According to Non-Trinitarians, why did God allow Trinitarianism to become the mainstream understanding of His nature? If God's nature is not adequately portrayed by Trinitarian theology, then why did God allow such an erroneous understanding of His nature to become so widespread among the members of the Church, the Bride of His Son? If God has the power and the prerogative to intervene in historical events, then why hasn't God made use of His divine privileges to ensure that the correct doctrine about His nature achieves widespread acceptance? How do Non-Trinitarians answer these questions?

(I assume that by "the Church" the OP includes the Roman Church and probably its Protestant daughter denominations too.)
This question implies that "the Church" is God's church.
The problem with this is that non-Trinitarians in general don't believe that what the question refers to as "the Church" is actually God's Church.
Jesus referred to the faithful as a "little flock" (Luke 12:32).
God's church is small:

“For many are called, but few are chosen.”
— Matthew 22:14

“Enter by the narrow gate; for wide is the gate and broad is the way that leads to destruction, and there are many who go in by it.
Because narrow is the gate and difficult is the way which leads to life, and there are few who find it. — Matthew 7:13–14

The "god of this age" (2Corinthians 4:4), which most of nominal Christianity follows, is not the leader of God's church.

“Beware of false prophets, who come to you in sheep’s clothing, but inwardly they are ravenous wolves. — Matthew 7:15

That organizations calling themselves "Christian" happen to teach false beliefs to their members in no way means that the members of God's Church hold these beliefs.

For such are false apostles, deceitful workers, transforming themselves into apostles of Christ.
And no wonder! For Satan himself transforms himself into an angel of light.
Therefore it is no great thing if his ministers also transform themselves into ministers of righteousness, …
— 2Colossians 11:13–15

The idea that God is currently trying to save the world is almost blasphemous.
It implies that his plan is failing miserably.
Only a few, the elect, will be saved during this age.

In fact, unless that time of calamity is shortened, not a single person will survive. But it will be shortened for the sake of God’s chosen ones.
— Matthew 24:22 (NLT)

By allowing the world to deteriorate until it is almost destroyed by mankind, God sets an example of what happens when people follow Satan and decide for themselves what is right or wrong.

The standard historical answer is that the Church Fathers were heavily influenced by Greek culture and philosophical concepts, and imported those into Christianity. You then add to that a top-down imposition by Emperor Constantine, in particular.
Since about AD 400, anyone who said otherwise was persecuted. Remember you have Church monopolies in much of Christendom starting with it becoming a state religion in the Roman Empire. Even the Protestant reformation basically swapped a Catholic church monopoly in a given region with a Protestant state based monopoly. However, soon after the Protestant reformation (starting ~1500), you have non-trinitarian groups starting to emerge. Racovian catechism 1605. Swedenborg 1750. Transcendentalism 1830s -> Christian Science. Mormonism 1820. JWs 1870s. Similarly, it seems there is currently an uptick in Biblical Unitarianism.
Now for the theology. I think your question requires certain theological presuppositions that I don't hold. I would say blaming the Holy Spirit (i.e., God) isn't right - humans are in a fallen state, why would that not apply to collective theological beliefs?
From God's perspective, though, which beliefs are most important? Presumably those relating to salvation. Although trinitarians often hold that belief in the trinity is required for salvation, I am not sure the position is symmetrical with biblical unitarians. Indeed, God may not agree with trinitarians on this! Although trinitarianism is generally held to be some form of small 'i' idolatry among biblical unitarians, or perhaps just a conceptual error, when it comes to salvation emphasis seems to be placed on what John emphasized at the end of his Gospel (compare Matthew 16:15-17).

"But these are written so that you may believe that Jesus is the
Christ, the Son of God, and that by believing you may have life in His
name." (John 20:31)

The Bible doesn't say anything directly about trinitarianism, so to biblical unitarians it would be surprising that salvation requires belief in that! Both trinitarians and biblical unitarians believe that Jesus is the Christ and Son of God. They differ about whether he is God the Son, but that doesn't seem to be what is required in order to have eternal life, i.e., salvation, according to John.


Did the early church teach the person of God the Word changed in the incarnation? According to early Christianity did the person of God the Word change in the incarnation? Is it considered mutability in the person that change?

Did the early church teaches the person of God the Word changed in the incarnation?

St. Irenaeus and St.Athansius said it clearly and it is also cited in the Catechism of the Catholic Church.

  460 The Word became flesh to make us "partakers of the divine nature":78 "For this is why the Word became man, and the Son of God became the Son of man: so that man, by entering into communion with the Word and thus receiving divine sonship, might become a son of God."79 "For the Son of God became man so that we might become God."80 "The only-begotten Son of God, wanting to make us sharers in his divinity, assumed our nature, so that he, made man, might make men gods."81

  79 St. Irenaeus, Adv. haeres. 3, 19, 1: PG 7/1, 939.

  80 St. Athanasius, De inc. 54, 3: PG 25, 192B.

According to early Christianity did the person of God the Word change in the incarnation?

The Word or Logos the Second Person of the Holy Trinity existed in eternity as a "Spirit", and St.John stated in the gospel what is the changes that occured;

  John 1:14 New American Bible (Revised Edition) (NABRE)

  And the Word became flesh[a]
      and made his dwelling among us,
      and we saw his glory,
      the glory as of the Father’s only Son,
      full of grace and truth.

  Footnotes:
  1:14 Flesh: the whole person, used probably against docetic tendencies (cf. 1 Jn 4:2; 2 Jn 7). Made his dwelling: literally, “pitched his tent/tabernacle.” Cf. the tabernacle or tent of meeting that was the place of God’s presence among his people (Ex 25:8–9). The incarnate Word is the new mode of God’s presence among his people. The Greek verb has the same consonants as the Aramaic word for God’s presence (Shekinah). Glory: God’s visible manifestation of majesty in power, which once filled the tabernacle (Ex 40:34) and the temple (1 Kgs 8:10–11, 27), is now centered in Jesus. Only Son: Greek, monogenēs, but see note on Jn 1:18. Grace and truth: these words may represent two Old Testament terms describing Yahweh in covenant relationship with Israel (cf. Ex 34:6), thus God’s “love” and “fidelity.” The Word shares Yahweh’s covenant qualities.

Is it considered mutability in the person that change?

  "Mutable"adjective

  liable or subject to change or alteration.

  given to changing; constantly changing; fickle or inconstant:

If you refer "mutability" in the Divine Nature or Essence of God the Son, then it is clearly wrong, as God the Son being "co-substantial" with the Father is immutable.

But, if you refer the "mutability" to the created human soul of Christ the Second Person of the Trinity, then the word "mutability" can be relate to the word "assumed human nature", because the Person of Jesus Christ was change from solely "Spirit or Divine" into a "God-Man", fully God and fully man.

  III. TRUE GOD AND TRUE MAN

  464 The unique and altogether singular event of the Incarnation of the Son of God does not mean that Jesus Christ is part God and part man, nor does it imply that he is the result of a confused mixture of the divine and the human. He became truly man while remaining truly God. Jesus Christ is true God and true man.

  During the first centuries, the Church had to defend and clarify this truth of faith against the heresies that falsified it.

  465 The first heresies denied not so much Christ's divinity as his true humanity (Gnostic Docetism). From apostolic times the Christian faith has insisted on the true incarnation of God's Son "come in the flesh".87 But already in the third century, the Church in a council at Antioch had to affirm against Paul of Samosata that Jesus Christ is Son of God by nature and not by adoption. The first ecumenical council of Nicaea in 325 confessed in its Creed that the Son of God is "begotten, not made, of the same substance (homoousios) as the Father", and condemned Arius, who had affirmed that the Son of God "came to be from things that were not" and that he was "from another substance" than that of the Father.88

Did the person of God the Word change in the incarnation? In St. John of Damascene discourse on incarnation, the saint explains that person of God the Word was simple prior to incarnation and becoming composite person at incarnation by hypostatically united two natures in one person.

We say, then, that the divine Person of God the Word exists before all things timelessly and eternally, simple and uncompounded, uncreated, incorporeal, invisible, intangible, and uncircumscribed. ... But, at the same time, we say that in latter times, without leaving the bosom of the Father, the Word came to dwell uncircumscribed in the womb of the holy Virgin, without seed and without being contained, but after a manner known to Him, and in the very same Person as exists before the ages He made flesh subsist for Himself from the holy Virgin. ... And so, He was made flesh and took from her the first-fruits of our clay, a body animated by a rational and intellectual soul, so that the very Person of God the Word was accounted to the flesh. And the Person of the Word which formerly had been simple was made composite.
St. John of Damascene, An Exact Exposition of the Orthodox Faith, Book 3, Chapter 7. (emphasis mine)

In another book, he continued.

Before the Incarnation, the Person of God the Word was simple and uncompounded, bodiless and uncreated. But when it had assumed flesh, it became person to the flesh also, and it became compounded of the divinity, which it always had, and the flesh, which it took on in addition. Being thus found in two natures, it bears the properties of the two, so that the same one person is at once uncreated in its divinity and created in its humanity, both visible and invisible. Otherwise, we are obliged either to divide the one Christ and say that there are two persons, or to deny the difference of the natures and thus introduce change and mingling.
St. John of Damascene, An Exact Exposition of the Orthodox Faith, Book 4, Chapter 5. (emphasis mine)

This view was defined as a dogma three centuries earlier during the Fourth Ecumenical Council at Chalcedon in 451 when the Chalcedonian bishops voted to use the language of one composite person with a Greek word miahypostasis (μιαὑπόστασις). The person of God the Word was becoming composite by assuming humanity, capable to operate humanely and to will what human wills.
Is it considered mutability in the person that change? This change in the person is not a mutability of divine nature. The entirety of Trinity did not become humans but only one of three, the second person becoming man. A divine nature cannot change because of its timelessness property. The change that the saint discussed is about kenotic theology. Whereby a divine person without alteration in His divine nature added an extra nature in time and by doing so relatively at a point in time does change from simple having one nature to composite by having second nature.


Quotation from Desert Fathers I am looking for a particular quotation that I believe comes from the desert fathers.  I searched the Philokalia but didn't find it.  I don't think it was from there anyway, but I looked.

