What is the difference between Evangelical and Protestant? Just the other day, I heard somebody talking politics and contrasted the Roman Catholic church's political influence with "the Evangelical vote". In this sense, as is often done in US media, the word seem to be used as a synonym of 'Protestant'.

However I get the feeling there is another layer to this. Where did the term 'Evangelical' come from and how is it distinct from 'Protestant'. Used properly, what group(s) is it generally understood to include or what world view does it describe?

"Evangelical" is certainly difficult to pin down! The Encyclopedia of Christianity says

  [In America] it covers a wide range of not completely harmonious uses, from the Pentecostal churches to the peace churches, Missouri Synod Lutherans, Southern Baptist Convention, Holiness movement (eg Church of the Nazarene), charismatic groups (including Roman Catholics), and evangelicals in the mainline denominations. 1

and there seems to be a flourishing cottage industry of evangelicals writing books and articles worrying about how to define themselves.

History

John Stott emphasized that evangelicalism does not see itself as an innovation or deviation from orthodox Christianity. Doctrinally speaking, evangelicals are able to find many precursors - for example, Stott identifies Augustine as a "proto-evangelical", on the basis of his view of grace. 2

The term "evangelical", which derives from the Greek evangelion (gospel, good news), does not seem to have been used to describe a distinct group within the church until roughly the Reformation era. Martin Luther picked it up, and today the German word Evangelisch is not really distinguishable from Protestantisch - unlike in the English-speaking world.

Stott and others have identified several related movements that have identified themselves as evangelical. The following listing is from John Hitchen, who argues that evangelicalism has tended to define itself in opposition to tendencies in the church, or society, at large.

  The Reformers - against medieval Catholicism.
  The First Evangelical awakening - against the 'deadness' of the contemporary church.
  The Second Evangelical awakening - against the Deism, laxity and Unitarianism in the early 18th century church.
  The Clapham Sect and early 19th Century evangelicals - against lack of 'seriousness' and nominalism in the established church(es).
  The 'Fundamentalists' of the early 20th century - against proponents of the Social Gospel and Higher Criticism.
  The mid 20th century evangelicalism - against Liberal theology and Neo-orthodoxy.3

Other modern listings might include subgroups emphasizing social justice, the gifts of the Spirit, or ecumenism, although the boundaries here may not be very sharp 2.

Defining attitudes

In all of these cases, the groups involved did share some common doctrines or positions - in particular, they were trying to preserve or restore 'essential' or 'original' Christian practice and belief. They also share a desire for conversion of the world - in this regard, Stott contrasts it on either side with the fundamentalist position (stand aloof from the world) and the liberal position (adapt to the world) 2.

David Bebbington identified four ideas that form a 'common core', or 'quadrilateral of priorities':

  conversionism, the belief that lives need to be changed;
  activism, the expression of the gospel in effort;
  biblicism, a particular regard for the Bible; and what may be called
  crucicentrism, a stress on the sacrifice of Christ on the cross.4

This is a more 'sociological' classification of evangelicals, in terms of their prevailing attitudes rather than any particular point of doctrine. Evangelicals may be strict about doctrine, but the actual content of doctrine isn't tremendously distinctive from 'ordinary' Protestant beliefs, with the exceptions of (1) a stronger view of Biblical authority than many others have, and (2) a related commitment to 'pure' or 'mere' Christianity 5. The Bebbington scheme has gained some currency, though Stott for one was uncomfortable with all the -isms, and the low profile of God. He preferred this formulation of evangelical priorities:

  The revealing initiative of God the Father, the redeeming work of God the Son, and the transforming ministry of God the Holy Spirit. 2

Politics

In terms of American politics, I don't think it's straightforward to predict where evangelicals will end up. Moreover, the media tend to use the classification fairly carelessly, as a synonym for 'conservative Christian' or 'Republican churchgoer'. In fact, I think there is a great diversity of political beliefs among evangelicals (though the two-party system suppresses that diversity at the polls). Part of this is generational or age-based, but I also have a sense that some political points spring fairly naturally from the evangelical worldview.

For example, the evangelical environmental movement makes perfect sense within the context of the history above. It's a matter of engaging with the world in a positive way, in order to take care of it (and it can be seen as oppositional, like in the Hitchen list above). Equally, many evangelicals care about social and economic injustice in a manner that doesn't match the stereotype that evangelicals ipso facto have right-wing views.
This is not to say that evangelicals are automatically left-wing or liberal either! Probably, most evangelicals would be considered socially conservative, and may even regard such issues as overriding priorities when choosing candidates. For what it's worth, I don't think that an evangelical's 'ideal' US political party would greatly resemble either the Republicans or the Democrats, but they do seem to be the only games in town.

1. Encyclopedia of Christianity (Wm. Eerdmans, 2001) under "Evangelical Movement"
2. Evangelical truth: a personal plea for unity, integrity and faithfulness, John Stott (InterVarsity Press, 2005)
3. What it means to be an evangelical today, John M. Hitchen, Evangelical Quarterly 76(1):47-64, 2004.
4. Evangelicalism in modern Britain: a history from the 1730s to the 1980s, D. W. Bebbington (Unwin Hyman, 1989).
5. The Evangelical Anglican Identity Problem, J. L. Packer (Latimer House, 1978).

The RCC has many teachings that are consistent and coherent. They are buried deep in the vastness of the body of works produced by the copious number of academics the RCC had at its disposal. They also had a headstart.  Most of this doctrinal development is lost to the Reformed Church. Luther was quite happy to be Roman Catholic and fully expected to be reinstated after being acquitted for raising what he felt was justified objection to the blatant  malpractice prevailing in the church. That's not how hierarchies work, as he found to his chagrin.

The first reformers, or the group   who had the French label "Protestant" applied to them, had a very narrow agenda, list of objections . However, the list grew as the movement grew.

Evangelicals today would be considered a subset of the Protestants, a subset that not only reject the traditions of the Catholic Church, both the Roman and the Eastern, but also those of the Anglican and Lutheran. Most Evangelicals feel Luther didn't go far enough in the Reformation, in limiting the role of church in the dispensation of grace.

They believe God's grace is solely administered through His Word. All the sacraments are memorial, a figurative depiction of the content of Scripture.

I think sola scriptura is an appropriate shibboleth to filter Evangelical from non Evangelical.


What is according to the RCC the creation story in Genesis? Is the creation of Adam and eve a real event in history or is this just a story which actually never really happened and can it according to RCC also be seen as a methaphore? Or is it 'just' a spiritual reality? If so, does this induce problems with the reality of our Earth and other creations?

The Catholic Church teaches, in the decisions of the 1909 Pontifical Biblical Commission (Latin original), that

  The first three Chapters of Genesis contain narratives that correspond to objectively real and historically true events [rerum vere gestarum narrationes quae scilicet obiectivae realitati et historicae veritati respondeant], no myths, no mere allegories or symbols of religious truths, no legends.

To appreciate the reality of Adam & Eve creation as fact and historical one must embrace the reality of God exisitence. in Catholic Church faith it is written as the first article of faith.

  ARTICLE I
  "I BELIEVE IN GOD THE FATHER ALMIGHTY, CREATOR OF HEAVEN AND EARTH"
  Paragraph 4. The Creator
  279 "In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth."116 Holy Scripture begins with these solemn words. The profession of faith takes them up when it confesses that God the Father almighty is "Creator of heaven and earth" (Apostles' Creed), "of all that is, seen and unseen" (Nicene Creed). We shall speak first of the Creator, then of creation and finally of the fall into sin from which Jesus Christ, the Son of God, came to raise us up again.

The physical realities of creation is embedded in the first three word in Genesis 1:1 "In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth"... for scientific physical realities it connotes "time, space & matter"...
all the scientists including all the famous & the brightest cannot fathom the mystery of our vast universe...But for RCC the universe is not the summit of God Creation...CCC343

  CCC343 Man is the summit of the Creator's work, as the inspired account expresses by clearly distinguishing the creation of man from that of the other creatures."

The historical fact written in the bible Creation of Man is in the sixth day..whether you called 6 B.C or other acceptable timeline the biblical proof is written in the RCC  in CCC342..

  CCC342 The hierarchy of creatures is expressed by the order of the "six days", from the less perfect to the more perfect. God loves all his creatures209 and takes care of each one, even the sparrow. Nevertheless, Jesus said: "You are of more value than many sparrows", or again: "Of how much more value is a man than a sheep!"

So for your other questions"If so, does this induce problems with the reality of our Earth and other creations? The answer is in CCC340

  CCC340 God wills the interdependence of creatures. The sun and the moon, the cedar and the little flower, the eagle and the sparrow: the spectacle of their countless diversities and inequalities tells us that no creature is self-sufficient. Creatures exist only in dependence on each other, to complete each other, in the service of each other."

But the most striking historical,biblical & spiritual truth in all of this is who is the Center of Creation,I mean why all this things existed in the first place?

  For in Him/Jesus all things were created, things in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or dominions or rulers or authorities. All things were created through Him and for Him. (Colossians 1:16)


Is Mary's human soul pre-existent in eternity? There is a statement in the Catholic Catechism that says that Mary is chosen from all eternity by God. Would this mean she pre-existed in eternity with God, or does "chosen" not really imply pre-existence?
Mary's predestination:

488 "God sent forth his Son", but to prepare a body for him, he wanted the free co-operation of a creature. For this, from all eternity God chose for the mother of his Son a daughter of Israel, a young Jewish woman of Nazareth in Galilee, "a virgin betrothed to a man whose name was Joseph, of the house of David; and the virgin's name was Mary":
The Father of mercies willed that the Incarnation should be preceded by assent on the part of the predestined mother, so that just as a woman had a share in the coming of death, so also should a woman contribute to the coming of life.

What does the Catholic Church teach on Mary's soul?  Is there an official doctrine explaining that Mary's soul pre-existed in eternity?

