Genesis 4 discusses the descendants of Cain: >"Cain knew his wife, and she conceived and bore Enoch. When he built a city, he called the name of the city after the name of his son, Enoch. To Enoch was born Irad, and Irad fathered Mehujael, and Mehujael fathered Methushael, and Methushael fathered Lamech. And Lamech took two wives. The name of the one was Adah, and the name of the other Zillah. Adah bore Jabal; he was the **father of those who dwell in tents and have livestock**. His brother's name was Jubal; he was the **father of all those who play the lyre and pipe**. Zillah also bore Tubal-cain; he was **the forger of all instruments of bronze and iron**. The sister of Tubal-cain was Naamah." Genesis 4:17-22 Why are we given details about what the descendants of Cain did? Is there some special significance to these details?

During Ancient Biblical times, it was common for 1st cousins to get married. > Genesis 24:15 > > New American Standard Bible 1995 > > Rebekah Is Chosen > > 15 Before he had finished speaking, behold, Rebekah who was born to > Bethuel the son of Milcah, the wife of Abraham’s brother Nahor, came > out with her jar on her shoulder. > Genesis 24:67 > > New American Standard Bible 1995 > > 67 Then Isaac brought her into his mother Sarah’s tent, and he took > Rebekah, and she became his wife, and he loved her; thus Isaac was > comforted after his mother’s death. > Genesis 28:2 > > New American Standard Bible 1995 > > So Isaac called Jacob > and blessed him and charged him, and said to him, “You shall not take > a wife from the daughters of Canaan. 2 Arise, go to Paddan-aram, to > the house of Bethuel your mother’s father; and from there take to > yourself **a wife from the daughters of Laban your mother’s brother.** > Genesis 29:21-30 > > New American Standard Bible 1995 > > Laban’s Treachery > > 21 Then Jacob said to Laban, “Give me my wife, for my [a]time is > completed, that I may go in to her.” 22 Laban gathered all the men of > the place and made a feast. 23 Now in the evening he took his daughter > Leah, and brought her to him; and Jacob went in to her. 24 Laban also > gave his maid Zilpah to his daughter Leah as a maid. **25 So it came > about in the morning that, behold, it was Leah! And he said to Laban, > “What is this you have done to me? Was it not for Rachel that I served > with you? Why then have you deceived me?” 26 But Laban said, “It is > not [b]the practice in our place to [c]marry off the younger before > the firstborn. 27 Complete the week of this one, and we will give you > the other also for the service which you shall serve with me for > another seven years.” 28 Jacob did so and completed her week, and he > gave him his daughter Rachel as his wife.** 29 Laban also gave his maid > Bilhah to his daughter Rachel as her maid. 30 So Jacob went in to > Rachel also, and indeed he loved Rachel more than Leah, and he served > with Laban for another seven years. However, if one reads about European Royal families then one will notice that there were inbreeding health problems amongst offspring because cousins married each other. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Excerpt from Credit Reference url: [Royal Inbreeding and the Hapsburg Jaw](https://www.utmb.edu/mdnews/podcast/episode/royal-inbreeding-and-the-hapsburg-jaw) > The Hapsburg dynasty ended with King Carlos the Second of Spain whose > tongue was so large he couldn't chew or talk well and drooled. He was > intellectually disabled and died just short of his thirty-ninth > birthday. > > To confirm that marriage with relatives closer than second cousins > caused the Hapsburg jaw, ten maxillofacial surgeons viewed sixty-six > portraits of fifteen members of the Hapsburg dynasty. They looked for > eleven features of the disorder and found them in at least seven > family members. Researchers also studied a family tree that included > six thousand people over twenty generations and established a link > between inbreeding and the disorder. Excerpt from Credit Reference url: [Royal Inbreeding and the Hapsburg Jaw](https://www.utmb.edu/mdnews/podcast/episode/royal-inbreeding-and-the-hapsburg-jaw) ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Why weren't there any reports of health problems amongst offspring caused by inbreeding when closely related relatives got married to each other, and produced offspring during the Ancient Biblical days?

In the story of Gideon (Judges 6-8), near the end it talks about Gideon building an ephod out of the gold earrings from the spoils of the battle against the Midianites. What is an ephod, and why did gideon build one. Is it significant?

