What is the Christian perspective on the description of God? My pastor (Calvary Chapel) referred to God as His father, then once said that God is everywhere and in everything (i.e. - inside each person) and then that God is Love.

So now I am confused as to what God is.

How does Christianity describe God? If that is not agreed upon, what are the main Christian doctrines on what God is?

For example, if God can be with/inside everyone at the same time and hear all our different individual prayers at the same time, is it wrong to think of Him as a sole entity, like being just a father to me? Should Christians view God as a multidimensional or unquantifiable being?

What is the Christian perspective on the description of God?

The following recent books are very popular and explore the topic. I have read the first two and heard some sermons from the third.

Books:
The Attributes of God by A. W. Tozer
Knowing God J.I Packer
The Attributes of God by A.W. Pink

Tozer's sermons are easily found, for example here.

http://www.sermonaudio.com/sermoninfo.asp?SID=8130752728

Common ideas or 'attributes of God, go as far back as bible commentary, and many different sorts of commentators surprisingly agree on most of them.

The first key concept of God  is that he is infinite and has no boundaries. The infinitude of God is central to the name God told Moses to use:

  Exodus 3:14
  God said to Moses, “ I am who I am. This is what you are to say to the Israelites: ‘ I am has sent me to you. ’"

'I AM' implies infinity. God always was. This means therefore, whatever God is He is so without any limit, having no beginning.  This leads to the second primary concept, he is ineffable and incomprehensible.  This means we can never fully explain Him as the finite can't comprehend the infinite.

Although there are few books fully dedicated to the subject, all Bible commentators recognize these attributes when encountering them in a particular bible verse. Attributes, based on what the Bible say’s about God are always explained from an ' I AM' perspective. For example, the Bible say’s God is wise, therefore, He is infinitely wise.

One attribute always leads to another. If He is infinitely wise then He must be infinite knowing. Otherwise his wisdom would have a limit or boundary. He could be fooled over things He did not anticipate.

Common attributes:

Powerful - this often implies all powerful, that is all power is derived from Him. He is therefore the sustainer, that is all things are held together by Him. This includes all molecules an even the Devil himself.

  Colossians 1:17
  He is before all things, and in him all things hold together.

Omnipresent - that is He is everywhere but the universe cannot contain Him.

  Psalms 139:7-8
  Where can I go from your Spirit?
  Where can I flee from your presence?
  8 If I go up to the heavens, you are there;
  if I make my bed in the depths, you are there.

Omniscient - that is all knowing, past and future.

  Hebrews 4:13
  Nothing in all creation is hidden from God’s sight. Everything is uncovered and laid bare before the eyes of him to whom we must give account.

All wise - He knows the most perfect means for achieving the most perfect ends, using the most prefect ways. He knows the end from the beginning.

  Romans 11:33
  33 Oh, the depth of the riches of the wisdom and knowledge of God!
  How unsearchable his judgments,
  and his paths beyond tracing out!

Self Sufficient - that he needs nothing or anyone in any sense. Kind of implied by the name 'I Am' or possibly Psalm 50:10-12 might be a good reference.

Transcendent - that is His excellence, value and glory rises infinitely beyond anything. This is self evident everywhere in the Bible.

Good - that is he desires the utmost good of all creatures (there is controversy among theologians on what this means because Calvin in one sense restricted goodness, love and grace to the elect). I think that was a critical error on his part, though on most subjects I usually agree with him.

Merciful and Full of Grace (this is the most controversial) I take mercy to be preventing judgment for the purposes of His grace. Also implies pity and understanding of our weakness without grace. Grace, that He is infinitely willing to provide His endless riches at Christ's expense.

  Deuteronomy 4:31
  For the Lord your God is a merciful God; he will not abandon or destroy you or forget the covenant with your ancestors, which he confirmed to them by oath.

  Romans 3:23-24
  for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God, 24 and all are justified freely by his grace through the redemption that came by Christ Jesus.

Holy - that is perfectly without sin. I take this actually to men 100% loving, without any hate whatsoever. (Most theologians would prefer other wording, stinking to just pure whatever else they think pure might be) Example: Leviticus 19:2

Just - that is never showing any partiality or favoritism but able to perfectly discern what is fair. Example: Deuteronomy 32:4

Other attributes can be added to the list, almost whatever is good in a person, God is so perfectly. Virtually every page of the Bible assumes one or more of these attributes.

The Bible argues that all mankind can understand some of  God's attributes like His eternal power:

  Romans 1:20
  For since the creation of the world God’s invisible qualities—his eternal power and divine nature—have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that people are without excuse.

Some attributes such as his love and grace seem only perceived by faith.

Other attributes may be manifest specifically by the incarnation, in the God-Man. For example God's empathy is difficult to perceive in the The bible, except when reading the gospels ad witnessing how much empathy Jesus had for those that were suffering.

Some like Tozer argue that no attribute can be greater than another as they are all infinite. Others disagree noting that love is greater than patience and kindness, since they are just subsets of love.  Therefore, 1 John 4:8,  'God is love.' really implies the 'essential attribute'. If it wasn't how do we explain that when we try to be like Him, we are to put love on top?

I hope that this is the beginning of a vigorous discussion from all Faiths. There can't be any more pressing question for us to seek to answer. Jesus spent his life on earth trying to get the "lost sheep" to understand.

In a nutshell, God is to be experienced, God cannot be understood apart from personal experience. In this sense God is a "personal" God. You and I will experience God differently. My knowledge of God comes from my direct experience of God's intervention in my life. I know what God is only from what God has done for me. No one can argue against what I have experienced.

Jesus said "the kingdom of God is within you" and "if you keep my words, I and the Father will make our abode in you. "
Abode has the Hebrew meaning of "tabernacle" the place where God resided when "on earth" in Hebrew theology. So your pastors statement agrees with Jesus's teaching.
To "keep His words." means to remember them and not teach others something different.

You will start to recognize God in your own life as you begin to attribute unexpected events to God's intervention in your life. The more that you give "credit" to God for the good things in your life, the more receptive to God you will become. A Sister superior from a convent in town, taught me that God is in the ordinary.

In teaching the Anglican and Episcopal brethren (Priests, Deacons, and Acolytes) about God, I had to explain to them some of the obscure things that Jesus teaches us about God from the Bible, and I used the Church Fathers understanding. I especially used the parables of Jesus to explain how others experienced God. The writings of a few of the Fathers have survived since the 2nd. cent. I have spent some 10,000 hours studying about 100 books.

What I will say about God is from the orthodox viewpoint - Anglican, Catholic and Orthodox. If this is okay with you, I will post some of my lessons here.


Why did Jesus physically throw out the money changers instead of winning the argument with reason? When Jesus cleared the money changers from the Temple, he drove them out by overturning their tables and (in John) even using a whip. Why did he not try to remove them with persuasion, by making a reasoned argument? He was certainly capable of winning arguments (eg story culminating in Luke 13:17).

Bible references for the story:

Matthew 21:12-13
Mark 11:15-19
Luke 19:45–48
John 2:13–16 (possibly a separate occasion to the above Synoptics)

It seems that there is an assumption in this question that suggests reason is preferable to judgment.  Reason is appropriate when the problem is merely a misunderstanding, but judgment is appropriate when the problem is willful disobedience.

It is likely that the place in the temple where the market had been set up was in the Court of the Gentiles.  Thus, occupying that particular place was in essence excluding the nations from the worship of the one true God.  As Rick noted, the Temple was intended to be a place of prayer for all nations--not just the Jews.

  These I will bring to my holy mountain and give them joy in my house of prayer. Their burnt offerings and sacrifices will be accepted on my altar; for my house will be called a house of prayer for all nations.”  Isaiah 56:7

It seems unlikely that the people would not have known this, as it was called the Court of the Gentiles.  So, occupying that place was in direct violation to a command of God--not a misunderstanding.  Thus, it was wholly appropriate for Jesus to bring judgment rather than reason.

Jesus must have witnessed or been the victim of theft.  He said to the merchants: "It is written, My house shall be called the house of prayer; but ye have made it a den of thieves."

The existence of a market in the Court of Gentiles did not prevent anyone from worshipping and would not have made Jesus angry. The Court of the Gentiles was open to all: non-Jews, Jews, men, and women. However, non-Jews were excluded from the Court of Women, which was inside the Court of Gentiles; jewish women were excluded from the court of Israel, which was inside the Court of Women. (reference: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Court_of_the_women.) If Jesus was angry because people were being excluded from worship he would have expressed that anger towards temple authorities in the Court of Israel - not merchants in the Court of Gentiles.


How did the wise men (Magi) know the country where the new king was born? After Jesus was born in Bethlehem in Judea, during the time of King
  Herod, Magi from the east came to Jerusalem and asked, “Where is the
  one who has been born king of the Jews? We saw his star when it
  rose and have come to worship him.” (Matthew 2:1-2, NIV)

I can't understand how one can conclude that a single star is pointing at a specific location. Even if I draw some lines by joining some stars, I don't think I can point at a specific location on earth. Even if I think that it points to a particular place, when I reached that place, the same line will point again somewhere ahead from that location.

The wise men were from the east, indicating that they were not Jews, I presume. They simply saw an unusual star and are able to calculate or know that a new king of the Jews is born in Israel. From the appearance of the star, I believe it is possible to conclude that a new king is born, provided the observer truly believe in star signs. However, I still can't understand how the star provided some clue where the new born king is. Moreover, the wise men were very specific when they asked king Herod. They said "Where is the one who has been born king of the Jews?".

Why did the wise men stop at Jerusalem and asked "Where is the king of the Jews"? They could have gone up to Egypt or Greece, or even further. From their question, it sounds like they were searching in Israel only. It appears as though they knew that the king was born in Israel and hence they went straight to Jerusalem, the city of the king of Israel.

How did the Magi know the country where the new king was born by simply looking at a distant star in the sky?

I think what you're looking for is detailed in Matthew 2:1-12:

  After Jesus was born in Bethlehem in Judea, during the time of King Herod, Magi from the east came to Jerusalem and asked, ‘Where is the one who has been born king of the Jews? We saw his star when it rose and have come to worship him.’