In 1661, Pope Alexander VII released the Bull "Sollicitudo omnium eccl.," which reads in part:

  The devotion to the most blessed Virgin Mary is indeed of long standing among the faithful of Christ who believe that her soul, from the first instant of its creation and infusion into her body, was preserved immune by a special grace and privilege of God from the stain of original sin. (Denzinger 1100 – Latin "in primo instanti creationis atque infusionis in corpus")

This, combined with the general Catholic teaching in favor the creation of all souls (cf. Pope Pius XII, "Humani generis", "the Catholic faith obliges us to hold that souls are immediately created by God") and the Church's opposition to the pre-existence of souls, indicates that Mary is not an exception to the rule: her soul was immediately created at the time of its infusion into her body, in the womb of her mother.

Is Mary's human soul pre-existent in eternity?

Short Answer

"Mary is God's DREAMED whose "immaculate soul" was created and formed in "eternity". (Based on Blessed Emmerich vision and St.Maximilian Kolbe teachings and aided by Arch.Fulton Sheen reflections)

Note: The human "immaculate soul" of Mary was not pre-existent but Her "immaculate soul" was created or formed in eternity in the realm of the Most Holy Trinity.
How?, since Mary existed as Eternal Thought the Abba Father can just Willed it also in eternity to exist in the fullness of time like Jesus. Let's look at words of Blessed Emmerich "

  ...Then I saw this brightness standing separate before the Face of God, turning and shaping itself— or rather being shaped, for I saw that while this brightness took human form, yet it was by the Will of God that it received a form so unspeakably beautiful.(Blessed Emmerich)

Below is the full text of Blessed Emmerich vision.

  THE INFUSING OF MARY’S SOUL AND HER BIRTH.

  4.1 THE UNITING OF MARY’S SOUL AND BODY.
  I had a vision of the creation of Mary’s most holy soul and of its being united to her most pure body. In the glory by which the Most Holy Trinity is usually represented in my visions I saw a movement like a great shining mountain, and yet also like a human figure; and I saw something rise out of the midst of this figure towards its mouth and go forth from it like a shining brightness. Then I saw this brightness standing separate before the Face of God, turning and shaping itself— or rather being shaped, for I saw that while this brightness took human form, yet it was by the Will of God that it received a form so unspeakably beautiful. I saw, too, that God showed the beauty of this soul to the angels, and that they had unspeakable joy in its beauty. I am unable to describe in words all that I saw and understood.
  http://www.ccel.org/ccel/emmerich/lifemary.vi.html

The first vision of Blessed Emmerich was the presence of the Most Holy Trinity forming the "immaculate soul" of Mary.

  In the glory by which the Most Holy Trinity is usually represented in my visions I saw a movement like a great shining mountain, and yet also like a human figure; and I saw something rise out of the midst of this figure towards its mouth and go forth from it like a shining brightness. Then I saw this brightness standing separate before the Face of God, turning and shaping itself— or rather being shaped, for I saw that while this brightness took human form, yet it was by the Will of God that it received a form so unspeakably beautiful.

So, we can see that the "immaculate soul of Mary" was formed in eternity in the presence of the Most Holy Trinity and the brightness of "immaculate soul" of Mary comes out from from the mouth of God and separate before the Face of God. The formation of "immaculate soul" of Mary takes place in the realm of the Most Holy Trinity therefore it's timeless not bound by time.Mary's "immaculate soul" was formed in the eternity of God.

And then, the next visions after the formation of the "immaculate soul" was finished in the realm of the Most Holy Trinity only then it was shown in the Heavenly Realm which the glorified angels existed.

  I saw, too, that God showed the beauty of this soul to the angels, and that they had unspeakable joy in its beauty.

The word "I AM" in the Dogmatic Title of Mary's words "I AM the Immaculate Conception" denote Divine character or origin was explain beautifully in the book Fr.Michael Gaitley 33 Days to Morning Glory page52.

  At the apparitions in Lourdes, Mary did not say to St.Bernadette "I was immaculately conceived" but rather "I am the Immaculate Conception". This seems to be a problem. After all, Mary was immaculately conceived.In other words, through special grace from God, she was conceived in the womb of her mother, St.Anne, without any stain of original sin by the foreseen merits of her son.So, why does she speak so strangely? Why does she make the grace she received at her conception ***her very name*?** Doesn't this almost seems as if she making herself divine? Clearly, Mary is not God. Kolbe wrestled with this apparent "divinity problem" for decades, and it lead to the following solution.

  The Immaculate Conception is divine.**But the one I'm talking about isn't Mary. It's the Holy Spirit. In other words. **Kolbe believed there are two "Immaculate Conception". Mary and the Holy Spirit. Mary is the created Immaculate Conception and the Holy Spirit is the uncreated Immaculate Conception. In other words,before there was created Immaculate Conception(Mary), for all eternity there is the uncreated Immaculate Conception, the One who for all eternity "springs" from God the Father and God the Son as an uncreated conception of Love and who is the *"prototype of all the conceptions that multiply life throughout the whole universe."*So, "the Father begets; the Son is begotten; the Spirit is the conception that springs from their love."

This last words "the Spirit is the conception that springs from their love." is the expression of the Abba Father and the Logos of their Love towards the Theotokos.
And when Love is conceived, Proverbs8:22-ff described what kind of "created Spirit" was formed.

  That is why, through the centuries, Christian liturgy has applied to her the words of the Book of Proverbs. Because she is what God wanted us all to be, she speaks of herself as the Eternal blueprint in the Mind of God, the one whom God loved before she was a creature. She is even pictured as being with Him not only at creation, but before creation. She ex- isted in the Divine Mind as an Eternal Thought before there were any mothers. She is the Mother of mothers SHE is THE WORLD'S FIRST LOVE.

  "The Lord possessed me in the beginning of his ways, be- fore He made anything, from the beginning. I was set up from eternity, and of old, before the earth was made. The depths were not as yet, and I was already conceived; neither had the fountains of waters as yet sprung out; the mountains with their huge bulk had not as yet been established: before the hills I was brought forth. He had not yet made the earth, nor the rivers, nor the poles of the world. When he prepared the heavens, I was present; when with a certain law and com- pass he enclosed the depths; when he established the sky above, and poised the fountains of waters; when he com- passed the sea with its bounds, and set a law to the waters that they should not pass their limits; when he balanced the foundations of the earth; I was with him, forming all things, and was delighted every day, playing before him at all times, playing in the world: and my delights were to be with the children of men. Now, therefore, ye children, hear me: Blessed are they that keep my ways. Hear instruction, and be wise, and refuse it not. Blessed is the man that heareth me, and that watcheth daily at my gates, and waiteth at the posts of my doors. He that shall find me shall find life and shall have salvation from the Lord." (Prov. 8:22-35)

  The World's First Love By FULTON J. SHEEN, PH.D., D.D

This is in the realm of God's Mystery and if we combined the vision of Blessed Emmerich with the reflections of St.Kolbe we will embrace the supernatural realities that the "immaculate soul" of Mary was formed in the presence of the Most Holy Trinity alone and springs forth from their "LOVE". Mary is the "beloved daughter of the Abba Father, Mary is the "beloved Mother of the Begotten Son, and Mary is the "beloved Spouse of the Holy Spirit. Mary eternal existence springs forth from the LOVE of the Most Holy Trinity forming Her "immaculate soul" in all eternity and when the Almighty God expressed His Eternal Thought into Eternal LOVE it transcends all natural laws. Mary is God's DREAMED whose "immaculate soul" was created and formed in "eternity".


Why are Catholics singled out from "Christians"? I've noticed that some people would single out "Catholics" from "Christians". Belief.net is one website that separates "Catholicism" from "Christianity", and the website does not claim to be affiliated with any religious organization. Sometimes, a public university's student health center may classify "Catholic" and "Christian" into two separate categories under "Religion".

Assuming that everyone has benign intentions, why are Catholics singled out from "Christians"?

There are a couple main reasons, some of them I believe subconscious, for why Catholics are singled out.

They believe themselves to be exclusively the Church that Christ established, and other Christian sects (with a few exceptions) as adhering to heresies which bar them from ecclesiastical unity with them. This is an example of the Catholic Church drawing a distinction between themselves and other Christian sects.
The "Protestants" are called Protestants because they formed out of "protest" against perceived corruption in the policies, praxis, and theology of the Roman Catholic Church. This is an example of the Protestant sects drawing a distinction between themselves and the Catholics, although most still would graciously assert that, as Catholics believe Jesus is God, Catholics are saved despite their theology and praxis.

Another point:

Every main branch of Christianity is in some sense "singled out". It may simply seem that the Catholics are "singled out" because their branch of Christianity is united as a single sect under the Pope, while the Protestants are 40,000+ (or something) fragmented sects of Christianity existing in large numbers in most of the countries where Catholicism has a big presence, but are united only in in the confession that Jesus is God (a union through the least common denominator, choosing to name all other doctrines as secondary in importance when it comes to unity and, in most cases, also salvation).

There are also, however, other branches of Christianity which are also separate, or "singled out".

For instance, the Eastern Orthodox (Calcedonian) Communion, the Oriental Orthodox (non-Calcedonian ) Communion, the Assyrian Church of the East, and the modern-day Arians (Jehova's witnesses, Unitarians, Mormons, etc.).

It's just what happens when there is a major departure in theological understanding in a religion - those who believe one way need some way of differentiating themselves from those that believe another way that is deemed improper or incorrect by some adherents of the same religious umbrella (in this case, Christianity).

At the end of the day, the Catholics single themselves out as the only true Christians because they believe any non - Catholic sects to be in heresy, and therefore, not a 100% true expression of Christianity.