I don't understand the following counter argument by Jesus. > And if I by Beelzebul cast out demons, by whom do your sons cast them out? Luke 11:19 One viewpoint is that the Pharisees' students (which I believe is what Jesus meant when he said sons) did try to cast out demons, but that would mean that I would be assuming that the Pharisees' student did actually cast out demons during that time. 1) Would the aforementioned argument be valid? 2) Are there any other ways of understanding Luke 11:19? If yes, could someone please explain them?

In John 8:19 (NIV), the Jews ask Jesus: >“Where is your father?” But instead of giving a direct answer to where, Jesus replies: >“You do not know me or my Father. If you knew me, you would know my Father also.” Why did Jesus respond with who (about identity/relationship) rather than answering the where they asked? Was this a deliberate redirection of their misunderstanding, or is there a deeper theological reason for this shift in focus?

The passage reads: > [Ephesians 5:18-21 NASB] 18 And do not get drunk with wine, in which there is debauchery, **but be filled with the Spirit**, 19 speaking to one another in psalms and hymns and spiritual songs, singing and making melody with your hearts to the Lord; 20 always giving thanks for all things in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ to our God and Father; 21 and subject yourselves to one another in the fear of Christ. My modern-day interpretation of verse 18, *“And do not get drunk with wine, in which there is debauchery, but be filled with the Spirit,”* would be this: Instead of chasing a dopamine rush or neurochemical high through alcohol, drugs, opioids, or any other addictive behavior (whether food, sex, pornography, gambling, or the like), seek to be filled with the Spirit. The one who is filled with the Spirit experiences a holy satisfaction that immeasurably surpasses alcohol, drugs, food, sex, psychedelics, or any combination of fleshly indulgences. In other words, I see Ephesians 5:18-21 as a spiritually challenging passage because it seems to urge the Christian to pursue a deep, Spirit-filled state, a profound transformation of affections and emotions that far exceeds any earthly intoxication. I personally picture this spiritual state as vastly superior to the strongest dopamine-driven highs of substances such as alcohol, cocaine, ecstasy, methamphetamines, or any other stimulant the world offers. Furthermore, in verses 19-21 the apostle sets forth several practices. What is not immediately clear, however, is whether these should be understood as *manifestations* (that is, consequences) of being filled with the Spirit, or rather as *means* (that is, practices that foster or open the way toward being filled). With this in mind, I am seeking an **overview of Protestant interpretations** of Ephesians 5:18-21 concerning the lived Christian experience of being filled with the Spirit. In particular, I am asking: - How do Protestants compare the experience of being filled with the Spirit to indulgence in alcohol, drugs, or other dopamine-releasing behaviors? - How do Protestants understand and seek to obey Paul’s command to be filled with the Spirit? ----------- NOTE. You can read parallel commentaries by Biblical scholars on Ephesians 5:18 here: https://biblehub.com/commentaries/ephesians/5-18.htm

1 Corinthians 8:9-13 (NIV): >Be careful, however, that the exercise of your rights does not become a stumbling block to the weak. For if someone with a weak conscience sees you, with all your knowledge, eating in an idol’s temple, won’t that person be emboldened to eat what is sacrificed to idols? So this weak brother or sister, for whom Christ died, is destroyed by your knowledge. When you sin against them in this way and wound their weak conscience, you sin against Christ. Therefore, if what I eat causes my brother or sister to fall into sin, I will never eat meat again, so that I will not cause them to fall. It is clear that eating meat sacrificed to idols is not a sin. But it could lead other Christians to do so too, and as a result they would be destroyed? Or fall into sin? Is Paul implying that it will lead them into other sins? Or just that they will think they are sinning (when in fact they are not) and will feel bad, and we should be mindful of this? That they think that they will be destroyed (when in fact they won't be)? Why did Paul say these people have a weak conscience? Don't they have an over active conscience?

