Why was Jesus called Jesus, and not Immanuel? Was the choice of Jesus (Joshua) in addition to Immanuel(Matthew 1: 21 and 23) in order to fulfil the prophecy in Deuteronomy 18: 15? This gives a message that Jesus, like His namesake, would lead Israel into the promised land and not Moses (the law).

Can the answers concentrate on the prophesy in Deuteronomy.

Because Emmanuel/Immanuel is a nick name.
It is like saying Clark Kent, his name is SuperMan, though people also know him as Man of Steel.
Which is the same with Jesus, he's name is Jesus of Nazareth, we call him Jesus Christ (Christ means Messiah) but we know him as Emmanuel because he's God in the flesh who walked with us.

and the prophecy is

  Isaiah 7:14 14 Therefore the Lord himself will give you a sign.
  Behold, the virgin shall conceive and bear a son, and shall call his
  name Immanuel.

(And Abram to Abraham has no connection to this. Abram did wrong things, lying to those kings and allowing Sarai to be taken as the King's wife while Abram accepted the good/provision over Sarai. A man to be Father of all nations should not bare a name and remembrance of someone who lied and gave up his wife. God had to change his name to Abraham.
The thing was back in those times, names actually meant something. Jacob's name meant cheating and his name was changed to Israel. Jacob who would become the first to bear Israel was cheating a lot of people and did wrong things, so we cannot let the Jews bare the forever name Jacob to someone who cheats. That was why God had to change his name to Israel. Saul people knew him as a persecutor so he had to change his name to Paul.
I do think it's important for us to look at our name meanings for they can impact our lives. If name makes changes to our life as a bad thing, it is best to change our name. If you look at the prophet names in the bible, they all have good meaning outcome like David means beloved.)

God bless

Actually, it's because Immanuel was born in the next chapter of Isaiah (8:8)!  Verse 7:14 mis-translates the Hebrew word "almah" as virgin instead of "young woman".  IF it meant to indicate virgin, a good Hebrew example of the word would be "betulah".

In addition to life choices and prophecy, the bible is also a history book.  Isaiah 7 speaks of King Ahaz seeking comfort due to the alliance of Rezin (king of Aram) and Pekah (son of the king of Israel).  The context is that by the age of (Immanuel's) maturity, the kings of the 2 enemy nations will be gone; in fact, killed (ref. 2 Kings, 15:29-30 & 2 Kings 16:9).

Further context is the Lord telling Ahaz that he could ask for a sign but Ahaz responds that he "will not try the Lord".  Then comes Isaiah 7:14...but it would make little sense that the Lord's comfort for Ahaz would be the birth of Christ 700 years hence.

For other reference, check out Proverbs 30:18-20.  Here, Solomon compares a man with an "almah" to 3 things: an eagle in the sky, a serpent on a rock, & a ship in the sea.  The common bond?  All leave no trace - after an eagle flies by, there's nothing in the sky to show it was there; a snake slithers away & leaves no trail; a ship moves across the sea & the water comes back together...after a man has been with an almah, there is no trace of the fornication between them.  No...DO NOT go there because that's not what I'm implying!  Simply: when we're addressing apologetics, it's critical to view it within the context of the circumstance at the time as well as have a working knowledge of language(s).

The Lord Bless and Keep You! (Numbers 6:24-26)...Michael


Is the tripartite God the judge in the Old Testament, and Jesus the appointed only judge in the New Testament? In the Old Testament, Justice was meted out immediately by God, when Uzza touched the Ark, was this LORD the tripartite Godhead or the pre-incarnate Jesus.
All Scripture is quoted from the King James translation unless otherwise noted.

1st Chronicles 13:10 (New revised King James version) And the anger of the LORD was kindled against Uzza, and he stroke him, because he put his hand to the ark: and there he died before God.
Revelation 20:11-12  And I saw a great white throne, and him that sat on it, from whose face the earth and the heaven fled away; and there was found no place for them.
12  And I saw the dead, small and great, stand before God; and the books were opened: and another book was opened, which is the book of life: and the dead were judged out of those things which were written in the books, according to their works.

Jesus said:

John 5:26 and 27  For as the Father hath life in himself; so hath he given to the Son to have life in himself; 27  And hath given him authority to execute judgment also, because he is the Son of man.

and also:

John 5:25  Verily, verily, I say unto you, The hour is coming, and now is, when the dead shall hear the voice of the Son of God: and they that hear shall live.

It is hard for me to determine if the Trinity or the pre-incarnate Jesus was the judge in the Old Testament, because of Jesus statement that he is the son of man, and whether that would be applicable prior to his earthly existence.
my question is not concerned with the immediate judgment, but who is making the judgment. In my use of the Old Testament quote was not to emphasize the quickness, but rather the fact that Uzza was killed by the 'LORD' while in the Revelation it is clear that it is Jesus who is judging. And if these are the same.
The use of the word 'LORD' in the Old Testament seemingly does not have the same connotation as it does in the new. Since in the New Testament it is used for Jesus also.
Old Testament:

Genesis 2:4  These are the generations of the heavens and of the earth when they were created, in the day that the LORD God made the earth and the heavens,

New Testament:

Matthew 7:21  Not every one that saith unto me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdom of heaven; but he that doeth the will of my Father which is in heaven.
Matthew 24:42  Watch therefore: for ye know not what hour your Lord doth come.

In Matthew 24:42 it can only be referring to Jesus since it refers to his second coming.

I draw your attention to the past tense in:

  For the Father judges no one, but has committed all judgment to the Son - John 5:22 KJV (emphasis added)

This said pre-resurrection and glorification; Together with the implications of -

  For God sent not his Son into the world to condemn the world; but that the world through him might be saved. - John 3:17 KJV

ie Judgment was not part of Jesus' mission during his 'first coming' (the incarnation); and also:

  Jesus Christ the same yesterday, and to day, and for ever. - Hebrews 13:8 KJV

It should be fairly clear that the one who is referred to in:

  Because he hath appointed a day, in the which he will judge the world in righteousness by that man whom he hath ordained; whereof he hath given assurance unto all men, in that he hath raised him from the dead. - Acts 17:31 KJV

was, is and will be the judge of all mankind from the very beginning and until the very end of all ages.

Your question necessarily depends upon the Father being separate from the Son, so any group of Christians who subscribe to the Nicene Creed, which would include Catholics, Orthodox, Anglicans, Lutherans, Methodists, and perhaps Reformed communities reject this notion as heresy, believing that as the Creed says [emphasis added]:

  "I believe in ONE GOD, the Father almighty, maker of heaven and earth..."

and

  ...being of ONE SUBSTANCE with the Father, God of God, light of light, very God of Very God...".


Do Mainline Presbyterians oppose Satisfaction Theory? Is this why "In Christ Alone" was rejected for their Hymnal? Satisfaction Theory is a theory of atonement that, in a nutshell, says that God's justice demands a certain amount of punishment for sin.  In that, God's "wrath" is often used as a metaphor for that need.

Recently, the PCUSA declined to add the hymn "In Christ Alone" in their new hymnal.  That the hymn is exceedingly popular is not in doubt.  The Baptist Hymnal, for example, included it, and even the PCUSA acknowledges that it is one they wanted to include. The hymn itself is replete with many deep theological statements, but this line is called out as being the reason for rejection.

The controversy stems from the following lyrics:

  “Till on that cross as Jesus died/The wrath of God was satisified.

which is a clear indication of satisfaction theory.

The article (linked above) says:

  The PCUSA's hymn committee had a problem with God being portrayed in the song as wrathful, and asked the writers for permission to change the problem stanza to, “Till on that cross as Jesus died/The love of God was magnified.” The author's refused, explaining that they had written the song to present the “whole gospel,” and in their view changing the line would compromise the message.

That said, I don't actually know if Mainline Presbyterians are opposed to satisfaction theory. If they are (say, preferring substitutionary atonement or the Christus Victor model), then I guess this statement makes sense.  But, if there is no such opposition, then I don't understand how one could, as the article explains oppose the concept of "God's wrath".

My question then, is this -

What does the Mainline Presbyterian Church (and specifically the more liberal PCUSA) hold in regards to Satisfaction Theory specifically?  Is this a case of PC "we don't like the idea of God being angry" or is it an actual truck with Satisfaction Theory itself?

If you want to understand why the PCUSA's hymn committee rejected the hymn, then you should read its brief statement of faith. The statement of faith focuses heavily on grace, and satisfaction theology tends to focus on works. The line from the song in question is very much based in satisfaction theology and thus contradicts the statement of faith.

One does not need to subscribe to any specific theory of the Atonement in order to agree that God has "wrath" towards sin, as such is plainly stated in Romans chapter one.
Sadly, the attitude of some so-called "churches" seems to be one of "never mind what the Bible actually says, we're going with teachings that we feel good about".


In John 4:1-3, in whose name were Jesus' disciples' baptizing? In regards to John 4:1-3, were Jesus' disciples in this passage baptizing with John's baptism?  If not, and they were baptizing in the name of Jesus, did the people who receive this baptism have to be re-baptized to receive the Holy Spirit (as did those who received John's baptism)?

There's no indication of either.

  It happened that while Apollos was at Corinth, Paul passed through
  the upper country and came to Ephesus, and found some disciples. He
  said to them, "Did you receive the Holy Spirit when you believed?"
  And they said to him, "No, we have not even heard whether there is a
  Holy Spirit." And he said, "Into what then were you baptized?" And
  they said, "Into John's baptism." Paul said, "John baptized with the
  baptism of repentance, telling the people to believe in Him who was
  coming after him, that is, in Jesus." When they heard this, they were
  baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus. And when Paul had laid his
  hands upon them, the Holy Spirit came on them, and they began
  speaking with tongues and prophesying. (Act 19:1-6)

In Acts 19:1-6, there's no indication anyone had to be baptized again, other than John's disciples who still didn't realize Jesus was the Messiah.
In John 4, Jesus' disciples were already following Jesus, instead of John. There's no indication Jesus' disciples were baptizing in any name other than Jesus'.

The Passage which comes directly after John 3:16 explaining the need of water baptism, explains that John's role deminishes as Christ's increases.

