Reformed tradition teaches that human beings are [totally depraved](https://www.focusonthefamily.com/family-qa/the-fall-of-man-and-total-depravity/) , and cannot even come to faith without God's assistance. Their *reason* rejects God's supremacy, their *will* refuses God's invitation, and their *emotion* recoils against God's goodness. This is because human beings are born "in Adam", who "died" spiritually because of the Fall and we live under the power of sin. But once God "breathes" spiritual life into the elect, and the elect then comes to faith and becomes conscious of his/her new status in Christ, the elect is now in the *sanctification* stage working with the grace of the Holy Spirit to become more and more reformed in character. Then after death, in the elect's *glorification* stage I assume he/she will live eternally like the perfect human Jesus with *full functioning reason, will, and emotion as originally created in the image of God*, similar to how Jesus lived on earth without original sin (see [Nathaniel's answer to another question](https://christianity.stackexchange.com/a/61910/10672)) . My question is: **since we are in the "*already, but not yet*" stage, how do we understand the causes and the nature of progressive recovery / healing in our reason, will, and emotion, considering that the *telos* of our redemption is to go back to the original design as exhibited in the perfect humanity of Jesus?** In other words, since the goal of God's redemptive work is to "Un-Fall" us, since we are *already* justified, and since the clarion call is to "imitate Jesus", wouldn't it make sense to expect *palpable* and *measurable* progress in our earthly experience of our reason, will, and emotion? If so, then naturally we seek to understand the *theological causes* and the *practices* that engender those effects. I would like a documented answer quoting a **21st century scholarly (published) work** of a Reformed theologian who **explicitly links** sanctification to *progressive restoration* in reason, will, and emotion, by describing how sanctification works toward the healing, in the Reformed tradition.

## Overview Question ## **When a truth in the various fields of human knowledge contradicts or appear to contradict Divine Revelation, what is an overview of what various Christian religious traditions say is incumbent upon a Christian when their religious tradition hasn't said a thing one way or the other about the contradictory truth?** Science says > *"Science is not the only way of acquiring knowledge about ourselves and the world around us."* - WMAP Site FAQs Q9. Here are some fields of human knowledge (of course not exhaustive): *Mathematics, Astronomy & Cosmology, Natural Sciences, Human Sciences, History, The Arts, and Indigenous Knowledge Systems*. If a truth in these appears to contradict or directly contradicts Divine Revelation [= Sacred Scripture and Holy Tradition for the Church], what is an overview of what various Christian religious tradition teach a Christian ought to do, when their religious tradition hasn't said anything as yet on the truth in question? The best answer will also have Scriptural support and include a Catholic Perspective. Some examples: - *Current Cosmological model.* Outer Space, shape of the earth, that the earth moves and rotates, etc. - Darwin's *"Descent with modification"*. The above appear to contradict Genesis. - This one was big with me: that *that SARS-CoV-2 - a **"novel virus"** that is supposed to cause CoViD-19 disease - could have been created in a lab* when both Scripture and my Catholic Church says only God is Creator Please note that the answer can use an example for illustrative purposes, but not labor in trying to prove or debunk a truth in human knowledge field. Finally, it appears we are in the End-Times, and if the devil is the deceiver of the whole world, and in the End-Time he will be most active, one would expect to find his lies pervasive in ALL human fields of knowledge.

In the Bible, certain individuals are described as having exceptional skill in craftsmanship. For example, **Noah** was able to construct the ark with precise dimensions and structural complexity (Genesis 6:14–16). Later in the Old Testament, **Bezalel** and **Oholiab** are said to have been "filled with the Spirit of God" and given wisdom, understanding, knowledge, and skill in all kinds of craftsmanship to construct the tabernacle and its furnishings (Exodus 31:1–6). This raises an important theological and interpretive question: **Were these abilities supernaturally imparted by God at the moment of calling, or were they natural talents that God chose to use and bless for His purposes?** Additionally, how should we understand the language of "filled with the Spirit of God" in this context—does it imply sudden divine empowerment, or a sanctified use of already existing skills? I'm interested in how various Christian traditions and biblical interpretations understand this dynamic between divine inspiration and human ability.

In Genesis, Adam and Eve's disobedience resulted in death entering the world. Does Christian doctrine interpret human aging and physical decline as part of the curse resulting from the fall? Or was aging part of the natural human design even before sin? How have theologians historically interpreted this?

The Immortality of the Soul is "the doctrine that the human soul will survive death, continuing in the possession of an endless conscious existence." (source) . What is the biblical basis for the immortality of the soul?