The verse reads (KJV): > “And he shall stand and feed in the strength of the LORD, in the majesty of the name of the LORD his God; and they shall abide: for now shall he be great unto the ends of the earth.” I understand this verse is tied to the prophecy of the Messiah being born in Bethlehem. However, the wording “**his** God” raises questions for me in the context of the Trinity. I am following Chuck Smith's Blue Letter Bible (verse by verse commentary) but he doesn’t address this phrasing. Matthew Henry's touches on it, suggesting that the Messiah “speaks with God’s authority,” referencing Matthew 7:28 (“because he was teaching them as one who had authority”). This seems related to other biblical patterns where God’s people or godly figures are “called by God’s name,” such as Daniel 1:19, Jeremiah 15:16, Jeremiah 14:9, Isaiah 43:6, and Acts 15:17. Another example is Exodus 23:21, where the angel (or Jesus, if seen as a Christophany) “carries God’s name.” I also understand that Jesus can address God as “My God” (Matthew 27:46), but in Micah, the author doesn’t seem concerned about drawing a strong distinction between the Messianic figure and God. I would greatly appreciate insight into this phrasing in Micah 5:4 — why does it say “His God”? What theological or textual reasons might explain it? Thank you in advance.

Commentators on the story of [Acts 1:15–26](https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Acts+1%3A15-26&version=ESV) , where the Apostles select Matthias to replace Judas as the 12th apostle, often say vague things like: > Some have held that the choice of Matthias was unauthorized and that he was never accepted as an apostle. ([*People's New Testament*](http://www.ccel.org/ccel/johnson_bw/pnt.pnt0501.html)) There seems to be some biblical evidence that Paul *was not* considered (not even by himself) to be "one of the twelve," like [Acts 2:14](https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Acts+2%3A14&version=ESV) and [1 Corinthians 15:5–9](https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=1+corinthians+15%3A5-9&version=ESV) . But some apparently either disagree with this assessment, or think that if Paul was not considered the 12th apostle, he should have been. So, my question. What are the arguments used by theologians who believe that the apostles erred in selecting Matthias to be the 12th apostle instead of Paul? Related: [Who was the 12th Apostle - Matthias or Paul?](https://christianity.stackexchange.com/q/7507/21576) Unlike this closed question, my question focuses on one side of the debate.

In Matthew 22, after basically frustrating the Pharisees and the Saduccees by answering some really tricky questions, Jesus finally turns the tables on them and asks this question: > 41 While the Pharisees were gathered together, Jesus asked them, 42 “What do you think about the Messiah? Whose son is he?” “The son of David,” they replied. 43 He said to them, “How is it then that David, speaking by the Spirit, calls him ‘Lord’? For he says, 44 “‘The Lord said to my Lord: “Sit at my right hand until I put your enemies under your feet.”’[e] 45 If then David calls him ‘Lord,’ how can he be his son?” The response is silence, and apparent victory: > 46 No one could say a word in reply, and from that day on no one dared to ask him any more questions. What I understand is this - Jesus is pointing out that the Messiah is both David's son and David's Lord. I get that its a good theological point. But why does it silence his critics?

