Who was the 12th Apostle - Matthias or Paul? First off, a distinction between disciple and apostle - a disciple is a student, and the 12 disciples were Jesus' students.  An Apostle is one who was "sent out." Eleven of Jesus' disciples were sent out to preach the good news. Judas, of course, had committed suicide before being sent out.

The Disciples, recognizing the "need" for a 12th, cast lots and chose Matthias in Acts 1.  On the choice of Matthais, I've heard things similar to this:

  Also, we wonder if Luke was pointing out that casting lots, used all through the Old Testament, was a poor substitute for the guidance of the Holy Spirit, who became the source of wisdom and discernment for such decisions after Pentecost.

As Lloyd Ogilive says:

  What happened to Matthias? We are not told. He never is mentioned again. Did he defect or drop out? Probably not. I believe we would have been told if that happened, and Luke’s thoroughness would have included that data. What we do know is that the position was filled by Paul. There is no need to be down on Matthias. He responded to a call. He was ready with his knowledge of Christ and an open mind and heart to receive His Spirit. He was there at Pentecost—that’s all that matters. Whether his ministry afterward received the recognition of history is unimportant. The same is true for us. Once we have experienced what Christ said and did for us in His death and Resurrection and then returned to continue to do, titles, or history’s recognition, or even the accolades of people today become unimportant.

The question is thus this - Did the Holy Spirit actually intend for Paul to be the real 12th Apostle, or was Matthias not just an accidental, rash act on the part of the Eleven?

Or, put more poetically (as well suggested by Flimzy, when it comes to apostleship, should we put our trust in God or men?)

There is one problem with the argument - "Matthias was never sent by Christ to do anything, therefore he cannot be an apostle". The problem is that Barnabus (of whom we have no evidence that he was sent by Christ) is also called an "apostle" in Acts 14:14.

We know that Judas was an apostle and his "office" (Acts 1:20) was taken over by Matthias. And it is not as though this was done through some rash thinking on the part of the Peter, for he, along with the other apostles had in fact already received the Holy Spirit before Pentecost (John 20:22).

Moreover, with the inclusion of Matthias, the phrase "Peter and the eleven" is used in Acts 2:14, which strongly suggests that Matthias was indeed the 12th apostle.

THe answer to the question.. who was the twelve apostle is simply Matthias.

There are quite a lot of apostles who were not mentioned of how they operated or what they did. The reason for this is quite obvious. If they were to keep to the gospel, then the left hand shouldn't know what the right hand was doing. Their goal wouldn't be to glorify themselves, but to spread the gospel. The book containing the story of Christ have no emphasis on the apostles but on Christ. Even Paul's books have no emphasis on what he was doing, but more of the things needed to be known. As for the book of acts, which was designed to tell the story of the acts of the apostles, mere intend was again so that people could understand in broad the work of an apostle, not that a lot of people understood it, but still the book was written.

There are 12 apostles for a reason. But it is not the reason most people think. Paul was not the only apostle, other than the 12. And when questioned about his apostleship he refered to it as though that of Peter and tried to drew a comparison. Not a comparison to put himself in the same level, but to the understanding of what is gift was. You see there are 12 differrent types of apostles. And in essension, if one didn't understand the function of or how to identify an apostle, it would be extremely hard to identify the office into which an apostle was appointed. Each apostle is send with a word. This word gives him power in times of need, when he struggles. No man can appoint an apostle, though there are those foolish enough to claim to be it. If God appointed one to be an apostle, you would be that from birth, just like if God appointed you, or Samaul, Moses, Jeremiah as a Prophet you would be that from birth. Or more Biblical correct:

Jer 1:5  Before I formed thee in the belly I knew thee; and before thou camest forth out of the womb I sanctified thee, and I ordained thee a prophet unto the nations.

It is not something you choose, earn or achieve. It is within the very fabric of your soul. You cannot one day wake up and decide, I am going to be an apostle. You can however decide that you are going to be with Christ or not. Whether you are going to perform the duties of to which is expected of an apostle or not. Let me use a prophet as an example. The purpose and function of any prophet is to motivate, warn and edify. This they do with various methods, but ultimately listen to God. When the prophet see somebody is going to be in a car crash, he can warn that person, or he can not do his duty. What he has seen, he has seen. But he can decide not to fulfill his job. He can sense a spiritual attack on the body of Christ. He can do nothing, but he can also inform the specific target of the attack. Ultimately there are various different types of prophets. This is as clear as day when one perceive the various prophets in the Bible. Moses did not function even remotely the same as David, even though there was similarities which would identify both as being prophets and not something else. But they were both in the role of leading Isreal, yet they did it totally different based on the gift they received. The same it is was with the apostles. Now let's look at the scripture:
Act 1:22  Beginning from the baptism of John, unto that same day that he was taken up from us, must one be ordained to be a witness with us of his resurrection.
Act 1:23  And they appointed two, Joseph called Barsabas, who was surnamed Justus, and Matthias.
Act 1:24  And they prayed, and said, Thou, Lord, which knowest the hearts of all men, shew whether of these two thou hast chosen,
Act 1:25  That he may take part of this ministry and apostleship, from which Judas by transgression fell, that he might go to his own place.
Act 1:26  And they gave forth their lots; and the lot fell upon Matthias; and he was numbered with the eleven apostles.
Two were appointed. These two had to meet two criteria... first they had to be an apostle and secondly they had to have been with them since the beginning of the Baptism of John until the end. The reason why there were only two out of two hundred, was because there was only two apostles that was with them from the beginning. For there were many others but they were not apostles and couldn't fulfill the function of the office of Judas. However only one of them were the same type as Judas were. Again born, not chosen by man, but chosen by God.
And God pointed out that Matthias had the same gift and placing and therefore he joined the twelve. And only once the twelve was completed and in union again could the next step take place. The Holy Spirit filled them and they could minister as their office held.

Paul was not the only other apostle, but he was well known for the reason that he was literate and wrote to the churches. He was however of the same type as Peter and understood this. He never considered himself as of high rank or value, but emphasised that he must be seen as the least of the apostles because of the persecution that he have done against the Christians.

I can think of a couple of the other apostles of the twelve that was also never mentioned or wrote anything. The reason is simple. It was not their purpose. It could even be that they were illiterate and couldn't write. The reason for them not being more evident is not for us to know. But understanding the gospel, these people would have tried to fulfill their obligation without trying to make a name for themselves to earn more in the Kingdom of God.


On what grounds does the Catholic church reject sacraments of protestant denominations? While there is a wide range of opinion among adult-baptism protestants as to whether a Catholic (or other infant) baptism is or can be considered valid, there seems to be (at least in my experience) a general attitude that Catholic communion and marriage are considered valid by protestants.  That is to say, if a protestant were to visit a Catholic church and participate in the Eucharist (communion), most protestants would not have a problem with this (whether the Catholic church would allow this is another question). And certainly if a couple got married in the Catholic church, and later became protestant, no protestant church (that I'm aware of) would require a re-marriage (then again, if a couple gets married before they are Christian at all, I've never heard of any protestant churches requiring a re-marriage in this case, either).

However, if a protestant couple gets married, then later becomes Catholic, they must be re-married in the Catholic church (or at least this is my understanding!).  And Catholics are not permitted (by the Catholic church) to participate in a non-Catholic communion (with a few possible exceptions?). I don't know if Catholics recognize a protestant baptism, or require re-baptism when a protestant becomes a Catholic. (Related question here)

So my question is:  On what grounds does the Catholic church reject communion, marriage, and (possibly) baptism of protestants?

I believe that @Justin Y's answer to an earlier question of mine has the key to the answer to your question as well.  My question was "What is the doctrinal or Scriptural basis for a central Church authority"

In his answer, Justin stated this:

  A central church authority is a necessary byproduct of believing that
  certain ordinances are necessary for salvation. Ordinances often have
  rules for who can be administered to as well as how it must be done.
  Church authority is a very orderly and efficient way to regulate those
  requirements. The Old Testament is an excellent example of this.
  Notice that churches who put more emphasis on ordinances also have
  more structure (Catholic, Orthodox, and LDS churches, as well as the
  Jewish faith). And it's not just a good way to regulate the
  ordinances, but also a good way to regulate doctrine.

The simple answer is that the Catholic Church, like Orthodoxy, as well as some other denominations, teaches that authority must be ordained, or passed along from someone who has the authority to do so. The entire governing structure of the church is based upon these concepts.  Therefore, ordinances performed by someone who is not authorized to perform them  would be deemed invalid.

In a secular comparison, only accredited schools have the authority to hand out diplomas that are seen as valid.  If I were to hand you a diploma for a Computer Science degree, I doubt anyone would accept it as valid because I don't have the authority to hand out college degrees.  If you were to apply for a job that required such a degree, they would likely require you to get it from an accredited school, because mine is invalid.

I think there are two reasons protestants may tend to be more relaxed about this than Catholics.

The first comes down to the word "Sacrament". Many, perhaps even most, protestants just don't believe in sacraments as such. Sure, we believe there are things we are commanded to do as part of our worship, but instead of rising to the level of a sacrament we would instead say that a Christian who fails to do such things sins, and praise God for the grace made possible by the blood of Jesus. So because of the idea that the sacraments are less directly connected to salvation and membership in the body of Christ, it makes less sense to be strict about rules of who, when, and where.

The second is that protestants have a more direct line to God, so to speak. We don't seek approval of any priest, bishop, cardinal, or pope, and therefore don't need their permission to participate in any act of worship. Neither would we want to deny that worship to anyone else, but instead want to make the Good News accessible to as many as possible as easily as possible.


How real is Matthew 4:1-2 in terms of physical realities? Then Jesus was led by the Spirit out into the wilderness to be tempted by the devil. He fasted for forty days and forty nights after which he was very hungry, and the tempter came to Him (Matt. 4:1-2).

The forty days and forty nights of fasting how exhaustive and physically weak would a man can endure. The way I understand it, we can live with no food for three days but definitely we must have water to sustain our physical energy. But for Jesus to be still standing for forty days and had the strength to face Satan, is truly an amazing narrative if taken into reality.