  When King Herod heard this he was disturbed, and all Jerusalem with him. When he had called together all the people’s chief priests and teachers of the law, he asked them where the Messiah was to be born. ‘In Bethlehem in Judea,’ they replied, ‘for this is what the prophet has written:

  ‘“But you, Bethlehem, in the land of Judah,
      are by no means least among the rulers of Judah;
  for out of you will come a ruler
      who will shepherd my people Israel.”’

  Then Herod called the Magi secretly and found out from them the exact time the star had appeared. He sent them to Bethlehem and said, ‘Go and search carefully for the child. As soon as you find him, report to me, so that I too may go and worship him.’

  After they had heard the king, they went on their way, and the star they had seen when it rose went ahead of them until it stopped over the place where the child was. When they saw the star, they were overjoyed. On coming to the house, they saw the child with his mother Mary, and they bowed down and worshipped him. Then they opened their treasures and presented him with gifts of gold, frankincense and myrrh. And having been warned in a dream not to go back to Herod, they returned to their country by another route.

So, they headed first West (because of the sign of the star), then to the capital of the country they found themselves (Jerusalem), then zoomed in further by heading for Bethlehem (on the advice of Herod's staff) and finally to the exact house, because the star was above it.

(Perhaps they should simply have followed the star all the way, instead of detouring via Jerusalem?)

Being a king of Israel, it is a responsibility of Herod to know the scriptures and keep it. As    what is written in II Chronicles:

  34:31
  And the king stood in his place, and made a covenant before the LORD, to walk after the LORD, and to keep his commandments, and his testimonies, and his statutes, with all his heart, and with all his soul, to perform the words of the covenant which are written in this book.

It is but natural for the wise men to come to Herod because he is the king that time. It is called courtesy.

@Mawia remember, they asked the question. You cannot get any information from any other books except from the scriptures.


Use of "the LORD" in Old Testament names Many traditional Hebrew personal names contain a reference to God in their meaning. For example the name יְהוֹשֻֽׁעַ׃ Joshua means 'Yahwah is salvation'.

But what about Yahwah itself [יְהוָ֨ה] ? Is the tetragrammaton wholly and directly used in any name of a person in the OT?

The only place I know is at Jeremiah 23:6. "In His days Judah will be saved, And Israel will dwell securely; And this is His name by which He will be called, 'The LORD [יְהוָ֨ה] our righteousness.'"

Follow-up questions: is Jeremiah referring to a the name of a person? And is this a reference to the Messiah?

When the monks translated the King James version, they considered the name of God (yehôvâh) to be so Holy that they would not translate יהוה to the word yehôvâh; instead they inserted LORD in its place. They used all capital letters as a form of honoring the Deity.

Later translations which bore heavily on the King James translation also used that capitalized word in place of  Jehovah, YHWH, God, Elohim, YAHWEH as we find in some translations.

Here are some examples:

  (ASV)  And Jehovah God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul.

  (Darby)  And Jehovah Elohim formed Man, dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and Man became a living soul.

  (ESV)  then the LORD God formed the man of dust from the ground and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life, and the man became a living creature.

  (HRB) And YAHWEH Elohim formed the man from the dust of the ground, and blew into his nostrils the breath of life; and the man became a living soul.

  (ISV)  So the LORD God formed the man from the dust of the ground, breathed life into his lungs, and the man became a living being.

  (KJV-BRG)  And the LORD God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul.

  (LITV)  And Jehovah God formed the man out of dust from the ground, and blew into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul.

  (MKJV)  And Jehovah God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul.

Other translations, as you can see, used other terms.

The word LORD, then, is a substitute word, which when used in the King James version was not a connotation associated with the Supreme being, as it is now.

God's name is holy, I know of no other usage as Yeoua "Yih - oo - ah" (יהוה). He does prefer that we call to him for saving so he has named some Yeoush "Yih - oo - sh" (יהושע) or otherwise rendered Yeshou "Yih - Sh - oo" (ישוע) [I think, still researching this pronunciation] it could possibly be rendered Yishou "Yish - oo" (ישוע). In all cases however, history proves the the final Ayin (ע) is silent.
Later translated into Greek as Yeshoush "Yih - Sh - oo -Sh" [again pretty sure], The sound (Y) Being the Greek (I) changed the spelling to Ieshoush. The Greek letters had no sound for (sh) the closest sound was the sigma (s) which changed the spelling to Iesous.
Later when translated into English the Greek (I) became the English (J) changing the spelling to Jesous. The sound for (OU) became simplified to (U). Leaving us with our English version Jesus.
The name as a call For Him To Save Us is used in many forms (ref: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jesus_%28name%29)
In Christianity, we believe that the Father sent his son so that we may be saved by calling on the saving grace of the Father through the "Son's Name".

"And whatever you ask in My name, that I will do, that the Father may be glorified in the Son." (John 14:13 NKJV)
"Father, glorify Your name.” Then a voice came from heaven, saying, “I have both glorified it and will glorify it again." (John 12:28 NKJV)
"Nor is there salvation in any other, for there is no other name under heaven given among men by which we must be saved." (Acts 4:12 NKJV)
"I have come in My Father’s name, and you do not receive Me; if another comes in his own name, him you will receive." (John 5:43 NKJV)

Is Jeremiah referring to a the name of a person? Yes it is the name of God.

"But I will gather ..." (Jeremiah 23:3 NKJV)

And is this a reference to the Messiah? The Messiah has always been God. The son came with words from the Father.

I have many things to say and to judge concerning you, but He who sent Me is true; and I speak to the world those things which I heard from Him. (John 8:26 NKJV)
Behold . the days . come . says . Yeoua . And I establish . unto David . the branch . righteous . and shall reign . as king . and prosper . and shall execute . judgment . and justice . in the land. (Jeremiah 23:5 Word by Word)

Translated easily as:

"Behold the days come says Yeoua, and I establish unto David the righteous branch and I shall reign as King, prosper, and shall execute judgment and justice in the land. (Jeremiah 23:5 De-Analogized)

Therefore since the truth can come upon you at any moment, keep watch, lest you be found with pride, and cast to the fires of anger and depression that separates loved ones. Yet the humble will stand in their faith, and those that deny will be cast to anger and depression.


What major discrepancies exist between "versions" of the Bible? Based on a comment from @AndrewThompson,

  'the' Bible (any one you care to name) is no more evidence of anything than the BOM is. You might take the numerous discrepancies between versions of 'the' Bible as the proof of that statement.

there is a belief out there that "versions" of the Bible apparently have "numerous discrepancies".  I'd like to know what these are.

What is the most egregious textual variant measured in terms of its impact on theology?

P.S. If you are going to cite the game of "telephone" please be prepared to cite a specific example, demonstrably showing manuscript evidence. If there are so many "discrepancies" this should be an easy exercise. The Codex Vaticanus, the Codex Sinaiticus, and the Dead Sea Scrolls are all online.  Additionally, there are several "Critical Appartus"es, the best are by Bruce Metzger, that will catalog every known variation. These things can be checked, I'd just like a good example of something significant.

There are none.

Translation Choices aren't Biblical Version issues

I categorically have to rule out translation choices as different "versions" because by definition, languages that change will change their wording to make things clear. Whether one translates the term "cell phone" into German as Mobil Telefon or Handy, for instance, is completely arbitrary, although the act of translating does introduce different connotations. By the same token, should one literally translate Ich habe die Schnatuze voll damit! literally as "I have the nose full with it!" or idiomatically translate the meaning to "I'm sick of it" or "I'm fed up with it!"  Of course those expressions mean nothing until the language catches up with it, proving the point that language changes.

Unlike the Qu'ran, the Bible has no problem with itself being translated.  If you want to quibble over a translation, you are quibbling over language, not the "Bible."  As such, I would confine any "discrepancies" to the original Greek and Hebrew (and Aramaic parts of Daniel).

There are some very bad translations out there (see Was Jesus a Separate God?), but again, those are not the fault of the manuscripts, but rather translation choices that lacked scholarship.

Manuscripts are pretty consistent

There are admittedly, minor textual variations amongst the various manuscripts, but are there any that have any impact on theology?  Most are the grammatical equivalent of a transposed comma or a changed preposition. In a few cases (e.g. the Woman caught in adultery in John 8), there are sections that are missing in older manuscripts, but no textual variations once the story is added to the corpus.

In his book, The Text of the New Testament, It's Transmission, Corruption, and Restoration, Bruce Metzger analyzes thousands of manuscripts, and points out every miniscule variation amongst the miniscules, codices, papyri, and manuscripts.  Glancing through the linked table of contents, it will become obvious how minor the variations are.

When the Dead Sea Scrolls were discovered in the 1947, after having been buried for nearly two milennia, there were no significant discrepancies.

When Tischendorff uncovered (stole?) the Codex Sinaiticus in the 1800s, there were no significant discrepancies.

In short, this book is way less fluid than modern edits to Charles Dickens or William Shakespeare.

An examination of claims that manuscripts have significant theological variation
This is detail, but I think its worthwhile.  If you like the short answer, stop reading - but I think in trying to make the case that there is "significant theologcal variation, this text indavertently shows how little disagreement there really is

I'd like to show some examples that one commentator says are "significant", from @CwallenPoole's excellent answer:

Here is the case -

  This statement is clearly false. It is not true to the evidence. Dr. Sumner wrote: "The rare parts about which there is still uncertainty do not effect [sic] in any way any doctrine." This is false! Doctrine IS affected. Dr. Robert L. Thomas, John MacArthur's professor in his California Seminary, wrote: "No major doctrine of scripture is affected by a variant reading." False, again. Dr. H.S. Miller wrote: "No doctrine is affected." False again. Dr. Stanley Gundry stated: "Only a few outstanding problems remain, and these do not affect doctrine or divine command to us." False again. Dr. Ernest Pickering wrote: "Important differences of textual readings are relatively few and almost none would affect any major Christian doctrine." False again!

N.B. That's a fair number of good scholars to disagree with.  (Kurt Aland is also mentioned, the same Aland of Nestle-Aland - probably the best Greek NT out there.)  So, we have a lot of scholars making the claim I'm making.  Let's give the author a chance to debunk them.

  John 3:15. "That whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have eternal life."