*"The Apocalypse, or Revelation to John, the last book of the Bible, is one of the most difficult to understand because it abounds in unfamiliar and extravagant symbolism, which at best appears unusual to the modern reader."* The 4 living creatures and 24 elders are mentioned numerous times in Revelation. --- In Revelation 4: >4 Surrounding the throne I saw twenty-four other thrones on which **twenty-four elders** sat, dressed in white garments and with gold crowns on their heads. 5 From the throne came flashes of lightning, rumblings, and peals of thunder. Seven flaming torches burned in front of the throne, which are the seven spirits of God. 6 In front of the throne was something that resembled a sea of glass like crystal. In the center and around the throne, there were **four living creatures** covered with eyes in front and in back. 7 The first creature resembled a lion, the second was like a calf, the third had a face like that of a human being, and the fourth looked like an eagle in flight. 8 The four living creatures, each of them with six wings, were covered with eyes inside and out. Day and night they do not stop exclaiming: “Holy, holy, holy is the Lord God almighty, who was, and who is, and who is to come.” >9 Whenever the living creatures give glory and honor and thanks to the one who sits on the throne, who lives forever and ever, 10 the twenty-four elders fall down before the one who sits on the throne and worship him, who lives forever and ever. They throw down their crowns before the throne, exclaiming: 11 “Worthy are you, Lord our God, to receive glory and honor and power, for you created all things; because of your will they came to be and were created.” In Revelation 5: >6 Then I saw standing in the midst of the throne and **the four living creatures and the elders**, a Lamb that seemed to have been slain. He had seven horns and seven eyes; these are the [seven] spirits of God sent out into the whole world. 7 He came and received the scroll from the right hand of the one who sat on the throne. 8 When he took it, **the four living creatures and the twenty-four elders** fell down before the Lamb. Each of the elders held a harp and gold bowls filled with incense, which are the prayers of the holy ones. The creatures and elders are directly mentioned again in 5:11 and 5:14. In Revelation 6: > 1 Then I watched while the Lamb broke open the first of the seven seals, and I heard **one of the four living creatures** cry out in a voice like thunder, “Come forward.” 2 I looked, and there was a white horse, and its rider had a bow. He was given a crown, and he rode forth victorious to further his victories. This pattern is repeated thrice more in the next passages, 6:3-8. The Lamb breaks the next seal, the next living creature cries out "Come forward", and the next horse and rider emerge. Then in Revelation 7, 14, 15, 19: > 7:11 All the angels stood around the throne and around **the elders and the four living creatures**. They prostrated themselves before the throne, worshiped God, > 14:3 They were singing [what seemed to be] a new hymn before the throne, before **the four living creatures and the elders**. No one could learn this hymn except the hundred and forty-four thousand who had been ransomed from the earth. > 15:7 **One of the four living creatures** gave the seven angels seven gold bowls filled with the fury of God, who lives forever and ever. > 19:4 **The twenty-four elders and the four living creatures** fell down and worshiped God who sat on the throne, saying, “Amen. Alleluia.” --- What does Christian scripture, major/longstanding tradition, or Church teaching tell us about the four living creatures and the twenty-four elders? Note that I am not asking for personal opinions or interpretations of these passages. Please do not post answers that "reason through" the passages, saying "because of X, the elders are probably Y", unless you are quoting or carefully explaining some source that is considered reasonably popular and scholarly by some body of Christians.

In [2 Corinthians 10:3-5](http://www.biblestudytools.com/nrs/2-corinthians/passage.aspx?q=2-corinthians+10:3-5) Paul makes a contrast between spiritual warfare and war "according to human standards": >Indeed, we live as human beings, but we do not wage war according to human standards; for the weapons of our warfare are not merely human, but they have divine power to destroy strongholds. We destroy arguments and every proud obstacle raised up against the knowledge of God, and we take every thought captive to obey Christ. In using the phrase "we do not wage war according to human standards", is Paul assuming or expecting Christians will all be pacifists, or is he merely highlighting the contrast between physical and spiritual warfare?

Daniel Chap 8 always confused me. The last (4th) Beast was detailed in Chap 7 and the former 3rd beast detailed in Chap 8. Both detailed beasts had a little horn coming up later but from different scenarios of previous horns. However Chap 8 explains the 3rd Empire (Chap 7 Leopard) instead as a Goat and in more detail. It's little horn rises out of 4 horns (Generals) taking over (per history) Alexander the Great's empire (at his death). But this little horn isn't said to subdue any previous horns but rather it waxed exceeding great to the south, east, and pleasant land. If one examines history the first sections of Chap 8 seems to be about the Seleucid Empire's Antiochus Epiphanes IV. But the latter part of Chap 8 also seems to go beyond Seleucid's Epiphanes IV and details more in line with the timeline and happenstance of the 4th (final) beast of Chap 7(?). Other than this said implicit latter section expansion Chap 8 does not specifically mention the 4th beast empire included Daniel Chap 7. The Seleucid Empire encompassed a good fraction of the same area as the Eastern Roman (4th beast) Empire. But it's confusing to see the little horn out of the 4 horns go on in the latter section of Chap 8 to sound synonymous with the little horn of the Chap 7's 4th beast which subdued 3 of it's previous 10 horns. Unless Chap 8 is not referring to the 4th beast at all (timeline or premise) and verse 11 is referencing Israel of Christ's earthly time. And verse 23's latter time is referencing the same? I.e. making Chap 7 more about the end of the times of the Gentiles and Chap 8 more about the cutting off of the messiah and Israel being scattered until the last days?