Is this passages a metaphor of forty days or strictly speaking this is forty calendar days in our time?

It is humanly possible to fast food for 40 days, though it is generally recommended to be very cautious about making such a decision due to the pressure it will put on your body's health and fitness. That said, several Christian teachers and writers both past and present recommend and teach about the benefits of 40-day fasting as a way to draw closer to God.

It's also noted that Christianity traditionally marks the 40 days of Lent as a period of fasting. While we find that some denominations ease the requirements (or make it purely optional), it can be expected that in earlier times 'pure' fasting would have taken place much more commonly especially within the Catholic church.

Given the above, one can expect it to have been very physically possible for Jesus to have fasted for 40 days, though doubtful that it would have been an easy, enjoyable experience!!

The question focus on the physical realities and since we as human are time bound we normally try to figure the physical realities of the subject 40 days and 40 nights, Is it really 40 calendar days event in our time?

I found the link that forty days are just an expression in the time of Jews.

  "At the time among the Jews, the number forty wasn’t generally used to signify >a specific number, per se, but rather more used as a general term for a large >figure.   When it was used in terms of time, it simply meant a “long time”.  >Thus, the phrase “40 days and 40 nights” was just another way to say a “really long time”. - "The Biblical Expression “40 Days and 40 Nights” Just Means a “Really Long Time”

There are two important characters in the bible who are associated having experienced the forty days, Noah and Moses.

The Forword of the book "When the Divine Will Reigns in Souls" (Book of Heaven, by Mystics name Luisa Picarreta).states the following;

  "From time to time it has pleased God to bring about monumental and universal >changes in the affairs of mankind.When these events occur it has been the usual >way with our God to give us a very special persons to be identified in a >particular manner with these changes.
  In the beginning when the Decree of Creation brought the human race to >existence, Adam & Eve were chosen to be the first humans to be inserted into >time. They were our first parents in the order of nature.Later, humanity had >grown so steeped in evil that God saw fit to send the "Great Flood".He chose >Noah to build the Ark and lead a tiny remnant through that awesome change in >human affairs.When the chosen people,the Jews were to be lead out of the land >of Egypt, God chose Moses,through whom we are given the Ten Commandments. >Centuries later, the Decree of Redemption was fulfilled and the Only-Begotten >Son of the Father,Jesus became Incarnate in the most pure womb of Mary.She >became the Mother of God, Mother of the Redeemer and cooperated perfectly with >Him for the Redemption of Mankind."(Foreword by Thomas M. Fahy)

We can see the relevance of forty days to the events that happened to Noah signifying the cleansing of the sins of men by Water/Flood to renew the face of the earth. And for Moses the Old Covenant will be renewed by the New Covenant thru Jesus Christ.

The face of the earth will be renewed by the Most Precious Blood of Jesus Christ.

The Blood & Water that gushed forth from the Heart of Jesus is the source of Sanctifying Grace that will restore our friendship with God and become adopted sons thru the Sacraments of Baptism.

Now back to the physical realities of Jesus endurance with the human flesh deprived of food nourishment, can this be real?

Yes, Jesus being docile to the promptings of the Holy Spirit knows fully the tactics of the devil when we are physically weak.And so Jesus in the following verse answer Satan with the strength of Word of God.

  "But he answered and said, it is written, Man shall not live by bread alone, >but by every word that proceedeth out of the mouth of God."(Matthew4:4)

and in John4:34, Jesus said;

  "My food is to do the will of him who sent me, and to accomplish his work.

This forty days and forty nights prayer & fasting was imitated by a lot of saints like St. Padre Pio and most especially by numerous Mystics of the Church. One notable mystics is Luisa Picarreta in the succeeding foreword of Thomas M. Fahy (When the Divine Will Reigns in Soul, page xviii) it is written;

  "Luisa Piccaretta who was confined to bed for 64 years without food or water >and scarcely any sleep, had little more than a first grade in education,but >Jesus would come her everyday and illuminate her mind with the most sublime >mysteries about God..."

Formore info on Luisa Picarreta please visit their site link: Luisa Piccarreta.

Title Page from The Hours of the Passion of the Servant of God,
Luisa Piccarreta, the Little Daughter of the Divine Will
Showing the Nihil Obstat by Francesco Sorrentino (Revisore eccl.)
and Imprimatur by A. Can. Laviano V.G.
Dated February 20, 1915

In closing, Matthew 4:1-2 passages shows Jesus was docile to the voice & promptings of the Holy Spirit, and showing us all believers the power of "prayer & fasting".

When we are called to a Great Mission we must first always seek the Holy Spirit thru prayer & fasting not in the context of 40 days & 40 nights but it requires a "long period of discernment" to accept and follow the Will of God.


Will we be circumcised in heaven? I'm just wondering because I grew up in an Islamic family in Iran and I became a Christian when age 23. Will people who were circumcised in this life (like myself) be circumcised in the next life? Or will we be whole in heaven? Because I really don't want to spend all of eternity missing a body part. Sorry if this sounds like a troll question but I actually genuinely am curious about it.

In the words of St. Paul:

  Circumcision is nothing and uncircumcision is nothing, but keeping the
  commandments of God is what matters.

  1 Corinthians 7:19

The original circumcision what supposed to be symbolizing what was happening in the heart. It was supposed to be a mark of being part of the People of God. Nevertheless, it became a ritual that meant nothing in practice. This is why God Himself said:

  “And now, Israel, what does the Lord your God require of you, but to fear the Lord your God, to walk in all his ways, to love him, to serve
  the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul, and to
  keep the commandments and statutes of the Lord, which I am commanding
  you today for your good? 14 Behold, to the Lord your God belong
  heaven and the heaven of heavens, the earth with all that is in it.
  Yet the Lord set his heart in love on your fathers and chose their
  offspring after them, you above all peoples, as you are this day.
  Circumcise therefore the foreskin of your heart, and be no longer stubborn. For the Lord your God is God of gods and Lord of lords,
  the great, the mighty, and the awesome God, who is not partial and
  takes no bribe.

  Deuteronomy 10:12-17

Read also, Leviticus 26:41; Jeremiah 4:4; Jeremiah 6:10; Jeremiah 9:26; Ezekiel 44:7–9

All of these verses have to do with circumcision of the heart. It is to obey God's commandments, all of them.

In heaven this circumcision of the flesh will no longer be necessary because every one there will be a child of God and have perfect obedience, out of love to their Creator, or else they wouldn't be there.

Will men be circumcised after the Resurrection?

We truly do not know what the afterlife holds for us, but the answer seems to be "no". At least for Christians. In regards to those of the Hebrew race that lived and died before Christ and are in heaven, it may be more possible.

In heaven our earthly bodies will be restored to their former manner and then some. The wounds of the glorified Martyrs will shine in heaven for all to see, yet amputated limbs will also be restored. Yet at the same time we shall see on the bodies of the Martyrs the traces of the wounds which they bore for Christ’s name. This is the Catholic perspective we will see in our heavenly bodies.

  It was fitting for Christ’s soul at His Resurrection to resume the body with its scars. In the first place, for Christ’s own glory. For Bede says on Luke 24:40 that He kept His scars not from inability to heal them, “but to wear them as an everlasting trophy of His victory.” Hence Augustine says (De Civ. Dei xxii): “Perhaps in that kingdom we shall see on the bodies of the Martyrs the traces of the wounds which they bore for Christ’s name: because it will not be a deformity, but a dignity in them; and a certain kind of beauty will shine in them, in the body, though not of the body.” - Why Jesus’ Resurrected Body Still Had Wounds

Thus our being circumcised will be negated in heaven and our male members will once again have their foreskin returned to its' proper place on the human body.

Whether this will be a universal matter in heaven may not be all that clear. Although Christians who make the Pearly Gates with their foreskin returned to its' natural spot. the possibility that those who are in heaven and belong to the Hebrew nation before the advent of Christ may in fact remain circumcised in heaven. However we may not know the answer to this until we get to Heaven to witness this reality one way or another.

Circumcision for the Jews was more than simply an external act of Hebrew devotion. The removal of one's foreskin made you part of the covenant with God and the descendants of Abraham. In other words, circumcision made the Jewish people part of God's chosen people.

  The Jews were proud of their descent from Abraham, but did not always "do the works of Abraham" (John 8:39). They attached so much importance to the external act, that while attending to the letter they neglected the spirit of the law. Jeremias (iv, 4; ix, 25, 26) calls their attention to the necessity of circumcision of the heart, as all important. Even in Deuteronomy 10:16 and 30:6, this spiritual circumcision is set forth in no uncertain language. As uncircumcision means profane, unclean, imperfect, "I am of uncircumcised lips" (Exodus 6:12), "their ears are uncircumcised" (Jeremiah 6:10), and was applied to inanimate things also, as in Lev., xix, 23, "the fruit that cometh forth shall be unclean [Hebrew uncircumcised] to you", so to circumcise the heart (Romans 2:29) means to reform the inner man, by cutting off the vices and correcting the disorders that make him displeasing in the sight of God. To leave the synagogue was to give up that which more than anything else characterized it (see Galatians 2:7-8). Yet St. Paul, while showing his freedom from the legalities of the Old Dispensation by not circumcising Titus (Galatians 2:3), wished to bury the synagogue with honour by subjecting Timothy to the law of circumcision (Acts 16:3). Even though Christ Himself, as a true son of Abraham, submitted to the law, His followers were to be children of Abraham by faith, and were to "adore the Father in spirit and in truth" (John 4:23). The Council of Jerusalem decided against the necessity of the rite, and St. Paul, in his Epistle to the Galatians, condemns the teachers that wished to make the Church of Christ only a continuation of the synagogue: "Behold, I Paul tell you, that if you be circumcised, Christ shall profit you nothing" (v, 2). Here he refers to the supposed efficacy and necessity of circumcision, rather than to the mere ceremony; for he did not consider it wrong to circumcise Timothy. It was wrong, however, for the Galatians, having been baptized, and having taken upon themselves the obligations of the law of Christ with all its privileges, to be circumcised as a necessary means of salvation, since, by going for salvation from the Church to the Synagogue, they virtually denied the sufficiency of the merits of Christ (cf. Piconio, "Trip. Exp. in Gal.", v, 2). The Apostle gives the essence of Christianity when he says: "In Christ Jesus neither circumcision availeth any thing, nor uncircumcision: but faith that worketh by charity" (Galatians 5:6). In Romans 4, he shows that Abraham was justified by faith, before circumcision was given as a sign of the covenant; so that the uncircumcision of the New Law is the continuation of the first ages of faith upon the earth. The gentile church of uncircumcision, according to St. Gregory the Great, is composed of men from the time of Abel the Just to the end of ages (Hom. xix in Evan.). St. Justin also says that as Henoch and the just of old received the spiritual circumcision, so do we receive it in the Sacrament of Baptism (Dialogue with Trypho 43). - Circumcision (Catholic Encyclopedia)

St. Thomas Aquinas goes much more profoundly on the illusion that circumcision for the Jews was a figure of Christian baptism.