  John 3:23-36
  After these things came Jesus and his disciples into the land of Judaea; and there he tarried with them, and baptized.
   And John also was baptizing in Aenon near to Salim, because there was much water there:and they came, and were baptized. For John was not yet cast into prison.
   Then there arose a question between some of John's disciples and the Jews about purifying. And they came unto John, and said unto him, Rabbi, he that was with thee beyond Jordan, to whom thou barest witness, behold, the same baptizeth, and all men come to him. John answered and said, A man can receive nothing, except it be given him from heaven. Ye yourselves bear me witness, that I said, I am not the Christ, but that I am sent before him. He that hath the bride is the bridegroom:but the friend of the bridegroom, which standeth and heareth him, rejoiceth greatly because of the bridegroom's voice:this my joy therefore is fulfilled. He must increase, but I must decrease. He that cometh from above is above all:he that is of the earth is earthly, and speaketh of the earth:he that cometh from heaven is above all. And what he hath seen and heard, that he testifieth; and no man receiveth his testimony. He that hath received his testimony hath set to his seal that God is true. For he whom God hath sent speaketh the words of God:for God giveth not the Spirit by measure unto him. The Father loveth the Son, and hath given all things into his hand. He that believeth on the Son hath everlasting life:and he that believeth not the Son shall not see life; but the wrath of God abideth on him.

The order of the passage is Christ proclaiming the neccesity of Water Baptism,

  john 3:16 For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life

Then a Demonstration of his statement

  john 3:23 After these things came Jesus and his disciples into the land of Judaea; and there he tarried with them, and baptized.

The question of weather Johns baptism remains valid in the quote above answered.

  He must increase and I must decrease.

Then all the apostles ran around asking "Have you accepted Jesus as your personel Lord and Savior"

  John 3???

and "If you died right now, would you know for certain that you have been saved"

  John ?????

The baptism of repentance was continued by His disciples in the Lords earthly ministry.  Those who were Baptized came to hear the Good news and heard it, but the Holy Spirit was not yet given in order that the Apostles could baptism into Christs death.  Jesus's earthly ministry represented a transitional period in Gods Saving Plan.  To be baptized in the Name of the Father Son and Holy Spirit is to be baptized into Christ's Death, and raised to new life.  This reality would be impossible to achieve during Christ's ministry as he had not suffered his passion.  However, the validity of a Baptism for those, and transfering the gift of the Holy Spirit is not subject to time and space as we are.  All things are possible for God.  There are mysteries known only to God and this is understood by his Church.

There are also more than one way to be Baptized.  1st By Water, 2nd By Martyrdom, and third by Mystery.

I hope that helps


Does God have free will? To clarify the question - when I mention God here I am referring to God the Father and by free will, the best non-contradictory definition according to the Bible I have heard is "the ability to act apart from one's nature".

When I first came across this question it sounds almost absurd. Of course God has free will, He willed us into being. But maybe willing something and free will are two different things.  And maybe we have a hard time thinking about this because we personify God to have human traits and the ability to act apart from our nature is a human only trait.

I would argue that the premise that free will is "the ability to act apart from one's nature" is essentially flawed.  Free will is the ability to act within your power according to your nature.

However, regardless of your definition of free will, the question is also influenced by a finite viewpoint.  God is both infinite and perfect.  He has free will, and his will is perfect and his nature is infinite such that his will is perfectly executed.  Being both infinite and perfect in nature, it is not possible for any of the three persons of the Trinity to ever act contrary to their perfect nature - that's one of the reasons it's possible for God to be three persons without inter-relational conflict.

We tend to over anthropomorphize God, and we must be very careful not to reconstruct God in our image, instead of the other way around.  We image God but imperfectly; we are like him, but we are not identical to him (as if that needs to be said).

In a mysterious way, within this creation, God has created us sufficiently in his image such that we have free will; and we will according to our nature, which is fallen and corrupted.  Somehow, God has organized things in this dimension (or these 4 dimensions, if you like), such that we can exercise our free will without contravening his.  It's as if he has deliberately chosen to limit himself for the sake of our creation - how this resonates with his will I cannot explain... as I said, it's a mystery.

God is Holy by nature.
God has free will.

Free will implies choice between at least two options. If there were no options, choosing would not be necessary thus, free will would not be necessary.

God is omnipotent.  There is nothing He cannot do.  Including choosing contrary to His holy nature.  If He cannot choose contrary to His holy nature, He would not be Omnipotent.

Faced with a choice between what is contrary to His holy nature and what is not contrary to His holy nature, He always chooses what is not contrary to His holy nature because of His holy nature.

God does not choose what is contrary to His holy nature because it is impossible for Him to do so, but rather, He does not choose what is contrary to His holy nature because He chooses  to do so.

Simple.


1 John Chapter 1 & 3 - Is there an apparent contradiction? I have often wondered why the author of 1 John, in the beginning of his letter, seems to claim that even though people have accepted Christ they will continue to sin, but two chapters later he seems to be making the opposite claim? I've never found an adequate explanation to this. Why is this?

1 John 1:8, 10: "If we claim to be without sin, we deceive ourselves and the truth is not in us. If we confess our sins, he is faithful and just and will forgive us our sins and purify us from all unrighteousness. If we claim we have not sinned, we make him out to be a liar and his word has no place in our lives."

1 John 3:9: "No one who is born of God will continue to sin, because God's seed remains in him; he cannot go on sinning, because he has been born of God."

In a case like this, it's best to go back to the original Greek.  As jrista pointed out, the key verb in 3:9 is the one your version translates as "continue to", in the greek "ποιέω".  This Greek Lexicon gives a lot of translations for this verb, including:

  to make; with the names of things made, to produce, construct, form, fashion, etc.; to be the authors of, the cause

This same verb is used in the immediately preceding verses, 3:7-8, which the NIV translates:

  Dear children, do not let anyone lead you astray. He who does what is
  right is righteous, just as he is righteous. He who does what is
  sinful is of the devil, because the devil has been sinning from the
  beginning.

The emphasis here seems to be on what you produce, cause or make.  As such, I would interpret it similarly to Jesus' statement in Matthew 7:18,20:

  A good tree cannot bear bad fruit, and a bad tree cannot bear good
  fruit...Thus, by their fruit you will recognize them.

The point of both passages does not seem to be saying that any who are "born of God" will never sin, but that the product of their lives will be to "produce fruit in keeping with repentance." (Matthew 3:8)  They may sin, but they are saved by genuine repentance such that their lives are characterized by righteousness and good fruit, not sin.

A lot of this hinges around the doctrine of "once saved, always saved" (Calvinism TULIP), aka "eternal security".  People fail to see the harmony between 1 John 3:8-9 and 1 John 1:8-10 and 1 John 2:1 because of the preconceived notion that "once saved, always saved" is true.  Thus, these verses appear to contradict.

The same scenario is affected in Acts 8 with the Samaritans and Simon.  In Acts 8:5-24, we read of Philip (one of the seven, Acts 6:5) going to Samaria.  In vs. 12, we read the Samaritans believed and were baptized.  Likewise, Simon did the same in vs. 13.  If the Samaritans were not saved, neither was Simon.  If the Samaritans were saved, so was Simon.

But, Simon fell into sin (vs. 18-21).  A Christian who sinned.  And the apostle Peter told him to repent (vs. 22-24).  Yes, Simon obeyed the gospel.  He was in a saved condition...but after sinning, Peter told him to repent and pray to God that he might be forgiven.

Calvinism is false doctrine.  Those who teach/believe it will say of Simon, "he was never saved in the first place".  Why do they say this?  Because it contradicts their false doctrine.  Read for yourself -- if the Samaritans were saved in vs. 12, then so was Simon in vs. 13.  If Simon was not saved in vs. 13, neither were the Samaritans in vs. 12.

God is speaking to us through His divine word showing Christians that it is possible to fall from grace.  In fact, Galatians 5:4 affirms this possibility (the context there speaking of Jews clinging to the Mosaic Law).  One cannot "fall from" grace unless once in grace.  Speaking of Christians (brethren), James shows that one can depart from the truth in James 5:19-20 (notice there, the one who departs is called a "sinner").  How can one depart something they were not once in?  When we abide in Christ, walk in the light, and are obedient to God, nobody can snatch one from God's hand (John 10:28) ...but one certainly can depart on his/her own.  We have free will.  Even Paul said this of himself (1 Cor. 9:27), knowing the possibility of apostasy.

Further, Peter uses the illustration in 2 Peter 2:20-22 showing one can first escape worldliness, then obey the gospel to become a Christian, and fall back into the sin of the world.  Vs. 21 says, "For it would have been better for them not to have known the way of righteousness, than having known it, to turn from the holy commandment delivered to them".

The advocates of Calvinistic doctrine "once saved, always saved" (and also "total hereditary depravity", aka "inherited sin") cannot harmonize these scriptures in 1 John because they believe Calvinism to be true.  It is complete error.  It never fails, that someone who believes Calvinism may point to an indvidual and say, "He is a saved man".  But, if that man falls into a publicly known sin (i.e., adultery), then they will say of the same man, "That man was never saved in the first place!"

False teaching always contradicts.  Study these examples in your own Bible -- about Simon in Acts 8 and what the apostles' said on the matter -- Paul and Peter, as shown above.

To obey the Lord, one must hear the gospel (Rom. 10:17), have faith (Heb. 11:6), repent of one's sins (Luke 13:3), confess faith in Christ (Rom. 10:9-10) and be immersed into Christ (Mark 16:16; Rom. 6:3-6) = then, and only then, does the Lord add the saved to His church (Acts 2:47) of which He is Savior (Eph. 5:23).

If we sin, we have an advocate with the Father, Jesus Christ (1 John 2:1).  We must confess this sin to God (1 John 1:9) and repent of the sin (just as Peter told Simon, Acts 8:22).  Remember, the apostles' were guided into all truth by the Holy Spirit (John 14:26, 16:13).  These are the inspired words of God.

There is no contradiction in 1 John.  The Bible harmonizes.  God be with you all!


What is the history behind Angelus prayer? In Roman Catholicism the faithfuls are supposed to say Angelus prayer thrice a day and at designated time of the day. When and how saying of Angelus came into being and what is the history behind it?