I'm looking for a comparable Protestant teaching, and hopefully the scriptural reference it's based on, for this point within the Catholic catechism. > The desire for God is written in the human heart, because man is created by God and for God; and God never ceases to draw man to himself. [CCC, n. 1](http://www.vatican.va/archive/ccc_css/archive/catechism/p1s1c1.htm)

In the Reformed view of predestination and human will, could we say that human will consists of two inseparable parts — a detached will, as the capacity to deliberate or step back from objects, and an oriented will, as the capacity to unite with or choose an object apparently good? If so, would it be accurate to say that any exercise of the will that *chooses* something other than God represents a false or incomplete use of that will, since only God constitutes the true end that fulfills and rightly orients it as true freedom? In this view, God would be not merely one object of choice, but the very source and end of a properly ordered will. All other created goods—wealth, pleasure, ideologies—represent only *apparent* fulfillments. That would mean that, apart from union with God, human willing collapses into a kind of existential fragmentation: always active, but never truly free. This would imply that: 1. Human beings retain a capacity to will and choice (and thus remain morally responsible) *even in their fallen state*, but this will is fundamentally misoriented since *any* object is going to be a sinful one. 2. Only God's grace restores the true orientation of the will, reordering it toward its proper end in Him (= freedom). 3. Thus, God is not the author of our sin (since our willing as a capacity of abstraction from any object, though corrupted, remains our own), but He alone is the author of our salvation (since only He can rightly reorient the will). Would this framework be consistent with Calvinist theology? Or does it risk introducing assumptions that conflict with doctrines such as total depravity or monergistic regeneration?

In [Genesis 5](https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Genesis+5&version=ESV) , a brief account of the lives of Adam's descendants is narrated. All of them had long lives, for instance, Adam lived 930 years, Seth lived 912 years, etc. But in [Genesis 6:3](https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Genesis+6%3A3&version=ESV) , God seems to shorten the lifespan of man to 120 years or at least that's what I understood reading that verse. **Did I understand it right? How is this fact explained by people who consider Genesis to be literal history?**

I was reading Romans 11, and 11:32a says: For God hath concluded them all in unbelief ‬ ‭KJV‬‬ I didn't understand that phrase, concluded all in unbelief, so I read a number of commentaries, of which I found Adam Clarke's the most helpful. But after reading through all the notes I took,the mystery remained to me is that we all sin. Why? The angels didn't all sin. I know God knew what would happen when he created Adam. He must have had a reason, or reasons, to create him in such a way, that he 1) was capable of sinning; 2) was the progenitor of the whole human race (as opposed to angels, who were created all at once); and 3) his proclivity to sin would be passed down. After I posed this question, and received answers that were helpful, I thought of this: We all sin, every one of us, because we lack something. God originally created us in His image (Gen 1:26). Yet as Christians, we need to be sanctified, which means we need to be changed into His image, and it won't be completed until we see Him. So we lost something of that image in the fall. Angels are completely different than us, and I don't believe we know enough about them to know why. At least I don't. There are theories proposed in answers and comments under this question Why can't there be another fall? that seem very plausible. I am hoping others can shed some more light from Scripture. Please not from a reformed perspective, I am neither a Calvinist nor an Arminian.

In [*Evangelii Nuntiandi*](https://www.vatican.va/content/paul-vi/en/apost_exhortations/documents/hf_p-vi_exh_19751208_evangelii-nuntiandi.html) we read: >31. Between evangelization and human advancement- development and liberation- there are in fact profound links. These include links of an anthropological order, because the man who is to be evangelized is not an abstract being but is subject to social and economic questions. They also include links in the theological order, since one cannot dissociate the plan of creation from the plan of Redemption. The latter plan touches the very concrete situations of injustice to be combated and of justice to be restored. They include links of the eminently evangelical order, which is that of charity: how in fact can one proclaim the new commandment without promoting in justice and in peace the true, authentic advancement of man? We ourself have taken care to point this out, by recalling that it is impossible to accept "that in evangelization one could or should ignore the importance of the problems so much discussed today, concerning justice, liberation, development and peace in the world. This would be to forget the lesson which comes to us from the Gospel concerning love of our neighbor who is suffering and in need." It uses very tricky and difficult terminology. This is a document for people who have studied lots of philosophy, it seems. What did the pope mean when he used the terms anthropological order and theological order?

I understand that the Bible teaches that humans have a body and a soul. I have heard it stated that at death, the soul is separated from the body. I also am aware of those who take the “soul sleep” position which I think would say the soul remains within the body at death, but is asleep until the resurrection. My question then is this: what Scriptures describe what happens to the believers at death?