You have to look in the history to understand what happened and how Catholic Church emerged. Before 1024, there were no Catholics or Orthodox people, just Christians.
Church, in Latin, basilica = the total teaches of Christ.
Catholic = universal, so, it's Called the universal Church. But we have to take care of this term, because they made a universal accepted rule, ignoring most of the Apostolic Canons, which the Orthodox Church did keep, this is where the name of the Orthodox Church come from: Orthodox = right belief, the right law. Every time someone wanted to change the law, for their own use, or to make the rules more easily accepted, in order to manipulate people, a new religion emerged. Look also a the Greek Catholic church history. If you look over, the grates empires did try to conquer many peoples and convert them to the Catholic Church  because this way they would obey much easily. Also, the Catholic Church tried to conquer the Holy Land, which did not wanted to obey to their new rules. Since then more and more people started to feel unsatisfied by their teachings, but were disoriented, so they create more and more religions, without having contact with the old, unchanged and untouched Law of Christ.

You can search for the Rudder (Pedalion), to understand the old Law, also, you ca look for:
1. the Great Schism history.
2. Knights Templar
https://orthodoxwiki.org/The_Rudder

The canons of the Apostles in the Rudder are older than any law that emerged and changed the true Christian law.  This is why anyone who does't obey to these teaches is not considered true christian. Here are some canons extracted from the Rudder:

We order any Bishop, or Presbyter, that has accepted any heretics’ Baptism, or sacrifice, to be deposed; for "what consonancy hath Christ with Beliart or what part hath the believer with an infidel?"
If a Bishop or Presbyter baptize anew anyone that has had a true baptism, of fail to baptize anyone that has been polluted by the impious, let him be deposed, on the ground that he is mocking the Cross and death of the Lord and railing to distinguish priests from pseudopriests.

http://www.holytrinitymission.org/books/english/cannons_apostles_rudder.htm

Note: due to the ecumenism, the Universal Church has grown, no matter the beliefs and the laws that a church has. Most of the churches that called themselves Christians, must obey to some imposed rules. This is why all the world's official churches are heretic, and not obeying to the Law. I found very small communities that succeeded to keep the true Law, but with great sacrifice and torture resistance. They never forced anyone to be like them, never shed blood to make someone be like them, but they always were the ones killed and tortured. Also, they are not recognized as religion because they do not want to embrace the ecumenism and the priests do live for peoples mercy.


Why was Jesus offered vinegar and gall on the cross, and why did he refuse it? I have often wondered why Jesus was given vinegar and gull to drink? What would be the use of drinking it?

Also, was this a common thing to offer people hanging on a cross, or was this specific to Jesus?

  Mat 27:34  they gave to him to drink vinegar mingled with gall; and having tasted it , he would not drink.

It was some sort of potion designed to dull the senses and lessen the suffering of those being executed.

Biblehub contains several commentaries on this verse. One from Ellicott’s commentary reads in part:

  It was clearly something at once nauseous and narcotic, given by the merciful to dull the pain of execution, and mixed with the sour wine of the country and with myrrh to make it drinkable. It may have been hemlock, or even poppy-juice, but there are no materials for deciding. It is probable that the offer came from the more pitiful of the women mentioned by St. Luke (Luke 23:27) as following our Lord and lamenting. Such acts were among the received “works of mercy” of the time and place. The “tasting” implied a recognition of the kindly purpose of the act, but a recognition only. In the refusal to do more than taste we trace the resolute purpose to drink the cup which His Father had given Him to the last drop, and not to dull either the sense of suffering nor the clearness of His communion with His Father with the slumberous potion. The same draught was, we may believe, offered to the two criminals who were crucified with Him.

I believe that the vinegar was to cause more pain. The bible saids: (Luc 23:36) "And the soldiers also mocked him, coming to him, and offering him vinegar"; they doesn't wanted to diminish his sufferings.

My personal experience without any food eaten and with a heatstroke at 11am in a hot and humid day, after drinking a glass of a excesively fermented palm wine (alcohol with acetic acid --vinegard--) is one of dizziness and stomach ache.


Is repentance required for salvation? I know that through faith alone I am saved.  But is repentance a requirement for that salvation as a part of my faith?  Is repentance a single act, or should it be continuous?

Short Answer, YES; Long Answer, YES YES
First we need to define what repentance is.
The word in Greek is Metanoeo which means: To change ones mind. The word repent in Hebrew is Nacham which means to: to be sorry, be moved to pity, have compassion.

Repentance is a state of mind, of sorrow over your actions.

Now that we understand the word's definition we need to understand the context that the word is used in. Here in the old testament is one verse, of many, that defines repentance.

Ezekiel 18:30 NKJV
“Therefore, you Israelites, I will judge each of you according to your
own ways, declares the Sovereign LORD. Repent! Turn away from all your
offenses; then sin will not be your downfall.

Repentance is to turn away from all of your offenses, to turn away from sin.

So you can see that repentance is a mindful state of abhorrence to the things that you have done. The bible says that we need to prove this mindful state by our actions. Have a look:

Acts 26:20 niv
First to those in Damascus, then to those in Jerusalem and in all
Judea, and to the Gentiles also, I preached that they should repent
and turn to God and prove their repentance by their deeds.

Your turning away from sin is proven by what you do.

Repentance is: Having a changed mind that turns you from the things that you were once doing in order that you may do the opposite.
What does God say about Repentance?
We are commanded to repent of our sins.

Job 36:10 niv
He makes them [his children] listen to correction and commands them to repent of
their evil.
Acts 17:30 niv
In the past God overlooked such ignorance, but now he commands all
people everywhere to repent.

What does Jesus say about Repentance?
Here we see Jesus talking about the final judgement, he's giving us insight into what He will say and do on that day.

Matthew 7:21-23 (NKJV)
21 “Not everyone who says to Me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ shall enter the kingdom
of heaven, but he who does the will of My Father in heaven. 22 Many
will say to Me in that day, ‘Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied in
Your name, cast out demons in Your name, and done many wonders in Your
name?’ 23 And then I will declare to them, ‘I never knew you; depart
from Me, you who practice lawlessness!’

We know that sin is lawlessness. Christ is literally saying that if you practice sin He will have nothing to do with you, you did not know Him and He did not know you. In this next verse you see Jesus commanding us to repent, He does this constantly throughout his testimony on this earth.

Matthew 4:17 (NIV)
From that time on Jesus began to preach, "Repent, for the kingdom of
heaven is near."
Luke 3:3
He went into all the country around the Jordan, preaching a baptism of repentance for the > forgiveness of sins.

It's interesting what Luke says here, a baptism of repentance FOR the forgiveness of sins. If we put this altogether with what else we have learned so far, we see that if we turn from our sins then God will be faithful and forgive us for those sins.
So if this is true, then the opposite should also be true. If we continue to sin then we will go to Hell? Let's see if what the Bible says.

Hebrews 10:26-27 (NIV)
26 If we deliberately keep on sinning after we have received the
knowledge of the truth, no sacrifice for sins is left, 27 but only a
fearful expectation of judgment and of  raging fire that will consume
the enemies of God.

Finally God says that He stands FIRM on this very statement. He will not change His mind.

2 Timothy 2:19 (NIV)
19 Nevertheless, God’s solid foundation stands firm, sealed with this
inscription: “The Lord knows those who are his,” and, “Everyone who
confesses the name of the Lord must turn away from wickedness.”

Assurance of salvation as it relates to repentance

1 John 1:6-76 NIV
If we claim to have fellowship with him yet walk in the darkness [evil], we
lie and do not live by the truth. 7 But if we walk in the light [love], as he
is in the light, we have fellowship with one another, and the blood of
Jesus, his Son, purifies us from all sin.

If you continue to sin then the truth [Holy spirit, God, Jesus] is not in you.

1 John 2:4-5 NIV
The man who says, "I know him," but does not do what he commands is a
liar, and the truth is not in him. But if anyone obeys his word, God's
love is truly made complete in him.

If you say that you know God, but you continue to sin, not loving as you were commanded, then you are a liar and [Holy spirit, God, Jesus] is not in you.
Repentance is a struggle against the desires of your flesh

Revelation 2:19
I know your deeds, your love and faith, your service and perseverance,
and that you are now doing more than you did at first.

You will not be perfect right away, you will go through a lot of discipline and correction from God, so that you may produce more and more fruit throughout the days of your life. Persevere in your repentance.

Hebrews 10:36
You need to persevere so that when you have done the
will of God, you will receive what he has promised.

Repentance from sin is required for salvation. We know this since the demons "believe".  They will not be saved since God has prophesied their destiny in Revelation and elsewhere. Repentance from sin does not mean sinless perfection, it means a true, heartfelt decision that results in a change of behavior.

However, faith and repentance go hand in hand.  If a person has no faith, why would he need or want to repent from sin? God's kindness in the forgiveness of sins leads us to repentance from sin.  When we are saved, the Spirit of God gives us the power and desire to do so.


What evidence is there for the Resurrection of Jesus? What historical evidence has been used by people who argue for truth of Jesus' Resurrection?

It’s important to distinguish between the evidence and the best explanation of that evidence. This distinction is important because in this case the evidence is relatively uncontroversial.

That's actually a very good question that people do not ask as often as they should. You are right that it is important to distinguish between evidence and the explanation of that evidence.

With historical evidence, it is also important to qualify what we mean by historical "evidence." Many people today limit this to physical evidence like archaeological records - something that can be seen, felt and measured. If this is what we mean by evidence, then the answer is that we actually have no evidence! There is no physical tangible item that proves definitively that Jesus rose from the dead according to our modern scientific standards of proof.

The only evidence that exists is the accounts of eye-witnesses - both written accounts and accounts shared orally that have passed down to us as one tradition or another, often recorded in the writings of an early Christian writer (first two hundred years).

I actually think that the question is not about how we explain the evidence, but whether we accept it as fact.

History is full of events that we have no tangible, scientific proof actually happened, but events that we do have eye-witness accounts of and, generally, we accept them as factual reports of what people saw, heard and experienced. Even modern day events are like this.

Imagine that you are out hiking in the woods with two or three friends and you stop for a break by a lake to eat lunch. As you are sitting there, getting ready to bite into your apple you brought along, a deer walks out of the forest, sees you, and runs back in.