V.-Leader says

R.-All say

  V. The Angel of the Lord brought the message to Mary,

  R. And she conceived from the Holy Spirit.

  V. Hail, Mary, full of grace, the Lord is with you. Blessed are you among women, and blessed is the fruit of your womb, Jesus.

  R. Holy Mary, Mother of God, pray for us sinners now and at the hour of our death. Amen.

  V. See the servant of the Lord;

  R. Do to me according to your Word.

  V. Hail, Mary, full of grace, the Lord is with you. Blessed are you among women, and blessed is the fruit of your womb, Jesus.

  R. Holy Mary, Mother of God, pray for us sinners now and at the hour of our death. Amen.

  V. And the Word was made flesh,

  R. And lived among us.

  V. Hail, Mary, full of grace, the Lord is with you. Blessed are you among women, and blessed is the fruit of your womb, Jesus.

  R. Holy Mary, Mother of God, pray for us sinners now and at the hour of our death. Amen.

  V. Pray for us, holy Mother of God.

  R. So that we will be made worthy of the promises of Christ.
  Let us pray: Lord, through the angel's message we have come to know that Christ your Son became human. We pray to You, pour Your grace into our hearts so that by His cross and suffering we will be brought to the glory of His rising from the dead, through Jesus Christ, our Lord.

  R.Amen.

Another Revision is as:
[edit]

  V. The angel of the Lord declared unto Mary,

  R. And she was conceived by the Holy Spirit.

  V. Hail Mary, full of grace, the Lord is with thee. Blessed art thou amongst women, and blessed is the fruit of thy womb, Jesus.

  R. Holy Mary, Mother of God, pray for us sinners, now and at the hour of our death. Amen.

  V. Behold the handmaid of the Lord.

  R. Be it done unto me according to thy Word.

  V. Hail Mary, full of grace, the Lord is with thee. Blessed art thou amongst women, and blessed is the fruit of thy womb, Jesus.

  R. Holy Mary, Mother of God, pray for us sinners, now and at the hour of our death. Amen.

  V. And the Word was made flesh.

  R. And dwelt amongst us.

  V. Hail Mary, full of grace, the Lord is with thee. Blessed art thou amongst women, and blessed is the fruit of thy womb, Jesus.

  R. Holy Mary, Mother of God, pray for us sinners, now and at the hour of our death. Amen.

  V. Pray for us, O Holy Mother of God.

  R. That we may be made worthy of the promises of Christ.

  V. Let us pray: Pour forth, we beseech thee, O Lord, your grace into our hearts, that we to whom the incarnation of Christ Thy Son was made known by the message of an angel, may by His Passion and Cross be brought to the glory of His resurrection; through the same Christ our Lord.

  R. Amen.

The prayer is a simple recitation of the Biblical Tradition:

Luke 1:28, 35, 42 (and end of Jeremiah 37:3)

Luke 1:38

repeat Luke 1:42 & end of Jeremiah 37:3

then John 1:14

repeat Luke 1:42 & end of Jeremiah 37:3

Jeremiah 37:3 & Hebrews 13:18-19 & other places asking "Pray for us".

Hebrews 13:9-11

Almost any source on the subject introduces with the Catholic Encyclopedia quote "The history of the Angelus is by no means easy to trace with confidence, and it is well to distinguish in this matter between what is certain and what is in some measure conjectural."

The first record of such a prayer in writing comes from an Italian Franciscan monk Sinigardi di Arezzo (died 1282). The Angelus is used as the introduction to the Hail Marys in an 11th-century monastic custom of reciting three Hail Marys during the evening bell.

Yesterday during a short homily a priest made the comment that the Angelus was a tool to combat Islamic influence.  Was it St. Francis of Assisi who claimed that the Islam would be converted through Mary?  In any case it would be a startlingly good idea, I think, to restore the practice of saying the Angelus three times per day in order to combat the horrendous massacre that is now going on in the name of Islam.


Could you please help me locate this hymn? I heard a sermon that was recorded in the 1980s.  The speaker was Dr. Paul E. Toms, who at the time was senior pastor at Park Street Church in Boston, Massachusetts.  In his sermon, Dr. Toms referenced a hymn, but he didn't mention the title.  My mother and I would really like to find this hymn.  We would be very grateful for any clues or ideas that you might have!  Here is what I know:

The hymn is about a man who lived and died.  At the gates of Heaven, the gatekeeper said, "On whose authority should I let you in?  The man replied:

  "I come in the name of Jesus.
  For me He bled and died."
  And the pearly gates swung open
  and welcomed him inside.

This was all that Dr. Toms mentioned about the hymn itself; unfortunately, he did not mention the title.  Dr. Toms did mention that a certain visitor to Park Street Church, "Bill Hoyt" (or possibly "Hoight" or similar; since I only have the sermon on audio, I don't know the spelling) sang this hymn at the church.  (But since I'm not sure if "Bill Hoyt" is a famous person or not, I'm not sure if this is a helpful bit of information.)

Unfortunately, this is all that I know.  We will be really grateful for any clues that you might have!  Thank you!

I think your song might be This One's With Me by NewSong.  I stumbled across the service's lyrics while searching for another set of lyrics and found a combination of terms from your quote that located This One's With Me.

  I was dreaming about Heaven
  Dreamed I was standing at the Pearly Gates
  We're all there and I was so scared
  In the presence of One so great

  I felt so worried and worthy I felt like running away I bowed my head
  and I turn to go When I heard someone say

  "Father, this one's with me Part of the family One of the reasons I
  died on Calvary Father, welcome him in I paid the price for him
  Father, oh Father, this one's with me"

  I was dreaming about Heaven When I looked up the gates were opened
  wide And in the distance, I saw Jesus Our eyes met and I began to cry

  Angels robed in their beauty Were there to show me the way And all of
  Heaven singing When I heard His voice say

  "Father, this one's with me Part of the family One of the reasons I
  died on Calvary Father, welcome him in I paid the price for him
  Father, oh Father"

  Finally, we were there face to face And He placed on me Heaven's crown
  I fell down on my knees, laid my crown at His feet Then He said to me

  "Father, this one's with me Part of the family One of the reasons I
  died on Calvary Father, welcome him in I paid the price for him
  Father, oh Father, this one's with me"

I believe you are referencing the lyrics for "Jesus loves me" by William Batchelder Bradbury (1816–1868)

  Jesus loves me! This I know,
  For the Bible tells me so.
  Little ones to Him belong;
  They are weak, but He is strong.

  Yes, Jesus loves me!
  Yes, Jesus loves me!
  Yes, Jesus loves me!
  The Bible tells me so.

  Jesus loves me! This I know,
  As He loved so long ago,
  Taking children on His knee,
  Saying, “Let them come to Me.”

  Yes, Jesus loves me!...

  Jesus loves me still today,
  Walking with me on my way,
  Wanting as a friend to give
  Light and love to all who live.

  Yes, Jesus loves me!...

  Jesus loves me! He who died
  Heaven’s gate to open wide;
  He will wash away my sin,
  Let His little child come in.

  Yes, Jesus loves me!...

  Jesus loves me! He will stay
  Close beside me all the way;
  Thou hast bled and died for me,
  I will henceforth live for Thee.

  Yes, Jesus loves me!...


Does Jesus ever claim to be God, or the son of God? While I understand there are many potential passages in the Bible of Jesus claiming to be a messiah (which I understand to mean "anointed"), a king, or one through whom it is necessary to know God, I'm interested to know if there are any places where He literally claims to be God, God-like, or related to God (i.e. the son of God).

Taking the Bible to be a reliable record of what He said (for the sake of this question), what Biblical passages illustrate Jesus literally saying He was God?

OP Edit: I see that my question has been edited to say "literally" which has caused a bit of turmoil, so I'll just say that for me "literally" is read to mean "literally stated, or inferred without interpretation". So "I intend to put on foot coverings" does not literally mean shoes, as it could mean socks, but "I intend to drive to the capital city of the country England" means you'll end up in London no matter which way you swing it. Interestingly I did try to ask the Biblical Hermenutics group this question and it was suggested I ask here.

There are many occasions on which Jesus states his identity with God.

John 8:51-59 Jesus says

  John 8:58 (NIV)
  "Before Abraham was, I am"

This is a clear
reference to the name of God. Even if there were any doubt that this
is the reference the reaction of the Pharisees clearly indicates
that (in their eyes) this is a blasphemous claim.
Matthew 9:1-7 Jesus claims to forgive sins, which the local officials (correctly) believed to be the perogative of God only.
Thomas the apostle calls Jesus "My Lord and My God", which Jesus does not correct or deny.
Also, we see this in John

  John 14:9b, 10a (NIV)
  ... Anyone who has seen me has seen the Father... Don’t you believe that I am in the Father, and that the Father is in me?

Matthew 26:63-64

  The high priest said to him, “I charge you under oath by the living God: Tell us if you are the Messiah, the Son of God.” “You have said so,” Jesus replied.

(There is a certain amount of dispute over the last item.  Many interpreters take Jesus statement as a colloquial affirmative, though some take it as meaning "so you say").

Insisting that statements by Jesus be 'literal' is missing the point. If Jesus made a statement that equated himself with God in a way that was clearly understood as such by his hearers, then that is what he did. The fact that it requires a little interpretation to our twenty-first century minds doesn't make it any less a claim.

The Synoptic Gospels (Matthew, Mark and Luke) are the earliest of the four Gospels and were written from a common point of view. They are in very substantial agreement with one another. Herein, Jesus really walks the Earth, and his body has substance and weight. His voice vibrates to his changing mood. He loves and hates, caresses and curses, pleads and labors, exults and sings and dances. Jesus is not God himself, but a mere prophet among men... with all the flaws that are common among men. He was an ascetic who only accepted other ascetics as followers!

  And when he was gone forth into the way, there came one running, and
  kneeled to him, and asked him, Good Master, what shall I do that I may
  inherit eternal life?  And Jesus said unto him, Why callest thou me
  good? there is none good but one, that is, God. Thou knowest the
  commandments, Do not commit adultery, Do not kill, Do not steal, Do
  not bear false witness, Defraud not, Honour thy father and mother. And
  he answered and said unto him, Master, all these have I observed from
  my youth. Then Jesus beholding him loved him, and said unto him, One
  thing thou lackest: go thy way, sell whatsoever thou hast, and give to
  the poor, and thou shalt have treasure in heaven: and come, take up
  the cross, and follow me.

