I was recently shown an excerpt of commentary from the NIV edition of the _Life Application Study Bible_ from Tyndale/Zondervan. Frankly I was rather surprised by how blatant the eisegesis was in that specific case. Since I don't have a full copy of it to review key passages I can't tell whether this is a persistent issue or just one poorly thought out bit that slipped through. It's remarkably hard to find reviews of Study Bibles online that delve into what kind of theological background the commentary is from. Some of them are obvious¹ but most of them seem to specialize in being as "middle of the road" as possible. It's easy to find descriptions of how many maps and illustrations and reader aids a given work includes and most tout "a broad range of scholarship", but a lot harder to find anything specific about the backgrounds of the actual commentators. With that in mind I'm looking for a general break down of what went into the writing and editing of this particular work: 1. Who were the major contributors and from what theological traditions do they hail? 1. Were there any explicit boundaries set by the project as for as what hermeneutical approaches and/or theological traditions would be represented in what light? 1. Are there strong theological biases² evident at any point in the commentary? Specifically is are there consistent trends towards explanations that endorse specific views on key issues such as: * Arminian vs. Calvinist views on soteriology. * Complementarian vs. Egalitarian views of gender roles. * Premillennial, Postmillennial, or Amillennial views on eschatology. * Dispensational vs. Covenantal views on the nature of the church through history. * Credobaptist vs. Pedobaptist views on baptism. * Cessationist vs. Continuationist views of apostolic gifts? 1. Are there any notable trends in which denominations or traditions have embraced the use of or disapproved of the content of this work? Note this same commentary content seems to have been published alongside a number of different English translations. As far as I can tell it isn't important to this question that the NIV edition is used for review. ¹ For example it's no mystery what theological framework the notes in the _MacArthur Study Bible_ will represent. One can easily lookup the general editor's views on a variety of subjects and understand how he'll be evaluating passages. ² I don't use "bias" in a negative sense here, in fact I think bias is both impossible to avoid and even necessary, but I like to understand specifically what presuppositions are involved all the time.

This Wikipedia entry states: > In Mormonism, the concept of divinity centers around an idea of > "exaltation" and "eternal progression": **mortals themselves may become > gods and goddesses** in the afterlife, be rulers of their own heavenly > kingdoms, have spirit children, and increase in power and glory > forever. The book of Genesis describes a temptation that came to Adam from the Serpent, by way of Eve. A forbidden fruit was eaten but the fruit was merely the vehicle for the temptation to "be like God". The temptation was to believe God was holding out on them and to make themselves like God by doing that which God had forbidden. > But the serpent said to the woman, “You will not surely die. **For God knows that when you eat of it your eyes will be opened, and you will be like God**, knowing good and evil.” So when the woman saw that the tree was good for food, and that it was a delight to the eyes, and that the tree was to be desired to make one wise, she took of its fruit and ate, and she also gave some to her husband who was with her, and he ate. Then the eyes of both were opened, and they knew that they were naked. And they sewed fig leaves together and made themselves loincloths. - Genesis 3:4-7 If the Wikipedia entry accurately represents Mormon belief, how does LDS theology reconcile this hope of progression to Godhood with the temptation that Adam succumbed to (to be like God) as recorded in the book of Genesis?

