible the way that later Catholic councils have. (The canons of the councils themselves that I've read don't use the word "infallible", and Lutherans see the councils as authoritative but below scripture.) Orthodoxy has a specific view of the trinity and a specific view on salvation that differ from Lutheranism, despite both groups generally agreeing with those councils. **So what it it that determines these Orthodox beliefs, if they don't consider anything outside 3-7 ecumenical councils and scripture to be infallible?** If Orthodox consider their view of the trinity to be fallible, why? Doesn't the Catholic view also follow the Nicene creed? As an application of my question, how does the Orthodox church decide what the "one true church" is when making statements like "no salvation outside the church"? If Oriental Orthodoxy and Eastern Orthodoxy are the same church, despite doctrinal disagreements, then what makes Eastern Orthodoxy and Lutheranism not the same church, despite many similarities? In the early church, weren't there different congregations with bishops that were considered the same church, despite having different practices? Where's the line, according to Orthodoxy?

This question is addressed to non-trinitarian who believe that God is a single being and not made up of several beings. How do you come to terms with these truths as exposed in the book of Genesis. **1. God calls out other beings who are co-creators using the phrase us** ***Genesis 1:26*** >Then God said, “Let us make mankind in our image, in our likeness, so that they may rule over the fish in the sea and the birds in the sky, over the livestock and all the wild animals, and over all the creatures that move along the ground.” The statement above means that the other beings who are being requested to create or make alongside God have the power or are able to create or make which makes them **co-creators**. **2. God acknowledges that mankind have become like him but uses the phrase us to refer to Himself** for a second time ***Genesis 3:5*** >For God knows that when you eat from it your eyes will be opened, and you will be like God, knowing good and evil. Pay attention to the statement **be like God** in the verse above and compare to whats being said below. ***Genesis 3:22*** >And the LORD God said, “The man has now become like one of us, knowing good and evil. He must not be allowed to reach out his hand and take also from the tree of life and eat, and live forever.” God is confirming that man has become like Him but confirms one more time that he is a plural entity by stating that **man has become like one of us**. In the previous verse the speaker uses the phrase **you will become like God**, but God uses the term **us** to refer to Himself which in some way proves trinitarianism as the true doctrine, how do non-trinitarians respond to these truths? This is because the **us** cannot refer to angels because angels cannot **form, make or create** man out of the dust otherwise fallen angels would have created man out of the elements of other planets since the breath of life originates only from God. >Creation is an act of God alone, by which, for his own glory, he brought into existence everything in the universe that never before existed.

Recently I learned that there are those who teach the pre-existence of human souls. What is the biblical understanding of the pre-existence of the human soul? Is there any biblical basis for this belief?

**Triune Godhead** It goes without saying that Christianity is based on the concept of a Triune Godhead, a Trinity, a Tri-unity. But those theological words do not make it any easier for the lay person, or the seeker, to understand the whole idea of a God that is 3-in-1. So, drawing from Catholicism, Orthodoxy, or Protestantism in the history of Christianity, what illustrations have been used to demonstrate such a mysterious concept? Which of them comes closest to accurately describing this Christian God? Or, per chance, is such a concept beyond comprehension, and falling short of illustrations, so that believers must accept it as a mystery, belonging only to the realm where Eternity exists? **Note**: The OP intent is not to dredge up systematic theology dissertations to prove the concept of the Trinity. This doctrine is stipulated and acknowledged. Rather, since Jesus---and Church Fathers---did not hesitate to use illustrations (and parables) to portray important biblical doctrines, the intent here is to also seek out good illustrations about the Trinity so that ***the plough boy in the realm*** can appreciate and exult in it! **The quest here is not "which one is the best", but which illustrations are available that have been effective and productive while presenting the Gospel to the non-theologians?** Again, do not mistake this as a substitution for presenting the Gospel, but just a way of illustrating the Gospel in terms that people outside the seminary can understand. Remember that *the common people heard Him gladly.* And this wasn't because Jesus was an eloquent pedantic theologian! Neither did He compromise the Gospel of the Kingdom...He was just a good illustrator.