  — Mark 10:17-21

The Jesus of the Synoptics is a lot like the hippies of the 1960s, who revolted against the cultural standards of their parents... or like Gandhi, who revolted against the British empire. While worthy of admiration, he was still a mere man, not "God made flesh". And although overall pacifistic in nature, he was first and foremost a rebel against the authorities of his days, living and promoting a rather ascetic life removed from mainstream society.

  If any man come to me, and hate not his father, and mother, and wife,
  and children, and brethren, and sisters, yea, and his own life also,
  he cannot be my disciple. And whosoever doth not bear his cross, and
  come after me, cannot be my disciple. For which of you, intending to
  build a tower, sitteth not down first, and counteth the cost, whether
  he have sufficient to finish it? Lest haply, after he hath laid the
  foundation, and is not able to finish it, all that behold it begin to
  mock him, Saying, This man began to build, and was not able to finish.
  Or what king, going to make war against another king, sitteth not down
  first, and consulteth whether he be able with ten thousand to meet him
  that cometh against him with twenty thousand? Or else, while the other
  is yet a great way off, he sendeth an ambassage, and desireth
  conditions of peace. So likewise, whosoever he be of you that
  forsaketh not all that he hath, he cannot be my disciple.

  — Luke 14:26-33

The Jesus of John is very different. He is totally lacking the passion, the humanity that is abundantly found in the Jesus of the Synoptics. Instead, the Jesus of John is described as a superhuman embodiment of God itself. Unlike in the Syntopics, the whole atmosphere of the gospel of John is repressed, ethereal, supernal, eerie. And unlike the Jesus of the Synoptics, the Jesus of John promoted a lifestyle of obedience and submission in light of the authorities of his day.

  And I give unto them eternal life; and they shall never perish,
  neither shall any man pluck them out of my hand. My Father, which gave
  them me, is greater than all; and no man is able to pluck them out of
  my Father's hand. I and my Father are one.

  — John 10:28-30

If one wants an authentic record of what Jesus actually did and said, the nearest he can come to it is in the Synoptics. The gospel of John, on the other hand, obviously contains more interpretation and mythology than history.

For reasons that go beyond the scope of this question, it is not the Jesus of the Synoptic Gospels but the Jesus of the Gospel of John that carries the greatest weight in how Christians perceive the historical Jesus. However, it is blatantly obvious in any rational approach that the gospel of John is far less reliable as a source on the historical Jesus than the Synoptic Gospels.


Is Salvation a State Function? Does the salvation of a believer depend on the present state of her faith or are the different life transitions taken into account?

Suppose a believer leads a life of faith in Christ. At the end of her life she falls away for some reason, say persecution. Is she saved?

There are verses that seem to support both.

Only the end matters –

  Matt 24:13   But he that shall endure unto the end, the same shall be
  saved.

The life matters –

  Hebrews 6:10 For God is not unrighteous to forget your work and labour
  of love, which ye have shewed toward his name, in that ye have
  ministered to the saints, and do minister.

So is salvation a state function or a path function?

Your question presupposed that salvation is acted out by the believer. Coming at it from a reformed/calvanistic point of view here is out I would answer it.

Salvation starts  by God in eternity past through his election. Here is how Wayne Grudem describe election in is book Systematic Theology chapter 32. (Sorry could not get a direct link to the page)

Then if God calls those who will be save, then the believer receive the gift of salvation. In God eye, the believer is already in heaven. Then salvation is an act of God, and also God is the one responsible for the calling and the keeping on the path of faith.

Here is how Romans present this thought:

  For those whom he foreknew he also predestined to be conformed to the image of his Son, in order that he might be the firstborn among many brothers. And those whom he predestined he also called, and those whom he called he also justified, and those whom he justified he also glorified. (Romans 8.29-30) ESV

God chooses, the christian respond in faith and God keeps the believer during all the life of the believer. Salvation is then a state matter.

Although the end matter as well, a Christian is called to perseverance in his faith. If he was to fall he would be sinning, not loosing is salvation. Because God choosed the believer before any good work or any faith on his part. The sinning does not rob salvation, but his joy , his peace and different gifts.

In 1 Jonh one of the test of a true christian is his walk in the light.

  If we say we have fellowship with him while we walk in darkness, we lie and do not practice the truth. But if we walk in the light, as he is in the light, we have fellowship with one another, and the blood of Jesus his Son cleanses us from all sin. (1 john 1.6-7) ESV

In a way salvation is a path, but not unto salvation but unto holiness.

No where in the bible does it say we are saved by faith alone. In fact it says the exact opposite. Paul said, "For by grace you have been saved through faith; and that not of yourselves, it is the gift of God. Not by works, lest any man should boast."

It was James that had said faith alone. James 2:24 Ye see then how that by works a man is justified, and not by faith only.

Salvation is not a gift it is a choice! The cross redeemed all of mankind and earth from satan's authority, but salvation is a choice. A choice that we have to make and a choice that God makes. Our choice is to shut the hell up and obey God's commandments! It is God's judgment that has the final say. Many are called but only a few are chosen!

It even says in Ezekiel 3:20
Again, When a righteous [man] doth turn from his righteousness, and commit iniquity, and I lay a stumblingblock before him, he shall die: because thou hast not given him warning, he shall die in his sin, and his righteousness which he hath done shall not be remembered; but his blood will I require at thine hand.


Did the Israelites/Hebrews have their own slaves or servants? I have been reading in Exodus the Israelites had their own servants or slaves. Exodus also talks about some people almost becoming (?) an Israelite (or Hebrew, not sure if same thing) by performing a circumcision. Exodus 12:44-45, 48-49.

Who were these servants? Or strangers as well as the kJv also mentions? Were they peoples of another region? How did they attain servants if they were slaves themselves at this point..after the Phaorah died in Exodus 1 that didn't know Joseph? Exodus 1:8. Didn't know slaves could have slaves?

I thought the new Phaorah would've stopped any slavery for the slaves if there was anything before that.

Sorry if question is unusual.

The Israelites and Jews had slaves throughout the biblical period, as various passages of the Bible attest. Exodus 12:44 talks of the purchase of slaves and the need for them to be circumcised, which implies that these were non-Hebrew slaves. As the question implies, it seems anachronistic that the fleeing slaves would have had slaves at the start of the Exodus or even at any time during the forty years of wandering, but Exodus 12:44-45 does not necessarily mean that the fleeing Israelites actually had slaves at this stage -- it can be read as a teaching or instruction for when the Israelites would soon have slaves.

More importantly, it is anachronistic that they could even bear to think of enslaving another human as they had so recently been enslaved. God would need to have been incredibly insensitive to bring the subject up at this early stage in the Exodus. However, modern scholarship states that this was not written during the putative Exodus nor for the people of the Exodus: it was written as instructions for the Jews of much later times. According to the Documentary Hypothesis, the Book of Exodus was written by at least three authors at various times during much of the first millennium BCE. If these laws were seen as having the imprimatur of Moses, who received them from God during the Exodus from Egypt, then they must be obeyed by all future generations.

The Israelite Hebrews had slaves of other nations that followed them or they were call servants they had to be circumcised to become part of Israel they did become their servants


What is a word to describe someone who is not a Protestant? I've been wondering for a while if there is a word (or concise phrase) that can be used to mean someone who is not Protestant. Something that specifically groups Catholics, and Eastern Rite followers (Orthodox churches). But hopefully that does not include such groups as the Mormons or Jehovah's Witnesses for example (which are not Protestant nor even trinitarian/monotheistic). Is there such a term? Is there one that does include these last two groups?

The obvious choice would be "non-Protestant", but is there a better term than this? Since, technically, atheists and Muslims are also non-Protestants.

edit:

In the comments, I propose a term that could convey that message, but that seems to be getting a different usage:

Patriarchal Churches

Which then makes me wonder if something like

Patriarchal Rite Churches

would be a good candidate to describe this grouping. I don't think I've ever heard of a Protestant denomination having a Pope or Patriarch. Even the hierarchical ones.

I believe the correct answer is that there is no such term that has attained any significant level of recognition.

That said, the largely unrecognised terms Ancient-rite Christians / Ancient-rite Churches may be suitable for what you are seeking although they wouldn't exclude Oriental Orthodoxy if that is an important distinction.

We could no doubt multiply potential alternatives eg. Pre-Reformation Churches, Apostolic Successionists, 7-Council Churches (Adherants of the Seven widely recognised Ecumenical Councils); but they are, in the main, no less problematic and considerably clumsier, including your suggestions of Patriarchal Churches / Patriarchal Rite Churches which could perhaps be viewed as technically descriptive, but are more likely to be confusing given the very different roles Patriarchates now play within the Traditions in question.

For almost any term you select, there will most likely be Traditions, sects or denominations that will challenge it's validity - eg. considering where the Czechoslovak Hussite Church fits in is always going to be problematic.

Orthodox Christian is the closest I can think of, but wouldnt necessarily include Catholics. Orthodox Christians differ from Protestants in a number of ways including Salvation.

http://christianityinview.com/comparison.html


For Catholics who object to Vatican II, what are the key issues? From time to time I see references to Roman Catholics who object to (part? all?) of Vatican II.  Most commonly I see ads in my local newspaper for traditional Latin masses, but I understand the objections to be more than vernacular versus Latin worship.  I've also heard (as a Jew) that not all Roman Catholics accept nostra aetate, the Vatican II declaration that Jews have a valid covenant with God and don't need to be sought as converts, but I don't know if the anti-NA folks overlap the Latin-mass folks and what other beliefs they share.  Do certain groups object to the whole thing or just parts of it?

I tried to find an answer on Google and it led me to this page at Catholic Answers (no idea how authoritative that is), which in turn led me to the name "Society of Saint Pius X".  This page on their site lists key concerns of: modernism, religious liberty, ecumenism, collegiality, and liturgical abuses (their wording, not mine), but I can't tell if that's all based on Vatican II or if it's something broader.  I also can't tell if SSPX comprises the Catholics who object to Vatican II or if they are just one such group.  (I don't remember seeing that name in the aforementioned newspaper ads.)  I found this C.SE question about whether SSPX is schismatic, which is helpful but doesn't answer my question, which is about the broader platform, not one specific organization.