  St. Thomas holds that circumcision was a figure of baptism: this retrenches and restrains the animal man as that removed a part of his body — which physical act indicated the spiritual effect of the sacrament (De Sac., Summa, III, Q. lxx, a. 1). He gives three reasons why the organ of generation rather than any other was to be circumcised:

  •Abraham was to be blessed in his seed;

  •The rite was to take away original sin, which comes by generation;

  •It was to restrain concupiscence, which is found especially in the generative organs (III, Q. lxx, a. 3).

  According to his teaching, as baptism remits original sin and actual sins committed before its reception, so circumcision remitted both, but ex opere operantis, i.e. by the faith of the recipient, or, in the case of infants, by the faith of the parents. Infants that died before being circumcised could be saved, as were those who lived prior to the institution of circumcision, and as females were even after its institution, by some sign — the parents' prayer, for instance — expressive of faith. Adults did not receive the remission of all the temporal punishment due to sin as in baptism: — "Adulti, quando circumcidebantur, consequebantur remissionem, non solum originalis peccati, sed etiam actualium peccatorum; non tamen ita quod liberarentur ab omni reatu p næ, Sicut in baptismo, in quo confertur copiosior gratia" (III, Q. lxx, a. 4). The main points of the teaching of the Angelic Doctor were commonly held in the Church, even before the days of St. Augustine, who with other Fathers maintained that circumcision was not a mere ceremony, but a sacramental rite. (Cf. City of God XVI.27) - Circumcision (Catholic Encyclopedia)

Whether or not those Hebrew saints that lived before Christ and are in heaven will remain circumcised as a sign that they belonged to God's first covenant and part of thus his chosen people remains to be seen. For the rest of us, our bodies will be restored to its' perfect natural body, while at the same time they will be endowed with special gifts of the resurrected bodies.

We will find out in eternity!


What is the difference between the Christologies of Nestorianism and Pelagianism? Both Nestorius and Pelagius believed in a composite subject Christology that the person of Christ is a divine-humane person, the Logos and His tabernacle. Their Christology were condemned at Ephesus (431) and later repeated at Constantinople (553) where both Ss. Cyril of Alexandria and Augustine of Hippo are declared as the Doctor of the Church. Nestorius teaches that the Logos is united with a perfect man. While Pelagius teaches that the perfect humanity of Christ is united to the Logos. So that both teach the Logos unites Himself with a perfect tabernacle as a composite subject.
St. John Cassian under a request by Pope St. Leo the Great which at that time was an archdeacon wrote seven volume treatises to combat Nestorianism by connecting it with Pelagianism.

[T]he error of Pelagius ... that in saying that Jesus Christ lived as a mere man without any stain of sin, they actually went so far as to declare that men could also be without sin if they [chose].
John Cassian, On the Incarnation against Nestorius, 1:3, in The Works of John Cassian, trans. with preface Edgar C. S. Gibson, in The Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers, 2nd ser., vol. 11, ed. Philip Schaff.

In similar fashion from a different perspective Marius Mercator accuses Theodore of Mopsuestia of being the father of the Pelagian heresy for teaching,

[T]hat the progenitors of the human race, Adam and Eve, having been created mortal by God, did not wound any of their descendants when they strayed by their transgression, but harmed only themselves; that they made themselves guilty of the command before God, but absolutely no one else.
Marius Mercator, Commonitorium, Patrologia Latina, vol. 48, 110D-111A.

Both John Cassian and Marius Mercator linked Nestorianism with Pelagianism. Richard Norris in his study Manhood and Christ observed that Antiochene Christology is aptly enough expressed in the dictum that, “The Nestorian Christ is a fit Savior for the Pelagian man.”1
So how are their Christologies differentiated from one another?

1 Richard Norris, Manhood and Christ, Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1963, p. 246.

Pelagianism isn't a Christology, and "the perfect humanity of Christ is united to the Logos" isn't a Nestorian position as stated. The argument linking the two was that Nestorianism is the Christology that naturally fits with Pelagian Anthropology and Soteriology. That's not something that any of the major Pelagians or Nestorian thinkers said, though; that was a link made by their enemies.

It wasn't Nestorian thinkers specifically, but the East generally that attracted the exiled Pelagians. The Synod of Diospolis, which exonerated Pelagius, wasn't a Nestorian synod. And though Julian of Aeclanum was an admirer of Theodore of Mopsuestia and settled in his bishopric and translated some of his stuff into Latin, Theodore plainly denied that it was possible to live a perfect life with only the goods of nature. The Assumed Man could do it only because the Word was so closely and permanently united to him. And Julian quoted many Eastern authorities against Augustine, most of whom had no Nestorian connection.

A distinctively Pelagian Christology would not only have to teach two persons in Christ, but would also have to be Adoptionist in order to give Jesus a chance to live perfectly on his own before the Word indwelt him; and as far as I know, neither Pelagius nor Caelestius nor Julian ever suggested such a thing. Nor did Theodore, nor Nestorius. You have to go back to Paul of Samosata (who was universally condemned well before the 5th century) to try to pin that one on Antioch.

It might be Pelagius recognized that his teaching on salvation is at least in part of matter of human achievement and not all of grace alone is compatible with Antionchene Christology at that time. He did sought refuge with them. And the Antionchene Christians sympathized with him.

This is due to, in various forms, the Antiochene theologians overemphasize the two natures of Christ in a way that make his humanity a distinct individuality against his divine nature. In its extreme form, it hails back to Nestorian christology.


On what basis should Christians oppose child marriage? In most of the western countries the minimum age for marriage is 18 years. (Some would like to argue that this could be 16 or 15 but none would argue it to be 9)

As a Christian I take pride in the fact that Christianity does not support the horrible custom of child marriage (which is still practised in some parts of the world).
It is one of those things that you don’t think much about because it seems so very basic.

However it recently crossed my mind that I’ve never seen a Biblical backing to it. Could it be that it’s only a cultural concept that I think of as a Christian concept?

So my question: Does the Bible define an age of marriability? If not, then on what Biblical basis should Christians oppose child marriages?

Indeed, AFAIK the Bible doesn't make any overt statements on this subject. It is, however, usually accepted that Mary was around 14 when giving birth, and was married at that time. In many ways it is perhaps fortunate that the Bible doesn't wax lyrical on the subject; your description of child marriage as a "horrible custom" sounds largely a product of culture (or dare I even say, "moral relativism"?). There is obviously also an issue of comparison, with radically different life expectancy and life-style (education in particular, and a harsher life, leading to a shorter childhood), historically at an age of around 14 (not the younger 9 that you cite) the majority of females would be fertile (or rapidly approaching fertility), about as educated as they were ever going to get, and with limited years ahead.

Islam, of course, has a glitch here in that it needs to accommodate the marriage of Aisha (often taken to be around 9) with the view of Muhammad as the ideal Muslim, which makes it rather hard for Islam to make a statement that such marriage is inherently wrong. However, even in Christianity (and OT in particular), the fact is that many (not all) of the laws around marriage are more about property laws (with the wife being the property) than of human rights-of / decency-towards the wife.

This leads me to conclude that we aren't going to get much direct and literal guidance from the Bible on this subject, and must resort to other arguments. Perhaps arguments such as these, or from unicef.

Gen. 25
20. And Isaac was forty years old when he took Rebecca the daughter of Bethuel the Aramean of Padan Aram, the sister of Laban the Aramean, to himself for a wife.       כ. וַיְהִי יִצְחָק בֶּן אַרְבָּעִים שָׁנָה בְּקַחְתּוֹ אֶת רִבְקָה בַּת בְּתוּאֵל הָאֲרַמִּי מִפַּדַּן אֲרָם אֲחוֹת לָבָן הָאֲרַמִּי לוֹ לְאִשָּׁה:
forty years old: For when Abraham came from Mount Moriah, he was informed that Rebecca had been born. Isaac was then thirty-seven years old, for at that time Sarah died, and from the time that Isaac was born until the “Binding” [of Isaac], when Sarah died, were thirty-seven years, for she was ninety years old when Isaac was born, and one hundred and twenty-seven when she died, as it is stated (above 23:1): “The life of Sarah was [a hundred and twenty seven years.”] This makes Isaac thirty-seven years old, and at that time, Rebecca was born. He waited for her until she would be fit for marital relations-three years-and then married her. — [From Gen. Rabbah 57:1;

בן ארבעים שנה: שהרי כשבא אברהם מהר המוריה נתבשר שנולדה רבקה, ויצחק היה בן שלשים ושבע שנה, שהרי בו בפרק מתה שרה, ומשנולד יצחק עד העקידה שמתה שרה שלושים ושבע שנה, ובת תשעים היתה כשנולד יצחק, ובת מאה עשרים ושבע כשמתה, שנאמר (כג א) ויהיו חיי שרה וגו', הרי ליצחק שלושים ושבע שנים ובו בפרק נולדה רבקה, המתין לה עד שתהא ראויה לביאה שלש שנים


What's is the case for premarital sex being an instance of πορνεία (porneia)? This question is pretty much a spinoff of What does the Bible say about sex before marriage / premarital sex? because its current answer depends on the assumption that premarital sex is πορνεία (commonly translated "fornication"). Not all agree, so I think this assumption is better explicitly questioned.