  Do you know what the "B" (Vatican) and "Aleph" (Sinai) manuscripts do to the three words, "should not perish"? They REMOVE them. So, in the two false Greek texts, there's no hell in Jn. 3:15. What versions follow these corrupted Greek texts? The NIV follows them, the NASV follows them, and the NKJV in the footnotes, follows them. So do the other modern versions and perversions. For them, there is no hell in Jn. 3:15. Is this not a major doctrine?

So, the claims is "should not perish" is not supported by the manuscript evidence.  Okay, let's assume its true.  The doctrine of annihilationism is not predicated solely on this Scripture, and in any case, isn't accepted by most Christians.  In either case, the significant theological point is "Believe in Jesus, Have eternal life."  Hell has other scripture to make the case one way or the other.

  Mark 9:44 and 9:46. Another example is Mark 9:44 and 46. Both verses are gone: "Where their worm dieth not, and the fire is not quenched".

  Because "B" (Vatican) and "Aleph" (Sinai) remove both verses, so does the NKJV in the footnotes; so does the NASV (by putting them in brackets); and so does the NIV. So do the other modern versions and perversions. In so doing, they take away the fires of hell. Is this not a major doctrine? ... Now these false Egyptian Greek texts and the false English perversions will assist them in their heresy of a "fireless hell"!

Again, neither a widespread position, nor the exclusive basis of the claim.

  John 6:47. Let me see if you can accurately lead a soul to Christ using exclusively Jn. 6:47 as rendered in the new versions. Note John 6:47 in the KJV, where the Lord Jesus declared: "Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that believeth on me hath everlasting life."

  That verse is as clear as a bell, on how to receive "everlasting life." But, the Westcott and Hort Greek text, following the "B" (Vatican) and "Aleph" (Sinai) manuscripts, takes out those two vital and precious words, "on me." Because of their reliance on these false Egyptian Greek texts, the NIV also removes "on me." So does the NASV. So does the NKJV in the footnotes. So do the other modern versions and perversions. If you're trying to lead a soul to Christ with those new versions and perversions, using Jn. 6:47 exclusively, you'll never lead them to Christ, because "on me" (Christ) is gone from that verse in their perversions! All they say is something like this: "Whoever believes has everlasting life." Believes what? Their verse doesn't say. Their verse merely says "believes." According to these perversions of John 6:47, if I were to believe in atheism, Christ promises me everlasting life. The same if I believe in humanism, or in the Easter Bunny, or the Tooth Fairy, or in Santa Claus, or in Rudloph the Red-Nose Reindeer, or in Bugs Bunny, or in Buddhism, Taoism, Judaism, Modernism, or in anything else! That's major false doctrine in my judgement, and it stems directly from false Greek texts and false English perversions!

Okay, so we're missing the words "on me" from believes "on me".  From the whole of Scripture, does anybody really think John 6:47 allows belief in Santa Claus to get you into heaven?

  Romans 1:16. Here's what it says in the accurate KJV: "For I am not ashamed of the gospel of Christ: for it is the power of God unto salvation to every one that believeth; to the Jew first, and also to the Greek."

  The heretical Greek texts of "B" (Vatican) and "Aleph" (Sinai) remove the two words, "of Christ" in this verse. Because of this, the NIV also removes these words. So does the NASV. So does the NKJV in the footnotes. So do the other modern versions and perversions. This certainly is doctrine. "Gospel" means "good news" or a "good announcement." What "gospel" could be inserted there instead of the "gospel of Christ"? Was it the good news about a pay raise? Was it the good news about a new car, a new hat, or a new house? No! It's the gospel or good news about Christ. That's doctrine! That's theology!

So, is the "Gospel" so radically different from the "Gospel of Christ"?  Don't think its major.

  John 7:8. Was the Lord Jesus Christ a liar? If you believe the false Greek text, "Aleph" (Sinai), and some of the versions, He was. Note Jn. 7:8: "Go ye up unto this feast: I go not up yet unto this feast; for my time is not yet full come."

  According to the Greek text "Aleph" (Sinai), the word "yet" must be removed. The NASV omits it also. So does the NKJV in the footnotes. So do some other modern versions and perversions. Why do I say this removal of "yet" makes the Lord Jesus Christ out to be a liar? Because He went up to the feast in question. If He told his brethren that He was NOT going up to the feast, and then later went up to that feast, He would have told a lie, would He not? This certainly is a major theological doctrine. As in all of the other 356 doctrinal passages, the KJV has superior theology here. The perversions are inferior in their theology and doctrine! Stay away from them!

Is it just me, or is this a stretech?

Here's the point - a scholar doing his best to present "theological differences" between manuscript versions fails to make a compelling case that theology is fundamentally altered by manuscript evidence.  I still challenge someone to show me a case where Bible "versions" really change theology dramatically.

The Gospel of Mark which is said to be the first Gospel has a true ending of Mark 16:8 and as a result has no mention of any Resurrection account.

I think having a Gospel written by someone and not mention the Resurrection account is fairly significant.

If I was to ask any modern day Christian today to write a paragraph about Jesus would include his Resurrection.

Comma_Johanneum is also highly debated, which would negate the only explicit verse in the entire Bible that clearly conveys the doctrine of the Trinity: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comma_Johanneum


Does "no part of this world" mean no involvement in politics? Jesus is reported as having said that his kingdom was "no part of this world", and further of assuring Pontius Pilate that his followers posed no risk to the secular authorities. Given that, should Christians be involved in politics?

My kingdom is no part of this world. If my kingdom were part of this
world, my attendants would have fought that I should not be delivered
up to the Jews. But, as it is, my kingdom is not from this source.
John 18:36. NWT

Christians throughout history have differing interpretations of how the faithful should approach civil governments. I would point you toward a seminal work addressing this topic called Christ and Culture by H. R. Niebuhr.

One position (Christ against culture), advocated by those like Mennonites, argues for total withdraw from the political sphere. Another position (Christ of Culture) sees politics as interwoven in salvation history and essential for Christian life.

Niebuhr goes on to list three other interpretations. Each, I would argue, are biblically viable and have strong places in the history of doctrine.

So, this is certainly an important question. And Christians of all traditions will answer it very differently. It is also a Biblical question. And Christians of all traditions will interpret the Bible differently as well.

As you study and make up your mind, please remember this is far from a clear-cut issue. Some of the answers already posted strike me as approaching an unhealthy, black-and-white dogmatism.

Daniel 2:44 “And in the days of those kings the God of heaven will set up a kingdom that will never be brought to ruin. And the kingdom itself will not be passed on to any other people. It will crush and put an end to all these kingdoms, and it itself will stand to times indefinite;

All the kingdoms of the world are standing in opposition to Gods kingdom and will be brought to ruin. A Christian should take no part in the politics of the world. Any Christian organization that is involved with politics is a false religion.


Was the Tabernacle and its furnishings a copy of things in Heaven? Revelation tells us that there is a Temple of God in Heaven, and that in that Temple is the Ark of his testament.

Revelation  11:19  KJV

  And the temple of God was opened in heaven, and there was seen in his temple the ark of his testament: and there were lightnings, and voices, and thunderings, and an earthquake, and great hail.

God directed Moses twice to make sure that he built the Tabernacle after the pattern God had shown him on the Mountain.

Exodus 25:9  KJV

  According to all that I shew thee, after the pattern of the tabernacle, and the pattern of all the instruments thereof, even so shall ye make it.

Exodus  25:40  KJV

  And look that thou make them after their pattern, which was shewed thee in the Mount.

The word translated here as pattern could have just as easily been translated model.

  H8403 תַּבנִיתּ tabniyth (tab-neeth') n-f.
  1. structure
  2. (by implication) a model, resemblance
  KJV: figure, form, likeness, pattern, similitude.

Are there any theological suppositions about this?

Hebrews 8:4-5 (NIV)

  If he were on earth, he would not be a priest, for there are already
  priests who offer the gifts prescribed by the law. They serve at a
  sanctuary that is a copy and shadow of what is in heaven. This is
  why Moses was warned when he was about to build the tabernacle: “See
  to it that you make everything according to the pattern shown you on
  the mountain.”

  Hebrews 9:19-23 (NIV)

  When Moses had proclaimed every command of the law to all the people,
  he took the blood of calves, together with water, scarlet wool and
  branches of hyssop, and sprinkled the scroll and all the people. He
  said, “This is the blood of the covenant, which God has commanded you
  to keep.” In the same way, he sprinkled with the blood both the
  tabernacle and everything used in its ceremonies. In fact, the law
  requires that nearly everything be cleansed with blood, and without
  the shedding of blood there is no forgiveness. It was necessary, then,
  for the copies of the heavenly things to be purified with these
  sacrifices, but the heavenly things themselves with better sacrifices
  than these. For Christ did not enter a sanctuary made with human
  hands that was only a copy of the true one; he entered heaven
  itself, now to appear for us in God’s presence. Nor did he enter
  heaven to offer himself again and again, the way the high priest
  enters the Most Holy Place every year with blood that is not his own.

Moses did not build a Temple with walls and foundations of stone. The tabernacle built by Moses was a movable tent. What the Bible meant by a 'copy' is the design and positioning of the items inside the tabernacle. The tabernacle on earth cannot be equally the same like the one in Heaven but it reflected all the important aspects of the one in Heaven. The design and positioning of the items are same but the material and quality cannot be the same. While the earthly tabernacle was temporary, the heavenly tabernacle is eternal. While the high priest had to offer the blood every year, Jesus offered His eternal blood only once which is for eternity.

The Scriptures cited above show that the earthly Temple and before that the Tabernacle was a copy of a heavenly Temple. And that a liturgical type of worship goes on in heaven, Revelation 4:8-11 and "And another angel came and
stood at the altar, having a golden censer; and there was given unto him much incense, that he should offer it with the prayers of all the saints upon the golden altar which was before the throne." Revelation 8:3.


How can I be sure someone I know is going to Heaven? I am sure that through my faith my sins have been forgiven and I will get into Heaven.  However, how can I be sure someone else will be forgiven and allowed in Heaven?  Are there any good questions I can ask them to be assured of their own faith?

I would expect actually ask any questions and not try to assume anything from outward appearances.  However, I am assuming that when asking the person they are answering honestly.