So: is there a (denomination? ideology?) that describes objectors to Vatican II, or do such objections come from scattered groups or individuals with no over-riding ideology?  If there is an ideology beyond specific people/groups, does it have a name?  And what specifically do they object to -- everything decided at that council or just certain things?

In simplest form: Vatican II declared some very important things to be true which (in the minds of those who object) are radically incompatible with previous Church tradition. As the website of Sodalitium Pianum, an offshoot of SSPX, states:

  The teaching of Vatican II concerning episcopal collegiality, religious liberty, ecumenism, non-Catholics belonging to the Mystical Body of Christ, non Christian religions and particularly Judaism, relations between the Church and the modern world, is in contradiction to the teaching of the Church, of many popes, and many ecumenical Councils. The reform of the liturgy, especially of the Holy Mass, and of Canon Law, are harmful for souls, favor the Protestant heresies, and declare sometimes licit that which by divine right is in fact illicit. ... The Institute [the Institute of the Mother of Good Counsel, which sponsors Sodalitium Pianum], in front of this unprecedented crisis that involves necessarily all that have approved the conciliar documents and the subsequent reforms, realizes that it cannot accept these new doctrines contrary to faith and morals nor incite the faithful to disobedience towards the legitimate authority in the Church.

The other objection they present, again in simple terms, is that Vatican II was only a 'pastoral' council, defining no dogma [and not convened to condemn heresies or resolve a particular issue], thus lacked the doctrinal weight of past Ecumenical Councils - another reason advanced by those at odds with the post-Conciliar Church to maintain their rift with the Church. The following quotes from a Pope and a  future Pope are presented to bolster their arguments e.g.:

  (1)Paul VI:General audience of Jan 12,1966:"In view of the pastoral
  nature of the Council, it avoided any extraordinary statements of
  dogmas endowed with the note of infallibility, but it still provided
  us teaching with the authority of the ordinary Magisterium, which must
  be accepted with docility...." - cf.  Introduction: Doctrinal
  Authority of Vatican II | EWTN
  Library

and

  The Second Vatican Council has not been treated as a part of the
  entire living Tradition of the Church, but as an end of Tradition, a
  new start from zero. The truth is that this particular council defined
  no dogma at all, and deliberately chose to remain on a modest level,
  as a merely pastoral council; and yet many treat it as though it had
  made itself into a sort of superdogma which takes away the importance
  of all the rest. - cf. Cardinal Ratzinger's Remarks Regarding the
  Lefebvre
  Schism.
  The translated text of an address by Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger,
  prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, given July
  13, 1988, in Santiago, Chile before that nation's bishops.

Since the Church does not change her teaching, traditionalists who hold beliefs of this sort feel they're faced with the choice to reject all of Church tradition as they understand it, or to reject Vatican II.

episcopal collegiality, religious liberty

This denied the pope’s authority over the bishops. Therefore Peter’s seat, is vacant, to the extent that collegiality denied the seat authority

  “ all men should be at once impelled by nature and also bound by a moral obligation to seek the truth, especially religious truth”  the   Fathers were effectively stating  that they did not have the Monopoly of Truth, especially religious Truth!. (Declaration on Religious Freedom Dignitatis  Humanae, On the Rights of The Person and of the Community.)

This was a denial that the Church has the Truth especially on religious matters, meaning they denied they were with God, who is the Truth.

  “God has regard for the dignity of the human person whom He Himself created and man is  to be guided by his own judgment and he is to enjoy freedom. This truth appears at its height in Christ Jesus, in whom God manifested Himself and His ways with men.  (Declaration on Religious Freedom Dignitatis  Humanae, On the Rights of The Person and of the Community.)

This was denial of the Redeemer. Because God rejected Man, who was purchased by the Redeemer, who is the Christ.

  Only in freedom can man direct himself toward goodness. Our contemporaries make much of this freedom and pursue it eagerly; and rightly to be sure. Often however they foster it perversely as a license for doing whatever pleases them, even if it is evil. For its part, authentic freedom is an exceptional sign of the divine image within man( Vatican II Documents:  Pastoral Constitution on the Church in the Modern World; Gaudium Spes: Dignity of the Human Person)

This, was a rejection of the Holy Spirit, because the Holy Spirit, is the teacher of Man, about goodness, which is the Truth of God. “ I have said all these things to you, while still with you; but the Advocate, the Holy Spirit whom the father will send in my name, will teach you all these things, and remind you of all I have said” John 14:25-26.

  The Catholic Church rejects nothing that is true and holy in these religions. She regards with sincere reverence those ways of conduct and of life, those precepts and teachings which, though differing in many aspects from the ones she holds and sets forth, nonetheless often reflect a ray of that Truth which enlightens all men(Declaration on the Relationship to None Christian Religions  Nostra Aetate)

This was trivialization of the Catholic faith, and equating God with idol. It was blasphemy

  In fidelity to conscience, Christians are joined with the rest of men in the search for truth, and for the genuine solution to the numerous problems which arise in the life of individuals from social relationships.   ( Documents of Vatican II; Pastoral Constitution on the Church in the Modern World; Gaudium Spes: The dignity of the Human Person)
  This was a denial that God, is the genuine solution to our problems. Again, rejection of God.


How is Gods judgement of man fair when he judges them without considering their deeds? In America, our judicial system is built on the idea that a man is assumed innocent, and then proven guilty with evidence.

In contrast, Paul wrote:

  Romans 9 10-18: ...there was Rebekah also, when she had conceived twins by one man,
  our father Isaac; 11 for though the twins were not yet born and had not
  done anything good or bad, so that God’s purpose according to His
  choice would stand, not because of works but because of Him who calls,
  12 it was said to her, “THE OLDER WILL SERVE THE YOUNGER.” 13 Just as it
  is written, “JACOB I LOVED, BUT ESAU I HATED.”

  14 What shall we say then? There is no injustice with God, is there? May it never be! 15 For He says to Moses, “I WILL HAVE MERCY ON
  WHOM I HAVE MERCY, AND I WILL HAVE COMPASSION ON WHOM I HAVE
  COMPASSION.” 16 So then it does not depend on the man who wills or the
  man who runs, but on God who has mercy. 17 For the Scripture says to
  Pharaoh, “FOR THIS VERY PURPOSE I RAISED YOU UP, TO DEMONSTRATE MY
  POWER IN YOU, AND THAT MY NAME MIGHT BE PROCLAIMED THROUGHOUT THE
  WHOLE EARTH.” 18 So then He has mercy on whom He desires, and He
  hardens whom He desires.

One way to defend the christian God here is to say Paul is just speaking of Jacob and Esaus relative stations in earthly life, and that only that aspect of their lives was predetermined. But that idea is invalid with regard to verses 14-18 which connect Jacob and Esau's example to Pharaohs, in which Pharaoh's damnation was predetermined. Also, the declaration "I will have mercy on whom I have mercy" contradicts that idea. It is clear then, from these verses, that Paul is boasting that God judges people based on his whim, not a trial.

Another way to defend the christian God, which I've heard, is "God doesn't have to sound fair by human reasoning." But human reasoning is all we have, to use to make decisions about what we believe. Also what's fair or not is known by everyone by instinct. We all know judgement cannot happen without considering some action which is being judged. Not requiring Gods judgement to be just according to us is forgoing any understanding of God.

Comparing the representative democracy of America with the kingdom of God is an unparalleled category error.  The entire reason American jurisprudence holds a person innocent until proven guilty is because we assume that we are not privy, at the outset, to all of the pertinent facts.  You may accept this or not but the Scripture declares that God knows the end from the beginning.  God is not awaiting the disclosure of temporal evidence in order to render righteous judgement.

Regarding the specific passages that OP has pointed to, there's a lot going on here that needs to be weighed into the discussion.  Primarily, the entire context of chapters 9-11 of Romans has to do with God's sovereign choice of a nation; an entire people group, therefore it is somewhat out of context to reduce what is being said merely to God's judgement of an individual.

  I am speaking the truth in Christ—I am not lying; my conscience bears me witness in the Holy Spirit— that I have great sorrow and unceasing anguish in my heart. For I could wish that I myself were accursed and cut off from Christ for the sake of my brothers, my kinsmen according to the flesh. They are Israelites, and to them belong the adoption, the glory, the covenants, the giving of the law, the worship, and the promises. To them belong the patriarchs, and from their race, according to the flesh, is the Christ, who is God over all, blessed forever. Amen. - Romans 9:1-5

Even though individual names are mentioned in the passage it is very common for names to represent entire nations.  Israel, in fact, is what Jacob's name was changed to and the Scriptures are replete with examples of the entire nation being referred to by both names.  The same is true of Esau.  The exact passage from Genesis that Paul refers to in this text is very clear that this is exactly what is going on:

  And the LORD said to her, “Two nations are in your womb, and two peoples from within you shall be divided; the one shall be stronger than the other, the older shall serve the younger.” - Genesis 25:23

It is critical, then, to keep a tight grip on this context as one investigates what Paul is saying.  It is clear in Scripture that God did not select Israel to be His chosen people because of any intrinsic quality that they had.

  It was not because you were more in number than any other people that the LORD set his love on you and chose you, for you were the fewest of all peoples, but it is because the LORD loves you and is keeping the oath that he swore to your fathers, that the LORD has brought you out with a mighty hand and redeemed you from the house of slavery, from the hand of Pharaoh king of Egypt.  - Deuteronomy 7:7

In fact, it is also clear in Scripture that God's mercy is continually extended towards His people despite their behavior

  “For I the LORD do not change; therefore you, O children of Jacob, are not consumed. From the days of your fathers you have turned aside from my statutes and have not kept them. Return to me, and I will return to you, says the LORD of hosts. - Malachi 3:6-7

Secondly, it is noteworthy that the passages quoted by the OP have much to do with sovereign choice and mercy.  There is no mention of judgement in the strictest sense.  What we see is Paul asking a rhetorical question about whether it is unjust of God to sovereignly dispense mercy and compassion.  The implication that the flip side (judgement or condemnation) are also in view is not faulty because mercy is always, only given where condemnation is due; mercy is undeserved.  Paul's point is that, where perfect justice is represented (remember that Paul has already demonstrated that the whole world is guilty before God), it is not unjust for God to show mercy wherever He will.  However, it is faulty to assume that God's withholding of mercy is unfair or unfounded.  Mercy deserved is no mercy at all, it is payment.