In the story, the father asks a person with no goals to shoot an arrow into the desert.  Since he has no target, it doesn't matter where he shoots.  A person without a goal is like an archer without a target.  Anyone know either where it came from or how I might search for it?

A couple of stories about shooting arrows from the desert fathers, perhaps one of these jogs your memory:
Abba Anthony, desert father (source):

A hunter in the desert saw Abba Anthony enjoying himself with the brethren and he was shocked. Wanting to show him that it was necessary sometimes to meet the needs
of the brethren, the old man said to him, 'Put an arrow in
your bow and shoot it.' So he did. The old man then said,
'Shoot another,' and he did so. Then the old man said, 'Shoot
yet again and the hunter replied 'If I bend my bow so much I
will break it.' Then the old man said to him, 'It is the same
with the work of God. If we stretch the brethren beyond
measure they will soon break. Sometimes it is necessary to
come down to meet their needs.' When he heard these words
“the hunter was pierced by compunction and, greatly edified
by the old man, he went away. As for the brethren, they
went home strengthened.

Dorotheos (source much less reliable-looking, additional source):

A man who gives way to his passions is like a man who is shot at by an enemy, catches the arrow in his hands, and then plunges it into his own heart. A man who is resisting his passions is like a man who is shot at by an enemy, and although the arrow hits him, it does not seriously wound him because he is wearing a breastplate. But the man who is uprooting his passions is like a man who is shot at by an enemy, but who strikes the arrow and shatters it or turns it back into his enemy's heart.

There are such stories prevalent in all societies . If the desert fathers said the archer's story, they would have possibily borrowed it from somewhere else. One such story , not copyrighed , from my home-land speaks of a farmer who has a lot of agricultural land, but has five prodigal sons who are as lazy as laziness can  be. The yield from his land slowly depletes for lack of maintenance. On his death-bed, the father calls all his sons near and tells them that he had hidden a large pot containing solid gold, somewhere in his field, but has since forgotten the location. The old man dies, and thereafter the sons start digging and ploughing the entire land in search of the gold, and find nothing. But slowly they realise that the gold which their father intended was the better yield they would get from purpose of life and hard work.


Why would cold running water be preferred for baptism? The Didache, or Teaching of the Twelve Apostles (an early Christian text not part of the New Testament) says of baptism (chapter 7):

  On the subject of baptism, baptise thus: after having taught all that precedes, baptize in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, in living water. If for some reason you do not have living water, baptize in other water; and if you are not able to in cold water, in warm water. If you do not have enough of one or the other, pour out water three times on the head, in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit. Before the baptism, let the baptizer, the baptized and others who can, observe first a fast; as for the baptized, you must enforce a fast beforehand for one or two days.

"Living water" is usually assumed to mean "running water", like the river Jordan in which Jesus was baptized.

What is the reason for preferring running water over still water, and cold water over warm water?

I know some people who were baptized in the sea; would that count as living water, or does the term only refer to rivers? (It certainly met the preference for cold water, by all accounts.)

You may find this link of interest:

http://www.theropps.com/papers/Winter1998/regeneration.htm

And here is the significant part, where they talk about the significance of running water and cold water:

  The main points here related to the topic of regeneration are (as in
  Ignatius' works) implicit, in a discussion primarily centered around
  the baptismal mode. There is a stress on baptism in living and cold
  water. Living water is likely preferred because rivers had symbolic
  significance as boundaries of transition in the ancient world. The
  living water emphasis also has Jewish parallels. Water which was
  running is also still connected to its natural source (J. Draper. The
  Didache in Modern Research. Leiden: E.J. Brill. 1996:46,218). Cold
  water may have been prescribed because of the shocking nature, which
  would make baptism a memorable event. Interestingly, however, if these
  types of water are not available, or even if enough water is not
  available to immerse, the great importance of baptism is seen in the
  admonition to do so in at least some fashion regardless of the
  resources at hand. The emphasis of living water is especially
  consistent with concepts of a change in the baptized person's life.

I found this quote of interest, if you search for the word 'leper', in http://www.christian-history.org/water-baptism-quotes.html, as it would seem that running water would also be better if we are to be cleansed.

  For as we are lepers in sin, we are made clean by means of the sacred
  water and the invocation of the Lord from our old transgressions,
  being spiritually regenerated as new-born babes,

There are other thoughts that this is based also on the Jewish traditions, but I think that is getting into a different area than the question was intended.

Baptism in the name of Jesus Christ in running water as the scriptures speak

Isa 40:3¶The voice of him that crieth in the wilderness, Prepare ye the way of the LORD, make straight in the desert a highway for our God.

Mat 7:14Because strait [is] the gate, and narrow [is] the way, which leadeth unto life, and few there be that find it.

Matthew 16:17-19 (KJV)  And Jesus answered and said unto him, Blessed art thou, Simon Bar-jona: for flesh and blood hath not revealed it unto thee, but my Father which is in heaven.
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.
And I will give unto thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt bind on earth shall be bound in heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.

Jhn 10:7Then said Jesus unto them again, Verily, verily, I say unto you, I am the door of the sheep.

Jhn 10:9I am the door: by me if any man enter in, he shall be saved, and shall go in and out, and find pasture.

Mark 1:2-8 (KJV)  As it is written in the prophets, Behold, I send my messenger before thy face, which shall prepare thy way before thee.
The voice of one crying in the wilderness, Prepare ye the way of the Lord, make his paths straight.
John did baptize in the wilderness, and preach the baptism of repentance for the remission of sins.
And there went out unto him all the land of Judaea, and they of Jerusalem, and were all baptized of him in the river of Jordan, confessing their sins.
And John was clothed with camel's hair, and with a girdle of a skin about his loins; and he did eat locusts and wild honey;
And preached, saying, There cometh one mightier than I after me, the latchet of whose shoes I am not worthy to stoop down and unloose.
I indeed have baptized you with water: but he shall baptize you with the Holy Ghost.

Luke 24:47-49 (KJV)  And that repentance and remission of sins should be preached in his name among all nations, beginning at Jerusalem.
And ye are witnesses of these things.
And, behold, I send the promise of my Father upon you: but tarry ye in the city of Jerusalem, until ye be endued with power from on high.

Act 2:42And they continued stedfastly in the apostles' doctrine and fellowship, and in breaking of bread, and in prayers.

Mat 26:28For this is my blood of the new testament, which is shed for many for the remission of sins.

Hbr 9:22And almost all things are by the law purged with blood; and without shedding of blood is no remission.

Acts 2:37 (KJV)  Now when they heard this, they were pricked in their heart, and said unto Peter and to the rest of the apostles, Men and brethren, what shall we do?

Revelation 3:20-22 (KJV)  Behold, I stand at the door, and knock: if any man hear my voice, and open the door, I will come in to him, and will sup with him, and he with me.
To him that overcometh will I grant to sit with me in my throne, even as I also overcame, and am set down with my Father in his throne.
He that hath an ear, let him hear what the Spirit saith unto the churches.

Act 2:38Then Peter said unto them, Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost.

Remission def: release from bondage or imprisonment

forgiveness or pardon, of sins (letting them go as if they had never been committed), remission of the penalty

John 8:31-32 (KJV)  Then said Jesus to those Jews which believed on him, If ye continue in my word, then are ye my disciples indeed;
And ye shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you free.

Lev 13:45 And the leper in whom the plague [is], his clothes shall be rent, and his head bare, and he shall put a covering upon his upper lip, and shall cry, Unclean, unclean.

Lev 13:46 All the days wherein the plague [shall be] in him he shall be defiled; he [is] unclean: he shall dwell alone; without the camp [shall] his habitation [be].

Ok. What is the camp or city in the new testament , it is the kingdom of God or the church that we can not enter unless cleansed.

Jhn 3:5 Jesus answered, Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born of WATER and [of] the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God.

1Jo 5:8 And there are three that bear witness in earth, the Spirit, and the water, and the blood: and these three agree in one.

Jhn 19:34But one of the soldiers with a spear pierced his side, and forthwith came there out blood and water.

Mat 5:14 Ye are the light of the world. A city that is set on an hill cannot be hid.

Lev 14 verses 1 thru 7
This in the old testament had to be done by the priest to cleanse the leper , but in the new it had to be done by a man who had been given the power to remit sins.
Jhn 20:22 And when he had said this, he breathed on [them], and saith unto them, Receive ye the Holy Ghost:

Jhn 20:23 Whose soever sins ye remit, they are remitted unto them; [and] whose soever [sins] ye retain, they are retained.

Lev 14:4 Then shall the priest command to take for him that is to be cleansed two birds alive [and] clean, and cedar wood, and scarlet, and hyssop:

Lev 14:5 And the priest shall command that one of the birds be killed in an EARTHEN VESSEL over running water:

1Ti 3:16 And without controversy great is the mystery of godliness: GOD WAS MANIFEST IN THE FLESH , justified in the Spirit, seen of angels, preached unto the Gentiles, believed on in the world, received up into glory.

Mat 26:28For this is my blood of the new testament, which is shed for many for the remission of sins.

Lev 14:6 As for the living bird, he shall take it, and the cedar wood, and the scarlet, and the hyssop, and shall dip them and the living bird in the blood of the bird [that was] killed over the running water:

Jhn 8:36 If the Son therefore shall make you free, ye shall be free indeed.

Rom 12:1¶I beseech you therefore, brethren, by the mercies of God, that ye present your bodies a living sacrifice, holy, acceptable unto God, [which is] your reasonable service.

Rom 6:4Therefore we are buried with him by baptism into death: that like as Christ was raised up from the dead by the glory of the Father, even so we also should walk in newness of life.
Here the believer is set free from his sins and given the chance for a new life just as the bird is set free.

Lev 14:7 And he shall sprinkle upon him that is to be cleansed from the leprosy seven times, and shall pronounce him clean, and shall let the living bird loose into the open field.

Naaman
2Ki 5:10 And Elisha sent a messenger unto him, saying, Go and wash in Jordan seven times, and thy flesh shall come again to thee, and thou shalt be clean.

2Ki 5:11 But Naaman was wroth, and went away, and said, Behold, I thought, He will surely come out to me, and stand, and call on the name of the LORD his God, and strike his hand over the place, and recover the leper.

