1. **God is four-in-one.** 2. **The Body of Christ is four-in-one.** The Father, The Son, The Spirit and You. There is no participation in God's essence/Godhead, only in His energies/economy by believers. Are these **two statements** orthodox, heterodox, or heresy? #### Possible Biblical Basis: John 14:20 (NIV): > On that day you will realize that I am in my Father, and you are in me, and I am in you. John 14:23 (NIV): > Jesus replied, “Anyone who loves me will obey my teaching. My Father will love them, and we will come to them and make our home with them. John 17:21 (NIV): > that all of them may be one, Father, just as you are in me and I am in you. May they also be in us so that the world may believe that you have sent me. 1 Corinthians 6:19 (NIV): > Do you not know that your bodies are temples of the Holy Spirit, who is in you, whom you have received from God? You are not your own; Ephesians 3:17 (NIV): > so that Christ may dwell in your hearts through faith. And I pray that you, being rooted and established in love, Ephesians 4:4-6 (NIV): > 4There is one body and one Spirit, just as you were called to one hope when you were called; 5one Lord, one faith, one baptism; 6one God and Father of all, who is over all and through all and in all. #### Arguments For: - https://conversantfaith.com/2025/06/12/four-in-one-witness-lee-and-trinitarian-ecclesiology/ : > "Witness Lee’s claim that the Body of Christ is “a four-in-one organic entity” belongs within this broad and venerable stream: a distinctive, but not discordant, contribution to the tradition of Trinitarian ecclesiology." - https://www.equip.org/articles/addressing-the-open-letters-concerns-on-the-nature-of-humanity-part-3-of-a-reassessment-of-the-local-church-movement-of-watchman-nee-and-witness-lee/ : > "On first blush a skeptic might legitimately ask, “How could believers not partake in the Godhead if they partake in God’s life and nature?” The answer, however, becomes clear when Lee is read in his own context and allowed to define his own terms. When Lee refers to the “processed God,” he is clearly speaking about the economic Trinity. It is this Trinity that becomes in a sense “four-in-one.” There is no change in the essential or ontological Trinity (what Lee is here calling the Godhead) with the deification of believers any more than there was a change in the ontological Trinity with the incarnation of Christ. According to the LC, in the outworking of God’s economy or plan of salvation, there is a process that includes progressive steps in which God the Father is embodied in the Son in incarnation, Christ is realized as the Spirit in resurrection, and ultimately the Triune God is expressed in the glorified church; but in His essential nature or Godhead, the Lord remains forever unchanged." #### Arguments Against: - https://normangeisler.com/a-response-to-cri-local-church/ : > "To illustrate the absurdity of the LC position, one final citation from Witness Lee is necessary. He wrote: “Because the Father, the Son, and the Spirit are all one with the Body of Christ, we may say that the Triune God is now the ‘four-in-one’ God. These four are the Father, the Son, the Spirit, and the Body. The Three of the Divine Trinity cannot be confused or separated, and the four-in-one also cannot be separated or confused.” (Lee , A Deeper Study, 203-204). No amount of hermeneutical gyrations can untangle this theological absurdity. Clearly, Lee does not hold the orthodox view of the Trinity which allows no creature or creatures to be one with the members of the Trinity in the same sense that the Body of Christ (the Church) is one with God. Defending such a view is both senseless and useless." - https://www.thegospelcoalition.org/blogs/scotty-smith/trinity-no-4th-member/ : > "You are the Alpha and the Omega, the First and the Last, the Beginning and the End, and everything in between. Hallelujah, many times over. As our God, you are Father, Son, and Holy Spirit—perfect Trinity. And you’re not looking to turn a Trio into a Quartet. We matter, but only you are the point."

If Moses was of the tribe of Levi from both parents Exodus 2:1-3, and he never lived in Judah/Judea, in what way was he a Jew/Judean G2453 or "Jewish"? I have an understanding based on crystal clear scripture, and I've been told it's a false interpretation, so I am here looking for actual experts who can offer sound scholarship. Any takers?