Also, I imagine asking these questions of someone who may have first approached me and asked how they could be assured they will get into Heaven.  Perhaps someone who is first approaching Christianity or a believer who is questioning how they'll get in.

The book of 1 John was written for this exact reason.
1 John 5:13 NIV

13 I write these things to you who believe in the name of the Son of
God so that you may know that you have eternal life.

Throughout the book of 1 John, the author gives many examples of how people doing things and then he tells us whether or not that person is saved. You can take all of the following tests and measure anybody against them to see which direction that, that person is going in.
Repentance is about you no longer following your own desires, but the desires of Christ for you.
2 Corinthians 13:5 NIV

Examine yourselves to see whether you are in the faith; test
yourselves. Do you not realize that Christ Jesus is in you—unless, of
course, you fail the test?

Question 1: Do you sin habitually?
1 John 5:18-20 NIV

We know that anyone born of God does not continue to sin; the one who
was born of God keeps him safe, and the evil one cannot harm him. We
know that we are children of God, and that the whole world is under
the control of the evil one.

1 John 1:6-76 NIV

If we claim to have fellowship with him yet walk in the darkness, we
lie and do not live by the truth. 7 But if we walk in the light, as he
is in the light, we have fellowship with one another, and the blood of
Jesus, his Son, purifies us from all sin.

Question 2: Do you occasionally fall short?
1 John 1:8,10 NIV

8 If we claim to be without sin, we deceive ourselves and the truth is
not in us. 10 If we claim we have not sinned, we make him out to be a
liar and his word has no place in our lives.

John 8:44 NIV

You belong to your father, the devil, and you want to carry out your
father's desire. He was a murderer from the beginning, not holding to
the truth, for there is no truth in him. When he lies, he speaks his
native language, for he is a liar and the father of lies.

Question 3: Do you confess your sins?
Psalm 32:3-6 NIV

When I kept silent, my bones wasted away through my groaning all day
long. For day and night your hand was heavy upon me; my strength was
sapped as in the heat of summer.   Then I acknowledged my sin to you
and did not cover up my iniquity. I said, "I will confess my
transgressions to the LORD "—and you forgave the guilt of my sin.

1 John 1:9 NIV

If we confess our sins, he is faithful and just and will forgive us
our sins and purify us from all unrighteousness.

Romans 2:5 NIV

But because of your stubbornness and your unrepentant heart, you are
storing up wrath against yourself for the day of God's wrath, when his
righteous judgment will be revealed.

Question 4: Do you obey God?
1 John 2:4-5 NIV

The man who says, "I know him," but does not do what he commands is a
liar, and the truth is not in him. But if anyone obeys his word, God's
love is truly made complete in him.

1 John 5:3 NIV

This is love for God: to obey his commands. And his commands are not
burdensome,

2 John 1:6 NIV

And this is love: that we walk in obedience to his commands. As you
have heard from the beginning, his command is that you walk in love.

Question 5: Do you bear good fruit?
1 John 2:5-6 NIV

5 This is how we know we are in him: Whoever claims to live in him must
walk as Jesus did. 6 This is how we know we are in him: Whoever claims
to live in him must walk as Jesus did.

Question 6: Do you love your brothers?
1 John 2:9-11 NIV

Anyone who claims to be in the light but hates his brother is still in
the darkness. Whoever loves his brother lives in the light, and there
is nothing in him to make him stumble. But whoever hates his brother
is in the darkness and walks around in the darkness; he does not know
where he is going, because the darkness has blinded him.

Question 7: Do you walk in love?
2 John 1:6 NIV

And this is love: that we walk in obedience to his commands. As you
have heard from the beginning, his command is that you walk in love.

Question 8: Do you believe in Jesus?
1 John 3:23 NIV

And this is his command: to believe in the name of his Son, Jesus
Christ, and to love one another as he commanded us.

Question 9: Do you hate the things of this world?
1 John 2:15-17 NIV

Do not love the world or anything in the world. If anyone loves the
world, the love of the Father is not in him. For everything in the
world—the cravings of sinful man, the lust of his eyes and the
boasting of what he has and does—comes not from the Father but from
the world. The world and its desires pass away, but the man who does
the will of God lives forever.

Question 10: Are you persevering in repentance?
James 5:20
let him know that he who turns a sinner from the error of his way will save his soul from death and will cover a multitude of sins.
Acts 17:30

In the past God overlooked such ignorance, but now he commands all
people everywhere to repent.

Job 36:10

He makes them listen to correction and commands them to repent of
their evil.

2 Timothy 2:19

Nevertheless, God's solid foundation stands firm, sealed with this
inscription: "The Lord knows those who are his," and, "Everyone who
confesses the name of the Lord must turn away from wickedness."

Matthew 3:8

Produce fruit in keeping with repentance.

Revelation 2:19

I know your deeds, your love and faith, your service and perseverance,
and that you are now doing more than you did at first.

You will know them by their fruit.
And finally, Jesus tells us that we will know them by their fruit. The fruit that I just laid forth for you above.
Mathew 7 NIV

15 “Watch out for false prophets. They come to you in sheep’s
clothing, but inwardly they are ferocious wolves. 16 By their fruit
you will recognize them. Do people pick grapes from thornbushes, or
figs from thistles? 17 Likewise, every good tree bears good fruit, but
a bad tree bears bad fruit. 18 A good tree cannot bear bad fruit, and
a bad tree cannot bear good fruit. 19 Every tree that does not bear
good fruit is cut down and thrown into the fire. 20 Thus, by their
fruit you will recognize them.

The Bible teaches that we are not to judge one another - and that includes making positive judgements (X is definitely going to heaven) as well as negative ones (X is damned to hell). So even if we could find some good questions to assure ourselves of someone's salvation, Christianity teaches that it would be incorrect for us to do so.


Is the Qur'an compatible with Christianity? In comment discussion of another question, these mentions about the Qur'an were made:

  The Qur'an teaches that Christ is a Prophet in Islam. In that sense I wouldn't say it's "Anti-Christian" or even heretical.

  I merely made this distinction because it doesn't directly teach against Christian theology, and some Christians have a similar view to the Qur'an with respect to the divinity of Christ.

I had never before heard of Christians that see the Qur'an as compatible with Christianity. I think this has a lot to do with what doctrines a Christian holds onto. For the purpose of this question, anyone self-identifying as a Christian is a Christian.

What Christian doctrines is the Qur'an incompatible with?
Is the Qur'an generally compatible with Christianity? (i.e. other than being incompatible with the specific doctrines)

No, it is not compatible. The Qur'an explicitly denies the divinity of Christ, which is one of the absolute bedrock tenets of the Christian faith. Without His divinity and associated sinlessness Christ's sacrifice and resurrection would carry no meaning or effect.

One additional note: I ran across this article today and I thought it would round out this answer well. In it the author explains the doctrine of the Trinity and why it matters so much. The fact that Christ was divine and one part of a triune Godhead is critical to Christianity, and as I said the Qur'an denies it outright. A great summary of the Trinity from the article:

  The doctrine of the Trinity can be summarized in seven statements. (1)
  There is only one God. (2) The Father is God. (3) The Son is God. (4)
  The Holy Spirit is God. (5) The Father is not the Son. (6) The Son is
  the not the Holy Spirit. (7) The Holy Spirit is not the Father. All of
  the creedal formulations and theological jargon and philosophical
  apologetics have to do with safeguarding each one of these statements
  and doing so without denying any of the other six.

Without a Trinity there is no Christianity, therein lies the direct conflict with the Qur'an.

I think that Qur'an contains internal contradictions. Also Qur'an and Islam rejects that key figure of Christianity was crucified and it denys His divinity and trinitarian doctrine.
Doctrinally they are incompatible, because Qur'an rejects christian trinity and that Jesus( or Isa as they call Him ) was divine, although He is called in Qur'an word of God and some other great titles;

3. Jesus is the Word of Allah.

  O People of the Scripture, do not commit excess in your religion or
  say about Allah except the truth. The Messiah, Jesus, the son of Mary,
  was but a messenger of Allah and His word which He directed to
  Mary and a soul [created at a command] from Him. So believe in Allah
  and His messengers. And do not say, "Three"; desist - it is better for
  you. Indeed, Allah is but one God. Exalted is He above having a son.
  To Him belongs whatever is in the heavens and whatever is on the
  earth. And sufficient is Allah as Disposer of affairs. http://quran.com/4/171

How is the Christian Jesus different from the Muslim Jesus?

  The Qur'an Says ...

  Holy, Revelation, Mercy   When the spirit of Allah appeared as a full-grown man to the Virgin Mary, he announced that she would have a holy son who would be a revelation to mankind and a mercy from Allah (19:17-21).

  No Trinity   People of the Bible should not exaggerate but speak only the truth about Allah. The Messiah, Jesus son of Mary, was only a messenger of Allah, his word that he gave to Mary and a spirit from him. So believe in Allah and his messengers and stop saying “three.” Allah is only one. He is too transcendent and majestic to have a son. The Messiah is not ashamed to be a slave of Allah (4:171,172).

  The Breath and Spirit of Allah   Mary, daughter of Imran, who guarded her chastity, is an example of a good wife. Allah breathed into Mary his spirit (the conception of Jesus) and she testified to the truth (that it was a virgin birth) (66:12).

  Preached from the Cradle   On the Judgment Day, Allah will question Jesus who will be among the other apostles. Allah will ask Jesus if he remembered how he was strengthened by the Holy Spirit and was made to preach to men in his cradle (to defend his mother’s chastity) and as a man (5:110).

  Infant Proclamation   As an infant Jesus miraculously spoke and proclaimed that he was a “servant” and “prophet” of Allah who had been given the Gospel. The infant Jesus went on to say that Allah had purified him and commanded him to pray, give alms and obey his parents (19:29-33).

  Not the Son of God   Jesus is the son of Mary. This is the whole truth which Christians are unwilling to believe. It is degrading to think that Allah would have a son! Allah just commands things to happen and they happen (such as Jesus being born of a virgin) (19:34,35). Those who say that Allah has begotten a son proclaim something disastrous. The sky would crack, the earth split apart and the mountains would fall down if they ascribed to Allah a son. It is beneath his majesty (19:88-92). Those who believe Allah had a son are liars who will be punished (10:68,69). Mohammed was told to say that if Allah had a son, Mohammed would be the first to worship him. It is a falsehood that the Christians will have to answer for on the Judgment Day (43:81-83). Allah has no children or wife in his kingdom (25:2).