In the Bible there are passages hinting at optional extra rewards that God promises to believers who perform meritorious works on earth. I'm referring to different **degrees of rewards** that God gives **beyond** the "standard" eternal life / beatific vision that believers can expect if they persevere to the end: - Reward for being persecuted because we follow Jesus: [Matt 5:11-12](https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matthew+5%3A11-12&version=NLT) , [Luke 6:22-23](https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Luke+6%3A22-23&version=NLT) - Reward for lending to our enemies without expecting to be repaid: [Luke 6:27-36](https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Luke+6%3A27-36&version=NLT) , [Luke 6:37-28](https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Luke+6%3A37-38&version=NLT) - Jesus's reply to Peter's question "We've given up everything to follow you. What will we get?", after His conversation with the Rich Man [Matt 19:16-30](https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matthew+19%3A16-30&version=NLT) - Parable of the Vineyard Workers [Matt 20:1-16](https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matthew+20%3A1-16&version=NLT) - Jesus said He will repay each person according to his deeds [Matt 16:27](https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=matt+16%3A27&version=ESV) , backed by the Parable of talents, [Matt 25:14-30](https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=matt+25%3A14-30&version=NLT) - Paul's anticipation of his personal reward of bringing people to Christ [1 Cor 3:11-15](https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=1+cor+3%3A11-15&version=NLT) , [Phil 4:1](https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Philippians+4%3A1&version=NLT) , [1 Thess 2:19-20](https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=1+thess+2%3A19-20&version=NLT) which [one argued](https://coldcasechristianity.com/writings/are-there-different-degrees-of-reward-in-heaven/) Paul was basing it on [Dan 12:13](https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=dan+12%3A13&version=NLT) - Reward to save people from injustice [Prov 24:11-12](https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Proverbs+24%3A11-12&version=NLT) - Reward for giving to the needy done in private [Matt 6:1-4](https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=matt+6%3A1-4&version=NLT) - Reward for praying to God in private [Matt 6:5-6](https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=matt+6%3A5-6&version=NLT) - Reward for fasting in private [Matt 6:16-18](https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=matt+6%3A16-18&version=NLT) - Storing treasures in heaven [Matt 6:19-21](https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=matt+6%3A19-21&version=NLT) - etc. (*this list is suggestive, not exhaustive*) Besides the Biblical hints, in everyday life we also often hear people saying how God will reward a good samaritan who did a sacrificial / heroic deed to save a stranger, especially if that person ends up dead / seriously injured / disabled. Any serious Christian realizes that our time on earth is very short, **so this is an intensely practical, not a speculative question**. I strongly suspect Biblical statements of God's reward above are to be taken as guidance on how we should adjust our thoughts, words, and deeds so we can love God more, and consequently be in a better state spiritually. **My full question statement is**: Having been secured of the promise of eternal life (which is totally [unmerited](https://www.catholic.com/tract/reward-and-merit)) how should the faithful respond to the reward related verses above based on the teaching of the Catholic church, the Church Fathers, and/or the Doctors of the Church? In other words, I am looking for a church dogma / a **single theological framework** that provides a perspective to interpret all the reward related verses so that, as believers, we can use that framework as a "map" of sorts to direct our will, mind, and emotion into a productive path yielding more and more rewards - not in a mercenary / hoarding-treasures way, but so we can be assured of a well-trodden path toward increasing love for God that is commensurate with increasing "reward" / blessedness / joy / etc. either in earth, heaven, or both. **Notes** - By "works" I of course do not mean performance divorced from the heart (as though we're piling up hourly wage as we work). It's the resulting action (in thoughts, words, deed) produced from a virtuous heart; action that can lead to more virtue within the heart. In Protestant terms, it means "good works" produced by the heart that cooperates with the sanctification work performed by the Holy Spirit; good works which lead to further sanctification. - There is a [related Catholic answer](https://christianity.stackexchange.com/questions/50255/reward-in-heaven-what-is-it-catholic) already which frames the different degrees of rewards in terms of time spent in purgatory (see [CCC 1021-1023](http://www.vatican.va/archive/ccc_css/archive/catechism/p123a12.htm)) but it doesn't offer a framework nor a perspective to interpret the above verses. - I understand each verse has its own context, but it's not necessary to exegete every verse and connect it to the framework. The framework should be broad enough to make an easy connection to what is **common** among the verses, namely that God rewards the faithful beyond eternal life. - From the two answers already provided (by Ken Graham and Thom) it looks like the center is the Catholic teaching on Merit described in the [Catholic Encyclopedia entry](http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/10202b.htm) . The discussion there comes closest to the framework that I'm looking for, and the encyclopedia entry even mentions some of the verses above! - There is another answer given in the context of *Virtuous living and reward*, Appendix 2 of a paper by Prof. Alfred J. Freddoso on [St. Thomas on Prudence and the Moral Virtues](http://www3.nd.edu/~afreddos/papers/prudence%20and%20the%20moral%20virtues.pdf) quoting St. Josemaría Escrivá and Romano Guardini debating whether Peter's question about reward in Matt 19:27-29 is appropriate especially since the reward is related *intrinsically* to eternal life and following Jesus. - It would be even better if the single framework systematically breaks down the elements of the "rewardable" works we do, similar to how St. Thomas Aquinas provided the faithful a full treatise of the 7 virtues which break down the elements as well as the interconnections. So the type of works covered should be wide ranging to include not only moral deeds & works of mercy, but also private devotional practices (if applicable). - This request is only for Catholic framework. Just for comparison, I found [an answer from the Protestant perspective](https://coldcasechristianity.com/writings/are-there-different-degrees-of-reward-in-heaven/) to the question "Are there different degrees of reward in heaven" makes a good case for the **existence** of different degrees of reward promised in the Bible, but stopped short at providing only clues and a perspective (but NOT a framework) which I suspect because of the restriction of self-imposed Sola Scriptura: > What kind of reward might we receive based on our work here on earth? This is actually a very tough question to answer, as the Bible does not give us the clarity we might like on this issue. But there are several clues we can work from. First, let’s remember *joy* is a reward, and the Bible tells us there are degrees of joy in the next life. So we know whatever it is God gives us, it will be something resulting in great joy. Maybe it will be different for each of us, who knows? But there is a reason to believe God has a particular way of rewarding his beloved. - I realize that the question demands a research essay level answer. To fit this site, what I'm looking for instead is **any pointers to articles, books, papers,** that can bring me closer to what I'm ultimately looking for. Again, Thom & Ken Graham's answers are great acceptable samples. Once there are enough responses I can then summarize the findings in my own answer (or within the question itself) as an annotated bibliography for the community's future reference.