This is why Paul brings Pharaoh into the conversation.  Pharaoh is named as the representative head of Egypt, which nation was raised up by God in order to rescue His people from famine and strengthen them in number and to enslave that same people so that God could demonstrate His power and favor toward Israel in delivering them in miraculous fashion from the power of Pharaoh (Egypt).  God hardened Pharaoh's heart and Pharaoh also hardened his own heart but the salient point is that Pharaoh and indeed all of Egypt were wicked and idolatrous.  To suppose that God's hardening of Pharaoh's heart, as regarding the release of the enslaved Israelites, was unjust is to completely disregard the baseline condition of enmity towards God which characterized Pharaoh's heart to begin with.

Finally, assuming that a finite, created being can ever comprehend justice on a Divine, omniscient scale and thus rightly use that scale to accurately measure the infinite Creator is the highest hubris.  A dog can put it's head out the window and enjoy a car ride but it will never understand the internal combustion engine nor critique it's design or operation.

  But who are you, O man, to answer back to God? Will what is molded say to its molder, “Why have you made me like this?” Has the potter no right over the clay, to make out of the same lump one vessel for honorable use and another for dishonorable use? - Romans 9:20-21

Two different vessels made of the same lump of clay.  The vessels have different uses as the Potter sees fit but the formative lump is the same ruined, sinful clay.  The giving or withholding of mercy has nothing to do with justice.

The real answer is much simpler than you think in light of God's sovereignty: Fate, and Fiat.
===FATE: God's sovereignty, according to every definition in western theology, means pantocracy: controlling everything. IF God is truly sovereign over everything, THEN our wills are bound to what they're bound to, and God makes us saved; God knows the end of all things, and exactly what path all things take to their end.
Foreknowledge upon starting the timeflow is the same thing as foreordination, which is the exact same thing as fate.
To foresee and then startup- is to cause. You are responsible for what happens when you tip the first domino. Allowance is causation. Remember, anything other than total fatalism means that God is not in charge. IF God doesn't deliberately refuse to know everything about the future, THEN we're all part of a script carved into stone.
God arranged the fall, arranged our birth as sinners, arranged our actions and wills, and arranged the infinite torture he will inflict on most of us by keeping us alive in hell (immortality isn't conditional, but it isn't innate either.)
Now the normal Calvinist sees God ordaining sin and it then being our faults, and plays the mystery card, because he knows God logically blaming us a self-contradition, not a mystery or paradox.
(One God who is three persons is a mystery; one God who is three Gods is a self-contradiction. Being dead in myself but alive in Christ is a paradox; being dead in the flesh and alive in the flesh is a self-contradiction.)
They know, but deny, that it means God is the author of sin and that he's fating us to do what we can't help, but punishing us for it to make a statement (Romans 9:22) because it would make God unjust, and we can't have that.
The Calvinist simply hesitates to take that last leap of faith into God's sovereignty. Thus,
===FIAT: The simple truth is, He is unjust, and he is the author of sin, but he isn't to be blamed or condemned or resented, because he says he is just. It's not logical, but it doesn't matter. The Calvinist pretends that God's justice is fixed to logic and therefore his actions are mysterious and beyond human understanding. The truth is that God doesn't care about logic at all. He's the boss: he can do anything and make us do anything, and not only 'get away' with it, but make it our fault before blaming us.
God can't logically tell light to make itself exist: he doesn't care; he did it anyway.
God can't logically make us sin and rightly blame us; he doesn't care; he does it anyway.
God can't logically judge infinite punishment for finite and ignorant transgression: he doesn't care; he does it anyway.
God doesn't logically damn most of us for his good pleasure while finding no pleasure in it: he doesn't care; he does it anyway.
God doesn't logically create vessels, fit them for destruction, and accomplish anything profitable by displaying his patience on them for doing what they were meant to do and then destroying them as planned: he doesn't care; he does it anyway.
God can't tell us to love others and reduse to love some of his creation without being a hypocrite: he doesn't care; he does it anyway.
God can't be loving or merciful while putting his enemies into an infinitely merciless and unloving fate: he doesn't care; he does it anyway.
And all of it is perfect, just, good, holy, and loving, not because it is sensibly so, but because he says it is so. He can speak nothing into something.
It doesn't make sense. It's not suppossd to make sense. If it did, theology wouldn't be a thing trying to track God in his footsteps.


Is there any correlation between national prosperity and percentage of Christians? I have heard of anecdotal evidence suggesting that the proportion of Christians in a population directly (positively) impacts national prosperity. In other words, the more Christians in a nation, the richer the nation becomes.

Possible current examples include India and China which are apparently seeing both an increase in the proportion of Christians (India / China) and in prosperity (India / China).

This would seem to follow the Biblical pattern, see e.g. Haggai 1.

But is this a real phenomena? Can we see a genuine correlation? And if so, what is its cause?

Note: in light of comments and answers so far, this question is about Christianity, not religion generally.

Other resources:

Christianity by country
Christian population growth

Actually it's the other way round:

More studies:

http://freethinker.co.uk/2009/02/18/poorest-countries-are-the-most-religious/
http://www.zahablog.com/?page_id=782

Yes, there is a direct correlation, In the words of St. Ambrose relating the story of the 3rd century martyr St. Lawrence:

Such gold the holy martyr Lawrence preserved for the Lord. For when the treasures of the Church were demanded from him, he promised that he would show them. On the following day he brought the poor together. When asked where the treasures were which he had promised, he pointed to the poor, saying: "These are the treasures of the Church." And truly they were treasures, in whom Christ lives, in whom there is faith in Him. So, too, the Apostle says: "We have this treasure in earthen vessels." (2 Corinthians 4:7) What greater treasures has Christ than those in whom He says He Himself lives? For thus it is written: "I was hungry and you gave Me to eat, I was thirsty and you gave Me to drink, I was a stranger and you took Me in." (Matthew 25:35) And again: "What you did to one of these, you did it unto Me." (Matthew 25:40) What better treasures has Jesus than those in which He loves to be seen?
These treasures Lawrence pointed out, and prevailed, for the persecutors could not take them away. Jehoiachim, who preserved his gold during the siege and spent it not in providing food, saw his gold carried off, and himself led into captivity. Lawrence, who preferred to spend the gold of the Church on the poor, rather than to keep it in hand for the persecutor, received the sacred crown of martyrdom for the unique and deep-sighted vigour of his meaning. Or was it perhaps said to holy Lawrence: "Thou should not spend the treasures of the Church, or sell the sacred vessels"?

On the Duties of the Clergy (Book II)
The point is, these are the treasures of the Church and they are increasing at a great rate, while worms and moths eat at the treasures many of the "1st world" Christians have stored up for themselves.
This answer is meant as a rebuttal to the the premises of your question and a counter point to the other, in my opinion, meaningless answers. The answer is yes, national prosperity abounds where Christ is made present.  You just need to be calculating in terms of the right kind of prosperity.


What do you call the adherents of Covenant Theology (CT) and New Covenant Theology (NCT)? An adherent of Dispensationalism is called a "dispensationalist" but would the proper term for an adherent of Covenant Theology and New Covenant Theology be, respectively, "Covenant Theologian" and "New Covenant Theologian"? It sounds to me like it would lead to a little confusion, but I haven't really heard any terms in usage for either.

There are several options, but the terms "New Covenant Theologian" or "Covenant Theologian" are definitely not appropriate.
Those terms are reserved for Biblical Scholars, and is usually used in the context of pastors, or those who have advanced Theology degrees, such as a Master's of Divinity, or Doctorate in Theology, but it not used for a normal layperson.
I agree with the other person who answered that the closest would be "Reformed" or "Calvinist".
It has become more common practice for Calvinists to refer to themselves as "Reformed" even though they might even be a 5 point Calvinist or Hyper-Calvinist.
It's just that the word reformed doesn't have the "-ist" or "-ian" suffix that makes it a noun form, like Literalist, or Baptist, Dispensationalist, or Arminian.

Reformed or Calvinist.
The terms aren't identical with Covenant Theology, but they're pretty close to it. (There are varieties of Dispensationalism which are at least as diverse, if not more so, but they all bear a family resemblance)
In particular see the Westminster Confession of Faith, which includes a robust (and somewhat controversial) doctrine of the Covenant of Works:

The distance between God and the creature is so great, that although reasonable creatures do owe obedience unto Him as their Creator, yet they could never have any fruition of Him as their blessedness and reward, but by some voluntary condescension on God’s part, which He hath been pleased to express by way of covenant.
II. The first covenant made with man was a covenant of works, wherein life was promised to Adam; and in him to his posterity, upon condition of perfect and personal obedience.
III. Man, by his fall, having made himself uncapable of life by that covenant, the Lord was pleased to make a second, commonly called the covenant of grace; wherein He freely offereth unto sinnets life and salvation by Jesus Christ; requiring of them faith in Him, that they may be saved, and promising to give unto all those that are ordained unto eternal life His Holy Spirit, to make them willing, and able to believe.


In the NPP, if Paul's "works of the law" are only circumcision and diet, how is Galatians 3:10 interpreted? One of the implications of the New Perspective on Paul (NPP), as I understand it, is that Paul's teachings regarding the "works of the law" (in Galatians 2:16, for example) are meant to refer only to "boundary marker" laws, that is, laws like circumcision, diet, and calendar, as opposed to all of God's law.

This can have a significant impact on one's doctrine of justification, as it opens the door for other "works" (besides circumcision, etc.) to be part of the basis of one's salvation.

One challenge to this aspect of the NPP that I've seen is based on other references to the "works of the law" in Paul's writings, where he uses the same phrase but appears to be referring to the entire law.  For example, Romans 3:20:

  For by works of the law no human being will be justified in his sight, since through the law comes knowledge of sin. (ESV)

Here, critics of the NPP say, Paul is clearly referring to the entire law, not just "boundary marker" laws, since elsewhere he recognizes many other sins besides failure to circumcise.  But to me an even stronger passage appears to be Galatians 3:10:

  For all who rely on works of the law are under a curse; for it is written, “Cursed be everyone who does not abide by all things written in the Book of the Law, and do them.” (ESV)

Here, quoting Leviticus 18:5, Paul's use of "all things written in the Book of the Law," as opposed to some, is seen as plain evidence that "works of the law" to him means more than just circumcision, etc.