I've heard some liberal Christians dispute the definition of the Greek word πορνεία (porneia), claiming it doesn't mean premarital sex at all. (An example of such an argument)

What's is the case for premarital sex being an instance of πορνεία (porneia)?

One of the major difficulties here is that just a dictionary definition doesn't cut it, because it's difficult to really know what the Greek word really meant 2000 years ago. The answer probably needs to either be a broad look at the Bible passages using the word, or an academic study on the word's meaning.

Additional information 2011-09-21: The following articles seem interesting, but I can't access the fulltexts. It seems from the publicly-available bits that Dr. Malina might actually have been the first to dispute the meaning of porneia.

Malina, B. Does porneia mean fornication? Novum Testamentum, 1972.
Jensen, J. Does porneia Mean Fornication? A Critique of Bruce Malina. Novum Testamentum, 1978.

The word porneia is often translated as "fornication".

  1 Cor 7:2 (KJV)
  Nevertheless, to avoid fornication, let every man have his own wife, and let every woman have her own husband.

It's worth noting that more modern translations use "sexual immorality" here instead of "fornication" due to the confusion with that given word.

Looking at the English definition of "fornication", we see:

  Dictionary.com
  Fornication

  1.
  voluntary sexual intercourse between two unmarried persons or two persons not married to each other.

Premarital sex is fornication; adultery is fornication; any type of sex where the two people are not married or not married to each other is fornication.

Strong's Concordance gives us the original definition of porneia.

  1) illicit sexual intercourse

  a) adultery, fornication, homosexuality, lesbianism, intercourse with
  animals etc.

  b) sexual intercourse with close relatives; Lev. 18

  c) sexual intercourse with a divorced man or woman; Mk. 10:11,12

This root word includes all forms of sexual acts that are not within the confines of  marriage (a heterosexual one at that).  The study of the word itself shows that anything and everything outside the realm of marriage is a sin.

It's also worth noting that this word is one of the root words for pornography.

Regarding your link
In this answer, I point out the clear and obvious refutation to link that you provided above.  They claim that adultery was a property rights violation against the husband.  However, they ignore the fact that raping a virgin was a property rights violation against the father.  Furthermore, if a woman became married and the husband found no proof of her virginity, he had a right to have her stoned for not being a virgin.  Clearly, premarital sex was explicitly forbidden.

The word fornication was not even invented until 1300 AD.
The original word porneia meant all of the sexual "nasties" as highlighted in Leviticus. The word porneia never specifically included sex outside of marriage. The nearest it came was (basically) with regard to girls/young women living at home being forbidden to have sex, unless married. That is just a basic outline.
The word porneia was translated to fornication. Therefore the true meaning of fornication is the same as with porneia, that is with regard to those sexual things expressly condemned in Leviticus.
Later the word fornication came to mean sex between singles. Thus this meaning has been  incorrectly applied to the term fornication in recent years.


What do Christians mean by a "personal relationship" with Jesus? When Christians talk about having a "personal relationship with Jesus," what does this mean?

Christians believe that Jesus is alive, he knows us intimately, and is our best friend above all others. A personal relationship with him is exactly that: a relationship very much akin to  that we have with other close friends and family members. Often people focus on the majesty and "kingliness" side of Jesus, and in doing so are tempted to distance themselves from him by seeing him as some distant, untouchable, unreachable figure on a throne high above us; but to have a personal relationship with him means to accept our own position as co-heirs with him, to share our lives much more openly with him.

As a Brit, when I meet (earthly) royalty I dress up and put on my best manners, and in effect put on a show. I don't need to do that with Jesus - he's seen me naked, in my own home, he shares my ups and downs and secrets that I certainly wouldn't blurt out to the Queen if I met her. So while acknowledging that Jesus is King, I don't treat him in a stand-offish formal way because he's also my best friend. That's what it means to have a personal relationship with him.

A good example of personal relationship is how God spoke lip-to-ear and walked the Earth with His prophets.

He went to visit Abraham and set down for lunch with him. He even told Abraham, face to face, the business He was about to accomplish.

It is written that Enoch walked with God.


Is there a consensus among early Christians on Romans 9? How did the early church interpret St. Paul in Romans 9? Is there a consensus in early Christianity regarding the relation between predestination and free will?

The most important key in resolving an apparent conflicting passage in Scripture is by comparing it with how the same Holy Spirit guiding the early Christians throughout time interpreting the passage being disputed. If throughout time from the earliest moment a dispute was brought in attention and discussed down to the modern time show converging thoughts or cohesive consensus then that view has received the longest attention compared to others.
A popular ecclesiastical view that compatible with St. Augustine of Hippo and St. Thomas of Aquinas doctrine on predestination and free will comes from a saint well respected by Catholics and Eastern Orthodox alike, a monk by the name John from Damascus in Syria. Instead of prioritizing free will by undermining predestination which leads to Pelagian heresy or emphasizing predestination at the expense of free will, this monk explains how the two are synergistically relatable.

One should know that it is customary for sacred Scripture to call God’s permission His action, as when the Apostle says in his Epistle to the Romans: ‘Or hath not the potter power over the clay, of the same lump, to make one vessel unto honor and another unto dishonor?’ He does indeed make both the one and the other, because He is the sole Creator of all things, but it is the own deliberate choice of each and not He that makes them honorable or dishonorable. This is also clear from what the Apostle himself says in his Second Epistle to Timothy: ‘In a great house there are not only vessels of gold and silver, but also of wood and of earth: and some indeed unto honor, but some unto dishonor. If any man therefore shall cleanse himself from these, he shall be a vessel unto honor, sanctified and profitable to the Lord, prepared unto every work.’ It is clear that this cleansing is done freely, for he says ‘if any man shall cleanse himself,’ the converse of which rejoins that, if he does not cleanse himself, he will be a vessel unto dishonor, of no use to Lord, and only fit to be broken. Thus, the foregoing quotation and that which reads: ‘God hath concluded all in unbelief’ and ‘God hath given them the spirit of insensibility; eyes that they should not see and ears that they should not hear,’ are none of them to be taken in the sense of God acting, but in that of God permitting because of free will and because virtue is not forced.
St. John of Damascene, An Exact Exposition of the Orthodox Faith, Book 4, Chapter 19.

The focus that Damascene pointed out is in the aspect of providence namely divine permissive will. It is by focusing on God's providence St. Damascene was able to reconcile the two apparent contradiction harmoniously.


What, historically, was the age of accountability for Latter-Day-Saints before D&C 68:27? In Doctrine and Covenants 68:27, the age of accountability is clearly defined as being eight years.

D&C 68:27

  27 And their children shall be baptized for the remission of their
  sins when eight years old, and receive the laying on of the hands.

Section 68 was given November 1831, and is the earliest source for the age of eight as age of accountability that I am aware of. However it is clear from Doctrine and Covenants 18 and 20 (and the Book of Mormon), that the concept of "age of accountability" was known from the foundation of the church in 1830.

What was the "age of accountability" between April 1830 and November 1831, and what was it based upon (some scripture? (unrecorded) revelation?)?

It is clearly taught in the Book of Mormon that baptism is only required for those who are accountable and capable of committing sin. Moroni Chapter 8 contains a letter of Mormon to his son expounding on the theology of the subject. (Especially verses 5-26).
Mosiah 3:16-21 also contains teaching that "little children" are sinless and are redeemed by Christ. The passages mentioned in the Doctrine and Covenants (18:42 and 20:71) also mention "the years of accountability" but are not more specific.

At this point in the history of the Church, (November 1831) there were no more than a few thousand members and whether someone was sufficiently accountable was most likely left to the judgement of the missionaries, parents, and the individuals involved. There were some young children among the newly baptized convert families, but only a few would have aged and matured enough for the question of when they should be be baptized to arise.

Joseph Smith taught (Genesis 17:11-12; Joseph Smith Translation) that the 8 year old age for accountability was connected to the 8 days of age for circumcision according to the law given to Abraham.

+1 for the well thought out question. As for the answer, I don't know but I do have some speculation. Disclaimer: This is not LDS doctrine.
1 Peter 3:20-21

20 Which sometime were disobedient, when once the longsuffering of God waited in the days of Noah, while the ark was a preparing, wherein few, that is, eight souls were saved by water.
21 The like figure whereunto even baptism doth also now save us (not the putting away of the filth of the flesh, but the answer of a good conscience toward God,) by the resurrection of Jesus Christ:

My speculation comes from the phrase: eight souls were saved by water. The like figure whereunto even baptism doth also now save us. It would seem from these verses that the age of accountability reaches at least back to the New Testament times, perhaps further. Then again, it may not.
Edit: If you look at this question here: https://christianity.stackexchange.com/questions/35116/what-is-the-significance-of-the-number-eight-in-relation-to-baptism in one of the comments, There is a different idea to what the same scripture means.


What is Paul meaning of "husband" and "married to another" in Romans 7:1-6 Romans 7 King James Version (KJV)

  1 Know ye not, brethren, (for I speak to them that know the law,) how
  that the law hath dominion over a man as long as he liveth?

  2 For the woman which hath an husband is bound by the law to her
  husband so long as he liveth; but if the husband be dead, she is loosed from the law of her husband.

  3 So then if, while her husband liveth, she be married to another man,
  she shall be called an adulteress: but if her husband be dead, she is
  free from that law; so that she is no adulteress, though she be
  married to another man.

  4 Wherefore, my brethren, ye also are become dead to the law by the
  body of Christ; that ye should be married to another, even to him who
  is raised from the dead, that we should bring forth fruit unto God.