2Ki 5:12 [Are] not Abana and Pharpar, rivers of Damascus, better than all the waters of Israel? may I not wash in them, and be clean? So he turned and went away in a rage.

2Ki 5:14 Then went he down, and dipped himself seven times in Jordan, according to the saying of the man of God: and his flesh came again like unto the flesh of a little child, and he was clean.

Wikipedia states baptistries belong to a period of the church when great numbers of adult catechisms were baptized, and when immersion was the rule. We find little or no trace of them before Constantine made Christianity the state religion, before the 4th century

The method began in running water in the name of Jesus christ but has went through must be warm water , if no warm water use cold, sprinkling , pouring, dipping 3 times ,the titles baptistries , pickup trucks and swimming pools, baby sprinkling ,some depending on your spiritual growth and your work effort and this is just some of the changes ,but what's wrong with Jesus's way the way it began , the old path , the only way that John prepared when he baptized the lord in running water, our example.
Examples .
RIVER JORDAN
Mar 1:5And there went out unto him all the land of Judaea, and they of Jerusalem, and were all baptized of him in the river of Jordan, confessing their sins.
MUCH WATER
Jhn 3:23And John also was baptizing in Aenon near to Salim, because there was much water there: and they came, and were baptized.
CERTAIN WATER
Act 8:36And as they went on [their] way, they came unto a certain water: and the eunuch said, See, [here is] water; what doth hinder me to be baptized?
RIVERSIDE
Act 16:13 And on the sabbath we went out of the city by a river side, where prayer was wont to be made; and we sat down, and spake unto the women which resorted [thither].
Act 16:14 And a certain woman named Lydia, a seller of purple, of the city of Thyatira, which worshipped God, heard [us]: whose heart the Lord opened, that she attended unto the things which were spoken of Paul.
Act 16:15 And when she was baptized, and her household, she besought [us], saying, If ye have judged me to be faithful to the Lord, come into my house, and abide [there]. And she constrained us.

 Baby baptism  NO VERSES IN THE BIBLE
Doing it three times NO VERSES IN THE BIBLE
pouring water NO VERSES IN THE BIBLE
sprinkling NO VERSES IN THE BIBLE
baptistries NO VERSE IN THE BIBLE .
Swimming pools NO VERSES IN THE BIBLE
In pickup trucks NO VERSES IN THE BIBLE
Father son holy ghost NO VERSES IN THE BIBLE

BAPTISM IN THE NAME OF THE LORD JESUS CHRIST

HOW DID THE EARLY CHURCH INTERPRET CHRIST'S COMMAND IN MATTHEW 28:19? ACTS 2:38, 8:16, 10:48, and 19:5 are four Biblical references that answer this question. If the Biblical record is not enough, please examine the findings of the educated, scholars, and historians.

Britannica Encyclopedia, 11th Edition, Volume 3, page 365 – Baptism was changed from the name of Jesus to words Father, Son & Holy Ghost in 2nd Century.

Canney Encyclopedia of Religion, page 53 – The early church baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus until the second century.

Hastings Encyclopedia of Religion, Volume 2 – Christian baptism was administered using the words, "in the name of Jesus." page 377. Baptism was always in the name of Jesus until time of Justin Martyr, page 389.

Catholic Encyclopedia, Volume 2, page 263 – Here the authors acknowledged that the baptismal formula was changed by their church.

Schaff – Herzog Religious Encyclopedia, Volume 1, page 435 – The New Testament knows only the baptism in the name of Jesus.

Hastings Dictionary of Bible, page 88 – It must be acknowledged that the three fold name of Matthew 28:19 does not appear to have been used by the primitive church, but rather in the name of Jesus, Jesus Christ or Lord Jesus.

IS IT AN ABSOLUTE NECESSITY THAT THE NAME OF JESUS BE SPOKEN OR CALLED OVER A CANDIDATE FOR WATER BAPTISM WHEN HE IS BEING BAPTIZED? For the answer to this question, please read Acts 15:17 and James 2:7 [Greek Linear]. First Century Christians INVOKED OR CALLED the name of Jesus over believers in water baptism. If, as some say, "the name of Jesus means the authority of Jesus', then so much more should the NAME, rather than titles, be called over an individual in baptism. Read Matthew 28:18, Acts 4:12 and Colossians 2:9. Jude 3 is an exhortation to "CONTEND FOR THE FAITH ONCE DELIVERED TO THE SAINTS." See Galations 1:8-9 also. Should anyone dare to change what Christ and the Apostles established?

BAPTISM

IN THE NAME OF THE FATHER, SON & HOLY GHOST

-or-

IN THE NAME OF JESUS CHRIST

Which of These Were Practiced
By the Apostles in the Early Church?

BELOW ARE TWO COLUMNS FOR LISTING THE SCRIPTURES WHERE THE APOSTLES EITHER TAUGHT OR PRACTICED WATER BAPTISM.

IN JESUS NAME

JEWS – "Repent and be baptized everyone of you in the name of Jesus Christ. Acts 2:38.

SAMARITANS – They were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus. Acts 8:16.

GENTILES – He commanded them to be baptized in the name of Lord Jesus. Acts 10:48.

PETER TAUGHT – There is none other name given whereby we must be saved. Acts 4:12.

PAUL TAUGHT – Whatever you do, do it all in the name of the Lord Jesus. Col. 3:17.

FATHER, SON AND HOLY GHOST

Matthew 28:19 was a command by Jesus to baptize in a NAME. The Apostles did not repeat the words of the command, but they did obey it as seen in the scriptures above. Since Father, Son, and Holy Ghost are titles of the mainifestations of the Almighty Spirit and His body, the Apostles understood HisSAVING NAME to be JESUS. Can any dare say that the Apostles disobeyed the Lord, or failed to baptize properly? THE NAME OF THE FATHER, SON, AND HOLY GHOST IS LORD JESUS CHRIST. The actions of the Apostles in the Book of Acts prove this to be true.

BAPTISM IN JESUS NAMEAccording to The Bible

JESUS TAUGHT – THAT REPENTANCE & REMISSION OF SINS SHOULD BE PREACHED IN HIS NAME BEGINNING AT JERUSALEM." Luke 24:47

PETER OBEYED – "REPENT & BE BAPTIZED EVERYONE OF YOU IN THE NAME OF JESUS CHRIST FOR THE REMISSION OF SINS." Acts 2:38-39

SAMARITANS – ". . .THEY WERE BAPTIZED IN THE NAME OF THE LORD JESUS." Acts 8:16

GENTILES WERE COMMANDED – "HE COMMANDED THEM TO BE BAPTIZED IN THE NAME OF LORD JESUS." RV. Acts 10:48

PAUL RE-BAPTIZED – ". . . WHEN THEY HEARD THIS THEY WERE BAPTIZED IN THE NAME OF THE LORD JESUS." Acts 19:3-5

NO OTHER NAME FOR SALVATION – ". . .THERE IS NONE OTHER NAME UNDER HEAVEN WHEREBY WE MUST BE SAVED." Acts 4:10-12

EVERYTHING DONE IN JESUS NAME – "WHATSOEVER YOU DO IN WORD OR IN DEED, DO ALL IN THE NAME OF THE LORD JESUS." Col. 3:17

The above scriptures are not given to refute Matthew 28:19 where JESUS told Apostles to baptize in the name of the FATHER, & OF THE SON, & OF THE HOLY GHOST. They merely show how the command was interpreted and obeyed by them.

The Apostles knew what most religious leaders of today fail to recognize. First: That the Lord Jesus Christ is the family name. Eph. 3:15. Second: That the FULNESS of the GODHEAD (Deity or God) dwelleth bodily in CHRIST. Col 2:9

They knew the name of the SON was JESUS. Matthew 1:21. They knew that the SON came in the FATHER'S name. John 5:43. They also knew that the HOLY GHOST was the SPIRIT of CHRIST and would come in JESUS NAME. John 14:26.

The name JESUS means JEHOVA SALVATION. Faussets' Bible Encyclopedia. Page 359.

BAPTISM IN JESUS NAMEAccording to History

BRITANICA ENCYCLO. – The baptismal formula was changed from the name of Jesus Christ to the words Father, Son & Holy Ghost by Catholic Church in the second century. 11th Edition, Vol 3, page 365-366.

BRITANICA ENCYCLO. – Everywhere in the oldest sources it states that baptism took place in the name of Jesus Christ. Vol. 3, page 82.

CANNEY ENCYCLO. OF REL. – The early church always baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus until development of Trinity Doctrine in 2nd century.Page 53.

CATHOLIC ENCYCLO. – Here the Catholics acknowledged that baptism was changed by the Catholic Church. Vol. 2, Page 263.

HASTINGS ENCYCLO. OF REL. – Christian Baptism was administered using the words, "IN THE NAME OF JESUS." Vol. 2, Page 377.
The use of a Trinitarian formula of any sort was not suggested in early Church History. Vol. 2, Page 378.
Baptism was always in name of the Lord Jesus until time of Justin Martyr when Triune formula used. Vol. 2, Page 389.

Exodus 7:16-22 (KJV)  And thou shalt say unto him, The LORD God of the Hebrews hath sent me unto thee, saying, Let my people go, that they may serve me in the wilderness: and, behold, hitherto thou wouldest not hear.
Thus saith the LORD, In this thou shalt know that I am the LORD: behold, I will smite with the rod that is in mine hand upon the waters which are in the river, and they shall be turned to blood.
And the fish that is in the river shall die, and the river shall stink; and the Egyptians shall lothe to drink of the water of the river.
And the LORD spake unto Moses, Say unto Aaron, Take thy rod, and stretch out thine hand upon the waters of Egypt, upon their streams, upon their rivers, and upon their ponds, and upon all their pools of water, that they may become blood; and that there may be blood throughout all the land of Egypt, both in vessels of wood, and in vessels of stone.
And Moses and Aaron did so, as the LORD commanded; and he lifted up the rod, and smote the waters that were in the river, in the sight of Pharaoh, and in the sight of his servants; and all the waters that were in the river were turned to blood.
And the fish that was in the river died; and the river stank, and the Egyptians could not drink of the water of the river; and there was blood throughout all the land of Egypt.
And the magicians of Egypt did so with their enchantments: and Pharaoh's heart was hardened, neither did he hearken unto them; as the LORD had said.