Thus, the question:

How do proponents of the New Perspective on Paul respond to challenges to their view of Paul's "works of the law" that are based on Galatians 3:10 and similar passages?

It's interesting that this perspective is known as the the 'New Perspective on Paul', for the idea that works goes hand in hand with faith has been central to the Catholic and Orthodox Church which preceded the Reformed Church and its claim of sola fide. If you were to go to a Catholic or Orthodox Christian in the 12th century and claim that St. Paul thought that faith meant the eradication of good works in the process of salvation, you might have very well been burned at the stake for heresy.

As to Galations 3:10, it is important for us to not 'cherry-pick' verses (even John 3:16) out of their context in order to support a position. It should thus be noted that Paul's inclusion of the verse from Leviticus might be used in a way that is contrary to what the writers of Leviticus were referring to. It should also be noted that the term 'law' is itself requiring contextual analysis in order to derive its actual meaning as intended by Paul (it does not 'instinctively' mean anything). With that said, we should now look at the surrounding context of Galatians to consider what Paul even means when he refers to the 'curse of the law'.

Galations 3:15-18

  Brothers and sisters, I give an example from daily life: once a person's will has been ratified, no one adds to it or annuls it. Now the promises were made to Abraham and to his offspring: it does not say. 'And to offsprings', as of many; but it says, 'And to your offspring', that is, to one person, who is Christ. My point is this: the law, which came four hundred years later, does not annul a covenant previously ratified by God, so as to nullify the promise. For if the inheritance comes from the law, it no longer comes from the promise; but God granted it to Abraham through the promise.

The surrounding context in reference to the 'curse of the law' is rather clearly in a 'covenant language'. Even following this passage Paul continues to write how baptism is in essence the 'new circumcision'. N.T Wright would say Paul's speaking about 'badges of covenant membership'. The universal essence of 'doing good' and its relation to salvation for humanity, in other words, is not necessarily being spoken about by Paul. Rather, when Paul speaks of the 'law' he is more precisely speaking about the way the Jewish customs relate to an understanding of God's covenant. 'Law' in other words is referring to the things of temporary power and purpose (such as circumcision, observance of certain days, etc). Paul himself later asserts this understanding of the 'law' as a temporary power in saying that it 'was added because of transgressions, until the offspring would come to whom the promise had been made'. Good deeds in no way are a 'temporary' matter, and for Paul to believe such would be to contradict clear statements by Jesus and other apostles all throughout the rest of the New Testament, who vouch for the understanding that 'wisdom is justified by her deeds' and that a 'tree is known by its fruit'. Stating that good deeds are temporary in a justifying nature would even diminish the very good deed Christ did on the cross.

It should also be said that NPP does not support the idea that good deeds alone can attain salvation. Good deeds are supplementary to faith. The one cannot exist without the other, for they justify each other. The language regarding each one thus does not exclude the language regarding the other, for the language of both is typically one in the same.

The NPP isn't really all that 'new'. It's been around in traditional Christian language since the beginning as an assumption that might very have been taken advantage of by its proponents. But the Reformed thought that has stressed sola fide has produced some good by forcing those who support the idea that good deeds must accompany faith to look back into the bible with a new set of eyes. What the bible says is still a resounding 'no' to sola fide.

I think the problem is that many people either look to the law completely or use not being subject to the law as an excuse to living however they want. These are two extremes. Paul referred to the law as a "schoolmaster" to bring us to Christ. Based on contextual readings of other writings of Paul it is clear that Paul is not dismissing the law. The law is important. The point is that no one is good enough on their own merit to fully keep the law and live a perfect and sinless life (except Christ, who is God made flesh). This is why the law is a schoolmaster to bring us to Christ. In Galatians 3:10 what he is saying is that if we are depending on our keeping of the law to save us we are cursed, because we can't keep it perfectly. In Romans 8: 2-7 Paul says:

"For the law of the Spirit of life in Christ Jesus hath made me free from the law of sin and death. For what the law could not do, in that it was weak through the flesh, God sending his own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh, and for sin, condemned sin in the flesh: That the righteousness of the law might be fulfilled in us, who walk not after the flesh, but after the Spirit. For they that are after the flesh do mind the things of the flesh; but they that are after the Spirit the things of the Spirit. For to be carnally minded is death; but to be spiritually minded is life and peace. Because the carnal mind is enmity against God: for it is not subject to the law of God, neither indeed can be."

What he is saying here is that the law is not enough. We need grace. That is not to say that grace gives us a license to ignore God's law, though. In Romans 5:20-6:2 Paul said:

"Moreover the law entered, that the offence might abound. But where sin abounded, grace did much more abound: That as sin hath reigned unto death, even so might grace reign through righteousness unto eternal life by Jesus Christ our Lord. What shall we say then? Shall we continue in sin, that grace may abound? God forbid. How shall we, that are dead to sin, live any longer therein?"

In other words, if we accept God's grace we won't want to follow after sin. That is not to say that we will be perfect, but our imperfection will be made perfection through the grace of God who will give us the desire to live lives that are pleasing to Him. James said in James 2: 15-20:

"If a brother or sister be naked, and destitute of daily food, And one of you say unto them, Depart in peace, be ye warmed and filled; notwithstanding ye give them not those things which are needful to the body; what doth it profit? Even so faith, if it hath not works, is dead, being alone. Yea, a man may say, Thou hast faith, and I have works: shew me thy faith without thy works, and I will shew thee my faith by my works. Thou believest that there is one God; thou doest well: the devils also believe, and tremble. But wilt thou know, O vain man, that faith without works is dead?"

What James is saying here is not that good works saves us, but that is shows our faith. If we say we have placed our faith in Jesus but don't live lives pleasing to Him we are not demonstrating our faith. This is not to say that we will lose our salvation if we don't keep doing good works. Ephesians 2: 8-9 makes it clear:

"For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God: Not of works, lest any man should boast. For we are his workmanship, created in Christ Jesus unto good works, which God hath before ordained that we should walk in them."

In other words, we are saved by faith. Works have nothing to do with salvation. They are, however, important in that they are an outward manifestation of our faith. As Jesus said in Matthew chapter 7: 16-20.

"Ye shall know them by their fruits. Do men gather grapes of thorns, or figs of thistles? Even so every good tree bringeth forth good fruit; but a corrupt tree bringeth forth evil fruit. A good tree cannot bring forth evil fruit, neither can a corrupt tree bring forth good fruit. Every tree that bringeth not forth good fruit is hewn down, and cast into the fire. Wherefore by their fruits ye shall know them."

Our works are a manifestation of our faith. The truth is that there are many different perspectives among NPP scholars, and it would probably be more accurate to use the plural form "New Perspectives on Paul." As is often the case, there are about as many perspectives out there as there are scholars. Since many see faith and works as both having importance it is likely that there are some who would agree with my statements above, and some that would disagree. NPP scholar N.T. Wright stated "There are probably almost as many 'new' perspective positions as there are writers espousing it – and I disagree with most of them."

http://ntwrightpage.com/Wright_New_Perspectives.htm

One prominent theologian among the NPP is E.P Sanders. In "Paul and Palestinian Judaism" Sanders said that the Jewish people of the first century taught that they were the people of God by virtue of God's covenant with Abraham, and stayed in it by keeping the Law. Paul believed that the only way to become one of the People of God was through faith in Christ and the Old Covenant was no longer sufficient. But, once inside, appropriate behavior was required of the Christian, behavior based on the Jewish Scriptures, but not embracing all aspects of it. Both patterns required the grace of God for election (admission), and the behavior of the individual, supported by God's grace. The dividing line, therefore, was Paul's insistence on faith in Christ as the only way to election. However, Sanders stressed that Paul also “loved good deeds” and that when his words are taken in context, it emerges that Paul advocates good works in addition to faith in Christ.

It seems, then, that Sanders at least would see Galatians 3:10 as an indication that the covenant law of the Old Testament is not enough for election and that dependence on following the law in an attempt to earn one's salvation will result in one being cursed. At least that is my understanding of what Sanders was saying in his writings.


What is the biblical basis for the prohibition of instruments in worship? I understand that some Protestant churches prohibit the use of musical instruments in their worship services.  What is the specific biblical basis for this practice, or, if there is no specific biblical basis, what is the principle behind this practice?

Is it an issue of mixing musical instruments with vocal music?  Can they have one or the other, but not both?  Which churches follow this teaching?

I'm familiar with a couple different schools of thought on this.  Doubtless there are others as well.

The first comes from Greek Orthodox tradition.  I can't really speak to it directly, but a quick google search turned up a result indicating that it might have more to do with history and wanting to separate themselves from pagan worship. But there's likely a lot more to it.

The other is from the churches of Christ. This side I can speak to at length. To understand this, you need to know something of their history. The churches of Christ descend trough the Restoration movement of the mid-1800s. This was a movement that strove to throw off all of the excess structure that had arisen over the years since the 1st century and restore 1st century-style worship. The primary means of achieving this goal was through a very careful and strict interpretation of scripture.  "Innovations" from known historical patterns of the first century should only be permitted when there is a clear case for them, shown either through direct command, example, or necessary inference.

The reason for the return to 1st century worship was a reaction to all divisions, and a desire to fulfill the Lord's prayer "that they may all be one." It was a drive for unity, and one part of this was to push away anything a true seeker might possibly see as contrary to scripture, and hold up only those things which meet an exceptionally strict criteria for doctrinal purity (the other two parts are congregational independence/freedom and an strong emphasis on individual study). Don't knock the process too hard, as it met with some success... this is one of the few major groups to begin it's history as the result of a merger of a few smaller groups, rather than as a split from a larger group, and was the only group in existence at the time with a strong presence in both the North and the South to make it through the Civil War without dividing over the issue (sadly, this claim is the result of a prior study for which I no longer have a reference link).

There are four pieces that combine to contribute the general (not universal, but nearly so) use of a cappella music among church of Christ congregations.