  Only a Slave   When the son of Mary is declared as an example (of the Almighty in human form) the idol worshipers ridicule and dispute as to whether their gods are better or Jesus. Jesus is nothing but a slave on whom Allah gave favor and made him an example (of a prophet) for the Children of Israel. Jesus came with clear miracles and told the people to do their duty to Allah and to obey him. He commanded them to worship Allah, their Lord and his (43:57-64).

  Strengthened with the Holy Spirit   Jesus, son of Mary, was given power to do miracles and strengthened with the Holy Spirit. Yet, when an apostle comes with undesirable teachings, the Jews get prideful and some they call imposters and others they kill (2:87, 253).

  No Savior   Everyone (including Jesus) will appear before Allah on the Day of Judgment as only a slave who is alone and without a savior or intercessor (19:93-95).

  Supported Torah and Predicted Mohammed    Jesus, son of Mary, told Israel that he had come to confirm the Jewish Holy Scriptures which came before him, and to announce that another apostle would come after him named Ahmad (61:6).

  His Disciples   Some Jews followed Jesus as Allah’s helpers and they were blessed to triumph over their enemies (61:14). The disciples of Jesus surrendered themselves to Allah and the Apostle Jesus. They were believers and witnesses. After Allah lifted Jesus up to himself to free Jesus from the unbelievers, the disciples were blessed. The followers of Jesus will be exalted above the unbelievers till the Day of Resurrection when their denominational differences will be settled (3:55).

  Worked Miracles   Jesus came with clear signs but he was rejected as bewitched (61:6). By Allah’s permission, Jesus brought a clay bird to life, gave the blind sight, healed lepers and raised the dead to life (3:49).

  Crucifixion of Christ   The Jews have broken the covenant, denied Allah’s revelations and killed the prophets wrongfully. They speak a tremendous slander against Mary. They also say that they killed the Messiah Jesus, son of Mary and Allah’s messenger. They did not kill him or crucify him. It only appeared that way to them. They did not kill him but Allah took him up to himself (4:155-158). After Allah caused Jesus to die (or ascend without dying) and lifted him up to heaven to free Jesus from the unbelievers, the disciples were blessed. The followers of Jesus will be exalted above the unbelievers till the Day of Resurrection when their disputes will be judged (3:55).

  Made a Live Bird from Clay   On the judgment day, Allah will question Jesus who will be among the other apostles. He will be asked if he remembered how he was given Bible instruction, wisdom and miraculous power. By Allah’s permission, he fashioned a bird from clay and breathed life into it (to make it live) (5:110).

  A Table of Food from Heaven   On the Judgment Day, Allah will question Jesus who will be among the other apostles. He will ask if he remembered how, by Allah’s permission, he healed the person born blind, cured the leper and raised the dead. The story will be recounted of how Jesus was allowed to call down a table set with food for his followers (5:110-115).

  Denies the Trinity   On the Judgment Day, Allah will question Jesus who will be among the other apostles. Jesus will be asked if he told mankind to worship him and his mother as two gods besides Allah. Jesus will strongly deny it (5:116-118).

  Jesus Is Like Adam   Both Jesus and Adam are special creations by the command of Allah (3:59). (This is an interesting verse because the Qur'an rejects the worship of Jesus, yet Satan was banished to hell because he refused to obey Allah’s command to bow before Adam, the man who was sculpted and brought to life from clay. Satan did not believe Allah would ask him to do something so illogical. The story of Satan is found in 7:11-23, 15:28-39, 18:50.)
  http://answering-islam.org/Authors/Fisher/Topical/ch21.htm

Conclusion
Qur'an is not compatible with the doctrines of Christianity concerning trinity, nature of Christ, so Qur'an is not compatible with Christianity.


Are there examples of God forgiving without sacrifice? So far I have seen, some kind of sacrifice, direct or indirect, is required to have forgiveness from sin. So, my question is - Are there examples of God forgiving our sins without any sacrifice?

Hebrews 9:22 answers this question definitely:

  Indeed, under the law almost everything is purified with blood, and
  without the shedding of blood there is no forgiveness of sins. (ESV)

The author of Hebrews goes on from this verse to say that the spiritual things needed to be purified with greater sacrifices than that of animals, and pointed to the sacrifice of Christ, which puts away all sins. See that argument developed in chapter ten.

It would appear from the gospel stories that God can and does forgive without sacrifice.

Rhoads, Dewey and Michie say in Mark as Story, page 113, Mark's Gospel portrays Jesus already pardoning sin during his life and authorising others to do the same.  His death is not needed to make forgiveness possible, so Mark does not portray Jesus' death as a sacrifice for sin. The crucifixion as atonement for sins comes in later traditions.

Partial transcript from page 113 of Mark as Story

The meaning of Jesus' crucifixion

The significance of-Jesus'death became a central concern of later Christian theology.   The theological significance of the death is not, however, Mark's primary concern.  Although the Gospel does suggest some meanings for Jesus' death,  as we shall see below, what is central for Mark is that Jesus was executed and raised.

. . .

Therefore the modern reader needs to be cautious not to read into Mark theological meanings that later came to be associated with Jesus'death.  To begin with, Mark does not portray Jesus'death as a sacrifice for sin. Mark portrays Jesus already pardoning sin during his life and authorizing others to do the same.  His death is not needed to make forgiveness possible.

[my emphasis]


The Trinity before the birth of Jesus If Jesus was born at a certain date in history, do trinitarian Christians believe that the Trinity did not exist before that date? Alternatively, is some sort of incorporeal Jesus believed to have been in existence despite not yet having been born?

Christians believe that the Trinity consists of three distinct persons with one divine nature.

This Trinitarian Godhead exists infinitely and eternally, and therefore existed before time.

Christians also adhere to the very distinct doctrine of the Hypostatic Union, which is the belief that Jesus Christ has two natures.

One nature is truly divine. One nature is truly human.

These two doctrines are clearly stated in the first chapter of the Gospel of St. John:

  In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word
  was God. He was in the beginning with God.

The "Son" (2nd Person of the Trinity) existed "before all ages."  The Son was born into the world of a virgin roughly 2000 years ago. His name is Jesus Christ.

The Nicene Creed puts it best:

  We believe in one Lord, Jesus Christ, the only Son of God, eternally
  begotten of the Father, God from God, Light from Light, true God from
  true God, begotten, not made, of one Being with the Father. Through
  him all things were made. For us and for our salvation he came down
  from heaven: by the power of the Holy Spirit he became incarnate from
  the Virgin Mary, and was made man. For our sake he was crucified under
  Pontius Pilate; he suffered death and was buried. On the third day he
  rose again in accordance with the Scriptures; he ascended into heaven
  and is seated at the right hand of the Father. He will come again in
  glory to judge the living and the dead, and his kingdom will have no
  end.

Was the Son eternally begotten?

Just to add to the great answers by both David Stratton and Charles Alsobrook, That Jesus was both fully man and fully God is central to Christianity. Unless Jesus was a sinless man He would not be an acceptable sacrifice for our sins. That could only be possible if he were also deity, which by definition would be an eternal being.


How do "once saved, always saved" advocates explain the Parable of the Sower? How do advocates of a strict perseverance of the saints doctrine explain the Parable of the Sower?  That is, how does someone explain it who believes that once someone is saved they cannot lose that salvation?  Jesus' own explanation of the parable says:

  Now the parable is this: The seed is the word of God. The ones along the path are those who have heard; then the devil comes and takes away the word from their hearts, so that they may not believe and be saved. And the ones on the rock are those who, when they hear the word, receive it with joy. But these have no root; they believe for a while, and in time of testing fall away.  And as for what fell among the thorns, they are those who hear, but as they go on their way they are choked by the cares and riches and pleasures of life, and their fruit does not mature. As for that in the good soil, they are those who, hearing the word, hold it fast in an honest and good heart, and bear fruit with patience. (Luke 8:11–15, ESV, emphasis added)

It certainly seems like Jesus is saying some people believe for a while and then stop believing, implying it is possible to give up/lose one's salvation.  How does one resolve this with a "once saved, always saved" theology?  I'm sure the answer will be something along the lines of "they weren't real believers to begin with," but I want more in depth exegesis.  Why are there four groups in the parable if there are only two or three type of people (real believers, "pretend"/apparent believers, unbelievers)?  What do the different groups represent if no group represents people who left the faith (after legitimately having it)?  Why should we take the words of Jesus that some believe, but only for a little while, to mean they didn't really believe at all?

A good answer should reference commentary by a published theologian who adheres to a strict perseverance of the saints doctrine.