Why were ousia and hypostasis synonymous in the Nicene Creed? ---- In the original 325 A.D. Nicene Creed, an anathema is included which has ousia and hypostasis as synonymous. In this case, the Trinity is one hypostasis ( = homoousios). >And in the Holy Spirit. But as for those who say, There was when He was not, and, Before being born He was not, and that He came into existence out of nothing, or who assert that the Son of God is of a ***different hypostasis or substance*** (ὑποστάσεως ἢ οὐσιάς) or created, or is subject to alteration or change these the Catholic and apostolic Church anathematizes. Source: https://earlychurchtexts.com/public/creed_of_nicaea_325.htm It seems also the meaning of υποστασις in Hebrews 1:3. >He is the radiance of the glory of God and the exact imprint of his ***nature*** (υποστασις) (ESV). The ASV has "substance". However, in later centuries hypostasis began referring to the "person", not the "nature" or "being" of the Trinity. **Why did such change in definition occur?** It would be helpful to address the semantical development of υποστασις on how it changed from "substance" (nature/essence) to "person". >The Church confesses is that God is three Persons (hypostasis) in one Essence (ousia). Source: https://www.google.com.ph/amp/s/exploringthedepthsofthedivine.wordpress.com/2015/08/12/god-as-trinity-orthodox-trinitarianism/amp/

I went down a rabbit fox hole reading the original sermons of the founder of the Quakers (pun intended). I was not that familiar with George Fox and I found it very illuminating to read his works directly. He certainly had a lot to say about the "inner light". At first I just thought he was meaning the illumination of scripture by the Holy Spirit whereby our faith is lit and kindled. However as I kept reading different parts of his works he simply would not stop talking about this "inner light" and in fact barely talked about anything else. In the end, I grew to dislike the phrase. He also seemed quite envious of leaders in the other churches. But that’s just my initial impression. I began to realize it is not the illumination of scripture but something else that actually **put his mind in anger against the written word in some strange way** that is hard to pin down. The difficulty is that he correctly identified the difference between the inner life of a Christian as described in the scripture and the mere external form, but from there he amplified the difference into a much bigger issue and kept ranting about the "word" of scripture not being the Word (the Son), as though they can’t both be the Son in different senses. It is very difficult sometimes to read in between the lines to fully unravel the threads and I don’t have the time and have already lost interest to work out a fuller understanding. Does anyone actually know what George Fox meant by "inner light" and how it is different from the mainstream idea of the inspiration of the Holy Word and the illumination of the scripture by the Holy Spirit?

Here is an example of a context with **"outpouring of the Holy Spirit"** (phrase in bold): > #### Bill McLeod > > Wilbert “Bill” Laing McLeod (1919 - 2012). Canadian Baptist pastor and revivalist born in Winnipeg, Manitoba. Converted at 22 in 1941, he left a sales career to enter ministry, studying at Manitoba Baptist Bible Institute. Ordained in 1946, he pastored in Rosthern, Saskatchewan, and served as a circuit preacher in Strathclair, Shoal Lake, and Birtle. From 1962 to 1981, he led Ebenezer Baptist Church in Saskatoon, growing it from 175 to over 1,000 members. Central to the 1971 Canadian Revival, sparked by the Sutera Twins’ crusade, his emphasis on prayer and repentance drew thousands across denominations, lasting seven weeks. McLeod authored When Revival Came to Canada and recorded numerous sermons, praised by figures like Paul Washer. Married to Barbara Robinson for over 70 years, they had five children: Judith, Lois, Joanna, Timothy, and Naomi. His ministry, focused on scriptural fidelity and revival, impacted Canada and beyond through radio and conferences. > > #### Sermon Summary > > In this sermon, the speaker shares a powerful testimony of a meeting where the glory of God was experienced. It started with one person praying and soon others joined, resulting in a powerful **outpouring of the Holy Spirit**. The meeting lasted for over four hours, with people confessing their sins and seeking God's presence. The speaker emphasizes the need for the glory of God to return to our churches and lives, and encourages repentance, prayer, faith, and identification with Christ as the simple yet costly price to pay for experiencing God's glory. > > https://www.sermonindex.net/sermons/XuEeri0s1gBZfmHq Here is an example of a context with **"filling of the Holy Spirit"** (phrase in bold): >#### God's Word Enhances the Work of the Spirit > >A beam of light doesn't have to shine down on my house for the Spirit to fill me. I don't have to jump three times and turn in circles or say the right thing or have the name John to know the power of the Holy Spirit. I simply need to pray, seek to align my heart with God’s, and fill my mind with His Word. > >It isn't complicated, but that doesn’t mean it’s effortless: a daily **filling of the Holy Spirit** requires a daily filling of the Word of God. In contrast, I firmly believe a lack of Spirit-filled living is due to a lack of enthusiasm for the Bible, along with mediocre attempts to fight sin. But if God's Word is filling us, then the Spirit of God will too. > > https://www.reviveourhearts.com/blog/what-does-it-mean-to-be-filled-with-the-spirit/ From the first context, **"outpouring of the Holy Spirit"** appears to convey the idea of a dramatic, identifiable event, one that might even be highlighted on a calendar. From the second context, **"filling of the Holy Spirit"** seems to describe a more ordinary, ongoing condition that Christians are encouraged to pursue daily. Is this distinction commonly understood among Christians? What is an overview of how major Christian theologies generally understand the concepts of the **"outpouring of the Holy Spirit"** and the **"filling of the Holy Spirit"**?