1Pe 3:20 Which sometime were disobedient, when once the longsuffering of God waited in the days of Noah, while the ark was a preparing, wherein few, that is, eight souls were saved by water.

1Pe 3:21 The like figure whereunto [even] baptism doth also now save us (not the putting away of the filth of the flesh, but the answer of a good conscience toward God,) by the resurrection of Jesus Christ:

Doth Def translated from sozo means to save same translation as save us

Eze 47:9 And it shall come to pass, [that] every thing that liveth, which moveth, whithersoever the rivers shall come, shall live: and there shall be a very great multitude of fish, because these waters shall come thither: for they shall be healed; and every thing shall live whither the river cometh.

Eze 47:10 And it shall come to pass, [that] the fishers shall stand upon it from Engedi even unto Eneglaim; they shall be a [place] to spread forth nets; their fish shall be according to their kinds, as the fish of the great sea, exceeding many.

Eze 47:11 But the miry places thereof and the marishes thereof shall not be healed; they shall be given to salt.

Mal  3:6For I [am] the LORD, I change not; therefore ye sons of Jacob are not consumed. Romans 3:4 (KJV) 4 God forbid: yea, let God be true, but every man a liar; as it is written, That thou mightest be justified in thy sayings, and mightest overcome when thou art judged.

This is from the Catholic encyclopedia volume 2 pg 263
g. The Council of Nicaea '(can. xi.x) ordered the rebaptism of Paulianists, and the Council of Aries (can. xvi and xvii) decreed the same for both Paulianists and Photinians. There has been a theological controversy over the question as to whether baptism in the name of Christ only was ever held vahd. Certain texts in the New Testament have given rise to this difficulty. Thus St. Paul (Acts, xix) commands some disciples at Ephesus to be baptized in Christ's name: "They were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus." In Acts, x, we read that St. Peter ordered others to be baptized "in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ ". Those who were converted by Philip (Acts, viii) "were baptized in the name of Jesus Christ ", and above all we have the explicit command of the Prince of the Apostles: "Be baptized everyone of you in the name of Jesus Christ, for the remission of your sins" (Acts, ii). Owing to these texts some theologians have held that the Apostles baptized in the name of Christ only. St. Thomas, St. Bonaventure, and Albertus Magnus are invoked as authorities for this opinion, they declaring that the Apostles so acted by special dispensation. Other writers, as Peter Lombard and Hugh of St. Victor, hold also that such baptism would be valid, but say nothing of a dispensation for the Apostles. The most probable opinion, however, seems to be that the terms "in the name of Jesus", "in the name of Christ", either refer to baptism in the faith taught by Christ, or are employed to distinguish Christian baptism from that of John the Precursor. It seems altogether unlikely that immediately after Christ had solemnly promulgated the trinitarian formula of baptism, the Apostles themselves would have substituted another. In fact, the words of St. Paul (Acts, xix) imply quite plainly that they did not. For, when some Christians at Ephesus declared that they had never heard of the Holy Ghost, the Apostle asks: "In whom then were you baptized?" This text certainly seems to declare that St. Paul took it for granted that the Ephesians must have heard the name of the Holy Ghost when the sacramental formula of baptism was pronounced over them. The authority of Pope Stephen I has been alleged for the validity of baptism given in the name of Christ only. St. Cj^irian says (Ep. ad Jubaian.) that this pontiff declared all baptism valid provided it was given in the name of Jesus Christ. It must be noted that the same explanation applies to Stephen's words as to the Scriptural texts above given. Moreover, Firmilian, in his letter to St. Cyprian, implies that Pope Stephen required an explicit mention of the Trinity in baptism, for he quotes the pontiff as declaring that the sacramental grace is conferred because a person has been baptized "with the invocation of the names of the Trinity, Father and Son and Holy Ghost". A passage that is very difficult of explanation is found in the works of St. Ambrose (Lib. I, De Sp. S., iii), where he declares that if a person names one of the Trinity, he names all of them: 'If you say Christ, you have designated God the Father, by whom the Son was anointed, and Him Who was anointed Son, and the Holy Ghost in whom He was anointed." This passage has been generally interpreted as referring to the faith of the catechumen, but not to the baptismal form. More difficult is the explanation of the response of Pope Nicholas I to the Bulgarians (cap. civ; Labbe, VIII), in which he states that a person is not to be rebaptized who has already been baptized "in the name of the Holy Trinity or in the name of Christ only, as we read in the Acts of the Apostles (for it is one and the same thing, as St. Ambrose has explained)". As in the passage to which the pope alludes, St. Ambrose was speaking of the faith of the recipient of baptism, as we have already stated, it has been held probable that this is also the meaning that Pope Nicholas intended his words to convey (see another explanation in Pesch, Praelect. Dogm, VI, no. 389).


How does Catholicism biblically defend purgatory in a way that upholds the sufficiency of Christ's work? Below is a quote from an answer to this question "What is the basis of the teaching that souls in purgatory can intercede for the living?:

The (Catholic) Church refers to the souls in purgatory as the Holy
Souls in Purgatory, since their salvation has been assured.,
although their souls must be purified from the remaining residue of sin committed while on earth!

From what I understand from this quote and others, the souls in purgatory are not meriting the fulfillment of their salvation by making up for sins committed but are, rather, having the sin remaining in them purged from their being much like dross is purged from precious metal.
I have seen it written in the same answer that Divine Justice is purifying souls in purgatory and we on earth can alleviate some of the pain of their waiting by our prayers and sacrifices.
My question is not about the prayers or the process of purification in purgatory.  My question is about the notion of there being some aspect of Divine Justice that was not satisfied on the sinners behalf by Jesus Christ!
If Jesus bore our sins in His body on the tree (1 Peter 2:24), and if Jesus' blood offered once for all is so much better than the blood of heifers and goats (Hebrews 9:11-15), and if Jesus' blood purifies us from all sin (1 John 1:7), and if he was delivered to death for our trespasses and raised for our justification (Romans 4:22-25), if Jesus accomplished everything that the Father sent Him to do (John 17:4) including bearing the punishment/chastisement of God that brought us peace (Isaiah 53:5),
and if we do not make peace with God by having and living out faith.  God, in Christ, has made peace with us and we enter into that rest by faith.

For in him all the fullness of God was pleased to dwell,
and through him to reconcile to himself all things, whether on earth or in heaven, making peace by the blood of his cross. - Colossians 1:19-20

How can there possibly be any remaining residue of sin left in a born again believer that Divine Justice needs to purge out that was not dealt with by the Lord Jesus Christ?  Isn't purgatory like saying that Jesus was almost successful...that He has removed only some of our sins as far as the east is from the west?
Jesus has said that He does not give peace as the world gives it (John 14:27) which is to withhold some until full reparations are made.  This is the new covenant:  "Heb 8:12  For I will be merciful toward their iniquities, and I will remember their sins no more.”
Purgatory sounds like He remembers for a while.

The Catholic Church teaches the doctrine of Purgatory while also teaching the sufficient and superabundant merits of the Passion of Christ.
The first component to understanding this is the dogma that not all temporal punishment is remitted by God with the guilt of sin and the eternal punishment. This is based upon a number of examples in Scripture where despite the guilty party being forgiven, they receive a temporal punishment for their sin. For example:

And David said to Nathan: I have sinned against the Lord. And Nathan said to David: The Lord also hath taken away thy sin: thou shalt not die. Nevertheless, because thou hast given occasion to the enemies of the Lord to blaspheme, for this thing, the child that is born to thee, shall surely die.  (2 Samuel 12:13-14)

The Church has connected this to Christ's admonition to take up your cross (do penance)

And he that taketh not up his cross, and followeth me, is not worthy of me. (Matthew 10:38)

Christ's atonement is fully adequate and superabundant:

For you are bought with a great price. ( 1 Corinthians 6:20)

Knowing that you were not redeemed with corruptible things as gold or silver, from your vain conversation of the tradition of your fathers: But with the precious blood of Christ, as of a lamb unspotted and undefiled, Foreknown indeed before the foundation of the world, but manifested in the last times for you, Who through him are faithful in God, who raised him up from the dead, and hath given him glory, that your faith and hope might be in God. (1 Peter 1:18-21)

Now the law entered in, that sin might abound. And where sin abounded, grace did more abound. (Romans 5:20)

Thus, the Church teaches that Christ's death merits sufficient grace to cover every sin, yet Divine Justice requires temporal punishment to make amends for the harm due to our sins. Our enduring temporal punishment has value because of the merits of Christ.
Finally, Purgatory as a necessity derives from Scripture:

And so betaking themselves to prayers, they besought him, that the sin which had been committed might be forgotten. But the most valiant Judas exhorted the people to keep themselves from sin, forasmuch as they saw before their eyes what had happened, because of the sins of those that were slain. And making a gathering, he sent twelve thousand drachms of silver to Jerusalem for sacrifice to be offered for the sins of the dead, thinking well and religiously concerning the resurrection, (For if he had not hoped that they that were slain should rise again, it would have seemed superfluous and vain to pray for the dead,) And because he considered that they who had fallen asleep with godliness, had great grace laid up for them. It is therefore a holy and wholesome thought to pray for the dead, that they may be loosed from sins. (2 Machabees 12:42-46)

Emphasis mine. If they were thought to be damned, no prayer could help. If they were thought to be saved, no prayer would be necessary.
2 Machabees is the most explicit as far as describing a practice with its theological implication, but there are New Testament passages which also have implications of Purgatory.

And whosoever shall speak a word against the Son of man, it shall be forgiven him: but he that shall speak against the Holy Ghost, it shall not be forgiven him, neither in this world, nor in the world to come. (Matthew 12:32; emphasis mine).