Now, what actual proof is there that this event happened? It happened so fast that everybody was shocked by what they saw, and nobody had time to pull out their phones to record it. Besides, you are out in the woods - you should have your phones off and enjoy the world around you, anyway!

The only proof that exists is your eye-witness testimony. Either we believe that it happened, or we don't. No scientific proof, no evidence. You could march people back to the spot and look for footprints, but the weather may have washed it away. But you saw it - you know that it happened.

That's all that we have with many historical events - people's eye-witness account. Interestingly, this is normally enough for us, especially if it comes from a source that we trust.

What is most striking is that the resurrection of Jesus is attested to by at least three different people who recorded what they saw and many more who shared their experience with the resurrected Jesus orally to the community around them. This is far more "evidence" than we have for most of the history that we generally accept as "factually true!"

The problem, I believe, is not with the reliability of the testimony and the fact that the resurrection is one of the most attested to events in ancient history, but with the idea of resurrection. People start with the assumption that resurrection is not possible, so immediately the story - regardless of how many eye-witnesses there were - is assumed to be not true. This is true of any story or account that includes something we believe impossible. We reject it not because we have evidence that it didn't happen, but because we have no tangible empirical scientific proof that what you are talking about is possible - no empirical "evidence" that it did happen. None that we would accept, anyway.

I think that what you mean by explanation of evidence is just this - whether we accept it as fact or not. I'm not talking about all the details about Jesus walking through walls and eating fish, but whether or not the simple fact of his resurrection is real.

I do think, however, it is precisely the evidence itself that is controversial with this issue. Do we believe that their eye-witness evidence is fact, or do we believe that it is fiction? That all comes down to whether you believe resurrection is possible.

I believe that all things are possible with God. But there is no empirical truth for that. It must be accepted by faith.

People have argued for the truth of Jesus' Resurrection on the basis of the biblical record alone, because there is no archaeological evidence and no extra-biblical evidence for his Resurrection.

The UCLA Institute on Primary Resources describes as primary resources that material which provides first-hand evidence of historical events. It says that they are a source of direct evidence that describes or documents an historical event from the perspective of someone who was there. On definitions such as this, the gospels would probably be primary resources if their authors saw, or participated in those events.

The Gospels of Matthew and John have long been regarded as eyewitness accounts, which means that they ought to be sufficient evidence. However, the four New Testament gospels were all written anonymously and were only attributed to the men whose names they now bear later in the second century. Uta Ranke-Heinemann says in Putting Away Childish Things, page 218, Matthew could not have been written by the Apostle Matthew, because it is incomprehensible that an eyewitness (Matthew) would choose to depend so radically on a non-eyewitness (the author of Mark). And Raymond E. Brown says in An Introduction to the New Testament, pages 368-9 that it is doubted by most scholars that John's Gospel was written by an eyewitness of the public ministry of Jesus.

As a result, people who have argued for truth of Jesus' Resurrection have used secondary, unattributed sources, rather than actual historical sources. In the absence of contemporary, historical evidence, it must be accepted by faith.


Athanasian Creed article 6, meaning of "the glory equal" In the Athanasian Creed, article 6, we read:

  But the Godhead of the Father, of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit is all one, the glory equal, the majesty coeternal.

Does the wording of this article mean that there are 3 different and personal glories and majesties which are all equal as opposed to one majesty shared by the 3 Persons?

One possible angle is to look at the Latin text, since there is no official adopted Greek text. The article reads:

Sed Patris et Filii et Spiritus Sancti una est divinitas: æqualis gloria, coæterna majestas.

Though the colon might throw us off, we ought to remember that it did not exist as punctuation in the original, so we might feasibly emphasize the parallelism of this article by reconstructing the passage as follows, followed by my literal translation:
"Patris et Filii et Spiritus Sancti" - "Of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit"
"est" - is
"una divinitas" - one divinity
"aequalis gloria" - equal glory
"coaeterna majestas" - coeternal majesty
In other words, the Three Persons are said to possess "one divinity" in the same way that they possess the other two qualities. Thus, in this Creed, I would venture to claim that the reference is to the shared glory and majesty of the three persons as one God.
In general, as already mentioned, the "differences" between the Persons are their "ad intra" relations. The "ad extra" actions are of one God.
The larger question--about whether we can refer to a glory particular to the Father or Son or Holy Spirit--is complicated. The most direct Scriptural reference is in the priestly prayer of Jn 17:1-5:

1b Πάτερ, ἐλήλυθεν ἡ ὥρα· δόξασόν σου τὸν υἱόν, ἵνα ὁ υἱὸς δοξάσῃ σέ, 2 καθὼς ἔδωκας αὐτῷ ἐξουσίαν πάσης σαρκός, ἵνα πᾶν ὃ δέδωκας αὐτῷ δώσῃ αὐτοῖς ζωὴν αἰώνιον. 3 αὕτη δέ ἐστιν ἡ αἰώνιος ζωὴ ἵνα γινώσκωσι σὲ τὸν μόνον ἀληθινὸν θεὸν καὶ ὃν ἀπέστειλας Ἰησοῦν Χριστόν. 4 ἐγώ σε ἐδόξασα ἐπὶ τῆς γῆς, τὸ ἔργον τελειώσας ὃ δέδωκάς μοι ἵνα ποιήσω· 5 καὶ νῦν δόξασόν με σύ, πάτερ, παρὰ σεαυτῷ τῇ δόξῃ ᾗ εἶχον πρὸ τοῦ τὸν κόσμον εἶναι παρὰ σοί.
1b Father, the hour has come; glorify your Son so that the Son may glorify you, 2 since you have given him authority over all people, to give eternal life to all whom you have given him. 3 And this is eternal life, that they may know you, the only true God, and Jesus Christ whom you have sent. 4 I glorified you on earth by finishing the work that you gave me to do. 5 So now, Father, glorify me in your own presence with the glory that I had in your presence before the world existed.

In this passage, I would argue that Jesus is speaking of a relational difference in the glory (δόξα) communicated between the Father and the Son. That, however, is a separate question which would merit a separate reply.

I think I got it.

Whenever you see One in the Nature and Attributes of God, it refers to the only one infinite being, the only true one God, and whenever you see Three, it is in reference to the Three truly distinct Persons in the unity of the Godhead : the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit.

Thus in John 17:5 (RSVCE) the glory is the glory of the only one true God.

  5 and now, Father, glorify thou me in thy own presence with the glory
  which I had with thee before the world was made.[a]

  Footnotes:
  a. 17.5 declares his pre-existence.

And in John 1:14 (RSVCE) the glory is his as God the Son which is not the glory that the Father nor the Holy Spirit have.

  14 And the Word became flesh and dwelt among us, full of grace and
  truth; we have beheld his glory, glory as of the only Son from the
  Father.

Eternal being the before the world was made in Jn 17:5 above. Therefore coeternal meaning the Son and the Holy Spirit being with the Father before the world was made, that is, before the beginning.

Catechism of the Catholic Church, 266.
The Blessed Trinity | New Advent.


Any biblical passages, traditions or historical record of Virgin Mary's baptism? Jesus was already thirty years old when He said to St. John the Baptist that it is the Will of the Father that He received baptism thru his anointed hands.

St. John was baptizing Jews before Jesus came in the Jordan River. The Blessed Virgin Mary on the other hand possibly knew what was St.John the Baptist was doing, it seems the bible was silent that Mary ever approaches St.John the Baptist.

Jesus Christ fully God and fully man is willed by God to seek St.John the Baptist. How come the Blessed Virgin Mary who is a creature although Catholicism teaches she does not need to be baptize by virtue of immaculate conception. However, if Jesus who is a God-Man had to seek St. John why would Mary be exempt?

Is there a passages or teachings that Mary receive baptism or a similar ordination, so that like Jesus although not needed but it is still the Will of Father.

St. Peter teaches the importance of baptism as it will make a believer heir in the priestly office of Jesus Christ. And this will make a believer able to perform the priestly role of offering a sacrifice.

  "But you are a chosen people, a royal priesthood, a holy nation, God’s special possession, that you may declare the praises of him who called you out of darkness into his wonderful light." (1Peter2:9)

And St.Paul teaches that every believer or baptized person as member of the body of Christ the Church can offer their sacrifices united to Christ;

  "Now I rejoice in my sufferings for you, and I fill up in my flesh what is lacking in regard to Christ’s afflictions for the sake of His body, which is the church." (Collosians1:24)

If Mary did not receive baptism or some ordination from St. John the Baptist, it would mean She did not receive an anointing like what happen to Jesus Christ.

In the Old Testament only a priest can offer a sacrifice to God, if Mary did not receive baptism or ordination how can Her offering of fiat or her "body & blood" be acceptable God?

The only close passages is before Mary can utter Her Fiat, She must already receive a baptism or ordination in order for Her Fiat, like the priest in the old testament be acceptable God.

Is there any biblical passages, traditions or historical record of Virgin Mary's baptism?

Was the Blessed Virgin Mary Baptized?

Scripture does not speak of it. There is not historical document or record of this ever happening. However, Catholic tradition holds that the Virgin Mary did in fact receive baptism and thus set an example for all the faithful to follow.

  According to tradition going back to the second century (documented by renowned Scripture scholar Cornelius a Lapide), Christ baptized the Blessed Virgin Mary.

  It is true that Blessed Mary was without original sin, and full of grace. However, she had yet received the baptismal character, which is an indelible feature of the baptized. Also, the sacrament of baptism linked her even more closely with the Church of her beloved Son.

  If she humbly submitted to Old Law precepts out of humility (e.g. the purification after birth), then she no doubt would also have received the sacraments of the New Law. Moreover, Mary wanted to be like Christ her Savior in all ways. Christ didn’t need baptism but He received baptism. No doubt, she desire the same. Mary didn’t need to die, but she desired to die in order to be perfectly conformed to Christ. This is a feature of all the ancient Dormition accounts.