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

[Swedenborgianism](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_New_Church) , or the New Church, is a religious movement based on the writings of [Emanuel Swedenborg](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emanuel_Swedenborg) (1688–1772). My understanding is that he saw a series of visions, and based on what he learned in these visions and his interpretation of the Bible, he developed a system of theology that differs on some points from traditional Christianity. What do Protestants think of this system? I'm most interested in points of disagreement, so, **what is an overview of Protestant critiques of Swedenborgianism?**

[George Lindbeck](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_Lindbeck) 's principles for doing 'good' Christology are as follows: 1. Monotheism - There is only one God 2. Historic Specificity - Centred on Jesus of Nazareth 3. Christological Maximalism - all highest possible significance should be attributed to Him If we use these principles when talking about Christ we will have a 'good Christology.' Are there any known critiques of these principles as offered by other theologians?

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!)

Another question has asked about the Biblical basis for dual-covenant theology , but I'm interested in *who* holds it. Wikipedia indicates that some "liberal" Christians do, but I'm looking for more specifics. It also appears that "dual-covenant theology" is used pejoratively, rather than being a self-appellation. 1. Who are some prominent clergy associated with DCT? From what denominations do they hail and how common is it in those denominations? 2. What term(s) do they use to describe their theological framework other than DCT? Are there major sub-groupings within DCT?

I know there is some complicated theology, which I am not an expert in, regarding what I am about to ask. I honestly don't even know the technical terms for what I am trying to describe. I would like an overview of how different Protestant Christians understand this relationship, explaining the different bases for the following possibilities: * The belief that Israel "became" the Church * The belief that the Israel is still important and hasn't been entirely replaced by the Church

[Dual-covenant theology](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dual-covenant_theology) , or two-covenant theology, holds that there are two covenants in effect—one, the Old Covenant (with the Mosaic Law) applying to Jews, and the second, the New Covenant (through Jesus), applying only to Gentiles. I've heard some dismiss this doctrine as a politically correct attempt to make Christianity "less antisemitic." **But among its proponents, what are the biblical arguments made on its behalf?** I'd like to see arguments from both Old and New Testaments, if possible. If there are arguments that rely on translating particular verses differently than what is traditional, those would be great to include as well.

Two of the popular ways of analyzing the Bible are: Biblical Theology and Systematic Theology. Based on [Biblical Theology vs Systematic Theology] [1] , Biblical Theology focuses more on verses; whereas Systematic Theology focuses more on topics. Who are the giants in Systematic Theology? What are the classics / great works in Systematic Theology? See also: Related question on Biblical Theology .