According to ChatGPT-5, "both numbers are thought to be examples of gematria ", which is a system where "letters also stand for numbers": Meaning the name of a person can be expressed as a number. However I've searched online and can't see how you can get to "Nero" from these numbers? Is it all pseudo-science? Again, according to ChatGPT-5: 666: Often interpreted as referring to Nero Caesar when written in Hebrew letters (נרון קסר = 666). 616: Matches the same name Nero Caesar but in a slightly different spelling (the Latin form without the final “n”: נרו קסר = 616). It concludes: "So both numbers likely point to Nero, the Roman emperor infamous for persecuting Christians." Does gematria really point both of these numbers to "Nero"?

In Luke 2:26 the text states that Simeon would not see death before he had seen τὸν χριστὸν κυρίου (‘the Christ of the Lord’). How can Trinitarian theology reconcile the genitive construction — ‘of the Lord’ — which implies belonging or being sent, without diminishing Christ’s ontological equality with the very Kyrios? (Lk. 2:26 BGT) > καὶ ἦν αὐτῷ κεχρηματισμένον ὑπὸ τοῦ πνεύματος τοῦ ἁγίου μὴ ἰδεῖν θάνατον πρὶν [ἢ] ἂν ἴδῃ τὸν **χριστὸν κυρίου**. Luke 2:26 (KJV) > “And it was revealed unto him by the Holy Ghost, that he should not see death, before he had seen the Lord’s Christ.”

> [Hebrews 6:4-6 NASB] 4 **For it is impossible, in the case of those who have once been enlightened and have tasted of the heavenly gift and have been made partakers of the Holy Spirit**, 5 **and have tasted the good word of God and the powers of the age to come**, 6 **and then have fallen away**, to restore them again to repentance, since they again crucify to themselves the Son of God and put Him to open shame. > [Hebrews 10:26-31 NASB] 26 For if we go on sinning willfully after receiving the knowledge of the truth, there no longer remains a sacrifice for sins, 27 but a terrifying expectation of judgment and the fury of a fire which will consume the adversaries. 28 Anyone who has ignored the Law of Moses is put to death without mercy on the testimony of two or three witnesses. 29 How much more severe punishment do you think he will deserve who has trampled underfoot the Son of God, **and has regarded as unclean the blood of the covenant by which he was sanctified, and has insulted the Spirit of grace**? 30 For we know Him who said, “Vengeance is Mine, I will repay.” And again, “The Lord will judge His people.” 31 It is a terrifying thing to fall into the hands of the living God. > [2 Peter 2:20-22 NASB] 20 For if, **after they have escaped the defilements of the world by the knowledge of the Lord and Savior Jesus Christ, they are again entangled in them and are overcome, the last state has become worse for them than the first**. 21 **For it would be better for them not to have known the way of righteousness, than having known it, to turn away from the holy commandment handed on to them**. 22 It has happened to them according to the true proverb, “A dog returns to its own vomit,” and, “A sow, after washing, returns to wallowing in the mire.” And other similar passages: > [Galatians 5:1-5 NASB] It was for freedom that Christ set us free; therefore **keep standing firm and do not be subject again to a yoke of slavery**. 2 Look! I, Paul, tell you that if you have yourselves circumcised, Christ will be of no benefit to you. 3 And I testify again to every man who has himself circumcised, that he is obligated to keep the whole Law. 4 **You have been severed from Christ**, you who are seeking to be justified by the Law; **you have fallen from grace**. 5 For we, through the Spirit, by faith, are waiting for the hope of righteousness. > [Luke 8:13 NASB] Those on the rocky soil are the ones who, when they hear, receive the word with joy; and yet these do not have a firm root; **they believe for a while**, **and in a time of temptation they fall away**. > [Matthew 13:20-21 NASB] 20 The one sown with seed on the rocky places, this is the one who hears the word and immediately receives it with joy; 21 yet he has no firm root in himself, **but is only temporary**, and when affliction or persecution occurs because of the word, **immediately he falls away**. > [John 15:5-6 NASB] 5 I am the vine, you are the branches; the one who remains in Me, and I in him bears much fruit, for apart from Me you can do nothing. 6 **If anyone does not remain in Me, he is thrown away like a branch and dries up; and they gather them and throw them into the fire, and they are burned**. > [Romans 11:18-22 NASB] 18 do not be arrogant toward the branches; but if you are arrogant, remember that it is not you who supports the root, but the root supports you. 19 You will say then, “Branches were broken off so that I might be grafted in.” 20 Quite right, they were broken off for their unbelief, but you stand by your faith. Do not be conceited, but fear; 21 for if God did not spare the natural branches, He will not spare you, either. 22 See then the kindness and severity of God: **to those who fell, severity, but to you, God’s kindness, if you continue in His kindness**; **for otherwise you too will be cut off**. > [1 Corinthians 9:24-27] 24 Do you not know that those who run in a race all run, but only one receives the prize? **Run in such a way that you may win**. 25 Everyone who competes in the games exercises self-control in all things. So they do it to obtain a perishable wreath, but we an imperishable. 26 Therefore I run in such a way as not to run aimlessly; I box in such a way, as to avoid hitting air; 27 **but I strictly discipline my body and make it my slave, so that, after I have preached to others, I myself will not be disqualified**. > [Revelation 3:5 NASB] The **one who overcomes** will be clothed the same way, in white garments; and **I will not erase his name from the book of life**, and I will confess his name before My Father and before His angels. > [Revelations 22:19 NASB] and if anyone takes away from the words of the book of this prophecy, **God will take away his part from the tree of life and from the holy city**, which are written in this book. How were passages typically quoted to refute OSAS interpreted by the early Church? You can find more passages here: * https://christianity.stackexchange.com/q/87015/117426 * https://christianity.stackexchange.com/q/12097/117426