I have two questions as regards this passage
1. Who is the "husband" in that passage?
2. What is the meaning of the words "married to another"

Paul says that the link between "those who know the Law" (v. 1) -- Jews -- and the Law (given Moses) was done away with by the death of the "husband." Paul says of a wife that "if the husband be dead, she is loosed from the law of her husband." (Romans 7:2.) "As long as the man (anthropos) lives" (v.1), i.e., the husband lives, the law formed by their marriage binds the two. But the "law of her husband" is thus "loosed" or "abrogated" by the death of the husband.
Paul's Greek in verse 2 meant the Law has been "rendered null and void" by the death of the husband in the marriage covenant that established the Law. (See Leon Morris, The Epistle to the Romans (1988) at 270.) Paul means "you are released from the Law as to its demands and penalties...." (The Epistle ... to the Romans; with notes by H.J. Ripley (edited by Henry Jones Ripley) (1857) at 73.)
Paul says this particular husband's death killed off the Law between the parties. It is clear in Paul's illustration that the one who dies is the "anthropos" (man) -- the "husband."
First, Paul says the Law binds the husband and wife as long as the "anthropos (man) lives." Finally, in Romans 7:3 Paul specifies who died in the relationship: "if her husband be dead, she is free from that law;...." Paul is not talking about the wife dying in order to make his point. Paul is only talking about the husband / the anthropos (man) having died whose death then effectuates dissolution of the Law.
Henry explains that by the death of the husband in Paul's lesson, this frees us from the Law, making the Law dead to us (as this husband's death brought about). As a consequence, we are "free from" our  "master" -- the husband who died. Henry explains:
Our second marriage is to Christ: and how comes this about?.... We are dead to the law ...[and] have no more to do with it than the dead servant, that is free from his master, hath to do with his master's yoke.
Locke concurs that it was the death of the husband that Paul envisions as what supposedly frees us from the Law, not the death of the woman (or the death of the Law):
" ye have been made dead to the law," the phrase here used to express that freedom, seems to refer rather to the 1st verse, where he says, "the law hath dominion over a man as long as he liveth," implying, and no longer, rather than to the two intervening verses, where he says, "not the death of the woman, but the death of the husband, sets the woman free," of which more by and by. (John Locke, Works of John Lock (1823) Vol. 8 at 311.)

The meaning of the words you ask about are the obvious ones. 'Husband' means the person a woman is married to and 'another' means a man who is not her husband.

So verses 2 and 3 mean

  If a woman is married to a man, then she and that man are legally married for as long as he lives, and she is not allowed to marry someone else while he is alive. But is he dies, then she is allowed to marry someone else.

Paul is using this situation as an analogy to say that while the Jews were legally bound to the Law, the death of Jesus ends that bond, just as the death of the husband ends a marriage.

“Know ye not, brethren, (for I speak to them that know the law,) how that the law hath dominion over a man as long as he liveth? For the woman which hath an husband is bound by the law to her husband so long as he liveth; but if the husband be dead, she is loosed from the law of her husband. So then if, while her husband liveth, she be married to another man, she shall be called an adulteress: but if her husband be dead, she is free from that law; so that she is no adulteress, though she be married to another man.” (Romans 7:1–3, KJV 1900)

Husband is Carnal Nature and wife is the mind
How do we know this?

“O wretched man that I am! who shall deliver me from the body of this death?” (Romans 7:24, KJV 1900)

Me meaning the inner man or the mind and the husband being the body of death
The law mandates that a wife cannot leave the husband - If she does this when the husband is alive, she commits sin and is therefore worthy of Death (Deuteronomy 22:22-30)
Therefore, we who are slaves of sin, married to sinful nature are mandated by the law to obey the same. We must commit sin, just as a slave is compelled to obey his master - to not obey is a sin!
Sin taking hold of the commandment - God's pure and Holy nature - has become exceeding sinful by doing that which God hates!

“For when we were in the flesh, the motions of sins, which were by the law, did work in our members to bring forth fruit unto death.” (Romans 7:5, KJV 1900)
“What shall we say then? Is the law sin? God forbid. Nay, I had not known sin, but by the law: for I had not known lust, except the law had said, Thou shalt not covet. But sin, taking occasion by the commandment, wrought in me all manner of concupiscence. For without the law sin was dead. For I was alive without the law once: but when the commandment came, sin revived, and I died. And the commandment, which was ordained to life, I found to be unto death. For sin, taking occasion by the commandment, deceived me, and by it slew me.” (Romans 7:7–11, KJV 1900)

Sin takes occasion by the commandment - the commandment that a wife cannot leave her husband - and forces me to commit all sorts of sin.

“Was then that which is good made death unto me? God forbid. But sin, that it might appear sin, working death in me by that which is good; that sin by the commandment might become exceeding sinful.” (Romans 7:13, KJV 1900)

I can escape only if there is no law - For without the law sin was dead (vs 8)
So what God does? - An amazing solution

“But now we are delivered from the law, that being dead wherein we were held; that we should serve in newness of spirit, and not in the oldness of the letter.” (Romans 7:6, KJV 1900)

God kills us in Jesus!

“Know ye not, brethren, (for I speak to them that know the law,) how that the law hath dominion over a man as long as he liveth?” (Romans 7:1, KJV 1900)

So once we are dead, now we can legally be bound to another - Jesus Christ. Thus we escape the condemnation of the law. But now being bound to Jesus, we are mandated by the law to obey Jesus and not commit adultery

“For the woman which hath an husband is bound by the law to her husband so long as he liveth; but if the husband be dead, she is loosed from the law of her husband.” (Romans 7:2, KJV 1900)
“Wherefore, my brethren, ye also are become dead to the law by the body of Christ; that ye should be married to another, even to him who is raised from the dead, that we should bring forth fruit unto God.” (Romans 7:4, KJV 1900)


Are Seraphim and Cherubim angels? When considering if angels really have wings, I have decided to read some comments on Christianity SE and came across lots of users assuming that cherubim and seraphim are angels:

• Lesley:

  There are definitely two types of angels mentioned in the Bible that
  have wings - cherubim and seraphim  [read full answer here]

• Narnian:

  The Bible actually does indicate that angels have wings, as both cherubim and seraphim are angels.  [read full answer here]

I know that they are all spiritual beings, but can we assume that cherubim and seraphim are angels?

I came across a similar question, that only addresses seraphim but it seems that there is space for discussion and further clarifications.

In the meantime, to further discuss what is a seraphim and how do they relate with cherubim I have opened this thread.

Are Seraphim and Cherubim angels?

The short answer is yes.

Angels appear on numerous occasions in both the Old Testament and the New Testament. However, the Scriptures do not always reveal their angelic rank on each occasion. Traditionally, there are Nine choirs of angels. This question deals with the biblical basis of the two highest choir of angels: the Seraphim and the Cherubim.

The Apostle St. Peter dealt with angels when he was freed from the prison of King Herod Agrippa. You can read about  St. Peter’s Miraculous Escape From Prison here.

St. Paul was encouraged by an angel, just before his shipwreck on Malta (Acts 27: 21-24)

An angel sometimes would stir the waters in the pool of Bethesda.

  4 For an angel went down at a certain season into the pool, and troubled the water: whosoever then first after the troubling of the water stepped in was made whole of whatsoever disease he had. - John 1: 9

Thus we can conclude that angels do exist.

Now let us see if there are any references to Seraphs and Cherubs being angels in the Scriptures.

St. Paul definitely believe in an angelic hierarchy.

  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. - Colossians 1:16

  For we wrestle not against flesh and blood, but against principalities, against powers, against the rulers of the darkness of this world, against spiritual wickedness in high places. -  Ephesians 6:12

Cherubs are the most commonly name angel beings named in the bible.

  The cherubim are the most frequently occurring heavenly creature in the Hebrew Bible, with the Hebrew word appearing 91 times. The first occurrence is in the Book of Genesis 3:24. Despite these many references, the role of the cherubim is never explicitly elucidated. While Hebrew tradition must have conceived of the cherubim as guardians of the Garden of Eden (in which they guard the way to the Tree of life), they are often depicted as performing other roles; for example in the Book of Ezekiel, they transport Yahweh's throne. The cherub who appears in the "Song of David", a poem which occurs twice in the Hebrew Bible, in 2 Samuel 22 and Psalm 18, participates in Yahweh's theophany and is imagined as a vehicle upon which the deity descends to earth from heaven in order to rescue the speaker (see 2 Samuel 22:11, Psalm 18:10).

  In Exodus 25:18–22, God tells Moses to make multiple images of cherubim at specific points around the Ark of the Covenant. Many appearances of the words cherub and cherubim in the Bible refer to the gold cherubim images on the mercy seat of the Ark, as well as images on the curtains of the Tabernacle and in Solomon's Temple, including two measuring ten cubits high.

  In Isaiah 37:16, Hezekiah prays, addressing God as "enthroned above the cherubim" (referring to the mercy seat). In regard's to Solomon's Temple as described in 1 Kings, Eichler renders the phrase yoshev ha-keruvim as “who dwells among the cherubim”. This phrase is the same in 1 Kings and Isaiah. Eichler's interpretation in contrast to common translations for many years that rendered it as “who sits upon the cherubim”. This has implications for the understanding of whether the ark of the covenant in the Temple was literally YHWH's throne or simply an indicator of YHWH's immanence.

  Cherubim feature at some length in the Book of Ezekiel. While they first appear in chapter one, in which they are transporting the throne of God by the river Chebar, they are not called cherubim until chapter 10.[21] In Ezekiel 1:5–11 they are described as having the likeness of a man, and having four faces: that of a man, a lion (on the right side), and ox (on the left side), and an eagle. The four faces represent the four domains of God's rule: the man represents humanity; the lion, wild animals; the ox, domestic animals; and the eagle, birds. These faces peer out from the center of an array of four wings; these wings are joined to each other, two of these are stretched upward, and the other two cover their bodies. Under their wings are human hands; their legs are described as straight, and their feet like those of a calf, shining like polished brass. Between the creatures glowing coals that moved between them could be seen, their fire "went up and down", and lightning burst forth from it. The cherubs also moved like flashes of lightning.

  In Ezekiel chapter 10, another full description of the cherubim appears with slight differences in details. Three of the four faces are the same – man, lion and eagle – but where chapter one has the face of an ox, Ezekiel 10:14 says "face of a cherub". Ezekiel equates the cherubim of chapter ten with the living creatures of chapter one: "They were the same creatures (חיה) I had seen by the river Chebar" (Ezekiel 10:15) and "These were the living creatures I had seen under the God of Israel on the banks of the river Chebar" (Ezekiel 10:20). In Ezekiel 41:18–20, they are portrayed as having two faces, although this is probably because they are depicted in profile. - Cherub (Wikipedia)

As for Seraphs, they are named less frequently in Scripture, but nonetheless are of the angelic Orders.