Below are several excerpts from Christian websites that discuss the idea of "paying the price" in a spiritual context: > In this sermon, the speaker shares a powerful testimony of a meeting where the glory of God was experienced. It started with one person praying and soon others joined, resulting in a powerful outpouring of the Holy Spirit. The meeting lasted for over four hours, with people confessing their sins and seeking God's presence. The speaker emphasizes the need for the glory of God to return to our churches and lives, and encourages repentance, prayer, faith, and identification with Christ **as the simple yet costly price to pay for experiencing God's glory**. > > https://www.sermonindex.net/sermons/XuEeri0s1gBZfmHq > God is a God of process. The major problem with this generation is that men are not ready to **pay the price** to have spiritual power and experiences. But the truth is, if it is genuine, there will be **a price attached to it**. Jesus told the disciples in Luke 24:49 to tarry in Jerusalem until they were endued with power from on high. So, where did you get the version of your divine power without divine process? **Anything valuable always has a price tag**. If you see anything that is valuable, that is cheap, it is either somebody paid for it, or it is stolen. **Authentic power has a price tag**. > > There is a **price you will have to pay** to walk in the authentic power of God. If you see a man that works in supposed power and you don’t see a price in his life, it’s false power he’s working with. The man that God will work with must **pay the price** for spiritual experiences. Specific callings and specific anointing call for specific **prices that we must constantly be paying**. May the Lord find you dependable to carry His power these last days. > > https://spiritmeat.net/2024/06/22/22-june-2024-the-price-for-spiritual-power-and-spiritual-experiences-pay-it-mark-314/ > Every day we need to be watchful by **paying the price to buy the Spirit as the golden oil** so that we may supply the churches with the Spirit for the testimony of Jesus and be rewarded by the Lord to participate in the marriage dinner of the Lamb. > > Our urgent need today is to gain more of the Spirit; we need to live a life of **buying** an extra portion of the Spirit to saturate our entire being. > > Day by day we need to live such a life, a life of **paying the price** to gain the Spirit not only in our spirit but also in our soul, being saturated with the Spirit in our vessel. If we have a day when we don’t **pay the price** to gain the saturating Spirit, that is a wasted day; we do not want to have any wasted days! > > For us to gain more of the Spirit in our soul we need to **pay a price**; we need to **pay the price** of giving up the world, dealing with the self, loving the Lord above all things, and counting all things loss for Christ. > > Day by day we need to **pay the price** of losing our soul life and denying the things that we want to do so that we may pray more, even persevere in prayer and watch unto prayer, so that we may gain more of the Spirit. > > If we don’t **pay the price to buy the oil today**, we will have to pay it after we are resurrected; sooner or later, we will have to **pay the price** – so why not today, why not in this age? > > https://agodman.com/paying-price-buy-spirit-oil-vessel-word-prayer/ > The wise virgins told the foolish virgins to go buy their own oil. When the Bible speaks of the oil, it refers to the Holy Spirit. You may ask, “But, how is it possible to buy the Holy Spirit?” > > Jesus is referring to a person having to **pay the price**, which means denying their will, obeying the Word of God, being faithful, sacrificing and keeping constant watch. > > All those who truly want the presence of God should be aware that **there is a price to pay**. The wise virgins, certainly, **paid the price** (sacrificed) with the time they waited for the bridegroom. Surely, they prepared themselves by investing in their spiritual lives through prayer, fasts, consecration and surrender, not allowing the light of the Spirit to burn out. > > On the other hand, there are those who aren’t willing to **pay that price**. They live according to their fleshly desires, refuse to stop living in sin, are in the church but far from God, have the lamp, which is faith, but don’t have the oil, which is the Holy Spirit. > > https://www.universal.org/en/bispo-macedo/pay-the-price/ Is the idea of "paying the price" for greater spiritual power, anointing, or a deeper experience of God a common teaching across all Christian denominations, or is it emphasized primarily within certain groups? For example, is it widely taught that Christians must *pay a price* to receive more of the Spirit, more anointing, or greater spiritual authority? What is the biblical basis for this teaching?