The first is a very strict interpretation on the silence of scripture. I don't want to go into this at length, but you can read my answer to this question on faith healing to get a vague idea on how it works. The upshot is we lack explicit New Testament instructions or examples on the use of instruments (while singing or otherwise) in congregational worship — scripture is silent here. However, we do have explicit instructions to sing. Because we have an explicit instruction about how to use music in worship, the silence in this case is prohibitive rather than permissive. This by itself is weak, but remember it's only part of the reasoning.

The second reason is participatory. The command to sing praises is interpreted to mean that music in worship should include everyone as a participant... that if the music portion of your service consists mainly of just a few performers or even a choir, while the majority of the congregation is only listening (even if this is the effect rather than the intent), you're doing it wrong. The entire congregation should take part in producing the music. Instruments are seen as counter-productive to this effort, as history shows they have a tendency to take over and dominate the performance to the exclusion, rather than inclusion, of audience participation.

A third reason is practical. Successful use of a cappella music in worship is something that takes a commitment. If you decide to just try out a cappella music one week in service, or just do one a cappella song in each service, you're likely to fail miserably if few of the participants have done this before. Therefore, as a practical matter the choice to use a cappella music came down to an "all or nothing" approach, where those that use a cappella music in worship tend to do so exclusively. If you see a commandment to sing as a congregation as something to take seriously, a commitment to frequent a cappella worship is something to look at seriously.

The final reason is historical. Remember this group comes out of a movement whose goals were to restore 1st century worship styles. We do know from historical documents that the earliest Christians, without exception, did not use instruments in their worship. At all. In fact, it's already the third century before we find examples of any instrumental accompaniment, and some sources place it as late as the sixth century.1 It's possible there were forces other than doctrine driving this, such as: limited funds, fear of persecution if louder instruments give away a secret service, or simply modeling congregational worship after Jewish synagogue worship (which also did not use instruments). However, the fact of the matter is that the historical record indicates a cappella is the way to go.

1 Not my original source, but I recently came across this article that has more info on the historical sources, with lots of research references:  http://www.housetohouse.com/HTHPubPage.aspx?pub=2&issue=663

Unfortunately, I see this author using incorrect history of the Lord's church. There "is"
only one church that Christ stated He would build (Matt. 16:18) and His church which is "The Body of Christ" and is made up of faithful believers who subscribe to the single doctrine of the bible. This assembly began on the day of Pentecost and still exist today and ascribes to glorify God the only way He can be - through biblical truth. There never was mechanical instruments used in worship in the instructions and authority given by Christ. Therefore we as mere men do not have the authority to change what God has handed down through His inspired word. At our redeemed best, we could only hope to be found obedient and pleasing to God through Christ Jesus and His law that we must abide in, in unity. I'd like to add, why is it
that we fight so hard to justify something into the worship, which is for God but be all about our OWN desires.


What is " Origenism" I ran across this quote in the Catholic Encyclopedia:

  Pope St. Anastasius I

  A pontiff who is remembered chiefly for his condemnation of Origenism.
  A Roman by birth, he became pope in 399, and died within a little less
  than four years. Among his friends were Augustine, and Jerome, and
  Paulinus. Jerome speaks of him as a man of great holiness who was rich
  in his poverty. It was during the time of the barbarian invasions.

I followed the link to "Origenism" and started to read to see why it was condemned, but (and I really hate to admit this) the articles in the Catholic Encyclopedia just confuse me.  There are so many terms that I've never heard, and am unfamiliar with that I end up having to look those up and then looking up others.

So, in a nutshell, I'm looking for a lay-person's explanation of what "Origenism" is, and if it's not obvious when comparing it to traditional teachings, why it was condemned.

According to the Catholic Encyclopedia article on Origen and Origenism, the "sketchy" doctrines are:

Allegorism in the interpretation of Scripture
Origen believed that, being God-inspired and written by human hand, scripture must be interpreted in a manner than is worth of God. As such, some Biblical passages must be interpreted allegorically, lest we think God a tyrannical, blood-thirsty, etc.. It's important to note first, that a strictly allegorical interpretation of scripture was unorthodox. But secondly, Origen apparently took the allegorical interpretation train a little too far according to some. So, even at though allegorical interpretations may be OK, good, and in some cases necessary; Origen himself is an example of how difficult it can be to get off the allegory train. I.e., it's acceptable and good, but it's dangerous; be careful!
Subordination of the Divine Persons
The language in Catholic Encyclopedia is confusing (to me) as to whether Origen is for or against the "sketchy" Trinitarian tendencies of subordinating The Son to The Father or to what extent he believed what he did. But, the Wikipedia article on Subordinationism clarifies it quite succinctly for us:

  Perhaps the most elaborate of advocates in favor of Subordinationism
  was Origen of Alexandria. Origen taught that Jesus was a "DEUTEROS
  THEOS" (second God) He also said the Son was "distinct" from the
  Father. Finally Origen insisted that the Son is other in substance
  than the Father. It should be noticed that some of these same
  references are used to defend the concept of the Trinity. However,
  Subordinationism is not a differentiation or distinction between
  persons in the Trinity. In this regard they agree. Subordinationism
  rather suggests that the Son (and Spirit) are other in substance than
  the Father. (Subordinationism, Pre-Nicean)

Other things I've seem suggest that the extreme material distance placed between the Father and Son in this theology isn't actually Origen's intended understanding. Rather, it's termed Origenism because his ideas paved the way for the more radical, questionable, and non-orthodox understanding. But, I'm not at all 100% sure on that.

The theory of successive trials and a final restoration.
I didn't quite understand which details of the theology are technically part of this questionable doctrine. But, these are listed:

Eternal creation - An infinite number of universes/worlds have been and will be created  infinitely backwards in time and infinitely forward in time.
Intellectual creation - All intellectual entities were created equal. Some of them got bored and became naughty.
Matter exists for the spiritual - More unorthodox, I think, is the subpoint that without matter, the spiritual cannot be. If the matter would cease to be, the spiritual entity it serves would cease to be.
Universal, final restoration - Everything will be returned to its original state of glory and union with God. I.e., hell isn't really eternal, it just seems like it.

I'd never heard of it before, however a quick search on Wikipedia revealed the following about Origen:

  During the fifth and sixth centuries, his orthodoxy was questioned,
  largely because he believed in the pre-existence and transmigration of
  souls, and apokatastasis, or universal reconciliation, ideas which
  were discussed among some patristic writers but which were later
  rejected as heretical.
  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Origen

I would guess that Origenism is someone who follows the teaching of Origen.


What is the biblical basis for the belief held by Jehovah's Witnesses that Jehovah and Jesus Christ are separate entities? According to Jehovah's witnesses what evidences are there in the Bible that Jehovah is not Jesus Christ? What passages separate them, or declare them as different?

I think the Jehovahs Witnesses make the matter pretty clear on their website.

TL;DR - Jehovah used to appear to the ancient prophets as "God Almighty", Jesus Christ never identified as "God Almighty".

  Does God Have a Name?

  The Bible’s answer

  Humans all have personal names. Wouldn’t it be reasonable for God to
  have a name? Having and using personal names is a vital part of human
  friendships. Should it be different when it comes to our friendship
  with God?

  In the Bible, God says: “I am Jehovah. That is my name.” (Isaiah
  42:8) Although he also has many titles, such as “God Almighty,”
  “Sovereign Lord,” and “Creator,” he honors his worshippers by inviting
  them to address him by his personal name.—Genesis 17:1; Acts
  4:24; 1 Peter 4:19.

  Many translations of the Bible contain God’s personal name at Exodus
  6:3. That passage says: “I used to appear to Abraham, Isaac and
  Jacob as God Almighty, but as respects my name Jehovah I did not
  make myself known to them.”

  Jehovah is a rendering of God’s name in English that has been used for
  centuries. While many scholars prefer the spelling “Yahweh,” Jehovah
  is the form of the name that is most widely recognized. The first part
  of the Bible was written not in English but in Hebrew, a language that
  is read from right to left. In that language, the divine name appears
  as four consonants, יהוה. Those four Hebrew characters—transliterated
  YHWH—are known as the Tetragrammaton.

  Is God’s Name Jesus?

  The Bible’s answer

  Jesus referred to himself as “God’s Son” or “the Son of God.” (John
  10:36; 11:4) Jesus never identified himself as Almighty
  God.

  Moreover, Jesus prayed to God. (Matthew 26:39) And while teaching
  his followers how to pray, Jesus said: “Our Father in the heavens, let
  your name be sanctified.”—Matthew 6:9.

  Jesus revealed God’s name when he quoted an ancient passage of
  Scripture and said: “Hear, O Israel, Jehovah our God is one
  Jehovah.”—Mark 12:29; Deuteronomy 6:4.

  Is Jesus Almighty God?

  The Bible’s answer

  Jesus’ opposers accused him of making himself equal to God. (John
  5:18; 10:30-33) However, Jesus never claimed to be on the
  same level as Almighty God. He said: “The Father is greater than I
  am.”—John 14:28.

  Jesus’ early followers did not view him as being equal to Almighty
  God. For example, the apostle Paul wrote that after Jesus was
  resurrected, God “exalted him [Jesus] to a superior position.”
  Obviously, Paul did not believe that Jesus was Almighty God.
  Otherwise, how could God exalt Jesus to a superior position?
  —Philippians 2:9.

www.JW.org, Jehovah's Witnesses Bible Questions Answered - God, Jesus.

As an ex-JW:

I do not recall a single lecture of the form "Today, we're going to prove that Jesus != God"

Instead, it was things like:

Jesus = Michael the ArchAngel ( http://www.jw.org/en/publications/books/bible-teach/who-is-michael-the-archangel/ )  [ Mainstream Christianity views this as heretical, since mainstream Christianity views Jesus as God. ]
Angels are below God
Therefore, Jesus != God  [ Thus, a heretical conclusion ]

========================

As an aside, this creates all sorts of problems:

Satan was initially thrown down for wanting to be above God.
If Jesus = Arch Angel
If JW believers are to be above Angels (in particular, to judge Angels)
Then, JW believers have the authority to judge Jesus / be above Jesus -- which is heretical from a mainstream Christianity view.
This is basically similar to Satan's original sin -- to be above God.