  There is emerging consensus that the motifs used to display seraphs in Hyksos-era Palestine had their original sources in Egyptian uraeus iconography.

  The word saraph/seraphim appears three times in the Torah (Numbers 21:6–8, Deuteronomy 8:15) and four times in the Book of Isaiah (6:2–6, 14:29, 30:6). In Isaiah 6:2–6 the term is used to describe a type of celestial being or angel. The other five uses of the word refer to serpents.

  The vision in Isaiah Chapter 6 of seraphim in an idealized version of Solomon's Temple represents the sole instance in the Hebrew Bible of this word being used to describe celestial beings. "... I saw also the Lord sitting upon a throne, high and lifted up, and his train filled the temple. Above it stood the seraphims: each one had six wings; with twain he covered his face, and with twain he covered his feet, and with twain he did fly." (Isaiah 6:1–3) And one cried to another, "Holy, holy, holy, is YHWH of hosts: the whole earth is full of His glory." (verses 2–3) One seraph carries out an act of ritual purification for the prophet by touching his lips with a live coal from the altar (verses 6–7).

  The text describes the "seraphim" as winged celestial beings with a fiery passion for doing God's good work.8 Notwithstanding the wording of the text itself, at least one Hebrew scholar claims that in the Hebrew Bible the seraphim do not have the status of angels, and that it is only in later sources (like De Coelesti Hierarchia or Summa Theologiae) that they are considered to be a division of the divine messengers.

  Seraphim appear in the 2nd-century BC Book of Enoch, where they are mentioned, in conjunction with cherubim, as the heavenly creatures standing nearest to the throne of God. They are also called the Akyəst (Ge'ez: አክይስት "serpents", "dragons"; an alternate term for Hell).

  In the Second Book of Enoch, two classes of celestial beings are mentioned alongside the seraphim and cherubim, known as the phoenixes and the chalkydri (Ancient Greek: χαλκύδραι khalkýdrai, compd. of χαλκός khalkós "brass, copper" + ὕδρα hýdra "hydra", "water-serpent" — lit. "brazen hydras", "copper serpents"). Both are described as "flying elements of the sun" that reside in either the 4th or 6th heaven, who have twelve wings and burst into song at sunrise.

  In the Book of Revelation (4:4–8), the beasts are described as being forever in God's presence and praising him: "[A]nd they rest not day and night, saying, 'Holy, holy, holy, Lord God Almighty, which was, and is, and is to come." This account differs slightly from the account of Isaiah, stating in the eighth verse, "And the four beasts had each of them six wings about him; and they were full of eyes within". They appear also in the Gnostic text, On the Origin of the World. - Seraph (Wikipedia)

There can be little doubt that both Seraphims and Cherubims are angels.

According to The New Unger's Bible Dictionary, definition of Cherub

  The cherubim seem to be actual beings of the angelic order.

and Seraphim

  An order of celestial beings, whom Isaiah beheld in vision standing
  above Jehovah as He sat upon His trhone (Isa. 6:2, 6).

So, cherubim are likely beings of angelic order whereas seraphim are an order of celestial beings. While an angel is a celestial being, a celestial being might not be an angel.

Based solely in the definitions above, we can't be 100% they are angels, even though cherubim seem to be.


How does LDS doctrine reconcile monotheism with men becoming gods? A follow-up to this question, if the LDS church teaches that men can become gods, how does it reconcile this with the concept that there is only one God?

Isaiah 45:5:

  I am the LORD, and there is no other;
     apart from me there is no God.
  I will strengthen you,
     though you have not acknowledged me,

Exodus 20:3:

  “You shall have no other gods before me.

I suppose if you wanted to split hairs, you could technically consider the LDS faith to be polytheistic, since Mormons believe God the Father, God the Son, and God the Holy Ghost to be separate and distinct individuals.

Outside of that, it's pretty simple.  Mormons worship God the Father, through the Son.  While we believe that there are other gods out there, they are not our God.  I find that an analogy helps me think about this clearly: At work, I have one boss.  He is my boss and no one else is.  There are other bosses, but I do not report to them, they do not affect my quarterly reviews, and I don't really interact with them in any sort of manager-underling relationship.  The same goes for God.

As a seventh generation Mormon I do not agree with other Mormons that say there are many Gods but only one God for us.  I believe it is more accurate to simply say: There is only One true God, but that God is not just one finite personage.  God refers to an infinity of divine finite beings like Jesus and Abraham and Sarah that are in John 17 type unity.  The Creating Godhead for our earth are three finite beings in that Union. Jesus truly is the Son of God the Father.  That means he will continue and become a God the Father on a future earth.  It means his Father was once a Son on a previous earth, with a Father before him.  There is no beginning and there will be no end to this Lineage of divine beings.  Those that become Joint heirs with Christ are also in this lineage. All divine finite beings in this lineage are in a state of eternal progression.  But the infinite Union of these beings is not: it has tri-Omni power and is ever-existing and unchanging.


Do orthodox Christians fast on Monday to exceed the righteousness of the pharisees and scribes? This question regards Matthew 5:20:

  "For I say to you, That except your righteousness shall exceed the righteousness of the scribes and Pharisees, you shall in no case enter into the kingdom of heaven."

and the orthodox interpretation of it. I found this site that basically says that the fasting on Monday is done by monks, but also observed by pious orthodox believer that ye may exceed the righteousness  of scribes and Pharisees.

Is that why orthodox fast on Monday?

I don't mean to be rude, but I find much of orthodox theology concerning Theosis to be pelagian, as trying to earn heaven by merit, and while I know that the Orthodox Church does not teach that one can enter heaven by it's own power. It still feels like some strive from the bottom of their being to be more pious and righteousness that others, as it were a race, where Christ stands passive and the end of the ladder, while sinners try desperately to climb the ladder, always climbing never reaching the end. Always admiring the  saints, never daring to feel worthy. And even know never daring to feel worthy, still, always fearing and questing, am I good enough, will I be received.

Being told that the saints themselves where not sure if they are saved, then, much more shall the laity fear their fate.

Monks fast on Mondays because Monday in the daily liturgical rite is dedicated to Angels and monks conduct "angelic life". Current Orthodox liturgical rite originates from VI century.

The link that you provided is definitely wrong with the aim of fasting, it is not to overcome someone in merits (as Pharisee thought in the parable about Pharisee and Publican) which is obvious pride but to repent of sins.

This site (Russian only) has a collection of interpretations of Matthew 5:20 from 14 Orthodox Holy Fathers and modern theologians, none of them mention fasting.

If some lay person with the blessing of his spiritual father takes the feat of fasting on Mondays - that is not delusion if he keeps the mentioned repentant disposition of the soul and does not think that he does something special. St. Nikodemos writes about fasting on Mondays that "those among the lay people who want to fast this day are praised before the Lord and will get appropriate retribution" (link).

In the Patericon of Volokolamsk (Russian), there is a story when two brothers, noble men, were captured by Tatars and one of them was fasting on Mondays even in captivity. Once an Angel appeared in front of him in the form of a man. The Angel took him and walked with him through the Tatars without them noticing anything. When Tatars found out that he disappeared, they killed another brother. When the man was saved, he asked Angel: "Who are you?" - "I am the Angel of Monday". The man later became a monk.

Eastern Orthodox Christians do not necessarily fast on Mondays. It is up to a believer to decide whether to fast on Mondays and his motivation to do that is also his own.

And Christ surely didn't meant fasting when He was speaking that verse.


What does childbearing have to do with the salvation of a woman? Verse concerning saved:

  12But I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to usurp authority over the man, but to be in silence. 13For Adam was first formed, then Eve. 14And Adam was not deceived, but the woman being deceived was in the transgression. 15Notwithstanding she shall be saved in childbearing, if they continue in faith and charity and holiness with sobriety. -- 1 Timothy 2

Related verse:

  16Unto the woman he said, I will greatly multiply thy sorrow and thy conception; in sorrow thou shalt bring forth children; and thy desire shall be to thy husband, and he shall rule over thee. -- Genesis 3

Question: Verse 14 clearly addresses Eve eating the apple. Since Salvation is through what Christ accomplished on the cross alone -- what does childbearing have to do with 'she shall be saved in childbearing' ?

As timf quoted:

  they will be saved [eternally] if they continue in faith and love and holiness with self-control, [saved indeed] through the Childbearing or by the birth of the divine Child. - Amplified

Childbearing resulted in the birth of Jesus.
If you look at "she", the "woman" as an image not for each woman as an individual, but as womanhood as a whole, or as Eve specifically, who is mentioned in the verse before, than she, the woman is saved through childbearing - the birth of Jesus.
Or as you can already see promised in Genesis 3, when God addresses the snake:

  And I will put enmity
      between you and the woman,
      and between your offspring and hers;
  he will crush your head,
      and you will strike his heel - Genesis 3:15.

Eve's offspring - singular - will crush the snake's head and destroy it.

Now that still leaves the part of the verse where it says "if they continue in faith and charity and holiness with sobriety" ... and that may still sound like this salvation requires works. However notice what it mentions first in this list after childbearing, which as explained refers to Jesus: faith. This faith and resulting life change then results in charity and holiness and sobriety - which are things God does works in us through His Holy Spirit - see for example Gal. 5:22-23.

Background: God uses trials and pains to perfect his people so that they become more like Christ (Rom. 5:3-4). This is the salvation known as the sanctification of the believer, or "being saved."

Answer: In the case of this verse, the woman can find her relationship with God strengthened even with the pain of childbirth if she continues through it in faith.


Who bought the Field of Blood, Judas or the Priests? This is similar to another question "How did Judas Die", but is specifically addressing another aspect of the story.
In Matthew we have the priests purchasing the field:

Matthew 27:5-7 (NASB)
5 And he threw the pieces of silver into the temple sanctuary and departed; and he went away and hanged himself. 6 The chief priests took the pieces of silver and said, “It is not lawful to put them into the temple treasury, since it is the price of blood.” 7 And they conferred together and with the money bought the Potter’s Field as a burial place for strangers.