I've been reflecting on the interplay between faith and hope, especially when hope entails some degree of uncertainty and lack of intellectual assent but a strong desire for something to be true. Consider a scenario where an individual, exposed to the preaching of the Gospel, the promises of Christianity, and arguments and evidence for its core tenets, might express, "Though I don't know if Christianity is true, and I'm not highly or overwhelmingly confident, in light of the evidence I certainly believe it has potential to be true (i.e., it makes sense and I can't rule it out), and sincerely *wish* and *hope* it is true." Is it possible to redefine faith, traditionally rooted in strong beliefs, to encompass the prospect of being grounded in hope? Can individuals anchor their faith in hope rather than belief or intellectual assent, acknowledging uncertainty yet finding enough motivation rooted in hope in order to act "as if" a belief were true, with the aspiration that their hope-based faith may eventually, at some point in the future, evolve into a more solid belief? I'm interested in exploring whether this nuanced perspective has been discussed in philosophical or theological contexts, and how it might reshape our understanding of *faith* and its relationship to *hope*, *belief*, and *intellectual assent*. --- **Additional food for thought**: The application of [Pascal's wager](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pascal%27s_wager) might be considered as an example of this, where an individual, faced with the uncertainty of the existence of a higher power, may choose to embrace a hopeful faith. In acknowledging the inability to decisively prove or disprove the divine, a fence-sitter on the question might opt for a faith-driven approach, investing in the potential benefits of belief (by acting "as if" the belief were true) while recognizing the inherent uncertainty. **Another related and important question** is whether we can choose to believe something based only (or mostly) on our desire for it to be true and in spite of our prior uncertainty. See [To what extent do we choose our beliefs?](https://philosophy.stackexchange.com/q/849/66156) --- **Definition of belief** Someone in the comments asked for a definition of *belief*. I will quote the first paragraph of the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy [article](https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/belief/) on belief: > Anglophone philosophers of mind generally use the term “belief” to refer to **the attitude we have, roughly, whenever we take something to be the case or regard it as true**. To believe something, in this sense, needn’t involve actively reflecting on it: Of the vast number of things ordinary adults believe, only a few can be at the fore of the mind at any single time. Nor does the term “belief”, in standard philosophical usage, imply any uncertainty or any extended reflection about the matter in question (as it sometimes does in ordinary English usage). Many of the things we believe, in the relevant sense, are quite mundane: that we have heads, that it’s the 21st century, that a coffee mug is on the desk. Forming beliefs is thus one of the most basic and important features of the mind, and the concept of belief plays a crucial role in both philosophy of mind and epistemology. The “mind-body problem”, for example, so central to philosophy of mind, is in part the question of whether and how a purely physical organism can have beliefs. Much of epistemology revolves around questions about when and how our beliefs are justified or qualify as knowledge. --- **Definition of hope** To clarify, I'm using hope in the following sense: > **Faith as hopeful affirmation** > > Now consider hope. James Muyskens (1979), Louis Pojman (1986a; 1986b; 1991), and William Lad Sessions (1994) have each proposed **accounts of faith that take hope as the central cognitive attitude**. Pojman claims that: >> If belief-in, or trusting, can be analyzed in terms of commitment to a course of action or a disposition to act, then it seems that we do not need to believe-that x exists in order to believe-in **or deeply hope in the existence of x**. (Pojman (1986b), 224) > > But what is hope and is this claim plausible? > > **Hope is a complex attitude that involves both evaluation and opinion or, at least, some relatively weak constraints on opinion**. If I hope for sunny weather on my sister’s wedding day, ordinarily this will involve both a desire that the weather be sunny and a belief, say, that this is at least possible. Notice that I can hope for sunny weather even if I believe that alternatives like rain or even snow are more likely. While there are differences of opinion concerning just how hope is to be analysed, quite generally, it seems that, **for any subject S and proposition p, to say that S hopes that p involves at least that (1) S desires that p and (2) S does not believe that p is impossible. Clearly hope is also an attitude one can have towards the existence of an object, entity, or person x (e.g. God) or the obtaining of some state of affairs. These conditions are arguably necessary minima for hope**. It would make little sense to say Dave hopes that his wound will heal quickly and not become infected but has no desire that this be the case or that he believes that this is impossible. But perhaps a religiously significant sense of hope requires a bit more. As stated, the first condition leaves the nature of the desires quite unspecified (e.g. are these emotions, considered value judgments, or what?); ‘impossible’ in the second condition might mean only logically incoherent. **A plausible case could be made, for example, that the second condition for religiously significant hope should be that p is a live option for S or that S believes that the probability that p is true is not so small as to be negligible or that S does not believe not-p**. > > [...] > > Although hopes can be misplaced, the minimal epistemic opinion involved in hope is a very weak one. Indeed, hope is most nakedly apparent in cases where something is hoped for despite its improbability. Moreover, and for this reason, the hope that p requires less, often far less, in the way of evidence to be rational than the belief in that same content p. It can be reasonable to hope that p in cases where belief with the same content would not be. Clearly, I can hope to win the lottery jackpot without believing that I will and indeed while believing that it is extremely unlikely that I will; that the odds of winning are about one in two hundred million. Lying blind and paralysed in a ditch, I might hope to see and walk again. Devastated by the kidnapping of her child, years later, a tearful mother might still hope to be reunited with her son. Enslaved, I might hope one day to be set free. **Similarly, one can hope that God exists without believing that God exists**. > > Source: [Authentic faith and acknowledged risk: dissolving the problem of faith and reason](https://philpapers.org/archive/MCKAFA.pdf) , DANIEL J. MCKAUGHAN. Religious Studies / Volume 49 / Issue 01 / March 2013, pp 101 ­- 124 DOI: 10.1017/S0034412512000200, Published online: 15 June 2012