I watched the debate between James White and Trent Horn on whether a Christian can lose their salvation: [DEBATE | Can a Christian Lose Their Salvation? | Trent Horn vs. Dr. James R. White](https://youtu.be/72TRODe8BdA) . It's remarkable how well-educated scholars, studying the same biblical passages, can reach such diametrically opposed conclusions, particularly on a doctrine as pivotal as salvation. One would expect that salvation, being a cornerstone of Christian faith, would be communicated by God with utmost clarity to His church. Yet, we find ourselves debating the mechanics of salvation and the possibility of its loss. How do Christians reconcile the extensive debates surrounding salvation doctrines with the expectation that such a crucial tenet of the Christian faith would be revealed with unmistakable clarity by God?

I have been discussing Matthew 16:18 for years now with both Catholics and non-Catholics. This verse is obviously a very important verse concerning the doctrine of the Bishop of Rome being Supreme Pontiff. The non-Catholic argument that I come up against time and time again is the "play on words" interpretation summed up pretty well here . I understand that, according to this interpretation, Jesus calls himself "big rock," and calls Peter "small rock." > Looking up the original Greek I see that Jesus is referring to two > types of rocks and one is related to the other, but they are not the > same. > > Peter = Πέτρος, Pétros (a masculine noun) – properly, a stone > (pebble), such as a small rock found along a pathway. > > Rock = pétra (a feminine noun) – "a mass of connected rock” The accepted answer goes on to say... > This revelation, being from God, is infallible, and if the Church is > built upon it, it can never fall. Simon was named petros because he > was the **archetype**, the first (of his contemporaries at least) to have > received this personal revelation from God. I've also heard other interpretations that place the "Rock-ness," if you will, on Peter's faith. The answer above labels Peter as an "archetype" for those *individuals* with faith, or those *individuals* who receive infallible revelations. I think this reads to much into it when considering the context of scripture, and is perhaps a presupposition. Obviously Catholics believe that Christ, by changing Simon's name to Peter, established a foundational office of headship upon which the "Keys to the Kingdom of God" rests until his return. Catholics believe that *that* change signified a newly established office, and is *why* Christ changed Simon the fisherman to Peter the fisher of men to begin with. > "The keys of the kingdom" > > 551 From the beginning of his public life Jesus chose certain men, > twelve in number, to be with him and to participate in his mission.280 > He gives the Twelve a share in his authority and 'sent them out to > preach the kingdom of God and to heal."They remain associated for > ever with Christ's kingdom, for through them he directs the Church: > >> As my Father appointed a kingdom for me, so do I appoint for you that >> you may eat and drink at my table in my kingdom, and sit on thrones >> judging the twelve tribes of Israel. > > 552 Simon Peter holds the first place in the college of the Twelve; > Jesus entrusted a unique mission to him. Through a revelation from the > Father, Peter had confessed: "You are the Christ, the Son of the > living God." Our Lord then declared to him: "You are Peter, and on > this rock I will build my Church, and the gates of Hades will not > prevail against it."Christ, the "living Stone",thus assures > his Church, built on Peter, of victory over the powers of death. > Because of the faith he confessed Peter will remain the unshakable > rock of the Church. His mission will be to keep this faith from every > lapse and to strengthen his