As expected, "once saved, always saved" advocates (I'll use "reformed" as shorthand for this) generally agree that both the second and third types of soil represent people who were never saved.  Broadly speaking, they make these points:

The four soils represent four types of people or hearts: the unresponsive, the impulsive, the preoccupied, and the well-prepared
The main difference between the impulsive and the preoccupied is found in the specific reasons that growth does not occur
There are biblical examples of both the impulsive and the preoccupied that we can learn from
Ultimately, the parable should lead us to self-reflection: it should inspire the unbeliever to repent, and the believer to greater faithfulness

The four soils
The breakdown of the four soils given by William Hendriksen is characteristic of reformed commentators:

One might speak of the unresponsive heart (verse 19), the impulsive heart (verses 20, 21), the preoccupied heart (verse 22), and the good, responsive, or well-prepared heart (verse 23). [referring to verses of Matthew 13]1

The statuses of the first and fourth groups are quite obvious, while the second and third are worth further investigation in light of the question: If both of these soils refer to "people who were never saved to begin with," as reformed commentators believe, what is the point of the distinction? It is to show and warn against two ways that people fail to properly respond to the Gospel.
The impulsive
The profession of faith of the impulsive person, John Gill says, "is taken up in haste, immediately, upon a flash of affection, and a little head knowledge, it does not last long, nor prove honourable."2 As Hendriksen writes:

The trouble with the people symbolized by seed that fell on rock is that their emotions are superficial, not based on deep-seated convictions.3

The disappearance of this "faith" occurs when trials and persecution come.  But what about the language of Luke 8, where Jesus says that these people "believe for a while"?  Is that not an indication that they have faith, and then lose it?  John Calvin admits that the "honor which they render to the Gospel resembles faith," and that that they are "widely different from unbelievers, who give no credit to God when he speaks."  But ultimately, they do not have the "true faith":

None are partakers of true faith, except those who are sealed with the Spirit of adoption, and who sincerely call on God as their Father; and as that Spirit is never extinguished, so it is impossible that the faith, which he has once engraven on the hearts of the godly, shall pass away or be destroyed.4

John Gill understands them to be the sort of hearers who

whilst they are hearing, assent to what they hear, but when they are gone, either forget it, or, falling into bad company, are prevailed upon to doubt of it, and disbelieve it.5

Biblical examples suggested for this type of person include Simon the magician (Acts 8), the crowds who turn away from Jesus when his teaching is difficult (John 6), those who shouted "Hosanna" and later, presumably, "crucify him" (Mark 11), and those who abandoned the faith in 1 John 2:19.
The preoccupied
The seed in the heart of the preoccupied person, on the other hand, fails to grow not because of trials and persecution, but because of distractions and pleasures.  John MacArthur calls it the "worldly heart, swept up in the deceitfulness of riches."6 In such a person, Calvin writes, "sinful affections of the flesh prevail,"4 and Hendriksen emphasizes the inability to focus on Christ:

[The preoccupied heart] has no room for calm and earnest meditation on the word of the Lord.  Should any such serious study and reflection nevertheless attempt to gain entrance, it would immediately be choked off.7

Many biblical examples of this type are suggested, including the rich young ruler (Matthew 19), Demas (2 Timothy 4), and the merchants of Amos 8.
Application and summary
Hendriksen writes that the lesson of the parable is:

Examine yourself to discover to which group you belong.  If you belong to any one of the first three groups, be converted!  Not, of course, by power residing in yourself but by God's sovereign grace! Even if you should belong to the fourth group, ask yourself the question, 'Am I sufficiently fruitful?'8

Calvin similarly notes that believers should take heed not to let thorns hinder their fruitfulness:

We ought to labor, no doubt, to pull out the thorns; but as our utmost exertion will never succeed so well, but that there will always be some remaining behind, let each of us endeavor, at least, to deaden them, that they may not hinder the fruit of the word.4

To put it simply: Reformed commentators see the parable as a description of and warning against three distinct types of unbelief, and a call to greater fruitfulness in the Christian walk.

References:

Hendriksen, Exposition of the Gospel According to Matthew, 558.
Gill, Exposition of the Whole Bible, Matthew 13.
Hendriksen, Exposition of the Gospel According to Luke, 427.
Calvin, *Commentary on Matthew, Mark, and Luke, Volume 2.
Gill, Exposition of the Whole Bible, Luke 8.
MacArthur, "Receptivity to the Gospel, Part 3" (sermon).
Hendriksen, Exposition of the Gospel According to Matthew, 561.
Hendriksen, Exposition of the Gospel According to Luke, 429.

How do “once saved, always saved” advocates explain the Parable of the Sower?

There is a frame of reference issue here that needs to be clarified first. Everything that Jesus said, taught, and did was consistent with a legitimate offer of the Kingdom to the nation of Israel. He never winked and said, “I know you guys are going to blow it so here is the real plan”.

This taken with an understanding of salvation in the Old Testament economy (righteousness imputed according to faith) combines to differentiate salvation from the New Testament economy. We have the example Paul gives us of Abraham;

  Romans 4:20-22  He staggered not at the promise of God through
  unbelief; but was strong in faith, giving glory to God;   And being
  fully persuaded that, what he had promised, he was able also to
  perform.   And therefore it was imputed to him for righteousness.

We can see that those who have the opportunity to specifically trust in Christ receive their new and eternal life in Christ while they are still alive;

  John 5:24  Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that heareth my word,
  and believeth on him that sent me, hath everlasting life, and shall
  not come into condemnation; but is passed from death unto life.

  2 Corinthians 1:22  Who hath also sealed us, and given the earnest of
  the Spirit in our hearts.

  Hebrews 11:39-40  And these all, having obtained a good report through
  faith, received not the promise:   God having provided some better
  thing for us, that they without us should not be made perfect.

The Old Testament saints receive their new and eternal life at what Revelation calls the first resurrection;

  Revelation 20:6  Blessed and holy is he that hath part in the first
  resurrection: on such the second death hath no power, but they shall
  be priests of God and of Christ, and shall reign with him a thousand
  years.

  Daniel 12:2  And many of them that sleep in the dust of the earth
  shall awake, some to everlasting life, and some to shame and
  everlasting contempt.

This has bearing upon the parable of the sower in that none of the four examples receive new and eternal life at that time so the idea of “once saved always saved could not apply. The metrics to  determine which type of person had sufficient faith so that righteousness would be imputed to them is not given.

I am sorry I am not able to quote any published theologian as I am unaware of any who might hold to this differentiation between Old and New Testament saints and thus would be able to consider the application to the parable of the sower.


Since Jesus death paid our sin debt in full, why do Christians still die? In Genesis chapter  two God places the burden of death on man's sin(disobedience of God).
Genesis 2:17  KJV

But of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it: for in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die.

When Jesus died on the cross all of our sins were given to him and his death paid the penalty for our transgressions.
Since Jesus suffered death for us why do Christians who have given their sins to Jesus on the cross still die?
1st John 2:2  KJV

And he is the propitiation for our sins: and not for ours only, but also for the sins of the whole world.

Galatians 1:4  KJV

Who gave himself for our sins, that he might deliver us from this present evil world, according to the will of God and our Father:

Romans chapter 5   KJV

12  Wherefore, as by one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin; and so death passed upon all men, for that all have sinned:
17  For if by one man's offence death reigned by one; much more they which receive abundance of grace and of the gift of righteousness shall reign in life by one, Jesus Christ.)

Gen 2:17 reference is for the second death not the first.

The fact that we are still dying in spite of Jesus dying for us, shows that death is more than what we know it to be in everyday meaning. There is something called "second death" in the Bible.

  Rev.20:6 “Blessed and holy is the one who takes part in the first resurrection. The second death has no power over them, but they will be priests of God and of Christ, and they will reign with him for a thousand years.”

It worth noting how clearly this second death is mentioned at Rev. 2:11; 20:6, 14; 21:8. One of the first things God told Adam was regarding the forbidden fruit. He said:

  Gen.2:17, “but you must not eat from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, for when you eat from it you will surely die.”

The same day they were supposed to have been paying the penalty for their disobedience; the penalty was death. But they didn't die the same day, because:

  John 3:16 For this is the way   God loved the world: He gave his one and only   Son, so that everyone who believes in him will not perish   but have eternal life.

A substitute was already planned and therefore the penalty of sin was differed. When Adam died at the age of 930 years he was not paying the penalty of sin. Adam's probationary period of overcoming sin was over at nine hundred and thirty years; his lifespan ended.

In fact the Bible uses another word “sleep” many a time, when talking about the death that comes at the end of a lifetime. Talking about Lazarus' death, Jesus himself called it sleep. He said:

  John 11:11-14 After he said this, he added, “Our friend Lazarus has fallen asleep.   But I am going there to awaken him.”  Then the disciples replied,   “Lord, if he has fallen asleep, he will recover.”  (Now Jesus had been talking about   his death, but they thought he had been talking about real sleep.) Then Jesus told them plainly, “Lazarus has died,

This word "sleep" has been used several times, in reference to the first death or the natural death that all have to face in this sinful world. (See Job 14:10-12, 1 Thessalonians 4:15, 16). All the people who ever died on planet earth died only the natural death or the first death; and first death is the consequence (natural result) of sin-because of Adam's fall-and not the wages (punishment) of sin.

The death of Christ and also His resurrection were divine acts, and not natural acts. Death had no power on Him, as He did not sin. For us to die is natural, for Christ it was not. He was doing something that otherwise would not have happened. Just before Jesus could go to Calvary, this is what He said about Satan:

  John 14:30 I will not speak with you much longer, for the ruler of this world is coming.  He has no power over me.

Satan had no power over Christ, as Christ did not yield to temptation. He had to lay His life down as a voluntary act for our salvation, and He did it. He was paying the penalty of the human race on the cruel Cross. He was dying the death that we deserved. Paul wrote: ...so that by God’s grace he would experience death on behalf of everyone. (Hebrew 2:9)

First death and second death:

The death that Christ died was the second death. The first death is a natural consequence of sin. Whether one is a believer or unbeliever, the first death is for all, whether a saint or a sinner. It is the close of probationary time, either to make it or break it to Heaven. When Adam and Eve were told that they would die the day they ate the fruit, it was a reference to the second death (the eternal extinction), not the first death.

The first death physically destroys the body, but it is not an eternal destruction, as there will be a resurrection. But the second death is the eternal destruction of the person. So the second death is the real death, the complete death. The first death has only a part of the second death in it. The second death has the first death and more in it.

  (Rev 20:6, 14, 15; 21:8), and not "first and second death", as the second death is the complete death.

Those who die the second death have no resurrection. But Jesus rose from the dead even though He died the second death. Well, because He was sinless, He was dying a substitution death. He was not dying for His sin (He did no sin), but for the sins of the others (the whole world).

When we die the first death, we can afford to smile and die, and even sing while burning at the stake, because we know it is only the first death, and there is a resurrection. But when Jesus was dying the death on Calvary, He cried in bitter agony:

  My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me? (Matthew 27:46)

But when we die our natural death, we don't cry that way, as God does not forsake us. It is at the final death, the second death, when people pay the wages of sin, they would feel the bitter agony of being forever cut off from God and from life, and then all will cry and weep and gnash their teeth.

When Christ bore the sins of the world on Him, He could not, for that moment, see beyond the portals of the tomb, as it was total darkness within Him and around Him too. Only by faith He knew that resurrection was possible for Him while He was bearing our sins upon Himself. And that's how He gave hope to the thief, and that's how He committed His breath into the hands of His Heavenly Father and died. And lo! And behold! On the third day our Lord conquered the grave as He conquered death! Listen to the Victor:

  Rev. 1:18 I am he that liveth, and was dead; and, behold, I am alive for evermore, Amen; and have the keys of hell and of death.