What does it mean to a Christian that Christ is the son of God? On the one hand, obviously, the normal biological meaning of _son_ does not apply. On the other hand, "we are all children of God", but Jesus seems to be more so . That God offered up His only son as a sacrifice for humanity's sins is often used as an argument to demonstrate God's love for humanity. This would imply that God loves Jesus more than His other children, that this sacrifice was particularly hard, indicating that Jesus has a filial relationship with God in a sense that we would understand. It implies that sending His son to his death was extremely painful to Him, more so than the deaths of His other children. Now, these arguments seem to me to be a clear anthropomorphisation of God, Christians seem to be attributing human characteristics such as the love of a father --not metaphorically as when referring to humanity as God's children, but in a very literal way-- to God. This seems to clash with another central tenet of Christianity which states that God is beyond our understanding, that we cannot fathom His plan. If so, then any attribution of human emotion to Him would be wrong. So, my question is how do Christians interpret Christ being the "Son of God"? What exactly does that mean? I realize the answer will depend on the particular denomination of Christianity whose views are being expressed. I am particularly interested in *an overview* of the more popular churches such as the Catholic, Protestant and Orthodox but welcome answers explaining the views of any group as long as the group in question is clearly stated. --- NOTES I have read the posts below, but though related, none of them addresses the same question: - If Christ is considered the 'Son of God' then how is He a part of a Trinity? - Does the Bible have any proof that Jesus Christ is the Only-begotten Son of God? This one was quite interesting, and the accepted answer states that <code class="inline-code ">His &quot;sonship&quot; is unique, one-of-a-kind, and distinct from all others</code>, which brings us straight back to my question, how is it distinct? - "Jesus Christ God's Only Son Our Lord" Again, very interesting, but it while it explains the contradiction inherent in Christ being the _only_ Son of God while we are all His children, it does not explain in what sense Christ is a son of God.