  Did the Immaculate Mary need to be baptized. No, of course not.

  Did the Immaculate Mary want to be baptized. Yes, of course.

  Was the Blessed Virgin Mary Baptized?

Would Cornelius a Lapide’s words himself suffice to prove the tradition.

Cornelius a Lapide’s commentary

  I have need to be baptized, &c. That is, to be spiritually washed from my sins, and perfected by the Spirit of Thy grace. Have need here does not signify an obligation of precept, as though the Baptist was obliged to receive the baptism of Christ. For this precept of baptism was given and promulged by S. Peter on the Day of Pentecost, and therefore after John’s death. Some gather from this place that John was soon afterwards baptized by Christ Himself, as were also the Blessed Virgin Mary, SS. Peter, James, and John, and the rest of the Apostles. This is stated by S. Evodius, who succeeded S. Peter in the Chair of Antioch, in an Epistle of his, entitled τὸ φώς.

  In favour of this idea are also Nazian. (Orat. 39 towards the end); “Christ knew,” he says, “that He would Himself shortly afterwards baptize the Baptist;” also S. Chrysostom, who says, “John baptized Christ with water, but Christ baptized John with the Spirit.” Whence the author of the Imperfect Comment. says, “It is plainly written in apocryphal writings, that John baptized Christ with water, but He baptized John with the Spirit.”

  Abulensis thinks, on the other hand, that John was not baptized by Christ. And he proves it by the marvelling of John’s disciples, who soon afterwards told John that Christ, whom he had baptized, was Himself baptizing, and that all men were coming unto Him. For this would have been needlessly told to John if he had been baptized by Christ, and he would have given this reply to his disciples. So that it is a doubtful point whether John was baptized by Christ or not.

Baptism is not only for being forgiven for our personal sins and the original sin, it is also to partake in the new creation!  When Jesus resurrected, his human nature was a new creation; His human nature was then united with the Divine nature in a way unknown to Adam and Eve.  Mary also died and resurrected even if she was without sin.  This means that she also suffer and died for our sins.
The true explanation for the Immaculate Conception is that her soul, as well as the soul of Adam was created on the 6th day of Creation.  Second chapter of Genesis say that Adam was made (not created); this means only his body/flesh was made.  Eve was created from Adam to be the companion of Adam, thus more vulnerable to seduction. But Mary was created    to be the Mother of God, not the companion of a man.


Did Lactantius ever say why it was good for Christians to be ruled by a Christian emperor? Lactantius was a Christian who had been a part of the Roman government (which was hostile to Christians) prior to his conversion. Sometime between 303 and 311 he wrote a systematic theology, in which he wrote:

  When [God] might have bestowed upon His people both riches and kingdoms, as He had before given them to the Jews, whose successors and posterity we are; on this account He would have them [that is, "His people"] live under the power and government of others, lest, being corrupted by the happiness of prosperity, they should glide into luxury and despise the precepts of God; as those ancestors of ours, who, ofttimes enervated by these earthly and frail goods, departed from discipline and burst the bonds of the law.

But when Constantine converted to Christianity and became emperor, Lactantius became an advisor and hagiographer to Constantine, as well as a tutor to the emperor's son. It appears that he believed it good and right for a Christian to hold the highest post in the government, even though he had previously said that it was for Christians to live under a pagan emperor.

Did he ever say why it was good for Christians to live under a Christian government?

Edward Gibbon tells us, in The Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire, (D.M. Low abridgement page 290), as soon as the defeat of Licinius had invested Constantine with total dominion of the Roman world, he immediately, by circular letters, exhorted all his subjects to imitate, without delay, the example of their sovereign, and to embrace the divine truth of Christianity. Lactantius was very possibly being pragmatic taking on the role of eulogist for an emperor who gave favours to those who became Christians.

Anders Cullhed says, in The Shadow of Creusa: Negotiating Fictionality in Late Antique Latin Literature (ebook) Lactantius saw an opportunity for covert, albeit legitimate Christian indoctrination. Cullhed says Lactantius considered it downright legitimate to treat truth as a contraband of sorts, concealing it by means of a lie. The siginificance of this is that we can never know whether Lactantius sincerely believed anything he said in support of any position he took. He knew that Constantine looked favourably on work that progressed the Christian cause in his empire and did not need any reason to do the emperor's bidding and would naturally say it was good for Christians to live under a Christian government.


Why did God strike Herod down? There are many who go around blaspheming much worse and nothing happens to them. The reason I've heard is that God does not interfere and manipulate. He lets things run their course and has set aside a day for judgement.

  Acts 12:23 Immediately, because Herod did not give praise to God, an
  angel of the Lord struck him down, and he was eaten by worms and died.

Then why did God strike Herod immediately? Why didn't he wait to judge him on judgement day like he does for others? Herod's sin seems trivial compared to what you can see at the 9 o'clock news.

The Bible does not anywhere indicate that the ‘most’ evil people are killed directly by God. God rather often, according to the purposes of his will, postpones the eternal judgment for sin a long while.  Even the very worst of criminals may live long and prosperous lives and we must not expect full justice in this world.  The injustice in the world is part of the judgment for Adam’s sin.  It is only in certain situation that God hastens judgment directly to bring attention to certain things that people might otherwise think God is not that concerned about, or for other mysterious reasons according to Him ‘who works out everything to the good to those that love him’. (Rom 8:28).  Things that everybody knows are evil God often overlooks as know special point needs to be made.

It might be asked ‘Why does not God kill more people, or even all people, like in the days of Noah? But God’s postponement of justice is not the absence of justice, which is what hell is for. It is only his mercy and intentions of grace in Christ (signified by the rainbow) that keeps God from killing more swiftly each new generation. Death itself is in a sense God killing mankind.

As it turns out on this earth, it sometimes almost seems ‘random’ who God directly causes to die and he alone knows his sovereign purposes. When God does miraculously step forward to execute sudden judgment he seems to be sending an important message in line with his purposes at that time of history.

For example in the Old Testament he killed Uzzah for Touching the Ark while trying to prevent it from tipping over (2 Samuel 6:6-7) which makes it seem singled out to be made an example. Meanwhile, while others did more wicked things God may have had no direct interest to intervene according to his own purpose.

In most cases however, it seems God takes direct actions when the people involved are committing public, almost symbolic sins, to put fear in the hearts of those observing and to therefore prevent similar sins by others.  For example, Ananias and Sapphira lying to the Holy Spirit in Acts 5:1-10.  In the case of Herod he was busy persecuting the newly founded church and allowing others to worship him as a god, all the while pretending to be a Jew and a king of Jews.  This was simply something, according to God's direct purposes for his church, that God wanted to publicly show as not acceptable.

Furthermore, just because the Bible does not mention God's involvement in killing other wicked men, history is filled with crazy dictators and especially vile public figures  that have all died sudden and horrific deaths at young ages or otherwise killed themselves such as Judas, Nero, Hitler, etc.

I am not aware of God directly killing (or other dramatic judgement) a person for private sins — it seems always related to 'scandalous public affairs' that if gone unpunished in the eyes of men might affront God's purposes among certain groups at certain times.

If you read the account linked to in Peter's comment, it sure doesn't sound anything like what you might imagine from the Bible verse alone:

  The disease then seized upon his whole body and distracted it by
  various torments. For he had a slow fever, and the itching of the skin
  of his whole body was insupportable. He suffered also from continuous
  pains in his colon, and there were swellings on his feet like those of
  a person suffering from dropsy, while his abdomen was inflamed and his
  privy member so putrefied as to produce worms. Besides this he could
  breathe only in an upright posture, and then only with difficulty, and
  he had convulsions in all his limbs, so that the diviners said that
  his diseases were a punishment.
  But he, although wrestling with such sufferings, nevertheless clung to life and hoped for safety, and devised methods of cure. For
  instance, crossing over Jordan he used the warm baths at Callirhoë,
  which flow into the Lake Asphaltites, but are themselves sweet enough
  to drink.

  His physicians here thought that they could warm his whole body again by means of heated oil. But when they had let him down into a
  tub filled with oil, his eyes became weak and turned up like the eyes
  of a dead person. But when his attendants raised an outcry, he
  recovered at the noise; but finally, despairing of a cure, he
  commanded about fifty drachms to be distributed among the soldiers,
  and great sums to be given to his generals and friends.

  Then returning he came to Jericho, where, being seized with melancholy, he planned to commit an impious deed, as if challenging
  death itself. For, collecting from every town the most illustrious men
  of all Judea, he commanded that they be shut up in the so-called
  hippodrome.

  And having summoned Salome, his sister, and her husband, Alexander, he said: 'I know that the Jews will rejoice at my death.
  But I may be lamented by others and have a splendid funeral if you are
  willing to perform my commands. When I shall expire surround these
  men, who are now under guard, as quickly as possible with soldiers,
  and slay them, in order that all Judea and every house may weep for me
  even against their will.'

There's more, but the point is he apparently suffered a long, slow, agonizing disease all the while he continued to commit evil acts of cruelty.  The entire episode is glossed into the single verse in question.

I've found that a lot of the Bible is missing crucial context like this.  I'm finding that I often learn a good deal more by reading about a book of the Bible than by reading the book itself.


Are there any well-known Christian nihilists? I have been studying Nietzsche, and I find his ideas thought-provoking. Doing a wider search of the literature on the subject of nihilism, I note that very nearly all of the content that espouses nihilism is irreligious, and all of the religious sources attempt to refute nihilism.

There must be some dissenters in this regard -- it's a big world, and there are many forms of nihilism. Ecclesiastes, for instance, sure sounds nihilist.

  “Meaningless! Meaningless!”
  says the Teacher. “Utterly meaningless!
  Everything is meaningless.”

Usually, I hear this explained away (e.g. -- "Yes, meaningless without God!"), and that may be the correct response, but surely there must be someone with an interpretation of Ecclesiastes that takes Solomon's words at face value.