The "in the world to come" was interpreted by both Pope St. Gregory the Great and St. Augustine as referring to the possibility of some sins being remitted after death, hence a middle state of Purgatory.
Similarly, in 1 Corinthians:

According to the grace of God that is given to me, as a wise architect, I have laid the foundation; and another buildeth thereon. But let every man take heed how he buildeth thereupon. For other foundation no man can lay, but that which is laid; which is Christ Jesus. Now if any man build upon this foundation, gold, silver, precious stones, wood, hay, stubble: Every man's work shall be manifest; for the day of the Lord shall declare it, because it shall be revealed in fire; and the fire shall try every man's work, of what sort it is. If any man's work abide, which he hath built thereupon, he shall receive a reward. If any man's work burn, he shall suffer loss; but he himself shall be saved, yet so as by fire. (1 Corinthians 3:10-15)

Here there is a distinction between the man whose works abide (who shall receive a reward) and the man whose works burn (who shall be saved "by fire"). The latter case is understood as referring to purgation of the effects of their sins.

Be at agreement with thy adversary betimes, whilst thou art in the way with him: lest perhaps the adversary deliver thee to the judge, and the judge deliver thee to the officer, and thou be cast into prison. Amen I say to thee, thou shalt not go out from thence till thou repay the last farthing. (Matthew 5:25-26)

"repay the last farthing" was understood as referring to smaller offenses and the context suggests a time-limited rather than eternal penalty.

Purgatory does not derive from the Bible but originates in the Catholic tradition of Indulgence$
"The granting of indulgences was predicated on two beliefs:
First, in the sacrament of penance it did not suffice to have the guilt (culpa) of sin forgiven through absolution alone; one also needed to undergo temporal punishment (poena, from p[o]enitentia, “penance”) because one had offended Almighty God.
Second, indulgences rested on belief in #Purgatory, a place in the next life where one could continue to cancel the accumulated debt of one’s sins, another Western medieval conception not shared by Eastern Orthodoxy or other Eastern Christian churches not recognizing the primacy of the pope."
https://www.britannica.com/topic/indulgence
Since Purgatory is NOT Biblical, what other Catholic doctrines warrant the practice of Indulgence$
“An indulgence is a remission before God of the temporal punishment due to sins whose guilt has already been forgiven, which the faithful Christian who is duly disposed gains under certain prescribed conditions through the action of the Church which, as the minister of redemption, dispenses and applies with authority the treasury of the satisfactions of Christ and the saints” (Paul VI, apostolic constitution, Indulgentiarum doctrina, Norm 1).
“An indulgence is partial or plenary according as it removes either part or all of the temporal punishment due to sin” (Indulgentiarum doctrina, Norm 2; cf. Norm 3). The faithful can gain indulgences for themselves or apply them to the dead (CIC, can. 994). (#1471)
https://mycatholic.life/catholic-question-and-answer/q-indulgences-and-purgatory/


Do any church fathers directly connect "speaking in tongues" with anything other than existing human languages? One of the arguments made by those who believe that the gift of speaking in tongues has ceased (cessationists) is that the "tongues" spoken of in both Acts and 1 Corinthians 12–14 are "real" human languages.  For example, C. Norman Sellers, in Biblical Tongues, writes:

  The New Testament references to tongues require that we understand them as referring to real languages [...] There is sufficient scriptural evidence to prove that the tongues in 1 Corinthians are the same as those in Acts chapter 2 and refer to real languages.

Charismatics will generally reject this analysis; J. Rodman Williams, for example, argues that "it would have been pointless to speak foreign languages" at Caesarea (Acts 10:45–46) and Ephesus (Acts 19:6) in Renewal Theology (II, p214).

In light of this disagreement, I wonder – did any church fathers clearly and specifically indicate that the "speaking in tongues" of either Acts or 1 Corinthians was not a "real" human language?  Here are some clarifying parameters:

I'm interested in church fathers as typically defined – those who followed the apostles up to John of Damascus.  I'm fine with including Tertullian and Origen in this group.

From my reading I don't think any pre-Augustine authors clearly make this connection, so I'm asking about church fathers more broadly.  But writings of the early fathers would be particularly interesting.

By "clearly and specifically," I mean that the writer goes beyond the biblical text and indicates that the "tongues" were not human languages.

Charismatics might argue that the biblical text itself is clear on this point, and that therefore if a church father merely quotes the biblical text, it  indicates that he believes that "tongues" were not exclusively human language.  I want more than that.

To my knowledge, no Church Father ever connected "Speaking in Tongues" - Glossolalia - with anything other than existing human languages.

Dr. Nathan Busenitz wrote a very detailed paper comparing what the Church Fathers believed and wrote regarding glossolalia with contemporary Pentecostal beliefs.  His conclusion was that there was no evidence that any Church Fathers ever held that glossolalia involved anything other than real human language.

One of the key "proof texts" that has been cited for use of unintelligible languages while speaking in tongues is 1 Corinthians 14:14-15:

  For if I pray in a tongue, my spirit prays but my mind is
  unfruitful.What am I to do? I will pray with the spirit and I will
  pray with the mind also; I will sing with the spirit and I will sing
  with the mind also.

Church Father John Chrysostom (4th cent.) clearly understood that even here, Paul was speaking of real language:

  Ask accordingly not to have the gift of tongues only, but also of
  interpretation, that thou mayest become useful unto all, and not shut
  up thy gift in thyself alone. “For if I pray in a tongue,” saith he,
  “my spirit prayeth, but my understanding is unfruitful.” Seest thou
  how by degrees bringing his argument to a point, he signifies that not
  to others only is such an one useless, but also to himself; if at
  least “his understanding is unfruitful?” For if a man should speak
  only in the Persian, or any other foreign tongue, and not understand
  what he saith, then of course to himself also will he be thenceforth a
  barbarian, not to another only, from not knowing the meaning of the
  sound. For there were of old many who had also a gift of prayer,
  together with a tongue; and they prayed, and the tongue spake, praying
  either in the Persian or Latin language, but their understanding knew
  not what was spoken. Wherefore also he said, “I’ll pray in a tongue,
  my spirit prayeth,” i.e., the gift which is given me and which moves
  my tongue, “but my understanding is unfruitful.”

  What then may that be which is best in itself, and doth good? And how
  ought one to act, or what request of God? To pray, “both with the
  spirit,” i.e., the gift, and “with the understanding.” Wherefore also
  he said, “I will pray with the spirit, and I will pray with the
  understanding also: I will sing with the spirit, and I will sing with
  the understanding also.” He signifieth the same thing here also, that
  both the tongue may speak, and the understanding may not be ignorant
  of the things spoken (Homilies on First Corinthians, XXXV)

Within the contemporary Orthodox Church, two prevailing beliefs regarding glossolalia are:

Glossolalia appeared at the beginning of the Church, because it was
intended as a gift to help the Apostles build the Church quickly
from disparate nationalities.  As Christianity spread throughout the
word, the need for the gift declined, and so became less prevalent
and seems to have disappeared today.
Those who utter
incomprehensible sounds and believe themselves to be "speaking in
tongues", inspired by the Holy Spirit, are victims of demonic
delusion.

"Far from being given freely and spontaneously, without man's interference - as are the true gifts of the Holy Spirit - speaking in tongues can be caused to occur quite predictably," wrote the American monk Seraphim Rose,

  ... by a regular technique of concentrated group "prayer" accompanied by
  psychologically suggestive Protestant hymns ("He comes! He comes!"),
  culminating in a "laying on of hands," and sometimes involving such
  purely physical efforts as repeating a given phrase over and over
  again, or just making sounds with the mouth. One person
  admits that, like many others, after speaking in tongues, "I often did
  mouth nonsense syllables in an effort to start the flow of
  prayer-in-tongues"; and such efforts, far from
  being discouraged, are actually advocated by Pentecostals. "Making
  sounds with the mouth is not 'speaking-in-tongues,' but it may signify
  an honest act of faith, which the Holy Spirit will honor by giving
  that person the power to speak in another language".
  Another Protestant pastor says: "The initial hurdle to speaking in
  tongues, it seems, is simply the realization that you must 'speak
  forth'...The first syllables and words may sound strange to your
  ear... They may be halting and inarticulate. You may have the thought
  that you are just making it up. But as you continue to speak in
  faith... the Spirit will shape for you a language of prayer and
  praise". A Jesuit "theologian" tells how he put
  such advice into practice: "After breakfast I felt almost physically
  drawn to the chapel where I sat down to pray. Following Jim's
  description of his own reception of the gift of tongues, I began to
  say quietly to myself "la, la, la, la." To my immense consternation
  there ensued a rapid movement of tongue and lips accompanied by a
  tremendous feeling of inner devotion".

  Hieromonk Seraphim Rose of Platina, "Charismatic Revival As a Sign of the Times"

This thread feels a bit like a straw man to me.  Historically, Pentecostals have considered tongues to be...at least primarily... human languages.  That was the belief of early Pentecostals.  There are many accounts from early in the Pentecostal movement, from the Azusa Street revival and other meetings, of foreigners going into meetings and hearing their native languages 'in tongues' at Azusa.  There are accounts of Japanese or Russian being spoken 'in tongues.'

Some of the early participants in the Pentecostal movement believed they would be able to do missions work without any language training.  This was based on assumptions of how things worked, not taught in scripture.  There is no indication that the disciples in Acts 2 could make the language they spoke be the language of an onlooker, and in I Corinthians, others present did not understand the tongues as their native language. We know the disciples were speaking of the wonderful works of God, not if they were preaching Christ or explaining salvation in tongues.  The listeners were saved after hearing Peter preach the gospel, presumably in a common language rather than 'in tongues.'

Early in the Pentecostal movement, AG Garr went to India hoping that speaking in tongues would work out as an evangelistic language after someone had identified the tongue he spoke in as Bengali, but this did not happen again for him in India.

But still there have been many accounts of individuals understanding speaking in tongues in their own native language sense.  I know there are many accounts of such things, and have been, among Assemblies of God missionaries.  Charles Greenoway was a denominational official in the A/G in the 1980's and he had a testimony of someone preaching in tongues and the audience understanding.  I know a missionary who spoke in tongues at an outreach to the Cherokee, and the people asked him how he knew their language.  DennishBalcombe has told of hearing speaking in tongues 'in English' among Chinese villagers.  I spoke with his daughter after a church meeting at a Chinese bilingual church and mentioned that, and she had heard a little grandma in a Chinese village speak what sounded like a psalm in English.