Give positive and negative views, was Angel Gabriel fair to react to Zachariah's doubt in the way that he did? The account is found in the first chapter of the gospel of Luke. (Quoted below from the NKJV) > 13 But the angel said to him, “Do not be afraid, Zacharias, for your prayer is heard; and your wife Elizabeth will bear you a son, and you shall call his name John. > 18 And Zacharias said to the angel, “How shall I know this? For I am an old man, and my wife is well advanced in years.” > 19 And the angel answered and said to him, “I am Gabriel, who stands in the presence of God, and was sent to speak to you and bring you these glad tidings. 20 But behold, you will be mute and not able to speak until the day these things take place, because you did not believe my words which will be fulfilled in their own time.”

I think this question haven't been asked yet here. The teaching of Chalcedonian Christianity (including the Catholic, Eastern Orthodox, and Protestant churches) is that Jesus Christ exists as one person with two natures: divine and human, united without mixing or confusion. Thus, in Jesus Christ there is not one will (*contra Monothelism*), there is no absence of the human soul (*contra Apollinarianism*) and there is not two persons (*contra Nestorianism*). There is a new explanation just recently that is called Neo-Apollinarianism wherein it is said that Jesus had no uncreated human soul but that the divine Logos **completes** the human nature of Jesus Christ. In this view, the divine Logos underwent a change (divine mind became the soul) so that Jesus has one mind but still had two complete natures: divine and human (*pro Chalcedon*) (Source ) My question is: How to explain the doctrine that Jesus Christ is one person despite having two wills (dyothelitism) and two minds? Answers from any Chalcedonian perspective are welcome.

I'm referring to Carlo Alvaro's paper [The “Heaven Ab Initio” Argument from Evil](https://www.mdpi.com/2077-1444/14/2/200) : > HAIAFE (“Heaven Ab Initio” Argument from Evil): > > 1. As a perfect being, God’s goal is to create free-willed creatures that choose to love God and forever exist with him in a state of > eternal bliss. > 2. An omnibenevolent God would want to create free-willed beings in a state of eternal bliss devoid of evil if he could and if evil and > suffering were unnecessary. > 3. An omnipotent God can create free-willed beings directly in a spiritual state of eternal bliss devoid of evil. > 4. However, God created physical creatures in a physical world that is full of unnecessary evil and suffering. > 5. Therefore, God is either not omnipotent, not omniscient, or not perfectly good. > > (A possible extended conclusion: 6. Therefore, there exists a deistic > god that created the universe, but this god is not a person who > willfully created the world or that has a relationship with humans. > Hence, god cannot prevent or eliminate evil and suffering). In short, Alvaro argues that there is a way for God to create free-willed beings that can grow morally without ever experiencing evil. The option is for God to create free-willed beings directly in a spiritual form in a non-physical state of eternal bliss. In such a state, there are no objects of temptation, and by directly creating spiritual beings, God can eliminate carnal pleasure, which is the root of lust and evil and suffering. This, therefore, precisely demonstrates that “There is no morally sufficient reason for God to allow instances of evil” and, a fortiori, it shows that the God of classical theism does not exist. How do Christians rebut Carlo Alvaro's position? Alvaro anticipated and responded to a few responses to his argument: 1. The Freedom Objective: > A strong objection to God’s creating free creatures directly in heaven concerns freedom of choice. Namely, one might concede that God can create free-willed creatures directly in heaven and even that many of them might live happy lives in heaven. However, if God created his children directly in heaven, essentially, he would force them to accept such an eternal life without giving them a choice. 2. The “Morally Good Reason”: > First, the theist can reply that even if the HAIAFE is valid, in the end, it is not possible to know God’s mind. Additionally, for all we know, it might turn out that God has morally good reasons for creating humans the way he did. Perhaps, when time comes and we meet him, God will explain to us why he did not create us directly in heaven. 3. The “Resurrection of the Body”: > Concerning our resurrecting in heaven with a physical body, not all theists believe that this is true. Even if it is assumed that it is, it does not undermine the HAIAFE. So I am particularly interested in other responses to Alvaro's argument.

One big difference between the Eastern and Western churches is the idea of original sin, Instead of "original sin" the Orthodox Church holds to "ancestral sin" which has been described to me as centering around the idea that nothing God makes is inherently evil. The *OrthodoxWiki* article Original sin says that > "In the Orthodox Church the term ancestral sin (Gr. προπατορικό αμάρτημα) is preferred and is used to define the doctrine of man's 'inclination towards sin, a heritage from the sin of our progenitors' and that this is removed through baptism." The first line of the *Wikipedia* page on Pelagianism states > "Pelagianism is a Christian theological position that holds that the fall did not taint human nature and that humans by divine grace have free will to achieve human perfection." If we are all created good simply with the ability to sin or even a proclivity to sin but are not corrupted by sin then wouldn't it be possible for someone of their own will to not sin? Is that not simply Pelagianism?