*Please note that this is a question and I am not trying to insult anyone.* The term "Papist" is often used as an insult in anti-Catholic rhetoric, and I have not heard it used by Catholics to describe themselves (except in an ironic or humorous way). I'm wondering why the term is considered derogatory. Etymologically, it would simply means someone who believes in the institution of the Papacy, which is not only accurate for Catholics but something they are definitely not ashamed of. The reason I'm wondering this is because it's somewhat of a shame that there's no neutral term for the RCC. By calling them the "Catholic Church" one implicitly accepts their claim to be the church that is catholic, which is an ecclesiological claim no-one outside the group would agree with. Sometimes Protestants call them the "Roman Church" or "Roman Catholic" in order to avoid this difficulty, and I have also heard of these terms used by Catholics to distinguish themselves from Anglo-Catholics. But this is also considered derogatory by some Catholics. Also it is not wholly accurate unless it is meant to be "the churches in communion with the Roman Church" since this term is meant to include Eastern Rite Catholics, which are not "Roman" except in the sense that they are at the top level part of the same organization. Anyway, I'm wondering about the origins of the term "Papist" and why it is considered derogatory by Catholics. I am mainly asking why it is received as derogatory by Catholics, who obviously don't take offense at being described as those who believe in the Papacy since they don't think this is a bad thing.

### Background Early (pre Protestant Reformation) Christian writers from the 1st through 5th centuries like St. Ambrose, St. Augustine, St. Jerome, and others seem to have universally condemned usury and defined it as charging any interest on loans, not merely excessive or extortionate rates. St. Ambrose of Milan (4th c.) explicitly stated the classic definition: > “Food too is usury and clothing is usury, and **whatever is added to the capital is usury**. Whatever name you wish to put upon it, it is usury” St. Augustine (late 4th–early 5th c.) likewise defined a usurer as anyone who expects back more than he lent : > "If thou hast given the loan of thy money to one from whom thou dost expect to receive something more than thou hast given; not in money only, but anything... **if you expect to receive more than you have given, you are an usurer**, and in this are not deserving of praise, but of censure." ### Question The practice of usury has had a mixed history in the Christian Church. How do modern Protestants define it, and do they still believe it is a sin? And what do they base their definition on? For example, is usury the collection of interest at any rate on a loan? Is it the collection of excessive interest?