This question is meant for Protestants. In many mainstream Protestant denominations that I have heard of, it seems to me clear that once you really accept Jesus' free gift on the cross as payment for your sins, you will go to Heaven even if you continue to sin. I understand that the theology explains that you will receive the Holy Spirit who will convict you of your sins, and you will try to sin less. But in any case, no matter what you do, you're going to Heaven. But what do Christians believe about this? According to Catholics, I think, if you commit a mortal sin and don't confess, then believing Jesus will save you is not enough. So if you are killed in the middle of adultery for example, like Pablo and Francesca in Dante's divine comedy. More to the point, how do you deal with the following verses: Galatians 5:19-23 > Now the works of the flesh are manifest, which are these: Adultery, > fornication, uncleanness, lasciviousness, idolatry, witchcraft, > hatred, variance, emulations, wrath, strife, seditions, heresies, > envyings, murders, drunkenness, revellings and such like: of the which > I tell you before, as I have also told you in time past, that they > which do such things **shall not inherit the kingdom of God**. But the > fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, longsuffering, gentleness, > goodness, faith, meekness, temperance: against such there is no law. 1 Corinthians 6: > The very fact that you have lawsuits among you means you have been > completely defeated already. Why not rather be wronged? Why not rather > be cheated? Instead, you yourselves cheat and do wrong, and you do > this to your brothers and sisters. Or do you not know that wrongdoers > will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: **Neither** > the sexually immoral nor idolaters nor adulterers nor men who have sex > with men nor thieves nor the greedy nor drunkards nor slanderers nor > swindlers **will inherit the kingdom of God**. 11And that is what some > of you were. But you were washed, you were sanctified, you were > justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and by the Spirit of > our God. Mark 3:28 > Truly I tell you, people can be forgiven all their sins and every > slander they utter, but anyone who blasphemes the Holy Spirit will > never be forgiven. but whoever blasphemes against the Holy Spirit will > never be forgiven; they are guilty of an eternal sin. Matthew 5:17 > Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I > have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them. For truly I tell > you, until heaven and earth disappear, not the smallest letter, not > the least stroke of a pen, will by any means disappear from the Law > until everything is accomplished. Therefore anyone who sets aside one > of the least of these commands and teaches others accordingly **will > be called least in the kingdom of heaven**, but whoever practices and > teaches these commands will be called great in the kingdom of heaven. > For I tell you that unless your righteousness surpasses that of the > Pharisees and the teachers of the law, **you will certainly not enter > the kingdom of heaven**. The one I just quoted is interesting because it seems that EVEN IF a person is going to heaven, but teach some people not to follow even the smallest of the Law of Moses (e.g. by saying it is a "ceremonial" law and thus shouldn't be followed) then they would be called Least in the Kingdom of Heaven. So there seem to be degrees of how much of Heaven you can have, and here Jesus is teaching that even after you are assured of going there, you should follow the Law and you will get a bigger Heavenly reward. Indeed James says: James 2:10 > For whoever keeps the whole law and yet stumbles at just one point is > guilty of breaking all of it. But most of all this verse, because it is unambiguously to the point: 2 Peter 2: > If they have escaped the corruption of the world by knowing our Lord > and Savior Jesus Christ and are again entangled in it and are > overcome, they are worse off at the end than they were at the > beginning. **It would have been better for them not to have known the > way of righteousness**, than to have known it and then to turn their > backs on the sacred command that was passed on to them. Of them the > proverbs are true: “A dog returns to its vomit,” and, “A sow that is > washed returns to her wallowing in the mud.” It seems to say that after you get saved your works still matter. And what I am puzzled by is why the book says "It would have been **better** for them to not have known the way of righteousness." But the thing called better is basically the condition of the unsaved, so what gives? It seems to me that here is a doctrine about people who at first did become Christians but eventually started to teach crazy things promoting sinning. So, how do Protestants explain their position that "once saved, a person will never be lost", in the light of the above verses? For example here is CARM: http://carm.org/what-is-once-saved-always-saved

John Owen says in the second chapter of his *Biblical Theology* (page 8 as published in English by SDG), > As the subject matter of theology is largely God Himself, it is as infinitely far removed from the methodology of science as the sciences themselves are from nonexistence. This is not a minor point to Owen, but is integral to his whole approach to theology. I was intrigued, then, when a friend of mine told me that Charles Hodge begins his systematic theology by asserting that theology *is* a science. Given that these two are both considered giants with Reformed theology, I was intrigued! I have not read any Hodge myself, but as someone with a background in linguistics and philosophy, I am not ready to assume that they meant the same thing when they said *science*, particularly since they were separated by several centuries. Is it true that Hodge taught that theology is a science? If so, did he explain what he means by *science*, and did he cite any other theologians as teaching this as well? What was his argument for this conclusion? (As a bonus, I'm also interested in who among the Old Princetonians agreed with him.)

Two of the popular ways of analyzing the Bible are: Biblical Theology and Systematic Theology. Based on [Biblical Theology vs Systematic Theology] [1] , Biblical Theology focuses more on verses; whereas Systematic Theology focuses more on topics. Who are the giants in Biblical Theology? What are the classics / great works in Biblical Theology? Related question on Systematic Theology (Split into multiple questions as requested.)