I see a lot of pseudo-Scriptural mysticism on the subject of the identities of angels and devils, men and God. I say mysticism not to dismiss attempted explanations categorically, but because the Scriptures do not seem to say explicitly that men and angels, God and man, and even man and devils are not (or were not once) of the same kin. Yet it is common to see whole theologies that rely on some kind of eternal genetic or pseudo-genetic distinction between God and man, and angels and man, which naturally gives rise to complex soteriologies and speculations such as that otherworldly creatures or fallen angels have interbred with humans , giving rise to giants and so on, despite no such genetic distinction being apparently drawn in the Biblical text; only the use of different, possibly synonymous terms in different places. Does any such distinction exist, or are the terms not synonymous in terms of origin, heritage, kind or type? There are some notable cultural distinctions of caricature. We see descriptions of angels as having wings , but it is not clear whether these are literal or figurative. I am not sure where horns for devils come from, apart from John's descriptions of the beasts of worldly and Satanic power. There are depictions such as Isaiah's vision of the Lord on His throne surrounded by seraphs, and it is not always immediately clear to the reader whether such depictions are to be taken as metaphorical or actual beings as to their attributes (having six wings, etc.). What is the Scriptural evidence delineating God(s), angels, men and devils as to their original identity and genetics or one-time kinship, if any? Or do the Scriptures demonstrate any kind of genetic relation between them, so to speak? Are "classes" of beings to be understood as eternal barriers, or acquirable statuses of the creature? This is related to the questions https://christianity.stackexchange.com/questions/38693/origin-of-the-idea-that-demons-and-fallen-angels-are-the-same-thing , and https://christianity.stackexchange.com/q/4530/46886 , but is intended to be more general and comprehensive in scope across these classes of beings. What denominations have teachings on this subject specifying the relationships among these types of beings, and what Scriptural citations do they use to corroborate their views? Were these four types of beings originally all one type of being? What is the end of man in relation to these classes?

If you look at historical records, the concept of a soul has existed long before it was ever "revealed" by any ancient prophet, with tribes and ancient civilizations already coming up with an ethereal substance that connects them together as a species, probably to feel important with respect to animals or to create a connection with their pre-existing deities. In fact, the Jews formally recorded the idea of the soul in their religious texts based on traditional beliefs which had not come from divine inspiration. So, if souls as described in the Bible and prophetic texts are a human invention derived from reason and other social beliefs, then how could this possibly coincide with what is actually true? The "system" for our connection with God and the supernatural world could literally be anything outside our wildest imaginations, and it just so happens that it's exactly the same as how humans had originally believed it to be? Do souls really exist? But then, if souls don't exist, can heaven or hell even exist either? In fact, those have also existed as concepts since ancient times, and it's clear how their creation by a society could positively benefit it (e.g. an elder telling kids they will suffer eternally if they disobey, lie, steal, etc. and this evolving into widespread belief)... Without these principles, everything about Christianity falls apart, so where does the reasoning go wrong? Sorry if this seems a bit anti-religious, but they're genuine doubts of mine.

Trinitarians believe that God exists in three persons: Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. There is also a belief amongst Trinitarians that Jesus is both the *Son of God* and *God*, that he existed before his birth by Mary as "the Word". ***Trinitarians and many other Christian denominations believe that Jesus was a key figure in the creation of all that exists.*** According to Colossians 1:16: > For in him all things were created: things in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or powers or rulers or authorities; all things have been created through him and for him. See also Romans 11:36: > For of him, and through him, and to him, are all things: to whom be glory forever. Amen. My questions: ***Do we have any scripture or other earlier sources explaining the particular or exact role of each member of the Trinity in creation***? What would have been the exact role of God ("the Father"); of Jesus (the Son/Word); and of the Holy Spirit in the creation of Adam or the creation of an animal such as a cow?

I was reading a while back and wanted to piece together these two ideas in my head. But as I think more about it the cognitive dissonance only increases. Non-Christians can experience "ego death" (see this [*Wikipedia* section](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ego_death#Jungian_psychology)) , but "death to sin" happens *after* salvation, which means the two concepts don't fully overlap. But then, how can these two seemingly identical processes be justified to occur at different "stages of development" for different people? I hope this is clear enough of an inquiry. A passage that comes to mind is Romans 6:11 (and a few other verses in the same chapter, as well): >"So you too consider yourselves dead to sin, but alive to God in Christ Jesus" - Romans 6:11 (NET)

What does the afterlife look like for an aborted baby? What happens to their consciousness (if any)? What happens to their spirit/soul? Since these are presumably controversial questions, I'm interested in an **overview of Christian viewpoints**. ____ **Related questions** - https://christianity.stackexchange.com/q/81207/50422 - https://christianity.stackexchange.com/q/89518/50422 - https://christianity.stackexchange.com/q/89140/50422