#Apologies for this long answer.

The text of Genesis 2:17 KJV aims to spiritual death, ie separation from God, not only phisical death.


Did Jesus have wealth and mansion's? Did Jesus have many mansion while on earth? I heard a teaching from T.V that he preached from his many mansion? It just does not sound right,am I wrong?

I would suggest that you are thinking of :

  ... in my Father's house are many mansions ... John 14:2 KJV.

This is quite clearly a spiritual expression, not a material one, for Jesus clarifies the expression by saying that he is 'going to prepare a place for you', that being evidently after his death and resurrection, not an earthly situation.

As to his personal possessions and property, Jesus left only his garments when he died. Soldiers divided them and then gambled for the cloak, woven without seam, John 19:23 -24.

By so doing, these soldiers unknowingly fulfilled the prophecy spoken by David in the psalms, written about 1,000 years before the event took place :

  They part my garments among them and cast lots for my vesture. Psalm 22:18 KJV.

As has been supplied in comment by @L1R, Jesus says of himself :

  Foxes have holes, and birds of the air have nests; but the Son of man hath not where to lay his head. Luke 9:58, KJV.

Edit
I wish to explain that a king receiving gifts in the value of today’s money exceeding $1M is not ludicrous by any means.
I shall use the Bible

“Then she gave the king 120 talents of gold, and a very great quantity of spices and precious stones. Never again came such an abundance of spices as these that the queen of Sheba gave to King Solomon.”
1 Kings 10:10

I shall explain the value of the gold gift brought to Solomon.
120 talents of gold at 35kg per talent(1,234oz) and at today’s gold price per ounce $1,500 that’s $222M. Even if we say gold is inflated and should be at $200 an ounce that would still be $30M. If Jesus has received just one talent that would be $1.8M just there. That’s beside the myrrh and frankincense. Spices were incredibly valuable also. It’s highly unlikely again that they travelled, prepared and possibly even had a small personal accompanying army to protect a couple of ounces of resin.
Logically these magi spent a lot of time preparing. According to the time they first saw the star until when they finally arrived to Herod, whether the star appeared at conception of birth Herod thought it necessary to kill all children two years and under.

“Then Herod, when he saw that he had been tricked by the wise men, became furious, and he sent and killed all the male children in Bethlehem and in all that region who were two years old or under, according to the time that he had ascertained from the wise men.”
Matthew 2:16

Further these men did not travel that distance and prepare that long to bring a gift the value of $50 gift card at buybuybaby.
The text makes it evident that they were many men, enough men that Herod was not in a position to assassinate them without a fight. Enough man that it brought fear over all Jerusalem. For good reasons, this was an attempt to dethrone Herod, talking about another king

“When Herod the king heard this, he was troubled, and all Jerusalem with him;”
Matthew 2:3

This was seen as a threat. No wonder he was troubled. Herod planned to kill this king.
So clearly they didn’t bring trinkets to Jesus.
Original response
The idea that Jesus had financial wealth comes from the magi presenting gifts to a king. And kings are known to receive extravagant gifts from other dignitaries.
According to one source of scholars funded by Australian billionaire Mr. Peter J. Daniels the value in today’s money would be between of US$5-8Million.
However we cannot know for certain whether that be true or even if true how the money was spent. Certainly Joseph had to relocate them several times and that money would have helped especially in Egypt. But also Jesus was versed in Scriptures and it’s speculated He bought his own copies. Which take many months to produce and each cost a small fortune. And this before the age of twelve as per the temple incident.

“After three days they found him in the temple, sitting among the teachers, listening to them and asking them questions. And all who heard him were amazed at his understanding and his answers.”
Luke 2:46-47

If we go by, “do as you preach” and Jesus required the young rich ruler to sell all his possessions and follow Him, there is no reason to believe that Jesus would have done differently.

“And Jesus, looking at him, loved him, and said to him, "You lack one thing: go, sell all that you have and give to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven; and come, follow me."”
Mark 10:21

However by the time Jesus was in ministry He had but limited amount of funds which he entrusted to Judas.

“Some thought that, because Judas had the moneybag, Jesus was telling him, "Buy what we need for the feast," or that he should give something to the poor.”
John 13:29

You don’t need a money bag or an accountant if you spend each day all you have and live from day to day finances. So Jesus had some money with him by this point.
Consider

“And a scribe came up and said to him, "Teacher, I will follow you wherever you go." And Jesus said to him, "Foxes have holes, and birds of the air have nests, but the Son of Man has nowhere to lay his head."”
Matthew 8:19-20

So clearly He had no permanent place of residency and did not invest in anything on earth.
He did have an expensive garment that was too valuable to shred into pieces. But we know not how he came to have it

“so they said to one another, "Let us not tear it, but cast lots for it to see whose it shall be." This was to fulfill the Scripture which says, "They divided my garments among them, and for my clothing they cast lots." So the soldiers did these things,”
John 19:24

But we know that while Jesus didn’t petition people for money He received money if it was given him

“Soon afterward he went on through cities and villages, proclaiming and bringing the good news of the kingdom of God. And the twelve were with him, and also some women who had been healed of evil spirits and infirmities: Mary, called Magdalene, from whom seven demons had gone out, and Joanna, the wife of Chuza, Herod's household manager, and Susanna, and many others, who provided for them out of their means.”
Luke 8:1-3

Or they gave financial support.


What does "gates of hell" mean in Matthew 16:18? Matthew 16:18 (KJV):

  And I say also unto thee, That thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.

I take it "gates of hell" is a metaphor (there are no literal gates to Hell, are there?), but what is it a metaphor for?

The Greek word is πυλαι and does literally mean "gates", and this is the only reference to the gates of Hades/Hell in the NT. It's also the first use of the word εκκλησια, "the called-out", "church".

The gates of a city are the point at which attackers lay siege, the weakest point. The strength of a city is directly related to the strength or power of its gates. Here Hades or hell is represented as a city with its strength in its gates. The gates represent the power of hell, and the Church is stronger.

Gates also keep people in. Jesus may be referring to his death: Hades could not contain him, and it will not contain the Church either, those who are called out to belong to Christ. The Church will never succumb with the physical death of its members and fail; it will never die.

You must also understand the context in which Christ was speaking. He was in Caesaria Phillipi (Banias, Israel) in front of the Temple of Pan (Ban) which was built into the rock formation... a very large rock formation. It was a very, very ornate temple, but inside the temple there was a cave where they would throw the sacrifices, sometimes children in. That cave was called the "Gates of Hades".

In contrast you see he was stating how the rock that His church will be built on will not be worshipping a fake idol, but on the fact that He is God and this paganism that they were all witnessing (Gates of Hades) will not tear His church. It was a very powerful statement and it hits more at home when you are standing in front of the Gates of Hades.

By the way, at the time Panias was like a capitol city, not just a city with a cave in the countryside, but very ornate and very hellenistic city.


What is Heaven like according to Catholics? What does a person experience who is saved, after their death?

Are they going to have a bodily resurrection in the New Jerusalem, in the real world, or is it a spiritual existence? If in the real world, will their body have any relation to the body they had, including things like age, conditions like dwarfism or siamese twins etc? Will every day have a good temperature, the sun won't eventually engulf the earth, etc?

What sources do we have on what actually happens for all eternity?

Most saints, before entering heaven, will first go to purgatory according to the Catholic church. While in purgatory they are purified ("purged") until they may enter heaven. The Catechism of the Catholic Church says regarding purgatory:

  All who die in God's grace and friendship, but still imperfectly
  purified, are indeed assured of their eternal salvation; but after
  death they undergo purification, so as to achieve the holiness
  necessary to enter the joy of heaven. The Church gives the name
  Purgatory to this final purification of the elect, which is entirely
  different from the punishment of the damned.
  ...
  Those who die in God's grace and friendship imperfectly purified,
  although they are assured of their eternal salvation, undergo a
  purification after death, so as to achieve the holiness necessary to
  enter the joy of God. By virtue of the "communion of saints," the
  Church commends the dead to God's mercy and offers her prayers,
  especially the holy sacrifice of the Eucharist, on their behalf.

The Catechism of the Catholic Church says regarding heaven:

  Those who die in God’s grace and friendship and are perfectly purified
  live for ever with Christ. They are like God for ever, for they “see
  him as he is,” face to face ... The life of the blessed consists in
  the full and perfect possession of the fruits of the redemption
  accomplished by Christ. He makes partners in his heavenly
  glorification those who have believed in him and remained faithful to
  his will. Heaven is the blessed community of all who are perfectly
  incorporated into Christ. ... Scripture speaks of it in images: life,
  light, peace, wedding feast, wine of the kingdom, the Father’s house,
  the heavenly Jerusalem, paradise: “no eye has seen, nor ear heard, nor
  the heart of man conceived, what God has prepared for those who love
  him.” ... In the glory of heaven the blessed continue joyfully to
  fulfill God’s will in relation to other men and to all creation.
  Already they reign with Christ; with him “they shall reign for ever
  and ever.”

Pope John Paul II said:

  In the context of Revelation, we know that the “heaven” or “happiness”
  in which we will find ourselves is neither an abstraction nor a
  physical place in the clouds, but a living, personal relationship with
  the Holy Trinity. It is our meeting with the Father which takes place
  in the risen Christ through the communion of the Holy Spirit.

  It is always necessary to maintain a certain restraint in describing
  these “ultimate realities” since their depiction is always
  unsatisfactory. Today, personalist language is better suited to
  describing the state of happiness and peace we will enjoy in our
  definitive communion with God.

Catholic Answers practices this "restraint" when it says:

  We leave up to God "where" and "how" he fulfills his promise.

But the Catholic Encyclopedia describes the opinions of theologians regarding the "location" of heaven (which are just that, opinions):

  Some are of opinion that heaven is everywhere, as God is everywhere.
  According to this view the blessed can move about freely in every part
  of the universe, and still remain with God and see everywhere.
  Everywhere, too, they remain with Christ (in His sacred Humanity) and
  with the saints and the angels. For, according to the advocates of
  this opinion, the spatial distances of this world must no longer
  impede the mutual intercourse of blessed.