I am not sure where the idea of tongues a spiritual code language came in.  I wonder if some of the academics, maybe mainline Protestant Charismatics and WOFers teach that, because I have encountered people who believe that way online and to a lesser degree in real life.  But from what I have read, early Charismatics in the US-- I mean in the 1960's believed in tongues as real languages.

I say Pentecostals primarily believe in tongues as real languages because Paul writes, 'Though I speak with the tongues of men and of angels.'  Considering the context, it would not be reasonable to reject the idea that such a thing was possible.  There was a contemporary Jewish belief that tongues spoke languages, which shows up in some of the apocrophyl or psuedapigraphil writings, references to Job's daughters being given a golden box with a cord that enabled them to speak in such languages.  This argues against the idea that Paul was using the term to refer exclusively to Hebrew.

There are those who will insist that 'tongues of angels' are hyperbole and Paul did not really mean that, but if we look at the other parralel arguments he made, it is possible to give all to the poor, to give ones body to be burned.  And whatever it means to move mountains whether a metaphor or literal, it is possible for a believer to do that by faith.  Paul is listing 'extreme things', so there is no strong basis for saying tongues of angels could not possibly be spoken.

I cannot speak for all Pentecostals and Charismatics, but I suspect just about any Pentecostal who thought of tongues as real languages and came across this passage makes room for the idea of tongues of angels, especially since he doesn't have a motivation for explaining away the verse.


In what manner did Peter, James and John appear to Joseph Smith? According to LDS teaching on this page, a few weeks after John the Baptist conferred on Joseph Smith the Aaronic Priesthood, Peter, James, and John appeared to Joseph Smith to confer on him the Melchizedek Priesthood.

According to other LDS teaching, cited in this question, the Apostle John is still alive today, but Peter and James were both martyred.

So, my question is regarding how Peter, James and John appeared to Joseph Smith.  Since John was still living, did he physically appear to Joseph Smith?  I presume that Peter and James appeared to him spiritually, but not physically.

Does the LDS church clarify the manner in which John, in particular, and by contrast James and Peter appeared to Joseph Smith?

Peter and James, we infer, have been resurrected already and have physical bodies. The laying on of hands was performed by physical beings to physical beings.

A few references:

Peter, James, and Moroni have been resurrected (see Supporting Statement B)
John the Baptist is also apparently resurrected

According to Robert T Beckstead
The manner may have been by means of psychedelic induced visions.
The introduction to an abstract delving the use of psychedelic mushroom laced alcohols says:

  Did hallucinogens facilitate Joseph Smith’s visions & those of early Mormon converts? In his 1975 book, Hearts Made Glad, Lamar Petersen carefully documented the use of intoxicants by Joseph Smith and early converts to the LDS Church. While mostly interested in the consumption of various fermented and distilled alcohols, Petersen also noted strange behaviors associated with the sacramental use of what seemed to outside observers to be medicated wine. It appears that soon after the Church was organized in New York and later in Ohio, members partook of wine in sacrament meetings which occasioned visionary states and strange behaviors not typically associated with alcohol consumption or intoxication. It is my thesis that beginning at a young age, Joseph Smith experimented with psychedelic plants and that many of Joseph Smith revelations and much of his behavior can be attributed to the use of psychedelics. Following Joseph Smith’s death, the pragmatic Brigham Young had no interest in psychedelic material, or was unaware of its use, and hence it did not become a part of Utah Mormonism. However, James Strang and Fredrick M. Smith (Joseph Smith’s grandson and president of the RLDS Church) perpetuated the use of psychedelics in their branches of Joseph Smith’s original movement. The use of psychedelics by the Strangites and the RLDS Church could not be sustained.

The full text of the abstract is found
http://www.mormonthink.com/files/restoration-sacred-mushroom.pdf


Where did the disciples meet Jesus after the resurrection? I was listening to a debate between a Muslim scholar and a Christian scholar, and the Muslim debater raised this and many other questions.  The Christian debater did not address this issue in his reply, so I tried looking for answer but had no luck.  My question is this:

After the resurrection of the Christ, where were the disciples actually?

In the Gospel of Matthew they are in Galilee:

  Matthew 28:7-10 (KJV)
  7 And go quickly, and tell his disciples that he is risen from the dead; and, behold, he goeth before you into Galilee; there shall ye see him: lo, I have told you.
  8 And they departed quickly from the sepulchre with fear and great joy; and did run to bring his disciples word.
  9 And as they went to tell his disciples, behold, Jesus met them, saying, All hail. And they came and held him by the feet, and worshipped him.
  10 Then said Jesus unto them, Be not afraid: go tell my brethren that they go into Galilee, and there shall they see me.

In the Gospel of Luke they are in Jerusalem:

  Luke 24 (KJV)
  13 And, behold, two of them went that same day to a village called Emmaus, which was from Jerusalem about threescore furlongs.
  33 And they rose up the same hour, and returned to Jerusalem, and found the eleven gathered together, and them that were with them,
  49 And, behold, I send the promise of my Father upon you: but tarry ye in the city of Jerusalem, until ye be endued with power from on high.

I looked on a map, and Galilee and Jerusalem are quite far apart. What could be the explanation of this?

Christians who believe in the inerrancy or infallibility of the Bible argue that these two accounts are not contradictory: that Jesus met his followers in both Jerusalem and Galilee after his resurrection.

Such an argument first requires establishing that there was a lengthy period of time between the resurrection and the ascension, and that Luke 24 is a summary of that period.  Acts 1:3, also believed to have been written by Luke, says:

  [Jesus] presented himself alive to them after his suffering by many proofs, appearing to them during forty days and speaking about the kingdom of God. (ESV, emphasis added)

Once this is established, one can argue that Jesus appeared to his followers multiple times.  For example, the New Bible Commentary (1970) says:

  There need be no doubt that Jesus appeared to His disciples both in Jerusalem (as in Luke, Acts and Jn. 20) and in Galilee (as in Matthew and Jn. 21).

The explanation for the discrepancy is in the history of the gospels. The consensus of modern scholars is that the Gospels of Matthew and Luke were substantially based on Mark and that John was also loosely based on Luke, with some material taken direct from Mark.

This in itself would not result in a difference, except that Mark originally ended at verse 16:8 with the young man telling the women that Jesus was risen and they fled in terror, telling no one (What is now known as the 'Long Ending' was added much later). The authors of Matthew and Luke were unsatisfied with an ending that did not provide any physical proof of the resurrection so each, unknown to the other, wrote what they believed probably happened. The authors of Matthew knew that in Mark, the young man had told the women that Jesus would meet the disciples in Galilee (Mark 16:7), so he completed his story in Galilee. The author of Luke knew that the early Christian church had roots in Jerusalem, so had the disciples remain there, where they met Jesus in the upper room.

That we do not really know where Jesus was, or even if (as some believe) his resurrection was purely spiritual, does not make the Muslim debater correct. Much in the Koran and in Islamic belief is equally open to challenge. Moreover, Islam claims Jesus as one of its prophets, so if the story of Jesus is untrue then so is the story of Islam. Christians can accept that the authors of Matthew and Luke elaborated the resurrection account, but still have faith in the fundamental story of Christianity.


What is saving faith? A common soteriological view among Evangelical Christians (such as myself) is that we are saved by grace, through faith alone (Ephesians 2:8-9).  However, this belief is usually accompanied by a belief that the inevitable effect of salvation is a life that bears fruit, and gradually conforms to Christ (sanctification).

1 John 3:9 (NIV)
9 No one who is born of God will continue to sin, because God’s seed remains in them; they cannot go on sinning, because they have been born of God.
Matthew 7:18 (NIV)
18 A good tree cannot bear bad fruit, and a bad tree cannot bear good fruit.
James 2:17-19 (NIV)
17 In the same way, faith by itself, if it is not accompanied by action, is dead.
18 But someone will say, “You have faith; I have deeds.”
   Show me your faith without deeds, and I will show you my faith by my deeds. 19 You believe that there is one God. Good! Even the demons believe that—and shudder.
James 2:24 (NIV)
24 You see that a person is considered righteous by what they do and not by faith alone.

It seems clear, especially from James, that genuine saving faith is accompanied by works.  Of course, since we are not saved by works, we conclude that these works are the fruit of our salvation, and not the cause of it.  In other words, we are first saved by grace through our genuine saving faith, and works result.
So it seems that it is possible to have a faith that is non-genuine, or non-saving, and thus does not lead to the bearing of fruit.  My question centers around what the difference between these two types of faith is.
I'm interested in non-Calvinist viewpoints, because I believe that I understand the Calvinist one.
I think a Calvinist's answer to this problem would be that it is God who initiates the salvation process in the elect, and saving faith is the result.  Non-Calvinists would hold that God initiates the salvation process for everyone and draws all men to him, but we must choose Him.  So it is in the non-Calvinist viewpoint that the question arises: If there is such thing as a non-saving faith, or non-genuine "choosing", what characterizes saving faith?

I think the short answer that's easiest to give to another person is that if you really believe the message the Christ brought to mankind, it will change you, and that change will show in your actions. Not that you must do change your behavior to attain salvation, but that coming to believe what saves us by faith cannot but change your behavior.

By contrast, it is very easy to say that one believes something, whether or not it is true. The profession of belief is important, but when one declares a belief and that belief is not reflected in their behavior, it is suspect.

Perhaps I'm arguing semantics here, but I think it's meaningful that James says "You say you believe there is one God," as opposed to, say, "You say you believe Jesus Christ is the Messiah who died for your sins." I think James is pointing out that simply believing in the existence of God is a baseline, not the endpoint of faith. If that's the case, then such a belief isn't nearly as formative of behavior as belief that one is a sinner who can be forgiven. James seems to be saying faith should manifest action because real faith is in something transforming.

I have read the Bible from cover to cover 9 times in the last 10 1/2 years... It is a study Bible in the NKJV format, written by John MacArthur...  While I don't 100% agree with every note that John MacArthur makes...I believe the very act of salvation is a mystery that each person must work out on their own...