Are there any well-known Christian nihilists whose literature I can examine? Where can I find discussions on this topic that do not take an anti-nihilist view?

Just to clarify, I am not asking someone to explain whether or why Christianity and nihilism are (in)compatible. I'm trying to get a sense of what's out there on pro-nihilism Christianity.

Yes, there is school of theological nihilism influenced by Nietzsche, known as the "Death of God" movement. Probably the most famous individual associated with it is Paul Tillich. This work explores the idea that the traditional concept of God has "died", and the extent to which faith (or reason, or ethics, etc.) can still exist in such a world. We can argue about whether this sort of thing is nihilist, or existentialist, or both, or not really either; but in any case it comes out of that general area of thought.

It should be distinguished from the older and more "respectable" pursuit of apophatic theology. This is an approach to God founded on describing God in "negative" terms (he is not evil, he is not limited, etc.). Typically, this theology is mystical rather than rational, and Eastern rather than Western. A standard idea in apophatic theology is that God does not exist, meaning that the mode of his "existence" transcends the way in which ordinary everyday stuff is said to "exist". Contemplation of paradoxes associated with the divine is also part of apophatic practice - without necessarily trying to solve them in the manner of rationalist theology. Apophatic theology has influenced nihilistic theology but they are not identical.

Another relevant writer is Kierkegaard for his exploration of paradox and despair in a Christian context. He is not a nihilist but there is a good deal of later work which responds to him. I would suggest Fear and Trembling as a good starting point (because out of the two books I've read by him, it was the one I liked the best). In it, he works through the story of the Binding of Isaac with an emphasis on the supposed moral of the story, Abraham's greatness through faith; this is contrasted with the anxiety and subjectivity of Abraham's personal experience, in the context of an apparently immoral command to murder his son.

Negative theology, for example as it was expounded by Pseudo-Dionysius Areopagita and several medieval Christian mystics such as St. John of the Cross or Meister Eckhart is explicitly nihilist in its content. This theology explains God as a form of Emptiness, as something completely unkowable to the intellect. Therefore negative theology can be interpreted as "nihilist" or "proto-nihilist".


How did Paul learn the gospel? Is there any account of how Paul learnt Jesus teachings after he converted? In Galatians 1:11-12 Paul states:

  But I make known to you, brethren, that the gospel which was preached by me is not according to man. For I neither received it from man, nor was I taught it, but it came through the revelation of Jesus Christ"

Was he saying that Christ revealed gospel to him directly or should we assume that he was mentored by another christian?

Yes, Paul gives an account of how he learned his gospel several times:
2 Corinthians 12:1 1

"It is not expedient for me doubtless to glory. I will come to visions and revelations of the Lord."

1 Corinthians 11:23

For I received from the Lord what I also passed on to you: that the Lord Jesus, on the night He was betrayed, took bread,

Ephesians 3:3-4

How that by revelation he made known unto me the mystery; (as I wrote afore in few words,
Whereby, when ye read, ye may understand my knowledge in the mystery of Christ)

Romans 16:25

Now to him that is of power to stablish you according to my gospel, and the preaching of Jesus Christ, according to the revelation of the mystery, which was kept secret since the world began,

The whole first chapter of Galatians should really be gone through, but I'll pick out the significant parts. Right from the beginning Paul affirms he is an apostle sent directly from Yeshua the Messiah, and not from men:

Paul, an apostle, (not of men, neither by man, but by Jesus Christ, and God the Father, who raised him from the dead;)

Paul begins to talk about certain men that seem to be teaching a different gospel than his.2 To affirm his authority, he again claims he was taught his gospel by none other than Messiah in Galatians 1:11-12

But I certify you, brethren, that the gospel which was preached of me is not after man.
For I neither received it of man, neither was I taught it, but by the revelation of Jesus Christ.

After giving his account of his conversion,3 Paul says in Galatians 1:16-17 that even immediately after his conversion, he did not speak to any man, including the Apostles:

To reveal his Son in me, that I might preach him among the heathen; immediately I conferred not with flesh and blood:
Neither went I up to Jerusalem to them which were apostles before me; but I went into Arabia, and returned again unto Damascus.

The translation of this verse is controversial. Here are a few different ways it's been translated
For more details about who these men were and why it was so crucial for Paul to convince the Galatians that he received his gospel directly from Yeshua, please see What role did James have in Paul's conflict with Peter
For a comparison of Paul's conversion accounts, please see Why are the three accounts of Paul's conversion on the road to Damascus different

yes, I too believe that Paul received the salvation direct from Christ. The gospel means the Resurrection of Jesus is the proof of living Christ. And he had spent time with Anania who baptised him might be taught the truth some extent before baptising him which is part of the great commission in Matt. 28:16-19. teach them what did you learn from me. And after that he met the Apostles Peter and James could be very fruitful to him. Above all he was master in the old testament he was educated under the great rabbi Gamaliel. so, got direct teaching is against the norms of the scripture this concept is leading many to claim false revelations apart from the bible.


Should those who fall away and return to the church be baptized again? - Overview It is not uncommon for believers to be faithful for years, but "fall away", only to return years later with a reaffirmation of faith. Often this is common with teens who have a "wild" 20's and 30's, but return to the church in their middle age. But it is also plenty common outside of those specific ages.

Once returned to the fold, these new-old-believers often want and attain a second baptism, as a public show of their return to the faith.

Are there any Denominations which address a believer's second baptism? What is an overview of the beliefs on this common occurrence?

Note: This question is about adult believers who've been baptized, leave the faith, but return and desire a second baptism. This question is not about a believer's desire to be baptized despite having been by their parents as an infant.

"Should they get re-baptized"s off-topic - it's opinion-based. However, here's a sample of what some teach and practice.

In various Churches that I've attended, including Baptist, Evangelical Free, and local community non-denominational Bible Churches, getting baptized again is fairly common.

This is based on the belief that Baptism doesn't save us, but is, instead, an outward sign of obedience to God.

In such denominations, the belief is that being baptized doesn't do anything to save us.  Rather, it's a symbolic, outward profession of our faith, and our rebirth in Christ.

(Reference to back that up at Doing Baptism Baptist Style.)

In cases such as that, it's entirely appropriate to go through another baptism.  Re-committing your life to Christ is perfectly valid, and to go through a ritual that symbolizes this is perfectly OK, but not required.

They don't see it as necessary because to these groups, baptism wasn't necessary in the first place.

As an analogy, to groups that see Baptism from this perspective, it's no different than renewing your wedding vows.

More specific to your question, there are several denominations that address this.  For example, the La Vista Church of Christ has this to say in their article on the topic:

Reading the article makes it apparent that they believe that baptism does have an effect, yet they say that it's appropriate to do a second baptism, and also use the renewing of the vows analogy.

(I'd recommend the full article. This is just the closing paragraph)

  Being baptized is compared to the Old Testament practice of being
  circumcised. "In Him you were also circumcised with the circumcision
  made without hands, by putting off the body of the sins of the flesh,
  by the circumcision of Christ, buried with Him in baptism, in which
  you also were raised with Him through faith in the working of God, who
  raised Him from the dead" (Colossians 2:11-12). The very nature of
  circumcision is an act that can be performed only once. Similarly,
  baptism is related to marriage. "Husbands, love your wives, just as
  Christ also loved the church and gave Himself for her, that He might
  sanctify and cleanse her with the washing of water by the word, that
  He might present her to Himself a glorious church, not having spot or
  wrinkle or any such thing, but that she should be holy and without
  blemish" (Ephesians 5:25-27). Marriage is for life. Some renew their
  vows, but that renewal doesn't make the original vow of non-effect or
  say that the couple was any less married prior to the renewal. Renewed
  vows have no true effect on a marriage, but still some people like to
  have the reminder.

Most denominations I’ve been involved with would do This:

1) first baptism is valid
2) the backslider doesn’t invalidate the baptism.
3) if you want to get Rebaptised go ahead.


What is the significance of colour purple in the robe that Jesus was made to wear? Was there any significance to the colour purple, as described by the evangelists while mentioning the robe that Jesus was made to put on before His crucifixion? Both John 19:2 and Mark 15:7 mentioning the colour, would seem to signify that the colour did convey something, but what?

Purple in the Roman Empire was associated with triumph, and came to be associated with the Emperors specifically. Along with the crown of thorns, the purple robe was a mocking symbol of Jesus' royalty.

Emperors wore purple togas, so it was a way to make fun of Jesus after He claimed to be the Son of God, which He was.


Which specific canons of the Second Council of Constantinople do Lutherans and Calvinists reject? The Wikipedia article on the Second Council of Constantinople (the fifth Ecumenical Council) claims that Lutherans and Calvinists accept only the first four Ecumenical Councils as being canonical.

My question is really two fold, and directed separately towards Lutherans and Calvinists.

Is the above claim true?
If so, which specific canons of the Second Council of Constantinople are rejected and why?

I realize that I may be at risk of overgeneralizing "Calvinists", since perhaps there are disparate beliefs among different Calvinist denominations.  If so, perhaps someone could answer the question(s) from their own denomination's perspective.  I don't expect the same possibility of divergence among Lutherans, but perhaps I am in error here.

The First Four Councils

The main, but only the main,  conclusions of each of the first four Ecumenical Councils  were specifically endorsed by both Calvin and  Luther personally.  These 4 councils are also mentioned by name  in the (Calvinist) Second Helvetican Confession, Chapter 11 . The doctrines themselves are also in the  Westminster Confession chapters 2 and 8, and the (Lutheran)  AugsburgConfession Articles 1 and 3, amongst others.

Endorsing only  the first four seems  to imply  there must have been some objection to the fifth. We may imagine Luther, in his Wittenberg study, going through the Councils in order and saying:  Nicea,  ok; First Constantinople , ok; Ephesus,  ok, Chalcedon, ok; Second Constantinople,  uh-oh, don't like this one.