And in Acts we have Judas purchasing it:

Acts 1:16-18 (NASB)
16 “Brethren, the Scripture had to be fulfilled, which the Holy Spirit foretold by the mouth of David concerning Judas, who became a guide to those who arrested Jesus. 17 For he was counted among us and received his share in this ministry.” 18 (Now this man acquired a field with the price of his wickedness, and falling headlong, he burst open in the middle and all his intestines gushed out.

This seems a clear contradiction in the New Testament. What is going on here?

They both did - it just depends on perspective for application of the word "bought".

It was Judas' money, and it was the priests who used the money he returned to them to buy the field.  They bought the field because they could not accept blood money and return it to the temple treasury.

In essence, the priests bought the field on behalf of Judas.

This is just like when my mother would give me money to go to the store to buy some groceries; we both bought the groceries - I did the physical act and she did through providing the financial resource (and, back in the day of single income families, so did my Dad in earning the income to begin with).

It is difficult to accept that contradictions can exist in the Bible, yet this is one of them. Raymond E. Brown says, in An Introduction to the New Testament, page 114, that Luke's account of the death of Judas in Acts 1:18-19 is scarcely reconcilable with that in Matthew 27:3-10. If they can not be reconciled then one or both accounts are not really historical and it then becomes a moot point whether we choose to say that the priests bought the field of blood, Judas bought the field, or even blend them in a rather implausible combination.

The two important discrepancies between the two accounts are: (1) Judas threw the money down in the Temple and the priests bought the field of blood, OR Judas, no doubt pleased by his sudden wealth, went himself and bought the field of blood (and was clearly not suicidal); and (2) Judas committed suicide, OR Judas fell down and died (by misadventure?). Various attempts to resolve one discrepancy by means of semantics still fail to resolve the other, and it is only if both discrepancies are truly resolved that we can say that both New Testaments passages are historical.

Matthew's account has more parallels to various Old Testament passages, so it is only in Matthew's account that we learn that Judas received thirty pieces of silver. John Shelby Spong, author of Jesus for the Nonreligious, points out that Judas is a variant of Judah, and that in Genesis 37:26-28, it was Judah who sought money and received 20 pieces of silver; in Zechariah 11:12-13 the king was betrayed for 30 pieces of silver, which he hurled back into the temple just as Judas did in Matthew; in 2 Samuel 17:23 Ahithophel hanged himself when his betrayal of King David was discovered, just as Judas did in Matthew as an act of repentance.

The author of Acts does not let Judas off the hook by repenting, so Judas has all this money and uses it as he would have intended to do, buying a field, but is not allowed to enjoy his sudden wealth. No sooner are we told of his purchase of the field of blood, than we are told he suffered the most satisfyingly disgusting death possible, with his bowels gushing out. This brings to mind Acts 12:23, where Herod died a somewhat similar and equally disgusting death.

This seems a clear contradiction in the New Testament. What is going on here?

A clear contradiction does exist, to such an extent that the two accounts can not be reconciled. This means that at least one account can not be historically true, but it is also possible that neither account is entirely true.

Matthew's account relies too much on the Old Testament to be plausible and so should be rejected as being a creation of the evangelist.  The account in Acts is both biologically improbable - having Judas bowels literally gushing out after a fall - and too similar to the story of Herod's death in Acts 12:23, by the same author. This account should also be rejected, giving us a draw between the two stories.

Historically, there was no field of blood purchased either by the priests or by Judas.  The name 'field of blood' is one of the few points common to the accounts in Acts and Matthew, but this comes from the Old Testament and has different connotations in each account, with Matthew suggesting it is because the field was purchased with the price of blood and Acts following it from Judas' bowels gushing out.


What role does the Holy Ghost fill that the Father can't? In trinitarian doctrine, what role does the Holy Ghost fill that the Father can't / doesn't?
My understanding is, that according to trinitarians:

The Father is a spirit
The Holy Ghost is a spirit
The Father can indwell someone
The Holy Ghost can indwell someone
The Father bears witness of the Son
The Holy Ghost bears witness of the Son

The Son, after his incarnation, has a body so it seems clear that he has a distinct role, and those point don't directly apply to him. But it's unclear what makes the Holy Ghost different enough in trinitarian doctrine to make him a distinct person / have a distinct role.

Regarding the mission (missio = a sending) of the the Divine Persons,

The Father cannot be sent:Summa Theologica I q. 43 a. 4 co.:The very idea of mission means procession from another, and in God it means procession according to origin, as above expounded (a. 1). Hence, as the Father is not from another, in no way is it fitting for Him to be sent; but this can only belong to the Son and to the Holy Ghost, to Whom it belongs to be from another.missio in sui ratione importat processionem ab alio; et in divinis, secundum originem, ut supra dictum est. Unde, cum pater non sit ab alio, nullo modo convenit sibi mitti; sed solum filio et spiritui sancto, quibus convenit esse ab alio.

The Son is sent invisibly:Summa Theologica I q. 43 a. 5 co.:The whole Trinity dwells in the mind by sanctifying grace, according to Jn. 14:23: "We will come to him, and will make Our abode with him." But that a divine person be sent to anyone by invisible grace signifies both that this person dwells in a new way within him and that He has His origin from another. Hence, since both to the Son and to the Holy Ghost it belongs to dwell in the soul by grace, and to be from another, it therefore belongs to both of them to be invisibly sent. As to the Father, though He dwells in us by grace, still it does not belong to Him to be from another, and consequently He is not sent.per gratiam gratum facientem tota Trinitas inhabitat mentem, secundum illud Ioan. XIV, ad eum veniemus, et mansionem apud eum faciemus. Mitti autem personam divinam ad aliquem per invisibilem gratiam, significat novum modum inhabitandi illius personae, et originem eius ab alia. Unde, cum tam filio quam spiritui sancto conveniat et inhabitare per gratiam et ab alio esse, utrique convenit invisibiliter mitti. Patri autem licet conveniat inhabitare per gratiam, non tamen sibi convenit ab alio esse; et per consequens nec mitti.

Holy Ghost is sent visibly:Summa Theologica I q. 43 a. 7 co.:God provides for all things according to the nature of each thing. Now the nature of man requires that he be led to the invisible by visible things, as explained above (q. 12 a. 12). Wherefore the invisible things of God must be made manifest to man by the things that are visible. As God, therefore, in a certain way has demonstrated Himself and His eternal processions to men by visible creatures, according to certain signs; so was it fitting that the invisible missions also of the divine persons should be made manifest by some visible creatures.This mode of manifestation applies in different ways to the Son and to the Holy Ghost. For it belongs to the Holy Ghost, Who proceeds as Love, to be the gift of sanctification; to the Son as the principle of the Holy Ghost, it belongs to the author of this sanctification. Thus the Son has been sent visibly as the author of sanctification; the Holy Ghost as the sign of sanctification.Deus providet omnibus secundum uniuscuiusque modum. Est autem modus connaturalis hominis, ut per visibilia ad invisibilia manuducatur, ut ex supra dictis patet, et ideo invisibilia Dei oportuit homini per visibilia manifestari. Sicut igitur seipsum Deus, et processiones aeternas personarum, per creaturas visibiles, secundum aliqua indicia, hominibus quodammodo demonstravit; ita conveniens fuit ut etiam invisibiles missiones divinarum personarum secundum aliquas visibiles creaturas manifestarentur. Aliter tamen filius et spiritus sanctus. Nam spiritui sancto, inquantum procedit ut amor, competit esse sanctificationis donum, filio autem, inquantum est spiritus sancti principium, competit esse sanctificationis huius auctorem. Et ideo filius visibiliter missus est tanquam sanctificationis auctor, sed spiritus sanctus tanquam sanctificationis indicium.

If we are seeking a possible historical source that gave rise to the prominent position of the "Holy Ghost" in the Trinity dogma then I would look to the Egyptian deity Horus (aka Her, Heru, Hor, Har) who was the lastborn of the first five original gods.
The reason I point to Horus is that he is a bird:
https://youtu.be/JXKsyvTDMEs
The significance of Horus being a bird is that it means that he is mobile.
In practical terms it meant that Horus could be on hand to effect divine will in distant places. It also means that he can enter into various persons.
While the Jewish and Christian symbolism is often that of a dove, such as with Noah and Jesus' baptism, the more common Jewish and Christian symbolism for this kind of "mobility" is that of "breath" and other forms of moving air.
Now the Son of God, Jesus, is essentially God's "body" or "face" (like the Executive branch of the US government), the "breath" is the invisible but remotely and inwardly acting agent in the divine economy. So God expresses himself through the Messiah but the Messiah operates by the indwelling and outbreathed effects of the divine breath aka the PNEUMA.
This, I believe, properly explains the conception and historic rationale of the concept of the PNEUMA and "the Holy Breath" aka "Holy Spirit".
Tertullian was the first to use the word "Trinity"/"Triad". He was not referring to the Godhead being three equal divine Persons but rather he was referring to the structure of God's "economy". The "economy" was the way that God expressed himself and handled his dealings, which Tertullian conceived of as a triad. For him, God handled his dealing through a triad of which he Himself was the founding member.


What is the biblical basis for baptism by immersion? There are two modes of water baptism of which I am familiar--immersion and sprinkling.  As far as I know Catholics practice sprinkling along with many Protestant traditions, although many other Protestant traditions practice immersion.

What is the biblical basis for immersion according to those who have a literal interpretation of the Bible?