The Apostle Paul tells us this, in...Philippians 2:12... Therefore, my beloved, as you have always obeyed, not as in my presence only, but now much more in my absence, work out your own salvation with fear and trembling; (NKJV)

John MacArthur has written at least 4 versions of study Bibles, and over 80 books...  I was amazed at his statement in the following video, that he wasn't even sure as to how his own salvation came about...  http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4mleum3jZ1E

I believe sinners must be drawn in by God first...John 6:44... No one can come to Me unless the Father who sent Me draws him; and I will raise him up at the last day. (NKJV)

At this point they have to hear the gospel of Jesus Christ, and the gospel of Christ must be understood and obeyed to be graced by God with salvation...

I spent a day writing on this necessity to become a Christian in the following link...

http://brmfam.wordpress.com/2012/10/20/gods-group-thoughts-for-10202012-gods-grace-through-obedience-to-the-gospel-of-christ/

I also write a daily devotion on Facebook on a page called..."Gods group"

Hope this helps...

bruce r mills


Are Calvinism and Arminianism compatible? This question may seem ridiculous at first glance, but bear with me... As I learn more about Calvinism and Arminianism I am struck with the notion that they are each based on Scripture, and each emphasize important elements of the teachings of Scripture.

From what I understand, Calvinists believe that God has predestined some to Paradise and some to Hell; They believe that functionally the blood of Christ will only cleanse those who are in Christ; They believe that it is impossible for a man to prevent God from doing what He has purposed to do; They believe that those who are predestined for Paradise will most certainly arrive in Paradise.
From what I understand, Arminians believe that God predestines some to Paradise, but His decision is based on foreknowledge of something about that person; They believe that Christ died to provide salvation to anyone and everyone, if they will accept it; They believe that man can choose to reject the grace of God; They believe that those who come to Christ have a responsibility to continue in faith or they will no longer be "in Christ".
Both believe that we are all messed up from birth and unable to choose to do good aside from God's intervention.

My question is: Are these two views really incompatible?

Frankly, I think I believe all of the things listed above. Is it possible that both doctrines are rooted in Scripture and each camp could grow in their understanding by learning from teachers on "the other side of the table"? Or, is there something fundamentally incompatible about these two views that extends beyond semantics and strawman arguments?

Please stick with the standard, classical views, and avoid discussions about "hyper-Calvinism" and other fringe interpretations of these two doctrines.

Also, please let me know if I have misrepresented the views of either camp.

Background
Although Calvinism and Arminianism are often presented as polar opposites, they have a common heritage. Jacobus Arminius studied under Calvinist teachers and was himself a Calvinist when he began his ministry. So it's not a surprise that the two systems share a common framework.
But Arminius eventually questioned some of the tenets of Calvinism, and his disciples published a document titled Five Articles of Remonstrance outlining what they believed Calvin had gotten wrong. Calvinists in response developed their own five points, which have become well known by the acronym TULIP.
Differences
The differences between Calvinism and Arminianism is expressed in these five points, but at the core, there is really only one significant, irreconcilable difference between these systems.
Calvinists believe God alone determines who is saved and who is not, and there is nothing anyone can do to change it. Arminians believe that God expects us to cooperate with him in order to bring about our salvation, that God will not save someone against that person's will. There is no way to reconcile these two positions.
Calvinists and Arminians also disagree about God's fundamental character. For Calvinists, God's sovereignty is his most important attribute. For Arminians, God's most important attribute is his love.
This is not to say that Calvinists believe God is not loving, or that Arminians believe God is not sovereign. But a Calvinist would reject any teaching (e.g., libertarian free will) that might imply God is not completely sovereign. Likewise, an Arminian would reject any teaching (e.g., limited atonement) that might imply God is not completely loving.
In other words, this is not necessarily an irreconcilable difference; a case can be made that the difference is more a matter of emphasis than of complete disagreement.
Similarities
Despite their differences, both Calvinists and Arminians share a faith in the same Christ. We use the same Bible and we both take it seriously. We share a common heritage going back through the early Reformers. Both Calvinists and Arminians should be equally comfortable with the professions of the Nicene Creed and other early ecumenical statements of faith.
Calvinism and Arminianism are defined as theological systems solely in how they differ from each other, but the points we have in common are much more numerous than our differences.
Summary
Are Calvinism and Arminianism compatible? Not if the goal is to agree on all our theology. But if the goal is to worship and glorify Christ, then Calvinists and Arminians both have something to contribute, and we can learn a lot from each other.

I'd say then you are Calvinist. As I understand it, Arminianism basically focuses on the human viewpoint of the whole matter. Calvinism affirms its interests, but also recognizes what is behind the scenes as God's sovereignty goes. So, I'd say where they are compatible is within the framework of the whole Calvinist position.


Why did St. John Paul II add the Luminous Mysteries to the Rosary? I started praying the Rosary after St. John Paul II added the Luminous mysteries to the Rosary, so I virtually no remembrance of a Rosary being prayed before they came on board.  When he writes about them in Rosarium Virginus Mariae he kind of just slides them in and says what he thinks they should be.

  Moving on from the infancy and the hidden life in Nazareth to the public life of Jesus, our contemplation brings us to those mysteries which may be called in a special way “mysteries of light”. Certainly the whole mystery of Christ is a mystery of light. He is the “light of the world” (Jn 8:12). Yet this truth emerges in a special way during the years of his public life, when he proclaims the Gospel of the Kingdom. In proposing to the Christian community five significant moments – “luminous” mysteries – during this phase of Christ's life, I think that the following can be fittingly singled out: (1) his Baptism in the Jordan, (2) his self-manifestation at the wedding of Cana, (3) his proclamation of the Kingdom of God, with his call to conversion, (4) his Transfiguration, and finally, (5) his institution of the Eucharist, as the sacramental expression of the Paschal Mystery.

So, does anyone know what prompted him to add more mysteries?  He explains why he chooses the individual mysteries in the letter, but he doesn't really say why he thinks that the Rosary needed more stuff.

No one knows for sure where Pope St John Paul II the Great got the inspiration to add the Luminous Mysteries to the Rosary.
The history of the Rosary shows a wide variety of styles, due to the unique inspirations of an individual or even a Religious Order. St John Eudes (1601-1680) is a good example of employing different ways of using a rosary in one's life of prayer in his treatise on The Life and the Kingdom of JESUS.
It is obvious that Pope John Paul II desired to make the traditional mysteries of the Rosary to be expanded to include Jesus' public life and more Christological.

I believe, however, that to bring out fully the Christological depth of the Rosary it would be suitable to make an addition to the traditional pattern which, while left to the freedom of individuals and communities, could broaden it to include the mysteries of Christ's public ministry between his Baptism and his Passion. - ROSARIUM VIRGINIS MARIAE

The probable origins of the Mysteries of Light and Pope John Pal II's inspiration for them came from Saint George Preca (1880-1962). He was canonized by Pope Benedict XVI on June 3, 2007.

It is not yet known whether these new mysteries were actually taken from those proposed by Dun Gorg (as the new Blessed is affectionately known in Malta). But it is certainly a curious fact that, apart from some small differences, the five mysteries are identical to those proposed by Fr Preca. Interesting as well is the fact that the Pope has called these mysteries from Christ's public life “the Mysteries of Light”, the same title given originally by Fr Preca when he first proposed them in 1957. - Probable Origin of the Mysteries of Light

Fr. Dolindo Ruotolo may have been  Fr. Preca’s inspiration!

The Misteries of Light were proposed and included in the Rosary by Pope John Paul II with the Apostolic Letter of October 10, 2002
The Mysteries of Light are taken from the Commentary on the Gospel of St. Luke and St. John written by Father Dolindo Ruotolo (1939).

The Sacred Scripture: The Gospel According to Luke (Don Dolindo Ruotolo) Book 1

The direct answer would be from the meaning of Totus Tuus.
Totus Tuus ego sum [Latin for "I am completely Yours" – Totus Tuus: 'Completely Yours'
St. John Paul II thoughts, words and actions are all coming from Our Lady's inspiration.
St.John Paul II embracing the fullness of Totus Tuus, meaning he sits and learn at the School of Mary, and perhaps, he reaches the height of contemplating the life of Christ in its fullness, seeing the light on the mystery that unfolds in His public ministry. This is the source, of St.John Paul II inspiration in adding the Luminous Mystery.He learned it, at the School of Mary.

With the Rosary, the Christian people sits at the school of Mary and is led to contemplate the beauty on the face of Christ and to experience the depths of his love. Through the Rosary the faithful receive abundant grace, as though from the very hands of the Mother of the Redeemer.

Against the background of the words Ave Maria the principal events of the life of Jesus Christ pass before the eyes of the soul. They take shape in the complete series of the joyful, sorrowful and glorious mysteries, and they put us in living communion with Jesus through – we might say – the heart of his Mother.
http://www.vatican.va/content/john-paul-ii/en/apost_letters/2002/documents/hf_jp-ii_apl_20021016_rosarium-virginis-mariae.html

It was an inspiration coming from Our Lady of Fatima as it talks about the Robe of Light of the Bishop that was seen at the vision of Sister Lucia, seeing a Bishop Dressed in White or a Robe in Light is the clear connection. Francis in Fatima: "I am the bishop dressed in white."
Now, why add the Mystery of Light?
Our Lady of Fatima apparition, speaks about a war the Children of Light vs. the Children of Darkness. Genesis3:15
If there is a war destined to happen, what would be the weapon of the Children of the Light?
St. Padre Pio said, "The rosary is the weapon in the end times."
The battle would be between forces of Light & forces of darkness, and St.John Paul II like St. Dominic was handed a weapon to fight the evil forces in their days.
St. John Paul II was inspired to add the Mystery of Light as a weapon in these end times.
Sister Agnes Sasagawa said, "the only weapon left to us in the end times , will be the rosary."
The Mystery of Lights was inspired and given by Our Lady to St. John Paul II Totus Tuus.
Light vs. darkness.

"The light shines in the darkness and the darkness did not overcome it. "(John1:5)

"In the end My Immaculate Heart will triumph." (Our Lady of Fatima)
THE MESSAGE OF FATIMA


Are Mormons Protestants? To my understanding, Mormons are neither Catholic nor Orthodox. I believe that they are Christians, but I'm not sure if they are Protestant or not.