Most mainstream Christian denominations refer to Christ as having a "glorified body" and teach that saved humans will have glorified bodies in the afterlife. The concept seems to be based on **Philippians 3:20–21**: > For our conversation is in heaven; from whence also we look for the Saviour, the Lord Jesus Christ: > > Who shall change our vile body, that it may be fashioned like unto his **glorious body**, according to the working whereby he is able even to subdue all things unto himself. The word "glorious" is an adjective, meaning: "*having, worthy of, or bringing fame or admiration*", or "*having a striking beauty or splendor that evokes feelings of delighted admiration*". It is used casually, without further explanation, yet today the term seems to be used quite freely in many publications, as if everyone understands that it means something very specific and very different from the basic meaning of that adjective. For instance, [*A Glorified Body: The Necessity of Our Resurrection*](https://www.gty.org/blogs/B130701/a-glorified-body-the-necessity-of-our-resurrection#:~:text=They%20will%20be%20real,and%20glorified.) says that glorified bodies: > will be real, physical, genuinely human bodies — the very same bodies we have while on this earth—yet wholly perfected and glorified. What exactly is the definition of "glorified body", and what is the origin of this term, the concept and doctrine that it will be physical? --- Note that I'm not asking for what scriptures are consistent with this belief, I'm asking for the history of its development.

[Isaiah 42:19](https://biblehub.com/isaiah/42-19.htm) says: > “Who is blind but my servant, and deaf like my messenger whom I send…?” When I read this alongside the rest of Isaiah 42:18–25, I struggle with whether this “servant” is meant to describe: 1. Israel as a spiritually blind people, 2. the prophetic servant/Messiah, or 3. both in different senses. My specific concern is this: If Christians interpret Isaiah 42 as a Messianic prophecy fulfilled in Jesus, how should we understand verse 19 describing the servant as “blind” or “deaf”? Does the text imply any lack of understanding in the servant, or is this metaphor meant in a different way? I’m looking for an explanation grounded in the text and Christian theological interpretation, especially regarding how the “blindness” metaphor can be reconciled with Christian beliefs about Jesus’ perfect obedience and knowledge of God’s law.

Possible ways to understand "***virginity***" : - Some people may define it as no sexual event whatsoever. - Some may define as not having intercourse with a male. - Some may define it as not participating in any intimate acts with a male. - Some may define it as an intact hymen. I have a problem with the last one, since a lot of girls are not born with a hymen, or the hymen can be damaged in sports activities. I can't see a logical reason to think that the Blessed mother was definitely born with one or didn't damage it with non sexual physical activity. **So, what exactly does the Catholic Church mean by the "Virginity" of Mary?**

"Crossing the Tiber" / "Swimming the Tiber" have come to be the shorthand term for converting to Roman Catholicism, as well as "Swimming/Crossing the Thames" for converting to Anglicanism. (source [*Wikipedia*](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tiber#History)) I wonder whether there are swimming/crossing bodies of water related terms for conversion between other branches of Christianity, especially to/from Eastern Orthodoxy? How about for conversion among Protestant branches?

The term 'substitutionary atonement' has been used within Trinitarian, Protestant, Reformed Baptist circles for some time, and it is those I wish to examine in this question. But the word 'substitute' does not translate a Greek word found in scripture, nor does the term 'atonement'. The word 'atonement' is found once in the KJV, Romans 5:11, but it is a clear mis-translation of the word καταλλαγην, *katallagen*, in all other places rendered 'reconciliation'. Both words are vague in meaning. Nor does 'substitute' or 'substitution' convey a concept that the apostolic epistles express, the emphasis of the doctrine of Christ being union with Christ (in his sufferings, in his death and in his resurrection) rather than some kind of 'exchange' (another word never found in Greek except μετηλλαξαν, *metellazan*, in Romans 1:26). The word 'atonement' has a weak etymology and an ill-defined concept, its meaning a loose 'at-one' derivation and its application being a very general and overall term for the both the sufferings and death and resurrection of Christ that is never found in the greater precision of the apostolic writings. What exactly is being conveyed by the term ? When was the expression first coined ? What error was being resisted by the introduction of this couplet ? Again, I am looking for a response in regard to Trinitarian, Protestant, Reformed and Baptist usage of the terminology. -------------------------- EDIT upon comment : I believe that 'Christ died for our sins, according to the scriptures'. I believe that 'Christ gave his life a ransom for many'. I believe that 'He bare our sins in his own body on the tree'. I believe that 'he was made sin for us, who knew no sin'. But the scripture never uses the word 'substitute' to express that. I am questioning the terminology, not the doctrine of Christ. Further explanatory EDIT : My concern has always been the *emphasis*. If I have no relationship with Christ, if I am not in union with Him, if I know not his presence before my face when I pray, then *the facts* of his sufferings, death and resurrection are just that - historical facts. The terms 'substitute' and 'exchange' are distant terms. But kinsman-redeemer, for example, (*gaal* in Hebrew) conveys a relationship that exists *before the redemption takes place*, (see the book of Ruth, on this). And one is chosen 'in Christ' (not apart from him) before the foundation of the world. These are my concerns and the reason for my question.