brothers in it. > > 553 Jesus entrusted a specific authority to Peter: "I will give you > the keys of the kingdom of heaven, and whatever you bind on earth > shall be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall be > loosed in heaven."The "power of the keys" designates authority to > govern the house of God, which is the Church. Jesus, the Good > Shepherd, confirmed this mandate after his Resurrection: "Feed my > sheep."The power to "bind and loose" connotes the authority to > absolve sins, to pronounce doctrinal judgements, and to make > disciplinary decisions in the Church. Jesus entrusted this authority > to the Church through the ministry of the apostles and in > particular through the ministry of Peter, the only one to whom he > specifically entrusted the keys of the kingdom. (*CCC 551-553*) My question is, from a non-Catholic point of view, why did Jesus choose "Rock" as a name for Peter in the first place? Answering whether or not Peter is called big rock or little rock doesn't answer why Jesus called him a rock - of any size. I'm wanting to know *why* exactly non-Catholics believe Christ changed Peter's name (rock...big or small), and what does it signify in comparison to what the Catholic Church teaches .

>#### Gift of perseverance > >The Gift of perseverance is the doctrine of Augustine of Hippo that persevering in the faith is a gift given by God, but a person can never know if they have the gift. According to Augustine, without having the gift of perseverance a person is damned, even if he seems to have been elected by grace. Augustine himself also believed that Cyprian held a similar view about perseverance being a work of God, and thus foreshadowing the Augustinian view. **Some Calvinists argue that the Augustinian view foreshadows the Calvinist doctrine of perseverance of the saints**. > > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gift_of_perseverance > [Matthew 13:20-21 NASB] 20 The one sown with seed on the rocky places, this is the one who hears the word **and immediately receives it with joy**; 21 **yet he has no firm root in himself, but is only temporary**, and when affliction or persecution occurs because of the word, **immediately he falls away**. > [Luke 8:13 NASB] Those on the rocky soil are the ones who, when they hear, **receive the word with joy**; **and yet these do not have a firm root**; **they believe for a while**, **and in a time of temptation they fall away**. How do advocates of the doctrine of *eternal security*, also known as *once saved, always saved* or *the perseverance of the saints*, explain God’s apparent withdrawal of the gift of perseverance from the individual described in Matthew 13:20-21 and Luke 8:13? In these passages, it seems that God allows a person to be exposed to the gospel, to experience genuine initial joy and even a measure of faith, yet for some reason does not grant them the gift of perseverance (otherwise they would have persevered). In other words, God is permitting this "sheep" to fall away from His hand, or never put this "sheep" in His hand in the first place, but why? Why is God not giving the gift of perseverance to the individual in Matthew 13:20-21 and Luke 8:13?

In 1 John 5:16–17, John distinguishes between “sin that leads to death” and “sin that does not lead to death”: >If you see any brother or sister commit a sin that does not lead to death, you should pray and God will give them life. I refer to those whose sin does not lead to death. There is a sin that leads to death. I am not saying that you should pray about that. All wrongdoing is sin, and there is sin that does not lead to death. (NIV) What are some biblical or practical examples of sins that would fall under the category of “sin that does not lead to death,” and how should Christians approach them in prayer and fellowship?