Are Mormons Protestants, or are they just "Latter Day Saints"?

No, not really. While you sometimes find them lumped together they are not a subset of the class.

In popular usage such as among modern secular journalism, the term "Protestant" has come to mean anything that doesn't properly fall under the umbrella of either Catholicism or Orthodoxy. In this sense where there is no "Option D, none of the above", it sort of makes sense to lump in divergent sects with the rest of Protestantism.

There is, however, a fundamental difference: their theological roots are not the same. The LDS church is what is sometimes referred to as a "restorationist movement" — a reference to their theology's claim to be restoring something that was lost. While they agree with Protestants that the Catholic church lost its way, their proposed solution varies radically from that of Protestantism.

The basic tenets of Protestantism as a movement include rejection of a few Catholic doctrines and ultimately the Catholic church's claim to apostolic authority. In rejecting some of the core tenets of Catholicism, it based itself instead on a core set of doctrines (often loosely summarized in the "5 solas") that all require a certain reliance on the Scriptures as authoritative and uncorrupted.

The LDS church on the other hand is fundamentally based on the premise that Apostolic authority was lost (much earlier than even the rise of the Catholic church) and needed to be miraculously restored. This and other revelations are believed to have been given independently (and in opposition to) the existing claims of the Bible and historical Christian churches (whether Catholic, Protestant or Orthodox).

In other words, while they would also protest against Rome, their basis for doing so is entirely independent of the Protestant reformation and theologically they should be considered a sect (or cult depending on whose definitions you're using) outside of the theological umbrellas of Catholic, Orthodox, or Protestant traditions.

Of course they are. Follow the history-

In the first few centuries of Christianity, there was a lot of turmoil and many different sects. By the reign of Justinian things had settled into what become the Catholic (Universal) Church. This religion included almost all Christians for about one thousand years.
As the Roman Empire grew it became necessary to divide power between the west (Rome) and the east (Byzantium). Over the centuries Byzantine and Roman ways diverged, and eventually the Eastern Church became what is today known as "Orthodox", including Greek, Russian, Serbian, and other branches.
Beginning in the late middle ages, the Protestant Reformation occurred. Many different Protestant sects branched off from Catholicism, and the English Colonies that later became the United States were dominated by Protestants (even Maryland.)
Before Joseph Smith invented Mormonism, he was a Protestant. His parents were Protestants. His grandparents were Protestants. None of his ancestors were Orthodox, and none of them had been Catholics since the sixteenth century.
All of the other early Mormons- from New York to Nauvoo to Deseret- were Protestants. Their ancestors were all Protestants.

I understand that Mormon theology differs greatly from mainline Protestantism. But it cannot be denied that the PEOPLE who became the Mormons were Protestants first.

EDIT- Everything comes from somewhere. People are born into their parent's world. Smith's family, and the families of the other founding Mormons, were all raised in the Protestant tradition. Their own ideas and philosophies are baked into Mormonism.
They didn't create a new religion, they created another branch of Christianity- one that grows from the Protestant limb, just as the family trees of the Founders grow from Protestant limbs.


Who, exactly, are James son of Alphaeus and Judas the Son [Brother] of James? One note specifically is that some translations read that Judas (not Iscariot) was known as Judas brother of James, but most say Judas Son of James.

Luke 6:16 NIV

  Judas son of James, and Judas Iscariot, who became a traitor.

Compare that to:

Luke 6:16 KJV

  And Judas the brother of James, and Judas Iscariot, which also was the traitor.

So, who were the apostles named Judas and James son of Alphaeus, exactly? If these apostles were brothers, wouldn't they share the same father? James is known as James son of Alphaeus...

Luke 6:15 NIV

  Matthew, Thomas, James son of Alphaeus, Simon who was called the
  Zealot,

In Jude, the author also introduces himself as the brother of James
Jude 1:1 NIV

  Jude, a servant of Jesus Christ and a brother of James,

However, this can also be Judas the brother of Christ and James, also the brother of Christ, but not necessarily the original apostles named Judas and James.

I ask because today at study, the individual giving the study was positing that Judas brother/son of James and James were both brothers of Christ, whereas I have it understood that none of Christ's brothers came to faith in him until the post-resurrection appearances.

Any help is appreciated!

According to the Bible, there was a tax collector named Matthew (also called Levi) son of Alphaeus. James son of Alphaeus is most likely Matthew's brother.

As said in the comments, there were many people by the names of Jude and of James. Jude could have been anybody; and if Jude is the son of James, his dad was not a disciple nor a brother of Jesus. Most of the Disciples were as old as teenagers, with the exception of Peter. Only Peter and Jesus had to pay taxes (Matthew 17:24-27). Jude couldn't have been a brother of Jesus because none of them believed He was the Messiah until after the resurrection. Greek translations show that Jude was called Jude James. In the Israelite culture, sons would inherit their father's name. So James was probably Jude's dad.

Well they were all brothers of Christ even Peter, but Bartholomew is known to have instantly have faith in him after his initial prejudice. Meaning he thought Christ would have been a different race. As for Judas being James blood brother this is also true, but Judas carried the curse and James got the blessing. Similar to Cain and Able. Obviously they both got the curse of death but Judas got the worst of it by suicide- James fell like Jesus to the hands of capital punishment.


What are the main views on who created God? The question of man's creation is addressed quite thoroughly in the Bible (whether you believe it is metaphorical or not).  Does the Bible (or other relevant references) in any way answer who created God, or how he was created?

What is an overview of the major common or prevalent Christian* teachings on this topic?

Note, to the answers that say he was not created—some explanation, reasoning, and, ideally, references are what are being asked for here.  Without any of that, it is an answer that is simply begging the question and not an answer that helps a questioning person.

* Answers from any/all major denominations would be helpful.

This question is not answerable from a Christian perspective; it presupposes God was created, but the Bible clearly teaches that God is eternal (in the truest sense of the word).  An eternal being has no creator, no beginning, no end, and no cause.  Rather he is the creator of all that is, the beginning and the end of all that is, and the cause of all that is.

Note, don't confuse eternal (having no beginning or end) with everlasting (just having no end).  An eternal being is literally timeless, whereas an everlasting being exists in time and lasts from it's inception forever.  An eternal being is everlasting, but an everlasting being is not necessarily eternal.  Only God is eternal, though Christians will be raised to everlasting life in Christ.

Note also that when the Bible speaks of eternal life, it means the life that comes from Christ, which is itself eternal as Christ is; it is not speaking of those of us who receive this life somehow becoming eternal, per se.

For reference, Biblical teaching of God's eternal nature:

Genesis 21:33
 Abraham planted a tamarisk tree in Beersheba, and there he called on the name of the LORD, the Eternal God.
Deuteronomy 33:27
 The eternal God is your refuge, and underneath are the everlasting arms. He will drive out your enemies before you, saying, 'Destroy them!'
Psalm 111:10
 The fear of the LORD is the beginning of wisdom; all who follow his precepts have good understanding. To him belongs eternal praise.
Psalm 119:89
 Your word, LORD, is eternal; it stands firm in the heavens.
Psalm 119:160
 All your words are true; all your righteous laws are eternal.
Isaiah 26:4
 Trust in the LORD forever, for the LORD, the LORD himself, is the Rock eternal.

I think we can only speculate here but one thing is for sure: God, being perfect, is obviously the most complex being one can imagine.

As far as the theological discussion goes there are only two mechanisms with which you can create complexity out of simplicity:

evolution
creation

God cannot have been created: One would need a Super-God, above that another Super-Super-God and so on which would create an infinity regress and we wouldn't know to whom to pray - and additionally it is written in the Holy Bible that there is only One God!

So it must have been an evolutionary process where at the end our Loving Father evolved. This is the only possible conclusion. How that happened exactly: Nobody knows an answer to this question - but we should all be grateful that it happend in the end!


Is there a good alternative word to “performance” to describe an evangelical worship team's actions? Especially since we have switched from in person to live streamed services due to the COVID-19 pandemic, and continuing as we have had a phased return with both in person people and live steaming, we’ve had a sense of the service being a production.
We’ve avoided using the term “performance” to describe the actions of the worship team, because we consider them to be leading the whole church, not performing to the church.
But we’ve struggled to find an alternative word to describe it. We want to say “you need to prepare to be ready for your X” for example.
It’s possible we’re hunting for a word that doesn’t really exist, nevertheless, is there a good alternative word to “performance” to describe an Evangelical worship music team's actions?

This is a non-denominational evangelical, independent church. Our hymns are mostly modern with a few more traditional. The instruments are piano keyboard, a couple guitars, drums / cajon and a singer (male or female).
Recent songs have included “Only a Holy God”, “This I Believe”, “Come Holy Spirit”, “Jesus Strong Kind”, “Amazing Grace”, “Yes, finished! the Messiah dies”, others “feel” similar to me!

Set is an acceptable musical term and doesn't carry as many negative or "performance" overtones as other words may.  It can be used of a final production in front of people, a studio session (session is another good possibility), or rehearsal.  Much more important than the labels we attach, (is it congregation or audience?), is what we are doing and why we are doing it.

Can a blind man lead a blind man? Will they not both fall into a pit? - Luke 6:39

As worship leader for a decade I found it was a near constant battle to keep myself in an attitude of personal worship while also striving for the highest level of "performance" of which we were capable.  At the end of the day I am firmly convinced that leading God's people in worship through any means (music in context here) is a spiritual endeavor and therefore if I am not actually worshiping the Living God I cannot hope to lead others.
Therefore, work hard in practice and rehearsal and then, on the day of the "performance", disappear into worship of the lover of your soul.

Not really.   People perform during the show which is the established terminology for watching an event on stage whether live or via video.
Just like nave is the architectural term for the big space  in a church while apse describes the stage area even if those terms originated with old style cathedrals and want to make you find alternatives like you sought for performance.
If your performance is also leading then you could use both to be more accurate. But you cannot get around the fact that they ARE performing during the show, even if done while leading.  Sorry but that is the way the English language works for now.
Now even if you do not want to admit that the worship team IS performing while also leading you will have to change the English language to make that actually true.