Is **Hebron** referred to **Hebrew**? In **Genesis 39:17** → *The Hebrew Servant* → Here Joseph is called as a Hebrew. So this is my understanding that → Joseph's great grandfather Abraham was from Hebron → referred to Hebrews → often used with Israelites. It's usually refers to the descents of Abraham. **Hebrew** is → geographical reference whereas **Israelite** is → lineage reference Please correct me if I am wrong.

I have heard the term "Lordship Salvation" several times now, including in an answer I read recently. Can anyone explain to me what this is? Is this the official position of any major churches? Is this a term only used by critics of the view? (Like "easy believism" or "cafeteria Christianity" - terms nobody would actually associate ***themselves*** with!)

During much of the 20th century "Fundamentalism" was serious movement in Christianity. According to Britannica: > The term fundamentalist was coined in 1920 to describe conservative > Evangelical Protestants who supported the principles expounded in The > Fundamentals: A Testimony to the Truth (1910–15), a series of 12 > pamphlets that attacked modernist theories of biblical criticism and > reasserted the authority of the Bible. Fundamentalism affirmed principles such as biblical inerrancy and the truth of Christian doctrines such as the Trinity, the incarnation, physical resurrection, the rapture and the Second Coming. It grew up in particular opposition to modernist ideas like Evolution, in the wake of Scopes "Monkey Trial." It also became influential in politics through movements such as Jerry Falwell's Moral Majority. It seems to me, however, that the term has fallen out of favor, especially as a result of Islamic fundamentalism and its terrorist political ramifications. Indeed, I found only two questions in this entire site with titles including the word "fundamentalism" or "fundamentalist." Questions: Do fundamentalists, still use that term to describe themselves? Would it be offensive these days to call an anti-modernist Evangelical Christian a "fundamentalist?"

"Sanctified Unity Ecclesiology" was a phrase used in a couple of comments on Stack about seven years ago. One person asked what the O.P. meant by it. The response was that it is a name given for the pursuit of attaining Christian unity, while seeking to harmonize divergent views. In the OPs question there were answers with premillennial and dispensational views (which has nothing to do with this question here). The OP was happy to consider both them and amillennial and non-dispensational views. Sanctified Unity Ecclesiology was said to be one of “various tools of interpretation for understanding the scriptures.” Searching on-line only brought up links and books on the doctrine of ecclesiology and the doctrine of sanctification. I found nothing about “the pursuit of attaining Christian unity while seeking to harmonise divergent views.” Can anyone explain what this, as a title, has sprung from, and how it is used as a tool to interpret the Bible, plus whether there are any particular denominations involved in this? There is a p.d.f. with this link from a newsletter giving a review of a book on Early Holiness-Pentecostalism 1880-1909 by Joseph L. Thomas, "Perfect Harmony". The review gives that very phrase. https://urbanatheologicalseminary.org/wp-content/uploads/2023/09/201409-The-Flame.pdf Thanks to Grateful Disciple for providing this.

Encounters with God (the Father) are called *Theophanies*, encounters with Jesus are called *Christophanies*, but what about encounters with the Holy Spirit? Is there a specific term for an encounter with the third person of the Trinity? **Note**: by encounter, I mean any sort of self-authenticating experience through which a supernatural being makes its existence or presence known, obvious and clear (i.e. reveals itself) to a person. _____ Related: https://christianity.stackexchange.com/q/86291/50422