But that would be a misunderstanding.  The first four were particularly mentioned because of the great importance of the doctrines to which they bore witness.  Pope Gregory the Great, who lived after the fifth Council, but before the sixth,wrote  that he received and revered the first four Councils as he did the four gospels. He went on to say he also revered the fifth Council. It wasn't that Gregory had  anything against the fifth, but it just wasn't, to him,  such a big deal, doctrinally, as the first four. In this, Luther and Calvin concurred with him.

Furthermore, the Assyrian (Nestorian) Church accept only the first two Councils, objecting to the third;   and the Oriental Orthodox (e.g. Coptic, not to be confused with Eastern Orthodox) accept the first three, objecting to the fourth.  In accepting four the Reformers demonstrated their Catholicity in contrast to these groups.

Luther

Luther wrote On the Councils and the Church in 1539. In it he summed up the doctrines of the first four as follows.

  The first, at Nicaea, defended the deity of Christ against Arius; the second, at Constantinople, defended the deity of the Holy Ghost against Macedonius; the third, at Ephesus, defended the one Person of Christ against Nestorius; the fourth, at Chalcedon, defended the two natures in Christ against Eutyches: — but they did not thereby establish any new article of faith. For these four articles are established far more abundantly and powerfully in St. John’s Gospel alone, even though the other evangelists and St. Paul and St. Peter had written nothing about them, though all these, together with the prophets, teach them and testify mightily to them.

Luther was adamant that these doctrines of these councils were fully proved in Scripture, and believed for that reason only. The Councils, per se, added nothing.  It is convenient to refer to the doctrines by the names of the Councils, but they are not accepted merely by authority of the councils. At all councils there   were bad mixed with good," like mouse-droppings in the pepper", as he put it. In any case, he said, he would "rather drink from the spring than the brook", by which he meant Scripture rather than Council.

Luther drew a distinction between the chief subject of a Council, that is the purpose for which the Emperor had called it, and the other matters it might take it upon itself to consider. He was quite scathing about  most of the decrees of the even the first Ecumenical Council, that of Nicea.

  The greater part of them is merely priests’ quarrelling :  —  there are not to be two bishops in one city; no bishop of a small church is to be ambitious for a greater one; clerics, or servants of a church, are not to leave their own church and slip hither and thither among other churches; no one is to ordain the people of any bishop without his knowledge and consent; no bishop is to accept a man who has been expelled by another bishop; the bishop of Jerusalem is to retain his ancient privilege of dignity above others; and more of that kind of talk.
   Who can hold these things for articles of faith? What of them can one preach to the people in the Church? What difference do these things make to Church or people? Unless, of course, they are to be treated as a history from which one can learn that at that time, too, there were everywhere in the Church self-willed, wicked, disorderly bishops, priests, clergy, and people, who were more concerned about honours and power and wealth than about God and His kingdom, and that people needed to be on their guard against them.

Luther also ridiculed  the  Nicean canons  on military service (12) and  priestly castration (1).  So it is clear that Luther did not regard any of the Ecumenical Councils as binding or even correct except as regards specific points which were, anyway, in the Bible, and accepted on that account alone.

In fact Luther goes further back, to the Council of Jerusalem in Acts 15 . The chief subject was whether Gentile Christians must obey the Mosaic Law. The decision: no. But to this was added a stipulation, proposed by James, about abstaining from blood. If people were to take  that seriously, Luther pointed out,  nobody would eat blutwurst.  Since a ban on German sausages was so patently preposterous,  it proved  that the  peripheral decrees of councils, even of the apostles never mind later bishops, could  not to be taken seriously as having any permanent  relevance.  (Luther also moved James' epistle towards  the back of German Bibles, but gave reasons unconnected with sausages.)

Calvin

Calvin, in his Institutes of the Christian Religion, Book 4, Chapter 9, addresses "Councils and their Authority".  In section 8 of this chapter he said of the four councils, and later ones:

  Thus those ancient Councils of Nice, Constantinople, the first of Ephesus, Chalcedon, and the like, which were held for refuting errors, we willingly embrace, and reverence as sacred, in so far as relates to doctrines of faith, for they contain nothing but the pure and genuine interpretation of Scripture, which the holy Fathers with spiritual prudence adopted to crush the enemies of religion who had then arisen. In some later councils, also, we see displayed a true zeal for religion, and moreover unequivocal marks of genius, learning, and prudence. But as matters usually become worse and worse, it is easy to see in more modern councils how much the Church gradually degenerated from the purity of that golden age

While praising the four he is very much opposed to the seventh, which condemned iconoclasm and mandated images in church. This Second Council of Nice (757) is condemned by  Calvin in  Book 1, Chapter 11, section 14  of the Institutes. He ridicules some of the arguments used by the Council in "the absurd defence of the worship of images", and quotes approvingly  from a refutation of the seventh council said to have been written by  Charlemagne.

Protestant Doctrinal Standards On Councils  Generally

The Westminster Confession states in Chapter 31, article 4

  All synods or councils, since the apostles' times, whether general or particular, may err; and many have erred. Therefore they are not to be made the rule of faith, or practice; but to be used as a help in both

The first two articles of the Epitome of Concord in the Lutheran doctrinal standard say (abridged):

  We believe, teach, and confess that the sole rule and standard according to which all dogmas  should be estimated and judged are the prophetic and apostolic Scriptures of the Old and of the New Testament alone.   .....  Other writings, whatever name they bear, must not be regarded as equal to the Holy Scriptures, but all of them together be subjected to them, and should not be received otherwise or further than as witnesses.

Article 21 of the Church of England says

  General Councils may not be gathered together without the commandment and will of Princes. And when they be gathered together, (forasmuch as they be an assembly of men, whereof all be not governed with the Spirit and Word of God,) they may err, and sometimes have erred, even in things pertaining unto God. Wherefore things ordained by them as necessary to salvation have neither strength nor authority, unless it may be declared that they be taken out of holy Scripture.

So, to summarise, Protestants acknowledge the truth of the principal dogmas of the first four councils. They do not accord any power to any council to declare any doctrine by its own authority. They believe Councils can err, and have erred. Calvin, in particular, asserts that the Seventh Council erred.

The fifth and sixth,  dealing with obscure and long-forgotten controversies of no particular interest, were simply not mentioned.

This was the position in the time of the Reformation.

Twentieth Century Lutheran/Orthodox Statements

In the latter half of the twentieth century a dialogue between the Lutheran World Federation and representatives of the Eastern Orthodox churches resulted in a series of agreements.

The Seventh Joint Declaration, 1993,  refers to all  seven Ecumenical Councils accepted by the  Eastern  Orthodox. These are First Nicea, 325; First Constantinople, 381; Ephesus, 431; Chalcedon, 451; Second Constantinople, 553; Third Constantinople, 680; and Second Nicea, 757. Paragraph 4 says the teachings of these Councils are normative for the Churches today.

Paragraph 5  includes the recognition that not all decisions on canonical matters have the same authority as the doctrinal decisions, and their reception and use in the Orthodox and Lutheran Churches differs.

Paragraph 6 says that the statements at the Councils went through a process of "reception" in the years after them, across the Church's life, worship, catechesis and service even when the councils were not explicitly named.

Paragraph 7 says that the teachings of the Ecumenical Councils  are authoritative for both Lutherans and Orthodox, but goes on that the seventh was not part of the tradition received at the Reformation, and that it does not have the same significance for Lutherans as it does for Orthodox.

The Eighth Declaration in 1995 in paragraphs 5a and 5b, is perhaps clearer.

  We agree on the doctrine of God the Holy Trinity, as formulated by the Ecumenical Councils of Nicea and Constantinople, and on the doctrine of Christ formulated by the first four Ecumenical Councils. The Fathers of the  four Councils rejected the Arian and Eunomian notion that the Logos, the Angel of the Great Council, was created before the ages, and insisted that the Logos is "homoousious to Patri". They also rejected the Nestorian notion that the One born of the Virgin Mary was not the Logos himself and that the Logos only dwelled in the One who was born of the Virgin Mary. In short, the Fathers of these Councils affirmed that he who was born of the Virgin Mary is God by nature and not just by the will of the Father, and that he became homoousious with us in his humanity. The union of the divine and human natures in the hypostasis of the Logos is, according to the Council of Chalcedon, "without confusion, without change, without division and without separation". The Ecumenical Councils which followed continued this teaching and applied it to new challenges to the faith.

It continues.

  The Fifth accepted as orthodox two theological terminologies in the confession of the one Lord Jesus Christ. The Sixth affirmed the two natural wills and energies with their natural properties of the one person of the Logos incarnate. The Seventh drew conclusions from affirmation of the  hypostatic union in Christ in order to confirm the veneration of icons. .....  We agree in these fundamental teachings.

Perhaps the most striking thing about this, for the purposes of this Question, is how very little there is to say about the Fifth  Council, in comparison with the first four.

"Some Protestants, such as Calvinists and Lutherans, recognize the first four councils"

Answer to question 1: Is the above claim true?

The answer to your first question is a no.

As a precursor to my answer, I will state that:
This Wikipedia claim is very loose, generalized and not specific enough. If the Wikipedia
statement was more detailed and had more depth, this question may not have been risen.

Your question is based on the following wiki statement.

"Some Protestants, such as Calvinists and Lutherans, recognize the first four councils"

The word "recognize" leaves a huge gap in details. Just what does "recognize" mean?

I give the answer to your first question no, because I don't know of any protestant denomination that "recognize" the first four councils.

The Wiki statement does not read.
"Some Protestants, such as Calvinists and Lutherans, recognize the first four councils existed"

or

"Some Protestants, such as Calvinists and Lutherans, agree with some cannons of the first four councils"

or

"Some Protestants, such as Calvinists and Lutherans, follow some cannons of the first four councils"

or

"Some Protestants, such as Calvinists and Lutherans, recognize and agree with parts of the first four councils"

Any of the above statements would have been more accurate, detailed and logical than just saying "recognize" in general.