There is an excellent article here that covers the Biblical arguments for, and the common arguments against each point.  A few relevant excerpts"

  The word baptizo in Greek, translated "baptize" in the New Testaments,
  meant to "dip" or "immerse."  It is sometimes argued that in Mark 7:4
  and Luke 11:38 the word means "to wash by pouring," not "immerse"; but
  in those texts the actual meaning (as historical information
  substantiates) is to "wash by dipping or immersing in water."
  Baptism is specifically stated in the New Testament to represent the
  Christian's spiritual union with Christ in His death, burial and
  resurrection (Romans 6:3-7), which is remarkably and dramatically
  pictured in immersion.
  Whenever the act of baptism is described in the New Testament (which is rarely), the one who is baptized actually goes into the
  water.  Thus, after Jesus was baptized, He "came up out of the water"
  (Mark 1:10), and when Philip baptized the Ethiopian eunuch, "they both
  went down into the water" (Acts 8:38).  These descriptions do not
  quite prove complete immersion, however, since they could have stood,
  let us say, ankle-deep in water while one of them scooped up some
  water and poured it over the other's head.  Furthermore, we are not
  told in Scripture that we must baptize in exactly the same way as John
  or Philip.
  The mode used by the early Church in the first few centuries was immersion, with affusion reserved for occasions when immersion was
  impossible due to lack of sufficient water, and aspersion used for
  individuals too sick or weak for either immersion of affusion.

There is more in the original article, but in summary, the Biblical argument is based on both the meaning of the original Greek word, and also from evidence inferred, but not directly stated in Scripture.

The summary, however, is excellent, in my opinion.  The author states:

  ...Scripture and common sense indicate that the water is not
  all-important and that, therefore, other modes may be used as
  substitutes in exceptional circumstances.  God accepts the believer on
  the basis of his faith in Christ and his desire to obey Him, not on
  the basis of how much water covered his body when he was baptized.
  The doctrine that immersion is the only valid mode of baptism and that
  only those so baptized should be admitted into the fellowship of the
  Church body would, therefore, appear to be a bit extreme and not based
  on Scripture.

The biblical basis of the baptism can be found only in orthodoxy, known today as "Old Calendar Orthodoxy". The baptism in this Church has the same form as the baptism performed by apostles.

The Peter's vision (Acts 10) describes significance and details of the baptism procedure:
the thrice time descending of the vessel corresponds the 3 time immersion in the water.
Details of the complete explanation of the view is in Holy Tradition, in the "Life of saint Cornelius".


What is the Biblical basis for the "penal" in penal substitutionary atonement? I have been looking at different models of the atonement and am currently looking at penal substitutionary atonement.  While I can see the substitution, I'm struggling somewhat with the idea of Jesus taking the penalty for our sin.

So, what is the Biblical basis for the "penal" in penal substitutionary atonement?

The 'penal' in penal substitution is based on the idea that sin brings about punishment under the curse of the law.  The curse of Adam's sin is death, which is a punishment. Punishment = the curse under the law for sin.

  Christ redeemed us from the curse of the law by becoming a curse for us, for it is written: “Cursed is everyone who is hung on a pole.” (NIV Galatians 3:13)

For Christ to become a curse is the same thing as saying he became guilty for our sin, or more emphatically became our actual sin making the Law execute him under its wrath:

  God made him who had no sin to be sin for us, so that in him we might become the righteousness of God. (NIV 2 Corinthians 5:21)

To say the holy Son of God is 'sin' and is 'cursed' must presume at the same time that he deserves to be punished for us, otherwise these appellations have no actual meaning and are blasphemy.

What you will find in reviewing different theories of atonement is that there are actually only two. These theories either support what is called a forensic justification by faith, or a denial of such a thing. The penal theory is actually just a natural result of affirming the reformed doctrine of Justification by faith. Anyone else when using the term 'justification' merely mean an initial point of sanctification. They mean some sanctification is necessary involved in producing justification. Justification to them means more of an initial 'full sanctification' making a person personally and inwardly righteous. The reformers just call this justification by works under the gloss of fake grace. Just legal righteous to serve the self righteous desires of those who deny the full curse of original sin.

The reformers denied any kind of inner righteousness having any involvement in justification in any sense.  Therefore while the penal theory supports a means whereby an absolutely evil person can be declared righteous apart from any work whatsoever, non penal theories focus on some infused righteousness as a result of Christ's death and our faith in him. The result is they avoid the penal aspect clearly spelled out by Paul and look for other subjects such as moral improvements, fatherly relationships, mystical unions, spiritual redemption....or any other focus that would allow some righteous ability of a person to cooperate with the Spirit and somehow retain some kind of human goodness. In other words the penal concept come from both the doctrines of original sin and justification apart from works.

Historically the penal idea is simply the acceptance of Pauline legal arguments as a necessary result of abandoning humanity to an absolutely hopeless sate under original sin. When man is absolutely lost and no method to relieve his 'guilt' or deserved 'punishment' under the Law, someone must pay before any sanctification can occur. This order of Justification before any sanctification, is the 'forensic' or 'external legal' doctrine of justification.

What I am trying to say is that although scriptures that I have quoted explain the origin of the penal theory it is actually the entire New Testament doctrine of original sin, the Incarnation, the death of Chris itself and all of the Epistles, especially that of Paul's 'legal arguments' around justification that forced the penal theory out of the reformation.

Basically is is Paul the Apostle who insisted on it at first. By keeping justification 'apart from works', 'justification' must necessarily come before sanctification. Sanctification must be the immediate but separate result of being externally justified apart from previous or combined inner just qualities. Once justification has at least conceptualy been separated from sanctification there can be no moral improvement in the sinner involved in atonement (accept as the resulting reconciliation of the sinner). Therefore, to get rid of sin someone else has to take it as their own along with any curse and punishment sin deserves. So you see it's doctrinal. If justification comes first apart from works (sanctification) then to deny a penal substitution is simply to deny that sin should ever be punished.

In other words:

  For what the law was powerless to do because it was weakened by the flesh, God did by sending his own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh to be a sin offering. And so he condemned sin in the flesh, in order that the righteous requirement of the law might be fully met in us, who do not live according to the flesh but according to the Spirit. (NIV, Romans 8:3-4)

To a reformer of course God the Father punished / condemned sin in Christ as a sin offering for us. This with us initially and inwardly 'outside of the legal transaction', other than of course our own guilt and sin being legally transferred to Christ, in order to make him guilty for us and punished for us.

So if Christ is to be made sin, made a curse, to be condemned in the flesh for our sin, what idea could ever possibly arise that would make one attempt to avoid the 'penal' implications!?

Romans 5 is a great chapter for this topic.

You see, at just the right time, when we were still powerless, Christ died for the ungodly. 7 Very rarely will anyone die for a righteous person, though for a good person someone might possibly dare to die. 8 But God demonstrates his own love for us in this: While we were still sinners, Christ died for us.
9 Since we have now been justified by his blood, how much more shall we be saved from God’s wrath through him! 10 For if, while we were God’s enemies, we were reconciled to him through the death of his Son, how much more, having been reconciled, shall we be saved through his life! 11 Not only is this so, but we also boast in God through our Lord Jesus Christ, through whom we have now received reconciliation.

Also, Hebrews 9:22 is an excellent complement to Romans 5:

Hebrews 9:22
Indeed, under the law almost everything is purified with blood, and without the shedding of blood there is no forgiveness of sins

In a historical context, it is a continuation of the OT tradition of sacrifice. God demands that wrongs be paid for; in the OT through animal sacrifice (which was really just an artificial outworking of repentance) and in the NT through the one-time sacrifice of Christ. There isn't much of a reason for Christ's coming to die other than that He loves us and it is part of His plan.
Does that answer your question? I'd be happy to expand if you have a specific doubt/confusion.


What does it mean to pray in Jesus' Name? A few times in the book of John, Jesus instructs us to pray "in His Name".  What does this mean?  How do we know if we are praying in His name?  How would we not be praying in His name?

I don't believe this is using "In Jesus' Name, Amen" as the closing line of our prayers.

  Whatever you ask in my name, this I will do, that the Father may
  be glorified in the Son.  If you ask me anything in my name, I
  will do it.  John 14:13-14 ESV

  You did not choose me, but I chose you and appointed you that you
  should go and bear fruit and that your fruit should abide, so that
  whatever you ask the Father in my name, he may give it to you.  John
  15:16 ESV

  In that day you will ask nothing of me. Truly, truly, I say to you,
  whatever you ask of the Father in my name, he will give it to you.
  Until now you have asked nothing in my name. Ask, and you will
  receive, that your joy may be full.  "I have said these things to you
  in figures of speech. The hour is coming when I will no longer speak
  to you in figures of speech but will tell you plainly about the
  Father. In that day you will ask in my name, and I do not say to
  you that I will ask the Father on your behalf; for the Father himself
  loves you, because you have loved me and have believed that I came
  from God.  John 16:23-27 ESV

Interestingly, there are other things that refer to "in Jesus' name':

  Whoever receives one such child in my name receives me  Matthew 18:5
  ESV

  For where two or three are gathered in my name, there am I among them.
  Matthew 18:20 ESV

  Many will come in my name, saying, 'I am he!' and they will lead many
  astray.  Mark 13:6 ESV

This can be answered by answering a more general question: what does "in someone's (anyone's) name" mean?  It means to act by proxy, on the authority of something or someone greater than yourself. It's a concept that our culture has kind of lost, though it still exists as a storytelling trope.  When a medieval herald reads a proclamation "in the name of the king," or a cop yells at a fleeing thief to "stop in the name of the law!" this is what they mean.  It's a convenient shorthand for "I'm not just saying this of myself; I'm speaking with the authority of a higher power."

So how does this apply to acting (and praying) in the name of Christ?  It means to act in his place.  To pray in the name of Jesus is to pray what Jesus would pray if he were in your position.  When we understand this in the context of Christ as the Perfect Man and our Exemplar, it means to pray for the right things, to seek the will of God and not our own desires.  And whatever we ask the Father in the name of Jesus Christ, that will be given to us.

Be mindful that Jesus said "no one" comes unto the Father save through Him....that includes in prayer (John 16:23 & 24)....OT saints had direct contact with God, but not NT saints after Jesus came,....God'S presence was with OT saints in the Holy of Hollies, but not after Jesus came,.... God tore the veil of the temple to reveal that His presence was no longer with the Israelites, Jesus became the new way to approach God....Paul called Jesus the "living veil" to approach God....(Hebrews 10:19 & 20)....therefore without approaching God through the "living veil," (Jesus Christ), no one can reach God, not even in prayer! That's why we're to pray "in His name;" that is, with His authorization to do so!