  In general, however, theologians deem more appropriate that there
  should be a special and glorious abode, in which the blessed have
  their peculiar home and where they usually abide, even though they be
  free to go about in this world. For the surroundings in the midst of
  which the blessed have their dwelling must be in accordance with their
  happy state; and the internal union of charity which joins them in
  affection must find its outward expression in community of habitation.
  At the end of the world, the earth together with the celestial bodies
  will be gloriously transformed into a part of the dwelling-place of
  the blessed (Revelation 21). Hence there seems to be no sufficient
  reason for attributing a metaphorical sense to those numerous
  utterances of the Bible which suggest a definite dwelling-place of the
  blessed. Theologians, therefore, generally hold that the heaven of the
  blessed is a special place with definite limits. Naturally, this place
  is held to exist, not within the earth, but, in accordance with the
  expressions of Scripture, without and beyond its limits. All further
  details regarding its locality are quite uncertain. The Church has
  decided nothing on this subject.

Catholic apologist Peter Kreeft has a Q&A on heaven. Here are some portions relevant to your question:

  What happens in hell?

  Nothing.

  What happens in Heaven?

  Everything.

  What kind of bodies will we have in Heaven?

  Christians say we will have transformed bodies, but real, physical
  bodies, as Christ had after his resurrection. His body could be
  touched and could eat. Yet it could come and go as he pleased, with
  neither walls nor distance as an obstacle. It was the same body he had
  before he died, and it was recognized as such by his friends. Yet it
  was so different that at first they did not recognize him. I think
  our new resurrection body will be related to the body we have now in
  the same way that our current body is related to the body we had in
  our mothers' wombs. If a fetus saw a picture of itself at the age of
  twenty, it would at first not recognize itself, so unforeseen and
  surprisingly new would it be. Yet it is the same self, even the same
  body, now grown radically more mature.

  What of injuries and deformities? Will they all be removed in the resurrection body?

  I think not. Christ still had his wounds. But they were badges of
  glory, not suffering and sadness. I think everything—in the body, in
  the soul, and in the person's world—that was offered to God and taken
  up into the eternal kingdom will be preserved and transformed and
  glorified in Heaven: but everything that was not—everything that was
  not the work of God or of the sanctified soul but was of the world,
  the flesh, or the devil—will be left outside Heaven's gate. The
  martyrs' wounds will glow like gold, but the amputee's limb will be
  restored, and so will the brain-damaged person's intelligence. God's
  justice and mercy are perfect, and so is his style.

Bottom line: Heaven is gonna be pretty great, but no one knows exactly how except that we shall see God.

As for bodily imperfections that are a result of original sin (dwarfism,illnesses,old age wrinkles,genetic imperfections etc) They will not be part of the resurrected glorified body.


1 John 5:16 "you don't need to pray for that"? 1 John 5:16

  If anyone sees his brother committing a sin not leading to death, he
  shall ask, and God will give him life—to those who commit sins that do
  not lead to death. There is sin that leads to death; I do not say
  that one should pray for that.

What I mean is like this :

One day, Mr.X say that "my brother committed sin that leads to death".
Then the following condition is interested me, which is : "then we don't have to pray for that"

This question raised because (to me) it seems human won't ever be able to decide that someone committed sin that leads to death ---> the result then there never and have ever occurred when someone tell someone not to pray for any kind of sin.

In fact,
A. I think a faithful and loving person - will never give up to pray for someone (let alone this someone is his brother) no matter how "crazy sick" sin this someone committed.

But reading the verse above,
B. it seems the verse do teach to just give up to pray about it when he/she sees that his/her brother/sister committed sin that leads to death.

My point A contradict point B.

Based on point-B, I need to correct my point A. Which becomes :
C. Although someone is a faithful and loving person, there is a limit where this someone doesn't need to pray if he sees his/her brother/sister committed sin that leads to death.

But still, it seems point-C is useless. Because (I think) it seems impossible that human (let alone the faithful and the loving person) dare enough to decide "oww... he/she committed a mortal sin !".

The question is :
Am I correct to think that the verse encourage "yes... you can decide if it's a mortal sin or not".

If I'm wrong, how is the Christian interpretation of this verse regarding my description above ?

Thank you.

PS : I don't put my question to a specific denomination yet. If it can not be answered then I will edit it.

Based from Sola Gratia answer, I have a new verse :

Matthew 18:15

  If your brother or sister sins, go and point out their fault, just
  between the two of you. If they listen to you, you have won them over.

Me : in this stage, it's not useless to pray for him

Matthew 18:16

  But if they will not listen, take one or two others along, so that
  'every matter may be established by the testimony of two or three
  witnesses

Me : in this stage, it's still useful to pray for him.

Matthew 18:16

  If they still refuse to listen, tell it to the church; and if they
  refuse to listen even to the church, treat them as you would a pagan
  or a tax collector

Me : in this stage, this brother committed mortal sin. It's useless to pray for him. In other words, there's no need to hope that God will forgive him - no need to hope him to repent.

So... based on Sola Gratia's answer, does 1 John 5:16 means something like the above situation when a faithful and loving person needs to give up praying for someone ?

Please CMIIW.

I think that if one attempts to interpret this passage in the context of a taxonomy of sin, wherein some sins are "sins unto death" (e.g. "mortal" sins) and others are not (e.g. "venial" sins), then one will not arrive at a completely sensible meaning.

Another interpretation is that sin is "unto death" occurs when one has neither the slightest bit of compunction nor desire to repent.  Under this interpretation, what John is saying is that there is essentially no point to pray for such a person, since they themselves do not wish to avail themselves of the benefit of anyone's prayer.

The 20th century Orthodox theologian Justin Popovic, explains this passage:

  He committed a sin and died [spiritually] for it, dealing death to himself, killing himself; but if he supplicates God for his sin, he will be given repentance and through repentance, resurrection from the dead - life ... He shall not pray for a sin unto death.  But why?  Because man with his entire being, soul, and consciousness has voluntarily entered sin and remains there consciously and voluntarily, and does not want to renounce it and hate it.  This is already the "second death" from which one cannot resurrect.  On such a man, God neither desires nor wants to forcefully impose repentance.  He neither desires not wants to because God is love, is abundant in love, and lives and exists in it.  God crated man through love with God-like freedom.  If He were to forcefully impose His will, His Gospel, His salvation, His kingdom, and Himself, He would destroy mans free will.  Then man would cease to be a man and would become an automaton, a machine, and a robot.

Although certain western Church Fathers (e.g. Jerome, Augustine) seem to have understood a "sin unto death" as a particularly grave type of sinful act (e.g. Jerome, Treatise Against Jovianus II.III.20; Bede, Homilies on the Gospels II.5), their views do not represent the consensus of the first millennium Church.  Canon V of the 7th Ecumenical Council, for example, states "It is a sin unto death when men incorrigibly continue in their sin."

  The Lord God is not found among such, unless, perchance, having been humbled by their own fall, they return to a sober mind.  It behoves them the rather to turn to God with a contrite heart and to pray for forgiveness and pardon of so grave a sin, and no longer to boast in an unholy gift.  For the Lord is nigh unto them that are of a contrite heart [Psalm 33:18 LXX].

The subject of unforgivable sins arises elsewhere in Scripture.  The Gospels mention blasphemy against the Holy Spirit (Matthew 12:31-32; Mark 3:28-30; Luke 12:10).  In the Epistle to the Hebrews (6:4-6) we read:

  It is impossible for those who were once enlightened, and have tasted of the heavenly gift, and were made partakers of the Holy Ghost, And have tasted the good word of God, and the powers of the world to come, If they shall fall away, to renew them again unto repentance; seeing they crucify to themselves the Son of God afresh, and put him to an open shame.

The eastern Christian understanding of these verses is summarized by Protopresbyter Michael Pomazanski:

  In all these cases, the reason why the forgiveness of sins is not possible is to be found in the sinners themselves, and not in the will of God; more precisely, it lies in the lack of repentance of the sinners. How can a sin be forgiven by the Grace of the Holy Spirit, when blasphemy is spewed forth against this very Grace? But one must believe that, even in these sins, the sinners, if they offer sincere repentance and weep over their sins, will be forgiven. “For,” says St. John Chrysostom about the blasphemy against the Holy Spirit, “even this guilt will be remitted to those who repent. Many of those who have spewed forth blasphemies against the Spirit have subsequently come to believe, and everything was remitted to them” (Homilies on the Gospel of St. Matthew).1

1.  Orthodox Dogmatic Theology (3rd ed.), p.294.

The Roman Church uses this verse to justify the idea of mortal and venal sins.  That in turn leads to their concept of Purgatory, where non-mortal sins can be paid for by physical suffering (or by having others pay indulgences to the Church).

But this is very different from the teachings of other denominations, and from what the rest of the Bible teaches about salvation and the forgiveness of sins.  E.g. "Sin is the transgression of the law.", and "The soul that sinneth, it shall die."

When John referred to sins that lead to death and sins that do not lead to death, he wasn't comparing the seriousness of the individual sins.  All sins earn the death penalty.  He was comparing what happens to individual people after they sin.

The NLT translation of 1John 5:16-17 reads:

  If you see a Christian brother or sister sinning in a way that does not lead to death, you should pray, and God will give that person life. But there is a sin that leads to death, and I am not saying you should pray for those who commit it.
   All wicked actions are sin, but not every sin leads to death.

Notice it says "sinning in a way".  It is the way we sin, not the kind of sin, that makes a difference.  As indicated in the verses from Matthew in the original question, it is the attitude of the sinner that makes the difference.

If someone sins and doesn't care that they have done so, they have earned and deserve the ultimate death penalty.  If someone sins, realizes their mistake, regrets it, repents, and asks for help, it is a completely different situation.  Their sin can (and will) be forgiven.  It is not a difference in the sin, but in the sinner.

A person that sins and realizes their mistake, is someone that can still be helped.  People can pray that God will help them to repent and ask for forgiveness.

But there is little point in praying for unrepentant sinners.  They are determined to continue in their way.