My perspective and understanding is the following.

To "recognize" a council or a ruling is to accept it's validity. And in most cases to follow it's validity and or at least believe it's validity and the contents there of.

One can recognize a person they had met previously, or recognize in the sense of acknowledgement, but to recognize a council, cannons, rulings etc, is a different context for the word.

I'll give a strong analogy:
If a U.S State, claims they recognize a Supreme Court ruling, that means they
will be following it.

Lets abstract some things here.
Do some Protestant groups say they agree with the definition of the Trinity in the creed?
Of course, however believing in a section of a Creed does not quantify the statement that they recognize the first four councils.
That is just a small section of the creed. Also there were more issues than
just the creed addressed, even in the first council.

Pascha dates were addressed. Do Lutherans or any Protestants either follow,adhere or recognize the dates set about?

The day/celebration of Pentecost was addressed. Do Lutherans or Protestants either follow,adhere or recognize the dates set about?

Do Lutherans recognize the following section of the Creed?
"And we believe in one, holy, catholic, and apostolic Church."

It's not logically possible. Rome and the Orthodox both claim to be the One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church and Lutherans are not in communion with either, nor do they make this claim.

Footnote:
 Keep in mind that the word "Catholic" here does not mean Roman.
Catholic means "Universal" or "Whole", and at the time of the Creed the Church was united.
That is to say Rome was still united with Alexandria, Jerusalem, Antoich and Constantinople.
The writings of Ignatius and all other fathers of the Church clearly state there is only One Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church.
Not two or three. Thus one of the reasons for Nicean council, to "keep" the Church one.
 I will also mention Orthodox, in many of the ancient writings does not mean Alexandria, Jerusalem, Antioch and Constantinople
without Rome. Orthodox is Greek for Ortho=True , DOX / DOXY = Teaching (True Teaching). Although today the Roman Church calls
themselves Catholic and the other four call themselves Orthodox. Both of these words were used in ancient times when the Church was one.
Even Pope Leo III from Rome uses the word Orthodox on the shields he had commissioned before Peter and Paul's tombs, when he was
attempting to defend the Western side of the Church from Charlemagne.

To validate my answer through an historical event, lets look at Lutheran history.
How could they recognize the first four councils, when at one they they tried to rejoin the East, only to go there on way and reject.
It's not logical to say the recognize the first four, attempt to re-unite with the Orthodox East and then go their on way.

Very few people know or realize that the Lutherans, 70 years after the movement began, turn to the East in an attempt to re-unite to the Eastern Orthodox Church (Keepers of all the councils and cannons). Letters were written back and forth from the Lutherans to Jeremiah II, the Orthodox Patriarch of Constantinople at that time.
These letters, correspondence between the Lutherans and the Orthodox Church are fully documented in the following book.

Augsburg and Constantinople: The Correspondence between the Tubingen Theologians and Patriarch Jeremiah II of Constantinople on the Augsburg Confession by George Mastrantonis Link: https://amzn.com/0916586820

This is a great resource for your question. The Lutherans have a earnest desire to re-unite to the East. There is no mention of agreeing with a particular cannon and not another. However, the Lutheran's do bring their own personal statement of faith into the mix.
Jeremiah II in a loving, but profound, deep understanding declares that the Faith, as understood by The Church and Apostles, can not be changed. He states it has never been changed, only defended and although he want's the Lutheran's to re-unite, he or nobody can except a statement of faith that would add to The Faith. (For those who have studied the councils, all of this will make perfect sense.)
If the Lutherans were so against a particular cannon or council, why would they earnestly try to re-unite with the Orthodox Church in the East? The keeper of all the cannons and councils. There is a logical fallacy here. (Footnote: Rome took part in all of the seven ecumenical councils, The seven Ecumenical councils were before the Great Schism of 1054 AD.)
The inability to re-unite, as the letters and history shows, has more to do with the Lutherans being self willed than agreeing on some of the cannons or councils, but not others. The content of the letters themselves, prove this.
Now having said all above, if any contemporary literature exists from the Lutherans that except some and denounce others, I have never heard of it. I'm glad to be corrected. Otherwise the wiki source is not explaining itself well, nor is as accurate as it should be, but a bad generalization.

As far as Protestant / more Calvinists leaning denominations go. Again, they may believe in a section of the creed about the Trinity, but
I know of very few Calvinists associated protestant denominations / members, who know much detail of the councils, or in most cases that the ecumenical councils existed.
This is not an assumption, but a hard fact of personal experience. This experience seems to persist around the U.S at least. If Calvinists associated denominations in Germany are well associated with the councils, that is another topic. Likewise, I don't know of any Calvinists associated protestant denominations who accept nor reject. It seems to be a matter of not knowing much about them. If any official documents made by these denominations exists that state as a denomination we accept this one and not that one, I have never heard of it.

Roughly there is a 500 year section of history that divided all Protestants from the Ecumenical councils, and that is the Great Schism and Rome in the West. Most Calvinists know about Protestant history,a little about Roman Catholicism, but very little about the Orthodox Church, the only keeper of all of the seven ecumenical councils.

I will summarize by saying again that the Wikipedia article is loose, not as detailed as it should be and in some cases is just incorrect regarding any relationships dealing with the councils and Protestant denominations.

Answer to question 2: If so, which specific canons of the Second Council of Constantinople are rejected and why?

Unless someone can answer this question with specific documentation, the answer seems to stand that no official documentation exists.
I do not know of any official documents from any Protestant denomination that says they accept any or even one council and or their cannons.
That's not to say you will not find Lutherans who will say they "agree" with the creed, or a general ideology that one group
may loosely agree with certain sections or beliefs from the councils. However my answer address your question within the Wiki statement.
The Wiki statements claims some recognize the councils and to this I do not no of any documentation nor evidence of example.


What is meant by "atheism is a religion"? I have heard this statement used by Christians. Atheists counter that the lack of belief isn't a religion or belief system. Is there a logical justification for the charge that atheism is a religion?

I'm looking for more than just appropriately defining the terms to make the sentence technically correct.

Atheism is a belief system which makes claims about spiritual things. Atheism says there are no gods, but so do other belief systems which no one denies are religions, such as some forms of Buddhism. Atheism contrasts with religions, rather than social or political movements like egalitarianism, anarchism, communism, so it makes sense to classify it as a religion. In a way, atheism is the religious parallel of anarchism - just as anarchists deny political structures as being valid, atheists deny spiritual beings as valid. But that doesn't mean they shouldn't be classified as political and religious systems respectively.

There are some belief systems which are harder to classify as a religion or a philosophy, such as Confucianism. Compared to that there is no doubt which box atheism belongs in: the truths it claims are solely about spiritual things, and there is no shared philosophical or ethical framework among atheists.

They believe that a Religion needs to have a God to be considered a Religion. So they would more correctly be considered an organization. I have talked to many atheists, and most of them believe in reality. I believe that reality is the Face of God. So technically they really do believe in God, they just do not define reality as God.

So in one position you could consider that since they believe in reality, and reality is God, then they really are a religion. Yet since the do not consider God to be reality. They won't accept that God means thing, and that all things are God.

Yet opposite equal reactions are their law the same as opposite equal reactions is the ancient laws that are still in play. They will believe Newton, who proved that the law is always consistent.

They also are under work related laws that uniformly correspond between Christianity and also Atheism. For example:

Christian: Thou shall not bow down to an Idol.
Atheist: Correct Lifting Procedures.

Christian: The Spirit opposes the Flesh.
Atheist: Sexual Harassment Policies.

Christian: Repent of Sin.
Atheist: Follow Harassment Policies.

Christian: Witchcraft do not enter into heaven.
Atheist: Drug Users do not get to go to work.

Christian: Drunkards do not enter into heaven.
Atheist: No Alcohol usage on the Job(few exceptions), Do not come to work Drunk(few exceptions).

So like it or not they are under the Law of Error and Death. Yet it is better not to argue with them, For they will come to Christ by the Happiness that the Christians display upon there face.


What does "predestination" mean? What is the concept of predestination?  Are there different denominations that believe in predestination but have differences in what they believe about it?  If so, what are the differences?

Single Predestination or Double Predestination?
Now before you start thinking "Aw, man!  There are two of them?!?"  Let me explain the difference:

Single Predestination:
God chooses us, solely by his grace, to go to Heaven.  God does not choose people for Hell.  If we go to Hell it is because of our own sinfullness.
Double Predestination:
God has chosen some people to go to Heaven, and some people to go to Hell.

Now that we know what they are, what does the Bible teach?
John 5:21 (ESV)

21 For as the Father raises the dead and gives them life, so also the Son gives life to whom he will.

John 10:28 (ESV)

28 I give them eternal life, and they will never perish, and no one will snatch them out of my hand.

Romans 8:29-30 (ESV)

29 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.
30 And those whom he predestined he also called, and those whom he called he also justified, and those whom he justified he also glorified.

Ok, that seems to indicate that we are Predestined to Heaven, now what about Hell?
Ezekial 33:11 (ESV)

11 Say to them, As I live, declares the Lord GOD, I have no pleasure in the death of the wicked, but that the wicked turn from his way and live; turn back, turn back from your evil ways, for why will you die, O house of Israel?

Matthew 18:14 (ESV)

14 So it is not the will of my Father who is in heaven that one of these little ones should perish.

1 Timothy 2:3-4 (ESV)

3 This is good, and it is pleasing in the sight of God our Savior, 4 who desires all people to be saved and to come to the knowledge of the truth.

The Verdict:
Based off these verses, it seems clear to me that the Bible teaches Single Predestination and not Double Predestination.

God has predestined everything. Here's a simple explanation:

A man was put before two doors, and given the free will to choose a door. He chose one and opened it. Behind the door, it said, "Chosen from the beginning of time".

See, God knows what we will do and yet we are given the free choice. It's hard for our finite minds to understand this concept, as we are limited to what we perceive here and now.